HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: evolution nit
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:15:12 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <5762@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane) writes:

>Isolation is not the only requirement for evolution - there must be some
>`pressure' on the population which drives change.

Natural selection does not put pressure on organisms for adaptive
change to occur. Selection is differential reproductive success of
pre-existing genetic classes in a gene pool. Once adaptive variation
exists, selection can act on it -- but there is no mechanism to
signal organisms as to what an adaptive mutation would be. As an
analogy, you can think of adaptive change as a slide. You can sit 
on top as long as you want, but once you start down the slide you go
all the way to the bottom. Nothing pushes organisms to start down
the slide; but once they (by chance) venture too close to the
slope, they are caught.

(I see that Mr. Lane put pressure in quotes, so he probably knows
this and was just using shorthand. But, I like responding to
threads about evolution in any case -- so sue me 8-)

Having said that, I'll mention that in unicellular organisms (both
prokaryotes and eukaryotes) the potential for selection to act
can induce the "correct" mutation (and only that mutation) to
occur. This is currently a very hot research topic.

>Geoff. Lane.                                  Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15956 alt.atheism:16560
From: dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: BUSH'S anti-atheism quote
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:22:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.AedyyuO00WB654cEZs
Organization: Masters student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I'm planning on writing an article about religious freedoms in this
country, and while I'm _pretty_ sure the quote is correct, I want to be
sure I can verify the source and accuracy.

What paper/other place can I look to verify that this was said in the
public domain?

David
dh4j@andrew.cmu.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15963 talk.origins:10900
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:39:34 GMT
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI

If we're all created in God's image...how come I have hemorrhoids?

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: Life Spring...Request for References
Organization: a2i network
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:59:09 GMT

In <1992Sep4.143609.20097@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert
McGrath) writes:

>So are you saying it isn't the organization that Werner Erhart formed after
>parting from EST?

I believe Lifespring was started by John Hanley, who was influenced by
Est.  I don't think Werner Erhardt (sp?) had any direct involvement in
Lifespring.

Interesting bit of trivia:  Mitchell Kapor, the person who made his
millions from Lotus 1-2-3, and later founded the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, was once an Est instructor.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
also:  dhesi@cirrus.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16264 talk.origins:11186
From: davisson@milton.u.washington.edu (Gordon Davisson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 11 Sep 92 04:36:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep11.043617.19903
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <26133@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.052345.3538@u.washington.edu>, davisson@milton.u.washington.edu (Gordon Davisson) writes...
>>Empirical science has *never* absolutely proven any

>Do you have *any* doubt that blood circulates though the body?  Do you
>have any doubt that the brain is the seat of your consciousness?  
>Do you have any doubt that penicillin cures polio?

Yes, yes, and very definitely.

>I suppose that you will say yes, at which point this thread must
>necessarily end.  I just don't know what to say in response to that 
>attitude - except to say that it seems to require a definition of "proof"
>which is contrary to the way that working scientists view the world.

I don't think we disagree as much as all that; I just think you're
mistaking epsilon for zero.  Just because there is a very very very small
amount of uncertainty on some issue does not mean there is no uncertainty
at all.

I'll happily agree that the things you've listed (well, most of them) are
known with enough certainty for all practical purposes, and should be
regarded as facts.  (Except on alternate thursdays, when I'm a solipsist,
and therefore regard all external reality as illusory.  But this is not a
practical purpose :-)

Also, I don't think this is foreign to the way at least some working
scientists view the matter.  See, for example, the Feynman quote in my
.sig (it's from "The Value of Science", in _What Do *You* Care What Other
People Think?_) or Stephen Jay Gould's similar comments in "Evolution as a
Fact and a Theory" (which Larry Moran just excerpted in a posting with a
similar title).

--
Human:    Gordon Davisson
HASA:     Member, S division.
Internet: davisson@milton.u.washington.edu
	
	"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees
	 of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none
	 *absolutely* certain."		-- R. P. Feynman
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLICAL  I vote [X]Yes!
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:53:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.125142.4019@cuug.ab.ca> rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (Robert P.J. Day 277-3175) writes:
>  If Mr. Lawson, or whoever, insists on this type of behaviour, is it
>really that difficult to track down his/her site, locate the sys admin
>and make it clear that this person's actions are unwanted and contravene
>the mandate of that particular group?  This is not censorship, it is
>simply insisting that posters behave appropriately and restrict their
>postings to the appropriate groups.

To be fair, I don't think Drew Lawson's postings take up very much
bandwidth.  It's actually the rebuttals that take up much more.  I don't
believe that you can blame him for that.

>R. Day


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: martin@adpgate.UUCP (Martin Golding)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist?
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:40:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: adpplz.1574
Organization: ADP Dealer Services R&D, Portland, OR

> In article <1570@adpplz.UUCP> martin@adpgate.UUCP (Martin Golding) writes:
>> No religion of which I am aware offers knowledge that bypasses reason.
>> I'd be interested in hearing about it.

arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> How about the Trinity?

I was unclear. That's an axiom, which is not subject to refutation, but
it can be reasoned about, and has been. (Before you get all huffy about
who gets to pick the axioms, I should mention I have a map on which
parallel lines all meet at a point.) My point was that reason, and
discussion, of the basic axioms of all the religions of which I am
aware are acceptable to those religions. Not argument with, discussion
using (just as Euclidean Geometry is a collection of axioms, from which
conclusions can be drawn, that are mostly wrong). The Scientific Creationist
sect, for instance, takes the position that "God created the world and all
the existing species in seven days" as an axiom, and reasons from that.


>> Do you toss geometry out the window
>> because it doesn't explain how many pounds of hydrogen can be extracted
>> from a liter of water?

> Geometry doesn't claim that you _can't_ extract hydrogen from water.  If it
> did, there would surely be something wrong with it.  Like it or not, many
> religions _do_ make claims which involve science. 

Aha. We get to the point. You have accepted that "Scientific Creationism"
is not just bad science (which you are qualified to distinguish) but is
also Christianity itself (which you can't distinguish. Not your fault,
but given the astounding arrogance of their first claim, perhaps you should
take the second with a little more salt). Scientific Creationism is a small
but noisy sect, not to be mistaken for mainstream Christianity.


Where a religion makes claims that are falsifiable by science, it has
overstepped its bounds. Few religions contain such stands.

Where someone claims that science has a position on the existence of God,
or that religion and science are inherently contradictory, science (or the
person making the claim) has stepped well outside of its bounds. Science,
not having observed God, says nothing about the subject. 


It is devoutly to be wished that both sides would recognise the difference.


Martin Golding    | I don't have to be right.
DoD #0236         |    I have a _recipe_ for crow.
[motcsd!]mcspdx!adpgate!martin
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: tlode@nyx.cs.du.edu (trygve lode)
Subject: Re: Let's test the sevens-in-Bible phenomenon!
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 20:53:45 GMT

 
in <4729384@gloin.unh.edu>
    Kalter@unh.edu writes:
 
] Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.  The skeptics are in
] business to investicate and test any testable claims of the extraordinary.
] The prospect that off-the-shelf original-language books of the Bible
] produce sevens when run through an objective formula has got to be
] THE MOST TESTABLE CLAIM ever to come down the pike.  It do, or it don't.
] Cynicism aside, anyone who knows that there is hard evidence on an issue,
] has not examined it, knows that another has made an observation, yet
] says "I don't need to see for myself; they're just WRONG!" does not
] truly adhere to the skeptic's philosophy.  A skeptic would insist on a
] second opinion.  BRING IN THE EVIDENCE. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
 
Well, let's explore this just a little bit more--
 
My first name is "Trygve"; in standard numerological analysis (A = 1,
B = 2, etc., and adding up the digits until a single-digit number is
arrived at) this works out to be 7.  Additionally, "Trygve Lode" is
numerologically congruent to 7; even my full name, "Trygve Tennyson
Lode" works out to 7.  When I was young, some people called me "Tryg"
which also works out to be 7.  Proof enough?  Well, there's more!
 
I moved to Colorado when I was 7 years old.
I currently live in Cherry Hills Village which is numerologically
congruent to 7.
My full address "3270 Cherryridge Road, Cherry Hills Village, CO  80110"
is also congruent to 7.
My phone number (781-6309) is congruent to 7.
My social security number is congruent to 7.
My driver's license number is congruent to 7.
I was born 2/3/1963 at 22:15 which is congruent to 7.
This makes me an aquarius, which is the sun sign corresponding to the
number 7.
Currently, the largest single portion of my income is derived from a
limited partnership named "CCM Trading Partners 2" which is congruent to 7.
My net worth is currently (on paper, anyway) in 7 figures.
My suit size is 52 which is congruent to 7.
The number of congruences (including this one) given in this message is
congruent to 7.
 
Well, I could go on, but I think the conclusion we can draw from this is
obvious--yes, this is conclusive proof that *I* wrote the bible!  So,
from now on, if anyone has any doubts on what I meant when I wrote a
particular passage in the bible (which I originally intended to submit
to "Amazing Science Fiction" but I'd read too much Frank Herbert before
starting it and it got kinda out of hand), you should ask me.  (Oh, yes,
and that money people are currently donating to the church, that should
go to me too; just send it to the address above.)
 
Trygve

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Belief without Evidence  (was: Young earth NOT!)
Summary: Drew Larson displays near-infinite hubris.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 00:16:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.190449.13220@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>No, I don't have any scientific evidence for [a young earth].  There are many
>other things for which I have no evidence:
>  - that my life has meaning or purpose
>  - that some actions are better than others (i.e. helping someone. . .)
>  - that I love my wife
>  - that a stary summer night is beautiful
>
>[. . .]  I don't feel it [a theory of creation] is a scientific matter.

All of the things on your list are your own personal judgments; they apply
only to you.  You can not validly say whether MY life has meaning (to me),
whether I love MY wife, or whether I find starry nights beautiful.  The word
"hubris" is used to refer to those people who do believe that their own
value judgments should apply to others as well.  What word can we use for
Drew, who believes his judgment applies to the entire universe?
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: evolution and god/s coexisting
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:47:05 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep2.021331.29064@news.cs.indiana.edu> hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager) writes:
|lopresti@henson.cc.wwu.edu (lopresti robert) writes:
|
|
|I have argued that science CAN tell us something about the nature of
|a deity/deities, however.  Omniscient and omnipotent deities of the
|Yahwe variety aren't possible.

I disagree, omniscient, omnipotent, *capricious* deities are ruled out.
If you believe YHWH to be eternally consistant, then there is no problem.
[Of course that means you have to allow for imperfect understanding of
his nature by the early Israelites - that is for 'progressive revelation'].
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: rickh@chtor.East.Sun.COM (Rick Holt - SunExpress IR)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Date: 15 Sep 1992 11:58:21 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rickh@chtor.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: chtor.east.sun.com

In article 5201@gold.gvg.tek.com, johna@psdcae1.gvg.tek.com (John Abt) writes:
>There is a novel out that is built around this concept of
>cloning dinosaurs with fossil DNA (sorry, I don't remember
>the name). Matter of fact, Stephen Speilburg is presently
>filming the movie version in Kauai.... or at least he was.
>The movie is "Jurassic Park" - maybe that's the books title 
>also.
>
>John Abt


You're right, it is _Jurassic Park_.  Written by Michael Crichton (of _Andromeda Strain_
fame).  I thought it was a pretty good book.  Hopefully Speilburg will do the dinosaurs
justice.

---

Rick Holt

rick.holt@East.Sun.COM

..Insert clever .sig here...

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15939 talk.origins:10875
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:10:16 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1297@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
|In article <87732@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|>...  Third--the question is further malformed.  It
|>assumes that your categories (see below) are all distinct and can be
|>easily distinguished.  Excluding abiogenesis, this is false, as they are
|>all interconnected and mutually support each other.
|
|	One of our differences lies in the question of what concepts 
|are separable and which are not. Your are quite correct that the 
|question was deconstructionist by design. Since the Bible and 
|evolutionary biology are at odds, something has to give somewhere.

Only if you take a rather extreme literalist approach to the Bible.
Thus it is more accurate to say that the Bible, the historical sciences
(astronomy, biology, linguistics &c.), and literalist theology cannot
all three be meaningful.
|
|	I have to say that I thought Chris's reply was more relevant.
|Once again, the interdependency stuff seems to be the point at
|issue. Why does science need to be a black box, take it or leave it ?

That is not what is being said.  What is being claimed is that *many*
categories of evidence, derived from many different scientific specialties,
all point simultaneously to an old Earth that has changed significantly
over time.  These evidences interlock, and provide mutual support to one
another.  You cannot just throw out one small piece of the set of evidence
and expect to get a consistant interpretation.

Biology was unified into a single science by the concept of evolution.
Astronomy is only able to make sense out of its observations by deducing
an ancient universe, including an old Earth.
Linguistics can trace the history of certain language families back more
than 10,000 years.
Certain modes of determining the ages of rocks are based directly on
well established physics, such that rejecting the results would require
rejecting the physics.

Thus you cannot just say, 'throw out evolution and you can have a 6000
year old Earth', you must throw out much of all of the major sciences
to do this.

|	Hmmph. Back to the subject. "Evolution" is neither historical
|(being primarily located temporally in prehistory), nor a "fact".

This uses a slightly different meaning of the word "historical" than
is meant in the phrase 'historical science'.  What is meant by calling
paleontology an historical science is that it deals (in a scientific
manner) with past events, trying to reconstruct them with varying degrees
of precision.

And the the occurrance of evolution is so well established by the evidence
that this is as firmly a fact as is the existance of atoms.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16241 alt.conspiracy:10542 sci.classics:700
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,sci.classics
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:11:35 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Sep10.070739.7301@wheaton.wheaton.edu> kroth@david.wheaton.edu (Ken Roth) writes:

>(and they are many) read it.  Of course, if you talk to one who dislikes 
>Evangelicals, you will get the same view.  Of course, this is not to say that
>BAR is the BEST magazine out there (it ain't), but it is a valid resource.

Prejudice against evangelicals is, after all, prejudice.



-- 
+ Michael Covington - Artificial Intelligence Programs - U of Georgia - USA 
+ Unless otherwise noted, these are private opinions, not official statements.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again...
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:14:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.232921.20507@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.080451.18660@ttinews.tti.com> bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.170155.12428@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew
>>Lawson) writes:
>>Sigh.  I'm sure you'll continue to see it under every rock, the way
>>McCarthyites saw Communists everywhere.  NOBODY in this conversation
>>(and I've been following it, er, religiously) has said any such thing
>>(i.e., that evolution concludes that there is no God).  I don't
>>understand why you insist on reading this into everything, but as your
>>incomprehension above demonstrates, that's exactly what you do, time and
>>again without fail.
>>
>
>I thought that I rememebered a fellow by the name of Vern who did

Sorry, the name was Gerard Vernon Nelson, no slur was intended...

>espouse the idea that evolution and God were inconsistent?  As a matter
>of fact, you replied to him! Remember?
>
>>bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
>
>
>
>-- 
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Date: 8 Sep 92 05:08:00 GMT
 <1992Sep6.204336.4377@meteor.wisc.edu> <1992Sep7.181145.29667@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>
Distribution: na,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep7.181145.29667@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>, max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes...
>Along a similar vein, there is the syndrome[whose name escapes me], in which
>visual awareness can be destroyed, without the patient being _aware_ of the
>deficit.  It is the latter symptom that suggests to me that consciousness is a
>function of the brain, for it indicates that it is consciousness _itself_
>that was damaged, rather than just a sensory process.

There are a number of things similar to this described in Oliver Sacks'
_The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat_, including unilateral neglect
(the chapter "Eyes Right!") and prosopagnosia (the title chapter), but I
suspect you are referring to what Patricia Churchland refers to in
_Neurophilosophy_ (pp. 228-230) as blindness denial.  (She says it is
also called "Anton's syndrome.")

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:16:32 GMT

In article <715486013.AA00000@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>Monday August 31 1992, Warren Burstein writes to All:
>
>WB> It is not the case that all Orthodox Jews are creationists.
>
>I believe that you may be wrong in this, depending on how you define Orthodox
>Jews and depending on how you define creationism. I believe Orthodox Judaism
>demands a Creator who is an all-powerful First Cause. For instance, the Thirteen

Since when does an all-powerful First Cause translate to creationist?


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729