HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Laplace' Quote
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:20:18 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug28.223144.25491@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes...
> 
>	Perhaps not a completely solved one, but some work _has_ been
>done in that direction via long-time simulations. The result: the
>Solar System is weakly chaotic. This does not mean that the planets
>simply bounce around, Velikovsky-style, but it does mean that the
>planets' orbit parameters are chaotic _within definite boundaries_.
>The time scale of this chaos is significant: a couple of million years
>or so if memory serves me correctly, much too long for Velikovskian
>catastrophes in historical times.

I don't think that this is an accurate statement, even though this is indeed 
how the recent results have been reported in the popular literature.
There is no such thing, so far as I understand, as chaotic motion "_within
definite boundaries_" in three dimensions.  Check any book on nonlinear
dynamics.  The KAM surfaces in a 3-d problem no longer separate volumes
of phase space.  A particle in a chaotic trajectory can wander though 
all energetically accessible elements of phase space.  That means that
once we identify the Earth's orbit as chaotic, we can never be sure that
it won't get kicked out of orbit at the expense of some other planet's
kinetic energy.

-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
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15341 talk.origins:10327
From: jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org (J. Michael Tisdel)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution and Choice (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:21:07 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <l9q5mbINNrhm@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> salem@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM (Bruce Salem[CONTRACTOR]) writes:
>vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>
>
>	I think that Creationism and its context as part of Christian
>Fundementalism and as part of Right Wing Politics is about talking
>freedom away from the rest of us. People who embrace religious and
>political conservatism, the two are often not distinguishable, want
>society reformed along the simpler lines of a theocracy based on
>trancendant authority, a dictated and unquestioned morality, and if
>that means making human origins into Special Creation and expunging
>with it any vestage of evolutionary thinking or, gasp, situation
>ethics, so be it.
>

Now, wait a minute.  You've got a mighty big bucket there!  Lumping all
conservatives into the same classification as Pat Robertson is like lumping
all liberals into the same classification as Lennin.  Please note that there
are several conservatives who are against a theocracic government.  Political
conservatives and religious fundamentalists are not necessarily the same
thing!

I, for one, consider myself a political conservative -- I'm against most
large governmental programs (the exception that most readily comes to mind
is NASA). I am in favor of a strong military. I disagree with the idea of
"legislation from the bench" and the pro-active court.  I am *adamently*
opposed to prayer in schools and to the teaching of the thinly-veiled-
religion-called-Creationism in schools.

Most conservatives I know fall into this bucket.  Now, I will admit that
there is a close association of conservatives and fundamentalists, but
they are definitely *not* one in the same.

[soapbox dismount]

>	As an asside, having lumped religious and political conservatism
>together let me take note of the religious affiliation of the President
>and Vice Presidential candidates. Clinton and Gore are both southerners
>who are Southern Baptists. Bush and Quyle are members of the Methodist
>and Presbyterian chruches. I can't recall which is which. The religious
>affiliation of the top candidates and their Party's platform are entirely
>at odds. Wasn't Carter also a Baptist? Thank God religion is not all that
>important to the candidates. One of my favorite bumper stickers reads:
>
>	"Thank God I'm an Atheist!"
>
 I like it! I like it! 8)


-- 
-----------------------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\---------------------------
J. Michael Tisdel                   \\\\\\\\\\\\\ jtisdel@digi.lonestar.org
DSC Communications Corporation       \\\\\\\\\\\\\   ...!uunet!digi!jtisdel
1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075  \\\\\\\\\\\\\        jmtisdel@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:27:00 GMT

[meaningless drivel deleted]

The cause of the Big-Bang 15 billion years ago is unknown.  Its cause
can not be determined using the scientific method because the
hypothesis can not be tested (since we don't know what was before the
Bib-Bang, as if that's even a meaningful concept...)  Anyway, it might
not be too far out to claim that god was the cause of the Big-Bang
(but then what was the cause that created god?), and that since the
Big-Bang, evolution (atronomical, biological, etc) has been the
driving force in the universe.

Voila, god and evolution... no problem.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Why has government been instituted at all?
Field Robotics Center,          | Because the passions of man will not con-
Carnegie Mellon University      | form to the dictates of reason and justice
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | without constraint.  Alexander Hamilton
(412) 268-3856                  | 
                                | 
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.med
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: "Gay bowel syndrome"
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:31:11 GMT

In article <7197@charon.cwi.nl> jrk@sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway) writes:
>In <92243.174004BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA writes:
>>"gay bowel syndrome" (a witch's brew of
>>diseases of the lower bowel which should have been wiped out centuries
>>ago with proper sewage facilities, and personal hygiene)
>
>It's been a while since I looked at the literature on diseases of the
>lower bowel, so perhaps I've missed something, but I've never heard of
>"gay bowel syndrome".  Can anyone provide references for the concept and
>the above claims about it?

There is no such thing as "gay bowel syndrome" except in the mind of
a few homophobic assholes.

Infection by _Entamoeba histolytica_ and strains of Giardia are endemic
in certain countries, and in certain groups, and in many of these
communities, these have sometimes become commensal organisms; i.e., ones that
do not cause active disease.  Among _some_ sexually active gay men,
indolent or active infections by one or both of these were frequently
found, especially prior to the widespread adoption of safer sex techniques.
However, there was never a syndrome which was exclusive to gay individuals.

Creeps who propagate such vile nonsense could well be served by a
real-life lesson in how easy it is to catch such a parasitical infection
from housemates, family members or other not-so-intimates, and then be
left to stew in their own juices, as it were.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15399 talk.origins:10376
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
Date: 29 Aug 92 14:29:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug28.175514.16858@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <BtoGoB.61L@well.sf.ca.us> keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
>
>>Drew therefore seems to be painting this picture that:
>>
>>	Lack of young-Earth, Lack of Flood, Lack of Adam & Eve
>>
>>equals:
>>
>>	No God.
>>
>>Drew, is that what you are trying to say?
>
>Are you interested in what I am trying to say or what I believe?
>
>What I was trying to say was that the argument, "We explained it
>without God, so God had no part in the origin of the world" is a
>logical falacy.  

More than that, it is a bit confused. Evolution is not a study
of "origins". It would be more consistant to say "We explained it
without God, so God has no part in the operation of the world".
Evolution and creation are not answers to the same question, and
the -evolution vs creation- debate is (IMHO) stupid.

>             I have had it pointed out to me by several people that
>this view (in quotes) is a rarity in the scientific community.  I am
>glad to hear it, though unconvinced.

What is it that you want to hear?
 
>My personal view?
>  No Adam & Eve ==> where did people come from?

Personally, I haven't a clue. 

>  Evolution? ==> We are slime with a survival advantage.

Not above using loaded language are we? At least you (unlike creationists
on a local BBS) do not repeatedly claim that evolution says we descended
from the apes.

>
>  If we are the survivable subset of random genetic variations, how are
>  we created in God's image?

Actually, I have problems with religions assertion that while we were
created in the image of an omni-everything all-loving god, we are slime.
What does it mean to be created in gods image? Is that the same a looking
like god?
 
>None of it is scientific.  None of it needs to be explained or refuted.
>It's just my view.

Just my views too, I have no plans to defend them to the death.
 
>Those who disagree needn't worry.  If they are right, nothing done by
>people in this life matters afterward.

Did not religion teach in the middle ages that nothing in life mattered,
it was just preparation for the afterlife? I rather tend to think that
what you do in this life would have to -define- who you would be in an
afterlife, and since it could not be re-done (by christian teachings)
it had better be done right the first time.
 
>-- 
>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:35:00 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Aug28.075924.11599@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
#
#Isn't it restrictive? Isn't it THE reason why we are stuck with certain
#paradoxes and make no further progress?
#

What paradoxes? What stuck?  Get thee to a library.

JWN
From: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 2 Sep 92 07:13:44 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.


Oh dear, Let's just cut to the chase and start the argument about in what
language the biblical stories were first wrtten down in and by whom?

-- 
Geoff. Lane.                                  Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin, Manchester Computing Centre, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15845 alt.culture.usenet:777
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Dans Tops McEnroe Superbrat Status (Re: Derek advocates quality. cough. choke.)
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:53:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: blaze.1992Sep3.165313.2319
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Sep3.023053.15726@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>> I have no problem with what you do in private. However, is this the way you
>>> would behave if you were televised on the news? Or reported in the
>>newspapers?
>>> Or before a jury in a court? Or questioning a speaker at a conference?
>>   Maybe.  The answer is context dependent.  Have you been following the US
>>elections?
>When did Clinton or Bush say s**thead? Would many people vote if they did?

_Have_ you been following the US elections?  You're in Australia, you know.  I
don't expect US election information would be as widely reported as in the US.

Derek, is this another rhetorical question or have you actually gone through
campaign speeches and not found any epithets?  I suspect it is the former.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: bchugg@leland.Stanford.EDU (Barron Deland Chugg)
Subject: Life Spring...Request for References
Keywords: lifespring
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 17:52:39 GMT

A good friend of mine has just taken the Life Spring seminar.  While
I hope he finds nothing but happiness in it, I am innately nervous
about these groups (what can I say, I'm a child of the cult infested
seventies).  I would greatly appreciate any references to this
organization that I can get.

Please respond via E-Mail if possible.

Barron Chugg
Physics Grad Student
Stanford University

bchugg@leland.stanford.edu
 



Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15781 talk.origins:10706
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 2 Sep 92 07:48:39 GMT
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI

In article <934@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> Data structures are at the very core of our existance.

Donut say such things, or you will be punished!  You will be sensed and
erased, no matter how magnetic your memory!

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolution does not assume there is no God.
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:51:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug28.174535.16752@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
<
<I'm just trying to suggest that people be a little more open minded and
<slower to condemn another's position as foolish.

Sorry, this is a SCI newsgroup.  Someone who accepts the Bible literally
and rejects evolution (and the scientific method with it) is certain to
be considered foolish in this newsgroup.  [In my opinion of course.]
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:56:09 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <3628@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.151922.5348@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>
>>You are expecting God to set up the system
>>such that you are unable to make a mistake.
>                   ^^^^^^
>Now really - the use of "unable to make a mistake" makes this a very
>silly statement.  Do you really think that a scientist has this
>expectation?  Have you heard any scientists claim infallibility recently?

Within the posting to which that was a response, it is not so "silly."
Don't pull statements out of context and make them look to be universal
when they were not made that way.



>>What if they were created for another
>>purpose entirely, one which people (in general) have yet to discover?
>
>Who claims to have discovered "why" the universe was created?
>Is this claim a "scientific" one?

The "they" in the post refered to the items in the fossil record and
the radiometric dating.  The evolutionary community claims that the
"why" is that these creatures existed millions of years ago.  Yes,
someone does claim to know why, and they also claim to be scientific.

>>No, I do not know that purpose, that doesn't tell me that there is
>>none.
>
>What DOES tell you that there is one?  Is it "intuitively obvious"?
>Is it "revealed truth"?

It is a personal suspicion, consistent with what I know to be true.
But that suspicion is not proven or disproven.


>A statement of personal faith should not be ridiculed.  It is quite
>courageous of you to post it.  But, how can I trust your personal
>statement that the theory of evolution is a mistake, when all of
>the scientific evidence indicates the contrary?

You cannot trust my statement further than you can trust Darwin's
statement.  They are both places to begin your own personal
investigation.  You seem to be impressed by the weight of one side.
I'm not certain you have examined the other side as closely -- which is
your choice, of course.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:57:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <1992Aug31.125311.12422@lonex.rl.af.mil> jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes:
>>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.
>>
>Unlucky example.  Something like half of all AIDS patients have TB.
>(Just a comment.  I have no position on this issue.)

HIV+ people have 5 to 10 years before they come down with AIDS.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:51:06 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Aug22.214031.25036@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>
>: "It is as useless to argue with those that have renounced the use
>: and authority of reason as to administer medication to the dead"
>: -Thomas Paine.
>
>But for some reason we keep doing it.  Sort of reminds me of golf.

Actually, Paine understated things.  After all, injecting adrenaline into a
stopped heart has been known to aid in resuscitating someone who's been
clinically dead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Myth of the bumblebee (was: Re: Logic and God....)
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:06:30 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug28.182120.11413@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
| a bumblebee is aerodynamically unstable.  Now, if you tell someone who
|knows nothing about aerodynamics that something is aerodynamically unstable,
|and give him a brief description of what "aerodynamically unstable" means,he's
|likely to equate "aerodynamically unstable" with "incapable of flight," which
|seems to be the source of this myth.  However, "aerodynamically unstable" does
|NOT imply "incapable of flight."

As a matter of fact the F-16 is aerodynamically unstable, and so, in all
probability, is the new F-22.  This was a deliberate design decision in
these advanced fighters, not a mistake.  So not only can aerodynamically
unstable things fly (with the proper control systems), but there are certain
advantages to it.
|
|A good analogy would be if I were to tell you that a human being standing is
|unstable (which is true) and you were to conclude from that that it's
|impossible for a human being to stand (which is false).

It *does* mean that it is normally impossible for an *unconscious* person
to stand though.
|
|No, the mathematics didn't change.

At least not that *I* have ever heard (not over this matter anyway).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:06:04 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug25.202739.12738@lsil.com> gascan@dcst16.dc writes:
|In article 12915@city.cs, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|
|... the aspect of science that Creationists have the most trouble with is the 
|uncertainty.  They are so wrapped up in Revealed Truth that they can't
|conceive of an attitude (the scientific one) which would gladly trash all
|it's most cherished truisms and happily accept new ones at the drop of a hat,
|IF the old ways were positively proved false.

While I agree with the basic point you are trying to make (that Creationists
are scared of uncertainty), I think a small dose of reality is called for.

Scientists are human beings, with egos, and insecurities, and all of the other
basic human reactions.  So, in reality, a cherished theory is likely to be
a tad bit harder to unseat than some other one.  Some scientific professionals
may even let their insecurities rule them almost as much as the Creationists
do.

Luckily, the scientific approach is patient, and wins out in the long run.
In fact that is why it was desiged the way it was, to eventually put the
evidence in the driver's seat.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com