HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:34:14 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <18pek6INN5vf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes...
> 
>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.

Actually, I just heard a story on NPR (or maybe it was the BBC) about someone
who has found a piece of amber with some blood-glutted insect (or something
like that) which they speculate(*), presumably from the dating of the amber
and the anatomy of the insect, to contain dinosaur blood.  They have not
yet opened the amber to extract the blood.  But it seems to me that if true,
we could learn much about dinosaurs from a genetic analysis of the sample.
Whether we could clone a stegosaurus is another matter all together...

(*) The speaker claimed that it *was* dinosaur blood, but I think that
this was just some unwise hyperbole. 

-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: kalter@unh.edu
Subject: Re: Let's test the sevens-in-Bible phenomenon!
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:21:49 GMT

     Listen.  You know, I know, and everybody on our side of the fence
knows that the Poeople of the Book have significant motives to fudge
data, to not challenge fudged data, to resist claims that data has been
fudged, and to obfuscate when found out.  We know this has been going on
for a long time.  I do not need to be convinced that the masoretic text
straight out of the book is not sevenish.  I am not even convinced that
the test was even _DONE_ in the first place on _ANY_ whole bible.
     That's not the point.  The poinnt is, when I have an evangelical
tell me that the bible is sevenish and I express disbelief, HE can point
to a book written by a fellow who claims to have done the test for
sevens, AND I CAN'T.  At that point, he has purported hard evidence on
his side, WHILE I HAVE ONLY SUSPICION AND DOGMA.  Argument from such a
basis is futile.  (The true Jedi does not these things...)
     I'm not trying to convince me.  I'm not trying to convince you.
I'm trying to convince _HIM_.  Is that clear enought for you?
     Anyone can argue either side of the issue on his own free time, but
Skepticism runs on dogma at its own peril.  Anyone who defends a point
because it 'makes sense' or it 'has to be that way' etc may be correct;
he may be a Critic, a Doubter, a Cynic, a basher, even a Rationalist,
but he is not a 'Skeptic' in the sense in which it is used by the Skeptic
community.  Skepticism is often confused with Rationalism, an aniti-
religious belief system.  Skepticism is a method of investigateing claims
by analyzing them for confirmable facts and then either testing them or
looking up a reference to someone who HAS done the test.
     Does it make sendse now, why I said earlier that it was important
for the _*SKEPTICS*_ on this conference to look into the issue more closely?

(Pardon my typos - I hate this #%$ keyboard. :-) )
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Subject: Coded Scientific Info in the Bible???
Reply-To: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA USA
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:01:37 GMT

When I was in Brazil I knew a guy which is a Medicine Doctor, has 
lots of technical papers published in his field and, I remember, was 
also involved in deciphering  old books in the *very original* like 
the Bible, for instance. He argued that books like that has coded 
information on scientific research done by scientists (alchemists??) of 
the epoch which could not make their discoveries public for fearing  
of being killed. 

This guy told me that in a passage of Geneses of the Bible there is an 
explanation on how to make false gold (no mention on how to make 
*real* gold) and he told me that other parts of the Bible have other 
kinds of information like that just waiting to be deciphered (of 
course, you have to get hold of the original document so the code is 
not messed up after being translated to other languages). Does anyone 
know anything about that? Whether it is true or not? I would be glad 
if anyone could point me out to any references.

Claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov
From: dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Date: 7 Sep 92 11:38:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Yeeuz7600WB68Y8Ekv
Organization: Masters student, Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>Thank you very much for your excellent account of your visit
>to the ICR museum.
>
>I don't know much about the ICR apart from what I've seen in
>flames here. I am pleased that they are presenting the truth
>in this way and a museum seems an excellent idea. I pray for
>God's contunued blessing on the efforts of the ICR.
>
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)

Will someone PLEASE tell me this is a joke...will someone PLEASE
tell me there can't be religious zealots so blind they can't
accept things contrary to what they believe...

No?  Nobody can tell me this?  Damn.  Guess I need to lower my
appraisal of "the masses" a few more notches.

David
From: rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (Robert P.J. Day 277-3175)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:49:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.225905.2720@Princeton.EDU> ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns) writes:

  Well, actually, I'm not that interested in what Y. H. Dobyns wrote, all I
want to check is whether this #$%^#**&$^%(&*^ news program will actually
post to the net, or whether it will smile winsomely, promise me it's
posted, then savagely toss my deathless prose in the recycler.
  Well, did it get there?  Jim Lippard?  Chris Stassen?  Jim Meritt?
Anyone ? ...

R. Day
Feeling frisky and looking to waste a creationist or two ...
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Subject: Re: Voyager(TM) light and sound device
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep02.233220.3923@microsoft.com>
ryb@microsoft.com (Danger Mouse) writes:
 
>It's a small walkman-like box, with headphones and opaque glasses with two
>LEDs 3/4" apart over each eye. There are eighteen programs ranging from 10 to
>60 minutes in length; each program is a different sequence of flashing the
>LEDs and making a tone at varying frequencies. It appears the faster the
>flashing, the faster the tones, and so on. You have your eyes closed so
>patterns appear to form on your eyelids from the LED flashes. The headphones
>have a stereo mini-plug; from the patterns it seems the link is inside-inside
>LEDs & outside- outside LEDs.
>
>The idea is that the combination of audial and visual stimuli can alter your
>brain from beta to alpha, theta or delta states -- good for relaxation and/or
>subsequent study. There are various other wonderful benefits "users are
>reporting" which I'm not buying into -- if it at least works for relaxation
>it will be a boon to my wife who often has difficulty doing so. So far, from
>the two times she's used it, it appears to work, so we're going to get one and
>try it out for 30 days.
>
> Is there something to this idea of light and sound devices? The literature
>mentions a researcher in the 1940's named Gray Walter who discovered "photic
>"photic driving" -- that brainwave activity tends to fall into lockstep in-
>to lockstep with flickering light, particularly in alpha and theta range.
 
   There is something to the idea of light devices. Sound I can't say. The
brain, especially the occpital area, will lock into a light flashed in the
the theta (4-8 Hz) and the alpha (8-13 Hz) range(s). In fact, photic stim-
ulation is a standard neurodiagnostic procedure. But be careful-a small per
centage of normal people can get seizures from repetitive stimulation. If
your wife's an epileptic, don't even think about it!
    As far as Grey Walter, try his book "The Living Brain". I have a paperback
version, British, and the stuff about flicker is on page 80 following. And
his real name is W. Grey Walther.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Day After July 3, 1992
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 20:01:53 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Sep9.152124.5636@ncsu.edu> John_-_Marlboro@vax.ncsu.edu writes:
>
>The National Examiner ranks among the least credible of the tabloids,
>which are in themselves the least credible sources.
>

You mean that we can't believe everything in the _National_ _Examiner_?  
I thought that everything that was printed was true.  Afterall, why 
waste ink and paper on lies?


NOTE:  Read this several times before you trigger the flame thrower.  I
am not for real.  I'm an illusion.
From: martin@adpgate.UUCP (Martin Golding)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:44:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: adpplz.1556
Organization: ADP Dealer Services R&D, Portland, OR

lisjws@gdr.bath.ac.uk (J W Smith) writes:

> 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?

This is a good question, and if asked and understood on a regular basis
by the religious (and occasionally by the followers of science, a not
entirely disjoint subset) would perhaps improve relations all around.

Religion may give us "Truth". I shall hold that as an axiom. But does
your "second rate information that science gives us" follow? No religion
(of which I am aware) teaches us Euclidean geometry. Or math. Or electronics.
If you want to design a computer, the "second rate information" is the
only data that _applies_, God hasn't (in any religion of which I am aware)
declared the wonders of RISC, or disparaged string instructions.
If you want your property surveyed, no bible or other written religious
doctrine (of which I am aware) notes that very long lines are affected
by the curvature of the earth. The "second rate" data is of primary
importance for that subject. When I'm out riding my motorcycle, it is
of _immediate_ interest that motorcycles countersteer, and hopefully
irrelevant that there is an afterlife. 

This is important. Note this. Please listen:

By telling me that motorcycles countersteer, physics postpones my
direct encounter with God. Or whatever afterlife you prefer, there
are lots of them proposed and I don't intend to take sides here.
No religious literature (of which I'm aware) mentions motorcycles,
or that they countersteer, or that some have shaft drive. As long
as I ride with care, physics is critical, and religion irrelevant.

Religions may have more powerful or more encompassing Truths, but none
has all the Truths, or even a very long list of them. Science is to
discover the second rate, lesser Truths which are irrelevant to, and
ignored by religion, just as the more important Truths are irrelevant
to, and ignored by, science.


Unless your particular religion specifically rejects the fruits of
science, how can there be a problem, for you, with sciences coexistence
with your god or gods? If your religion does reject the fruits of
science, then what, if you'll pardon the expression the HELL, are you
doing _here_?


Martin Golding    | My opinions, mine, mine mine oh what the heck...
Dod #0236         |  here, you have them too.
[motcsd!]mcspdx!adpgate!martin
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jfreter@triton.unm.edu (The Myth)
Subject: Re: Let's test the sevens-in-Bible phenomenon!
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 17:32:19 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <4729384@gloin.unh.edu> Kalter@unh.edu writes:
>Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.  The skeptics are in
>business to investicate and test any testable claims of the extraordinary.
>The prospect that off-the-shelf original-language books of the Bible
>produce sevens when run through an objective formula has got to be
>THE MOST TESTABLE CLAIM ever to come down the pike.  It do, or it don't.
>Cynicism aside, anyone who knows that there is hard evidence on an issue,
>has not examined it, knows that another has made an observation, yet
>says "I don't need to see for myself; they're just WRONG!" does not
>truly adhere to the skeptic's philosophy.  A skeptic would insist on a
>second opinion.  BRING IN THE EVIDENCE. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

Which language should we do these tests in?  Should we do it in English,
ancient Greek, modern Greek, Swahili, or in pig-latin?  Which version
should we use?

By choosing the right version, I'm sure that we could prove that the bible
was written by the Pythagorean Reform Church (4), the Reformed Pythagorean
Reform Church (10), Satan (666), Euler (2.71828182846), or even some
imaginary person (i.e. SQRT (-1.0)).

These numbers games prove nothing other than the fact that the tester can
count and use a $5.00 calculator.
From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: NOTICE:"Bigfoot/Sasquatch" Sightings Request
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:23:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <195nacINNkap@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:
>
>   Not at all. I'm very interested in information which can lead to exposing
>hoaxed tracks, sightings, etc. I'm not looking to prove this possible unknown
>animal exists. I'm simply looking for the answer.

Someone posted a message several weeks ago referring to a travelling
exhibit of what was supposed to be "Bigfoot."  It was a large
ape-looking creature frozen in ice in a big glass case.  I saw it
back in the late 70's at West Acres Mall in Fargo, ND.  So, what's
the story on that exhibit?  It was clearly a fraud, but it would be
interesting to know what ever happened to it.  Being a Bigfoot
expert, maybe you are aware of it.


-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: my own stupidity (Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests)
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:22:13 GMT

Before anybody eats too much crow about the argument over
mistranslation, I'll note that I've been told, quite specifically and
explicitly, by Creationists and other species of fundamentalist
Christians, that translation errors in the Bible are impossible.  These
people told me that God watches over the translators, and ensures that
each translation is equivalent to every other translation as far as
spiritual or theological validity is concerned.

One of these informants also explained to me that the reason the New
Testament was originally written in Greek was that Greek is not subject
to processes of linguistic drift, so arguments about words meaning
something else at the time of writing are inapplicable to the New
Testament, at least in its Greek form.

I asked this last informant whether he could read any Greek, and he said
that he could not.  But he hastened to remind me that he doesn't NEED to
read Greek, since every translation of the Bible is protected from
error; his English version is by definition interchangeable with any
other version.

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16186 sci.psychology:3678
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:07:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: hilbert.1992Sep9.200732.12737
Distribution: na
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon

In article <1992Sep8.213440.4859@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>conscious, YOU will know. However, the brain reporting consciousness through
>some output device will NOT constitute evidence any more than executing */
>	main(){printf("Yes, I am conscious!\n");}                       /*
>does.
>
>So the question is undecideable by anyone but the subject of the experiment.

One used to be able to say the same thing about dreaming; only the subject
really knows if he is or was dreaming. Now, we know better; by measuring
brainwaves and REM activity, we can tell, _TO_ _GREATER_ _ACCURACY_ than
the subject herself exactly how much dreaming she has been doing. Your
hope (you have never justified it more than that) is that scientists will
never be able to do the same thing for consciousness.

>While there is much to be accomplished in psychology as an _applied_ science,
>I believe that as a _theoretical_ science it is doomed to failure. I may
>be wrong, but I believe that consciousness will never be adequately
>identified, and the psyche will never be integrated into the system
>of physical science.

You have use the TV set(brain), viewer (mind) analogy. You would like to
believe that the operations of the mind cannot be physically probed or
detected - but obviously, you claim the soul is affected by/affects the
brain. It immediately follows that at the boundary of interaction the
mind will be detectable. Even if all I look at is the TV, I can detect
the anomalous 'appearance' of kinetic energy to change the channel, and
effect the viewer by creating light of my own and asking him to report
any change. Immediately, I can determine two things about the viewer -
that he sees light in the visible range, and can exert force. Since the
viewer can see light, he must not be invisible (or he could not detect
light). And so on.

You cannot have it both ways - either the mind is hooked up to the brain,
and hence reachable at the interface, or the mind is NOT hooked up and
unreachable (and utterly irrelevant).

It is for reasons like this that dualism has fallen out of favor.

Regards,
	Max G. Webb.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (Robert P.J. Day 277-3175)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)REGISTER
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 11:04:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.165954.202740@uctvax.uct.ac.za> watkins@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>In article <25952@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>> In article <182qgkINN4jj@agate.berkeley.edu>, utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes...
>>> 
>>>SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE A THEORY!!! It can only dis-prove a theory.
>>>David Utidjian
>> 
>> That's an awfully myopic view of science.  Consider the following theories:
>> 
>> (1) The Earth is round.
>> (2) Atoms have nuclei.

  Technically, Mr. Utidjian is correct, as I'm sure several people ahead of
me have already pointed out.  There is no such thing as absolutely certainty
in science, so all the supporting evidence in the world for a theory cannot
really PROVE it, it only makes that theory more probable.
  However, science does allow one to reject possible theories because
of their conflict with empirical evidence.  Thus, science is, in a sense,
a search for truth through the elimination of competing hypotheses.
Ergo, in the words of Mr. Utidjian, science can only disprove a theory.

R. Day
Member, Alberta Skeptics
... the pit bull of skepticism ...

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.rumors
From: lho@defect.kgb.su (Lee Harvey Oswald)
Subject: Kudos to My Many Fans
Organization: The KGB Home for Aging Defectors
Date: 8 Sep 92 11:11:22 GMT

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?

                        -- Alek Hidell

P.S. Marina, you ignorant slut! You made love to The Second Oswald and never
complained.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori)
Subject: talk.origin FAQ
Organization: Canon Information Systems Research Australia
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:18:40 GMT

I don't get talk.origin here. Could anyone post a copy of the FAQ here or
e-mail them to me?
Thanks in advance.

       Enzo

Enzo Liguori - Canon Information Systems Research Australia 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Even more Worthless.
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:26:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.225531.13972@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
> In article <1992Sep14.084111@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:

             [conservative hipocracy about RU-486 deleted]

>|> used for cheap, safe abortions may condem a number of women to really 
             ^^^^^  ^^^^
For the woman.  I am aware of the screaming match going on about the
effect on the fetus vis-a-vis it's leagle status.

> 
> Oxymoron.

   I love the depth of debate and careful consideration of issues shown by both
sides of the abortion debate.  Folowups to talk.abortion which I don't read.

   A note to Mr. Titmas: don't you think it's a bit ironic to have a one word
reply to my article where I objected to sloganeering and failure to debate?
I will of course read e-mail replies (hint, hint).

> Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com              

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 92 19:26:27 EDT
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Organization: C-Set/2 Development, IBM Canada Lab.
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM

In article <2AA7BDDA.47C8@tct.com>,
chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>
>According to ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline):
   [Stuff deleted]
>Jehovah's Witnesses don't sell pamphlets (and we're not supposed to
>go to peoples' doors in large groups; that can be intimidating).
>Emily must have confronted some other group.

   It may very well have been another group. It was early on Saturday,
and I was not, initially, fully awake, so I likely missed it when they
proclaimed their particular faith.

   The second group were (according to them) JWs. It was a family -- Two
adults, and two children. While my friend's treatment of them was
undoubtedly very impolite, even more so than someone trespassing so as to
attempt to convert you to their faith (I still don't see why *any* of
these fringe religions do it -- it can't be very effective, and it sure
pisses off most everyone I know), It was hilariously funny.

Regards,
Ian.