HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:17:48 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil's message of 1 Sep 92 16:01:33 GMT

In article <1285@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:

	   But is creationism bad science ? I am convinced that one can
   take the exact same set of data that exists now, and by changing the
   fundamental assumptions on which the theory is based, come up with a
   different conclusion.

Care to drop the other shoe and let us know which assumptions and what
changes?  Without that information, there is nothing to discuss, and
the above statement has no more content than a National Enquirer
headline.

			 My assertion of this has really sent the people
   who care about this stuff into orbit.

Because it's a mere assertion.  It's sort of like someone saying that
he's convinced that somewhere there is evidence that the Japanese
didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, it was really a raid staged by Roosevelt to
get us into the war.  Without any support, this is just a loony
assertion.

Note, by the way, that your claim at the beginning of the cited
paragraph is actually much milder than what you originally said, which
is:

======================================================================

As a historian, I would not hang my hat on evolution. There is not
enough data there to prove beans. Whether Darwin was right or not depends
quite solely on his ability to have made a calculated scientific 
wild-ass guess.

======================================================================

	In the first paragraph cited above, you at least grant that
there is data to be explained Your initial charge, cited here, denied
there was any data to be explained.  So your claim that it was your
assertion that there was a better explanation for the data that caused
people to go ballistic is disingenuous at best.  What was it Big Daddy
said about the aroma of mendacity?

-30-
Bob

``...if the world was a poem.
  Well, look at it, fool.''
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:15:11 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <5220@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.075924.11599@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>#
>#Isn't it restrictive? Isn't it THE reason why we are stuck with certain
>#paradoxes and make no further progress?
>#
>
>What paradoxes? What stuck?
>

Paradoxes like: "This statement is false"

Surely, is a function of the naive classical logic that skeptics dogmatically
use.

Could it be that in a higher form of logic these problems need not arise?

Also paradoxes such as freewill v. determinancy/indeterminancy etc. etc.
might make better progress in another logical system.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:47:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.050110.21622@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca
(Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
> 
> I have seen a couple of comments in posts which I find baffling:
> Essentially, they claim that the theory of evolution does not 
> interfere or conflict with the concept of God.
> 
> Would one of you guys like to explain how evolution and God can co-exist?

   Don't assume the wrong version of God.  The idjit version is the result
of taking the bible to be word-for-word literally true.  You don't HAVE to
do that.  Ok?

   "God set up the world and let evolution happen" (a view I don't personally
hold) completely reconciles God with evolution.  Viola!

 [at this point GVN confuses abiogenisis with evolution and I wisely refer him
    to a biology text]

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Life Spring...Request for References
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:36:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.163026.19255@lsil.com>, gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne) writes:
|> In article 12947@unlinfo.unl.edu, jensen@unlinfo.unl.edu (michael jensen) writes:
|> >
|> >I believe that Life Spring is what Werner Erhardt of est (Erhardt 
|> >Seminar Training) formed after leaving/selling off est. 
|> >
|> Your belief is incorrect.  Lifespring (one word) is at least 15 years old, and is
|> one of a number of companies involved in the "human potential" industry.  I took
|> the courses several years ago, and while I'm not by any stretch of the imagination
|> into "New-Age" crap, I found it quite useful.  It was, all in all, a positive
|> experience.  Lifespring provides an environment in which one can discover a great
|> many things that would sound quite trite and trivial if listed in a book, but are
|> very powerful when experienced directly.  Participants are asked not to reveal
|> too many details about what goes on in order not to spoil the experience for others,
|> but there is not "brainwashing" or anything of that sort.
|> 
|> Some people find the experience so powerful that they want to devote themselves to
|> encouraging others, and the company takes advantage of these people.  However, IMO
|> this does not in any way make them a "cult", since most cults would not admit to
|> being a profit making corporation.
|> 
|> ---
|> 1. Bill Gascoyne
So are you saying it isn't the organization that Werner Erhart formed after
parting from EST?

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15318 talk.origins:10307
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:12:09 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 <1992Aug27.043427.505@panix.com>, carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes...
> 
>  Drew, there are no Martian canals.  Never were.  They were a combination
>of bad telescopy and wishful thinking.  There are no features on Mars
>that resemble the "canali" of Mars.  Furthermore, even when some people
>did accept their existence, no reputable scientist thought of them as
>evidence of an advanced civilization on Mars.  Not that it was ruled out:
>the overwhelming majority of scientists simply said: "There's not enough
>evidence to prove *anything*."

The way I understand the story, it was just a translation problem.  "Canali"
in Italian is something like "rivulets."  Bogus tranlation turned little
rivers into canals.  There never was any original observation of canals.

-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
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: my own stupidity (Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 09:09:02 +1000

Saturday August 29 1992, Michael Kieras writes to All:

MK> The above was an embarrassingly stupid argument on my part.  If the
MK> original text used the word "oif," to describe birds and bats, I can't
MK> impose my use of "bird" on it and say that their classifcation system
MK> is wrong.  Systems of taxonomy are arbitrary (although some have more
MK> utility than others).  Joe, you were absolutely right about that.

How can I resist such an apology? Michael, if I were to be kicking the other way
I'd have suggested that divinely inspired documents should have a more rational
taxonomical system :-)

MK> However, I still have problems with it being translated as "bird" in
MK> the English versions I've seen.  It is an inaccurate translation, and
MK> as I mentioned before, casts doubt upon the translators' abilities to
MK> get the rest of the text correct.

This is an issue. The trouble is, Michael, that the translators have generally
gone for a word-by-word translation, or at least a phrase-by-phrase one. If
they'd translated the original word as "flying creatures" then it could be taken
to include locusts and bees and so forth. It's often hard to propose synonyms
for English words, but it's far harder to provide synonyms for words that carry
a different set of cultural references.

MK> The above may also apply to my arguments in the "rabbits chewing cud"
MK> debate.  If the ancient texts used a word that meant "chewing cud or
MK> eating one's own feces," then it would again be only a translational
MK> error, and not an error in the Bible itself.  If that's the case, I
MK> also retract my criticism of the Bible on that point and again point
MK> to the problem of poor translation.  However, I seem to remember
MK> reading somewhere that the word they used did in fact mean the same
MK> thing that we mean by chewing cud, and would not have included eating
MK> one's own feces.  If that is the case, my original criticism of
MK> rabbits chewing cud stands.

The phrase used (as I recall) is "Ma'aleh Gerah" - bringing up the Gerah which I
suppose is an accurate description of chewing cud as practised by cows. It would
not seem to be an accurate description of rabbits eating feces, but I think it's
justifiable since it's warning you *against* drawing a parallel, and is not
drawing the parallel itself. It's saying, "Rabbits do something you might think
is similar, but you can't eat them anyway."

Personally, I wish to have no dealings with fecal-fanciers :-)

jds

MK> michael@cs.umass.edu

MK> -+-
MK>  + Origin: FidoNet/ACSNet Gateway [csource.oz.au] Melbourne, OZ
MK> (3:632/400.0)


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 11:54:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.163034.4443@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
>:
>: Now having said that BTW, yes, science and only science should be
>: taught in science classes.  But I would phrase your statement on
>: comparative religion classes in public schools a little different.
>: I would say that the religions should be approached in a scholarly
>: manner while the issue of their validity/non-validity should be
>: avoided. 
>:
>
>No, I stand by my statement that they should all be presented as
>equally valid.  I doubt that many students would realize by themselves
>that there is no objective evidence to support the view that their
>religion is the "one true faith."  It is important that students
>understand that their religion has _exactly_ the same empirical
>footings (none) as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Wicca, or
>whatever.  You've got to get the point accross that people of other
>religions believe with equal validity and conviction that their views
>are obviously correct and that everybody else is being misled.
>

I disagree.  By putting a validity stamp on any religion, you have
crossed domains and opened a whole can of worms.  For example, if
a religion advocates human sacrifice, is the teacher with a
straight face going to tell the class that this religion is as
"valid" as say Buddhism?  All their life, they have been taught
about the importance of human life, and the teacher tells them
that an equally valid religion advocates the opposite. Talk about
confusing people!  Yes religous tolerance should be taught, but it
sure can be done without making comments on the validity of any
religion.

>fascinated is too strong a word).  Limbo, on the other hand, seemed to
>shock several people when I explained it to them.  Evidently they
>weren't paying attention that week.  BTW, last time I checked, limbo
>wasn't an official belief any more.  (This is getting a bit off the
>topic, and should probably be moved elsewhere.)

If Limbo is defined at the place where non-baptized babys went
(instead of heaven), then you're right, the Church does not
advocate this belief any more.  If, however, you mean the place
where the just souls went before the Redemption, then that is
still a belief.

>
>-- >Grant Edwards |Yow!  Concentrate on th'cute,


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: WHY CANT I GET THIS NEWS GROUP????
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: Wed, 26 Aug 92 06:00:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.062832.1064@mwk.uucp> harrold@mwk.uucp writes:
>WHY CAN'T I GET THIS NEWS GROUP ANY MORE?????!!!!
>


You seem to be doing pretty good.

Big Al.  "Hey, this is my job."  --me, on alt.sex once upon a time.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: What is intelligence?
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:06:08 GMT

In article <_nwycrh@rpi.edu> johnsd2@vccnw07.its.rpi.edu (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:

   |> Interesting, especially coming from a roboticist.  This would rule out
   |> AI in a computer form.  I.e.  HAL would be a program, R2D2 would have 
   |> potential.  Is the ability to move necessary for inteligence?

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

HAL WAS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | II - A well regulated Militia, being
Field Robotics Center,          | necessary to the security of a free State,
Carnegie Mellon University      | the right of the people to keep and bear
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | Arms, shall not be infringed.
(412) 268-3856                  | 
                                | 
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Derek Tops Dan!
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 05:20:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.112005@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>	Personally, I respect someone who will say what they feel.  Dan always
>begins correspondence politely, and gives the other person the benefit of the
>doubt.  It is only when the use of reason has obviously failed does he support
>to use of strong language.  Admittedly, this will seldom succeed in convincing
>someone else where reason has failed.  On the other hand, on the net where 
>silence is often misinterpreted as agreement or submission, ('by your refusal
>to answer these claims ...', or 'the silent majority ... ') voluable disagree-
>ment is often necessary.

Where did you ever get the idea that silence is interpreted as agreement
or submission?  Let me ask you this question, if a famous scientist was
attending a conference and you attacked his position but he didn't reply
to you, would you really think he was agreeing or submitting to you?
Or would you perhaps think that he didn't think your attack was worth
responding to...

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 



-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     hfsi!ata@UUNET.UU.NET
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet.uu.net!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:14:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.054850.5558@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>In article <Bts2FL.E98@world.std.com>, believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>> 
>> How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
>> Pagan teaching from our schools? The fight against evolutionism
>> must be an essential component of the fight for our families and
>> this country.
>> 
>> We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
>> Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
>> to our faith and therefore our very existance.
>
>Don't bite people, this one HAS to be a joke.
>
>Tim O'Neill
>Tasmanian Devil


I figured Sesco had to be joking because he said absolutely nothing
about people who order pineapple on their pizza.


-- 

Frank Doss 
The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions,
attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affilliated organizations.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Aug28.075924.11599@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
	<5220@tuegate.tue.nl>
	<1992Aug31.011511.1322@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 09:00:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.011511.1322@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
 dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

 >Paradoxes like: "This statement is false"
 >Surely, is a function of the naive classical logic that skeptics dogmatically
 >use.

  No, the Liar is not tied to classical logic.

  >Could it be that in a higher form of logic these problems need not arise?

  Here I refer you to Henry Flynt, Blueprint for a Higher Civilization.
See in particular the chapter on "the logic of admissible contradictions".
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Creationist Logic-NOT MINE!
Date: 31 Aug 92 02:44:31 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

In article (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>> We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
>> Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
>> to our faith and therefore our very existance.
>
>I have already posted a suspicion (?) that Vern is really a Creationist trying
>to make Evolution look bad.  I am now tempted to say (despite the awkward
>user-id) you are trying to make Christianity look bad.
>
I am not responsible for the article in question. You will find my GIVEN
name at the bottom of EVERY post I make on ANY newsgroup.

I may have broken some rules of "posting etiquette" in my time,
but I have NEVER hidden behind an alias.


>I do not think it would have been possible to post a more rediculous,
>content-free post.  (Of course, if it can be done Ted Holden will do it).
I agree, I assumed it was a joke and not worthy of response.

VERN NELSON  (see I always use my name!)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Derek Tops Dan!
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 01:02:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.052044.20689@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.112005@IASTATE.EDU> btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner) writes:
>>	Personally, I respect someone who will say what they feel.  Dan always
>>begins correspondence politely, and gives the other person the benefit of the
>>doubt.  It is only when the use of reason has obviously failed does he support
>>to use of strong language.  Admittedly, this will seldom succeed in convincing
>>someone else where reason has failed.  On the other hand, on the net where 
>>silence is often misinterpreted as agreement or submission, ('by your refusal
>>to answer these claims ...', or 'the silent majority ... ') voluable disagree-
>>ment is often necessary.
>
>Where did you ever get the idea that silence is interpreted as agreement
>or submission?

Well, since Derek decided to bring a court scenario into this discussion, I'll
point out that according to English and U.S. common law, silence implies
assent.  This convention is even formalized in some of our rituals (e.g., the
"speak now or forever hold your peace" part of some marriage ceremonies.

>Let me ask you this question, if a famous scientist was
>attending a conference and you attacked his position but he didn't reply
>to you, would you really think he was agreeing or submitting to you?

Yes.

>Or would you perhaps think that he didn't think your attack was worth
>responding to...

No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.philosphy.misc
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
Date: 28 Aug 92 07:59:24 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Aug27.040522.18524@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith) writes:
>
>"Binary logic" as he puts it, still must be used when dealing with two
>mutually exclusive and opposing concepts, which is what we do most of the
>time.
>
Why?

This is what we've beleived since ancient Greek times, but why?

Isn't it restrictive? Isn't it THE reason why we are stuck with certain
paradoxes and make no further progress?

>Actually, boundries are a lot fuzzier than we think.

exactly.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic