HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: George Bush's Religion
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:20:21 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <3659@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article <1271@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>Bush is an Episcopalian
>
>And everyone "knows" that Episcopalians are far more "liberal" than
>Southern Baptists.  :-)

	Which goes to show "why" George Bush is down in the polls, his
politics nothwithstanding.

	Bill R.

-- 
Bill R.
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Laplace' Quote
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:47:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.714887279

fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna) writes:

>The emperor of France at that time, Napoleon, once met Laplace, and asked
>him if it was true that the name of the Creator did not appear anywhere in
>his book.

It's too bad Napoleon never got to meet George Bush.  Over here he's
been spending a lot of time pointing out that the Democratic Party 
platform possesses the same property.  I doubt, though, that Bill
Clinton will give Laplace's answer.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Neandrethal Man, who was he?
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:07:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.085251@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
> [1]Humorous anecdote.
> 
> (kid looks up, looks puzzled)
> 
> (kid) "Mister, are your a cave man?"
> 
> *sigh*

Perhaps you should have smiled and told them to beware of you.  :-)

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:54:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BtutzB.Cn5@world.std.com> believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>In article <8-gn=n=.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <Bts1xA.DEs@world.std.com> believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>>>In article <schumach.714786240@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>>{The logic of man deleted}
>>>
>>>>I toss the question back at you: given the tons of evidence that the Earth
>>>>is old, what would evidence of a recnt origin look like? A little notice
>>>>attached to the Earth somewhere, "Copyright (C) 4004 BC by Yahweh. All rights
>>>>reserved"?
>>>
>>>Open your bible to the first page and read!
>>
>>The Bible states that god created heaven and earth, but it does not state
>>when. Perhaps you did not understand the question. It seems clear enough
>>to me.
>
>Please refer to the listing of the Ancestors of Christ in the Gospels. 
>While people where said to live longer back then, no one claims they 
>lived millions of years.

So you admit, by way of repeatedly avoiding the question, that the bible
does not state -when- god created heaven and earth. Why? Is there some
doctrine that states that -admitting- this (as obvious and easily checked
as it is) is a sin? It makes no sense to me at all.
 
>>>It says right there that God created the heaven and earth. To state
>>>otherwise is to claim that God lied. The bible tells us that cursing
>>>the holy spirit is an unforgiveable sin!
>>
>>And that same loving god <yeah, right> will then send your soul to an
>>eternity of excrutiating torture. This ain't love.
>
>GOD gives you a CHOICE. The wages of sin are DEATH.

Sorry dude, ain't never heard god give me (or anyone else for that
matter) such a choice. I have heard many fallible humans (sinners
presumably) tell me that. But essentially, other humans, and only
other humans have given me this choice. 

Also, since it is said that only Jesus lived without sin, your quote
about "The wages of sin are DEATH" seems to be saying that all will
die. So what, I knew that already.
 
>-- 
>  |                     In God We Trust                            |

You do not speak for me, use "we"'s with a bit more care please.

>--+--                                                            --+--
>  |                                                                |
>  |                                                                |


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15268 talk.origins:10274
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:42:55 EST

In article <1992Aug27.150126.11508@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
> 
> I apologize if my phrasing was taken to oversimplify your method or
> evidence.  That was not the intent.  However, I have neither the space
> nor the vocabulary to state it in such a way that there will be nothing
> for you to complain about.
> 
> The question still stands:  Is this a valid conclusion?
Yes!
> 
> I should also note, before anyone responds to this post, that the above
> quoted post by me was an example within a larger topic.  That
> metaphysical topic was:  Does physical evidence provide a source of
> truth?
You are attempting to shy away from a rational discussion of the scientific
method back to a metphysical one of whether or not science is "truth."  The
bones give you a model that, within the context of associated evidence from
other fields (too numerous to mention) gives an explanation for current
evidence and predictions of future observations to be made.  Periodic removal
of assumptions has led to the removal of the assumption of the necessity of God
in the model.  Within that context the conclusion is valid.  Argue the
metaphysics all you want.  That's totally different.

GXKambic
standard disclaimer
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Laplace' Quote
Date: 28 Aug 92 09:52:46 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <5911@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna) writes:
>
#The famous french mathematician Simon de Laplace once wrote a very good
# treatise on celestial mechanics, which became famous.
#The emperor of France at that time, Napoleon, once met Laplace, and asked
#him if it was true that the name of the Creator did not appear anywhere in
#his book.
#
#And Laplace replied,
#"Yes, it is true. I did not need that hypothesis."

"Sire, je n'ai pas besoin de cet hypoth\`ese" if my memory is correct.
To put this in perspective, before Laplace it *was* assumed that the Creator
interfered with planetary motion; the stability of the Solar system was
an unsolved problem.  Napoleon (who having been educated in a military
academy probably knew a lot of contemporary science - he must have
studied ballistics from a book by Leonhard Euler - , and even is 
credited with a little theorem in mathematics ) was probably quite well
aware of this problem on the frontier of science in that time.

This must sound rather unprobable to present day Americans: a powerful
ruler that is au courant with major scientific problems.

JWN
From: steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Stooping down (was: The difference ...)
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:45:42 GMT
Organization: The Fulcrum Consulting Group

In <5158@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:

>Doubly wrong.  Firstly, they they didn't use rude language, second
>stooping down to your adversary's level means that you implicitly admit
>that s/he is right.

No, it just means you're pissed off with them.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Derek Tops Dan!
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:09:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.010257.16696@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.052044.20689@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.112005@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>>>	Personally, I respect someone who will say what they feel.  Dan always
>>>begins correspondence politely, and gives the other person the benefit of the
>>>doubt.  It is only when the use of reason has obviously failed does he support
>>>to use of strong language.  Admittedly, this will seldom succeed in convincing
>>>someone else where reason has failed.  On the other hand, on the net where 
>>>silence is often misinterpreted as agreement or submission, ('by your refusal
>>>to answer these claims ...', or 'the silent majority ... ') voluable disagree-
>>>ment is often necessary.
>>
>>Where did you ever get the idea that silence is interpreted as agreement
>>or submission?
>
>Well, since Derek decided to bring a court scenario into this discussion, I'll
>point out that according to English and U.S. common law, silence implies
>assent.  This convention is even formalized in some of our rituals (e.g., the
>"speak now or forever hold your peace" part of some marriage ceremonies.
Indeed!  So if I send you an electronic Email message every day saying:
Today, you owe me 1 million dollars, failure to respond to this message
implies that you in fact owe me that money!

>
>>Let me ask you this question, if a famous scientist was
>>attending a conference and you attacked his position but he didn't reply
>>to you, would you really think he was agreeing or submitting to you?
>
>Yes.
>
>>Or would you perhaps think that he didn't think your attack was worth
>>responding to...
>
>No.

That's amazing, but anything is possible I guess.  I submit that there are
just some things that are not worth responding to.  I also submit that there
could be other reasons why someone wouldn't respond.  For example, perhaps they
never read your message and it disappeared from their machine.  To assume that
silence means assent is clearly invalid.

>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
>



Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Keywords: 


-- 
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
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:09:57 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 <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?

>In the meantime, even if all the gas in your box runs to the corner, how
>do you use that event to get heat to flow against a temperature gradient
>or to get work directly from heat?  Those are the things that Clausius,
>Kelvin, and Plank excluded from possibility.  Nope, all things considered,
>the second law will still be observed.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "observed."  To me it means that you
intend to do an experiment, where you set up some initial conditions and
watch the time evolution of the system.  In this situation, there will
undoubtedly be some experiments in which all the particles run into one
corner of the box.  The final state is more ordered than the initial state.

Finally, let me point out that the second law only applies to equilibrium
thermodynamics.  There is no reason to expect that abiogenesis took place
under conditions even remotely resembling near-equilibrium, in which case
the second law is completely irrelevant.

-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
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:38:41 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 1302@esl.ESL.COM, markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen) writes:
>
>Is the universe old enough for life to have evolved to its current
>state here on Earth or was there some help to stimulate life into
>existence during those billions of years?  I don't see how the first
>few pages from the Bible contradict evolution.
>-- 
>Good-day!
>
>Mark

Good for you!  There are, however, those who take the Bible to be inerrant and
literally true, and they interpret it as a contradiction of evolution.  It is with
these people that skeptics debate.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:07:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.124735.17228@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>I see no source of confusion there.  If human life is important, yet some
>religion advocates it, that's a clear demonstration of what the level of
>validity of religion is, isn't it?  Yet, unless one can come up with a reason
>why HIS divine revelation is more valid than the divine revelation of those
>practicing human sacrifice, the two religions are equally valid.

I'm glad you're not confused.  That doesn't mean its not confusing
though, does it :).  Any reason explaining why one deity's
revelation is more valid than another belongs soley in the
religious arena.  That is precisely the can of worms I was trying
to avoid.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL


-- 
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,talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Evolution does not assume there is no God.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:19:13 CDT

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.

Here is a personal example.  In Electronics 101 the "prof" told us
that the material resistivity of copper was 10.73 (whatever that means).
He then asked the rhetorical question, "And why is it so?"  He paused,
and then said, "Because that's the way that God made it."

You see, he was applying science the way that you believe is correct.
He was seeing the relevence of God in everything, and using it to
guide his own personal scientific endeavors.

This actually makes science very easy, because, if I were in a
group performing research according to this plan (as were many
"scientists" during the Middle Ages), I might propose that I try
to find out why the material resistivity of copper was 10.73.  My
mentor, applying "Drew's Law" of scientific principle, would of course
point out that there was no need to investigate this problem because
we already know the answer -- "because that's the way that God made it."

It happens, that I, as a teenager, was told this principle over and
over again.  I was also told that many current endeavors of science
were doomed because they were against God's Will.  The answer to the
question was already known, and there was not only no need to look
for the answer, but looking for the answer would surely bring down
God's wrath upon these arrogant scientists.

Well, Drew, no wrath, and science marched on, and as I understand it,
great advances in numerous areas of science have come about because
of those endeavors, the most dramatic to each of us on a personal
level being in medical science, and thus lives are being saved, all
because the people who were investigating decided to go at least
one step beyond "Because that's the way that God made it."

Now, when then are installing that heart valve inside your chest,
I would like for you to look at me honestly and say that you would
have preferred that they had considered the role of "God in the
process."

rob derrick

NOTE: The people who beat me with Drew's Law were fundementalists.
      They claimed that it was blasphemy for us to even consider
	putting a "man on the moon", and that God would simply
	not permit it to happen, so it was folly for them to even
	try.  They claimed, as does Drew, that science without
	God was atheistic.
      Much of the materials used in artificial medical devices
	owe their existence to research spurred on by the space
	program.
      In my experience with these people, about the only scientific
	research that they were not against was weapons research,
	where God had granted us superiority in order to fight off
	the godless communists.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kamphau@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus)
Subject: Re: Bill Riggs _astounding_ ignorance of basic biology
Reply-To: kamphau@oktext.UUCP (Mark Kamphaus)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 14:29:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.225641.3364@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <95197@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>>In article <1288@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>
>>>	Point of historical fact. Just *when* was enough empirical
>>>data gathered to prove:
>>>
>>>	- Abiogenesis ?
>>
>>Abiogenesis is not a fact (IMHO) as an alternate hypothesis extists
>>(panspermia).
>
>Then we have to ask where the original seeds came from.  Unless they've existed
>from the moment of the big bang, abiogenesis must have occurred sometime and
>somewhere.

True, but the *earth* wouldn't hold the record of it (abiogenesis).. 
If you make such a hypothesis then you look elsewhere for the 
conditions necessary.  These conditions conducive for
abiogensis may have been abundant somewhere else in the universe.
While it may be a 10^xxxx chance for life on earth (to give the
creationist the benefit of the doubt), it may have been a 10^0
probability elsewhere.  But then it appears to get into that realm
where it can't be falsified because of the exhaustive effort necessary
to scour the ends of the universe and time.

Along these same lines, I read an at least 10 years ago where
some researcher was trying to attribute the seasonal outbreaks of
flu to extraterrestrial origin, the August meteorite showers bringing
with them the virus.  Did this ever receive any serious attention?

mark
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15666 talk.origins:10580
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:47:49 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <BtutzB.Cn5@world.std.com>, believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
> In article <8-gn=n=.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <Bts1xA.DEs@world.std.com> believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>>>In article <schumach.714786240@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>>{The logic of man deleted}
>>>
>>>>I toss the question back at you: given the tons of evidence that the Earth
>>>>is old, what would evidence of a recnt origin look like? A little notice
>>>>attached to the Earth somewhere, "Copyright (C) 4004 BC by Yahweh. All rights
>>>>reserved"?
>>>
>>>Open your bible to the first page and read!
>>
>>The Bible states that god created heaven and earth, but it does not state
>>when. Perhaps you did not understand the question. It seems clear enough
>>to me.
> 
> Please refer to the listing of the Ancestors of Christ in the Gospels. 
> While people where said to live longer back then, no one claims they 
> lived millions of years.
> 
>>>It says right there that God created the heaven and earth. To state
>>>otherwise is to claim that God lied. The bible tells us that cursing
>>>the holy spirit is an unforgiveable sin!
>>
>>And that same loving god <yeah, right> will then send your soul to an
>>eternity of excrutiating torture. This ain't love.
> 
> GOD gives you a CHOICE. The wages of sin are DEATH.
> 

That's not quite right.  The wages of stupidity and willful ignorance is
Death.

Sue
> 
> -- 
>   |                     In God We Trust                            |
> --+--                                                            --+--
>   |                                                                |
>   |                                                                |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Interpreting Silence (Re: Derek Tops Dan!)
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:29:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.004557.26097@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:


I'd like to point out that in the UK, NZ and Australia, to "top" someone means
you killed them.
 
If you "top" yourself.....you commit suicide. 
 
Thought you might like to know......:-)

Steve
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 3 Sep 1992 14:52:58 CDT
From: <U19807@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
 <8-gn=n=.payner@netcom.com> <BtutzB.Cn5@world.std.com>

In article <BtutzB.Cn5@world.std.com>, believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco)
says:

>GOD gives you a CHOICE.

Oh? Either believe a load of fundamentalist tripe wholesale or fry for all
eternity?

Some "choice" you've got there.

> The wages of sin are DEATH.

As a correlary,the wages of stupidity pay even less than that. Have a nice
day.

      ** Chris Krolczyk,esq.  * DISCLAIMER: My opinions are in **
      ** Maniac-at-Large      * no way endorsed by the Univer- **
      ** U19807@UICVM.BITNET  * sity of Illinois at Chicago.   **
      ** u19807@uicvm.uic.edu * So there. Nyaah.               **