HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 03:34:12 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Aug14.133650.26048@ttinews.tti.com> <64216@cup.portal.com>
  <37139@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>

RA says

>It seems you have a much different definition of DNA from the vast majority
>of biologists and chemists.  Perhaps we need to come to an agreement on
>what DNA is.  Please include a brief discussion on how DNA being 'non-physical'
>is _not_ a contradiction in terms.

I have said often on this net that I have been assisting folks to remember
their past lives for over 20 years.  In doing that I have always guided the
individual to the point after the body died to see what happens after
death.  Almost all had an awareness of what happened after they died. In
fact, many cried at their own funerals.  I have also, in a few cases, had
the person move forward in time to when they first contacted their present
parents, before conception.  So this means that our DNA is constructed from
three sources,  our own past, and our biological parents. The other factor
involved in this is that past, unresolved emotions survive death and come
in with us to be embedded in our DNA.  So it is possible that some of our
biggest emotional problems could have originated in past lives..  Now the
principle involved here is that all time is simultaneous.  The lessons we
have had to learn,  hang around until we learn them. The nice thing is that
all that learning it implies is experiencing the emotion that was not
experienced when it happened.  Unfortunately, denying the existence of ones
past lives does not relieve the emotional impact of them.  A male in this
life who was a female in a past life who, lets say was raped or burned at
the stake, will probably practice heavy denial of their feminine aspects.
A female in this life who, lets say was raped or burned at the stake, will
probably not as fully express  her sexuality or psychic abilities because
of the lingering feelings that have not been identified.

The reason this is real to me is that in the breath work I do with people
the first few sessions are usually spent on resolving the birth trauma (oh
darn something else people aren t supposed to be able to remember).  And
then past life memories start coming up for many,  just in the process of
breathing.  Now to me it is pretty obvious that a person does not grab any
DNA when they drop a body.  But they do strongly effect the DNA of their
new body.  At least 1/3 of it,  if not more.

Don Showen
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: carlip@landau.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:31:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Physics, UC Davis

In article <25742@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <2A9A6FF4.533@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes...
>
>>Good question.  The ICR rejects relativity.  From their catalogue:
>> 
>>	"_The Motion of Mercury's Perihelion_,
>>	 Harold S. Slusher and Francisco Ramirez (1984, 101 pp.)
>>	 Scientific refutation of one of the key evidences of
>>	 Einstein's theory of relativity."
>> 
>>Yep, creationists really are nutty.
>
>Well, in fact, the perihelion of Mercury has undergone some legitimate 
>scientific debate in recent years.  It is difficult, though not impossible
>to carefully take into account many subtle nonrelativistic effects, such
>has high order corrections to the Sun's mass distribution.  When these
>effects are carefully taken into account, it is no longer cut-and-dry
>that GR is necessary to account for Mercury's orbit.
>
>I don't know exactly what the state of the art is on the question.  [...]

This has been largely settled in the past few years.  The dispute was
over the possible effect of the oblateness of the sun on Mercury's
perihelion, which could have contributed about 8% of the effect usually
attributed to general relativity.  Recent measurements of oscillatory
modes in the sun have drastically reduced estimates of solar oblateness
(which had always been controversial), leaving general relativity in
very good shape.  See Clifford Will, "General Relativity at 75: How
Right Was Einstein?", in Science, vol. 250, 11/9/90, p. 770.

Incidentally, the general relativistic deflection of light by the sun 
is now commonplace enough that it is considered a source of noise in a
number of astronomical observations, the true test of a successful
prediction.  If creationists want to challenge relativity, they have
a lot of work ahead of them.

Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15517 alt.culture.usenet:753
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself -- Netiquette & Politeness (Was: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...))
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:36:53 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug31.000512.29124@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
[...]
>>When you're engaged in an
>>argument with an idiot who's willing to make sweeping statements and who
>>refuses to provide even the slightest evidence to back up those statements,
>>I see nothing to be gained by politeness.
>>
>Politeness is professional. If you went to see your bank manager and he
>used Dan's language (say, because you had no evidence of being able to
>repay a requested loan), you'd say to yourself "hmmm, that guy ought to be
>fired, how unprofessional."
>
>The manager just lost a customer and respect.

You don't take the analogy far enough. If you were to tell the bank
manager

"God told me in my dream I don't have to pay my loan back"
	or
"My loan will be paid by Pleiadeans"
	or
"My dog ate the check"

I, for one, couldn't blame the manager for calling that crap, or
accusing you of lying.
-- 
-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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: twlane@nyx.cs.du.edu ()
Subject: Uri Geller's legal tactics
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 02:10:36 GMT

Several months ago I heard through the grapevine about Mr. Geller's
attempts to silence James Randi by repeatedly filing lawsuits in every 
available jurisdiction.  According to my sources this placed a significan
financial burden on Mr. Randi a legal defense fund was established to
help him fend off this assault.
Does anybody out there have any further information about this situation?


*************************************************************************
  Todd Lane

"Questions are a burden to others, answers are a prison for oneself"
                                --The Prisoner




Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15568 talk.origins:10463
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Only a Fool Fights a Pointless Battle (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:44:42 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

I have had it pointed out to me that I am far in the lead on recent
bandwith for t.o.  This was hardly my intent.  On reflection on this
thread, I see that the only purpose it is serving is lengthing an
argument.

Either I am completely unable to commmunicate the point I was trying to
make (which I thought was both simple and non-controvercial), or that
point is entirely unwelcome here.  Which of the two is fact is
unimportant.  The results are the same.

So, in an effort to stop costing the net "hundreds, if not thousands,
of dollars," I will withdraw from this debate.  I leave you with the
thought that you are missing something and have a slightly too narrow
perspective.

Of course, you will probably say the same of me.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15597 alt.alien.visitors:6269 talk.religion.newage:4160
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Tesla, Mushrooms, and other Silliness
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:10:43 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <64758@cup.portal.com> Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
>RA says 
>>Note the "could". I could be the Queen of England , too. 
>>STOP EATING MUSHROOMS !!!!
>
>Well since you brought it up.  And since communicating with Tesla and/or the
>Pleiadians seems a little to much.  How about what those mushrooms have to
>say.  Let me quote them.
[A lot of way cool silliness about cosmic mushrooms deleted]

Don - I don't remember writing the Q of E bit...sure it was me?
Also - you never did tell me what startling inventions Tesla channeled
through the little old ladies.  Or does he (as I surmised) just ramble
about how things are 'nice' on the 'other side', with maybe the odd
lost-watch-finding on the side?

	RA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
From: duncan@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (Duncan McCardle)
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 00:46:54 GMT

schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder) writes:

>In <1992Aug26.132403.23389@tcom.stc.co.uk> bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug25.105555.12152@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>>>I thought it was common knowledge. But also the characters in the book
>>>`Indecent Exposure' by Tom Sharpe (sp?) believe in segregation of the
>>>races, and actively enforce it by police effort, driven by evolutionist
>>>philosophies.

>>Hells teeth! Lionel "Looney Tunes" Tun's arguments get more absurd by the
>>minute. What the hell does "Indecent Exposure" have to with anything? The
>>book is a complete piss-take of the South African police force, and I
>>can't recall any mention of "evolutionist philosophies" anywhere in it.
>>Care to enlighten me as to where these "evolutionist philosophies" are
>>mentioned and why they are relevant?

>Wasn't apartheid in South Africa actually justified by *religious*
>(nominally Christian) doctrine?  The same kind of "Biblically based"
>racism that can still be found among some Fundamentalists in the US?

>>-- 
>>Bruce Munro.  <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!uknet!stc!bruce
>--
>--------
>Paul J. Schinder
>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
>schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov

Well I was born in SA, but thankfully my family left when I was a child, and
I've seen a couple of versions of South African history. What it boils down
to is that the original settlers were devout Dutch Calvinists and liked the
Old Testament a lot. For basically economic reasons they found a bit (in
Genesis I think) to be useful. It was about the tribe of Ham being cursed 
by God for something or other and destined to be 'hewers of wood & carriers
of water' for the other two tribes ( Shem & ??). The tribe of Ham was dark 
skinned ! I'm not sure of all this, it's from old memory and I have no bible.
However it definitely was used by the SA version of Calvinism to justify the
oppression of the black population as 'God's Will'. This was the case until
very recently.

Anyone from South Africa got better info ?

Duncan.

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15146 alt.culture.usenet:726
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself -- Netiquette & Politeness (Was: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...))
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:09:03 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

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.

Yup.  It sure is.  Of course, politeness has its disadvantages.  Reminds me of
the story of two kids who had a pie between them.  They were trying to decide
how to divide it up.  Frank wanted the whole pie for himself.  John wanted to
split it 50/50.  In enters an adult and tells them they should compromise.  So
Frank gets 3/4 of the pie and John gets 1/4.  When you're engaged in an
argument with an idiot who's willing to make sweeping statements and who
refuses to provide even the slightest evidence to back up those statements,
I see nothing to be gained by politeness.

>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.

Bullshit.

>(As their status would be offended by such immaturity).

Not likely.  What makes you think a high caliber person gives a damn about
"status"?

>You claim people are being rude to you by not being logical and by being
>obsfurscating. I (and most of society) do not regard that as being rude,
>frustrating maybe, but not rude. We see politicians behaving like that all
>the time :-) We don't say they are rude, we say they are dishonest.

Most people participating in sci.skeptic consider that sort of obfuscating to
be rude in the extreme, as I'd've thought you'd've learned by now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15217 talk.origins:10238
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:16:06 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <714642841.F00005@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
|
|... but are you sure that there are *no* species that use four
|legs for locomotion?

The only insects I know of that "go on all fours" are the mantises (you
know, like the praying mantis).  And *they* hardly 'chew the cud'!  They
are *carnivores*, and rather ferocious ones at that.

There may be a few others, but precious few.  Dan, do you remember your
father mentioning any other 'four-legged' insects?
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14991 talk.origins:10080
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God and Drew...
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:02:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Aug25.151754.9469@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:

>I don't recall refering to an "evolutionist" individual.  I refered to
>the "evolution" side of the debate.  Are you trying to say that there
>is not a group stating that life (and specific forms thereof)
>originated by evolution rather than special creation?

Life originated from non-living sources and diversified over
millions of years. All species on the face of this planet share
a common ancestor and have been modified (mostly via natural
selection) with descent. _That_ is the evolutionary point of
view. Can you present any scientific evidence against this or 
provide a scientific theory that better explains the data?

Also, can you back up your repeated assertion that "evolutionists"
take this one step further and say "... so therefore there is no
god." I haven't seen anybody on t.o. say that. I haven't seen
any evolutionary biologists say that. I (a grad student studying
evolutionary biology) don't claim that. I've never seen a text
in the field make this claim. Where are these phantom hoards of 
people arguing in this manner?

>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,

Follow-ups to t.o.

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: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Paradoxes? (was Re: Why binary logic?)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:42:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.011511.1322@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>Could it be that in a higher form of logic these problems need not arise?

I don't know.  Derek, do you intend to imply that you consider this a
possibility?
--
"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)
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (chris biow)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Transactional Analysis
Keywords: Psychology, Transactional Analysis
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:43:13 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

Somebody reposted:

>There wouldn't be room in the building for all the classes if each
>theory of therapeutic interaction were to have its own course.

One line that you often hear from psych-types is that, "All reputable
phsychotherapies [talking-at-the-patient therapies] work equally well."

Perhaps the best observation on such therapies, from naive volunteer 
counselling to the most expensive New York psychoanalysis, is, 
"All placebos work equally well." Talking-at-the-patient is then
not a science, and only the least expensive form of such
therapy should be used. Those therapies which require extensive
education in an arcane pseudo-science should be rejected out of 
hand.
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: 29 Aug 92 14:23:13 GMT

Thursday August 27 1992, Otto J. Makela writes to All:

OJM> In article <52524@dime.cs.umass.edu> michael@dime.cs.umass.edu
OJM> (Michael Kieras) writes: In article <714642841.F00005@csource.oz.au>
OJM> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>> I am no entomologist, but are you sure that there are *no* species
>> that use four legs for locomotion? Remember, the four-leg rule is
>> there to exclude almost all insects. I think you will find that
>> there are some which fit into the category as defined.

OJM>    Examples, please.  Since this is to establish the accuracy of
OJM> Leviticus 11:22, make sure the examples are of the specified types of
OJM> insects. You're making an assertion that these peculiar insects exist;
OJM> prove it.

Sorry for responding to Michael via your reply, Otto; his message must have been
eaten.

No, Michael, you're the one asserting that millions of people could eat insects
for hundreds of years, and that they would limit themselves to a few carefully
defined species using characteristics that didn't exist. Now, *that* is
implausible.

You've done nothing more than quote a passage and claim that these insects don't
exist. Surely you can see that that's no basis for an argument?

OJM> Well, at least several species of praying mantis walk on only four
OJM> legs, as the front limbs are the serrated-edge hunting tools,
OJM> unsuitable for walking.  Their raised posture with catch-limbs spread
OJM> wide give the insect its name.  I believe several types of mantis are
OJM> common in the mediterranean region.

OJM> I doubt though that this is one of the types of the insects that was
OJM> meant.

Quite possibly not, Otto. I don't know of any Jews today who eat insects based
on these laws, although I have *heard* that some oriental ones do. It's quite
possible that the precise species are now unclear.

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: le01167@portal.lasc.lockheed.com (Ron Nadel (x2025))
Subject: Re: microevolution
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. - Rye Canyon
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 23:10:37 GMT

In article <94926@bu.edu>, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes...

>INTRODUCTION
>------------
> 
>Evolution is one of the most powerful theories science has ever known.

I don't think that evolution is still considered a theory.  I believe
that the fossil record alone has established it as a fact of science.
I believe that Natural Selection is the theory.

Thanks for a great posting, although one difficult to answer due to
length.  Pehaps if this had been broken up into several _chapters_?

Ron
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Laplace' Quote
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:10:29 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 <5207@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes...
> 
>"Sire, je n'ai pas besoin de cet hypoth\`ese" if my memory is correct.
>To put this in perspective, before Laplace it *was* assumed that the Creator
>interfered with planetary motion; the stability of the Solar system was
>an unsolved problem.  Napoleon (who having been educated in a military

The stability of the solar system *is* an unsolved problem.  

-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
From: shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Worse than AIDS
Date: 27 Aug 1992 18:04:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: hijack.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug27.153654.202550@uctvax.uct.ac.za> bbbbre01@uctvax.uct.ac.za (Doon) writes:
>Don't more people die of hepatitis and TB than of AIDS?

No, at least not in the United States.  In 1988, there were 16.2K AIDS
deaths, 2K tuberculosis deaths, and 1.3K viral hepatitis deaths.  Source:
Statistical Abstract of the United States.

Ken Shirriff				shirriff@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins