HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:24:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.152351.11692@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.022454.9835@panix.com> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
writes:
> >
> > To:  Drew Lawson 
> 
> [deleted]
> 
> >  That "ignoring God" is an interesting phrase, too, implying that God
> >is trying to get our attention, and we are consciously ignoring Him.
> >What you mean is "not following my religious beliefs", right?
> 
> No.  If I meant "not following my religious beliefs," I would have said
> so.  I meant "ignoring God" -- that is, leaving consideration of God
> out of the system developed.

	Because by leaving God out of the system, we have come to verifiable
and workable scientific theories.  As soon as we started leaving supernatural
ideas out, we started learning more about the natural world around us.  
	Therefore, empirically God is NOT part of the physical world and is
not necessary to explain physical phenomena.  If you wish to believe in a
loving and kind God who will welcome you into a heaven after you die, fine.
If you want to explain how to fix a car, call a mechanic, not a priest.

> -- 
> Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
> lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

				   What if they're immiscible?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Crop Circles (a different twist)
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 05:55:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.111756.8771@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> pensyl@iccgcc.dec
et.ab.com writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.023837.20644@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, arsmith@nyx.cs
du.edu (Alan Smith) writes:
>> 
>> Hey, anybody ever thought about tornadoes?  They would give the symmet
y,
>> but maybe a little too much destruction.  How 'bout a dust devil?
>> 
>What about a watermelon-drop from a helicopter at 200'?
>JP


No, they'd find the seeds.  Although, if you took a helicopter and hovered
it reeeal close to the ground... Hmmm.

Big Al.  Besides, I don't think watermelons explode symmetrically.  I
guess we'd have to ask the guys on alt.conspiracy.jfk, though.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:10:41 GMT

In article <19920902.130129.507@almaden.ibm.com>, ameline@vnet.ibm.com (Ian Ameline) writes:
>   The other method (which I've seen in action) is to tell them that
>you're already a member of the largest growing religion on the face of
>planet -- that's right, you're Catholic. And why, you might ask, is
>this the fastest growing religion? Well, 'cause the Pope won't us wear
>these rubber things (he pulls one out -- snaps the rubber) when we F---!
>At this point they clamped their hands down on their kids ears, and
>leave.

My usual technique is to say to the JW, "Get out of here and leave me alone or,
by God, I'll see how far I can throw you."  The JW invariably responds with,
"You shouldn't take the Lord's name in vain."  Having just been told by the JW
that I should keep my oath, I do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,talk.origins
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:44:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.152905.11781@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.061544.22128@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca
(Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
> >The scientific method is as follows:
> [deleted]
> >Creation Experiment:
> >
> >Hypothesis:  God created the world 6000 years ago.
> >Evidence  :  None, God is hiding it all.
> 
> You will note that I have never stated that creation is a scientific
> hypothesis.

  You did say (in the article immediately preceding)

>No.  If I meant "not following my religious beliefs," I would have said
>so.  I meant "ignoring God" -- that is, leaving consideration of God
>out of the system developed.

  Which seems to imply you want religion to be part of science.  Now, if you
don't believe in creationism, what part of evolution do you disagree with?  Just
the fact that nobody has mentioned God?

  If you could offer a test for any effects you feel this would have on the
theory, I am sure many people would go out and perform said test.

> Try to remember that "believes in the creation" is not the same as
> "believes in creation science."

  If you feel creationism is not founded in science, why are you trying to alter
science?  Leave them separate and there is no real problem.

 |  __L__   *******************************
-|-  ___    * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub   *
 |  | o |   * kv07@iastate.edu            *
 |/ `---'   * Iowa State University       *
/|   ___    * Math Department             *
 |  |___|   * 400 Carver Hall             *
 |  |___|   * Ames, IA  50011             *
 J  _____   *******************************
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15896 talk.origins:10834
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 4 Sep 92 05:37:43 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <92247.145259U19807@uicvm.uic.edu> U19807@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>In article <BtutzB.Cn5@world.std.com>, believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco)
>says:
>
>>GOD gives you a CHOICE.
>
So does science.  "Either believe woring theory number one, wrong theory number
two, or dream up your own wrong theory."

>Oh? Either believe a load of fundamentalist tripe wholesale or fry for all
>eternity?
>
>Some "choice" you've got there.
>
>> The wages of sin are DEATH.

Aren't we gonna die anyway?  I mean, everybody dies, the bible has to admit *that*.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet,talk.origins
From: arsmith@nyx.cs.du.edu (Alan Smith)
Subject: Re: Evolution and abortion: a polite refutation.
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.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:56:15 GMT

In article <17elnnINNavt@smaug.West.Sun.COM> dab@ism.isc.com (David A. Bu
terfield) writes:
>schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>
>>Sigh. I guess we should not be surprised at this late date that Lionel
>>would accept statements made within a work of fiction as hard evidence.
>
>"We should develop anti-satellite weapons because we could not have
> prevailed without them in `Red Storm Rising.'"
>				-- Vice President Dan Quayle
>
>-- 
>                     Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!


Rocky and Bullwinkle in '92!

Big Al.  Do you think that most of the american populous can tell the
difference between "Murphy Brown" and reality?  I hope so.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:01:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.171831.346@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>There is another point I've been meaning to bring up on this thread.
>The anti-faith side of this debate questions why the evidence points to
>long times, evolution, etc.  Perhaps the "evidence" is not pointing.
>As an example, let me bring up the old "canals" on Mars topic.  They
>were clear evidence that there was an advanced civilization on Mars.

Actually, virtually all evidence after the original report of canals is that
they were simply an artifact of a flawed telescope and never were there at all.

>More recent views is that they just happen to be there and aren't
>evidence of anything.  They just appeared to be canals.

Where did you come across these "more recent views"?  A science fiction
magazine perhaps?  Remember, it's called science FICTION for a reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,talk.philosphy.misc
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Why binary logic?
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:01:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.030619.8047@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes in part:
|> Would it make sense to invent a new multivalued logic, to open up
|> the narrow space and discover new things?

There are tons and tons of different logics in use everyday by
mathematicians and such like.  Of course, the vast majority of
such systems can be represented in binary logic, at least 
theoretically.  And it is difficult to say that any set of
logical rules has ever constricted or expanded "space" or
discovered "new things".  Logic is mostly used to structure
arguments about things that are already at least partly understood.

Logics are really very simple models of the world, and there
are plenty of more complicated models to use.  You should alway's 
use a model that is well suited to the problem.

If you want a model of everyday reasoning, you probably
want to look as probabilistic models, which not only have more 
than T and F, but have a continuous distribution of belief.  
Check out a book about Bayesian inference, for instance.

|> Are there any books written on this kind of stuff?
Definitely.  Tons of stuff.  Its called mathematical modelling.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15205 talk.origins:10229
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Data Structures of Unreality
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:35:31 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug25.103045.9921@hemlock.cray.com> robd@cherry09 (Robert Derrick) writes:
>Drew Lawson (lawson@acuson.com) wrote:
>: 
>: Interesting.  A "physical chunk of memory" is not a data structure.
>: Likewise, an object is not its representation.  When you get to the
>: machine execution, data structures do not exist.  But they are
>: convenient notions for organizing many details.
>
>Ah!  And would you also concur that a strand of DNA is not a human
>being?  The object "human" is not its representation "DNA".  Is this
>correct?  When you get to the implementation and operation of a
>human, does the coding within the data structures in the cells not
>exist?  Are the DNA codes just convenient notions for organizing
>many details?
>
>I really want to hear your answer.
>
>rob derrick

This is a wide tangent from stating that not all consistent concepts are
part of reality.

Is a strand of DNA a human being?  Of course not.

Is the dead skin flake (containing DNA) in your living room sofa a
human being?

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself -- Netiquette & Politeness (Was: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...))
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 04:04:40 GMT

In <1992Aug31.000512.29124@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.160903.18687@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.065402.19240@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

[ lots o stuff deleted. ]

>>
>>>(As their status would be offended by such immaturity).
>>
>>Not likely.  What makes you think a high caliber person gives a damn about
>>"status"?

>Important high calibre people associate only with things that add to their
>importance. That's how they got important in the first place. They
>wouldn't be seen dead getting involved in arguments that degenerate into
>"name calling" a la Dan.

	The proper non-nettiqute phrase for this statement is "bullshit."
People got important by DOING something of high calibre and quality.  
As long as there method for expressing what they did was clear, it is of
somewhat secondary importance.  Furthermore, I have seen high calibre people
get into just this kind of argument at scientific conferences and such.
I don't know where Derek gets this drek from.

>That's why you never see "famous" names on sci.skeptic.

	Probably because they're way to busy doing the things that keep them
famous.

>Okay, you see posts from James Randi, but that is aways an
>announcement through an intermediary. He if knew about some
>of the degenerate language & attitudes that perpetuate in this
>group he'd think twice.

	I've seen the man at a talk.  He isn't above calling bullshit bullshit
where it's appropriate.  He considers the ideas a person has MUCH more 
important than the words they use to express them.

>I must be some kind of masochist, myself, to still keep hanging around.

	Implying, of course, that you are some high-calibre-type-person of
far too much maturity to put up with a couple of bad words?  Just because you 
don't say any 'bad words' means that you have said anything worth listening too.


"What are words for, when no one listens any more?" -- Talking Heads (?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:29:20 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Aug31.134520.4814@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:

>It would certainly clear up a lot of things for me if I could view a
>videotape of random molecules being selected into usable DNA, proteins, etc.
>(From when it actually happened of course, not a contrived lab experiment)

("From when it actually happened of course": the man wants a four billion year
old videotape. Will that be VHS or Beta, sir?)

So it would for all of us. But since the chances of this happening are
exactly zero, can we take your statement to mean that you will NEVER accept
a natural, non-miraculous explanation for the origin of life on earth?



Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15886 talk.origins:10825
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 4 Sep 92 05:13:08 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Sep3.155246.17752@city.cs> lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
|In article <973@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
|>Thus, linguistic data requires that *humans* have been around as such
|>for substantially more than 12,000 years (this is just a lower limit,
|>it places no upper limit).
|
|This is another illustration of the _assumptions_ that evolutionists
|start from, that of uniformity. What if at some point within the
|last 6,000 years human language suddenly and inexplicably exploded
|from one to hundreds instantaneously?
|Do these linguistic reconstructions discount the confusion of 
|languages at the Tower of Babel?

Doesn't work.  The variations in languages are systematic, and progressive.
Instantaneous changes do not produce this sort of clustering of form.
The 100+ languages directly inferable for 6000 years ago do not constitute
a formless mass, they show inter-relationships indicative of prior
history.  The indication of prior history is found in the fact that the
sorts of relationships among the 6000 year old languages are similar to
those between the languages known to have evolved since then (from printed
material over time).
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:27:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: RL

In article <1992Aug27.163835.12301@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.083650@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.145025.5243@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
>>writes:
>
>>> kept up on recent architecture developments, but I didn't know of any
>>> machines which make use of data structures.
>>
>>   Hmmm.  So you maintain that machines do not use software (which itself fails
>>to exist without data structures)?  Perhaphs you should spend a week making a
>>careful clarification of youe phrase "make use of".  Yours does not seem to be
>>the standard meaning.
>
>Have you ever studied machine architecture even a little bit?
>
>The machine execution is not affected by the data
>structures.  The compiler operation is.
>
The machine execution IS the data structures.  There is NO essential
difference between a compiler and an assembler, the compiler being
nothing more than a glorified, standardized macro set and subroutine
library.  There is NO difference between assembler and machine
code, save convenient mnemonics and macro capabilities which are in
themselves naught but convenient [sic] editing implementations.

>
>Perhaps you don't know what a data structure is.  It is an
>abstraction.  A way of labeling memory with a conceptual purpose.  They

A purpose like, say, guiding the machine execution? 

>are sometimes used without any memory allocation.

Spare us this quibbling.  I suggest that you keep this ignorant balderdash
off your resume and avoid the subject entirely in interviews.

>
>I also doubt that all of science would fall apart if belief in
>evolutionary origin fell by the wayside.

Doubt what you will.  Science as we know it would be in tatters.

>What about pulsars as clear evidence of extra-stellar intelligence?
>

What?!  Shirley, you jest. 8^) 

>-- 
>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate


-- 
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:15540 talk.origins:10440
From: markwc@barney.esl.com (Mark Christiansen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:28:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: esl.1356
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA


duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:

>carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:

>>eyewitness evidence.  Consider the following analogy: You are a
>>juror in a burglary trial.  There are videotapes from the store's
>>security cameras which clearly show the defendant breaking the store
>>window and taking some TV sets from a display rack.  Blood on one of
>>the sharp glass shards is shown by DNA testing and serological
>>analysis to come from the defendant.  The defendant's fingerprints
>>are all over the recovered TV sets.

>>As his defense, the defendant calls several witnesses, who say that
>>during prayer, God revealed to them that the defendant is innocent.
>>How do you find, oh juror?

>>I promise you, the physical evidence for evolution is even more
>>compelling that I've implied above.

>It would certainly clear up a lot of things for me if I could view a
>videotape of random molecules being selected into usable DNA,
>proteins, etc.  (From when it actually happened of course, not a
contrived lab experiment)

And besides, who can prove that this universe is not a contrived lab
experiment?

Mark
-- 
   When I examined myself and my methods of thought I came to the
conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my
talent for absorbing positive knowledge.
   -- Albert Einstein
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 27 Aug 92 06:20:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug26.180829.24593@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes...
> [text deleted]
>Now, the term "disorder" applied in this way is misleading (or, at
>best, meaningless).  A room which is messy would be informally called
>"disordered" by most people - even if they're ignorant (as most are)
>of the entropy of the room.  The room might actually have *lower*
>entropy that it does after you clean it!  In fact, cleaning is a 
>quite energetic process, so I'm willing to bet on it.

Ah, this is something I could never get my parents to understand.  My "messy"
room actually preserves a lot more information than a clean room.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson)
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:25:57 GMT

In <3665@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.003330.4541@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>>God playing evolution, is CREATION.

>You seem to be stuck on this strange assertion.

Yes, as a matter of fact I am Mr McCants.

If you believe that God had a guiding hand in the development
of life, using evolution.

Then you are in agreement with Drew's basic philosophy.
That God is responsible for creating us.

All you disagree with is his method.

A Rose by any other name...

Vern Nelson
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic