HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:32:54 GMT

In article <536@texbell.sbc.com> lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com (Lou Montgomery (214+464-1049)) writes:

	[Long post about flawed carbon 14 readings deleted]

	     My intent here was not to enter the fray between the creation
	  and evolution advocates, merely to try and demonstrate the flaws
	  in this discussion of an Earth created with the APPEARANCE of
	  age.

LIAR!

Carbon 14 testing has been shown to be reliable and accurate in the
vast majority of cases when done properly.  With all the years of C14
testing, one must expect that there will be a few anomolous cases
caused by unexpected environmental conditions.  A scientist accept
this possibility and seeks a proper explination.  Only someone who is
politically motivated (such as yourself) will seek to either:
-Make unsupported statements such as
	  There are a number of enviornmental factors to consider
	  which indicate that the RATE OF RADIOACTIVE CARBON FORMATION HAS
	  NOT BEEN CONSTANT throughout the history of the Earth.
-Throw away the entire theory


Furthermore, the "evidence" you present is more than 20 years old.
Can't you do any better than that?




--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The vanity and presumption of governing
Field Robotics Center,          | beyond the grave, is the most ridiculous
Carnegie Mellon University      | and insolent of all tyrannies.  Man has no
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | property in man; neither ha any generation
(412) 268-3856                  | property in the generations that are to
                                | follow.  Thomas Paine
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.anthrpology
Subject: Re: Mensas farce?
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:19:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Aug21091954
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

In article <1992Aug21.020544.27351@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

   Exactly.  This is part of what I meant when I said the whole IQ thing is flawed.
   We are made to believe that a high IQ is something of great social value.
   However, looking at it more skeptically it is just an ephemeral puff of smoke.

   The tests are flawed, the interpretations are flawed and the value we place
   on those numbers are flawed. IQ sux.

Geez, Derek, don't you EVER think before posting?  In our society, a
high IQ is certainly not a social value.  In many cases, it is a
detriment to be perceived as smart. Who are our national heros?
Feynmann?  Djkstra?  Crick?  NO!  They are Bonilla, Johnson, etc.
When one is bright, they are sometimes called eggheads and treated as
if they have a contagious disease.  One person even suggested that
Mensa exists to help such traumatized people.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | The vanity and presumption of governing
Field Robotics Center,          | beyond the grave, is the most ridiculous
Carnegie Mellon University      | and insolent of all tyrannies.  Man has no
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | property in man; neither ha any generation
(412) 268-3856                  | property in the generations that are to
                                | follow.  Thomas Paine
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:52:07 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <536@texbell.sbc.com> lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com (Lou Montgomery (214+464-1049)) writes:
>
>          If you students of this discussion are interested in discussing
>       other methods of dating such as, uranium-lead, potassium-argon,
>       radioactive half-life, halo method, radiohalos, isochron or any
>       that may be of interest to either side, simply post into this
>       newsgroup and I will respond in a scientific, non-offensive
>       manner.


A little known writer produced a couple of books on qualitative geological
dating methods, mainly intended to convince young-earth creationists
that their interpretation of the geological strata as remnants of Noah's
Flood is out to lunch.  He explicitly avoids radioactive dating.

The books are:

_Neglect of Geologic Data: Sedimentary Strata Compared With Young-Earth
Creationist Writings_

_God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments_

both by Daniel Wonderly, and available from

Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute
POB 423
Hatfield, PA  19440-0423

These books are a far cry from the non-science of Henry Morris and
Duane Gish.  I highly recommend them for anyone interested in seeing a
reasonable view on geology from a Bible believer.  The writer made a
real contribution to both camps.
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Barbara Thiering's "Jesus the man". Any comments?
Keywords: Jesus. Dead sea scrolls.
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:47:43 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <r13mkjb.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>- that Jesus raised one child with Maria before and two after
>>   the crossing
>       Yes, and their descendants are the Illuminati. One of
>       them shot JFK.
>
Hey. Keep JFK out of sciskeptic we're all sick of it :-)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14176 talk.origins:9433
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: 12 Aug 92 13:56:02 EST
Distribution: na

In article <3bzg03JJ59bI00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
[...]
>>Thanks, but no thanks.  Waste your time praying for someone who thinks they
>>have a soul to pray for.  While you're at it, pray for all the Moslems
>>who are being slaughtered by all the followers of Jesus in what used to
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>be Yugoslavia.  
> Please provide documentation that the above is true. 
Methinks that you need a short history of the Balkans.  Take a look at what
happened between the Croatians and the Serbs in WWII.  Both as noted:
"followers of Christ."  Please do me one favor.  Don't try to beg off with one
of those "if they kill, they cannot be followers of Christ" answers.

GXKambic
standard disclaimer
From: kym@bingsuno.cc.binghamton.edu (R. Kym Horsell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Date: 16 Aug 92 17:54:23 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton

In article <1992Aug15.204009.14771@husc3.harvard.edu> rocher@husc8.harvard.edu (Jean-Marc Rocher) writes:
>There are several parts of the human body which no
>longer provide any benefits (the appendix, the little toe), but a person without
>an appendix is not going to have any evolutionary advantage over those of use
>with appendices, so it is highly unlikely that appendices will ever disappear.

This last is overly simplified. The human appendix is subject to
a not-uncommon and life-threatening problem and hence DOES exert
evolutionary pressure.

Contrarywise, consider the evolution of the horse. Why does it have
one toe? According to the argument above there should be little in
the way of REASON why this should be so. What evolutionary advantage
is there for NOT having vesigal toes? After all, aquatic mammals have
them...

-kym
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14714 talk.origins:9788
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:07:52 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen) writes:

First off, the article had a header lin, "In-Reply-To:
skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu's message..."  But the quoted material isn't mine,
it's Jim Loucks'.  (It was certianly a suprise seeing that attributed to me
in the header.)

>   >I don't believe I've ever made such a statement. As previously stated,
>   >it is my belief that life on earth is fairly young, the earth may or
>   >may not be old. It is also my belief that God could have easily created
>   >with the appearance of age, though most definitely not to deceive. If
>   >God created a 100 foot tree, would it not have the appearance of age?
>   >If such a tree were created, I have no problems with God also creating
>   >tree rings if he so desired. Nobody asked me why God chose to deceive
>   >us, but rather why an asshole dicked with the information. That was
>   >the context of my reply.
>   
>*********
>
> No reasonable attempt seems ever to be taken in this newsgroup 
>to debate fundamental assumption of evolution-version creation . 
>There will be many different views on the matter but dating methods 
>(circularity or not!) has to play a basic role. The above view is 
>one of the few entirely reasonable ones and I tend to agree with it 
>perhaps only that physical age of the earth seems old and biological 
>age of humankind very young indeed.

Dating methods are the fundamental issue?!  The idea of strata --> periods of
the past was laid down by Creationist geologists in the early 19th century,
well before Darwin.  Darwin just used the currently available relative time
scale for the fossil record.  Radiometric dating just provided an absolute
timescale that matched up with the one already in place.

The view above I did not find reasonable.  In "creating the evidence" that
way, there seems to be no reasonable way around the conclusion that God is
consciously decieving us in this hypothetical case.

If you wish to debate the issue, go ahead and post an article on it and get
it started.

>Parts of This newsgroup and almost all of Talk.origin exist in order 
>to educate the public in the IC (Intellectually Correct) way of 
>thinking on issues of origin of biological and geological origin. 
>It serves this purpose reasonable well and has no other purpose.

This is a charge you are going to have to back up.

>|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>|  Jens Peter Reus Christensen   |                                         |

|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop circles: natural or human-made?
Keywords: skeptic
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:17:09 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <Bt758M.2J6@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
|
|Anyway, I saw the same TV show, and I have to admit that it did stir
|my interest.  They made some pretty strong arguments that it was
|rather unlikely that the crop-circles were made by humans... for one
|they said that the recent frequency of appearance alone would make it
|difficult unless there were "a whole army of crop-circle makers out
|there" (loose quote).

So?  Why *shouldn't* there be a whole army of circle makers out there?
After all it's so easy, and pranking has a rather universal appeal.

| Then there are the slight burns on the affected
|plants which would point to a source of energy that would be difficult
|to use in such a controlled fashion by human technology, and the
|alleged discovery of genetic alterations in the wheat germs.

None of which have been confirmed by independent sources.
(The last is especially suspect, I would not take it at face value
until a more thorough investigation has been done).

|As this is my first post to this group, I'd like to add that I'm very
|much a skeptic, _especially_ when it comes to UFO stories which I've
|always dismissed, but I'm curious about this crop-circle phenomenon
|now.  The TV show mentioned above was your standard sensationalist
|TV-tabloid fare, but I'd be very interested in the opinions of some
|hardened skeptics in this newsgroup...

Then why did it use such baloney evidence?
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14182 alt.paranormal:2092
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Subject: Re: E.W. - Anastasia did survive!
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:47:52 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <ewillims.713529085@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie 
(Emma Williams) writes:
[...]
>
>Scientists are now planning to do a similar DNA test on the 
>remains of the "Anastasia" in Paris to see if she really was
>a member of the Romanov family.

If this is the one I'm thinking of, she wasn't Anastasia.  A friend of my 
family is a daughter of one of Nicholas's generals, and was Anastasia's
playmate.  She said it wasn't her.

	RA
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14346 alt.magick:3818 alt.pagan:7826
From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:31:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.122341.26129@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) 
writes:

> In article <1992Aug20.170752.175456@zeus.calpoly.edu>skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu
(Seth L. Kroger) writes:

> >reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen) writes:
> >>Parts of This newsgroup and almost all of Talk.origin exist in order 
> >>to educate the public in the IC (Intellectually Correct) way of 
> >>thinking on issues of origin of biological and geological origin. 
> >>It serves this purpose reasonable well and has no other purpose.
> >
> >This is a charge you are going to have to back up.
> 
> I'm afraid he is right. 

	Sorry, but this is not 'backing up the charge' as Seth requested. but
merely reiteration of the same assertion.  Furthermore, if I walked into a 
scientific conference with a theory 'the moon is made of green cheese',
and got thrown out on my ear, should I then cry 'FOUL!  conformist conspiracy
of Intellectually Correct theorists!'?

>                          As has been pointed out before,
> evolutionism boils down to belief. There are no
> scientific proofs. 

	Christ in a cardigan sweater, not THIS again!  The 'you cannot give
scientific PROOFS and mytheoryisasgoodasyourtheory so whatchya gonna BELIEVE' 
line of tripe.  For the buddha-alone-knows-what time, creationist assertions
and evolution theories are NOT EQUIVALENT.  
	Evolution theories explain current diversion of life using well known 
and verified scientific principles and methods; creation theories content 
themselves to 'evolution is wrong, it's that way because God made it that way'.
Dating methods are consistent from a wide variety of discplines -- several 
types of radioactive decay, planetary  formation theories, and geological 
timescales, to name a few.  Creationism refuses to explain how all of this 
consistently give the same answer, whether or not it is the correct one, not to
mention WHY this date shouldn't be the correct one.
	This will do for now, as there are many more complete FAQ's and 
critiques available.

>                     However anyone who expresses an
> opinion contrary to that belief is usually `corrected'.

	I (used to) teach a basic astronomy course.  If someone said 'all of
the planets orbit the Earth in circular orbits', should I give them double
points for advancing an 'alternative theory'?  Or maybe skip grading at all,
since everything is 'just an opinion'?  

'Hell is a grossly maligned place ... I must come here more often'
-- Moon Boy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:59:59 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Aug21.174951.24363@news.nd.edu> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle) writes:
>this?  What is your opinion on the reality of the world -- by this I
>mean the material world -- and do you think that we can know anything
>about it --

We have to conduct ourselves as though the apparent universe actually exists
and that our senses and minds do, in principle, let us construct useful models
of it. Does another course of action make any sense? (Presumably YOU conduct
yourself for a noticeable fraction of the day as though your occupation had
some objective reality, which cannot safely be ignored...)

>and do you think it is worthwhile to know anything about it?

Yes. Do you? If you don't think it's worthwhile knowing anything about reality,
why should we pay the least attention to your ramblings about it?
From: bwilliam@oyster.smcm.edu (Bill Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Aussie E.S.P. Test Result
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:45:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: St. Mary's College of Maryland

In article <1992Aug6.042024.13159@omrongw.wg.omron.co.jp>
tnishi@kansas.Berkeley.EDU (NISHIYAMA Tetsuto) writes:
...
>cheated with the cameras rolling? As I said, this has been documented by
>TBS broadcasting company in Japan.  I know that it is easy to cheat a
...
>	The station (television) asked a watch maker to specially 
..


Doesn't it bother you just a little bit that all this "research" has been done
by a television station?  How many people would continue to watch their program
if they dug up negative results?



					-Bill Williams
					-St. Mary's College of Maryland
From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:30:55 GMT
Organization: University of Western Australia

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
: In article <1992Aug18.051516.26741@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:
: I've read your reference.  Perhaps you are confused:  explaining why the sky
: is blue does not make it change colors.  Nor does addressing the authorship
: eliminate the errors.

No, with respect I think you must be confused. What I am saying is what
you see as errors are acknowledged to be errors by the mainstream
church. 

As a quasi-christian myself I am deeply embarrassed to see the mindless
antics of fundies, they are by and large mindless, sickened bigots with
overwhelming personality disorders, and unpleasant behaviour traits (not
the least of which is lobbying the governments of democracies to
persecute minorities).

So at the risk of restating the obvious: "I KNOW THERE ARE ERRORS IN THE
BIBLE! I KNOW THAT IT WAS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE! MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS OF
ALL DENOMINATIONS ACCEPT THIS TO BE THE TRUTH!"

Is that clear enough?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Cause of AIDS
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:52:51 GMT

In article <105@newave.mn.org>, john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
|> In <1992Aug18.052013.27077@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au writes:
|> > djsrmi@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (John Sadowsky x6211) writes:
|> > > They just want you to think that it is caused by a virus!
|> 
|> > Of course it's caused by viri. Don't insult the memory those who have died
|> > from this terrible disease by bringing down to the level of half-assed
|> > armchair revolution. And check your facts before engaging your keyboard.
|> 
|> Can you cite any references or other proof that AIDS is caused by a virus?
|> The cause of AIDS is not known.  Almost all AIDS patients also have HIV,
|> but there is no proven cause-effect between HIV and AIDS.  It might just
|> be that people with AIDS are very subseptible to HIV, or an HIV infection
|> makes a person subseptible to whatever causes AIDS.  The very name of the
|> problem should give this away: AIDS.  The S stands for syndrome, which means
|> a collection of symptoms--not a single disease.  Also, HIV is not a
|> virus, it is a retro-virus.  A retro-virus acts like a virus in some ways,
|> but its life cycle (especially reproduction) is much more interesting.

From the article "Heretic" by Tom Bethell in the 5/92 edition of _The American Spectator_
      "Heretic" is a much admired category in contemporary liberal thought -
      provided the heretic in question is safely dead.  (Galileo comes to
      mind.)  The other day I went to hear a live one,  one who was giving
      a lecture to students at the University of California in Berkeley.  His
      name is Peter Duesberg.  Born in Germany in 1936,  he is a professor of
      molecular and cell biology at the university,  and a member of the 
      National Academy of Sciences.  He has been a pioneer in cancer-gene
      research,  and was the first to map the genetic structure of retro-
      viruses.  His heresy -- a whopper -- is his claim that the human 
      immunodeficiency virus,  HIV,  is benign and does not cause AIDS.

      In a recent(1992) articcle published in _Biomedicine and Pharmocotherapy_,
      Duesberg summarizes a mass of data as follows:  "It is concluded that
      all American AIDS exceeding the normal low incidence of indicator
      diseases in the general population is the result of recreational and
      anti-HIV drugs.  Thus the American AIDS epidemicis a subset of the
      drug epidemic.

The whole medical/scientific/political/media establishment on one side,  Prof.
Duesberg on the other.  Definitely a heretic but who is right?
      

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:00:35 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre
Originator: netnews@uts.mcc.ac.uk

In article <1992Aug12.134448.7393@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:

>In article <zlsiida.62@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes
>in part:
>|> I came across the term kinesiology in a Mensa magazine article.  
>[...]
>|> I'm quite prepared to believe there is a 
>|> REAL science of kinesiology, I just don't know anything about it.

>  !!!!

>  Tsk, tsk.  You mean mensa is not a reliable source of info?  You
>surprise me greatly! :-)

>-- 
>  Robert E. McGrath
>  Urbana Illinois
>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu

If you were a member you wouldn't be surprised......or maybe you are and 
that's why the smiley......you should see some of the stuff that goes on at 
the UK AGM

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  The trouble with having an open mind is that people come along and |
|  put things in it.   {attribution? I nicked it from Readers Digest} |
|  Dave Budd, MCC, Oxford Rd, Manchester, England   (44)061-275-6033  |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14462 rec.org.mensa:6258