HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Irony (was: Evolutionism must be defeated!)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:14:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.125346.202636@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za
writes:
> In article <Bts2FL.E98@world.std.com>, believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco)
writes:
>> How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
>> Pagan teaching from our schools? The fight against evolutionism
>> must be an essential component of the fight for our families and
>> this country.
>> 
>> We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
>> Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
>> to our faith and therefore our very existance.
>> 
>> -- 
>>   |                     In God We Trust                            |

                         All others pay cash?

>> --+--                                                            --+--
>>   |                                                                |
>>   |                                                                |
> 
> Amen. 
> 
> "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
> 
> Yours is Christ Jesus,

Clearly the "White Christ, who weren't never no Jew." or some such.
(hey, if Lionel can quote fiction...   ..."Waiting for the Galactic Bus",
by Parke Goodwin.  and origin myth for those with a sense of humor.)

> Anthony Faull
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         "How can a young man keep his way pure?
>           By living according to your word."  - Psalm 119:9

   Some of you may remember Lionel the Tun's post in which he claimed evolution
caused aparthied?  Lionel later defended this view by saying that it was common
knowledge and referring us to a satirical work of fiction.  In the ensuing
bloodbath, several people made and supported the point that aparthied was in
fact build on a firm foundation of religion.

   Now the >> post above, which I was firmly convinced was a joke, is
wholeheatedly endorsed by a poster from (!) The University of Cape Town!
Coincidence?  I think not.  Second order practical joke?  I'm becoming
skeptical.  It's a good thing Jesus rose from the dead, otherwise he'd be
spinning in his grave.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"Sorry for the misspellings."
-Dan Ashlock
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Stooping down  (was: The difference ...)
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:10:41 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <5179@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>Re Nazism. The answer to nazism (an ideology) is argument. The answer
>to violence is force, but not necessarily so (think of Gandhi).

Well, to quote Salman Rushdie, Gandhi did what he did fully aware of his
opponent. Had he tried the same strategy with Nazis, they would've
simply shot him.
-- 
-Tero Sand
  EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi     Snail mail: Auroran Sairaala os. 6-1
  (if that doesn't work, try                    Nordenskioldinkatu 20
   cust_ts@kruuna.helsinki.fi)                  00250 Helsinki 25, Finland
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15363 alt.culture.usenet:736 talk.origins:10345
From: karna@pobox.upenn.edu (Animesh Karna)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:08:07 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

>>
>>Rocky and Bullwinkle in '92!
>>
>
>Picard/Riker in '92 -- "Make it so"     (bumper sticker)
>

Hmph!  Leonard Nimoy for President!  The Only Logical Candidate!



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:06:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug28.202620.28464@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>1) Locking people up who are HIV+ would have virtually no effect on
>   the spread of the epidemic,

Are you trying to claim that the epidemic isn't spread by people who are HIV+?

Only people who have the virus but do not yet test positive?

> people who know they are HIV+ arn't the
>   problem, its people who don't know.

Does ACT-UP advocate that everyone who is engaged in a risky life-style
get tested?  If not, are they contributing to the problem?

>2) Locking people up who are not a hazard is unethical. Unlike TB a
>   person who is HIV+ can easily avoid passing the virus onto anyone
>   else.

I agree.

"Locking people up" are your words.  I used "isolation".  The attempt
to use a single word in quotes to try to convey the idea that a person
who is HIV+ can stop the spread of the disease by not coming into
inappropriate contact with others was an error on my part.

>3) Contact tracing will not work, by the time a person comes down with
>   AIDS the people they gave it to will have already been HIV+ for
>   years.

I think you've tried to change the argument.  Are we tracing contacts
of those who have tested HIV+?  Then this argument is based on a false
premise.

>In the case of IV drug users or people who get HIV from anonymous
>   sex there is no way that it can be traced since they don't know
>   who they shared needles or had anonymous sex with.

That's certainly a problem.  Does that mean we should not try?
Contact tracing would never be of use?

>Now what would help is locking up all those people with the contagious
>mental illness called fundy-mentalism so that something can be done about
>AIDS without them fighting it at every step.... 1/2 :-)

What do you advocate doing?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.philosphy.misc
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 04:05:22 GMT


Now Derek Abott has a point.  Is the world going to hell in a handbasket,
or just me?

"Binary logic" as he puts it, still must be used when dealing with two
mutually exclusive and opposing concepts, which is what we do most of the
time.

Actually, boundries are a lot fuzzier than we think.

Big Al.  Hey, look at sand sharks.
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:48:31 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

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.

Big Al.  Head of the "Kick Big Al *OUT* society."
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15095 alt.culture.usenet:721
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Dan Tops Himself Again
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:31:16 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Aug25.101956@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.065402.19240@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>,
>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug23.101121@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
>Ashlock) writes:
>>>   When a person expresses an implausible view,
>>>   contradicting my knowledge base,
>>>   and can only defend that view by verbal obfuscation or repitition,
>>>   which are themselves an act of colossal rudeness,
>>>   why should I be polite?
>>
>> Dan, the simple reason is that politeness is part of civilization's
>> unwritten code of behaviour.
>
>   Yeah.  You can't be bothered to support or retract your views; that's
>colossally rude: once you've erased civilization in a situation, where is the
>suasion on ME to continue it for your benifit?
                                  ^^^^
                             It was for your benefit.

The language you use on the net is an act. You are comparing your acts
with my veiws. At least compare apples with apples.
>
>> Breaking that law of etiquette harms the net (and thus yourself indirectly)
>> as it puts off most high calibre people from participating in net
>> discussions.
>> (As their status would be offended by such immaturity).
>
>   Um, Derek, I don't think _you_ should be calling me on violations of
>etiquitte.  I'm merely rude.

Imagine you are in a court of law. You are the accused. You call the defendant
by your favorite expletive: s**thead.

You have just lost all your credibility with the jury.

If you don't beleive me, try it sometime....the outcome will amaze you.
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:35:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: onion.GERRY.92Aug31123506
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU

In article <1992Aug28.090116.18789@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:

   You really do seem to miss the point. Evolution fits the data,
   creationism doesn't. 

Y'all miss the point.  If god created the universe, as purported by the
loony-tunes of the world, then the evidence does support creationism,
because god could have created the world in what ever manner he chose!



--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | A man's ethical behavior should be based
Field Robotics Center,          | effectually on sympathy, education, and
Carnegie Mellon University      | social ties; no religious basis is
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | necessary.  Man would indeed be in a poor
(412) 268-3856                  | way if he had to be restrained by fear and
                                | punishment and hope of reward after death.
The opinions expressed are mine | Albert Einstein
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      |
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:59:42 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)

In article <1992Aug31.011511.1322@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>What paradoxes? What stuck?

>Paradoxes like: "This statement is false"

>Could it be that in a higher form of logic these problems need not arise?

Forms of logic that resolve this paradox have been around since Russell.
Most have been too artificial to be taken seriously.  They `resolve' the
paradox, but not by seeming to follow what we think of as logic.  The first
resolution that seems to be naively intuitive is probably the Austinian
self-referential logic described in Barwise & Etchemendy THE LIAR.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:21:15 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Aug29.052557.5385@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>In <3665@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug28.003330.4541@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>>>God playing evolution, is CREATION.
>
>>You seem to be stuck on this strange assertion.
>
>Yes, as a matter of fact I am Mr McCants.
>
>If you believe that God had a guiding hand in the development
>of life, using evolution.
>
>Then you are in agreement with Drew's basic philosophy.
>That God is responsible for creating us.

No.  Drew's basic philosophy is that everything in the Bible must be literally
true.  Were he to wake up tomorrow and find that somewhere in the Bible it said
that evolution took place, he'd suddenly be an evolutionist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:49:46 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline):
>A friend of mine answered the door one morning and she was confronted
>by a family of JWs.  As I remember, they were selling some pamphlets
>at $2 a shot. Emily, not one to be taken, started bargaining -- got
>them down to 25 cents too!

Jehovah's Witnesses don't sell pamphlets (and we're not supposed to
go to peoples' doors in large groups; that can be intimidating).
Emily must have confronted some other group.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
   "Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
 compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?"  -- Dean Engelhardt
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:33:55 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Aug27.150126.11508@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:

>The question still stands:  Is this a valid conclusion?

Yes.

>metaphysical topic was:  Does physical evidence provide a source of
>truth?

Yes. Next question.


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

Oh, hell. Do you even know what happened a half hour ago?

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:56:59 GMT


believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
>Pagan teaching from our schools? The fight against evolutionism
>must be an essential component of the fight for our families and
>this country.

>We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
>Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
>to our faith and therefore our very existance.

Well, there's the form of Christian tolerance and humility I like
to see.  How wonderfully Christlike.  Maybe you could put on some
armbands, get some spray cans, and go out and label some
evolutionist establishments.

Keith

P.S. I agree, this one is probably a joke: "believer@world.std.com"

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15224 talk.origins:10245
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:21:20 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug27.171036.12606@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>Yes I do speak English, perhaps more critically than you do.

Let's have a "vote" on this question.  But then we can't hear you speak,
we only see what you've written.  :-)

>There is a difference between intentionally doing something and doing
>something with intent.
>
>I can intentionally shoot a gun without intending to shoot you.

If you keep your eyes closed (like your mind) and fire randomly.

But if your eyes are open and I'm in the vicinity and you shoot the gun
and I am hit with the bullet, the judge and jury will definitely convict
you of assault with intent to do bodily harm.  That is, unless you can
get some psychiatrist to convince them that you are incompetent to stand
trial.  I. e., "insane".  [Can't rule out that possibility, can I?]

>I can intentionally build a tower without intending you to fall off of it.

God could intentionally create an Earth 6000 years ago that has every
appearance of being billions of years old.  And put rational men on it
to discover His physical laws.  And be so dimwitted as to not forsee
that they will be mislead?  Well, He certainly didn't "intend" that, did
he?

What he really intended was to separate out the "true believers"
who will go to heaven from the non-believers who will go to hell?

No, of course He didn't intend that.  We can't possibly know His purpose,
but it could not be that.  Anything but that.  He is so inscrutable that
our poor minds can't even think of a purpose that would be worthy of him.

Can you?

Does that purpose (if you can think of one) conflict with evolution?

Why?  Why not?
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Why are we the first?
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:15:20 -0500

In article <5967@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>, fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna) writes:
> 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?

	There is no reason to assume that humans are the first
	species to achieve intelligence,  self-awareness or technology 
	on this planet. The 'dinosaurs' had plenty of time for this.
	Maybe they caused the great extinction themselves. So much time
	has passed that artifacts may be forever unavailible. 

-- Jim Mason

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15469 talk.origins:10414
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:55:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Bts1xA.DEs@world.std.com> believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>In article <schumach.714786240@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>{The logic of man deleted}
>
>>I toss the question back at you: given the tons of evidence that the Earth
>>is old, what would evidence of a recnt origin look like? A little notice
>>attached to the Earth somewhere, "Copyright (C) 4004 BC by Yahweh. All rights
>>reserved"?
>
>Open your bible to the first page and read!

The Bible states that god created heaven and earth, but it does not state
when. Perhaps you did not understand the question. It seems clear enough
to me.
 
>It says right there that God created the heaven and earth. To state
>otherwise is to claim that God lied. The bible tells us that cursing
>the holy spirit is an unforgiveable sin!

And that same loving god <yeah, right> will then send your soul to an
eternity of excrutiating torture. This ain't love.
 
>  |                     In God We Trust                            |

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: evolution and intelligence (mollusks)
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:33:56 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Aug30.055957.28401@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:

>>Couldn't there be others, which just have not been given time to develop?

>  Sure, there could.  The most promising immediate candidates that
>present themselves are our relatives in the ape family, especially
>the great apes (chimp, gorilla, and orangutan). 

Don't overlook octopi, they are already very intelligent. They have
recently been shown to learn by observation (it was a Science
paper, but it hit the popular press as well) and it has long been
known that they modify their environments; they excavate and build
protective barriers in front of their dens. Further evolution
towards increased intelligence would probably require more social
interaction than they supposedly have, however. If I were to
speculate rabidly for a moment, I would say that they would be a
more likely candidate to develop intelligence on par with humans than 
apes since the "smart ape" niche is already filled. The "smart
underwater organism" niche is vacant.

>Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET

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"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: The creationist conspiracy (was Re: The difference )
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 15:33:52 GMT

In article <5195@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.182649.908@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> arsmith@nyx.cs.du.
du (Alan Smith) writes:
>#In article <1992Aug26.105810@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
A
>#hlock) writes:
>#>In article <1992Aug26.054127.10572@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, arsmith@nyx.c
.
>#u.edu
>#>(Alan Smith) writes:
>#>> 
>#>> Censorship: (cen-ser-ship) n. When a government removes or edits a
>#>> publication, brodcast, or other form of public adress.
>#>> 
>#>> Rudeness: (rud-nes) n. a group of actions that violate common standa
d
># of
>#>> politeness.  Often done deliberately to invoke bad feelings on the p
r
># of
>#>> the recipient.
>#>> 
>#>> --Big Al's personal dictionary.
>
>ETC.  May I propose that in this matter of choice of language, survival
>strategies for ideas and people and so on, we all have said enough to ma
e
>our viewpoints clear. 
>Back to the main issue:  exposing the creationist conspiracy to 
>take over the world starting in the U.S.A. (what was the view of the
>late Ayatollah Khomeiny on Creation Science? )

I don't thnk he talks about it much.  :~)  Maybe we should ask one of the
psychics who post here ever and anon.

The creationists are TAKING OVER?!  I'd better go hide.

Big Al.  Think I should change my smiley face?  Maybe something like this:
:*)



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic