HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: I don't believe it.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 06:10:34 GMT

In article <9716@harrier.ukc.ac.uk> rt@ukc.ac.uk (R.W.Thearle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.105555.12152@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel
Tun) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.134138@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
>>>   [paraphrased] where did your apartheid/evolutionist argument come f
om?
>
>>I thought it was common knowledge. But also the characters in the book
>>`Indecent Exposure' by Tom Sharpe (sp?) believe in segregation of the
>>races, and actively enforce it by police effort, driven by evolutionist
>>philosophies.
>
>Just for the record, they [also?] believe:
>	- electric therapy can make you homosexual (and cure you);
>	- transplanted organs confer some of the qualities of the original
>		owner;
>	- transvestism is OK if you're upper-class;
>	- communist activists are rampant in small towns in South Africa;
>	- shooting house-servants is not murder;
>	- terrorists feed peanut-butter flavoured explosives to ostriches;
>	- re-enacting the zulu massacres helps schizophrenics;
>	- rubrics are "adult toys";
>	- bank managers and mayors are suspicious characters and should be
>		arrested, locked up and "interrogated";
>	- "Black Beauty" should be banned as it is a racist book.
>
Whoa.  Hang on, I gotta capture this one.  "Transvestism is okay if you're
in the upper class." <hysterical laughter>

Big Al.  I didn't think people could get that *stupid*

e





>

>





Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15922 talk.origins:10868
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:45:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <_8ln6lq@lynx.unm.edu>, jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth) writes...
>>>>(6) Diamonds and graphite are not the only stable forms of pure carbon.
> 
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember from my materials courses
>that Diamonds are not thermodynamically stable.  With time, they decay
>(is that the right word?) into graphite in about 2-4 million years.

It's a matter of environmental conditions.  At atmospheric pressure,
you are quite correct.  At higher pressure, like under lots of rock, 
diamond is more stable.  Since most people think of normal human 
operating conditions (~30 degrees C, one atmosphere of pressure) when 
they think about diamonds, then I would say that you are correct.

Ulimately, all questions of relative stability of different forms 
of compounds depend on conditions.  For example, ice is more stable than
water, if the temperature is low enough, but not otherwise.  The only
important difference between this example and the diamond/graphite example
is the timescale set by the reaction rate.

-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,talk.origins
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:08:47 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)

In article <1992Aug27.183338.12915@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson (Drew Lawson) writes:
>I know this is simplistic, but what harm would be caused by letting go
>of evolutionary origin?

I don't know.  What harm is there in getting a prefrontal lobotomy?  I
do not `let go' of notions for which there is such massive overwhelming
preponderance of solid evidence.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15656 talk.origins:10567
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:06:27 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug31.100817.14693@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick) writes:

>Pointed Question, Drew:

If you want to ask questions, could you include in your message or
heared an email address which is accessable from the outside world?

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14976 talk.origins:10061
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:38:25 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

>>>lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>
>>>This whole thread
>>>really centers around a metaphysical issue:  Are your
>>>senses/experiences a source of truth?

What is your definition of "truth"?

If this is a metaphysical issue, why are you trying to argue
with scientists?

>>>Science holds that they are and
>>>(from the sounds of this thread) that they are the _only_ source of
>>>truth.

What is your definition of "truth"?  Is there such a thing as a
"scientific truth"?  Are there "non-scientific truths"?  Is there
a difference between the two?

>>>Religion holds that they are not the only source and may not
>>>(depending on specific doctrine) be accurate.

What is your definition of "truth"?  Does religion hold that SOME
senses/experiences are not a source of truth?  That we are being
"deceived"?  What is your definition of "deceived"?  Does religion
hold that only certain specific doctrines lead to senses/experiences
that are not a source of truth?  How does religion know which doctrines
have this "problem"?  Because they conflict with your opinion of
the "revealed truth"?

Does the Earth go around the sun?  Does it do so because the current
Pope now says so?  Because of the "force of gravity"?  Action at a
distance?

Does the sun go around the galaxy about every 250 million years?

Are quasars at cosmological distances?  Is it important?

Did evolution occur over billions of years?  Is it important?

Mike McCants
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Pseudoskepticism
Date: 1 Sep 92 07:16:25 GMT

In article <10394@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric
Pepke) spake thusly:

> There was that flame war between Rick Moen of the Bay Area Skeptics
> and ....

Eric, for the record, what happened was roughly as follows:  (1) Bozo #1
is (briefly) meeting moderator for Bay Area Skeptics, heckles from the
audience a parapsychologist guest speaker, then says from the podium
"Tonight's speaker has shown that you can fool some of the people all of
the time, and jerk off the rest."   BAS immediately and publicly fires
Bozo #1, and starts ignoring him.  (2) Said Bozo #1 starts and runs an
alleged skeptics' group with a name deceptively similar to that of BAS,
which makes its one and only request of him, that he change his group's
name to alleviate confusion (and gets no substantive reply).  (3) Bozo
#1 and groupies start spreading derogatory claims about BAS, which BAS
ignores.  (4) Bozo #1 and groupies start leafleting BAS meetings,
passing out flyers attacking BAS & its officers and publicising its own
meetings.  (A milder form of this bit of harrassment, among others,
continues to this day.)

(5) Bozo #2, a groupie of Bozo #1, sees Rick Moen on sci.skeptic
decrying unnamed zealots latching onto the established credibility of
the skeptics' movement, and decides it's time to cast the aforementioned
derogatory claims that BAS had not bothered to rebut AROUND THE WORLD,
and so did so, blind-siding Moen, who was then BAS's Secretary.  (6)
Moen at this point had seen two years of these slurs without answering
them, and simply _had enough_.  He started taking the allegations apart
point by point.  He repeatedly pointed out that this was NOT of interest
to the group (#2 alleged the contrary), and tried through third parties
to get #2 to cease.  (7) Moen at NO point engaged in ad-hominem remarks
against Bozo #2, but did request apologies for some of the points he had
taken time to prove wrong.  (None came.)  (8) When Bozo #2 finally
stopped, Moen apologised to the net for his part in the imposition.
(Bozo #2, to the contrary, still felt he'd been enlightening the net.)

In the same spirit, my apologies to the net for _this_ imposition,
which I hope is tolerably short.  (After all, for this group, it's
practically a haiku.  ;->  )  As I said, this is just to keep the record
straight.

Perhaps I can redeem this bit of historical net.trivia with a couple
of lessons I drew from the experience:  (1) The worst thing you can
possibly do to a crank -- the thing he hates the most -- is to utterly
ignore him.  (2) No matter how scrupulously you stick to proper
criticism when answering a particularly vituperative crank, _some_
observers will associate you with the other guy's rhetoric.

Best Regards,
Rick Moen      (Not purporting to speak for anyone but himself.)
Best reached at Rick_Moen@blyth.com

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 00:16:34 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: na

>>>(6) Diamonds and graphite are not the only stable forms of pure carbon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember from my materials courses
that Diamonds are not thermodynamically stable.  With time, they decay
(is that the right word?) into graphite in about 2-4 million years.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: micha@ecrc.de (Micha Meier)
Subject: Re: Gandhi (was Re: Stooping down)
Reply-To: micha@ecrc.de
Organization: European Computer-Industry Research Centre
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:53:44 GMT

In article 2622@klaava.Helsinki.FI, cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>In article <5179@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>>Re Nazism. The answer to nazism (an ideology) is argument. The answer
>>to violence is force, but not necessarily so (think of Gandhi).
>
>Well, to quote Salman Rushdie, Gandhi did what he did fully aware of his
>opponent. Had he tried the same strategy with Nazis, they would've
>simply shot him.

Why to use the conditional, he was shot at the end. He certainly has achieved a lot,
but the question is, could he have done better, had he done differently?

--Micha

---
Micha Meier			------------------------------------------------
ECRC, Arabellastr. 17		The opinions expressed above are private
D-8000 Munich 81		and may not reflect those of my employer.
micha@ecrc.de, Tel. +49-89-92699-108, Fax  +49-89-92699-170

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 19:44:58 GMT

In article <schumach.715282160@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>In <1992Aug31.134520.4814@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>
>>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)
>
>("From when it actually happened of course": the man wants a four billion year
>old videotape. Will that be VHS or Beta, sir?)
>
>So it would for all of us. But since the chances of this happening are
>exactly zero, can we take your statement to mean that you will NEVER accept
>a natural, non-miraculous explanation for the origin of life on earth?
>
>
>

My point is that the origin of life is not directly observable
and therefore dogmatic statements about origin are out of line
on either side of the issue.

(BTW if you can get me that tape on VHS I'd sure appreciate it)

P.S. If you follow the original thread you'll see that videotape
was given as an example of good evidence in a burglary case. Hence the
satirical videotape comments.
From: dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Date: 30 Aug 92 10:39:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.secFLay00WB6A4T6Nv
Organization: Masters student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

<Regarding the possiblilty of another intelligent race on the planet>

Personally, I think we humans would have either tried to wipe them out
of have been wiped out after we tried and didn't make it.

We're like that, y'know.

David
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: The difference between censorship and rudeness.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:58:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.054127.10572@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, arsmith@nyx.cs.du.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 standards of
> politeness.  Often done deliberately to invoke bad feelings on the part of
> the recipient.
> 
> --Big Al's personal dictionary.

   Thank you for clearing me of charges of censorship.
 
> They are both uncool, but for different reasons.  Censorship is uncool
> because it is a step towards tyranny.  Rudeness is uncool (besides being a
> good way to get yourself punched in the mouth) because it violates the
> homo sapien survival stragedy, that humans should help each other out.

   This view is incorrect via oversimplification.  In fact the default
(pre-civilization) strategy of homo sapiens seems to have been a combination
of cooperation and competition at different levels.  Since the only thing
that people could compete with (the only thing tough enough) was other
people, there must have been a whole lots of competition between people to get
us from caveman to the present in such a screaming hurry.

   Civilization only somewhat mitigated this process.  Why, for example, were
Athens, Sparta, et. al. able to trash Darius and Maul Xerxes?  My guess:
lots of practice beating the crap out of one another followed by brief
cooperation during the Persian invasion.

etc.

> B
> Big Al.  Morals?? Oh, dear, there goes the neighborhood.
Please refute.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:22:34 GMT

cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.090116.18789@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>>You really do seem to miss the point. Evolution fits the data,
>>creationism doesn't. Of course you're "allowed" to think up alternative
>>theories, but I don't think it's asking too much to ask you to do some
>>research first, and to fit the data with your theory.
> 		        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Sorry, of course this should be "fit the theory with the data".

     Gee, my first grammar flame! However, you flamed yourself first, so
I don't feel too bad. 

     I'd agree with the way you said it first: fit the data *with* the
theory. Or fit the theory *to* the data. In any case, I know you want to
say that the theory is the thing that that needs to be modified to agree
with the observations.

     Or do we use Meyer's Law? (If the facts do not conform to the
theory, they must be disposed of.)



Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Subject: CPT violations (was: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:45:28 GMT

In article <25867@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug28.215515.29547@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes...
|> 
|> >This characteristic of the second law is well known.  In fact, modern
|> >quantum theory predicts that *all* physics is time-symmetric (subject to
|> >some parity swaps: like replacing every particle with its anti-particle); 
|> >which *seems* to contradict the second law entirely.  But, although 
|> >specific *events* can be time reversed, the probabilities in each 
|> >direction needn't be the same.
|> 
|> All physics is not time symmetric.  You really should check with a physicist
|> before making claims about physics.  T violation, a.k.a. CP violation is a
|> well-known phenomenon.  The underlying mechanism is not yet understood - it
|> is one of the hottest topics in high-energy physics today.   You can look
|> up processes in any particle physics book which do not have the same 
|> probability under time reversal.  Neat, huh?

Yes, I know about this symmetry breaking.  But, since it was irrelevant
to the second law question, I left it out (actually, I mentioned it
parenthetically under the misc parity swaps - *one* of which I mentioned
explicitly - the word `like' doesn't deny other changes: in fact, it implies
that there *are* others).  It is not clear that CPT symmetry breaking is
related to thermodynamic entropy at all.

-- 
J. Giles
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15806 talk.origins:10721
From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:47:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.37608
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Sep2.125346.202636@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>
>"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
>Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
>number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will
                                      ^^^^^^^ ^^^^
>turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Tim 4:3-4
>
>Yours is Christ Jesus,
>Anthony Faull

My spell-checker in Microsoft Word 5.0 does not recognize the word
"creationist."  Its suggestion for a correct word is "scratchiness."
Perhaps this explains the "itching ears" of those who choose to turn
away from the truth and instead believe in myths.  :-)  :-)






-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wednesday, 26 Aug 1992 17:52:41 EDT
From: <BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Distribution: world,local
 <92235.222237BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <GERRY.92Aug24100703@onion.cmu.edu>
 <1992Aug26.074958.1959@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

In article <1992Aug26.074958.1959@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG
(Lawrence C. Foard) says:
>
>
>Given the fact that almost all (except for 100?) cases of AIDS are
>associated with HIV infection I would have to say that he is full of
>s**t. Why don't we see IV drug users who don't share needles coming
>down with AIDS?

Did  you even _read_ Duesberg's comments before posting? His whole point
is that the medical community have _defined_ AIDS as any of a number
of diseases + HIV.  i.e. no matter how pitiably one of your IV drug
users might waste away, without HIV antibody, his doctor won't classify
him as an AIDS victim.

>As usual with the quacks he tries to paint ACT-UP as the bad guys who
>are somehow really at fault for AIDS.
>

Is this the group that has opposed contact tracing for HIV/ARC?  If AIDS
_is_ carried by a communicable virus, this basically amounts to a
genocidal program directed against gays (and any one else in the
population) by means of with-holding the public health measures that
have been virtually 100% effective against communicable disease in the
past.  In that case, ACT-UP _would_ be grossly at fault for AIDS.

Smart Dudes, those guys.


Kevin Broekhoven                       Applications Programmer
Computing Services                     Queens University K7L-3N6
Bitnet, NetNorth: BROEKHVN at QUCDN    IP: kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA
X.400: Kevin.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA     Bell: (613)545-2235 fax: 545-6798
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15215 talk.origins:10236
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:45:45 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug27.162706@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>HEY DREW!  I like you pretty well.  You seem an honest and somewhat informed
>debater.  Keep it up.

You also forgot the NOT! after your statements.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:14:46 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug28.163527@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  I am hoping some people a reasonable enough not to think this way.

I claim Drew thinks this way.

>  IMHO, Drew seems to be one of the most rational Creationists currently 
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oxymoron.

I don't waste my time reading talk.origins!  I waste my time reading Drew
in SCI.SKEPTIC.  He has now won the tarbaby award.  I have done my duty
(in helping him to that goal) and I'm outa here.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Only a Fool Fights a Pointless Battle (was: Young earth creation
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:00:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <XXiHqB1w164w@cellar.org>, kml@cellar.org (John Galt) writes...
>whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
> 
>> In article <25916@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) write
>> > In article <1992Aug31.144442.19731@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Law
>> > >-- 
>> > >Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>> > >lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
>> > 
>> > The best thing about Drew's posts is his .sig, which I like very much.
>> 
>> At least it's only incomplete, rather than wrong.  (You *could* be
>> part of the evaporate . . .)
>> 
>> 	--Hal
> 
>Or part of the superstrate.  In either case, it's an unattributed steal
>from Steven Wright.  Or perhaps his .sig file spontaneously appeared...

I think it predates Steven Wright's comedy career.  I think it had been
published in an _Omni_ Competition before that.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721