HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:06:39 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>  For trying to confound us He sure managed to get the evidence to fall in a
>very consistent pattern. 

I think this is where you go wrong, in my opinion. God is not trying
to confound us.

> If God's intention was to confuse us wouldn't he have
>made the tree rings, ice cores, lake bottoms, and coral reefs all disagree to
>some extent as a hint?

His intention was not to confuse us.

>  I have to agree with Dan, you a presenting God as a liar, purposefully doing
>His best to trick people into believing something false. 

I don't think this was or is, God's plan.

> I don't know about
>you, but that isn't the God I worship.

Me either. Guess we're kinda stuck now?

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: sad@dasher.uucp (22430s-downie)
Subject: Re: E.W. - Anastasia did survive!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 20:52:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.paranormal

In article <1992Aug12.174752.19655@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>, rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
> In article <ewillims.713529085@unix1.tcd.ie> ewillims@unix1.tcd.ie 
> (Emma Williams) writes:
> [...]
> >
> >Scientists are now planning to do a similar DNA test on the 
> >remains of the "Anastasia" in Paris to see if she really was
> >a member of the Romanov family.
> 
> If this is the one I'm thinking of, she wasn't Anastasia.  A friend of my 
> family is a daughter of one of Nicholas's generals, and was Anastasia's
> playmate.  She said it wasn't her.
> 
> 	RA

Do you have the name of the general or the woman?  I would like to 
look her name up.  Was she mentioned in Peter Kurth's book, The Riddle
of Anna Anderson"?

sad
.

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<14AUG199222285019@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:15:47 GMT

>>>>> On 15 Aug 92 05:28:00 GMT, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) said:

James> In article <1992Aug14.181226.9696@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>,
James> bourd@jellyfish.cps.msu.edu (Robert Bourdeau) writes...

>                           By Kevin Martin
> 
> [...]
>Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a
>huge  animal  that  intensely resembled a dinosaur.

James> 1977.  It proved to be a basking shark.

I would *still* like to find the published reference for this result.
I *still* have a photocopy of one of the photographs of the beast on
my office door, and it looks *nothing*whatsoever* like a basking
shark.  The other photo I've seen, of the 4 the Japanese biologist on
board took, looks even less like a shark, and the pen-and-ink sketch
he made is *definitely* that of a plesiosaur - matching the textbook
illustrations exactly.

I heard that the original captain of the submersible Alvin was
relieved of duty after claiming to have seen a plesiosaur swim by the
Alvin off the coast of New Zealand (where the carcass was found).
Does anyone have more info on this story (confirming *or* disproving)?
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "And God created great whales, ..."
Integrated Measurement Systems |  - Genesis 1:21
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  (My Bible has a footnote saying that
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  "whales" should really be translated
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  "sea monsters".)                    





Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:53:20 GMT

dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:

[lots of stuff deleted]

>>The IQ isn't meaning less, but MENSA is.  That is, the IQ has some merit
>>for some abilities, but MENSA exists only for self-flattery and egotism.
>>
>>keith
>>
>Oh, this is interesting.  So support groups for those who test well below
>average on the IQ scale - homes for the retarded, say - exist for what
>reason?  After all, they are just as different as Mensans vis a vis the
>IQ test, only in the other direction.

So, are you saying that Mensa is a support group?  Besides, these groups
encouarge mainstreaming.  Does Mesna do such? 

>I suspect that you have never had to deal with any of the psychological
>effects associated with growing up different.  After all, if you test out
>average, you are surrounded by others who are likely very near you in ability
>who can understand you and have no reason to think you are "different".

Your suspicions are incorrect.  I grew up in a small, rural town.  I was
"different."  This, however, did not motivate me to join a group consiting
of people who enjoy flauting their gifts. 

>Some of us had very different experiences, whether or not we were tested.
>Sometimes, a group like Mensa can help people adjust to the "real world".
>Sometimes an IQ test, which was used to single someone out as different,
>can provide them access to others who have had the same experiences.

I don't think that people should see the results of their IQ test.
What would be the purpose?  Besides. if you analyze the motivations
of the people joining the group, I think that you will see self-flattery
and not usually a desire for emotional support.

>I find your comments very sad and narrow-minded.  I have however seen it
>many times while growing up, usually just before someone took a swing at
>me for being different.

>It is good to know that those who have problems adjusting to life because
>they are highly intelligent should have no place to get together to talk
>things over.  Thank you for that insight.  

Again, is Mensa a support group?  Does every "intelligent" person have
"problems adjusting to life?"  You are again making incorrect assumptions
as to the nature of the Mensa group.

>		David Pipes
>who does not belong to Mensa

If you think it is so great, then why not join?

keith
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:30:09 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <1992Aug13.034055.26339@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.192309.24760@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug11.035024.5531@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>|> Are there any reasonable theories as to how the 14th C artist pulled
>>|> off the image reversal???
>>
>>A reasonable possibility is that it was done through a variant of the
>>then-common method of rubbing:  slather a perfectly ordinary 14th
>>century demi-round carving of JC with perfectly ordinary 14th century
>>tempura paint, wrap shroud around it, press and rub gently and then
>>allow to dry.
>>
>>You get a negative of a 3-D image.  And the image even has all the
>>features of Christ's body that would be expected in the 1350's!
>>
>>Simple, but very effective.
>>
> 
> Hmmmmmmmmmm, don't buy it. The image would look stretched if that was the case.

One of the arguments I've heard for its authenticity is that it did looked
stretched, as if it had ben draped over an actual corpse.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14345 talk.origins:9505
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:15:51 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
Dan wrote:
>>>Jim, how do you resolve the contradiction between the evidence for the
>>>age of the earth, and the evidence that life here has evolved from
>>>simple creatures to the incredible diversity that we see today?
>> 
>> This is a matter of interpretation.

>But the vast majority of scientists who have objectively studied life 
>consider it to have evolved.  The majority of people who consider life
>NOT to have evolved have a religious agenda.  That is what we mean.
>And if you may remember, I have asked you in the past to please explain
>how varves were formed, how come ice core dating (several different and
>totally unrelated methods) all agree, tree ring dating also agrees with
>ice core dating, so does coral reef dating.  You have consistantly ducked
>discussing any of this.  

Sue, you have asked me to explain the above, but then apologized
for confusing me with someone else after I've informed you that it
wasn't me who mentioned those issues in the first place. If this is
how you define "consistently ducking," then so be it, there's not
much more I can do for you in this matter.

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 14:41:48 GMT
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Reply-To: stassen@alc.com
Followup-To: talk.origins

[Apologies in advance for the number of "typos" that this article
 is bound to have.  My modem is dying.  Followups are set to
 talk.origins, the proper forum for this topic.]

Jim Loucks writes:
> It is also my belief that God could have easily created
> with the appearance of age, though most definitely not to deceive. If
> God created a 100 foot tree, would it not have the appearance of age?
> If such a tree were created, I have no problems with God also creating
> tree rings if he so desired.

Certainly, it isn't beyond God's ability to do something like this.  The
tree could be created with perfect appearance of age.  Not only does it
have rings, but it has patterns of thickness of rings that correlate with
other created trees -- giving the impression of rainy and dry years that
never happened.  It has scars from parasites that never existed, and
damage from a fire that never happened.  Each ring carbon dates as if it
had grown naturally in a year that never was.

I would have no problem with someone looking at a tree, and at the history
derived from its appearance, and saying something like:

	"Sure, it looks like all that happened... but I believe it
	 was created last week."

What annoys me about "scientific creationism" is that it is akin to
saying:

	"Any fool can see that this tree looks like it was created
	 last week.  Why, those parasite marks aren't _exactly_ what
	 we'd expect to see, and therefore the tree couldn't have
	 formed naturally.  QED."

It may not be God's "intent to deceive" in making such a creation, but
surely He would know that any honest student of His creation would be
misled when reading it "at face value."


-- 
Chris Stassen						stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER:  My employer's account, but not their opinions.
From: kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: CFD: New newsgroup sci.siano.vs.schaeffer.battle.to.the.death
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:27:27 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Microelectronics, Ft. Collins, CO


This newsgroup would be a moderated newsgroup where only revpk and
Robert Schaeffer (sic) could post. The purpose of the group would be to
provide a vehicle for long pseudo-intellectual diatribes directed at the
intellectual humiliation of the opponent. New posts must contain a
minimum of 1000 new words and 3Mb of quoted text. Any opponent who lets
a thread die in less than a 3 month period shall be forced to sit naked
in a hot tub with Don_-_Showen and have his DNA regenerated.

The entire net could then thrill to the daring feats of
patriarchy/feminism perpetrated by these two massive egos in their own
forum. Or maybe they could just go back to reading sci.skeptic with an
improved signal to noise ratio. Either way its a big win.

Any comments?

--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton                   * EMail: Kent.Dalton@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */
/* NCR Microelectronics          * Phone: (303) 223-5100 X-319            */  
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A      *   FAX: (303) 226-9556                  */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525  *                                        */
/**************************************************************************/
..  I see TOILET SEATS...
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14491 talk.origins:9611
From: jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:50:17 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>>God almost certianly isn't a liar.

>Jim sez (apparently): "No, Dan, God IS a liar, but that wasn't his intent."

I don't believe the God of the Bible to be a liar. Neither do I believe
deception was his intent if he created everything we see with age. 
Should we even question God?

>   There is not miscommunication.  You think God created a world that would
>convince any reasonable person that did _not_ have a particular sort of 
>religion that it was OLD.  This makes him a deciever; he must have known it
>would have that effect: so he gets credit for decieving me, at least, and, at
>last count several million others.

God may have known the effect, but maybe the deceiver himself, Satan,
is fueling mans pride, causing us to blame God for the deception.

>   For some reason you haven't even tried to explain, this deception doesn't
>count as deception in your mind in spite of it's rather remarkable success.
>I reiterate: explain why this deception isn't really deception, accept that
>you believe in a lying God, or accept that the earth is old.

I don't see those two options as the only alternatives.

>   You can't have your cake and eat it too.  The only other hypothisis I can
>see is that God isn't aware of or doesn't understand the consequences of his
>own actions. This gets back to the "asshole" hypothisis way back at the
>beginning of this thread that niether of us seem willing to accept.

Maybe we shouldn't be messin' around where we're messin' around. I 
believe the Bible to be a revelation of God, not just "religion." 
The Bible states that God will frustrate the intelligence of the
intelligent, and just maybe this origins debate is one of the 
frustrations. I think we can all admit that man can be extremely
proud, and wouldn't intellectual pride be an extremely easy trap
to fall into? Maybe God never intended for us to try to figure out
how old the earth is, or how he created life. But man with all his 
pride must know, and for this pride, God frustrates those minds. 

-- 
Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks
From: llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: origin of life articl
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:47:18 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO) writes:

: IMHO, if someone tosses a coin 1e6 times and gets heads then for someone
: to expect honestly that the next toss is a 50-50 chance reminds me of a
: certain gentleman who was convinced that motion was impossible because
: he had mathematically proved it.  As the lion charged forward, he closed
: his eyes and repeated to himself: "This is an illusion, the lion can't move
: and I'm safe"  I leave it to your imaginations to guess what his fate may
: have been and to wonder about the usefulness of theories that directly 
: contradict empirical data.

i think the problem here is that you would take one million heads in a
row to mean that somehow the odds of tossing a fair coin and getting
heads had been changed. i'd think it would just cause me to wonder
about how fair your coin was.

coins have no memory; there's no way for a coin to "know" what the
outcomes of the previous 999,999 tosses were. if the coin is a fair
coin, then there will always be a 50-50 chance of a toss being heads.

also, just because something is very very unlikely does not mean it
won't happen. the fallacy that because the odds against something like
dna assembling itself spontaneously are one in some huge number, it
could never happen is based on the idea that there was some small
number of events. if there were 3 billion combinations of elements
formed, then saying that the odds were one in a billion against one of
them being organic doesn't look so great anymore.

--
sine nomine
debbie martinson
"consciousness is far more terrifying than any unconscious complexes."
					-- mikhail bakhtin
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Faith (was Re: Rant! was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark)))
Date: 14 Aug 92 01:38:47 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <5024@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>In article <1992Aug6.004804.23936@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>
>>My dictionary defines "faith" simply as "unquestioning belief."
>>
>>Therefore the faith in science is when we have a set of unquestioned
>>axioms.
>
>Ha! See the leap of faith here?  Namely "what my dictionary gives as a
>two word definition is the ultimate truth and the best possible description
>to be used in an epistemolgical discussion".  The esteemed correspondent
>even does not say "A set of unquestioned axioms may be called a faith, at
>least accoring to my dictionary", but boldly asserts the unqualified
>equality of the two.                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^
                 I didn't want to be patronizing and qualify the obvious.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: jeh@raster.kodak.com (Ed Hanway)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company, Digital Systems Center
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:40:08 GMT

jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
: ...it is my belief that life on earth is fairly young, the earth may or
: may not be old. It is also my belief that God could have easily created
: with the appearance of age, though most definitely not to deceive. If
: God created a 100 foot tree, would it not have the appearance of age?

Stupid question: if God created everything with the appearance of age,
i.e. exactly as things would look if currently understood processes had been
operating in the past, how is that any different, as far as science is
concerned, from the case where everything really _is_ old? 

--
Ed Hanway --- jeh@raster.kodak.com
This message is packed as full as practicable by modern automated equipment.
Contents may settle during shipment.
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:36:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: hilbert.1992Aug13.153626.20087
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon

In article <713649613.F00001@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>Really, Bob, do you think the people contemporary with the Bible who *ate* these
>insects were incapable of counting? Do you think nobody sat down and noticed
>that insects tend to have six legs? In any event, it seems a very accurate
>description: they go on all fours, and they have jointed "legs"
>above their "feet"; that is, they have a pair of limbs above the ones on which
>they stand.
>
>jds
> * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)

ALL fours, means all four legs. The walk and stand on all SIX legs. How do I
know they were calling the two large legs 'legs'? Simple: those are
the jointed legs above their feet - they are DESCRIBED as legs. The other
two pairs are identical - it is implausible to describe one or the
other pair as 'not being legs'.

Nice try.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14557 alt.alien.visitors:5829 talk.religion.newage:3794
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:44:48 GMT

In article <zlsiida.62@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes
in part:
|> I came across the term kinesiology in a Mensa magazine article.  
[...]
|> I'm quite prepared to believe there is a 
|> REAL science of kinesiology, I just don't know anything about it.

  !!!!

  Tsk, tsk.  You mean mensa is not a reliable source of info?  You
surprise me greatly! :-)

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:17:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.092452.27338@cco.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
> The IQ isn't meaning less, but MENSA is.  That is, the IQ has some merit
> for some abilities, but MENSA exists only for self-flattery and egotism.

Go read Stephen J. Gould's _The Mis-Measure of Man_.  Then come back
and expound on why you think there is some meaningful measure called
"IQ".

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14452 talk.origins:9585
From: ed_eck@milkwy.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Rant! Rave! (was: Fermat( was: Noah's Ark))
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:53:22 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation



> is Bill Hamilton

>> is Tom S.

>>    Perhaps it should be pointed out that there is an ancient heresy in 
>>Christianity (Gnosticism) which says, among other things, that the 
>>maker of the world is not God.
>>
>I believe they also claimed that there was some special knowledge
>that was given only to them which enabled them to know God and
>receive salvation. Furthermore, I believe they believed that God is 
>not necessarily good, (and therefore might well resort to
>deceptions like apparent age). Is this the characteristic of gnosticism
>you see in creationism, Tom? 


Wasn't it the Manchean heresy (not to be confused with the Manchean Candidate?)
that claimed there was a Demiurge that created the world? (Although the
concept of the "shadow self" also shows up in Gnosticism, vide the idea that
the Devil was Christ's brother. See _The Gnostic Gospels_ by Pagels, or
_The Two and the One_.)

The idea that Jesus gave a special knowledge to _some_ of his followers
but not others is Gnostic.



Ed E.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins