HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dk@imager (Dave Knapp)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On God and Science
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:03:46 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Laboratory for Experimental Astrophysics

In Article <22DEC199200095590@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

> Surely there are probabilities and evidence we can examine
> regarding life's origin (e.g., as is done in Robert Shapiro's
> _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth_).

   Actually, Jim, I think Shapiro's arguments are flawed, for two
reasons: first, his estimates of probability must imply some
(still speculative) model(s) about the origin of life; the
probability that the model is correct is left unaccounted-for. 
Second, since I'm not aware of any well-defined way to separate
"living" from "non-living," so any probability estimated for such
a transition is equally imprecisely defined.

   Real estimates of probabilities require observations, and it's
a well-known property of statistics that one cannot infer
anything about probability distributions from a single
observation.  (Actually, that's not true: you can infer that the
probability for X is non-zero if you observe X.)  Estimating the
magnitude of a probabiliy given a single observation is
equivalent to estimating the slope of a line given a single
point.

   As far as I know, we have exactly one observation of the
development of life from non-life, so I think it is fair to say
that no estimate of the magnitude of the probability is
justified.  

   You may respond (as I'm sure Shapiro would) that we have
observed the formation of precursors to life.  But I submit that
while such an observation is important, as the development of
these precursors is necessary condition for the development of
life, it certainly isn't sufficient.  Until life is either
produced experimentally in a laboratory or observed elsewhere in
the universe, I submit that any estimate of the probability of
formation of life, whether by a creationist or an actual
scientist, is purely guesswork.

  -- Dave
-- 
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*
  * David Knapp        dk@imager.llnl.gov       (510) 422-1023  *
  *            98.7% of all statistics are made up.             *
  *-------------------------------------------------------------*
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Date: 24 Dec 92 15:08:20 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <schumach.725155750@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
 
> Many people need no Cosmic Fuehrer give meaning to their lives. 
> Free your mind. Find your soul. Join us.

The next world may not have the cosmic fuhrer.  You've missed the point.

Evolution logically denies the next world.  Without something beyond this
world, what meaning would you claim your life has?  What do you plan on 
doing within the next ten years which anybody 5000 years from now will have
any way of knowing about or which will affect them or anything else in the
universe in any way?


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:10:11 GMT

James G. Acker (jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:

: ACKER:	Mickey Rowe also made some valid comments on this topic, from
: a different perspective.  To address your comment directly -- no, what
: you describe here is not scientific at all, it's strictly observation.
: You aren't formulating theories or testing them.  I'll help you out --
: I grant that several questions could be addressed in a psychological
: study of personal moral orientation, such as:  How does it develop?  What
: is its initial manifestation in a child?  How early?  Are there cultural
: patterns which define it?  Is it perturbed by legal impairment (clearly
                                                ^^^^^

I meant "mental impairment", under which I clearly typed that.

{remainder deleted}
{not my mind, the article, stupid!}

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:55:36 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <62996@mimsy.umd.edu> folta@cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes:
>I have not historically been a Young Earther, but recently was exposed to
>it and got somewhat enthusiastic. I mean, being a real live iconoclast!
>Anyhow, I responded to the FAQ to present what I had read to a skeptic for
>skeptical evaluation, and it doesn't look too good. (Now evolution of life is
>a different matter, however.)
>
>"""They say that the 6 million years (to deposit) figure was based on Bradley's
>"This is the type of creationist crap I can't stand.  ...
>"...  A normal person would look at the fine layered
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ooooooo that hurts
>"undisturbed bedding and interpret that there were no floods and
>"disruption.  A creationist knows there must have been floods (we get
>"them every year afterall) so since my preconceived notions don't match
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Anyhow, as you can see, we were not talking "there is a flood every year 'round
>here, so there must have been one there every year". From the citation, the
>Green River formation took six million years to accumulate, which does seem
>like a long time to be undisturbed except for small incursions.
>
>"the data, there must be a supernatural explanation.  
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>No one said anything about supernatural here... Just catastrophic or maybe
>just different from annual deposits for six million years.
>
>Wayne Folta          (folta@cs.umd.edu  128.8.128.8)

How about anti-catastrophism.  Six million years without change would
be the opposite of catastrophic.  It seems like you must be questioning
the 6 million years accumulation time.

There are quite a few depositional environments that we can infer from
ancient rocks that have a poor modern analog.  Cretaceous chalks, vast
limestone platforms in the Mississippian, and oceans of anoxic bottom
waters.  I have no problem with a shallow basin existing for 6 million
years.  It was most certainly not surrounded then by the mountains we
see today (which in some place cut across the ancient lake bed).  This
lake was extremely large and not too deep.  I have no problem with the
center remaining relatively undisturbed for large amounts of time.  The
evidence is the fine-layered varves.
:wq
send


-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:48:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.143703.7029@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
}>13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not have been
}>able to
}>obtain spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the 
}>moon (with
}^^^^^
}>respect to its primary)
}
}
}That is simply not true. The moon is rotating (ever heard of earth rise?)
}although only slightly. 

wobbles, not rotate.  If it rotated, 100% would (eventually) become visable.
It doesn't.

ref "earthrise".  No, I haven't.  Reference, please.
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: I want a reference on "origins" myths.
Date: 2 Jan 93 08:51:47 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1hvk6lINN4hd@crcnis1.unl.edu> e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:

>       Can someone direct me to a book which will discuss the many 
>       "origins" and cosmology myths:  things like the world being 
>       carried on the back of a great turtle, and Atlas carrying the 
>       world?

_Legends of the Earth_, by Dorothy Vitaliano, early 1970s.
_The Flood Myth_, edited by Alan Dundes, U. of Cal. Press, 1988.

Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Lionel Tun: evolutionary relic.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:43:59 GMT

We ask for a theory of creation and ...

In article <1992Dec21.045654.38203@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu
(JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON) writes:
>                                 [Genisis]

   Thanks, but that isn't a theory.  That is a piece of poetry.  Try, for
example, to explain the observed genetic homology of organisims originally
classified an simillar on phenotypic gounds in term of your theory.  You 
will find the result unsatisfying to say the least.

   So: could someone please give a theory of creation that explains 1%
or more of the things the theory of evolution explains?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
(see, no flames yet)
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Dating Lava
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 21 Dec 92  08:42:58

Who: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
ID: <1grlrcINNpn7@morrow.stanford.edu>
With: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) 
 
BS> "Any idiot knows that mafic magmas are notorious for fractional
BS> crystallization."
 
I'm an idiot and I didn't know that.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On God and Science
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 24 Dec 92  03:33:00

 > From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
 > Message-ID: <1992Dec22.122611.21699@city.cs>

 > esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
 >>Mr. Tun has made the mistake of claiming that since the
 >>(antecedent) probability of life existing (or having come into existence)
is
 >>so low, supernatural agency must be involved.  Another mistake in judgment.

 > I would not have said low, but rather zero - ie impossible. The
 > mistake is in assuming that if there are enough `tries' then
 > something that is impossible becomes possible.

Aww, guess that's it for evolution. Guess there's nothing left but to state
the theory of creationism. Please do so.


+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Un-pa-tri-o-tic (adj):   |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| protesting when the      | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| government wants to kill | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| people.                  | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Xref: sparky talk.origins:16002 sci.astro:13582 sci.physics:22007
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Summary: Velikovsky avoids quantitative analysis like plague
Date: 01 Jan 93 22:54:12 GMT

: From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
: Message-ID: <1992Dec28.133106.22923@linus.mitre.org>
: In _Cosmos_Without_Gravitation_, Immanuel Velikovsky writes:
: > Phenomena not in accordance with the Theory of Gravitation:
: I would say, not in accordance with his understanding...

The thing that leaps out at me from this list is that, over and over,
Velikovsky says that such-and-such "should" be so, but he never actually
goes in and shows, quantitatively, why this is so.  For example, he says
the atmosphere "should" separate (due to differing densities of gasses
in the mix), but he doesn't go on to show how clean the separation
"ought" to be.  He says that planets "should" not have become spherical
(presumably due to tidal effects, though this is not made explicit), but
he never calculates how large this effect is.  He says that the
distribution of ice, snow, ocean currents, and the like "ought" to
affect the earth's "equilibrium", but doesn't ever calculate how the
mass of the atmosphere and water on the earth compares to the whole. 
The sun's rotation "should" have an effect, but he never calculates how
large, nor does he account for the fact that the movement of features on
the solar surface shows that the sun is fluid, and the rotation we
observe may not reflect the motion of the whole sun.  And so on and on. 

The point is, Velikovsky, and Ted much like him, sees things in little
black and white pseudo-logical categories.  They use fuzzy, qualitative
reasoning in places where many conflicting quantatively graded effects
are involved, and then by sheer assertion pick one of these effects and
pronounce it dominant over all the others, without ever going to the
trouble of calculating ANY of the effects involved. 

This, of course, is in addition of his blatant misunderstandings, eg
about ozone, "perterbations due to reciprocal action" (perhaps planets
are driven by pistons and cam shafts...), and so on. 

So, sadly, the fact that his apparent innumeracy leads him to understand
physics poorly and incompletely (where he understands it at all) renders
most of his pronouncements purest gibberish.

This is also a halmark of Holden's analyses.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: TIME cover story
Date: 28 Dec 1992 02:00:15 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1hlcnmINNkrb@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu writes:
>
>     When the U.S. National Academy of Sciences faced the threat
> of creation-science in 1981, it passed a resolution saying that
> "Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms
> of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to
> misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief." 
>
>      My questions are:  (1) Was this resolution merely a stick to
> beat the creationists with, or does it apply to the National
> Academy's own members?  (2) Should we "seek theological guidance
> from physicists (or biologists)?"  We seem to be getting a lot of
> it lately.

I think what may be missing here is the notion that words like Religion
don't have fixed meanings.   It makes sense to talk about Science
and Religion being separate if by Religion you are referring to the
kind of faith-based belief that doesn't ask for physical confirmation.

But if someone decides to consider the possibility that the Universe
itself is a divinity, then of course Science has "something to say"
about Religion, because Science has something to say about the 
structure of the Universe.   Of course, this is now a new meaning of
the word 'divinity'.


It seems to me that where the Creation-Science people go wrong is
in trying to play both games at once.  People like Morris claim
that physical evidence supports their beliefs, but they also claim
that where Science and Faith conflict, Faith wins.

Then the Academy of Sciences resolution is perfectly reasonable,
because what it's saying is that if you keep Faith in your back
pocket as a kind of magic argument-winner, then appealing to
Science does indeed lead to a misunderstanding.   If Faith is
the ultimate arbiter, then searching for physical evidence that
you are prepared to toss out if it does not suit you, is basically
a waste of time.

jon.
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Date: 24 Dec 92 15:03:01 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Dec23.152036.1317@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:



^after discussing Nietzche, Ted elaborates:
^: Basically,  I was trying to point out the fact that evolutionism, as
^: presently taught, offers man precisely nothing,

^	Nothing?  Why should it offer man anything? 

If its proponents wish to continue on their present path, no reason at all.

If they ever wish the notion to be accepted, i.e. to become something other
than some government enforced bullshit which their kids have to deal with
at school the same way they have to deal with things like affirmative action,
55 mph speed limits....


^It's a scientific theory, a framework of observing nature.  

Almost.  It's a PSEUDO-scientific theory, via which evolution, which assuredly
has occurred to various extents, once complex creatures were already on
this earth, is used as a magic wand to explain the rise of man and other 
super complex creatures via an almost infinitely long chain of violations of
the second law of thermodynamics, over an almost infinitely long expanse
of time, any one of which would be nearly impossible.

As I have demonstrated, the sauropod dinosaurs thought to have lived tens of
millions of years in our past, could not live in our world with our effective
gravity.  The catastrophes which destroyed the system which allowed them to 
live, or at least the last series in this chain of catastrophes, occurred
within human memory, no more than 10,000 years ago.  

This means that the overwhelming likelihood is that all of these tens of
millions of years which "scientists" use as the foundation of all these
evolutionary schemes simply aren't there.  The earth itself may be millions
of years old;  life as we know it, isn't.

The schemes which scientists are having to use to maintain all these fictions
are getting whackier by the day.  One degree pitch difference due to the
precessions turning the Liakhovs into an area habitable (food availability)
to vast herds of large mammals;  the 0% of solar energy arriving at Venus' 
surface causing the 900 F temperatures there...

^The fact that science (practiced
^properly) offers man the nobility of honest inquiry into truth has
^obviously slipped by you a long lost time ago.

It slipped by establishment science in 1950.^
^
^as well as the far
^: lesser known fact that new studies are revealing that the spiritual
^: realm which most normal people believe in and can sense,
^
^	Ted, do you know my buddy Kalki?  He's a student of this
^particular topic too.  Unfortunately, neither of you can refer to
^the results of these studies published in a refereed scientific journal.

Many regard your referees to be bought and paid for, and when a guy like C.
Warren Hunt cannot get articles regarding geological evidence of catastrophic
events (which he regards as within a multi-million year timeframe) published,
why bother?

We have our own journals now.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: folta@cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Response to the Flood FAQ
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:56:29 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

I have not historically been a Young Earther, but recently was exposed to
it and got somewhat enthusiastic. I mean, being a real live iconoclast!
Anyhow, I responded to the FAQ to present what I had read to a skeptic for
skeptical evaluation, and it doesn't look too good. (Now evolution of life is
a different matter, however.)

"""They say that the 6 million years (to deposit) figure was based on Bradley's
"This is the type of creationist crap I can't stand.  ...
"...  A normal person would look at the fine layered
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ooooooo that hurts
"undisturbed bedding and interpret that there were no floods and
"disruption.  A creationist knows there must have been floods (we get
"them every year afterall) so since my preconceived notions don't match
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anyhow, as you can see, we were not talking "there is a flood every year 'round
here, so there must have been one there every year". From the citation, the
Green River formation took six million years to accumulate, which does seem
like a long time to be undisturbed except for small incursions.

"the data, there must be a supernatural explanation.  
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
No one said anything about supernatural here... Just catastrophic or maybe
just different from annual deposits for six million years.
-- 


Wayne Folta          (folta@cs.umd.edu  128.8.128.8)
From: Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On God and Science
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 23 Dec 92  02:04:00

 > I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
 > evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
 > effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
 > world and of themselves.

Think you could do something that would amaze the rest of us? You know, like
stating the theory of creationism?

+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| 10                    2  | Garden Grove Institute of Technology |
|        DR PEPPER         | Community Outreach Center            |
|                       4  |                                      |
+--------------------------+ Snail Addr: Unit #1, 7872 Trask      |
| Real americans don't     |             Westminster, Ca  92683   |
| pledge allegiance, they  | Modem:      714-894-7039             |
| make the government earn | Fidonet:    1:103/241                |
| it.                      | Candynet:   42:1001/1                |
|                          | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
|                          |              .fidonet.org            |
+--------------------------+--------------------------------------+

---
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 10:32:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.143703.7029@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>13.  If planets and satellites were once molten masses...they would not have been
>>able to
>>obtain spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the 
>>moon (with
>^^^^^
>>respect to its primary)
>
>
>That is simply not true. The moon is rotating (ever heard of earth rise?)
>although only slightly. Surely the moon rotated much more in the past,
>but because of the tidal forces this rotation has retarded. (And yes, those very
>same tidal forces are retarding the rotation of the earth as well.)
>
>

Surprise! So does Mercury.

Actually: Mercury is rotating slowly in respect to its position around
the Sun, ditto for the Moon and Earth. If the Moon didn't rotate, it
wouldn't always show the same side to Earth.

	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
Newsgroups: talk.origins