HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:40:52 GMT

bourd@jellyfish.cps.msu.edu (Robert Bourdeau) writes:
>However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indi-
>cating a young moon.

>    Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans.  Taking
>the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic
>dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several  thousand
>years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists.
>This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to
>the belief in a young earth.

	Young earth theory has been sought far to be used against 
	evolution. I can say, BIBLE DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUNG EARTH 
	THEORY. The author denies the effect of atmosphere or that
	the fall of dust can have changed a lot during millenniums.

>the  finest  graduated steps. He who rejects these views  on  the
>nature  of  the geological record, will rightly reject  my  whole
>theory."  Now,  130 years and billions of fossils later,  we  can
>rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of  one
>"connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest gradu-
>ated steps." Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one
>transitional  form  has  been found. All known  species  show  up
>abruptly  in the fossil record, without intermediate forms,  thus
>contributing  to the fact of special creation. Let's take a  look

	Correct, with loose wrists. 

>Is  it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields  long,
>75  feet  wide,  and  45 feet tall. It had  a  cubic  footage  of
>1,518,750.  There would have been plenty of room on the  Ark  for
>the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the
>enormous  size  of Tyrannosaurus or  "Brontosaurus.")  Also,  the
>Bible  states  that Noah was to take two of every kind  onto  the
>Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but  much
>smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.

	Just kidding: Perhaps the two dinosaurs were immature  
	(and yet small) ?

>30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal  overflows
>would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.

	Bullshit. Nile can be 30,000 years old, but this has nothing
	to do with Bible account. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14633 talk.origins:9731
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Jim thinks repetition is proof?
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:00:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: IASTATE.1992Aug19.120031
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University


   Jim Loucks, exhibiting typical creationist intellectual dishonesty, is
repeating his assertion that God is not trying to decieve us with the old
appearing earth.  The dishonesty lies in not supporting this assertion with any
form of reasoning whatsoever.  The deception isn't really deception because his
almightyness Jim Loucks SAYS it isn't.

In his own words:
In article <74uq03T562o200@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim
Loucks) writes:
>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>  For trying to confound us He sure managed to get the evidence to fall in a
>>very consistent pattern. 
> 
> I think this is where you go wrong, in my opinion. God is not trying
> to confound us.

   Then why did he do such a good job of it?  What other motive is there?

> 
>> If God's intention was to confuse us wouldn't he have
>>made the tree rings, ice cores, lake bottoms, and coral reefs all disagree to
>>some extent as a hint?
> 
> His intention was not to confuse us.

   Then what was his intention.  If you don't know then tell me how your 
know it wasn't his intention to decieve us.  Unsupported statements are
poor form.

> 
>>  I have to agree with Dan, you a presenting God as a liar, purposefully
doing
>>His best to trick people into believing something false. 
> 
> I don't think this was or is, God's plan.

   Then what IS his plan.  If you don't know then how do you know this is
not his plan?

> 
>> I don't know about
>>you, but that isn't the God I worship.
> 
> Me either. Guess we're kinda stuck now?

   No, Jim, we're not stuck.  You're clinging tooth and nail to an obviously
blasphemous and logically absurd argument.  That's not "we're stuck", that's
"your obviously wrong about something".  Pity your too arrogantly sure of your
beliefs to admit it.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:33:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Whither Crop Circles...
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

	
	Didn't I hear Garrison Kellior explain the crop circles
	in a recent edition of "The News frome Lake Woebbgon"? (hope
	I spelled that right).  He also explained the animal mutilations
	too !  :-)

	-Mike-

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:38:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.122341.26129@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug20.170752.175456@zeus.calpoly.edu> skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu
(Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>>reus@klein.euromath.dk (Jens Peter Reus Christensen) writes:
>>>Parts of This newsgroup and almost all of Talk.origin exist in order 
>>>to educate the public in the IC (Intellectually Correct) way of 
>>>thinking on issues of origin of biological and geological origin. 
>>>It serves this purpose reasonable well and has no other purpose.
>>
>>This is a charge you are going to have to back up.
> 
> I'm afraid he is right. As has been pointed out before,
> evolutionism boils down to belief. There are no
> scientific proofs. However anyone who expresses an
> opinion contrary to that belief is usually `corrected'.

   A sterling example of creationist logic.  "Evolutionism" (whatever 
that is) has no scientific proof.  The scientific proof offered to 
Lionel on a silver platter was just a bunch illusions created by God
to test his faith.  Offering of evidence is itself proof of 
conspiracy to help God foist off his lies on those that have not
accidentally stumbled on the truth.

   Psychotic denial of reality or bald stupidity?  Only his hairdresser
knows for sure.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
From: hobbs_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Anthony 'the Bard' Hobbs)
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Reply-To: hobbs_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Organization: Wellington City Council, Wgtn, NZ
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 01:58:08 GMT

Yeah, I read this book once, from the local library. It was surprisingly
open-minded and balanced - the author, while not believing in magic herself,
doesn't denigrate people who do. I am a little dubious of the concept of
"analyzing" such a broadly based social phenomenon even in one book, and I
began to take exception in some parts to her generalizations about social
background and psychological types... but the last chapter I found especially
interesting. It wasn't about magic as such, but anthropologist's attitudes to
it. It seemed that what she was saying was that others working in her field are
far too quick to patronize and feel smugly superior to those they study
(arrogance of science, perhaps?). She says at one point that she got interested
in the whole thing when she read _The_Spiral_Dance_ at college... I feel very
strongly that she may have been impressed more than she makes out.

	Oh, to tie this in with another thread, in one chapter she analyses
five books of fiction which most of her subjects had been influenced by:
	"The Lord of the Rings", J.R.R. Tolkien;
	"The Mists of Avalon", Marion Zimmer Bradley;
	"Moon Magic", Dion Fortune;
	"A Wizard of Earthsea", Ursula LeGuin
	and another one which escapes me for the moment, something like "Ride
with the Devil" by Denis Heatley, or something like that.

         As for the SI interview, that sounds to me too much like the kind of
intellectual arrogance that the author warns against. The reviewer sounds like
a conversionary skeptic, a type I dislike almost as much as conversionary
atheists...

just the dry thoughts of a warped mind in the windy season.
anthony (the bard)
--
Anthony Hobbs             the Bard                hobbs_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz    
OverPope, First Holy and Unreformed Church of Frozen Yoghurt - romantic poet - 
synth player extraordinaire - kate bush is goddess - hail Eris - praise "Bob"!
DISCLAIMER: I am not Romanian and was not head of the Securitate for 15 years.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:21:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.083055.9221@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:
}m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}: In article <1992Aug18.051516.26741@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:
}: I've read your reference.  Perhaps you are confused:  explaining why the sky
}: is blue does not make it change colors.  Nor does addressing the authorship
}: eliminate the errors.
}
}No, with respect I think you must be confused. What I am saying is what
}you see as errors are acknowledged to be errors by the mainstream
}church. 
}
}So at the risk of restating the obvious: "I KNOW THERE ARE ERRORS IN THE
}BIBLE! I KNOW THAT IT WAS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE! MILLIONS OF CHRISTIANS OF
}ALL DENOMINATIONS ACCEPT THIS TO BE THE TRUTH!"
}
}Is that clear enough?

Yes, what is not clear why you are so worried about it.  I know they are
there, you know they are there.  Why are you protesting so much if you
recognize that the problem does not exist to you?

What is the line from Shakespear about "protesting too much"?



Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
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.
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 15:21:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.175423.6863@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu> kym@bingsun
.cc.binghamton.edu (R. Kym Horsell) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.204009.14771@husc3.harvard.edu> rocher@husc8.harva
d.edu (Jean-Marc Rocher) writes:
>>There are several parts of the human body which no
>>longer provide any benefits (the appendix, the little toe), but a perso
 without
>>an appendix is not going to have any evolutionary advantage over those 
f use
>>with appendices, so it is highly unlikely that appendices will ever dis
ppear.
>
>This last is overly simplified. The human appendix is subject to
>a not-uncommon and life-threatening problem and hence DOES exert
>evolutionary pressure.
>
>Contrarywise, consider the evolution of the horse. Why does it have
>one toe? According to the argument above there should be little in
>the way of REASON why this should be so. What evolutionary advantage
>is there for NOT having vesigal toes? After all, aquatic mammals have
>them...
>
Horses do, as I recall, have vestigial toes.  They're just a little higher
up on the leg.

Big Al.  The Raving Neophyte Zoologist.  (I gotta think up a new name!)
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.anthrpology
Subject: Re: Mensas farce?
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:05:44 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Aug19.161159.22643@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords:
>
>In article <GERRY.92Aug18170719@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>]I easily meet their entrance requirements, but wouldn't be caught dead
>]in that group of ego-stroking losers who populate Mensa...
>
>Well, I can't speak for all mensa groups, but the one's I went to were
>not involved in ego-stroking. On the other hand, there was an amazing large
>percentage of losers present. Who knows...
               ^^^^^^
Exactly.  This is part of what I meant when I said the whole IQ thing is flawed.
We are made to believe that a high IQ is something of great social value.
However, looking at it more skeptically it is just an ephemeral puff of smoke.

The tests are flawed, the interpretations are flawed and the value we place
on those numbers are flawed. IQ sux.
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Pt 1/3: Agnostics and Athiests
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 23:53:02 +1000

Friday August 07 1992, Bob Beauchaine writes to All:

>> number of beasts in the ark

I don't see any difficulty here. Obviously 7:2 says how many mated pairs, and
7:9 says that the animals entered the ark in mated pairs. Perhaps I'm missing
something.

>> The bat is not a bird.

We classify bats as mammals which fly. The Bible classifies them as flying
things which are mammals. See the difference?

>> Rabbits do not chew their cud.

Depends what you call chewing cuds. They do something similar enough for it to
be called that. All animals which eat vegetation of low nutritional value need
to masticate it to get as much out of it as possible.

>> Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt.

I bet they swallow a lot of it. Ever seen a snake tasting (smelling) things?

jds


 * Origin: Come up to the lab... and see what's on the slab! (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
Subject: Re: Shakespear (was: Inconsistency in the bible)
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 04:03:35 GMT

lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
: In article <1992Aug20.040358.5439@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
: I hope you're not paid very much, then.  The line is from Hamlet (the
: Danish play).  

There is no such the thing as a free lunch (or free research). Note I
said "The devil can quote Shakespeare to his own purpose"...
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Subject: Re: Energy fields and the like
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:06:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug9.181357.1653@news2.cis.umn.edu> frank@i6.msi.umn.edu (Loren Frank) writes:
>
>I was wondering if anyone had any information on properties of the human
>visual system that might contribute to people seeing these auras.
>
   As a child I noticed that dark objects against a bright background,
such as birds in the sky or people or trees backlit by the sky usually
appeared to have a bright halo around them. I decided this was probably
an illusion caused by the sudden change in light level from one region to
the next.  Now I can still see these halos, but I have to make a
conscious effort to do so. I figure this is either because my eyes are
different (older) now or because the halo is being censored by whatever
is doing the visual processing.
   This could lead to a situation where somebody goes trying to see the
aura of a person, and in making this effort the halo appears, the nature
of which depends on the lighting conditions at the time. A person would
be unlikely to try to read the aura of a coffee table because they're not
expecting to be able to do so, and so are not seeing the same optical
illusion.

   Well, it sounds plausible to me....

-- 
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Confidence is the feeling
 neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra  | you have before you
 utzoo.utoronto.ca!generic!cneufeld              | understand the situation.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:34:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.110814@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>What does being polite to a known net.scoundrel gain me?  What is the
>philosophical basis for being polite no matter how many times one has been
>bloodied?

[Bet you weren't expecting an answer to this one!]

The philosophical basis is much the same as the philosophical basis for
letting even Nazis and Communists speak freely.  We let them speak, not because
we think their views are valid, but because if we don't let them speak we have
to draw a line which leaves them out--and _you_ are not the only person who's
going to get to draw lines.

You can't say "Well, if I think he deserves it, I'll insult him, but he must
be polite to me whether he thinks I deserve nastiness or not."  It's all or
nothing.
--
I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of Socrates.
    -- Ed Nilges

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mensa (was Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it)
Date: 17 Aug 92 00:24:20 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <14AUG199221251122@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <BszE8J.LM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrjg8679@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R James) writes...
>>lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>
>>>For those jilted by Mensa, there's always Densa.  (Anybody have the
>>>address?)
>>
>>Oh _please_ elaborate on this!
>
>It's an anti-IQ-elitist organization.  I think I read about it in _Omni_
>about 8-10 years ago, so I'm afraid I can't give you any other details.
>
The elitism of Mensa is a big farce, anyway. They don't have the intelligence
to work out that the concept of IQ is completely flawed and meaningless.

Mensa is the most useless, aimless, tacky, idiotic  organisation in the world.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:12:01 GMT

>: If Noah is a fictional character, then he and the text that contains his
>: story has no more significance than any other folk story.
>: 
>I'm an atheist: but even I would consider the above to be simplistic
>in the extreme. Your first paragraph simply asserts that all stories
>which are fictional are of equal significance. This is obviously false.
I am assering that all fictional stories, are equally fictional.

>Your second paragraph assumes that the only rational way to be a thesist
>is to be a literalist. My experience with theists suggests the exact
>opposite.
My second paragraph assumes that there is NO rational way to be a theist.

The orginal post implied that the story of Noah's Ark may be wrong,
but that it didn't matter.  The overall concept was still acceptable.
I disagree, a pack of lies does not add up to a truth.

Was there really a giant named Goliath?  Was moses 900 yrs old?
If Adam and Eve had two sons, how do we fit in? etc. etc. etc.

How many other supporting stories do we have to pull out before
the entire text collapses?   How many times do we have to hear:
"That's just a minor error.  It doesn't count.  Overall, its still true."

You call that rational?

Vern Nelson
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14720 talk.origins:9796
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:13:00 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger) writes:
>>jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>>>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>
>>>> If God's intention was to confuse us wouldn't he have
>>>>made the tree rings, ice cores, lake bottoms, and coral reefs all disagree to
>>>>some extent as a hint?
>
>>>His intention was not to confuse us.
>
>>If he didn't intend to confuse us, then why did he do this?  Mr. Omnicience
>>surely would have known what what such things would have been taken for.
>
>Who says he *did* confuse us, I'm sure not confused. Maybe it's the
>interpretation of the data that's confusing you?
>
>-- 
>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
>{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

Above is your entire post.  In the post you were replying to, I had asked
you to stop avoiding the question of how you think our interpretations are
wrong, and to state your reasons.  You excised that question from your
reply.

I will ask you one more time.  How do you think the interpretations that the
earth and life are old are incorrect?


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: mensa farce
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:53:05 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide


Whilst on the subject of mensa, can anybody explain exactly what
sigma xi, tau beta pi, pi mu epsilon etc etc are?
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14755 talk.origins:9825
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: CFD: New newsgroup sci.siano.vs.schaeffer.battle.to.the.death
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 18:48:11 GMT
Organization: Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Summary: Why the group won't fly


No, I don't think it will work.  Shaeffer craves an audience, and it's
quite clear this newsgroup will have a readership of two.  And how
could he appeal to the net.referees if Siano posts his email for all
(not!) to see?

No, they're both going to stay right here.  However, there are some
fun things we can do about this:

   - Count the number of times Schaeffer turns a discussion on any
     topic whatsoever into an attack on liberals, leftists or feminists.

   - Synchronize our watches by how long it takes for Siano to escalate

   - Send Schaeffer well-written polite email, receive a snide flame in
     reply and then post it to this group.  It's easy, it's fun, it
     makes you feel totally justified, and his reaction is so amusing!

   - Write an auto-daemon that responds to any posting by either of them
     with that famous Mencken one-liner: "You may be right."

   - Reply to them, but change the topic completely.  People who are
     complete prisoners of their ideology despise this!  It works even
     better if you can get as ambiguous and mystical as possible.

   - Post a bunch a statistics proving that Schaeffer doesn't know
     what he's talking about in terms of economic distribution.  When
     he starts ranting on his favorite topic, Social Darwinism and the
     White Manly Man's Burden, post some more.  Give him some of his
     own unyielding medicine.  Any library should have oodles of Census
     Statistics on hundreds of topics.  Predictably, he'll reply that
     the Census Bureau is run by a bunch of pinko-Marxo-Lenino-ethno-
     vagino commies.  Then send him a list of all the Bureau Directors
     and watch him cringe.

   - Put them both in your Kill file.  Not as much fun, but definitely
     best for the group overall.
-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553