HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:31:53 GMT


This was a thought-provoking article, Kalki.  Thank you for posting it.


kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us wrote:
: ON GOD AND SCIENCE
: 
: by Sadaputa Dasa
: 
: (c) 1992 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
: Used by permission.
: 
	
[introductory material deleted]

: modes of action in the world seem highly elastic, and the desire to
: combine scientific theories with religious doctrines has impelled many
: sophisticated people to stretch both to the limit. In the end, something
: has to give.

	I single this statement out as being very accurate.  Science
and religion should not be combined.  It is surprising that those
individuals quoted below seem to be attempting to do it.


: To help us locate the snapping point, let's look at what a few
: scientists have said about God.
: 
: Dr. John A. O'Keefe, a NASA astronomer and a practicing Catholic, has
: said, "Among biologists, the feeling has been since Darwin that all of
: the intricate craftsmanship of life is an accident, which arose because
: of the operations of natural selection on the chemicals of the earth's
: shell. This is quite true...."[2]
: 
: O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
: processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
: many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
: for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
: universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
: moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
: out of nothing.

	There's much to chew on here and below, and I dislike long posts.
The above is one statement of the "anthropic principle".  Interpreting the
same data, I can't draw the same conclusion.  What I prefer to say is:

	A.  The evidence points to the occurrence of a "Big Bang".
	B.  The properties of the Big Bang gave rise to the Universe
in which we exist.
	C.  Our existence is inherently bound to the properties of this
Universe.
	D.  Science cannot posit a cause of the Big Bang (though Hawking
has attempted/is attempting to do so).  Science can posit that the
Big Bang occurred.  At this point, those with a religious leaning, such
as myself, can BELIEVE (not prove or conclude) that God was the motive
force for the Big Bang, and the creation of the Universe.

	More in the next post.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Evolutionary Biology"
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 12 Dec 1992 22:10 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec10.084953.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes...
>I'd like to thank Andy Peters for recommending the book "Evolutionary Biology"
>by Douglas J. Futuyma.  I skimmed through it and found some pretty good stuff. 
> [text deleted]
>So what he's saying is that by assuming evolution, the above studies can be
>interpreted to support evolution.  This is a far cry from proving evolution.
> 
>     "The analysis of virtually all questions about the history of evolution
>      requires that the phylogenetic history of groups of species--the
>      relationships among them--be INFERRED." [emphasis mine]
>                                             pg. 315
> 
>Thus there is no proof, or even hard evidence, that the history of life has
>evolved the way evolutionists have claimed.  And just skimming through the book
>as I did you'll find he uses the word "inferred" a lot.

If I know that P -> Q and I know that P, I can *infer* from that knowledge
that Q.  The fact that I *inferred* Q from P -> Q and P does not imply that
my knowledge of Q is in any way uncertain.  You seem to be taking "inference"
to mean "a (possibly wild) speculation from the scantiest of evidence."  This
is a mistake.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: DISCOVER EOY Hilites
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:22:48 GMT


	Just for the heck of it, I thought I'd list some of the
advances in research noted in the end-of-year issue of _Discover_
magazine.  I KNOW it's not a research journal, so don't inform me of that
fact incessantly.  The articles are newsworthy, so that's why they're
in the mag.
	#1 fun:  "If I Only Had Eight Hearts"  summarizes Daniel
Choy's musings on the possibility that _Barosaurus_ would lose
blood flow to the brain if he reared on his hind legs, as illustrated at
the American Museum of Natural History.  Great pic!  Ted, you've got
to see this one.
	Choy said _Barosaurus_ needed eight hearts.  Dinosaur
specialists are skeptical.

	#2:  "The Killing Machine".  20-foot velociraptor named
_Utahraptor_.  Just like in the upcoming movie _Jurassic Park_.

	#3:  "The Blood of the Dinos".  Evidence for dinosaur
warm-bloodedness.

	#4:  "As the Old World Turns":  Oldest _Homo_ at 2.4 million
years, and older _Homo erectus_ fossils from Georgia (old Russian
republic) and China.  Still being debated (the Chinese skulls were
somewhat crushed).

	#5:  "Blueprint for a Universe".  Summary of Cosmic Background
Explorer findings.

	#6:  "Gay Genes":  Comparison of identical twins.  'Nuff said.
You decide.

	#7:  "Darwin's Atlas":  Linking of plate tectonics and
evolution.  Loved it!   Why?  Creationists don't like either one!

	#8:  "Exodus by Numbers":  Theory on how the
Israelites crossed the Red Sea.  It's got pictures.   And no rebuttal.
Who let this one slip by?

	#9-12:  "A Platypus in Patagonia"
		"Little Bird, Big Find"  New first bird?
		"In the Beginning was the Tooth"  Conodont source speculated.
		"All the Way with RNA"  Self-catalytic RNA as the source
of life itself.  Take that, Kalki.

	#13:  "G-men Capture _T. Rex_"  On the appropriation of a
superb _T. Rex_ skeleton from a collector by the National Guard and
FBI.  Oliver Stone is working on a screenplay.

	#14:  "The Genome Finds Its Henry Ford":  On Daniel Cohen
and human genome mapping 28% of the genome (crudely).  Haven't read it
yet.

	#15-16:  "In the Belly of the Yeast":  Yeast genetics.
		"Gene of the Year":  p53 can be a friend, or cause
		cancer.

	And a hilarious piece entitled "Retching for Greatness", speculating
on the adaptive significance of losing your lunch.  Worth the cover price.
Discussing nausea sensations:
	"... the brain snaps into action, frantically apologizing for
anything we've done wrong in life, promising that if we can just get
through this one evening alive we'll never, never, never mix margaritas
and Mallo Cups again, and calculating with Pythagorean preciseness the
shortest distance between whatever patch of floor we happen to be
lying on at the moment and every bathroom in the house."

	C'ya'll later,

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: talk.origins,comp.ai.philosophy
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 20 Dec 1992 13:31:32 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec17.210334.10968@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
}Daniel A Ashlock (danwell@IASTATE.EDU) wrote:
}
}: > 	Why  is the  contribution to this thread so lacking  in  commentary
}: > from intelligent replicating  patterns  not possible  under  the present
}: > set  of  physical laws?
}: > 
}: > 							James Nicoll
}: 
}:    Very high potential barriers in the way and lack of an internet 
}: connection, obviously.  More seriously I thought that the question
}: of other universes with their own physical laws was wide open and
}: pretty worthless (for lack of observations). 
}: 
}: Dan
}: Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
}
}	Ask Alan Guth, who has proposed a way of making one.  Requires
}a lot of energy, though.
}	Also, Asimov's novel "The Gods Themselves" is a real good
}take-off on this idea.

As a spoof a few years ago, there was an IBM product announcement of Virtual
Universe, a successor to their Virtual Machine operating system.  I suppose
that the console would be some sort of Graphic Omniscient Device.  According
to the announcement, IBM would be marketing a virtual universe in which light
could travel between any two points instantaneously.  This would, of course,
solve most performance problems.  Alas, VU never became available.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 04:29:07 GMT
Distribution: world,public
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1992Dec18.130553.20138@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <1gr8nhINNl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec17.140135.28343@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>|> In article <1gp0riINNi86@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>|> >In article <Z2XuVB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>|> >>
>>|> >> O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
>>|> >> processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
>>|> >> many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
>>|> >> for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
>>|> >> universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
>>|> >> moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
>>|> >> out of nothing.
>>|> >
>>|> >Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
>>|> >whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
>>|> 
>>|> Hahahahaha!
>>
>>Would you care to be more specific?
>
>I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
>evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
>effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
>world and of themselves.
>
>I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
>the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
>seek Him.

Now this is just plain silly.  While the Many Worlds Hypothesis is one
way of interpreting quantum mechanics, I don't know of anyone who
would seriously use it "to convince themselves of the non-creation of
the world."  Like your God, it's a conveniently non-disprovable
hypothesis, since we can't get information on anything happening
outside our universe.  BTW, the idea is a response to the implications
of QM, *not* evolution.  Evolutionary theory is just fine without the
Many Worlds Hypothesis.

SD
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evilutionary Biology
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:10:41 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


>In article <1992Dec10.121018.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
>writes:
> 
>> Oh yeah, as far as these independent lines of evidence I keep hearing about,
>> think about this.  The DNA of man and monkeys are extremely close.  Their
>> morphologies on the other hand are strikingly different.  So much for
>> comparative DNA and comparitive morphology agreeing.
>

"Strikingly different"?  Why, because chimps are shorter?  Sheesh!

For your edification, here is a chart illustrating a
graduated classification of morphology:

(most similar)    Human - Chimpanzee
(less similar)    Human - Blue Whale
(less similar)    Human - Scorpion
(less similar)    Human - Sponge
(less similar)    Human - 1975 Chevrolet Nova
(less similar)    Human - Crab Nebula
(least similar)   Creationism - Science

Hope this clears things up.



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mmeyer@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Subject: Re: Speed of Light and Relativity
Organization: TI DSEG, Spring Creek, Plano, Tx.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:33:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.090340.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
> In fact, [relativity] makes some things easier to understand.  How
> could God have no beginning?  Because before He created the universe
> there was no such thing as space-time.  And therefore no such thing as
> time.  Beginning implies passage of time.  No time, no beginning.
         ---------------------------------

	Unfortunately, so does the word "before".  (See 2nd line)

-- 
Mark Meyer                                               | mmeyer@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc.,  Plano TX                       +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
                              "I just can NOT handle weirdness..." - Boy George
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Finnish Bible Translating
Date: 11 Dec 1992 21:20:07 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec11.121426.16272@abo.fi>, MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes:
>
>     Sill{ n{in sanoo Herra: Vasta kun ne seitsem{nkymment{
>    Baabelin vuotta ovat t{yttyneet, min{ katson teid{n puoleenne
>    ja panen t{yt{nt||n teit{ kohtaan hyv{n lupaukseni ja
>    palautan teid{t t{h{n paikkaan.

Do Finnish sermons end with the closing of all the parenthesese,
like German ones end with all the verbs?

jon.
From: fritz@titanic.East.Sun.COM ( SE Sun Vienna Va.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Speed of Light *NOT* Constant
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:54:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc., Vienna, VA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: titanic-gw.east.sun.com

In article <stone.724352597@cwis>, stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone) writes:
> The speed of light is *not* absolutely constant;
> according to quantum mechanics, if you pass photons
> through the space between two charged capacitor plates
> in vacuo, theoretically the light *speeds up*---but
> the theoretical effect is about 1 part in 10^30 or so...

I remember reading about this experiment in the local
paper.  While the description above is accurate, the
conclusion is a little off.  The photos never in this
set up never go faster than C, they just get closer
to C than is normally allowed.

The problem with saying "the speed of light in a
vacuum is C" is that no one ever mentions that it is
impossible to generate a perfect vacuum.  Regardless
of how hard you pump your vessel, or how deep into space
you go, there will always be quantum fluctuations gen-
erating particle pairs and slowing down your light.
The above experiment just plays with the pair production
and allows you to generate a slightly better vacuum so
you get slightly closer to C.



-- 
Steve Fritzinger   --  steve.fritzinger@East.Sun.COM
The First Rule of Holes:
When you're in one, stop digging.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: chris@eso.mc.xerox.com (Chris Heiny)
Subject: Re: Evilutionary Biology
Reply-To: chris@eso.mc.xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:56:22 GMT

In article 1@woods.ulowell.edu, cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
[stuff deleted]
>One other thing before I go, if I'm an Evilutionist, so is Duane Gish because
>in "Evolution. The Fossils Say No!" he also recognizes that speciation occurs.
>As a matter of fact, I don't know any Creationist that denies microevolution. 
[completely irrelevant insults deleted]

Um, Ray, isn't the demon book from hell (as viewed by creationists) Darwin's
"Origin of Species"?  Can you reconcile the acceptance of speciation with
rejection of evolution?

						Chris

PS I kinda like "The Cotera" nickname.  It has style.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Men Evolved from Women
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:45:09 GMT

In <o58uVB4w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

>> To make a very long story very very short:  the primates were here
>> before us, and they created us in their image.  

>No. Biologically, humans are primates, so the statement that primates
>were here before humans is logically invalid.

	Wrong.  Humans are a subclass of primates -- human ==> primate,
but NOT the other way around.  If monkeys existed a million years ago, there-
fore primates existed a million years ago, but humans did not.

>> Yep, the simplest explanation of a phenomena wins.  Note that
>> the explanation didn't last but one solitary sentence.

>No. The most comprehensive explanation wins, not the simplest.

	Here i'll agree.

>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

Ben

Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthlhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Summary: Ted's position requires impossible heat transfer
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:52:49 GMT

: From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <173@fedfil.UUCP>
: Again, there is no glass lid to keep the heated air from checking out,
: as it invariably will.  

Again, there is a potential energy barrier that keeps the heated air
from checking out.  No air leaves venus.  Little matter of gravity.

: The concentric rising waves which have been observed throughout the
: Venereal atmosphere are no illusion.  That's heated air seeking its way
: upwards. 

And failing to leave the planetary atmosphere.  So it's still
inside the "glass".

Further, Ted (and Ginenthal) make much of how much heat energy is
consumed by raising the atmosphere, while ignoreing how much heat is
released when it falls back.  We know that this much energy doesn't
leave the planet, so the net heat transported off planet by the
"concentric waves" is essentially zero. 



Let's also review what Ted thinks will happen on a Venus-like
planet without "internal heat".

Ted says that the atmosphere near the surface will be cooler than the
middle atmosphere in such a case.  Ted has claimed this even if one has
2% energy reaching the surface.  When asked how heat can leave the lower
atmosphere, so that that 2% won't heat it indefinitely, Ted proposes
radiation and convection as mechanisms. 

Since a venus-like atmosphere is essentially opaque to ir radiation in
the thermal spectra involved, the only way for heat to escape the lower
atmosphere via radiation is to transfer heat from the lower atmosphere
to the middle atmosphere.  Yet this is a transfer from a cooler area to
a warmer one, and hence impossible. 

Convection fares no better.  Since Ted says the lower atmosphere is
cooler than the middle atmosphere, there is no way for the cooler air to
convect over top of the warmer air.  Ted's scenario would require cooler
air to rise above hotter air, and this is impossible. 

Ted's scenario provides no way for heat to escape the lower atmosphere. 
Thus, Ted's scenario contradicts itself. 
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Subject: Re: Speed of Light *NOT* Constant
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:45:18 GMT

In article <1gila1INNlso@titanic.East.Sun.COM> fritz@titanic.East.Sun.COM ( SE Sun Vienna Va.) writes:
>
>I remember reading about this experiment in the local
>paper.  While the description above is accurate, the
>conclusion is a little off.  The photos never in this
                                  ^^^^^^
>set up never go faster than C, they just get closer
>to C than is normally allowed.

Does this have anything to do with the fast-disappearing
photograph of God that Kalki claims to have? ;)

-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 18 Dec 1992 01:17:59 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.48.150.6

In article <1992Dec17.170145.12306@julian.uwo.ca>, jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
|> In article <1gp0riINNi86@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <Z2XuVB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> >>
|> >> O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
|> >> processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
|> >> many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
|> >> for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
|> >> universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
|> >> moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
|> >> out of nothing.
|> >
|> >Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
|> >whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
|> >
|> >jon.
|> 
|> 	Why  is the  contribution to this thread so lacking  in  commentary
|> from intelligent replicating  patterns  not possible  under  the present
|> set  of  physical laws?

Actually, I was tempted to add that in a Universe with different physical
laws, one might find commentary of new and interesting forms, but then I
started wondering if the ForTun progam would halt on that one, and somehow
I never got around to posting it.

jon.
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evilutionary Biology
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:50:38 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Dec10.161839@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> 
|>   AUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH!  Humans and apes look morphologically very different from a
|> human beings perspective.  This does not mean, in absolute terms, they are
|> different.  Morphologically, the primates are more like humans than any other
|> (%%%%)(*).  Genetically we get the same results. ...
|>
|> (*) Okay, are primates a genus?  I really should have stayed awake during
|> comparative biology.  And I was supposed to memorize this for a test too :-(.

Well, no, primates are an order, but so what?  Other(*) primates are all more
similar to humans than other animals in both morphology and genetics.
So, the statement you made is true anyway.

(*) "Other" because humans are primates too.

|>   Consider:
|>     Morphology: apes are closer to humans than lemurs  (about 50%)
|>     Genetically: apes are closer to humans than lemurs (about 90%)
|> 
|>   So both methods of evaluation give the same result, even if the numbers don't
|> match quite.  In mathematics one says that the topologies induced by the metrics
|> are identical.

Exactly!  And given the well known process called "mosaic evolution", this is
all one has any right to expect anyway.

[Mosaic evolution is the term given to the observed fact that evolution proceeds
at different rates for different feature complexes].

|>   Get real, nobodies opinion should be based on spelling or good grammar (boy
|> I'd be in trouble), it should be based on the validity of the arguments.  Maybe
|> that's where your problem is.

True, which is why I don't care if our V.P. can spell potato (or is that potatoe?).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins