HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Philosophical problems of Creationism (Was: Try the Bible (Re: Calling Young-earth Creationists)
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:35:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug19.080612.8434@dscomsf.desy.de>, Hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes...
>You seem to think that there is some "absolute" definition of truth? 
> 
>The fact is that we can derive an infinity of models which are consistent with
>instantaneous observation. They range from science to the Ultra paranoid "movie
>set" scenario where the entire world is engaged in a massive conspiracy against
>the individual who is in "truth" strapped int a virtual reality machine. Chosing
>between them is merely a matter of aesthetics.

I don't think so.  Just because we can imagine a possible scenario in
which "everything we know is wrong" doesn't necessarily undercut knowledge.
Taking your examples in particular, those scenarios are *less likely* than
the common sense version of reality because they presuppose it.  A brain
in a vat scenario, or a mad scientist plugging you into a virtual reality
machine both start with the common sense version of reality (that's where
the mad scientist and the vat are).  Given what we know about the complexity
of simulating reality, the probability that we are in such a situation is
lower than the probability that we're in the real world.

Some skeptical arguments say that because we do not *know* that we
aren't brain in vats or being deceived by evil omnipotent demons, that
therefore we don't know anything empirical at all.  One response to
this type of argument is that knowledge is not closed under deductive
entailment--knowing p->q and knowing p does not entail knowing q.
The skeptic argues that (say) if we know there is a computer in
front of us, then we know we're not in a demon world.  But we don't
know that we're not in a demon world, therefore we don't know there
is a computer in front of us.  The response I've just suggested
prevents this argument from going through.  (For the technical details,
see Fred Dretske, "Epistemic Operators," _Journal of Philosophy_
67(December 1970):1007-1023; Robert Nozick, _Philosophical Explanations_,
1981, Harvard Univ. Press, ch. 3; Anthony Brueckner, "Begging the Skeptic's
Question," _Philosophia_ 17(December 1987):523-529.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:14:15 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>>   ...   From reading t.o, one would get the impression that
>>> creationists never "do" science. I must and do disagree with this
>>> statement most vehemently. The "Creation ex nihilo Technical Journal"
>>> published in Australia and available through the ICR contains
>>> articles of creation science, and the research performed. Now,
>>> anyone can claim they aren't "doing" science, but making such a
>>> claim in no way takes away from the fact that they are "doing"
>>> science.

>I agree with Joel Hanes' reply (deleted) to this, but just wanted to
>add that the _Ex Nihilo Technical Journal_ was first issued in 1984
>and has only issued a total of five single-issue volumes as of last
>year; each has about 200 pages of articles.  The same authors appear again
>and again:  Andrew Snelling, Kurt Wise, Bill Cooper.  Many of the
>articles are not science but are on biblical history, ethics, and
>"the influence of evolution on knowledge."
>   Probably a better place to check up on what creationists are doing
>in the way of science is the _Creation Research Society Quarterly_.

I have two of their issues and the one article I've had the chance
to read was entitled something like "Precambrian Strata and the Fossils
they Contain." I don't know that much about geology but the article
appeared pretty good and doesn't fall under the above categories.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ted CAN'T think, Dammit!
X-Sender: newtout 0.01 Aug 21 1992
Date: 19 Aug 92  16:25:00

"Wongu!"

    "Yes, Master?"

"What the ted got into you, this statue is all wrong?"

    "Uhhh, wrong?"

<Smack!> "Yes wrong, most idiotic of apprentices! Since when do mammoths
gallop?"

    "They don't? But horses do."

"So? Horses have different leg structures, you kaz! How many times have i told 
you to follow the hunters? Get outside and..."


    "I know, `Observe so your art will be true to Nature', you say it      all 
the time <sigh>"

"Well if you can quote it, do it! Now what am i to do, this statue will hurt
the hard earned reputation of my workshop!"

    "Hmm, how about i tell people it's a statue of a special kind of
     mammoth that *does* gallop, maybe because it has a different kind
     of gravity."

"Oy, now the kid's a physicist? Yes, tell them that. While they're all out
dunking you in the lake, i'll go bury this thing somewhere where no one will
see it for thousands of years."


10                    2
       DR PEPPER
                      4

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Creation and Time
Summary: Does God have a rest frame?
Keywords: creation, time, science
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 20:46:47 GMT

 I have a question for a literal Genesis believer.          

 If one assumes the seven days in Genesis are supposed to be real time
days (24 hours the same as ours) whose rest frame was He working in?

From General relativity we know that there is no such thing as absolute time
in our physical universe. Each space-time point carries its own clock
with it. Two observers in different frames (moving relative to one another)
will not be able to agree on the simultaneity of any event in their
space and time measurements. I assume God does not move with a velocity
less than that of light as He is not a physical creature. Hence whose
clock was registering these 24 hour days?
It is no reply to say that it was in the Earth's reference frame as He 
also created the Sun and stars and they are certainly not in the Earth's
frame. It seems to me that a literal interpretation of the "days" of
Genesis assumes the laws governing the universe are Newtonian
not Einsteinian, and we know that Newton's laws are only an 
approximation and do not describe the observed universe.

Have fun

julian
From: hagstrop@oberon.mathcs.carleton.edu (Paul Hagstrom)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:19:13 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com

In article <BtCM5t.Mwn.2@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)  
writes:
> 
> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> >As has been pointed out before,
> >evolutionism boils down to belief. There are no
> >scientific proofs.

That is very nearly the most infuriating argument in the world, because it is  
the kind that is almost without exception made in complete ignorance of  
anything that could constitute "scientific proofs."  Are there any "proofs"  
that you would accept for anything "scientific"?  What?  If there WERE such  
proofs, would you have heard about them?  Through what efforts?  And I ask this  
question even beyond any ideas of creationism vs. evolutionism.. What about  
planetary orbits?  What about F=ma?  What about nuclear decay?  And, then,  
obviously, what about decay of Carbon-14?  And then..?  But you can guess what  
I would say next..

A disclaimer: I realize that I am leaping into something in the middle, and I  
am not familiar with this thread, so if I'm reiterating, I apologize.
--
schmotsignature.
Paul Hagstrom
(hagstrop@carleton.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9905 soc.culture.african.american:8974 alt.rap:4176
From: czl30@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 22 Aug 92 02:11:11 GMT
Reply-To: czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Aug21.121440.24522@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

Mr. Tun, earlier this year you wrote:
  "I _admit_ that I find evolution hard to understand. Believe me I try
   very hard to put myself in evolutionist shoes in order to find out
   what they think. However I find myself unable to take _such_ a vast
   leap of faith."

In the light of this quote, please explain the following sentence:
>
>According to evolutionist thinking, whites and blacks can be
>considered two separate species.

And then apologise for the offence you have caused.


>                                 So the situation in apartheid
>countries has an evolutionary basis.

Please explain how you reach this conclusion.

>                                     How are whites and blacks
>considered different species?

Please explain why you think this.

>                              Well evolutionists like to show
>speciation has and is occuring. A popular method is to say that
>two sets of organisms that are identical but differ in mating
>habits or preferences `cannot' interbreed and are therefore
>two distinct species. This can be extended to human society if
>social factors cause different races to prefer not to interbreed.
>

I am Northern European (English) and moved to California a little over
two years ago. I keep out of the sun because otherwise I get horribly
burnt. In the absence of modern technology, this is definitely not
a survival characteristic. The lady I love (unfortunately still in
England has a brown skin and can cope with this kind of sun. Which
would be a survival characteristic. Her sister married an Englishman,
and they have a daughter. What does this tell you?

>
>Actually I think the main three racial groupings (black, white,
>yellow) are descended from Noah's three sons.

And the moon is made of green cheese.

>
>--
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

Mr. Tun, you have reached a new low in the quality and content of your
posting. Do you set out to be deliberately offensive?

Chris Lee
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9828 soc.culture.african.american:8952 alt.rap:4154
From: gary@ccs.northeastern.edu (Gary Duhaney)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:58:40 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <1992Aug20.223509.7577@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> talk.origins,soc.culture.african.american,alt.rap writes:
>
>     I have thought over the evolution of skin color, and have run into the
>following questions:
>
>1) Following that the darker colors for humans are generally dominant vis-a-vis
>the lighter colors
>2) That the darker the skin color, the better the protection from UV radiation
>
>    Then what would be the evolutionary mechanism that would select for lighter
>skin towards the northern climates?  There's little I can see that would
>actively select against the darker skins/for the lighter skins, and I do not
>believe that a lack of evolutionary pressure is evolutionary pressure in, by,
>and of itself.
>    Please do not post (or email) any Yacub-esque anti-whitey conspiracy
>theories please.  I ask only for something reasonably scientific and plausible
>(i.e. what would actively select against darker skins/for lighter skins the
>further north one gets?).

Never read any articles on this particular subject, but hows this for
an answer:

Consider how a newborn (what's the word?) plant that is kept in a box
with no sunlight stays white until it gets into the sun.  Well it would
stand to reason that since the north is cooler/cold one covers up pretty
well consistently year round.  Now africans do, and did wear cloths
but not as much.  Also the sun is much harsher closer to the
equator than the poles.  Therefore combining the lower sunlight
(ultraviolet), extra clothes from the cold, and X,Y00,000 years of
isolation from that which would influence darker gene, those genes
gradually went the way of the appendix.
or
A more feasible reason would be
Ultraviolet light has some use (vitamin D which is
synthesized in the skin requires it).  Being where there
is less ultraviolet light, it wouldn't be in the best interest of
human beings to have melanin protection.  Like protection from
food.  So basically during the migrations out of Africa the
dark skinned people probably suffered from rickets for a while
until the bodies adjusted, there is the pressure.

Combine all four.

>KAMCHATKA CHARLIE          KAMCHAR@ibm.cl.msu.edu
 ^^^^^^^^^
Hey, is this the country you play in risk (:-)>
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9722 talk.religion.misc:14235
From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Subtle is the Lord (was Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:27:56 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
>On the other hand, some people point out that God has gone to exceptional 
>lengths to make sure that no one will take the Bible literally.  So 
>we have one clue as to His straightforwardness about things of 
>importance.

Interesting question whether God is straighforward. I recall some
ancient jewish scolars referring to the Kabbalah (sort of equivalent 
to the books contained in the OT) as being a house full of
rooms each with its own key. But the key in each door fits one of
the other doors, and the job of the scholar is to match the keys
with the doors.

(Now that I think about it, the Kabbalah is not exactly equivalent
to the OT rather it is some kind of hidden meaning behind the books
themselves).
Why would God hide the meaning so?
In modern terms I suppose this becomes: why does God make the universe
so complicated? Perhaps it is not so much complicated as that we have 
lost the ability to understand it, and have to go through the laborious
process of piecing together each separate datum like a jigsaw puzzle.

julian
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: JW's claim of a "Water Canopy"
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:49:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <94146@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes...
>In article <19AUG199201102221@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> 
>>Yes to the latter.  I have an article which is an example of a genuine
>>contribution to science published in a creationist publication.  It
>>is by Glenn R. Morton, titled "Can the Canopy Hold Water?",
> 
>[lots of problems with "water canopy" hypothesis deleted]
> 
>>   It appears that
>>   some new thinking about the antediluvian climate, and the cause of the
>>   Flood, is due.
> 
>From "Giant invisible purple bunny on my head", by Chris Colby
> 
>"In order to document the giant purple, Shakespeare quoting bunny 
>(which is invisible and silent to most observers), I used extremely
>sensitive microphones to pick up the bunny's speech. I also
>shined a really bright light through the bunny and looked for
>it to absorb wavelenghts that, when reflected, look purple.
>All the tests came up negative. Obviously, more sensitive
>equipment is needed."

I don't think your analogy is entirely fair.  Morton wasn't trying to
address the existence of the flood, he was addressing only the plausibility
of a vapor canopy, which he thoroughly rejects.  To make your analogy accurate,
your article should be published in the _Giant Invisible Purple Bunny on
Our Heads Research Society Quarterly_ and be an analysis of some particular
feature of the bunny, e.g., its speech, concluding that the Giant Invisible
Purple Bunny does not speak.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:58:28 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <2867@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}Ignorance is bliss...

You must be living in a continuous state of estacy.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Challenge to harmonize two creation accounts in Genesis.
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:43:40 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kamphau@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus)

In article <1992Aug11.155324.29859@swbatl.sbc.com>, kamphau@oktext (Mark Kamphaus) writes:
>The translators of the NIV set about to accomplish their task
>of making the account readible by telling you what they think
>the scripture means by what it said, in words less confusing
>and words that don't give rise to recognized difficulties.
>In other words, the NIV had an agenda of making the accounts
>compatible.

>>  "Now the Lord God *had* formed out of the ground, all the beasts
>>   of the field and all the birds of the air.  He brought them
>>   to the man to see what he would call them."

>Again the NIV seems to be the only translation that renders the verse
>in this manner.

Not really.  Both the Silbermann and Kaplan Chumash render the text
with the same past tense.

And it is inaccurate to refer to *this* verse as a case of sneaky
creationists manipulating the text.  Biblical Hebrew does not have
tenses in our modern sense.  It has a perfective and imperfective,
and that's it.  Translating the Hebrew perfective with an English
pluperfect is not completely accurate, but it is not misleading or
deviously wrong either.  Just less ambiguous.

The most accurate, regarding meaning, would be something like "Now
the Lord God brought all the now-formed beasts of the field and the
now-formed birds of the air to the man to see what he would call
them."  No temporality is stated, just ambiguously implied.  The
NIV and others effectively replace "now-formed" with "formed",
while the KJV and others effectively replace "now-formed" with
"this-very-minute-right-NOW-formed".  Insisting the latter is
correct, and thus there is a contradiction, is as agenda ridden
as any creationist Biblical manipulation.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:13:41 GMT

In article <BtC0np.6u0@world.std.com> 
  twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:
>In article <2868@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

  .. Muscle tissue is muscle tissue ..

>Well, I wasn't thinking about muscle tissue, but that's a very
>interesting idea. Unless you've looked at sauropod muscle tissue under
>the microscope, how can you say that it wasn't different and stronger?
>
>But I was thinking of simpler changes. Some kind of Incredible Hulk
>with really gigantic legs, twice as big as Kaz. With completely
>different knee joints with better leverage. A real mutant. Why
>couldn't he break Kaz's record?

What, you mean like a gorilla?  It could kick his ass 8 ways from 
Tuesday.

>Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com

C "If the facts do not conform to the theory they must be disposed" Frog
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet another ignoramus on the rampage
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:43:05 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <86526@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|
|>The fossil record *is* an unbiased record of passed events.
|
|This is simply false.  The record is strongly biased in favor of nothing
|being preserved.  If conditions are right, teeth, bones, shells and other
|hard materials might be preserved.  If conditions are extremely lucky,
|soft parts can also be preserved.  Shallow waters are generally better
|at preservation than deep seas or land.

Good start.

You have missed about half of the biases.  Let's see, for terrestrial
forms there is a *intense* bias in favor of coastal forms.  And within
that environment, for preservation in frequently flooded areas.

Hmm, and oh let's see, fossil pollen will often show a rather different
distribution of groups than fossil leaves, and ...

Oh yes, indeed, the fossil record is *heavily* biased.  The fossil record
for birds is *abysmal*.  Montane forms of *any* sort are all but unknown.
Hmm, or how about the fact that many fossil mammals are known only from
*teeth*.

Yep, we even have a scientific specialty for studying preservation biases,
it is called 'taphonomy'.  There is quite a considerable literature on it.
And quite an insightful one.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ross vs. Gish - to Jim Lippard
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:36:59 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Content-Type: text
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 621



	Thanks, Jim.  I'd still like to hear the "debate", though
now I have a better idea of where Ross is coming from.  I'm less
surprised at Dobson now -- there's a limit to what he can program
and be responsive to his listening audience.

	I guess the real deal would be to have Chris Colby debate 
Gish.  That'd be fun!   (Chris, I have no doubt you'd destroy him
as easily as I expect Gore to dismember Quayle in a vice-presidential
debate.)  Unfortunately, the Colby vs. Gish debate on "Focus on
the Family" is a lot less likely than Gore vs. Quayle.

	Can't have everything.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon)
Subject: Re: 360 day year
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:57:32 GMT
Summary: uh, Jim????

In article <1992Aug18.134445.8131@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> In article <26595@life.ai.mit.edu> uunet!ucsd!sdsu!hercules.SDSU.EDU!news@ncar.UCAR.EDU writes:
> }Ramadan starts Feb 23rd 1993 (+- 1 day depending on location).
> }Yes, Arabic calendar is Lunar calendar which has 355 days per year.

> Interesting.  Then The Arabic portion of earth currently orbits the sun in
> 355 days while the rest orbits in just over 365 days.

> Or maybe the correlation between a calendar and a solar year isn't all that
> Ted makes it out to be...

Ted's calendrics can fall under their own leaden weight of inanity --
but your comment seems to be framed as if you thought you had a point.
The Muslim calendar is quite explicitly NOT a solar calendar.  (It is
also normally 354 days, not 355 as stated in the note you responded to.)
A totally irrelevant "criticism" of Ted will only feed his ego.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
				and you say "Behold, a glutton and a drunkard,
mls@usl.com			a friend of tax collectors and sinners."  And
standard disclaimer		yet, Wisdom is justified by all her children.