HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood)
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Originator: keithh@sydrd14
Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 02:50:31 GMT


In article <1928@snap>, paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
> The Frequently Questioned Answers
> =================================
> 
. . .
> During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to
> test Newton's theory, and found some slight discrepancies (for
> instance, the orbit of Mercury wasn't quite right).  Albert Einstein
> proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly
> observed facts and made more predictions.  Those predictions have now
> been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the
> instruments being used.  As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory
> is the Truth.
> 
> So how can the Truth change?  Well the answer is that it hasn't.  The
> Universe is still the same as it ever was, and Newton's theory is as
> true as it ever was.  If you take a course in physics today, you will
> be taught Newton's Laws.  They can be used to make predictions, and
> those predictions are still correct.  Only if you are dealing with
> things that move close to the speed of light do you need to use
> Einstein's theories.  If you are working at ordinary speeds and use
> Einstein, you will get (almost) exactly the same answer as you would
> with Newton.  It just takes longer, because using Einstein involves
> rather more maths.

You might mention the correspondence principle here. There is a tendency
for the scientifically naive to assume that once a theory has
(explained/described) something, that it is no longer necessary for
any other theory to explain it. (They tend to use the term ``explain
away'' to describe this attitude.) For example, since Newton's
gravitation describes the orbits of Venus and outwards, it isn't
necessary for Einstein's gravitation to do so. In fact, of course
if Einstein's gravitation hadn't described Venus et al. correctly
we wouldn't even have tried it on Mercury. The correspondence principle,
generalized from quantum mechanics, says, roughly: if one theory
describes observed facts adequately under certain conditions then 
any newer theory must describe the older theory under those same
conditions.

Keith Harwood.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:28:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug28.170458.16169@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
<
<The two sides I see (since you ask) are accepting that the geological
<"evidence" pattern is the origin of modern life on earth as opposed to
<accepting that God created life on earth in its current forms.
<
<The implications are significant.  If you take the first, you reject
<  - man created in God's image (literally)
<  - humans are children of God (both old and new testaments)

One who takes the Bible literally cannot accept evolution.

One who accepts evolution cannot take the Bible literally.

I think this thread might have been shorter if you had stated this a week ago.
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: CPT violations (was: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.)
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:27:28 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Sep1.220229.19510@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes...
>In article <25914@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>|> 
>|> Once again, I think you are very confused. 
> 
>Once again, I think you are very confused if you think I'm going to 
>go into a detailed treatice about CPT when the topic I was addressing 
>was the second law of thermodynamics.

I will not respond after this post, so feel free to say what you will.
I do, however, want to point out that you failed to post the part of your
previous post where you started talking about CPT violation and the 
role it plays in arguments about the arrow of time.  I only pointed out 
that 
	(1) CPT violation has never been observed,
	(2) You are confusing CPT violation with CP violation, and
	(3) You should look it up if you are still confused.

I stand by my statements.

-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,talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:51:27 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?

Ed Hanway responds:
>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?

It isn't any different.  Which is why those creationists who've given it
any thought won't allow "appearance of age" in the equation, because it
allows evolution to continue unabated.  Their agenda is not so much
pro-creation as it is anti-evolution, due to their feelings that regardless
of whether or not it can be reconciled with Christianity, it tends to
pull people away from the fundamentalist religious fold, as it represents
a rational alternative to Biblidolatry.

Keith
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Voyager(TM) light and sound device
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:43:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Sep4.194327.6212
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <8257.427@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>, lpb@florida.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas) writes in part:
|> It is designed according to
|> the theory that the brain can be entrained to operate in a manner in
|> keeping with the input to the brain.  Theoretically, the sound can
|> sync both hemisperes into synchronization with the sound....which can
|> be adjusted, per ear, to be either in or out of phase. The flashing
|> leds seem to also entrain the brain (terrible alliteration here!) by
|> stimulating the visual cortex.
Oh really?  You have actually measured your EEG to see if these claimed
entraining is occuring?

The fact that some lab experiments have shown that flashing lights
or rhytmic noises may cause more synchronized brain wave patterns is
hardly evidence that this particular device actually accomplishes
this synchronization.  And I really have to wonder about the combined
effects of both visual and auditory stimuli, especially since there
appear to be many combinations, which are unlikely to work the same
way.

Please tell me about what your EEG showed when you used this device,
or point me to evidence that such studies have been done.  Theory
is not enough, I'd like to see evidence that the claimed effects
are actually happening.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Why are we the first?
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:44:21 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

One issue that I sometimes think about is 
Why is Mankind the only species on this planet to develop technology,
speech, and so many things that were required for the building of our
modern society.

Let's put the question in another simpler way, "Why is man the single most 
developed creature on Earth?"

Couldn't there be others, which just have not been given time to develop?
Can we interfere in such a development, in order to make it impossible?
Would we tolerate another "race" achieving similar things as ours?

Armando


 

--
===========================================================================
Armando de Oliveira Fortuna                    E-mail: fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk
Dept. of Computer Science                      Tel.: +44 61 275-6132
University of Manchester                       Fax.: +44 61 275-6204
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL                          "...It works better...
England                                             ...if you plug it in..."
============================================================================
All opinions expressed are mine only! If you think otherwise, think it over!
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15477 talk.origins:10419
From: kachun@astro.as.arizona.edu (Ka Chun Yu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 30 Aug 92 00:09:47 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <25839@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.043427.505@panix.com>, carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes...
>> 
>>  Drew, there are no Martian canals.  Never were.  They were a combination
>>of bad telescopy and wishful thinking.  There are no features on Mars
>>that resemble the "canali" of Mars.  Furthermore, even when some people
>>did accept their existence, no reputable scientist thought of them as
>>evidence of an advanced civilization on Mars.  Not that it was ruled out:
>>the overwhelming majority of scientists simply said: "There's not enough
>>evidence to prove *anything*."
>
>The way I understand the story, it was just a translation problem.  "Canali"
>in Italian is something like "rivulets."  Bogus tranlation turned little
>rivers into canals.  There never was any original observation of canals.
>

The usual translation I've heard for "canali" is "channels" which do not imply
an intelligent origin.  If you mistranslate it into "canals," then it does.  Of
course, Percival Lowell was absolutely sure he saw an intricate network of
canals not only on Mars but Venus and the moons of Jupiter too.

>-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


--
*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"    *
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15158 talk.origins:10190
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Bill Riggs _astounding_ ignorance of basic biology
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:54:54 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1288@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:

>	Point of historical fact. Just *when* was enough empirical
>data gathered to prove:
>
>	- Abiogenesis ?

Abiogenesis is not a fact (IMHO) as an alternate hypothesis extists
(panspermia).

>	- Natural Selection ?

Natural selection has been observed numerous times. See Endler's book
"Natural selection in the Wild" for a comprehensive listing of all
the documented cases of natural selection in the wild(*). The book
also describes several methods used to detect NS, possible errors
that would lead to a "false positive" when looking for NS and
possible reasons for "false negatives" when looking for NS. One of
the best books I have ever read concerning natural selection.

(*) up to 1986, when it was published. The list has grown con-
siderably since then.

Exactly _when_ it passed from theory to accepted fact would be 
hard to pin down, but it is certainly behind us. Do you even know 
what selection is? Do you realise the conditions that would have to
be met for it _not_ to occur?

>	- Speciation ?

Speciation has been observed 4 times in the last 110 years in the 
wild. It has been forced in the lab a few times (see the August 1992
issue of Evolution for a new example involving polychaete worms --
I'll try to summarize this on t.o. if I have time.)

>	- Mutation ?

Mutation has been indirectly observed via phenotypes for hundreds of
years. Now days it can be observed by RFLP analysis or DNA sequencing
(to name two techniques). Are you really questioning the existence
of _mutation_? Wake up and smell the coffee! Your level of ignorance
is towering over your competitors here on t.o., and that is really
saying something, even _Ted_ allows the fact of mutation into his
worldview. 

>	- Variations in gene pools ?

If you would have taken the time to learn just a little biology,
you would know that there are multitudes of studies documenting
this. For Christ sake, do you enjoy being so ignorant? I just
posted two huge files and all this info was in them. Why don't
you read them and learn something? Do you need to sit on someone's
lap and have it read to you?

>	It might help to think about the question before answering.

It might help you to put the _minimum_ amount of effort it would
take to learn a little bit about evolution and biology in general.

>Bill R.

I've set follow-ups to talk.origins.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:10:19 GMT

In article <Sep03.184831.68357@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, arsmith@lamar.ColoState.edu writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.110808.8796@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.023053.15726@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>[...]
>>> I suggest we take some kind of vote on what people expect out of sci.skeptic
>>> whether they like it immature or want it cleaned up.
>>I vote for Derek out of sci.skeptic. That's what I expect _out_ of sci.skeptic.
> If we kick out all the crazies, who are we gonna argue with?  Besides, if we start on *that* course, we all will get kicked out sooner or later.
> For example:  A bunch of people reading the above two lines think that that is
> a personal attack.  For that they will either flame me back or wish I would go 
> away.  To send me away they have a kill file, but if they could kick me out,
> pretty soon all the ones who dare to voice their opinions (*I* am one of the 
> timid ones) would all be kicked out and all there would be on this group are
> the lurkers.

Should'a put a smiley on.  Well, I read the phrase as written.  What do people
want out of sci.skeptic???????  Mostly vacuous nonsense it what I would like to
see removed from this newsgroup.  In reviewing the topics that come up from
time to time, guess what?  There ain't nothing new.  So I get perturbed with
continuous repetition of a lot of the same old tired assertions without proof,
and long arguments without resolution.  Maybe I should say that there is very
little new.  I don't mind questions.  I don't even mind crazies (undefined
term, BTW).  What would be nice is a few crazies who listen back when someone
talks to them.

GXKambic
standard self-removing disclaimer
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 31 Aug 92 00:19:14 GMT
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany

In article <schumach.715106891@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>In <1992Aug28.003330.4541@ccu.umanitoba.ca>vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>
>>God playing evolution, is CREATION.
>
>And Vern Nelson playing at debate, is PEDANTRY.

Oh no.  Pedants take care of their logic.  Vern Nelson does nothing even
resembling that.

-- 
thomas kettenring, 2 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Definition:  Idiot-proof  -  you are idiot-proof when you NEVER flame anybody.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15157 talk.origins:10189
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:01:26 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug25.023331.10274@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>To:  Drew Lawson 
>
>
>>>I find rocks which look like bones.  When they are put together, they
>>>don't resemble anything known to be alive.  Is it valid to conclude
>>>that this creature realy once existed as a living beingi?
>
>  You really do burlesque the scientific method, don't you?

[deleted]

>  And, it must be pointed out, my little one-sentence summary is almost
>as bad a burlesque of actual science as yours is.  We're got MUCH better
>evidence than that. 


I apologize if my phrasing was taken to oversimplify your method or
evidence.  That was not the intent.  However, I have neither the space
nor the vocabulary to state it in such a way that there will be nothing
for you to complain about.

The question still stands:  Is this a valid conclusion?

I should also note, before anyone responds to this post, that the above
quoted post by me was an example within a larger topic.  That
metaphysical topic was:  Does physical evidence provide a source of
truth?

I don't really expect an answer to that question.  It was posted as my
view of the (an) issue at the root of the disagreement between those
who accept evolutionary origin and those who reject it.


I still have a problem understanding how anyone can claim to _know_
what happened 500,000 years ago.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kamphau@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: kamphau@oktext.UUCP (Mark Kamphaus)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 15:09:00 GMT

In article <3657@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.151959.11603@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>A researcher comes to a fork in the road (figuratively speaking), and
>>has to choose between A and B, and chooses A.  If he is asked why he
>>made that choice and responds that his doctrinal learning has told him
>>that B is a dead-end, he is likely to be laughed to scorn.  That is the
>>kind of thing I want removed.

This is in response to Drew's post.  I did not see it the first time.

Drew, this is not analogous to evolution/creation.  This sounds like
the creationist side of debate.  There exists in your analogy a
"fork in the road".  The evolutionary side is asking *where* that
fork is? can you show it on a map? Can you describe it so that
others can find it?  (I'm not talking about the existance of God here,
but rather about the "Theory of Creation" )  When there are "answers" to
the inquiry, they make little or no sense.  The fork of the road
is over there and it leads west to C. Someone looks and says C is to the
east down this road, and besides there isn't a road there, there is a tree.
The creationist retorts that everyone knows that because the world is
round, you just keep walking west and you'll eventually get there.
And of course there is a road there, it is just under the tree, and
those bushes and grass and weeds have grown up on top of it and as
soon as you cut down the trees and pull the weeds and wear down the
grass and pave it,then you will be able to see the road.  That is
why there is scorn.  
(I'm also not suggesting that a road can't be constucted.  I am
trying to point out that the claim that it is in existance is
wrong.)

I hope this points out what is really being said about creationism.
I have read your post that you aren't advocating "scientific creationism",
but the fallacious arguments that you use against the evidence of
evolution are the same ones that scientific creationism advocates.
It appears to me that you should consider how a belief in God and
evolution are compatible before you continue the claims that they
aren't.  (Evolution leads to... thread).
My study has lead me to conclude that "scientific creationism" is
not scriptually sound and that it is more of a cult mind-game than
a fundamental of faith.  
[because of the appearent quarkiness of my server, I would request
e-mail as a follow-up.]


mark

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: francois@comm.mot.com (Andre Francois)
Subject: re: Cause of AIDSIn article <1992Aug29.011801.1649@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Laurence C. Foard writes:
Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:57:06 GMT

> Punishing all HIV+ people for the crimes of a few is no better than
> punishing all blacks because a black person robbed a liquor store.

Well, in some ways blacks are punished because a black person robbed a liquor store.  It is not
a legal punishment, but because the society is inherantly racist and we make associations about
people based on the media and other influences that have racial biases, indicidual blacks are 
perceived under the spector of black criminals, drug users etc.

Keywords: 

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15915 talk.origins:10860
From: bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:31:18 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.

In article <1992Sep3.120551.22010@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.180407.12729@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.125346.202636@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>>>
>>>"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
>>>Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
>>>number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will
>>>turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Tim 4:3-4
>>>
>>
>>How odd of Timothy to predict what his new religion would boil down to.
>>Some people just do not want to hear from what we evolved.  They,
>>instead, chose to believe that we were divinely created as the universe's
>>reason for being.  The myths of creation.  So Timothy was correct.
>
>Lord, forgive him for he does not know what he is saying.
>

Oh shut the f**k up Lionel! If there really is a God up there in heaven
with Jesus and the Holy Ghost sitting beside him he's welcome to have all
you po-faced fundamentalist morons prancing around him singing his praises.
If heaven's full of you and your sort I can't see how hell could possibly
be any worse!

Yours in atheism,
-- 
Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!stc!bruce
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford