HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bales is a liar: evidence - one case
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 05:14:03 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:

> >I mentioned "design~ rather than "creation.  But since creation is the only
> >prominent theory to include the idea of design, the presence in living
> >organisms of characteristics of design which are not characteristics of
> >evolutionary-type processes tends to indicate creation is a better 
> >explanation than evolution.
> 
> Actually evolution does "design" things after a fashion. The fact that
> organisms in many cases seem to be put together in a rather 
> catch-as-catch-can way seems to argue against the "intelligent" designer
> hypothesis. (The Panda's thumb and all that). Since there is _a_ prominent
> theory that includes the idea of "design" then you will have to get 
> another argument.

That there is no "designer" need not be the only possible explanation
for the various apparent idiosyncrasies in the design of organisms. For
instance, many people who do not accept the "design" concept suppose
that God, or "the designer" would have done things differently. But this
is only a personal opinion. Some persons might say "God would have made
things more perfect." But this presumes that God's purpose would have
been to make a "perfect" world. This too is only an opinion. What if
God's purpose was not to make a perfect world, but a rough-and-ready
world where certain kinds of rough-and-ready activities are supposed to
be performed?

An intelligent engineer, when faced with the extraordinary task of
constructing the body plans for millions of different types of
creatures, would probably use a basic plan that could be modified by
some simple adjustments. This would be more efficient than trying to
design each type of organism from scratch. In this way we can view the
genetic code as the work of a very clever engineer.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Who? Me?
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:55:54 GMT

Rob Derrick wrote:

>Over the past few weeks I have been making a playlist of T.O.
>posters.  Of the following list, most of them have posted something
>in the past few weeks, and of those that haven't, I am fairly sure
>that most of them are still lurking out there.  They represent
>all levels of expertise and knowledge.  They include Christians,
>Atheists, Agnostics, at least one Taoist, and who knows what else.
>But all of them, even Onar Aam, who was under the lash a few weeks
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>ago, have something in common.  They believe in something!  They are us.
>
>Yes, Virginia.  There is still hope.



Chris Colby wrote:

>[...] Honest confusion would only be 
>possible if you were completely stupid (or Onar, or something 8-)


Ehhhhhm.... Why do I get this funny feeling that I am viewed as some sort of
oddity or weirdo on this newsgroup? Do I sense a certain juvenile arrogance? 



Onar.


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Kalki definitions
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:45:29 GMT

Mickey Rowe (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu) wrote:
: In article <VZTHuB4w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
: writes:


Kalki's definition of abiogenesis:  NOTE IT WELL!

: >"Abiogenesis" means the proposition that living organisms were formed
: >out of nonliving matter over a period of time solely by the action of
: >the laws of physics on the initial distribution of that matter.

: Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)

	Thanks, Mickey, I was looking for this.

Kalki -- you stated this definition and yet totally refused to debate
a viable theory for the occurrence of life.  You're probably going to
say that even if something resembling a living cell formed out of
nonliving matter, something metaphysical had to happen to make that
something "living", according to your consciousness definition.

Please provide scientifically observable evidence of consciousness
in single-celled organisms.  Then we can debate what would
constitute the "transition phase" in this scenario.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: (fwd) Why God Never Received Tenure 
Content-Type: text
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:37:30 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4beta PL16]
Content-Length: 862       

Thought this humor would be interesting to everybody.
> Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny

> Why God Never Received Tenure at the University
> -----------------------------------------------
> 1. Because He had only one major publication.
> 2. And it was in Hebrew.
> 3. And it had no references.
> 4. And it wasn't published in a refereed journal.
> 5. And some even doubt He wrote it himself.
> 6. It may be true that He created the world but what has He published/done
>    since ?
> 7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
> 8. The scientific community has had a very rough time trying to repeat
>    His results.


	This was from an contributor at an Israeli university, which
explains #2.  I just had a proposal go unfunded so this was even
more pertinent.
	#8 appeals to all those Kalki-types out there.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:59:42 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso)

In article <iordonez.722134309@academ01>, iordonez@academ01 (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso) writes:
>I think that to be dead is like being under anesthesia forever: you
>become nothing at all. Why? Because your brain stops working.

Maybe it's not like being under anesthesia forever.  You'll notice
there are posters here whose brains have apparently stopped working
years ago.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 05:09:50 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins) writes:

> Kalki, you'all have gone from promising to post the material to claiming
> that you already have in record time, even for a creationist.
> >>    Velikovsky had lots of published papers too, didn't he?
> >
> >Yes, so do Dawkins and Gould. Oh, but then, you AGREE with them, right?
> >So their papers REALLY count, right?
> 
> 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.
Show us amoebas being formed from molecules. Go ahead, show us the
evidence!

Sincerely,
Kalki "so the computer built itself, right" Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Doing Lunch:  Special for R. Harter
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:08:59 GMT
Organization: HTE

I am glad to see somebody on t.o reading for (a certain kind of) content.
Mr. Harter, this one is for you:

......................................



Little Mexican kid (having read about Pancho Villa in his history/civics
class):

"Gran-pappito, deed you eevar geet to meet Pancho VILLA, who was the worstest
bandito in all of Mexico?

Old man sitting on rocker on varenda:

"You know, dat question takes me back...  I was about feefteen years old
an I was walkin across de desert weef de two leetle burritos all
loaded weef corn to sell de corn at de market, an come a beeg clouda
dust an up come Pancho Villa an about feefteen or twentya hees banditos,
an he gotta beeg beer belly an bullet belts goin across de beer belly
boof ways ana beeg ceegar een hees mouf, an he pull outta peestol an
point de peestol at one-a-da leedle burritos, an say: 'Hookay burro,
SHEET!!', an de leetle burro was plenty scared so he sheet hisself, an
dan he point de peestol at me an he say: 'Hookay, peone, now YOU gonna
EEEET de burro sheet!' an he laf plenty hard...

"CARAMBA, gran-pappito, what deed you do?"

"I was plenty scared, so I eet de burro shit, taste plenty bad, an den a
beeg gust of wind come up an blow de sand in Pancho Villa's face so he
canna see, an he drop de peestol, an I grab de peestol an point de
peestol at Pancho Villa's horse, an say: 'Hokay, horse, SHEEET!' an he
do dat, an den I point de peestol at Pancho Villa an say: 'Hokay meester
beeg shot bandito, now you gonna EEEEET de horse sheet, an I mean every
bite, an not leev nottin left over!!', an Pancho Villa was plenty scared
so he do jus dat, an de odder banditos laff plenty hard...

An so my leedle fren, you ask me eef I eevar geet to meet Pancho VILLA,
who was the worstest bandito in all of Mexico?  WHY, we had LUNCH
togeddar!!!!!"




-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Information in a system.
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:10:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.104221.28986@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>> start generating 60hz, 117 VAC!
>>
>>  the computer runs on AC, but the creatures do not.  They are virtual data
>>structures, and as such exist only in theory: they have no form and thus use
no
>>energy.
>>
> 
>Uhhm... I don't quite agree with you on that. The structures are for real, but
>they are independent of the medium and dimensions in which they occur. That's 
>what information is all about. If I continue your logic then the information in
>genes doesn't "really" exist. Genes are merely a bunch of atoms. See?

  Yes, but the information in genes is not effected by the ATP cycle.  Likewise,
the creatures generate information by selection, but they use the AC power only
to hold their representation: it does not provide information to the system.

>Information 
>is by nature an abstract concept. 
>Also the order which arose in your program is very much associated with
energy.
>In computers a clockcycle of the processor is associated with an energy unit. 
>(Hence the frequency of the processor is associated with the effect) The order
>in your program probably did not arise immediately since the process towards
order
>is iterative. So instead of spending energy directly, it spent processor time 
>which in this case is roughly equivalent with energy. 

  Well, yes.  But then one can say that the laws of physics are "processor time"
that "generates information" too.  Kalki seems to be arguing that since the
computer was made by an intelligence, the universe was made by an intelligence.

  However there doesn't seem to be any reason not to take it one step further
and say "Since the computer was made by humans, the universe must have been made
by humans."

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Summary:  competence
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:18:19 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <98660@netnews.upenn.edu> rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
writes:

>I probably shouldn't, but I'll jump in here.  I don't think that Bob
>is lying in the sense that he is saying something that he believes is
>untrue.  IMHO it seems that Bob is just phenomenally incompetent about
>understanding the objections to his various "explanations".

I am in general inclined to adopt such a position with regard to most
Creationist "arguments" here.  However, this case is a bit special,
and hence my considered response in this thread, despite my feeling
that most of Jim's campaigns on these issues are pointless name-calling.
(I would second most of the comments Jim Lippard has made in one of the
branches of this topic.)

Bales has in the past advertized in his .signature that he helps Tektronix
make its instruments.  Now, the point he has NEVER addressed in ANY way,
whatsoever, is the mutual confirmation of independent measurements of the
same thing.  He *has* attempted to insist (rather beyond reason, actually)
on potential "processes" of error in one or another method of dating.
That is all very well, but irrelevant.  It is *because* one wishes to
control potential error in one method that one checks it against another.
This is a lesson most of us learned along with long division in grade
school -- and it is a lesson utterly essential to any kind of technical
career, such as Bales lays claim to.  All technical work will regard
the mutual consistency of (potentially each individually wrong) methods
as validation of coherence and accuracy, and confirmation of the validty
of the results of each one separately.  This is the point Bales REFUSES
to address, while claiming repeatedly that he has done so.

If he is missing the point, or unable to comprehend the objection that
is urged against him, it is tantamount to an admission of technical
illiteracy and incompetency for the job he holds.  You may have this
in mind in suggesting that Bob would be better off admitting lying :-)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon			Inflict Thy promises with each
mls@panix.com				Occasion of distress,
					That from our incoherence we
					May learn to put our trust in Thee
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 13:34:22 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

 Normally I hate people who quote an entire article and give a short response,
but this case is so illustrative that I had to...

In article <L0HFuB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
>
>> >> .>A list of demands and a threat. Yep, that's really "reaching out to God
>> >> .>with a desire to know Him" all right.
>> >
>> >> Not demands, but a set of conditions by which God could provide rather goo
>> >> evidence for his existence.
>> >
>> >Nope. Demands.
>> 
>>  Nopre, a set of requests with justifications. What's wrong with the
>> justifications? Or will you say, "Nope. They're just wrong."
>
>Nope. Demands.
>
>> 
>> >> Not a threat, but a statement of what seems to be a perfectly legitimate
>> >> interpretation of a null result.
>> >
>> >Nope. A threat.
>> 
>>  How is that going to hurt a God? Besides, does one 'threaten' an experiment
>> with disbelief if you get a null result?
>
>Threats. Just more threats.
>
>> 
>> >> Besides, like many others, I've gone through the sincere questing and come
>> >> up empty.
>> >
>> >It is not possible that your quest was both sincere and unsuccessful.
>> 
>>  You are free to believe that everyone who sys that is lying, I guess. I've
>> talked to too many people who say that to think that they are *all* lying.
>>  Besides, it's unfalsifiable. You quest. Either... a) you find, in which
>> case God exists, or... b) you don't find, in which case you weren't really
>> questing, and God still exists.
>
>We never said you were lying.
>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki Dasa

 Kalki... could you perhaps back up your statements? If you can't back them
up, could you state that they are your opinions? And, of course, if the
people who say they sincerely sought but didn't find aren't lying, what
*is* their problem?

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@engin.umich.edu      || Michigan. Yet.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: More (verbal) Flooding of "the" flood
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:55:25 GMT

In article <1egl0cINN2ng@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov19.172101.23598@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
|> >
|> >     Does any Biblical literalist have a brief outline (or even
|> > better, a detailed one) of world history of ancient times (say, 
|> > before 2000 BCE) which takes account of Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, 
|> > Europe (like Stonehenge) or the Americas?  I'd suppose that there
|> > would have to be a story about what got done before the Flood and 
|> > what after.
|> 
|> Well, a while back, Mr Tun told us that it was easy to give 
|> a logical explanation of the fossil record on a Flood model,
|> so I suppose he must know something about things like that.
|> 
|> Unfortunately, he seemed to get very busy just after making 
|> that claim, and I haven't been able to attract his attention
|> since.
 
    Actually, I remember seeing an old wall-chart of history which
had the world beginning in 4004 BC or thereabouts, and did include
some secular history in it -- but I don't remember enough details.
(I'm going to see if I can find this again.)  I'm not just trying to 
irritate creationists.
 
    Since then I have seen a couple of summaries of sacred history,
but nothing with a tie-in to such biggies as the building of the 
pyramids, the population of the Americas, the megaliths of Europe, ...

|> 
|> jon.

In article <1992Nov20.004006.15741@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>, mls@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (mike.siemon) writes:
    ...
|> Some Flood apologists attempt to evade the historical data by impugning
|> the clear word of scripture (and the calculations of such men as the Right
|> Reverend Bishop Ussher :-)) by waving vaguely into the pre-historic era as
|> the time of The Flood.
    ...
    I know that there is a general lack of some historical sense
about really ancient times -- sort of like if it's more than a
couple of thousand years old, it's all the same time.  I had heard 
a summary of a contemporary opera about the Exodus, which began 
with the Israelites slaving over the building of the Pyramids.  As 
the Pyramids belong to 1000 years before the Exodus (the dates I 
have heard for the Exodus range roughly between 1500 and 1200 BCE) 
this seemed to me a whopper of an anachronism.
 
    Which brings to mind a characterization of an Italian opera
which a mathematician told me -- "it's locally consistent".  That 
seems to me the best that I can say about any Flood history, but 
the Flood histories don't have any redeeming musical value.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:08:18 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

johnsd2@vccsouth16.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

> In article JV58TB11w165w@kalki33, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us () write
> >johnsd2@vccnw01.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
> >
> >> I think what we would all like to know is why you (apparently there
> >> is only one Kalki Dasa) are refering to yourself in the plural.
> >> 
> >> Makes us feel outnumbered. :)
> >> 
> >
> >Well, perhaps you are.
> 
> Uh oh...
> 
> >Sincerely,
> >Kalki Dasa (and the devotees all over the universe)
> 
> Ah-hah! you call yourself We because you represent the
> other devotees as well (of your religion, I guess)
> 
> How'd you wind up in such a position, anyway?

Just kind of randomly evolved that way, I guess.

Sincerely,
Kalki "Head 'em up...move 'em out!" Dasa



       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:28:11 GMT
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group

In article <uqV9TB9w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>Well, if you want to get into quantum interpretations, I suppose the
>argument can never be settled. Of course, quantum scientists are still
>hotly debating the meaning of their own theory.

Which brings up another fatal flaw in your "proof."  Your argument
rests on the information content of known laws.  It completely
ignores all the unknown laws which undoubtedly exist.

As the uranium decay experiment shows, it is possible for information
to come out of nowhere, or at least out of nowhere that we can see.
If your argument doesn't accept this, your argument is worthless.

>. . . --that given a certain set of initial
>conditions, the known laws of physics and a few billion years, it is
>"probable" that abiogenesis will occur-- we show that in a model based
>on these assumptions, it is not in fact "probable" that abiogenesis will
>occur.

You also make assumptions, and in your case, many of your assumptions
are known to be false.

>But there are certainly many scientists
>whose stated goal is to find a unified explanation for all natural
>phenomena which will utilize the simplest possible mathematical
>structure and the smallest possible number of postulates.

Either name one, or stop spewing such bizarre, unfounded crap.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin