HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pease@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Pease)
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:09:00 GMT

In article <=9hn3bp.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes...
>In article <16854EA1E.CCEN077@USLVM.USL.EDU> CCEN077@USLVM.USL.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.161700.6099@auto-trol.com>
>>davgot@auto-trol.com (David Gottner) writes:
>> 
>>>
>>>In article <64745@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
>>>>RA says
>>>>
>>>>...So this means that our DNA is constructed from
>>>>three sources,  our own past, and our biological parents. The other factor
>>>>involved in this is that past, unresolved emotions survive death and come
>>>>in with us to be embedded in our DNA.  So it is possible that some of our
>>>>biggest emotional problems could have originated in past lives..
>>>
>>>Some ET's that I work with told me this also, but I have a hard time
>>>with this one.
>>>
>>>According to what we know about genetics, all of your DNA comes
>>>from ones parents.  There is no provision for past life memories
>>>to be recorded in the DNA.
>>>
>>>So, how are past memories imprinted on the DNA?
>>>--
>>>Amrit Prem                      |
>> 
>>The memories of all of each person's ancestors is passed on through the DNA;
>>not past lives per se, but the complete history of our genes.
> 
>It seems that even if this were possible, the memorys could not extend
>beyond those available during the mating. I would tend to think that this
>would give mostly the memories from 15-25 year old males, hardly the
>wisdom of the ages. I assume that female memories would have the same
>restriction. I guess the brain must be mostly a waste, since it's entire
>content can easily be encoded in a few strands of DNA. How do the memories
>get into the DNA?
>  
>>                                                             Ellen
> 
> 
>Rich
> 
>payner@netcom.com

Of course this is all just speculation anyway; but one possibility is
that the DNA serves as a filter (or tuner) and that the complete past
is stored in the electro-magnetic energy fields that make up everything.

The DNA then tunes one in to that information which matches ones
particular tuner (frequency, vibrations).

Just a possibility of how it could be.

Phil Pease 
My witty disclaimer - everything I perceive, through either sensory or
extrasensory means, has been filtered to such an extent that you had better not
attempt to attribute anything I say to anyone else.
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:49:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: hilbert.1992Sep2.234910.1546
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon

In article <1992Sep2.124221.16990@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.115125.19490@cco.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>>
>>Hmm.. which species are these?
>>
>>keith
>>
>>>Ok, Drew, what would you call it then when we start with one species, separate
>>>it into two populations, and some years later the two populations are no longer
>>>able to interbreed (i.e., we've now got two separate species)?  This has
>>>(contrary to claims of creationists) been observed to happen with a number of
>>>species.  In this sense, evolution IS a proven fact, in that we have, in fact,
>>>observed speciation.  Any particular theory of evolution attempts to account
>>>for the proven fact of evolution.
>
>Several species of insects, some sort of flower (a full description of this one
>was recently posted to sci.skeptic), some Australian mammal (wallabee?), a
>population of which that was brought to Hawaii by humans is no longer able to
>interbreed with the Australian species.  Could someone post the list that shows
>up from time to time?

Usually someone cites:

Sources:  "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982
   Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984

But, the Science Digest article usually cited for the reproductive isolation of
wallabies does not in fact describe reproductive isolation. I have several
references I have looked up, but they do not confirm it (I _DO_ have one
good article describing the mechanisms by which reproductive isolation occurs
in wallabies - so it is easy to believe the story). However, until we do get
confirmation, I recommend we drop the claim about the oahu wallabies.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Regards,
	Max G. Webb
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15443 talk.origins:10398
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:32:24 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug28.171435.16286@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (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.

Yes, that's the difference between an answer based on faith and an
answer based on scientific evidence.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15328 talk.origins:10312
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution does not assume there is no God.
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:21:45 EST
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <3661@execu.execu.com>, mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
> 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.

I do have a couple of questions for Drew.  Please state ONE (count it, ONE)
physical way that humans are different from other animals.  Also, how do
you explain that humans and other apes share almost identical genetic
tissue, even more identical than the difference between two species of
frogs.

Sue
From: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:38:34 GMT
Reply-To: michael@dime.cs.umass.edu (Michael Kieras)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <714642841.F00005@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>I am no entomologist, but are you sure that there are *no* species that use four
>legs for locomotion? Remember, the four-leg rule is there to exclude almost all
>insects. I think you will find that there are some which fit into the category
>as defined.

Leviticus 11:22 lists locust, bald locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers
as flying creeping things that go upon all four.  _None_ of these walk
using only four of their legs.  Let's ignore for the moment the sloppiness
of saying "all four" when what is meant is "only four."  I'm more
interested in finding at least one example each of the above that walk
using four legs and not six (pulling two legs off doesn't count).

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.

>None the less, I think you will find
>that among the *enormous* range of insect life that fills our planet there are
>some that match the description.

Examples, please.  Since this is to establish the accuracy of Leviticus
11:22, make sure the examples are of the specified types of insects.  You're
making an assertion that these peculiar insects exist; prove it.


michael@cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:38:04 GMT

In article <87141@netnews.upenn.edu> jmv@halibut.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.000725.3682@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
>> In article <25AUG199211121196@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>> >In article <1992Aug19.222409.7629@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes...
>
>I'm not sure I would agree with you on that one.
>Despite what some people say, I believe strongly that
>we will be able in a near future (say in the century range)
>to produce small lifeforms (monocellular and maybe more).
>This is not blind faith (I'm not a creationnist ;)), but
>observation of what science is able to achieve. Then,
>will it be morally permissible to kill those lifeforms 
>whenever we want. I would accept it for simple lifeforms, but
>what if we made complicated organisms ? I wouldn't feel
>god-ish if I could create life. I only see life as a very valuable
>chemical process. I just try to avoid destroying it unneccessarily.
>What is neccessity ? Well, if I was hungry and being able to
>create an oister, I would probably do it. In fact I'd do it right now...
>
>
>JM.

Your belief in man's ability to create life out of chemicals and your
seeing life only as a chemical process probably contribute towards the
hypothetical situation that you find yourself in.  What I fail to understand
is given your assumptions, just *what* do you find so valuable about life?  
Why not destroy it unnecessarily?
-- 
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
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15103 alt.culture.usenet:723
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself Again
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:52:11 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

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.)
--
"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)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Evolution does not assume there is no God.
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:00:58 GMT

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.

What are your views on the origin of _Homo sapiens_?  What is your 
supporting evidence for those views?

-- Herb Huston



Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15716 talk.origins:10627
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 09:50:26 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <1992Aug28.145820.15124@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew
Lawson) writes: 
[...]
>
>Perhaps, but if God is not relevant to the question of the origin of
>the world and the life thereon, where is God relevant?
>

What necessitates the relevancy of God to anything?  It's like
building a toaster.  You have a floppy drive you want to put into it.
I say, 'no, toasters don't have floppy drives.'  Saying, 'OK then,
where do I put the floppy drive?' is going about it wrong.  Could be we
just plain don't need a floppy drive, whether it be in the toaster,
the bicycle, or the swingset.

Just because you have a floppy drive doesn't mean there's a place to
put it.

	RA

rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu
--------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
Date: 28 Aug 92 10:22:29 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <-rcnt+c.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>As I see it, we can either use binary logic or not. :-)

Let's not try to be funny about a reasonable question. There *are*
other kinds of logic. Multivalued, Fuzzy, you name it. Several kinds
of logic don't assume the principle of the excluded third (constructivist
or intuitionist logic).  Probability theory might be called a kind
of multivalued logic.  Then, in logic there are several formal systems
that deal with statements in which the word "ought" or "must" occur
(that's deontic logic, I believe).  All these systems have limited
use.  Part of their use is their application in AI algorithms.
For everyday use they have limited use, except (I think) constructivist
or intuitionist logic. 

 That type of logic is strictly for mathematics.  Mathematics deals
with infinite sets quite often, but arguments have finite length.
An argument that requires that all positive integers are examined 
one by one is impossible. Intuitionists and constructivists therefore
distinguish "true" (a proof is known or assumed), "false" (from this
statement a contradiction can be derived or) and the remainder.
In particular, from (not not A) it does not follow that A. 
From (1) "not for all x in a certain universe holds P(x)"  it cannot
be deduced that there is an exception, because a proof for the existence
of an exception will have to consist in actually pointing out the exception.
But (1) does not tell you how to do that. (1) might be an axiom, or
the proof of (1) may not involve the construction of an exception.

In a sense "intuitionism" is a bit "agnostic": if there's no proof
for a statement, then it may not be labeled true or false. You may
assume a statement false - but if a contradiction follows from that
you are not automatically ready with your proof that the statement 
is true.

There is much more to say about this, but I suggest that Mr. Abbott
consult the "Mathematical Logic" shelves in his local Math. Dept. Library,
or go to the philosophy department.

JWN
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
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:09:43 GMT

In article <958@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> However I *have* heard some people take the *philosophical* position that
> that which is not observable does not exist.  From that philosophy, one
> can indeed conclude God does not exist from the scientific evidence.

  God isn't necisarily not observable.  Make that non-repeatable (or has
somebody pulled that off?).  If God exists He may have an effect, but these
effects would not be repeatable, and socannot be analized.  The funny thing is,
if they were repeatable, then they would be relegated to science by default, and
would no longer be considered acts of God.

  For instance, let us say I observe that if I pray in a certain way a one
dollar bill falls out of the sky.  If this happens once then it is an effect of
God (assuming I cannot find another reason why it happens).  I have observed an
effect without being able to prove anything.

  Now, if a one dollar bill falls out of the sky every time I do it, then one
can propose the theorem "When one prays this certain way a one dollar bill falls
out of the sky."  Now, it is repeatable, falsifiable (just pray that way, and if
a one dollar bill doesn't fall out of the sky it is falsified), and so is a
scientific theorem.

  Now that it is a scientific theorem, can we say that it is still an effect of
God?  After all, it is predicatable.  We may not know the mechanisms behind it,
but that is true of most science.  (Why does QM work?)

  So, IMHO, God can have an observable effect, but if that effect is repeatable
then it is no longer an act of God.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Data Structures of Unreality
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 06:30:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.103045.9921@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cherry09 (Robert
Derrick) writes:
>Drew Lawson (lawson@acuson.com) wrote:
>: 
>: Interesting.  A "physical chunk of memory" is not a data structure.
>: Likewise, an object is not its representation.  When you get to the
>: machine execution, data structures do not exist.  But they are
>: convenient notions for organizing many details.
>
>Ah!  And would you also concur that a strand of DNA is not a human
>being?  The object "human" is not its representation "DNA".  Is this
>correct?  When you get to the implementation and operation of a
>human, does the coding within the data structures in the cells not
>exist?  Are the DNA codes just convenient notions for organizing
>many details?
>
>I really want to hear your answer.
>
I don't think that's what he meant.  I think that he meant that the symbol
for something and that thing are usually two different things.  (God help
you if you believe otherwise)  Which, so far as it goes, is true, he just
picked a bad example.  But so did you.

Computers deal exclusively in symboligy (Unless you want to say they deal
exclusively in electric current, but that's not what I meant) computers do
*not* deal with physical objects.  So a data structure that is "imlemented
and operated" does not necisarily effect the physical structure that it
represents.  The same thing works the other way, the physical object does
not necissarily effect the data structure.

Your analogy, a DNA strand to a human being, is not the same.  DNA is an
intigral part of a human, without it they wouldn't exist.  Besides, to my
knowledge, DNA has never been used to identify someone in conversation. 
However, I have often seen people identified by symbols that wouldn't
alter them in the least should those symbols be changed.

Example: myself.  I have been called by a good many symbol groupings
("Alan," "Big Al," "Josh," "Dickhead," to name a few) And not once has it
changed either my physical or mental makeup.  (Well, being called "Alan
Russell Smith!" has made me rather nervous)

Anyway, my point is is that a non incorporated symbol is different from an
incorporated structure, even though the structure does contain symbols for
the makeup of other structures.

Big Al.  What the *hell* did I just say???



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: The Evolution vrs. creationism debate
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:54:55 GMT

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! 

Wrong.  IF the two people share a recessive trait, then that trait will be
expressed in about 25% of their offspring.  The creationists (Drew in
particular, I think) contend that Adam and Eve didn't have any harmful
recessive traits and that we've somehow accumulated them since then (though if
that's not [micro]evolution, I don't know what is).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15039 alt.culture.usenet:710 talk.origins:10113
From: dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Butterfield)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
Date: 26 Aug 1992 01:11:19 GMT
Organization: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: change

schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>
>Sigh. I guess we should not be surprised at this late date that Lionel
>would accept statements made within a work of fiction as hard evidence.

"We should develop anti-satellite weapons because we could not have
 prevailed without them in `Red Storm Rising.'"
				-- Vice President Dan Quayle

-- 
                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic