HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:45:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <16854EA1E.CCEN077@USLVM.USL.EDU> CCEN077@USLVM.USL.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.161700.6099@auto-trol.com>
>davgot@auto-trol.com (David Gottner) writes:
> 
>>
>>In article <64745@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
>>>RA says
>>>
>>>...So this means that our DNA is constructed from
>>>three sources,  our own past, and our biological parents. The other factor
>>>involved in this is that past, unresolved emotions survive death and come
>>>in with us to be embedded in our DNA.  So it is possible that some of our
>>>biggest emotional problems could have originated in past lives..
>>
>>Some ET's that I work with told me this also, but I have a hard time
>>with this one.
>>
>>According to what we know about genetics, all of your DNA comes
>>from ones parents.  There is no provision for past life memories
>>to be recorded in the DNA.
>>
>>So, how are past memories imprinted on the DNA?
>>--
>>Amrit Prem                      |
> 
>The memories of all of each person's ancestors is passed on through the DNA;
>not past lives per se, but the complete history of our genes.

It seems that even if this were possible, the memorys could not extend
beyond those available during the mating. I would tend to think that this
would give mostly the memories from 15-25 year old males, hardly the
wisdom of the ages. I assume that female memories would have the same
restriction. I guess the brain must be mostly a waste, since it's entire
content can easily be encoded in a few strands of DNA. How do the memories
get into the DNA?
  
>                                                             Ellen


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela)
Subject: IMPORTANT: EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM -- READ THIS, PLEASE !
Organization: The Crimson Permanent Assurance Company
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:16:10 GMT

There is a whole newsgroup devoted to this subject.  Please discuss it there!
From our /usr/lib/news/newsgroups:
	talk.origins	Evolution versus creationism (sometimes hot!).
-- 
   /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (V.32bis/USR-HST,24h/d) */
 /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1B18/SF-40100 Jyvaskyla/Finland, ICBM: 62.14N25.44E */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: 'Satanism' and therapists and D.A.'s
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:11:44 GMT

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.

While this stuff has generally been blown out of proportion I think
it is a mistake to completely dismiss it without investigating.
Remember Jeffrey Dahmer got away with killing 18 people and no one bothered
to follow up on them after they went missing. Why assume that a satanic
cult couldn't do it to?

On the otherhand I would be very suspicious of someone claiming to be
a victim who had never made an effort to prosecute there attackers.
-- 
>>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: ane@gloin.unh.edu
Subject: 'Satanism' and therapists and D.A.'s
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 06:40:50 GMT

     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.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Global Spiritual Independence Day
Date: 2 Sep 92 04:40:46 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <10519@scott.ed.ac.uk> frankred@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Martin Redington) writes:
|
|>I was confirming that the "Ostrich People" do in fact exist. ...
|> They have a genetic "anomaly" in their feet
|>that has been transported (over many generations) to about 33% of 
|>their village. I can't confirm anything else in the story ;^) ...
|>The big toe is enlarged to about 4(?) inches and the little toe 
|>is slightly less. The 3 middle toes are absent.

Of course I never have seen what the big deal is about this.

I mean, we have here a small, essentially isolated population with a
high incidence of an otherwise extremely rare genotype.  Big deal!
This is called 'genetic drift' folks, it happens all the time, even to
humans - just consider pigmies and hottentots, and Tay Sachs disease,
and ... (well, I could go on all day, but you get the picture).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:34:47 GMT

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
>FAQ and a few signs ("Creationism: religion pretending to be science",
>etc.) and watch the sparks! Stir up some media interest!

I don't think this would be too constructive.  If skeptics were to
go to the place and picket, the creationists would just see it as
another act of persecution.  It would further strengthen their
belief that "evolutionists" are evil, abortionist, homosexual,
marxist, racist child-killers.

It might be better if a bunch of skeptics went to the place,
however, and refuted the stuff they had inside the museum on a
more face-to-face basis. Of course, from what Steve Linke posted,
it doesn't sound like there's much to refute;  the museum's
filled with religious dogma and slanderous attacks on scientists,
and that's about it.  Too bad they didn't make a room to exhibit
the "scientific theory of creationism."

To Steve Linke:  Thanks for letting us all know what the nuts are
currently up to.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15570 talk.origins:10466
From: salem@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM (Bruce Salem[CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 31 Aug 1992 12:10:45 -0700
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: appserv

believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:

>How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
>Pagan teaching from our schools? The fight against evolutionism
>must be an essential component of the fight for our families and
>this country.

>We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
>Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
>to our faith and therefore our very existance.

>-- 
>  |                     In God We Trust                            |
>--+--                                                            --+--
>  |                                                                |
>  |                                                                |

	I first thought "C'mon, this guy is putting us on!", but
wait, some people really DO believe this! 

	Anyway, thanks, you've stated in a nutshell all the reasons
why Creationism is a hidden agenda the rest of us should not support,
that is, if you really believe what you are saying!


Bruce Salem

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: Marc.Cormier%nautical@r-node.gts.org (Marc Cormier)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 02:42:56 EDT
Organization: Public Access UNIX Information System
Subject: Soul
Distribution: world
Reply-To: Marc.Cormier%nautical@r-node.gts.org (Marc Cormier)
X-Posting-Software: UnixBBS 1.03 S/N 120921

   
   The following message is a new twist (I hope it is) on the old debate on
the existence of God or the Afterlife.
   Since most religions require a spirit or soul to survive death, a way to
prove the inexistence of such an entity is to take all its' attributed
characteristics and prove them to be purely physical and biological in
nature. 
   Among the many characteristics attributed to the Human soul (according to
christian, judaic and islamic religions) are the following:
   Thought, Reasoning, Emotions, Personality, Animator of the being, and so
on. 
    
    However all (ALL!) of the above charactersitics of the Soul are
perfectly explainable in RATIONAL Scientific terms. Namely Biochemistry, and
Biology. All thought processes are Biochemical and physiological in nature.
this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The simple fact you can
permanently alter the human mind of a precise indvidual in many directions
is a illustration of the fact. The fact that the mind is Biochemical is also
easily seen in such diseases as Alzheimers and Schizophrenia. The so called
animator of life (Oxford Dictionary) aspect of the sould has been revoked
ever since the beginning of physiology. Metabolism is perfectly understood
as being the true "animator".
  
    Descartes, wisely (given the social climate of the day) chose to push
the actual location of the soul into a little know organ. The pineal gland.
It has since been proven as being the center for such things as temperature
control and other lesser known controls. Yet in todays light the soul has
nowhere to go. It is dead. The soul is the "Flat-Earth" of the Brain. 

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

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

Marc Cormier

--
Marc Cormier, user of the UnixBBS System @ r-node.gts.org
E-Mail: Marc.Cormier%nautical@r-node.gts.org

R-node Public Access Unix/BBS - Free Access to the World thru Usenet
                 Data: 1-416-249-5366 (3 Lines)
     Shell Accounts Available - Contact marc@r-node.gts.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:47:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.115442.17858@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.163034.4443@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>>No, I stand by my statement that they should all be presented as
>>equally valid.  I doubt that many students would realize by themselves
>>that there is no objective evidence to support the view that their
>>religion is the "one true faith."  It is important that students
>>understand that their religion has _exactly_ the same empirical
>>footings (none) as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Wicca, or
>>whatever.  You've got to get the point accross that people of other
>>religions believe with equal validity and conviction that their views
>>are obviously correct and that everybody else is being misled.
>>
>
>I disagree.  By putting a validity stamp on any religion, you have
>crossed domains and opened a whole can of worms.  For example, if
>a religion advocates human sacrifice, is the teacher with a
>straight face going to tell the class that this religion is as
>"valid" as say Buddhism?  All their life, they have been taught
>about the importance of human life, and the teacher tells them
>that an equally valid religion advocates the opposite. Talk about
>confusing people!

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15640 talk.origins:10550
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:31:04 GMT
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
> : Perhaps, but if God is not relevant to the question of the origin of
> : the world and the life thereon, where is God relevant?
> : Note:  athiests need not respond that God is never relevant.  I'm aware
> :        of that view.
> 
> Then why did you ask?  It's kind of pointless to pose a question and
> then tell the people with whom you dissagree not to answer because you
> are already aware of their views.
> 
> Grant Edwards 

Perhaps to single out the more interesting (less predictable) responses
of others who disagree with him, and yet who are not atheists.  I am a
Christian, but do not see God as a necessary part of a scientific curriculum
or scientific explanation of things.

Is God relevant to the origin of the earth and life thereon?  Of course.
According to my belief, God is ultimately behind all this, for very good
reasons which science has no interest in or methods for explaining.

Is the Bible a good method for adding to scientific knowledge of *how*
God created the earth?  Not at all.  It may tell us a great deal about
*why* this was done, but only a fool would blur the distinction.  

--
              Mike Sellers      User Interface Team Leader
           mike@isgtec.com      ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
              "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
                         Furare tantum ab Optimis
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:32:54 GMT

In article <26AUG199223203138@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
|> [...]
|> Ah, this is something I could never get my parents to understand.  My "messy"
|> room actually preserves a lot more information than a clean room.

Or: "You've got a messy room?  Here, let me turn on the air conditioner
and lower its entropy until it's neat."

-- 
J. Giles
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:03:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug29.052557.5385@ccu.umanitoba.ca< vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
<In <3665@execu.execu.com< mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
<
<<In article <1992Aug28.003330.4541@ccu.umanitoba.ca< vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
<<<God playing evolution, is CREATION.
<
<<You seem to be stuck on this strange assertion.
<
<Yes, as a matter of fact I am Mr McCants.
<
<If you believe that God had a guiding hand in the development
<of life, using evolution.
<
<Then you are in agreement with Drew's basic philosophy.
<That God is responsible for creating us.

OK.  It would seem that I was not paying close enough attention
to be able to follow your argument the way it was presented before.

There is no evidence that God has had a guiding hand in the evolutionary
development of life.  A belief in that would be based on faith.
[If He tweaked that asteroid's orbit, we will never know.]

Let's change the question:

If God created the universe and its physical laws and evolution is
a natural consequence of those laws, then "is God playing evolution"?

If "abiogenesis" is a natural consequence of those laws, did God
create life?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:02:34 GMT



lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>If the doctrine of evolution is not atheistic (in the strict sense --
>existing without God, not denying God's existence), how does God fit
>in?  I may have seen only poor presentations of the material, but the
>impression I have received is "God is not relevant to the topic at
>hand." (as quoted from my post)

Evolution is a science, and as a science, you are correct, "God is
not relevant to the topic at hand."

>This was (in case the intent was unclear) an admission that the same
>logic, with the initial assumption that God exists, also proves
>nothing.  IMO, the existence, or lack thereof, of God cannot be proven
>using logic.  It is the wrong domain.

Exactly the point.  Scientifically, God is not relevant to the topic
at hand, whether that topic is atomic physics, astronomy, biology,
evolution, etc., as long as "the existence, or lack thereof, of God
cannot be proven using logic".  In this sense, all science is
"atheistic" by your definition of the word.

If you are talking about a subject other than science, well, then,
"never mind".

Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu) writes in another post:
>I don't think I've ever heard a reputable scientist argue for the
>nonexistence of God based on the fossil record or on any facet of
>evolutionary theory.  God and evolution are quite compatible, as
>I'm always fond of thinking.  A person who attempts to use science
>to disprove the existence of something which is not observable
>(eg. God) is not doing science.  Religion and science are apples
>and oranges.

The only thing evolution is incompatible with here is a young-Earth
and flood geology, which has nothing to do with the existance or
non-existance of God unless you have conflated your theology
into a state where it depends on young-Earth flood geology in order
for God to exist.

Drew therefore seems to be painting this picture that:

	Lack of young-Earth, Lack of Flood, Lack of Adam & Eve

equals:

	No God.

Drew, is that what you are trying to say?


Keith

P.S.  Now you know why they call that particular brand of
"literalism", Biblidolatry.  "God has no power to contradict
*my* interpretation of the Bible."
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:33:44 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug31.011511.1322@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes...
>In article <5220@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.075924.11599@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>#
>>#Isn't it restrictive? Isn't it THE reason why we are stuck with certain
>>#paradoxes and make no further progress?
>>What paradoxes? What stuck?
> 
>Paradoxes like: "This statement is false"

There it is.  The reason that science has stagnated for the most of the 
last century.  Derek has finally discovered the key to all of our problems.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:45:14 GMT

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

: 
: Let's put the question in another simpler way, "Why is man the
: single most developed creature on Earth?"
: 

If I might paraphrase Douglas Adams:

Man thinks that he is the most advanced species on Earth because he
has built cities, formed civilizations and developed technology, while
all the porposes have done is swim about in the oceans eating fish and
having a good time.

The porposes think that they are the most advanced species on Earth
for precisely the same reasons.

If you define "most developed" as spending time eating eucalyptus
leaves and sleeping, then the koala is the most devloped species.

Since we define most developed as the most like us, then we can't help
but win, can we?

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Kids, don't gross me
Rosemount Inc.                                |off..  ``Adventures with
                                              |MENTAL HYGIENE'' can be
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |carried too FAR!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic