HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: userDHAL@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (David Halliwell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:02:26 GMT
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada

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.

[ various stages deleted]

>You cannot answer god for some stages, and evolution for others.
>I have 2 cats, a siamese and a persian. You cannot say god
>created the siamese, and the persian evolved from a lower species.

   Other have pointed out the erroneous logic in saying that evolution
includes the initial origin as well as the changes over time. I'm
going to add an analogy: probably a bad one, but this is Usenet ;-)
 
    I know that cakes exist. My faith includes a belief that bakers are
responsible for cakes. Did the baker:
 
    a) create the cake in its final form, with the appearance that it
       developed over time through a process known as baking?
 
    b) throw a bunch of ingredients together and then let "baking" turn
       these ingredients into my current impression of cakes?

    c) get help from Betty Crocker?
 
    Logical analysis of the evidence concerning the development of cakes
suggests b), although "Creation Baking" would argue in favour of a). Both
are consistent with a belief in "bakers". [Choosing c) would indeed be
an indication of an injust world. :-)]



Dave Halliwell
Department of Geography
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15565 talk.origins:10458
From: albert@bsovax.UUCP (Albert van der Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Data Structures of Unreality
Summary: Theological stand on being human
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:10:29 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: BSO/AT Utrecht bv., P.O.Box 8052, 3503 RB UTRECHT, The Netherlands

In article <1992Aug28.145531.25940@hemlock.cray.com>, robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick) writes:
> : >Ah!  And would you also concur that a strand of DNA is not a human
> : >being?  The object "human" is not its representation "DNA".  Is this
> : >correct?  When you get to the implementation and operation of a
> : >human, does the coding within the data structures in the cells not
> : >exist?  Are the DNA codes just convenient notions for organizing
> : >many details?
> .....
> It is theoretically, perhaps even actually now, possible to take that
> skin cell and generate a human being from it.  But of course, I do not
> mourn the passing of that potential humans into my vacuum.
> ....
> rob derrick
It may be interesting to note what the Catholic theologicians say
about this. (I am a convinced atheist, I just post this to make them
look silly. I certainly do not believe this.)
I try to present the argument correctly to my best abilities:

   A human is characterized in the first place by its immortal Soul.
   Now when comes the Soul into being? A logical possibility would be
   that God keeps them in stock, but this is not so. Neither starts the
   Soul its existence at the moment of conception. The reason is that a
   fertilized egg in the first 6 or 8 weeks can be divided in two
   by a string. So by this manipulation a physician could turn your baby
   into a twin. (This has been done with mammals and theologicians accept
   that this can be done with humans.) But he could also divide a soul in
   two, something that is not logically disturbing, but it appears to be
   theologically disturbing. 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?
   So the slogan "abortion is murder" is theologically wrong according to
   Roman catholic doctrine, if taken litterally. (It would have to be
   interpreted like "rape is murder").

I just wonder what they are telling if we succeed in cloning a human
from a single cell. Their best way out is to decide that the being has
to do without a Soul. Nice argument to reinstate slavery.
--
"If it weren't for Salt-N-Peppa, I wouldn't make it through midlife crisis"
           Albert van der Horst    BSO/Automation Technology
           P.O 8052  3053 RB   UTRECHT       The Netherlands
           uunet!sun4nl!bsovax!alcohux!albert
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15729 alt.culture.usenet:770
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself Again
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:47:20 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <1992Sep2.003253.15877@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
(Carl J Lydick) writes:

>Derrek Sez:
>>BTW, I think Dan is clever enough to answer for himself, without your psychic
>>assumption making.

>Carl: 
> If you don't want other people participating in your dialog, why don't you
> correspond via e-mail?  Is it just that you're too dimwitted to have figured
> out that possibility?  This isn't the first time you've complained that 
> someone responded to something you've posted to a public forum.

> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

   I have to defend Derrek on this point (not!).  While I read his e-mail, I
often don't respond.  It's just not worth it.  While I have the line, thank you
very much Carl and Ben, my arms were getting tired, you beat on him for
awhile.\
:)

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15764 talk.origins:10682
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:20:03 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <182qgkINN4jj@agate.berkeley.edu>, utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian) writes...
> 
>SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE A THEORY!!! It can only dis-prove a theory.
>David Utidjian

That's an awfully myopic view of science.  Consider the following theories:

(1) The Earth is round.
(2) Atoms have nuclei.
(3) Prolonged exposure to intense nuclear radiation is harmful to your health.
(4) Blood circulates through the body, passing from arteries to viens through
small passages too small to see with the naked eye.
(5) The brain is the seat of thought.
(6) Diamonds and graphite are not the only stable forms of pure carbon.

Which of these theories would you say are not yet proven beyond any 
possible infinitesmal shread of a doubt?

-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: Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca (Mischa Sandberg)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: A formal sociology of religions
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:45:05 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I'm enjoying all the efforts by people versed in religion more than
in analytic method, to inject their forms into a scientific forum.
Might I suggest that it's time to consider what can be done, on an
analytic basis, regarding religions? Namely, given a wide variety
of samples to study, and reasonable historic records, would anyone/
has anyone formed theories that could be confirmed objectively?
For example, at what size (population or geographic) does a congregation
become exposed to enough external influences, that it requires
spiritual leaders? enforcers? What non-religious circumstances
can cause a schism?

I realize the above are loaded with assumptions, but you can divine
my drift.

--
Mischa Sandberg ... Mischa_Sandberg@mindlink.bc.ca
                 or uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Mischa_Sandberg
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Engineers think equations are an approximation of reality.
Physicists think reality is an approximation of the equations.
Mathematicians never make the connection.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14975 talk.origins:10060
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:10:27 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug24.162037.5468@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>As I have stated
>before, the "evidence" for evolution may be serving some other
>purpose.

This might be an interesting theory (the "theory of why God is
deceiving us"?), but to be a real theory rather than a personal
assertion, it needs a little more elaboration.  What purpose?
How could we possibly tell it is serving this purpose instead of
that purpose?  What predictions does this theory make?

>Those who are most fervently promoting evolution are those who refuse
>to see the actions of God in everyday life.

Is the purpose of evolution to cause us to be in error so that...???

Is this hurricane an action of God in everyday life?

Can evolution be an action of God?  Why not?

Are these scientific questions?

>What is lacking from this discussion is that, while mistakes are
>allowed, choices are _essential_.  We cannot get from this life the
>kind of growth we need without the oppurtunity to choose between right
>and wrong.

>Drew Lawson

So, choosing to believe in the theory of evolution is an opportunity
to choose between right and wrong?  With the same moral consequences
as a choice to violate one of the ten commandments?  The purpose
of the deception is to test our faith?

Is this a scientific question?

Mike McCants
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:28:03 +1000

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

MK> No, it classifies them as birds, not "flying things."  Aside from
MK> that, your argument still fails; not all flying things are mammals.
MK> Birds are _not_ mammals, and are actually closer in family to reptiles
MK> than to mammals.

It uses a word to describe them which has been translated as "birds". When we
say "bird" we mean things of avian ancestry; when people who spoke ancient
Hebrew said "bird" ("Oif", in AH) they meant things of avian ancestry plus bats,
although they wouldn't have categorised it that way. This is just a petty point
of terminology: you're trying to impose your definition of your own word upon
someone else's definition of another word.

Come to think of it, even the early Bible translators would have used "bird" to
include bats. I don't think it was until the 1600s that proper classification
was done. I seem to recall that three creatures could not be hunted by English
commoners because they were Fish Royal. These were the Swan, the Sturgeon, and
the Whale. Of course, only one of these is really a fish. This just indicates
how language has changed.

>>>> Rabbits do not chew their cud.

jds>> Depends what you call chewing cuds. They do something similar enough
jds>> for it to be called that. All animals which eat vegetation of low
jds>> nutritional value need to masticate it to get as much out of it as
jds>> possible.

MK> Ah.  When your argument is shown to be wrong, redefine words so they
MK> mean something else.  Chewing cud does not mean to eat one's own
MK> feces.  If someone said they saw a person driving away in a car, would
MK> that be "similar enough" to the truth if the person had actually
MK> driven away on a motorcycle?

If they were speaking ancient Hebrew which lacked many words for vehicles, they
would probably have been forced to use the word "Merkova" - chariot. Someone
might then have come along and translated chariot into its contemporary form -
car. You could then point it that it was, indeed, a motorcycle. By doing so you
would have proven only that words shift in meaning and that it's hard to do
accurate translations while retaining the structure of the source text.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Organization: RL
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 04:58:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.191224.13309@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.202739.12738@lsil.com> gascan@dcst16.dc writes:
>>In article 12915@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>
>
>>a clue as to what he's talking about.  It is logically and philosophically impossible
>>to prove a theory true.

>... but what is your response to those who scream that evolution
>is a "proven fact"?
>
>-- 
>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

I would prefer "...is a fact," since "proven" is redundant.  Other
than this petty objection on stylistic grounds,  there would be no
reason not to applaud the enthusiasm of their effort. 8^)

-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: "Paul Hager" <hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: evolution and god/s coexisting
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:13:19 -0500

lopresti@henson.cc.wwu.edu (lopresti robert) writes:


>This thread has given me a headache.  As I understand someone started
>it by arguing that if one says evolution rather than God (I presume he
>meant a fairly typical Christian concpet, although I assume all gods
>would be equally excluded) caused a certain event, then God is denied
>involvement in the whole process.

>Okay.  A pencil just fell off my desk.  It fell downward, towards the
>center of the earth, until stopped by the floor.  Was this caused by 
>gravity or by God?  If you say it was caused by gravity are you denying 
>God any role in the creation of natural law?

>Ah well.

Good question.  I think someone else said that science doesn't address
the matter of whether or not there is a god/are gods.  The issue is
irrelevant to science.

I have argued that science CAN tell us something about the nature of
a deity/deities, however.  Omniscient and omnipotent deities of the
Yahwe variety aren't possible.  However, if one wants to posit
that the Creator of our universe was the equivalent of a pimply-faced
17-year-old whose inflationary universe experiment for HS science
got out of hand, (s)he'll get no argument from me.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@moose.cs.indiana.edu

"I would give the Devil benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."
                       --from _A_Man_for_All_Seasons_ by Robert Bolt
Xref: sparky sci.research:990 sci.med:16615
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med
Subject: Re: Medics as scientists ?
Date: 30 Aug 92 20:58:39 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <56dnpxb@lynx.unm.edu> bhjelle@carina.unm.edu writes:
>In article <28qpbz8c@csv.warwick.ac.uk> csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug28.202346.10727@maths.tcd.ie> arora@maths.tcd.ie (Ashish Arora) writes:

|>>	Do you find that good doctors (medical doctors) make good researchers,
|>>or is it the case that good doctors and good researchers are mutually
|>>exclusive groups?
|>>	Only comments please -- no flaming.

|>Interesting question. I'm a doctor (ex, actually, decided life was more
|>important than work...),

>What do you do now?

> and often heard it said that clinical practice was
|>the death of many a good mind. The point is that medical training teaches a
|>way of thinking that is rigid and 'flowcharted', with little or no room for
|>innovation or originality. There certainly are doctors who have also been good
|>researchers (e.g. from my alma mater, Prof. Sir Stanley Peart FRS,
|>practising physician and dicoverer of this, that and the other...), but I
|>think they're probably in a tiny minority.

|>I'm hoping I got out soon enough...   ;-)

>This is a tired old canard. I suppose the best argument against
>this is the innumerable stellar scientists who happen to be MDs,
>including people like Dan Nathans, Harold Varmus, Hamilton Smith,
>Mike Bishop, etc, etc (if you don't know who these people
>are, check recent editions of Who's Who, or the roster of
>Nobel Prize winners).

>What always amazes me is the notion that the rote memorization
>required for medical school somehow robs one of the ability to
>have original thought. While such training may not provide
>the purer intellectual challenges of graduate training, there
>is a tradeoff in that one gains a more global perspective of
>mammalian biology than might be obtained from many graduate
>programs.

>Furthermore, MDs interested in science can and do go on to
>get extensive training in research at the postdoctoral
>level.

Some of those who start out with rote memorization and routine methodology
do eventually manage to do original thinking.  However, from my experience
and that of others in teaching mathematics and statistics, I must conclude
that learning manipulation and rote never help, and often hinder.

That a medical researcher should have and MD is by no means clear.  It is
like requiring mathematicians to be adept at arithmetic, and this is very
definitely irrelevant.  BTW, I am adept at arithmetic.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
From: d3a132@pnl.gov (Carl P Baker)
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: Re: Dr. Fabrikant and honesty in science
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:50:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracle.1992Aug28.235044.20126
Reply-To: d3a132@pnl.gov
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

In article 25248@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai) writes:
>	Actually, it was U. of Iowa, but I suppose that all those
>states in the middle of the country blur together.

Middle of the country?  Run together?  Why son, Iowa are back _east_,
while Idaho is right next door.

:-) :-)



-- carl

Carl P Baker
cp_baker@pnl.gov
509-375-2724

Disclaimer: I am not the official spokesperson for anyone.  For which
organizations that use spokespersons are profoundly grateful.
Newsgroups: sci.research
From: mskucher@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF])
Subject: Re: a few comments on Fabrikant
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:17:27 GMT

kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
>	Yes, I'm aware of the laws.  And I'm also aware of the
>	law as a tool to supress undesired speech.  While the
>	laws of libel and slander are noble ventures in the
>	battle against hate literature and what not, they are
>	disproportionately implemented by those insecure with
>	the truth.  <---this is my subjective opinion, my observation.

...and one you share with at least myself.

>	Slander and libel suits are postmortems of the fact.
>	Their validity is unquestioned.  Court injunctions
>	that protect battered wives and attempt to prevent
>	physical harm on others,  are likewise unquestioned.
>	But court injunctions that suppress interpretation of fact,
>	as what clearly Fabrikant was doing, chart a dangerous 
>	course for our justice system.  Yes, it is legal. And we all
>	know the legal system favors criminals or victims.
>	Okay, maybe that last statement was a bit harsh...but I
>	think you get my drift.

I felt this way too, and if indeed that is all there is to it, then I couldn't
agree with you more.

But...

After reading a Montreal Gazette article posted here yesterday, I began to get
the impression that the reason Fabrikant was silenced was that he had made
statements denouncing education in Canada as a whole, and the justice system
and the judge presiding over his cases.  This makes a silencing order a bit
more understandable.

[I only speak for myself!]

-- Murray S. Kucherawy ----------------------------------------+--------------
Software Systems Co-op, Math Faculty Computing Facility [MFCF] | This is a
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada                        | machine that
E-mail: mskucherawy@{math,watdragon}.UWaterloo.ca              | goes PING!
---------------------------------------------------------------+--------------
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.research.careers
From: bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor)
Subject: IS there an archive of this newsgroup ?
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:07:38 GMT

Is there an archive of this newsgroup somewhere, so that people
can FTP or use a mail-server to retrive older postings ? I am
getting  messages from various people who want copies of the Fabrikant
postings or other postings I made for all sort of purposes. It would
be nice if everybody could pick it from a central place.

Perhaps we should have a FAQ for this news group -:).

Thanks,
Dov




Newsgroups: sci.research
From: csuah@warwick.ac.uk (~WISP at CU~)
Subject: Re: a few comments on Fabrikant
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:23:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.182529.3928@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>In article <BtnvIz.4pF@cs.dal.ca> kumar@ug.cs.dal.ca (kumar yelubandi) writes:
>>	Point taken.  Though I must point out, I find it
>>	hard to believe that any biochemical imbalance
>>	in the brain (I'm sure you would agree that
>>	schizophrenia and like neuroses can be linked to
>>	biochemistry) would allow a manc
>>	to function at the top of his intellectual ability.
>
>     Actually, I'm quite sure that this is wrong too.  Many paranoid
>schizophrenics are very highly talented individuals.  (I saw one
>documentary once which actually called paranoid schizophrenia a disease
>of the hyperintelligent.  One of the case studies in this documentary
>was a professor as well.  He was quite productive between bouts of the
>disease and sometimes even in the midst of attacks.)
>     Isn't anyone else suspicious about the fact that he seemed to be
>doing quite well until last year?  (By this I mean that all the reports
>we have seen indicate that he was well-respected and working normally at
>Concordia.)  Sudden degradations in work relationships are a classic sign
>of paranoid schizophrenia.
>     Again, I have no training in psychology, so if anyone out there
>does and can either confirm my impressions or contradict them, feel free
>to do so.
>

Well, I think you're right on the mark. I'm not a psychologist, but part of my
medical training involved psychiatry, and the sad tale told on this group over
the last week or two is a pretty good case study in paranoid psychosis, if not
necessarily accompanied by schizophrenia...

Chris Williams.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <csuah@uk.ac.warwick.csv> aka <csuah@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)
Newsgroups: sci.research