HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Debating Tactics (Was Re: Creationism and its debunking in Australia
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:32:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug19.031755.2134@newsroom.utas.edu.au>, Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes...
>Jim's article raises the question of precisely what is the best way to combat
>Creationism. The attitiude of many academics here in Australia has been to say
>'Just ignore them, they're only cranks anyway.' I get the impression that this
>was the attitude in the US in the seventies, and its result here has also been
>similar: Creationism has grown relatively unchecked.

I agree with this analysis--that ignoring creationism will not make it
go away.  One serious problem is the public's ignorance of evolution.
I recently did a couple of radio debates on a Christian radio station.
Several of the callers claimed to have studied evolution in college, then
proceeded to demonstrate that all they had learned was a misconceived
caricature.  I'm not sure how to solve this problem; popularization of
science, and evolution in particular (Dawkins' _Blind Watchmaker_ is a good
example), is one necessary route.  Concrete examples of hard evidence
supporting evolution, rather than "just so" stories, need to be given.
(Concrete examples of evidence which conflicts with creationism, also.)

>Plimer would justify his rather dirty tactics by saying that if we confront
>them soberly, seriously and calmly we are legitimising them by treating them
>as equals and that we lose most of our audience because we get technical while
>they keep it all on an idiot-level. He believes in going for the balls.
> 
>Plimer has a point, and he has been successful in making the debunking of 
>Creationism *entertaining* and thus got some useful publicity. But I feel
>we can keep the public's interest without resorting to dirty tactics. So what
>is the best way to debate creationists? How much sarcasm/ridicule/humour can 
>we use? Is there a danger of legitimising their stupid position by taking it 
>seriously? Comments?

I think that humor and sarcasm can be used to good effect.  Ken Saladin
and Philip Kitcher have both done so successfully in debates with Duane
Gish, and without being mean-spirited about it.  At the same time, they
emphasized that creationism is *not* legitimate science.  I think the
manner and content of their debates are examples which should be followed.

(There's more to be said about how to address creationist claims outside
of the debate context, but it's late and I don't have any suggestions
to make there, off the top of my head.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
Subject: Re: 360 day year
Reply-To: davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
Organization: Health Computer Sciences, U of MN, Mpls
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:00:40 GMT

In article <2861@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>The 360 degree compasses we use also date from
>the time of 360 day years;  a degree on the compass was basically just one
>day's worth of angle.  This could not be changed without creating havoc with
>all systems of math and engineering.
>
>Given the standard view of earth origins, however, all compasses should have
>been 365 degrees from day one.

I am in awe.  I fully believe that Ted Holden actually BELIEVES this.

Of course, there is at least one problem with his assumptions about the compass
(I assume he is speaking of the device used by navigators to determine their
heading relative to magnetic north). The compass is relatively new; its
invention postdates Ted's fantasies about Venus and Saturn by several millenia. 
Given Ted's view about what the equivalent of 1 degree on a compass represents,
all compasses SHOULD have 365 degrees!

They don't.

And, Ted, as an aside, your 360-day years don't work from another standpoint
either.  If Saturn was so prominant in the sky during this period of time, why
would anyone even bother to date a 'year' by the position of a tiny,
insignificant star?  Especially when the 'year' would have had to have been at
least as long as what we count as a 'year' for Mars or Jupiter today?

-- David Paschall-Zimbel
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: White skin-how did it develope?
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 00:48:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.121440.24522@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>According to evolutionist thinking, whites and blacks can be
>considered two separate species. 

Just which evolutionists do you think believe this to be true?  None I ever
knew.

>So the situation in apartheid
>countries has an evolutionary basis. How are whites and blacks
>considered different species? Well evolutionists like to show
>speciation has and is occuring. A popular method is to say that
>two sets of organisms that are identical but differ in mating
>habits or preferences `cannot' interbreed and are therefore
>two distinct species.

But you seem to ignore the fact that the races do in fact interbreed
quite commonly.  It is certainly commonplace here in LA.  This line 
of reasoning is just as silly as saying that rich people and poor 
people are not of the same species because they TEND to interbreed
less often.

>This can be extended to human society if
>social factors cause different races to prefer not to interbreed.

>Actually I think the main three racial groupings (black, white,
>yellow) are descended from Noah's three sons.

Aaahhh.  So you base your social theories on fairy tales.  Very nice.
So tell me, what race was Noah?  And how did he manage to have children
of different races?

--Brian
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Christian message (in defense of Jim Loucks)
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:21:15 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:

  ...
>	I admire the strength of Jim's faith.  I just wish he'd
>adopt a more realistic view of the world and scientific discovery.

Well... thanks... I think. Personally I think I have an extremely
realistic view of the world, but we can disagree and still be friends.
Concerning scientific discovery, I will repeat until I die that we
must carefully consider the bias of all individuals, creationist and
evolutionist alike. That, along with the continuing problems of 
definition it is easy for miscommunication to be quite prevalent. 

>Attempting to force a religious viewpoint (creationism) to be taught
>as scientific fact is incorrect, and believing that this is a proper
>practice of the Christian faith is, I believe, incorrect as well.

If I have communicated in some way that I am forcing creationism to
be taught as scientific fact then I must apologize for not communicating
properly.

>	All opinions are welcome, as usual.

Ditto.

>	Jim Acker
>	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

>	(Anybody still want to talk about abiogenesis?  Snif,
>nobody liked my thread.)

Wish I could help.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: double ARGH!! -- yet another correction
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:36:01 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

I must have been absolutely devoid of brain activity when I wrote
the helper post(*). In each instance where I say "cost/benefit ratio"
it should read "benefit/cost ratio". I'm going to some pawn shops today
to see if I can find a good used brain 8-)

(*) long story

I think the first part should make sense now.

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"
Xref: sparky talk.origins:9824 soc.culture.african.american:8951 alt.rap:4153
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Opinions on _Evolution From Space_?
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:54:33 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug19.021439.8109@sdf.lonestar.org> corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
|
|Recently I went to the Dallas public library and got some books
|on Evolution that the JW's _Life_ book quotes from.  I just
|got a chance to look at _Evolution From Space_, by Fred
|Hoyle, and Chandra Wickramasinghe.  ...
|
|Is this book taken seriously by anyone in the sciences
|today?  Is Hoyle a lunatic?  He's just an astronomer, after
|all.

Hoyle is close to a lunatic, the book is not taken seriously by more than
a small lunatic fringe.  As an astromer Hoyle is sound, outside of that
he has made a habit of supporting various rather bizarre and unfounded
ideas.  (This one is not his only cracked-pot scheme, he makes a habit of
this).

|Or do the arguments in this book have any merit? 

Nope.  He makes all of the mistakes that a physical scientists tends to make
when confronted with the complexity of individuality that is the core of
biological science.

|I would 
|appreciate it if someone coulc tell me what
|they know about the origin of life, and so on.

Relatively little is actually known of the origin of life.  There are a
number of various theories of some merit, at various degrees of precision.

None of them have yet gotten to the stage of overwhelming evidence.
Several of them are worth considerably more study.  Hoyles dreck is *not*
one of these.

(The RNA-origin theory is currently the most popular, but I tend to favor
Dr. Cairns-Smith's clay origin theory; and there are a couple of other
good ones if you look around a bit).

| I am
|confvinced that life has evolved, but i am not so easily convinced
|that life can be traced back to a common ancestor, for 
|instance.

Actually, this is pretty well established.  There are certain similarities
to *all* current life forms that pretty well estalish a common ancestor.
(These are mostly in the area of biochemistry, and are rather difficult
to explain in few words).

*However* this common ancestor of all urrently living forms was almost
certainly *far* removed from the first living thing(s).  For one thing,
the commonality is at far too high a level of complexity fo the first
life.

Thus we are talking about a long history of life prior to the common ancestor
of all current forms.  It is just that all of the other lineages have
become extinct, most of them over a billion years ago.  Thus, we were
left with this advanced common ancestor sort of by default, because
everyone else was gone.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Seismo/ultrasaur weights, was Holden and the galloping elephant
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:58:46 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug18.160128.9398@news2.cis.umn.edu>, davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu writes:
> In article <2856@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>>|Bullshit.  Again, I would read McGowen's book.
> 
> Just out of interest, Ted, to which book by McGowen are you referring?  A
> quick scan of the literature by authors named 'McGowen' through the electronic
> card catalog at the University of Minnesota produced the following results:
> 
>        MCGOWEN AL
>     1   EXTRACTION OF FREE GOLD <1973>  (UL)
>        MCGOWEN CAROLYN SMITH 1954
>     2   REMEDIAL READING FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDE <1991> microfiche  (UL)
>        MCGOWEN DARRELL 1932
>     3   CRIMINAL AND CIVIL TAX FRAUD LAW PRACTICE PR <1986>  (LL)
>        MCGOWEN F K
>     4   NEW INSIGHTS FROM THEORY AND EXPERIMENT INTO <1990>  (ZE)
>        MCGOWEN J H
>     5   DEPOSITIONAL AND GROUND WATER FLOW SYSTEMS I <1979>  (UL)
>     6   ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGIC ATLAS OF THE TEXAS CO <1976>  (UL)
>     7   ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGIC ATLAS OF THE TEXAS CO <1976>  (UL)
>     8   MODERN DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENTS OF THE TEXA <1980>  (UL)
>        MCGOWEN JAMES
>     9   GOVERNMENT CREDIT SUBSIDIES FOR ENERGY DEVEL <1977>  (UL)
>        MCGOWEN JOHN MALCOLM 1906
>    10   EFFECT OF TOLUYLENEDIAMINE ON THE EXCRETION <1936>  (UL)
>        MCGOWEN MARY K
>    11   MIOCENE AND OLIGOCENE PETROLEUM RESERVOIRS O <1990>  (UL)
>        MCGOWEN NORRIS COCHRAN
>    12   NATURAL GAS THE GULF SOUTHS SYMBOL OF PROGRE <1951>  (UL)
>        MCGOWEN TOM
>    13   ALBUM OF PREHISTORIC MAN <1975>  (UL)
> 
> Of course, if the author's name ISN'T 'McGowen', well, that would be different.
> 
> Hoping to hear something positive from Ted for a change (like, 'Well, I got
> the name mispelled, sorry about that.') ....
> 
> -- David Paschall-Zimbel   

I've repeatedly posted that Ted is mis-spelling Chris McGowan's name.  Seems
he can't manage to get that right anymore than he can anything else.

Sue
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Felt effects of gravity
Date: 16 Aug 92 01:31:11 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <2862@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:

>In the present age of the world, Mongols and other central asians have been
>trying to breed eagles (berkuts) for size and strength for at least 2000
>years, and cannot get them over a limit of around 25 lbs.  At that point
>they begin to experience difficulty taking off from flat ground, especially
>after a full meal.

Oddly enough, the lemming herders of East Lower Uppsala have been trying
to breed lemmings for size and strength so that they can use them for
beasts of burden.  For some strange reason, despite millenia of lemming
breeding, they still haven't produced a lemming that can pull a plow.

However my cousin Freddy, who fried his brains on LSD in the 60's,
once told me that he had a vision that once upon a time the Himalayan
Hunza rode giant lemmings as war horses.

Not only that, Ancient Chinese Manuscripts, written on a material that
suspiciously resembles polished lemming bones, allude to a time before
the Age of Silk when all clothes were made out of felt.

So I guess there is something to Ted's theories after all.
-- 
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.
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:32:21 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

In article <75Ch030z62.E00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>I wrote:
>>>>Marvin Lubenow of the ICR is putting the finishing touches on a
>>>>book regarding human evolution and the fossil (or lack of) evidence
>>>>for such. This should be an interesting book.

Somewhere in here I wrote something, but it seems to have vanished without
a trace of its ever having been here except for the prefixes (count 'em).
I know that Sue didn't excise my remarks.

>>I wonder if Lubenow is going to discuss Lucy?  Actually human evolution
>>is pretty well documented.  Lots of discoveries in the last decade or so.
>
>Most likely, Lubenow will discuss Lucy. But human evolution is only
>"pretty well documented" if you favor a certain worldview or bias.
>Of course the t.o regulars who hold that worldview will disagree with
>the information in the book, I still think it will be quite interesting.

So did you find Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_ interesting?

-- Herb Huston
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: behavior and evolution
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:31:27 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: julian@tantalus.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)

In article <julian.714326083@sfu.ca>, julian@tantalus (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>>Do you have any arguments _for_ divine intervention in nature?

>None that can be reproduced of course, but certainly one subject
>to historical verification (the resurrection).

I checked with my rabbi.  He said that's a bunch of protostomatic
gibberish.  Since my rabbi has deep direct access to the Divine,
you'll have to come up with a better example.

>But we accept a lot of events not scientificlly demonstrable in our
>live: My girlfriend loves me, if I did not accet this without
>reproducible evidence I would be a poor human being,

If she stopped speaking warmly with you, spending time with you, doing
little things for you, showing that she cares, and so on and so on, but
instead ditched all this into complete zero, and you went on saying that
you know she really loves you, she's just not showing it anymore, we'd
consider you stupid and gullible and being set up for a long hard fall.

>My point is that perhaps science gives us an average broad view of
>the history of the world with some thihngs like unique developments
>washed out.

So what?

>Any model built up by science is subject to verification, and the simplest
>is chosen for aesthetic reasons, but in the realm of the distant past
>there are probable many models which will fit the known facts equally
>well but have differing theoretical structures.

But they have different degrees of plausibility and testability.  It
would be a remarkable coincidence if Cairns-Smith theories regarding
clay led to the successful manufacture of `vital mud', unless, of
course, Cairns-Smith were correct, or at least in the right ballpark.
The failure of competing attempts, say with polyamino acid micelles
and other scenarios, would reinforce such a conclusion.  Their success
would lead to direct quantitative comparisons.

>(I am getting confused, I think I'll stick to physics)

Good idea.  The philosophy of science is a separate field of knowledge
than science itself, and knowledge of the latter is merely a prerequisite
for the former, not a substitute, but too many scientists don't realize
this and mouth off rather embarrassingly.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Punctuated equilibrium
Date: 17 Aug 92  15:48:00 EST

-> >       Unknown to the modern science.
-> >
-> >       Those are called "missing links".
->
-> Now this has always been amusing to me.  What exactly are "missing
-> links"?

How about Gould's hyposthesis of punctuated equilibrium.  It make a lot of sense.  The reason that "missing links" are not found is because a species remains relatively unchanged for a long, long time and then the change in speciation is rapid.  Anybody know anything about this?

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Date: 18 Aug 92 18:53:42 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>In article <8ck103Dl606a00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>}Marvin Lubenow of the ICR is putting the finishing touches on a
>}book regarding human evolution and the fossil (or lack of) evidence
>}for such. This should be an interesting book.

>It would be nice to see something based upon existing evidence.  Or perhaps
>you will advocate the conclusion that there is no god based upon the lack
>of evidence?

Sigh. Then another. 

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Are we privileged observers?
Keywords: universe,earth, paradox
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:21:07 GMT

In article <julian.714000550@sfu.ca>, julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock) writes:
>kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>>>Now, dp the laws of physics as we know them here hold beyond this horizon?
>>>[consequences deleted]
>
>>This looks like a meaningless question if this horizon is the singulary it
>>should be.  Analogous question:  do the laws of physics as we know them here
>>hold north of the North Pole?
>
>>There is no place "north of the North Pole", and there is no place "beyond
>>this horizon".
>
>JCS rsponds:
>No, there is no singularity at this horizon, it only has reference to 
>where we are in the universe. A being living closer to the horizon would not see
>any difference, it is just that region in the universe that WE (on Earth)
>cannot see. SO the question is not meaningless as there is plenty of
>universe beyond this horizon, its light has not reached us yet.

Oops.  I should think more and post less.

>[lots deleted]
>>>We seem to need a meta-physics to tell us where the laws of physics hold.
>>>It is made even worse if the laws themselves change in time as we then
>>>have no idea what happens even in the parts of the universe we can observe.
>
>>Huh?  If we can observe them, we can look there if the laws of physics hold.
>
>No you can't, becuse you do not know how to interpret the observations.
>An example: Suppose you measure the spectral shift of starlight, and find
>it has a red-shift. Is this because the light is from a receeding source
>or it is having to escape a strong gravitational field, or perhaps 
>some unknown mechanism? We have to make a "uniformity" assumption
>in order to interpret our observations. [..]

OK, I should have said:
we can look there if the observations are consistent with the laws of
physics.  We do not much differ but stress different aspects.

>[..]
>>(That is, I couldn't find the point of your last question)
>
>Oh, this was to preept someone who responds that there is no horizon
>because the universe is infinite. Then we would have light from infinity 
>coming towards us and there would be no paradox. But if the universe
>is infinite we should have all died out long ago, unless there is  
>some supernatural means of pumping energy into an infinite universe that
>is constantly using it up
>
>Hope that explains my position. [..]

It does.  But why should we "have all died out long ago"?  Why long ago?  Why
not far in the future?  I can't see that the universe's infinity points to one
special point in time.

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Gish vs. Ross debate - tapes
Content-Type: text
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 10:13:21 EDT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL73]
Content-Length: 490       


	To Bill Hamilton:

	"Focus on the Family" airs at the exact wrong times in the D.C.
area (10 and 4:30) to hear.  If you get tape ordering info please post
it.  I think a number of people would be interested in hearing this
debate, even if it only strengthens our opinion on Gish.

	I am somewhat amazed that Dobson put this on his show.  My 
opinion of Dobson just soared (it was good to begin with, but I don't
get a daily chance to hear him.)

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov