HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Let's test the sevens-in-Bible phenomenon!
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:36:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <4729384@gloin.unh.edu>, Kalter@unh.edu writes...
>Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.  The skeptics are in
>business to investicate and test any testable claims of the extraordinary.
>The prospect that off-the-shelf original-language books of the Bible
>produce sevens when run through an objective formula has got to be
>THE MOST TESTABLE CLAIM ever to come down the pike.  It do, or it don't.

The problem is that there are hundreds of thousands of manuscript variants.
I think the claim is usually made about the Textus Receptus, though.
(Despite the fact that we have evidence from other manuscripts that
the Textus Receptus contains editorial insertions.)

But anyway, as I pointed out in response to the message that started this
when it was posted on talk.origins (it was later reposted here), the very
first claim made in that posting is false.  It was claimed that the
number of generations in the first chapter of Matthew appears in three
groups of fourteen.  (Matthew 1:17 says "Therefore all the generations from
Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the
deportation to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the deportation
to Babylon to the time of Christ fourteen generations.")  This is
demonstrably false just by counting the names listed in Matthew 1:1-16.
There aren't three groups of fourteen; there are two groups of fourteen
and one group of thirteen.  Matthew counts one of the names in the second
group twice--at the end of the second group and again at the beginning of
the third group.  Further, he leaves out generations which are listed
in 1 Chronicles chapter 3:  Jehoiakim, between Josiah and Jeconiah, and
Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah between Joram and Jotham.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:37:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.083820.23192@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
}In article <1992Sep9.202437.23671@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <1992Sep9.180800.23864@bcrka451.bnr.ca> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:
}>}Excuse me, but Vern (aka Gerald Vernon Nelson) appears to be an atheist,
}>}not a creationist:
}>
}>That you should draw such a direct conclusion should itself be informative.
}>Notice that "atheist" != "creationist".  Ever think why?
}
}Actually, Gerald Vernon Nelson appears to be a former creationist who's now an
}atheist.

Actually, I don't care about Gerald Vernon Nelson.  I find Seanna's logic
interesting.


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16292 talk.origins:11217
From: c60c-2hl@web-2f.berkeley.edu (Douglas V. Simpkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 11 Sep 1992 21:08:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: web-2f.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep3.120551.22010@city.cs} lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
}In article <1992Sep2.180407.12729@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu} csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss) writes:
}}In article <1992Sep2.125346.202636@uctvax.uct.ac.za} fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
}}}
}}}"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
}}}Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
}}}number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will
}}}turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Tim 4:3-4
}}}
}}
}}How odd of Timothy to predict what his new religion would boil down to.
}}Some people just do not want to hear from what we evolved.  They,
}}instead, chose to believe that we were divinely created as the universe's
}}reason for being.  The myths of creation.  So Timothy was correct.
}}
}
}Lord, forgive him for he does not know what he is saying.
}
}Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)

Does the Lord read USENET?

Doug Simpkinson
c60c-2hl@web.berkeley.edu

You can choose the warm, comforting ignorance of blind faith, or the cold,
hard reality of thinking for yourself.

				-Heinlein?
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:03:41 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 26056@dog.ee.lbl.gov, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>
>Please explain how the theory that atoms have nuclei has not been proven.
>What possible shred of doubt can there be? 
>

Semantics, semantics!  There is, I beleive, a difference between the popular
usage of the word _theory_ and the specialized term _scientific theory._  To
distiguish, science usually uses the word _hypothesis_ where most people would
use the word _theory._  In this sense, the hypothesis of an atom having a
nucleus was proved, and hence became seen as fact.  The hypothesis of, for example,
special relativity, was logically constructed so as to be falsifiable and unprovable.
Since various and repeated experiments have failed to falsify it, and it has made
predictions of other discoveries, etc., this hypothesis has been elevated to the
exalted status of scientific theory. 

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:19:00 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep9.023132.2686@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
|>
|>Yes, this reasoning is faulty. The hebrews prior to about the 1st century
|>AD didn't have this conception of soul. For them, the soul was simply
|>your life, inseparable from your body. If there was life after death,
|>it would be a resurrection of the whole person, toenails, earlobes and
|>all.
|
|I don't know where you are getting your references from, but a
|quick check shows 125 references to the word soul in the Bible
|with 10 of them in the NT. ...

Yes, the Bible texts include a word which is traditionally translated
as 'soul'.  It did *not* mean what we now mean by that word.  As the
prior poster said, the hebrews used the word to refer to the life of
the body, inseperable from it, and having no *independent* existance.

And none of Jesus teaching are inconsistant with this view.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: zuber_rg@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Riggs and Gould
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:37:58 GMT

In article <1311@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	"This debate (between Julian Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce of the
>Anglican Church) focused the world's attention on the real and deep issue of
>Darwin's century - science versus religion. Huxley's victory was a pivotal
>moment in the battle for science and reason against superstition and dogma."

	Yes. Science versus superstition and dogma. NOT the bible. Can't
you understand the difference?

>	"I knew from preliminary browsings that the official tale was a
>reconstruction made by Darwin's champions some quarter century after the 
>fact. Amazingly enough (for all its later fame), no one bothered to record
>the event in any detail at the time itself. No stenographer was present. The
>two men exchanged words to be sure, but no one knows what they actually
>said, and the few sketchy reports of journalists and letter writers contain
>important gaps and contradictions. Ironically, the official version has been
>so widely accepted and unchallenged not because we know its truth by copious
>documentation, but rather because so little data exist for a potential
>challenge."

	Challenge to you Mr. Riggs. I have read this essay so I think
I know what this paragraph is about. Since YOU posted this quotation, I want
YOU to tell us what it's talking about.
	What is 'the official tale' referring to?
	What is 'the event' referring to?

	Since you apparently read the essay (correct?) you can certainly
answer these questions.

>Bill R.

Rob Zuber
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 07:29:24 GMT

In article <2AA7BDDA.47C8@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> Jehovah's Witnesses don't sell pamphlets (and we're not supposed to
> go to peoples' doors in large groups; that can be intimidating).

I've yet to see them in packs of more than two, although sometimes I see
what I assume are family members waiting in the car; I imagine the whole
tribe would get out of the car and come in if I said I was interested
and invited them in.

> Emily must have confronted some other group.

Wonder who I've been seeing, then--I thought it was JWs, but that may
have been an error on my part.  Several times, people have come to my
door with publications called "Awake!" and "The Watchtower," and offered
to sell them to me.  I assume that they would have given them away if I
had said I was interested but couldn't afford to pay, but since I WASN'T
interested, I said so and everyone agreed it would be stupid and
wasteful to leave them with me.

I thought Watchtower and Awake! were JW titles--was that incorrect?  Is
somebody else running around trying to pass themselves off as JWs?  That
seems pretty weird to me...all I ever hear is jokes about how obnoxious
JWs are and how much everybody hates it when they come around, so why
would anyone else voluntarily and deliberately masquerade as such a
universally-disliked group?

(By the way, I've NEVER had any of these people behave obnoxiously
towards me, other than the inconvenience of dragging me out to answer
the door in the first place.  They tell me they want to save my soul, I
tell them I already have a religion, they say thanks for your time and
they leave.  Disappointing, really.)

(I DID, however, get physically grabbed by a bunch of what I think were
Moonies, and they tried to drag me down the stairs into the basement of
the Loussac Public Library in Anchorage, Alaska, about 15 years ago. 
VERY Dawn of the Dead.  The grabber's grip slipped, though, and I was
able to escape into the street.  I had only gone down there because
that's where the bathrooms were--yikes!)

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Info needed: change in ratio male/female
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:15:35 GMT

From article <1992Sep8.203909.24307@cco.caltech.edu>, by carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick):
> In article <1992Sep8.165632.26946@syscen.com>, judiths@eliot.uucp (Judith Speck) writes:
[..]
>>
>>  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.

Also, don't the different sperm have slightly different traits.  One type
doing better/worse in more acidic/basic environments and one swimming faster
than the other.

In that case it is certainly possible for the environment/geometry of the
mothers reproductive system to make a difference in conception rates.

SEH
From: jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:17:34 GMT
Organization: GRASP Lab

In article <1ntn=7j@lynx.unm.edu>, cary@carina.unm.edu (Ithlial the Archer) writes:
> In article <88261@netnews.upenn.edu> jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien) writes:
> >PROOF IRRATIONNAL NUMBERS ARE EVIL:
[my "proof" deleted]

> The definition of a rational number is any number that can be expressed as the
> ratio of two integers, like 2/3.  So 0.6666666666666666666666666666666666666...
> is not irrational.  Sorry, it is cute though, maybe rational numbers are
> evil?  :)
> 

I like it when, after the most irrationnal post on earth, someone come up and says:

"heavens, you made a mistake".


Well, here's for you:

take the first three numbers: 1,2,3.
Square them : 1,4,9


Add the 149 first of the fractionnal part of Pi: 0.14159265358979323846264338327950.....


and you obtain:  666 !!!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

PI is evil !!!!!!!!!!


Note: I KNOW Pi is transcendental.
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Implementing a brain machine? (was Re: Voyager(TM) light... )
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:30:57 GMT

In article <KENTD.92Sep10110311@zappa.FtCollins.NCR.com>, kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton) writes in part:
|> 
|> I would guess once that is established, you could then just alter the
|> flash rate to correspond to the desired brain wave frequency, mount it
|> on an old pair of cheap sunglasses and off you go! :^)
...and sell it for 50 bucks a pop, with a fancy name like the
"Mind-Expander 2010".  (There have been articles in popular electronic 
magazines and Byte about how to build these things.)

|> Anybody know any more about the theory of operation for these beasties?
You've already described the main theory of operation--they sound
interesting and they are easy to build.  Mix in some placebo effect
and they'll work just fine.

What I'd really like to know is whether these cheap things actually do
affect EEG's, and if so, in what ways.  So far, I have received little
besides gee-whiz personal endorsements and pointers to commercial claims.
Does ANYBODY have any scientific, medical, or ANY reasonable evidence
that these things do anything at all.  (Besides make people happy, and
make money for the vendors.)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey)
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Org. 1600, Albq., NM
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:10:56 GMT

> #
> #   Or comments on the active sabotage by the ICR and their 
> #running dog lackeys.
               ^^^^^^^
	Please don't use that word in association with the ICR.

Scott Lackey
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLICAL  I vote [X]Yes!
Organization: HFS, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:51:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.113116.25356@cuug.ab.ca> rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (Robert P.J. Day 277-3175) writes:
>  Even if the original cross-posted message isn't that long, anyone
>responding to it feels the need to also cross-post, just to show that
>they're not going to be one-upped, and they can cover the net just as
>well as the original poster.  From there, it's a quick descent into
>absurdity.  Any solutions?  Maybe just an application of common courtesy
>and consideration?  Sigh.

The reason why followups go to the same newsgroups as the original
has nothing to do with people trying not to be one-upped.  In my
case, its because I let the newsreader prepare the message header
which defaults to the original newsgroups.  Since I don't attend
the majority of other newsgroups, I don't even know if they would
be interested or care but leave it up to the wisdom of the
original poster.  Do you have a better way for us to determine
which followups should go to which newgroups?

>
>R. Day


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: mpark@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Park)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: RU-486 (was Re: Worthless on philosophical grounds.)
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:07:36 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep14.084111@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>pun (please).  RU-486 is an estrogen blocker.  It can potentially treat many
>medical conditions.  To ban it from U.S. researchers because it can also be
>used for cheap, safe abortions may condem a number of women to really annoying
          ^^^^^  ^^^^
>and unneccesary death by breast cancer (we won't know until we can do the
>research).
>

I just recently read that RU-486 abortions are not so cheap or safe
as is generally thought (bleeding and other complications, I think).
-- 
Ciao-abunga!           +-------------------------------------+
Michael Park           | This space intentionally left blank |
mpark@u.washington.edu +-------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: Kalter@unh.edu
Subject: Let's test the sevens-in-Bible phenomenon!
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 09:24:37 GMT

Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.  The skeptics are in
business to investicate and test any testable claims of the extraordinary.
The prospect that off-the-shelf original-language books of the Bible
produce sevens when run through an objective formula has got to be
THE MOST TESTABLE CLAIM ever to come down the pike.  It do, or it don't.
Cynicism aside, anyone who knows that there is hard evidence on an issue,
has not examined it, knows that another has made an observation, yet
says "I don't need to see for myself; they're just WRONG!" does not
truly adhere to the skeptic's philosophy.  A skeptic would insist on a
second opinion.  BRING IN THE EVIDENCE. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: akerson@deimos.srg.af.mil (Pete Akerson - akerson%srg@uunet.uucp)
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls 
Organization: ARINC Research, Corp.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 20:13:26 GMT




mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:

>> Prejudice against evangelicals is, after all, prejudice.

Ahh, remember the roots (latin) of pre-judice; it means judging ahead of time.
if I told you that someone was a child-molester or a National Socialist,
would you feel justified in assuming them to be reasonable people, 
at least before you met them ?

Seems to me that evangelicals and National Socialists both think they
have the right to tell me what to think.
--
Usually Reply-to: akerson%srg@uunet.uucp
Internet: akerson@srg.af.mil@uunet.uucp
Uunet: uunet!srg!akerson
Milnet: akerson@srg.srg.af.mil     maybe ...
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 17:16:54 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com:
>Why don't you try something new when reading this, leave your beliefs
>and judgements hanging at the door of your mind and really get into
>conceptualizing what my friends here are communicating.  I promise it
>will change you in ways you can't currently imagine.  Come on, give
>it a try go hang up those beliefs and judgements, they will be there
>when you get back.

If there has ever been a less thinly disguised invitation to check
your brain at the door, I haven't seen it.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.rumors
From: carlos@dorsai.com (Carlos Domenguiz)
Subject: Re: Kudos to My Many Fans
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:11:37 GMT

lho@defect.kgb.su (Lee Harvey Oswald) writes:

> Comrades, my only two dreams in life were to be a spy, or an assassin,
> and to get laid. I have achieved my dreams but I am still disgruntled.
> Lately, I've become quite spectacularly annoyed at the drop-off in net
> traffic from my supporters and admirers. I'm beginning to think that
> everyone's name has finally been added to everyone else's KILL file.
> And how would you like to be added to my KILL file, fellow patriot?

 
And didn't you know, I masquerade as the Scarlet Pimpernel on every
fourth tuesday.....
 
Lemme go before I cross post to alt.flames and really make an ass
of myself...
 
>>Carlos<<

carlos@dorsai.com ================:) EAT THE WORM!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Data Structures of Unreality
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:46:59 GMT



albert@bsovax.UUCP (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>   So them catholic theologicans postulate that
>   the Soul enters the embryo after 6 or 8 weeks, but they are smart
>   enough to formulate it as "the point in time where the separation of
>   the egg is no longer possible".
>   Interesting uh?

It might also be interesting to note that RU-486 is only useful in about that
same time frame, 6-8 weeks if I remember right.

Keith
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: idealord@dorsai.com (Jeff Harrington)
Subject: Continuing IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV Activities
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy +1.718.729.5018
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:09:26 GMT

IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV continues its previously scheduled illumination
of broadcasting television cameras as follows:
 
Thursdays - CBS Evening News
Monday - Wednesday + Friday - ABC Evening News 
 
IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV is the process whereby I "will" a bright spot of
light in the broadcasting television camera by meditating on the ongoing
broadcast.  Only the person on camera sees the light.  The other viewers
of the show will notice that in a "zapped" broadcast the newscasters will
be visibly disturbed, blink more often, and often lose their ability to
read from a cue card.  
 
The ongoing Thursday "zap" of CBS Evening News is for the purpose of 
demonstrating the difference between "zapped" and "non-zapped" broadcasts.
 
As I have stated in my previous posts - IdEAL ORDER Psychic TV intends to
disrupt the media/state and spread beautiful, chaotic consciousness globally.
This process has been kept secret by an ongoing cult of secrecy which includes
prominent members of the "skeptical" community.  
 

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: PURPORTED PLESIOSAUR PUTREFIES ON POOPDECK ...
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 21:34:38 GMT

In article <LEET.92Sep3090215@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
|> ... CREATIONIST CHEWS CROW, CONFESSES TO CRITICS
|> ======================================================================
|> 
|> I'm sorry, I made a mistake.
|> 
[lots of very useful info and references deleted]

Cool!  Someone who takes the trouble to do more than spout their
previously held opinions over and over.

What's he doing in this news group, I wonder?  Doesn't this violate
one of the rules for sci.skeptic or something?  :-)

REMcG
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic