HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Would you believe anyway ???
Date: 18 Nov 1992 17:24:57 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov18.001131.8291@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>In article <D0kDuB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>> 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.
>
>
>  Gee, thanks.  I sure THOUGHT I was sincere, but I guess good old God knew
>better.  Since I can't think of anyway to MAKE myself anymore sincere than I
>thought I was before, I guess God will just have to send to to hell, since
>he obviously isn't willing (or able) to provide me with sufficient evidence
>to convince me of his existence.

	Aw Gee, is scare tactics the best you can do? Just like the
parent who shakes his finger at a skeptical child, "You'll See!",
seems to me that such a relationship is built on trust. The next
question is why do YOU trust? Note rhetorical "You".

Bruce Salem
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 15:43:56 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:

> The first on the list is the contention that creation is scientific.  This
> is what Jim recently made his "one case" about.  I responded to this with
> two articles, the second of which contained answers to the questions from
> previous postings.  I know that Jim saw them because he responded to them.
> 
> For instance, the first question is:
> 
>                What observations support creationism?

The observation that there is a Supreme Godhead, plus the personal
statement of this Supreme Godhead that He created the bodily forms of
the living organisms.

Now, ask us to prove that this Supreme Godhead has been observed, and
we'll tell you how you personally can observe Him.

Sincerely,
Kalki "The Idylls of the Thing" 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: rybicki@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:57:52 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Nov10.005839.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>, kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
> In article <4eXwTB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

[deleted]

>> 
>>> I see. Are trees conscious? Is a virus conscious?
>> 
>> Yes, trees and viruses are living beings, are they not?
> 
>    Are they?  How do you define alive?  A virus has no metabolism.
> How can you tell if something has consciousness?  It's not an empirical
> characteristic like metabolism that can be easily distinguished.

If life is defined as the phenomenon which is associated with the replication
of nucleic acids, then sure, viruses are definitely alive - got nucleic acids
and they replicate.  If, on the other hand, you are a leg-counter (zoologist)
or leaf-counter (botanist), you won't like that definition because it doesn't
have "irritability" or "nutrition" in it.  Tough....

 _________________________________________________________________________
|                                 |                                       |
|  Ed Rybicki                     |    Now you've got the hang of it      |
|  Dept Microbiology              | There's nothing you can't do with it  |
|  University of Cape Town        |         If you're very into it        |
|  PB Rondebosch 7700             |         You can't go wrong....        |
|  South Africa                   |                                       |
|  fax 27 21 650 4023             |              - Mad John               |
|  ed@micro.uct.ac.za             | (Ogden's Nut-Gone Flake, Small Faces) |
|_________________________________|_______________________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: markv@pixar.com (Mark T. VandeWettering)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:22:26 GMT

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

	I can't believe I am being baited into this.

>Yeah, gee it's strange that these so-called "scientists" won't go out of
>their way to acquire something that disputes their cherished dream of
>being right.

	You know Kalki, your posts have to be among the most content
	free of any poster I have seen.  Please halt your endless quoting 
	of peoples comments, if all you are going to do is tack a one 
	liner on the end and sign.

	Once again in your postings we see the "creation scientist's dilemma".
	You display a mistrust (bordering on hatred) of scientists, but 
	to effectively argue, you must employ the scientists method or 
	fail utterly.  So many of the arguments presented by creationists
	appeal to our "intuitive" sense.  "It seems obvious that...."
	"It is extremely unlikely that...."  But scientists recognize that
	often our intuition is simply incorrect, that we need to look at 
	the world around us with better eyes.

	Your attempts to use things like information theory or thermodynamics
	are just cheap ploys, easily recognized as nonsense by anyone with 
	a smattering of knowledge.  Similar arguments have been shot down 
	so many times in this news group alone, that you would think that 
	creationists would be forced to try something new, if only for 
	variety.

	As for not being willing to buy a book, why should I support an 
	author who writes nonsense in the guise of science?  I support
	science, not pseudo-scientific gobblety-gook.


>Sincerely,
>Kalki "and the ancients thought that maggots were made from meat" Dasa
	
	Hey, guess what!  SCIENTISTS discovered that it WASN'T SO!


			Mark T. VandeWettering
			
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 04:12:28 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode) writes:

> In article <80T3TB15w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >
> >The differential equations which represent the known forces of physics
> >can all be written very briefly, and an algorithm which will solve them
> >to an arbitrary degree of accuracy can be specified with a few pages of
> >code, but the objects on which these forces are supposed to act are
> >generally much more complicated, and it is these objects which must be
> >specified in the initial/boundary conditions. This is usually done by
> >giving a probability distribution or by assuming that the objects are
> >all identical except for their location in space. But when this is done
> >we lose information, and we allow for the possibility of inaccuracy.
> 
> Great!  Personally, I think this is lots more interesting than even
> probabilistic "refutations" of evolution/abiogenesis/whatever.  Perhaps
> you all could post a brief differential equation or two that would fully
> represent the strong and weak nuclear forces and then present a simple
> algorithm that will calculate to an arbitrary degree of accuracy the
> waveform of a molecule.  If it'll help, you all are welcome to use the
> simplifying assumption that all quarks and leptons involved are 
> dimensionless and identical save for their positions and momenta. 

Oh? So your point is that there are certain "forces" in physics whose
nature is not fully known, and for which the equations of motion are not
fully known? Is this your point? If so, then we certainly agree with
you. There is no complete Grand Unified Theory.

Tell us, then, what role the strong and weak nuclear forces are supposed
to play in abiogenesis. Are nuclear reactions going on in the primordial
soup?

As far as we know no one has yet proposed a possible mechanism for
abiogenesis that involves the nuclear forces in any way. If this is the
case, and if the nuclear forces do indeed play a crucial role in
abiogenesis, then, it would seem that there is less justification than
ever for supposing that abiogenesis occurred, since it is now dependent
on an unknown set of laws.

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: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Emergence again...
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:58:38 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


Before I read David Tinker's contribution, I almost stepped into the
"emergent" quagmire.  I then debated for a while whether or not I
wanted to respond to David's message.  I just decided against it when
lo and behold I came across this:

In article <ZHLDuB3w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>The game "life" is not life, that is why you put quotes around "living"
>and "dead". Actual life displays properties which are not reducible to
>the interactions of elementary physical quantities. The game of "life"
>is entirely reducible to its rules, boundary, and initial conditions.

David (i.e. dtinker@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (David O. Tinker)) previously
  wrote in <BxK6o0.Dr9@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>:

}First, I do not think there is a satisfactory closed definition of the term
}"emergent", nor is it universally used by the research school most concerned
}with such properties, the 'Artificial Life' community.  Nevertheless I
}believe the concept is so well accepted in this community that the term can
}be used casually with the assurance that it is understood.  

The rest of his post was equally reasonable, which is why I decided
not to respond.  My gut feeling, though, was that although you might
be able to use the word casually in the 'Artificial Life' community,
you can't in general do so.  I think I'd recommend strongly *against*
using the word in this forum unless you spell out what you mean by it
each time the subject comes up.  The reason for my feeling is that for
many people, emergence still means something like this:

>Actual life displays properties which are not reducible to the
>interactions of elementary physical quantities.
 
I think the vast majority of scientists now think that this is wrong,
and so there shouldn't be a word for Kalki's claimed properties any
more than there should be a word for flying purple people eaters.  (As
an aside, Kalki what evidence do you have to support your assertion?
If you say "because people haven't been able to perform the reduction
yet", I'll be disappointed.  Not surprised, but disappointed.)

Wherever the potential for this confusion remains, I'm against using
the word.  Anybody else?  

>Kalki Dasa

}: Prof. David O. Tinker      INTERNET: dtinker@blunile.guild.org        :

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 14:22:58 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:

> In article <e0N3TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> 
> >If there isn't a model for abiogenesis "yet", then why do supposedly
> >reputable scientists make the premature claim that life arose from
> >non-life?  Unless a model can be shown to be correct, then it is not
> >scientific to claim that the phenomenon occurred, is it?
> 
> To answer your question, it may or may not be "scientific" to claim that
> a pehnomenon has occurred in the absence of a model; it all depends on
> what the the data is.  A model is an explanation of how things happen;
> data is what happened.  Science deals in both models and data.

Yes, and science has no data whatsoever that living organisms have ever
arisen from inanimate matter solely by the action of the known physical
laws. This has never been observed by anyone, except of course the
ancients who observed maggots in meat and concluded that therefore
maggots were produced by meat.

> The data supporting the thesis of abiogenesis is good but not presumptive;
> there are proposed theories of how this event might have come about; at
> this point there is insufficient information to determine if any of these
> theories are correct.

Yes, you are right. So no scientist who is worthy of the title would
ever claim that abiogenesis occurred, or even that there is sufficient
reason to suppose that it did, right?

> >No one has ever seen a living organism arise from an assemblage of
> >lifeless matter, have they?
> 
> Yes.

Who?

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)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Doing Lunch:  Special for R. Harter
Date: 18 Nov 92 10:41:06 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <115@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>I am glad to see somebody on t.o reading for (a certain kind of) content.
>Mr. Harter, this one is for you:

>......................................

Cute, Ted, cute.  Make I take this as a suggestion to do lunch
some time?

-- 
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: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 03:32:46 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>   So you are saying they aren't conscious because they aren't alive, and they
> aren't alive because they aren't conscious?  Gee, and scientist aren't impres
> by this profoundly accurate statement?

No. They aren't alive because they have no soul, and they aren't
conscious because they aren't alive.

>   Specifically: What test can be performed to determine whether a virus I sho
> you was manufactured by a human or was a normal virus?

First make a virus.

>   1 soul per person, no sharing or doubling up?  Okay, but then answer this
> question: if the soul is not subject to physical law, how can it be shown to
> exist?  If you cannot answer this question you have demonstrated, once again,
> that these points are not addressable by science and it is pointless to compl
> about science ignoring them.

The existence of the nonmaterial soul can be demonstrated by a
nonmaterial experimental apparatus called Bhakti-yoga. The Vedas are the
standard scientific literature in the field of nonmaterial science, and
they contain reports of the various experimental results.

>   Once again, you have adressed points outside the realm of scientific inquir
> Once again I propose moving this thread to talk.religion.misc where it obviou
> belongs.

That is your opinion, but since this is talk.origins, and since we are
specifically addressing the origin of life, it is necessary to discuss
these topics. We are trying to arrive at a definition of life which
accounts for consciousness. None of the current materialistic theories
can do this, since life is not material. If this newsgroup was called
talk.origins.materialistic.only, we would be somewhere else.

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: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:28:15 GMT

>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!

In a recent post you say that you never claimed that single cell organisms
arose "all at once" without any reproducing precursors. This last paragraph
seems to give the lie to your statement. What else would "amoebas being 
formed from molecules" mean? 

Evidence for speciation is available in the talk.origins FAQ. You also said
that you would read the FAQ when we read the "book". Apparently someone
has found a copy of Thompson's book and is reading it. Does this mean
that we can count on you to read the FAQ? Will you post a rebuttal to
the information in the FAQ? If you do not aren't you more of the "chicken"
(your words) than anyone else on this newsgroup since no one is asking you
to shell out hard earned deniro for the FAQ?

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

All of your rebuttals along the lines of "who built the computer" only serve
to argue against atheism. While I do not accept this argument from analogy
I feel that this is a strictly philosophical difference and is a matter
of opinion.

On what grounds do you feel that this argues against _either_ abiogenesis
or evolution? (please be specific about which it argues against and how. If
you confuse abiogenesis with evolution I won't be able to understand your
reply) 

A question on a separate topic:

If I understand you correctly by your definition only living things have
consciousness. Similarly only things that have consciousness are alive.

Let's perform a thought experiment: I have an object and I want to determine
if it is living or not. What do I do? I must first find out if it has
consciousness. But the only way I can know if it has consciousness is to
determine whether or not it is alive, which was the problem I started out 
with. What do I do? (please give me a serious answer)

Scott

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:23:55 GMT

In article <4PkFuB11w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>>kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>>>Yes, the solutions have high information content, and this is because
>>>the initial conditions or the boundary conditions have high information
>>>content.
>> 
>>Then what's the information content of a Mandelbrot set?
> 
>Infinite because the Turing machine needed to generate it will never
>stop.

  Kalki, get your definitions streight.  The information content is the _size_
of the smallest UTM that can generate the mandelbrot set (which is probably less
than average) not the length of time it takes to run.

  By that argument the information content of the physical laws is infinite.  It
is impossible for a computer to compute the exact solutions to the pendulum
problem.

> But actual Mandelbrot sets do not exist in the physical world. An
> approximation to the Mandelbrot set, such as those which run on personal
> computers, will have a finite information content equal to the number of
> bits in the program used to generate it.

  there you go, switching paradigms again.  Information content is _not_ the
size of the computer program, it is the size of the UTM.  Unless you own a
univesal turing machine (which is extremely doubtful) the two will be completely
different.

> Anything that is recursively defined over an infinite domain will have
> infinite information content. (Counterexamples??)

  PI (the number), comes to mind.  The actual information content is small since
PI=4-(4/3)+(4/5)-(4/7)+(4/9)-..., which is a simple program to write.  (only a
little more comlicated than the division and addition routines).

  Some intergrals, a number of PDEs, ODEs, and BVPs also come to mind.  Much
game theory.  Some combinatorics, statistics, and higher levels of algebra.

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Date: 18 Nov 1992 17:38:31 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <7630@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Robert W Bales) writes:
>For instance, the first question is:
>
>               What observations support creationism?
>
>I said that observations of the fossil record support creationism.  This is an
>answer.  Similarly, I gave specific answers to the other questions.

	Bob, you are making it too easy for us! I suggest that you backup
this bold assertion before moving on. Now, as I have heard you speak to
this before, let me suggest that gaps in the fossil record are due to,
well, err... gaps in the fossil record, and not some demonstrated failure
of evolution as a mechanism. If you do, as you have in the past, and
assert that the gaps are due to not-evolution, you will be making only
a negative argument, and no support to what non-evolution is.

	While I am at it, let ME assert that while you may pick the
rhetorical position that you favor non-evolution, whatever that is.
You have said enough that makes your other agenda clear. Non-evolution
is Supernatural Creation, which you believe in due to religious prejudices
you refuse to discuss here, and not based on any sound science. Your
views make no contrbution, useful or otherwise, toward any science. They
are delusions based on religious belief and prejudices. Prejudice is
a hidden belief which one is lothe to discuss publically and subject
to other's criticism. You are full of prejudice.

Bruce Salem