HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:04:58 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <3666@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.155609.11922@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:

>>Don't pull statements out of context and make them look to be universal
>>when they were not made that way.
>
>The context was irrelevant.  The statement was silly.

Quoting out of context is irrelevant?  That's a new one on me.


>>>What DOES tell you that there is one?  Is it "intuitively obvious"?
>>>Is it "revealed truth"?
>>
>>It is a personal suspicion, consistent with what I know to be true.
>>But that suspicion is not proven or disproven.
>
>How could one prove or disprove the premise that the universe has
>a purpose?  Examine the evidence?  Ask an authority?  

>Say "I told you so" at the Second Coming?

Possibly, but I wasn't going to be the one to bring it up.


>>You cannot trust my statement further than you can trust Darwin's
>>statement.  They are both places to begin your own personal
>>investigation.  You seem to be impressed by the weight of one side.
>>I'm not certain you have examined the other side as closely -- which is
>>your choice, of course.
>
>What "other side"?  Do you have scientific evidence?  In 45 posts,
>I can't remember the slightest attempt by you to produce evidence.
>I must be extremely prejudiced.  I've ignored all your evidence.

45 posts?  I hadn't counted.

You have obviously ignored the many times I have stated that I do not
cling to creation science.  You keep asking me creation science
questions.

The two sides I see (since you ask) are accepting that the geological
"evidence" pattern is the origin of modern life on earth as opposed to
accepting that God created life on earth in its current forms.

The implications are significant.  If you take the first, you reject
  - man created in God's image (literally)
  - humans are children of God (both old and new testaments)

There are others, but if you're interested, you'll find them.


BTW, I've been weiting for at least a week for people to stop twisting
my words and asking for explanations so that thread this can die a
quiet death.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:46:06 GMT

michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras) writes:

>I guess the insects in question just walked differently back then, and
>it's only been recently that they've smartened up and learned to use all
>six legs to walk, eh?  Just dragged the other two along, right?  Ayup.

I suppose you've never heard of an idiom?  The Bible uses (just about)
every literary device there is...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: wilbur@starfish.cps.msu.edu (Brick Wilbur)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:06:49 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University

In article <2491@israel.nysernet.org>, warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:
|> In <64743@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
|> >And another source says that ETs have bread with earth stock
|> 
|> I thought they just eat earth people raw.  Never heard of them making
|> a soup and eating it with bread.

Now, THAT'S comedy!!   Good Reply...too funny!

|> -- 
|> /|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
|>  |__/__/_/     So I went to the kitchen, but WALNUT PANELING whup me upside
|>  |warren@      mah HAID!! (on no, no, no.. Heh, heh)
|> / nysernet.org 



Brick
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15344 talk.origins:10330
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:12:14 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug27.010245.24253@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>And Drew Lawson replied:
> 
>>In its most common usage, it starts from a presumption of very simple
>>life forms (single celled, no-nucleus, etc.)  It is used to explain all
>>current life forms.  This is pretty close to a common usage definition
>>of where life came from.
>
>  Drew, this is a fairly technical point.  The scientific study 
>of the development and change of life over time is called "evolution".
>The scientific study of the origin of life from nonliving matter is called
>"abiogenesis".  Your not knowing this is no crime, of course, but it's
>an indication of how little you really understand of the 
>scientific study of these matters.


I thought that I was being clear enough, but I guess I wasn't.  I
suppose a specific example would be better.

What do you call the "scientific study" which explaind the origin of
the horse?  Are you going to tell me that this is not evolution?

If you are, and that is the consensus of those who study evolution, I
must confess profound ignorance.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Crop circles: natural or human-made?
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:31:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.200508.8383@lonex.rl.af.mil>, jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep2.043045.6050@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
|> >Keywords: 
|> >
|> >In article <1992Aug25.182729.21896@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith) writes:
|> >]>>
|> >]>>
|> >]>>       o
|> >]>>
|> >]>>     o O   o
|> >]>>
|> >]>>       o
|> >]>>
|> >]>>in a field... about 5 minutes after takeoff towards the North.
|> >]>
|> >]>Looks like the constellation of Cygnus.
|> >]>
|> >]It's not a crop circle anyway, I see loads of circular plantings whenever
|> >]I fly over the great plains and I'm pretty sure they were plowed that way.
|> >
|> >No, this is not a circular planting. All circles were contained within
|> >the same field. The largest appeared to be about 100-200' in diameter,
|> >with the smaller ones maybe 1/2 to 1/3 the diameter. It looked just
|> >like the photos of "real" crop circles I have seen.
|> >
|> >I also have seen lots of circular plantings. They look very different.
|> >
|> >-- 
|> >John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
|> >john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
|> > - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
|> > - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
|> 
|> Could they have been circular irrigation systems?  
|> -- 
|> jft
|> "And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
|> to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
|> with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe

Actually, it looks like a cross to me, and is most likely the product of
agri-graffiti-ists (if I may construct a single word out of several 
different linguistic roots).  The fact that it is visible from commercial
air routes is certainly consistent with this hypothesis, and circular
crop circles are the easiest to make--one guy holds a pole in the ground, 
a rope is attached, other guys hold the rope and march in concentric 
circles.  Try it with two pencils and a piece of string on a piece of
paper, you get a wonderful spiral effect.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Transactional Analysis
Summary: Is T. A. a valid scientific theory?
Keywords: Psychology, Transactional Analysis
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:41:44 GMT

Hello, skeptic folks.

After reading Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name of
Science", in which theories like General Semantics and Psychodrama are
seriously questioned, I could not avoid asking myself what skeptics
think about Transactional Analysis, a psychological theory of
personality and a psychotherapeutic method introduced by Eric Berne in
the late sixties. I read two Berne's books, "Games People Play" and
"What do you say after you say hello"?, and other books by other
authors in which T. A. is combined with other methods, like Gestalt
therapy. They all sounded quite reasonable to me, and I found the
Parent/Adult/Child model of the personality very elegant, although a
little simplistic.

So, is T. A. a valid scientific scientific theory? Or is it another fad?
I hope to hear some opinions soon.

Thanks in advance to all those who reply or followup.

Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso
iordonez@mitras.mty.itesm.mx

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:35:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.162442.12200@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>I don't know where you get the idea that I reject biology.  I reject a
>specific attempt at historic reconstruction.  That has little bearing
>on the biology of living species.  

On the contrary, it is fundamental to the biology of living species.
Evolution, in the sense of the origin of living species in descent
with modification from common ancestors (as opposed to specific
mechanisms *for* evolution, such as Darwin's theory), is the unifying
principle that makes biology a science rather than a vast excercise in
descriptive cataloging. Read Stephen Jay Gould. Evolution is as
fundamental to biological science as the laws of kinematics are to
physical science.

York Dobyns		ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Derek Tops Dan!
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:26:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.011451.27211@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>What he probably doesn't understand is that a situation that has gone PAST
>reasoning & logic, can be turned around to become reasonable again.
>The way you do it is by being friendly & polite & and to guide the person
>by asking a series of questions rather than making hurtful statements. So that
>you win their trust and they discover for themselves that they are wrong.

This does not follow.

And questions often _are_ unfriendliness and impoliteness.  If someone asks me
if I'm _really_ sure that Jews do not kill Christian babies and drink their
blood, that's basically an insinuation, not a question.  Or questions which
imply that science cannot explain something, even though they are _phrased_
to _literally_ indicate only that the questioner is unaware of any such
explanation.

If you think otherwise, I have quite a few questions for you, and I hope you
will answer them....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15833 talk.origins:10756
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Bill Riggs _astounding_ ignorance of basic biology
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:41:20 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)

>>Abiogenesis is not a fact (IMHO) as an alternate hypothesis exists
>>(panspermia).

>Then we have to ask where the original seeds came from.  Unless
>they've existed from the moment of the big bang, abiogenesis must
>have occurred sometime and somewhere.

That's it!  Of course!  Life formed at a naked singularity or maybe
from a white hole, spitting out high level objects completely at
random.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu (Cosma R. Shalizi)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Worse than AIDS
Date: 29 Aug 1992 20:24:30 GMT
Organization: Vampire Research Group at Berkeley :)
NNTP-Posting-Host: headcrash.berkeley.edu
Summary: AIDS vs. TB: Where are you talking about?

In article <17j5f5INNne0@agate.berkeley.edu> shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.153654.202550@uctvax.uct.ac.za> bbbbre01@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Doon) writes:
>>Don't more people die of hepatitis and TB than of AIDS?
>
>No, at least not in the United States.  In 1988, there were 16.2K AIDS
>deaths, 2K tuberculosis deaths, and 1.3K viral hepatitis deaths.  Source:
>Statistical Abstract of the United States.
>
>Ken Shirriff				shirriff@sprite.Berkeley.EDU

   Indeed, but I sort of suspect Doon meant world-wide, in which case I'd
be very surprised if AIDS killed more people than TB, and flabbergasted if
it was worse than malaria, even in, say, Uganda.
	Cosma Rohilla Shalizi
	lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu to friends
	larval physicist
"Of course I want to plunge the world into darkness - but a kindler, gentler
 darkness."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:32:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.083618@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <BtxDMC.EIx@andy.bgsu.edu>, jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu (James H. Kiley)
>writes:
>> Ohhhh, posts like this drive me nuts.
>> The bible wasn't written in English originally, you fool.  Vowel/consonant
>> ratios will *not* be the same in, say, Hebrew.
>
>   Really?  They make me giggle and laugh.  (*giggle|*  *laugh*)  Cough!
>Ahem...
>
>   Reading Mr. Kiley's detailed, careful, utterly correct refutation (incredibly
>using only 27 words, applause, applause) actually inspired
>in me the first axiom for the much requested Theory of Creation FAQ.

Er, Dan, James, perhaps you ought to reread the original post.  It said, just
before heading off into numerology,

>The New Testament begins with the genealogy of Christ back to
>Abraham. It is interesting to note that this genealogy itself is
>divided into three sets of 14: Abraham to David (14), David to
>Babylon (14), Babylon to Christ (14). See Matt. 1:17. It has two
>natural sectiond, verses 1-11 and 12-17. I am but giving some
>examples from the section 1 to 11, the latter section contains
>similar phenomena which need not be enumerated. The following now is
                                                 --------------------
>from the Greek, in whick the N.T. is written. The actual numerics are
 --------------
>by Dr. Panin.

I'm afraid James' refutation was somewhat off the mark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:53:06 GMT

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
: > 
: > Please name a science that does NOT evince strong evidence
: > for an ancient earth, and evolution by descent with
: > modification over deep time.
: 
: Um, computer science.  You know, the one science drew knows
: something about.  (Now there's something obvious to hindsight).
: 

Computer Science isn't.  Science, that is.  It's math, with a little
engineering thrown in when they want to actually accomplish something.
Last time I looked at the University of Minnesota, and when I was at
ISU also, most of the CS faculty started out with degrees in math, not
in one of the sciences.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Excuse me, but didn't I
Rosemount Inc.                                |tell you there's NO HOPE for
                                              |the survival of OFFSET
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |PRINTING?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:04:29 GMT

In article <26AUG199208520181@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>,
lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> Of course, the context provides none of this information that Archer seems
> to see so clearly.  In 2 Kings 2:1-22, Elisha watches Elijah ascend to
> heaven, then crosses the Jordan river and visits Jericho, where "the
> water is bad and the land is unfruitful" and Elisha miraculously solves
> both problems.  Verses 23-25 read:

  Actually some of this was there.  At the time worshipers of Baal were referred
to as "little infants" (the literal translation of "young lads").  Infants was
rewritten as lads for obvious reasons (infants don't talk) but it may have been
referring to them.  Also "baldhead" was (at the time) one of the gravest and
most deeply insulting things to call a person.  "Go up" was the current
equivalent of "drop dead".

  Of course, this hardly makes the event more paletable.

>    23  Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by
>    the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said
>    to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!"
>    24  When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the
>    name of the Lord.  Then two female bears came out of the woods and
>    tore up forty-two lads of their number.
>    25  And he went from there to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned
>    to Samaria.
> [end of chapter, end of account of Elisha until chapter 4]

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15447 talk.origins:10403
From: marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Summary: 4000-year-old man
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:05:14 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


well, if i actually met one, i'd certainly pay a lot of attention
to what he (she) had to say :-)

unless of course you mean mel brooks :-)

tom marlowe
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15141 talk.origins:10180
From: brian@mbf.UUCP (Brian Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:30:59 GMT
Organization: MAI Systems Corp.

In article <39EA03P761SV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
	>God may have known the effect, but maybe the deceiver himself, Satan,
	>is fueling mans pride, causing us to blame God for the deception.

If the deception exists, then who is responsible for it?

	>Maybe we shouldn't be messin' around where we're messin' around.

So now counting tree rings is a sin?

	>The Bible states that God will frustrate the intelligence of the
	>intelligent, and just maybe this origins debate is one of the 
	>frustrations.

Aaarg!!  Ted Holden was sent to us by God!

	>Maybe God never intended for us to try to figure out
	>how old the earth is, or how he created life. But man with all his 
	>pride must know, and for this pride, God frustrates those minds. 

Ah, so good christians shouldn't think too hard because they
might think about something bad.  Blank minds are pious minds.

-- 
Brian Davis					Early to bed,
MAI Systems Corp., Tustin, CA			And early to rise,
brian%mbf.uucp@ics.uci.edu			Until I have enough money,
						To do otherwise.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:51:17 GMT

In article <25952@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov 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.

Isn't there still a Flat Earth Society? :)

>Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character



-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS (long)
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:32:53 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <schumach.714875167@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>
>>I suppose you have not heard of the persons who have AIDS like symptoms,
>>but no HIV antibodies? Whatever else this might mean, it would seem to
>>demonstrate that a certain retro-virus may not be the cause, or assuming
>>that it is -a- cause, not the sole cause of immunodeficiency.
>
>This is not a threat to the idea that HIV causes classic AIDS. 

Well, it is supposed to be true that HIV <--> AIDS, a strict causal
connection, like "love and marrige" in the song, ya can't have one
without the other.

So yes, it is a threat to a strictly causal explanation. Or do you mean
'caused by HIV' when you say "classic"? In which case we again have a
case of cause by definition.

>                                                           After all,
>there are lots of ways for an immune system to screw up: why should it be
>surprising that, once we started looking for failing immune systems so
>intently, we would find a few (*) with various and unrelated causes? These
>other disorders could have been around forever, caused by who-knows-what,
>but no one noticed because we weren't looking very hard for such things.
>Now we are.

With the long lead time between infection and AIDS, it takes years for
one to show symptoms of AIDS. If there was another similiar desease, it
could spread in a fashion similiar to AIDS, and take just as long to be
detected. The extent of the non-HIV immunodeficiency problem is as yet
unknown.

BTW, I'm not implying that I know anything about the extent of the problem.
But unless you know what the cause of the other cases is, and how to detect
it, then neither can you. Hopefully these 40 cases are all there are. But
I would not bet money on it.
 
>(*) And I do mean a few. Less than 40 such are now known world-wide. As
>yet they appear to have no demographics in common, except that a few
>victims are the adult children of other victims.
>

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic