HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: New Mantra: "Read The Book"
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 18 Nov 92  09:39:04

Who: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
ID: 8gV9TB8w165w@kalki33
And weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
 
>>>K> Read the book.
>K> Read the book.
 
MPW> Is this your new chant?
 
K> "We think you're a chicken, bwak, bwak, bwak! Come on, you
K> yellow-bellied pseudo scientist. Put up them dukes! Awwww,
K> does duh poor baby want momma to take away dat nasty pwoof?
K> Awwww, don't cwy, baby! Momma will make dem nasty cweationists
K> all go away. Den baby can have his bottle!"
 
Goddess, looks like Matthew struck a sore nerve.
 
You are requiring people to PAY for a book in order to correct
the errors in your assertions. Isn't that just a little arrogant?
(Or more correctly, MASSIVE HUBRIS on your part.) The book is
not found in reputable libraries and reputable book stores.
 
Back to fundamentals. You said there is strong evidence that shows
abiogenesis is 1e15-1000 improbable. You then said that the
proof is "straight foward" and simple. Then when pressed, you
tell folks to buy the book in question.
 
Is that the only way you can sell the book? Can it not sell on
its own meritts, if it has any? How about if you send a copy
of the book to Colby or Meritt, free of charge, so that they
may review it?
 
K> Sincerely,
 
How likely is that?
 
K> Kalki "maggots from meat, maggots from meat" Dasa
K>     -------------------------------------------------------
K>    |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
K>    |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
K>    |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
K>    |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
K>    |                                                       |
K>    |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
K>    |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
K>     -------------------------------------------------------
 
       -------------------------------------------------------
      |    Creationist's chant:   Is Not! Is Not! Ain't So!   |
      |                           Liar! Liar! Read the book!  |
      |                           Is Not! Is Not! Is Not,     |
      |                           Ain't So! Too Improbable!   |
      |                                                       |
      |   Satan's propagandaline, 666 south damnation alley,  |
      |               hell.university.underworld              |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Information in a system.
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:47:44 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>   Kalki,
>>   Right now I am running a computer program at home.  It generated 100
>> creatures.  Each has two wheels and two sensors for detecting "food".  Using 
>> tiny nural net as a brain, the information from the sensors is sent to the
>> wheels.
>
>[lot of stuff describing the "creatures"]
>
>>   Now here is the question:  Obviously the creatures have become more
>> sophisticated at locating food.  They have generated rules, information if yo
>> will, on how to locate it.  Now, where did that information come from?
>> 
>>   Remember, my initial state was completely random, so it didn't come from
>> there.  I have no idea what the proper neural inputs are for locating food, s
>> didn't put them there.  The program alters the creatures in a completely rand
>> manner, so it didn't add any information to the system.  Where did it come
>> from?
>
>You must have the first computer in history to generate "completely"
>random numbers! And the first program in history that wasn't created by
>a programmer! And the first computer to ever assemble itself! And the
>first source of electric power to just hook itself up to your house and
>start generating 60hz, 117 VAC!

Oh, and this random number generator has some mysterious knowledge to
completely change a program's behavior on it's own.  And I suppose a dice
roll isn't completely random because an intelligent creature made them and
another threw them too.

>Kalki "My brain is not the boss" Dasa


|======================================================================|
| 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: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: design in living organisms
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:45:51 GMT

In article <102252@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>You can find bad design everywhere in the human body (the wiring
>of the photoreceptors in the eye and the structure of the knee
>leap immediately to mind (perched rather precariously for such
>a supposedly important structure)).

It can hardly be said that the human knee is well designed for kneeling.
Prolonged kneeling can lead to an expansion of the bursa in front of the
patella, a condition known as housemaid's knee.  (Perhaps that's why house-
maids are almost extinct.)

Likewise, there's a design flaw in the human elbow.  At the knob on the
lower end of the humerus the ulnar nerve is exposed just under the skin.
A sharp blow by a hard object causes that numbing, painful sensation called
"striking the funny bone" (a pun on the name of the bone).

>                                    We really oughta collect a BIG
>list of these things for this board. A bunch got posted a few months
>ago... did anybody save all of them?

There are some additional design flaws that appear in the manufacturing
process of humans: the fetal lanugo, the grasping reflex, the Moro reflex,
and the fontanelles.  Even the adult human skull is too thin to provide
adequate protection to the gigantic brain and the absence of brow ridges
leaves the eyes poorly protected.

When can we expect issuance of the recall notice?

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:32:48 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


Reality check II:

In article <1992Nov16.142216.16902@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James 
Meritt) writes:

The issue is whether I lie and whether I have answered specific questions.  I
wrote an article giving quotes from previous postings. Jim responded:

>}>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.

To begin with, the issue is not whether anyone likes or agrees with my answers.
For instance, to the question of what was positive for creation, I gave what
I consider to be positive evidence for creation.  In objective terms, when
somone asks "What is. . . ?", the statement "This is:. . . ." is, by
definition, an answer to the question.`

But Jim wants to go on others opinions, he says.  Someone else wrote:

>}My own evalutaion is that he has not answered the questions in any manner
>}close to satisfactory.

>}IMHO, his assertion that he has answered the questions has not been
>}validated.  

I must disagree.  If I have not answered them satisfactorily, I have answered
them unsatisfactorily, which means I have answered them!


   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Evolution probability
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 19 Nov 92  16:20:10

Who: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
ID: 1992Nov16.172443@iastate.edu
With: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us ("Kali Dasa")
And: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
 
[good-sized chunk hacked off here]
 
IGB> "My father could generate 2^23 distinct sperm. My mother
IGB> could produce 2^23 distinct ova. Therefore, the chances 
IGB> of my existing are (2^23)^2, or 2^46. Now that's not such
IGB> a large number: 1 in 70368744177664. But my parents are the
IGB> product of the same chance. My father is only one of the
IGB> 70368744177664 children his parents could have produced, my
IGB> mother likewise, and I likewise of them. So that allows us to
IGB> cube the number to 348449143727040986586495598010130648530944
IGB> before we even worry about the chance of them meeting. And their
IGB> parents. And their parents.
 
K> Again, then, you agree with us that life comes from life, since,
K> as you say, it was your parents who produced you.
 
WV> "That is not the point he is making. Is English your native
WV> language? If so, have you graduated from junior high yet?
WV> This is such a profound misinterpretation of what was being
WV> said, I don't think it is possible to get at the basic concepts
WV> you seem to be missing without filling this message with
WV> several megs of text.
WV> 
WV> Suffice it to say that he is not talking about life from life,
WV> but probabilities. the argument he gave has nothing to do with
WV> life."
 
Question to Kali: how many planets are in the Omniverse? Just how
improbable it is that they ended up around their various star
systems, in their various orders, with their various moons?
 
Since Earth is just one planet out of "billions and billions,"
you -must- know just how many planets there are--- otherwise how
can you calculate just how improbable abiogenesis HERE is? If
it is possible (p>0) why can't Earth be one of the few places
where the improbable happened? (I am not saying life is improbable.)
 
Will you answer "Read the book?"
 
<various signatures deleted>

--- Squish v1.01
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Subject: Re: Laying a trap
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 07:01:20 GMT
Organization: Apple
Followup-To: talk.origins

In article <1992Nov18.133247.8546@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> 2
> For those of you who are not game fans, but more business
> oriented:
> Consider a spreadsheet program such as Lotus123 or
> QuattroPro. Lets say you have a small calculator program,
> like the toy ones which pop up in some windowing front
> ends. Would it be possible to apply random mutations to
> Calculator until it evolves into Spreadsheet?

What kind of a feedback system are we dealing with? 

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: markv@pixar.com (Mark T. VandeWettering)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:34:23 GMT

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>We get, as our payment, the pleasure of seeing self-proclaimed "rational
>thinkers" turn into the slavering, boot-licking, do-anything-to-be-right
>cowards they really are. While they snidely boast that they are far
>above our level of intelligence, and that they are not going to bother
>reading any book that conflicts with their delusion that they evolved
>from chickens, they nevertheless post at least 50 times a day their
>denials that they are going to pay any attention to us!

	Indeed.  But insults do seem to be coming both ways now, don't they?

	As for refusing to read the book, I believe that many have expressed
	the desire to READ the book, just that they don't think they should
	be doubly insulted by being forced to pay for such, well, damn I 
	can't think of a better word, DRIBBLE!

	As for our relative level of intelligence, well....  I have an 
	opinion of course....

>Sincerely,
>Kalki "see you on the battlefield" Dasa

	*sigh* only 30 postings in this thread left to go. (29 of them 
	seem to be Kalki's)   Perhaps a new entry in the kill file will
	speed the newsreading a bit.	

				Mark T. VandeWettering
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TMakinen
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: <none>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:25:29 GMT

In article <owNDuB9w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>"Mass" is not a substance either, but a quantitative measurement of a
>physical system. We have conservation of mass, and we have conservation
>of information. What is the difficulty?

That we have no conservation of mass.
That we have no conservation of information.

*************** I M P O R T A N T ******************

Mass is one form of energy ( oh well, that Einstein stuff )
Lets just speak about the total energy, not separated as "massive" energy and
"energetic" energy.
Even the energy doesn't conserve. But we have the conservation of impulse.
Energy is a part of it.
It is a direct consequence of the formal invariance of the Lagrangian function
under infinite translations.

ANSWER TO THIS:

What are the analogous parts with information ???

****************************************************

Teemu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: keck@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Keck)
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap, Ted (an apology)
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:32:34 GMT

In article <117@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>The various Saturn Myth scenarios are not mine;  they are the work of David
>Talbott, Immanual Velikovsky, Dwardu Cardona, and a handful of others.  There
>are differences between them, and none of them is complete to my knowledge.
>Further, there is every evidence that we are dealing with a continually
>changing scenario in the heavens starting from some time before human memory
>and going until around 700 BC or so.  There appears to have been a state far
			^^^^^^
                        
Hey, what about StoneHenge?  Wasn't it built around 1400 BC or so (not
sure, but I think it was before 700 BC at least)?  And it works very well
predicting/showing the equinoxes, solstices, etc.?  Don't you think a
violent upheaval in the solar system would have changed these things around a 
bit?

And if that isn't old enough for you, how about records of the day length
of the earth found in Devonian corals?  The earth spun faster back then
(something like 385 days/year), which fact can be seen in the daily/annual
growth marks in the fossil corals.  It has been steadily decreasing ever
since.  Again, don't you think that rearranging the solar system might
disrupt a steady decline in day length?

>Many of our symbols still show this system.  The star in crescent of Islam
>is commonly thought to be a star in half moon;  it isn't.  You would not
>SEE a star inside the half moon.  The star would be totally hidden BY the 
>moon.  The star in crescent is a Saturn sign from the same time period
>Talbott describes, half the ring showing in reflected light.

Ever hear of artistic license, Ted?  Do you think everything the ancients
drew/wrote actually existed?  How about the Egyptian half-human/half-animal
gods/beasts?  Were those posed portraits?  Is the constellation Orion 
_really_ the remains of a warrior's body?  More recently, how about Paul
Bunyan?  Seen any Blue Ox prints around?  Oh, yeah, I forgot- they're 
lakes now.  Are all modern spiders descendants of Arachne, who pissed off
Juno?  Let's run a DNA analysis.  Hey, they _are_ all related!


Really, Ted, how can you ignore, e.g., the ancient Chinese records of
supernovas, which place them in certain constellations?  When modern
astronomers looked, they found remains of supernovas.  If everything
was changed around, don't you think things would be different?
I just realized this might be construed as meaning I think the stars
should have moved around or something.  No, I mean the constellations
visible from China would have been different, say, maybe the north pole
pointing at Orion's belt instead of Polaris.

Like someone commented not long ago (sorry, I don't recall who it was), you
seem to have taken the perceived problem of dinosaur perambulation and 
substituted a whole suite of more serious problems.  

Paul Keck
>-- 
>Ted Holden
>HTE
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bad design and vestigial organs
Date: 23 Nov 92 08:42:58 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <98714@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>Our mouths are also poorly designed regarding eating.  I don't know of
>any other animal that is capable of choking on its food.  Of course, we
>gained speech in this trade-off.

Given that speech led in due course to writing, and writing led in
due course to electronic media, and electronic media led in due course
to usenet, and usenet begat talk.origins, one can only question the
value of this trade-off.
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:14228 comp.ai.philosophy:6804
From: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: The Meaning of (A) Life
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:00:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov15.230048.26012
Reply-To: zzz@byron.u.washington.edu (Sample)
Organization: University of Washington

Logic can only be produced from a 
subjective view point.  Scientists 
claim to be objective when, in fact, 
they're just putting themselves
"in others shoes".

Good and bad, black and white, only
have meaning from =A= subjective view.

The meaning of =A= life is it's "subjective view"

To ask "what is the meaning of life?" is to
hope to be objective -- and no logic, no 
information, can come from objectivity -- so
the question can't be answered.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:21:00 GMT
Distribution: world, public
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Nov18.170908.6569@nmsu.edu>, sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
|> In article <4q58TB10w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
|> >smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:
|> >> 
|> >> Their papers count because they generally write about things that they
|> >> know and for which they have gathered evidence.
|> >
|> >Right, evidence. Then show us a species changing into another
|>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> species.
|> ^^^^^^^
|> Didn't you get my e-mail?  I excerpted the portion titled "Observed
|> Speciation" from the FAQ and sent it to you.  Either you didn't
|> receive my e-mail or you are ignoring it.  Makes me wonder if you
|> bothered to read the FAQ at all. . . 

In all fairness to Kalki-dom, there is a third possibility, which
is that one Kalki-facet read the FAQ, but another Kalki-facet is 
asking the questions.

On the other hand, there's an outstanding Kalki-claim that one
consciousness can directly interact with another, and where better
than within Kalki-dom?

Can one hold one Kalki-facet responsible for information one has
supplied to another Kalki-facet?

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:55:17 GMT

In article <LZ78TB16w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>varney@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (Al Varney) writes:
>
>>    Have you also calculated the probability of the watchmaker being
>> formed without a designer, without guidance?  If not, does that mean
>> someone/something designed the watchmaker?  And would that designer
>> be even more complex than the watchmaker?  What is the probability
>> of your EXACT God coming into existence without a designer?
>> 
>>    Or are these areas we're not allowed to ponder/investigate?
>
>Indeed, ponder it.

   I have -- lots.  It seems that it would take a designer even
more complex than GOD to design GOD, and this designer would
require an even more complex designer, etc.  Where does it end?

   So the possibilities I've come up with are:
1) The Universe was not created, but always "was" -- or it was
   created from nothing at the Big One.

2) GOD was not created, but always "was" -- or was created from
   the Big One.

3) The assumption that GOD needed a more complex designer is
   incorrect, and 1 or more simpler designers created GOD.
   Even less complex designers created those designers, etc.
   The initial designers were created from ???? (I don't know
   -- the Big One???)

None are really satisfactory from a "feels right" point of view.
And 3) leads to the question of why only one GOD -- would the
designers KNOW he/she/it was perfect, even if they weren't?
Were all but one destroyed by the designers, or did the surviving
ONE destroy all the others?

   Between 1) and 2), it seems like a coin toss.  If GOD could
always "be", why couldn't the Universe?  Are they really stating
the same thing:  GOD IS the UNIVERSE and the UNIVERSE IS GOD??
If they're not the same, why is 2) easier for some to accept than 1)?

   Of course, maybe I missed some other possibility ... or maybe
the question doesn't make sense....

AL Varney
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Ted makes some sense!!!!!
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:11:23 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki


Come on, Ted, if you have nothing to say, shut up.

	Tero Sand
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell