HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:44:43 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <27ri039q5eCW00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
> Dan wrote:
>>>>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, you have asked me to explain the above, but then apologized
> for confusing me with someone else after I've informed you that it
> wasn't me who mentioned those issues in the first place. If this is
> how you define "consistently ducking," then so be it, there's not
> much more I can do for you in this matter.
> 

I am repeating myself.  *I* have asked you in the past to discuss this.
You refuse.... WHY?  Since you believe that the earth, man and all living
things are much younger than the evidence shows, how do you explain the
above items I mention?

You say you aren't ducking the issues.  I did confuse you with someone
else at an earlier date.  But I am asking *YOU* now.... Well?

Sue

> -- 
> Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
> {apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14763 talk.origins:9831
From: mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:53:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Aug21.035350.26784
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:

>skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>>jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>>>> If God's intention was to confuse us wouldn't he have
>>>>made the tree rings, ice cores, lake bottoms, and coral reefs all
>>>>disagree to some extent as a hint?

>>>His intention was not to confuse us.

>>If he didn't intend to confuse us, then why did he do this?  Mr. Omnicience
>>surely would have known what what such things would have been taken for.

>Who says he *did* confuse us, I'm sure not confused. Maybe it's the
>interpretation of the data that's confusing you?

You are *ABUNDANTLY* confused. You have *NO* interpretation of the
above data, and have told us so. You have *NO* evidence for evolution,
even though you sometimes pretend you have presented it. You have *NO*
account of creation that you are prepared to defend. I can produce
_DOZENS_ of quotes that show just how exactly how confused you are.

>-- 
>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
>{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

	Max G. Webb
-- 
mongo@techbook.COM          ATT: 1-503-227-1284
SNAIL: 1983 nw Flanders #205, Portland OR 97209
From: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: calling "planet." (personal message)
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:34:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

In article <7v4m8h@lynx.unm.edu> swells@triton.unm.edu (Earth-daughter) writes:
>dear "planet" -sorry for the public e-mail.
>i've not heard from you in a while and i've lost your
>address.
>
>do you still exist in net.land or have you finally been
>bumped off?
>
>shannon

Hmmmmm ... just which planet bound maroon are you looking for?
Samurai_Writer
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensas farce?
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:07:19 GMT
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

In all fairness to Mensa, when Robert McGrath attacks them he should
state whether or not he meets their entrance requirements. Otherwise,
it sounds like sour grapes.  

I easily meet their entrance requirements, but wouldn't be caught dead  
in that group of ego-stroking losers who populate Mensa...

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
Field Robotics Center,          | all men are created equal, that they are
Carnegie Mellon University      | endowed by their Creator with certain
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | unalienable Rights, that among these are
(412) 268-3856                  | Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
                                | That to secure these rights, Governments are
The opinions expressed are mine | instituted among Men, deriving their just
and do not reflect the official | powers from the consent of the governed.
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | That whenever any Form of Government becomes
or any other organization.      | destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
                                | the People to alter or to abolish it...
                                | Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:08:14 GMT

In article <5129@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
writes:
> Please, Dan, keep the exchange kind of polite.  

   I tried that last time with this guy.  He spat smoke and waved mirrors til I
felt ill.

> I know that the C-word
> ("Correct") can provoke rage, but arguments don't gain force by calling
> your esteemed opponent "bastard" and "scurrilous" and also not by inferring
> that his utterances are a "lie" (and a "damn" lie too).

   That wasn't an argument.  That was a firmly held statement of belief
intended to rile him into supporting his statements.  This time.
 
> We all know that you meant: "This is at variance with the situation as seen
> by most people. Your way of inventing politically loaded terms is not
> very conducive to a rational discourse. There is no IC standard [etc.]. 
> Your suggestion, above, [etc.] ... "
> The why not write what you mean?

   I did write what I meant.  The bastard etc. comes not from my dislike of his
view but rather from my past experience that makes me utterly certian that,
having leveled a serious charge, my "esteemed opponent" will walk away without
supporting it.  That was _not_ an ad hominem attack on his argument.  I was 
insulting him apart from his argument.  Thanks for allowing me to clarify.

   Needless to say I would be delighted to see him support his views.

   There seems to be a belief, firmly held by many, that a scoundrel should be
given as many chances as he needs to cease being a scoundrel.  This post I
lambasted came on the heels of a long, careful Socratic demonstration that
people that think the earth is young have no evidence and are dumber thab Dan
Quayle.  My "esteemed opponent" stated that humanity is young and backed up
that statement by impling that the view humanity is old is the result of some
sort of indoctrination conspiracy.  Reason fails...

What does being polite to a known net.scoundrel gain me?  What is the
philosophical basis for being polite no matter how many times one has been
bloodied?  The only advantage I see is that it demonstrates my moral fibre.

> JWN

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"It is as useless to argue with those that have renounced the use and authority
of reason as to administer medication to the dead"
-Thomas Paine.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14479 talk.origins:9599
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:42:44 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>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, you have asked me to explain the above, but then apologized
>> for confusing me with someone else after I've informed you that it
>> wasn't me who mentioned those issues in the first place. If this is
>> how you define "consistently ducking," then so be it, there's not
>> much more I can do for you in this matter.
>> 

>I am repeating myself.  *I* have asked you in the past to discuss this.
>You refuse.... WHY?  Since you believe that the earth, man and all living
>things are much younger than the evidence shows, how do you explain the
>above items I mention?

To say that I refuse is putting it rather harshly, especially with
an issue I've never mentioned myself. I have never, ever made any
claim to have enough knowledge of the above issues to discuss them
in this forum.

>You say you aren't ducking the issues.  I did confuse you with someone
>else at an earlier date.  But I am asking *YOU* now.... Well?

I could use the same logic with you and any number of issues, and to
claim either of us are ducking the issues would be incorrect. Please
don't attempt to ridicule me, or attack my character, it just won't 
work and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

>Sue

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Date: 18 Aug 92 08:12:07 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

Enjoy, fellow skeptics, you know have the pleasure of the company of a
Finnish creationist!

In article <1992Aug17.164052.3560@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>bourd@jellyfish.cps.msu.edu (Robert Bourdeau) writes:
>>the  finest  graduated steps. He who rejects these views  on  the
>>nature  of  the geological record, will rightly reject  my  whole
>>theory."  Now,  130 years and billions of fossils later,  we  can
>>rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of  one
>>"connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest gradu-
>>ated steps." Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one
>>transitional  form  has  been found. All known  species  show  up
>>abruptly  in the fossil record, without intermediate forms,  thus
>>contributing  to the fact of special creation. Let's take a  look
>
>	Correct, with loose wrists. 

Absolutely false. There are *lots* of transitional fossils, however,
creationists refuse to call them such. I'm becoming convinced that
*NOTHING* would convince them, no matter how many transitional fossils
are found, creationists will always say 'oh, they're a separate species
altogether' or 'they're the same kind', whatever that means.
Of course they also thoroughly reject dating methods, even when they're
consistent with each other.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 05:07:57 GMT


Sounds like an interesting book.  Y'all know where I can lay my hands on 

copy in colorado?
Big Al.  Yes, as a matter of fact I *do* live in colorado.  It's a
beautiful place.  So thar.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14533 alt.alien.visitors:5818 talk.religion.newage:3788
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...)
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:40:31 GMT

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

: "It is as useless to argue with those that have renounced the use
: and authority of reason as to administer medication to the dead"
: -Thomas Paine.

But for some reason we keep doing it.  Sort of reminds me of golf.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Boy, am I glad it's
Rosemount Inc.                                |only 1971...
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14407 talk.origins:9545
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:20:42 GMT
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <1992Aug15.081905.10638@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> In article <1992Aug12.223009.669@mala.bc.ca> epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
>>
>>One of the arguments I've heard for its authenticity is that it did looked
>>stretched, as if it had ben draped over an actual corpse.
>>
> 
> Lorne, look at a photograph of it yourself. There is no horizontal stretching.

I was repeating an argument I had heard in favour of its authenticity, not
making that argument myself.  If the cloth was wrapped or draped around a
body, then the image should be stretched.  If the image is not stretched,
then that suggests that the image was not made in the way that pro-
authenticists say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman)
Subject: Re: Killing bers with handguns  (Was:  Re:  A random thought)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:11:15 GMT

In article <BD.92Aug12095025@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>I'm not against hunting in general (although it is not something I partake 
>in), but I just don't see anything sporting in shooting a sleeping animal 
>at close range.  Sorry.

The sport begins when the animal wakes up!
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:24:19 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Aug13.051200.23995@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:

>In fact these "doublets" lead to the hypothesis (the "Documentary
>Hypothesis" as the formal statement of it by Julius Wellhausen in the
>19c is called) that the pentateuch is actually four sources amalgamated
>by a fifth editor. This is recognised by all the leading religious
>learning institutes in the world, and was acknowledged by the Vatican in
>the "Divino Afflante Spiritu" in 1943.

Hey when I write a piece of documentation, building on other documents, if I 
find something like this I don't just put both versions in, I go check which 
is correct.  If it can't be checked, it must be coz the software isn't 
around anymore.............bye bye god
[nb i've been drinking this lunchtime]

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I've just been drinking Guinness, so can't think of a decent .sig  |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Killing bers with handguns (Was: Re: A random thought)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:11:29 GMT

 sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:

>In article <BD.92Aug12095025@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>I'm not against hunting in general (although it is not something I partake 
>>in), but I just don't see anything sporting in shooting a sleeping animal 
>>at close range.  Sorry.

>The sport begins when the animal wakes up!

	Indeed, the sport begins in trying to sneak up on the bear at all,
the critters not being known for awakening in a particularly social mood.
I am reminded of a particular incident in which Ted Nugent killed a wild
boar with only a knife.  I'd say the animal has a pretty good chance of
killing the hunter in both of these actions, and isn't that what makes it
a sport?

	Personally, I've taken deer with my .45 Ruger black powder revolver,
and enjoy hunting smaller game with it too.  I'd say my pistol has some
"sporting use" inherent in its design.  The best sport, of course, is in
confronting another armed individual who bears me no good will.  Be it a
tresspasser who has shot a deer on my land or a burgular in my home, it
is indeed a situation ripe with danger for both parties.

	BTW: After a few scary incidents of running off tresspassers, I
have since started working in concert with a friend.  Said friend uses
a scoped high-power rifle and hides in the trees.  If the situation turns
ugly, I suspect a sniper will be a good asset to have.  My own actions
will consist of flopping on the ground and trying to shoot from the prone
position.  The really ugly thing is that some people seem to justify
shooting a landowner just because they want to hunt without asking
permission.  I suspect these are the same dolts who don't even take their
gun out of the case until deer season, and then have the cleaning and
tuning done by a gunsmith because they are "too busy" to do it themselves.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 03:09:53 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Aug21.124541.693@mala.bc.ca> epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
>the idea of recent creation.  It is possible that a god created the
>universe and everything in it and, at the same time, created a long
>past history for all those things; that is, he did not create an
>illusion of age, but real age.  He did so five minutes ago :-).

Yes: this is known as "Last Tuesdayism". The objection to it is, does it
get us anywhere? We still have to act and think as though the history 
whose evidence we see really did happen. (I was about to suggest that only
a loony would think otherwise, but I wonder: if Everything is a simulation
running in a big computer, would it be possible to find evidence of this?
A certain "graininess" to the simulation? Flaws or inconsistencies in the
simulation, caused by glitches in the underlying computer or errors in its
programming? Maybe this is something for our data structures friend at 
Notre Dame to work on, if he decides that there's any reason to bother...)

I myself prefer "Next Wednesdayism", which holds that the Universe and
all our memories and all evidence of great age will be created next
Wednesday. Our present experience is God's anticipatory musing, or an
illusion of the Devil, as you prefer. See You Next Wednesday!

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
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
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:20:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.223009.669@mala.bc.ca>, epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug13.034055.26339@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
|> > In article <1992Aug11.192309.24760@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
|> >>In article <1992Aug11.035024.5531@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
|> >>|> Are there any reasonable theories as to how the 14th C artist pulled
|> >>|> off the image reversal???
|> >>
|> >>A reasonable possibility is that it was done through a variant of the
|> >>then-common method of rubbing:  slather a perfectly ordinary 14th
|> >>century demi-round carving of JC with perfectly ordinary 14th century
|> >>tempura paint, wrap shroud around it, press and rub gently and then
|> >>allow to dry.
|> >>
|> >>You get a negative of a 3-D image.  And the image even has all the
|> >>features of Christ's body that would be expected in the 1350's!
|> >>
|> >>Simple, but very effective.
|> >>
|> > 
|> > Hmmmmmmmmmm, don't buy it. The image would look stretched if that was the case.
|> 
|> One of the arguments I've heard for its authenticity is that it did looked
|> stretched, as if it had ben draped over an actual corpse.
|> 
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca

Exactly!  The image on the cloth is distorted in exactly the way you would
expect for something that was wrapped around either a corpse or a statue.
E.g., the bottom of the feet and the top of the head are depicted, just
as you'd expect if it was wrapped around a 3-D image.

I think Derek's intuition is probably incorrect.  This hypothesis is
certainly solid enough to require more than a "I just don't buy it."

Read Joe Nickell's book "Inquest on the Shroud".  He DEMONSTRATES how this 
method works.  He also gives a gazillion other reasons for thinking 
this is basically the right story.  PLEASE READ NICKELL'S BOOK.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins