HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:09:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.193155.196889@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>>God the Incompetent.
>>
>>At least that explains the platypus.
>>
>>Personally, I see a _lot_ of hubris in this discussion.  It's call
>>"the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy."
>
>Depends on who you're attributing it to.

It appears there was a missing attribute line in my article.  Sorry.
(chagrin).

The entire point of my post was a reduction-to-absurdity proving
that the Christian god is either not omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent
or the earth was not formed in the recent past.  One or the other.

Another article (Dan's ?) with precisely the same point arrived here
sometime this morning.  (Well after I submitted my article).  I don't
recall reading any articles discussing incompetence before today (but I
must admit my newsreader occasionally skips articles when I try to find
the next in the same topic).

The hubris is people claiming to understand God's purpose while
defending things like "Biblical inerrancy."  There are literally
close to a billion living human beings that have no problem accepting
Christianity with a scripture that is not the "revealed and inerrant
word of God," but to the inerrantists it is perfectly reasonable to
explain, in detail, what God was thinking when he formed trees with
perfect insect trails, scorched bark, etc.

That seems like hubris to me...


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14766 sci.physics:13212 alt.folklore.science:3080
From: keithd@bigguy.timeplex.com (Keith Dickinson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Date: 21 Aug 92 09:05:19 GMT
Organization: Ascom Timeplex Inc.

In article <1992Aug19.134953.1500@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> p257shu@fs1.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Susanne Huettemeister) writes:
>Recently the German NewAge journal raum&zeit (space&time) carried a
>long 'scientific' study that supposedly proved that microwave-cooked
>food will unconditionally lead to cancer in anyone eating it. The proof: 
...
[deleted]
...
>Since the technology has been on the market for a while and extremely
>widespread these days, studies should abound. Thanks!

I suppose you could use the same arguement for food that is irradiated with
hard radiation to remove any bacteria from it for people who have undergone
organ transplant or have immunity disorders. 

"This is hard radiation, from a Uranium or Plutonium <or maybe it was
MickeyMousium> that the food is being exposed to, and we _all_ know that
it's not safe to eat food that's been contaminated by (not exposed_to)
radioactive material..."

It's yahoos like that who have convinced me that there is still no definite
proof of intelligent life on Earth.

L8r G8r
 Keith
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The content of this message    | "He's a special effects man! His whole
|probably has no relation to    |  life is one big special effect!" 
|either my employer, my co-     | keithd@timeplex.com uunet!tix!keithd
|workers or reality in general! | Timeplex Customer Support (813) 530-9475
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: SKH4161@MVS.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:32:00 GMT

>>>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.

In article <1992Aug18.061532.12966@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

>They way IQ is measured, though, is very arbitrary. There are too many variables
>other than intelligence that affect the final score (preconditioning, culture,
>training etc etc).

Too many variables for what purpose?  There are mountains of data
on what IQ does and doesn't measure.  Only those who choose to
ignore the data misapply the measure.  Unfortunately, that includes
a lot of people (including some who understand the data but want
to mislead).
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14572 alt.alien.visitors:5844 talk.religion.newage:3811
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: Re: E.W. - Anastasia did survive!
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:32:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.174752.19655@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:

>In article <ewillims.713529085@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie 
>(Emma Williams) writes:
>[...]
>>Scientists are now planning to do a similar DNA test on the 
>>remains of the "Anastasia" in Paris to see if she really was
>>a member of the Romanov family.

> ...  A friend of my family is a daughter of one of Nicholas's generals, 
and was Anastasia's playmate.  She said it wasn't her.

now _this_ is interesting. have first hand accounts like this made it into 
any of the books? wondering... there must have been dozens, maybe hundreds 
of people who survived who could identify the real anastasia....

kc
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14366 talk.origins:9523
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: creation/evolution a matter of interpretation
Date: 15 Aug 92 01:13:57 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <87pL03EL5cJQ00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) writes:

>>Jim, how do you resolve the contradiction between the evidence for the
>>age of the earth, and the evidence that life here has evolved from
>>simple creatures to the incredible diversity that we see today?

>This is a matter of interpretation.

	Yep, it sure is. But then again, the Stork Theory of
Human reproduction vs. the Sperm and Egg Theory is also a
matter of interpretation.

Please give some evidence you feel supports the theory of
creationism (and by the way -- could you spell out exactly what
the theory of creationism is?).

I think the following supports evolution:

The distribution of genetic variation within and between populations
Patterns of ontogeny in related groups of organisms
The ontogeny of individual organisms
Patterns of biogeography (island biogeography is especially informative)
The fact that suites of biological traits fall into a heirarchical
pattern (i.e. homologous traits are not mixed and matched among clades) 
The fact that microevolution has been observed and several mechanisms
(not the least of which is natural selection) have been shown to cause
it
The fact that speciation has been observed
The biogeographic and stratiographic distribution of fossils
Evidence that traits in organisms have been modified from previous
traits (i.e. on close examination organisms appear "jury-rigged"
rather than designed from scratch)

I am willing to discuss any of these issues with you or any
issues within biology in general if you would be so kind as
to provide your theory so we could check the predictions each
makes and see how the data stacks up. You claim this is a
matter of interpretation -- fine, lets do some interpreting.

I've set the follow-up line to talk.origins. (PS if any of the
sci.skeptic (or t.o.) readers would like a brief explanation
of evolutionary biology (about 15 pages) please email me at
the address below and request the talk.origins FAQ.)

>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:36:52 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <14AUG199222285019@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.181226.9696@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, bourd@jellyfish.cps.msu.edu (Robert Bourdeau) writes...
>>    The  second  law of thermodynamics states that  although  the
>>total  amount  of energy remains constant, the amount  of  usable
>>energy is constantly decreasing.  This law can be  seen  in  most
>>everything.  Where work is done, energy is expelled. That  energy
>>can  never again be used. As usable energy decreases,  decay  in-
>>creases.  Herein lies the problem for evolution. If  the  natural
>>trend  is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible,  for
>>it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.
>>    Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies  only
>>to  closed environments. They say the earth is an  open  environ-
>>ment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has
>>put forth four conditions that must be met in order for  complex-
>>ity to be generated in an environment.
>>
>>      1. The system must be an open system.
>>      2. An adequate external energy force must  be  avail-
>>         able.
>>      3. The system must possess energy  conversion  mecha-
>>         nisms.
>>      4. A control mechanism must exist within  the  system
>>         for directing,  maintaining and  replicating these
>>         energy conversion mechanisms.
>>
>>   The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier
>>to evolutionary idealism.
>
>Dr. Duane Gish was challenged in a debate on June 27, 1989 by Edward
>Max to precisely specify how evolution violates the Second Law of
>Thermodynamics.  Gish verbally accepted the challenge; he accepted
>it in writing on August 28, 1989.  He has yet to come up with his
>answer to the challenge.  (See "Announcing a Possible New Debate,"
>_Creation/Evolution_ XXVII(Summer 1990):53-55.)
>


Furthermore, no creationist has yet shown why the "Brazil Nut Effect"
doesn't violate this Gish hypothesis.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14485 talk.origins:9604
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:38:04 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world,local
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
Keywords: evolution, creationism
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug17.120457.16944@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes...
> 
>Gee, not a ONE that hasn't been shown as a farcical nonissue years ago.
>One would hope for at least a little imagination, since there seems to
>be an abundance of ignorance.

Sigh... I'm afraid that you have it backwards.  It's because of the 
abundance of ignorance that they can get away with century-old, long
discredited, arguments and have at least a certain segment of the population 
buy the whole argument.

-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: Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: shroud exposed at ear
Date: 12 Aug 92  17:53:00 EST

-> I suggest you read (or re-read) Heller's book; he claims that many
-> Shroud details were discovered only after modern scientific analysis,
-> details that a medieval forger would not have needed to include.
-> I.e., microscopic particles of dirt on the feet, the abrasion of the
-> tip of the nose, the precise pattern that a Roman flagrum produces in
-> human flesh, the two paths that the blood took in running down the
-> arm during crucifixion, ... why were all these details so carefully
-> included?  A true skeptic does not simply dismiss the details, but
-> rather explains them so the "believer" has no room for belief.  And
-> let me turn

I especially liked the spike marks being in the wrist and not in the palm of the hand which experts claim would have ripped out.  I believe that the shroud is a fake, but I'm sure we foundthings that the forger did not know would be found.  Maybe it was created by a group of people who went to the length of actually putting some human through the whole ritual of crucifixion (a volunteer, of course).  I'm sure there would have been many volunteers in the religious community at that time.

We have a human tendency to disbelieve the science of others.  as a result a number of events just keep on being brought up over and over. Marilyn Monroe, John Kennedy's assasination, UFO's, Darwinism.  There is only one cure that I know of, and that is personal education with an open mind rather than a profit motive.   Say, when is the next Bermuda triangle book coming out?   :)

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:01:44 GMT

zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
:if I 
: find something like this I don't just put both versions in, I go check which 
: is correct.  
[etc.]

The point is that the editor was attempting to reunite two divergent
cultural streams (according to some after the split between Judah and
Israel after the death of Solomon). Anything important left out would be
noticed. 

The bible is an historical document, regardless of the existence/non-
existence of God. These "contradictions/doublets" are obviously there.
It's only fundementalists that have problems here. The rest of the
christian world has been coming to terms with these problems for centuries.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:06:14 GMT

In article <15AUG199210132773@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes in part:
|> What specifically
|> do you find "fragile" about Nickell's theory, put forth in his book
|> _Inquest on the Shroud of Turin_?
...supported as it is by evidence from historical archives, art historical
evidence, analysis of the cloth, chemical analysis of the pigments and
stains, C-14 dating, and, of course contemporary reconstruction (which
D.A. dismisses as impossible).

So, did you like the Nickell book, Derek, or is it still in the
"to read sometime soon" pile?

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Date: 17 Aug 1992 20:54 MST  
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <714083685.F00002@csource.oz.au>, joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes...
>jds>> We classify bats as mammals which fly. The Bible classifies them as
>jds>> flying things which are mammals. See the difference?
> 
>JJL> The Bible does not classify bats as "flying things which are mammals."
>JJL> See Leviticus 11:12-19.  It lists "the bat" as an instance of what
>JJL> "you shall detest among the birds."
> 
>It classifies bats as flying things, because it calls a bat an "Oif" (in
>Hebrew). Since we know that that bats aren't birds, an "Oif" must be a flying
>thing, excluding insects. This is a bit of a circular issue: you say bats aren't
>birds and that the Bible shouldn't say they are. I agree, and say that since
>bats aren't birds the Bible *doesn't* say they are.

If this is correct, why is it translated as "birds" and not "flying things"?
(I've checked KJV, RSV, NASB.)  Surely all these committees of translators
would not have screwed up something so simple?

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,alt.folklore.science
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 07:54:58 GMT

In article <22AUG199201293340@rigel.tamu.edu> elo9246@rigel.tamu.edu (LaNelle Ohlhausen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.015046.12425@cs.mun.ca>, paulk@garfield.cs.mun.ca (Paul E. King) writes...
>>I believe that theory has it that microwaves act on food by heating its
>>water content. The wavelength of these waves are short enough that they
>>are said to cause vibrations in the water molecules. This vibration
>>causes the heat. 
>
>Small correction:
>
>The wavelengths of microwave radiation are appropriate to cause *rotation*, 
>not vibration, of water molecules.  And these are in fact quite long
>wavelengths in comparison with most familiar radiation.  The rotational
>frequency for water is somewhere around 10 cm^{-1} (I don't have the exact 
>value here, but can look it up on request), which implies a
>wavelength of about 0.1 cm.  For comparison, infrared (heat)

    Small correction:  The wavelength of your typical microwave oven
    is about 12 cm.  Also, we are exciting no rotational resonance in 
    water.  It is simply the field wacking the dipole moment around
    (how's that for a rigourous argument?).  Also, frequency is 
    measured in Hertz or 1/sec or cycles per second, rarely in cm.  
    For the typical microwave, the relevant frequency is 2.45 GHz.

    You are correct if you are saying that water has a resonance at
    around 0.75 cm (somewhere around 40 GHz, I'm too lazy to look 
    it up right now).  However, that is wavelength
    and this particular one (0.1 cm) is not relevant to discussion of 
    commercial or home microwave ovens.

>I think microwaves are generally used for satellite transmissions and
>radar, as well as being important astronomically.

    Or for heating spam...

                                 dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: CFD: New newsgroup sci.siano.vs.schaeffer.battle.to.the.death
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:47:17 GMT
Organization: Concordia University
  Computing Services C-1012
  1455 De Maisonneuve West
  Montreal (Quebec) H3G 1M8
X-Tel: (514) 848-7632
  fax  (514) 848-7622
Originator: gpkatch@alcor

Aw, let 'em slug it out here.  At least they both write well.

-- gk
Art is I;  science is we.
		-- Claude Bernard (1813-78)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14341 talk.origins:9499
From: davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:40:18 GMT
Reply-To: davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu
Organization: Health Computer Sciences, U of MN, Mpls

In article <b6Ph03NQ5ca600@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>The above is a paraphrase from somewhere of Romans 1:20. If you
>have a problem with the author there's nothing I can do about it.

The response is inadequate..  It was jloucks@uts.amdahl.com who saw fit to
ENTER that paraphrase as a means of 'scoring' in an on-going debate, and it is
jloucks@uts.amdahl.com who is solely responsible for the content of each and
every one of his messages.

A Christian cannot hide behind scripture when addressing another human being.

Paul wrote "All scripture ... is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the MAN OF GOD may be
perfect..." [2 Timothy 3:16,17]  Note the phrase MAN OF GOD in this passage...
this is not a list of the uses of scripture when dealing the unconverted.

If you have a point to make, state it plainly.  Don't try to get 'cute' by
implying that a dissenting opinion will send the holder of that opinion to
eternal damnation, unless you think you are in a position to sit on the Throne
of Judgement yourself.

Saying "I didn't write this, if you have a problem with the text IN THE CONTEXT
WITHIN WHICH =I= USED IT, tough" makes the Bible into what Samual Johnson once
reserved for the term 'patriotism' -- the last refuge of scoundrels.

-- David Paschall-Zimbel
From: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mandelbrot Set shaped crop circle
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:32:33 GMT
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <Bt5FH9.FBB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tc37942@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tani  
Chen) writes:
> And how aerodynamic is the
> Mandebrot Set, anyway, with all of the dendrites and antennas hanging 
off of it?

Well, since the Mandelbrot set doesn't have any tangent planes or surface 
normals, there should be no drag at all.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Eric Pepke                                    INTERNET: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET:   pepke@fsu
Florida State University                      SPAN:     scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052                    BITNET:   pepke@fsu

Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.