HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David M. Utidjian Esc stnt)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:39:22 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <8gV9TB8w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>
>> In article <7ZD4TB3w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes writes:
>> 
>> >> >Read the book.
>> 
>> >Read the book.
>> 
>> Is this your new chant?
>
>We think you're a chicken, bwak, bwak, bwak! Come on, you yellow-bellied
>pseudo scientist. Put up them dukes! Awwww, does duh poor baby want
>momma to take away dat nasty pwoof? Awwww, don't cwy, baby! Momma will
>make dem nasty cweationists all go away. Den baby can have his bottle!
>
>Sincerely,
>Kalki "maggots from meat, maggots from meat" Dasa
>

I think Matthew should get major points here... for reducing
the Kalki "maggots" Dasa(s) to baby talk.  What do you say
T.O. regulars?  +10 for Matthew?

Note:  This post is my opinion and I am in no way associated
with Mr. Wiener other than reading his posts.

David "Don't sweat the technique!" Utidjian

BTW: Old chant and gratuitously long .sig deleted.
Xref: sparky talk.origins:14600 comp.ai.philosophy:6850
From: PLai@cup.portal.com (Patrick L Faith)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Life is Information
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 22:30:39 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Nov16.070141.2723@wixer.cactus.org>

> [life as information]

I agree basically, with the caveat that life is the
ability to block and transform information - which 
blocking and transfering must be balanced.  A rock
between two people can block information but not
transfer much - therefore is a high level life form.

A computer can block some information going between
people and transfer other pieces of information - but
its ability to make realtime decisions of what to block
and transfer is very limited - therefore a computer is
a very low level life form.

Some humans have the ability to block and transfer fairly
large levels of information.  Other humans have the very
little information processing abilities.  Under this kind
approach some people are at different levels of living - and
the catagorization of life forms is based more on computational
ability and aproach, rather than the format of which the computation
is taking place (i.e. a computer that has a better understanding of
all aspects of this planet may be considered more alive than a human
that only lives by stereotypes and ignorance).

PLai
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour)
Subject: From rec.humor.funny
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:02:47 GMT

Saw this today. Seemed relevent to current discussions:


Why God Never Received Tenure at the University
-----------------------------------------------
1. Because He had only one major publication.
2. And it was in Hebrew.
3. And it had no references.
4. And it wasn't published in a refereed journal.
5. And some even doubt He wrote it himself.
6. It may be true that He created the world but what has He published/done
   since ?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The scientific community has had a very rough time trying to repeat
   His results.


--
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: It's the Kalki Dasa Show! (was Re: In case Bales has ...)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 03:20:04 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Nash) writes:

> >Now, ask us to prove that this Supreme Godhead has been observed, and
> >we'll tell you how you personally can observe Him.
> 
> This is starting to get a bit far afield, but it was too precious to pass up.
> 
> First, we scientists are usually less interested in "proof" (in the absolute
> sense of a mathematically or logically rigorous proof) than in coherent,
> testable explanations of what we observe; second, even if we did have such an
> interest, there's a bit of a problem with your approach, which the below two
> cases should make clear:

The existence of God is testable, and any experiment which purports to
reveal Him is falsifiable. I will give you an experimental process by
which you can personally observe God, and you can perform the
experiment. If you follow the experimental procedure precisely in every
detail, and you do not observe God, then you have falsified the
hypothesis (the hypothesis being that the experiment produces
observational evidence of God). However, since many others have already
performed the experiment, and their findings were unanimous, you must be
very careful to keep detailed notes of your procedures so that you will
be absolutely sure that you did not omit even the smallest step. After
all, this is science.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Thompson's proof UPDATE
Keywords: Kalki is dishonest: proof.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:18:16 GMT

In article <70uDuB1w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> The introduction and part of the first section of Chapter 5 are typed up
> and ready to post. Dr. Thompson is in Europe and will be back around the
> 30th of November. His assistants say that he will most likely give us
> permission to reprint Chapter 5 of Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic
> Science in its entirety. By that time the rest of the chapter should be
> typed.

   Kalki, I already poked a fatal hole in Thompson's argument.  There is no no
descent model of abiogenisis and YOU ACCEPTED THAT PROPOSITION.  This means
that the very first term in Thompsons computations is invalid.  You also didn't
(as far as I can tell) ever refute the notion that the computational power of
evolution is not currently understood well enough to do probability estimates.
Thus the middle of Thomsons proof is garbage until shown innocent.  The proof
is dead wrong _even if_ its conclusions are correct.  
 
> We will post the chapter in sections, about 10k at a time, so that you
> prabhus have time to digest each part. Let's call it the "Anti-evolution
> FAQ", shall we?

   NO, NO, NO, NO.  It is _already_ known to be garbage and you have admitted
that.  That leaves no reason to post it.  Goddamn it why can't creationists
manage to show one shred of intellectual honesty?  Why can't they see that
acting like lying scum destroys their credibility. Ptough! Yuck-o.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Don't forget to chant:

"Ignore inconvienient facts. Ignore inconvienient facts. 
 Ignore inconvienient facts. Ignore inconvienient facts.
 Ignore inconvienient facts. Ignore inconvienient facts.
 Ignore inconvienient facts. Ignore inconvienient facts."
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:53:24 GMT

In article <17NOV199220394640@violet.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
}   My position is that there *are* parts of creationism which are
}scientific.  That is, there are creationists who have put forth theories
}about one thing or another which are scientifically testable.  In most
}cases, the tests have been done and the theories have been falsified.
}Having one's theories falsified does NOT make one nonscientific.  The
}history of science is the history of failed theories.
}   (Some theories of creationism which have been falsified are flood geology
}and the vapor canopy theory.)

Please note that I did NOT ask if "parts of creationism" were scientific.
There are "parts of astrology" that are scientific, as well as "parts" of
virtually EVERY bit of BS that abounds (that I've seen you debunk).  I DID
ask if CREATIONISM is scientific.  Your misdirection is not appreciated.

Or is your position that CREATIONISM AS A WHOLE is scientific?
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Lionel, Kalki, and Bales . . . take note
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:30:55 GMT
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks


  If you read my request for Kalki to explain where the information content
comes from in my alife project, skip the next paragraph . . .

  I am currently working on an alife project.  I am simulating bacteria in a
plate that seek food.  The original creatures have completely random brain
structures.  They are equipped with two food sensors (180 degree field of view,
offset at right angles on the front) and two wheels which can be run forward or
backwards.  Whenever a bacteria reaches the food it is rewarded by being
duplicated.  The duplicate overwrites the oldest creature, and both the ages are
reset to zero.  This repeats indefinately, and duplicates have small amounts of
mutation.

  Now, thanks to a bug in my program (I forgot that the Y direction goes from
top to bottom on a computer screen) there was a discontinuity in the universe
the bacteria inhabited.  These bacteria "saw" the food in the correct vertical
direction, but the mirrored horizontal direction.

  Now this didn't bother the bacteria, they just worked out where the food was,
and then went full tilt reverse -- toward where the food really was.  But when
they hit the discontinuity they would be flummoxed(*), the food would sudenly
appear in front of them and they would have to turn around.  A large number of
bacteria got stuck on this.

(*) yes, I know I'm anthropomorphizing.

  However, some bacteria learned, from no help by me (I didn't know the bug was
there) to keep track of which direction they turned last time they hit the
discontinuity, and turn the other way when they hit it again.  Thus they not
only overcame the bug, but actually used it to their advatage in guiding them to
the food.

  The thing that clued me off that there was a bug was the line of bacteria all
marching down the discontinuity toward the food.

  My point is that the behavior of the bacteria was not only unpradicted by me,
but I didn't even expect it to approach what was happening: they exceeded the
expectations their programming was made for, even beyond what I intended.  So
there was no inteligent force driving behind them.

  Despite this total lack of a guiding intelligence (they were doing the exact
opposite of what I wanted them to do) when I examined the data structures they
were very well designed.  The structure was a little funny, only a person on
drugs would have thought of doing it that way, but it was well ordered and the
structure was clear.

  So clearly structure does not require intelligence.  (I did not write any of
the programs for the bacteria).

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 05:15:21 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

TMakinen writes:

> In article <7JmDuB5w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> >-30 for replying to a serious statement with sarcasm.
>                        ^^^^^^^
> Is this a joke?

It's a test joke to see if you really have the sense of humor you claim
to.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:36:07 GMT

Someone says to Kalki:
> Shut up and read the FAQs. There are more evidence than you (pl.) would prefe

Kalki writes:
> We'll read the FAQ if you read the book!

I'll send you the FAQs for free if you'll send me the book for free.
--
Chris Stassen			408-943-0630			stassen@alc.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Kalki on speed.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:59:17 GMT

   Well, I sucessfully invalidated Kalki's proof (that
evolution is too improbable) without seeing it; the flaw is
the lack (anywhere) of any model of abiogenisis or any
estimate of the computational power of evoltuion.  Kalki
_agreed_ that there are no models for these things, and
then went on to attack all of evolution because we couldn't
model these quantites.

   So Kalki claimed evidence for a creationist position,
admitted he was lying, and then went on to degenerate into
stupid, ignorant attacks on evolution based on complete
ignorance of the subject and science in general.

   An he did it in RECORD TIME!!!!

   Therefore, by the powers granted me by the State of Intoxication 
I award 

 (contestant's name here)             Kalki 
                               ____________________

first place in the Creationist Wind Sprints 1992.  Since '93 is a
month or so away some might argue that this is premature, but, hey, 
who could imagine a faster journey in reverse down the path of 
evolution?  From confused newbie to admitted liar and ignorer of 
careful refutation in _one week_.

[pomp and circumstance]
[polite applause]

Thank you and good night.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
  


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: dwolff@res-c4.Prime.COM (David Wolff)
Subject: Re: In case Bales has convinced you of his honesty...
Organization: Computervision
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:32:55 GMT

In article <24RmuB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
> dwolff@cozy.Prime.COM (David Wolff) writes:
> 
> > > Now, ask us to prove that this Supreme Godhead has been observed, and
> > > we'll tell you how you personally can observe Him.
> > 
> > How about just sending us a photograph?  If he's been observed, or really
> > exists, you should be able to present some simple, unmistakable proof.
> 
> Do you mean to say that you will accept a photograph of God as proof of
> His existence? Because we can definitely send one to you.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Kalki Dasa

Gee, I set myself up for this, didn't I?  I'll accept a photo of God as
*evidence* of His existence.  I'd need a lot more to consider it *proof*.

By the way, I'm still curious about whether the Supreme Godhead is the
same as Robert Bales' God Who created all lifeforms.  Care to answer that
part of my post?

Anyway, if you wish, send this photo to me at:

David Wolff
MS 10-21
Computervision
500 Old Connecticut Path
Framingham MA 01701

David Wolff

dwolff@RES-C4.Prime.COM

Disclaimer:  Reflecting Computervision policy is a non-goal of this posting.
FreeAdvert:  Esperanto, the international language *that works*:
             Call (800) 828-5944 for free info package (US or Canada)
WittyQuote:  Witty but very long saying condensed into a microdot: "."
Kibofodder:  cfl Kibo msr
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com (wood,christopher)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 23:54:33 GMT

In article <1o4HuB4w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

[ Discussion of "Soul" and body trimmed...]

>But "you" in the proper sense, the soul that is personally
>you, cannot create another soul. Soul is a nonphysical entity which does
>not behave according to the causal structure of physical law.

>Consciousness, which is a nonphysical property of the nonphysical soul,
>cannot be studied by the reductionistic methods. But it can be studied
>scientifically, provided the scientific paradigm is expanded to include
>the acknowledgement that these nonphysical entities exist.

Science is the study of the material world.  Y'all can claim that your
pet entities can be studied "scientifically" when science is "expanded"
to include that which is not science.  Makes about as much sense as "I
am from Crete.  All Cretins are Liers."

>Since only the soul "has" consciousness, no. No machine we build can
>ever be conscious or have consciousness. We cannot build nonphysical
>entities using physical instruments. Nor can nonphysical entities be
>expected to emerge as a function of any purely physical operation. They
>are an altogether different kind of phenomenon.

>Sincerely,

Not!

>Kalki Dasa
-- 
Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
                         or ccw@prefect.cc.bellcore.com
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Abiogenesis of multicellular organisms
Date: 18 Nov 92 11:53:41 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov18.033140.23517@galois.mit.edu> tycchow@riesz.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow) writes:
>Here's something that I don't understand very well, and haven't been able to
>find discussed in any detail anywhere.  Consider an organism that

>1. Does not exist today but whose fossils do exist;
>2. Appears "suddenly" in the fossil record;
>3. Is the only representative of its phylum in the fossil record;
>4. Is macroscopic.
>
>I don't know of any examples offhand, but I'm sure they exist.  Call this
>organism the Lone Wolf.  Consider now:

Timothy raises the question as to why we don't expect to see new
instances of abiogenesis.

The conventional answer is that in any plausible abiogenetic scenario
there is a period of accumulation of complex organic molecules.  This
accumulation can only take place in the absence of life; otherwise the
complex organics will be consumed.  However bacterial life is omni-present;
ergo abiogenesis is a one time event.

The probability of the "lone wolf" is much worse than that of the
single prokaryote cell.  Multi-cellular life is eukaryotic; the
eukaryote cell is the product of multiple inclusions of prokaryote
symbiotes with subsequent loss of genetic information by the symbiotes.

Ignoring this difficulty, there is the consideration that multi-cellular
life has a reproductive cycle.  The lone wolf presumably would form as
a zygote; it would also have to have built into its genetic code, just
by chance, all of the genes for controlling reproduction.

In short, such a lone wolf, if it arose, would not be a eukaryote.  As
such it would be so different that it would occupy its own kingdom.
Nothing like this has ever been observed; it would be quite exciting
if it were.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: TMakinen
Subject: Challenge to the Kalkidom
Organization: <none>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 07:51:19 GMT

OK, Kalkii, here is a challenge for you.

It is based on simple statements you have admitted.

A) Viruses are living, thus they have consciousness.
B) A man-made replicate does not have consciousness.
C) Consciousness is independent of the material form.
D) It is possible to determine whether something has
   consciousness or not.

Now,

Somebody suggested that the classifying can only be
made by an illuminated person. What ever the method
to complete (D) is, we shall call it here X.

Then somebody puts one artificial (thus not conscious)
virus in a test tube and nine natural (conscious)
viruses in nine other test tubes and forms a row of
them in a numbered rack. He writes down which tube
contains the artificial virus. Note that the man-made
virus is identical to the natural viruses in its
material structure.

Then the test tubes are carried to another person who
does not know which tube contains the man-made virus.
That person shuffles the tubes according to the
instructions given by a computer random number
generator. He also writes down which moves are carried
out (like: swap tubes 3 and 8)

Then the test tubes are carried to the method X, which
is not able to get information of the previous steps
of the experiment. Method X selects the test tube which
has no conscious creature inside. The number is written
down.

The experiment is repeated so many times that the
preferred accuracy is obtained.

The results are checked.

If convenient, just one conscious and nine artificial
viruses per sample can be used.

Shall we play chicken?

Teemu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Let's cut the crap, Ted
From: kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:58:27 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <116@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.095142.11840@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
> 
> ^>What we DO know is that the felt effect of gravity was heavily attenuated
> ^>in antediluvian times, as I have heavily documented on t.o, that this is 
> ^>consistent with the notion of a former solar system of roughly the nature
> ^>which I have described, that Velikovsky, Talbott, Cardona, and others have
> ^>heavily documented the descriptions of this former system which exist in
> ^>antique literature and on pyramid walls etc.  Aside from Talbott's Saturn
> ^>Myth, there are numerous papers of Cardona's from Aeon and Kronos.
> 
> 
> ^Actually, I haven't seen *any* proof that the gravity was attenuated at
> ^some time, and also that there has ever been any flood. 
> 
> Always glad to accomodate newcomers to t.o.  I'll repost the stuff shortly.

   Now you've done it...

Karl
------
"Find a great ideal, a great purpose, marry it, and raise a family."
					 --Negativland, "U2"
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Repeat of Kalki challenge
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:02:44 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)

In article <1992Nov20.203500.4098@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news (James G. Acker) writes:
>	Let's discuss a REAL theory of abiogenesis.

One REAL theory of abiogenesis is the work of Anderson and others using
spin-glass models.  See, for example, Rokhsar, Anderson, Stein "Self-
organization in prebiological systems: simulations of a model for the
origin of genetic information" JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION 23, 119-
126 (1986).

In short, spin-glasses are one of the physicist's favorite examples of
broken symmetry, and of the formation of useful information in a random
context.  It was quite natural for Anderson, a Nobel laureate for this
very topic, to show how it could apply to abiogenesis.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)