HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Ted should repent (was Ted cleans up his act)
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:22:28 GMT

Ted you have claimed that you are a Christian. However, your
writing style is not supported by the holy scriptures. In
fact, it speaks very strongly against it.  How can you use
such language when it is clearly contrary to the word of God? 

Perhaps you have spent so much time studying the book of
Genesis, you have no time left over for the New Testament.
In case that is the problem, here is what the book of James
has to say about such language:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
James 3:10-18 AKJV

Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing.  My
bretheren, these things ought not so to be.  Doth a fountain
send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?  Can the
fig tree, my bretheren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs?
so can no fountain yield salt water and fresh.

Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him
shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.

But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory
not, and lie not against the truth.  This wisdom descendeth not
from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying
and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.  

But, the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peacable,
gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits,
without partiality, and without hypocrisy.  And the fruit of
righteousness is sown in the peace of them that makes peace.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I think the Bible is clear you should repent from this behaviour.
The Bible is much clearer on use of foul langauge than it is
in many other areas (such as mechanics of creation in Genesis).
Isn't it time for you to repent?

James 5:19-20
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bretheren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert
him; Let him know that he which converteth the sinner from the
error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a
multitude of sins.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


> Subject: Re: Ted cleans up his act
                                     ^^^
                                     NOT
> Message-ID: <105@fedfil.UUCP>
> Date: 10 Nov 92 04:54:55 GMT
> References: <97@fedfil.UUCP^<720758483@sheol.UUCP> <104@fedfil.UUCP> <1992Nov7.120535.28586@smds.com>
> Organization: HTE
> Lines: 140

[ Ted's response of questionable relevancy deleted ]

[ Ted's examples of other people's use of bad language deleted ]

> I should note that, in contrast to the above, bullshit fertilizes the
> cow pastures and can be said to serve a useful purpose.

Ted, you still can not refrain from using scatological language.

--
Dale Skiba
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Isochron Errors -- 2
Date: 5 Nov 92 02:59:26 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov4.225323.16178@scic.intel.com>, sbradley@scic.intel.com writes:
> Bob, in the 6 years I've been reading this newsgroup, I
> and several others have asked you many, many times to
> present _any_ mechanism whereby several different dating
> methods can yield the same incorrect (according to you)
> ancient date for a single sample.  You have never uttered a
> single word in response.  Are you ever going to address
> this issue, or will we continue to see a never-ending
> stream of hand-waving?

Seconded!

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:03:35 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Nov9.184833.16734@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >Well, let me ask the question once again, why don't we have any
> >creationism SW programs that simulate how impossible evolution
> >actually is? I'm prepared to believe, if I at least get some
> >evidence, instead of assumptions.
> 
> OK, I issue a challenge. Take your favourite chess program on
> your favourite computer. Randomly change any number of bits or
> bytes in the program's executable file. If you manage to find
> a random change which makes the program better at chess, I will
> accept it as evidence that significant AND beneficial random
> mutations are possible. Oh, and I'll eat my flat cap.

OK, how much time do I have, is about 10 million years OK (speaking
about the evolution stage on Earth)?

> There you are, this is my "SW program that simulates how
> impossible evolution actually is", your common or garden game
> of computer chess. Please report back in say ten years.
 
> BTW to forestall any objections, please note that a computer
> chess program is much simpler than a human brain.

Note also that a computer program beats most human brains on
Earth. Speak about simple things that beat complex things :-).

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ted should repent (was Ted cleans up his act)
Date: 14 Nov 92 04:10:25 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Nov11.022228.3663@medtron.medtronic.com>, ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba) writes:
> Ted you have claimed that you are a Christian. 

Now I've seen it all.  SHOW me anything of mine in which I claim to be
a Christian.

Aside from Nietzsche's list of problems with Christianity (ZUR GENEOLOGIE DER
MORAL), there is the further problemthat, were the son of GOD to actually
appear on earth, you would figure all of mankind to hear about it in a 
reasonable period of time, like about 48 hours.  The fact that the American
indians went 1500 years without ever hearing about any of this gives Christians
an awful lot of explaining to do.



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:43:15 GMT

In article <JTPyTB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> In any case, if you really want it, you can call the Bhaktivedanta
> Institute in San Diego (619-272-8145). They will rush it to you if you
> ask them to.

  How much does it cost?

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: rybicki@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: AWESOME computer program (Populus)
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:47:10 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town
Reply-To: rybicki@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Followup-To: talk.origins
Keywords: evolution
Distribution: global

In article <1992Nov6.111851.29067@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> In article <ksand-051192183202@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

> Example: would you like to take a ride in an Airbus
> whose computer program was modified randomly? Why
> not? After all, the theory of evolution states that
> this is how improvements are generated.

Really?  Which theory of evolution?  Whose?  Don't you realise that there is no
one monolithic theory of evolution?  That there are, in fact, many theories,
and many modifications thereto?  And your programme gets randomly modified the
whole time, I am afraid to say - unless, of course, you believe Someone gives
you cancer deliberately, rather than that random mutations predispose you to
it.  Your Airbus example is rather silly; are you perhaps saying we are driven?
It strikes me that your comment could only come from someone whose view of the 
Universe is so fixed in a religiously programmed sense that they could not 
conceive of the awful beauty of chaos and randomness....you probably don't like
the second law of thermodynamics, either.
 _________________________________________________________________________
|                                 |                                       |
|  Ed Rybicki                     |    Now you've got the hang of it      |
|  Dept Microbiology              | There's nothing you can't do with it  |
|  University of Cape Town        |         If you're very into it        |
|  PB Rondebosch 7700             |         You can't go wrong....        |
|  South Africa                   |                                       |
|  fax 27 21 650 4023             |              - Mad John               |
|  ed@micro.uct.ac.za             | (Ogden's Nut-Gone Flake, Small Faces) |
|_________________________________|_______________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Science is inadequate--NOT! 
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:23:47 GMT

Real life?!  Bahahahahah!! (mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: 
: What you fail to note is that EVERYTHING was a supernatural phenomenon before
: it was explained.  Used to be disease was simply a punishment struck upon you
: by god.  Now we know, through science, that disease is caused by microorganisms
: and the like.  Or perhaps, like fossils, they were planted by the Devil to 
: hide the working of god?  How about lightning?  Not so terribly long ago, no-
: body had a clue what lightning was.  Now we know that it is the result of
: static charges between the earth and the atmosphere. 

I totally agree with you so far.

: The PURPOSE of science
: is to examine "supernatural phenomena" and prove that they are not.  If we
: had accepted everything we didn't understand from the beginning of time as god
: at work, we as a race would not exist.  Science's purpose, to me, is to prove
: that THERE ARE NO SUPERNATURAL PHENOMENA.  Man can rule his universe and be the
: God of it.  This is what we have been attempting to do for hundreds of
: thousands of years; this is what we will continue to do for the rest of time.
: I refuse to accept the possibility of a being greater than the potential that
: each one of us holds.

Here I must disagree with you.  Science purpose, to me, is to make sense out
of what we observe.  It doesn't matter whether people think they were supernatural
or not.  Observations are just observations.  The fact that our observations are
repeatable comes from the fact that there are laws of nature.  Science can show that
things once assumed to be supernatural are really following natural laws. Things that
are supernatural do not follow these laws of nature.  Therefore Science can say very
little about them.  How can we use Science to prove that there are no supernatural
phenomena?  Seems to require too many assumptions for me.

Do you really think that we can become the god of our universe?  I know Shirley
Mc Clain believes she is the god of her personal universe, but most scientists
would disagree with her :-)  Maybe you have been watching too much Star Trek :-) 
But, even in Star Trek, the people do not appear to be gods of their Universe.


: -- 
: Michael T. Chaffee        | Amateur Evil Genius        |  ______ 
: mchaffee@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu | Professional Slapthologist |  \    /      HATE 
: Member, Universal Life Church, Sect of Loons           |   \  /    can never be
: Annoyance Theatre Platinum Member                      |    \/    a FAMILY VALUE

--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:40:58 GMT

In article <PJHRTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>
>  The probability of evolution of higher life forms by known physical
>processes during a 4.5 billion year period is bounded by an UPPER limit
>of 10e-150000.
[deletions]
>  These statements are from Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, by
>Dr. Richard Thompson. His arguments are based on information theory
>and molecular biology. The proof is straightforward.
>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

Glad to hear that the proof is so straightforward. Give it to us
in your next post. Or is this a "proof is left as an exercise for the
reader" kind of thing. 

Waiting.... (but not holding my breath)

Scott
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TMakinen
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: <none>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 06:10:35 GMT

In article <a8k3TB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> happen? Not that I rely on this argument but have you taken care of this
kind
>> of "coinsidenses" in your calculations?
>
>Calculations of what? What are you talking about? Did you read the
>entire post?

In the calculations of the damn probability, I would suggest.
Or haven't you carried out any calculations?
Wanna see me draw a number out of hat? Wanna see it again? :)

Teemu
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:14:51 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <7540@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>}As evidence to show I'm a liar, Jim Meritt posted some questions which he said
>}I have not answered.  In a previous article, I showed that even if Jim was
>}right about the questions, it would not prove me a liar.  However, Jim is
>}wrong: I have answered them.
>
>False.  Since we disagree, how about SOMEONE ELSE'S evaluation of the
>contention.  BALES says that he has answered himself, MERITT says that
>he has not.

My own evalutaion is that he has not answered the questions in any manner
close to satisfactory.  He hasn't shown a scrap of positive evidence for
creation so far.  However, since I've only been following this group since
April of this year, I don't know much of Bales' past history to call him a
liar yet.  At present, I would say that he is mistaken and inconsistent.

>You do not substantiate that you do not lie by either unsubstantiated assertion
>nor by lying to do so.  I can easily see why you would not wish your past
>to be recalled.  I'd be ashamed of such nonesence, too.
>
>It is my opinion that your "case" presented does NOT validate your assertion.
>Does anyone else?  And until _I_ think it does, I shall continue to dredge
>up your past posturing.  I am, of course, open to an opinion from anyone else.

IMHO, his assertion that he has answered the questions has not been
validated.  Whether his assertion that he is'nt a liar is validated is still
pending.

|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 7 Nov 92 08:23:32 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.201635.14018@athena.cs.uga.edu> keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck) writes:
>>In article <PJHRTB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>>
>>>  The probability of evolution of higher life forms by known physical
>>>processes during a 4.5 billion year period is bounded by an UPPER limit
>>>of 10e-150000.

>Most of the "proofs" of this sort that I have seen run under the perhaps
>unwitting assumption that there is only one "test tube" where everything
>is happening.  The probability may be 10e-150000 that life will form in
>one test tube (not that I believe that, or course), but when you have
>10e150000 test tubes spread over the Earth's surface in those shallow
>seas and deep sea vents, the probability becomes more like a sure thing. 

Urkle.  You might wish to reconsider that statement just a trifle.  That
many test tubes would have 10e+149,900 times the mass of the known universe.

In any case, you're wrong about the source of error in these "proofs".
Your statement amounts to asserting that the number of cases is verY
large.  It is; depending on how you define a case (abiogenesis event)
the number of cases is something like 10e50.  These "proofs" typically
produce probabilities like 10e-1000 or less.  If they were correct the
number of cases would be absurdly small.

What is the source of error in these proofs?  The most common is to
enumerate states and assume that all states have equal probability,
i.e. all configurations of matter have equal and independent probability.
This little trick allows one to multiply as many probabilities as desired
to get the desired degree of small probability.

In actual fact, the probability of evolution of higher life forms is
bounded below by 0 and bounded above by 1.  Any more definite statement
is an exercise in intellectual fraud.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Great New Program (Populus)
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992
Date: 05 Nov 92  08:19:52

Who: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
ID: Bx3zCu.KGB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu
 
AP> "An evolutionary biologist is minding his own business,
AP> enthusiastically describing a new tool in his field...
AP> suddenly, from out of the trees, a shot rings out! Everyone
AP> ducks, but realizes it's only Looney Tunes, the Creationist
AP> Sniper, with his usual pack of insubstantial one-liners.
AP> LT hasn't hit his target yet, so it's back to business as
AP> usual...
 
But there is a casualty: Lionel himself suffers.
 
Then colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) wrote, in part:
 
CC> "A couple of weeks ago, I picked up a truly great ecology/
CC> evolution simulation program. I thought some of the folks
CC> here might like to hear about it. The program is called
CC> Populus and is written by some folks at the Ecology, Evolution
CC> and Behavior department at the U. of Minnesota."
 
Sounds GREAT. I have looked at Tierra, but who the heck can
figure out how to compile the bastard?! And all those soft
carriage returns in the source code / documentation! Bleh!
 
Then lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) started us laughing with:
 
LT> "Aha! I thought there was something rather dodgy about this
LT> program. So, its a vehicle for spreading the evilutionist
LT> progaganda! Its funny how games where one gets to play God
LT> are very poplular."
 
Considering that the program simulates a natural process and
not a God process, using _Populus_ is NOT like playing God.
One could, using Lionel's "thinking [sic]," be much closer to
the truth saying it is much like playing =GODDESS!=
 
AP> Lie-onel:  please note that Populus isn't a "game" per se;
AP> it is a collection of scientific simulations of evolution.
AP> I suggest you check it out - maybe you'll learn something.
AP> I'll send you a copy if you want...don't worry, I'll scan
AP> the disk for viruses beforehand :-)"
 
I'd hate to see a virus knock out Lionel's access to this newsgroup.
Wait until after forTun v2.0 comes out: then we won't need the real
thing, because the simulation is so very life-like.
 
Then again, the real thing isn't very life-like. . . .
 
>colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>Andy Peters  "Slugs are small and portable
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: noah's ark
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:22:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.165456.19485@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Hubanks) writes:
> William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50 (hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com) wrote:
>:I'm sorry. I saw the definition, but didn't save it and now I've forgotten
it.
>: Was it something like Christians Wanting to Abolish Crackpot Kreationism?
> 	
> 	That's a great alternate!  It's actually "Christians Who Aren't
> Crackpot Kreationists".  The spelling was to connote a little of the
> "Keystone Kops" ludicrousness of the ICR and their ilk.
> 	And I wanted it to be like my name.  Oops, lost my humility there.

  Well, you could still keep the CWACK by changing it to "Christians Who Aren't
Creationist Kooks". (or Knotheads.  Hmm, was that on the list I gave Antii?)

  Speaking of Creationist Kooks, I ran into Antii on t.r.m yesterday. 
Apparently he has just given up on t.o., not the net.  His posting style hasn't
changed.

  Maybe I should write an Antii simulator.  Lets see, for each paragraph in an
article it would either

    1) Quote and ignore it
    2) Delete it
    3) Quote it and follow it by "Yes", "Exactly" or "I will answer this later"

  I suppose this could be done in a Lex script.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: 14 Nov 92 05:24:26 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <39J5TB13w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
> 
>>   I hereby reach out to God with the desire to know him.  God, if you exist,
>> please cure all cases of AIDS by 12:00 noon tomorrow (11-12-92).  Since you
>> are perfectly-loving, you will want to do so, since you are all-powerful,
>> you are capable of doing so, since you are all-knowing, you will know (a)
>> how to do so, and (b) that you are being offered this public opprtunity to
>> prove your existence to all the unbelievers you so dearly want to convince
>> of your existence.  Failure to abide by the specified condition will be
>> taken as justification for disbelieving the proposition <God exists>.
> 
> A list of demands and a threat. Yep, that's really "reaching out to God
> with a desire to know Him" all right.

   Given that the original poster is (assumed to be) Christian, I'd 
say that's a pretty fair reciprocity with God; "do what I say or
go to Hell."

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:31:07 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us

In article <7ZD4TB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:

>> >Read the book.

>Read the book.

Is this your new chant?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:02:22 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: TMakinen

In article <1992Nov9.114458.10627@nic.funet.fi>, TMakinen writes:
>In article <HN5wTB11w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>First point: The known laws of physics possess low information content.

>The theory contains not much information. The solutions contain huge
>or infinite amount of information. Meditate the quantum field theory
>to enlighten yourself about the difference between the theory and the
>solutions.

The code phrase for this is "broken symmetry".  If Richard Thompson
hasn't heard of this extremely well-known phenomenon, then, yes, he's
a through and through crackpot.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)