HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Worthless on philosophical grounds.
Organization: SPS
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:55:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.084111@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
|> used for cheap, safe abortions may condem a number of women to really annoying

Oxymoron.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Voyager(TM) light and sound device
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:44:48 GMT

In article <8261.119@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes in part:
|> Call the Voyager OR Megabrain company. 
Hey Voyager!  Hey Megabrain!  Hmm.  They're not answering.  Maybe
I'm missing some key information.  Maybe if you emailed me some
info I'd have a better chance of finding things out.  Of course,
if they published the findings in a real journal, I could find it
for myself.  (I realize that advertising literature is always 100%
factual.)

|> They have the research
|> available for viewing.  I recommend Megabrain as they are a well
|> established company and have more info at their fingertips.
|> What I viewed was some glossy paperwork that showed an
|> ultrasound(???) image of the brain before, during, and after a
|> session with the Voyager. The image of the brain was color
|> computer-enhanced to show which areas of the brain were active
|> and inactive.....check it out for yourself.
What in the word does ultra-sound have to do with EEG?  You said
these things enhance alpha, delta, and theta production, which,
so far as I know, could not be detected by ultrasound.  And
what is the point of the images of the brain?  (Other than to
pretend to have some scientific backing for their claims.)

|> BUT...regardless what you people think in this group.....this
|> stuff works very well to at least calm and relax you to the
|> point of complete and sound sleep. You want to find out if you
|> win....you have to place the bet...or get off the gambling
|> table. Get the analogy?
LOTS of things help people get calm.  In particular, lots of PLACEBOS
help people get calm.  This is well known and not even exciting
news.  But these companies specifically claim that this thing works by
changing your EEG, and you were endorsing these claims.  I asked 
whether it actually DOES anything to your EEG, and I still don't
know.

I NEVER said it didn't "work" for you, but I strongly doubt that
it works for the reasons claimed.  Does it matter?  It depends on how
picky you are about the importance of telling the truth.

Personally, I try to find out what the game is, what the odds are, 
whether it is honest, and so on.
From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:32:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

In sci.skeptic, vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:

> In <27AUG199210150013@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> 
> >Leaving aside the problem with this that abiogenesis is distinct from
> >evolution, why do you exclude the possibility that God created life
> >*by using* evolution?
> 
> Read your own sentence back, "God CREATED life *by using* evolution"
> The involvement of God defines it as CREATION!
> Any involvement, no matter how small, makes it CREATION.
 
This sounds like a problem of symantics, but taking your definitions, notice
that the theory of "CREATION" (God created first cell and then left) is
indistinguishable from the theory of evolution, and there is no known test
which will prove one and disprove the other.  You may feel that they are
drastically different philosophically, but scientifically, it is silly to
discuss it.

> Surprise! That's what they are meant to do!  
> My entire point was that Evolution is in contradiction to God.

You seem to view evolution as a religous belief (even capitalizing the first
letter) rather than a scientific theory.  The simple theory does not contradict
God, but merely claims that He is not responsible for the creation of new
species.

> Vern Nelson

BDR
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLICAL  I vote [X]Yes!
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 02:00:02 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

Wouldn't this proposed newsgroup be an example of an oxymoron?  I have
yet to meet, in person, a person who truely is skeptical and also holds
a firm belief in the truth and relevance of the bible.
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Coded Scientific Info in the Bible???
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:47:30 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Tue, 15 Sep 92 04:50:05 GMT

In article <-+znzp-.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
   In article <1992Sep14.201335.16562@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

   >Go read Nostradaemous.
   >
   >If you open with "coded" with unspecified code, you then get to justify
   >anything at all.
   >
   Say, I bet that if we hooked the black box from the movie Sneakers up
   to an ASCII version of Nostradaemous, we could find out -exactly-
   what he meant!   :^)

Of course, even with Nostradamus, but on a smaller scale than with the
Bible, the problem arises as to which version of Nostradamus'
Centuries you use.  (This includes questions such as which quatrains
you include and also which version of included quatrains.)

-30-
Bob
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:27:11 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

In article <1992Sep5.005755.415@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.132528.6672@bony1.bony.com> billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
>>In article <9qhn+lf.alc@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
>
>>>3. Contact the Flat Earth Society (I don't have the address handy, but
>>>   I posted it a while ago).  They will provide you with materials and
>>>   show you how to fight the evil humanistic belief that the earth is
>>>   round with true evidence and Biblical information that shows otherwise.
>
>>Funny, my Bible says "He compasseth the day from the night" indicating
>>that the earth is a sphere (round).
>
>	Tell that to Wilbur Glenn Voliva, Charles Johnson, or some
>other Bible-thumping flat-earther. :-)
>
Be hard to tell Voliva anything 'cause he's dead.  Charles Johnson is head
of the current Flat Earth Society.  I have always wondered what the connect
between these two where as the Flat Earth Society's info sheet claims things
very similiar to what Voliva claimed as quoted by Gardner in _Fads & Fallacies_.


-- 
<<                                                               >>
<< Michael R. Brown    CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ >>
<< Internet: michaelb@sol.cse.fau.edu                            >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax                                        >>
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16328 talk.origins:11249
From: v22964qs@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Mike Cluff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:22:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <18r1t6INN38o@agate.berkeley.edu>, c60c-2hl@web-2f.berkeley.edu (Douglas V. Simpkinson) writes...

>Does the Lord read USENET?

Yeah, I've had some email conversations with Him.  You should see his .sig, it's
a stitch.

******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff				*      I'm the person that	
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms	*      the president
UB Language Perception Laboratory	*      warned you about.    
******************************************************************************
From: lisjws@gdr.bath.ac.uk (J W Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:47:53 GMT
Organization: University Library, University of Bath, UK

In Bob Smart's reply to G V Nelson

>From: Bob Smart
>Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
>Date: 2 Sep 92 07:19:03 GMT
>In <1992Aug28.003330.4541@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca
>(Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>> God playing evolution, is CREATION.

he ends his note with

>
>Science doesn't tell us, "this is how the world works."  Science tells
>us, "the world appears to behave AS IF it worked something like this."
>How is that incompatible with religious faith?
>

It is not incompatible BUT you cannot hold a scientific belief in god.
Why? Because science, as you so clearly point out, can only tell us about
appearances whereas religion claims to have the 'truth'.

One small question - If religion can give us the 'truth' why do you bother
with the second rate information that science gives us?


John Smith,
University of Bath.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: david_s@hsr.no (David Andreas Sjoeen)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Reply-To: david-s@ifi.hsr.no
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:34:51 GMT

In article <88472@netnews.upenn.edu>, jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien) writes:

> Well, here's for you:
> 
> take the first three numbers: 1,2,3.
> Square them : 1,4,9
>  
> Add the 149 first of the fractionnal part of Pi: 0.14159265358979323846264338327950.....
> and you obtain:  666 !!!!!!!!!!
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hihihihihihihihihi! You get 682!

Take the 145 first digits in the fractional part and you get 666. But
1+4+5=10, which proves that the number 10 is connected with Pi. This
means that the Pythagorean Reform Church is indeed evil!

Just kidding,

:)avid
-- 
 __________________ ___________________________________________________
| David A. Sjoen   |"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they |
| Gulaksveien 4    | follow me; and I give them life eternal; and they |
| N-4017 STAVANGER | shall never perish, and no one shall seize them   |
| Norway           | out of my hand." John 10:27-29                    |
`------------------'---------------------------------------------------'
    E-MAIL: david-s@ifi.hsr.no  (Rogaland University Centre, Norway)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16008 talk.origins:10930
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:26:11 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Supersedes: <87933@netnews.upenn.edu>
In-reply-to: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)

In article <1296@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes (Bill Riggs) writes:
>As indicated above, David Utidjian appears to have figured out what I
>was up to - [the point that science does not PROVE a theory] - I'm
>still not sure how, or if Wiener will respond.

To express annoyance and boredom in your general direction that all you
can do is make hay over very well-known metaphysical difficulties that
pervade all scientific investigation and pass them off as a serious flaw
in one and one domain only.  I've met one person who _honestly_ does not
believe in evolution, meaning that he does not invoke tailor-made new
criterion for applying against evolution.  He does not believe the world
is round, Jupiter is a planet, nor that anyone gets massacred in China,
and so on.  If he reads it in the Bible, he calls it truth, otherwise, he
calls it illusion.

>Anyway, as a conservative, I am a relative novice to the ways of
>deconstruction, since I spend most of my energies defending theories,
>not demolishinhg them.

You don't need deconstruction.  Just hard evidence.

>I do fear that this thread has gone too far in an unhealthy
>direction.

As soon as you decided to evaluate evolution with no knowledge of the
basic material, the thread was inherently over the edge of intelligent
discussion.

>Would it not be a *shame* if, through the hubris and arrogance of my
>opponents, I actually *won* this argument and destroyed science as we
>know it ? :)

The only hubris and arrogance I have is the mountains and oceans full
of hard evidence.  Where, exactly, is yours?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson)
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again...
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:25:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.202437.23671@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.180800.23864@bcrka451.bnr.ca> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:
>}Excuse me, but Vern (aka Gerald Vernon Nelson) appears to be an atheist,
>}not a creationist:
>
>That you should draw such a direct conclusion should itself be informative.
Informative of what?  I didn't "draw a conclusion"; he stated his position
plainly enough.  I said that he was not a creationist because someone
had just said that he was.

>Notice that "atheist" != "creationist".  Ever think why?
It is trivially obvious that atheists are by definition not creationists
--you can't have creationism (or even creation) without a creator.

The point that is being argued (I think) is whether evolution proves
atheism.  Most creationists (or as I prefer to call them Theistic 
Anti-Evolutionists) agree with this; this is why they object to 
evolution.  I have myself argued with TAEs against evolution=atheism.
Every time a TAE comes on to t.o and says "evolution means atheism",
most of the t.o regulars jump on him/her and say, "no, evolution has
nothing to do with God".  An atheist comes on t.o, and says "evolution
means atheism" and gets almost the same reception.  I think this is
a good thing.  So, what's the problem? 
-- 
Seanna Watson   Bell-Northern Research, 
(seanna@bnr.ca) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Opinions, what opinions?  Oh *these* opinions. | Occam's razor split 
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine.           | hairs so well, I bought 
I knew I'd left them somewhere.                | the whole argument.
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll (47% believe young earth creation)
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:47:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <47557@shamash.cdc.com>, dternes@mips.COM (David Ternes) writes...
>In article <1992Sep8.195029.24950@isrc.sandia.gov> smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey) writes:
>>
>>A December 1991 Gallup poll showed that 47% believe that God created 
>>humans as we appear now, and that God did it about 10,000 years ago.
>>
>I'm curious about how the question was phrased.

"Man was created pretty much in his present form about 10,000 years ago."
This was supported by 47%, rejected by 49%.  39% of men and 53% of women
supported it.  Of those who supported evolution, 80% said they believed
in God.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: I Visited the icr ...
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:53:57 GMT

In article <27014@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>, wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce
Watson) wrote as follows:

> I think we can safely ignore them [the fundies].  They will never go
> away, but unless civilization collapses, they will never dominate.

Maybe yes, maybe no.  However, we weren't talking about fundamentaists
so much as about "scientific creationists" like those at the ICR.
Although they and their supporters are decidedly in the minority,
nevertheless, in the USA, Canada, and Australia particularly, they can
do and have done real damage to the quality of science teaching.

What was particularly good about the original "I Visited the ICR in
Person" posting is that it spectacularly demolished the ICR's public
stance that it takes when talking to those other than its core
supporters: that it is advancing a scientific argument.  For a lot of
the public, this apparent hypocrisy will be a quite damning point.
Skeptical generalists, biologists, geologists, astronomers, etc.,
frequently engage in debate with ICR-type creationists on particular
points of evidence, on the absence of creationist scientific theories,
and on the illogic of suggesting that attacking evolution supports
creationism (the "if it's not the Fourth of July, it must be Christmas"
fallacy).  This is a helpful and necessary thing to do (WHEN done
properly and fairly!).  However, the general public responds to all this
by guessing that there must be some merit to each side, and so
acquiesces to the "fair compromise" of watering down science teaching.
When the ICR is seen to be -- um -- tailoring its fundamental approach
in this way, the public gets a VERY different picture, and more
seriously questions what it hears.

Best Regards,
Rick Moen, Director
Bay Area Skeptics
Editor, _BASIS_

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16266 talk.origins:11187
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Date: 11 Sep 1992 06:33:42 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Sep10.181721.19723@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>Hey, given the way biotechnology's been advancing the last few years, the
>prospect of live dinosaurs isn't all THAT unbelievable. :-)

Anybody remember the April Fool articles in Scientific American some years
back.  One was a supposed counterexample to the (then unproven) four color
theorem, and another reported some DNA or a cell taken from a wooly mammoth
carcass was being used with a modern elephant as surrogate mother to
produce a modern mammoth.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.rumors
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Kudos to My Many Fans
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:22:38 GMT

In <1XX666XX@defect.kgb.su> lho@defect.kgb.su (Lee Harvey Oswald) writes:

>Comrades, my only two dreams in life were to be a spy, or an assassin,
>and to get laid. I have achieved my dreams but I am still disgruntled.
>Lately, I've become quite spectacularly annoyed at the drop-off in net
>traffic from my supporters and admirers. I'm beginning to think that
>everyone's name has finally been added to everyone else's KILL file.
>And how would you like to be added to my KILL file, fellow patriot?

Lee! Good to hear from you again!

So...how's Elvis?
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:38:44 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <LEET.92Sep14084057@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
}I visited last night with Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov of Russia, and he said
}that Russian scientists have been converting to creationism on the basis
}of the scientific evidence,

Specifically, WHAT evidence?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dhenry@plains.NoDak.edu (David Henry)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:20:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: plains.20236
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Sep5.005755.415@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.132528.6672@bony1.bony.com> billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
>>In article <9qhn+lf.alc@netcom.com> stassen@alc.com writes:
>
>>>3. Contact the Flat Earth Society (I don't have the address handy, but
>>>   I posted it a while ago).  They will provide you with materials and
>>>   show you how to fight the evil humanistic belief that the earth is
>>>   round with true evidence and Biblical information that shows otherwise.
>
>>Funny, my Bible says "He compasseth the day from the night" indicating
>>that the earth is a sphere (round).
>
>	And where in the Bible is this? That's so I can compare to
>some modern-English translation (let's not forget the the original
>texts were _not_ in King James English :-).

Which, of course, has been proven in another thread as hardly anything
of importance, since, of course, there have been no mistakes in
translations of the Bible (which, I guess, goes well with a "no mutation"
standpoint).

"God loves ya, but Satan pays the bills."
	--Frank Jesse, in Richard Darwin #22


-- 
David R. Henry - Rogue Fan Club - CTHULHU in '92! Why vote for LESSER evils?
For Kate is a jealous God, and requires sacrifice./What was your question?--K
"All you of Earth are IDIOTS!"-P9fOS // Thanks... for the memories.--Rogue
dhenry@plains.nodak.edu * ud137927@ndsuvm1.bitnet * ud137927@vm1.nodak.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From:  (Michael Snider)
Subject: Re: Info needed: change in ratio male/female
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: BNR
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:22:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.165632.26946@syscen.com>, judiths@eliot.uucp (Judith
Speck) wrote:
> 
[ in response to claims that age of mother impacted male/female birth ratio
]
> 
>   Wait a minute....this makes absolutely no sense.  What has the Mother got
> to do with the gender of the child?  I thought it was a game of "The fastest
> Sperm Cell Wins!"  Where did you get that age-of-mother factoid?
> 
> 
> Just curious....
> 
> Judith

The higher mortality rate of male fetuses means that age, health, and diet
of
the mother can affect the birth ratio, if not the conception ratio, of
males to females.  Makes evolutionary sense because in hard times female
offspring, while not having many children themselves, are still likely to
have _some_, while male offspring are likely to be shunted aside.  In good
times, males may be able to have many offspring--hemlines get higher with
the stock market :).  Kind of contradicts the not uncommon cultural
practice of female infanticide.  Sorry not to have sources, but I think
Stephen Jay Gould discusses it in conjunction with various reproductive
strategies appropriate to abundant versus scarce resources.

***** Michael Snider ********** alas, no email, so reply by post ******

Talk of fame, honor, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt compared with
affection.
                                                   Charles Darwin          

Critics quarrel with other critics. With an artist, no sane man quarrels.  

                                                   George Santayana