HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:27:56 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug30.011713.8540@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|In article <37430@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
|writes:
|
||>Creationist Religions
||>---------------------
||>The plaque states that there are only three "real" creationist
||>religions:
||>  1. Orthodox Judaism
||>  2. Orthodox Islam
||>  3. Biblical Christianity
||>It adds: "`Liberal' branches accept `theistic evolution.'"
|
|What by the way is "biblical Christianity" ? Is this a separate religion
|from other types of Christianity or do they assert that a belief in the
|bible is necessary to be a Christian?

I suspect that they meant the same thing they meant by 'orthodox' in
the previous two headings.  As good Baptists, however, they just couldn't
bring themselves to use that term, since it is the name of a particular
christian denomination (or rather a group of related denominations).
And they couldn't have people thinking they were supporting a non-protestant
denomination now could they :-)

|When refering to other religions the ignorance of the creationist
|viewpoint is most clearly expressed. The "Idolatory" of many
|pre-monatheistic religions is in fact almost indistinguishable from the
|use of shrines in catholacism. The excuse there is that the figure is
|not an idol but a representation used as an aid to meditation, to be
|treated with reverence but... here the excuses come out.

Not really, the Creationists are pretty much all protestants.
And many come close to being iconoclasts (except where the cross symbol
is concerned).



Not, of course, that there was much redeeming value in anything in the
museum, but it *was* almost internally consistant.
[The most honest thing in there was claiming Newton was a Creationist,
he was, and on openly religious grounds].
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
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 16:25:39 GMT

lawson@acuson.com (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?
: 
: Note:  athiests need not respond that God is never relevant.  I'm aware
:        of that view.
: 

Then why did you ask?  It's kind of pointless to pose a question and
then tell the people with whom you dissagree not to answer because you
are already aware of their views.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  I'm receiving a coded
Rosemount Inc.                                |message from EUBIE BLAKE!!
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca (Mischa Sandberg)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: hypothesizing on Biblical references
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:34:03 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Warren Vonroeschlaub writes:
> In article <26AUG199208520181@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>,
> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> > Of course, the context provides none of this information that Archer seems
> > to see so clearly.  In 2 Kings 2:1-22, Elisha watches Elijah ascend to
> > heaven, then crosses the Jordan river and visits Jericho, where "the
> > water is bad and the land is unfruitful" and Elisha miraculously solves
> > both problems.  Verses 23-25 read:
>   Actually some of this was there.  At the time worshipers of Baal were
> referred
> to as "little infants" (the literal translation of "young lads").  Infants
> was
> rewritten as lads for obvious reasons (infants don't talk) but it may have
> been
> referring to them.  Also "baldhead" was (at the time) one of the gravest and
> most deeply insulting things to call a person.  "Go up" was the current
> equivalent of "drop dead".

One problem I have with second-guessing the meaning of translations-upon-
translations, is that any evidence that the second-guessed meaning
is correct becomes VERY indirect. I'm curious as to what sources,
for example, indicate what terms were used to describe worshippers of
Baal, to say nothing of the idioms. Also, given the glitches in translation,
I take it that the poster is reasonably confident that "go up" survived
through the translations that reached him. You'll pardon the cynicism,
but it starts to sound like a "factual" account of what someone was
dreaming as they died in their sleep (sorry to drag that in from a
New Age thread).


--
Mischa Sandberg ... Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca
                 or uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Mischa_Sandberg
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Engineers think equations are an approximation of reality.
Physicists think reality is an approximation of the equations.
Mathematicians never make the connection.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15772 talk.origins:10692
From: ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline)
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 16:01:28 EDT
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Organization: OS/2 Compiler Development, IBM Canada Lab.
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM

In article <1992Sep2.062405.3854@desire.wright.edu>,
sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>One of the more interesting suggestions I have heard about handling JWs when
>they show up on your doorstep, is to say, wait a minute, go get a notebook
>and ask each one of them for *their* address, saying you want to come to
>*their* house next week and talk about YOUR views.  So far I haven't tried
>it, but I bet if you act wierd enough they won't give out the address.
>
>Sue
>

   Not bad. I've seen two in action -- In one case, a friend of mine
answered the door one morning and she was confronted by a family of JWs.
As I remember, they were selling some pamphlets at $2 a shot. Emily,
not one to be taken, started bargaining -- got them down to 25 cents too!
(I was very impressed -- I could hardly believe my ears when I overheard
what she was up to -- then I had to stifle the laughter.)

   The other method (which I've seen in action) is to tell them that
you're already a member of the largest growing religion on the face of
planet -- that's right, you're Catholic. And why, you might ask, is
this the fastest growing religion? Well, 'cause the Pope won't us wear
these rubber things (he pulls one out -- snaps the rubber) when we F---!
At this point they clamped their hands down on their kids ears, and
leave.

   Not very nice, but quite effective.

Regards,
Ian.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Myth of the bumblebee (was: Re: Logic and God....)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:21:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.202739.12738@lsil.com>, gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne) writes:
>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.

Nice example, since it shows the same sort of distortion of the facts that
creationists often exhibit in their diatribes against evolution.  In point of
fact, a bumblebee is aerodynamically unstable.  Now, if you tell someone who
knows nothing about aerodynamics that something is aerodynamically unstable,
and give him a brief description of what "aerodynamically unstable" means, he's
likely to equate "aerodynamically unstable" with "incapable of flight," which
seems to be the source of this myth.  However, "aerodynamically unstable" does
NOT imply "incapable of flight."  It implies "incapable of flight without
active control surfaces and feedback."  I.e., if you take a bumblebee, freeze
it in any position it might normally assume, and throw it, it will not glide. 
However, if you allow that bumblebee to fly normally, then even with its rather
small brain, it's capable of dealing with the instability.

A good analogy would be if I were to tell you that a human being standing is
unstable (which is true) and you were to conclude from that that it's
impossible for a human being to stand (which is false).

>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?).

No, the mathematics didn't change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:15265 talk.origins:10270
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:59:35 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug27.184501.13095@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>> The world has existed in its current state for roughly 6,000 years
>
>This statement was a response to someone asking about my beliefs.  It
>expresses my personal views.  Place on it whatever labels you like.

The label I prefer is idiocy.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
From: CCEN077@USLVM.USL.EDU
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:38:51 GMT

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.
 
                                                             Ellen
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15863 talk.origins:10796
From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:07:38 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Sep3.155246.17752@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>This is another illustration of the _assumptions_ that evolutionists
>start from, that of uniformity. What if at some point within the
>last 6,000 years human language suddenly and inexplicably exploded
>from one to hundreds instantaneously?
>Do these linguistic reconstructions discount the confusion of 
>languages at the Tower of Babel?
>

  Excuse me, Lionel, but doesn't the 6000 year old earth theory
  make exactly the same assumption?  If not, then prove to me how
  you know that a year in Noah's time was of the same length as our
  current year.  Seems a rather large assumption temporal uniformity
  to me.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: God given OK. Can procede with universal plan.
Organization: RL
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 02:53:28 GMT

In article <933@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>Other than that, He can run the universe however he wants.
>sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>  or
>Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

Fair's fair.

-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15067 talk.origins:10141
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:12:24 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug25.202739.12738@lsil.com> gascan@dcst16.dc writes:
>In article 12915@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>

>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.

Far be it for me to defend Lionel Tun (that isn't what I'm doing
anyway), but what is your response to those who scream that evolution
is a "proven fact"?

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:51:42 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to sbishop@desire.wright.edu:
>In article <1992Sep1.045645.9620@meteor.wisc.edu>, tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>> I had him completely flummoxed. Interestingly, his leader came by
>> immediately and began threatening me with hell fire at the top of
>> his lungs...
>
>One of the more interesting suggestions I have heard about handling JWs...

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in a firey hell, and neither do we
resort to argumentation by volume.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15836 talk.origins:10761
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:23:43 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)

In article <1992Sep3.035836.2759@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca>, ted@eslvcr (Ted Powell) writes:
>Ummm...you're missing the point. Try looking up "dendogram" in a dictionary.

>OK, now try looking up "dendrogram".

Would that I were so clever.  You can see the word a thousand times, you can
even know better etymologically, but when your boss only says "dendogram",
that's what you notice.  (For those not old enough to remember, I've only
taken up biology seriously since arriving here at Wistar.)
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:43:10 GMT

slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:
> 
>The hall included a picture of an astronaut (I forget his name)
>who proclaims his faith in God and Creation.  One woman walking
>by commented, "He's a creationist, and he's a rocket scientist.
>He's a good guy.  Why do they put him in with the bad guys?"
>[referring to the pictures of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Marx, etc.]
>Another guy remarked, "Most of the astronauts that I've heard of
>believe in God when they come back down."  To which his friend
>replied, "It would be hard not to."

The astronaut in question is most likely (Edgar?) Mitchell, a
wacko who spent many of his post-astronaut days in search of
Noah's ark (this would make sense in light of the earlier mentions
of the Noah's ark exhibit).  He may have been an astronaut, but
he's certainly no rocket scientist :-)

Mark
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:52:25 GMT

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>> 
>> Couldn't there be others, which just have not been given time to develop?
>> Can we interfere in such a development, in order to make it impossible?
>> Would we tolerate another "race" achieving similar things as ours?

>	There is no reason to assume that humans are the first
>	species to achieve intelligence,  self-awareness or technology 
>	on this planet. The 'dinosaurs' had plenty of time for this.
>	Maybe they caused the great extinction themselves. So much time
>	has passed that artifacts may be forever unavailible. 

There's an Extraordinary Claim for ya.  Got any Extraordinary
Evidence?

Mark
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself -- Netiquette & Politeness (Was: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...))
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:45:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.025332.16509@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>Hmmmm, justifying your actions because "someone else does it." That's fallacious
>argument #1193, your arguments are degenerating with your language.

If there's a claim, implicit or otherwise, that nobody else does it, it's not
fallacious at all to point out that someone does.
--
"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
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 05:01:10 GMT


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?


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?


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

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.

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.

Vern Nelson

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:04:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.155544.15577@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <2A9D3AC4.19887@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>>lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>I also doubt that all of science would fall apart if belief in
>>>evolutionary origin fell by the wayside.
>>
>>No, not all of science would fall apart -- only biology, genetics,
>>geology, astrophysics, anthropology, biochemistry, paleontology,
>>zoology, archaeology, psychology, biophysics, ethnography,
>>linguistics, and probably a dozen other scientific fields I am
>>not recalling.
>
>And just how would those fall apart?  Oh, I can see paleontology, but
>what about the others?
>
>Linguistics depends on humans having evolved from primates?
>(apoligies if I picked the weakest link)

Humans did not evolve *from* primates; we're still primates since we
have grasping hands with flat nails and front-facing eyes with stereo-
scopic vision.  In 1857 Richard Owen proposed moving humans from the
primate order and placing them in a separate subclass of mammals, but
his suggestion was not adopted.

As for linguistics:

Ever heard of apes named Washoe, Koko, and Kanzi and their linguistic
accomplishments?

While fooling around with newspaper abstracts at the library, I found the
following:

Atlanta Constitution              Apr 4 1991; sec A, p 16, col 1
Headline: Kanzi to Get His Reward--An Award
Abstract: In Apr 1991, Kanzi, the chimpanzee [actually he's a bonobo - HH]
          will be the first non-human to receive an academic award from
          Indiana University's Center for Research in Anthropological 
          Foundations of Technology.
By-line:  MORRIS, HOLLY
Subjects: INDIANA UNIVERSITY, AWARDS & HONORS, MONKEYS & APES
Article Length:                   Medium (6 to 18 column inches)

-- Herb Huston

"I wonder what a chimpanzee would say to this?" -- Charles Darwin on
learning of Richard Owen's suggestion.  Does this count as a prediction?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 31 Aug 92 09:23:39 GMT

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

    The plaque states that there are only three "real" creationist
    religions:
      1. Orthodox Judaism
      2. Orthodox Islam
      3. Biblical Christianity

It is not the case that all Orthodox Jews are creationists.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     -- I'm living for today!
 |warren@      
/ nysernet.org 
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15262 talk.origins:10268