HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:39:29 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <14837@mindlink.bc.ca> Robert_Broughton@mindlink.bc.ca (Robert Broughton) writes:
>> Bill Gripp writes:
>> 
>> Funny, my Bible says "He compasseth the day from the night" indicating
>> that the earth is a sphere (round).
>> 
>
>There are at least two references in Revelations to the "four corners of the
>Earth", one of them in chapter 7, verse 1. I recall a statement in Revelations
>that the battle of Armageddon takes place on a _plain_ consisting of the entire
>Earth, but I am unable to find this at the moment. Anyway, I suspect that the
>person who wrote Revelations believed that the Earth was flat.

	I think that you will find your definition of Armageddon to be
in error. The word "Armageddon" or "Harmageddon" simply means "the valley
of Meggido, which is the same as the plain of Jezreel. It is in this
location where Revelation states that the last battle is to occur.

	Had not somebody screwed up the allegorical interpretation of
Revelation, you probably wouldn't have caught a whiff of this bad data.


	Bill R.


	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."
-- 
Bill R.
From: cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Gallup Poll (47% believe young earth creation)
Date: 15 Sep 92 08:43:42 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

James J. Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu) wrote:
: "Man was created pretty much in his present form about 10,000 years ago."
: This was supported by 47%, rejected by 49%.  39% of men and 53% of women
: supported it.  Of those who supported evolution, 80% said they believed
: in God.

It seems to me that under this phrasing of the question, it would be
possible for a Christian who believed "God created humanity, and he
used evolution as the tool to do so" or something like that could
consistently answer "Yes", thinking that the present form was finally
reached somewhere about 10,000 years ago. The question is not a good
one for reaching conclusions about the prevelance of creationism.

Cheers -- Chris
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:03:40 GMT

In article <1022@tdat.teradata.COM>, swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.191316.22700@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>|In article <1928@snap>, paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes:
>|
>|>The powers that Geller claims have *never* been demonstrated under
>|>controlled conditions.  Geller does nothing which a competent stage
>|>magician such as James Randi cannot do.  Randi has alleged that
>|>Geller is a fraud.  Geller has sued Randi for libel.
>|
>|Are you SURE that Randi has alleged that Geller is a fraud? I thought that
>|Randi has simply alleged that Geller does nothing that can't be duplicated by
>|a competent stage magician.
>
>He (and others) asserts a little more than that:
>    1 - Geller does nothing a stage magician cannot do.
>    2 - Geller has been caught on several occasions using stage tricks.
>    3 - The presence of controls that prevent stage tricks remove Geller's
>	ability to utilize his supposed powers.

Actually, 3 is redundant, since it's implied by 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:16051 alt.atheism:16671
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: BUSH'S anti-atheism quote
Date: 7 Sep 92 12:32:12 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

dh4j+@andrew.cmu.edu (David O Hunt) writes:
> What paper/other place can I look to verify that this was said in the
> public domain?

Have you checked the references mentioned in the FAQ file?


mathew
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:28:43 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <26239@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> In article <18pek6INN5vf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes...
> > 
> >In article <1992Sep10.181721.19723@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
> Actually, I just heard a story on NPR (or maybe it was the BBC) about someone
> who has found a piece of amber with some blood-glutted insect (or something
> like that) which they speculate(*), presumably from the dating of the amber
> and the anatomy of the insect, to contain dinosaur blood.  They have not
> yet opened the amber to extract the blood.  But it seems to me that if true,
> we could learn much about dinosaurs from a genetic analysis of the sample.
> Whether we could clone a stegosaurus is another matter all together...
> 
> (*) The speaker claimed that it *was* dinosaur blood, but I think that
> this was just some unwise hyperbole. 

The story made the papers last week . . .

The insect is a stingless bee from between 25 Myr and 40 Myr ago
(that's *at*least* 25 Myr too late for dinosaurs).  The amber was
frozen in liquid nitrogen, broken open, muscle tissue extracted and
re-hydrated.  Some DNA--from the bee--was extracted, duplicated by PCR
techniques and sequenced.  At total of 1,110 base pairs were
sequenced.

The same researchers have amber samples with other insects and small
animals in them, including a lizard believed to date to before the KT
boundary.  I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but I think there is also a
blood-feeding insect in the collection and it is *speculated* that if
blood is present it *could* be that of a dinosaur.  None of that is
certain yet.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Soul
Keywords: Traducianism, Pineal gland, Exispencilism, Remote control
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:39:32 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Sep9.011420.22092@telesciences.com> msavasti@telesciences.com (Michael Savastio) writes:
>It is true enough that the characteristics of the soul which you listed above
>can be attributed to natural chemical reactions in the body.  But this does
>not necessarily give evidence that the soul does not exist.  If I'm not
>mistaken, the doctrine of traducianism states that there is a distinction 
>between the soul and the spirit, and that the soul, in part, is inherited 
>from one's parents.  To use an analogy, the body is merely a machine designed 
>to operate in the physical universe.  The spirit exists in an invisible
>universe and directs the body by "remote-control".  The soul would be the
>interface between the body and the spirit.

But would there be any visible difference if the spirit and soul were to go
away?  You imply here that it is: if the spirit directs the body, removing the
spirit would cause the body to function differently.  If this is so, at some
level one's action is caused by a physical change in the brain, which is caused
by another physical change in the brain, etc. until there's a first physical
change which is caused not by something else physical, but by the spirit.
_Somewhere_ up the chain there is a physical change which the spirit directly
caused or influenced.

And if there is a physical change directly caused by the spirit, then we _can_
see the spirit with scientific methods.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey)
Subject: Re: The Number and Influence of Fundies (Was: Re: I visited the icr in p
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Org. 1600, Albq., NM
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:35:06 GMT

From article <27129@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>, by wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson):
> 
> I didn't know about the 47% statistic. That's chilling. But I wonder
> how many answered out of ignorance, as you do, and those who were
                                      ^^^^^^^^^ 
What is it specifically that you consider ignorant?

> answering frivously. 

	If 47% did not know what everyone should about evolution, age of
the earth etc..., then I could agree that it is simply answering
out of ignorance.  However, the 47% responded positively to a very
specific alternative.  This is what I would consider the difference
between ignorance (simply not knowing) and acceptance of an alternative
because it is in accordance with their religious ideas.  If Americans
can't find Canada on a map, that is ignorance.  If 47% of us pointed
to Pakistan, this could not be ignorance for probabilistic reasons.
There would have to be some other reason for this group error. In the
case of evolution I consider it obvious that that other reason is 
one common interpretation of the Bible. That is what I was trying to say
in my last post.
> 
> |	We have a major political party (guess which one) made up of
> |people who don't dare come out for science for fear of losing 
> |support of these people.  Surely they are not this worried about
> |losing 1% if they are willing to throw away the athiest vote (4%???)
> |and the gay vote (10%???) and others so quickly.  Of course I realize
> 
> If that major political party went after the athiest and gay vote
> they would be the other major political party. One can be conservative
> without being fundamentalist--they won the last few times. Including

	There is a *huge* middle ground between accepting atheists and gays,
and what we have been hearing from the Republicans. Lately, I have been
hearing Republicans that I respect(ed) pander to the fundamentalists, and
this is probably the main reason I support a Democrat for the first
time in my life. 

> a group into your party doesn't mean pandering and doesn't indicate
> their numbers.

	Well, as I said in my last post, I realize that they could be 
sincere.  However, that is just as scary if not more so.
> 
> -- 
> Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  

Scott Lackey
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:35:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.164753.1872@gdr.bath.ac.uk> lisjws@gdr.bath.ac.uk (J W Smith) writes:
>
> It is not incompatible BUT you cannot hold a scientific belief in god.
> Why? Because science, as you so clearly point out, can only tell us about
> appearances whereas religion claims to have the 'truth'.
                               ^^^^^^
> One small question - If religion can give us the 'truth' why do you bother
                       ^^
> with the second rate information that science gives us?


Hope the highlights will suffice.


>John Smith,
>University of Bath.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.            or 0203 etc. if you're in the sunny UK
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Laplace' Quote
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:12:07 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep2.141756.3603@asbt01.gedlab.allied.com> b14817@asbt01.gedlab.allied.com (JON W. PARKER) writes:
|
|
|Your model assumes no outside source of energy.  Velikovski's assumes an
|outside source of energy, ie a cometary body.  

ERROR - comets are *not* external to the Solar System - they are part
of it.


-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: NOTICE:"Bigfoot/Sasquatch" Sightings Request
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:01:52 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes:


>   Our research group is currently investigating reports and sightings of the
>animal known as "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch". If you or somebody you know has had
>such a sighting, or come across what may be evidence supporting the existance
>of such an animal, please get in contact with us in one of the following
>formats:

In other words if anyone has evidence against the existance of such an animal,
your "research group" is >not< interested?
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Let's test the sevens-
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:04:09 GMT

In article <4729384@gloin.unh.edu>, Kalter@unh.edu wrote as follows:

> Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.  The skeptics are in
> business to investigate and test any testable claims of the
> extraordinary.

Bzzzt!  Sorry, no.  Let's have a little less rhetorical excess, here.
The term "extraordinary" is a bit purposefully vague in your post.
Some would call the assertion that Dan Quayle is qualified for public
office extraordinary in the extreme.  However, it is not a claim on
the fringes of science, and so is not in our bailiwick.  Similarly,
attempts to drag skeptics into arcane matters of biblical exegesis by
labeling them "testable claims" ignore the fundamental point that such
claims are neither intended nor taken to be matters of science.
Besides, in my view, they're not even terribly interesting.

Best Regards,
Rick Moen, Director
Bay Area Skeptics
Editor, _BASIS_

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (1 of 4)
Date: 11 Sep 92 06:57:53 GMT
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs

In <716004026.AA00000@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:

    The point about a First Cause is that it's *first*. It causes all the later
    events. Since this postulated cause is all-powerful the later events can be
    guided. So, this First Cause is a conscious decision to cause all
    later effects. That, to my mind, translates as Creation.

Creationism is not identical to belief in Creation.

    Besides, even if this argument were to be faulty there'd be a
    thousand other reasons to believe that Orthodox Judaism demands a
    belief in creationism. 

Or do you mean Creation?  No arguments there.
-- 
/|/-\/-\       I'll leave you with this saying:
 |__/__/_/     I am covered with pure vegetable oil and I am writing a best
 |warren@      seller!
/ nysernet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Re:e: I Am Sananda
From: b14817@asbt01.gedlab.allied.com (JON W. PARKER)
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:36:02 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: ASAC, GED, Phoenix, Az

[stuff deleted]
>>>
>>>1)  Who is dharma? Where is dharma now?

[stuff deleted]
>>
>>Dharma is not a who, at least not as far as I'm aware of. It's a Hindu term,`
>>in fairly common usage, even in the English language. Webster's defines dharma
>>as "the basic principles of cosmic or individual existence; conformity to one's duty and nature."

[stuff deleted]

Dharama is also a name used for the Buddist Patriarch that introduced Buddism
to China.  As the story goes, he did so eventually at the Shaolin temple along
with what later developed into 'kung fu'[see the series].  It is from his
teachings that the Chinese version of what became known as Zen in Japan was
derived in combination with Taoism.  
-- 
JON W. PARKER    Allied-Signal Aerospace, Garrett Engine Division, Phoenix, Az
Aeronet: GED::ASBT01::b14817           Internet: b14817@asbt01.gedlab.allied.com
UUCP: ...!{hrc|mcdphx|asuvax}!gedphx!decnet!asbt01!b14817
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
******STANDARD DISCLAIMER******
He who hesitates, meditates in the horizontal position.  Edmund Parker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bruce@supr.scm.liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the ICR in person (4 of 4)
Date: 8 Sep 92 11:05:07 GMT
Organization: Centre for Mathematical Software Research, Univ. Liverpool, UK

>>>>> On 2 Sep 92 12:41:02 GMT, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) said:

> Thank you very much for your excellent account of your visit
> to the ICR museum.

> I don't know much about the ICR apart from what I've seen in
> flames here. I am pleased that they are presenting the truth
> in this way and a museum seems an excellent idea. I pray for
> God's contunued blessing on the efforts of the ICR.

I guess we were all just waiting for somebody to say this!  At least
now we know Lionel has a sense of humour!

--
Bruce Stephens
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLICAL  I vote [X]Yes!
Organization: HFS, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:56:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.083402@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.225336.8998@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
>writes:
>> To be fair, I don't think Drew Lawson's postings take up very much
>> bandwidth.  It's actually the rebuttals that take up much more.  I don't
>> believe that you can blame him for that.
>
>   Naw, no way, fer sure dood.  Drew kept making the same logical errors
>repeatedly, concealed by his rather odd way of saying what he means[1].  No way
>he's at fault.  Let's have the sys-admin at Drew's site go put a .357 magnum
>hotload into Drew's high school rhetoric teacher.  What?  They don't teach
>rhetoric in high school any more?  Well, I guess that won't do too much harm.

Now you're saying that you don't like or agree with his postings which is
a different issue than bandwidth.  By the way, my perceptions of Drew's
bandwidth is based only on sci.skeptic, not other groups such as talk.origins
for which I am not familiar with.

>Danwell@IASTATE.EDU



-- 
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:16267 alt.conspiracy:10552 sci.classics:703
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,sci.classics
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 11 Sep 92 07:55:38 GMT
	<ARA.92Sep9025434@camelot.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep10.070739.7301@wheaton.wheaton.edu>
	<2AAFDFE2.18457@news.service.uci.edu>
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.


BAR is certainly better than the National Enquirer as reading material goes.

There seems to be a division among archaeologists. There are those who
use archaeology to try to confirm what is written in the Bible. And there
are those who simply look at the archeological record without taking the
Bible into account. BAR seems to cater to the former point of view,
with all of its inherent unscientific bias. That is a cut below Scientific
American which simply aims at popular exposition. BAR's advertisers don't
do it a lot of credit either.

Many people, for example, take for granted the historicity of the Exodus.
But if I understand the recent discovery of a "golden" calf in Canaan,
the archaeologists do not take the Biblical version into account and indeed
the evidence tends to support the hypothesis that the Exodus never happened.
There was already linguistic evidence that made the historicity of the
Exodus problematic, at least according to the discussion of Old Canaanite
in the Encyclopedia Judaica.

If one looks at the book Rise and Progress of Assyriology, by Wallis Budge,
one finds laughable pictures of the remains of the Tower of Babel and
of the tomb of Abraham. Like reading BAR, sort of.

A friend of mine explained it to me as follows: archaeology is not about
clay tablets. It is about broken pots.

Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:30:52 GMT

johna@psdcae1.gvg.tek.com (John Abt) writes:

>There is a novel out that is built around this concept of
>cloning dinosaurs with fossil DNA (sorry, I don't remember
>the name). Matter of fact, Stephen Speilburg is presently
>filming the movie version in Kauai.... or at least he was.
>The movie is "Jurassic Park" - maybe that's the books title 
>also.

>John Abt

There is also a kid's game for the P.C. called _DESIGNOSAURUS_.  It allows
kids access to a "computer" that allows them to muck around with dinosaur
genes to create dinosaurs with different heads, bodies, arms, wings, and
appetites, while attempting to teach them about various prehistoric periods
and regions.  The object of the game is to design a dinosaur that has the
stamina, defense and offensive capabilities, etc., to withstand visits to
some 16 different prehistoric locations to recover "geneprints" stolen by
a "mad scientist" from the Designosaurus Research Institute.  Adventures
includes battles with other dinosaurs, mating with the opposite sex, and a
never ending search for food and water needed to maintain the critter.
From: michaelb@cse.fau.edu (Michael Rogero Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Maps of the Charioteers of the Gods
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:21:31 GMT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

In article <92Sep08.155232.32789@acs.ucalgary.ca> edstrom@Elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca (John Edstrom) writes:
>
>Somebody was telling me recently that they saw a scientist on TV who
>claims that medieval cartographers had a map of Antarctica which
>showed the mountains and valleys under the ice which only deep-sensing
>radar has recently revealed.  The scientist, my source claims, was a
>geographer who had worked on the survey of Antarctica.
>
>This one is news to me.  It sounds odd to me that they could have a
>map of the south pole when they didn't know about north&south America,
>Australia, southern Africa and most of Asia and the Pacific ocean.
>
>
>Anybody know anything about it?
>
Well, it's not that increadible that the ancients had Antartica on thier maps.
The ancient Greeks divided the world into 4 quarters and felt each quarter
should have more or less the same amount of land.  The "known" world comprised
Asia Minor and such and filled only one quarter of the world.  This idea was
probably picked up in medieval times.

OR the ancients where better navigators than we thought and knew of an Antartic
continent.  Heck, they called it "Terra Incognito Australias"- The Unknown
South Land.  Thats how Australia got its name.


-- 
<<                                                               >>
<< Michael R. Brown    CS Graduate Student-Florida Atlantic Univ >>
<< Internet: michaelb@sol.cse.fau.edu                            >>
<< BitNet: m_brown@fauvax                                        >>