HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 05:26:39 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1296@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>[A tremendous amount of stuff deleted]
[even more stuff deleted.  Take my word for it, you've read it all anyway]
>
>	I would like to take this opportunity to publicly
>apologize to Chris Colby for causing him to step into
>a rhetorical cow patty that I set for Matt Wiener. It was
>obvious from his response that he really did/does believe 
>that I never took Bio 100. As indicated above, David Utidjian
>appears to have figured out what I was up to - I'm still
>not sure how, or if Wiener will respond.

An apology?  Nah, didn't happen.
>
>	Anyway, as a conservative, I am a relative novice
>to the ways of deconstruction, since I spend most of
>my energies defending theories, not demolishinhg them.
>
>	I do fear that this thread has gone too far in
>an unhealthy direction. While I do not retract anything
>I've said, my inclination is focus the debate elsewhere.
>
Good luck.

>	Would it not be a *shame* if, through the hubris
>and arrogance of my opponents, I actually *won* this
>argument and destroyed science as we know it ? :)
>
Yeah.  I don't think science would mind, though.
>
Big Al.  "I like my sponenaity to be well planned." -SOmeone on alt.sex.bondage
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15429 talk.origins:10391
From: robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:08:17 CDT

Drew Lawson (lawson@acuson.com) wrote:
: 
: I also doubt that all of science would fall apart if belief in
: evolutionary origin fell by the wayside.
: 

As others have pointed out, there is an essential interconnectness
in most of the sciences, and certain aspects of evolutionary theory
are intwined throughout.

But the real reason that science would be in trouble is that there
is no other Scientific theory to replace it.  And you know that.

Pointed Question, Drew:

	Do you really believe that religion should govern the process
	of Scientific Investigation?

rob derrick
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15059 alt.culture.usenet:719 talk.origins:10132
From: chris@kbsw1 (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Common knowledge? Boishemoi!
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:33:51 GMT
Reply-To: chris@kbsw3.UUCP (Chris Kostanick 806 1044)
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

Sorry to jump into this so late, but the book RIOTOUS ASSEMBLY by
Tom Sharpe is a stinging and hilarious ATTACK on apartheid. It involves
such things as torturing priests, injecting penises with novocaine
and massacres at fetes. Sharpe is great if you like nasty humor of
the Evelyn Waugh variety, but he is no friend of apartheid.

Chris Kostanick
Read "The Throwback" for a truly new use for a cheese grater.
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:55:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <25838@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|> [...]
|> Sorry, but I have to interject a little science into this otherwise
|> clean-cut analysis.  The second law of thermodynamics does not imply that
|> "No process is possible..."  It implies that such a process is very 
|> unlikely.  However they are clearly possible.  You may wait a very long
|> time for all the atoms of gas in a box to happen to be in the left half
|> of the box all at once, but there is no physical law which prevents it.
|> It's just that most of the available microstates do not have this property.
|> But put only 10 particles in the box and you will wait *much* less time
|> before this unusual event actually occurs.

The statements I gave were *really* what Clausius and Kelvin and Plank actually
said.  Their versions of the second law specifically said that such processes
were not possible.  And, depending on your definition of "process", their
statements are accurate.  If you define "process" to mean some deliberate
operation which reliably produces a given result, then processes which violate
the second law *are* impossible.  If you define "process" to mean what happens 
naturally, on average, in the natural world then such processes are impossible 
(no natural phenomena *regularly* does improbable things).  On the other hand, 
your definition identifies "process" with "event".  That is, you confuse 
the general with the specific.

This characteristic of the second law is well known.  In fact, modern
quantum theory predicts that *all* physics is time-symmetric (subject to
some parity swaps: like replacing every particle with its anti-particle); 
which *seems* to contradict the second law entirely.  But, although 
specific *events* can be time reversed, the probabilities in each 
direction needn't be the same.

In the meantime, even if all the gas in your box runs to the corner, how
do you use that event to get heat to flow against a temperature gradient
or to get work directly from heat?  Those are the things that Clausius,
Kelvin, and Plank excluded from possibility.  Nope, all things considered,
the second law will still be observed.

-- 
J. Giles
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15304 talk.religion.misc:15138
From: ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:53:02 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug28.033804.10671@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
[...]
>Your belief in man's ability to create life out of chemicals and your
>seeing life only as a chemical process probably contribute towards the
>hypothetical situation that you find yourself in.  What I fail to understand
>is given your assumptions, just *what* do you find so valuable about life?  
>Why not destroy it unnecessarily?

Why destroy anything unnecessarily, living or not? Pointless destruction
is as idiotic as any other pointless action, the key descriptor being
"pointless."

(This leads to obvious snide remarks about why we are all engaging in
these debates, but I think I'll pass on that one.)

Your phrasing above suggests that you think that life is more than a
chemical process and that humans will never be able to create life.
This is a safe enough position *now*, but historically quite dangerous;
people who have assumed limitations to scientific inquiry or technical
capacity have a long track record of being wrong.

York Dobyns		ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:36:29 GMT

lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
: 
: Have you ever considered that part of the purpose of life is to
: experience these opportunities to make choices?
: 

Have you ever considered that the _entire_ purpose of life is to drive
around at night in a convertable with the top down listening to 12 bar
blues?

There is "no purpose of life" other than that decided upon by each
individual.  Grow up and take responsibility for your life.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  It's some people inside
Rosemount Inc.                                |the wall!  This is better
                                              |than mopping!
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:36:18 GMT

In article <BtxDMC.EIx@andy.bgsu.edu>, jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu (James H. Kiley)
writes:
> Ohhhh, posts like this drive me nuts.
> The bible wasn't written in English originally, you fool.  Vowel/consonant
> ratios will *not* be the same in, say, Hebrew.

   Really?  They make me giggle and laugh.  (*giggle|*  *laugh*)  Cough!
Ahem...

   Reading Mr. Kiley's detailed, careful, utterly correct refutation (incredibly
using only 27 words, applause, applause) actually inspired
in me the first axiom for the much requested Theory of Creation FAQ.

                                T.O.C.

(Rule I):  The entire history of the world involves people and places very much
like the people you know and the places you live.  While they may not
technically speak your language, their language is a substitution code for your
language.  Their morals are like yours, except for the ones God killed, who are
like the secular humanists.  Since creationism is inspired, detailed
understanding of opposing theories is not required.  God himself will subtlely
influence your reasoning toward a state of irrefutability.
 
> Jim Kiley
> jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"Sorry for the misspellings"
-Dan Ashlock
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (York H. Dobyns)
Subject: Re: Stooping down  (was: The difference ...)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:49:15 GMT

In article <5158@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
[in the course of chastising Dan Ashlock for rude language...]

>stooping down to your adversary's level means that you implicitly admit
>that s/he is right.

How interesting. I suppose that using armed violence against the Nazis
in WWII was an implicit admission that Nazism is right?

I, for one, see *no* obligation whatever for anyone to be polite to
someone who is insulting them. (Maintaining politeness in the face of
abuse may serve all kinds of social and political functions, but it
certainly isn't an obligation.)

>JWN

York Dobyns		ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What is intelligence?
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:00:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Sep2100013
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

In article <Btx7Gu.5Hr@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

   gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:

   >Based on my training as a roboticist, I will state Gerry's First 
   >Law of Intelligence:
   >  All intelligent being are capable of "rapid", controlled locomotion.

   Interesting, especially coming from a roboticist.  This would rule out
   AI in a computer form.  I.e.  HAL would be a program, R2D2 would have 
   potential.  Is the ability to move necessary for inteligence?
   -- 
   Josh Hopkins  

You are correct.  I believe that the real advances in AI will come
from those programs that are implemented as part of a mobile system,
not those that stay in the lab.  To me, intelligence is required to
deal with a changing, uncertain environment, but is not needed in a
static environment.   For instance, trees have no use for intelligence
because even if they were intelligent, there is nothing they could do
anyway!


--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | II - A well regulated Militia, being
Field Robotics Center,          | necessary to the security of a free State,
Carnegie Mellon University      | the right of the people to keep and bear
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | Arms, shall not be infringed.
(412) 268-3856                  | 
                                | 
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:54:45 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug26.180829.24593@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes...
> 
>The Clausius statement of the second law of thermodynamics:
> 
>      No process is possible whose *sole* result is a heat flow out
>      of one system at a given temperature and a flow of heat into
>      a second system at a higher temperature.
> 
>In other words, it takes power to run your refrigerator - there will
>never be any that run for free.
> 
>The Kelvin-Plank statement the second law of thermodynamics:
> 
>      No process is possible whose *sole* result is a heat flow out of
>      a system and at a given temperature and the performance of work
>      with that energy.

Sorry, but I have to interject a little science into this otherwise
clean-cut analysis.  The second law of thermodynamics does not imply that
"No process is possible..."  It implies that such a process is very 
unlikely.  However they are clearly possible.  You may wait a very long
time for all the atoms of gas in a box to happen to be in the left half
of the box all at once, but there is no physical law which prevents it.
It's just that most of the available microstates do not have this property.
But put only 10 particles in the box and you will wait *much* less time
before this unusual event actually occurs.

-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
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What is Intelligence?
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:54:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Sep2095459
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

In article <1992Sep1.192439.7729@nosc.mil> clarkk@nosc.mil (Kevin D. Clark) writes:

   Paraphrased from previous posts:

    Isaac Asimov's criteria for intelligence are (1) the ability to make and use
    tools and (2) the ability to use fire.  This eliminates whales, dolphins, and
    the great apes and may not be appropriate "definitions" for intelligence.

    Gerry Roston's proposed criteria for intelligence are (1) capability for 
    "rapid" controlled locomotion where "rapid" means the distance of one body
    length in a reasonable amount of time (Gerry's First Law of Intelligence-GLI1)
    and (2) capability for communicating abstract ideas (GLI2).  This eliminates
    plant life, but possibly not dolphins, bees or others.

   Would GLI1 rule out those persons who for one reason or another had been ren-
   dered unable to move without assistance (such as quadraplegics) or are we 
   speaking in terms of the species as a whole (i.e. most human beings are capable
   of locomotion)?  I have also heard or read that infants are at first incapable
   of abstract thought.  Would they be considered "intelligent" by GLI2?  (Are
   they considered "intelligent" now?)  I realize that in any species there will
   be small subsets which do not have the characteristic abilities of the masses,
   and that if a species was made up entirely of such individuals that it might
   not survive, but I thought the question might be worth posing....

   "Spooner"             "Freedom is irrelevant...resistance is futile!" -The Borg

The above "laws", both Dr. Asimovs and mine, apply to mature, typical
specimens of the species.  

I will now advance GLI3, which is far more contraversial than GLI1 or
GLI2. 
  All intelligent species evolved as omnivoires or carnivoires.
Lets face it, you don't have to be a rocket scientists to track drown
a plant!


--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | II - A well regulated Militia, being
Field Robotics Center,          | necessary to the security of a free State,
Carnegie Mellon University      | the right of the people to keep and bear
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | Arms, shall not be infringed.
(412) 268-3856                  | 
                                | 
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: wlamonac@purcell.helios.nd.edu (william lamonaca)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Info needed: change in ratio male/female
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:22:02 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug31.121609.24242@fokus.gmd.de> cf@fokus.gmd.de (C. Fuhrhop) writes:
>
>Hello!
>During a discussion I had this weekend someone claimed that in the first
>years after WWII the ratio of girls born vs boys born shifted in favour
>of girls (in Germany). The claim was basically that for the survival of the
>species more women are needed than men and that 'mother nature' would shift
>the birth ratio in favor of girls in times of crisis.
>
>I know that it's true for some animals (change of male/female ratio 
>due to changes in the environment), but I doubt that this is true for
>humans. 
>
>Can anyone comment on this question?
>
>Does anyone have the statistics for Germany available?
>(that was the example cited in the discusssion, so I'd like to see
>the source data myself)
>
>
>Thanks a lot
>Christian Fuhrhop
>
>fuhrhop@fokus.berlin.gmd.dbp.de

I'd heard the opposite (and not just for Germany, but for any war-torn
country)- that more boys are born to make up for those who were killed in
the fighting.  Either way, the story is an urban legend- as far as I know,
the male/female birth ratio does not change.

Bill
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15184 talk.origins:10209
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:51:19 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Aug27.163835.12301@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>   Finally, having re-read your original post more carefully, I have a bit of
>>information for you.  No-one can currently see canals on mars.  The closest
>>any observation comes is dry watercourses that look like natural features.
>
>What about pulsars as clear evidence of extra-stellar intelligence?
>

What?  Where is this coming from and what does this have to do with anything?

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


--
*Ka Chun Yu                 * "Deputy dog dog a ding dang depa depa deputy     *
*kachun@as.arizona.edu      *  dog dog a ding dang depa depa . . ."            *
*                           *                         --"Don't Let's Start"    *
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: ~evolution ==> ~evidence ==> ~science.
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:10:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.161550.15768@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:

[Drew flatly refuses to conceede you can code data structures in machine
langauge, in spite of having seen it done.  I retire from this field of battle,
as it isn't relevant to talk.origins]

>>> I also doubt that all of science would fall apart if belief in
>>                                                       ^^^^^^
>>> evolutionary origin fell by the wayside.
>>
>>  I agree.  We don't "believe".  We accept the proof.
> 
> Semantic nit picking.  Doesn't anyone read in context for the main
> point any more?

(caps ON)

   NO, NO, NO, THIS IS NOT SEMANTIC NIT PICKING.  YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE
THE WORLD IS YOUNG I ACCEPT THE PROOF, LOTS OF IT, THAT IT IS OLD.  THIS
IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE.

(CAPS off)  *whew*
 
>>If, on the other hand,
>>the preponderance of scientists rejected evolution given the current state of
>>science, science would be toast.  Evolution is completely compelling on
>>scientific grounds.  Rejection of evolution must impeach all of science as
>>the methedology is uniform.
> 
> You are the second I've seen with that view.  Perhaps you could tell me
> how science would be "toast" if evolutionary origin were discarded.

   Evolution is based on massive amounts of evidence.  To reject evolution
we would have to reject the notion that evidence is reliable.  The rest of
science disappears in the same flush of the metaphorical toilet.  Your
argument, that the evidence posesses radically different interpretations,
is Bogus.  The consistency and predictive power of the evolutionary theory
force it to be a close cousin of the truth.

   In order to do more than ==> _ASSERT_  <== that I am wrong about this you
have to do one of:

   (I) show evidence is worthless (and there goes science too).

  (II) produce a theory that fits the evidence better, makes more and better
       predictions, and, hopefully shows why the old theory worked so well
       when it was horribly flawed.

I note that many have tried to do both (I) and (II) -sometimes both, which is
very comical- but none have suceeded.  Good Luck.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU


> 
> 
> -- 
> Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
> lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS (long)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 14:26:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: world,local

In article <1992Aug26.074958.1959@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <GERRY.92Aug24100703@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>>Okay,
>>Is there some one out there who knows what's going on?  If Deusberg is
>>legitimate, why is he alone in his view?  Also, why does this article
>>seemingly present a one-sided view of the story?
>
>Given the fact that almost all (except for 100?) cases of AIDS are
>associated with HIV infection I would have to say that he is full of
>s**t. Why don't we see IV drug users who don't share needles coming
>down with AIDS?

I suppose you have not heard of the persons who have AIDS like symptoms,
but no HIV antibodies? Whatever else this might mean, it would seem to
demonstrate that a certain retro-virus may not be the cause, or assuming
that it is -a- cause, not the sole cause of immunodeficiency.

>As usual with the quacks he tries to paint ACT-UP as the bad guys who
>are somehow really at fault for AIDS.
>
>Its time that people wake up and get a clue, all the quacks in the
>world arn't worth one condom.
>
>-- 
>>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
>Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
>in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
>       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.politics.misc