HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:16:44 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <q2cn!!b.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug27.160903.18687@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>>> In article <1992Aug25.065402.19240@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>[...]
>>>
>>>>You claim people are being rude to you by not being logical and by being
>>>>obsfurscating. I (and most of society) do not regard that as being rude,
>>>>frustrating maybe, but not rude. We see politicians behaving like that all
>>>>the time :-) We don't say they are rude, we say they are dishonest.
>                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> Most people participating in sci.skeptic consider that sort of obfuscating to
>>> be rude in the extreme, as I'd've thought you'd've learned by now.
>
>>Giv'em  hell, Carl.  Not that there is any chance that he will learn anything
>>from it.
>
>Yes, and was that a tacit admission of being dishonest I saw in Derek's
>post?

OK. Very clever. So I didn't phrase my paragraph well. But don't use that as an
excuse to miss the point. Otherwise that will qualify you as being obsfurscating
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:27:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.134520.4814@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>It would certainly clear up a lot of things for me if I could view a
>videotape of random molecules being selected into usable DNA, proteins, etc.
>(From when it actually happened of course, not a contrived lab experiment)

Well give me a few trillion dollars and 3 billion years and I'll have a
tape for you :-)

It always amazes me how X-tians can take the bible on faith yet no matter
how much evidence there is for evolution they always want more.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15838 talk.origins:10762
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 3 Sep 92 09:48:54 EST
Distribution: na

In article <25952@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> In article <182qgkINN4jj@agate.berkeley.edu>, utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes...
>> 
>>SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE A THEORY!!! It can only dis-prove a theory.
>>David Utidjian
> 
> That's an awfully myopic view of science.  Consider the following theories:
> 
> (1) The Earth is round.
Oh boy.  What a great time to be picky.  The earth is not round.
> (2) Atoms have nuclei.
The nuclear model gives PDG explanations for a lot of observations.  But have
we _seen_ a nucleus?
> (3) Prolonged exposure to intense nuclear radiation is harmful to your health.
Apparently not true for cockroaches (urban legend?).
> (4) Blood circulates through the body, passing from arteries to viens through
> small passages too small to see with the naked eye.
Tough to argue.
> (5) The brain is the seat of thought.
This newsgroup gives too many counter examples to this theory.
> (6) Diamonds and graphite are not the only stable forms of pure carbon.

> 
> Which of these theories would you say are not yet proven beyond any 
> possible infinitesmal shread of a doubt?

BTW, I think I know what you are trying to do, but as usual, there is the need
to be extremely specific.

GXKambic
standard disclaimer

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15835 talk.origins:10758
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: panspermia
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:42:35 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Sep2.225641.3364@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <95197@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:

>>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.

Yep, panspermia (which hardly anybody takes seriously, but never seems
to go away) really just begs the question. If life wasn't formed on
earth, then we'd have to find out where, how and when it formed
somewhere else. 

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

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:15486 talk.origins:10422
From: salem@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM (Bruce Salem[CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 12:04:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: appserv.la0b59INNc0
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: appserv

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

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

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

>Sue

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

	It has to do with origins that there are more choices available to
us "according to our natures" than by prescription from control freaks
like those who run some chruches in this land. The Discovery Channel is
running a program on how devote's of Swing fared under Hitler in Germany.
I love Beethoven and Bach, and Wagner, even, but under no circumstances
would I stand for outlawing Jazz or..... Rap. So, not only do our origins
suggest that alternatives to the moral straight jacket of conservative
Christians are supportable, but so is the freedom to think that our origins
are evolutionary supportable against arguments driven by dogma, or a
hidden agenda that supports dogma.

Bruce Salem
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: mensa farce
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:16:32 GMT

In article <6682@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.055305.4617@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>|Whilst on the subject of mensa, can anybody explain exactly what
>|sigma xi, tau beta pi, pi mu epsilon etc etc are?
>
>Tau beta pi is a national electrical engineering society.

Close, but no cigar.  Tau Beta Pi is the national engineering honor society. 
It is NOT restricted to electrical engineering (and for that matter, isn't
completely restricted to engineering either;  scientists are also eligible). 
Among the things it does are scholarship programs and tutoring programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:15239 talk.origins:10251
From: johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: What is intelligence?
Reply-To: johnsd2@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:49:30 GMT

In article <Btx7Gu.5Hr@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
|> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
|> 
|> >Based on my training as a roboticist, I will state Gerry's First 
|> >Law of Intelligence:
|> >  All intelligent being are capable of "rapid", controlled locomotion.
|> 
|> Interesting, especially coming from a roboticist.  This would rule out
|> AI in a computer form.  I.e.  HAL would be a program, R2D2 would have 
|> potential.  Is the ability to move necessary for inteligence?

I dissagree, I think HAL could move quite fast. You have to,
to get to Jupiter in a reasononable amount of time, you know. But
the "twin"  HAL-9000 on earth, with which the ground crew checked
out HALs prediction on that component he said would break could
(probably) _not_ move. This seem to be a bit of an inconsistency in
the idea that intelligent beings must be able to move around.
-- 
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:32:11 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

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?

Perhaps neither :-)  Well certainly not evolution, since that deals with
the origine of diverstity after life originated.

Now, presuming you meant 'God or abiogenesis', I will contimue.

All cars on this planet must have a single point of origin.
What is that origin for this Mustang: an assembly line or Ford Motors?

What, you mean they are *both* true, but isn't that a contradiction?

No, the two statements of origin belong to different realms (or levels)
of explanation.

The same is true of God and evolution/abiogenesis.  They are at different
levels of description.  The scientific explanations are descriptions of
*processes*, statements about God are teleological, and thus are on
a higher level of description.  Thus no intrinsic contradiction is
possible, since there is no mapping from one type of statement to the
other.
|
|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?

Why not both?  How are cars made, on an assembly line or by an
automobile manufacturer?
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Two FAQ-lists
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:00:23 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Concerning FAQ lists, maybe there should be, as Siano suggested
two: one for "what are skeptics", with questions of the type
Rick Moen has posted.
One for questions that are frequently asked. Only subjects that
come up regularly. 
As no one ever askes on sci.skeptic: "I've heard about astrology,
can anyone explain what this is?", such matters do not have to be
treated.  Questions like: what was that experiment in which
astrologers were really tested on their own conditions? (That
can have a short answer) are to be in the FAQ. 
I propose the rule of three: questions that are asked more than two 
times go into the FAQ.

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:25:53 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <37430@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:

>I visited the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) on August
>27th.
...
>impressive.  They are calling it "San Diego's NEWEST Museum" and
>are having a Grand Opening Celebration September 18-20.  A

Wouldn't it be fun for a group of skeptics and other science-
literate folks to picket this? Go with a familiarity with the 
FAQ and a few signs ("Creationism: religion pretending to be science",
etc.) and watch the sparks! Stir up some media interest!
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:12:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <59981@mimsy.umd.edu>, biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow) writes...
>In article <1992Aug31.011511.1322@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> 
>>Paradoxes like: "This statement is false"
> 
>>...
> 
>>Could it be that in a higher form of logic these problems need not arise?
> 
>To the contrary, the statement presented above _is_ in a higher order
>logic (second order) and is ill-formed at that. Don't confuse English
>statements with formal logics. English allows you to say lots of 
>meaningless things that sound profound, such as, "A thing must 
>either be or not be."
> 
>In formal, first order logic, you can't express, "This statement is false."
>However, Godel showed that you could produce a proposition which 
>acheived somewhat the same effect, such that the proposition could 
>have neither the valuation "true" nor the valuation "false." However, 
>the existence of such a statement by no means invalidated the use of 
>first order logic. In fact, the most important corollary of Godel's
>proposition is that _any_ logic which has at least the expressive
>power of first order logic will also allow the expression of propositions
>which are neither true nor false. It is not the two-valued-ness of first
>order logic which allows such propositions to be expressed; multi-
>valued logics have this problem and more.
> 
>Perhaps a logician can give even more detail and examples.

Just an example of the same paradox for three-valued logic:
   "This sentence is either false or indeterminate."  (If it's false or
indeterminate, it must be true; if it's true, it must be false or
indeterminate.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: What is intelligence?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:22:03 GMT

gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:

>Based on my training as a roboticist, I will state Gerry's First 
>Law of Intelligence:
>  All intelligent being are capable of "rapid", controlled locomotion.

Interesting, especially coming from a roboticist.  This would rule out
AI in a computer form.  I.e.  HAL would be a program, R2D2 would have 
potential.  Is the ability to move necessary for inteligence?
-- 
Josh Hopkins           "If you are sitting in an exit row and you cannot read
                       this card or cannot see well enough to follow these
		       instructions, please tell a crew member."
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu                       -United Airlines safety instructions
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: keithd@bigguy.timeplex.com (Keith Dickinson)
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
Organization: Ascom Timeplex Inc.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 06:09:03 GMT

In article <87368@netnews.upenn.edu> karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna) writes:
>>>
>>>Rocky and Bullwinkle in '92!
>>>
>>
>>Picard/Riker in '92 -- "Make it so"     (bumper sticker)
>>
>
>Hmph!  Leonard Nimoy for President!  The Only Logical Candidate!

Danny Devito for President!  Truly a candidate for the little guy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|The content of this message    | "He's a special effects man! His whole
|probably has no relation to    |  life is one big special effect!" 
|either my employer, my co-     | keithd@timeplex.com uunet!tix!keithd
|workers or reality in general! | Timeplex Customer Support (813) 530-9475
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself -- Netiquette & Politeness (Was: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...))
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:05:12 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Aug27.160903.18687@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.065402.19240@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug23.101121@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>>   When a person expresses an implausible view,
>>>   contradicting my knowledge base,
>>>   and can only defend that view by verbal obfuscation or repitition,
>>>   which are themselves an act of colossal rudeness,
>>>   why should I be polite?
>>
>>Dan, the simple reason is that politeness is part of civilization's
>>unwritten code of behaviour.
>
>When you're engaged in an
>argument with an idiot who's willing to make sweeping statements and who
>refuses to provide even the slightest evidence to back up those statements,
>I see nothing to be gained by politeness.
>
Politeness is professional. If you went to see your bank manager and he
used Dan's language (say, because you had no evidence of being able to
repay a requested loan), you'd say to yourself "hmmm, that guy ought to be
fired, how unprofessional."

The manager just lost a customer and respect.

That's what's to be gained by being polite.

>>Breaking that law of etiquette harms the net (and thus yourself indirectly)
>>as it puts off most high calibre people from participating in net discussions.
>
>Bullshit.

That's the kind of language I'm referring to. Carl, you've let Dan corrupt
you. You're degenerating. Take those tablets quick.

>
>>(As their status would be offended by such immaturity).
>
>Not likely.  What makes you think a high caliber person gives a damn about
>"status"?

Important high calibre people associate only with things that add to their
importance. That's how they got important in the first place. They
wouldn't be seen dead getting involved in arguments that degenerate into
"name calling" a la Dan.

That's why you never see "famous" names on sci.skeptic.

Okay, you see posts from James Randi, but that is aways an
announcement through an intermediary. He if knew about some
of the degenerate language & attitudes that perpetuate in this
group he'd think twice.

I must be some kind of masochist, myself, to still keep hanging around.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<LEET.92Aug19081547@dove.ims.com>
	<20AUG199218582065@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:41:25 GMT

Plesiosaur ping-pong:

>>>>> On 21 Aug 92 01:58:00 GMT, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) said:
James> In article <LEET.92Aug19081547@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes...
>>>>>> On 15 Aug 92 05:28:00 GMT, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) said:

>>Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a
>>huge  animal  that  intensely resembled a dinosaur.
> 
>James> 1977.  It proved to be a basking shark.
> 
>I would *still* like to find the published reference for this result.

James> One source that has been given for this several times on talk.origins
James> is a Daniel Cohen book whose title I do not recall (it may be something
James> like the _Encyclopedia of Monsters_).

It was "The Encyclopedia of Monsters" - thank you.  That book's
article said the evidence which would prove that this was a plesiosaur
never materialized.  It also showed how a basking shark could decay
into a plesiosaur-like carcass.  It did NOT explain the fact that
basking sharks have only two large lower fins, while this carcass
clearly had four (based on the sketch).  There was no evidence that a
dorsal fin had ever been present, based on the second photograph of
the carcass, which clearly showed tissue surrounding vertebrae of the
animal's upper back.

My pastor corresponded with the ship's Japanese biologist last year,
which is how I saw the photos and the sketch.  My pastor also got
copies of several papers - in Japanese, alas.  The biologist is
astonished that Americans would believe he could mistake a shark for a
prehistoric animal (and he is not even a Christian, much less a
scientific creationist), and that his country's National Science
Museum and the committee of marine biologists who examined the
evidence would all be so credulous as well.

I still haven't nailed down who analyzed the tissue sample, and what
the results were - I've seen claims both ways.  Further bulletins as
events warrant.

James> I've seen a color photo, and the animal in the photo is
James> horribly decomposed.

Hey, it had been dead for over 65 million years ... :-)
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "Jesus said, Take away the stone.  Martha, the
Integrated Measurement Systems |  sister of him that was dead, saith unto him,
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  Lord, by this time he stinketh; for he hath
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  been dead four days."  - John 11:39
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  





Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins