HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Stooping down  (was: The difference ...)
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:20:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

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).

Right, just imagine "Nazi's -vs- Gandhi". Have you ever seen the
film "Godzilla -vs- Babmi"? Very short film that. Passive resistance
will not work against active violence, unless you live in an impregnable
fort or somesuch.

>Nazi ideology was in part a glorification of violence.  Even so, the
>troops were sent in after they actually committed violence.  The troops
>were not supposed to be part of the proof that nazism isn't right.
>
>JWN

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: What is intelligence?
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:33:23 GMT

As suggested in a previous Post, Dr. Asimov defined intelligence as:
-The ability to make/use tools
-The ability to use fire
As was noted, this rules out whales, dolphins and the great apes.  Are
these laws appropriate?  Maybe.  Let's start from some basics and work
our way up.

Based on my training as a roboticist, I will state Gerry's First 
Law of Intelligence:
  All intelligent being are capable of "rapid", controlled locomotion.
Two notes:
-This is a necessary, but not sufficient condition
-Rapid means the ability to locomote a body length in some reasonable
 period of time, say less than an hour
This basically serves to eliminate the plant kingdom.

Gerry's Second Law of Intelligence is:
  All intelligent beings are capable of communicating abstract ideas.
One note:
-This is a necessary but not sufficient condition
I believe that dolphins are capable of doing this, based on actual
experimentation, but so are bumble bees, to a certain degree.

I would ask that these two laws, lets call them GLI1 and GLI2 be used
as a basis for conversation and further definition.  Why don't we see
if these laws are appropriate, then we must discover additional laws
that are both necessary AND sufficient.  

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | I - Congress shall make no law respecting 
Field Robotics Center,          | an establishment of religion, or prohibit-
Carnegie Mellon University      | ing the free exercise thereof; or abridging
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
(412) 268-3856                  | the right of the people peaceably to
                                | assemble, and to petition the Government
The opinions expressed are mine | for a redress of grievances.
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 04:07:39 GMT

In article <87327@netnews.upenn.edu> jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug28.033804.10671@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>> >What I fail to understand
>> >is given your assumptions, just *what* do you find so valuable about life?  
>> >Why not destroy it unnecessarily?
>> 
>Here we're getting somewhere. 
>Just what could prevent me from destroying life if I can create it ?
>
>1) Circonstances: I can make money out of it, my boss tell me so,
>it is unlawful, etc.... Note that sometimes, we only use those
>as excuses for rationalizing "gut feeling".
>
>2) Morality: Crating life , I demystify (sp?) it. I'm not a god,
>still I gain one of his major attribute. As surprising as it 
>looks, I consider myself a scientist, yet I still believe in "sacred",
>that is a system of values which maintain society and more specifically
>my relationships with others, in harmony (It sound profound, but it's
>not: love, friendship, mutual help, enlightment, teaching are things
>I want to preserve). In that system, Life is important. I still get a
>kick when I walk in a forest. If I could create one, I wouldn't want to
>destroy it (regardless any ecologic argument). There are still things
>I consider right and others wrong. Of course, there's a whole spectrum
>here. I can stand to feel guilty once in a while ;)

If you could truly create life, then I would maintain that there
is nothing immoral or wrong with destroying it (you could even
create the exact same entity again if you so wished).  In
addition, just because you cherish life doesn't say anything about
the morality of destroying it. I might cherish my plant collection
and sure hate to see it go, but that is a far cry from saying that
it is immoral to destory the collection.  And when push came to
shove, and you had compelling reasons to destroy the life you
created (perhaps it made your life miserable in some way), then
the sentimental feelings you had for it might give way to more
destructive actions easier than you thought.
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:40:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.173510.16550@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew
Lawson) writes:
> In article <3657@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
> >You advocate that a "researcher" should use his "doctrinal learning"
> >to make a choice?
> 
> I advicate that a researcher be _allowed_ to use such knowledge.  That
> is quite a different matter.

Oh, I quite agree.  Mathematicians should also be allowed to consult
their doctrinal leanings in determining what pi should be this week,
too, or what the doctrinally acceptable sum of the angles in a planar
triangle must be.  And no matter how blatantly silly the
doctrinally-inspired proclamation du jour may be, no one is to be
permitted to laugh and point, ever.  Every belief, no matter how
contrary to the available evidence it might be, must be accorded equal respect.






BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  HEEEE!  Hoo boy!

(Oops.  Couldn't quite make it.  Won't happen again.)

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 05:07:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.150726.14775@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
>>>In article 12915@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>Far be it for me to defend Lionel Tun (that isn't what I'm doing
>>anyway), but what is your response to those who scream that evolution
>>is a "proven fact"?
>
>But it *is*. It has been *observed*.
>
Just curious, but where has it been *observed* for one species to give
birth to another species?  I'm not talking about variation in pigment
color either, but truly another species such that the mating between the
two will not yield fertile offspring.

>-Tero Sand
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15796 alt.culture.usenet:772
From: lopresti@henson.cc.wwu.edu (lopresti robert)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: evolution and god/s coexisting
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:03:20 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University


This thread has given me a headache.  As I understand someone started
it by arguing that if one says evolution rather than God (I presume he
meant a fairly typical Christian concpet, although I assume all gods
would be equally excluded) caused a certain event, then God is denied
involvement in the whole process.

Okay.  A pencil just fell off my desk.  It fell downward, towards the
center of the earth, until stopped by the floor.  Was this caused by 
gravity or by God?  If you say it was caused by gravity are you denying 
God any role in the creation of natural law?

Ah well.

~
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14968 alt.culture.usenet:702 talk.origins:10054
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:37:18 GMT

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
: 
: Did you ever really enjoy a book and want to get the most out of
: it?  I know in that case I read and reread it, not to memorize it
: but to get different meanings and nuances that I missed
: originally.  I think Drew really enjoys the Bible.  What's wrong
: with that? 
: 

What's wrong is that creationists want to force the views in that book
on others as the literal, revealled truth.  They want their religious
views officially sanctioned by the state and taught as science.

I don't care what Drew, you, or anybody else reads, but I want science
taught in science classes.  If you want to have required comparative
religion classes in public schools, I think that would be a great idea
-- as long as it's made clear that what is being taught is religion,
and as long as ALL religions are presented as equally valid.

Many people would be fascinated and shocked to learn of the
theological and philosophical beliefs espoused by their church.

I am amazed at how many catholics don't know what the term "immaculate
conception" means -- even people who attend mass at "Our Lady of the
Immaculate Conception Church" don't know.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I think I am an
Rosemount Inc.                                |overnight sensation right
                                              |now!!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: More DNA Stuff
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:28:09 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <37457@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:
>In article <64743@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
>>
>>It sounds like he may be worth talking with if he found one missing heli
>>he might be willing to look for the other 10 missing heli.  I am game.  
>
>I don't think we are communicating very well.  I'm a little confused
>about what you mean by "the other 10 missing heli."  Human DNA is
>made up of 46 linear "pieces" of DNA.  Each of these pieces (or
>chromosomoes) is comprised of two strands of nucleic acid that wind
>around each other in a double helical shape.  Someone has mentioned
>that there are small segments at the ends of the chromosomes that
>contain three strands.  What exactly do you mean by "the other 10
>missing heli?"  Do you mean 10 extra chromosomes?

Steve - you may have missed the original post.  In it, the Pleiadians[*]
claim that the human race is evolving in a startling fashion.  Instead
of good old-fashioned double-helix DNA, some people's DNA now has
three strands wound together.  In addition, these people will soon
have as many as 12 strands per chromosome.  However, Don has backed
off a bit and stated that the extra strand/s may be 'non-physical'.

You say someone mentioned 'small segments' of DNA that have 3 strands.
Does this come from a reputable source, or is it just the original claim
(Don's), mangled slightly?  If this is a real, documented phenomenon,
it could be the source for all this silliness.

	RA

[*] - actually, Don (speaking for the Pleiadians)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:51:13 GMT

In article <3656@execu.execu.com>, mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
> 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.

   No, I wuz comparing him to Lionel Tun.  Drew has a clue (one).  He may
someday become an evangelical Christian evolutionist.  At the very least he's
made subtler mistakes than Lionel the Tun.

Dan
Danwell|@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Evolution does not assume there is no God.
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 11:55:04 GMT

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

Humans exhibit a specialization of the brain hemispheres that other animals
do not.  Basically, this specialization gives us a complex sort of language.
Our language distinquishes us from the other animals.  For without it, we
would not be that much more advanced than the monkey.  Without language,
we could not build cities or cvomplete any task that required an undue
amount of cooperation.  Our knowledge would be limited to what could be taught
just by showing.  

keith

>In article <3661@execu.execu.com>, mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug27.172808.12707@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>Note that all science tends to proceed from the assumption to ignore
>>>God in the process.  The reason that I feel this is inappropriate in
>>>this case (personally I feel it is wrong in all cases == opinion) is
>>>that this is a question of the origin of Man.  I do not feel that I am
>>>the result of random permutations of slime.
>> 
>> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  But I find it hard to
>> understand why we are wasting many hours and kilobytes trying to
>> change your opinion.  There's obviously no rational argument that would
>> really have the effect of getting you to change your opinion.  Your
>> mind is made up and no amount of claims that "God's actions have not
>> been observed" are going to make the slightest amount of difference
>> to you.
>> 
>> But we have made "progress".  You have (after 42 posts and 173 replies)
>> finally admitted that your opinion is based on your need that "Man" be
>> "special".  This is, of course, fundamental to your theology.  So,
>> we are going to have a very difficult time trying to persuade you that
>> it isn't true.  Let's give up now and not bother to try.

>I do have a couple of questions for Drew.  Please state ONE (count it, ONE)
>physical way that humans are different from other animals.  Also, how do
>you explain that humans and other apes share almost identical genetic
>tissue, even more identical than the difference between two species of
>frogs.

>Sue
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 05:59:57 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <5967@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna) writes:
 
>One issue that I sometimes think about is
>Why is Mankind the only species on this planet to develop technology,
>speech, and so many things that were required for the building of our
>modern society.
 
  How about this:  because *someone* had to be first?  An analogy:
You shuffle a deck of cards well, then turn over the top card.  It's
the four of clubs.  Is it a reasonable question to ask, "Why was
the four of clubs the first card drawn?"  No - some card had to be on
top.
 
>Let's put the question in another simpler way, "Why is man the single most
>developed creature on Earth?"
 
  That's easy:  because we humans define the word "developed" to mean
"most like humans".
 
>Couldn't there be others, which just have not been given time to develop?
>Can we interfere in such a development, in order to make it impossible?
>Would we tolerate another "race" achieving similar things as ours?
[sig deleted]
 
  Sure, there could.  The most promising immediate candidates that
present themselves are our relatives in the ape family, especially
the great apes (chimp, gorilla, and orangutan).  Given a long
enough time (say, over 20 million years) anything from a raccoon
to a lemur could end up with a technological civilization.  Would
we tolerate it?  Which "we" do you mean?  It won't happen until
long after our civilizations are all dead, unless we use genetic
engineering to speed up the process - in which case we are 
obviously tolerating it.
-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: God CAN coexist (was Re: CANNOT etc.)!
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:51:33 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Aug28.003330.4541@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>
>God playing evolution, is CREATION.
>

Any view no matter how strange, can be backed up by a suitable 
metaphysical standpoint. 
Presumably this discussion is about trying to figure out how
the development of life happened and what mechanisms paly a role.
This "figuring out" is in the same class as trying to figure 
gravitation. 
Now some people might like to think that "gravitation" is just
God's way of moving things downward when He thinks they shouldn't
stay up much longer. Unfortunately, that isn't very helpful in
trying to figure out how gravity fits in with quantum mechanics
or determining the presence of oil underground by gravity measurements.

Evolution is no different from gravitation. So far no inexplicable gap
in our knowledge has been found that only can be filled with the
God-hypothesis.  Mind the word *only*, because even the tiniest gaps
can be filled with God-hypotheses. 

William of Ockham is credited with positing that one cannot logically
state any restrictions on what God can or can't, except the laws of
logic themselves.
To state that G. and E.  can't co-exist means that restrictions of G.'s
power are being made by Mr. Nelson. This means Nelson must show that
the scientific conjectures that have been made about the development 
of life on this planet are purely on logical grounds irreconcilable
with G.'s existence. As E. has been researched by very religious 
people well acquainted with elementary logic, this seems a tall order.

Moreover, we may very well assume that the God we are talking about
is so much elevated in power and knowledge and so on (is He not supposed
to be infinite, omnipotent and omniscient?) that the difference between
an amoeba and Gerald V. Nelson is absolutely piddling compared to the
difference between Nelson (or anybody else) and God.  Who is G.V.N. to
claim what God can and can't?  (This is just WW. of O.'s argument all
over.)
If God exists I feel confident that He won't mind at all that we
(amoeba and men) try to figure out how the world operates, each
in our own way of course. The amoeba in the amoeba's way and the
scientist in the scientist's way.

Now I'am at it, here is a quote I'd like to share with you:

"... I am, of course, and have always been an atheist ..."
(letter from Albert Einstein, July, 2, 1945 to Guy H. Raner Jr.)
"...I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God
is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the
professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of
liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination  received
in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the 
weakness of our intellectual underdstanding of nature and of our own 
being."
(letter same to same, September 28, 1945)

JWN
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:24:42 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <134339@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
>In Article <1992Aug24.172414.6036@acuson.com> 
>lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>
>> The world is very real.  It has existed in its current state
>> (post-fall) for roughly 6,000 years and will end its fallen
>> existance and be returned to perfection.
>
>  Please, Drew, could you answer a question that's been bugging me
>about this for a long time?  It seems like creationists are very
>concerned about causality; that is, Adam's sin caused the fall
>of the universe.  Did the entire universe fall at once when Adam
>sinned, or did the Fall propagate outward from the Earth at the
>speed of light?  

Actually, it seems that geological evolutionists are more concerned
with causality.

I don't know about the rest of the universe.  _If_ the fall affected
more than this world, I would be of the opinion that the effect was
instantaneous.


>  If the former is true, then there is no sense trying to keep
>causality; faster-than-light communication implies non-causality,
>which means that it is perfectly reasonable to consider effects
>(death) that precede the cause (Adam's sin).  Or do you reject
>relativity and most of modern physics in addition to biology?

I don't know where you get the idea that I reject biology.  I reject a
specific attempt at historic reconstruction.  That has little bearing
on the biology of living species.  As far as relativity goes, I do not
know the implications.  However, the easy response comes from the
meta-level.  If the universe was created, it is "in" something bigger.
Effects from without may not be bound by the same limits as those form
within.

Personally, I do not think that God is bound by the speed of light, but
I could be wrong.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 'Satanism' and therapists and D.A.'s
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:18:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug27.89364@gloin.unh.edu>, ane@gloin.unh.edu writes...
> 
>     Who are the best watchdogs of the occult crime / ritual abuse
>issue, etc?  Am aware of _The Satanism Scare_, good book by Richardson,
>Best, Bromley, eds.  Does anyone have info on a good flyer/pamphlet
>targeted at naieve (ack. sp.) newspaper reporters and district atty's?
>NH has had its share of scares in the news media, and some hassling of
>costumed theater people and Soc. for Creative Anachronism members.
> 
>     Would be nice to have a bibliography, glossary, contact list,
>FAQ, some exposes, etc either on paper or on a Mac/PC disk.  Just
>something to throw at people who know no better would help.
>	Ideally, a list of people who can be reached by phone or fax.

Try the Spring 1990 and Summer 1990 issues of the _Skeptical Inquirer_
and Robert Hicks' book, _In Pursuit of Satan_.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins