HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:08:55 CST
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <37608@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:
> In article <1992Sep2.125346.202636@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>>
>>"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
>>Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
>>number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will
>                                       ^^^^^^^ ^^^^
>>turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Tim 4:3-4
>>
>>Yours is Christ Jesus,
>>Anthony Faull
> 
> My spell-checker in Microsoft Word 5.0 does not recognize the word
> "creationist."  Its suggestion for a correct word is "scratchiness."
> Perhaps this explains the "itching ears" of those who choose to turn
> away from the truth and instead believe in myths.  :-)  :-)

PSI Write 'n Spell's dictionary suggests craziness, christianize and
coercionist.  Whoever wrote the software must have confused dictionary 
with thesaurus!      ;-)

  TED FEUERBACH   Scientific Systems Consultant  Trilogy Consulting, Inc. 
  Lake St. Louis, MO        (314) 537-6603       tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
  Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed herein are MY OWN and obviously not
  the opinions of Trilogy, Monsanto or either of my two ex-wives. 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:21:08 GMT

In article <5301@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem
Nienhuys) writes:
> (is an ad-pod argument also ad-hominem?)

Probably more like "ad homunculem."

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
From: wsadjw@rw6.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:47:59 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <92Sep14.220642.34835@acs.ucalgary.ca> hexham@acs.ucalgary.ca (Irving Hexham) writes:
>
>	An otherwise sane friend of mine, actually a professor of
>philosophy, has been hooked by books on reincarnation which claim
>to factually report past life regression.  Does anyone know a
>good response to this type of ....!?
>Thanks.

There are basically two sources of reincarnation proofs.
One is stories told by people under hypnosis (past life
regressions) and the other one is stories about children
who remember previous lives (usually in far away places
like India, Sri Lanka, Alaska, Lebanon, Brazil). As your
acquaintance seems mainly impressed by the former kind,
I won't address the latter kind.

Robert Baker (psychologist) says he has treated many people,
and actually age regressed many too.  He claims that hypnosis
(whatever that is) is not really necessary.  In a state of
deep relaxation all kinds of memories that seemed forgotten
come up *including various fantasies based on reading or
watching historic books/comics/films/plays*.

The British journalist Melvin Harris has investigated several
famous cases.  If you read a book by Ian Wilson about the subject,
you also get the impression that these `memories of a previous
life' leave a lot to be desired.
Of course, in investigations of this sort there is a curious dilemma:
the easier it is to check the accuracy of a purported past life
memory, the more difficult it is to conclusively prove that the 
subject can't have obtained the information (direct or indirect)
from the same source.

Some people are very impressed with the succes of regression therapy.
But that's just a logical error.  If your children sleep better when
you read them a bed time story, it doesn't mean the story really
happened.  
A rational explanation of the success (if any, because research in
the efficacy of psychotherapy compared to placebo therapy has mainly
turned up negatives) of this therapy is: it provides the patient
with a coherent (even if objectively false) story about the origin
of his/her complaint.  It's more important that the story makes sense
to the patient or appears to him/her as a deep and essential part
of their life, than that it has any objective truth in it.
Compare with many U.S. citizens who seem to think that explaining
your problem as originating in childhood will solve it.

I think a professor of philosophy should have no problem in understanding
that `the story makes you feel better' doesn't prove that it is true
in any sense.


The above is all very abstract.  In a next post I will give some 
references for literature on reincarnation in general.

JWN

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:40:57 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:08:27 GMT, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) said:

John> But does a creationist really mean simply one who believes in
John> Creation?  I've never seen it that way.  In ordinary usage, I
John> thought that a creationist is one who believes in Creation as
John> described literally in Genesis.

I visited last night with Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov of Russia, and he said
that Russian scientists have been converting to creationism on the basis
of the scientific evidence, then some time *later* (2 years, in his
particular case) converting to Christianity.  They are, therefore,
creationists long before they are believers in Genesis.  His creation
science association has several members who are not currently Christians.
They believe that what they see was created <ex nihilo> by
*something*, but science cannot answer *what* (or *who*) created it.

This will, no doubt, attract several flames about the phrase "on the
basis of the scientific evidence".  I will ignore them, since this is
sci.skeptic, and not talk.origins (although the difference is often
hard to discern).  I will, however, respond to flames about the
definition of "creationist".

Yer most humble Servant, etc.,
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid,
Integrated Measurement Systems |  knowing that they do gender strifes."
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  - 2 Timothy 2:23
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  





Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Data Structures of Unreality
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:00:34 GMT

>albert@bsovax.UUCP (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>>   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?
>

Which catholic theologians?

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16119 alt.conspiracy:10511 alt.conspiracy.jfk:3187 talk.rumors:988
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.rumors
Subject: Re: Kudos to My Many Fans
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:00:56 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1XX666XX@defect.kgb.su> lho@defect.kgb.su (Lee Harvey Oswald) writes:
>Comrades, my only two dreams in life were to be a spy, or an assassin,
>and to get laid. I have achieved my dreams but I am still disgruntled.
>Lately, I've become quite spectacularly annoyed at the drop-off in net
>traffic from my supporters and admirers. I'm beginning to think that
>everyone's name has finally been added to everyone else's KILL file.
>And how would you like to be added to my KILL file, fellow patriot?
>
>                        -- Alek Hidell
>
>P.S. Marina, you ignorant slut! You made love to The Second Oswald and never
>complained.


Out of curiosity, how does one go about making up a fake address like that
used here?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,sci.classics
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu
Organization: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:17:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.020923.11423@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes...
> 
>Where does one find progress reports and latest findings on the
>present translation work of the dead sea scrolls?
> 
>Is there a Journal that regularly reports what's going on?

Try any recent issue of "Biblical Archaeology Review".  It's own editor
(if I recall) is presently in a lawsuit filed by one or more of the
"scholars" that were "keepers of the scrolls".

I'm sorry if I don't have any details or have been somewhat inaccurate,
but I usually don't read all of the bickering and whining going on
between interested parties concerning the scrolls.

B.A.R. will be very informative.  They also publish various books 
about the scrolls.  I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that they
are the folks that relatively recently published the first public
release of the _unpublished_ scrolls, much to the dismay of the
so-called "scholars" that have been sitting on them for decades.

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16036 talk.origins:10968
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:27:01 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Supersedes: <87957@netnews.upenn.edu>
In-reply-to: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)

In article <1299@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes (Bill Riggs) writes:
>	In fact , the two statements only appear to differ. The key is
>the lead-in "as a historian". If you look closely, the way I've been 
>defining history precludes events which occur prior to human
>observation. I've been going 'round and 'round with Matt Wiener on this
>basically semantical issue. Call it mendacity if you like...

I call it idiocy myself.  I've been discussing the epistemological
issues, which are pretty much the same in any approach to the past.

>       Look at how we educate young people to learn about biology in
>high school.  [rant omitted]

That's it?  Your first substantive objection to evolution?  The fact
that the textbooks are dumbed down?  Good grief.  What a total idiot.
Care to extend this critical methodology to any other subject matter?
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16298 talk.origins:11221
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:27:54 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <26239@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
|
|Actually, I just heard a story on NPR (or maybe it was the BBC) about someone
|who has found a piece of amber with some blood-glutted insect (or something
|like that) which they speculate(*), presumably from the dating of the amber
|and the anatomy of the insect, to contain dinosaur blood.  They have not
|yet opened the amber to extract the blood.  But it seems to me that if true,
|we could learn much about dinosaurs from a genetic analysis of the sample.
|Whether we could clone a stegosaurus is another matter all together...

The story is true enough as far as it goes.  However these things need to be
kept in proper perspective.  The DNA extracted from these fossil preservations
is always *highly* *fragmentary*.  Getting even 1% of the original is insane
good luck.  In general only small fragmenets, of a few thousand nucleotides
length, are all that is found.

Now, for a paleontologist, this is a major bonanza - it allows reconstructions
of evolutionary trees with far greater precision.  But for biotech it is
nearly useless, it will take more than a handful of minute fragments to
clone a dinosaur.

|(*) The speaker claimed that it *was* dinosaur blood, but I think that
|this was just some unwise hyperbole. 
|
Very likely.  Even *after* the amber is opened it may be difficult to be
sure it is dinosaur blood, and not blood from some other organism.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: bwilliam@iat.holonet.net (Bill Williams)
Subject: Re: BUSH'S anti-atheism quote
Organization: HoloNet (BBS: 510-704-1058)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:35:06 GMT

Don't Forget Saint Ronald "Rent-A-Pope" Reagans campaign in 1984....


He said to a HUMONGOUS cheering mob in an amphitheater something like...

"I KNOW THERES BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT PUTTING MORE COMPUTERS IN THE
CLASSROOM, BUT I SAY WE SHOULD PUT MORE BIBLES IN THE CLASSROOM! <Huge
cheers (tennesee or kentucky I think)> I PROPOSE MAKING 1984 THE YEAR OF
THE BIBLE. <more mindless Nurenburg strength standing ovation>

I heard the words a long time ago over a news radio show and I have to say
it was the most threatened moment I ever felt in my entire life.  The
apparent parallels between him and other fascists like Hitler seemed quite
real, and I felt AmeriKa was doomed.




Bill "Jesus is a Lie" Williams
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: There's Hope Yet
Date: 13 Sep 1992 06:34:18 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


I was in a store last night when a boy stepped on to a bathroom scale and
said, "I weigh 90 pounds - if this scale is right."
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:49:07 GMT

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>One of my items was "Atoms have nuclei."  This theory was proposed to 
>explain the phenomena of hard scattering off gold foils and the like.
>It was a theory in every sense of the word.  If you think otherwise, then
>you are rewriting history.  Go back and look - see if it was treated
>as a theory to explain a set of observations.  You will find that it was.

>I think that the problem we are having is that some people are defending
>a model of science which just doesn't correspond to reality.  Karl Popper
>was very insightful - but he did not cause all other philosophers of science 
>just to fold tent and go home.  Theories *do* become facts, Popper 
>notwithstanding.  To say otherwise is to make the mistake of judging the 
>past by the standards of today.  You have to understand how people thought
>and dealt with these things *at the time*.   Today, the existence of atoms
>as real objects is considered fact.  But there *was* a time when it was
>a hotly debated theory, for which the experimental techiques were insuffient
>to provide a clear unambiguous anwer. 

>-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


Am I right in thinking this is a debate about what is a theory?
Or have I picked it up at the wrong time?
I remember as an undergraduate one of my professors asking us (as a class)
after doing an electron scattering expereiment off nucelei whether we now
believed in the existence of nuclei and electrons.
But I would question calling the existence of atoms "facts". especially
with the the word "real" attached. Do we think that an object with no
size, a negative charge, that has a property called spin but is not actually
moving (in its own rest-frame) can be called a fact?
I think that the word fact should be reserved for sensory experiences
in physics I think we are trying to desvribe phenomena in terms of
entities that are manipulated by a theory. So an electron is an 
entity whose properties have well-defined mathematical expression
and using these entities we can describe and predcit the behaviour
of material objects. The mathematics we use to do this is a theory.
Any pictures we may have in our minds about electrons being like 
billiard balls or plaents going around the sun are just that: pictures.
Not necessarily accurate and certainly not facts.

julian
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the icr in p
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:27:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <27014@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>, wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes...
>Contrary to the impression they give due to the high level of exposure
>on TV, radio, and various other media, the Fundies comprise only about
>1% of the religious population. Science and technology have eroded
>their positions long term and what we are seeing today is just
>a minor reversal of the overall trend. I think we can safely ignore
>them. They will never go away, but unless civilization collapses
>they will never dominate.

I'd very much like to believe this, but I am skeptical.  Do you have
any evidence to support this?  When 47% of the American public answers
"yes" to the question "Do you think the earth and human beings were
created 10,000 years ago?", I find it hard to believe that only 1% of
the religious population is fundamentalist.  (This statistic is from
a Gallup poll late last year--either Nov. or Dec.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Info needed: change in ratio male/female
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:06:20 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Sep5.233625.21919@ncsu.edu>, hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes...
>In article <1992Aug31.152202.11146@news.nd.edu> wlamonac@purcell.helios.nd.edu (william lamonaca) writes:
>> ...
>>I'd heard the opposite (and not just for Germany, but for any war-torn
>>country)- that more boys are born to make up for those who were killed in
>>the fighting.  Either way, the story is an urban legend- as far as I know,
>>the male/female birth ratio does not change.
> 
>  The ratio certainly shows random fluctuations, but in addition there
>is a small age-of-mother effect.  To the best of my memory, younger
>women give birth to a slightly higher percentage of male children than
>older women.

Check out Peter Medawar's book _The Threat and the Glory_.  He discusses
the *real* variations in Britain's boy-to-girl birth ratio immediately
after World Wars I and II and the probable cause of these variations in
terms of age-of-mother, age-of-father, etc.  The effect is *not* just
urban legend.  But he concludes that there was insufficient demographic
data at the time (for example, age-of-father was not recorded at all) to 
deduce exactly what mechanism was responsible.

-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: lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Voyager(TM) light and sound device
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:18:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.194327.6212@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>In article <8257.427@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes in part:
>|> It is designed according to
>|> the theory that the brain can be entrained to operate in a manner in
>|> keeping with the input to the brain.  Theoretically, the sound can
>|> sync both hemisperes into synchronization with the sound....which can
>|> be adjusted, per ear, to be either in or out of phase. The flashing
>|> leds seem to also entrain the brain (terrible alliteration here!) by
>|> stimulating the visual cortex.
>Oh really?  You have actually measured your EEG to see if these claimed
>entraining is occuring?
>
>The fact that some lab experiments have shown that flashing lights
>or rhytmic noises may cause more synchronized brain wave patterns is
>hardly evidence that this particular device actually accomplishes
>this synchronization.  And I really have to wonder about the combined
>effects of both visual and auditory stimuli, especially since there
>appear to be many combinations, which are unlikely to work the same
>way.
>
>Please tell me about what your EEG showed when you used this device,
>or point me to evidence that such studies have been done.  Theory
>is not enough, I'd like to see evidence that the claimed effects
>are actually happening.
>
>-- 
>  Robert E. McGrath
>  Urbana Illinois
>  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu

Firstly....sarcasm is not necessary. Because YOU have not seen
the research does not mean that it doesn't exist. To be a TRUE
SKEPTIC means to have an open and objective mind. Research all,
debunk AFTER you have acquired a sufficient amount of proof
necessary for you to form an educated opinion.

Call the Voyager OR Megabrain company. They have the research
available for viewing.  I recommend Megabrain as they are a well
established company and have more info at their fingertips.
What I viewed was some glossy paperwork that showed an
ultrasound(???) image of the brain before, during, and after a
session with the Voyager. The image of the brain was color
computer-enhanced to show which areas of the brain were active
and inactive.....check it out for yourself.

BUT...regardless what you people think in this group.....this
stuff works very well to at least calm and relax you to the
point of complete and sound sleep. You want to find out if you
win....you have to place the bet...or get off the gambling
table. Get the analogy?

	Len

--
*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*
The accountability of government has gone to the point where the very
use of the law is the instrument of illegality.
		-- Ralph Nader @ Harvard Law School, 1/15/92
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic