HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:26:05 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug25.212033.22158@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.172414.6036@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (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.
>>We are on it for a purpose.
>>We can know a lot about the world around us.
>>We can also "learn" things which are not true and need discernment to
>>  distinguish right from wrong.
>>I feel that the idea that the world is millions of years old and life
>>  "just happened" is one of these things which are learned but wrong.
>
>Ok, I think this is getting somewhere.  I agree, as should we all,
>that one can learn things which are not objectively true.

I glad you do.  I had one response challenging me on that.

>But now I'm
>having some trouble with this 'discernment' word.  It seems to rhyme
>with 'direct revelation'.

Funny.  You must have a different dictionary than I do.  They don't
rhyme at all. ;-)

>When I discern something that disagrees
>with you (evolution/old earth), I'm being deceived (or deceiving
>myself).  But when you discern something that disagrees with all known
>science, you're not being deceived, because God revealed it to you.
>Does this not strike you as a double standard?

What you describe is certainly a double standard.  You have one of your
own.  It is the same one reversed.  You are right and I am deceived.

>Please explain how we can all obtain or enhance our ability to
>'discern' what is true, and what is false.  This is a serious request.

I am not sure how serious this request is.

Discernment requires, of course, a basis or background to judge
against.  If you have no value system, you cannot choose between
options.  My value system is based on scripture, personal revalation
(you knew it would be there, didn't you) and prophetic wisdom.

Some have a value system based on physical proof and consensus on
interpretation.

Tou can only judge within the system you accept.


-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: my own stupidity (Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests)
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:09:57 GMT
Reply-To: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

I really hate having to correct myself, but better me than someone else.
Here goes.

In article <52527@dime.cs.umass.edu> I wrote:
>In article <714642841.F00006@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>So what you're saying is that the Bible is right to call bats birds, and
>whoever called swans and whales "royal fish" was correct, because in both
>cases a good classification system was not in place?  Was Ptolemy correct
>with his archaic model of the solar system, because the math and physics
>of his time were inadequate to the task of making a proper model?
>
>You're not telling us that the Bible isn't wrong; you're telling us _why_
>it's wrong.

The above was an embarrassingly stupid argument on my part.  If the
original text used the word "oif," to describe birds and bats, I can't
impose my use of "bird" on it and say that their classifcation system
is wrong.  Systems of taxonomy are arbitrary (although some have more
utility than others).  Joe, you were absolutely right about that.

However, I still have problems with it being translated as "bird" in
the English versions I've seen.  It is an inaccurate translation, and
as I mentioned before, casts doubt upon the translators' abilities to
get the rest of the text correct.

The above may also apply to my arguments in the "rabbits chewing cud"
debate.  If the ancient texts used a word that meant "chewing cud or
eating one's own feces," then it would again be only a translational
error, and not an error in the Bible itself.  If that's the case, I also
retract my criticism of the Bible on that point and again point to the
problem of poor translation.  However, I seem to remember reading
somewhere that the word they used did in fact mean the same thing that
we mean by chewing cud, and would not have included eating one's own
feces.  If that is the case, my original criticism of rabbits chewing
cud stands.


michael@cs.umass.edu
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:46:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug27.184008.13006@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <3630@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>>What is your definition of "truth"?
>
>As many will agree here, _my_ definition of truth has no bearing on
>anyone else.

Well, you seem to be playing by rather different rules from the
rational people in the world.  I just assumed you had your own
special definition of truth.

There are, of course, several related definitions of truth in the
dictionary I am looking in.  One is "conformity with fact or
realtity".  Another is "a verified or indisputable fact,
proposition, or principle".

I say "the Earth is billions of years old".  You say "That's not
true."  I say it fits the definition of truth.  It is an indisputable
fact.  All of our observations concur.  You don't have any observations
that disagree, only your opinion.

So, do you have a definition of truth that ignores reality?

What is your definition of "reality"?

Do you deny that there even is such a thing as truth?

Do you deny that reality ought to determine truth?

Do you claim we are deceived?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:02:56 GMT

>>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 92 02:42:56 EDT, Marc.Cormier%nautical@r-node.gts.org (Marc Cormier) said:

Marc>    The following message is a new twist (I hope it is) on the old debate on
Marc> the existence of God or the Afterlife.

I believe it (your "twist") goes back at least as far as William of
Ockham, probably Thomas Aquinas, and possibly even earlier (the
Pharisees and Saducees were debating a form of it in Jesus's day).

Marc>     Today's religious and philosophically enclined theologians
Marc> will probably push the soul into the realms of the unattainable
Marc> world. A obvious and logical choice. The last resort. Just as
Marc> God has been pushed from beyond the far hills, to the depths of
Marc> oceans to the end of the universe, so has the soul gone from the
Marc> heart to the blood, to the brain, and the pineal gland.  Now it
Marc> has nowhere to go. It does not exist. Another addition to the
Marc> list of unproven objects that have to be "believed" in.

If the soul is a material entity, this is true.  If the soul is
non-material, it is false.  Furthermore, the idea that the soul
started out in a physical realm is a faulty premise; Genesis 2:7 is
quite clear on that point.

Marc>     Finally if there is no soul, why do we need anything else including...
Marc> .... GOD? Is this line of reasoning faulty, if so please respond.

If we have no souls, we don't need God.  Since we do have souls, the
argument is moot.  1 Corinthians 15:35-50 discusses this at length.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "It is sown a natural body; it is raised
Integrated Measurement Systems |  a spiritual body.  There is a natural
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  body, and there is a spiritual body."
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  - 1 Corinthians 15:44
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.philosphy.misc
Subject: Why binary logic?
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:06:19 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

Skepticss sometimes have the appearance of being bigoted and narrow
minded.

This is a misconception. Skeptics are axiomatically bound by the
laws of logic and thus confined to work in this narrow space.

However, I've been wondering if there is any fundamental reason why
the traditional binary logic system, of TRUE and FALSE, that evolved
from the ancient Greeks has to be the only way?

Would it make sense to invent a new multivalued logic, to open up
the narrow space and discover new things?

For instance there are instances in everyday life where we follow
a "tightrope" between two opposing concepts that are in tension with
one another.

Would it make sense to invent a new logic that has some higher metastable
state in between TRUE and FALSE?

This might be a way of "solving" various mathematical, binary logical,
ethical, philosophical etc etc paradoxes.


Are there any books written on this kind of stuff?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Keywords: Mensa IQ SAT testing
Organization: RL
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 13:29:06 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Aug19091341@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>In article <19920818143222SKH4161@MVS.draper.com> SKH4161@MVS.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>   >>>The elitism of Mensa is a big farce, anyway. They don't have the intelligence
>   >>>to work out that the concept of IQ is completely flawed and meaningless.
>
>   Since Mensa also accepts SAT, ACT, GMAT, MAT and GRE scores for
>   admission, do you mean to say the concept of these scholastic aptitude
>   tests is completely flawed and meaningless as well?   Many Mensa
>   members, if not the majority, got in on one of these tests rather than
>   an IQ test.
>
>Actually, these tests DO NOT measure intelligence!  I had occasion to
>speak with an educator who is quite knowledgable about these exams.  I
>was telling him that I think they are a farce (due to my very high
>score and my knowledge of my own abilities... i.e., the test make me
>out to be god, and I am not).  Anyway, his response was that there is
>a strong correlation between GRE score and success in graduate school.
>And that is why its used.  It has nothing to do with intelligence.
>

>
>--
>Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The fabric of the American empire ought to
>Field Robotics Center,          | rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE
>Carnegie Mellon University      | PEOPLE.  The streams of national power ought
>Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | to flow immediately from that pure, original
>(412) 268-3856                  | fountain of all legitimate authority.
>                                | Alexander Hamilton
>The opinions expressed are mine | 
>and do not reflect the official | He is? 
>position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
>or any other organization.      | 

We had stacks of Wexlers (Wechslers?) in the  ODU psych
lab in 1965-66, and we began betting on high score. Many of us took
almost the whole series. Those (~15) of us who took these tests frequently
began to score well into the genius region. Toward the end of the fad,
160 Wex was a sure loser.  An odd result of this sport came in the
Spring of '67, when I took the Defense Officers' Requirements
Exam.  It felt like lunch hour break, winning with a record high score!
They must have thought they had uncovered a new Feynman who had
somehow managed to falsify his schoolmarks since kindergarten. 
Perplexingly downward.  Think Mensa might take a 220 Wex? Suckers.

-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15368 talk.origins:10352
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 29 Aug 92 04:36:24 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug27.190449.13220@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:


>No, I don't have and scientific evidence for this.  There are many
>other things for which I have no evidence:
>  - that my life has meaning or purpose
>  - that some actions are better than others (i.e. helping someone up
>    rather than stepping on his face)
>  - that I love my wife
>  - that a stary summer night is beautiful

>I don't know about you, but these are not things that I am about to
>discard for lack of evidence.  I hold the view that not all things are
>within the realm of science.  Some call this crackpot.  I don't care.

  Drew, obviously some things fall outside the purview of science.  The
structure, history and mechanicsm of function of the physical universe,
however, is one *DEFINITION* of the purview of science.  You can't take
the history of life away from biologists by suddenly declaring it 
off limits.  It's OURS, and you can't have it.  (For the humor
impaired:  that last sentence was an attempt at humor.)

-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: was: Creationist Logic NOT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:39:17 GMT

>Reading the same book over and over until you have it memorized,
>>is not a search for truth.  It's memorization.
>>Vern Nelson

>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?
>John G. Ata

The question is worded very nicely so that I have difficulty answering,
without passing judgement.  But I will try.

Study of a subject to find an answer can never be wrong.
Coming forward and presenting your answer as a FACT, without proper study,
without any supporting data, and in contradiction to mountains of
contradictory evidence, that is wrong.

Backing up your answer with  "Well God just made it look that way!"
That's just foolish.

Vern Nelson
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 07:52:53 GMT

In article <92238.085758BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.171417.3551@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) says:
>>
>>What about the AIDS speaker at the Republican convention?  She
>>didn't fit any high risk group i.e. drugs, homosexual or
>>hemophilliac person, etc.  She just happened to have a husband who
>>did.
>>
>
>I don't have a TV, so I didn't see the Republican National Convention.
>Was the woman "HIV positive" or was she "dying of AIDS".  Duesberg
>claims these terms are not synonymous.  e.g. "Magic Johnson" while
>"dying of AIDS" is somehow in such fantastic condition that they're
>wondering if he should continue with professional basketball.   

HIV takes a number of years to have an effect.

>I wish
>my bod was in such rotten shape that anyone would even _consider_ me
>for professional sports!!

Would you trade places with Magic Johnson?

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Aug31181620@bast.sics.se> <Bty6yw.K0D@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:57:29 GMT

In article <Bty6yw.K0D@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu 
(L GENE BATTIN) writes:

  >But!  How _can_ "rational" people seriously disagree about logic?
  >Logic is the only valid criterion that rational people _should_
  >apply, and if they can't agree on what logic _is_ then they can't even tell
  >if they are being rational or not.

  Surely you mean that the use of various stock phrases involving the
word "logic" is the hallmark of rational people! I've never seen
anybody on the net try to explain what "logic" is supposed to refer
to.
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Date: 29 Aug 92 21:19:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: murdoch.1992Aug29.211901.22711
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <17oe32INN8l9@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes:
>
>In article <schumach.715109153@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>Wouldn't it be fun for a group of skeptics and other science-
>>literate folks to picket this? Go with a familiarity with the 
>
>I dunno.  People with their mind set "need" enemies to rail against.

But its worse to let it go unanswered. Remember the slick exhibits
will convince people who don't know any better.
I think a more appropriate response would be to stand outside and
hand out pamphlets giving a point by point refutation of every lie
in the museum. As well as reference to books and papers people can
read if they are curious.
Of course this takes time and money, something that only fundy-mentalists
seem to have. However if I get some money (something that looks likely
for once), I'd be happy to mail some to a group doing this, along with
my donations to the groups fighting the OCA in Oregon.

Of course I suspect once the OCA forces anti-homosexual propoganda
into schools they will go on to force "creation science" in. So far
they have done abortion and homosexuality, but I don't know if they
have gone after evolution yet.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.philosphy.misc
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:15:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.075924.11599@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.040522.18524@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith) writes:
>>
>>"Binary logic" as he puts it, still must be used when dealing with two
>>mutually exclusive and opposing concepts, which is what we do most of the
>>time.
>>
>Why?
>
>This is what we've beleived since ancient Greek times, but why?
>
>Isn't it restrictive? Isn't it THE reason why we are stuck with certain
>paradoxes and make no further progress?
>
>>Actually, boundries are a lot fuzzier than we think.
>
>exactly.

Well, let's see.  If we're dealing with something with only two states (that IS
what is meant by "two mutually exclusive and opposing concepts"), it would seem
to make sense to use a two-valued logic system.  Perhaps, Derek, you can tell
us how to apply multivalued logic to a two-state system?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:59:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.050110.21622@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
}All life on this planet can only have a single point of origin.

Why?


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15221 talk.origins:10242
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:50:54 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug27.165050@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>    1) Assume: God would not purposely trick people.
>    2) Assume: God created the universe and gave it the apperance of age.
>
>  Which assumption do you think is false?

But he didn't trick everybody.  Those who believe the "revealed truth" are
not tricked.  Therefore he only tricks 49% of the people.  (100% of those
who consider the evidence rationally, however)

Assume: God tricks only scientists.
Conclusion: It's far better to be one of the chosen who understand the
revealed truth.  Don't confuse me with any so-called "facts", my mind's
already made up.

How can you possibly argue with someone like Drew?
He is obviously incapable of rational thought on this subject.
From: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:22:36 GMT
Reply-To: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <adams.714948366@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras) writes:
>
>>I guess the insects in question just walked differently back then, and
>>it's only been recently that they've smartened up and learned to use all
>>six legs to walk, eh?  Just dragged the other two along, right?  Ayup.
>
>I suppose you've never heard of an idiom?  The Bible uses (just about)
>every literary device there is...

So in this case, "goeth upon all four" is an idiom for "walking" or
"creeping?"

Hmmmm.  Would you then say that humans go upon all four when they walk?
No?  Because they have two legs, not four?  Would you say that centipedes
and millipedes go upon all four?  No?  Because they have many more than
four legs?  How about snakes, which have no legs?  Or let's get trickier,
and go to arachnids, which have eight legs.  Do they go upon all four?

Where is the magic cutoff, where it's appropriate to say that something
goes upon all four?  I hope that you agree that it would not be appropriate
to say humans go on all four.  How about a three-legged, five-legged, or
seven-legged critter?  (Not relevant to the discussion, but does anyone
know if such beasts even exist?)  Why is it ok to say that grasshoppers,
locusts, and beetles go upon _all_four_ if they walk using six legs, if
none of the other examples above are acceptable?


michael@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic