HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Plato's STATESMAN/Age of Kronos
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:45:15 GMT

In article <1692@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen) writes:
}In article <191@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
}|> 
}|> 4.  Astronomers, members of the t.o crew etc. worshiping Carl Sagan
}|>     (similar to 3).
}
}Giggle - how silly!
}
}Most serious astronomers think Sagan is a loud-mouthed wind-bag.
}An odd sort of worship that!

Do not have to be a "serious astronomer".  I wish the guy would stick
to what he knows - he happens to have done a few papers on planetary
atmospherics that I thought were a bit interesting, co-authored a few, 
and worked on the venerian probe.  But he has gone the way of Jock Custo
(spelled wrong on purpose), and does the same for astronomy as J -
very little real knowledge generated, but a lot of noise and PR.  I have
jet to see a "Serious scientist" that thinks highly of what he is doing now.
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Mark's Laws of Biology
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:15:04 GMT

In article <C0KGC6.Fon@ecf.toronto.edu>, vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG
NICHOLAS JOHN) writes:
> Actually, he does say average, and as far as I know everyone who is born,
> dies.

  Hmmm.  This is a bold assertion.  Let us consider the evidence.  Currently the
world population is over 5,000,000,000.  The number of people who ever existed
cannot be much more than 100,000,000,000.  Therefore over 5% of the people on
earth have not died.

  Now I don't know about you, but if I were told 95% of the people did X, I
would not assume that everybody did X.  (ie, proably over 95% of the people who
ever existed ate, but there were still many people who have not (ie children who
died right after birth)).

  It is much safer to say that there is a 95% chance that a person would die. 
We wouldn't want to be misleading, would we?

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Profound disappointment
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 17:27:46 GMT

In article <187@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>I myself come closer to being a creationist. . . . I do not believe that our
>complex lifeforms are traceable back to dust via evolution.

Just a reminder:  It is *Creationists* who trace their origin back to
dust.  Evolution (or rather abiogenesis) usually starts with a soup of
organic molecules.

By the way, what meaning is given to your life by theorizing that Earth
once orbited Saturn?
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Book: The Creationists
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:29:05 GMT
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.

e_p@unlinfo.unl.edu (edgar pearlstein) writes:

	A new book, The Creationists, by Ronald Numbers,
	gives the history of "Creation Science".  I haven't yet
	seen the book, but there is a rave review in Nature,
	Dec. 17, 1992, page 637.

If this book is an expansion of Numbers' essay which appeared in
Michael Ruse's _But Is It Science?_ (also titled "The Creationists"),
it should be excellent.  The essay documented the origin and
evolution of the creationism movement, particularly in the United
States where it has been strongest.  Numbers does a fantastic job
describing the motivations and methods of prominent creationists,
past and present.

By the way, it is interesting to see Phillip Johnson (_Darwin on Trial_)
appear in this forum.  Perhaps he would be willing to answer questions
about his own book?

--
Brett J. Vickers
bvickers@ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: A funny from the U.K.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:54:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.224144.4713@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
> 
> 	From the Feedback section of "New Scientist"
> 
> 	All editors know that when they receive a letter written in
> green ink and capital letters, it's likely that the writer will turn out
> to be persecuted by microwaves from the Russian Embassy.  The world of
> electronic communications has its equivalent:  the message on your
> screen literally sprinkled with capitals.
> 	For some reason the physicist's area of the academic network
> Internet attracts more than its share of this.  Prompted by an
> especially striking outburst from a retired mathematician insisting that
> TIME has INERTIA, users have developed a Crackpot Index.  Forewarned
> is fore-trashed.

   Just as a matter of personal curiousity it wasn't Alex Abian of 
the Iowa State University math department was it?  He's six doors down
the hall from me and has been babbling something about time having 
inertia...

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
(now you know why irrationality infuriates me.  I'm DOESED).
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: A celebrity among us (was: "Re: Book: The Creationists")
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:58:34 GMT

Brett J. Vickers asks:
> By the way, it is interesting to see Phillip Johnson (_Darwin on Trial_)
> appear in this forum.  Perhaps he would be willing to answer questions
> about his own book?

I've exchanged some Email with Mr. Johnson, and he has been quite
accomodating.  He seems to realize, though, that writing solely for
USEnet is not an effective use of his time -- so expect to receive
pointers to his other writings more often than "customized" replies.

I hope the talk.origins crowd will at least keep their flamethrowers
at bay for a while.  Well-informed opponents of evolution (the theory)
are a rare find indeed (*), and I think Mr. Johnson could be quite a
benefit to the group (if we don't scare him away or make him think
he's wasting his time).

(*) Well-informed opponents of evolution, the fact, are oxymorons.  :-)

Of course, I'm sure that many here (including myself) disagree with
many things Mr. Johnson has written.  I've written a critical
review of _Darwin on Trial_, for example.  The plea is not for 
agreement, but instead to keep the disagreements polite.
--
Chris Stassen			408-943-0630			stassen@alc.com
From: philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Book: The Creationists
Date: 8 Jan 1993 19:43:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

The last line of my previous post was cut off.  The Marsden review
appears in Nature, 17 Dec. 1992, pp 637-638.

-- 
Phillip E. Johnson
  School of Law, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Mark's Laws of Biology
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:03:49 GMT

Tero Sand (cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI) wrote:
: In article <1ichi8INNojs@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
: >I propose these very general laws on a linkage between procreation, aging and
: >complexity:
: >
: >(1) In all species, over the long term, the average birth rate is equal to the
: >    average death rate.
: [...]
: >(1) is
: >obnviously valid).

: Is it? I would say it depends on the time span you select.

: 	Tero Sand

Right.  Maybe this is just another abuse of the word "average".

For the long term, the number born = number died.  But this use
of average is only valid while the environment remains constant.

Here's an example.  Say some mythical creature has the following
population history.  The long term birth rate is pretty meaningless.

                        
# alive
^                                   /\
|                /\                /  |  
|               /  \              /   | _
|              /    \___         /    |/ \          ___
|   /\        /         |     __/         |     ___/   \
|  /  \______/          |  __/            |  __/        \__
| /                     \_/               \_/
|/                                           
|    ^              ^                ^
|    drought        plauge           ecological disaster
|
+--------------------------------------------------------------> time


--
Dale Skiba
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism as Cultural Imperialism
Date: 13 Jan 93 05:19:24 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1ivqrv$fdq@agate.berkeley.edu>, philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
>
>      Further comment: If one wants to persuade people, as opposed
> to merely browbeating them, one has to start by achieving a
> sympathetic understanding of their point of view.

I'd be encouraged to be reassured that Prof. Johnson has an
understanding of our position.

I'm puzzled, though, that we now have two long posts from him
which seem to consist of comments about how people "feel" about
Creationism and Evolution, what various people think about the
manners of the disputants on either side, and even how this
affects how one group of people in New Zealand feel about how
it might affect the dignity of another group of people in New
Zealand.

While this is interesting, I guess I was kind of hoping for 
something about the issues. 

jon.
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Plato's STATESMAN/Age of Kronos
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 18:25:34 GMT

In article <191@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>The laws of physics do not, to my knowledge, ever change.

Then how would it be possible for the Earth to orbit Saturn in
the orbit you claim for it?

>Primative peoples (in our day and age) tend to worship whatever strikes them
>as most awesome, amazing, exciting etc. in life.

If this were true, then Zeus would be associated with the sun.  He
isn't.

>Two of the least large, least impressive, least assuming, inconspicuous,
>non-candidates for deity in the entire universe today are the
>far-off planets Jupiter and Saturn.

All claims of the Greek Golden Age talk about it being over.  Wouldn't
it make sense for the Greeks to associate a distant age with a
distant planet?

>[Plato writes:]
>^  Str.: Did you ever hear that the men of former times were
>^earthborn, and not begotten of one another?
>
>[either an exageration, an embellishment, or something for which I nor
>anybody I know has any explaination]

It obviously refers to people emerging from the underground
civilization of the Once Hollow Earth.

>^simultaneously with the reversal of the
>^world the wheel of their generation has been turned back, and they are
>^put together and rise and live in the opposite order, unless God has
>^carried any of them away to some other lot. According to this
>^tradition they of necessity sprang from the earth and have the name of
>^earth-born, and so the above legend clings to them.
>
>[more embellishment;  the idea of the reversal of the world's celestial
>orientation, observed during one of the catastrophes after the flood,
>required some sort of a story to go with.]

Come on, Ted!  This isn't embellishment, it's history, the highest
form of truth to a catastrophist!  You can't just ignore the parts
you find inconvenient.

This passage clearly indicates the truth of the Once Hollow Earth
Theory.  When the underground passages collapsed, civilization underwent
a reversal (between above and below, not between east and west), and
the people who carried civilization to the surface literally sprang from
inside the Earth, just as Plato says.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:32:59 GMT

Timothy Y. Chow (tycchow@riesz.mit.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan11.220331.1654@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
: <Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
: <: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
: <: >Does it say anything about Mary?  Do creationists accept immaculate
: <: >conception? 
: <: Of course.
: <	Is this really true?  I can see creationists "accepting"
: <immaculate conception, but that doesn't mean that creationism _requires_
: <an immaculate conception of Mary, does it?

: I suspect that Lionel Tun has confused, as so many people do, the immaculate
: conception and the virgin birth.  As Jim Acker has pointed out, creation
: science is strongly associated with Protestants, who by and large don't
: believe in the immaculate conception.

Could it be that Lionel is as confused about Theology as he is confused
about Science?   :-)  :-)  :-)

--
Dale Skiba
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Date: 10 Jan 1993 18:59:17 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Keywords: future

In article <1993Jan9.225241.4968@panix.com> arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
}I can't help but blame the scientific community for not popularizing science 
}enough.  There seem to be very few scientists who get up and try to make
}current science understood by 'normal human beings.'  As a result, science
}becomes this mystical, impossible-to-understand-by-normal-people thing.
}I think this is where people gain a certain mistrust of science's findings
}or anything scientific.

A few points:

1) Science is a full-time job.
2) Many scientists have families.
3) Not all scientists can master the kind of writing style required for
   popularizations.

However, quite a few have done an excellent job.  Some from the past would
include Sir Julian Huxley, J.B.S. Haldane, Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen,
and Isaac Asimov.  Some from the present would include Stephen Jay Gould,
Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, and Desmond Morris.  Richard Leakey and
Donald Johanson do well working with collaborators.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Profound disappointment (The Tedster)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:55:12 GMT

In article <52410afe@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
> Ted is like the Weird Uncle that family members never mention
> or talk about among themselves, yet they always talk about him
> to casual friends when they want to bring up an ammusing anecdote.
> Ted Holden is analogous to a talk.origins uncle who prefers eatting
> dog food on Thanksgiving, and barks at passing cars now and then.

  Sorry for responding to such an old post, but it reminded me of a time I was
trying to explain Ted to my officemate:

  ". . . and so," I concluded, "Ted says the evidence points to the fact that
the Earth used to orbit Saturn."
  "Outrageous!" he exclaimed.  "I have never heard anything more rediculous!"
  "That's what I've been trying to tell him.  Completely nuts."
  "I'll say," he muttered, "the evidence clearly points to Uranus."

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Profound disappointment (The Tedster)
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 04 Jan 93  08:02:08

Who: Dr Pepper                              
 
Dr.P> "I have been telling people that this group had three
Dr.P> factions: conventional science, creationism, and
Dr.P> velikovskiism. Alas, the Tedster has revealed his
Dr.P> true colors, he's not the third force, he's just a
Dr.P> somewhat weirder creationist :( And like all creationists,
Dr.P> when he can no longer trade punches under the queensbury
Dr.P> rules of science he whips God out like a derringer and
Dr.P> attempts to blow away his opponents. Dammit Ted, i thought
Dr.P> you at least had some originality. Guess i made a Jumbo
Dr.P> error."
 
And his derringer isn't even loaded. . . .
 
Ted is like the Weird Uncle that family members never mention
or talk about among themselves, yet they always talk about him
to casual friends when they want to bring up an ammusing anecdote.
Ted Holden is analogous to a talk.origins uncle who prefers eatting
dog food on Thanksgiving, and barks at passing cars now and then.
 
But we still love him, and his, er, ah, unique ways. What would
t.o be like without Ted?!? DULL!
 
Dr.P> +-------------------+--------------------------------------+
Dr.P> |                   | Internet:   Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.z1   |
Dr.P> |                   |              .fidonet.org            |
Dr.P> +-------------------+--------------------------------------+
 
                                                      ___
                                                     (o o)
       ---------------------------------------------w--U--w---
      |                                                       |
      |    Creationist's chant:   Is Not! Is Not! Ain't So!   |
      |                           Liar! Liar! Read the book!  |
      |                           Is Not! Is Not! Is Not,     |
      |                           Ain't So! Too Improbable!   |
      |                                                       |
      |   Satan's propagandaline, 666 south damnation alley,  |
      |               hell.university.underworld              |
       -------------------------------------------------------
 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Summary:  Oh, Mr. Tun?  Please call your local theologian ...
Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:49:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.200019.22468@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:

>rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

>>Does it say anything about Mary?  Do creationists accept immaculate
>>conception? 

>Of course.

While I can't know for sure whether Lionel accepts Immaculate Conception,
my *guess* is that he doesn't know what the doctrine says (i.e., that it
concerns Mary's birth, not that of Jesus.)  I am more than sure that
your typical American Creationist, out of the rabidly Protestant South
and its evangelical hordes, would (again if they understood the doctrine
and its proclamation in Rome a century ago) reject it utterly.  Hint:
the doctrine is totally without scriptural basis, depending instead on
the (unique) Roman Catholic attitude to tradition and the authority it
confers when it bubbles up through an ex cathedral pontiff.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon	"We honour founders of these starving cities
mls@panix.com		 Whose honour is the image of our sorrow ...
			 They built by rivers and at night the water
			 Running past the windows comforted their sorrow."
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: I need transitional knowledge
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:00:21 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1993Jan9.045359.13856@panix.com>, arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:
|> I'm not a biologist, heck, I'm not even a scientist.  I'm not a creationist.
|> I'm just confused.  Could someone(maybe with a phd) explain to me how a fossil
|> becomes transitional?

A fossil (or even a living species, if appropriate) is judged to be a likely
transitional form if it is intermediate in certain key adaptive features bewteen
two otherwise well-defined, seperate groups of organisms.

[Note this is very carefully worded - almost every word has relevance, anything
shorter is amost certain to be wrong].

|> I mean who decides that a fossil is transitional and 
|> what marks it thus?

People with experience in looking at the anatomy of the groups in question.
This experience gives them a keen eye for relevent details.
[Note, any such judgement is subject to criticism, and even rejection, if
the evidence cited for it is not, ultimately, deemed sufficient - this is
a critical part of the scientific method - there are no final answers].

|> Some creationist guy is buggin me and telling me that
|> Archeopteryx is a MOSAIC form.  I guess he means that just because something
|> has attributes or both bird and reptile doesn't mean that it's related to 
|> either.

Well, yes, it *is* a moasic.  That is considered to be *evidence* that it is
an intermediate, or close to it.  Especially given the *nature* of the
combination.  Roughly, those features most directly related to flying are similar
to living birds, those features only indirectly related to flying are similar,
or identical, to those of non-bird archosaurs (so worded to avoid the contoversy
of thecodonts vs. dinosaurs as the ancestral group).


|> And what are the other 'birds' that he tells me are in the same strata?
|> 

I don't know.  I have never heard of any other bird-like forms in the Jurassic
lithographic limestones of Europe.  Just recently another putative bird has
been discovered from late Jurassic sediments in China (like, this year - so
it has not yet been proerly verified - but even if it is it sounds like it
is similar enought to A. that it would just be another member of the same
intermediate lineage).

There is also a supposed bird from a much *earlier* formation in North America.
Except for the (rather unreliable) discoverer and *one* paleontologist who thinks
it supports his theories, there is general doubt that it *is* a bird.  (In fact,
from what I have read of the original article, Protoavis appears to be related
to such forms as Syntarsus and Coelophysis).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com