HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Permo/Triassic quandary
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:43:06 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1993Jan6.212932.14558@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
|> 	The _Science_ article notes "at least 10 mass extinctions 
|> have been recognized in the last 250 million years."  The two largest are
|> the K/T event, "probably" linked with an asteroid impact, and the P/Tr
|> event, now "probably" linked with flood volcanism.  "probably" is my
|> inference.

What is interesting is that the K/T event is also strongly linked with flood
volcanism - in particular the Deccan Traps.  In this case the temporal association
is quite solid - magnetostratigraphic data show that the Deccan volcanism
truly did span the K/T boundary.

|> 	Anyway, it seems to me this is a valid t.o.pic.  HA!  Perhaps
|> the "Flood" wasn't water, it was lava -- of course, a wooden ship
|> might have had a problem ;-)
|> 
Yep, it is just that lot's of people seem to think this is *solely* a group
for arguing with Crationists.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism,sci.bio
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: sin gene
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:07:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.152453.22580@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
}There are actually serious creationist works on the same topic.
}In front of me is a "technical" article on the "sin mutation"
}which changed Adam and Eve's genotypes during the Fall, how this
}is inherited by everyone, and how Christ was created without it.

Is the human genome project suitable aprised, so that they can locate
which group is responsible for sin?

Gee, as a thought - gengineers might be able to mass produce "sinless"
organisms, or place the "sin gene" into "sinless" animals.  If the
latter, would the rat/hamster/whatever also be condemned to the eternal
fires of hell?

(hint: hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaaaaa)


Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 13:40:39 GMT

Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Keywords: 

In article <7JAN199301463872@juliet.caltech.edu>, waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu (Broughton, Wayne Jeremy) writes:
|> Assuming the point of view that the standard Creationist position is
|> bunk, what do you think is the destiny of the Creationist movement in
|> both the near and distant future?  Taking the long historical view, one
|> hopes our current era represents only a brief reaction against evolution
|> science similar to initial reactions against Copernican theory.  
|> 
  
   [...discussion ommitted ...]

|> If so, this could represent an important step in the eventual general 
|> acceptance of evolutionary theory and the reduction of Creationism to
|> the status of today's Flat Earth Society.  I would be willing to guess
|> that this state of affairs might be reached in the next 30-80 years.
|> Any detractors?
|> 
|> In the end, all this heated debate will just seem like so much hot
|> air in an amusing footnote anecdote in the history of science (if 
|> the previous history of science is anything to go by).
|> 
|> Sincerely,
|> Wayne.

    There have been several interesting responses to this, but I
thought I'd mention one other take on this problem.

    Has anyone read Harold Bloom's "The American Religion", Simon
& Schuster, 1992 (ISBN 067166799X; LoC BR 515.B58 1992)?  It has a
few comments in passing on creationism.  His basic thesis is that
certain American religions with their origins in the 19th century,
such as Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day Adventism, Christian Science, and 
Jehovah's Witnesses, represent modern versions of Gnosticism, and 
he seems to think that Gnosticism is the most vital religion in 
America (and, BTW, that creationism is one feature of modern
Gnosticism -- I haven't heard whether Mormons and Christian
Scientists tend to be Creationists).

    One comment that Bloom makes (I don't have the book in front
of me, so this is from memory) is that creationists basically don't
like the idea of man as being a part of nature.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:52:00 GMT
 <1993Jan8.082002.21091@smds.com> <1993Jan11.200019.22468@city.cs>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan11.200019.22468@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes...
>rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan7.152453.22580@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
> 
>>>In front of me is a "technical" article on the "sin mutation"
>>>which changed Adam and Eve's genotypes during the Fall, how this
>>>is inherited by everyone, and how Christ was created without it.
>>
>>>See:  Anderson, Albert S., 1992.  "Magnificent Miracle: The Virgin
>>>Conception of Jesus" in _Creation Research Society Quarterly_
>>>Volume 29 Issue 2, pp. 89-97.
>>
>>Gaaaak.
>>
>>
>>Does it say anything about Mary?  Do creationists accept immaculate
>>conception? 
> 
>Of course.
> 
>--
>  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
> / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
>/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
>\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/

You realize, don't you, Lionel, that the "Immaculate Conception" is
the original-sin-free birth of *Mary*, not Jesus?  Or is your knowledge
of Catholicism as deep as your knowledge of evolution?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lamoran@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran)
Subject: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:31:10 GMT


According to the Institute for Creation Research it was very easy for Noah
and his family to accomodate enough "kinds" on the ark. During a recent visit
to the creation museum in San Diego I made notes on the ark exhibit. There
were no fish, arthropods, molluscs, worms, sponges etc. on the ark; only
mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. The total number of animals that
Noah took with him was less than 50,000. This is fewer than the number of 
species because only "kinds" were counted. For example, the dog "kind"
includes wolves, dogs, coyotes and other doglike creatures. It was only
necessary to take one example of the dog kind.

The ICR museum has a scale model of the ark and they show clearly how all
of the animals were squeezed in. Apparently many "kinds" survived the flood
even though they were not taken on the ark. Freshwater fish managed to
find local pools of non-salt water that did not mix with the ocean and insects
either stayed aloft or landed on debris floating on the ocean. I'm not clear
on what happened to the plants and the display in the museum does not describe
their fate. One could hypothesize that seeds survived by floating on the
surface.

Laurence (Larry) A. Moran
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Plato's STATESMAN/Age of Kronos
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:52:47 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

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!

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: City University, London
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 20:00:19 GMT

rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.152453.22580@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:

>>In front of me is a "technical" article on the "sin mutation"
>>which changed Adam and Eve's genotypes during the Fall, how this
>>is inherited by everyone, and how Christ was created without it.
>
>>See:  Anderson, Albert S., 1992.  "Magnificent Miracle: The Virgin
>>Conception of Jesus" in _Creation Research Society Quarterly_
>>Volume 29 Issue 2, pp. 89-97.
>
>Gaaaak.
>
>
>Does it say anything about Mary?  Do creationists accept immaculate
>conception? 

Of course.

--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
Xref: sparky talk.origins:16069 sci.astro:13712 rec.humor:37490
From: hwt@bcarh11a.BNR.CA (Henry Troup)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.astro,rec.humor
Subject: Re: Cosmos without Gravitation
Date: 5 Jan 93 09:54:39 GMT
Reply-To: Henry.Troup@BNR.CA
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: world
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada


|>In _Cosmos_Without_Gravitation_, Immanuel Velikovsky writes

without using caps lock.  And, he writes rather better prose than the
average net.crank.  But, he's even further out in left field.  He's also
dead, isn't he?

Shall we lobby for the creation of alt.fan.velikovsky?  Or raise a
collection to get oe of those spurious star name companies to 'name' a
star after him?  Perhaps Cygnus X-1?                  
Henry Troup - H.Troup@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
	       Legislated morality is the enemy of true morality
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: scott@anasazi.com (Scott Gibson)
Subject: Re: _Eoraptor_, very early dinosaur, announced
Reply-To: scott@misty.UUCP (Scott Gibson)
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:47:51 GMT

In article <1ifks8INNja@mirror.digex.com> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>The _Washington Post_ for today (January 6, 1993) had a front-page story
>on a news conference at the National Geographic Society yesterday at which
>the discovery of _Eoraptor_ (Dawn Plunderer) was announced.  Since I don't
>have the newspaper in front of me right now, I'll omit details except to
>note that there was pointer to an article in _Nature_ by Serano et al. for
>this coming Thursday (January 7, 1993).

There is an X-ray photograph of a composite fossil of the skull of
Eoraptor in January's issue of National Geographic.  The skull is
shown in comparison with a human hand, and is about the size of the
palm.

Haven't had a chance to read the article.  Looks good, though.

ObNonPeeve: My son gets National Geographic as a gift, so I don't have
	    to pay for it...


-- 
*******************************************************************************
"For man...grows beyond his work, walks up the stairs of his concepts, emerges
 ahead of his accomplishments."  -  John Steinbeck, _The_Grapes_of_Wrath_
Scott Gibson                   {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!qip!scott
Disclaimer:  These opinions are my own, and may change without prior notice.
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 12:26 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan12.134342.24214@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes...
>Lionel Tun (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk) wrote:
> 
>: Ooops! I've done that very thing. Virgin birth, yes. What is the
>: immaculate conception?
>: 
> 
>	Catholics correct me if I'm wrong, but the doctrine says that
>Mary was also conceived by the Holy Spirit and whoever Mary's mother
>was.  Now, I don't know if Mary's mother was a virgin (she could have
>had children before Mary), but the main reason for the doctrine was to
>remove any vestige of sex from the birth of Christ -- i.e., both the
>Immaculate Virgin (Mary) and Christ were conceived sans sex.
> 
>	Jim Acker

The Immaculate Conception is not a Virgin Birth.  (I wonder why, if
the stain of original sin can be removed without a virgin birth,
a virgin birth is believed by Catholics to be necessary for Jesus.)
Oh, it's also not true that the Immaculate Conception took place
without sex.  (BTW, the I.C. became official doctrine in 1854,
courtesy of Pope Pius IX.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Mark's Laws of Biology
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:26:58 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1993Jan6.073751.8290@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
|> 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
|> >obviously valid).

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

And, as you just reminded me, on the *ecology* of the species.
I seriously doubt that r-selected species really can be said to obey this 'rule'.
It is more likely that thier birth and death rates are largely independent over
time, and thus the population size follows a random walk profile (i.e. no clear
long term average, etc - you might even call it fractal).

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale Skiba)
Subject: Re: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
Followup-To: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 14:00:15 GMT

Jon Livesey (livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com) wrote:

: I wonder if you missed my point here.   I'm not complaining about Ross'
: knowledge of Science.

: I'm saying that he acquired his knowldge of Science *first*, and then
: used it to reinterpret the Bible.    

Yep, since the Bible is worded very vaugely in several sections,
just about anyone who wishes to conclude something from these sections
has to make some sort of interpretation with some kind of established
background.  This is no big deal to me.

: He takes verses of poetry from the Bible and says "Well, in terms of
: modern Science, here's what this *really* says".    With Ross' method,
: you can get any fit you like.

Well, not quite.  You can only stretch it so far.  After a while it
will snap back at you if you try to take things too far in the wrong
direction.  (Sooner or later ICR will fold on itself when people
start to realize that they are as deceptive as the Evil one.)

: If you remember back a month or two, Kalki did the same thing with
: some of his Holy books, telling us that a thunderbolt was an ICBM,
: and a flaming arrow was an anti-aircraft missile, and so on.   Anyone
: can do this, provided said Holy Book is old enough and poetic enough.

Well, just about every "Holy Book" is written by poets!

: |> 
: |> : |> The odds that Moses could have guessed the correct order even if he
: |> : |> were given the events are 1 chance in 40 million.
: |> 
: |> : What "correct order" are we talking about here?   The "correct order"
: |> : after Ross munged things around to be compatible with Modern Science?
: |> 
: |> : How surprising is that?
: |> 
: |> : jon.
: |> 
: |> He may have munged things a bit too much to get this number.
: |> Genesis says things start out with water.  Also, few things
: |> in the sequence of creation seem to be out of sequence with
: |> what we know today.  So, this 1/40M seems a bit extreme.

: I think you misunderstood what I said.   I didn't say the order
: was right or wrong.   I asked "what order"?

: If it's Ross' order, then it's Ross' order, not Moses'.

There is an order in Genesis I.  It has a couple of bugs, so when
Ross glosses over them maybe it becomes Ross' order.

: You can't rearrange the Bible to fit modern Science, and then
: claim it wqas really Moses that got the right order, and this is
: some statistical miracle.

: It wasn't Moses that got the order right (wrt to modern Science)
: It was *Ross*, and he peeked at mordern Science first.

I never disagreed with you here. Ross was be a bit selective in
his data sample.  Genesis I has a long sequence of events and he
took a sub sample.  He happened to skip the ones that disagree
with today's modern sequence.  This is why I say his 1/40M is a
bit extreme.  Since he violated established sampling methodology
it is difficult to put good numbers on his conclusion.


--
Dale Skiba
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: vanweer@ecf.toronto.edu (VANWEERDENBURG NICHOLAS JOHN)
Subject: Re: Evolution implied by the Bible
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:08:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.233055.18716@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>In article <C0GAzK.oF@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>>In article <watson.726339134@space.sce.carleton.ca> watson@sce.carleton.ca
>>(Stephen Watson) writes:
>
>>>Sorry, Richard, but you need to start using smilies.  Creationists
>>>descend so often into self-parody that it gets difficult to tell the
>>>spoofs from the genuine item.
>
>>Competence of expression and rigor of thought are sufficient to
>>distinguish Richard's essays from "the genuine item."
>
>Aw shucks, blush, blush.
>
>Clearly, if I am to take my place among the great talk.origins psychoceramics,
>I shall have to study the masters and learn from them.  How is this for
>a curriculum:
>
>Turgidity:  Taught by Bob Bales, offered irregularly several times a year.
>
>Bizarre incoherence:  Taught by guest lecturer Antti.  A required course
>for advanced degrees in psychoceramics.
>
>Incoherent bizarreness:  Taught by guest lecturer Kalki.  This course
>replaces Freshman Disorientation.  The requirement for this course is
>waived for people with permanent brain damage due to over enthusiastic 
>use of recreational chemicals.
>
>One Liners:  Required course taught by Lionel Tun, with frequent lectures
>by Antti and Kalki.  Requirements:  Irrelevancy I and II.
>
>Metatheory 101:  This course reviews a wide variety of standard psychoceramic
>world models.  Professor Holden teaches Velikovsky, Talbott, Rose, and the
>Holden number.  Professor Kalki teaches Krishna Conciousness.
>
>"I am not a Liar" seminar series:  This is a round table seminar series
>featuring Holden, Bales, and Merritt.
>
>Decorum and Taste:  Practical tips from Ted "horse shit" Holden.
>
>Theory of Creation Science:  Not available.
>
>
>-- 
>Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 

You have a great and insightful wit.  I'm sorry that I thought your
sin dilution post was real, but then again, that I could think such a 
ridiculous post could be real, makes the point you were making all the 
funnier.  If I had never read t.o again, I would have gone through life
thinking, "Richard Harter= total crackpot", which would have been a total
disservice.  My apologies again.
-- 


------------------------------------------------------
Nick Vanweerdenburg
From: root@homer.UUCP (Marc Brumlik)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: TIME cover story
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:22:58 GMT
Organization: Tailored Software, Inc., Wheaton, IL

> In fairness it should be pointed out that there has been a general increase
> in brain size in vertebrates over the past few hundred million years, so it
> is plausible that there is a general advantage, albeit small, in increased
> brain size.  On the other hand the hypertrophy of the homo brain size
> does have the appearance of an anomalous, accidental occurence.

perhaps the advantages of intelligence are minor in general, until
intelligence reaches some critical point at which the species becomes
capable of making tools and war.  suddenly, survival requires a
strategy and a social order of communities that can fight together.
at this point, natural selection for intellegence would be replaced by
competition and wars that wipe out any less intelligent groups.
--
..{util20,obdient}!homer!marc	Marc Brumlik, Tailored Software, Inc.
marc@homer.chi.il.us		Wheaton, IL	Voice: 708 668 9947 / 9967
						FAX  : 708 668 9947
						UUCP : 708 668 9137
Xref: sparky talk.origins:16054 talk.religion.misc:25216
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: YOUNG EARTHERS _AND_ BIBLE CRITICS WATCH OUT! (huh?)
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:55:56 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins,talk.religion.misc
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh19.cco.caltech.edu

John Muehlhausen writes

[many paragraphs deleted]

> Order of Creation Events

[1 paragraph deleted]

[1st three steps deleted]
> 4.  establishment of continent(s) and ocean(s) 
> 5.  production of plants on the continent(s) 
> 6.  transformation of the atmoshpere from translucent to transparent
>     (Sun, Moon, and stars became visible for the first time) 
> 7.  production of small sea animals 
> 8.  creation of sea mammals (nephesh) 
> 9.  creation of birds [possibly same time as 8] (more nephesh) 
> 10. making of land mammals (wild mammals, mammals that can be
>     domesticated, and rodents - still more nephesh) 
> 11. creation of mankind (adam) 
> No Coincidence
> --------------
> The record above perfectly accords with the findings of modern
> science.

NOT!
There are several errors here. First of all, land plants did not precede
animals. Primitive fish and the like ("small sea animals") (Does small sea
animals include protazoa?) were around consideably before plants moved to
the land. (Unless you mean algae.) Even worse, sea mammals evolved from
land mammals, not the other way around. Also, I believe birds came after
mammals, not the other way around.

No matter what you do, you're not going to get Genesis to accord with
modern science. Genesis was the best account that the ancient Hebrews could
come up with for the beginning of the world, given the knowledge that they
had. Why not simply accept it as that, rather than as divine truth? 

[rest deleted for brevity]
> John M.
Newsgroups: talk.origins