HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:20:55 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>>>Astounding!  You are so powerful as to know the hidden intentions of GOD!!!
>>>Omniscient, perhaps?

>In article <f0tT03R265oV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> 
>jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>I've been friends with many people for quite some time, say 25 years. 
>>In the course of said friendships, we've really had a chance to talk
>>and get to know one another by sharing experiences, desires, goals, etc.
>>While we can't read each others minds, we can get a pretty good idea 
>>what they're thinking at times and how they would react in certain 
>>situations, and what they would say in certain conversations. Spending
>>time with someone is the best way to get to know them. The same is
>>true with God and it appears obvious Mr. Meritt hasn't quite figured
>>this one out, not having a relationship with Father God through Jesus. 
>>Yo Jim, God wants you to get to know Him, the choice is yours and yours
>>alone.

>Ah, speaking of relationships, don't you think you're being a bit
>egotistical here, prehaps even somewhat demonic? Have you ever
>considered that it may be YOU, JIM, who should get to know your God better?

I would imagine hearing someone speak of their friendship with the 
Most High would appear egotistical to those who don't have this 
friendship. Maybe individuals who constantly work Christians are 
jealous in some way, miserable in another, bitter, whatever it is
they become irritated when a Christian speaks of their relationship
with God, something they do not have. Yes, I would imagine speaking
of such a relationship could easily make someone jealous. There is 
a cure for this problem but I'm sure you've heard it before, I won't
bother explaining it for you.

Maybe Paul Harvey is right and I do need to get to know my God better,
maybe we all need to. In fact, I think I'll do just that, thanks for
the advice, Paul.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14528 talk.origins:9915
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Entropy of the Universe, (was Re: Genesis - fact or fiction)
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:32:41 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <VSUMMERS.92Aug21081947@polaris.cv.nrao.edu>, vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (Vince Summers) writes...
>     There was nevertheless an interesting determination as to the mathe-
>matical probability I believe of an important molecule (perhaps DNA),
>forming on its own, and the probability was so small as to be nonexistent.
>I believe it was a French scientist, and the number was 10 to the some-
>where between 74 and 141 or so AGAINST its forming.  Like I said, if 
>anyone wants to believe in creation, they may tend to accept this first
>chance, whereas those who don't first chance will say this isn't true
>and I am lying without even checking it out.

Anyone who swallows this argument needs to study evolution, big time.
Evolution has two basic mechanisms:

(1) Random genetic variation, which provides the source material and
(2) Natural Selection, which provides a *directional* pressure which
selects specific traits which happen offer an organism some kind of 
survival or reproductive advantage in its local environment.

Only the genetic variation is random.  So the calculation you 
describe is foolish.  Eyes did not evolve at random.  They evolved
because of well defined advantages offered by vision.

Anyone who is interested in this issue can pick up any book by
Steven J. Gould.  He's awesome.  

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:36:15 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <74uq03T562o200@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>}kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>}> If God's intention was to confuse us wouldn't he have
>}>made the tree rings, ice cores, lake bottoms, and coral reefs all disagree to
>}>some extent as a hint?
>}
>}His intention was not to confuse us.

>Astounding!  You are so powerful as to know the hidden intentions of GOD!!!
>Omniscient, perhaps?

I've been friends with many people for quite some time, say 25 years. 
In the course of said friendships, we've really had a chance to talk
and get to know one another by sharing experiences, desires, goals, etc.
While we can't read each others minds, we can get a pretty good idea 
what they're thinking at times and how they would react in certain 
situations, and what they would say in certain converstations. Spending
time with someone is the best way to get to know them. The same is
true with God and it appears obvious Mr. Meritt hasn't quite figured
this one out, not having a relationship with Father God through Jesus. 

Yo Jim, God wants you to get to know Him, the choice is yours and yours
alone.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: lharris@upei.ca (Lora Harris)
Subject: Free Will / Evil / Creation
Organization: University of Prince Edward Island
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:21:54 GMT

Please pardon me for joining the discussion.  I noticed the following 
remarks, portions of longer posts, and decided to add my understanding 
of the traditional/orthodox position of Christianity on creation and free 
will

.>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><adams.713105930@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:

>>God, in order to gain this, had to allow for the possibility of evil.
>"had to"?  You mean an omnipotent being was incapable of creating free
>will without evil?

     Yes, had to.  No amount of omnipotence allows a being to create a 
logical impossibility.  For instance, the old saw about "can god create 
something so heavy that he can't lift it?"  The answer is no.  If there is 
no limit to the ability to lift, then nothing can be created that is beyond 
that non-existant limit.

     Likewise, you cannot give a being free will (the ability to choose good 
or evil)*without* allowing the possibility to choose evil.  If there is no 
possibility of evil, then the being does not have the ability to choose it, 
and hence, no free will.  Eventually, given free will, someone will choose 
evil.

     On the other hand...
>>One of the unavoidable aspects of creation was evil.  
>This doesn't jive with the concept of a truly omnipotent being.  Nothing
>should be unavoidable for him.

     Here you are right - mostly.  Evil was not an unavoidable aspect of 
creation. God is perfectly capable of creating a universe without it, as 
long as that universe does not include free will.  I agree with Steve;\'s 
comment that God cannot create another God, but He can create beings perfect 
in what they are.

     However, the reason I said "mostly" is like this -
          1. God is perfect good
          2. What He creates must therefore be the greatest good
          3. Beings who follow good of their free will have more goodness 
		than automatons          
Therefore, God must have created this universe with beings with free 
will.     

(Assuming 1 for the sake of the argument.  By 2. I mean that God is not 
only good, but perfect good, and never can choose a lesser good over a 
greater - again assuming for the moment the Christian view for the sake of 
argument.  I am pretty sure about 3, intuitively if not logically at the 
moment.  We all recognize that in human terms, someone who does something 
good freely is better than one who does the same under duress or 
accidentally.)

     Given this line of reasoning, I am tolerably sure ( not certain ) that 
God could not have created a universe without free-willed beings, and hence 
without evil.
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:27:45 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714076565@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>You could say a very similar thing about Allah.
>>
>>>Are you a Muslim as well, Mr. Buckley?
>>
>>  no.  what is offered by islam and allah did not affect my life, help me
>>understand things or help my relationship with the divine.  jesus did.
>>and similiarly, krishna, buddha, the tao and heaps of gnostic-offered
>>spirits and spiritual creatures i encountered all failed to bring me to god.
>>tho there is no shortage of people for whom all those spiritual entities
>>make a difference.  but i suspect that you'd discount their realities 
>>as well because their spiritual experiences are just as empirically 
>>unverifiable as mine.

>Yes, I do, Mr. Buckley, but that is where the similarity between you
>and me ends.

>You reject as evidence for the truth of THEIR religion precisely
>the same class of evidence that you accept for the truth for YOUR
>religion. That is what is known as "special pleading" and is
>logically flawed. By contrast, I recognize that their
>spiritual experiences appear to be the same as yours, and recognizing
>that if I apply the same interpretation to them as you do to yours, I end
>up with a contradiction, and seeing no way in which YOUR experience
>is different, conclude that that mode of interpretation must
>not have force.

  i'm sorry for the ambiguity.  both you and i do not discount the
relevance of other people's spiritual experiences.  you discount them,
but i do not.  i recognize the ability to have non-jesus spiritual
experiences because i used to have them.  so on that we disagree.
so i'm not doing any special pleading.  what i meant above is that
"i suspect that you'd discount their realities as well [as mine] 
because their spiritual experiences are just as empirically unverifiable
as mine."  sorry for the ambiguity.
From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Noah's Ark Apologetics (was Laura questions)
Organization: Surf Report: Waves otay, shred all day!
	<1287@esl.ESL.COM> <1992Aug20.165305.26051@gboro.glassboro.edu> 
	<1992Aug20.194558.24392@news.ysu.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 21:17:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.194558.24392@news.ysu.edu> 
ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
<I always wondered why God would have gone to the trouble of the flood, anyway.
<If he was omnipotent, why didn't he just snap his fingers and "disappear" all
<the sinful people and animals?  It would have been a lot les miracle-intensive,
<and would have taken less time.
<****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************

Yes, but one must keep in mind that the goal is Job Creation. And of course
a good story means possible Holy-wood potential. After all, what would TV be
without CBN and all those great tele-evil-gelicals? And what would the GOP
be without Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan? Job Creation, that is the key.
Praise the Lord and raise the GDP! Amen! And love all humanity, except those
that aren't fundamentalists Christians and don't have good family values of 
course! Let's face it, if Dan Quayle wasn't VP, what other job would he be
qualified for?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: All the mountains (was Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 21:14:39 GMT

  Word-for-word from the original Hebrew Gen 7:19-20

  (And the waters) prevailed exceedingly (on the earth) (and were covered) (the
mountains) high which under all (the heavens).  Fifteen cubits upwards prevailed
(the waters) (and were hid) (the mountains).

[traditional puctuation]

  The word all has Strongs number 3605 which is 

  kol,kole or (Jer 33:8)
  kowl, kole. from 3634(*); prop. the _whole_; hence _all_, _any_ or _every_ (in
the sing. only, but often in a plur. sense) :- (in) all (manner, [ye]),
altogether, any (manner), enough, every (one, place, thing), howsoever, as many
as, [no-] thing, ought, whatsoever, (the) whole, whoso (-ever).

(*) 3634 is the root kalal "to complete".

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Subject: Re: Genesis - fact or fiction
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:01:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.093507.20219@hsr.no> paal-sb@hsr.no (Paal Steinar Berg) writes:
>In my view the genisis is a simple explanation for the people living thousands of
>years ago, and must be looked upon in that way. I believe that the evolusionists
>have a better explanation of the way it realy happened..
>
>
>Paal....

I, being a scientist, once believed that evolution had all the answers.  But,
evolution presents some gross inconsistencies with modern scientific laws. 
Evolution requires that all matter somehow came together to form life.  The 
law of entropy states that all systems will tend toward a state of maximum 
entropy (maximum disorganization).  If this law is valid, then how, without
some outside force, did matter come together to form life?
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:18:26 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:

Where does the Bible say that the flood went above all mountains?

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:

Gen. 7:19

--

That only tells me that the water rose above the mountains that Noah
knew about, not all the mountains on the earth.

Mark
-- 
Even for the physicist the description in plain language will be a
criterion of the degree of understanding that has been reached.
-- Werner Heisenberg
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: You don't get it, do you? (was Laura questions)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:37:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.093651.7836@u.washington.edu> jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
>You don't get it, do you?
>If you think Noah, a Jew, was the common ancestor of all people,
>European, African, Asian, Pacific, Indian, etc; that is, a family of
>Jewish people became European, African, Asian, Pacific, Indian, etc, 
>in about 5000 years (give or take a millenium), what can I say, 

Noah wasn't a Jew.
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Some questions for Laura. Please read it.
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:28:39 GMT
Followup-To: <1992Aug16.231031.16025@sdf.lonestar.org>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

Here is my two cents on Jehovah's Witnesses' theory that Noah's Flood
caused tremendous changes in the earth's surface due to the weight of
the flood waters.

Their book _Good News to Make You Happy_ says on page 82:

"The tremendous pressures involved would bring about great changes on the
surface of the earth, pushing up mountain ranges and forming depressions to
receive the waters.  Within the space of about one year these had receded
into the oceans as we know them today."

It should be noted that under the weight of the water, which would produce
a downward force but no horizontal force, there would be no reason to think
that continents would be forced sideways.  The only effect should be a
tendency for the continents to rise.

Using Archimedes' principle and the simple physics of floating bodies, it
is easily calculated how much the continents should actually rise under the
influence of a sudden influx of enough water to flood them significantly
deeper than their average height above sea level, which is today about
8500 feet.

Without going into the gory details, the result is that the maximum amount
that continents could rise is about 1000 feet.

But note that due to the response time of the earth's crust, which is
measured in tens of thousands of years, there would be only a *tendency* to
rise.  This is shown by the response time of the Scandinavian Peninsula,
which has risen about 1500 feet in some places since the glaciers left at
the end of the last ice maximum.  The gradual rise of land around Hudson's
Bay in Canada shows the same slow response.

The flooding for at most one year could not have produced much rise at all,
because of the slow response time.  Since the water would have been
distributed evenly over the earth, there is no location that should have
received significantly more disturbance due to the water pressure than anyplace
else.  Therefore one must conclude that there was little tendency either for
continents to rise significantly or for mountains to be pushed up in any
particular place or for ocean basins to form.

The JW's contention about mountains forming because of Noah's flood is
therefore seen to have no basis in physics.  Much other data show that it
has no basis in geology, either.

Alan Feuerbacher
Tektronix, Inc.
Beaverton, OR
From: scott@anasaz (Scott Gibson)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: god and empiricism
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:14:59 GMT
Reply-To: scott@qip.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <sbuckley.714076565@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>
>  no.  what is offered by islam and allah did not affect my life, help me
>understand things or help my relationship with the divine.

For how many years did you go to mosque?



-- 
But you knew your figure cut a cipher/ Through every crafted plan/ And 
playing our game for real/ Saw through our plumbing jobs/ And wayward glands/
To a meaning of your own, in bones."  - Iain M. Banks, "Use of Weapons"
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Biblical errors
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:34:56 GMT

jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt) writes:


>I've had a little success with the historical error collections (send more,
>including things like anachronisms), now how about flat-out biblical errors?
>Things like the famous "pi=3" and "grasshopper with four legs".

  i've heard the pi=3 thing refered to a few times and i can't find it
in kj or niv, can someone cite me chapter and verse?  thanks.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: How evil are the Republicans?
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:44:26 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.115342.27628@wixer.cactus.org> 
lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:
>I don't know about anyone else, but the Republican convention has
>frightened me.  We hear how all our country's problems are because of
>someone else and how if only President Bush could do whatever he wanted the
>country would be okay.  We hear how all the good things that have happened
>in the world are because of President Bush.  We hear how a return to a
>narrow definition of "family" will improve our economy and help our
>country.  Now, of course, the Republicans offer no reasons or evidence for
>any of these statements.  But what else is new.  

Yes it is scary. The big question is who are all these people that
support him in the poles? And what will happen if he does get re-elected
for a second term and gets his chance to run-a-muck? The CIA, NSA, NSC,
FB of non-criminal Investigations are difficult to justify in a
democracy given a "cold war". But what use do they serve now? And why is
a former head of the CIA in control in the White House?

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
From: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron)
Subject: Re: Polytheism
Reply-To: aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:38:16 GMT

In article <16841DF99.HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com>, HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>>The above quote from Psalm 82 (or somewhere around there) deserves quick
>>comment.  The confusion in English comes from the Hebrew word Elohim, which
>>literally means "judge" but is also used as a name for God.  In the Psalm
>>(verse 6), it says "God (Elohim) says you will be gods (elohim, judges)."
>>(not an exact quote; you can look it up for the exact statement).  So the
>>Psalmist is not saying that we are all gods, but that men will also be
>>judges.
> 
>Where did you get this.  This is even strange for my standards.  All the
>scholars (and translations I have) say it means GODS. Like the plural of
>one is many--many Gods!

Of course they translate it as gods.  The word is a name of God (the Supreme
Judge) which literally means "judges."  So, to be consistent in their
translation, they render it "gods."  Also note, every version I've seen
uses a small "g" to distinguish this from God's name.

>Read verse 1:  God stand in the congregation of the mighty; He judges
>among the gods.
> 
>Looks like more than one to me!  See John 10:33-5.

That's exactly what it says.  Good job.  
> 
> 
>A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
> 
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably                     |
> |             not your's either; and                                  |
> |             only mine, when authorized!                             |
> |                                                                     |
> |                                   Try: Roger_Holfeltz@stortek.com   |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 
  -- Scott @Brandeis

                           I asked Jesus,
                     "How much do you love me?"
                     "This much," He answered;
                        and He stretched out
                         His arms and died.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,sci.physics