HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Life Spring...Request for References
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:30:26 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 12947@unlinfo.unl.edu, jensen@unlinfo.unl.edu (michael jensen) writes:
>
>I believe that Life Spring is what Werner Erhardt of est (Erhardt 
>Seminar Training) formed after leaving/selling off est. 
>
Your belief is incorrect.  Lifespring (one word) is at least 15 years old, and is
one of a number of companies involved in the "human potential" industry.  I took
the courses several years ago, and while I'm not by any stretch of the imagination
into "New-Age" crap, I found it quite useful.  It was, all in all, a positive
experience.  Lifespring provides an environment in which one can discover a great
many things that would sound quite trite and trivial if listed in a book, but are
very powerful when experienced directly.  Participants are asked not to reveal
too many details about what goes on in order not to spoil the experience for others,
but there is not "brainwashing" or anything of that sort.

Some people find the experience so powerful that they want to devote themselves to
encouraging others, and the company takes advantage of these people.  However, IMO
this does not in any way make them a "cult", since most cults would not admit to
being a profit making corporation.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: croberts@infon.unh.edu
Subject: Orful lot of creationist stuff running arounsd
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:40:50 GMT

Paraphrasing the charter, s.s is meandt to address issues in fields
subject to observational study and objective validation.  Specifically
excluded are subjects prone to eternal 'tis/'taint wrangling.  This
includes those areas where no further information is ever going to
be available beyond current inadequate limitations, and those where
one or both parties regard a large diverse category of supporting
evidence as inadmissable due to ideological constraints.

Except for narrow issues such as geological support for non-flood
conditions throughout the past 10,000 years, etc, most biblical
subjects fall into the second category.  Yet persons unfamiliar with
the ground rules of formal skepticism cross-post from talk.origins,
etc, in the pardonable but mistaken belief that our raison d'etre
is to incite antichristian rationalists and freethinkers to attack
and subvert the True Faith.  We are not an evIlotionism machine.

Since folks will likely post to us as long as we are the closest
match to their pet peeve, we would benefit from spawning a
sub-group.  Let this be a proposal to start a SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLE
newsgroup to handle bible-related issues that deal neither with
the paranormal nor with verifiable science.  Note the choice of
words: 'religion' could be expected to cover firewalking and
crystals, which are comfortably in our domain, and 'Christian'
would split off faith-healing and weeping statues, also in our
charter, while 'biblical'/'bible' could be construed to merely
exclude origins, creationism and similar bugbears while leaving
other paranormal and historical topics in the main newsgroup.

Newsgroup readers of the Net, unite!!  You have nothing to lose
but your 'Subject:' chains!!!  :-)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14959 talk.origins:10039
From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Data Structures of Unreality
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:30:44 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Drew Lawson (lawson@acuson.com) wrote:
: 
: Interesting.  A "physical chunk of memory" is not a data structure.
: Likewise, an object is not its representation.  When you get to the
: machine execution, data structures do not exist.  But they are
: convenient notions for organizing many details.

Ah!  And would you also concur that a strand of DNA is not a human
being?  The object "human" is not its representation "DNA".  Is this
correct?  When you get to the implementation and operation of a
human, does the coding within the data structures in the cells not
exist?  Are the DNA codes just convenient notions for organizing
many details?

I really want to hear your answer.

rob derrick
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faq List for skeptics
Date: 30 Aug 92 02:44:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <LEET.92Aug28084155@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes...
>>>>>> On 25 Aug 92 09:34:29 GMT, Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) said:
> 
>Rick> 9.  Isn't skepticism a closed-minded, dogmatic position?  How can you
>Rick> pretend to do impartial inquiry when you are logical positivists /
>Rick> fundamentalist materialists / secular humanists / ... ?
> 
>Is this really a fair assessment of skeptical philosophy, or are there
>many skeptics who would disagree with the principles espoused in
>either version of the Humanist Manifesto?

There *are* many skeptics who would disagree with (at least some of) the
principles in the Humanist Manifestos, I and II.  (My hand is raised.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 11:51:25 GMT

carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

Hmm.. which species are these?

keith

>In article <1992Aug27.191224.13309@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>Far be it for me to defend Lionel Tun (that isn't what I'm doing
>>anyway), but what is your response to those who scream that evolution
>>is a "proven fact"?

>Ok, Drew, what would you call it then when we start with one species, separate
>it into two populations, and some years later the two populations are no longer
>able to interbreed (i.e., we've now got two separate species)?  This has
>(contrary to claims of creationists) been observed to happen with a number of
>species.  In this sense, evolution IS a proven fact, in that we have, in fact,
>observed speciation.  Any particular theory of evolution attempts to account
>for the proven fact of evolution.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Stupid Pleadians
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:34:01 GMT
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

If the Pleadians are so damned smart, why did they permit a large
wildfire in their neighborhood?  The heat is going to wreck havoc with
their electronics...

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | When it becomes necessary to do a thing,
Field Robotics Center,          | the whole heart and soul should go into the
Carnegie Mellon University      | measure, or not attempt it. Thomas Paine
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | 
(412) 268-3856                  | 
                                | 
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: CPT violations (was: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:02:29 GMT

In article <25914@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|> 
|> Once again, I think you are very confused. 

Once again, I think you are very confused if you think I'm going to 
go into a detailed treatice about CPT when the topic I was addressing 
was the second law of thermodynamics.

-- 
J. Giles
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15198 talk.origins:10223
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:31:03 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


   lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>
> I also doubt that all of science would fall apart if belief in
> evolutionary origin fell by the wayside.

That's because you're ignorant of the scientific evidence for the
theory of evolution.  Believe me, if the earth is really only
6,000 years old, our physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology,
geology, zoology, genetics, and paleontology contain serious
internal errors, for which I see no evidence at present.

Please name a science that does NOT evince strong evidence
for an ancient earth, and evolution by descent with
modification over deep time.

---
Joel Hanes
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:08:21 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <2A9A6FF4.533@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes...

>Good question.  The ICR rejects relativity.  From their catalogue:
> 
>	"_The Motion of Mercury's Perihelion_,
>	 Harold S. Slusher and Francisco Ramirez (1984, 101 pp.)
>	 Scientific refutation of one of the key evidences of
>	 Einstein's theory of relativity."
> 
>Yep, creationists really are nutty.

Well, in fact, the perihelion of Mercury has undergone some legitimate 
scientific debate in recent years.  It is difficult, though not impossible
to carefully take into account many subtle nonrelativistic effects, such
has high order corrections to the Sun's mass distribution.  When these
effects are carefully taken into account, it is no longer cut-and-dry
that GR is necessary to account for Mercury's orbit.

I don't know exactly what the state of the art is on the question.  Nor
do I know whether Slusher and Ramirez are scientists or crackpots.  But
I do know that serious scientists were were neither creationsists nor
disbelievers of GR have studied the issue in some detail in recent years.

-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,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:27:07 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.


>I thought it was common knowledge. But also the characters in the book
>`Indecent Exposure' by Tom Sharpe (sp?) believe in segregation of the
>races, and actively enforce it by police effort, driven by evolutionist
>philosophies.

Sigh. I guess we should not be surprised at this late date that Lionel
would accept statements made within a work of fiction as hard evidence.
Tell me, sir, do you often have trouble distinguishing between characters
in a book and living people?



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:55:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.175514.16858@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
>   If we are the survivable subset of random genetic variations, how are
>   we created in God's image?
> 
> None of it is scientific.  None of it needs to be explained or refuted.
> It's just my view.
> 
> Those who disagree needn't worry.  If they are right, nothing done by
> people in this life matters afterward.

  I was going to let this go until I came to your last sentance.  Once again you
have equated belief in evolution with atheism.  I am getting to the point where
it is not just annoying me.

  Are you, for some unknown reason, purposely ignoring the fact that many people
who believe in evolution also believe in a god?  Not just that, but you are
looking reading a post by at least one person who believes in evolution and has
yet to be even accused of not being a Christian.  (Even further, many call me a
fundamentalist).

  Will you at least acknowledge in some way that belief in evolution is not
mutually exclusive of being a Christian?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:26:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.110920.12915@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug24.151922.5348@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> >What I was trying to point out here is a logic trap.  The "evolution"
> >side of this debate takes the approach of:
> >    - We will start with the assumption that there is no God, or that
> >      God is not relevant to the topic at hand.
> >    - We will not allow religious doctrines to guide our thoughts or
> >      provide possible interpretations.
> >After this, they reach a conclusion which they find logicly consistant
> >and branch out from that to the conclusion that their first point (no
> >God) is proven.  That is not logicly sound.
> 
> This reminds me of the excellent argument I saw recently by B Bales:
> If A is -2 then, A * A = 4.
> Aha, A * A = 4.
> Therefore A _is_ -2.

  Granted, but in this case the hypothesis A=2 will also fit the data.  Are you
suggesting that Creationsim fits the data?  Unlike your example, the evidence
allows only a narrow range of possible answers.  Creationism isn't even close to
that range.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15591 talk.origins:10496
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:45:57 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: sbishop@desire.wright.edu

In article <1992Aug29.212244.3808@desire.wright.edu>, sbishop@desire writes:
>>>Linguistics depends on humans having evolved from primates?

>> Well, this escapes me, too.

>No, what they mean is that languages also evolve.  Witness the changes in
>English from Chaucer's time through Shakespeare to the current day.

You've missed the point, which I made in a separate article: two important
aspects of modern linguistics research depend, not just on evolutionary
type thinking, but on the very facts of human evolution itself.  To deny
biological evolution would leave two very noticeable holes in linguistics.

(The SFI book I mentioned is John A Hawkins & Murray Gell-Mann (eds), THE
EVOLUTION OF HUMAN LANGUAGES: SFI Proceedings XI (Addison-Wesley, 1992).
I'll probably expand on my previous article sometime next week, in t.o
only.)
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:26:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.191224.13309@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> Far be it for me to defend Lionel Tun (that isn't what I'm doing
> anyway), but what is your response to those who scream that evolution
> is a "proven fact"?

   You point to the gigabytes of evidence and examples.  Evolution is a proven
fact in the sense of jurisprudence or common sense.  It does not have absolute
proof (nothing does) but it is at least a solid as gravity or mechanical
engineering.  The Theory of Evolution is the body of knowledge that attempts to
explain the fact(s) of evolution.

   Thanks for the soapbox.

> Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
> lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

                                     [what if I'm in suspention]
	                                 [colloids UNITE]
Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: mike@isgtec.com (Mike Sellers)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:40:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario

In article <3678@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
> <
> <When I say I have the one answer, I am irrational.
> <When you say you have the one answer, you are scientific.
> 
> Yes, that's the difference between an answer based on faith and an
> answer based on scientific evidence.

No, Drew actually has a good point here.  Science and scientific evidence
do not in any way provide some privileged veracity to that point of view, 
any more than biblical teachings provide a similar privilege to the 
Christian point of view.  It is true that some people from both camps
argue as if they were somehow so privileged, but this is a simple and
basic mistake.

There is no way that one can truly judge whether God exists from a
scientific view, nor can one say that a belief in that which cannot be
adequately demonstrated is IRrational.  It may be Arational, but this
is a different animal.  There are many things which can neither be
demonstrated nor refuted scientifically, and such matters cannot be
decided by reason -- they are arational.  Only those matters that
contradict what can be demonstrated by reason should be properly
termed irrational (unless we're discussing mathematics, in which case
all kinds of things can be irrational :-) ).

--
              Mike Sellers      User Interface Team Leader
           mike@isgtec.com      ISG Technologies, Toronto, Canada
              "Actum ne agas" -- Do not do what has been done.
                         Furare tantum ab Optimis
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics,alt.folklore.science
From: bramsey@massive.its.bldrdoc.gov (Bradley J. Ramsey)
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:45:32 GMT
Organization: NTIA/ITS, Boulder, CO

mmaster@parnasus.dell.com (Michael Masterson) writes:

>>>I believe that theory has it that microwaves act on food by heating its
>>>water content. The wavelength of these waves are short enough that they
>>>are said to cause vibrations in the water molecules. This vibration
>>>causes the heat.

>>Small correction:

>>The wavelengths of microwave radiation are appropriate to cause *rotation*,
>>not vibration, of water molecules.  And these are in fact quite long
>>wavelengths in comparison with most familiar radiation.  The rotational
>>frequency for water is somewhere around 10 cm^{-1} (I don't have the exact
>>value here, but can look it up on request), which implies a
>>wavelength of about 0.1 cm.  For comparison, infrared (heat)

>I'm not sure where you get your numbers, but... most microwave ovens
>operate at somewhere around 2.25 gigahertz... the wavelength for
>2.25gh is .13 1/3rd meter, or 13 cm.

Commercial Microwave ovens in the United States are federally mandated (by the
FCC) to operate in what is called the ISM band (Industrial Scientific and
Medical band).  This band ranges from 2.3 to 2.6 GHz.  I reality microwave 
ovens are frequency hopping devices which emit energy at frequencies all over
this range.  The absorption range for water molecules is quite broad (that is
to modulate their dipole moment), and microwave oven manufacturers take 
advantage of that fact.  These broadband emissions serve two purposes: first,
the magnetrons are cheaper to build when they are not required to be frequency 
stable; second, the frequency hopping changes the E-M field inside the oven
cavity, so that there are less "hot" and "cool" spots.  Although microwave
emmissions are pulsed and do frequency hop, their emmision spectrum is centered
at 2.45 GHz and histograms show that the spectrum near 2.45 GHz is the most
frequently visited. 

Brad Ramsey
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15266 talk.origins:10272
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 04:25:16 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug28.185242.20364@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.155542.2972@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>>lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>
>>Unless you've got a falsifiable hypothesis and some evidence, creation
>>is just so much religious twaddle.  I see no reason to take your view
>>of the creation of the universe any more seriously that the hindu
>>view, the navajo view, or the story invented by my 3 year old niece.

>Yeah! Any view that states dogmatic facts about situations for which
>there are no living witnesses! - like ...oh..say...the theory of evolution
>for example.
>>

  (Pardon the hypercitation)

  Mr. Duffy, there is a difference between believing something for which
there is abundant evidence, and something for which there is equivocal
eyewitness evidence.  Consider the following analogy:  You are a juror
in a burglary trial.  There are videotapes from the store's security
cameras which clearly show the defendant breaking the store window and taking
some TV sets from a display rack.  Blood on one of the sharp glass shards
is shown by DNA testing and serological analysis to come from the 
defendant.  The defendant's fingerprints are all over the recovered
TV sets.

  As his defense, the defendant calls several witnesses, who say that
during prayer, God revealed to them that the defendant is innocent.  How
do you find, oh juror?

  I promise you, the physical evidence for evolution is even more 
compelling that I've implied above.


-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc