HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Info needed: change in ratio male/female
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:39:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.165632.26946@syscen.com>, judiths@eliot.uucp (Judith Speck) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.233625.21919@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.152202.11146@news.nd.edu> wlamonac@purcell.helios.nd.edu (william lamonaca) writes:
>>> ...
>>>I'd heard the opposite (and not just for Germany, but for any war-torn
>>>country)- that more boys are born to make up for those who were killed in
>>>the fighting.  Either way, the story is an urban legend- as far as I know,
>>>the male/female birth ratio does not change.
>>
>>  The ratio certainly shows random fluctuations, but in addition there
>>is a small age-of-mother effect.  To the best of my memory, younger
>>women give birth to a slightly higher percentage of male children than
>>older women.
>>
>>--henry schaffer  n c state univ
>
>  Wait a minute....this makes absolutely no sense.  What has the Mother got
>to do with the gender of the child?  I thought it was a game of "The fastest
>Sperm Cell Wins!"  Where did you get that age-of-mother factoid?

While it's true that the first sperm cell to reach the egg fertilizes it, one
must then consider the question of whether the fetus will survive to term, and
this question could well depend on both the gender of the fetus and the age of
the mother.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hexham@acs.ucalgary.ca (Irving Hexham)
Subject: Reincarnation
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 22:06:42 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

	An otherwise sane friend of mine, actually a professor of
philosophy, has been hooked by books on reincarnation which claim
to factually report past life regression.  Does anyone know a
good response to this type of ....!?
Thanks.
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:43:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <26133@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:

>Do have any doubt that the brain is the seat of your consciousness?  

Sigh. Yes I do. The brain is an observable phenomenon. Consciousness
is what does the observing. Other than one's own consciousness, the
phenomenon is not observable and must be considered subjective.
In order to prove your assertion in a scientific sense, you need to define
your terms. I have encountered no satisfactory definition of consciousness
that would allow it to be considered observable by rigorous science.

The fallacy that your assertion is proven is illustrated to me by the
debates among neurophysiologists as to whether consciousness is "in"
the frontal lobe or "in" the language center of the left hemisphere.
I really doubt that anything other than ordinary cells, fluids and tissues 
will be found "in" either location.

Almost every scientifically literate person _believes_ the brain is the seat
of consciousness, but that is a consensus, rather than a proven fact, even 
granting that the other items on the list may be considered proven.

I am one of the few people I know who have what can remotely be described
as a scientific education who believes it is _unlikely_ that consciousness
somehow "arises" from a sufficiently complex brain. I am not certain 
of this point. However I insist that it has not been decided, and am 
unconvinced that it CAN be decided. 

Clearly the physical state of the brain affects consciousness, but that's
hardly the same thing. I would be very interested in any evidence that the 
mind can be identified as a physical phenomenon, much less "located".

mt
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: missing verbs (was: Biological Sex Differences...)
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<1992Sep9.162211.11503@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
	<1992Sep9.230021.5182@news.media.mit.edu>
	<LEET.92Sep11091605@dove.ims.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:30:54 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:16:05 GMT, leet@ims.com (Grammar-challenged) said:

Lee> "Jack naively espoused creationist beliefs to Jim ... Lippard"  :-)

Lee> (I know, I know, the tense doesn't fit, but it was too good to pass up.)

And as will no doubt be pointed out at length, this is not "tense" but
"voice" or somesuch.  Well, I don't know about you-all, but the
prospect of being unprepared for Lippard's (or any other skeptic's)
response to creationism makes *me* tense!  (Hey, Chapman, remember the
first time ...?)
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "Who have said, With our tongue will we
Integrated Measurement Systems |  prevail; our lips are our own: who is
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  lord over us?" - Psalm 12:4
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: my own stupidity (Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests)
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:15:34 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep5.032213.11282@ttinews.tti.com> bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) writes:
|One of these informants also explained to me that the reason the New
|Testament was originally written in Greek was that Greek is not subject
|to processes of linguistic drift, so arguments about words meaning
|something else at the time of writing are inapplicable to the New
|Testament, at least in its Greek form.

Blecch!  Gag!   I suppose this idiot also believes that Modern Greek is
identical to Koine Greek, which is identical to Classical Greek?
Grrk, how disgusting.

And someone once said that Creationism is not inimical to linguistics?!?

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 13 Sep 92 04:57:24 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep12.014420.9837@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
|In article <LEET.92Sep9095010@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
|
|The earliest conception of soul that I can find in the Bible,
|is as a wind that animates the clay of Adam. In the psalms, we
|see how broad the notion of soul was. It is shown as knowing
|love, hate, elation, depression, fear, resentment, fantasy, dreams,
|nightmare, emotions: most of which are no longer considered part
|of the activities of the soul.  ...
|
|So also, in the new testament, the word `psyche' is used for the life
|in general. While there is an implication of survival after
|death,  I don't see why we can't reconcile those verses with
|a complete resurrection in another realm.

It's nice to see somone who can trace the history of this concept cluster
in detail.  Excellent summary.

And, oh, BTW, I tend to prefer the *older* definitions of soul (the
breath/psyche ones) to the later, platonic/aristotilean ones.
[I certainly find that the scriptural picture of resurrection works
best when read that way].

|In _De Anima_, Tertullian (Ad 208-211) argues that the Platonist/Stoic
|conceptions were most inimical to the Christian evaluation of the
|body. Origen on the other hand considered the soul imprisoned in the
|body.  ...

I agree with Tertullian, and think Origen did some nasty things to
Christian theology.
|
|Note also, that as science has explored the activities of life, the
|role of the soul has emptied further and further. You suppose now
|that what remains in the soul is out of reach of the tools of the
|scientist. Wrongo, bucko; if the soul has an effect on the body,
|then that is a thread of causality and testability that the scientist
|can tug on; if not, then you cherish an empty bag.

Or then again, one can simply go back to the *old* definition of the soul
as the life withing man, and then it becomes *identical* with what the
biological sciences are studying.  Thus it is not a seperate thing to be
identified, or an empty bag of nothing, but simply another way of refering
to the human psyche.

This, combined with the scriptural concept of *whole* *body* ressurection,
allows Christianity to coexist with science, without requiring bizarre
trancendent entities that do nothing.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Broughton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: A bible verse...
Date: 5 Sep 92 23:18:22 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

... appropriate to this year's U.S. election campaign. (Also good for
proselytizers, Falwell/Swaggart/Bakker types, and other nuisances):

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand
and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by
men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward."

                -Matthew 6:5


P.S. I liked the Timothy quote too.
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Robert Broughton    Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca

"We calm and reassure. We embrace people with the message that we're
all in it together. That our leaders are infallible and that there is
nothing, absolutely nothing wrong." - Miles Drentell, _thirtysomething_
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:34:02 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <5762@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk>, zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane) writes...
>In article <715831209.AA00000@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>>Wallaby. I find this hard to believe, because the wallabies can have been
>>separated for only a few dozens or perhaps a hundred generations while dingos
>>(Australian wild dogs) which were separated for far longer breed very well with
>>imported dogs. So do Australian Aborigines and everyone else, for that matter.
>>Not with dogs, other people. You see what I'm saying :-)
> 
>Isolation is not the only requirement for evolution - there must be some
>`pressure' on the population which drives change.

That's not necessarily true.  Genetic drift - random mutations which 
accumulate over time but do not materially affect survival, can in the end 
result in the inability of two groups to successfully interbreed - leading
to speciation.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Jehovah Nitwitnesses (was: Logic and God)
Summary: Anecdotes re: visits by Jehovah Witness witnesses.
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date:  8 Sep 92 20:07:12 GMT

>In article <2AA7BDDA.47C8@tct.com>,
>chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>
>>According to ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline):
>   [Stuff deleted]
>>Jehovah's Witnesses don't sell pamphlets (and we're not supposed to
>>go to peoples' doors in large groups; that can be intimidating).
>>Emily must have confronted some other group.

Ten years ago when we moved into our home we had visits from the JW's
twice.  The first time was two women.  I asked what they wanted.  They
wanted to drop off copies of the Watchtower and AWAKE.  I said "O.K. 
hand 'em over", and reached out my hand.  Playfully pulling the brochures
back against her body one of them said, "not so fast."  I asked why not 
and she said something about the printed material costing money.  I asked
how much they were worth.  They said 10 cents.  So feeling in my pocket I
said "here's a quarter, keep the change."  Well, that got rid of them. 

The second time was again two women, with an elementary aged young
girl.  I was just backing my car out to go to work and they pulled in
the driveway and blocked my way.  This made me feel angry.  The girl, was 
obviously there as a training exercise.  She had a spiral notbook that she 
scribbled in whenever I spoke.  When they asked questions like what do I 
think about the nuclear arms, I would bug their eyes out by giving 
answers such as "means more jobs for America and scares the p*ss out
of them G.D. commies."  They clamped their hands on the little
girl's ears and sped off in their car.  Never saw them again, although I
have seen them walking around the neighborhood.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
From: sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Organization: Intel SCIC, Beaverton, OR
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:51:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.180918.5206@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>If only all the fundy's where joking, but there are people who believe
>this bullshit. Enough so that the OCA's anti homosexual law (or is it
>an admendment) will probably pass in Oregon. 

A measure to amend the constitution (I believe).  I apologize for the 
digression, but didn't want to see this sail on by.  Most everyone
I know is vehemently opposed to this measure (number 9) and I'm
reasonably confident it will do so.  The success of the OCA in one
small community is not indicative of the state as a whole, and the
greater Portland metro area is pivotal in such issues.
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien
From: oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 8 Sep 1992 19:03:43 GMT
Organization: Washington University Astrophysics
NNTP-Posting-Host: fermi.wustl.edu

PROOF THAT SATAN INVENTED ARITHMETIC (AS EVERY SCHOOLCHILD ALWAYS SUSPECTED)

36 = 6*6 (Note the three sixes in a row)

Now add up the integers from 1 to 36.  What do you get?  666!

Ergo, arithmetic is the work of the devil.
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: NOTICE:"Bigfoot/Sasquatch" Sightings Request
Date: 14 Sep 1992 15:13:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


[Remark that bones of some sort should have been found by now.] Not at all.
In fact, the mountain gorilla suffers from the same problem. Remains always
come from animals that have died in captivity. Further, according to the
fossil record the great apes shouldn't exist. There is a lack of bones and/or
fossils to prove otherwise. You average hunter has never come across even a
deer's remains, let alone a bear or something less in numbers.
-- 
"A large creature about 7 1/2 to 8 foot tall. It was greyish black in color,
and as it went away from me I seen the backside of it walking as a man would
walk on it's hind legs."- Former Sheriff Oliver Potter, Vancouver, Washington
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
From: dternes@duke.cdc.com (David Ternes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Gallup Poll (47% believe young earth creation)
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:29:26 GMT
Reply-To: dternes@mips.COM (David Ternes)
Organization: Advanced Product Development

In article <1992Sep8.195029.24950@isrc.sandia.gov> smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey) writes:
>
>A December 1991 Gallup poll showed that 47% believe that God created 
>humans as we appear now, and that God did it about 10,000 years ago.
>
I'm curious about how the question was phrased.

If the question was "Do you believe that God created humans 10,000 
years ago?", it's quite possible that many people never got past the
"Do you believe that God created humans" part.

I'm sure the Gallup people know all about polling bias, but it still
would be helpful to know what questions were asked that led to this
number.  Until that is given, this statistic has little value other
than one of shock or confirmation of one's superiority.


E. David J. Ternes                                       dternes@udev.cdc.com
Goal: To live either in obscurity or in competance.
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Conservation of bogosity?
Date: 15 Sep 1992 07:15:56 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


Is bogosity much different from entropy?  Maybe it always increases.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 19:34:23 GMT

In article <26133@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1992Sep5.052345.3538@u.washington.edu>,
davisson@milton.u.washington.edu (Gordon Davisson) writes...
>>All of them.  Empirical science has *never* absolutely proven any
> 
> Do you have *any* doubt that blood circulates though the body?  Do you
> have any doubt that the brain is the seat of your consciousness?  
> Do you have any doubt that penicillin cures polio?

  Okay, you wake up to find yourself in a room, strapped to a chair.  An evil
looking man walks over, grabs a dentists drill and places it inches from your
eye.  The motor starts and you cringe at the awful whining of the bit as it
spins just milimeters from your eye.  You want to close your lid against the
small cyclone of air that is drying it, but it is held open by a clamp.

  "Ah, your awake," he snickers, stopping the drill for just a second, "Good.  I
have a proposal for you: you can ask to be freed now, or you can answer this
question.  If you asnwer incorrectly I will slowly drill out both your eyes.  If
you answer correctly you can go free."
  Sweat starts dripping down your face, but the restraints keep you from
moving.
  "Answer me this," he snarls, suddenly frowning, "Does blood really circulate
through the body?"

  Now, would you confidently say yes (assuming he knows the truth and will honor
his deal), or will you play it safe and ask to be released.  If you ask to be
released there must be at least the tiniest doubt in your mind.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 7 Sep 92 22:55:23 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <26098@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov writes:
|In article <1001@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes...
|>|
|>Or even more appropriately, evolution predicts that repeated speciation
|>will tend to increase the diversity of life on Earth.
|
|Why?  How do you define diversity?  The case has certainly been made that
|diversity is now much lower (defined by the variation in body plan, for
|example) than in previous epochs (see SJGould, Wonderful Life).
|
I was using the term in a rather simplistic mode - number of visibly distinct
species present.  In that sense the diversity now is indeed quite high,
and if it were not for the recent spate of extinctions, it would be near
an all-time high.

Also, this is one of the areas where Gould's biases make him a less than
reliable source.
-- 
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: Re: SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLICAL  I vote [X]Yes!
Date: 12 Sep 92 14:07:52 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Sep8.125142.4019@cuug.ab.ca> rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (Robert P.J. Day 277-3175) writes:
#While it's almost impossible to stop this, it seems that there is a
#possible solution.
#  If Mr. Lawson, or whoever, insists on this type of behaviour, is it
#really that difficult to track down his/her site, locate the sys admin
#and make it clear that this person's actions are unwanted and contravene
#the mandate of that particular group?  This is not censorship, it is
#simply insisting that posters behave appropriately and restrict their
#postings to the appropriate groups.
#  Any comments?

I'm against it.  It's unpractical.
The solution is to ignore such people.
Use KILL liberally.

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:39:04 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <27011@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
|
|My father believed that it was possible for a civilization to have formed
|prospered and died out before ours, say between 2 billion and 3 billion
|years ago. With continental drift all evidence could have been ground
|out to a smear.

Remotely possible, but extremely unlikely.  Even metamorphic rocks retain
*some* of thier original fabric, enough to leave skyscrapers recognisable.

|Why is South Africa so rich in gold? Could it have
|been a 2 billion year old Fort Knox?
|
The gold in SA is due to a well known, fully characterized process.
There is no mystery.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:38:22 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1992Sep2.163804.23408@cco.caltech.edu| carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
|
|Oh?  Then where's the evidence of their technology?  There would be, you know. 
|For example, there would've been evidence of their mining of coal, oil, metals,
|etc. (for one thing, we wouldn't've found the easily-available deposits that we
|did).

My father believed that it was possible for a civilization to have formed
prospered and died out before ours, say between 2 billion and 3 billion
years ago. With continental drift all evidence could have been ground
out to a smear. Why is South Africa so rich in gold? Could it have
been a 2 billion year old Fort Knox?


-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.