HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A man shall be judged by the company he keeps
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 11 Apr 92 08:23:26 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Apr10.193220.20194@infonode.ingr.com>, knightb@palmerc@abulafia.b21.ingr.com (William B. Knight) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.235255.29610@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>>In article <2714@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> <deletions>
>>The holocaust is a well documented fact, and if holocaust
>>revisionists have no better arguments than these (which is very 
>>likely) it will remain well documented fact.
>>I can understand anybody who doesn't get the color right after
>>seeing huge piles of dead bodies, and Winston's "evidence" is
>>*NOT* convincing.  Any chemist who examines the gas chambers
>>*without* the intent of finding no evidence for the holocaust
>>will probably find evidence for it.
>>
>>Those 1500 BC sources, on the other side, are far from being well
>>documented, so one has to rely on hard science only, with occasional
>>looks at the myths.  Looking at myths as if they were facts is
>>sometimes helpful (Schliemann) but doesn't work all the time.
>>
>>Sorry, your parallel was not only tasteless but also totally
>>off the mark.
> 
> Note:  I am not trying to support any conclusion of Ted's.  
> 
> Having said this, let me ask:
> 
> Will the holocaust still be a well-documented fact 2000 years
> from now?
> 

That entirely depends on whether society *survives* two thousand years from
now.  
Some of the drawbacks of 2000 years ago were, no printing press, no other 
means of communication (film, TV, radio), most of the population was 
illiterate, there was little travel from one region to another, there was
no scientific reearch or method of analysis of data.
 
> brad
> -- 
> Brad Knight 
> knightb@abulafia.b21.ingr.com
Xref: sparky talk.origins:4356 talk.religion.misc:7213
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:20:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr15.202004.8050
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <1992Apr15.195319.25688@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, kjp@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (karl.j.pfaff..jr) writes:
|> I read this group occasionally and notice that most of the questioning of 
|> belief is directed toward the creationist side of the table. Does anyone
|> have a thought (I'm sure you do) on what the effect on this group would be
|> if creation was found to be true? 
|> 
|> I'm curious, because the idea of religion vs science seems to be an additional
|> division of subgroups within the main evolution/creation elements.  But if God
|> does exist, then His existence would be fact and would have to be incorporated 
|> into our consideration of science.  
|> 
|> A lot of "what if's" seem to be exchanged on this net, so lets try this one.
|> 
|> Karl J. Pfaff, Jr.
|> att!linc!kjp
    Some speculations as to what would happen on this group if 
irrefutable evidence for creation were found:
    1. Those who support conventional science (the "evolutionists") 
would say something like this:  OK, so there is creation.  However, 
of course, there also is evolution.  Why would you think that there is 
a problem?
    2. With respect to the "creationists", we have to consider what 
the evidence proving creation would be.  As it is certainly nothing 
which the "creationists" have already mentioned, their most likely 
response would be to reject the evidence.
    
    Now, if you wanted to know what would be the reactions if
there were irrefutable evidence proving that evolution didn't take place:
    1. Evolutionary scientists would say that this opens up great
new possibilities for research.
    2. "Creationists" would find that what replaces evolution is
probably even more unacceptible than evolution.  In reaction, they
would all become devoted evolutionists, rejecting the theory which
replaced it.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: evolution of sex (addendum)
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:27:15 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

In article <83412@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby) writes:

>	Plants evolved from ancient chlorophytes (protists that can
>reproduce sexually and asexually) so common descent,  rather than
>multiple parallel evolution, is more likely. So, figuring out (as
>Darwin was trying) how an asexual flowering plant could evolve into
>a sexual one is not needed. Figuring out how sex evolved in protists
>(or earlier -- I don't know) would seem to be the question. His
>"physiological differentiation of labour" may have some merit, but
>he applied it to an inappropriate level of the heirarchy.

	Note also (as I should have noted had I switched my brain on
before responding) that in Darwin's example (seen in Roger's original
post) sex already had evolved -- Darwin was just trying to explain
differentiation of two sexes, not the evolution of sex itself. Sex can
be isogamous (both parents contribute the same size gamete -- and
any individual can mate with any other individual in the population,
i.e. they are monoescious.)

	In plants, all the divisions have separation of the sexes
(although in most cases both sexes are on the same plant) so this
differentiation would also be an ancestral trait.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Rice)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ted's Fantasy Life
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:54:24 PDT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Public access BBS)

Tag Ted Holden
 
[much whinning and complaining deleted]
 
TH> "At this point, the working assumption which I am going on is
TH> that Meritt IS a kid, probably some JHU professor's precocious
TH> 12-year-old. That would explain a lot of things."
 
And yet he is right and you are wrong. How do you explain that fact?
Since he is much, much better informed and educated than yourself,
where does that place YOU when you call him a "precocious twelve-
year-old?"
 
As Mr. Meritt points out, you delight in making yourself appear
foolish: now you blame HIM for your looking foolish?!
 
Mr. Meritt has proven without any shadow or hint of doubt that
Velikovsky has not a shread of understanding of reality. A high-
school student can work out the orbital mechanics proving the silly
notion that Venus rolling around the solar system like pool balls
is impossible.
 
Why have you ignored every question put to you? Why, instead of
answering the questions, do you reassert the same claims over and
over again, without providing ANY evidence to back up the claims?
 
You have been presented the facts dozens of times. Since you still
make claims that have been completely demonstrated false, Mr. Meritt
makes the observation that you are 1) stupid, 2) a liar, or 3) have
an occult ("Creationism") agenda, and thus are invested in your own
fantasy life (to wit, Velikovskyism).
 
Whinning that your "credability" is under attack is sad. Don't you
know you haven't any?
 
> news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
 
D.Rice

--  

David Rice
Internet: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
From: esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A man shall be judged by the company he keeps
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:18:43 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Apr9.062608.848@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>
>But Teddie, dearest, the snowstorm thing is not viable.  Seems that several
>other interesting little things like coral reef growth, ocean cores and 
>tree rings AGREE with the ice core dates.  And now I have found yet another
>source of correlation, lake bottom cores.  C O R R E L A shon!  Look it up.
>Neat word.  Don't think you really understand what it means though.
>
  Bosh, stuff, and nonsense.
  You're clearly confusing years with coral storms, ocean muck storms, tree
ring storms, and lake bottom muck storms.

--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
esot@uhura.cc.rochester.edu   |  One chance.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A man shall be judged by the company he keeps
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:30:09 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Apr6.063326.791@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
 
 
> Let me get this straight?  Is Ted now claiming the 'halocaust' didn't happen?


Are you really that dense?  I was making an analogy between your own willingness
to deny ancient history on the basis of your own bullshit interpretations of
ice cores (i.e. on confusing snow storms with years) and people such as
Winston who are denying more recent history on the basis of similar flawed
theory.  

Ted HOlden

-- 
HTE
bear
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: matth@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Matthew Hannigan)
Subject: Tiny tooth reveals truth
Summary: marsupials aren't so uncompetitive after all
Keywords: marsupial placental tooth 
Organization: AODC, but I don't speak for them.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 10:54:46 GMT

Here's some of a newspaper article about the discovered
tooth I mentioned in an posting recently.  I will send/
have sent the entire article to those who emailed me.

I also saw this on a TV program on this last night, on the
`Quantum' program on the ABC Australia, which is the national
broadcaster.  It's a great program, interesting and of high
standard.   In this particular case, they showed electron
microscope photographs of the tooth in question and explained
what the differences were between marsupial teeth and those
of placentals.  BTW, this was a repeat, the original showing
being 5 months ago.

I thought of cross-posting this to biology groups, but I don't
read those.  And besides, soon everyone can read about it in
`Nature'.

-Matt	matth@extro.ucc.su.oz.au



Here's the article ...

Tiny tooth reveals truth
from the SUN-Herald, Sunday April 12 1992
by Peter Pockley

AUSTRALIA'S marsupials are not, after all,
evolutionary weaklings protected from more
aggressive animals by the oceans. Indeed, it
seems our marsupials utterly out-competed other
mammals on Australian soil, driving them to extinction.

Astonishingly to the lay observer, his dramatic
conclusion comes from one tiny tooth found in
25 tonnes of clay. Publication of details of the discovery
in London last Thursday means that world experts have
confirmed the reliability and significance of the find.

First news of the discovery of the 3mm tooth was
released last November. Because the find's implications
were so controversial, a fully detailed scientific paper
had to go through the mill of critical review by
independent scientists. Convincing the sceptics was
especially important as only one fossil has been found
to date. After passing this acid test the authoritative
journal, _Nature_, commented, on publishing the paper,
that the tooth leads to a "dramatic reappraisal" of the
place of Australia's marsupials.

[ .. most of article deleted ... ]

A dental mould of the tooth was sent to Dr Richard
Cifelli, an expert on the condylarths, at the Oklahoma
Museum of Natural History. After tests Dr Cifelli became
convinced of the Australians' interpretation and, with
Mrs Gilkeson, became a co-author of the paper, which
has now been checked by reviewers selected by Nature.

Professor Archer said yesterday that all the finds at
Murgon are weakening the European-centred view of
evolution.  "The mammal and bat fossils are chewing
away at a biological version of Australia's cultural cringe
that all good ideas come from overseas.  In fact, Australia
played a more significant role in the exchange of life
forms with the rest of the world."
From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Historical Jesus
Date: 10 Apr 1992 12:29:22 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Ur Office
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

kiledal@lisp.cs.psu.edu (Erik Kiledal) writes:
> [referening to an article by Roger Squires:] After having read what he has
>to say, I am left with very much the same feelings I have when I have
>read Creationist literature: "Does this person know what he is talking 
>about?", "Has the person bothered to study the primary literature, or
>just studied criticism that fits his belief system?".

> [Eric then cites various Biblical and fundamentalist sources in support
> of his point that NT accounts are authentic and by eyewitnesses.]

Erik

I assume by your comment on on Roger's article that _you_ are yourself
familiar with the "primary literature" and have not just "studied criticism
that fits [your] belief system".

In that case it is, I assume, surely not necessary to point out:

1] The overwhelming evidence in opposition to your assertion that the
accounts in the Gospels of the NT were written either by eyewitnesses or by
the people with whose names they are usually associated,

2] That this point of view (i.e. that these accounts were not written down
by eyewitnesses) is the view held by the vast majority of mainstream NT
scholars and that the sources you cited represent only the most extreme
fundamentalist/literalist view[*], or

3] The obvious circularity of an argument that relies on the the contents
of the NT to prove assertions about the nature of the NT itself.

  [* Needless to say, the number of people who support a given view
     _proves_ nothing in and of itself of course.  Nonetheless, in
     discussions like these, among non-experts, neither is such 
     information totally irrelevant.]

N
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Human life span
Date: 11 Apr 92 02:11:50 GMT
Organization: MacDTS Mongols

In article <1992Apr1.122653.20575@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
>> In Genesis 6:3 it says - 
> 3. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for
>    that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty
>    years.
> 
> The question is what does it mean by `his days shall be an hundred and
> twenty years'? Let's take another example in Gen 5:25-27
> 25. And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat
>     Lamech:
> 26. And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and
>     two years, and begat sons and daughters:
> 27. And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine
>     years: and he died.
> 
> Can we use this to shed some light on the meaning in Gen6:3? If the
> same style of language is used in both places it suggests to me that
> if Methuselah age was 969 not 968, then maximum lifespan is age 120
> rather than age 119. Any other interpretations of Gen6:3?

Yes, a contradiction.

Cheers,
Kent
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 02:20:36 GMT
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Reply-To: stassen@alc.com

In article <c9JK02bacajx00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, Jim Loucks writes:
> What I was referring to were statements that directly conflict with
> what is said in public.

I can't make a judgement on the entire event until I get my copy of
the transcripts.  I have seen nothing yet in the few cases which I
found detailed in my literature search that lead me to expect anything
surprising.  Since you own a copy of Strahler's _Science and Earth
History_, you can see what Patterson has to say about Sunderland's
treatment of him on pages 394-395.

> I agree with you here, but the geologists are too subjective with
> the data. [...]  That is, if you're trying to prove a theory or
> make a point, you're only going to display evidence that supports [...]

One can get several good questions out of this paragraph.  I will
settle for one.  How did geologists, in the days when they couldn't
have been biased by acceptance of evolution, order the geologic
column in exactly the same order that is accepted today?

> I have a question though: Who validates the geologic column? 

It sounds like you are asking for the name of a person, and I
am not sure what you mean by "validates."  Could you please
clarify?

> The transcripts mention that the same creatures are assigned different 
> names when they are found in different geological periods. Causing the
> apparent existence of more species then actually existed. Part of this
> was due to their evolutionary model that they were using, [...]

Well, Jim, here's one "flood geologists" can't wish away, and it
isn't based on any "evolutionary model."  Around 1830, Deshayes
performed an exhaustive survey of fossil shells, comparing several
thousand fossilized and living examples.  He found:

Quaternary:	  90-95% of fossil shells identical to modern species
Late Tertiary:	  35-50% of fossil shells identical to modern species
Middle Tertiary:  17% of fossil shells identical to modern species
Early Tertiary:	   3.5% of fossil shells identical to modern species

Clearly, the ordering of the geologic column by these creationists is
quite convenient to the ordering required by evolution.  It is also
hard to explain these results in terms of "hydrological sorting"
(they're all just shells) during the tail end of the flood.
-- 
Chris Stassen						stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER:  My employer's account, but not their opinions.
From: tomh.bbs@cybernet.cse.fau.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Aquatic Man
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:11:39 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton

This stuff came over from sci.bio.  So is there a period
when humans were aquatic?  (Maybe during the flood :-)

>From: xrhah@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Herbert A. Huston)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Aquatic Man

In article <1992Apr9.201151.2111@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, 
kvry@uhura.cc.roches
ter.edu (Kevin Ryan) writes...
>
>       A few days ago, I saw the very end of a cable-TV special on
>the possibility that a significant part of human evolution at one time
>included some adaptations to life in the water.  It apparantly 
corresponded
>to whatever "window" in which there is no remaining fossil evidence, and
>that most of the theory was based on our present physiology.

The program was _Water Babies_, and it was shown on The Discovery
Channel.  It was a one-hour presentation of Sir Alister Hardy's theory
and was filmed the year before his death.  Others who were interviewed
included Desmond Morris, Elaine Morgan, and David Pilbeam.  Besides
getting to see and hear Sir Alister, the high point for me was
watching those babies floating and swimming.

-- Herb Huston

>From: wcalvin@hardy.u.washington.edu (William Calvin)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Aquatic Man

Elaine Morgan's THE AQUATIC APE is the best known.  The most recent book 
is
THE AQUATIC APE: Fact or Fiction? Edited by M. Roede (Souvenir Press, 
London,
1991).  There's a chapter in my book THE RIVER THAT FLOWS UPHILL (Sierra
Club Books 1987).
    William H. Calvin   WCalvin@U.Washington.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: button pushing people
Keywords: you've been had (IMHO)
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 18:38:53 GMT

In <1992Apr7.180442.25258@gould.encore.com> bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:


[much deleted]

>Anyway, my point (and I'm almost done with this babble) is ignore the
>gibberish fountains. They are using you for entertainment. 

But this newsgroup is *for* such kinds of entertainment :-)

More seriously, although what you say might be true for some people
who publicly espouse crackpot nonsense (I'm not at all sure it's true
of most of them), it's *not* true of Creationists.  *They* want to use
state coercion to ram their "science", and, more importantly to them,
their religious beliefs down the throats of children in public
schools.  Although most of what happens in this group is Creationists
displaying their gross ignorance of science and observations, in the
minds of everyone who responds to them is the real threat that they
are trying to force such nonsense to be taught in the public schools.

>Think about it..........

I'm sure all of the "t.o irregulars" already have, and know what's at
stake.
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:47:00 GMT
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <164@ccscola.Columbia>, tmason@ccscola.Columbia (Timothy E. Mason) writes...
>In article <1992Apr4.022721.29979@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus 283-4283) writes:
>>back to watch, but what's the point?  I don't believe in this god (Occam's
>>Razor; show me evidence!).  But even if you do, there is no point to prayer
>>and no reason to expect survival after death.  Science rejects the notion
>>that any form of prayer can influence events or violate the laws of nature.
>I haven't bothered to look up the reference, so take this or leave this if 
>you wish...
>I heard recently (within the last few months) about a study
>published in a respected medical journal (may have been JAMA) about the 
>effects of prayer on patient recovery.

Randolph C. Byrd, "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer
   in a Coronary Care Unit Population.," Southern Medical Journal,
   July 1988.

This is criticized in

Gary P. Posner, "God in the CCU?" Free Inquiry vol. 10 no. 2 (Spring 1990),
   pp. 44-45.

This was discussed recently on sci.skeptic, I believe (maybe it was
alt.atheism), and criticisms were offered of both the Byrd study and
of Posner's response.

There have been other studies of prayer which found no effect:
   F. Galton, "Statistical Inquiries into the efficacy of prayer,"
      Fortnightly Review 12:125-135, 1872
   C.R.B. Joyce and R.M.C. Welldon, "The efficacy of prayer: A double-blind
      clinical trial," Journal of Chronic Disease 18:367-377, 1965.
   P.J. Colipp, "The efficacy of prayer: Triple blind study," Medical Times
      97:201-204, 1969.

>---------------------------
>Tim Mason
>Tim.Mason@ccscola.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins