HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Date: 20 Aug 92 08:04:00 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Aug19.134953.1500@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> p257shu@fs1.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Susanne Huettemeister) writes:
#long 'scientific' study that supposedly proved that microwave-cooked
#food will unconditionally lead to cancer in anyone eating it. The proof: 
#luminescent bacteria swimming in milk from a microwave oven 'shine'
#longer,

Sounds to me that microwaved milk is healthier (at least for luminescent
bacteria) ....
JWN
From: llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:19:24 GMT
Distribution: world,local
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:

: The elitism of Mensa is exactly the same as the elitism of any system that 
: awards pass grades in any exam.  You don't like Mensa?  Better close the 
: schools too.  

flawed analogy. grades are used as a system of measuring competence
and awarding certification based on that competence. (not a great
system, admittedly, but the one most commonly used) mensa doesn't
serve any purpose like that; it seems mostly to be a way for people to
feel superior as a group. wheeeeeee. thud. 

: there's a lot wrong with Mensa, but elitism isn't part of it.  you can't fix 
: what's wrong from the outside, SO JOIN 

i don't feel the need to spend $40/year to prove my intelligence,
thanks. i'm doing quite well at finding fascinating weird people
around me without using a test-score cutoff.

obeligibilitystatement: yeah, i could get in on sats or gres. so what?

--
sine nomine
debbie martinson
"pity this busy monster,manunkind,/ not. Progress is a comfortable
disease"     -- ee cummings
From: otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Teeth used as radio?
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:33:19 GMT
Organization: The Crimson Permanent Assurance Company

In article <1992Aug06.020719.208202@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
   I don't have any references, but I have no problem believing in
   a diodic tooth filling. Not sure how you hear the result...

In Oslo, Norway, the resistance museum features a micro-radio that had
been smuggled into a prison camp by having it built into a set of dentures.
-- 
   /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (V.32bis/USR-HST,24h/d) */
 /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1B18/SF-40100 Jyvaskyla/Finland, ICBM: 62.14N25.44E */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Date: 17 Aug 92 05:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug17.032459.21930@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes...
>In article <14AUG199222285019@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug14.181226.9696@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, bourd@jellyfish.cps.msu.edu (Robert Bourdeau) writes...
>>>   11. DATING METHODS
>>>    Many  of the radiometric dating methods used for  determining
>>>the  age  of fossils are quite unreliable.  Carbon-14  dating  is
>>>usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But  there
>>>are  exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was  dated
>>>using  the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had  been  dead
>>>for 3000 years.
>>
>>Even the Institute for Creation Research has argued that C14 dating is
>>accurate for thousands of years, and debunked the mollusk myth.  (It's
>>true that a living mollusk was dated to be older than 1600 years, but
>>this is because it was in water known to be contaminated by carbon
>>atoms from dissolved limestone.  See Aardsma, 1989.)
>>
>>>    Lava  rocks  from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted  in  1801
>>>were  tested,  using  the potassium-argon  method.  The  readings
>>>showed  them to be  nearly 3 billion years old.  Moon rocks  were
>>>tested  by  various radiometric methods, yielding  dates  ranging
>>>from 700 million to 28 billion years.
>>
>>Again, there are known sources of contamination in these instances.
>>See Brush, 1983.
>I would be curious to know if these sources of contamination became
>"known" after the strange reading or before.  If they became known
>after, then how many other readings are also contaminated in some
>way yielding false readings but are unknown to be false because no one
>challenged the accuracy of the reading as in the "controls" provided
>above.

I suggest you obtain the Brush article I referenced, "Finding the Age
of the Earth: By Physics or By Faith," which may be found in the January
1982 issue of the _Journal of Geological Education_ (vol. 30, no. 1)
and in the anthology _Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education
Controversy_, edited by J. Peter Zetterberg (1983, Oryx Press), which
specifically addresses the latter case.  (The former case is not
addressed in this article, but is addressed in the Aardsma ICR _Impact_
article I referenced.)
   In both of the above cases the source of contamination was known
at the time of publication.  In the Hawaiian lava rocks case, it was
possible not only to determine the source of argon contamination but
to correct for it.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 05:15:16 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
: Ah.  A historical document much like the Illiad or "Why the elephant has a
: trunk"?  I understand that.  Perhaps a better word would by "hysterical"?
: 

I don't know if you have a particular axe to grind, but my original post
actually pointed out that these contradictions/doublets are known, and
quite happily explained by orthodox biblical scholars. 

The book I referred to in my original post ("Who wrote the bible?")
actually deals with these problems from an intelligent objective
viewpoint. Atheist, agnostic, theist or christian can all read that
particular book without offence. Once unentangled, the bible (or at least
the pentateuch, which is his thesis) shows itself to be five mingled
versions of the early Jewish/proto-Jewish history. It is thus a
historical argument. 

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:17:19 GMT

In article <GERRY.92Aug21095136@onion.cmu.edu>, gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
writes:
> Silly question  :-)

  Yep, that's why I set followups to talk.religion.misc where it belongs.

> If god created Adam and Eve, and they had two sons, who was the mother
> of Cain's children?  Doesn't the bible say something about incest
> someplace?

  Cain & Abel are the only children of Adam & Eve specifically stated, but it
doesn't say they were the only ones (indeed, from memory I believe the
geneological tables say eexactly the opposite)

  Yep, so?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Organization: just me
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 20:09:14 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1992Aug13.152334.13177@colorado.edu> gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R) writes:
>>>done the above experiment, somewhat modified, in a double blind manner.
>
>>Please describe for us a single, repeatable experiment that will allow
>>us to "test" something meaningful using AK. If possible, I'd like an experiment
>>that involves "pulling down the arm" when it is extended straight out,
>>palm down. I'd like to do some 'muscle testing'.
>
>Do you think that you can do these tests without training?  If so, there's lots
>of books out.  Its simply not that simple.  Then there is the matter of 
>interpreting the results.  People go to school and receives long hours of
>training to do tests and many more hours (weeks, years) to learn how to 
>interpret them.  It doesn't matter whether or not its for AK or for different
>medical tests by by/for physicians.  In spite of their apparent objectivity,
>medical tests are misinterpreted all of the time.  Good AK does not simply
>rely on one test but all the results obtained by all of the tests and the 
>practitioner's interaction'w with his/her client.  
>
>If you want to learn, take some classes.

Sure.  While I'm taking some classes on Applied Kinesiology, I can take one
on Astrology^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Applied Astronomy.

Why is this called Applied Kinesiology?  Well, most people would not go to
someone who promised to do some muscle balancing on them.  Stealing neat
sounding medical terms is normal for fringe therapies.

So far, you have stated that AK is based not on sound medical theory but on
interactions between the doctor and patient, and only useful when the doctor
is sincere.  What exactly about it leads you to expect more than placebo
level results, given the lack of reproducibility and technical understanding
implied?  How, for example, would you license practitioners to guarantee that
the guy who works on my chakra points in Louisiana does the same thing as the
accupuncturist in Colorado did?  They both *call* it AK...

>Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
>Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
>gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
>				 *Aristotle				      *

		David Pipes
robear@digex.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14794 talk.origins:9882
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: mensa farce
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:04:02 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1992Aug21.055305.4617@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

|Whilst on the subject of mensa, can anybody explain exactly what
|sigma xi, tau beta pi, pi mu epsilon etc etc are?

Tau beta pi is a national electrical engineering society.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14645 sci.physics:13067 alt.folklore.science:3059
From: shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Date: 19 Aug 1992 19:37:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: hijack.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug19.134953.1500@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> p257shu@fs1.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Susanne Huettemeister) writes:
>Anyway, could someone lead us to serious reviews
>of the health risks (or even benefits) inherent in microwaved food?

There are serious health risks in eating microwaved jelly donuts.

Ken Shirriff			shirriff@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:27:21 GMT


I sent him the FAQs from talk.origins.  Should keep him happily confused
for a while...


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14230 alt.alien.visitors:5625
From: otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: UFO-skeptical film/tv documentaries ?
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:31:48 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: The Crimson Permanent Assurance Company

The Finnish commercial TV has really outdone itself in sillines recently,
by showing a "documentary" which abandoned all logic and source critisism
for a blue-eyed acceptance of all possible claims of "UFOlogy" (including
the all-pervading conspiracy, OOBEs, sexual exploits of aliens etc.)

I am looking for references to *skeptical* film/tv documentaries which
the Finnish Skeptics could suggest to them for showing as a rational
"counterweight" to all this.

I am aware of one NOVA episode about UFO's.  How good is it ?
-- 
   /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (V.32bis/USR-HST,24h/d) */
 /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1B18/SF-40100 Jyvaskyla/Finland, ICBM: 62.14N25.44E */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 04:03:58 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
: Yes, what is not clear why you are so worried about it.  

I simply posted the original thread to let the netters at large know
that the vast majority of the modern churches are aware of these things.

Subsequent postings have suggested that the targets are fundies, and
ordinary folk needn't worry. All well and good. Just acknowledge that
some people are aware of these things and can cope with them. 

And less of the ad hominem arguments. You only debase yourself.

: What is the line from Shakespear[e] about "protesting too much"?

I'm a paid researcher, but just for you - it's from Macbeth (the
Scottish Play) and it goes "Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

Note to potential flamers: I am employing a literary device called
"irony". This may be too subtle for you to understand.

But I am aware that here he is implying that by making so much noise I 
indicate that I am worried. 

I would prefer to rely on the presumption of innocence. If you are
innocent, then of course you'll protest too much. The more innocent, the
more you'll protest. "The devil can cite Shakespeare to his own purpose" (me)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:28:49 GMT

I looked at this book in the bookstore, but had some qualms about the
ethics of pretending to be interested in a coven or circle for its own
sake, while really meaning to use it as material for a scientific study.
If I'd been one of her covenmates, I wonder how I would have taken this.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14483 talk.origins:9602
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:58:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <25524@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>> I wonder what Jim would say to the many Christians who disagree with
>> his fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible - all of whom would 
>> claim that *he* is the one who is not the true follower of Christ?

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

If I were the type to yell "amen," this would be the time. Differing
interpretations of Genesis are *not* the real issue with Christianity.
Rather, a crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ.

>  The word "all" should be modified to "some" at least, possibly to "none". 

I would sure hope this is true.

>Please do not decide what I believe.

Well said.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie (Emma Williams)
Subject: E.W. - Loch Ness Monster..?
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:59:15 GMT

On ITN (a British tv station) last night there was shown a 
very recent cam-corder film of an aquatic animal swimming
in Loch Ness. It is very clear and zoologists claim it
does not resemble any animal they know. (Personally I 
thought it looked like a seal, but I guess they know best!)
It looked as if it was enjoying itself anyway!
 
    ____________________________________________________________________
    |   Emma Williams            | Dad, I guess you're wondering why   |
    |   ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie    | I'm ringing you..--Calvin & Hobbes  |
    |				 | (eller Steen og Stoffer :-> )       |
    |____________________________|_____________________________________|
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:20:48 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Aug16.181345.18001@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>
>>>   5. PROBABILITY
>>>
>>>The probability  of producing one human cell by chance is
>>>10, to the 119,000 power. [MP]
>
>Using this logic, what is the probability of the
>spontaneous generation of a much more complex being?
>
>Such as a God?  10 to the 250,000,000 power?
>

No problem. He always was :-)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14745 alt.alien.visitors:5938 talk.religion.newage:3893
From: Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 19:41:34 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug14.133650.26048@ttinews.tti.com> <64216@cup.portal.com>
  <1992Aug18.224803.2934@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>

RA comments
>'high priests'?  When your aliens give you the blueprints for a nuke
>reactor, airplane, or anything more complex than the wheel, come back and
>try that remark again.

Well RA even if we totally ignore the book that says Tesla was dropped off
by ETs as a young child.  It is kind of hard to ignore Tesla claimed to
have daily contact with ETs.  And he did receive the whole AC power system
as a vision as he was walking home from dinner with a friend. He did not
write any of his vision down.  But did build the first AC power plant at
Niagra Falls seven years later.  He also invented radio and remote control,
a saucer engine, etc.  So I would say AC, radio, and his other 700 patents
are a little more complex than the wheel.  He also had a way to end war for
which he was killed.  Now the thing that is really a joke is Tesla is
hanging around wanting to share stuff,  but all our er, scientist, don't
believe they can contact him so he comes through old ladies who don't even
know what rf means.

DS

It sounds to me like you belong to that cult that believes the speed of
light is constant.  Is this post short enough for you?
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: CFD: New newsgroup sci.siano.vs.schaeffer.battle.to.the.death
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:10:46 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:

> In article <1992Aug18.102314@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashl
> > 
> >    Brilliant idea.  Much as talk.abortion and talk.politics.animals give us
> > place to put the tasmanian-devils-of-the-net,
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Dan
> > Dawell@IASTATE.EDU
> 
> Hey Dan! Wotcha got against Tasmanian Devils?! I quite like the 
> little buggers myself, (though it's a good idea not to let them 
> gnaw on your arm.)
> 
> Tim O'Neill
> (Tasmanian-devil-of-the-net)

        Hey, the Tasmanian Devil was one of my favorite Warner Brothers 
characters. (Which reminds me; I oughta post the discussion a bunch of us had 
on a local BBS about the Warner Brothers Passion Play: You fave Toon Stars in 
the Life of Christ!)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"What? They have BIGGER DICKS?! _BOMB THEM!!!!_"
                        Our Leaders, paraphrased by George Carlin
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Skeptics, Guns and Money
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:37:57 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

"Send Lawyers, Guns and Money, the shit has hit the fan" -- Warren Zevon

        Okay, I couldn't resist a dopey song quote, but for the life of me, 
I'm amazed that the topics of gun control and the skeptics would _ever_ get 
mixed. Um, anyone want to try to put the brakes on this one?

        (Note: This may come as a surprise to people who've noticed that my 
politics are a tad left-of-center, but I'm profoundly ambivalent about gun 
control. Without going into it, I don't think banning guns is going to help 
stop crime a whole lot, but I'm certainly not going to align myself with the 
melodramatic Second-Amendment-Uber-Alles of the NRA. 'Nuff said.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"What? They have BIGGER DICKS?! _BOMB THEM!!!!_"
                        Our Leaders, paraphrased by George Carlin
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14351 talk.origins:9510
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:10:48 EST

In article <87pL03EL5cJQ00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
> ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) writes:
>>I really hate to quote screenfuls of stuff to add a few lines at the
>>end, so I'll put my comments up here, and do my best trim the rest down
>>to the bare essentials...
>>Jim Loucks, you are completely missing Dan's point. 
> Maybe Dan, and for that matter, you missed *my* point.
>>Dan chose to illustrate this contradiction by describing one who creates
>>the world _with_the_appearance_of_billions_of_years_of_ history_ in
>>order to deceive reasoning human beings when in fact the world was only
>>recently created as "a deceiver", and clearly stated that he did not in
>>fact believe this to be the case.
>>Jim, how do you resolve the contradiction between the evidence for the
>>age of the earth, and the evidence that life here has evolved from
>>simple creatures to the incredible diversity that we see today?
> This is a matter of interpretation.
?? Interpretation of what? Do you mean that the interpretation of the
relatively high consistency of the data (observed evolution, transitory forms,
CT boundary layers, bones, etc.) should not be that of evolution, but something
else?  If so, what?  

Question for myself: why do I try?

> 
>>What is your "a little research" that separates creationism from other
>>irrational cults? 
> 
> Find the origin of the irrationial cults.

This is a non sequitor.  Please answer the question.  You're pulling "derek's".

GXKambic
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic