HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: The difference between censorship and rudeness.
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:20:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.182649.908@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Alan Smith) writes:
> In a way, it's analgous to wolfpacks.  The wolves all cooperate with each
> other, even though they're at the top of their food chain.  When wolves
> set down to eat, the dominant ones (those that have one their little
> internal competition) eat first.  (The theory is that the dominant ones
> are "fitter" and only a well fed wolf will reproduce.)  Now, when humans
> sit down to eat, food is shared equally, and the dominant ones have been
> known to give up food in time of shortage.

  Obviously you have never eaten over at my house.  It is not a coincidence that
I can down a slice of pizza in under 30 secs (faser if I don't eat the crust).

> A human, alone and tooless, is pretty well fucked when in comes to
> competing in an ecosystem.  A group of humans, however are one of the more
> powerful forces in the global ecosystem.

  A wolf, alone, is pretty well helpless too.  The packs are to assist in
hunting, but that doesn't mean there is a high level of cooperation.  The
cooperation has been induced a bit stronger in humans (probably with the need of
cities, and this is probably behavioral), but ther is still no extremely high
level of cooperation on any large scale.  Consider any burocracy: is this
cooperation?

> THEORY: In time of shortage of nonsurvival desires (status, beads, money,
> etc.) the competition is among individual humans.  But when the
> competition is among survival issues (food, oil in kuwait, the east coast
> of greece) Groups of humans compete.

  Can't the same thing be said about wolf packs?

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:44:49 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

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,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: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:53:34 GMT

In article <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:
> >: 
> >: You will note that I have never stated that creation is a scientific
> >: hypothesis.
> >: 
> >: Try to remember that "believes in the creation" is not the same as
> >: "believes in creation science."
> >: 
> >
> >Fine, then we all agree that there is no place in science texts or
> >classes for creation.  Likewise, there is no point in talking about it
> >in sci.skeptic.  
> >
> >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.

  Note the keywords here.  Evolution is falsifiable.  If you think it is wrong,
go locate evidence that would disprove it.  There are thousands of things that
would suffice: locate even one and you're a shoe in for the Nobel Prize.  

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: The difference between censorship and rudeness.
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 05:41:27 GMT


Censorship: (cen-ser-ship) n. When a government removes or edits a
publication, brodcast, or other form of public adress.

Rudeness: (rud-nes) n. a group of actions that violate common standards of
politeness.  Often done deliberately to invoke bad feelings on the part of
the recipient.

--Big Al's personal dictionary.

They are both uncool, but for different reasons.  Censorship is uncool
because it is a step towards tyranny.  Rudeness is uncool (besides being a
good way to get yourself punched in the mouth) because it violates the
homo sapien survival stragedy, that humans should help each other out.
B
Big Al.  Morals?? Oh, dear, there goes the neighborhood.
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 15:08:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.050110.21622@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitob
.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>
>I have seen a couple of comments in posts which I find baffling:
>Essentially, they claim that the theory of evolution does not 
>interfere or conflict with the concept of God.
>
>Would one of you guys like to explain how evolution and God can co-exist

Okay, but first, this message from our sponsor:

Standard Theory Disclaimer:  This is just a THEORY.  In fact, *I* don't
believe this one.  If you can prove I'm full of shit, more power to ya.

Back to our regularly scheduled program.

It works like this: Suppose, before the world was created, God set up all
the systems of the universe to favor species getting gradually more
diverse, and other systems to stymie those diversions that didn't make a
species more fit for the environment it was in.  Then he makes the world. 
He may or may not start the first cell, that doesn't really matter.

(Is some people's concept of "God" analagous to other people's concept of
"Universe?")

>>You cannot answer god for some stages, and evolution for others.

I don't see why not.

>I have 2 cats, a siamese and a persian. You cannot say god
>created the siamese, and the persian evolved from a lower species.
>
I don't see why not.

Big Al.  My left half was created by God, my right half evolved.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Evolution does not assume there is no God.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:31:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.172808.12707@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> Actually, I had several responses which seemed in the contrary.  I have
> no problem with you (used in the general) ignoring God in scientific
> work.  The contemporary view is that this is the "right" thing to do.

   Well, actually it is a logical neccesity.  Until God appears in science we
hafta ignore him, in order to follow our own rules.  Stan Friesen explained
this beautifully.

> It is what is done.  The theory of evolution proceeds from the
> assumption (implicit) that God is not relevant to the question at hand

   No, it does not even assume this implicitly.  It makes no assumptions
whatsoever about God and, in the end, finds itself able to draw no conclusions
about God.  Thus the irrelevance of God to (the scientific theory of) Evolution
is not an assumption but an empirical conclusion.  I salute the subtlety of your
mistake.

> (same phrasing as my original post).  This is acceptable (though I
> disagree).
> 
> Are you stating that ANY attribute about God is integrated into the
> theory of evolution?  That is what your protest implies.

   No, I'm complaining that no assumptions about God are integrated because
there is no empirical reason to do so.  Failing to assume things about God is
different from assuming you must ignore God.
 
> Note that all science tends to proceed from the assumption to ignore
> God in the process.  The reason that I feel this is inappropriate in
> this case (personally I feel it is wrong in all cases == opinion) is
> that this is a question of the origin of Man.  I do not feel that I am
> the result of random permutations of slime.  (Though my friends might
> disagree ;-)

   Well, first science CONCLUDES EMPIRICALLY that God is not relevant to
science (he never shows up) while making no assumption of any sort about the
man.  Second, "random permutations of slime" is _not_ the evolutionary
scenario.  The word "random" is the most inappropriate.  See: Chris Colby.

> Excuse me, but is there a chocolate _plant_?  I am familiar with cacao,
> but that is all.  (BTW, I considered using maple syrup as the example.)

   The shrub or whatever that makes the coacoa beans.  I mean it's not
some kind of cat or yeast or something.  My argument is with your use of
"intent" with respect to chocolate.  Creationists typically refuse to
acknowledge the broad middle ground between special creation and total
randomness.

> Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
> lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
-that is a nice .sig

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:28:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug27.152351.11692@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.022454.9835@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>>
>> To:  Drew Lawson 
>
>[deleted]
>
>>  That "ignoring God" is an interesting phrase, too, implying that God
>>is trying to get our attention, and we are consciously ignoring Him.
>>What you mean is "not following my religious beliefs", right?
>
>No.  If I meant "not following my religious beliefs," I would have said
>so.  I meant "ignoring God" -- that is, leaving consideration of God
>out of the system developed.

How does one ignore that which is not in evidence? Should I feel equally
guilty for "ignoring" radio waves? Without special equipment, I cannot
detect radio waves. Is there some special equipment which can be used to
detect god? Note, radios work for christians, muslims, and athiests.
My thoughts and beliefs should not be deciding factors.
 
>-- 
>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Skeptic perspectives on dowsing
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 07:08:00 GMT


"The Skeptic's Guide to dowsing."  By Big Al.

1) Find a good, strong dowsing stick.

2)Make it very sharp on one end.  [Note: you don't have to do this, but it
makes it a lot easier]

3) shove the stick into the ground, pull it up and feel the end.

4) if it isn't, repeat 3) somewhere else.  If it is, wiggle your stick to
indicate a water scource.  [Note:  If it is or isn't *wet*.  This is
rather important]

Alternately, for deep water:

1) Find a good, strong, dosing stick.

2) go to the ocean

3) wiggle your stick to indicate a water scource.

Big Al.  Who liked my loyalty test?
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:37:56 GMT

lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>> The world is very real.  It has existed in its current state
>> (post-fall) for roughly 6,000 years and will end its fallen
>> existance and be returned to perfection.

dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
>Or do you reject relativity and most of modern physics in addition to
>biology?

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.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
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: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:39:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.151959.11603@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.021757.9487@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
writes:
> >  Drew, I don't think anyone in this discussion has tried to disprove
> >the existence of God.
> 
> True.  I haven't seen any explicit attempts at disproving God's
> existence.  But I have seen many postings with the attitude of "We have
> explained this through science, without using God.  So God has nothing
> to do with it."  That may not have been the intent of the posters, but
> that is how some of them (the postings) come across.

  If I am discussing the Sylow theorems with a friend and he says "what about
your car" and I respond "my car has nothing to do with the Sylow theorems" would
you accuse me of trying to disprove the existence of my car?  You are confusing
necessity and existance.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: FAQ (Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?))
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:44:19 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <TORKEL.92Aug31181620@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>
>     People in this group and elsewhere often invoke "logic" and
>     speak as though 1) it was clear what is intended, and 2) there
>     can be no serious disagreement among rational people on "logic".
>     These assumptions are false.

This should go in the FAQ file.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: UMCC
 
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:30:45 GMT

>>My usual technique is to say to the JW, "Get out of here and leave me alone or,
>>by God, I'll see how far I can throw you."  The JW invariably responds with,
>>"You shouldn't take the Lord's name in vain."  Having just been told by the JW
>>that I should keep my oath, I do so.
>

When I lived in the dorms back in college, my roommate was Jewish, so we had
one of those little thingies that jewish folks put in door frames. It is a
torah or something with little Hebrew letters on it.

Anyway, some JW's were bullshitting with me about evolution and stuff, until
one of them glanced up and saw the Jewish thing (what *are* they called - I
can't remember!).

They were out of there faster than lightning. You'd think the devil was
chasing them.

My roommate and I had a good laugh out of that one....

------------------////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\------------------
| Patrick Draper           Disclaimer:  I can't control my fingers,        |
| draper@umcc.ais.org                   I can't control my toes! - Ramones |
| University of Michigan                                                   |
| Computer Club                We are a nation of laws, not people         |
------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////------------------
Organization: Middle East Technical University - Computer Center
Date: Wednesday, 2 Sep 1992 16:11:00 TUR
From: <E59140@TRMETU.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!

In article <Bts2FL.E98@world.std.com>, believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco)
says:
>
>How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
>Pagan teaching from our schools? The fight against evolutionism
>must be an essential component of the fight for our families and
>this country.
>
Yeah, and we should start burning the withches; maybe the Inquition
should also be resurrected for is not Earth the Center of the Universe?
How about a Judeo-Christiano-Islamic United Faiths Organization to replace
the UN?  _God_ knows they all are against the Evolution stuff, so at last
there is a common platform for all religions to unite|('Theists of the
World Unite|')

>We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
>Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
>to our faith and therefore our very existance.
>
>--
Too many -ism's there, and who told you that something that poses a threat
to your faith causes a threat to your existance?  I personally believe the
speed of light barrier but I would rejoice if someone can disprove my faith
in that.

>  |                     In God We Trust                            |
Hey, I know where you got that last one from, it's written on the back
of the US Dollar|

A last word: A lot of people urge you to vote Dan Quayle, well, why
don't you take their advice?

You know what they say: 'God _does_ play dice with the Universe--and the
dice are loaded|'  Sorry I can't remember the source of the quotation.

Neyir Cenk Gokce

Middle East Technical University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Ankara / Turkey
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Date: 30 Aug 1992 04:41:46 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In article <schumach.715116380@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>The ICR Museum is a PR ploy which must be countered,
>so that curious and uncomitted people are shown that the ICR's agenda
>is religious and not scientific. Now if it turns out that the vast
>majority of their visitors are the faithful, then there would be
>little point in a skeptical presence nearby.

Seems to me the best thing to do is devote your time or money to promoting
a genuine science museum in the same area.  I don't think you can counter
their PR ploy by picketing, because their museum no doubt looks very
polished and professional and a bunch of picketers will look like a
ragtag rabble by comparison. (although it's amusing to think of how one
might present scientific truth on picket signs - I think of scientific
bumper stickers, like "forbidden lines are exciting" and "black holes are
out of sight")

Question: how do you present evolution in a way comprehensible to
ordinary people in a museum?
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art."
        Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:32:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug27.155609.11922@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>Within the posting to which that was a response, it is not so "silly."

Almost all of your statements are silly.

>Don't pull statements out of context and make them look to be universal
>when they were not made that way.

The context was irrelevant.  The statement was silly.
You attempted to set up a false premise in order to prove something.

>In article <3628@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>>Who claims to have discovered "why" the universe was created?
>
>The "they" in the post refered to the items in the fossil record and
>the radiometric dating.  The evolutionary community claims that the
>"why" is that these creatures existed millions of years ago.

So that is why the universe was created.  I'm so depressed.

Shouldn't the right answer be "So that Man has dominion over the lower
creatures"?

(Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>No, I do not know that purpose, that doesn't tell me that there is
>>>none.
>>
>>What DOES tell you that there is one?  Is it "intuitively obvious"?
>>Is it "revealed truth"?
>
>It is a personal suspicion, consistent with what I know to be true.
>But that suspicion is not proven or disproven.

How could one prove or disprove the premise that the universe has
a purpose?  Examine the evidence?  Ask an authority?  Say "I told you
so" at the Second Coming?

>You cannot trust my statement further than you can trust Darwin's
>statement.  They are both places to begin your own personal
>investigation.  You seem to be impressed by the weight of one side.
>I'm not certain you have examined the other side as closely -- which is
>your choice, of course.

What "other side"?  Do you have scientific evidence?  In 45 posts,
I can't remember the slightest attempt by you to produce evidence.
I must be extremely prejudiced.  I've ignored all your evidence.