HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R)
Subject: Re: Applied Kinesiology, or what? (Was: how I heard about it)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:50:34 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>So, Applied Kinesiology is something like the Apostolic Succession or
>whatever? It can only be communicated by a sort of "laying on of hands"?

>Doesn't it have any "findings" or "theories"? Haven't any scientific
>papers been written about it? Is it falsifiable in any way (and if so,
>how)?

>If not, it isn't science.

If I might take a moment to be skeptical of the skeptics...

That AK might not be science doesn't really bother me.  Science is not the be-
all and the end-all, merely a way of looking at things.  Furthermore, when as
in some postings, a great leap of logic is made in comparing AK to astrology
etc, minds are already made up and any attempt I would make to explain AK
would just be a waste of bandwidth.  

However, I did do a search of medline for things related to AK and didn't find
much.  I also did the same for acupuncture and except for references about
electro-acupuncture or anesthesia, which is are very narrow applications of 
acupuncture and traditional chinese medicine, there was not too much.  The
paucity of 'scientific' literature does not lessen the potential value of these
techniques and modalities.  It just means that its out of the main stream.  Its
not that they are invalid.  Robert Becker, the author of "The Body Electric"
was funded some years ago by the NIH to do some acupunture research.  He found
superficial regions on the arms having some electical activity which 
corresponded to acupuncture meridians.  However, for some unknown reason(s), 
his grant was dropped by the NIH.  Becker is not a flake.  His work was out 
of the main stream of "accepted" science and therefore poo-pooed.  He also 
stepped on toes.  Other systems scientists, also find difficulty in getting
work published, not because it isn't good, but in some cases it pushes the 
publishing technology while in others its too revolutionary.

So I'm not worried that AK may not be science.  In the long run, science may 
not be either.

-- 
Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
				 *Aristotle				      *
From: -Unknown-@iphase.UUCP (-Unknown-)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Hatton: CIA or ET
Date: 15 Aug 92  19:03:12 EST

Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Dear Thinkers: Hatton according to you people must be a pretty bad dude.
It's too bad I didn't know that when I read his material. I am farmiliar
with ASSK and have studied most of their material. I think more of Sister 
Thedra the person who does their channeling than anyone on Earth. It seems
this happens over and over again. A person like J.C. comes along and 
people start an organization to further his teaching and they wind up 
killing people who don't become members of that group. It happened with
the person that started the I AM Group and also L. Ron Hubbard. I recently
tried to get permission to post some information from Dr. Doreal (now dead)
about Mt. Shasta. The people don't want the world to hear about it they want
to control it themselves and sell it for money. John Winston.
 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14545 talk.origins:9651
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:23:25 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug17.141019@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
|In article <63ga03Lg59Ze00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim 
|Loucks) writes:
|
|In his own words: 
|> I don't believe I've ever made such a statement. As previously stated,
|> it is my belief that life on earth is fairly young, the earth may or
|> may not be old. It is also my belief that God could have easily created
|                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> with the appearance of age, though most definitely not to deceive. If
|  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> God created a 100 foot tree, would it not have the appearance of age?

Not necessarily.  If it had 300 or so perfectly regular, absolutely uniform
growth rings, and had a nearly perfect physical form, with no environmentally
generated deviations it would be *obviously* *created*.

It would be the inclusion of different width growth rings, or scar tissue
from injuries that never happened, or the 'broken' branches that had never
really been there and other such historical signs of past *processes* that
would give the appearance of age, and would also constitute fraud and
deception on the part of the creator.

|> If such a tree were created, I have no problems with God also creating
|> tree rings if he so desired. Nobody asked me why God chose to deceive
|> us, but rather why an asshole dicked with the information. That was
|> the context of my reply.

It is not the tree rings that are the problem, it is the indications of
processes in *variations* in the tree rings that are the problem.  *These*
imply either a *real* history, or a structurally unnecessary attempt at
simulating such a real history.  The latter in something not otherwise
clearly manufactured is considered to be prima facie evidence of intent
to defraud by most courts of law that I know of.

|   There is not miscommunication.  You think God created a world that would
|convince any reasonable person that did _not_ have a particular sort of 
|religion that it was OLD.  This makes him a deciever; he must have known it
|would have that effect: so he gets credit for decieving me, at least, and, at
|last count several million others.

Exactly.  Given the clear evidence for *irregular*, *unique*, *historical*
events at ages far exceeding any Creationist's timetable, the God they
worship *must* be considered a deciever.

Luckily I don't worship him. I worship the God revealed by Jesus in the
Gospels.  He is a much more reasonable, less deceptive God.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Jim's Logic and the Origin of Feces.
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:46:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: hilbert.1992Aug18.204651.23644
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon

In article <39EA03P761SV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>Maybe we shouldn't be messin' around where we're messin' around
>... But man with all his pride must know, and for this pride,
>God frustrates those minds. 

This past week, he denies threatening the T.O irregulars
with hell.  When confronted with his quote,
he says, "Maybe I did say that, but I was quoting the bible -
take it up with the Author" -- with a straight face.
When we question him, he accuses us of questioning God.
Although the Bible nowhere condemns the study of nature or
origins, Jim feels free to invent a new command: "Thou shalt
not think about origins!"

And he claims that _we_ are the proud ones.

He claims that evolutionary biologists are liars - but
when his sources are examined, THEY turn out to be the
liars. And this happens _over_ and _over_ again to poor Jim.
Misquote after misquote is produced. Creationist lie after
creationist lie is exposed.  At one point, he is so shamed
by the lies he has unwittingly repeated, he puts out a
heartfelt apology - but through it all, he claims the high
moral ground for creationism, and blasts the integrity of
evolutionary biologists he has never met or talked to.

And he claims it is _our_ theory that leads to iniquity.

He claims he has presented evidence for creationism -
when noone can recall ever having seen it, he is unable
to produce it, or remember what it was. Having failed
to find any evidence, he promises to tell us _what_
_the_ _theory_ _of_ _creationism_ _is_. After a few
months, he informs us that he is neither able to locate
one in his literature, nor produce one. What a guy.

And he claims it is _our_ minds God is frustrating.

He is reduced to saying oneliners w/o content like "That's
a matter of interpretation" - when he has no interpretation,
and has admitted it. He feels free to contradict the Bible
when it says that heaven and earth declare the glory of God,
by saying that the appearance of heaven and earth are a trick
to trap the proud. He tells us that our problem is that we
try to understand, when all we should do is obey.

Pathetic.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
From: rocher@husc8.harvard.edu (Jean-Marc Rocher)
Date: 15 Aug 92 20:40:08 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center
Keywords: evolution, creationism

In article <1992Aug15.203419.9214@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>
>>   7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
>>      6.  According to evolution, if an organ has  lost  its
>>     value,  it should, over time, vanish completely.  There
>>     has been enough time to lose these "vestigial"  organs,
>>     but we still have them.


	This is wrong. Evolution states that if an organism without a certain 
attribute, or with that attribute in a reduced form, is able to survive (and
reproduce) more effectively than an organism with that attribute, then that
attribute will disappear. There are several parts of the human body which no
longer provide any benefits (the appendix, the little toe), but a person without
an appendix is not going to have any evolutionary advantage over those of use
with appendices, so it is highly unlikely that appendices will ever disappear.

						...Jean-Marc Rocher

"How shall we fuck off, o Lord?" -John Cleese

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:23:55 GMT

In article <25524@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> I wonder what Jim would say to the many Christians who disagree with
> his fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible - all of whom would 
> claim that *he* is the one who is not the true follower of Christ?

  Just for the record, I am a Christian who does not agree with Jim Loucks'
interpretation.  While I of course cannot be sure, I do not put serious doubt on
Jim's claim he is a Christian, as the interpretation of Genisis has little or no
effect on this.

  The word "all" should be modified to "some" at least, possibly to "none". 
Please do not decide what I believe.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | O |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop circles: natural or human-made?
Keywords: skeptic
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:16:00 GMT
 <Bt758M.2J6@mtholyoke.edu> <1992Aug19.145107.19295@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug19.145107.19295@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes...
>And someone wrote a letter to New Scientist detailing how a Mandelbrot
>shape might be made with a rope and two friends.  I'll look for the
>reference.

Ray Girvan, "Corny Fractals," _New Scientist_ 131(14 September 1991):62.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:56:04 +1000

jds>> I don't see any difficulty here. Obviously 7:2 says how many mated
jds>> pairs, and 7:9 says that the animals entered the ark in mated pairs.
jds>> Perhaps I'm missing something.

JJL> Yes, verses 19-20 of chapter 6.

Oh, I see what you mean. It doesn't seem particularly earth-shattering to me.
The standard explanation is that by saying "two of each species" it means _at
least_ two. I've read definitions of problems in logic that use the same
phrasing.

If it's of any use, the terminology between the two passages differs. The first
talks about having two from each species, and the second talks about the need
for having mated pairs. This seems enormously reasonable: if you want to rescue
species (ignoring the need for genetic variation) you need two of everything,
mated pairs, and  more of the ones you're likely to eat :-)

jds>> We classify bats as mammals which fly. The Bible classifies them as
jds>> flying things which are mammals. See the difference?

JJL> The Bible does not classify bats as "flying things which are mammals."
JJL> See Leviticus 11:12-19.  It lists "the bat" as an instance of what
JJL> "you shall detest among the birds."

It classifies bats as flying things, because it calls a bat an "Oif" (in
Hebrew). Since we know that that bats aren't birds, an "Oif" must be a flying
thing, excluding insects. This is a bit of a circular issue: you say bats aren't
birds and that the Bible shouldn't say they are. I agree, and say that since
bats aren't birds the Bible *doesn't* say they are.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14758 talk.origins:9826
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:18:31 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug19.124008.16945@pixel.kodak.com> jeh@raster.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes:
>jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>: ...it is my belief that life on earth is fairly young, the earth may or
>: may not be old. It is also my belief that God could have easily created
>: with the appearance of age, though most definitely not to deceive. If
>: God created a 100 foot tree, would it not have the appearance of age?
>
>Stupid question: if God created everything with the appearance of age,
>i.e. exactly as things would look if currently understood processes had been
>operating in the past, how is that any different, as far as science is
>concerned, from the case where everything really _is_ old? 

I'm pleased to see that someone is thinking clearly.

As far as _science_ goes, there is no difference.  This whole thread
really centers around a metaphysical issue:  Are your
senses/experiences a source or truth.  Science holds that they are and
(from the sounds of this thread) that they are the _only_ source of
truth.  Religion holds that they are not the only source and may not
(depending on specific doctrine) be accurate.


There is another point I've been meaning to bring up on this thread.
The anti-faith side of this debate questions why the evidence points to
long times, evolution, etc.  Perhaps the "evidence" is not pointing.
As an example, let me bring up the old "canals" on Mars topic.  They
were clear evidence that there was an advanced civilization on Mars.
More recent views is that they just happen to be there and aren't
evidence of anything.  They just appeared to be canals.

Ask all the questions you want, but don't be so arrogant to think that
God must run the universe on your terms.

Perhaps I have an easier time with this because I am a programmer.  I
can think of variables and structures as real while I know that they
are just convenient concepts.  I look at evolution the same way.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:00:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.081905.10638@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes in part:
|> Lorne, look at a photograph of it yourself. There is no horizontal stretching.
|> 
|> Put shoe polish on your face. Place a cloth over your face. Peel off.
|> 
|> Note the horizontal stretching.
|> 
|> No argument.
Hmm.  When I do this there is no "horizontal stretching" (whatever
that means).  You just don't know how to do it right, D.A.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14356 talk.origins:9516
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:13:21 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu writes:
>In article <b6Ph03NQ5ca600@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>The above is a paraphrase from somewhere of Romans 1:20. If you
>>have a problem with the author there's nothing I can do about it.

>The response is inadequate..  It was jloucks@uts.amdahl.com who saw fit to
>ENTER that paraphrase as a means of 'scoring' in an on-going debate, and it is
>jloucks@uts.amdahl.com who is solely responsible for the content of each and
>every one of his messages.

I'll buy that, but watch out because you just might get bit with your 
own logic.

>A Christian cannot hide behind scripture when addressing another human being.

This Christian doesn't "hide" behind anything as far as the general
usage of word is used. In the sense you're using, I'll "hide" behind
the grace of God and admit to that anyday.

>Paul wrote "All scripture ... is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
>correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the MAN OF GOD may be
>perfect..." [2 Timothy 3:16,17]  Note the phrase MAN OF GOD in this passage...
>this is not a list of the uses of scripture when dealing the unconverted.

How does the non-Christian become Christian if not through Scripture?

>If you have a point to make, state it plainly.  Don't try to get 'cute' by
>implying that a dissenting opinion will send the holder of that opinion to
>eternal damnation, unless you think you are in a position to sit on the Throne
>of Judgement yourself.

Of course I don't consider myself in a position to sit on The Throne,
but I can quote Scripture and communicate what I believe God has to 
say about my point.

>Saying "I didn't write this, if you have a problem with the text IN THE CONTEXT
>WITHIN WHICH =I= USED IT, tough" makes the Bible into what Samual Johnson once
>reserved for the term 'patriotism' -- the last refuge of scoundrels.

Unfortunately, Scripture is often "the *last* refuge" sought by most
when it should have been the first. Do you have a problem with the
author?

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 23:49:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Actually, I think that "kinesiology" means something like 'exercise without
motion using opposing muscles  to generate force.' Lock your fingers
together, then pull your arms apart: something like that. It's "applied
kinesiology" that means "quackery".

In article <1992Aug12.145724.12468@colorado.edu> gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R) writes:
>
>
>What the Mensa magazine was referring to was "applied kinesiology" or AK.  
>Kinesiology is an academic disipline and refers to body mechanics.  One of the
>things that was developed by kinesiologists and used by physical therapists
>is a means of testing muscle strength by a series of muscle tests.  This has 
>been applied by chiropractors in conjunction with certain reflexes and massage
>techniques to strengthen muscles and balance opposing muscles.  It has also 
>been used by the Touch for Health Foundation to teach lay persons these 
>techniques.  Some sports medicine people and trainers use it as well.
>
>My experience with AK goes back about 13 or 14 years.  While I cannot ascribe
>specific mechanisms/reasons for how some of the balancing techniques work, 
>when done by well trained, reliable practitioners, it does work.  BTW, physi-
>cians can't tell you ultimately how aspirin works either.  The key, as in 
>any healing modality, be it allopathy, chiropractic, oriental medicine or 
>whatnot, is a reliable practitioner.  There are lots of flakes who claim lots
>of things with AK.  There are also lots of remarkable things that it can and 
>has been used for.  Muscle tests can be biased by the practitioner in very
>subtle ways.  However, once again, the same can be said for MD's.  BTW, I've
>done the above experiment, somewhat modified, in a double blind manner.

Please describe for us a single, repeatable experiment that will allow
us to "test" something meaningful using AK. If possible, I'd like an experiment
that involves "pulling down the arm" when it is extended straight out,
palm down. I'd like to do some 'muscle testing'.


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Last Tuesdayism (Was Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 15:29:40 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Aug21190337@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
writes:
> The universe was created last Tuesday with an appearance of old age,
> and with our memories generated for us.  Can this be disproven?  No.
> But so what?  Based on scientific observation, the universe was
> created a long time ago.  If it was recently created with the
> appearance of old age, we'll never know the difference.  [Of course,
> if it was recently created by an all-powerful being, it is certainly
> trying to deceive us...]
> 
> For an amusing book along these lines, read _Thrice Upon a Time_ by I
> forget the author's name.

   James P. Hogan.
 
Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
PS: Infidel!  Dog!  The Universe was obviously created last Wednesday!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 05:05:17 GMT


Of course the bible is inconsistant, so is _Star Trek_.  For the same
reason, they both were written by many people.

Actually, they're both similar in a different way, too.  They both are a
collection of stories which, if listened to and interpreted right, provide
guides to conduct in the society which they grew out of.

Big Al.  I am *NOT* trying to start a religion worshipping the great god
Spock.  I wouldn't be that surprised if there was one, though.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins