HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:19:25 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1992Aug21.122341.26129@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes...
> 
>I'm afraid he is right. As has been pointed out before,
>evolutionism boils down to belief. There are no
>scientific proofs. However anyone who expresses an
>opinion contrary to that belief is usually `corrected'.

There are no "scientific proofs" for anything relevent to the historical
sciences (natural history, geology, cosmology, etc.)  However nobody, 
including the scientists ever claim that there is.  What does exist is 
overwhelming, irrefutable evidence, which although it does correspond to 
the notion of "proof" as in "reproducible unambiguous experiment", is
still the only valid method available for reconstructing the past - and
a good enough one that there is no doubt in the minds of the vast majority
of those who actually look at the evidence that the Earth is billions of years
old and that life evolved over that time. 

To suggest otherwise is to intentionally mislead and is intellectually 
dishonest.

-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: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:05:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.090144.9132@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:
}The bible is an historical document, regardless of the existence/non-
}existence of God.

Then why are there things mentioned for which there is evidence that it did
NOT occur as stated?  Wouldn't that case doubt on the things for which there
is no historical evidence one way or another?  Maybe it is so and maybe it 
isn't.


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:53:48 GMT

In article <86446@netnews.upenn.edu> 
  jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien) writes:
>
>In article <64216@cup.portal.com>, Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
>> RA says
>
>> >OK - since you persist in saying that some people actually have 3-strand
>> >DNA (I don't care if it's everyone, 2 percent, or just one guy) - prove it.
>> 
>> I am proving it by doing it and living it.  The changes people are going
>> through by one hour of conscious breathing in my hot tub are so personal
>> and intense that I doubt if any would submit them for public examination.
>> But I am willing to do this.  I will give anyone reading this a one hour
>> FREE session in my hot tub ,  under a double pyramid, in San Jose, Ca. At
>> our mutually agreed upon time.  For those who feel threatened because I am
>> a male,  I have a female who will take you through the process.

Cool.  Is she cute?  For the sake of science I am willing to spend an hour in
in a hot tub with some new-age babe (I'm like that, don't bother to thank
me).  I won't be up there for another month, so base your date on that.

>> Don Showen
>
>Why do all these weirdos live in California ??

He is offering you free hot-tub time and you call him a wierdo??

Sheesh.

>JM.

C Frog
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:58:00 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <LEET.92Aug19081547@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes...
>>>>>> On 15 Aug 92 05:28:00 GMT, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) said:
> 
>James> In article <1992Aug14.181226.9696@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>,
>James> bourd@jellyfish.cps.msu.edu (Robert Bourdeau) writes...
> 
>>                           By Kevin Martin
>> 
>> [...]
>>Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a
>>huge  animal  that  intensely resembled a dinosaur.
> 
>James> 1977.  It proved to be a basking shark.
> 
>I would *still* like to find the published reference for this result.
>I *still* have a photocopy of one of the photographs of the beast on
>my office door, and it looks *nothing*whatsoever* like a basking
>shark.  The other photo I've seen, of the 4 the Japanese biologist on
>board took, looks even less like a shark, and the pen-and-ink sketch
>he made is *definitely* that of a plesiosaur - matching the textbook
>illustrations exactly.

One source that has been given for this several times on talk.origins
is a Daniel Cohen book whose title I do not recall (it may be something
like the _Encyclopedia of Monsters_).  I've seen a color photo, and the
animal in the photo is horribly decomposed.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:10:19 GMT

In article <63ga03Lg59Ze00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim 
Loucks) writes:

>Dan Ashlock writes:
>>God almost certianly isn't a liar.

Jim sez (apparently): "No, Dan, God IS a liar, but that wasn't his intent."

In his own words: 
> I don't believe I've ever made such a statement. As previously stated,
> it is my belief that life on earth is fairly young, the earth may or
> may not be old. It is also my belief that God could have easily created
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> with the appearance of age, though most definitely not to deceive. If
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> God created a 100 foot tree, would it not have the appearance of age?
> If such a tree were created, I have no problems with God also creating
> tree rings if he so desired. Nobody asked me why God chose to deceive
> us, but rather why an asshole dicked with the information. That was
> the context of my reply.
> 
> I hope this helps clear up any miscommunication.
  
   There is not miscommunication.  You think God created a world that would
convince any reasonable person that did _not_ have a particular sort of 
religion that it was OLD.  This makes him a deciever; he must have known it
would have that effect: so he gets credit for decieving me, at least, and, at
last count several million others.

   For some reason you haven't even tried to explain, this deception doesn't
count as deception in your mind in spite of it's rather remarkable success.
I reiterate: explain why this deception isn't really deception, accept that
you believe in a lying God, or accept that the earth is old.

   You can't have your cake and eat it too.  The only other hypothisis I can
see is that God isn't aware of or doesn't understand the consequences of his
own actions.  This gets back to the "asshole" hypothisis way back at the
beginning of this thread that niether of us seem willing to accept.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Organization: just me
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 19:51:20 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <x94mws=.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>Actually, I think that "kinesiology" means something like 'exercise without
>motion using opposing muscles  to generate force.' Lock your fingers
>together, then pull your arms apart: something like that. It's "applied
>kinesiology" that means "quackery".

Sorry, you described isometric exercise there.  Kinesiology means the study
of the physics/mechanics of biological motion, usually as applied to humans.
It is right in the dictionary!

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

	David Pipes
robear@digex.com

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:44:59 GMT


>I see. The whole business of "applied kinesiology" is SO complicated
>that our tiny litle minds can't possibly comprehend it. 


Not at all, that's not what I'm implying, or meant to.  The classes are 
experiential, something thats somewhat lacking on the net.
-- 
Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
				 *Aristotle				      *
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:08:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <19920820183027SKH4161@MVS.draper.com> SKH4161@MVS.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>In article <=7!n#8-.payner@netcom.com>,
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug19.195306.26252@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>It is good to know that those who have problems adjusting to life because
>>>they are highly intelligent should have no place to get together to talk
>>>things over.  Thank you for that insight.
>>
>>And you assume that all intelligent people have difficulty "adjusting to
>>life", and that this is MENSA's purpose. I really do not thing that either
>>your assumption or conclusion are correct.
>
>That's an unsophisticated interpretation.  If someone says, "I crashed
>because I was driving too fast", he doesn't mean to imply that driving
>fast will always cause a crash.

Perhaps not, but there is a huge difference between an isolated incident,
and an orginization, and the implication is there nonetheless.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: davgot@auto-trol.com (David Gottner)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:52:30 GMT
Organization: Auto-trol Technology Corporation

>I am proving it by doing it and living it.  The changes people are going
>through by one hour of conscious breathing in my hot tub are so personal
>and intense that I doubt if any would submit them for public examination.
>But I am willing to do this.  I will give anyone reading this a one hour
>FREE session in my hot tub ,  under a double pyramid, in San Jose, Ca. At
>our mutually agreed upon time.  For those who feel threatened because I am
>a male,  I have a female who will take you through the process.
>
>Don Showen

What does this have to do with DNA?  And why is it important?

I have been doing breathwork, etc for about a year now, and the changes
have been pretty profound, but that doesn't prove that the DNA has changed.
All I can see is the outside.

I can see that my life is much better now, that I am more centered, that my
feeling centers are more open, etc, but I can't actually look inside of my
DNA structure and count the number of strands I have.

I don't see how relevant it all is anyway.  I want to be healed but I am
confused on why it is important to know all of the details.

I don't mean this as a flame, I am just seeking clarification.
-- 
Amrit Prem			|
davgot@auto-trol.com		| This area is intentionally left blank
{...}ncar!ico!auto-trol!younam 	|
From: Ken.Stuckas@iphase.UUCP (Ken Stuckas)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: origin of life articl
Date: 12 Aug 92  17:40:00 EST

-> >   Just to nit pick, but given a fair coin, the previous 1,000,000 >
->   tosses have absolutely no bearing on the next.  The odds of the >
-> next toss being tails are still 50-50.  I understand your point, >
-> but your analogy is flawed.

IMHO it depends on the question you ask in advance of flipping any coin.

Q#1: If I flip this coin, what are the odds that it will come up heads?
     (Obvious answer: 50/50)

Q#2: If I flip this coin, what are the odds that it will come up heads
      1,000,000 times in a row?

Once the coin has been flipped, you can't go back and ask the question in retrospect, because the question has no relevance.  Or does it?

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 
20 
20
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: help needed with a thought problem
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:40:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: dog.25439
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1992Aug12.203443.20270@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes...
>In article <25429@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>>I don't agree.  If I take a one kg rod which is one meter long and strike
>>one end with a 10^6 Kg hammer moving at 99% the speed of light, I suspect
>>that the far end of the rod will start moving much more quickly than
>>the speed of sound in that material allows according to your reasoning.
> 
>It _propagates_ at the speed of sound.  This is not the same as saying that
>the rod _moves_ at the speed of sound.

I am indeed claiming that the signal will propogate faster than the speed
of sound.  The far end of the rod *will* start moving in a time shorter 
than c/l, where c is the speed of sound and l is the length of the rod.
The correct limiting speed is the speed of light.

You simply cannot apply a differential equation which was contstructed
under the assumption of small-amplitude disturbances to a situation in 
which the disturbance is not appropriately small.  

-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,talk.origins
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: Jim sez: who ya gonna trust, me or your senses?
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:17:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.100057@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>Also, you've managed to imply that the work of many of my friends and
>colleagues as well as my father are acts of self-destructive pride rather than
>good hard scientific work.  This claim is made without any understanding of the
>work's content, motivation, or application and benifits.  Your arrogance,
>adopted to defend an indefensable position, beggars belief.

Not only that, but it seems an extreme case of hubris to assume that
one's interpretation of scripture is the only possibly valid one.
I have several times challenged Jim (and most of the other creationists
here) to read and critique the book "Is God A Creationist?" which
criticizes creationism from a purely theological and philosophical
standpoint.  I've even offered to buy a copy of it and mail it to
them, if they would only agree to read it and post a review.  I've
only gotten silence in response.  Why are the creationists so very
afraid of any challenge to their theological stance?
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14326 talk.origins:9492
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:27:34 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <87pL03EL5cJQ00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
> ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) writes:
>>I really hate to quote screenfuls of stuff to add a few lines at the
>>end, so I'll put my comments up here, and do my best trim the rest down
>>to the bare essentials...
> 
>>Jim Loucks, you are completely missing Dan's point. 
> 
> Maybe Dan, and for that matter, you missed *my* point.
> 
>>Dan chose to illustrate this contradiction by describing one who creates
>>the world _with_the_appearance_of_billions_of_years_of_ history_ in
>>order to deceive reasoning human beings when in fact the world was only
>>recently created as "a deceiver", and clearly stated that he did not in
>>fact believe this to be the case.
> 
>>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.

But the vast majority of scientists who have objectively studied life 
consider it to have evolved.  The majority of people who consider life
NOT to have evolved have a religious agenda.  That is what we mean.
And if you may remember, I have asked you in the past to please explain
how varves were formed, how come ice core dating (several different and
totally unrelated methods) all agree, tree ring dating also agrees with
ice core dating, so does coral reef dating.  You have consistantly ducked
discussing any of this.  

Sue

> 
>>What is your "a little research" that separates creationism from other
>>irrational cults? 
> 
> Find the origin of the irrationial cults.
> 
>>Chris Wood     Bellcore     ...!bellcore!prefect!ccw
> 
> -- 
> Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
> {apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:55:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug13.152334.13177@colorado.edu> gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R) writes:
>   [Sheaffer]
>>Please describe for us a single, repeatable experiment that will allow
>>us to "test" something meaningful using AK. If possible, I'd like an experiment
>
>Do you think that you can do these tests without training?  If so, there's lots
>of books out.  Its simply not that simple.  Then there is the matter of 
>interpreting the results.  People go to school and receives long hours of
>training to do tests and many more hours (weeks, years) to learn how to 
>interpret them.  It doesn't matter whether or not its for AK or for different
>medical tests by by/for physicians.  In spite of their apparent objectivity,
>medical tests are misinterpreted all of the time.  Good AK does not simply
>rely on one test but all the results obtained by all of the tests and the 
>practitioner's interaction'w with his/her client.  
>
>If you want to learn, take some classes.

I see. The whole business of "applied kinesiology" is SO complicated
that our tiny litle minds can't possibly comprehend it. 

Physics is an extremely complicated field, and many experiments are
complex almost beyong imagining. But SOME experiments in physics are
really quite simple, involving for example elementary demonstrations
of the effects of air pressure, electric currents, magnetism, etc.
Can you please describe for us an AK experiment that is at the same
elementary level as, say, the physics experiment where we deflect a
compass needle by an electric current? Say, the first experiment
performed by the Galileo of AK Studies (whoever that may have been)?

I think that what the above is supposed to mean is: "This AK stuff is
*far* too complex for you skeptics to ever evaluate!"


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James)
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:09:54 GMT

lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>For those jilted by Mensa, there's always Densa.  (Anybody have the 
>address?)

Oh _please_ elaborate on this!

I have chided my sister for years about the intelligence of the
guys she has dated, but now she's seeing a guy whose "smart enough
he could have joined Mensa".  

There has to be a joke here somewhere.

>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU

--
 Michael James       mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 

       barf  [ba:rf]  2.  "He suggested using FORTRAN, and everybody barfed."
            - From The Shogakukan DICTIONARY OF NEW ENGLISH (Second edition)
From: sys_lws@nhqvax.hq.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Sex Change
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:44:10 +0600
Organization: NASA Headquarters, Washington D. C.

In article <1992Aug13.055120.413@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> I heard a story that there was a tribe discovered (in this century) who's
> girls grew a penis when they reached puberty.
> 
> 
> Does anyone know a reference for this?
-- 

I cannot testify to the veracity of this story.  However, this puts me in a
quandry:  Is he/she still acceptable for membership in those exclusive 
women-only clubs?


Lori Scott		sys_lws@nhqvax.hq.nasa.gov

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I 
only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that 
differentiate me from a doormat.--Rebecca West, 1913
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:41:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug19.195306.26252@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:

[...]
 
>Some of us had very different experiences, whether or not we were tested.
>Sometimes, a group like Mensa can help people adjust to the "real world".
>Sometimes an IQ test, which was used to single someone out as different,
>can provide them access to others who have had the same experiences.

So you are saying that the reason for IQ tests is to single out -them-,
the <shudder> different ones?

If you need a test to do this, then I suspect you will do poorly on any
IQ test. Some things are evident by simple observation.
 
>I find your comments very sad and narrow-minded.  I have however seen it
>many times while growing up, usually just before someone took a swing at
>me for being different.

This does not necessarily follow from the little information that you have
provided. Many kids deserve what they get, many do not. This gaining of
experience is part of growing up. 
 
>It is good to know that those who have problems adjusting to life because
>they are highly intelligent should have no place to get together to talk
>things over.  Thank you for that insight.  

I assume that the "no place" is a type, and that you meant "a place".
And you assume that all intelligent people have difficulty "adjusting to
life", and that this is MENSA's purpose. I really do not thing that either
your assumption or conclusion are correct.
 
>		David Pipes
>who does not belong to Mensa
>robear@digex.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic