HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 30 Aug 92 06:45:14 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug30.054850.5558@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>In article <Bts2FL.E98@world.std.com>, believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>> 
>> How can I become involved in the fight to remove this dangerous
>> Pagan teaching from our schools? The fight against evolutionism
>> must be an essential component of the fight for our families and
>> this country.
>> 
>> We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
>> Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
>> to our faith and therefore our very existance.
>
>Don't bite people, this one HAS to be a joke.


Or maybe he took a trip through the ICR museum with his mind
unencumbered with logic or intelligence.








-- 
Steve Linke
Salk Institute (Gene Expression Lab)
La Jolla, CA
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:31:41 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 <1992Aug31.012014.17580@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes...
> 
>TB is highly contagious HIV is not (I don't know about leprosy).

Leprosy, despite public sentiment to the contrary, is not particularly
contagious.  You need prolonged, close quarters, exposure to an infected
individual to get it.

-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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: mrh@centerline.com (Mike Huben)
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:34:05 GMT

In article <37430@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> slinke@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Steven Linke) writes:
>....  They are calling it "San Diego's NEWEST Museum" and
>are having a Grand Opening Celebration September 18-20.

I hope some organization is preparing a demonstration to try to spoil their
opening.  It would be an excellent PR opportunity.

Mike Huben


"Damn the Solar System.  Bad light; planets too distant; pestered with comets;
feeble contrivance; could make a better myself."  Francis [Lord] Jeffery
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:51:56 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <3658@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>
>How can you possibly argue with someone like Drew?
>He is obviously incapable of rational thought on this subject.

It's nice to see you here, Mike.

You're the most entertaining thing to hit Usenet since ARF and Kibo.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15650 talk.origins:10561
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: <None>
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:44:41 EST

In article <1992Aug31.144442.19731@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
[...]> 
> 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.

1. The point is obviously controversial.  You wish science to violate its own
paradigm and accept, without testing or proof, your point.

2. You seem to be unwilling or unable to accept the point that if you propose
this change and test it, and the test goes against your belief, to change your
belief.

GXKambic
standard disclaimer
 
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:42:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.115125.19490@cco.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>
>Hmm.. which species are these?
>
>keith
>
>>In article <1992Aug27.191224.13309@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>Far be it for me to defend Lionel Tun (that isn't what I'm doing
>>>anyway), but what is your response to those who scream that evolution
>>>is a "proven fact"?
>
>>Ok, Drew, what would you call it then when we start with one species, separate
>>it into two populations, and some years later the two populations are no longer
>>able to interbreed (i.e., we've now got two separate species)?  This has
>>(contrary to claims of creationists) been observed to happen with a number of
>>species.  In this sense, evolution IS a proven fact, in that we have, in fact,
>>observed speciation.  Any particular theory of evolution attempts to account
>>for the proven fact of evolution.

Several species of insects, some sort of flower (a full description of this one
was recently posted to sci.skeptic), some Australian mammal (wallabee?), a
population of which that was brought to Hawaii by humans is no longer able to
interbreed with the Australian species.  Could someone post the list that shows
up from time to time?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:14966 talk.origins:10052
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:43:51 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>This reminds me of the excellent argument I saw recently by B Bales:
>If A is -2 then, A * A = 4.
>Aha, A * A = 4.
>Therefore A _is_ -2.

But a scientist would see that A could either be 2 or -2.  Let's say one
scientist forms the hypothesis that it's -2.  He could then test the
hypothesis.  He could try to find A * 1.  If A * 1 = -2, then his hypothesis
is correct.

>Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
>Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889


|======================================================================|
| 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        |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Subject: Re: 'Satanism' and therapists and D.A.'s
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.
	<27AUG199210184730@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:06:05 GMT

 In article <1992Aug27.89364@gloin.unh.edu>, ane@gloin.unh.edu writes...
 
>     Who are the best watchdogs of the occult crime / ritual abuse
>issue, etc?

On a related note, the latest (August 17th, 1992) issue of
"Christianity Today" discusses the "Cornerstone" vs. Mike Warnke battle.
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "That we henceforth be no more children,
Integrated Measurement Systems |  tossed to and fro, and carried about with
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men,
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  and cunning craftiness, by which they lie in
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  wait to deceive;" - Ephesians 4:14





From: rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:26:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic

In sci.skeptic, titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>     In a recent(1992) articcle published in _Biomedicine and Pharmocotherapy_,
>     Duesberg summarizes a mass of data as follows:  "It is concluded that
>     all American AIDS exceeding the normal low incidence of indicator
>     diseases in the general population is the result of recreational and
>     anti-HIV drugs.  Thus the American AIDS epidemicis a subset of the
>     drug epidemic.
> 
> The whole medical/scientific/political/media establishment on one side,  Prof.
> Duesberg on the other.  Definitely a heretic but who is right?

I have heard this person on a television talk show, and have my doubt about
him.  His claim is that AIDS is caused by recreational drugs and aggravated
into fatality by anti-HIV drugs.  He was so sure that HIV is benign that he
said he was willing to be injected with HIV to prove his point.

I have major problems with this theory, obviously a large number of people have
developed AIDS without being into recreational drugs and before anti-HIV drugs
are given.  His contention that only drug addicts get AIDS smacks of an extreme
prejudice, and his willingness to be injected with HIV implies he is not
rational, since he is not even willing to entertain the notion that HIV is
dangerous.

BDR
From: lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu (Cosma R. Shalizi)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: skeptics' joke
Date: 29 Aug 1992 19:58:35 GMT
Organization: Vampire Research Group at Berkeley :)
NNTP-Posting-Host: headcrash.berkeley.edu
Summary: Not Good Enough
Keywords: sheep, Scotland, skeptics

In article <1992Aug10.183222.11572@ccu.umanitoba.ca> rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:
>Three skeptics were on a holiday in Scotland.  They boarded a train and
>as they settled into their seats, they began discussing observation,
>reduction and deduction.
>The first skeptic pointed out the window and said: "Look, there!  A
>pasture full of black sheep!  My observation tells me that all the
>sheep in Scotland are black!"
>The second skeptic retorts: "Not at all!  Your observation merely tells
>you that sheep are black in Scotland on that side of the train!"
>The third skeptic said: "Pshaw!  You are both wrong!  You can only tell
>that on this side of the train, Scottish sheep are black on one side of
>their bodies!"
>Chris Rutkowski - rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca
>Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
>University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
   I first heard this one from my father... started with an engineer, then a
physicist, then a mathematician (as above) and then a logician said:
   "You're all fools! All you can say is that on this side of the train, some
Scottish sheep appear to be black _part of the time_."
   I wonder, does this joke have anything to do with David Hume?
Cosma Rohilla Shalizi
lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu to my friends
larval physicist

"This [Hegel's philosophy] illustrates an important truth, namely, that the
 worse your logic, the more interesting the consequences to which it gives
 rise."
 -Bertrand Russell, _A History of Western Philosophy_
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: elsberry@cse.uta.edu (Wesley R Elsberry)
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:20:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.191224.13309@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>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 two statements above are the most telling proof that the author doesn't have
>>a clue as to what he's talking about.  It is logically and philosophically impossible
>>to prove a theory true.
>
>Far be it for me to defend Lionel Tun (that isn't what I'm doing
>anyway), but what is your response to those who scream that evolution
>is a "proven fact"?

Facts don't need to be proved.  Evolution (as "A change in allele
frequency in a population over time.") is a fact, not a "proven fact".
Evolutionary mechanism theories, which attempt to explain those factual,
observed changes in allele frequency, are supported by lots of evidence
and experimental results gathered over the hundred and sixty or so years
(data gathering was under way before "natural selection" debuted).

At least, that's how *I* respond.  

Wesley R. Elsberry
elsberry@cse.uta.edu
From: gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:05:49 GMT
Reply-To: gascan@dcst16.dc
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 13309@acuson.com, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>
>Far be it for me to defend Lionel Tun (that isn't what I'm doing
>anyway), but what is your response to those who scream that evolution
>is a "proven fact"?
>
>-- 
>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

Evolution is considered a fact.  The *means* by which evolution occurs are the
subject of theory.  I must conclude that you do not read the responses to your
posts very closely, as many distinctions such as this have been posted in 
response to you.

---
1. Bill Gascoyne
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:16:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Sep4.181603.8254
Distribution: na
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1001@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug31.175817.15105@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
|> |[...]                                      Interestingly, this 
|> |is also part of what evolution predicts: "mutation increases the 
|> |genetic diversity of a species."
|> |
|> Or even more appropriately, evolution predicts that repeated speciation
|> will tend to increase the diversity of life on Earth.

On the other hand, it is the mutation, increasing the genetic 
diversity *within* a species, followed by isolation and inbreeding 
of a sub-population of the species which appears to be the most
common mechanism of speciation.

Fair to say that evolutionary theory predicts diversification at
several levels.  This diversity is only winnowed down when some
external crisis alters the environemnt suddenly.  The inherent
advantage of diversity is that it enhances the chance than *some*
life will survive such crises.

-- 
J. Giles
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology - how I heard about it
Organization: RL
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 12:30:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.200914.17168@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.152334.13177@colorado.edu> gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R) writes:
>>>>done the above experiment, somewhat modified, in a double blind manner.
>>
>>>Please describe for us a single, repeatable experiment that will allow
>>>us to "test" something meaningful using AK. If possible, I'd like an experiment
>>>that involves "pulling down the arm" when it is extended straight out,
>>>palm down. I'd like to do some 'muscle testing'.
>>
>>Do you think that you can do these tests without training?  If so, there's lots
>>of books out.  Its simply not that simple.  Then there is the matter of 
>>interpreting the results.  People go to school and receives long hours of
>>training to do tests and many more hours (weeks, years) to learn how to 
>>interpret them.  It doesn't matter whether or not its for AK or for different
>>medical tests by by/for physicians.  In spite of their apparent objectivity,
>>medical tests are misinterpreted all of the time.  Good AK does not simply
>>rely on one test but all the results obtained by all of the tests and the 
>>practitioner's interaction'w with his/her client.  
>>
>>If you want to learn, take some classes.
>
>Sure.  While I'm taking some classes on Applied Kinesiology, I can take one
>on Astrology^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Applied Astronomy.
>
>Why is this called Applied Kinesiology?  Well, most people would not go to
>someone who promised to do some muscle balancing on them.  Stealing neat
>sounding medical terms is normal for fringe therapies.
>
>So far, you have stated that AK is based not on sound medical theory but on
>interactions between the doctor and patient, and only useful when the doctor
>is sincere.  What exactly about it leads you to expect more than placebo
>level results, given the lack of reproducibility and technical understanding
>implied?  How, for example, would you license practitioners to guarantee that
>the guy who works on my chakra points in Louisiana does the same thing as the
>accupuncturist in Colorado did?  They both *call* it AK...
>
>>Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
>>Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
>>gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
>>				 *Aristotle				      *
>
>		David Pipes
>robear@digex.com

I still think this whole started when some semi-literate con artist 
mispelled kinaesthesiology.

-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15218 alt.culture.usenet:728 talk.origins:10239
From: mpark@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Park)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:33:30 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug26.175615.29660@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith) writes:
...
>
>Rocky and Bullwinkle in '92!
>

Picard/Riker in '92 -- "Make it so"     (bumper sticker)

-- 
Ciao-abunga!           +-------------------------------------+
Michael Park           | This space intentionally left blank |
mpark@u.washington.edu +-------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15930 talk.origins:10871
From: mikem@ex.heurikon.com (Mike Mayer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:06:26 GMT
Reply-To: mikem@ex.heurikon.com (Mike Mayer)
Organization: Heurikon Corporation, Madison, WI

In article <1288@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
#>In article <1285@tecsun1.etl.army.mil>, riggs@descartes (Bill Riggs) writes:
#>>	The semantic style is obvious. By referring to me by my last
#>>name in the post above, he displays the fact that he does not really
#>>respect either my opinions OR my person. Which is fine as far as it
#>>goes, as long as we all understand the underlying power relationship
#>>here. 

O.K.  Maybe everyone should call you "Billy" out of respect. :-)

Actually I've seen someone use the same argument you use against
people using somone's first name.
--
Mike Mayer                                             mikem@heurikon.com
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15243 alt.culture.usenet:730 talk.origins:10260
From: llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
Subject: Re: The difference between censorship and rudeness.
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:46:25 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Alan Smith (arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:

: Okay, but you asked for it:  I think that you are correct in that I *did*
: oversimplify.  The picture I painted was one of a hippie's eden, where
: everyone loved everything, cooperated beyond belief, etc. So, competition
: is included in the human survival stragedy.  (How *do* you spell that?)

strategy.

competition for resources is at the base of our society. what do you
think the capitalist system is? the people who control the most
resources have power over the people who control the least. the people
at the bottom perform services for those who control resources in
order to gain some of those resources.

this is why an anarchistic state, though attractive in some respects,
is pretty much impossible -- we live in a world in which resources are
scarce/limited. if there were enough of everything for everyone to
have all they wanted, then anarchy might be possible. but as it is,
the stronger (physically or mentally or whatever) gather more than
their share, and the excess gives them power.

: In a way, it's analgous to wolfpacks.  The wolves all cooperate with each
: other, even though they're at the top of their food chain.  When wolves
: set down to eat, the dominant ones (those that have one their little
: internal competition) eat first.  (The theory is that the dominant ones
: are "fitter" and only a well fed wolf will reproduce.)  Now, when humans
: sit down to eat, food is shared equally, and the dominant ones have been
: known to give up food in time of shortage.

if this is true, why is so much of the world starving? why does such a
small percentage of people control such a large percentage of the
wealth?

: THEORY: In time of shortage of nonsurvival desires (status, beads, money,
: etc.) the competition is among individual humans.  But when the
: competition is among survival issues (food, oil in kuwait, the east coast
: of greece) Groups of humans compete.

uh, no. first, status and money can be serious survival issues. and
groups of humans compete for those things, especially status -- that's
what nationalism is about. and individual humans compete for food and
land and all those other things.

nice try, but it's still flawed.

-- 
sine nomine | debbie martinson 
"you shall no longer take things at 2nd or 3rd hand, nor look through
the eyes of the dead, nor feed on the specters in books,.../ you shall
listen to all sides and filter them from yourself." -- walt whitman

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15173 talk.origins:10201
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:27:48 GMT

lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>I also doubt that all of science would fall apart if belief in
>evolutionary origin fell by the wayside.

No, not all of science would fall apart -- only biology, genetics,
geology, astrophysics, anthropology, biochemistry, paleontology,
zoology, archaeology, psychology, biophysics, ethnography,
linguistics, and probably a dozen other scientific fields I am
not recalling.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15895 talk.politics.misc:43709