HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLICAL  I vote [X]Yes!
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:34:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.225336.8998@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.125142.4019@cuug.ab.ca> rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (Robert P.J.
Day 277-3175) writes:
>>  If Mr. Lawson, or whoever, insists on this type of behaviour, is it
>>really that difficult to track down his/her site, locate the sys admin
>>and make it clear that this person's actions are unwanted and contravene
>>the mandate of that particular group?  This is not censorship, it is
>>simply insisting that posters behave appropriately and restrict their
>>postings to the appropriate groups.
> 
> To be fair, I don't think Drew Lawson's postings take up very much
> bandwidth.  It's actually the rebuttals that take up much more.  I don't
> believe that you can blame him for that.

   Naw, no way, fer sure dood.  Drew kept making the same logical errors
repeatedly, concealed by his rather odd way of saying what he means[1].  No way
he's at fault.  Let's have the sys-admin at Drew's site go put a .357 magnum
hotload into Drew's high school rhetoric teacher.  What?  They don't teach
rhetoric in high school any more?  Well, I guess that won't do too much harm.

>>R. Day
>
> John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

[1] Drew Lawson..........thinks scientists can beleive in God but won't take  
                         "yes" for an answer.
-Dr Pepper's program guide to talk.origins
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: J. Witnesses
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:02:06 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1992Sep12.014044.12323@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>
>  If I'm in a very bad mood, I'll sometimes try to convert the JW's
>to Mormonism, or Buddhism, or some other religion about which I know
>something and they know nothing.  (I succeeded once, though, and that
>made the game a lot less fun.)
>
How, exactly, did you do that?  (I'm curious)

Big Al.  The best JW banes I heard were from alt.sex.bestiality.
From: dternes@duke.cdc.com (David Ternes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll (47% believe young earth creation)
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:49:17 GMT
Reply-To: dternes@mips.COM (David Ternes)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Advanced Product Development

In article <14SEP199219473326@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <47557@shamash.cdc.com>, dternes@mips.COM (David Ternes) writes...
>>I'm curious about how the question was phrased.
>
>"Man was created pretty much in his present form about 10,000 years ago."
>This was supported by 47%, rejected by 49%.  39% of men and 53% of women
>supported it.  Of those who supported evolution, 80% said they believed
>in God.
>
I was right in my suspicion that it wasn't a very good question in terms
of finding anything out about how many people believe in young earth
creationism.  I'm sure a fair number of people would conclude that since
that's a fairly rough estimate of when man went from stone age (or whatever)
to modern man that they could support it.





E. David Ternes                                       dternes@udev.cdc.com
          Goal: To live either in obscurity or in competance.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:15:40 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <5201@gold.gvg.tek.com>, johna@psdcae1.gvg.tek.com (John Abt) writes:
>There is a novel out that is built around this concept of
>cloning dinosaurs with fossil DNA (sorry, I don't remember
>the name).

_Jurassic_Park_, by Michael Crichton.

>Matter of fact, Stephen Speilburg is presently
>filming the movie version in Kauai.... or at least he was.
>The movie is "Jurassic Park" - maybe that's the books title 
>also.

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

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: missing verbs (was: Biological Sex Differences...)
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<1992Sep9.162211.11503@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
	<1992Sep9.230021.5182@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:16:05 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:00:21 GMT, minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) said:

Marvin> It is really hard to say that <Jack verbed Jim> in a case in
Marvin> which we regard Jack as coming out the worse for the event.

"Jack naively espoused creationist beliefs to Jim ... Lippard"  :-)



(I know, I know, the tense doesn't fit, but it was too good to pass up.)

--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the
Integrated Measurement Systems |  shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  art with me; thy rod and thy staff they
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  comfort me." - Psalm 23:4
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  





Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:47:51 GMT

jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes:
: >>riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
: >>
: >>	   But is creationism bad science ? I am convinced that one can
: [generously edited...]
: 
: Oh no, Mr. Bill.  Creationism is neither good science nor bad
: science.  You have somehow allowed the definition of science to
: escape you -- creationism simply isn't science at all.  Good
: definitions of science are ubiquitous in this newsgroup.  Read
: some of the other threads if you find it hard to understand those
: posters who have tried to explain to you directly how creationism
: does not fit the definition for science.
:

I once heard about a court case in which it was decided that
creationism wasn't science.  The criteria used by the court was
"Science is what scientists do."  After looking at the current and
past work of scientists whose fields are related to creationism
(biology, geology, paleontology, ...) the court found that none of
them thought creationism was a valid topic.  Therefore, creationism
isn't science.

I wish I had written down the specifics of the case, but I was in the
car when I heard the report on the radio.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  But was he mature
Rosemount Inc.                                |enough last night at the
                                              |lesbian masquerade?
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: Cliff.Fleming@iphase.UUCP (Cliff Fleming)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Worthless, compared to?
Date: 10 Sep 92  22:46:00 EST

      You're late Mr. Ashlock!

      Maybe it took B.C. to strike home for you, but mindless right wing drivel has been going on in the comics for years. If you can stomach it, try reading The Family Circus. The asshole steals all his ideas  from watching reruns of "Father Knows Best", "Ozzie and Harriet", or maybe "Leave it to Beaver" if he's feeling particularly restless. At least B.C. doesn't rely on the vanishing species of white, middle class, single income (mom is a housewife), suburban, christian families for its situational "hum
or".
     I agree that such tripe and propaganda can be nauseating at times. But let's be fair about the situation.I'm sure that plenty of "conservatives" have been irritated reading many episodes of substance abuse by Duke in Doonesbury. Steve Dallas from Bloom County was regarded as a questionable role model by some. (Tried a tequila fannybanger?) Since newspapers have to try to please everyone, it only makes sense that they mix a little right wing flatulence in with their other, more liberal, daily strips.
    At least Mr. Hart attempts to put a little wit in his topic. I didn't think the 486 strip was a bad pun.
                                                  regards,
                                                  Fleming

 * Origin: Aether (1:112/2020)
20 

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: NOTICE: "Bigfoot/Sasquatch" Sightings Request
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:59:42 GMT

In article <roelle.716493712@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:
>>  Our research group is currently investigating reports and sightings of the
>>animal known as "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch". If you or somebody you know has had
>>such a sighting, or come across what may be evidence supporting the existance
>>of such an animal, please get in contact with us in one of the following
>>formats:
>
>In other words if anyone has evidence against the existance of such an animal,
>your "research group" is >not< interested? 

Evidence against the existence?  What do you mean, a report of an army of
thousands of cryptozoologists searching every inch of the continent and finding
no Bigfoot?  I can't think of other evidence against its existence.  Bigfoot is
practically not falsifiable.  Perhaps you mean evidence that older evidence
supporting Bigfoot's existence is faulty?

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Science is like democracy - it's not perfect, but it's the best thing available.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 21:23:45 GMT

In article <10304@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.155246.17752@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>This is another illustration of the _assumptions_ that evolutionists
>>start from, that of uniformity. [...]
>  Excuse me, Lionel, but doesn't the 6000 year old earth theory
>  make exactly the same assumption?  If not, then prove to me how
>  you know that a year in Noah's time was of the same length as our
>  current year.  Seems a rather large assumption [of] temporal uniformity
>  to me. [...]

Indeed, I've heard it suggested that the apparent instances of extreme
longevity in the Bible (hundreds of years) result from a confusion of
"year" with "lunar month".

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:51:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

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.

_Free Inquiry_ magazine published a four-part critique of reincarnation
by Paul Edwards, editor of the _Encyclopedia of Philosophy_.  Part 1
appeared in the Fall 1986 issue, vol. 6, no. 4, and was also accompanied
by an article by Melvin Harris titled "Are Past-Life Regressions Evidence
for Reincarnation?"  Part 2 was in the Winter 1986/87 issue, part 3 in
the Spring 1987 issue, and part 4 in the Summer 1987 issue.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: J. Witnesses
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 11 Sep 92 06:31:05 EST
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
 <1992Sep9.062322.3982@desire.wright.edu> <5357@tuegate.tue.nl>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <5357@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.062322.3982@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>I REALLY dispise opening my door and finding a gaggle of fresh-faced JWs on
>>my porch, all ready and willing to invade my home and tell me how wrong my
>>beliefs are.  I've gotten to where I open the door with our dog on a leash,
>>she usually lunges at them (she hates strangers) and they leave quickly. 
>>Unfortunately we have had this problem on our local school board, the fundies
>>have tried to pack the board several times, luckily they have been defeated.
>>
>>Sue
>>
> 
> You seem to have a particular virulent type of JW around. 
> The typical conversation that I have (in The Netherlands)
> about once in two years goes as follows.
> 
> Ding dong.
> (JWN opens door. two people are there. Sometimes on a rainy sunday
> accompanied by a little child. They carry a black book, probably
> a Bible, and a magazine (watchtower).
> 
> JW: "good morning sir, do you know [   ]/ would you be interested in [ ]/
>  we would like to tell you about [ ]"
> 
> JWN: "no thank you, I'm not interested. have a good day."
> 
> JW: "well, thank you so much for informing us. Goodby."
> 
> JWN: "Goodbye"
> (sound of door being closed softly).
> 
> JWN goes inside with a vague feeling of pity for the little child,
> and forgets about it, never able to remember precisely what was said.
> Maybe should have given it a cookie.
> 
> In extreme cases I had to repeat "I'm not interested" once.
> 
> JWN

Yep, yours are definitely tamer than ours.  Ours try to shove the magazine/book
into your hands the moment they see you.  And they immediately ask if they
can come in.  I've talked to friends who were more polite than I am and they
told me if you let them in it's almost impossible to get them to leave.  I've
learned never to give them an opening.  
Maybe I'm more of a 'my house is my castle' type person.  But I REALLY hate
having total strangers show up uninvited to tell me how wrong my beliefs are.

Sue
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16120 alt.conspiracy:10512 sci.classics:691
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,sci.classics
Subject: Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:09:23 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide


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?
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:24:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.180800.23864@bcrka451.bnr.ca> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:
}Excuse me, but Vern (aka Gerald Vernon Nelson) appears to be an atheist,
}not a creationist:

That you should draw such a direct conclusion should itself be informative.
Notice that "atheist" != "creationist".  Ever think why?
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Info needed: change in ratio male/female
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:40:27 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 <1992Sep8.165632.26946@syscen.com>, judiths@eliot.uucp (Judith Speck) writes...

>  Wait a minute....this makes absolutely no sense.  What has the Mother got
>to do with the gender of the child?  I thought it was a game of "The fastest
>Sperm Cell Wins!"  Where did you get that age-of-mother factoid?

Here's how it works:

(1) Males at every age (after birth) have a smaller chance of surviving to 
their next birthdays than females at the same age.

(2) Assume this is true for prenatal males as well.

(3) Older women provide less hospitable wombs for a variety of reasons, i.e.,
they generally have a harder time carrying to term.

Conclusion:  Due to (2), male fetuses are more sensitive to the inhospitable
environment of the womb, which by (3) is correlated with age-of-mother.  
The result is a correlation between age-of-mother and male/female birth
(not conception - which you correctly claim to be basically independent
of the mother) ratio.

-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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again...
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 08:08:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.232921.20507@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata
FSO) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.080451.18660@ttinews.tti.com>
bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) writes:
> >McCarthyites saw Communists everywhere.  NOBODY in this conversation
> >(and I've been following it, er, religiously) has said any such thing
> >(i.e., that evolution concludes that there is no God).

> I thought that I rememebered a fellow by the name of Vern who did
> espouse the idea that evolution and God were inconsistent?  As a matter
> of fact, you replied to him! Remember?

Eeek, you're quite right.  What I meant, and utterly failed to say, was
that nobody OTHER THAN CREATIONISTS had said such a thing.  Several
creationists have made such claims, and doubtless will continue to make them.

---------

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: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Pseudoskepticism
Date: 14 Sep 92 04:55:03 GMT

Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com

WELL, about a week ago, I asked Eric Pepke (in a post reproduced below)
if he could adduce any evidence to support his seeming ad-hominem
slur against Robert Sheaffer and Brian Siano in their roles as prominent
writers in skeptical journals.  Now, WE ALL KNOW Eric's a fair-minded
fellow, and certainly he'd never simply trash two such authors on no
grounds at all, just out of spite.  He _definitely_ wouldn't post
about them "iron-clad conclusions based on very little [or in this case
NO] evidence", as he, in HIS post, says Sheaffer and Siano routinely do
(among other things) in their copious published writings.

Since I continue to see posts from Eric, but none on THAT subject,
_clearly_ this curious selective silence can't result from an inability
on Eric's part to support his highly derogatory allegations, and a
disinclination to retract them.  Therefore, I assume that he must be
having intermittant mail problems.  So, I suggest we all offer to assist
Eric in getting his reply made public, which I'm sure he's most anxious
for it to be.

My earlier post follows:

Now that I come to think of it, in article <10394@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>,
pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu, (Eric Pepke) also wrote as follows:

> ...The pseudoskeptic, on the other hand, tries to throw a bad toupee
> over bald ideology, and the result makes Sam Donaldson look good by
> comparison. In the process, the pseudoskeptic winds up doing most of
> the things that skeptics are supposed to reject: appeals to authority,
> ad-hominem attacks, guilt-by-association ploys, extensive iron-clad
> conclusions based on very little evidence, etc.

> ...Both Robert and Brian have been published in skeptical publications
> more often than many people on the net who are far more deserving of
> the opportunity.  Of course, the published material is of higher
> quality than what we see here, but the skeptical patina is still
> pretty patchy.

I happen to be quite familiar with Brian Siano's and Robert Sheaffer's
many years of articles in skeptical publications.  In fact, it is
possible that I may have read _all_ of them.  I am therefore curious
about your characterisation of their writings in such publications as
founded on appeals to authority, ad-hominem attacks, guilt-by-
association tactics, jumping to conclusions, and similar notable abuses
of rhetoric -- all in furtherance of their personal ideologies.

Given that this _serious accusation_, if untrue, would itself seem to be
a particularly disreputable sort of low-life personal slur (which would
be deliciously ironic, n'est-ce pas?), I assume you would not mind
showing their use of such tactics, in skeptical publications, to advance
their "bald ideologies", with only a "patchy skeptical patina".

Awaiting your _public_ reply with interest,
Rick Moen, Director
Bay Area Skeptics
Editor, _BASIS_

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15945 talk.politics.misc:43852
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:30:41 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.politics.misc
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD


	It's been a long hard week at work, and a long hard week 
recreating on sci.skeptic. Taking a break from both work and sci.skeptic,
I decide to begin the long weekend by taking a tour of my very 
favorite newsgroup, Talk.politics.misc, where I've been sorta
quiet lately (If you hang out on either talk.origins or sci.skeptic,
you already know why - the Armageddon has been going on
under the noses of Jewish and Arabic talk.politics.mideast posters,
possibly unbeknownst to them - the future of the world hangs by
a threat). I get almost to the end, AND WHAT DO I FIND ON 
TALK.POLITICS.MISC ???


In article <Sep04.052639.66206@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:
>In article <1296@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>>[A tremendous amount of stuff deleted]
>[even more stuff deleted.  Take my word for it, you've read it all anyway]
>>
>>	I would like to take this opportunity to publicly
>>apologize to Chris Colby for causing him to step into
>>a rhetorical cow patty that I set for Matt Wiener. It was
>>obvious from his response that he really did/does believe 
>>that I never took Bio 100. As indicated above, David Utidjian
>>appears to have figured out what I was up to - I'm still
>>not sure how, or if Wiener will respond.
>
>An apology?  Nah, didn't happen.
>>
>>	Anyway, as a conservative, I am a relative novice
>>to the ways of deconstruction, since I spend most of
>>my energies defending theories, not demolishinhg them.
>>
>>	I do fear that this thread has gone too far in
>>an unhealthy direction. While I do not retract anything
>>I've said, my inclination is focus the debate elsewhere.
>>
>Good luck.
>
>>	Would it not be a *shame* if, through the hubris
>>and arrogance of my opponents, I actually *won* this
>>argument and destroyed science as we know it ? :)
>>
>Yeah.  I don't think science would mind, though.
>>
>Big Al.  "I like my sponenaity to be well planned." -SOmeone on alt.sex.bondage


	Anyway, happy Big Labor Day. We'll see you all back in
the furnace on Tuesday.


	Bill R.


	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.