HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: America vs Creationism
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:44:27 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Sep28.100541.27841@hsr.no> onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>>Environmentalists would have us believe that we will soon be up to our
>>necks (or boiling over) because of car shit.  Sniff the air some
>>evening in New York and you could come to believe them.  Just don't
>>try and exert yourself.
>>
>Couldn't agree more. Environmentalists are almost just as bad as
>Creationists. All the talk of doomsday can easily make your head ache. 
>
>
>Onar. 

	Looks like the golden mean wins again. Or does it ?

	I'm reasonably sure that I am not the only one to whom it
has occurred that Environmentalism flows logically out of the ecological
branch of evolutionary thought, while Creationism is seen by a number
of people as being not only scientifically degenerate, but socially 
degenerate, for its ignorance of ecological imperatives.

	Consider this: If natural law explains everything in nature, then
you had better not screw with Mother Nature. If on the other hand, there is
a higher order above and beyond nature, then man is free to create at
will, and, as Genesis suggests, to take mastery over the earth, and to 
bend Nature to his ends (or to His - God's -  ends), without destroying the
world.

	There is a pretty deep chasm between these two views of man and
nature - only the bravest, or the most foolhardy scientists and theologians
attempt to bridge the gap. (But it does not stop them from trying !)

	Over the weekend, I picked up a copy of Daniel Boorstin's "The
Discoverers" to complement my copy of his magnificent work "The Creators",
and promise to keep the net up to speed on some of the jewels which lay
therein.


	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Chimpanzee vs Human DNA
Keywords: chimpanzee,DNA
Date: 5 Oct 92 06:30:07 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep29.110952@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
|
|   And this weeks Science contains a report of a putative fossil member of
|the chimp/human branch after the gorilla branched off.  Readable and mentions
|dissenting views.  The fossils are from Hungary.
|
I just saw an article about this too (perhaps the same one - did you mean
Science News?)

My reading puts it the other way around, a specimen from the *gorilla*
lineage after the chimp/human clade branched off.  (Though the article
*was* a bit confusing).

Dissent is certainly in order.  If the specimen is correctly identified as
a Dryopithecus, then it is a *thin* enemeled ape.  All living Great Apes
have *thick* enamel.  This would tend to indicate that Drypopitecus was
a 'side line' (to the extent that is meaningful in evolution).

However, if the specimen is only provisionally placed in D., then it
might pertain to some less known hominoid, such as Ouranopithecus,
and may thus be a thick-enameled ape, as is appropriate for a species
anywhere close to any living great ape.

(Technically, humans do not have thick enamel, but we do have a rather
strange ontogeny for our enamle which indicates a thick-enaneled ancestor).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17065 comp.ai.philosophy:6227
From: mpark@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Park)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Sampling and human hea
Date: 26 Sep 92 09:18:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep26.091859.17640
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <717318277.4@wyrm.rbbs-net.ORG> Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen) writes:

[my nth-hand report of 35kHz "nuances" in sound deleted and presumed bogus]

>I personally still find it odd that no one addresses the known and
>acknowledged problems of present-day consumer-grade digital electronics.
>-- the inadequate sample size, the excessively sharp low-pass filters,
>and the usually crappy analogue-stage electronics.  We were told that
>the first generation of gear was perfect, then that the next generation
>was somehow even better, but all we get to address the basic problems is
>over-sampling, which does not properly address any of them at all (most
>of them being frozen into the current standards).
>
Isn't oversampling supposed to address the excessively sharp LP filter
problem (i.e. by making the effective sample rate 8x higher, much
less roll-off is needed)?  Shouldn't it then be relatively easy to
ensure that any filtering artifacts will only occur above 22kHz?
If audible artifacts remain, might that be taken as evidence that
the limits of human hearing ought to be re-examined?




-- 
Ciao-abunga!           +-------------------------------------+
Michael Park           | This space intentionally left blank |
mpark@u.washington.edu +-------------------------------------+
From: toby@cs.man.ac.uk (Toby Howard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Skeptic Novels
Date: 27 Sep 92 13:25:35 GMT
	<1992Sep23.182034.837@mala.bc.ca> <5627@tuegate.tue.nl>
	<1992Sep25.101749@twod.gsfc.nasa.gov> <Bv54D4.3tK@andy.bgsu.edu>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu's message of 25 Sep 92 15:29:27 GMT

Try 'It came from SW19' by Nigel Williams (Faber & Faber). Hilarious spoof
on spiritualism, UFO cults, mediums...

Toby

PS The SW19 refers to Wimbledon, London.
--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Toby Howard    Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
Lecturer               Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom
                                                   Tel: +44 61-275-6274
toby@cs.man.ac.uk                                  Fax: +44 61-275-6236
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Herbalife ?
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:22:39 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <1a8o93INN82t@gap.caltech.edu>, 
	carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Sep23.180905.836@mala.bc.ca>, epp@mala.bc.ca (Lorne Epp) writes:
>>Anyway, there were people in the video
>>claiming that after they started using Herbalife products their
>>cancer went away, diabetes cleared up, etc.
>>
	[...]
>>It seemed to me that Herbalife was trying to create the impression
>>that their products cure diabetes and cancer, while being careful
>>not to make that claim explicitly.  Probably, this technically
>>isn't outright fraud, but it seemed pretty shady to me.
> 
> That would seem to be the case.  However, please DO bear in mind that
> spontaneous remissions of cancer DO occur, and that it's not at all uncommon
> for a type-II diabetic to get the diabetes under control via diet and exercise,
> at least for awhile.

Yes, I assumed that was probably the case with the people in the video
(unless they were lying outright).  I thought it unlikely that they
had been cured by Herbalife's glorified laxatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Epp                                               epp@mala.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Jesus and the Moneychangers (was: What did Judas betray?)
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:20:30 GMT

In article <5659@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.041948.15142@bilver.uucp> dickb@bilver.uucp (Dick Biow) writes:
>#I don't believe the money-changer incident happened. Nobody was allowed to 
>#carry a weapon, like the whips John has Jesus take with him, except for the 
>#guards.
>#Jesus never would have been allowed to approach the money-tables, any more than
>#a robber would.
>
>Maybe, but the original question was about the internal consistency of
>the Bible story.  So  *assuming* the arrival into Jerusalem and the Temple
>incident and the acrimonious face-to-face remarks about Pharisees all did
>happen, isn't it contradictory that the party that went out to arrest
>Jesus needed Judas to do the identification?

Not at all, since it is entirely possible that the people who did
the dirty work of arresting Jesus were not that high in the chain
of prestige and also hadn't met Jesus face to face.  No, the
people who knew Jesus and wanted him dead were probably very safe
somewhere awaiting his betrayal and arrest.

>Especially given the part of the story that the religious authorities
>had been thinking about a possibility for making an arrest.
>This question has only been answered by various posters by somehow inferring
>that the Bible story is not correct.  But my question was: how do people
>who assume the Bible story to be entirely correct resolve the contradiction?
>
>Incidentally,  the version John gives of the arrest doesn't involve the 
>Judas kiss. That's another contradiction.

Why is an ommission a contradiction?  Perhaps certain events were more
important to different Gospel writers.

>
>JWN


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Un-wise Quotes (sic)
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:46:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: wyrm.718023696.2

In message <1992Sep29.192106.1429@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.
uwec.edu (Robert E. McElwaine -- oh, oh) spaketh:
 
>           Modern orthodox "scientists" are still saying SIMILAR
>           things AGAINST UFO Spacecraft, Gravity Neutralization,
>           Electromagnetic Propulsion, Free-Energy Technologies,
>           Biological Transmutations, Hollow Earth Theory, Natural
>           Anti-cancer Remedies, Cold Fusion, Radionic/Psionic Devices,
>           Astrological Influences, etc., ETC..
 
Yes, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Laurel and Hardy, 
didn't they?
 
Cheers,
Rick M.
(best reached at Rick_Moen@blyth.com)

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 4 Oct 92 00:05:09 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct1.031305.14118@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>You're right.  I thought he was saying that a belief in a rabbit's foot
>was indistinguishable from religion.  That is why I was trying to show
>that it didn't fit into the definition of religion.
>
>However, doesn't a belief in a rabbit's foot bringing good luck have the
>implication that if I forget my rabbit's foot or fail to carry it with
>me today, then *bad* luck will strike me?

No, it doesn't.  A belief in the rabbit's foot bringing good luck simply
implies that if you fail to carry it, your luck won't be especially good.

>That certainly sounds ominous to me!

By the way, a belief that, for example, failing to receive extreme unction just
prior to death will condemn one to eternal punishment (or is it just a longer
stretch in purgatory) sounds pretty ominous to me.  If you don't like the
Catholic example, then I'm sure you can find a similar one in the religion of
your choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller)
Subject: Re: KOSHER? In a Pig's Eye!
Organization: AL/HRTI, Brooks AFB, TX 
	<1469000005@igc.apc.org>,<roelle.717686439@uars_mag>
	<1a8s8vINN82t@gap.caltech.edu> <1992Oct1.150051.4516@bb1t.monsanto.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:33:05 GMT

On 1 Oct 92 15:00:51 CST, tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com said:

 t> Here's my $.02.  I think that the host should have told the guest
 t> that it was an Orthodox household.  Then, the guest could say "Gee,
 t> what does that entail" and then the host could say "Well it means
 t> that we...".  

	But if you did that, you'd probably never even get to serving
the coffee.  8)

	Seriously, though, I've tried this, and with someone who knows
*nothing* it's a lot easier to keep them out of the kitchen than try to
explain *everything* (because they ask about *everything*).

-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>
"Still laughing about the guy who asked me if I was catholic 'cause I
 was wearing a yarmulke.  Ahh, Texas..."
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:15:30 EST

In article <1992Oct1.024923.13843@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> In article <1992Sep30.153222.8977@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.152426.10798@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>[...]
> My recollection: I stated that I didn't think that there was an
> objective way for science to prove the existence of the soul.  I
> asked him to let me know of a way to do this, since he was arguing
> that it could be done.  He stated that I should define what a soul
> was so that he could try.  I did.  You know the rest. 
> 
Yep.  There is no manner in which anyone can prove that the soul exists and has
any influence on the outside world.  Belief in its existence requires pure
faith.  Isn't this where it started?  

GXKambic
sd
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Totally Unrelated Drivel....
Date: 29 Sep 1992 16:02 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Sep29.161032.15089@nosc.mil>, clarkk@nosc.mil (Kevin D. Clark) writes...
> 
>    Since this quote relates so well to many of the topics which appear on
>    this newsgroup, I felt to compelled to ask: Is this a probable future for
>    us?  Is it likely that science may usher in a new Age of Faith over the
>    next thousand years?  Again curiousity may be my downfall, but I am amply
>    equipped with flame-retardant garments so let me have it....

I'm not convinced that our age is any more godless than any other.  I think 
that there is at least a little egocentrism in thinking that we are so far
more enlightened than generations, or even civilizations, past.  If there
was more worship, measured say by, records of animal sacrifice, etc., then
it may have been as much due to social pressure as to belief.  How many 
people would have the nerve to stand up in 17th Century Salem and publicly
disavow belief in a Christian God (or witches for that matter)?

And besides, who kept extensive records of how many people did *not* worship
the local deity?  It seems that there must be a natural tendency for 
history to filter out records of acts non-worship, since these are mostly
acts of omission.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:22:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.233809.24707@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.143805.20352@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>I think what we have here is often no more than an addictive personality
>>trading one addiction for another. In this case, it is a change for the
>>better. Many have changed from the above without religion, I do not think
>>that it is in any way necessary.
>
>Ah, but you're assuming that you need religion for God's assistance in
>changing.

It seems to me that you are assuming that people are unable to make changes
in themselves by themselves. 
 
>>BTW, I do not see what this has to do with the text it was in response too.
>>If one does not sin because of the carrot (heaven) and the stick (hell),
>>then there is no inherent morality. What we have is behavior modification
>>somewhat along the lines of B. F. Skinner, as I understand it.
>
>And just how do you define morality to say it doesn't exist in that
>situation?

I do not understand what you are saying. But if my guess is even close,
than your question seems to be implying that good works are indeed all
you need for an eternity in heaven. 
 
>>Rich
 
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: cutler@rtsg.mot.com (Elliot P. Cutler)
Subject: Crop Circles
Summary: Crop Circles
Keywords: Crop Circles
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: all
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:37:58 GMT

A good freind of mine lived in England during the start of the crop 
circle craze.  He reported that "most everyone knew that they were
complete hoaxes" since they would regularly appear thursday night
in time to appear on the Friday news shows.  This allowed people
to make weekend trips to the fields to see the new ones.  The farmers
were hardly upset about the phenominon since it never hurt the plants
and they would charge 5 pounds a person for the pleasure of seeing the
wonders.
						
In a recent "healing" magizine filled with more than the usual amount
of snale oil ads, I saw an article about the crop circles.  Included
was cross section micrographs of plant stalks from inside and outside
the patterns.  Reminds me of the shroud analysis, too much instrumen-
tation at too close a perspective.  The topper was the box article
"disproving" the claims of skeptics that the circles are hoaxes.
This had crystal clear thoughts like "It would be impossible for all
the circles that occurr in one night to be made by [two confessed
hoaxers names]" impying that only they were qualified to make them.

						Elliot Cutler
From: patricka@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Patrick Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: re:"Jehovah" TRIBE OF RENEGAD SPACE CANNIBALS
Keywords: Ethnic divisions,Syria,Lebanon,Egypt
Date: 26 Sep 92 21:50:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Perhaps I can be of some assistance.
 
Egypt: Eastern Hamitic stock 90%; Greek, Italian, Syro-Lebanese 10%.
 
Syria: Arab 90.3%; Kurds, Armenians, and other 9.7%.
 
Lebanon: Arab 95%, Armenian 4%, other 1%.
 
(according to the CIA World Fact Book)
 
This seems a little vague to me. I thought arabs were semites distinct
from the Mediterranean coastal semites (i.e. Syrians/Phoenecians,
Israelis/Israelites). But, regardless, perhaps we can ask an Egyptian
whether he considers himself to be an arab?
 
Love,
Xenu
 
"He maketh me to feel happy, like an oldtime movie."
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:31:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.030435.3726@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
> In article <1alcflINNk87@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.031305.14118@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>You're right.  I thought he was saying that a belief in a rabbit's foot
>>>was indistinguishable from religion.  That is why I was trying to show
>>>that it didn't fit into the definition of religion.
>>>However, doesn't a belief in a rabbit's foot bringing good luck have the
>>>implication that if I forget my rabbit's foot or fail to carry it with
>>>me today, then *bad* luck will strike me?
>>No, it doesn't.  A belief in the rabbit's foot bringing good luck simply
>>implies that if you fail to carry it, your luck won't be especially good.
>>>That certainly sounds ominous to me!
>>By the way, a belief that, for example, failing to receive extreme unction just
>>prior to death will condemn one to eternal punishment (or is it just a longer
>>stretch in purgatory) sounds pretty ominous to me.  If you don't like the
>>Catholic example, then I'm sure you can find a similar one in the religion of
>>your choice.
> 
> Carl, this is simply not true.  There is *NO* Catholic belief that
> the Sacrament of the Sick (Extreme Unction) is necessary for
> salvation. 
Not necessary but sufficient.
> A person may go straight to Heaven without this
> sacrament.  This sacrament was instituted to help the dying person
> recover first their spiritual health, and possibly their physical
> health.  However, it requires the repentance of the dying
> person if that person is seriously alienated from God.  There is
> no magic formula that in and of itself guarantee eternal
> salvation to the dying person.
Extreme Unction in its complete form (total  repentence) does guarantee
salvation.
> 
 GXKambic
sd
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Crucified for Prophecy's Sake? (was: What did Judas betray?)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:17:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep29.160944.26657@spectra.com> johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson) writes:
>>In article <739nj7k.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>
>>>Of course, an angry crowd of Jews would shout "stone him!", not
>>>"crucify him!". Surely they would not cry out for a Jewish man to be
>>>executed by the Roman enemy in a manner incompatible with Jewish law.
>>
>He may have been crucified rather than stoned to fulfill prophecy.
>Check out:
>	Psalm 34:20
>	Psalm 22:13-18

Not having my Bible handy, I assume that these verses must then say something
like,
       "The Messiah will be nailed to a cross by Romans", or perhaps
  
       "The Son of David will be crucified by the enemy of the Jews,"


It must be something like that, right?

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"