HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 17:50:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.145820.15124@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>but if God is not relevant to the question of the origin of
>the world and the life thereon, where is God relevant?

In your own personal life.  Nowhere else.
-- 
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: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Thank you, Antti, for discussing things.
Keywords: Antti, evolution, creation, holistic, Menem, Norrblad
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:41:52 GMT

zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber) writes:
>	If you think science is faith, then you don't understand science.

	I meant that evolutionism is a religion. 

>	In the realm of the future unknown, it is impossible to know what will
>eventually help us and what will not.

	We know that the Greek Sophism hasn't helped the mankind, neither would
	today's sophism. 

>	If you are not going to engage in 'speculative, scientific talk' then
>I sincerely request that you leave this newsgroup. If you're not even going
>to try and explain your specific (nonreligious) objections to evolution, then
>please try other newsgroups.

	Thank you, I would love to. You were honest enough to say it aloud. I
	have an interesting text about nonreligious objection to evolution,
	if you want it ask it from me by email. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
From: maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Teaching Evolution
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:34:26 GMT
Distribution: talk.origins
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY

I have just finished reading Henry Morris's "Scientific Creationism
(Public School Edition)" and Paul Kitcher's "Abusing Science."  I find
myself agreeing with something that Mr. Kitcher begins to propose,
both of these books could be presented together in a high school
biology/science class.  Students could be asked to refute the
creationists arguments and show why some of their logic is flawed.
They would learn what makes a science a science, some history about
earlier theories (back when the mainstream was still agonizing over
these issues the creationists insist on bringing up again and again),
how to perform research, and through questioning a stronger more
complete understanding of evolution.  Perhaps reading something like
Henry Morris's "Scientific Creationism" will anger them enough to ask
questions and not believe everything they read.

Henry Morris might be right, his book might stop the production of
mindless drones and lead more students to be inquisitive and
questioning.

The only problem I can see is that their might be the student who
fails to grasp the arguments and comes away with a stronger belief in
creationism.

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but has anyone taught
such a class?  Has anyone ever thought about this before?

Regards - Bill Maguire.

P.S.  This would be an ironic "win" for the creationists as their work
would be given time in the classroom...
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kamphau@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus)
Subject: History or Science?
Reply-To: kamphau@oktext.UUCP (Mark Kamphaus)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 18:15:18 GMT

I am curious as to why creation "science" has focused on
"science" instead of history.  The age of the earth, any
of the creation events (as they describe them), would be a
matter of history.  No explaination is necessary as to *how*
an event occurred, only that it did.  Using science would be
one way to help substantiate that an event did occur, but the
event itself should be considered *history*.  Now I do
understand that history and science aren't exculsive and
for some events it is only science that can establish them
as history.

The reason that I believe the focus is on science is that
"modern" science doesn't support their particular historical
beliefs.  Therefore, science must be distorted until support
for their beliefs can be obtained.  [hydraulic sorting, variations
in the speed of light, UV barrier, etc].

If the event is "miraculous", then there is no need for a scientific
explaination.  Yet, the creationist cannot envision a "miraculous"
God, and therefore futily attempts to use "science" as though it
were more reliable and accurate than the god he has envoked to work 
through it.  Creationism is a farce, to both science and to those
whose religion do not restrict their God from the miraculous.

If the earth was created with a "history" of evolution, then science
can do nothing but perceive and confirm that "history".  If that is
the created history, and does not reveal the true history (which may be
found elsewhere) then science CANNOT perceive it.  The *best* science
would reveal in exact minute detail every part of the created history.
This leads to a contridiction in the creationist position.
1) That true(creation) science is able to discern true(creation) history
and
2) The creation was created *with a history of age*.

I claim that creation science cannot be true science if it does not
accurately reveal the history they claim the earth was created with.
If the creationist wants to claim that his position is history and
*because* the creation was made with a history attached and therefore
science would not be able to discern the difference, then his focus
would be on history/ philosophy/ exposition instead of scientific
reaserch.

So my question, why does the creationist focus in science?

mark
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Antti is confusing (was Re: Antti is confused)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:30:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.113914.21606@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
[...]
>>if the intermediate subspecies did go extinct, why
>>would you continue to insist that the extreme (sub)species were not
>>full species?
>
>	Because it seems that the Biblical definition of species differ from
>	scientific definition. This is speciation in scientific sense ONLY, I
>	can agree that. 

Please provide us with the Biblical definition of species.

Can we take this as an admission that, since speciation in the scientific
sense was shown to be occurring in the _Larus_ case, the _Larus_ case 
does not offer scientific evidence against speciation; that, in fact,
it offers strong scientific evidence _for_ speciation?  If your answer is
no, then please elaborate on your reasons.

In case it's slipped your mind, let me show you your first reference to
_Larus_.  Are you admitting that you were incorrect?  Why or why not?

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>        I suppose you (all) know the famous Larus fuscus - Larus argentatus
>        -case ? In this it SEEMS to be speciation, but it's only micro-
>        evolution.

Or are you admitting that you - Antti, the Great Biologist, didn't
understand the scientific definition of "species?"

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Creationists and the scientific method (was Review of Creationist...)
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:36:51 GMT
Distribution: talk
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes, in part:
> I have read a supposedly good article from a Crationist journal, and
> am now presenting my review of it.
> 
> The article is "Creationis Geology: Where fo the 'Precambrian' Strata Fit?"
> [...]
> The final section, "implications and discussion", is painfully bizarre.
> It immediately starts out by *assuming* the Creationist position, and
> proceeds to attempt to fit all of the data into the text of the Genesis
> account.  Explanations are introduced merely to make particular data
> fit within the predetermined framework.  This complete *reversal* of
> sound scientific methodology makes the whole section utterly worthless.
> The only criterion of 'truth' seems to be "does this fit the Genesis
> account"?  This leads to the acceptance of some rather bizarre ideas.
> [Of course, I am not really surprised, but the article would have been
> better if this section were left out].

I don't see what you find "painfully bizarre" about this, other than
the fact that it was a creationist writing it.  For example, try the
same paragraph out with a couple of word changes:

"The final section, "implications and discussion", is painfully bizarre.
It immediately starts out by *assuming* the [Newtonian | behaviorist] 
position, and proceeds to attempt to fit all of the data into the text 
of [Newton's | Skinner's ] account.  Explanations are introduced merely 
to make particular data fit within the predetermined framework.  This 
complete *reversal* of sound scientific methodology makes the whole 
section utterly worthless.  The only criterion of 'truth' seems to be 
"does this fit the [Newtonian | behaviorist] account"?  This leads to 
the acceptance of some rather bizarre ideas."

Fitting data to an established framework *is* part of "sound scientific
methodology."  If the framework is any good, the data fits in just fine.
Sometimes it doesn't, and people work to make it fit or leave it for
someone else's dissertation to worry about. Only when anamolies become 
to many or to pronounced to "fit" within the framework is the framework 
in danger of undergoing wholesale change (and then, only after the main
champions of the framework have died off).  

I'm not trying to say that the creationists were trying to do good
science.  Nevertheless, we shouldn't jump on them when it isn't 
warrented just because we disagree with them.

> Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

--
              Mike Sellers      User Interface Team Leader
           mike@isgtec.com      ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
              "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
                         Furare tantum ab Optimis
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James)
Subject: Re: Back to "Bales' scales"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:35:32 GMT


>In a hierarchical evolutionary relationship, you would expect a characteristic
>to be absent prior to the time it evolved and to be present after that time.
>But consider the previous list with respect to color vision:

>              Bony fish  (yes)
>              Other fish (no?)
>              Amphibians (?)
>              Reptiles   (yes)
>    General mammals (no)        Birds (yes)
>    Primates (yes)

>Not a hierarchy.  But what you would get if a Creator selectively gave color
>vison to the organisms which need it.

Uhh, no.  You have made some enormous mistakes here.
1) Color vision need not have evolved only once in the past.
2) Organisms which don't "need" color vision could have lost it.

Witness the blind cave fish that clearly had sight at one time.

[deletions]
>answer is "they do."  Consider an organism

>    with a tail resembling a beaver's,
>    with a bill resembling a duck's,
>    with webbed toes,
>    that uses echo location,
>    is venemous,
>    has fur,
>    and has cheeck pouches like a squirrel's.

>Creatures such as the platypus do not fit into a "boring heiearchy," are hard
>for evolution to explain, but pose no problem for creation.

NOTHING poses a problem for creation except how many time God snapped his fingers, wiggled
His nose or whatever He did to pop things into existence.

Last Tuesdayism at its most boring.

--
 Michael James       mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 

       barf  [ba:rf]  2.  "He suggested using FORTRAN, and everybody barfed."
            - From The Shogakukan DICTIONARY OF NEW ENGLISH (Second edition)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: History or Science?
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 13 Sep 1992 21:11 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep11.181518.11696@swbatl.sbc.com>, kamphau@oktext.UUCP (Mark Kamphaus) writes...
>I am curious as to why creation "science" has focused on
>"science" instead of history.  The age of the earth, any
>of the creation events (as they describe them), would be a
>matter of history.  No explaination is necessary as to *how*
>an event occurred, only that it did.  Using science would be
>one way to help substantiate that an event did occur, but the
>event itself should be considered *history*.  Now I do
>understand that history and science aren't exculsive and
>for some events it is only science that can establish them
>as history.

They sometimes argue this way.  At the ICR's "Back to Genesis" seminar
in Tucson a couple of years ago, the argument was specifically made that
neither evolution nor creationism are science, but that creationism
is history--reported by eyewitnesses in the Bible.

   Immediately after making this argument, the speakers proceeded to
make claims about science supporting creationism and conflicting with
evolution.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: martin@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk (Martin Spenceley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:08:51 GMT
Reply-To: martin@Chemeng.Ed.Ac.Uk
Organization: Edinburgh University Chemical Engineering Department.
Originator: martin@wick

In article 247@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>God has given you a very precious priviledge called _free choice_.
>On the one hand you can reject God and go your own way - the
>consequences are that you will not be allowed in His presence.
>On the other hand He says that He will let anyone who earnestly
>seeks Him find Him. The ball as they say is in your court.
>

Okay you've convinced me! What's his address? Phone Number? PO BOX? Is
there any direct line or do I just have to imagine I am talking to him
and him to me. If so I'd better do this in private 'cause if anyone finds
me talking to 'myself' I may be dragged off the the funny farm! ;-)

That book which he is supposed to have written, which version should I
be reading? The ones with the Virgin birth or the ones that are
supposed to be translated properly?  Why was it written so that it can
be interpreted in many ways, 'Thou shall not kill', but to defend God,
King and country, say the church (who studies it more than the average
person) is okay?

Which version of the book has that right connection? How about the
Mormans (with their extra guide?), the J. Witnesses with its easy to
read, lets ignore the stuff we don't like style.

On second thoughts, if someone provides so many alternative ways in
seeing the world around us and expects us see through everything and
not make a mistake in the process, (aren't we all supposed to be
fallable, automatically sinning, etc) and expects us to worship
something I cannot see, feel, touch or talk to in a sensible way. Who then
acts childishly and not to forgive my mistakes in the end. Well I think I'll 
forget it,  its not worth the bother.

If God gave us a voice to communicate and ears to listen with; why can't he
use these useful appendages to communicate with me like everyone else!

Okay, selfish gene (which he also is supposed to have given me) do your
worst, take the evidence presented to you and use my life effectively. What? 
Did you say I would be better off using my life to continuing my DNA line 
instead of worshipping some guy who doesn't even follow his own standards. 
Okay, I'll go with that! Down boy!

>--
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

Sorry folks, a thousand :-) 

I just could not resist going overboard with the sarcasm, I'm okay now! Back to the entertainment, next article!

Martin.


-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Martin W. Spenceley                        Telephone 031 650 5891         
    Department of Chemical Engineering         Email M.W.Spenceley@uk.ac.ed   
    Edinburgh University                       or    martin@uk.ac.ed.chemeng
From: root@lyra.scg.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A False Dichotomy
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:26:18 GMT
Reply-To: root@lyra.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Sep2.085458.13004@smds.com] rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
]In article <1992Sep1.205004.17772@asl.dl.nec.com] duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
]
]]Yes, but my point would be that the reason we're able to conclude that
]]pyramids were built by humans is that they bear the marks of something
]]that be can compare with our current knowledge and conclude that it took
]]more than a hurricane to build them....
]
]]If our only present knowledge of complex things being produced (things of
]]a functional or mechanistic complexity) requires intelligent intervention
]]then when we see other things with these marks we can only conclude that
]]they originated in a similar fashion. 
]
]This is a false dichotomy.  Complex things are produced by (a) natural
]abiological processes, e.g. snowflakes, the Grand Canyon, (b) by
]intelligent intervention, e.g. the Pyramids, and (c) biological processes
]not requiring intelligence, e.g. a cell reproducing or someone posting
]to talk.origins.

Another way to look at this argument is to carefully examine what we
mean by intelligent.  One way of defining intelligence is "the ability
to acquire and retain knowledge".  We think of intelligence as applying
only to conscious beings such as ourselves, but this is not necessarily
the only kind of intelligence (in this special, more narrow sense as
defined above).  In this sense the process of evolution, by natural 
selection, is "intelligent".  It is also "creative", in the sense that
it "creates or is able to create".  But it is not purposeful, or
conscious.

Dave
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: 25,000,000 year-old BEE?????????
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 19:21:20 GMT

In article <6SEP199212334306@rosie.uh.edu> cosc177z@rosie.uh.edu (92H02966) writes:
>In article <2AA81ADF.5977@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes...
>>sjc28473@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven Joseph Chmura) writes:
>>>"Scientists have found DNA from a bumble bee 25,000,000 (yes, million) year
>>>old.  This is forcing science to re-think the Evolotionary clock.."
>>>
>>>1)  How old are Bees anyway?
>> 
>>I'm not sure about bees exactly, but modern insects evolved about 300
>>million years ago.  So 25 million years ago isn't much.
>> 
>>>2)  Was this a joke?
>> 
>>Doubt it.
>It may have sounded like a joke on the radio if the left out the fact that
>the Bee was not alive but preserved in amber.  In the article I read, it went
>on to say that they hope to get dinosaur DNA from mesquitos (sp?) similarly
>encased in amber.;

For a practical application read Michael Crichton's _Jurassic Park_ or wait
about a year for Steven Spielberg's movie.  B-)>

-- Herb Huston


Xref: sparky talk.origins:11163 alt.atheism:16967 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3554 sci.skeptic:16249
From: elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism,alt.fan.dan-quayle,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 13:53:08 CDT
Organization: Minas Tirith BBS (Public Access Usenet for New Orleans)

sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

> In article <w88uqB3w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans
> >danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
> >
> (some stuff deleted)
> >This is a case where Limbaugh is wrong.  Liberals do know how to laugh, both
> >ourselves and at the whackos on the right.  Trudeau has been making us laugh
> >for a long time, and Breathed also, albeit only on Sundays now.  Let 'em hav
> >low rent strip like B.C.
> >
> >Of course, if Trudeau really does fire everyone in his strip for their lack 
> >'family values,' that'll only leave the empty images of GHWB and Our Boy.
> >
> 
> This thread has me thinking about Our Boy and the "cultural elite".
> Consider comics like Doonesbury and Bloom County.  Consider the number
> of movies which satirize fundamentalism.  Consider that Jay Leno's
> jokes about the Bushman / Dan-o seem to get more laughs than jokes
> about any Democrat (except maybe for Ted the K.).  Now consider 
> B.C.  Consider the lame and boorish attempts at humor at the
> RepuliCon Convention.  Consider other attempts in conservative
> / fundamentalist literature at humor or satire (they are few
> and far between).
> 
> A cursory analysis would lead one to believe in the myth of
> the liberal cultural elite; since "cursory" is the outer
> boundary of the Dandroid's thinking ability, this explains
> why he is so fond of the myth.
> 
> The point of this rambling:  are Dan-o and his minions just
> inherently funnier than the Dems?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> | Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
> | U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Inherently funnier?  I dunno.  When Limbaugh starts on Teddy, I normally 
laugh my butt off, and I was born in Mass.  The bit he does with making 
his speech come out as if it's underwater is quite funny, IMHO.

In Our Boy's case, he's inherently stupider than any of the Democrats.  
The errant preacher like Swaggart is fodder for the comics/standup 
cannons also.  Guys like Robertson are hysterical when they start with 
the hurricane diversions, etc.

I think that the right (Limbaugh in particular) likes to characterize 
liberals as the braless, pro-choice, feminist, wearing faded jeans and 
Birkenstocks, who is shouting red-faced at some priest holding a Bible 
and a rosary.  They take the left-fringe examples (some of whom *are* 
pretty humorless) and try to make all liberals fit that mold.

The problem with this is that the 'cultural elite' isn't all so serious.  
Sure, we have liberals who need to lighten up a bit, but they've got 
Marilyn the Dannsterette.  Talk about humorless!  



>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<
>Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087<
Newsgroups: talk.origins