HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Talk.Origins Wrestling Federation
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:57:34 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Dec20.000555.21673@cs.cornell.edu> samuel@cs.cornell.edu (S. Weber) writes:
}In article <watson.724733950@space.sce.carleton.ca> watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
}>Considering we had Jim Merrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttt
}>challenging Ted to hand-to-hand combat (or was it Ted challenged Jim?)
}>'bout a year ago, this could be truer than you think.....
}
}Just to keep the record straight, it was Ted Holden wanting to beat
}people up.  To quote him,
}
}In <1991May21.222429.11325@grebyn.com> ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) writes:
}>I'm guessing that one option open to a faggot who gets the shit kicked
}>out of him too many times for calling people liars at close distance is
}>to move to some god-forsaken place like Manitoba and start calling
}>people liars over usenet.  Kind of a shame, isn't it.
}
}and
}
}In <1991Oct2.224421.14500@grebyn.com> ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) writes:
}>The invitation to Day and/or Meritt to call me a liar at close quarters,
}>is still open.
}
}Holden is a wonderful chap, isn't he?

But harmless.  I gave him a place that I'd be within a mile or two of his
posting location, and now work full-time just a few miles away.  I've
been within twenty miles or less for well over a decade.  

Never seen him.  Not interested, not concerned.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lionel Tun: evolutionary relic.
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:38:04 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON (jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu) wrote:
:     Well, the theory of creation goes like this:
:
	[ Genesis 1 deleted ]
: 
:                                 Quoted directly fom Genesis chapter 1 in the
:                                 New American Standard Bible.
:         That is the theory of Creation to whoever asked.  Someone had...

Now quote the next two chapters for *another* theory of creation (by this
rather quaint use of the word "theory").

   [ Homily on selfishness, commitment, freewill, and family values deleted ]

Your subsequent remarks are unrelated to the question of theories for
how life developed. Lots of Christians will agree with you on the
theological stuff, and yet still use the evolution to explain the
origin of life, and geology to explain the origin of mountains.

I hope you were just kidding about the "theory" bit above, as an excuse
to post the homily. But if this is so, it would be better in another
group.

Best wishes -- Chris Ho-Stuart
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:30:05 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <22DEC199200180519@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
|> 
|> Well, the bad ones are uninformative.  There are good ones, though.
|> (Again, let me refer to Robert Shapiro's _Origins_ book, in which
|> he compares several different theories of the origin of life and
|> assesses their relative (im)probabilities.)

We've been over this before.  Merely estimating the supposed probabilities
of the few current hypotheses on the origin of life (by making certain additional
assumptions about the nature of the Universe) is *not* evidence of anything.

Unless he has managed to eliminate all extrinsic assumptions, and has managed to
cover the range of all *possible* models of abiogenesis, the probabilities he
cites are just wild-ass guesses.

|> I think there *are* meaningful probabilities to be discussed regarding
|> the origin of life.

Yep, but most of us who have studied the issue disagree.  There is simply not
yet enough evidence to make more than a gross estimate for certain specific
models.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:59:56 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1658@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
}In article <1992Dec17.133858.6071@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}|> 
}|> What is next?
}|> 
}|> talk.origins:  On the evolutionary side, homo sapiens is seen as merely the most recent
}|> step in a series of rungs in a ladder.  What do you see as the "next rung"? 
}
}There is no next rung because there *are* *no* *rungs*.
}Evolution is *not*, I repeat *not* a ladder, it is a mucking great *bush*.
}
}Humans are not even the most recent species to evolve.  There are several new
}species that have evolved in historical times.

That's nice.  Unfortunately for your "*" speel, I specified one branch in
particular...
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Velikovsky/Einstein/Cohen:  Graverobbing
Date: 25 Dec 92 15:14:14 GMT
Organization: HTE


Velikovsky on Cohen:

     "As I reported earlier, Bernard Cohen, the historian of science of Harvard,
     took a vacillating position in relation to me and my work at the 1952
     symposium of the American Philosophical Society.  In the abstract of his
     paper, he took an objective stance regarding the ultimate value of my work,
     but in the oral delivery and especially in the subsequent published paper,
     he relied on Payne-Geposchkin and put me down in one short sentence."

Harlow Shapeley, Cecelia Payne-Geposchkin and others at Harvard had been
Velikovsky's foremost adversaries from the outset, and were involved in the
early ban on Worlds in Collision, when McMillan was forced by academic boycot
to drop the book.

Cohen, thus, is seen as less than an honest broker or a disinterested party.

Velikovsky made too many people in academia look bad.  A number of things which
they had used as cornerstone axioms in building the various edifices of their
disciplines were summarily disproven and overthrown, including beliefs which
had been accepted for over 100 years.  How could they have missed all of that?

Establishment science attacked Velikovsky with all means at its disposal. 

In particular, Albert Einstein, a friend and colleague of Velikovsky's from
before either of them came to the U.S., died in 1955.

If establishment science had wanted a LEGITIMATE statement on the part of
Einstein attacking Velikovsky and/or his works, they they had five years
in which to get it.  All they had to do was ask the man.  And it's not like
they had to travel to the north pole;  Princeton New Jersey just isn't that 
hard to find.

Instead, we get this bullshit interview of Cohen's published two months after
Einstein's death (since dead people aren't particular good at denying things),
which the executor of Einstein's estate specifically denounced.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lionel Tun: evolutionary relic.
Date: 21 Dec 1992 07:22:16 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec21.045654.38203@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JONATHAN SCOTT GIBSON) writes:
|> In article <ksand-191292144210@wintermute.apple.com>, ksand@apple.com (Kent Sand
|> vik ) writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec18.133825@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
|> >Ashlock) wrote:
|> >> Let me second a fellow poster:  Care to post the theory of creation?
|> >
|> >Yeah, I've asked about that one now for two years, and nobody from
|> >the creation field has provided me with one. It's really sad, and
|> >when there's a lack of a creation based theory (I deliberately left
|> >out Hoyle :-) ), then the next best thing you could do is to sabotage
|> >existing theories.
|> >
|> >Kent
|> >-------------------
|> >Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
|> >DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
|> >"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
|> >
|>     Well, the theory of creation goes like this:
|>         In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. .....

Uh Huh.    So what about peer review?

jon.
From: esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:42:40 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Dec22.122611.21699@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>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.

  This strikes me as a sort of knee-jerk response on Mr. Tun's part.  So I'd
like to offer him the opportunity to state whether he REALLY thinks that the
probabibility of life having come into existence without supernatural
intervention is 0 (not even almost 0).  If so, what licenses this conviction
that a natural explanation for life is, literally, impossible?  Have you an
argument that we might consider?

--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu    |  One chance. 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: TIME cover story
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 23:40:58 GMT

In article <1hlcnmINNkrb@agate.berkeley.edu> philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
>   Last week's TIME magazine cover story (Dec. 28) was titled
>"What Does Science Tell Us About God?".  The story (by Robert
>Wright) began by saying that "if you're religious in a
>conventional sense, you probably don't seek theological guidance
>from physicists."  Many people, however, are "religiously
>inclined, but reaching for scientific support" for their beliefs.
>
>   Some of the world's most prominent scientists seem to
>encourage this public attitude of looking to science to provide a
>basis for religion.  For example, Leon Lederman is publishing a
>book called "The God Particle," and the cosmo-theologies of
>Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan has been seen or read by millions. 
>Moreover, TIME said that "many, perhaps most, evolutionary
>biologists" now believe that "the coming of highly intelligent
>life was close to inevitable," because of a supposed inherent
>tendency of evolution to favor "behavioral flexibility," which
>demands "complex information processing - smarts."  This is in
>line with a general physical law waiting to be discovered which
>"would carve out local exceptions to the general tendency of
>things to become more chaotic."  TIME quotes Charles Bennett as
>saying that such a law would play a role "formerly assigned to
>God." TIME adds that others "would say that such a law is
>EVIDENCE of God -- not a God who created human beings out of
>dust, but a God with longer time horizons."
>
>     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.

When physicists and biologists speak of things outside their area of
expertise, we don't have any more reason to believe them than we would
to believe someone else.  (And if you're like Ted, you don't even
believe them when they *do* speak about their areas of expertise!  But
that's a whole other kettle of worms. . .)

Since scientists study the natural, I don't see how they could do much
to study things that defined to transcend nature.  That's why
"scientific creationism" is an oxymoron; you end up positing "God did
it" as an explanation for natural events, which is an explanation that
explains nothing.

SD

Xref: sparky talk.origins:16004 sci.astro:13584 sci.physics:22015
From: sjchmura@kimbark.uchicago.edu (steven joseph chmura)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Please post FAQ
Date: 1 Jan 93 22:50:15 GMT
Reply-To: sjchmura@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago


Would someone please post/e-mail me the FAQ.  I have not seen it in quite
sometime and I need some of the references.

Thanks....
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________Steven Chmura				University of Chicago Medical School(M1)
  "Given enough time, the impossible becomes probable, and the probable
	inevitable.."  -George Wald, "On the Origins of Life"
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 13:59:36 GMT

steven joseph chmura (sjchmura@kimbark.uchicago.edu) wrote:

: Err.  I think the "warm little pond" has been laid to rest finally.
: Those "garden of eden" type scientific origin of life hypothesis have all
: been shot and, in most peoples opinion, are all but dead.  The earth when 
: life arose, was far more virulent and interesting than these "warm" ponds
: where life could just spring up.
: 
: The earth was hot.  Water was alomost non-existext for the first beggingings
: of life.  Iron and metal catalysis through thin membrane like structures
: were probably the first beggings of "life".
: 
: For more info, I encourage you to read "On the Origins" a recently published
: work by Dr. Carle Woose of the University of Illinois C/U.  He has, among
: other things, given us the modern taxonomy of Archeobacteria and how
: these fit into the very early evolutionary tree.


	Why do you think Woose has come up with the definitive abiogenesis
theory?  And furthermore, in what media did those thin membrane-like
structures exist, if not water?  Please be more specific -- this theory
sounds interesting but you've only provided the barest details.
	Furthermore, it sounds like it might agree with my favorite --
the deep-sea hot springs.  That's why I'd like a better description.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:37:03 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

>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.)



Onar.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:16:42 GMT

In article <184@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>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.

Not true.  The simple explanation given to me years ago by
a Roman Catholic nun with a master's degree in biology was:
God is the guiding force of evolution.  When the early hominids
reached a certain point of development, God gave two of them
a human soul.  I no longer accept this, but within the framework
of Christianity there is nothing illogical with combining
acceptance of the fact of evolution with a belief in a next
world.  The box into which you have placed yourself
is entirely of your own making.

>Without something beyond this
>world, what meaning would you claim your life has?

Personally, my life has more meaning since I know that my
existence on Earth is the result of natural, understandable
processes, and not based on the capricious whim of some
diving puppetteer.  But since it is not the job of science
to give anyone a life-meaning, the question is
irrelevant.

>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?

Preparing a comfy place for myself in scientist-hell,
where I'll get to meet Darwin, Sagan, et al.  :)



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
       A Lie is still a Lie, even if you believe it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik )
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:10:59 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: world,local
Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <1992Dec22.122611.21699@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) wrote:
> 
> 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.

This is the issue, near zero is *not* zero. Even if you wish
this is the case.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000
From: lmh@iago.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Dating Methods
Date: 3 Jan 1993 12:08 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: iago.caltech.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <C0AGFH.E7I@iat.holonet.net>, remmons@iat.holonet.net (Robert Emmons) writes...
>I'm interested in a layman's guide to determining the age of fossils, 
>rocks, artifacts, etc. I've heard about dating via carbon and other 
>radio active decay methods, as well as tree ring counting, but I'd like
>to see a more detailed explaination. Are there any layman's books on
>the subject?
> 
 A good book on using radiometric dating to determine the age of the earth
(nothing on carbon) is:

The Age of the Earth  by  G Brent Dalrymple  Stanford Press 1991 474pp

It is a very well written book which can be read (in reasonably self-contained
chapters) by non-scientists. It explains the major methods used and how reliable
they are as well as applying them to earth rocks and meterorites and lunar 
samples. (I imagine it would get a strong 'thumbs down' from ted.)

larry henling  lmh@shakes.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: TIME cover story
Summary: TIME seems to enjoy obfuscating religious issues.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 00:50:10 GMT

In article <1hlcnmINNkrb@agate.berkeley.edu> philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
>Moreover, TIME said that "many, perhaps most, evolutionary
>biologists" now believe that "the coming of highly intelligent
>life was close to inevitable," because of a supposed inherent
>tendency of evolution to favor "behavioral flexibility," which
>demands "complex information processing - smarts."

Did the article give a clue of where to find such biologists?  I bet
none of them know much entomology.

>TIME adds that others "would say that such a law [order arising in chaos]
>is EVIDENCE of God -- not a God who created human beings out of
>dust, but a God with longer time horizons."

And others would say that seeing certain shapes formed by mold on the
side of a church is evidence of God.  Go figure.

I don't suppose the Time article ever got around to asking some of the
more fundamental questions, such as what is a god?  You need to answer
that before the question of evidence even makes sense.

>(1) Was this resolution [science and religion mutually exclusive]
>merely a stick to beat the creationists with, or does it apply to the
>National Academy's own members?

That resolution recognized the fundamentally different approaches taken
by science and religion.  Science ultimately rests on objective verification;
religion ultimately rests on subjective revelation.  You can't get much
more mutually exclusive than that.

>(2) Should we "seek theological guidance from physicists (or
>biologists)?"  We seem to be getting a lot of it lately.

Personally, I don't believe you should seek guidance from *anybody*
unless that person (A) has something which you want, and (B) either has
a long track record of successfully giving it to others, or is willing
to share personal experiences of how he or she got it, or (preferably)
both.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 23:30:44 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.070344.15578@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>}
>>}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.
>
>Sorry! My fault! Earthrise is of course not caused by rotation but rather more an
>effect called liberation. This allows us to see about 60% of the moon from earth.

"Liberation"?  You must mean "libation"--that's the standard technique for
causing "earthrise."  You don't even have to go to the moon to do it--just
keep trying and soon enough you'll see the earth rise up.

Trygve   (Though I suppose he could have meant "libration" but that's
          probably a long shot....)
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Talk.Origins Wrestling Federation
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:51:31 GMT
Organization: HTE

In article <1992Dec21.135734.20632@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
 
> But harmless.  I gave him a place that I'd be within a mile or two of his
> posting location, and now work full-time just a few miles away.  I've
> been within twenty miles or less for well over a decade.  
 
> Never seen him.  Not interested, not concerned.

Your "challenge", if you actually have the audacity to call it that, involved
me walking into a formal US Navy ceremony at a country club, X number of your
reserve buddies in attendance.  

As I've noted before, Mitre is PLENTY close enough.

Any time.


-- 
Ted Holden
HTE