HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Evolution and Choice (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:00:37 GMT

In article <l9q5mbINNrhm@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, salem@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM (Bruce
Salem[CONTRACTOR]) writes:
> who are Southern Baptists. Bush and Quyle are members of the Methodist
> and Presbyterian chruches.

  Er . . . I'm pretty sure Bush is Episcopalian.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:24:42 GMT

fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna) writes:

Well, man is the only animal that has a language compelx enough to allow
the development of technology and such.

Also, I think that man has killed off other intelligent things.  Probably
the Neandrathals were killed off by "modern" humans.

keith

>One issue that I sometimes think about is 
>Why is Mankind the only species on this planet to develop technology,
>speech, and so many things that were required for the building of our
>modern society.

>Let's put the question in another simpler way, "Why is man the single most 
>developed creature on Earth?"

>Couldn't there be others, which just have not been given time to develop?
>Can we interfere in such a development, in order to make it impossible?
>Would we tolerate another "race" achieving similar things as ours?

>Armando


> 

>--
>===========================================================================
>Armando de Oliveira Fortuna                    E-mail: fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk
>Dept. of Computer Science                      Tel.: +44 61 275-6132
>University of Manchester                       Fax.: +44 61 275-6204
>Oxford Road
>Manchester M13 9PL                          "...It works better...
>England                                             ...if you plug it in..."
>============================================================================
>All opinions expressed are mine only! If you think otherwise, think it over!
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:07:30 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug27.163835.12301@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.083650@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

[big deletion]

>>   Finally, having re-read your original post more carefully, I have a bit of
>>information for you.  No-one can currently see canals on mars.  The closest
>>any observation comes is dry watercourses that look like natural features.

>What about pulsars as clear evidence of extra-stellar intelligence?

  What the heck are you talking about?  The very idea that pulsars 
were extraterrestrial intelligence was only even tentatively considered
for a matter of a few weeks, and was certainly never more than a very
iffy hypothesis.

-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
From: brian@audiofax.com (Brian Troxell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:27:38 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta, GA

In article <1992Aug24.151922.5348@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>
>Perhaps you are confused because you are only seeing _part_ of the picture.
>And they are still _your_ choices to make.

But being omniscient implies that the outcome _is_known_.

>I fully understand that someone out there is likely to ridicule me for
>the above paragraph, which is why I normally don't express it openly.
>Hopefully, it will offer some insight to one person out there.

So that that one person my do what?

Convert?

Keep it to yourself.

-- 
|~~\ rian        2000 Powers Fy Rd. |  "You can't call me 'Booger' anymore,
|--< _____       Suite 200          | 	  I'm too cool." 
|__/   |         Marietta, Ga 30067 |  "Yeah...you can't call me 'Skidmark'
       | roxell  (404)933-7600      |     anymore, either."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<LEET.92Aug19084459@dove.ims.com>
	<20AUG199219133844@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:33:24 GMT

>>>>> On 21 Aug 92 02:13:00 GMT, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) said:

James> In article <LEET.92Aug19084459@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes...
>>>>>> On 18 Aug 92 03:54:00 GMT, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) said:
> 
>James> In article <714083685.F00002@csource.oz.au>, joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes...
> 
>>It classifies bats as flying things, because it calls a bat an "Oif" (in
>>Hebrew). Since we know that that bats aren't birds, an "Oif" must be a flying
>>thing, excluding insects.
> 
>James> If this is correct, why is it translated as "birds" and not
>James> "flying things"?  (I've checked KJV, RSV, NASB.)  Surely all
>James> these committees of translators would not have screwed up
>James> something so simple?
> 
>Did your KJV really have "birds" in Lev. 11:13?  All my copies of the
>KJV have "fowls" there (and, interestingly, in 11:20 also).

James> My KJV has "fowls" also.  My point was that it doesn't say "flying
James> things."

So we substitute "flying things" for "fowls", and then an astute
student of ancient Hebrew notices that "owl" in 11:16 is probably
better translated "ostrich".  "OSTRICHES," Jim Lippard thunders,
pounding the pulpit, "DO NOT FLY!!"  Once again the Bible has errors
in it.  Sigh.  All the items in the list have wings, so we could try
"winged things", ...

However, we know that the bat was a Louisville Slugger, since the Israelites
could not yet manufacture aluminum.  :-)
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "And the ostrich, and the night hawk, and
Integrated Measurement Systems |  the sea gull, and th hawk after its
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  kind," - Leviticus 11:16, as modernized
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  in the New Scofield Reference Bible
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  





Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15126 alt.culture.usenet:725 talk.origins:10177
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
Subject: The creationist conspiracy (was Re: The difference )
Date: 27 Aug 92 08:37:45 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Aug26.182649.908@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith) writes:
#In article <1992Aug26.105810@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A A
#hlock) writes:
#>In article <1992Aug26.054127.10572@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, arsmith@nyx.cs.
#u.edu
#>(Alan Smith) writes:
#>> 
#>> Censorship: (cen-ser-ship) n. When a government removes or edits a
#>> publication, brodcast, or other form of public adress.
#>> 
#>> Rudeness: (rud-nes) n. a group of actions that violate common standard
# of
#>> politeness.  Often done deliberately to invoke bad feelings on the par
# of
#>> the recipient.
#>> 
#>> --Big Al's personal dictionary.

ETC.  May I propose that in this matter of choice of language, survival
strategies for ideas and people and so on, we all have said enough to make
our viewpoints clear. 
Back to the main issue:  exposing the creationist conspiracy to 
take over the world starting in the U.S.A. (what was the view of the
late Ayatollah Khomeiny on Creation Science? )
JWN

From: gt@hpfcbig.SDE.HP.COM (George Tatge)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:52:16 GMT
Subject: Re: mensa farce
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

Now how can you doubt the genius of a bunch of people who appear on
David Letterman to form a long line to pass a Coke from the machine
up to Letterman?

gt

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15223 talk.origins:10243
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:33:56 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug27.152351.11692@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.022454.9835@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>>
>> To:  Drew Lawson 

>[deleted]

>>  That "ignoring God" is an interesting phrase, too, implying that God
>>is trying to get our attention, and we are consciously ignoring Him.
>>What you mean is "not following my religious beliefs", right?

>No.  If I meant "not following my religious beliefs," I would have said
>so.  I meant "ignoring God" -- that is, leaving consideration of God
>out of the system developed.
[sig deleted]

  Well, then, Drew, we're also ignoring numismatics.  We're ignoring the 
effect of Pee Wee Herman on evolution, too.  And we've completely
ignored the effect of the stock markets on the development of life.

  What's the point of that sarcasm?  We exclude discussion of God from
our work on evolution because WE HAVE NO REASON TO INCLUDE HIM.  If
the record of life showed, say, that a bunch of animal lines continued
up to 6,000 years ago, and then suddenly ceased at the same time that
stratigraphy indicated widespread flooding, God-based theories would
be very popular.  The fact is, though, that any evolutionary speculation
involving "God" (by which I presume you mean the Judeo-Christian-Moslem
Creator) would have a very hard time explaining what he's doing, aside
from creating the whole universe in the first place, with natural
laws that would lead to the current state of things.


-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:30:38 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1992Sep1.231903.4663@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes...

>now.  Now, can we cut the one-upsmanship and discuss this reasonably?

Sure.  

>You're also the one who claimed that entropy was only relevant to
>static equilibrium - when, in fact, it's *defined* in terms of
>differential quantities.  In short, you were wrong.  Yet, you 

Entropy is defined as the log of the number of accessible microstates.
The relationships to which you refer are all derivable from this. 

But let's get back to the original issue.  You were arguing that the 
second law does not preclude evolution, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
But you went on to say that it also precludes processes which increase
entropy.  With this I do not agree.  Non-equilibrium processes are not
governed by the same rules, and there is no reason to believe that life 
arose under near-equilibrium conditions.  And even near equilibrium, 
there is nothing in the second law which precludes the system from 
occupying a particular microstate in which there is greater organizational
complexity in some subsystem (which you can define rigorously in terms
of information content, if you like.)

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: QM revisited.
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:29:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.031145.8282@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> I've just come across some entertaining quotes:
> 
> 
> "Those who are not shocked by quantum theory do not understand it" Neils Bohr
> 
> "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I had anything to do with it" Erwin
Schroedinger
> 

	So?  If you have something to say, say it.
> 
> 
> For those of you who remember the QM debate we had a few months ago
> on sci.skeptic,
> 
>                   Enjoy.

	Jeez.  Not even the sound and the fury.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15038 talk.origins:10112
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:20:33 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <1992Aug24.172414.6036@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew
Lawson) writes:
[...]
>
>The world is very real.  It has existed in its current state (post-fall)
>  for roughly 6,000 years and will end its fallen existance and be returned
>  to perfection.
>We are on it for a purpose.
>We can know a lot about the world around us.
>We can also "learn" things which are not true and need discernment to
>  distinguish right from wrong.
>I feel that the idea that the world is millions of years old and life
>  "just happened" is one of these things which are learned but wrong.

Ok, I think this is getting somewhere.  I agree, as should we all,
that one can learn things which are not objectively true.  But now I'm
having some trouble with this 'discernment' word.  It seems to rhyme
with 'direct revelation'.  When I discern something that disagrees
with you (evolution/old earth), I'm being deceived (or deceiving
myself).  But when you discern something that disagrees with all known
science, you're not being deceived, because God revealed it to you.
Does this not strike you as a double standard?

Please explain how we can all obtain or enhance our ability to
'discern' what is true, and what is false.  This is a serious request.

	RA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:45:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.042516.6204@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>In <1992Aug28.185242.20364@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug28.155542.2972@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>>>lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>
>>>Unless you've got a falsifiable hypothesis and some evidence, creation
>>>is just so much religious twaddle.  I see no reason to take your view
>>>of the creation of the universe any more seriously that the hindu
>>>view, the navajo view, or the story invented by my 3 year old niece.
>
>>Yeah! Any view that states dogmatic facts about situations for which
>>there are no living witnesses! - like ...oh..say...the theory of evolution
>>for example.
>>>
>
>  (Pardon the hypercitation)
>
>  Mr. Duffy, there is a difference between believing something for which
>there is abundant evidence, and something for which there is equivocal
>eyewitness evidence.  Consider the following analogy:  You are a juror
>in a burglary trial.  There are videotapes from the store's security
>cameras which clearly show the defendant breaking the store window and taking
>some TV sets from a display rack.  Blood on one of the sharp glass shards
>is shown by DNA testing and serological analysis to come from the 
>defendant.  The defendant's fingerprints are all over the recovered
>TV sets.
>
>  As his defense, the defendant calls several witnesses, who say that
>during prayer, God revealed to them that the defendant is innocent.  How
>do you find, oh juror?
>
>  I promise you, the physical evidence for evolution is even more 
>compelling that I've implied above.
>
>
>-- 
>==============================================================================
>Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
>  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain

It would certainly clear up a lot of things for me if I could view a
videotape of random molecules being selected into usable DNA, proteins, etc.
(From when it actually happened of course, not a contrived lab experiment)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 15:25:27 GMT

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:

the dinosaur has but a tiny brain...

keith

>In article <5967@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna) writes:
>> One issue that I sometimes think about is 
>> Why is Mankind the only species on this planet to develop technology,
>> speech, and so many things that were required for the building of our
>> modern society.
>> 
>> Let's put the question in another simpler way, "Why is man the single most 
>> developed creature on Earth?"
>> 
>> Couldn't there be others, which just have not been given time to develop?
>> Can we interfere in such a development, in order to make it impossible?
>> Would we tolerate another "race" achieving similar things as ours?

>	There is no reason to assume that humans are the first
>	species to achieve intelligence,  self-awareness or technology 
>	on this planet. The 'dinosaurs' had plenty of time for this.
>	Maybe they caused the great extinction themselves. So much time
>	has passed that artifacts may be forever unavailible. 

>-- Jim Mason

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15873 talk.origins:10815
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:19:07 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.politics.misc
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <182qgkINN4jj@agate.berkeley.edu> utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes:
>In article <1288@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>
>[A tremendous amount of stuff deleted]
>
>>	Point of historical fact. Just *when* was enough empirical
>>data gathered to prove:
>                  ^^^^^
>
>STOP right here.  There never was AND there never will be enough
>empirical data gathered to "prove":
>>	- Abiogenesis ?
>>	- Natural Selection ?
>>	- Speciation ?
>>	- Mutation ?
>>	- Variations in gene pools ?
>
>[Well worn and partial definition of science mode ON]
>
>SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE A THEORY!!! It can only dis-prove a theory.
>
>[Well worn and partial definition of science mode OF]
>
>>	It might help to think about the question before answering.
>
>It might help to think abou the question before asking.

	I would like to take this opportunity to publicly
apologize to Chris Colby for causing him to step into
a rhetorical cow patty that I set for Matt Wiener. It was
obvious from his response that he really did/does believe 
that I never took Bio 100. As indicated above, David Utidjian
appears to have figured out what I was up to - I'm still
not sure how, or if Wiener will respond.

	Anyway, as a conservative, I am a relative novice
to the ways of deconstruction, since I spend most of
my energies defending theories, not demolishinhg them.

	I do fear that this thread has gone too far in
an unhealthy direction. While I do not retract anything
I've said, my inclination is focus the debate elsewhere.

	Would it not be a *shame* if, through the hubris
and arrogance of my opponents, I actually *won* this
argument and destroyed science as we know it ? :)


	Bill R.


	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or
any government agency."




-- 
Bill R.
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 20:25:04 +1000

Monday August 31 1992, Warren Burstein writes to All:

WB> It is not the case that all Orthodox Jews are creationists.

I believe that you may be wrong in this, depending on how you define Orthodox
Jews and depending on how you define creationism. I believe Orthodox Judaism
demands a Creator who is an all-powerful First Cause. For instance, the Thirteen
Principles Of Faith (Maimonides) refer to "HaBoreh" - the Creator rather than
use another title for the divine.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: books about Nikola Tesla
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:49:46 GMT

 Two books are available on sale from Barnes & Noble

TESLA Man Out of Time by Margaret Cheney  $6.95  #1611151
320 pages.

THE INVENTIONS, RESEARCHES & WRITINGS OF NIKOLA TESLA by Nikola
Tesla  $9.95  #1774447 512 pages  

  You can call 201 767 7079, or write to 126 Fifth Ave, NY NY 10011
The shipping/insurance charge for these would be $2.50 for one book,
$3.50 for both.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins