HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the icr in p
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:50:29 GMT
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Org. 1600, Albq., NM

From article <27014@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>, by wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson):
> [.....]
> 
> Contrary to the impression they give due to the high level of exposure
> on TV, radio, and various other media, the Fundies comprise only about
> 1% of the religious population. Science and technology have eroded
> their positions long term and what we are seeing today is just
> a minor reversal of the overall trend. I think we can safely ignore

   There is no doubt that fundamentalists generate more exposure
than their numbers would make appropriate (especially in subjects related
to science where numbers are irrelevant), but their numbers are 
significantly above 1% if I'm not terribly mistaken.  The numbers of
ICR supporter types may be small, but a large segment of our population
believes this stuff.  A December 1991 Gallup poll showed that 47%
believe that God created humans as we appear now, and that God
did it about 10,000 years ago.  If this were just another example
of an "Americans are embarrassingly ignorant" poll we hear of regularly
I wouldn't be concerned any more than I am about a similar percentage not
being able to find Canada on a map or whatever.  However, I think most
of these people accept it as an article of faith, not just due to a
faulty educational (and social) system.  You are right that Science 
has eroded their positions, but the truly scary thing is that 
scientific disproof is apparently not terribly relevant to a very
large percentage of Americans (obviously non-Americans too).

	We have a major political party (guess which one) made up of
people who don't dare come out for science for fear of loosing 
support of these people.  Surely they are not this worried about
loosing 1% if they are willing to throw away the athiest vote (4%???)
and the gay vote (10%???) and others so quickly.  Of course I realize
that many of these people believe it and are not just afraid of
offending their supporters.

> a minor reversal of the overall trend. I think we can safely ignore
> them. They will never go away, but unless civilization collapses
> they will never dominate.

	You may be right, but I don't think so. They will definitely
never go away, but unless rational people oppose them, I do not
think we can assume they will never dominate.  They have had
some really scary successes.  Also, even if they do not dominate,
they can do some real damage to our society. (They already have.)

> 
> -- 
> Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  

Scott Lackey
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 09:01:08 +1000

>> Monday August 31 1992, Warren Burstein writes to All:
>>
>>WB> It is not the case that all Orthodox Jews are creationists.
>>
>> I believe that you may be wrong in this, depending on how you define
>> Orthodox Jews and depending on how you define creationism. I believe
>> Orthodox Judaism demands a Creator who is an all-powerful First
>> Cause. For instance, the Thirteen

JAF> Since when does an all-powerful First Cause translate to creationist?

The point about a First Cause is that it's *first*. It causes all the later
events. Since this postulated cause is all-powerful the later events can be
guided. So, this First Cause is a conscious decision to cause all later effects.
That, to my mind, translates as Creation.

Besides, even if this argument were to be faulty there'd be a thousand other
reasons to believe that Orthodox Judaism demands a belief in creationism.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:41:02 GMT
Organization: City University, London

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)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16014 talk.origins:10932
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:20:49 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <26133@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>Do you have *any* doubt that blood circulates though the body?

No.

>Do you have any doubt that the brain is the seat of your consciousness?  

No.

>Do you have any doubt that penicillin cures polio?

Yes.  Penecillin does NOT cure polio, and can in fact cause harm if one were to
try to use it to cure polio.  Polio is caused by a virus.  Antibiotics do NOT
cure viral infections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:41:28 GMT

In article <1046@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
}In article <27011@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
}|
}|My father believed that it was possible for a civilization to have formed
}|prospered and died out before ours, say between 2 billion and 3 billion
}|years ago. With continental drift all evidence could have been ground
}|out to a smear.
}
}Remotely possible, but extremely unlikely.  Even metamorphic rocks retain
}*some* of thier original fabric, enough to leave skyscrapers recognisable.

Maybe "they" didn't like skyscrapers.
From: huber@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (Eric Huber)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: J. Witnesses
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:22:22 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

/* stuff deleted */
>
>Yep, yours are definitely tamer than ours.  Ours try to shove the magazine/book
>into your hands the moment they see you.  And they immediately ask if they
>can come in.  I've talked to friends who were more polite than I am and they
>told me if you let them in it's almost impossible to get them to leave.  I've
>learned never to give them an opening.  
>Maybe I'm more of a 'my house is my castle' type person.  But I REALLY hate
>having total strangers show up uninvited to tell me how wrong my beliefs are.
>
>Sue

Try my approach and turn the tables.  I try and convert them to science by
arguing quantum-electro dynamics and other really nasty modern physics, 
usually because they interrupted my studying (am a physics major).  If you
can keep them off balance, they will quickly leave and ignore you in the
future.  
Archeology students should try this too!

--huber@soliton.physics.arizona.edu
From: larryh@cabezon.uucp (Larry Huntley)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - Day After July 3, 1992
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:48:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: cabezon.1992Sep11.214859.11822
Organization: Logic Modeling Inc of Beaverton Oregon

In article <1992Sep9.152124.5636@ncsu.edu> John_-_Marlboro@vax.ncsu.edu writes:
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>In article <65541@cup.portal.com>, John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com writes:
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Where are:

		John_-_Camel
		John_-_Marlboro_Lights
		John_-_Virginia_Slims
		John_-_Kool
		John_-_Montclair
	and
		John_-_Generic-100s?

	Didn't we see this ploy in "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai"?


	- Larry "John" Huntley
	

-- 
         (larryh@lmc.com)         | You played golf; you watched football;
     Logic Modeling Corporation   |   you drank beer -- we EVOLVED!
          Beaverton,  OR          |         - Rhonda,  "Thing-Fish"
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16464 talk.origins:11316
From: huber@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (Eric Huber)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:26:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

/* stuff deleted */
>
>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. 
>
You are just going to love the movie _Jurrasic Park_, next summer.  It's
based on the book by M. Crichton and that is exactly how they clone 
dinosaurs.  Should be a really good flick (excellent book, Speilburg
directing).

-- huber@soliton.physics.arizona.edu
>-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: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:04:54 GMT

Someone writes:
>>the name). Matter of fact, Stephen Speilburg is presently [..]
					^^^^
>[..]
Someone other than that answers:
>fame).  I thought it was a pretty good book.  Hopefully Speilburg will [..]
							   ^^^^^

Normally I *try* to keep my objections to other people's spelling to myself,
except in regard to FAQs, but this Speilburg meme is spreading!  His name is
Spielberg.

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:51:36 GMT

In article <1059@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>And, oh, BTW, I tend to prefer the *older* definitions of soul (the
>breath/psyche ones) to the later, platonic/aristotilean ones.
>[I certainly find that the scriptural picture of resurrection works
>best when read that way].
>
.
.
.
>
>Or then again, one can simply go back to the *old* definition of the soul
>as the life withing man, and then it becomes *identical* with what the
>biological sciences are studying.  Thus it is not a seperate thing to be
>identified, or an empty bag of nothing, but simply another way of refering
>to the human psyche.
>
>This, combined with the scriptural concept of *whole* *body* ressurection,
>allows Christianity to coexist with science, without requiring bizarre
>trancendent entities that do nothing.

The resurection of the dead certainly implies the existence of the
soul as a separate entity unless you somehow maintain that the
minute a person dies, their body and soul is transferred somewhere
else instantaneously.  However, scripture tells us that the
resurection will take place at some point in the future (the last
day).  So until then, the spirit or soul of the person survives
somewhere awaiting the resurection. 

I see no problem with co-existence of the belief of the soul as a
survivable entity outside the body and science together.

>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 20:45:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.143423@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  Sweat starts dripping down your face, but the restraints keep you from
>moving.
>  "Answer me this," he snarls, suddenly frowning, "Does blood really circulate
>through the body?"
>  Now, would you confidently say yes (assuming he knows the truth and will honor
>his deal), or will you play it safe and ask to be released.  If you ask to be
>released there must be at least the tiniest doubt in your mind.

Sure there'd be the tiniest doubt in my mind...  the tiniest doubt that the guy
actually knows the truth.  If I asked to be released, _that_ doubt would be
why, not doubt over whether or not it _was_ the truth.
--
"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)
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:09:57 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <Yeeuz7600WB68Y8Ekv@andrew.cmu.edu> dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt) writes:
#>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...

This is not a joke.  Messages seemingly emanating from Mr. Tun are 
actually broadcast by an extraterrestrial.  Like we all know from
SF-movies, these look-alike humans differ in only one respect from
real people:  they can't communicate; they are programmed to repeat
the same arguments over and over again.  When you have refuted them
they start all over, as if nothing ever has been said.  It is just
a plot to drive the few remaining people crazy.

Extraterrestrial technology has far advanced beyond the pod-people 
stage!  

JWN

(is an ad-pod argument also ad-hominem?)
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the icr in p
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:23:57 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <715345310.1@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORGx Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
xIn article <schumach.715116380@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com
x(Richard A. Schumacher) spake thusly:
x 
x> I don't have any hope of converting the faithful, and I don't think
x> it matters whether their mindset gets reinforced by seeing enemies
x 
xClearly the display is pitched to the core faithful (biblical 
xliteralists) as the primary intended audience, and that is ONE of the
xproblems with the picketing approach.  If we park all the expressions

Contrary to the impression they give due to the high level of exposure
on TV, radio, and various other media, the Fundies comprise only about
1% of the religious population. Science and technology have eroded
their positions long term and what we are seeing today is just
a minor reversal of the overall trend. I think we can safely ignore
them. They will never go away, but unless civilization collapses
they will never dominate.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16150 talk.origins:11063
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (and Steven Jay Gould)
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:23:04 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: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)

NB: this is my last crossposting in this thread to sci.skeptic.  Billy,
about all you did was quote massive irrelevancies.  Try again, so you
won't look so completely stupid.  If there is indeed some kind of
epistemological difference between Julius Caesar the fact and evolution
the fact as you claim, spell it out.  Otherwise, you remain an idiot.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15980 talk.origins:10905
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again...
Date: 5 Sep 92 09:33:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: hilbert.1992Sep5.093328.19450
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon

In article <1992Sep4.232921.20507@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.080451.18660@ttinews.tti.com> bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.170155.12428@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew
>>Lawson) writes:
>>Sigh.  I'm sure you'll continue to see it under every rock, the way
>>McCarthyites saw Communists everywhere.  NOBODY in this conversation
>>(and I've been following it, er, religiously) has said any such thing
>>(i.e., that evolution concludes that there is no God).  I don't
>I thought that I rememebered a fellow by the name of Vern who did
>espouse the idea that evolution and God were inconsistent?  As a matter
>of fact, you replied to him! Remember?

He is in a distinct minority, and has been rebutted by several of
the regulars  in this group. I would have, but my newsfeed is so slow
lately, they had already dealt with him by the time I saw it...

>-- 
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:00:08 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Sep8.150708.15244@lonex.rl.af.mil>
jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes:

>Creationists' etiological explanations could miraculously be true,
>and, indeed, their truth would be miraculous by definition.  But
>miracles are the very antithesis of science, things that cannot be
>measured, predicted, or explained.

This is true for the common "creationist" definition.  But if a
miricle is simple an event that we can't explain using current
knowledge, then many common things today would appear be miricles to
people in the past.  The Bible contains such descriptions, and I
believe a complete understanding of the universe, as science is
attempting to obtain, will provide a scientific explanation for all
that God does.

>Even if true, creationist versions of the history of the world have
>nothing to do with science at all.  What's to know?  What's to find
>out?  Are we going to check out creation just to make sure god got it
>right?

Again, the common "creationist" definition does fall down here.  But
God understands all of science and uses it to provide us with a place
to learn.  Science is learning what God knows.  I spent time at school
to learn what others already know.  I don't believe that I was wasting
my time.

>To say that science cannot prove anything mocks the definition
>itself, since, by definition, science claims to know nothing
>absolutely.  All theories fall equally to miraculous intervention
>or better theories.  There is always a better theory (so to
>speak), but there is never a better Jesus.  Creationism confounds
>the evidence itself whenever that evidence stands counter to the
>holy logbooks, copyright Jehovah. "God created the earth 6000
>years ago..." is not a theory; it is a belief.  Creationism
>predicts nothing save the end.  And the end will be such and
>thus.  There you have it, then.  Let's all trundle off to heaven
>and glory in the suffering of the souls below.  Not enough to
>keep the mind alive, is it?  (Let's see...what if god created
>only .9999999*cosmic stuff?  Doesn't work, does it?)

New scientific evidence should be used to better interpret what is
contained in the Bible.  The writers of the Bible were writing what
they understood from revelations received from God.  What they wrote
was sufficient to identify the creator of the universe, but not every
detail of how he did it.  God had to follow some rules to create this
universe, and science is discovering those rules.

Mark
-- 
   I want to reach that state of condensation of sensations which
constitute a picture.
   -- Henri Matisse
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Summary: Edit subject lines!
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 02:13:19 GMT

We are overdue for a reminder that subject lines should be edited
to keep them applicable to the body of the article.  I'm sick of
seeing "Logic and God" referring to articles with no connection to either.
-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Continuing ideal order
Date: 13 Sep 92 05:50:50 GMT

Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com

In article <1992Sep10.130926.12626@dorsai.com>, idealord@dorsai.com
(Jeff Harrington) wrote as follows:

> Subject: Continuing IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV Activities
> Organization: The Dorsai Embassy +1.718.729.5018
>
> ...
> As I have stated in my previous posts - IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV intends
> to disrupt the media/state and spread beautiful, chaotic consciousness
> globally.  This process has been kept secret by an ongoing cult of
> secrecy which includes prominent members of the "skeptical" community.

Damn it, Harrington!  You were supposed to keep this under wraps until
the next Global Spiritual Independence Day.  If you don't stop messing
up, I'm going to lean on the MJ-12 to revoke the Dorsai Embassy's
diplomatic immunity.

Regards,
Rick Moen, Director   "Skepticism is a good place to start from; that
Bay Area Skeptics      way you won't go overboard when some 'IT' happens
Editor, _BASIS_        to YOU."      -- Ivan Stang

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic