HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Worse than AIDS
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:51:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.131245.6750@sei.cmu.edu> dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
>I don't have figures for hepatitis or TB, but according to the US
>Department of health, the following were leading causes of death in
>the US in 1990.  I'd be curious to know how these figures correlate to
>dollars spent on research and solutions.
>
>                        Rate per
>Rank    Cause           100,000         Percent
>
>1.      Heart disease   289.0            33.5
>2.      Cancers         201.7            23.4
[...]
>13.     AIDS              9.6             1.1

More important than just raw numbers of deaths are years of lives lost.
Realistically, a disease that kills twenty-nine people a year early is
of less significance to society than a cause of death that kills one person 
forty years early.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:46:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.161332.12048@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>If I happen to see my house burning down, with a bunch of fire trucks around
>>it, and crowds of people gawking at the whole scene I *don't*have*any*
>>*rational*choice* to believe it's not happening.
>
>If a croud of people are gathered around the supermarket, 50 miles from
>your house, saying that your house burned down, you have to believe
>it?  Did you actually _see_ animals 1,000,000 years ago?  If you did,
>you have more to offer science than theories.

If you find a recently run over dog can't you conclude that there where
living dogs on the planet several days ago? 
If you find a fossil dog (wolf) in 1,000,000 rock wouldn't you conclude
that there where dogs on the planet 1,000,000 years ago?

>>btw, what are these parts of the picture you think I'm missing?
>
>The world and its purpose is large and complex.  It is also only a
>small part of the greater plan of existance.  None of us have the whole
>big picture.

We have more evidence for 1,000,000 year old animals than we do for
a God, why should I believe this statement if you are unwilling to
even accept the virtually flawless evidence for animals existing 1,000,000
years ago?

>>Pardon me, but saying "there's a purpose, but I don't know what it is" seems
>>a bit irrational to me.  Saying "I don't know what purpose it could have,
>>but it's purpose couldn't possibably be for dating" is even more so.
>
>While I don't agree with you on this, how rational (in your definition)
>is, "The only possible reason these exist is to show that the world os
>old and that all species originated through evolution."

But why should I believe in a God whom there is no evidence for, and
try to worm my way out of the enourmous evidence for evolution, when instead
I can believe in evolution and not have to try to explain away anything?

>>Please back up your claim that evolution disproves God's existence.  As far
>>as I've seen, evolution is remarkable silent on that issue.
>
>I didn't claim that evolution disproves God's existence.  I claimed
>that many who post in favor of evolution claim that the "evidence"
>proves (at least) God's uninvolvement.

It proves that it can happen without God's involvment, and given the
utter lack of evidence for a God or his involvement why should we assume
God was involved?

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15357 talk.origins:10337
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:21:43 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug27.164444@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.152905.11781@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
>writes:

>> Try to remember that "believes in the creation" is not the same as
>> "believes in creation science."
>
>  If you feel creationism is not founded in science, why are you trying to alter
>science?  Leave them separate and there is no real problem.

I am not trying to alter science, as such.

I got into this discussion trying to make the point that science
needn't be so hostile toward religion.  That was all.

BTW, in that it seems to be another net term of loaded meaning, I am
not so sure that I believe in "creationism" as you use it.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15225 talk.origins:10246
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution does not assume there is no God.
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:38:51 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug27.172808.12707@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>Note that all science tends to proceed from the assumption to ignore
>God in the process.  The reason that I feel this is inappropriate in
>this case (personally I feel it is wrong in all cases == opinion) is
>that this is a question of the origin of Man.  I do not feel that I am
>the result of random permutations of slime.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  But I find it hard to
understand why we are wasting many hours and kilobytes trying to
change your opinion.  There's obviously no rational argument that would
really have the effect of getting you to change your opinion.  Your
mind is made up and no amount of claims that "God's actions have not
been observed" are going to make the slightest amount of difference
to you.

But we have made "progress".  You have (after 42 posts and 173 replies)
finally admitted that your opinion is based on your need that "Man" be
"special".  This is, of course, fundamental to your theology.  So,
we are going to have a very difficult time trying to persuade you that
it isn't true.  Let's give up now and not bother to try.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15244 talk.origins:10261
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS (long)
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Distribution: world,local
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:13:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.171417.3551@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
|> What about the AIDS speaker at the Republican convention?  She
|> didn't fit any high risk group i.e. drugs, homosexual or
|> hemophilliac person, etc.  She just happened to have a husband who
|> did.

The article about Duesberg has him saying there has always been a low incidence
of AIDS cases.  Presumably concepts of high risk groups are needed only to explain
rates of disease above normal (i.e. background) levels which are extremely low but
not zero percent of the general population.

Or maybe Duesberg is wrong.

I only saw a 10 second soundbite of this speaker.  It did NOT appear that she had AIDS.
I presume they had her speaking because she's HIV positive.  I don't know - question for
the net.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15385 talk.origins:10364
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:21:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.171435.16286@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew
Lawson) writes:
> When I say I have the one answer, I am irrational.
> When you say you have the one answer, you are scientific.

Scientists don't claim to "have the one answer."  They claim to have AN
answer, which happens to be the only one we know of which accounts for
all the known data.  The discovery of new data might blow down the whole
house of cards; until it does (or until somebody comes up with an
alternative answer that's more robust), this is what we have to work
with.  But the history of science is FULL of incomplete or inaccurate
"answers" being replaced by more-complete, more-accurate ones; the
search for these new answers is what science is ultimately about.

Claiming to have "the one answer" implies that no other answers are
possible; this is not a scientific position but it IS a common religious
position.  The fact that I don't buy any answers you've suggested so far
doesn't mean I won't be convinced by your next proposal; all you have to
do is account for the data.

> What about prophets for millenia testifying of his message?

Well, what about them?

A longstanding tradition of people spouting unsubstantiated claims about
the nature of the universe is not evidence that these claims were, are,
or ever will be correct; it's evidence that for thousands of years,
people have been spouting unsubstantiated claims about the nature of the
universe.  People have been having psychotic episodes for ages, but
until I see physical evidence supporting their stories, I'm disinclined
to take their accounts of their dreams, visions, and voices as accurate
and literal revelations about the physical world.

---------

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:14972 talk.origins:10058
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:05:57 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


  lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>
> The world  ...   has existed in its current state (post-fall)
>  for roughly 6,000 years and will end its fallen existance and be returned
>  to perfection.


Drew, do you feel that this statement is science?  Religion?  Both?

I have no problem with the above statement as religious doctrine.

It's not science.

---
Joel Hanes
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15592 talk.origins:10497
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Damning with faint praise (was: Logic and God)
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:24:49 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: alt.weemba
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)

In article <1992Aug31.205600.7301@centerline.com>, mrh@centerline (Mike Huben) writes:
>> > This is just gibberish.  As a historian, you're an idiot.

>> Well, I guess you told him!  Nice, well thought out intellectual
>> conversation here.

>No, Matthew is right.  Insulting, but right.

I was not insulting.  I was, am, and will be Obnoxious.  Remember that.

>TOP 10 FAVORITE THINGS ABOUT MATT WIENER:

[10)-1) omitted.]

> 3) Inured to insult, ridicule, or exposure of his own errors: he will
>    respond for as long as you want to.

Actually, I don't think I'll ever get inured to people spelling my name
wrong.  That's M-A-T-T-H-E-W W-I-E-N-E-R for those of you, like Mike
here, who are sitting so far back from your terminal that reading my
minuscule is problematic.

> 1) Mentioned in "The New Hacker's Dictionary" as a particularly notorious
>    flamer (see entry "newgroup wars").

See Followup-To supra.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The Evolution vrs. creationism debate
Keywords: The debate
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:16:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <10043@jthome.uucp> dtyler%jt_home.uucp@amber.athena.lkg.dec.com (David Tyler) writes:
>2. Talk to a scientist, find out what happens when two people with the SAME
>gentic-makeup breed and have offspring. If the Adam and Eve theory where
>true, we would all be idoits! 


Aha!  Proof positive that the Adam and Eve theory is true!  :-)

   Robert

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
From: matth@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Matthew Hannigan)
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Summary: toast and soup - yum!
Organization: AODC, but I don't speak for them.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:27:26 GMT

In article <64743@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
>And another source says that ETs have bread with earth stock many different
>times.

Yeah?  I have toast and butter with soup made from stock many different
times.  Is this a similar deal?  I have heard of earth eaters, tho'.

matt@aodc20.aodc.gov.au
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15272 alt.culture.usenet:732
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself Again
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:42:38 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Aug27.035211.11619@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.023116.6935@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>The language you use on the net is an act. You are comparing your acts
>>with my veiws. At least compare apples with apples.
>
>When you deliberately ask questions that you know have misleading implications,
>you are performing acts too, not expressing opinions.  (Example: asking how
>science explains so-and-so; the misleading implication is that you don't
>believe science can explain so-and-so.)                        ^^^^^^^^^^
                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                      That is an assumption.

Ken, you persist in displaying this tremendous psychic ability of reading
my mind and motives. That's pretty bold stuff on sci.skeptic. You've got guts.

BTW, I think Dan is clever enough to answer for himself, without your psychic
assumption making.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:12:04 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.

>Was the woman "HIV positive" or was she "dying of AIDS".  Duesberg
>claims these terms are not synonymous.  e.g. "Magic Johnson" while
>"dying of AIDS" is somehow in such fantastic condition that they're
>wondering if he should continue with professional basketball.   I wish

Of course they're not synonymous. No one claimed that they are. Duesberg
claims much more than this, namely that AIDS is actually just junkies
dying in their time-honored way. Has he bothered to try to suggest a
mechanism behind this bizarre notion? How does his putative non-HIV AIDS
know to kill people who inject their coke or heroin, but not those who
smoke it?



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: Faq List for skeptics
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:41:55 GMT

>>>>> On 25 Aug 92 09:34:29 GMT, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) said:

Rick> 9.  Isn't skepticism a closed-minded, dogmatic position?  How can you
Rick> pretend to do impartial inquiry when you are logical positivists /
Rick> fundamentalist materialists / secular humanists / ... ?

Is this really a fair assessment of skeptical philosophy, or are there
many skeptics who would disagree with the principles espoused in
either version of the Humanist Manifesto?

This is an honest inquiry, not a desire to start a debate.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
Integrated Measurement Systems |  And the son of man, that thou visitest
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  him?" - Psalm 8:4
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  





Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:18:07 CDT

Drew Lawson (lawson@acuson.com) wrote:
: 
: I still have a problem understanding how anyone can claim to _know_
: what happened 500,000 years ago.

You may find this incredible to believe, but I know some people who
claim to _know_ what happened 6000 years ago based on the word of
someone writing 4000 years ago, 2000 years later.  They also claim that
everything this person wrote is more factual that anything that
you could ever experience with your five senses.  They claim that
if your senses ever disagree with their interpretation of what
this 4000 year-old writer meant, then the evidence of your senses
should be denied and the word of this ancient writer should be
accepted as the only truth.

Some of them even believe that you and I should be forced by law
to only be allowed to hear the words of the 4000 year-old man.

Incredible, isn't it?

rob derrick
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: mikem@ex.heurikon.com (Mike Mayer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:14:51 GMT
Reply-To: mikem@ex.heurikon.com (Mike Mayer)
Organization: Heurikon Corporation, Madison, WI

In article <00Xu02TV202t01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
#In article <BtutzB.Cn5@world.std.com> believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
#>
#>GOD gives you a CHOICE. The wages of sin are DEATH.
#>
#
#Please justify this remark for those of us who do not share your
#religion. Oh, and by the way, people who do not share your religion
#will not accept arguments that depend on the bible. If that is your
#only reasoning, then you have already lost the argument.
#
#Chris Lee

And please explain what you are left with after taxes.


--
Mike Mayer                                             mikem@heurikon.com
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:49:37 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <52660@dime.cs.umass.edu> michael@dime.cs.umass.edu
(Michael Kieras) writes: 
[...]
>                               How about a three-legged, five-legged, or
>seven-legged critter?  (Not relevant to the discussion, but does anyone
>know if such beasts even exist?)  

Starfish?

	RA
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15354 talk.origins:10335
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:49:52 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <BtoGq1.63B@well.sf.ca.us>, keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
> 
> 
> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>>Have you ever considered that the _entire_ purpose of life is to drive
>>around at night in a convertable with the top down listening to 12 bar
>>blues?
> 
> If you substitute "convertable" with "a '32 Lincoln" and "12 bar blues"
> with "early Duke Ellington", then Yes.
> 
> Keith

Different strokes for different folks.  Now, me.... I prefer a purebred
Arabian mare, a quiet trail through miles of meadow and woods and birds
singing.....

Sue

Yes, yes, I know, what has this got to do with origins? 

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:08:34 GMT

In <1992Aug26.132403.23389@tcom.stc.co.uk> bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.105555.12152@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.134138@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>>   An aside to Lionel Tun: did your aparthied is implied by evolution argument
>>>come out of your own skull, from a friend, or was it also generated by the ICR?
>>
>>I thought it was common knowledge. But also the characters in the book
>>`Indecent Exposure' by Tom Sharpe (sp?) believe in segregation of the
>>races, and actively enforce it by police effort, driven by evolutionist
>>philosophies.

>Hells teeth! Lionel "Looney Tunes" Tun's arguments get more absurd by the
>minute. What the hell does "Indecent Exposure" have to with anything? The
>book is a complete piss-take of the South African police force, and I
>can't recall any mention of "evolutionist philosophies" anywhere in it.
>Care to enlighten me as to where these "evolutionist philosophies" are
>mentioned and why they are relevant?

Wasn't apartheid in South Africa actually justified by *religious*
(nominally Christian) doctrine?  The same kind of "Biblically based"
racism that can still be found among some Fundamentalists in the US?

>-- 
>Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!stc!bruce
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15805 alt.culture.usenet:774
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself -- Netiquette & Politeness (Was: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...))
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:53:32 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Sep1.155459.1635@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.000512.29124@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>Bullshit.
>>
>>That's the kind of language I'm referring to. Carl, you've let Dan corrupt
>>you. You're degenerating. Take those tablets quick.
>
>If you don't want to see me using that language, then stop spouting your
>bullshit.  Actually, it wasn't Dan who corrupted me this way, it was a fellow
>by the name of Richard P. Feynman.

[....]

>.... he didn't give a
>damn about status, and he was quite willing to use strong language when a moron
>refused to either listen to him or quit pestering him.
>

Hmmmm, justifying your actions because "someone else does it." That's fallacious
argument #1193, your arguments are degenerating with your language.

Take some more of those tablets.

>Have you ever heard James Randi speak?  I didn't think so.  Randi wouldn't be
>the least bit uncomfortable participating in sci.skeptic.  Really, Derek, one
>of these days you ought to try to get into the habit of knowing something about
>what you're talking about before you say something.
>

Would Randi be quite happy using language like s**t in Court during the
Geller trials?

Not likely. So then why should sci.skeptic be any less professional than a
court? But if that's they way a majority of netters like it then I can say
no more.

>>I must be some kind of masochist, myself, to still keep hanging around.
>
>No, you're simply an idiot.

I agree I must be.... by association.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15166 talk.origins:10199