HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Let's test the sevens-in-Bible phenomenon!
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:29:53 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <4729384@gloin.unh.edu> Kalter@unh.edu writes:
>Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.  The skeptics are in
>business to investicate and test any testable claims of the extraordinary.
>The prospect that off-the-shelf original-language books of the Bible
>produce sevens when run through an objective formula has got to be
>THE MOST TESTABLE CLAIM ever to come down the pike.  It do, or it don't.
>Cynicism aside, anyone who knows that there is hard evidence on an issue,
>has not examined it, knows that another has made an observation, yet
>says "I don't need to see for myself; they're just WRONG!" does not
>truly adhere to the skeptic's philosophy.  A skeptic would insist on a
>second opinion.  BRING IN THE EVIDENCE. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

I think the real question is: frankly, who gives a damn?
-- 
-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,talk.origins
From: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Subject: Absolute Certainty  (was: Logic and God)
Summary: The argument is over semantics, not substance.
Reply-To: isaak@aurora.com (Mark Isaak)
Organization: The Aurora Group
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 02:09:08 GMT

In article <26133@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>Do you have *any* doubt that blood circulates though the body?  Do you
>have any doubt that the brain is the seat of your consciousness?  

Yes, I do doubt them.  Nevertheless, I still consider it a fact that
blood circulates and that consciousness stems primarily from the brain.

You mistakenly assume that _absolute_ certainty is necessary to
establish a fact.  Certainty can never reach exactly 100%; after all,
it's always possible that you will suddenly wake up and discover that
this has all been a dream.  Still, this doesn't keep us from getting
useful work done.  The probability that blood circulates is close
enough to one that I personally don't spend time worrying about other
alternatives.

>I suppose that you will say yes, at which point this thread must
>necessarily end.  I just don't know what to say in response to that 
>attitude - except to say that it seems to require a definition of "proof"
>which is contrary to the way that working scientists view the world.

You apparently don't know how working scientists view the world.  They
also do not equate "fact" with "absolutely certain."  They will also
consider blood circulation to be a fact, but they will reconsider such
a position if it ever happens that they are presented with contrary
evidence.  That is why it is no longer a "fact" that rocks never fall
from space.  (If any working scientists disagree with this, please
correct me.)

You may be confusing scientists with mathematicians.  The latter can
deal with proofs of absolute certainty because they get to define
completely the universe their proofs exists in.  Scientists have no
such luxury.

What it all boils down to is this:  Evolution is a fact which has been
proved, but not in the sense that mathematicians use the terms.  If you
want to dispute its standing as a fact, then present some contrary
evidence.  After all, the certainty of evolution rests to a large extent
on the fact that you and thousands like you have been unable to do just
that.

-- 
Mark Isaak           "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
isaak@aurora.com      generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kalter@unh.edu
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 07:05:42 GMT

The greek text is available online; maybe we can get the parsing program and check.

(( Any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced. ))
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: my own stupidity (Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests)
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:33:17 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <1992Sep5.032213.11282@ttinews.tti.com> bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) writes:
}Before anybody eats too much crow about the argument over
}mistranslation, I'll note that I've been told, quite specifically and
}explicitly, by Creationists and other species of fundamentalist
}Christians, that translation errors in the Bible are impossible.  These
}people told me that God watches over the translators, and ensures that
}each translation is equivalent to every other translation as far as
}spiritual or theological validity is concerned.

Maybe we should take up a collection and buy one of the "evil bibles".  This
was one of the early prints of the KJV in which the printer (apparently) left
out the word "not" in one of the Ten Commandments.  It then read "Thou shalt
commit adultery."  Naturally, God approved of this and ensured the printing.
From: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Date: 7 Sep 92 08:55:25 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL.

In article <715831209.AA00000@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>Wallaby. I find this hard to believe, because the wallabies can have been
>separated for only a few dozens or perhaps a hundred generations while dingos
>(Australian wild dogs) which were separated for far longer breed very well with
>imported dogs. So do Australian Aborigines and everyone else, for that matter.
>Not with dogs, other people. You see what I'm saying :-)


Isolation is not the only requirement for evolution - there must be some
`pressure' on the population which drives change.








-- 
Geoff. Lane.                                  Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin, Manchester Computing Centre, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com (Doug Rudoff)
Subject: Re: Jehovah Nitwitnesses (was: Logic and God)
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:46:03 GMT

In article <roelle.715982832@uars_mag> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>>In article <2AA7BDDA.47C8@tct.com>,
>>chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>>
>>>According to ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline):
>>   [Stuff deleted]
>>>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.

>[Some ways to get rid of Jehovah's Witnesses deleted]

I've always thought saying, "Damn, you should have come here last
week. I just sold my soul to the Devil."


-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Doug Rudoff          Motorola, Seattle    INTERNET:rudoff@mdd.comm.mot.com
                                            USENET:uunet!mdisea!rudoff   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: cary@carina.unm.edu (Ithlial the Archer)
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 13:46:54 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <88261@netnews.upenn.edu> jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien) writes:
>PROOF IRRATIONNAL NUMBERS ARE EVIL:
>
>Decomposition of 6 in prime: 6 = 2 x 3
>and:
>2 / 3 = 0.66666666666666666666666
>i.e. infinitly evil !!!! 
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!
>
>JM.
The definition of a rational number is any number that can be expressed as the
ratio of two integers, like 2/3.  So 0.6666666666666666666666666666666666666...
is not irrational.  Sorry, it is cute though, maybe rational numbers are
evil?  :)


Ithlial

I bet the main reason the police keep people away from a plane crash 
is they don't want anybody walking in and lying down in the crash 
stuff, then, when some comes up, act like they just woke up and go, 
"What, was THAT?!"
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:48:17 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)

In article <26098@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1 (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>Or even more appropriately, evolution predicts that repeated speciation
>>will tend to increase the diversity of life on Earth.

>Why?  How do you define diversity?  The case has certainly been made that
>diversity is now much lower (defined by the variation in body plan, for
>example) than in previous epochs (see SJGould, Wonderful Life).

Gould's view is not widely accepted among paleontologists.  There was
a recent paper by Briggs and others in SCIENCE (or maybe NATURE?) that
got rather quantitative, and refuted Gould's claim.

Also, note that while repeated speciation tends to increase diversity,
mass extinction tends to decrease it, so no simple-minded checks are
possible.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:21:20 GMT

In article <KENTD.92Sep11151024@zappa.FtCollins.NCR.com> kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton) writes:
>
>No your unqualified assertion of the existence of an unobservable object/entity
>was what I personally found provocative (to the point of being offensive).

>By verifiable properties of the soul, I mean that it must have, and/or be
>claimed to have, some kind of effect on, or verifiable relationship 
>to the "owner". I'm not necessarily talking about properties in the
>_strict_ scientific sense (although that is the preferred type ;^).
>
.
.
.

>For example, most concepts of deity *are* meaningful, because the
>posited deity is typically claimed to have properties which can be
>verified or is claimed to have been the cause of observable effects in
>the material world despite the claim of a spiritual, non-material,
>manifestation.  This seems to be much different than what you are saying
>about the soul.
>
>Lee> Are you saying that all entities must have such
>Lee> properties to exist?
>
>No, I'm saying that all non-physical entities must have such properties
>before we can make any reasonably confident decision as to whether or
>not they exist. They most certainly _could_ exist (in some sense of the
.
.
.
>Then I have no way distinguish it from any other non-material entity
>which has no observable effect. I can postulate a bazillion such
>entities and all will have equal validity, proof, net effect on the
>universe, etc.
>
>This is why I can't understand how someone can expect me to accept
>such statements at face value.
>
>Kent> Statements such as yours above seriously make me wonder if one must
>Kent> completely abandon reason in order to embrace the Christian faith.
>
>Lee> It is not a prerequisite, although in some cases it certainly helps. :-)
>
>Agreed.

There is a word in the religious arena called faith.  Basically,
it means to believe usually without physical direct proof.  This
belief is said to impart knowledge.  And yes, you must have it in
some measure to be a Christian IMHO.  I suspect that this is also
true for other religions. 

>/* Kent Dalton                   * EMail: Kent.Dalton@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Coded Scientific Info in the Bible???
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:13:35 GMT

In article <BuJHAp.n8@news.larc.nasa.gov> claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
}When I was in Brazil I knew a guy which is a Medicine Doctor, has 
}lots of technical papers published in his field and, I remember, was 
}also involved in deciphering  old books in the *very original* like 
}the Bible, for instance. He argued that books like that has coded 
}information on scientific research done by scientists (alchemists??) of 
}the epoch which could not make their discoveries public for fearing  
}of being killed. 
}
}not messed up after being translated to other languages). Does anyone 
}know anything about that? Whether it is true or not? I would be glad 
}if anyone could point me out to any references.

Go read Nostradaemous.

If you open with "coded" with unspecified code, you then get to justify
anything at all.


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: my own stupidity (Re: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests)
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:09:14 GMT

In article <1016@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
> Blecch!  Gag!   I suppose this idiot also believes that Modern Greek is
> identical to Koine Greek, which is identical to Classical Greek?
> Grrk, how disgusting.

I think that was the point of what he was telling me.  Since he was
quite proud of not actually knowing any Greek, he's certainly free to
believe anything he wants to believe about its dialects, or the lack of same.

---------

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: briggs@granny.atmo.arizona.edu (William Briggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:11:23 GMT
Organization: Department of Atmospheric Physics

If you think this numerology is fascinating, wait 'till you read the proff
that Satan invented TENSOR analysis.

Rearranging the letters in TENSOR we get,

		SEN  ROT
	       (sin) (in hell).

The most common TENSOR subscript is M.  Rearranging again,

		M ONSTER.

If we take each letter to have its numerical value (ie, a=1 e=5, etc)
and, noting that TENSOR has six letters, and that T=20, we get,

		6*(20 + (20 + 5 + 14 +19 + 15 + 18)) = 666 !
		    T     T   E   N   S    O    R

Another rearrangement shows an evil person (one with sin),

		STONER
		(ie, rock thrower).

This is but a partial list.  If God has written the Bible, it is
therefore most certain that Satan hasd created Tensors.  Just ask
any mathematicain you happen to meet.

matt
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16237 talk.origins:11153
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: J. Witnesses
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:09:47 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Sep9.062322.3982@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:
>I REALLY dispise opening my door and finding a gaggle of fresh-faced JWs on
>my porch, all ready and willing to invade my home and tell me how wrong my
>beliefs are.  I've gotten to where I open the door with our dog on a leash,
>she usually lunges at them (she hates strangers) and they leave quickly. 
>Unfortunately we have had this problem on our local school board, the fundies
>have tried to pack the board several times, luckily they have been defeated.
>
>Sue
>

You seem to have a particular virulent type of JW around. 
The typical conversation that I have (in The Netherlands)
about once in two years goes as follows.

Ding dong.
(JWN opens door. two people are there. Sometimes on a rainy sunday
accompanied by a little child. They carry a black book, probably
a Bible, and a magazine (watchtower).

JW: "good morning sir, do you know [   ]/ would you be interested in [ ]/
 we would like to tell you about [ ]"

JWN: "no thank you, I'm not interested. have a good day."

JW: "well, thank you so much for informing us. Goodby."

JWN: "Goodbye"
(sound of door being closed softly).

JWN goes inside with a vague feeling of pity for the little child,
and forgets about it, never able to remember precisely what was said.
Maybe should have given it a cookie.

In extreme cases I had to repeat "I'm not interested" once.

JWN
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:49:45 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <1992Sep6.191316.22700@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>                   Also, C-14 dating is useful ONLY for organisms whose source
>of carbon is the atmosphere or other organisms whose source was the atmosphere.
>For example, if some organism is somehow able to assimilate the carbon from
>coal, then you could NOT use C-14 dating to determine the age of that organism. 
Plants growing close to busy highways would absorb a lot of CO2 from
the exhausts of passing cars. Their apparent age (and of the products 
derived from them) would be older.  Good idea for fakers of priceless
antiques ... (or C-14 certified shrouds).

A long time ago the French law said that vanillin (and other things to
enhance the taste of foodstuffs) had to be derived from plants, not 
synthetically made.  So the vanillin from a plot near a highway was 
rejected on the basis of a C-14 test.

JWN
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 06:56:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.194856.21976@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.181357.8639@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>You can make exactly the same argument in ANY field.  You can ALWAYS postulate
>>that there's something unobservable that's REALLY the guts of that field, and
>>we're only seeing its effects.
>
>In any other case, the argument would be wholly specious. In the case of
>consiousness, we know, by observations irreducible to physical science,
>that it exists, and yet we cannot observe it in a physical context.

Have you ever looked at _property dualism_? You seem to be ignoring
a vast array of potential philosophical positions.

Suppose we fitted you from birth with glasses that showed you the view
from the security camera from the 7-11 across the way, and raised you
as a blind child would be. Because you cannot obviously link the two
sets of perceptions [sight and touch], assuming you never go to the 7-11,
does that mean you are right in concluding that you straddle two different
realities, one of which you would conclude was private and nonphysical?

>mt
From: tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:24:22 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <BtzKF0.58B@well.sf.ca.us>, keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle) writes:
> 
> 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

Ah Keith, I see that you are beginning to see the true christian 
way to salvation, but you don't go far enough.  Camps Keith, camps
for these Heathens is what we need.  We'll just round 'em up and
"relocate" all of them.  Then we can have a true God fearing 
society with no more sex, alcohol or any other fun stuff.   ;-)

Thank God that I'm an Athiest!

  TED FEUERBACH   Scientific Systems Consultant  Trilogy Consulting, Inc. 
  Lake St. Louis, MO        (314) 537-6603       tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
  Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed herein are MY OWN and obviously not
  the opinions of Trilogy, Monsanto or either of my two ex-wives.           
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16009 talk.origins:10931
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:58:23 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Sep5.052345.3538@u.washington.edu>, davisson@milton.u.washington.edu (Gordon Davisson) writes...
> 
>>That's an awfully myopic view of science.  Consider the following theories:
>>
>>(1) The Earth is round.
>>(2) Atoms have nuclei.
>>[etc]
>>
>>Which of these theories would you say are not yet proven beyond any 
>>possible infinitesmal shread of a doubt?
> 
>All of them.  Empirical science has *never* absolutely proven any

Do you have *any* doubt that blood circulates though the body?  Do you
have any doubt that the brain is the seat of your consciousness?  
Do you have any doubt that penicillin cures polio?

I suppose that you will say yes, at which point this thread must
necessarily end.  I just don't know what to say in response to that 
attitude - except to say that it seems to require a definition of "proof"
which is contrary to the way that working scientists view the world.

-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: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: NOTICE: "Bigfoot/Sasquatch" Sightings Request
Date: 15 Sep 1992 23:22:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


   Thomas, there has been very little in the way of serious "investigations"
into this possible unknown animal. This is a large part of the reason why I
am interested in doing my own "search".
-- 
"A large creature about 7 1/2 to 8 foot tall. It was greyish black in color,
and as it went away from me I seen the backside of it walking as a man would
walk on it's hind legs."- Former Sheriff Oliver Potter, Vancouver, Washington
The Cryptozoology Information Network. Want on our Email mailing list? Amiga!