HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Subject: Re: Science and God
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 06:48:41 GMT

> Subject: Re: Science and God
> From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
> Date: 13 Aug 92 17:27:10 GMT
> 
> that everything including stars, atoms, electrons and binding
> forces is continuously sustained by Jesus in real time.
> I can't find the biblical reference so maybe someone can help
> out here. Considering that God is a spiritual being, and that
> he created the universe just to accommodate us, I don't see
> why He should not be responsible for making it all hang
> together as it goes along. Just one possible way of looking
> at it btw.

As has been pointed out, you're probably thinking of Heb 1:3, or Col 1:17
(the verse Jack Chick cites in his IMHO rather blasphemous equation of
Christ with the strong nuclear force in BIG DADDY). Unfortunately,
particularly if you hold to a literal 7-day creation, that dog won't hunt.
Heb 4:3-4 says, "Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has
said, 'So I declared on oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest."'
And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world.  For
somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: 'And on the
seventh day God rested FROM ALL HIS WORK.'" (my emph). So if God actively
holds atoms together, etc., they how did things stay together on the 7th day
when God rested "from all his work"?

Also, consider that in Genesis God creates groups of things ordered to
reproduce after their kind (a favorite notion of creationists), which
certainly sounds like the setting up of a system of natural law to me.
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:34:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.174504.12049@access.digex.com>, huston@access.digex.com
(Herb Huston) writes:
> In article <BtCtJ0.BC8@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K.
Yoder) writes:
> >My understanding is that there are two counteracting mechanisms at
> >work.  One is that darker skin offers better protection from the 
> >sun.  The other is that vitamin D is produced by exposing the skin
> >to the sun, and lighter skin makes this process more efficient.
> >The result is what you would expect to see.  People whose ancestors
> >lived in warmer sunnier climates have darker skin while those who
            ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
> >lived in colder (and in the wintertime darker) regions have lighter
> >skin.
> 
> Better double-check your results.  Compare the skin colors of aboriginal
> peoples of Alaska, the Amazon, and Tierra del Fuego.  Check the skin color
> of the aboriginal Tasmanians (you'll find photographs of the last Tasmanian
> man and last Tasmanian woman in _The Third Chimpanzee_ by Jared Diamond
> [the publishers should be paying me for these plugs!  B-)>]).

  I think the problem is where I underlined.  Remember sunnier!=warmer.  I ski
up in Canada most winters, and usually burn worse than on a beach in florida
during the summer.  The arctic is not warmer, but there is more UV (I couldn't
tell you why, but don't go skiing in Canada without sunblock!)

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Science and God
Keywords: Science, God
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:52:15 GMT

lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>There is one way of looking at the physical universe which is
>that everything including stars, atoms, electrons and binding
>forces is continuously sustained by Jesus in real time.

	And what is the necessity for this? Why does a universe
which obeys natural laws that can be known by humble beings
like us need Jesus' intervention? If you believe that the
universe is based on a few simple principles that a mere
mortal like yourself could hope to understand at some level
in a lifetime, then why announce the above without any
supporting argument? I think I know, it is to put your religious
belief in Jesus in the same relm of success as scientific
knowledge. Even if you do not really believe the above then
why does your faith have to have the same kind of authority as
a scientific discussion of physical reality? This tendency
of some Christians to seek for their belief the same kind of
verification as science amazes me. It is anti-spiritual. It
misses the message of myth and religion. I think that Christians
fall into this trap of thinking because most of them are more
concerned with the authority of their beliefs which face a challenge
from science, and miss or forget the spiritual message of faith
which is not touched by science and does not use the same language
as science.

>I can't find the biblical reference so maybe someone can help
>out here. Considering that God is a spiritual being, and that
>he created the universe just to accomodate us,

	This is both an unsuported and arrogant assertion. Oh
I know you can trott out verse to support yourself, but please
don't, such silliness truns me away from your religion. I just
can't take seriously any creed that is as self-serving as this.
You have no argument that the Universe was created, let alone
created for us, and that includes the Anthropic principle. If
intelligence is inevetable the reason is probably due to the
complexity in the physical systems of the universe. So you
bring in spirit, and deny materialism. Why? To get moral
justification.

	The whole aim of this charade of seeking spiritualism
and opposing materialism with religion is to justify trancendant
moral standards, nothing more. That is why C. S. Lewis' argument
for God is such a joke.

> I don't see
>why He should not be responsible for making it all hang
>together as it goes along. Just one possible way of looking
>at it btw.

	Right, and all the hidden arguments that the supposition
supports. Why not be honest about it, lots of people just assume
that civilization and even the very fabric of the Universe would
run amok if it wern't for religion which appeals to tancendant
moral standards. Evolution is opposed because it is a cogant
answer to this. It suggests that nature, physical processes, alone,
can account for the choices in human behavior. The rest of science
suggests that the supernatural intercession is not needed in the
operation of the Universe.

Bruce Salem
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Date: 18 Aug 92 02:15:09 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
> Do a scientist's views against divine intervention in nature
> arise from an anti-religious worldview or from sound scientific
> reasoning ?

In the purest sense (filtering out personal biases) I think you
could say that scientists' views are carefully focused to take 
into account only that which may be observed objectively and
repeatedly.  Anything else (angels pushing the planets or whatever)
cannot be informatively discussed, and so are, in the strictist
scientific sensed, ignored.  

Moving a step back from this, you could say that scientists concern
themselves with whatever is observable and is probably explicable by
some current theoretical framework.  Much of science's power comes 
from being intellectually stingy:  If something is real far out, it's
probably a mistake.  Some nifty discoveries may get thrown out this
way, but one of the cornerstones of science is that false negatives
are better than false positives -- the false negatives you ignore will
just provide grant money for someone else later on. :-)  

> [...]
> At one time, it might have been arguable that the existence of the mind
> and sentience was beyond the reach of science. But to me at least,
> computers and the neurosciences, seem to indicate that a scientific
> explanation is possible (though perhaps it won't be complete for a
> very long time. think about the long time it took for atomic theory
> to be perfected. the important thing is that we must now take the
> possibility of scientific explanation seriously, even if we don't
> have a complete explanation.)
> 
> That is why God seems superfluous. It stems both from the assumptions
> underlying science as well as the lack of things for which scientific
> explanations seem far-fetched in the current state of knowledge.

From a purely scientific point of view, God may be superfluous -- but
then, the purely scientific view necessarily ignores a lot.  In living 
life, purely scientific questions are rarely the most important ones.  
Questions that strike deeper -- how is it that my wife can love me so 
much?  Is there a purpose to life?  Why do we sense the effects of 
synchronicity?  What is good or beautiful, and why are we so concerned
about these things? -- are rarely, if ever, answerable in any satisfying 
way from a scientific point of view.  The personal, ineffable experience
of our own consciousness and of the divine (what the Buddhists call 
that-which-is-not-us) cannot be explained away scientifically... at least,
not without employing the same sort of hand-waving that scientific types
deplore in those (such as creationists) who would ride roughshod over 
science itself.  

> -arun gupta
--
              Mike Sellers      User Interface Team Leader
           mike@isgtec.com      ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
              "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
                         Furare tantum ab Optimis
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Coelacanth and change (was: "Re: Cro-Magnon: evidence for DEvolution?")
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:37:46 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)

In article <1992Aug12.181025.17206@alc.com>, stassen@alc (Chris Stassen) writes:
>I defer to Matthew's correction.

I should have mentioned my information about coelecanths comes from
Keith S Thomson LIVING FOSSIL: THE STORY OF THE COELECANTH (Norton,
1991), a nice $10 paperback.  Thomson is an expert on the fish, and
while I am echoing his views (there are those who disagree on various
details), the evidence known today does point directly to what I said.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:30:33 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

I seem to have drawn the attention of our resident psychoceramic, to wit:

In article <2867@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.053325.17277@smds.com>, rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:

>> To be honest, I never pay much attention to Holden's actual arguments

>Ignorance is bliss...  lots of blissful people running around these days.

Now there speaks a man who has found true happiness


>> If you want to look at how big an animal can be there are really two
>> numbers that are meaningful...

>Wonderful.  These are two numbers which tell you a little bit about a 
>creatures ability to bear weight once he's already got the weight up,
>i.e. (here), once he's managed to stand in the first place.  You've
>totally neglected the little problem of standing up in the first place.

Ah, now I begin to understand.  Senor Holden is evidently of the opinion
that elephants stand up by doing squat thrusts.

I concede defeat sir.  I accept without reserveration your claim that
animals larger than elephants cannot stand up by doing squat thrusts.

I can see it now:

STEP RIGHT UP FOLKS!! SEE IT ALL!! SEE IT NOW!!
See the amazing Ted Holden and his trained elephants (*).
They walk! They run!  They don't gallop!
THEY DO THE SQUAT THRUST TANGO!!

(*) Large elephants need not apply
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Strategy in the debate
Content-Type: text
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:16:14 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 1774      


	Just wanted to point out that if you're debating a fundamentalist
Christian and you are forced to the point of insulting them, questioning
their faith (or for that matter stoning them, hanging them on a cross,
shooting them, throwing them in a dungeon, stringing them on a rack and
stretching, pouring boiling wax on their eyelids... sorry, just saw a
"Christopher Columbus" trailer with Marlon Brando as Torquemada, the
Spanish Inquisitor)...

	...you heathen infidels are doing just what Paul said you would
do and what a Christian expects, which is 
	PERSECUTION FOR THE FAITH!

	Every personal attack you launch on fundies et al. or fundies
personified only serves to strengthen their convictions and their beliefs
in the unbelieving sinfulness of the world, and you evolutionist rabble
in particular.
	
	Being a thinking Christian and having participated in this type of
debate before, the best strategy I've found is to _slowly_ work them from
their fundamental beliefs into a surprising, profound inconsistency,
without name-calling.  The dual difficulties of dealing with a thinking,
believing Christian and a profound inconsistency in their inerrant beliefs
has enabled a couple (I won't claim a legion of converts) of my fellow
Christians to gain a greater appreciation of scientific discovery and
the fact that scientists CAN be Christians.
	
	An inconsistency that has worked in my limited experience:
the dual lists of Christ's descendants in the Gospels.  After all, if
you can't trust Luke, who can you trust?

	So, decide what your goals truly are - belittling a naive 
viewpoint, or actually trying to convince someone.

	Furthermore, hitting someone while they're down is cruel.  Show a 
little civilization.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov



Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Evolution is false
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 18:49:21 GMT

In article <emc.714056355@keiko>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
> I wrote:
> >> You can never disprove an axiom.
> (James J. Lippard) writes:
> 
> >Sure you can, if your axioms are inconsistent or contradictory.
> 
> I would answer this in two ways:
> Logically and practically.
> 
> Logically:
> You can disprove an axiom only if you add an additional
> axiom to your system:  A -> ~(~A), that is if A is in the
> system then definitely ~A cannot be.  Is this the axiom
> of all philosophers Jim? I seem to remember some vehemently arguing
> against this point.  Were you not one of them?  :-)
> In any case, axioms are by definition non-examinable.

  You don't really need that.  There are logic systems in which the axioms give
the result that every statement is false.  Since the axioms are statements, they
must be false.  (I never noticed how weird that looks, using a set of axioms to
disprove themselves).

  I have an example of this in my undergrad logic book, but since it is an
exercise it may take me a while to do the proof.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Holden Numbering
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:34:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Ted, let's imagine that another of your bursts of radiation bathes the
Earth and a bunch of new mutants are created.

Is it possible that one of these mutants could get more weight off the
ground than Kaz?

-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Vestigial organs
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:39:50 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <22957@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, root@lyra.scg.hac.com (Dave Fisher) writes:
> I'm looking for a source of detailed information about "jury-rigged"
> adaptations, vestigial organs, and the like.  I was considering reading
> Darwin's book on Orchids... anyone have a better suggestion?
> 
> Dave Fisher

Certainly *don't* miss _The Panda's Thumb_.

Sue
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9908 sci.skeptic:14826
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Lionel sez: evolution ==> apartheid.
Date: 22 Aug 92 13:26:08 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Aug21.121122@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
[lots of things I agree with, exposing the sillyness of the 
 pigmentation=species theory of one Lionel Tun, but]
>
>   I am utterly sure this is a lie.  Please support your stament or retract
>it, shit head.  A good start on retracting it would be to get a definition
     ^^^^^^^^^^
this type of argument is not quite convincing.  Also, let's reserve the term
'lie' for an intentionally false statement.  And let's only use it when
the intent to deceive has been clearly established.  It's no use calling
every ignorant a liar.  Same applies to words like `scurrilous'. 
Why not use `religiously inspired' or `fundamentalist' instead?
Someone who apparently takes the "humans descended from Noah" point
of view seriously, should be treated with compassion.

>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

JWN

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:01:26 GMT

In article <julian.714005174@sfu.ca>, julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>I do not reall yunderstand how seriously to take evolutionism's 
>claim to explain "everything" we observe ( I should say
>some evolutionists' claim). It sounds more like an unjustified,
>but simplifying extrapolation.

There are different uses of the word "explain" here.  Biology cannot explain
*in every detail* everything that happens but it "can explain" it insofar as
it is consistent with biology.  Another example: telekinesis can not be
explained by physics, that is, it is inconsistent with physics.  Love can not
be explained by physics, that is, physics doesn't provide the exact mechanism.
On the other side, it can be "explained" by physics since it is consistent with
physics.

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:51:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <79MT02vv1eVU01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes) writes...
>In article <639l03ot62RF00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) 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_.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Science and God
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:14:56 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Julian Shillcock (julian@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
: s is my first post to this group so I shall probably screw up
: enormously in repeating what has already been said (not to mention
: typing mistakes). But I could not resist the chance to throw my
: penn'orth in.

Welcome.

: There seem to be a lot of arguments about creation vs evolution (!!!)
: with the "christians" taking one side and "others" taking the opposite
: (guess which is which).

Nope: It is "scientists" vs "creationists". Evolution is not
against religion; just a particular literal interpretation of the
bible (which also happens to be at odds with mainstream theology.)

Your classification above ignores the many scientists who are also
Christians. Many of the Christians posting in this group are posting
on the side you have classified as "others".

: [.. omitted ..]

: Ok, given the above description of evolution I do not see how it
: can be used for/against faith as they are disjoint models of the 

Depends on the nature of the faith.  The evidence for evolution is of
course used against the faith that life did not come into being by
evolution.

: world. Unless you want a physical universe where God "physically"
: (not metaphorically or allegorically or mystically) moves stars
: around in space and causes water to flow downhill by direct act
: (Divine Fiat perhaps?) why do some people want God to physically create
: life forms at a specific time and place? God may be in control
: of the universe (in some generally non-physical sense) in its entirety,
: and we can still explain the behaviour of the universe using 
: scientific models, 

Your position here is a classic position for a Christian who
accepts that science is a valid way of finding out about the
world. If all Christians held this view, then indeed there would
be no problem. Your complaint here is with the creationists,
who are the one who want God to be manipulating the world explictly
exactly as literally decribed in the bible, regardless of all the
evidence that God does not in fact work that way.

: but we should not use Him to explain bits of the physical world 
: and ignore others simply because it suits our theological bias.
: So I guess I am saying that if I do not invoke God to move stars
: and bind electrons together in atoms then why should I use Him
: to describe the evolution of the physical universe from the Big Bang
: and to create life? But if I do believe that God is in control
: (somehow) then it is matter of understanding His interaction with
: the world not giving supernatural causes for physical effects
: (Miracles apart, of course...)
: julian

Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart