HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Subject: Gnosticism(was Re: Rant! Rave!)
Keywords: creationism, demiurge
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (Scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:46:28 GMT

   I have been asked by a couple of people to expand on my remarks 
about gnosticism.  Not being very much up on the subject, I eventually
decided just to present these few remarks from the Encyclopedia
Brittanica article on the subject.  If anybody has any better ideas on
the subject, I will certainly defer to them.

    ... a lower demiurge was responsible for the creation of the 
    world.  This teaching is to be found in the Apocryphon of John 
    ... and in the Pistis Sophia ...
    ...
    The world, produced from evil matter and possessed by evil 
    demons, cannot be a creation of a good God; it is mostly
    conceived of as an illusion, or an abortion, dominated by 
    Yahweh, the Jewish demiurge...

   Once again, I brought up this subject because I was getting the feeling
from postings that some creationists might be saying that some of the 
evidence for evolution was put there (or maybe only appears to be there) 
not by God, but by some evil force -- it reminded me of this sort of
doctrine of gnosticism.  I pictured a demon putting fossils in rocks,
pseudo-genes in DNA, ... it seemed like the demon had to be everywhere,
creating this deceptive matter.  

   I realize that a charge of "gnosticism" can be just about as
meaningful as crying "fascism", but in this particular case, it was
becoming a little too much.

   (Also, by way of apology, I have lost the mailing address of one
correspondent who asked me about this by e-mail.  If you want to 
continue this by e-mail, get in touch with me again.)

-- 
Tom Scharle                |cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14523 talk.origins:9630
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:56:31 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <8eFv03.B60xe00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>>>But the vast majority of scientists who have objectively studied life 
>>>>consider it to have evolved.  The majority of people who consider life
>>>>NOT to have evolved have a religious agenda.  That is what we mean.
>>>>And if you may remember, I have asked you in the past to please explain
>>>>how varves were formed, how come ice core dating (several different and
>>>>totally unrelated methods) all agree, tree ring dating also agrees with
>>>>ice core dating, so does coral reef dating.  You have consistantly ducked
>>>>discussing any of this.  
>>> 
>>> Sue, you have asked me to explain the above, but then apologized
>>> for confusing me with someone else after I've informed you that it
>>> wasn't me who mentioned those issues in the first place. If this is
>>> how you define "consistently ducking," then so be it, there's not
>>> much more I can do for you in this matter.
>>> 
> 
>>I am repeating myself.  *I* have asked you in the past to discuss this.
>>You refuse.... WHY?  Since you believe that the earth, man and all living
>>things are much younger than the evidence shows, how do you explain the
>>above items I mention?
> 
> To say that I refuse is putting it rather harshly, especially with
> an issue I've never mentioned myself. I have never, ever made any
> claim to have enough knowledge of the above issues to discuss them
> in this forum.
> 

So, why don't you take just a little time and look at the evidence?  It's
pretty straight forward.  I can send you the list of types of ice core dating,
how they are correlated, how they are used.  Then you can please explain
how and why they don't fit into your world view.  

>>You say you aren't ducking the issues.  I did confuse you with someone
>>else at an earlier date.  But I am asking *YOU* now.... Well?
> 
> I could use the same logic with you and any number of issues, and to
> claim either of us are ducking the issues would be incorrect. Please
> don't attempt to ridicule me, or attack my character, it just won't 
> work and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Sorry,  I don't mean to be ridiculing you.  But you just don't seem to want
to look at any hard and fast evidence in some areas that might challenge your
beliefs.


> 
>>Sue
> 
> -- 
> Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
> {apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jwo@cs.cornell.edu (John W. O'Leary)
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:00:31 GMT

In article <19920818143222SKH4161@MVS.draper.com> SKH4161@MVS.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>Since Mensa also accepts SAT, ACT, GMAT, MAT and GRE scores for
>admission, do you mean to say the concept of these scholastic aptitude
>tests is completely flawed and meaningless as well?   Many Mensa
>members, if not the majority, got in on one of these tests rather than
>an IQ test.

Just out of curiousity, what SAT or GRE score would get me into Mensa?
-- 
John W. O'Leary jwo@ee.cornell.edu  Ph. 607-255-4323  FAX 607-255-9072
School of Electrical Eng, 338 Theory Ctr, Cornell U, Ithaca, NY  14853
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14696 talk.origins:9765
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Jim sez: who ya gonna trust, me or your senses?
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:29:17 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
>In article <1992Aug18.100057@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
>Ashlock) writes:
>> In article <39EA03P761SV00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com
>(Jim Loucks) writes:
>>                                 [deletions]
>> >Maybe we shouldn't be messin' around where we're messin' around. I 
>> >believe the Bible to be a revelation of God, not just "religion."  ...
>>
>>    Jim, I will refrain from swearing and profanity BUT do you realize what
>> you just said?  ...
>> 
>>    Don't you EVER think through the logical implications of what you're 
>>saying?
>> 
>>    Don't you EVER perform reality checks on your philosophy?
>> 
>
>	I agree with Asholock's statements above.  However, note also that Jim 
>is NOT BEING ARROGANT HERE! He is being a good, humble christian in spreading 
>God's message to the net.world.

Is he though?  His arrogance here is in assuming his particular way of
looking at the Bible is actually God's message.

A *humble* christian would realize that there are many valid ways of reading
the Bible, and that just *maybe* his own is not the one God intended, or wants
emphasized in today's world.

> Furthermore, as has been pointed out to me, we
>cannot even take him to task for this; after all, it it not JIM'S messsage, it
>is GOD'S message, so, as someone else said, we should 'take it up with the
>author'.

I do not believe that Jim's posting *are* God's message.  They are certainly
not the message *I* am getting from God!
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Jim's Logic and the Origin of Feces.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:46:37 CDT

Max Webb (max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com) wrote:

  [Max Webb's scathing and regretably highly accurate critique
   of Jim Loucks descent from apparently sincere Creationist
   into automaton deleted.  But I must say that it's self-
   evident truth was movingly charged!  Wow!]
: 
: He is reduced to saying oneliners w/o content like "That's
: a matter of interpretation" - when he has no interpretation,
: and has admitted it.

He has become indistinguishable from Lionel Tun.  They are
both victims of an evolutionary arms race right here on
T.O.  They are prey, and their survival tactic has become
the elimination of content from their words.  They fail
to see that Lamarkian behaviour will not save them, for
their previous characteristics are still extent, as a
permanent subtext to everything they produce.  They 
cannot escape their past except by facing it head on,
and as Jim discovered, that is impossible.  He promised
"The Theory" before he realized that he could not
possibly succeed.  That is a bitter pill, and so he is
now trying to become the voice of God.  He is still
mired and sinking inevitably.

To reiterate Max - pathetic...

I am sorry to see this, Jim.  I really am.

rob derrick
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:38:19 GMT

In <1992Aug17.141019@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:

>Jim sez,

>In his own words: 
>> 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.
>> 
>> I hope this helps clear up any miscommunication.

Let me see if I got this right,  God plants false evidence in order to 
lead astray the non-believers?

This leaves us in an imaginary world where some being is messing with our
reality.  How do you know if your driving to work in the morning Jim?
Maybe God is just decieving you into thinking you have a car?

Maybe the deceptor is the devil in disguise.

As soon as you bring in the "False Evidence" arguement, you pretty much
bring anything we see, hear, touch, taste or smell into question. 

Its a stupid arguement that's self defeating, so give it up.

Vern Nelson
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Revisionism or ignorance? (was: Rant, Rave...)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:26:05 GMT

In article <54N903t85ei700@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
> hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50) writes:
>>To me, it's too easy to turn theistic evolution into deism.  So I personally 
>>wouldn't say I susbscribe to theistic evolution without adding rather
>>emphatically that God always has and always will exercise His sovereignty
>>over the operation of the universe. Evolution as a mechanism is well
supported
>>by the data available to us. But I don't see it as a complete, sufficient
>>explanation for all of life. Obviously I don't claim that that position
>>is a scientific one. It's a Christian one.
> 
> There are some t.o regulars that appear to believe I hold a different
> view than the one Bill describes above. For communications sake, Bill
> has summarized my thoughts rather well and I wanted to express this
> publicly to help dissolve any confusion.

   Jim, you don't think the earth has existed long enough for evolution to take
place.  This alone makes your position inconsistant with Bill's.  Are you
taking
a new stand or were you unaware of the timescales on which evolution operates?
Or did God simulate a universe in hich evolution has gone on for hundreds of
millions or billions of years when he created everything?  That last answer
brings back God the deciever...

> Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY)
Subject: Re: Barbara Thiering's "Jesus the man". Any comments?
Keywords: Jesus. Dead sea scrolls.
Organization: Glassboro State College, Glassboro, NJ
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:16:58 GMT




thought you might find this interesting. its from sci.skeptic



In article <391@bsovax.UUCP> albert@bsovax.UUCP (Albert van der Horst) writes:

>I read in a German newspaper about the interpretation
>of the dead sea scrolls, laid down in a book, whose title is
>rendered in German "Jesus der Mensch". The Original title is
>probably "Jesus the man", the editor is Doubleday.
>This book by the theologist (Dr.) Barbara Thiering of Sydney
>universitey (Australie) contains some of the more well known
>conclusions about the sexual relationship between Jesus and
>Maria Magdalena and the later addition of the "virgin birth" myth.

>However in view of the doubts about Jesus as a historical person,
>some of the newer conclusions are quite specific, in particular the
>claims
>- that Jesus did not die on the cross (a trick with some
>   poison made him only appear dead)
>- that Jesus raised one child with Maria before and two after
>   the crossing
>- that he lived for 30 years afterwards
>- that Maria Magdalena left him March A.D. 44
>- that in that time he married a women with a greek education
>  called Lydia
>- that pilgrims are going to the wrong Bethlehem, the right one
>  begin 40 Km to the West from Jeruzalem.

>Are these legitimate scientific conclusions? Sensational rendering
>of a newspaper from a scientific conclusions? Crackpot science?
>Is the book worth reading at all?
>Comments any one?
>--

>"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:14820 alt.alien.visitors:6002 talk.religion.newage:3950
From: dantonio@magick.enet.dec.com (David D'Antonio)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:21:13 GMT
Reply-To: dantonio@flashy.tay2.dec.com
Organization: None to speak of...


In article <1992Aug14.191217.3191@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath) writes:
|>The review attached below appeared in a slightly different and
|>shorter form in _Skeptical Inquirer_, Spring 1992.  I have received
|>"vibrations" that indicate that this is the correct moment to post 
|>this.  (Also, my boss isn't back from Europe yet, so things are 
|>a bit slack around here this Friday PM. :-))
|>
|>-- 
|>  Robert E. McGrath
|>  Urbana Illinois
|>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu

[Review deleted]

It was this review in _Skeptical Inquirer_ that prompted me to buy
this book and, while I think the reviewer was generally fair, they
missed some key points. First off, T. M. Luhrmann is a woman. In the
SI version, she was refered to as 'he'. More substantially, at the end
of the book she talks about belief, and says that choosing to
(publicly) believe in magic often has social/professional costs and
for this reason, she wasn't going to say she believes magic works. She
says that there would be (paraphrased) "loss of credibility and
professional stature" to admit to believing in magic. Yet this wasn't
mentioned in the review.

She also states early on that she wasn't going to deal with the
question of whether or not magic was "real." She assumes it isn't, but
her later experiences do challenge this assumption, IMHO.

BTW, I do recommend the book. Her comments about "interpretive drift"
and belief in general are useful whether or not you apply them to
magic.

DDA

--
dantonio@magick.tay2.dec.com -or- dantonio@sword1.enet.dec.com
  I've tried to dance with what life had to hand me
    My partner's been pleasure, my partner's been pain
				-Stevie Nicks
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14819 talk.origins:9904
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Last Tuesdayism
Date: 22 Aug 92 06:02:11 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Distribution: na
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <GERRY.92Aug21190337@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>The universe was created last Tuesday with an appearance of old age,
>and with our memories generated for us....

This heresy crops up every so often.

Let's get it straight -- the universe will be created next Tuesday,
complete with all the etceteras.  We're just one in a series of emulation
mode runs which He is running to check out the software.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 15 Aug 92 08:23:01 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Aug13.043038.29341@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.034525.26523@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>>Now that the Shroud has been shown to be 14th Cen., it now becomes a
>>>>remarkable 14th centuary image instead of a remarkable 33 AD image.
>>>>Are there any reasonable theories as to how the 14th C artist pulled
>>>>off the image reversal???
>>>Why do you ask?  Do you think there are none?
>>To get a thread going :-)
>>But seriously, because I'm still waiting to find a reasonable theory.
>>There's got to be one out there!
>
>Would you mind clarifying?
>
>This could mean that you haven't looked at the subject much at all, and you
>haven't seen most of the theories.  Or it could mean you _have_ seen most of
>the theories but think they have mistakes.  So which theories have you already
>seen?

I've seen all the theories and they are all fragile.

There could be some I've missed and there could be some new ones hot off the
press.
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 02:52:37 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 <1992Aug21.122341.26129@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:

>I'm afraid he is right. As has been pointed out before,
>evolutionism boils down to belief. There are no
>scientific proofs.

Strictly speaking, you are right. However, outside mathematics there are no
proofs, but only propositions which reasonable, skeptical people may accept 
as true. Objections about lack of proof coming from a person who accepts 3000
year old religious poetry as inerrant are ludicrous and irrelevant. 

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Mr Boyken's silliness
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 18:24:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.223541.5341@cuug.ab.ca>, rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (Robert P.J. Day 277-3175) writes:
>[..]
>  This is a remarkably silly statement. [..]
>  Mr. Boyken, with all due respect, you are an idiot. [..]
>  If you wish to continue criticizing science, at least take the time
>to understand what it is you seek to undermine.
>[..]
>  I sincerely hope these are your personal views.  The thought of you
>plagiarizing them implies that there is someone else out there just
>as silly.
[real arguments omitted]

Ah!  I wanted to reply myself to this Boyken guy, I kept all his clueless
postings where he throws strawmen about by the dozen.  Now I can delete them.
Thanks!

-- 
--------------thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany---------------
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
From: Doug_Crompton@mindlink.bc.ca (Doug Crompton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Energy fields and the like
Date: 14 Aug 92 03:41:38 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Loren Frank writes:
>Second, does anyone know of any reputable books about homepathy or
>something like where one could look for information about what really goes
>on with altenative medicine and theories as to why it seems to work in
>some case?

"The Science of Homeopathy" by George Vithoulkas thoroughly covers the
principles of homeopathy.  This and numerous other books covering all
aspects of homeopathy are available from Homeopathic Educational
Services, 2124 Kittredge St., Berkeley, CA 94704
phone 1-510-649-0294 (9am-6pm M-F,Pacific Time)
      1-800-359-9051 (For orders only)
FAX   1-510-649-955
Ask them to send you a catalogue.

I have no financial interest in this business; I'm just a satisfied customer!

Doug
From: tc37942@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tani  Chen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Mandelbrot Set shaped crop circle
Keywords: skeptic
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:22:18 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

The other day I saw a TV show on crop circles.  Unfortunately, I missed most of
what was being said....One clip that I did see was a crop circle in the shape
of the Mandelbrot Set.  What I want to know is, are there any good          
explainations of this?  Are there Mandelbrot Set shaped UFOs circling Earth?
Mandelbrot Set shaped landing pads?  shuttles?  And how aerodynamic is the
Mandebrot Set, anyway, with all of the dendrites and antennas hanging off of it?
Any ideas?

Tani Chen
tc37942@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:51:02 GMT

I will let others tackle most of this mess.  I just had to chuckle at:

In article <1992Aug14.181226.9696@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, bourd@jellyfish.cps.msu.edu (Robert Bourdeau) writes in part:
|> 
|>    9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
|>     Seeing  the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil  re-
|> cord, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen
|> Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated
|> equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird  giving
|> birth  to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils  in  the
|> geological record.

This is hilarious!  Imagine any biologist claiming anything as silly
as this!  I note that Gould is not cited in the references, so
its not surprising they didn't get it right.  Read, perhaps, "A 
Wonderful Life", or practically anything else by Gould for the real 
theory of P.E.  (I saw a great bumper sticker: "Honk if you understand 
puncuated equillibrium".)

I also liked:

|>    16. WRITTEN RECORD
|>     The 22nd edition of Robert Young's concordance lists  thirty-
|> seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for crea-
|> tion at no earlier than 7000 B.C.

I guess that wraps it up.  No further discussion needed! 37 references 
can't be wrong!  (Especially in the face of 10's of thousands that disagree!)

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic