HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thayer@odysseus.uchicago.edu (Mike Thayer)
Subject: Re: Theory of evolution - doomed
Organization: University of Chicago  LASR
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 01:30:48 GMT

Lionel Tun writes:

>It seems to me that the theory of evolution is suffering
>severe setbacks here and may soon be entirely in ruins,
>being bashed down under the onslaught of pure logic and
>powerful science.

This is a joke, right?  I mean, really, right?
I'd love to know what evidence you have that "evolution is suffering
severe setbacks", and I'd love to know where the onslaught of pure logic
and powerful science is going to come from.

Gish?
Johnson?
You?

I'm quaking in my boots, really, and I'll just be sure to tell my fiancee (who's
a grad student in organismal biology) to forget it, there are people much more
capable and scientifically oriented than she, who will soon destroy all of
the foundations upon which her field of study lies.

Yeah right.

Tah tah,
Mike Thayer

-- 
Laboratory For Astrophysics		"Is it not the height of silent humour
and Space Research			 to cause an unknown change
(but I don't speak for them...)		 in the Earth's climate?"
University of Chicago		        "Cry...for the Fire..."
From: esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:36:22 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1993Jan25.144819.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>I think I've discovered why no one wants to put the theory of Creationism on
>t.o.  I keep seeing in the Creation Research Science Quarterly ads asking
>people to send money so that a model can be developed.  This is no small task. 
>CRS has only been around for 30 years or so, and they have to review all the
>scientific data.  

  Since the people at ICR don't seem to understand the scientific data, I
won't hold my breath for the theory.

>However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God created the
>universe.

  This looks more like a baldfaced assertion than a scientific theory to me,
but let's suppose for the moment that we accept this.  Now what empirical
data can you cite in favor of this claim/"theory"?

--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu    |  One chance.
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:49:30 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan21.062150.19564@trl.oz.au> jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:

>I still think my very own homebrewed theory explains it all much better:
>in those days the earth revolved in two hours, so that near the equator
>you weight half as much as at the poles, courtesy of "la force centrifuge"
>(sounds much more convincing when put in a foreign language).

>This theory has the advantage of being falsifiable: we ought to find
>fossils of very much larger creatures near the equator only.

No sooner said than done.  Malawisaurus, from Malawi, was an atypically
small Sauropod.  See Jacob's new book on African DInosaurs.



-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: They want to debate Phillip Johnson
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:15:50 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan26.231136.8562@nmsu.edu>, epowers@mccoy (POWERS) writes:
|> In article <1jvlplINNl54@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com  
|> (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > In article <C1DrDw.39y@world.std.com>, pduggan@world.std.com (Paul C  
|> Duggan) writes:
|> > |> In article <1993Jan24.134326@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren  
|> Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> > |> >In article <qXiuXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
|> > |> >system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
|> > |> >>The basis of Darwinism is materialism, i.e. the proposition that 
|> > |> >>there is nothing in existence except matter and material energy,  
|> and 
|> > |> >>nothing ever influences matter except other matter or material  
|> energy.
|> > |> >
|> > |> >  False.
|> > |> >[...]
|> > |> >  If you cannot devise a test for these things, then they might as  
|> well not
|> > |> >exist.  What difference does it make?
|> > |> 
|> > |> A test that a scientist would use would be a test involving material  
|> energy
|> > |> or matter, would it not? So how is that you describe the materialist
|> > |> presupposition of Darwinism as "False"? You seem to be saying the
|> > |> exact same thing by your request for a material test.
|> > |> 
|> > |> Am I mistaken?
|> > 
|> > You can have a material test for the material effects of immaterial
|> > influences.
|> > 
|> > jon.
|> 
|> 	No, you can't.  Anything observed is always assumed to have a  
|> natural cause, whether or not a naturalistic explanation is immediately  
|> apparent.  The supernatural is automatically cut out of science.

Really?   So if someone says that his immaterial power is going to 
increase to weight of a dime by ten percent, I may not measure the 
dime?

If a sect claims that their God performs miracle cures, I may not
do statistics on their life expectancy?

Please explain.

jon.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Moon Dust
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:52:36 GMT

Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan25.235631.4019@news.uiowa.edu>, cdminter@icaen.uiowa.edu (Corey D Minter) writes:
: |> hyde@cs.dal.ca (Bill Hyde) writes:
: |> 
: |> >	Does this tell you something about
: |> >	their honesty?
: |> 
: |> I think that is not it at all.  This phenomena may show that we are
: |> talking about a group of people that is not interested in surveying
: |> all the information that is out there.  They tend to put a lot of
: |> effort in drudging up 'older' references only rather than doing
: |> some real work and seeing what is out there and deciding for themselves.
: |> 
: |> So, I don't think it is a matter of honesty directly, though it comes
: |> to that when their beliefs are exposed.  Then they might find it hard
: |> to overcome the fact that they were wrong.  


: I think you may both be wrong.   I think Creationists are more
: like lawyers.    They are more interested in finding cheap and easy 
: arguments to convince a jury their way, than they are in arriving
: at the truth.

How about lawyers with no conscience.  They act like defense lawyers
that use anything they can to get their client free, even though their
client has admitted his guilt in private...

Thanks everyone for specific evidence on how the ICR intentionally
uses bad data to hold up yet another bogus "Young Earth" argument.
From time to time, these examples are very useful to inform non-
fanitical Christians of just how bad the ICR really is.

--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:41:06 GMT

In article <234@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}In article <C13oKn.Az3@world.std.com>, twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters) writes:
}^In article <222@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}^>This would involve Earth and possibly one or two other small planets
}^>being suspended BETWEEN Jupiter and Saturn, possible at or near some point
}^>of equal attraction, which you might call a "baricenter" or some such.

Called "trojan points"

}^Gee, Ted, what would happen to the felt effect of gravity if the earth
}^were suspended at a point of equal attraction like that? Wouldn't it
}^be 1g?
}
}Unfortunately, I do not possess a time machine to allow me to see precisely
}which form (of those proposed) the Saturnian configuration actually took,
}or to tell you precisely how it worked.  Perhaps the earth was being held
}in an electro-magnetic baricenter, and the gravitational forces were yet
}unequal.

Unfortunately, you do not possess the knowledge of physics to preceive the 
absurdity of this statement.  What is an "electro-magnetic baricenter"?
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Duane T. Gish, Ph. D.
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:46:46 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1k19ppINN3d1@dmsoproto.ida.org> rlg@omni (Randy garrett)
     writes:
 
}Gish regularly debates pretty well educated opponents and they
}don't seem to find it quite so easy to cite specific counterexamples.

I wish he'd get net access...

}: I don't think that you'll be able to find anything to directly refute
}: this, partly because the premise is so ludicrous.  I don't suppose
}: that Gish has a source for his "According to..." statement, hmmm?
}: Where on earth could you find someone who would make a claim like
}: that?  And would any old invertebrate do, or did he have one of them
}: in mind?
}
}ICR is pretty precise about quoting references, 

Not in our collective experience they're not.

}so I'll bet someone did say this in print.

The claim was (as I recall--I don't feel like digging it up)
"According to evolutionists it would require 100 million years to
evolve from an invertebrate to a fish."  How much are you willing to
bet?  My hypothesis at the moment is that there is no such source.
Since I don't expect to get Gish to admit to that, your hypothesis
(that a source exists) should be much easier to defend--all you have
to do is produce the quote.  Care to try?

}: >CLAIM #2:  "Darwin cited the giraffe as an outstanding example of
}: >natural selection.  Supposedly, as a result of extended droughts, the
}: >supply of green leaves could be obtained only at the top of the trees,
}: >and therefore the shorter necked giraffe died off.  And the giraffes
}: >which grew longer necks survived.  However, there is no evidence
}: >whatever in the fossil record or elsewhere that giraffes with short
}: >necks have ever existed.
}: 
}: If you ever meet Mr. Gish, please tell him to visit some zoos and look
}: for an animal called an okapi.  You don't need a fossil record when
}: the organism in question still exists.
}
}I don't believe the claim is that no animals with short necks
}exist (my own neck, for example), just that no intermediate
}length neck giraffes, or their direct ancestors, are known.
}Unless you are claiming that okapis are direct ancestors?

Do you know what an okapi is?  Have you ever seen one?  What will you
accept as evidence of a progression if you won't accept a living
example of an intermediate form?

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:35:14 GMT

In article <13JAN199302055026@juliet.caltech.edu>, waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:
> In article <1993Jan11.200019.22468@city.cs>,
>  lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes...
>>rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>>>
>>>Does it say anything about Mary?  Do creationists accept immaculate
>>>conception? 
>> 
>>Of course. 
> Actually, Lionel, this is highly unlikely.  Since the Catholic Church
> officially accepts evolutionary theory (so far as I am aware), 

As far as I (an ex-Catholic) know, the Church says that evolution is compatable
with the Bible.  I'm not sure if this is the same as accepting it.  
--Ray Cote
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: THE MIND OF THE BIBLE BELIEVER
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:06:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1k182mINN3d1@dmsoproto.ida.org>, rlg@omni (Randy garrett) writes...
>I agree that I am using the word differently, but I guess you
>need to say what kind of scientist.  I'm a physicist, so we
>tend to define terms more precisely.  I'll stick by my definition
>of a fact.  Facts and theories are two quite different things.
>See my related post on this thread.

I should have also asked this in my previous article, but oh well.
Do you think there are such things as historical facts?  Is it a
fact that Napoleon or Jesus existed?  How does this accord with
your "must be individually observable" criterion of a fact, since no
one living today has observed either Napoleon or Jesus?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Yet Another Saturn Myth Variant
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:33:22 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993


 
Who: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
What: <1993Jan22.123104.26652@abo.fi>
With: <236@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden)
 
TH> "I have never spoken of 'diminishing the gravitational field
TH> of the earth,' since that would [?] something stranger than I
TH> know anything about in the way of physics...
 
MA> "We agree on that one! Read on, however..."
 
TH> the only statement I have ever made here is that in antediluvian
TH> times, living creatures on earth felt the gravitational pull
TH> of some other body aside from the earth as well as the earth's
TH> pull, and that threfore the perceived/felt effect of gravity was
TH> less."
 
Ted, I have looked up geological dating periods, and do not find
"antediluvian." Was this before or after neolithic? Precambrian?
The McCarthy era? What does "antediluvian" mean?
 
Correcting idiot department: The universe does not work the way
you want it to. No mechanism exists that will augment gravity the
way you require. Sorry, guy.

--- Squish v1.01
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: "Darwinism" and Mr. Johnson
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:33:56 GMT
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993


 
Who: philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson)
ID: <1jq79a$88c@agate.berkeley.edu>
 
PJ> "From 'Darwin on Trial,' p. 4: By 'Darwinism' I mean fully
PJ> naturalistic evolution, involving chance mechanisms guided
PJ> by natural selection. The theory is not controversial at
PJ> the peppered moth level, but it is very controversial indeed
PJ> when offered as a general explanation for the existence of
PJ> complex living organisms."
 
Er, why not use the word "Evolution?" Did you know that Darwin
is dead? And that he died a long time ago? And that his theories
have been radically altered and enhanced in the past 110+ years?
Why in the world would you refer to evolution as "Darwinism?" I
don't get it.
 
On a lighter side, there is no controversy concerning explaining
the existance of complex living organisms (ps: define "complex").
The mechanisms are quite well known, are measured and observed.
There are occultists, mostly Christian fundamentalists, who wish
to present the illusion of controversy so they may introduce
their occultism into public schools, to indoctrinate innocent
children into their cult, often against the parent's wishes.
Creationists have utterly failed to find valid flaws in evolutionary
theory; one would think that after a hundred years of effort they
would have. LET THEM SHOW THE FLAWS, instead of falling back on lies
and deciet.

--- Squish v1.01
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Muscle tissue from mouse to sauropod
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:53:57 GMT

In article <243@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> We've seen one poster claim that reptile muscle is twice as good as ours,
> and that this has been proven more dynamically than possible via microscope
> test.  I've got three problems with this.
> 
> 1.  I don't picture any way for this to be done.  I don't picture anybody
> training a crock to do curls or benchpresses, for instance.

  I don't have any picture for how electron spin works: so therefore quantum
physics must be wrong!

  ted, please do not site your lack of imagination as a limitation on the world
at large.  It doesn't work that way.

  Let me draw the picture: Locate a muscle in a reptile and a muscle in a mammal
that are about the same size.  Remove the muscles (after the animal is dead of
course) and anchor them to scales.  Apply an electric current to the muscle, and
take a reading off the scale.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Reality and the Merrit FAQ (2 of 4)
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:55:10 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <220@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
|> 
|> The stuff which is reposted at intervals is factually correct, and I assume
|> that the main item you refer to is the item involving sauropod dinosaurs.
|> The numbers work as shown, the facts involved are verifiable.

No, you have been corrected on numerous other matters, from thermodynamics
to Newtonian mechanics.  You have never included any of these corrections
in your posts.

And even the sauropod data is still incorrect.  Oh, the 'facts' are 'verifiable'
in the sense that they were published in the books you looked at.  But when you
actually go the the specimens and analyse them using proper methodology the
facts come out quite different.  It would be *really* useful if you stopped
relying on such bogus sources as "The Guiness Book of World Records".  [Well,
I suppose it is not exactly bogus if used for its intended purpose - but that
is *not* a scientific purpose, so using it as a source of 'scientific' data
is indeed bogus].

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: weasel@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Rosenberg)
Subject: Re: Ideology and Indoctrination
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:16:03 GMT

In article <1k0tpu$5mp@agate.berkeley.edu> philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
>I wrote in another thread that dogmatic Darwinists should
>practice seeing themselves as others see them.  What I meant is
>that many outsiders see them not as the pure truth-seekers they
>claim to be, but as ideologues similar to their close cousins in
>the family of scientific materialist ideology,  the Marxists and
>the Freudians.  The problem is not so much that Darwinists tell
>deliberate untruths as that they believe their own propaganda,
>and interpret everything they see as confirming the ideology that
>controls their own thinking.

and

>I recognize that this frank talk will cause offense.  My purpose
>is not to insult anyone, however, but to free minds.  Many of you
>have been indoctrinated not to question assumptions that are
>based on ideology rather than evidence.  You can be free of that
>indoctrination if you wish to be.

I don't find this 'frank' talk offensive, but I think you should look at it
reciprocally.  

If you replace 'Darwinists' with 'Creationists' in the first paragraph above
then I think the paragraphs are equally valid statements as to the
indoctrination of creationists.  Except that most Darwinists will attempt to
point to evidence supporting their theory.  What do creationists point to?

>-- 
>Phillip E. Johnson
>  School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
>

--Mike

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
*  Mike Rosenberg                   |   msr@casbah.acns.nwu.edu              *
*                                   |   jth@isp.nwu.edu                      *
*  "Weasel is not a nickname --     |   weasel@merle.acns.nwu.edu            * 
*   it's a state of mind."          |   weasel@nwu.edu                       *
*                                   |                                        *
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid"
	Heinrich Heine
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:46:33 GMT

In <1993Jan25.144819.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>In article <91710c3e@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1.fidonet.org writes:
> 
>> Now please state the theory of creationism.

>I think I've discovered why no one wants to put the theory of Creationism on
>t.o.  I keep seeing in the Creation Research Science Quarterly ads asking
>people to send money so that a model can be developed.  This is no small task. 
>CRS has only been around for 30 years or so, and they have to review all the
>scientific data.  

>However here is the Theory of Creationism in a nutshell: God created the
>universe.

And who created God?

>--Ray Cote
--
Eli Chiprout                 
Dept. of Electronics, 
Carleton University, Canada
emc@doe.carleton.ca
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: For-sale ads on sci.math??
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 00:12:47 GMT

In article <LFkVXB1w165w@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us>,
system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa) writes:
> kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
> 
> > >> >The recent upsurge of "I have a book for sale" messages on sci.math is
> > >> >very annoying. Usenet etiquette is that these ads are inappropriate. I
> > >> >request the posters of such ads to stop.  [signature omitted]
> > 
> >    Is this the same Kalki Dasa who was urging everyone on talk.origins
> > to spend $10 on Richard Thompson's book when no one could find it in
> > any library or bookstore?  Or is it perhaps another one?  Or even the
> > nefarious tapeworm?!
> 
> Same Kalki. However, there is no comparison between my activities and
> those of someone who posts an advertisement whose sole purpose is to
> sell his personal property. You are making as much of this as you can,
> according to your demoniac nature. But I am innocent and free from all
> hypocrisy in this matter. Take your best shots, demons!
> 
> > > Reading my signature is the only good thing that ever happened to you in
> > > your entire miserable life, and you should get down on your knees and
> > > thank the God who made you for giving you this opportunity to at least
> > > see His holy name in print.
> > 
> >    As well should you, Kalki, revel in the holy words printed in my 
> > own sig, especially the quote from Duke, which will bring you eternal
> > happiness and warm fuzzies.
> 
> Your own sig is useless, materialistic propaganda, suited only for those
> who are destined for darkness. "Dropping acid" is a sure route to
> spiritual suicide, and life is far more than what we can "touch and
> see."
> 
> Sincerely,
> Kalki Dasa

  Is this a forgery?  I find it hard to believe even Kalki could be this
idiotic.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins