HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:29:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.news-media
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug24.211612.8418@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>How about gravity?  We can't see that with a microscope.  Pretty easy
>to prove it's existence though.  All you have to do is measure it's 
>effects on it's environment.  Same could be said for atoms before we
>could see them.  Well-documented (I don't have the reference...) proof
>that gravity exists.  Say what you will about the theory of evolution,
>but please don't say it is a verifiable fact.

But it is a verifiable theory if not a fact. The theory of
evolution, just because it is a theory it can be tested many ways
and therefore proven wrong. Since evolutionism has not been proven
wrong it therefore is right. So, you might not like this but the
theory of evolution is verifiabl....

Pim van Meurs 
>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 


-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism.d
From: sleator@CS.CMU.EDU (Daniel Sleator)
Subject: Re: Creationist presence in this newsgroup
Originator: sleator@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<JMC.92Aug24225757@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:49:16 GMT

I guess I was really in a belligerent mood when I made my last post.
I've gotten a flood of mail from Elvis fans demanding that I apologize
for equating people who believe that Elvis is still alive with
creationists.  It was a bad analogy.  I hearby extend my heartfelt
apology to Elvis lovers.

John McCarthy wrote:

> Bah.  Only a tiny fraction of the posts mentioned disagree with
> evolution.  Can we be sure that D. Sleator doesn't have any peculiar
> belief that most of us disagree with - such as that everyone wants
> to be called Bud?

My past is returning to haunt me!  But John, you haven't got the story
quite right. (I know, you expressed it as a hypothetical, but I want
to set the record straight anyway!)  I never thought that everybody
wants to be called Bud.  I just announced to the world one day that
_I_ wanted to be called Bud.  Astonishing, you followed my lead and
decided that _you_ wanted to be called Bud too!  Then Rod Brooks
modified the finger program so that everybody's first name was shown
as Bud: Bud Knuth, Bud Brooks, Bud McCarty, Bud Liang, Bud Sleator,
Bud Moravec....  Perhaps you thought that _I_ was the one who modified
the finger program.....

In any event, there's not much you can conclude from secret beliefs
that I harbor -- since you don't know what they are.  But the more you
know about a person, the better you can evaluate what they say.  The
self-delusion and ignorance required to deny evolution is, it seems to
me, useful to keep in mind while reading these posts.

Chip seems worried that I'm attempting to censor him -- they way those
nasty left-wing university administrators have done in the past to
people with whom they didn't agree.  Don't worry Chip, even from the
exultant position of tenured associate professor, I don't have the
power to keep you quiet.  Flame on.

                        Daniel "Bud" Sleator
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1073 alt.activism:15623 alt.activism.d:2958
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example (evolution)
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:42:13 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <1992Aug24.202953.2120@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) writes:
> In article <SLEATOR.92Aug23153500@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU> news@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System) writes:

>>[By the way, the fact of evolution has been established with as much
>>scientific evidence as the fact that the earth orbits the sun.]

> have abandoned it!  A theory (opinion, wild ranting) is evaluted and
> used or rejected by a methodical investigation of the evidence.  Your
> lamebrained assertion about the FACT of evolution clearly shows a lack
> of understanding of this basic principle.
>  
> Evolution is NOT a proven fact, along with creation, because it is
> not a reproduceable experiment, which is a major part of accepted
> methods of callng something a fact.  You must use a forensic
> approach to evidence and see how well it supports the theory.  In that
> area, evolution has shown itself to be woefully lacking.  In spite of
> this, the philosophical transition is one that rebellious mankind
> can't deal with, so they continue to cling to this discredited theory.

	What the hell is a fact?  Can one PROVE the existence of atoms, of
relativity, of ourselves?  
	What type of reproducible evidence are you looking for?  
	I assume you mean evolution is a discredited theory, and your basis
humanity's "clinging to it" is our "rebelliousness" and leads to our 
failure to accept something that makes no sense.
 


> tcanham@jpl.nasa.gov


=======================================================================
Brian Harmon           "...God sets us nothing but riddles.."
Miami University	      -Dostoyevski's _The Brothers Karamazov_
Oxford, Ohio 45056  		
(513) 529-5417	      "The absurd is all too necessary on earth.  
 yeech! ack!		  The world stands on absurdities.."
  ungh!				-Fyodor Dostoyevski
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
From: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:05:35 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <21360@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> bblumenf@ems.cdc.com writes:
)
)I'm sorry, but I can't see why the Laws of Thermodynamics (i.e., 
)entropy) should apply to biology.

It should be VERY important to biology, because everything as made upon atoms.
And as atoms, they must hinge upon Physics.

-Lee.

Show me a quark, and I'll show you creation.

-- 
IREALLYHATEBORDERSBECAUSETHEYMAKEEVERYTHINGLOOKMESSYANDCLUTTERED
(:                       Lee Jorgensen                        :)
(:            Internet: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu             :)
DERETTULCDNAYSSEMKOOLGNIHTYREVEEKAMYEHTESUACEBSREDROBETAHYLLAERI
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1022 alt.rush-limbaugh:3986 alt.activism.d:2912
From: ssh@vnet.ibm.com (Stephen S. Hultquist)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
            <SLEATOR.92Aug24092613@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU>
            <1992Aug24.211221.4008@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
            <1992Aug25.160114.12277@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
            <1992Aug25.223154.1867@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
            <1992Aug26.120101@cozy.Prime.COM>
            <1992Aug26.190115.15019@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
Distribution: all
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 13:48:17 -0700

>>>>> On 26 Aug 92 19:01:15 GMT, tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) said:
>>tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) writes:
>>
>> This is the root of the issue.  A person who rules out supernaturalistic
>> origins must settle for evolution, because there is no other conceivable
>> naturalistic solution.  Even when evolution violates fundamental
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> naturalistic, verifiable laws such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> (i.e. closed systems tend to move toward disorder, or randomness, or
>> unusable forms of energy, depending on application), it still must be
>> accepted because the only alternative is a supernaturalistic
>> explanantion, no matter its scope.  The profound transition from
>> evolution to creation is not scientific, but _philosophical_.
>
>Thank you for making your intellectual bankruptcy clear beyond
>any possible misunderstanding.
>
>The Earth is not a closed system.  It has a thermonuclear fusion only
>a few light-minutes away constantly spewing energy onto one side, and it
>radiates toward a blackbody absorber (the universe) on the other side.
>
>Really, if you want to disguise your rampant fundie-ism, you should
>make sure you never use this argument.
>

Tim> Give me a little credit....  The conditions that supposedly produce evolutionary
Tim> change are supposedly based in universal principles, and Dr. Who and others aside,
Tim> I think the universe is a closed system.  To allow the part of evolution which
Tim> hypothesizes a move from less complex structures to more complex, you also must
Tim> allow a massive local cessation of entropy.

Reminds me of a quote I can't attribute: "The probability of this universe
evolving out of chaos is approximately the same as that of a tornado tearing
through a junk yard producing a Boeing 747."
--
Steve Hultquist                          Open systems and networking specialist
My, that back range looks great with snow!                         ISSC Boulder
    ...opinions independent of my employer's official opinion, of course...
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:54:24 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

> If you will notice, I said "Evolution, like creation, is not a verifiable
> fact."  I simply took exception with a dogmatic statement about the FACT
> of evolution, something you cannot do with either, and calling people
> disagreeing "ignorant creationists."

Uh-oh. Does anyone else hear the phrase "liberal bias in the sciences"
roaring down the tunnel?

John
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:38:21 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Chip, I agree with you that Heritage Foundation and others usually
are described as "far-right" or something else to imply extremism,
since I've seen stats on this.  But I do think they tend to put
something that indicates mild liberalism for left sources.
Something like "center-left" for Brookings.  I've never seen credible
conservative media critics argue otherwise, anyhow.

By the way, I think you've misunderstood the "poll of the experts."
The reporters aren't claiming they talked to other economists beyond
the handful quoted in the story.  They are summing up the responses of
the three or four economists that ARE mentioned.  So your critique
of their stories might be valid, but it has to be a critique based
upon sample size rather than hidden sources.  At least, this is so
in my experience -- the three or four mentioned are the only experts
contacted in most cases.  No extra leftist economists behind the curtain...
Nobody at all behind the curtain.  Of course, their stories sometimes try
to give the impression that what they are reporting is the consensus,
and here I think your criticism could be valid -- two or three sources
doesn't make a consensus, but at least readers can evaluate the sources
to see if they want to trust them.
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1082 alt.activism:15635 alt.activism.d:2966
From: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: media bias
Date: 30 Aug 92 20:27:47 EST
Reply-To: "eric walker" <eric.walker@channel1.com>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

SV>If PRO-LIFE is such a fundamental position, then why are there so many
SV>pro-lifers who support capital punishment?

     There are pro-choice people who oppose the death penalty, too.  It
     works both ways.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Bush-Quayle 92: No Gays, No Blacks, and No Poor People
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: sleator@CS.CMU.EDU (Daniel Sleator)
Subject: The myth of a liberal media
Originator: sleator@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:44:58 GMT

[I posted a slight variant of the message below on alt.news-media a few
months ago.  Since the subject as come up again, with a lot of new
people, I thought I'd post it again.]

A number of recent posts here indicate that a lot of people seem to
think that the mainstream media (such as the NY Times, the Washington
Post, the LA Times, Time, Newsweek and the networks) exhibit a strong
liberal bias.

I'm a liberal.  I read a number of left-leaning magazines, such as The
Nation, the Progressive, Sierra, Technology Review, and The Washington
Monthly.  I also read a number of mainstream publications, such as the
NY Times and Newsweek.  It's just plain naive to label these
"liberal".  On most of the important issues of the day, these
mainstream publications clearly indicate views exactly opposite to
those of the liberals.

I'll illustrate this below with a few examples from my own experience.
I can't prove my claim here.  The closest thing to a proof might be
the results of numerous statistical studies, many of which are
described in the book "Unreliable Sources" by Lee and Solomon, and in
the publication "EXTRA!", published by FAIR.  (Indeed there are other
publications that come to conclusions opposite to that of FAIR, such
as AIM, Center for Media & Public Affairs, the Heritage foundation,
and several others.  These are funded by numerous conservative
foundations, and are constructed to serve political purposes, and the
studies themselves are flawed.  See EXTRA! for June 1992.)

In any event, without relying on any studies, I came to the same
conclusions myself.  The NY Time and Newsweek were strongly pro Gulf
war, while my liberal publications (and almost half of the senate)
were against it.  The NY Times, Newsweek, etc were voluntarily acting
as the propaganda arm of the defense department during the war.
There's been a similar pro-administration bent on most recent US
foreign policy activity: Panama, Granada, Nicaragua, etc.  All this
time my liberal publications were screaming bloody murder about these
actions.

There's a similar story with coverage of the environment.  A recent NY
Times headline read "US moves to protect spotted owl".  The content of
the story was that the administration had decided to *reduce* the
amount of protected virgin forest by a factor of two.  In the NY Times
summary of the Rio Summit, no emphasis was given to the most important
aspect of the summit -- Bush's obfuscation.

The myth of being liberal is actually very useful to these
publications.  Readers who think the publication is liberal, will
recalibrate what they read there in an attempt to "undo" the bias to
find the "truth".  This serves to increase the effect of the bias.

Good Day.  And read critically.

                                Danny
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Odd headline non-followup
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:17:57 GMT

In <26AUG199208083738@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:

>A front page headline in Tuesday's NY Times says

>  Hurricane Rips Through Florida and Heads into Gulf
>   At Least 8 Killed -- Houses Left in Splinters

>I searched the story in vain for any further reference to the
>deaths. I've never before seen something stated as a fact
>like this in a headline and not dealt with in the story itself.
>This seems to be an interesting case of an editor getting
>carried away, possibly anticipating a story he knew would
>be under the headline in the late edition but that wasn't quite
>ready for the early edition.

Or it could be a copy-editor writing a headline for a story that was
later chopped (badly, too, I would think) as it was being laid out on
the page.

Best headlines I've seen recently: The Globe and Mail (Canada's
National Newspaper), "Brain size determined by sex"....gee, no wonder
I'm so smart! Its all the sex I'm having! ...maybe by *gender*
perhaps?

Michael
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1056 alt.activism:15566 talk.politics.misc:42428
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: re: Gardner on Evolution
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:40:12 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

>>
> 
> Give me a little credit....  The conditions that supposedly produce evolutionary
> change are supposedly based in universal principles, and Dr. Who and others aside,
> I think the universe is a closed system.  To allow the part of evolution which 
> hypothesizes a move from less complex structures to more complex, you also must
> allow a massive local cessation of entropy.

	There is a decrease in entropy in living systems while the net entropy
of the universe still increases.  The universe is a closed system , but the
earth and living systems are not.  The massive influx of energy from the sun
allows living systems to increase their complexity and maintain an ordered
state for a finite period of time (until they die:( . 
	By the same logic used to discredit evolution, life would be
impossible, according to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

	....for that matter, you wouldn't be able to make a hot cup of tea
either.....


=======================================================================
Brian Harmon           "...God sets us nothing but riddles.."
Miami University	      -Dostoyevski's _The Brothers Karamazov_
Oxford, Ohio 45056  		
(513) 529-2063	      "The absurd is all too necessary on earth.  
 yeech! ack!		  The world stands on absurdities.."
  ungh!				-Fyodor Dostoyevski
--------------bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu--------------------------

> ---------------
> "They always told me I would be a rocket scientist"
> tcanham@jpl.nasa.gov
From: smyers@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (steven myers)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:47:55 GMT
Subject: Re: The myth of a liberal media
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Newsgroups: alt.news-media

/ hpdmd48:alt.news-media / sleator@CS.CMU.EDU (Daniel Sleator) /  2:44 pm  Aug 23, 1992 /

There's a similar story with coverage of the environment.  A recent NY
Times headline read "US moves to protect spotted owl".  The content of
the story was that the administration had decided to *reduce* the
amount of protected virgin forest by a factor of two.  In the NY Times
summary of the Rio Summit, no emphasis was given to the most important
aspect of the summit -- Bush's obfuscation.


Good Day.  And read critically.

                                Danny
----------

	I don't know whether I can be classified "conservative" or not. Bush
has had some problems with less action than I would like, but ANYONE but
Clinton.  This is neither here nor there, but I did get a chuckle our of 
your implication that the spotted owl issue is a liberal issue.  Living in
Idaho, one of the states affected by the proposal of closing major tracts
of forestland to logging just because a handful of endangered owls were found
there.  It seems that liberals have some great ideas, but just don't look at
the long range effects that implementing them will have.  Literally hundreds 
of northwest jobs hinge on the logging industry.  I don't want the owls to 
die out any more than you do, but in a part of the country where jobs are a 
real issue, there has to be some comprimise with the reality of earning a 
living.  Idaho has thousands of acres of 'wilderness land,' land which can
neither be used for logging, or any other pursuit involving motor vehicles.
This sounds terribly enchanting, having areas of untouched 'virgin' wilder-
ness in which to backpack, etc. but in reality, the land just doesn't get
used for anything at all.  
	In short, the spotted owl proposals aren't ones that should be dubbed
'liberal,' but just plain 'silly.'  The ecology bandwagon is too crowded
already, without every 'treehugger' group of granola children making an
issue of every little bird, with the real intent of keeping some of someone
elses backyard clean and beautiful, with no thought for what it will do
to those that have to earn a living.  I guess that I'm just saying that WE
as a race have a right to survive too.  I'm not suggesting the old survival
of the fittest rot, but I am making a plea for some common sense in politics/
policymaking.


  /\			With Love,
 /||\			With respect,
/ \/ \			Steve.
-------
  ||
From: bblumenf@ems.cdc.com (Robert Blumenfeld)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: re: Gardner on Evolution
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:16:44 GMT
Reply-To: bblumenf@ems.cdc.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <1992Aug27.154638.12356@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
|> In article <21360@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, bblumenf@ems.cdc.com (Robert Blumenfeld) writes:
|> > 
|> > I'm sorry, but I can't see why the Laws of Thermodynamics (i.e., 
|> > entropy) should apply to biology.
|> > 
|> > -- Bob
|> 
|> 	Simple.  Living systems are all subject to the laws of physics,
|> including thermodynamics.  Therefore, the laws of thermodynamics are very
|> important in understanding biology.

Go on.  How do the Laws of Thermodynamics (not the thermodynamics
themselves, but the Laws governing them) apply to biology?  That is,
how can I apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to understand biology?

-- Bob
 
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1050 alt.activism:15541 alt.activism.d:2941
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:37:02 GMT

Chad R. Berthelson writes
> Al Gore was voted as 3rd best senator (behind Ted Kennedy and
> Barney Frank) by one group of individuals (in California..)

I'm not surprised to hear that a group of individuals in California that is so  
ill informed that it believes that Barney Frank is a Senator would consider Al  
Gore the third best.  On the other hand, I would not consider that exactly an  
endorsement of Al Gore.

	Carl Edman