HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:49:53 GMT

In article <92238.085758BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.171417.3551@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) says:
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>I don't have a TV, so I didn't see the Republican National Convention.
>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
>my bod was in such rotten shape that anyone would even _consider_ me
>for professional sports!!
>
>-knb

No, she is currently healthy and hopefully she will stay that way, although
from her speech she has done a good job of preparing herself and her children
for that event.  However, there are other cases where the person did die
such as Kimberly Bergalis who also didn't fit the pattern...
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: michael@sequent.com (Michael Squires)
Subject: Re: Life Spring...Request for References
Keywords: lifespring
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: sqnt
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 23:24:09 GMT

jensen@unlinfo.unl.edu (michael jensen) writes:
>bchugg@leland.Stanford.EDU (Barron Deland Chugg) writes:
>>A good friend of mine has just taken the Life Spring seminar.  While
>>I hope he finds nothing but happiness in it, I am innately nervous
>>about these groups (what can I say, I'm a child of the cult infested
>>seventies).  I would greatly appreciate any references to this
>>organization that I can get.

>I believe that Life Spring is what Werner Erhardt of est (Erhardt 
>Seminar Training) formed after leaving/selling off est. 

Nope. I don't remember the all the ancient history, but "est" and LifeSpring
co-existed in the mid 70s through early 80s (at least). Then, est begat
"The Forum", which I believe continues to this day.

The comparisons that I've heard (both in 79, when I took several LifeSpring
trainings, and this summer, when I took several trainings from Context)
between est/Forum and LifeSpring were primarily oriented about how
"confrontive" their training styles were. That is, my understanding
of est/Forum is that the training staff and the exercises are very
much oriented at presenting you with an insight into your beliefs/
behaviors in as direct a way as possible, and strongly encouraging you
to own up to what you see - i.e., they "call you on your sh*t". LifeSpring
seems to do much less of this, although it is still in their material
a bit. (As an aside, I find I prefer the Context trainings because they
don't use controntation at all, and therefore I've observed a stronger
sense of "ownership" by people on the decisions they come to in the
training - it looks like the Context trainings are retained better
over the years.)

			Michael Squires
			Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
			15450 SW Koll Parkway
			Beaverton, OR  97006
			(503) 578-9891
			michael@sequent.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15661 talk.origins:10574
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:00:16 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Aug28.152117.15314@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>  Drew, there are no Martian canals.  Never were.  They were a combination
>>of bad telescopy and wishful thinking.  There are no features on Mars
>>that resemble the "canali" of Mars.
>
>That is not what I said.

LIAR!  You quite unambiguously claimed that more recent evidence indicates that
the Martian canals exist as natural features.

>Are you saying that no one ever thought there were canals on Mars?

No, you moron, he's saying that there was never any strong evidence that there
were canals on Mars.

>>If 
>>you read back messages on this topic, you'll find that various 
>>"pro-reason" posters (by analogy to your term "anti-faith") have
>>said over and over that a scientific theory is just our best guess
>>about how the physical universe behaves.  In other words, "just convenient
>>concepts".
>
>Alas, they are not the loudest (or most numerous) voices.

Again, you're a liar.  Perhaps you could back up your claim that the pro-reason
posters are neither the loudest (by the way, how does one measure volume on the
INTERnet?) nor the most numerous?  Perhaps you could cite just one example of
someone (other than one of your fellow irrationalists) who has claimed that any
scientific theory is more than our current best explanation of some class of
phenomena?

>You are restoring a bit of my confidence in my own sanity.

I'm sorry he's misled you.

>I began to wonder whether I had misunderstood ten years of scientific (albeit
>mathematical sciences, mostly) education.

Yes, you quite obviously HAVE misunderstood any and all attempts to educate you
in any field of science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:27:39 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 12915@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>To put it another way, it goes as follows:
>We have found some data. We generate a theory of evolution based on the
>data. Aha! The data is consistent with our theory of evolution (surprise
>suprise). Therefore we conclude that the theory of evolution is proven.
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Or maybe it is more a case of:
>We have lots and lots of data. We select some of the data to generate
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a theory of evolution. The theory fits the data therefore it is true.
>
>--
>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889

The two statements above are the most telling proof that the author doesn't have
a clue as to what he's talking about.  It is logically and philosophically impossible
to prove a theory true.  A theory can only be proved false.  If it were proved to be
true, it would be a fact, not a theory.  Evolution, BTW, *is* considered a scientific
fact; the theory concerns the means by which it happens (natural selection).  

A scientific theory is a logical assertion which is:
1) Based on observed fact.
2) Falsifiable (it is possible to conceive of evidence which would prove it false).
3) Tested by various and repeatable experiments, ALL of which have FAILED to 
   FALSIFY it.
4) Consistent with ALL other _currently accepted_ (note the absence of the word 
   _known_) scientific facts and theories.
5) Capable of predicting future discoveries.  Evolution is consistent with, for
   example, DNA, which was unknown to Darwin. 

IMHO, the aspect of science that Creationists have the most trouble with is the 
uncertainty.  They are so wrapped up in Revealed Truth that they can't conceive of
an attitude (the scientific one) which would gladly trash all it's most cherished
truisms and happily accept new ones at the drop of a hat, IF the old ways were
positively proved false.

For example, until recent years it was mathematically impossible for a bumble bee
to fly.  The bumble bee, being unaware of any problem, continued to fly.  Whereas
the scientific community changed mathematics to accomodate the bumble bee, anyone
who believed that mathematics was Revealed Truth would steadfastly maintain that
bumble bees don`t really fly.  Revealed Truth is, after all, Revealed Truth 
(isn't it?).

To say that evolution is _only_ an unproven theory (it's the word _only_ that grates)
is to misunderstand science as a whole.  Science is not the memorization of facts,
nor is it the uncritical acceptance of _the way things really are._   Science is an
unbiased and critical way of thinking which is never stagnant and always allows room
for growth.  Science is not truth as a destination, but the search for truth as a
journey.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:45:35 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <16853137F5.N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu> N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu writes:
>
>    Some have suggested picketing, demonstrations, etc to counter the ICR. As
>an ex-fundamentalist, I tell you it won't work. Even if you provided evidence,
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good God, so it is possible - how did you become 'ex'?
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
From: Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Broughton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:20:50 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Frank G Sesco writes:
> 
> How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
> Pagan teaching from our schools?

Vote for Dan Quayle in 1996. :-)
> 
> 
> We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
> Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
> to our faith and therefore our very existance.

To your existence, maybe. Not mine.
> 
> --
>   |                     In God We Trust                            |


Take a look at the back of a U.S. dollar bill. There's also a Masonic symbol on
it.
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Robert Broughton    Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca

"We calm and reassure. We embrace people with the message that we're
all in it together. That our leaders are infallible and that there is
nothing, absolutely nothing wrong." - Miles Drentell, _thirtysomething_
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 03:07:30 GMT


>>If Noah is a fictional character, then he and the text that contains his
>>story has no more significance than any other folk story.

>Why, yes, precisely.  No less significance, either.
Agreed.

>>Do you also pray to the god Aesop and read blindly his book of fables?

>I don't know, Aesop was reputedly a Greek author, not a god.  Do you
>pray to the god Peter and blindly read his epistles?  How about the
>god Tolkein and his books?  Why do you think that stories that are
>about events that didn't actually happen have no value?
The measure of "value" will have to be left up to the individual.
I will try and clarify my point with a description of both:

Aesops Fables: Maybe some of the characters didn't  actually exist,
               and  maybe some of the stories are exagerations, and untruths
               But the overall message is still true...
               how to live your life and interact with people.

The Bible    : Maybe some of the characters didn't actually exist,
               and maybe some of the stories are exagerations, and untruths
               But the overall message is still true.....
   
               There is a god and when I die, I'm going to heavan!

Im willing to accept that the message of the first one is correct
whether they are true or not,  But the second one? I don't think so.

>>Vern Nelson
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:37:04 +1000

Friday August 28 1992, Michael Kieras writes to All:

MK> In article <adams.714948366@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
>> 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...

MK> So in this case, "goeth upon all four" is an idiom for "walking" or
MK> "creeping?"

For what it's worth, I don't believe this. The point about these insects is that
they're a subgroup. If it were just a turn of phrase it wouldn't be a
description.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
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.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:45:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.010533.23587@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>
>
>Reading the same book over and over until you have it memorized,
>is not a search for truth.  It's memorization.
>
>Vern Nelson

Did you ever really enjoy a book and want to get the most out of
it?  I know in that case I read and reread it, not to memorize it
but to get different meanings and nuances that I missed
originally.  I think Drew really enjoys the Bible.  What's wrong
with that? 

-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: andy@xn.ll.mit.edu (Andy Dean)
Subject: SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLICAL  I vote [X]Yes!
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:58:35 GMT

      Divert creationist mudslinging out of our dear beloved chat line
and into a SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLICAL?
      "AMEN"!
      Only you can stop the influx from talk.relig and talk.orig while
we still have some mental bandwidth left.
      How do we start the ball rolling on a new group?? Yo, moderator!
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Bill Riggs _astounding_ ignorance of basic biology
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:56:41 GMT

In article <95197@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <1288@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>
>>	Point of historical fact. Just *when* was enough empirical
>>data gathered to prove:
>>
>>	- Abiogenesis ?
>
>Abiogenesis is not a fact (IMHO) as an alternate hypothesis extists
>(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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:15721 talk.origins:10631
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:47:55 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <1992Aug28.152117.15314@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew
Lawson) writes: 
[...]
>Here we hit the same vocabulary tangle I have previously made problems
>for myself with.  (Boy that's a terrible sentence.)  I do not dispute
>contemporary evolution, though I haven't seen the evidence for it.  I
>dispute evolutionary origin.  I dispute that all the life on the earth
>originated by random survivable mutations from a single
>proto-lifeform.

Drew - on what grounds do you dispute this?  I hope we're getting
somewhere, finally.

	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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:07:05 GMT

ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:

: >: I would say that the religions should be approached in a scholarly
: >: manner while the issue of their validity/non-validity should be
: >: avoided. 

I wrote:	

: >No, I stand by my statement that they should all be presented as
: >equally valid.  I doubt that many students would realize by themselves
: >that there is no objective evidence to support the view that their
: >religion is the "one true faith."  It is important that students
: >understand that their religion has _exactly_ the same empirical
: >footings (none) as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Wicca, or
: >whatever.  You've got to get the point accross that people of other
: >religions believe with equal validity and conviction that their views
: >are obviously correct and that everybody else is being misled.
: 
: I disagree.  By putting a validity stamp on any religion, you have
: crossed domains and opened a whole can of worms.  For example, if
: a religion advocates human sacrifice, is the teacher with a
: straight face going to tell the class that this religion is as
: "valid" as say Buddhism?  All their life, they have been taught
: about the importance of human life, and the teacher tells them
: that an equally valid religion advocates the opposite. Talk about
: confusing people!  Yes religous tolerance should be taught, but it
: sure can be done without making comments on the validity of any
: religion.
: 

You are probably right.  Presenting all religions as equally valid
would be impractical, even though I think it an important
philosophical point.  As long as the presentation remains neutral on
the point of validity I guess I would be satisfied.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  What should the entire
Rosemount Inc.                                |human race DO??  Consume a
                                              |fifth of CHIVAS REGAL, ski
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |NUDE down MT. EVEREST, and
                                              |have a wild SEX WEEKEND!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:58:17 GMT

Article: 19955 of sci.skeptic
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 05:43:30 GMT
Reply-To: pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1992Aug28.122931@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.151959.11603@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
>writes:

>>  .. . ..  But I have seen many postings with the attitude of "We have
>> explained this through science, without using God.  .. .

>          .. .    .      .      .. Science does not claim to know 
>the mind or nature of God.  Science DOES claim to know a little about 
>how the physical universe works, and it can be explained without 
>invoking the unexplainable, i.e., God.

But assuming the religious descriptions of GOD then can't on construct
possibilities for the nature of GOD in terms of physics.  Certainly
the Substance of GOD does not seem to fit that of known matter.  Still
one should be able to at least describe a few possibilities.  

+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:48:01 GMT

In <GERRY.92Aug27092700@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:

>Anyway, it might
>not be too far out to claim that god was the cause of the Big-Bang
>(but then what was the cause that created god?), and that since the
>Big-Bang, evolution (atronomical, biological, etc) has been the
>driving force in the universe.

>Voila, god and evolution... no problem.

Yes problem!  When you get caught cheating on a test,
does it matter how much you cheated?
No matter how small, cheating is cheating!

Now did god, interfere, guide, push, meddle, or direct 
or otherwise cause anything to happen, which would not have 
happened without him.

Your saying that its O.K. to have "just a little bit of CREATION" 
mixed in with our evolution.

Forget it!

Vern Nelson