HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Damning with faint praise (was: Logic and God)
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:08:44 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Sep1.061352.6627@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>Famous scientists are NOT above calling
>>each other names or worse.
>Justifying an action by saying "someone else did it" is fallacious
>argument #42 on my list.

Then why did _you_ justify your argument by saying "someone else _didn't_ do
it"?  Once you say that, the way is now wide open for people to say that they
did, after all, do it.
--
"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: iordonez@academ01.mty.itesm.mx (Ivan Ordonez-Reinoso)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faq List for skeptics
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:24:37 GMT

revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
[...]
>        As for what skeptics believe, again we have a small minefield. One 
>particularly touchy issue is religion and skepticism. Some religious claims 
>would certainlycome under scrutiny (say, the image of Mary at Guadalupe, 
>faith healing, and the like), and one could find a 'skeptics' position' on 
>them. But there are religious people who are concerned with the misuses of 
>their faith, and many are concerned that addressing such things as the 
>Crucifixion, or thestory of Exodus, would be insulting to people who would 
>normally be our allies. So some topics are treated with a diplomatic 'no 
>comment,' at least as far as any public statements in a skeptics' FAQ would 
>go.

I don't think it would be a good idea to exclude certain themes of a FAQ
because of diplomatic reasons. To be skeptic means to be reasonable and
critical about everything, so a person who refuses to believe in
astrology because there is no empirical evidence to support it, but that
believe the Bible is an accurate and historical book, is not a true
skeptic, but a partial one.

This is sci.skeptic, not sci.skeptic.pollitically.correct. The religious
stuff should be included. In my humble opinion.

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

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:12:53 GMT

lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
: >Silly question  :-)
: >
: >If god created Adam and Eve, and they had two sons, who was the mother
: >of Cain's children?  Doesn't the bible say something about incest
: >someplace?
: 
: Cain, Able and Seth are the only children _listed_.  The birth records
: in the bible are primarily for patriarchal lineage.  Rarely are
: daughters meantioned.  There are none between Adam and Noah.
: 
: The probibition on incest is in the mosaic (sp?) law, given many
: generations later.  It would have been pointless to have that
: prohibition until at least 2 or three generations passed by.  This may
: have been limited after that point, but that was not relevant to the
: record by the time of Moses (who wrote Genesis).

I find it utterly amazing that people have actually sat around trying
to fudge up some reasons why it would have been OK for Cain, Able, and
Seth to boink their sisters.  Sort of makes you think that a true
believer can justify absolutely anything given a few minutes to think
about it.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Content:  80%
Rosemount Inc.                                |POLYESTER, 20% DACRON..  The
                                              |waitress's UNIFORM sheds
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |TARTAR SAUCE like an 8'' by
                                              |10'' GLOSSY..
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:15:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug27.050110.21622@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes...
> 
>I have seen a couple of comments in posts which I find baffling:
>Essentially, they claim that the theory of evolution does not 
>interfere or conflict with the concept of God.
> 
>Would one of you guys like to explain how evolution and God can co-exist?
> 
> 
>All life on this planet can only have a single point of origin.
>The process by which the very first cell was created.
>What created that cell: God or evolution?

Leaving aside the problem with this that abiogenesis is distinct from
evolution, why do you exclude the possibility that God created life
*by using* evolution?

>Repeat the same question for all stages of life moving from
>single celled life to our present form.
>What caused that change : God or evolution?

Same here.

>If you answer god for any stage, then it could be god for
>all of the stages, and you believe in creation, not evolution.

Non sequitur.

>If you answered evolution for any stages, then you are implying
>that a single stage can be modified without gods assistance, 
>Any stage could be likewise modified without assistance.
>Therefore, you believe in evolution, not creation.

This contradicts your previous paragraph.  (Anybody who answers
"God created the first cell, then evolution did the rest by
itself" is, by your previous paragraph, a creationist and not an
evolutionist, but by this paragraph, an evolutionist and not a
creationist.)

>You cannot answer god for some stages, and evolution for others.
>I have 2 cats, a siamese and a persian. You cannot say god
>created the siamese, and the persian evolved from a lower species.

Why can't anyone say that?  Even the most hardcore creationist
accepts microevolution, and therefore claims that God is responsible
for some changes (the formation of new "kinds") while evolution is
responsible for other changes (change within "kinds").

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Bush interview as quoted in Alt.Atheism FAQ
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 17:27:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: world,local,na


Interestingly enough, I caught Barbara Bush on a TV news spot a few
days ago, and she said that they considered homosexual families as
families.

I assume from this that as a group the Bushes consider them as
citizens, although I may be wrong.

So it would seem that the current administration considers
homosexuals as citizens, but not athiests. I wonder if a homosexual
athiest would be considered a citizen? What is the proper PC
response here?

BTW, I am saying or implying nothing, good, bad, or indifferent
about homosexuals here, my intent is just to compare and contrast
the spoken political views.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15204 talk.origins:10228
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: visiting ICR? (check brain at door)
Date: 30 Aug 92 18:43:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <37434@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:

[List of "evil evolutionists" at ICR edited]
>John Rockefeller: "A ruthless developer of one of America's...

>Andrew Carnegie: "Carnegie is honored today for philanthropies...

>At this point, one of the museum patrons commented on the picture
>of Karl Marx, "Evolutionism is practically synonymous with
>Communism."

Oh yeah, that must explain why Rockefeller and Carnegie where also
present in the group of evolutionists. Are you required to check
your brain at the door or what? 

>Steve Linke

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15305 talk.origins:10302
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:26:41 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: lawson@acuson.com's message of 27 Aug 92 18:33:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.183338.12915@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:

   I know this is simplistic, but what harm would be caused by letting go
   of evolutionary origin?

Let's turn the question around.  What harm would it be to you to
accept ``evolutionary origin''?  There have been several examples in
this discussion of people who are believers who see no problem with
evolution.  What aspects of your interpretation of Christianity
conflict with acceptance of evolution?  Note that it can't be belief
in Christianity per se that leads to your refusal to consider
evolution, since the afore-references participants accept Christianity
and evolution.  Hell, the Holy Roman Catholic Church accepts
evolution.

You've been taking a ``holier-than-thou'' attitude in your postings,
essentially accusing people of ignoring factors in their acceptance of
evolution.  Note that you are not merely implicitly criticizing
non-believers, you are also criticizing believers who don't blanch at
evolution.

Finally, I point out that these question have been asked of you before
and you've ignored them.  I wonder why?

-30-
Bob
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: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:40:57 GMT

lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
: 
: I am not trying to alter science, as such.
: 

You aren't but others with your beliefs ARE.

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

A few months ago people who believe pretty much the same things you do
tried to get "creationism" added to the science curriculum of the
school district in which I reside.  The bible thumpers turned out in
force for the school board hearings.  Fortunately, the move to teach
creationism was defeated with only a single board member voting in
favor of creationism.  The creationists vowed that they would continue
to "fight this battle" until they won.

At least where I live, science does have a reason to fear religion.
And fear will usually result in hostility.  If you don't want science
to be hostile towards religion, then your fellow believers should quit
attacking science.

I'm sorry that this has degenerated into an us verses them attitude,
but I watched those school district hearings, and that is _exactly_
the attitude taken by the religious zealots trying to force their
religion into the science classes of Minnesota Independant School
District 11.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I'm receiving a coded
Rosemount Inc.                                |message from EUBIE BLAKE!!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: George Bush's Religion
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:56:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1271@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>Bush is an Episcopalian

And everyone "knows" that Episcopalians are far more "liberal" than
Southern Baptists.  :-)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14992 talk.origins:10085
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:44:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.schumach.714786240
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
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.

>> Curiosity:  What scientific evidence would indicate that the Earth was
>>             created recently?
>> 

Well, if we couldn't find any radioactive decay dates older than "recently",
that would be a big clue. Or continuous sequences of tree rings or ice
cores that didn't stretch back farther than "recently". Or if physics 
required that the Sun be "recent". Perhaps you mean, what evidence could 
there be of a creation process that leaves no evidence, or leaves only
a vast array of self consistent but misleading evidence? I haven't a clue.

I toss the question back at you: given the tons of evidence that the Earth
is old, what would evidence of a recnt origin look like? A little notice
attached to the Earth somewhere, "Copyright (C) 4004 BC by Yahweh. All rights
reserved"?
From: lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu (Cosma R. Shalizi)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: origin of life articl
Date: 30 Aug 1992 22:35:25 GMT
Organization: Vampire Research Group at Berkeley :)
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: earthquake.berkeley.edu

In article <25634@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>The real fallacy in the original argument about the incredible odds against
>complex life evolving by the random mechanism of evolution is that it 
>completely misrepresents evolution.
>Mutation is a source of *random* variation.
>But natural selection is a directional pressure.  It selects specific
>traits (generated randomly) which are well suited to current conditions.
>Read almost any essay by S.J. Gould if you want to see an eloquent and
>intelligent exposition of the true meaning of evolution.
>Scott I. Chase
>SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV
	Or better yet, Richard Dawkin's _The Blind Watchmaker_. Lovely
book, fine arguments, and a video-game to boot. What more could one
ask for?
	Cosma Rohilla Shalizi
	lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu to friends
	larval physicist

-- 
"Some savages are persuaded by the 'natural light' that it is their duty to
 eat people, and even Voltaire's savages, who are led by the voice of reason
 to hold that one should only eat Jesuits, are not wholly satisfactory."
-Bertrand Russell on Rousseau in _A History of Western Philosophy_, p. 694
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolution and god: a t
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:35:19 GMT

In article <rabjab.588.0@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
(Jeff Bytof) spake thusly:

>      The subjects of God and Evolution are partially inaccesible
>      to scientific investigation.  Therefore, we will never have
>      a complete scientific theory of either.

You could just as easily state, and with an equally audacious
misunderstanding of the subject matter, that the subject of _stellar_
evolution is partially inaccessible to scientific investigation, and
that therefore we will never have a "complete" (whatever that means)
theory of cosmology.

Pray enlighten us on what part of biological evolution is inaccessible
to science, beyond the extent of limits on direct observation that
pertain in parts of many other fields of science (e.g. astronomy,
geology).
 
Best Regards,
Rick Moen         "It is the business of the future to be dangerous."
Director, Bay Area Skeptics       -- Alfred North Whitehead
Editor, _BASIS_

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Bigfoot film debunking needed
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:04:02 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: University of Central Florida

A while back someone posted a list of problems
associated with that famous bigfoot footage
that is always shown as some sort of "conclusive"
evidence with claims that there is no way that
it could be faked.

Does anyone remember this, and could someone
email me a copy?

Thanks in advance,
Mark Schnitzius
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu
University of Central Florida
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15596 alt.alien.visitors:6268 talk.religion.newage:4159
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:53:27 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

Don - you seem to have missed the point of my question.  I will repeat
it again, and again ask for clarification.

I asked:
>>It seems you have a much different definition of DNA from the vast majority
>>of biologists and chemists.  Perhaps we need to come to an agreement on
>>what DNA is.  Please include a brief discussion on how DNA being
>>'non-physical' is _not_ a contradiction in terms.

I'd quote your reply in full, but it's fairly long, and totally
unresponsive.  You discuss past lives, and baldly state that past life
experience can influence the structure of our DNA.  You offer no
evidence to back up this assertion.

You then go into a discussion of how our past-life experiences can
affect our current-life personality.  Again, you baldly state this,
offering no evidence other than what you purport to have discovered
via your 'breathing' sessions.  I'm not sure how all this relates to a
definition of 'non-physical DNA', in any event.

As much as I'd like to, I'll avoid going off on the tangent of the
validity of 'past-life' experiences.  Instead, I will stick to my
original question.  You asserted (if memory serves, from information
received from a channeller, channelling from an alien) that some
people have 3-stranded DNA.  When challenged on this, you amended this
to say 'perhaps the DNA is non-physical' (paraphrased).  When asked
for a definition of 'non-physical DNA', you rambled about 'past
lives'.  But _nowhere_ have I seen any mention of what in the world
'non-physical DNA' is.

From my (admittedly very limited) knowledge of biology and chemistry,
DNA is a molecule.  It is a huge and complex molecule, and in some way
it defines our physical makeup.  In shape, it resembles a spiral
staircase - two heli twined about each other.  This is my (very rough)
definition of DNA.  Please explain something of your definition.  If
you could, include discussion of how a molecule can be 'non-physical'.

I've rambled and repeated myself a bit myself - I apologize for that.
If I have misrepresented anything you have said, my apoligies for that
as well.  I eagerly await a response.

	RA
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
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 02:40:42 GMT



>Yes: this is known as "Last Tuesdayism". The objection to it is, does it
>get us anywhere? We still have to act and think as though the history 
>whose evidence we see really did happen.

>I myself prefer "Next Wednesdayism", which holds that the Universe and
>all our memories and all evidence of great age will be created next
>Wednesday. Our present experience is God's anticipatory musing, or an
>illusion of the Devil, as you prefer. See You Next Wednesday!

If I may propose a new reality called "The Monday to Sunday World"

There are actually only a few people that exist in this reality. (Jim?)
On  Monday of every week, God creates everything that these chosen few
are going to see for the entire week.  Come Sunday Night, he destroys
it all, and remakes it for Monday morning.

What is my point you ask?  
The "False Evidence" creationist arguement is self defeating,
If we are living in imaginary world, then nothing can be trusted.
How can someone like Jim believe that the messages he types are 
actually going anywhere?

By the way, this is Sunday, So I will have to type fast, before
From: ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:13:50 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep02.180809.16211@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
[...]
>For example, there is no good evidence that the mind exists, so any
>psychological theories around start out on shaky ground.  

This remark just won my personal prize for the most philosophically
ill-founded statement I've ever seen on the net.

I, personally, have unimpeachable evidence for the existence of at least
one mind: my own. I experience it directly. It is, in fact, the *only*
empirical fact of which I can be absolutely certain--even if every one
of my perceptions is a delusion, a la brains-in-vats or Cartesian demon
theories, *some* sentience must exist in order to be deluded.

Granted, I do not and cannot have anything like the same evidence that
anyone *else* has a mind. Other people's minds are an inference from
behavior, and one of the important pieces of evidence is that they
*claim* to have minds--everyone I know to have commented on the subject
makes essentially the same claim as I have above, regarding
self-existence. (With the possible exception of David Hume.)

Until now. In asserting that there is no good evidence that the mind
exists, Dave Pipes seems to be claiming that he does *not* share the
experience of personal awareness I had naively assumed to be a human
universal. Is this true, Dave? (I will do him the courtesy of continuing
to talk as though Dave were a person, though he's just implicitly asserted
that he isn't.) I don't see any consistent way that a being possessing
the experience of self-awareness can claim that there is no good evidence
for the existence of mind.

(On the other hand, an object that was somehow intelligent and socially
functional without being self-aware would have every reason to make such
a claim--given the difficulty of establishing the existence of other
minds, even to beings that *are* self-aware and so can define "mind"
ostensively, an intelligence lacking self-awareness would be justified
in the most extreme skepticism about the phenomenon. I confess to being
skeptical in turn of the concept of "intelligence without
self-awareness," and point to the Turing test as a reason for doubting
that the phrase can even be meaningful.)

>David Pipes

York Dobyns		ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 31 Aug 92 09:21:01 GMT

In <1992Aug28.003330.4541@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:

>God playing evolution, is CREATION.

1) By this logic, God and magnetism can't co-exist either.
2) this belongs in talk.origns
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     I put aside my copy of ``BOWLING WORLD'' and think about GUN
 |warren@      CONTROL legislation..
/ nysernet.org 
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15358 talk.origins:10338