HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:22:28 GMT
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

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.

And my favorite of all is Sarah Grey Thomasen's (sp?) linguistic
analyses of channelers claiming to be channeling folks from the
past.  I'll have to look up the reference, one version was in SI
in 1988 or 1989.

She found that the speech of the alleged past lives was highly
unlike that of the alleged times and places in which they supposedly
lived, but very much like a 20th century speaker might use to
portray such a person.  She was unfortuantely unable to draw
conclusions about the channeled entities claiming to be 26th century
Venusians, and so on.  (Science is so limited!)

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16341 talk.origins:11255
From: lm8637@tnessd.sbc.com (Lou Montgomery (214+464-1049))
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:46:30 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Southwestern Bell

In article <1992Sep9.005040.26392@aurora.com> isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.190449.13220@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>I should have said that [evolution] is taken as evidence of the
>>non-existance of God as portrayed in the Bible.
>
>You still don't have a clue.  If you had said, "Evolution is taken as
>evidence of the non-existence of God as portrayed by Drew Lawson, I might
>give you partial credit, but evolution doesn't even say that much about
>God.  Evolution is evidence only against a few physical manifestations
>attributed by Drew Lawson to his portrayal of his God.  Of course, it is
>possible that your faith is weak enough that you can't conceive of your
>God without believing those physical manifestations, but that's your
>problem, not ours.
>-- 
      Even if Chris Stassen, who has provided me with mounds of reference
    material to digest, or James Lippard, who responded in a very
    sound manner to one of my posts, succeeds in convincing me of the
    truth of a VERY old earth, my belief in the existence of God would
    not be shaken in the least.  It is not the intent of these
    gentlemen to do, IMO.
      Any believer who feels threatened by the possibility of an old 
    earth should consider this question.  How much time could have
    past between the first and second verses of Genisis?  Would God
    have created an earth that was "void and without form?"
      BTW, Chris, I have not forgotten you, or your questions.  You
    gave me SO much to read and consider that, with my workload and
    the sheer volume of the material, I may need at least three more
    weeks to respond in a manner worthy considering the points you
    made.

                                         Good weekend to all...
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16484 talk.origins:11324
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Date: 13 Sep 92 04:40:16 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep11.234800.11357@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|In article <1050@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|
|>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.
|
|	But _if_ some genes that closely match some known genes
|commonly used in determining family trees can be found, then one can
|see where these genes fit in the family tree.
|
|[excellent description of proper experimental technique deleted]

Certainly, and I am reasonably certain that the method you described
is exactly what the possessors of the midge plan to do when they start
to analyze the blood.  I would be surprised if they do *not* use some
variant of this technique.

My main point was that this sort of thing doesn't fall out by 'magic',
or even simply by sticking the blood under a microscope.  It needs careful,
well-planned research to make a determination of this sort.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:01:11 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep6.191316.22700@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
|In article <1928@snap>, paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
|
|>The powers that Geller claims have *never* been demonstrated under
|>controlled conditions.  Geller does nothing which a competent stage
|>magician such as James Randi cannot do.  Randi has alleged that
|>Geller is a fraud.  Geller has sued Randi for libel.
|
|Are you SURE that Randi has alleged that Geller is a fraud? I thought that
|Randi has simply alleged that Geller does nothing that can't be duplicated by
|a competent stage magician.

He (and others) asserts a little more than that:
    1 - Geller does nothing a stage magician cannot do.
    2 - Geller has been caught on several occasions using stage tricks.
    3 - The presence of controls that prevent stage tricks remove Geller's
	ability to utilize his supposed powers.

I think the sum of these comes out to 'fraud'.

Now, for psychics *in* *general* Randi only makes the weaker claim (1).
But in the case of Geller, he has more detailed data available.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: PURPORTED PLESIOSAUR PUTREFIES ON POOPDECK ...
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<LEET.92Aug19081547@dove.ims.com>
	<20AUG199218582065@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
	<LEET.92Aug28124125@dove.ims.com> <1992Aug30.175822.17017@panix.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:02:15 GMT

... CREATIONIST CHEWS CROW, CONFESSES TO CRITICS
======================================================================

I'm sorry, I made a mistake.

(Yes, this IS sci.skeptic you're reading.  This is also further
evidence that I'm NOT a creationist - by the talk.origins definition -
because I'm admitting an error, publicly.)

I thought my pastor had copies of Japanese scientific reports on the
supposed plesiosaur.  What he actually had was an article published in
a magazine (maybe a coffeetable glossy?  _Oceans_, Vol. 10, November 1977,
pp. 56-59) which included a partial transcript in English of a panel
discussion *originally* *printed* in Japanese.  The article in _Oceans_
makes clear that any actual scientific results would be inconclusive,
anyway.  I'm sorry to have misled anyone.  I obviously confused my
pastor's words (which will teach me to stay more awake on Sunday nights).

Before anyone rushes to the library, the worthwhile parts of the
Oceans article are: 1) the complete story of the discovery and its
handling aboard ship, 2) the partial transcript of the panel
discussion, and 3) one date (July 21, 1977, the day the story broke)
and one reference (_New Scientist_, July 28, 1977).  There is no
bibliography appended to the article, and there are no footnotes, so
scientifically it's pretty worthless.  The transcript tells why the
discoverer and the panel thought the carcass wasn't a shark.  A note
about ion-exchange chromatography states that the tissue had 4.0%
tyrosine in the amino acid structure, and blue sharks average 4.4%,
but that reptile data was not available.  At no time, apparently, was
it ever conclusively proven that this is was a basking shark, Daniel
Cohen's _Encyclopedia of Monsters_ notwithstanding.  The originator of
the shark idea was (apparently) Dr. Bobby Schaeffer (note the
spelling), curator of vertebrate paleontology of the American Museum
of Natural History in New York.

The article also supports Robert McGrath's contention that the
Japanese media had a field day with the reports, using every
similarity to Godzilla that they could find.  American and British
journals apparently sided with the extreme skeptics.  The _Oceans_
article is almost balanced, leaving the issue unresolved.

I also asked earlier about the captain of the submersible Alvin seeing
a plesiosaur-like creature.  This comes from a question-and-answer
transcript in a book about the Bermuda Triangle - enough said?
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook,
Integrated Measurement Systems |  or his tongue with a cord which thou
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  lettest down?" - Job 41:1
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |
From: dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Coded Scientific Info in the Bible???
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:03:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.IegxPjO00WB6AEolhw
Organization: Masters student, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

If you look for a pattern in ANYTHING long enough, you'll find one.

David
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16153 talk.origins:11074
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Belief without Evidence  (was: Young earth NOT!)
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 9 Sep 92 06:23:22 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Sep9.001622.26037@aurora.com>, isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.190449.13220@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>No, I don't have any scientific evidence for [a young earth].  There are many
>>other things for which I have no evidence:
>>  - that my life has meaning or purpose
>>  - that some actions are better than others (i.e. helping someone. . .)
>>  - that I love my wife
>>  - that a stary summer night is beautiful
>>
>>[. . .]  I don't feel it [a theory of creation] is a scientific matter.
> 
> All of the things on your list are your own personal judgments; they apply
> only to you.  You can not validly say whether MY life has meaning (to me),
> whether I love MY wife, or whether I find starry nights beautiful.  The word
> "hubris" is used to refer to those people who do believe that their own
> value judgments should apply to others as well.  What word can we use for
> Drew, who believes his judgment applies to the entire universe?
> -- 

Arrogant is the one that comes to my mind.  I think that is my biggest problem
with fundamentalist types, they are so damnably arrogant.  They are sure that
the way *they* believe is so much better and more 'true' and more 'correct'
than the rest of us and they also feel very driven to push their views on the
rest of us.  
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

> Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
> isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: NOTICE:"Bigfoot/Sasquatch" Sightings Request
Date: 15 Sep 1992 22:15:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


   Not at all. I'm very interested in information which can lead to exposing
hoaxed tracks, sightings, etc. I'm not looking to prove this possible unknown
animal exists. I'm simply looking for the answer. You'll be happy to know that
our group has/will publish information on false evidence. There are also
several "investigators" who we will be trying to give the public a history
lesson on (guys who have been know to fake tracks, etc). Too bad that these
kinds of people (the ones who make all the noise with "new" findings every
month) are the ones who get all the media coverage. 90% of what you can read
on the subject in books and articles is pure crap.
-- 
"A large creature about 7 1/2 to 8 foot tall. It was greyish black in color,
and as it went away from me I seen the backside of it walking as a man would
walk on it's hind legs."- Former Sheriff Oliver Potter, Vancouver, Washington
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16133 alt.conspiracy:10514 sci.classics:692
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,sci.classics
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 9 Sep 92 07:54:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: camelot.ARA.92Sep9025434
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.

You can always look at Biblical Archaeological Review. It is not highly
regarded among archaeologists, I'm told, having roughly the status of
the National Enquirer, but it does keep up on stuff like the dead sea
scrolls, the Ebla tablets, etc.

Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Let's test the sevens-
Date: 12 Sep 92 14:19:57 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <716036537.0@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG> Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:
#In article <4729384@gloin.unh.edu>, Kalter@unh.edu wrote as follows:
#
#> Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.  The skeptics are in
#> business to investigate and test any testable claims of the
#> extraordinary.
#
#Bzzzt!  Sorry, no.  Let's have a little less rhetorical excess, here.
#The term "extraordinary" is a bit purposefully vague in your post.
#Some would call the assertion that Dan Quayle is qualified for public
#office extraordinary in the extreme.  However, it is not a claim on
#the fringes of science, and so is not in our bailiwick.  Similarly,
#attempts to drag skeptics into arcane matters of biblical exegesis by
#labeling them "testable claims" ignore the fundamental point that such
#claims are neither intended nor taken to be matters of science.
#Besides, in my view, they're not even terribly interesting.
#
#Best Regards,
#Rick Moen, Director
#Bay Area Skeptics

Skeptics having limited resources are justified to restrict themselves
to claims that have some social relevance (lots of people believing them,
for instance).  The amount of nonsense is simply too large to handle all
of it. 
JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:22:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.201056.13988@isrc.sandia.gov>, smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov
(Scott M Lackey) writes:
> > #
> > #   Or comments on the active sabotage by the ICR and their 
> > #running dog lackeys.
>                ^^^^^^^
> 	Please don't use that word in association with the ICR.
> 
> Scott Lackey

   You have my immediate and abject public apology.  I will find another term.
I know just how you feel.  I read alt.fan.dan-quayle and my name is,

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:57:11 GMT

In article <1000@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug30.024256.7153@r-node.gts.org> Marc.Cormier%nautical@r-node.gts.org (Marc Cormier) writes:
>|X-Posting-Software: UnixBBS 1.03 S/N 120921
>|
>|   The following message is a new twist (I hope it is) on the old debate on
>|the existence of God or the Afterlife.
>|   Since most religions require a spirit or soul to survive death, a way to
>|prove the inexistence of such an entity is to take all its' attributed
>|characteristics and prove them to be purely physical and biological in
>|nature. 
>
>True, and I think this may be one of the factors contributing to the
>fundamental fear of science among Fundamentalist christians - they fear
>that science will eliminate the soul.

This is what caused me to believe in a God half way through college. The
more I searched for a soul I couldn't find it, once in a rather interesting
state of consciousness (I take the fifth), I tried to pin it down but
couldn't, it was like chasing a warm stick of butter on a hot day :-) 
I finally began to realize that what we refer to a soul is the sum of
the brains functions, when you chase it into a corner it just disappears
because it isn't there, its all over.

Its taken several years to really accept that the world is the way it
is. But now I'm starting to realize that eventhough a "soul" can exist
in matter this is no reason to down grade the soul, rather we should
upgrade the status of matter and math. 

I'm no longer willing to leave spirituality to mythology. We know where
the soul is, we just don't understand it yet, at this point my religion
is "reformed pythagorean". I believe that all the answers about "the soul"
are in the realm of math, I don't believe in irrational numbers having
any "real" existance, however I do eat bean products, and sometimes pick up
dropped things :-)

If you can't put it on a finite turing machine it doesn't exist :-)
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,sci.classics
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls
Organization: just me
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 14:35:30 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <ARA.92Sep11025538@camelot.ai.mit.edu> ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>
>A friend of mine explained it to me as follows: archaeology is not about
>clay tablets. It is about broken pots.

Your friend needs to look up references on the royal library at Ebla, I
think :-).  Enough tablets found there to keep full time translators going
well into the middle of the next century...

(Yes, I know he didn't mean it literally..:-)

David Pipes
robear@digex.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:42:14 GMT

In article <26133@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:

>Do you have any doubt that penicillin cures polio?

Penicillin does not cure polio.  Polio is a virus - antibiotics have
no effect on viruses.

>Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again...
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:38:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.202437.23671@linus.mitre.org>, m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>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?

Actually, Gerald Vernon Nelson appears to be a former creationist who's now an
atheist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:33:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Sep4.213319.3818
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <1992Sep4.205841.8299@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>, hhm@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (herschel.h.mayo) writes in part:
|> 
|> Everybody seems to have missed one glaring possibility: Why the hell would the
|> forger of the shroud not just use real blood rather than going to all of the
|> trouble and expense of painting it? Ox, cow, chicken or any other readily 
|> available blood could be used to make a real stain that would dry to the 
|> correct color.  Painting it is both laborious, and requires mixing to simulate
|> the color of dried blood.

This depends on what the artist was trying to do.  I think he was trying
to make something that was instantly and vividly recognizable as a
conventional depiction of jesus and his blood.  This would mean using 
red paint like everybody else did.  From this point of view you don't 
want real blood, because it doesn't look anything like the paintings 
and statues the viewers would be familiar with.

As to the supposed difficulty, I can't see that painting with blood is
somehow easier than painting with paint for someone who is skilled at
painting.

|> Blood was probably used to stain the shroud originally, and when it flaked
|> away in later years, it was touched up with paint. Nothing is proved either
|> way

There is no evidence that there is or ever has been any blood on the
shroud of Turin.  There is conclusive evidence that the image was painted.
Nothing is proved, but the evidence is very strong.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu