HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:56:49 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Sep10.095949.26234@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
}>It is the evolutionary philosophy which conditions you into saying
}>`something like me'. You, yes _you_ are made in God's image - can
}>I say `fearfully and wonderfully created'? Anyhow, God has decided
}>that He wishes us to relate to Him in a personal way - to love Him
}>and worship him. If you want to question this, ask Him yourself.

  I'd love to ask him myself, but he never takes up my invitation to come to
dinner.

--
********************************************************************
Eric Sotnak                   |  One life.
esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu    |  One chance. 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: AL and gay genes
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:44:30 GMT

In the past there where some discussions about the evolution of "gay genes".
It was ascerted by a number of people that it required special conditions
to cause the development of non breeding members of the species.

I've been playing with artificial life some while trying to make an
evolution board game. 

I decided to throw in "gay genes" for the hell of it, and guess what, in
almost all cases atleast several percent of the creatures present where gay.
This number would vary quite a bit depending on the conditions, but would
suddenly jump to around 99% after hovering around 20%. Its interesting to
note that in nature this seems to be the case as well, you either have
creatures where some percentage less than 50% are non breeding, or where
virtually all are.

In this simulation creatures moved by a random walk, and where not sectioned
into groups or families. No hard family/group boundaries are required for
this effect to take place, the locality of space seems to be more than
sufficient.  

The genes:
 A creature was required to have geneA and geneB to be gay, otherwise having
only geneA or geneB gives no advantage nor detriment.
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 12:52:42 GMT

asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>>Anti-evolution books are discussed on t.o, and they generally contain nothing
>>but misrepresentations of scientists' utterings, bold assertions, and strawmen.
>>Could you be more specific?  Which of those three things do you talk about?
>
>>There exists a saying in German, "you have to pull the worms out of his nose
>>one for one", meaning that you have to ask several times until you finally get
>>an answer...
>
>	Here in Russia it's rude to answer right to the question. 
>
>	Have you read the little blue book "Life - how did it get here, by 
>	evolution or creation ?". 

I don't want to be rude, so I'll wait with the answer until you ask two more
times.

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Flat Earth and the Bible
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:52:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.130640.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
}In article <1992Sep6.030213.1543@scic.intel.com>, sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes:
}> Does anyone have the list of Bible quotes that the flat-Earthers
}> use as the basis of their claims?  Thanks in advance!
}
}Unfortunately for the flat-Earthers, the Bible says that the Earth is round. 
}I'm not sure of the exact spot where this is located.  It's either in Job or
}Psalms.

On this, as in most other, topic the bible offers a variety of views allowing
you to pick the one you want.

It has corners
You can see all of it from one place
It has foundations

Pick your truth, then look in the bible.  No matter WHAT you decide on,
something in there will support it.  Sorta like Nostradaemous...
From: waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy)
Subject: Re: worthless comic strips
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: creationist propaganda
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:05:00 GMT

In article <87ST03Qz76e400@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes...
>danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>   Week ago Sunday I was reading the paper and enjoying my coffee when I
>>noticed the comic strip B.C. (by J. Hart) had Wiley doing a poem that said (my
>>paraphrase) "The world just got here by accident.  Right.  Suuurrre".  
> 
>Here's the poem Wiley wrote in the Sunday (8/23) strip:
> 
   < Poem deleted >
> 
>> How long has B.C. been pulling this stuff?
> 
>Coupla years that I know of.
> 
>-- 
>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
>{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

It could be that long.  It is certainly not the first time I have seen
creationist themes, or more specifically, sarcastic anti-evolution
comments, in B.C.  I think they were always through Wiley, though I am
afraid I can't remember any specific examples.  And you should see some
of the stuff he produces around Christmas or Easter!! (ie. references
to the Nativity or Resurrection).

Wayne.
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: (Paraphrase of) Question for jloucks.....
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:10:05 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University


   I just can't resist...

In article <04E403uP79YZ00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>Is that Jloucks is back, care to comment on Ice Core Dating methods yet?

   Or, on another level:

"Jim, I have given you solid scientific evidence that shows that you're beliefs
 are incorrect.  Either the world is much older than you think or your God
 is going out of his way to decieve everyone with half a wit.  Now that
you're posting again, please comment?"
 
> Back? I never left. I appreciate you sending me the ice core info, even
> though I said I didn't want it, nor had the time or the interest to 
> read it. Your mail was saved to my sbishop mailbox and eventually will be 
> read or deleted, but continuing to ask me to comment on it only makes
> me less interested in reading it.

   And Jim says (sort of):

   "I'm going to get another stamp on my credentials as a polite guy but I     
    can't be bothered to even glance at scientific evidence that touches on 
    my beliefs.  I did save it so you can't accuse me of ignoring it, but 
    don't nag me about it because then I can delete it without reading it 
    and it will be your fault."
 
> I only read a fraction of the t.o articles, if someone wants to ask
> me a question, try email.

   Jim, this is intellectual dishonesty of the first water.  As a scholar you
are morally bankrupt.  It is this sort of Orwellian attitude toward evidence
and truth that causes you to have _no standing_ in the courts of reason.  I
have read creationist materials, listened to AND UNDERSTOOD their arguments.  I
have considered both sides.  You have not.

   Creationisms outstanding feature displayed by a creationist for all to see. 
Creationism cannot survive contact with truth.  Believing it requires that you
blind yourself with ignorance.  Gack!

> Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Will Antti start having a real discussion?
Keywords: Antti, evolution, creation, holistic, Menem, Norrblad
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:34:41 GMT

zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber) writes:
>these nonreligious objections to evolution on talk.origins? 

	All the time in "macroevolution" chain. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Subject: Re: Desperation (was Re: Commitment--The C-word?)
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:38:13 GMT

In <1992Sep9.114515.20276@access.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:

>In article <ewillims.715969109@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams) writes:
>>	Actually, he had a very good point. I do know a guy who used to
>>shave his head in order to make a faster time in swim races.
>>Mind you I do think that maybe shaving leg hair for that reason is a bit
>>silly as human hair naturally grows in whorls on the body which would
>>not trap air when swimming .  At least that is what Desmond Morris says
>>in his book Manwatching where he states that that is yet another reason
>>why humans were once aquatic primates.  Our hair grows the same way that
>            ^^^^ ^^^^
>>dolphin hair does too.  (I'm only quoting someone else here!)

>That should be "might once have been."  It's Elaine Morgan who would say
>"once were."  Morris was writing back in 1977,

	Yikes!  Sorry, sorry!  Of course, it should have been "might".
I should know better!  I eviscerate people for doing that all the time!

    ____________________________________________________________________
    |   Emma Williams            | Folk sover ellers ikke godt op      |
    |   ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie    | ad en sultan tiger!                 |
    |				 |    Steen og Stoffer :->             |
    |____________________________|_____________________________________|
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Theory of Creationism (sic)
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:12:42 GMT
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

Surely the Theory of Creation is fairly straightforward: it's that God
Created everything at some time (most often quoted as less than 10000
years) in the past.

"Hey, but that's not a theory, it's not falsifiable, produces no
predictions, ..."

Yes, that's right.  Creationists, as far as I can see after reading
t.o. for a year or two, don't have any kind of positive scientific
theory; they are interested in picking holes in evolution.  Which is
fair enough, and it would be intriguing if they discovered any serious
flaws.

Of course, depending on what holes they found, their refutation of
evolution might still allow any number of non-Creationist theories.
It would be interesting to see if Lionel, for example, would care to
try to refute Ted's theories in such a senario.  Or the rather lovely
Norse creation story posted not so long ago by Trygve Lode, which is
rather at odds with what Genesis relates.

Bruce (am I glad I live in the UK rather than the US) Stephens
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: allometry (was Re: Dinosaur necks)
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:47:54 GMT
Distribution: smds
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Sep7.045434.18494@smds.com> rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:

>Bakker also makes the point that long necks held out horizontally
>don't make sense evolutionarily, i.e. there is no advantage in having
>a long neck if you can't use it.  

Did Bakker entertain the notion that the neck was simply that long
due to allometric scaling? Perhaps in these dinos, neck length was
simply a function of body size (neck length = constant*body length^
constant). This type of scaling of body parts holds for many traits
seen in groups of organisms and makes sense from a developmental
point of view. It makes a nice null hypothesis in addition since
all you need is some data from other related organisms to plot a
regression line and some easy stats to see if the trait fits the
model. Anybody (Stan?) know how we can get some data to test this?

(I haven't been following this thread (Ted is involved after all)
so if this has been discussed -- sorry.)

>Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 

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"

Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Will Antti start having a real discussion?
Keywords: Antti, evolution, creation, holistic, Menem, Norrblad
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:28:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.154152.12886@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>	I meant that evolutionism is a religion. 

	That's fine. Just please keep the 'ism' on there, and don't confuse
it with the scientific theory of evolution.

I wrote:
>>	If you are not going to engage in 'speculative, scientific talk' then
>>I sincerely request that you leave this newsgroup. If you're not even going
>>to try and explain your specific (nonreligious) objections to evolution, then
>>please try other newsgroups.
>
>	Thank you, I would love to. You were honest enough to say it aloud. I
>	have an interesting text about nonreligious objection to evolution,
>	if you want it ask it from me by email. 

	Is there any chance in hell that you will be discussing ANY of
these nonreligious objections to evolution on talk.origins? 

>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

Rob Zuber
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: The ICR Cult
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Aug 21 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92  10:55:12

Tag: Max Polk (ae962@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Max Polk))
 
Mp> "This is an open letter to the fellow who requested information
Mp> about our recent [sic] creation [sic] according to the literal
Mp> account God [sic] gave us [sic] in the book of Genesis, and to
Mp> all others of like faith who want to find out more about God's
Mp> [sic] recent [sic] creation [sic], how its truth [sic] impacts
Mp> our [sic] lives and society today, and explanations of and
Mp> investigations into so many of God's [sic] geological formations,
Mp> both the beautiful and the terrible."
 
This is not the newsgroup for occult nonsense. Try talk.new.age
perhaps. The "Institute for Creation Research" has yet to produce
a single proof of "Creationism." When they saw their failure, they
then launched an attack on evolutionary science, trying to dis-prove
it--- they failed =THAT= as well.
 
If they were a real scientific organization, instead of a cult,
they would have expended their funds towards REAL efforts in education,
instead of occult indoctrinations.
 
The members of the ICR cult take a sworn oath to lie for god. That
about sums up everything.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: response to Sutter (II)
Date: 12 Sep 92 01:09:10 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <95433@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
|In article <1992Sep4.929.17252@dosgate> "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com> writes:
|
|> For greater contrast, one could
|>juxtapose chihuahuas and St Bernards.  :-) I understand your objection,
|>but I don't feel it's valid in this case; aren't there strict taxonomic
|>definitions for what constitutes "dog" and what constitutes "cat"
|>(etc.)?
|
|No, these are defined by inclusion. Any new breed of dog bred from
|an existing breed would be called a dog -- the category would swell 
|to accommodate a new breed (or species). 

Indeed, and in fact it is only the fact that we also maintain the existance
of the intermediate breeds that dogs can still be considered a single
species. (Canis familiaris is, in effect, a complex, multi-dimensional
ring species, not a normal simplex species).

|>You feel it isn't true, but could you show me a counterexample from
|>recorded breeding experience where some major change like this was
|>actually observed?
|
|Chihuahuas were wolves a few hundred years ago, how much more change
|do you need? If I showed you a fossil Chihuahua and a fossil Great
|Dane you'd say --"where are the transitional fossils?"; but, since 
|the reverse suits your argument, you claim they are the same kind.

In fact, if the only 'dogs' in existance were the wolf, the great dane,
and the chihuahua, they would clearly be three distinct species, and be
placed in *at* *least* two genera (the inclusion of the great dane in
Canis with the wolf would be controversial).  The Chihuahua might even
be given its own family based on its bizarre, unique anatomy.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Rational Discussion  (was: macroevolution)
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 13:41:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.161240.9997@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
[re rational, polite discussion]
>I would love that idea, but sometimes it only seems people are not 
>mature for it. 

"If you act like a dumbshit, they'll treat you as an equal." - Bob.

Try a rational discussion sometime; what harm can it do?
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Question for Creationists
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:13:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.130157.3954@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
> In article <dkristof.715431601@hq> dkristof@Pt.hq.af.mil (Capt Dave Kristof) writes:
>>For you Creationists out there, a simple question:
>>
>>What is the purpose of mankind?  
> 
> To worship God.
> 
> My next door neighbour and myself had a long discussion about this.
> We concluded that God is simply amazing and wonderful and very very
> clever and brilliant - in facts words (and thoughts) fail to 
> sum Him up - not surprising really as He is our Creator and we are
> His created beings. My neighbour and I thought about all that God had 
> done for us and given us, including existence itself, and we decided
> that to spend eternity in God's presence (heaven) was an appropriate
> length of time - we would be able to actually see God face to face
> and praise, honour, glorify and simply worship Him.

I agree with you except on one point.  We Christians are not going to spend
eternity in heaven.  The book of Revelation clearly states that God is going to
set up a kingdom on Earth with Jesus as King (this is after the Second Coming). 
Then, after Satan is let loose for a short while, the Day of Judgement will
come.  After this God will make a new heaven and a new Earth.  We will live on
Earth, not in heaven, for the rest of eternity.
From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Subject: Re: Just trying to get Ted Holden's attention
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:24:40 GMT

In article <194hk6INN8to@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> rickh@chtor.East.Sun.COM writes:
>(My apologies to the net, I would have used email but I do not have Ted's 
> email address,  the one in his header keeps bouncing back.  I used to work 
> with ted 5 or 6 years ago and always enjoyed his, rather unique, 
> perspective on various subjects.)
> 
>Ted,
[deletions]

Wait a minute. You mean there really is a person "Ted Holden" who actually
believes the stuff posted under his name? I always thought "Ted Holden" was
a code name for an undergraduate psychology class conducting experiments
for class over the net.

>
>Rick Holt
>
>rick.holt@East.Sun.COM
>
>..Insert clever .sig here...

Please, tell us more. Did his mother really keep him locked in the closet
until he was 21?

Scott
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: 25,000,000 year-old BEE?????????
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:26:39 GMT

sjc28473@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven Joseph Chmura) writes:
>"Scientists have found DNA from a bumble bee 25,000,000 (yes, million) year
>old.  This is forcing science to re-think the Evolotionary clock.."
>
>1)  How old are Bees anyway?

I'm not sure about bees exactly, but modern insects evolved about 300
million years ago.  So 25 million years ago isn't much.

>2)  Was this a joke?

Doubt it.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Request for book reviews
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:12:42 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


Does anyone know of any reviews of the following books?

Six-day creationist:

    Malcolm  Bowden,  _Science  vs  Evolution_, Sovereign
    Publications, Bromley, Kent, 1991.

    Malcolm Bowden, _The Rise of  the  Evolution  Fraud_,
    Sovereign Publications, Bromley, Kent, 1982.

    Malcolm    Bowden,   _Ape-Men--Fact   or   Fallacy?_,
    Sovereign Publications, Bromley, Kent, 1977, 1981.

    Joseph C. Dillow, _The  Waters  Above:  Earth's  Pre-
    Flood Vapor Canopy_, Moody Press, Chicago, 1981.

    Phillip E. Johnson, _Darwin On Trial_, Regnery  Gate-
    way, Washington, DC, 1991.

Long age creationist:

    Daniel  E. Wonderly, _Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedi-
    mentary Strata Compared with Young-Earth  Creationist
    Writings_, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Insti-
    tute, Hatfield, Pennsylvania, 1987.

    Daniel E. Wonderly, _God's  Time-Records  in  Ancient
    Sediments_,  Crystal  Press Publishers, Flint, Michi-
    gan, 1977.

Attacking evolution:

    Robert  Shapiro,  _Origins:  A Skeptic's Guide to the
    Creation of Life on Earth_, Bantam Books,  New  York,
    1987.

    Francis  Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe_, Ticknor
    & Fields, New Haven, Connecticut, 1982.

    Michael  Denton,  _Evolution:  A  Theory  In Crisis_,
    Adler & Adler, Publisher, Inc.,  Bethesda,  Maryland,
    1985.

    William  R.  Fix,  _The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolu-
    tion_, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York,  1984.

Attacking creationism:

    Arthur N. Strahler, _Science and  Earth  History--The
    Evolution/Creation  Controversy_,  Prometheus  Books,
    Buffalo, New York, 1987.


Alan Feuerbacher          |  As long as you think you have the truth, you
Tektronix, Inc.           |  will feel no need to pursue knowledge and
PO Box 500, MS 47-623     |  understanding.
Beaverton, OR  97077      |  There is often a difference between good
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com   |  sound reason and reasons that sound good.