HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: NASA 'UFO Video' Rides Again
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:50:31 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <cass8806.274@elan.glassboro.edu>, cass8806@elan.glassboro.edu (KYLE CASSIDY) writes:
=as a former professional astronomer, i've seen countless things that to the 
=untrained eye could be considered "space-ships" but are really things like 
=flocks of birds, reflections of lights on clouds, satelites, weather 
=balloons (and some with bizarre flashing lights!) as long as "hard copy" 
=keeps katering to people with brains the size of walnuts i fear that these 
=misrepresentations will continue, unchecked. it is a detriment to all real 
=scientists and science itself that these things occur and are allowed to 
                                                       ------------------
=occur.
 ------

Which do you want: real science or a pseudoscientific religion?  If the answer
is the former, then it's imperitive that these things be "allowed to occur." 
All we can do in response is to try to educate people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Stories.....
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:42:26 EST
Organization: Wright State University 



Maybe I should post the story about God, the Angel and Marijuana......


Sue
From: leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:52:30 GMT
Organization: Integrated Measurement Systems, Inc.

>>>>> On Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:40:50 GMT, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) said:


Robert> This business about "breaking of legs" is CLAIMED to be true 
Robert> in the gospel of John. I am not aware of any independent
Robert> evidence that it in fact IS true; I suspect it's not.

Quoting off the top of my head, there was a skeleton found in Israel
during an excavation for a housing project (1967?).  The box holding the
skeleton bore the name "Yohanan Ben Ha'<something>" (I forget his last
name); the skeleton bore evidence of crucifixion.  The heel bone still
had a spike embedded in it.  Both legs were broken.  As I recall, the
wrists showed evidence of having been worn by the action of the victim
raising himself to breathe; this rotates the wrist bones against the
crucifixion spike and thereby scrapes the bone.

Robert> The Romans sometimes crucified offenders, but they didn't CARE
Robert> how long it took them to die; in fact, the longer, the better.
Robert> Typically, victim lived for several days upon the cross,
Robert> before dying of thirst and exposure. Jews, on the other hand,
Robert> were careful to never hold executions on the Sabbath or on
Robert> Holy Days, however they never crucified anyone. So this is a
Robert> strange conflation of Roman and Jewish practices.

The Romans didn't want a Passover riot, and the Jews didn't want
people dying on the Sabbath.  Call it a compromise.

Robert> As for the unnatural suddenness of Jesus' death, after supposedly
Robert> being on the cross for just a few hours, there is no satisfactory
Robert> explanation.

John Ata's?

Robert> I maintain that Pilate's claimed surprise at Jesus' supposed
Robert> untimely demise was deleted because it calls unnecessary
Robert> attention to the implausible time frame of the cruci-fiction
Robert> story.

This is not the parsimonious explanation.

Robert> (Another significant deletion is that of Mark's youth who fled
Robert> naked in the garden, for reasons that might best be discussed
Robert> on "soc.motss".)

This has usually been interpreted to have been Mark himself, who was
probably the best individual to have known how well the youth was
dressed.  He fled naked (much to his shame) rather than be caught and
arrested.  So, Robert, how does "soc.motss" come into the picture?
--
Lee Thomas,  leet@ims.com      | "And there followed him a certain young man,
Integrated Measurement Systems |  having a linen cloth cast about his naked
9525 SW Gemini Dr.             |  body.  And the young men laid hold on him;
Beaverton, Or 97005            |  and he left the linen cloth, and fled from
(503) 626-7117, ext. 1558      |  them naked."  - Mark 14:51-52          THUMP!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Son of Creationist Crapola.
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:57:08 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1178@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <1408@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>|
>|	I noted an interesting article in this weeks Newsweek, I believe
>|it was, which discussed evolutionary algorithms, starting with a PC
>|game called SimLife. A few points:
>
>I hestiate to include simLife in this category - it does not model anything
>even remotely like what evolution is now understood to be.  The model it
>uses is more akin to the pre-Darwin concept of orthogenesis - directed
>change due to innate tendencies (that is evolution as an extension of
>ontogeny).  It has a preset, rather limited, set of types, ech of which
>may only evolve in a limited number of ways.  This is hardly an 'evolutionary
>algorithm', it is a recapitulation algorithm.

	I would like to note here that the Newsweek article does NOT say
that SimLife is based on evolutionary algorithms, but rather uses the
reference to SimLife as an interesting introduction to the "meat and potatoes"
of the article, and also uses some pictures of the game's interface as 
illustrations accompanying the text. The Newsweek article does NOT make the
intellectual distinction which Stanley points out here, but rather establishes
connectivity between SimLife and more sophisticated representations of
knowledge about evolution/biology. This would, I think, be "transparent to
the user" unless one took the trouble to point it out. Of course, maybe 
we're speaking only of "naive users" and not real applications jocks.


	Bill Riggs


	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."


-- 
Bill R.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Gerry Roston, I'm sorry.
Date: 3 Oct 1992 22:32:32 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <LEET.92Oct2101243@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>If (since) He is good, He would provide it (the meaning) for us,
>written down, and we could then look it up as needed.  This dovetails
>us nicely back into our other ongoing debate. :-)

Then why the hell did he have so many different versions, most of them
conflictind deeply with each other, written down?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Of Egg Yolks and Astrology
Date: 29 Sep 1992 07:36:29 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Sep28.132929.1293@spectrum.xerox.com>, eradm@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Radmall) writes:
>Though no proponent of astrology, I have to admit to the existence of an intricate web of
>causality in day to day life. It is truly difficult to see how even the smallest action
>can precipitate seemingly momentous events. Yet, with all the research in Chaos
>theory pointing to the "butterfly effect" (sensitivity to initial conditions), and
>the impossiblity of projecting things like the stock market or climate, it has to
>make one think.

Hmmm.  Of course, the whole point of chaos theory is that these large effects
caused by small changes are inherently unpredictable.  Why is it that damned
near anything that's at best partially understood by the layman ends up getting
dragged in (inappropriately) to support things like astrology?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:10:18 GMT

In article <1a4qjnINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.164716.17410@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>=>: You see all religious beliefs in a certain light.  Do you expect
>=>: everyone to see it the same way that you do?
>=>
>=>Yes, I see all religious beliefs in certain light.  I expect
>=>_rational_ people to see that all religious beliefs are pretty much
>=>equally bogus.  Some religions are a little more pragmatic than others
>=>when it comes to getting on with life, but there still isn't any
>=>verifiable basis to most of the beliefs.
>=
>=Indeed, so all people who have genuine religious beliefs are
>=irrational according to your statement.  How very sad. :(
>=
>=>
>=>In direct answer to your question, no, I do not expect everyone to see
>=>it the same way I do.
>=
>=You just called all people who didn't see all religion as equally bogus:
>=not _rational_.  The above statement is in direct contradiction to this.
>
>Er, no, it's not John.  He'd have to be crazy to expect everyone to be
>rational.
>=>What is "spiritual hunger"?  A need to belong to a social group?  The
>=>need to feel that your life isn't meaningless?  Fine, join a club,
>=>join the Peace Corps, join the army, take up a hobby, have a family,
>=>whatever.  Or admit that your life _is_ meaningless, mine is!  I like
>=>my life just fine, but I have no illusions that there is some great
>=>meaning or purpose for it.
>=>
>=>If people spent less time worrying about their last life or their next
>=>life, maybe their current life would be better.
>=>
>=
>=There are plenty of people who are in the Peace Corps or army, have hobbies
>=or families and still have their spiritual needs met by religion.  I think
>=you are confusing social needs with spiritual needs.  
>
>Perhaps because we haven't seen a definition of "spiritual needs"?  He *DID*
>ask you for a definition.  Is this another of those things like a "soul" that
>can't be defined, but it exists because you want it to exist?

I didn't perceive his question as being any more than rhetorical.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL


-- 
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
From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:11:08 GMT
Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

In article <LEET.92Oct1100326@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>
>Jan> (2) the imputation of greed as a prime motive for a traitorous
>Jan> Jew seems to me not based on Biblical sources, but on certain
>Jan> other less lofty traditions (if you catch my drift) that are not
>Jan> becoming for a Sunday school teacher.
>
>I'm really going to have to write to all my friends and ask them if
>I'm an anti-Semite - this is getting to be too much.

You caught my drift.  All the same, this greed business (as *prime*
motive) can make quite the wrong impression on others.  
It is reported in the Bible that afterwards Judas' remorse was
motivated by "I have betrayed an innocent" , which suggests that his
prime motive was his prior conviction that Jesus was not innocent. Moreover,
if his prime motive was greed, then why did he try to give back the
money?  I think these Biblical facts plead against greed as prime motive.

[ In case anyone doubts my motive for this discussion, let me say that
I'm quite willing to defend the thesis that Smeagol is the true hero
of The Lord of the Rings, the only human character amidst all these
cardboard stereotypes of Tolkien.  Whether or not the fall of Barad-Dur
really happened is immaterial, the inner consistency of the story is what
matters. ]
>sheep from "the other fold".  I believe that Judas was greedy because

>the apostle John (another Jew, BTW) said Judas was a thief (John 12:6).
>
>Jan>                                                        But rely
>Jan> on him for identification?  I need more convincing.
>
>You're Simon Peter.
[story as seen from Peter's point of view deleted]

I don't see what that has to do with: "Why did the authorities rely
on Judas for identification, especially if there were lots of more
reliable (from their point of view) chaps around, like umpteen irate
moneychangers."

JWN

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:53:56 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <5751@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>And, in contradiction to Lydick (who has inferred from my remarks that
>my skull must be rather full of bones), I want to reiterate that the
>Pharisees are reported to have plotted against Jesus, that they hated
>his guts (enough to frame him for execution by Romans, all according to
>the same Biblical source) and that after the Temple incident any Temple
>guard or money changer or supporter of the Pharisees could have been
>trusted to identify Jesus who (still according to the same sources) must
>have had national fame - why else was he welcomed so much in Jerusalem?

Just like you can count on every eyewitness to a crime to be able to identify
the suspect these days, right?  Was this supposed to be a joke or do you
REALLY think that having witnessed the incident in the temple would be
sufficient for a positive identification.  If the latter, I hope for the sake
of justice you never serve on a jury in a criminal case.

>Why have the snitch employed to tip about a quiet arresting place do the
>identification as well?  The "authorities" are reported to have been
>insulted to their faces with large crowds attending;  the comparison with
>modern judicial authorities who order arrests of people they only know
>from paperwork is not convincing. 

OK then, suppose a judge binds a suspect over for trial (i.e., he's met the
person face-to-face), and set bail.  The suspect jumps bail, and the judge
issues a warrant for his arrest.  Do you REALLY believe that the judge would be
there at the arrest himself?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crucified for Prophecy's Sake?
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:08:49 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

: From: johnson@spectra.com (boyd johnson)
: Subject: Re: Crucified for Prophecy's Sake? (was: What did Judas betray?)
: Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 16:35:40 GMT
: 
: >>	Psalm 22:13-18
: >022:013 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a
: >        roaring lion.
: >022:014 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint:
: >        my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
: >022:015 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue
: >        cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of
: >        death.
: >022:016 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have
: >        inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
: >022:017 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
: >022:018 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my
: >        vesture.
: 
: In article <1992Sep30.174735.22504@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
: >
: >Oh, how clear this is. These verses OBVIOUSLY prophecy a crucifixion!   
: 
: No, not obviously crucifixion, but since not one bone was broken it
: obviously wasn't by stoning and since his hands and feet were pierced,
: bones were out of joint, etc there are very few options other than
: crucifixion or some bizarre method of drawing and quartering.
: 
: The prophecies are much clearer than anything Nostrodomus [sic] ever
: did, but if they were too clear there would be the danger of a staged
: incident.  A little ambiguity helps people realize afterward that
: prophecy was fulfilled.

Of course, in the absence of independent secular testimony it is also
possible that the authors of the gospels used these passages from the Psalms
as the source of the details they provide.

Karl
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:49:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.153222.8977@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.152426.10798@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>[...]
>>>>
>>>>I would define soul as that spiritual part 
>nonmeasureable.

Geez, didn't I say that?

>>>>of us humans that
>>>>defines us in God's image. It is a separate entity, 
>But unfindable and with no external properties.
>>>>infused into the body before birth, and leaves the body at death. 
>For which there is no proof.

Never claimed there was.

>>>> Because it
>>>>is the part of us that is like God, it is intrinsically and
>>>>naturally immortal. 
>Do you mean by its nature, but it has natural effects such that  it can be
>observed?

I mean by its nature, it is immortal.  That is, no one transformed it into
an immortal being.

>>>> Furthermore, it is the principle behind our
>>>>intellect and reasoning ability.
>What do you mean here by principle?  If it is like God, should be not be
>infallible, omniscient, etc.?

Well, I would say that the principal behind an orchestra is the
conducter.  It is much the same way.  No, I never said it was
*identical* to God, but that it had similarities.  For example,
God didn't have a Creator, but our souls did.  Actually, there was
one smart angel who thought that because he had similarities to
God, that he was identical to God.  But that is for another
posting...

>>>
>>>Hmm.  No well-defined properties.  Just a bunch of metaphysical hogwash.
>>>Not a very useful definition, I'm afraid.
>> 
>> TRANSLATION:  Well you gave me a definition, but I really don't know what
>> to do with it.  Yeah!, I'll attack the definition, that's what I'll do!
>
>He attempted to find some common ground so that there could be
>an independent, objective, determination of the existence of the soul.  The
>only hope seems to be in the word "natural" such that if you mean that the soul
>can cause reproducible effects in the world  that can be measured. From what I
>remember of this thread, there does not seem to be any common ground here. 
>Come to think of it, it was an attack.  
>

My recollection: I stated that I didn't think that there was an
objective way for science to prove the existence of the soul.  I
asked him to let me know of a way to do this, since he was arguing
that it could be done.  He stated that I should define what a soul
was so that he could try.  I did.  You know the rest. 

>GXKambic
>sd
>
-- 
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
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17367 talk.origins:12437
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Son of Creationist Crapola.
Date: 3 Oct 92 00:15:25 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1408@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
|
|	I noted an interesting article in this weeks Newsweek, I believe
|it was, which discussed evolutionary algorithms, starting with a PC
|game called SimLife. A few points:

I hestiate to include simLife in this category - it does not model anything
even remotely like what evolution is now understood to be.  The model it
uses is more akin to the pre-Darwin concept of orthogenesis - directed
change due to innate tendencies (that is evolution as an extension of
ontogeny).  It has a preset, rather limited, set of types, ech of which
may only evolve in a limited number of ways.  This is hardly an 'evolutionary
algorithm', it is a recapitulation algorithm.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
Date: Tue,  6 Oct 1992 13:29:13 -0400 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)


Anyone want to comment?
------------------------------
Forwarded message begins here:
------------------------------
X-Andrew-WideReply: netnews.rec.org.mensa
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: via nntppoll with nntp; Mon,  5 Oct 1992 23:36:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:44:09 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep25.145224.16587@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
|
|Well even assuming that your theology has validity, the existence of the
|soul in no way contradicts it.  After all, *when* the soul was created 
|is at issue for you, not its existence.
|
True, the *existance* of 'soul' may not contradict this theology, but
the *nature* of 'soul' could, and would if the soul were supernatural.

It is only is the term 'soul' refers to something *natural* that it is
consistant with this theology.  I have presented a definition for 'soul'
such that it is indeed natural, and such that it needs no special, magical
explanation.

BTW, it also gets away from the need for a soul to be 'created', it simply
developes naturally as a human being developes and matures.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic