HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: twalters@world.std.com (Tim Walters)
Subject: Re: Ignoring Facts
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:59:33 GMT

In article <2711@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>One version of the tale survives in the Mayan Popul Vuh, or Council
>Book.  A number of translations of the Mayan council book (Popol
>Vuh) are now available in inexpensive paperback form;  I have here
>a copy of Dennis Tedlock's translation, Simon & Schuster /
>Touchstone 1985/86.  
>

I borrowed this book from the library last time you posted this stuff
about the Popul Vuh. An interesting story, really, but totally
unrelated to the stuff you've posted. Two examples:

The wooden people, whose fate you describe as being the same as the
destruction described in Exodus, came before the race of men. They
were a failed experiment because they were too selfish. They were
destroyed by the gods by having everything turn against them,
including resin from the sky, but the main thing that did them in was
that all their possessions and pets turned against them. Since the
rest of the story concerns the subsequent creation and adventures of
the real race of men, it's quite a stretch to consider the
misadventures of the wooden people confirmation of the events in
Exodus.

Second, your casual assumption that stories about Seven Macaw apply to
Venus is quite amusing. You say

>
>     "The PV does not specify Seven Macaw's actual astronomical   
>     identification...  but A. gives it as Ursa Major..."
>
>A. is simply wrong.  Ursa Major isn't bright enough;  remember,
>this is all through an atmosphere heavy with dust and debris for a
>protracted period.  

[...]
>Seven Macaw is, of course, Venus.  The people are seeing all of
>this through a ruined atmosphere, hence some confusion of effects.

Not bright enough for your scenario, maybe, but it would be ludicrous
to consider any tale about Seven Macaw as descriptive of Venus. The
Mayans were quite sophisticated astronomically, and their gods each
had an assigned star. Seven Macaw's was Ursa Major, and the stories
about him reflect the role of this star.  The importance of Ursa
Major, as I recall, was not its brightness but that its appearance on
the horizon signified the beginning of the hurricane season.

The rest of the Popol Vuh has almost no similarity to the events
described in Exodus or anything else described in WIC.
-- 
Tim Walters	twalters@world.std.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: sbradley@rs015.scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: Life without God?
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro OR.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:59:50 GMT

In article <17520044@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> lief@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Lief Sorensen) writes:
>This leads me into another issue.  I've asked several of my Christian friends
>as well as a couple of my pastors the following question; "If scientists were
>to ever create life from non-life in the laboratory, would your faith in God
>and the Bible be shaken"?  Would some die-hard creationist like to takle this?

I would be even more interested in a die-hard creationist's response to the
claim made in the book "Is God a Creationist?" that creationism is not only
bad science, but bad religion as well, and its proponents are almost
without exception lacking in respect from their co-religionists, and are
also lacking in any formal theological training.  I don't really expect to
ever get a reply on this, since the creationists seem comfortable so long
as they are discussing science, but are very uncomfortable examining their
religious beliefs, especially that of literal Biblical inerrancy (which the
book points out is an impossibility in any event due to the many internal
contradictions in the Bible).  I would very much appreciate seeing a book
review of "Is God a Creationist?" by any of the creationists on the net.

Seth J. Bradley
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com
UUCP:     uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
From: andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
Date: 12 Apr 92 04:43:15 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Science, Uni of Sydney, Australia

In the discussion of Woolly Mammoth's cold adaption several comparisons
have been made to the African Elephant. Some have called it a tropical
animal. This is misleading. Until recently elephants occupied all of Africa,
except some desert regions, utilising habitats from rainforest to semi-deserts.

Its gets quite cool in the southern tip of South Africa and also in the
high mountain regions such as Mt Kenya and the Virungas. Elephants occupy
both these regions. 

So could African Elephants occupy cold regions? Did they like a number of
African species formerly occupy Europe?

Andrew Taylor
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:20:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr15.132004.28431
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame

In article <351C02Wfc9LU00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim L
oucks) writes:
     [...]
|> If Sunderland's claims are true, we'll see in the original transcripts
|> that some evolutionary scientists speak differently behind closed doors.
 
    Has anyone ever read the treatise of Lorenzo Valla on the
Donation of Constantine?  ("De falso credita et ementita constantini 
donatione declamatio", English translation, Yale University Press, 
1922.)  It is an interesting example of critical thinking, and it 
came to mind when I read this.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: jsanders@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: biologic diversity since the Cambrian
Date: 11 Apr 1992 10:18:53 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: scientific creationism

In article <83702@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.124012.1268@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
>
>>At least since Cambrian times (please correct me if I am 
>>wrong here, this is just a layman's opinion) there has been no 
>>overall increase in the complexity of life on earth.
>
>	I don't think there is really a consensus on this. Clearly
>diversity changes with time both within and between lineages.
>example, diversity (as measured by number of families) has gone
>
[and later]

>	Likewise, the taxonomic distribution of organisms inhabiting the
>earth has changed numerous times. In order to determine if diversity
>or complexity has increased, a yardstick for measuring it must be
>developed. 

[and still later]

>Some objective criteria must be set up before this question
>can be answered. 
>
[Chris' nice discussion of diversity deleted]

Diversity is only indirectly related to complexity (the kind of complexity
which might bear on a 2nd Law of Thermo argument).  Insects are a diverse
class, but are they really more complex for all that diversity?  The kind
of complexity that would be useful in a 2nd Law argument is more the
complexity of the body plan-- the mechanism, if you will.  So the number
of phyla may be related to complexity.  Although the number of phyla
could increase through simplification of a previously complex body plan
also.  Again simple numbers of species, classes, phyla, whatever will
answer the question "Is life more diverse now than in the Cambrian",
but it probably will not answer the question "Is life more complex now
than in the Cambrian".

    To the extent that all multi-cellular creatures are made of cells,
we might argue that any increase in complexity would have to take place
at the cellular level.  A useful analogy might be to that well worn
example of a watch or clock.  In what way is a clock shop (containing hundreds
of different clocks) more complex than a single clock?  On the level
of individual clocks there might be differences in complexity (a watch
with an alarm, calendar, and stop-watch versus a plain-jane watch), but
it is hard to see how one collection of various watches might be 
significantly more complex than another.

    As with many creationist arguments, the abuse of the 2nd Law of 
Thermo dynamics stems in part from semantics.  They take advantage of
the fact that complexity has slightly different meanings and that the
definition of complexity which might be properly applied to the 2nd Law
is not a very common or well known one.

-- 
Justin M. Sanders         "I can trace my ancestry back to a primordial,
Dept. of Physics            protoplasmal, atomic globule."
Kansas State Univ.           --Poo-Bah, in _The_Mikado_, Act I
From: bill@ut-emx.uucp (Bill Jefferys)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A question Bob has never answered.
Date: 11 Apr 92 13:44:06 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

...and while we're at it, just before Bales disappeared
the last time (in August) I posted the following article.
I see no reason to respond to his latest ruminations until
he has followed up on his promise, made over a year ago.

----------------[Reposted article follows]-------------

From ut-emx!bill Wed Aug  7 14:01:52 CDT 1991
Article: 17064 of talk.origins
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Historical Jesus
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:56:42 GMT
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <1992Apr11.143332.1558@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
> In article <0adHohmm6@cs.psu.edu>, 
> kiledal@lisp.cs.psu.edu (Erik Kiledal) writes:
>> In the posting by Roger Squires with the subject "The Historical Jesus", 
>> Squires writes about the New Testament.  
>> Roger: 
>>>I would be willing to grant you that there was an actual person named
>>>Jesus who was crucified in Palestine...
>> 
>> Roger, what are you going to do about the fact that Jesus died for you?
> 
> Even if this is a "fact" what makes you think he has to "do" anything about
> it?
>  
>> Erik Kiledal				| kiledal@cs.psu.edu
>>>Roger Squires 
> Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca

I received an e-mail message from Mr. Kiledal in reference to this article
asking me the same question about what I'm going to do about "the fact
that Jesus has died for (me)".  I replied, but then later realized
(from a finger) that his e-mail has been unread since September, so I'm
posting the reply here.

You still haven't told me why anyone should have to do anything about
this alleged fact, even if it actually is true.  What do you think we are 
supposed to do, and why are we obliged to do that?

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Subject: isochron dating question
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:20:31 GMT

Howdy.  While typing in the ICR Impact article on dating the Grand
Canyon lava flows, I began to wonder if it would be possible, with a
little luck and a little time, to create a false isochron date.  As I
understand it, the insurance that you are working with an appropriate
and uncontaminated sample is that all the ratios throughout the sample
will plot on a straight line, the intercept of which will tell you the
original mother/daughter ratio.

However, what if you had a sample that does *not* give an isochron
date.  Obviously, any five randomly-chosen points would almost
certainly plot non-linearly.  But what are the odds that you could
find five contaminated samples that plotted on the wrong line?  What
are the odds you could do this if you had an entire lava flow to
choose from, and had your own testing facilities so that you could
throw out any samples that did not post on that line?

I am looking for explanations for the Impact article.  Would anyone
care to comment on the importance of an anomalous isochron date for a
lava flow?




-- 
*Eric Shafto             * Sometimes, I think we are alone.  Sometimes I  *
*Institute for the       * think we are not.  In either case, the thought *
*    Learning Sciences   * is quite staggering.                           *
*Northwestern University *     -- R. Buckminster Fuller                   *
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Human lifespan - update
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:08:46 GMT
Reply-To: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Apr8.155102.8430@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>In article <72774@netnews.upenn.edu> rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu
>(Mickey Rowe) writes:
>>...The probability of dying at younger ages has
>>gone down somewhat over the past couple of hundred years, and this
>>means that the *average* life expectancy (which Lionel presumably
>>wouldn't care about) is higher.
>
>I have an idea that a respectable average might be around 75.

It depends a lot on how you compile the statistics.  For white US
males you're about right I think.  Globally it's probably closer to
40, I'd guess. 

>So are you saying that the information given in Genesis 6:3, that the
>upper limit is 120 years rather than say 110 or 130, is correct?

I'll repeat the sentiment put forward by others in saying it would
appear to be roughly accurate, but so what?

>Lionel Tun

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky talk.origins:4423 talk.religion.misc:7418
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Myth Of Morality
Date: 12 Apr 92 15:01:11 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

In article <9699.29E766FA@ofa123.fidonet.org>, David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org (David Rice) writes:
> Tag: Michael I Bushnell
>  
> MIB> "Morality consists in applying the absolutes of love found
> MIB> in the Summary of the Law given by Jesus to particular cases
> MIB> and situations."
>  
> You mean =ONE FORM= of morality. Humanity had moral codes of
> love, kindness, and compassion long before the period jesus
> is said to have existed. I have a very high, stringent, and
> unbending moral code which I follow, that did not require
> occultism based on jesus, or gods, or any mysticism; it is
> based on my firm belief that I have an obligation to society
> to conduct myself morally and ethically. No gods. Few jesus
> followers could match the commitment to morality and ethics
> I have chosen to follow.
>  
> My observation being: morality does not stem from your occultism,
> nor occultism in general--- I am free from god nonsense, and I
> am moral.
>  
> MIB> "As human society changes, the morally optimal way of making
> MIB> that application will change as well. In other words, God's
> MIB> nature is eternal, but morality consists in its application
> MIB> to human situations, which are embedded in ever-changing
> MIB> social contexts. As a result, the application of the eternal
> MIB> commandments of love is continually changing in nature. Only
> MIB> at the Day of the Lord will human society reach its epitome,
> MIB> and then, only by the direct intervention of God. Only then
> MIB> will the demands of morality become static."
>  
> Sounds like the perfect dictatorship (George Bush and Stalin would
> be proud). People define a society's morals--- and people are not
> static. Morals =MUST= remain dynamic to meet ever changing obsticles
> and challenges a thriving, growing, living society must face.
>  

I know a woman (fundamental Christian) who told me after a discussion about
evolution and creation differences, that she thought there would be no
reason to 'act properly, lead a moral life and be a good person' if there
was no *proof* that God had created man.  I almost choked.  This woman
had had two kids out of wedlock, lived with several different men, including
an ex-convict drug user, had had an abortion, refused to get any training
(even though free training had been offered to her) so that she could get
off welfare, and continued to be a paracite on society, her kids were 
total brats, potential jail bait... and on and on.  
Oh, Yes, but she was a *good* Christian, quoted the Bible constantly, went
to church every Sunday without fail......

> Thank you.
>  
>> Michael Innis Bushnell mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu
> 
> --  
> 
> David Rice
> Internet: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
> Compuserve: >internet:David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Darwin's Enigma
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:40:34 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes:
>As I recall, some time back everybody was patting Mr. Loucks on the back
>for being incredibly reasonable about some mis-quotations.

>I seem to remember that he was going to obtain and read the original works
>himself and tell us whether or not he agreed that they actually were
>mis-quotations, and also pin down the ICR as to what the deal was with
>these mis-quotations.

>I do not recall ever hearing about this issue being resolved by Mr. Loucks.
>Perhaps I missed something.

You didn't miss anything, Roger. Recently, I've spoken with the ICR
staff member Bill Hoesh, who I've gotten to know over the past year
in dealings with the ICR. I mentioned the ICR impact article in 
question, and the response I received from y'all, he checked into the 
matter for me. 

Bill spoke with the author of the Impact article, Morris (I can't 
remember if it was John or Henry). The next paragraph is Morris' 
response according to Bill Hoesh.

 Morris was a little surprised from the reaction I received in talk.origins. 
 He was only trying to communicate that some evolutionists admit that
 there is some sort of a problem in reference to dating rocks according
 to the fossils they contain. He just wanted to say that someone
 has admitted to the problem, and that to verify the results, certain
 physical evidence must be found elsewhere in the strata. Morris didn't 
 intend to misquote anyone as he was only trying to make a point.

I think the problem definition is large. Most of the blame should be
my own, for posting the article. Also, part of the blame could be your
(talk.origins) experience with the ICR, past articles by creationists
that you've found irritating, and many other factors that I won't go
into for now.

For myself, after hearing Morris' response, I've come to the conclusion
that Morris didn't communicate his motives well enough for the audience
to understand what he was trying to say.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cosc143u@elroy.uh.edu (91F9774)
Subject: Re: Ignoring Facts
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:34:00 GMT

In article <rdippold.702854162@qualcom>, rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes...
>jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (Michael Tisdel) writes:
>>First off, Ted makes a good presentation.  Now, I do
>>have a problem with one statement he makes.  He says that
>>there is a probablility of zero that various cultures
>>would have similar mythologies. 
> 
>And that's obviously BS.  A flood myth is one that you would expect
>_most_ cultures to have, because most places experience a flood sooner
>or later.

The flood myth is widespread in the mediterranean (sp?) area.  Is it equally
prominant in other parts of the world?  China has a recorded history going
back about 4k years I believe.  
I ask because I heard recently that the flood stories in the mediterranean
may be based on the fact that one of the islands (Therys?) blew up in an
explosion about 100 times the size of Mt. Saint Helens about 1230bc.  China
was purported to have recorded 1230bc as a year when winter came in the summer.
I intend to order the book this is based on.  When I get more facts, I'll post
them.
---
Stephen McLeod
The Eternal Student
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Cold-adaption of the African Elephant
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 11 Apr 92 11:50:09 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <4658@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>, andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor) writes:
> In the discussion of Woolly Mammoth's cold adaption several comparisons
> have been made to the African Elephant. Some have called it a tropical
> animal. This is misleading. Until recently elephants occupied all of Africa,
> except some desert regions, utilising habitats from rainforest to semi-deserts.
> 
> Its gets quite cool in the southern tip of South Africa and also in the
> high mountain regions such as Mt Kenya and the Virungas. Elephants occupy
> both these regions. 
> 
> So could African Elephants occupy cold regions? Did they like a number of
> African species formerly occupy Europe?
> 
> Andrew Taylor

I'm not sure where he got his elephants, but don't forget that Hannibal
crossed the Alps with them.

Sue
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: The Ted Badge of Courage
Summary: a t.o. distinction of the highest caliber
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:56:01 GMT
Reply-To: colby@bu-bio.UUCP (Chris Colby)
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost

In article <1992Apr4.163957.776@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

>Ah, yes, the personal distinction of being insulted by the Tedster.

>Who was it that was called a weaselly little faggot?  

	It was R. Day if I'm not mistaken.

>Now that was a signal distinction!

>I also have been given the extreme unction of being insulted for my weight....

	Since we are all displaying our "Ted Badge of Courage", I
could mention that in a more confused moment (and this is on the
already impressive Holden scale of confusion) Ted opined that I
was secretly a creationist. 

Chris Colby	email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu
"And will our voices be heard/Or will they break like the wind"
-Spinal Tap

P.S. I would like to sincerely apologise to the readers of t.o.
and to the deceased author Stephen Crane for the above pun. Such
"humor" has no place in a civilized forum... but I digress.