HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: George.Cormie@p0.f45.n342.z1.fidonet.org (George Cormie)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Science Feed
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 19:03:15 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:342/45.0 - SPQR, Edmonton AB

e5

 LP> Hi George.
 
 LP> You probably don't remember me, but I sat in on your session at the 
 LP> Science Council conference up at Banff last October (??).  I was the 
 LP> one that talked
 LP> with you re: K12 etc.
 
 LP> I don't recall whether you have a 14.4K v32bis or a dual  standard 
 LP> HST modem.  Could you please respond as I am looking for a faster 
 LP> feed up here to Elk
 LP> Point.  I would also like to share some of your files with my Science 
 LP> students and teachers without having to stay online with your system, 
 LP> its too costly.
 LP> Here I could download them from your science bbs and use them here at 
 LP> our leisure.  How on that?
 
 LP> Call me here or on one of the local Imex echoes.  I wasn't sure which 
 LP> ones you carried, so the Science echo seemed the most logical place.  
 LP> Hoping to hear from you soon.  Bye for now
 
 
 
 LP> --- Maximus 2.01wb
 LP> * Origin: Elk Point School BBS [Elk Point, Alberta] (89:701/242)
 LP> * Tossed by SFToss v1.00c/i2 (beta) on 93/01/08  06:05:08
 
 I have a Courier v.32 bis U.S. Robotics with ASL  ... on the first node  of The Science Network BBS and a Supra 2400 on the second node.  The  first node is 9600 (should work fine for you) - when you send another  message it would be more appropriate to use the Teacher Chat echo or call  me on the Alberta Government Right line (no cost)
  
 George Cormie



 # GateOrigin: 89:701/204@imex


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!342!45.0!George.Cormie
Internet: George.Cormie@p0.f45.n342.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
From: Peter.Macinnis@p0.f508.n711.z3.fidonet.org (Peter Macinnis)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: EVOLUTION
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 18:03:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 3:711/508.0 - The Bay, Neutral Bay NSW

;rep:111,4220
JS>I don't want to get into a big debate with you. Mr. Herr has asked that we d
JS>not do so. However, please remember that saying "scientists" alone is not
JS>correct. There are many highly qualified scientists who believe in Creation.
JS>If you must discuss the evolutionary viewpoint, please remember to say "most
JS>scientists." Children need to know that there is still major controversy wit
JS>evidence on this subject. They may wish to study further.

I agree with your sentiments re big debates, but until you define
"scientist", I for one will continue to say that all scientists believe
evolution is an incontrovertible fact, and that the theory of evolution
by natural selection is the only sensible cause of that fact.  My sort
of scientist believes that, or else he/she is no scientist.  Scientists
must accept the evidence.  Many of those scientists (as I use the term)
also believe in creation, as an article of faith.  Faith does not
require high qualifications.

You seem to be trying to sneak in a bit of creation "science" through
the back door.  Children need to know that this sort of thing happens.
They may wish to study further.

peter

 # SLMR 2.1 # Equal time for pi = 3 (II Chronicles 4:2).



--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!3!711!508.0!Peter.Macinnis
Internet: Peter.Macinnis@p0.f508.n711.z3.fidonet.org
From: Peter.Macinnis@p0.f508.n711.z3.fidonet.org (Peter Macinnis)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: "Proof" and Science (was
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 18:02:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 3:711/508.0 - The Bay, Neutral Bay NSW

;rep:111,4220
JG>Several people have been saying things like: "This proves..." or "This has
JG>been proven."  I think it is important for us to remember that science does
JG>*not* prove anything.  The basis of science is falsifibility, not proof.
JG>This is the foundation of scientific philosophy, and it doesn't help the
JG>evolution argument when you claim something as proven (because it's not--at
JG>least as far as science is concerned).

JG>Please remember to use phrases like such-and-such "supports the theory" and
JG>"this evidence does not disprove this hypothesis because...."  It's more
JG>accurate and it's within the realm of science.

So long as you remember that the "theory of evolution" is a theory
stating that evolution happens by natural selection.  Evolution is a
fact and any assertion to the contrary is mudgubbling tomflummery.  You
appear to have overdosed on Popperian notions, while I am a hidebound
logical positivist who thinks Popper was a very good cabinet maker.
Who is to say which of us is right, or which of us will not have changed
by next week?
peter




--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!3!711!508.0!Peter.Macinnis
Internet: Peter.Macinnis@p0.f508.n711.z3.fidonet.org
From: York.York@p0.f11.n356.z1.fidonet.org (York York)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: evolution
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 17:47:42 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:356/11.0 - The College, Coos Bay OR

BRAVO!! 


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!356!11.0!York.York
Internet: York.York@p0.f11.n356.z1.fidonet.org
From: Lawrence.Pidluzny@p0.f45.n342.z1.fidonet.org (Lawrence Pidluzny)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Science Feed
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 21:26:56 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:342/45.0 - SPQR, Edmonton AB

Hi George.

You probably don't remember me, but I sat in on your session at the Science Council conference up at Banff last October (??).  I was the one that talked with you re: K12 etc.

I don't recall whether you have a 14.4K v32bis or a dual  standard HST modem.  Could you please respond as I am looking for a faster feed up here to Elk Point.  I would also like to share some of your files with my Science students and teachers without having to stay online with your system, its too costly.  Here I could download them from your science bbs and use them here at our leisure.  How on that?

Call me here or on one of the local Imex echoes.  I wasn't sure which ones you carried, so the Science echo seemed the most logical place.  Hoping to hear from you soon.  Bye for now




 # GateOrigin: 89:701/242.0@imex


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!342!45.0!Lawrence.Pidluzny
Internet: Lawrence.Pidluzny@p0.f45.n342.z1.fidonet.org
From: Rebekah.Venable@f921.n720.z6.fidonet.org (Rebekah Venable)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Abortion
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 13:37:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 6:720/921 - World Data Exchange, Taipei Taiwan

DR>Do you think that asian values today to abortion are such that most
DR>girls there your age would have an abortion rather than face
DR>social presures etc. from a teenage pregnancy and birth or most
DR>would have the child?

I think that most Asian girls my age would rather have an abortion, because I don't think that they think abortion is wrong.  Also, I think "face" has a lot to do with it, because an unwed mother could lose face and I don't think that many people would want to risk that.  There are a lot of women who do have the babies and then put them up for adoption, though.

DR>Which would YOU do?
        First of all, there is no chance that I will ever get pregnant before I get married.  But I would have the baby if I did.  Whether I would put the baby up for adoption or not all depends on the situation.
                                Rebekah

 * DeLuxe2 1.25 #12575 * Junk is Stuff You Discard. Stuff is Junk You Keep.



--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!6!720!921!Rebekah.Venable
Internet: Rebekah.Venable@f921.n720.z6.fidonet.org
From: Peter.Macinnis@p0.f508.n711.z3.fidonet.org (Peter Macinnis)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Sasquatch
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 20:30:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 3:711/508.0 - The Bay, Neutral Bay NSW

;rep:111,4220
RH>seen them have reasonable creditability.  The evolutionary theory
RH>of man states that the sasquatch was the stage before Cro-magnon
RH>which is todays modern man.  This is the reason I most believe that
RH>they are not all extinct.  This is my opinion and if you have an
RH>opinion or proof that agrees or disagrees with mine please reply.

Would you like to be a little more precise about this "sasquatch"?  I am
from Australia, and I have never heard about such a thing.  (I teach on
the subject of human evolution, but we all have gaps in our knowledge,
so don't take this as a definitive statement, just a bit of scepticism,
or skepticism for Nortamericanos.)

Nor am I completely certain that we are Cro-magnon: I possess a fine
Cro-magnon skull cast, and a real human skull, and there are
considerable differences.  The Cro-magnon people were modern in their
culture, but be careful here.  We probably share genes with them, but
they may not be our ancestors, let alone "us".

More information please, on what has been seen or found of the
sasquatch: if the sasquatch is the same as the so-called California
Big-foot, I have quite a lot more to say!

peter

 # SLMR 2.1 # Did _Homo habilis_ use their Broca's areas?



--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!3!711!508.0!Peter.Macinnis
Internet: Peter.Macinnis@p0.f508.n711.z3.fidonet.org
From: rowe@lepomis.psych.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: animals
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:49:00 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <35360.2B4AA22C@puddle.fidonet.org>
     Maria.Zaharie@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Maria Zaharie) writes:

>...  For every reason you have for keeping animals in zoos, there is
>a reason for letting them be free.  ...
>
>Just think how you would feel if you were kept in a cage.  That
>would be horrible for anyone or anything.  I am sure animals would
>rather be free than in a zoo. 

While this sounds like a powerful argument, you must be *very* careful
about reaching such conclusions.  It is *not* a good idea for you to
make generalizations about your preferences to determine the
preferences of other animals.  I'll give you a perfect example that
indicates why this is so without even stepping on the land mine of
trying to imagine life as a non-human animal.

How do you feel about eating the stuff that comes out of your rump?  I
suspect that the concept disgusts you (it disgusts me anyways :-)
Because humans think it's disgusting, they have in the past attempted
to prevent animals from doing the same thing.  The particular example
that I have in mind is the rabbit.  Upon noticing that rabbits
performed this disgusting act, well meaning individuals attempted to
remove the rabbit's feces from it as soon as the rabbit made them.
People who were very successful at accomplishing this goal found that
the rabbits became malnourished and died.  Symbiotic bacteria in the
rabbit's gut produce vitamins (principally vitamin K) that the rabbit
cannot extract directly from its diet.  Nor can the rabbit resorb the
vitamin in its intestine.  Rabbits thus rely on eating some of their
excrement for to meet their nutritional needs.

It is possible to make inferences about what makes an animal
"emotionally well adjusted", but putting yourself in the animal's
place is *not* one of them.

>                                          Maria Zaharie

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Subject: Re: evolution
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:59:49 GMT

In article <35128.2B49AFC1@puddle.fidonet.org> Richard.O'donovan@f155.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Richard O'donovan) writes:
[messy text cleaned up]
> ...Interesting thought, but have you given any great thought to the 
> scientific process??  Far more dogmatic and akin to religion than you would 
> like to portray and/or believe, as you seem to be demonstrating admirably!!

Anyone who believes that science is anything like religion doesn't understand
science.  Religion is faith, period.  In fact, as a Mr. Job once discovered,
the essence of religion is to maintain your faith no matter what.  

Scientists, on the other hand, have dedicated themselves to examining evidence
and constructing theories to explain that evidence, whether they like the
theories or not.  As a result, if a competing theory explains the evidence
in a more satisfactory way, they will jettison the old theory, whether they
like it or not.

For a very readable description of this process, see George Gamow's "The
Thirty Years That Shook Physics", available in an inexpensive paperback.
Gamow's book describes the period 1910 - 1940 that saw the birth of quantum
physics.  You will find that most (if not all) physicists *hated* quantum
theory, including quantum physics founding fathers Planck, Einstein, and 
Shroedinger.  Physicists were forced to accept quanta because the theory
made predictions that were borne out by experiment, and they did their best
to make those awful quanta, with all those uncertainties and probabilities, 
go away.  They failed.  

If another theory comes along that is better, quantum theory will be jettisoned
in a heartbeat.  If another theory comes along that explains biology better than
evolution, evolutionary theory will be abandoned in a heartbeat.  A very 
un-religious way to do business.

---Bill VanHorne

Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
From: kkrieghb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Kendra L Krieghbaum)
Subject: Re: Abortion
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:29:33 GMT

Ken, I completely agree with you.  If people want to make the choice to have
sex, then they should have to accept the responsibility of their decision, 
should the woman get pregnant.  You are right about the money the abortionists
would lose, too.  I have a pin of a fetus's feet at the age of ten weeks, 
and they look human to me! (a pin made of gold)
					   Thank you,
					    Kendra

Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
From: bmartino@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob Martino)
Subject: Re: Evolution
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:39:09 GMT

In article <34081.2B431AC2@puddle.fidonet.org> David.Rahfeldt@p0.f23.n105.z1.fi
donet.org (David Rahfeldt) writes:
>EH GODS
>
>Can we put this evolutionary dispute in the trash can...
>
>If people want to espouse GOD DID IT, then let them produce GOD for
>scientific examination.
>
>I am sure I can arrange the lab and instrumentation to test GOD when
>you bring him in.
>
>Until then, with no empiric to support the existance of a GOD, lets
>table it as personal beliefs and specuialtion...
>
>
>David Rahfeldt
>
     This is assuming that God is willing to jump through hoops just
so a group of scientists can "test" Him.
     If (for the sake of arguement at the moment) you assume that God
DOES exist, then it is rather arrogant to DEMAND that the one who created
you come and allow you to poke at him like that.  Remember that the
christian concept of God is foremost that He is a person, not a "natural"
law.  What He thinks counts too.  If I showed up at your house and told
you that you must allow me to "test" you in some way in order to
satisify some desire of my own, would you let me in or would you slam
the door and call the police?  Why would someone who is so much more
powerful than you do any different?
     I would also like to point out that your underlying wiewpoint is
a RELIGIOUS one too.  You assume (based on no evidence) that if
something can't be measured scientifically in some way, then it doesn't
exist.  You can not *PROVE* that assumption, any more than I can *PROVE*
absolutely that God exists.  Everyone, everyone, EVERYONE lives their
lives on the basis of SOME faith assumptions (I assume I won't die in
10 minutes.  Otherwise I wouldn't be sitting here now.  Just one example).
Christians are (sometimes) just a little more honest in recognising
that this is true, and are (sometimes) willing to examine their core
beliefs to see if they are reasonable.
     Being a scientist is not incompatable with believing that some
personal being created the physical universe we live in and study.  As
I learn more about the wonderful things in the universe, I only marvel
more at the One who put them there, and me here to marvel at them.

     Thanks, God.

_________________________________________________________________________
                                    | "...for since the creation of the
      - that Bob Martino guy -      |  world His invisible attributes,
 bmartino@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu |  His eternal power and divine
                                    |  nature, have been clearly seen,
   God invented science.  so there. |  being understood through what
       ^^^^^^^^                     |  has been made        -Romans 1:20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "That's the whole problem with science.  You've got a bunch of
  empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder."
                                                  -Calvin
From: Hollie.Svetich@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Hollie Svetich)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Abortion
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 10:31:21 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:346/14.0 - Room 5, Bonners Ferry ID

Hello!  I am responding to your question about if I would have an
abortion today.  If I found out that I was pregnaunt, it would
depend on the curcumstances that I got pregnaunt.  If I was raped
or if my life or the fetus's life was in danger then yes I would
have an abortion.  But if it was my choice to have sex, then I
would carry the baby to full term.  I feel that I have enough
support from my family and friends that they would help me. I
know that it would be difficult to continue on with my education
while caring for the child, but I would find some way to do it.
I support abortion because I know of several young women who have
had children and the children are often negleted and abused.  I do
not believe that women should use abortion as a form of birth
control.  Birth control should be offered to young women more.  It
upsets me to think that other people can tell what I can and cannot
do with my body, it is the individual women's right to choose.
What is your opinion on abortion? 


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!346!14.0!Hollie.Svetich
Internet: Hollie.Svetich@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: Evolution and bogus creationist assertions.
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:34:39 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1993Jan5.132741@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU 
     (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

>In article <35128.2B49AFC1@puddle.fidonet.org>,
>Richard.O'donovan@f155.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Richard O'donovan) writes:

>>  Incidentally, if one of the earliest forms of
>>evolved life was a blue-green algae, which is acknowledged as one of the most
>>durable life forms around, then why did life every evolve
>
>   So what you appear to be saying is that because one durable life form existed
>it would prevent others from arising.  

He did make a mistake, Dan, but I don't think that was it.  I'm pretty
sure that what Richard is saying is that since blue-green algae are so
successful, then why didn't all life just remain blue green algae?  I
think that I can answer this objection with an analogous question for
Richard.  If the pacific ocean basin is such a stable place for water
to be, then why is water found in other places?  (notice that Richard
is making the flip side of another common misconception of evolution
as progress.  The opposite question is--for example--"if arthropods
evolved from annelids, then how come there are still annelids
around?".  To that I'd say, "if water gets to places besides the
Pacific ocean, then why is there still water in the Pacific?")

>>  What's more, how could it if any mutations would be overwhelmed by
>>the numbers of non-mutants?

Perhaps because inheritance does not blend.  Your thinking here is
pre-Mendelian at least.  Oddly enough Darwin himself was concerned
with your exact question.  When Mendel's work was rediscovered, the
concern went away.  You might want to do some more reading yourself.
The answers to questions like this aren't at all hard to find if
you're willing to put in some effort.

>Dan
>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
From: Daniela.Krone@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Daniela Krone)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 15:38:46 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:346/14.0 - Room 5, Bonners Ferry ID

Hi,
my name is Daniela Krone and I live in Bonners Ferry, Idaho. I am
an exchange student from Germany.
I'm currently reading a book about Australia and I know that quite
a few people who use the bulletin board are from there. I hope you
can help me to extend my knowledge about this country a little.
I read about the rabbit problem ( it is not the first time that I
heard of it) and also about the impossibility to get rid of it. Is
it still the same or were there found methods yet to reduce the
harm they do in the agriculture? What happened after some rabbits
developed a resistance against myxomatosis, which was introduced in
1950 to control the rabbit situation? Is it allowed to use those
"biological weapons"?  I read that one rabbit equals seven to ten
sheep in grass consumption. It is really hard for me to believe
that because I bred rabbits by myself a couple years ago. What kind
of rabbits are these particular rabbits in Australia ?
I would like to hear more about that. If you have information,
please send it.
                       I hope I didn't make too many mistakes in my 
 
                       English,
                                         bye, Daniela
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 






































































--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!346!14.0!Daniela.Krone
Internet: Daniela.Krone@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org
From: Joey.Villelli@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Joey Villelli)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: logging
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 09:19:14 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:346/14.0 - Room 5, Bonners Ferry ID

I am writing in reply to your letter about logging. You stated that
we will never again see the beautiful forests our grandparents
loved.  We may not see the same exact forest, but we will see a
replanted forest just as beautiful.  In our community, we replant
our clear cuts, we don't just leave them bare.  It only takes
hundreds of years to grow old growth, not to grow full size trees. 
 
We will not lose all of our trees to logging, we usually clear cut
when there is disease among the trees.  Actually, this saves alot
of trees from disease.  I see no use for old growth, at least we
can replant and cut again when the replants are full grown.  Our
community is based on logging and we do it responsibly.  We are all
concerned about the outcome of our environment.
                              Thanks,
                              Joey



--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!346!14.0!Joey.Villelli
Internet: Joey.Villelli@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org
From: Jennifer.Dickison@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Jennifer Dickison)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: diabetes
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 09:21:25 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:346/14.0 - Room 5, Bonners Ferry ID

WPCB 


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!346!14.0!Jennifer.Dickison
Internet: Jennifer.Dickison@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org