HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Help
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:38:34 GMT
Organization: Rescorla for himself.

In article <1992Nov18.170630.9301@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>I am presuming everyone has read Susan Blackmore's studies on OOB's.  I will
>get the reference tomorrow.  
I haven't. Can you summarize before I rush out to look them up?
-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
From: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Four Light years an hour
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 17 Nov 92  09:07:28

1: docken@convex.com (William Dockendorf)
ID: 1992Nov12.202533.27022@news.eng.convex.com
And <69318@cup.portal.com> John_-_Winston@cup.portal.com
 
John> "Dear Folks: I believe you will find that not all space
John> people hold to the rule of slowing down when they get so
John> close to a planet. Some of them speed up when they get
John> away from the planets of a system.
 
WD> "What, you mean there's no 'star cops' to give them a ticket
WD> for speeding?"
 
"The Blue Star!" (Ahh, ahh! <insert French horns here>)
 
John> of a group of space people from the planet Legart in the
John> constellation Lebra who can go a little over 4 light year
John> an hour. Please ask Don Showen how fast the people from
John> the Pleides can go. I believe you will find they can really
John> move on. John Winston.
 
WD> "4 light years an hour, hmmm that works out to Warp 32.73
WD> according to my formula.  Captain Kirk and Scotty must be
WD> green with envy... William"
 
It wouldn't even make light angry with red-shift. . . (SMILE!)
 
But seriously. Four light-years in one hour is nothing to squawk at,
but it is still slower that the _Lying_Bastard_ of Puppeteer fame.
 
I think John got his idea of these space craft having to be away
from planets from "Ringworld" by Niven, and two or three StarTrek
books---- one does not jump into The Hole or warp drive while in
the influence of a gravity well.
 
John is very enjoyable to read, but after a year or so it gets
kind of tedious. I wish the resident fire walker would come back!
At least he made an attempt to rationalize away his mistakes.

--- Maximus 2.00
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Let's cut to the evolutionary chase
Date: 22 Nov 1992 11:37:22 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia) writes:

>What are the arguments used by creationists against the theory of evolution?

They say, "Evolution is a just a theory and not a fact.  It hasn't been
proven."

>What do evolutionists say in return?

We say, "prove *you're* theory."

keith


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:42:21 GMT

In article <13NOV199212394983@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>
>But when one gospel (Matthew) inserts stories like the resurrection of
>the saints at the time of the crucifixion, who traveled to the cities
>and made their presence known, this does seem to be analogous to alien
>spacecraft.  (Especially since this not only is unreported by any other
>account, it doesn't seem to fit in well with what Matthew himself says.
>If all these resurrected people were walking around prior to Jesus'
>resurrection, why the surprise when Jesus himself showed up?)

Perhaps many people reported seeing previously dead people during
this time.  Of course, no one probably believed them.  We don't
even know how long after this event took place before it was
generally known by all.  That is why the apostles and disciples,
who not only should have known that Jesus was going to rise again
(He predicted it many times) were surprised because they may not
have been aware of the reported sightings until much later.
Matthew was only including what he had *later* heard.

>
>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.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
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Biblical Inerrancy?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 02:46:52 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov18.214752.6782@texhrc.uucp>, someone@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.021504.13692@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>|> 
>|> It also says that pi=3.
>
>Where does it say that?  I haven't heard that one yet.

It's where someone is building some sort of font for the temple in the Old
Testament.  Of course, for pi=3 to follow, one has to assume that the Bible is
inerrant, literally true, and precise.  Now, that's what a lot of creationists
seem to claim, but outside the lunatic fringe of the creationists, you seldom
see claims that the Bible is everywhere precise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Good Works Out-weigh Bad?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 19 Nov 92  16:25:08

Who: tomscud@ruf.rice.edu (Thomas Reid Scudder)
ID: BxpAow.4Jx@rice.edu
 
[large cut]
 
|> Skeptic groups often fail to confront religious quackery because
|> doing so is politically dangerous. I think the failure to do so
|> is dangerous.
 
TRS> "Let me tell you a little story."
 
Hi! I've heard it all before.
 
TRS> It's from the nineteenth century, although some of it dates back
TRS> to the eighteenth as well, and on forward into the first half of
TRS> the twentieth century.  Its about a lot of people, mostly from
TRS> the United States, who felt impelled, by a lot of what they
TRS> learned from Christianity, to go out and spread the word abroad.
TRS> You're groaning already, and getting ready to hit the "n" button.
TRS> These are the evil bible-thumpers, going out to indoctrinate the
TRS> poor third-worlders and destroy their culture, right?  Perhaps.
 
Ture enough, for a variety of reasons.
 
TRS> But what they left behind them, in addition to evangelism,
TRS> was a legacy of good medical care and good education, frequently
TRS> given for no price, to people who the governments of the West,
TRS> and all of the wonderful "secular" types, couldnt care less about.
TRS> Some of the fruits of their efforts still remain, such as the
TRS> American Mission Hospital in Bahrain, or the Vellore Medical
TRS> College in India.  A lot of it has been rendered somewhat obsolete
TRS> by the big foreign aid organizations started in the fifties and
TRS> sixties, as well as by the increase in the abilities of some of
TRS> these countries (particularly those in the Middle East) to pay
TRS> for their own health care and education. But a lot of people who
TRS> otherwise wouldn't have gotten help and who would have lived a
TRS> much worse life were helped by these missionaries, in the name of
TRS> Christianity."
 
Am I supposed to insert here a few hundred examples of Christianity
killing off entire civilizations? Enslaving whole nations for the
Christian sugar cartel in the Carrabean? Enslaving native Americans
to dive to their deaths (to the last man) to recover gold in ship
wreaks (natives of Maine)? I'll pass on that.
 
I'd like to tell you a little story or two. One is titled "C.A.R.E."
and another is called "U.N.I.C.E.F." And another called "United
Nations." And how about the "Peace Core."
 
TRS> And surely, if you're going to condemn all things Christian,
TRS> you must consider that there has been much good accomplished
TRS> by Christians as well as much bad.
 
I don't condemn all Christians.
 
With that, I'd like to disban this topic, as it really is not
topical to this newsgroup. Thank you for your interest!
 
TRS> Tom Scudder                    tomscud@ruf.rice.edu
 
David "Evangelical Atheist" Rice

--- Maximus 2.00
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Subject: Re: What did Judas betray?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 14:47:51 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Nov17.043358.16082@bony1.bony.com> billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
>
>Nice try, but Matthew was also one of the twelve apostles.  In addition,
>John Mark's gospel was written by Mark as told to him by the apostle
>Peter.  Luke's gospel is written based upon information relayed to Luke
>by Mary (Jesus's Mother) and Paul (Saul of Tarsus).  This is from the
>Columbia Encyclopedia BTW.
>

	No one appears to have responded directly to this, so I will.
	Most of what you say here has no support in the Gospels,
	but first appears early in the second century.  It has all the
	earmarks of being created to support authenticity of
	the books in question.

>So two were written by eye witnesses, two are from interviews with eye
>witnesses, or others close to the source.  To say that these are invalid is 
>akin to denying the validity of newspaper reports, textbooks, etc as well. 
>As has been pointed out by another poster, the four gospel can be traced back
>to the first century A.D.
>

	Your last sentence here does not support the assertions made
	in the other two.  All responsible scholarship that I am 
	familiar with is of the firm opinion that the early history
	of the Gospels is quite complex.

	I have the complete debate between myself and
	a few other people from "The Historical Jesus" thread from
	earlier this year, available for anyone who wishes a copy.
	It specifically addresses the question of the authorship
	of the Gospels and I include full citations for reference works,
	and Roman works that mention Xtianity and Jesus that I have
	read myself.  Appended to the thread is a copy of
	Mr. Lippard's essay discussing OT prophecies of Jesus.
	People are welcome to email me if they wish a copy of this file.
	It makes for very interesting reading about a fascinating subject.

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
From: llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:18:19 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Carl J Lydick (carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) wrote:

: I see.  The witness's testimony has been thoroughly impeached on this point,
: yet we're supposed to consider the rest of his testimony to be reliable. 
: Sounds to me like you've got such a strong need to believe that you'd believe
: damned near anything to avoid having to question your faith.

i think that this kind of a strong need to believe is fairly common
among religious people. faith is one response to a world that
increasingly seems to be senseless and arbitrary; it can be an
effective method of staving off despair. reading the above reminded me
of a post i made elsewhere about drugs, religion, and angst:

but religion is another temporary cure for angst. it's like alcohol or
drugs or whatever: it only works as long as you're using it.  the
difference is that it's easier on the body/life and more socially
acceptable to be religious all the time than to be drunk or tripping
or high all the time.

i can hear the objection already: "but alcohol and drugs screw up your
*mind*. they impair your capacity for thought and independent action."
i won't argue that, but so does a rigid adherence to a belief system
(like christianity). if you've "cured" your angst by flinging yourself
into religious fervor, you've basically just put a new set of filters
on your brain. instead of interpreting things the way you used to, you
now relate everything to your belief system. no more pain because
there's an easy answer for everything. the problem is that you lose
your capacity for objective thought unless you're really good at
coping with cognitive dissonance. and the scary thing is, you're most
likely not too aware of the impairment. at least when you're drunk,
you *know* you're drunk.

i've known a few people who were both religious and capable of dealing
honestly with threats to that religious belief, but they were very
rare people. it's easier just to say "the bible tells me so" and move
on to the next topic. maybe that's why i've never been good at faith.

rereading this, it occurs to me that this need for certainty, coupled
with a belief that the answers to all life's questions can be found in
a particular religion may be at the core of the conflict between
religion and science (an ancient war that's alive and well in this
group). in science (particularly if you adopt kuhn's paradigmatic
view), uncertainty is at the root of all progress. we don't even know
for sure how much we don't know. by contrast, religion sells itself by
providing absolutes in a confusing world. scientists embrace chaos and
seek to explore it, whereas most belief systems are an attempt to
eradicate the chaos and uncertainty of life.

--
sine nomine | debbie martinson
what's red and invisible?
no tomatoes.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Harmony Of The Gospels?
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:36:08 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

carlis_jc@cs2.lamar.edu writes:

>   In reguard to the $1,000 contest to find a totaly consistent account of the
>"Gospel" storys it would seem that the orginazation that offered said prize is
>requireing one to win the "no win scenario".

Yes, I must agree.  On the one hand, suppoose all four gospels were
identical.  They all include the same events, describe them similarly,
and none include "side bars" not found in the other three.  The only
noticeable differences might be grammatical.  With four accounts all
in unison, wouldn't the argument for their authenticity be cinched?
Hardly.  For then those who currently criticize the gospels for being
different would cry, "Collusion!  Without any differences in the
accounts given by independant individuals, how can one rule out
deceit?"

As we know the four gospels have their differences.  Some highlight
events not included by the others, while identical events are
described differently by different persons.  Differences will occur in
eyewitness accounts.  Witness A saw the airplane going down in flames
while witness B saw no fire until impact.  Obviously both witnesses
are deliberatly trying to deceive us because their accounts are
different.  Or is one wrong and the other right?  Are more witnesses
needed so a majority determination can be made?  How many are needed
for a majority?  Three?  No?  O.K. then, how about Four?  Well then,
how many would it take?

Curt roelle@sigi.jhuapl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arandia@panix.com (Joel Arandia)
Subject: Let's cut to the evolutionary chase
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 09:22:44 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

What are the arguments used by creationists against the theory of evolution?
What do evolutionists say in return?
Isn't there a file out there containing this info?  If someone has it could 
s/he mail it to me?
joel d. arandia
From: kanga.caltech.edu!magney (Michael Agney)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 18 Nov 1992 20:29:46 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: krusty.caltech.edu
Originator: magney@krusty

In article <13230@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)  
writes:
> Because no other group but homosexuals is trying to legitimate
> child molestation.

AAAAAARRGH!!!!  HOW many times is this thing going to come up!?!?!

Sorry about the emotional outburst, folks - I just read a McElwaine
posting.

As I understand it, the grain of truth this outrageous lie comes from is
that some people who happen to be homosexual believe that the statutory
rape laws in this country should be repealed, as arbitrarily defining
the age of consent at 18 denies reasonable rights to perfectly emotionally
mature people just a bit under that age.  I happen to disagree with this,
because trying to base consent age on emotional maturity would raise
enormous legal problems, but it is NOT an attempt to legitimize child
molestation.

I could be wrong - anyone have any more accurate info?
-- 
| Michael Agney          | Yd - gender neutral pronoun    |
|                        |                                |
|                        | Source:  Stories by Alison     |
| magney@cco.caltech.edu | Tellure, back issues of Analog |
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:19737 alt.messianic:3463
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Innumeracy, humorous ... maybe.
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:32:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.045407.29782@udel.edu> mccoy@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Don McCoy) writes:
>In article <BxoJK2.KzI@ccu.umanitoba.ca> 
>   vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:

>>Speaking of inummeracy...

>>There was an article in our local paper about a year back on the
>>subject.  The author went to lengths to point out how little people
>>understand numbers.  In his example he used the 6/49 lottery.
>>You know, pick 6 different numbers from 49.  He stated that people
>>just didn't understand that the odds of winning that lottery were
>>about 10 billion to 1 (49 * 48 * 47 *46 * 45 * 44).

>>He was of course, inumerate himself, as the odds of winning are 
>>actually about 14 million to 1.

>Uh, I could be wrong here, but I believe 10 billion to 1 is right.
>How did you arrive at the 14 million to 1 figure???

The 10-billion figure is the number of sequences of six numbers
selected from a pool of 49.  But the sequence doesn't matter; if
you picked 1-2-3-4-5-7 as your bet, and it came out 7-4-5-2-3-1,
you'd still win.  So you have to divide by the number of
permutations of six numbers, which is 6! (6 factorial) or 
6 * 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 = 720.  10 billion / 720 is about 14 million,
no?

Roger

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: The earliest AIDS cases
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:37:04 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology

Huminer, Rosenfeld, Pitlik "AIDS in the pre-AIDS Era" REVIEWS OF
INFECTIOUS DISEASES v9 #6, Nov/Dec 1987, pp1102-1108 has a list of
19 pre-1981 cases that in retrospect are almost certainly AIDS.
This was pruned down from a much larger list of maybes.  The
first four cases had AIDS style opportunistic infections in 1952,
1958, 1959, 1959.

That's 1952!  Obviously the Nazi theories are right....
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Where has Galileo been all these years?
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:15:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.202537.3955@draco.macsch.com>, jfb@draco.macsch.com (John Baskette) writes:
>[..] I conclude that the punishment of
>Galileo was based, not on any conflict between his view and Church
>doctrine, but on the Pope's regrettable but unsurprising conviction
>that anyone who publicly makes a laughing-stock of the Pope is
>striking at the foundations of all that is good and decent and must
>not be permitted to get away with it.  Urban VIII is by no means the
>only public figure to reason like this.  I feel the urge to give
>several more examples, but this post is already too long.
>
>
> James Kiefer

In Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses", there appears a man-eating monster
that is easily recognizable as Ayatollah Ruhollah Musawi al-Chomeini...

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
...and then the dragon ate the princess and the knight, and he lived happily
ever after.   -- Grandma Addams telling Wednesday a story (paraphrased)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: delft@fwi.uva.nl (Andre van Delft)
Subject: blindfolded trick
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 23:15:44 GMT

For a burning question, I quote & translate from the dutch newspaper
NRC Handelsblad, November 20:

  ROTTERDAM - Although the police forbad it, hypnotizer and illusionist
  Rasti Rostelli secretly performed yersterday his yearly 'birthday stunt': 
  blindfolded and with coins (dutch 'rijksdaalders', diameter about 1 inch)
  taped on his eyelids, driving by car in Rotterdam during the busy hour.
  Rostelli, who says he taps from a spirit of a driver who drives in front
  of him, was awaited by policeman R. Ros ('we are obviously part of the
  show') and three colleagues, who forbad him to sit down on the driver's
  seat of his black Pontiac. Thereafter, blindfolded Rostelli sat down
  'to prevent manual violence' next to a driver whom he gave instructions.
  As soon as the police disappeared, the magician set down on the driver's 
  seat and guided his car through the inner city and the Maastunnel.

I saw Rostelli a few weeks ago in a television show. He tried to
hypnotize a sceptic journalist, editor-in-chief of a dutch newspaper:
'you cannot lift me, you cannot lift me, you cannot...'
The journalist then couldn't lift Rostelli, and was stunned.

Next, Rostelly did two tricks, with his eyes covered by coins, taped and
blindfolded: he fired an arrow from about 5 meters close to the bulls eye
of a dart board, that the showman held in front of his chest. For the
second trick, a women bent her necks and two lemons were put onto her eyes.
Then, Rostelli marched for about half a minute amoung the audience like a
robot, waving with the knives. When he was near the woman, he positioned
and picked the two lemons with the knives.

In contrast to the birthday stunt, Rostelli emphasized in the show that
absolutely nothing supernatural was involved.

I am still puzzled. Can anyone explain me how Rostelli does the trick?

Andre van Delft
From: jbarnett@nrtc.northrop.com (Jeff Barnett)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Genetic transmission of habits ? Nah...
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:09:21 GMT
Reply-To: jbarnett@nrtc.northrop.com (Jeff Barnett)

In article <98816@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
(Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov23.160325.1@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz>, quirke_a@kosmos writes:
|> 
|> The twin separation studies have been done repeatedly, and they have
|> repeatedly found a remarkably high correlation between twins' behaviors.
|> -- 
Careful.  Approximately 10 years ago, there was a bunch of articles in
Science, Nature, etc.,
about twin studies.  It seems that virtually every researcher to date
used the huge database
collected and published by Ceril Burt (sp?).  Unfortunately, there was
good evidence that
most of that data had been made up from whole cloth.  This invalidated
almost all of the
nature vs nurture studies done till that time.

Since these twin studies take decades to do--need to their follow
development for lengthy
periods of time--we are not yet to a point where all that early work
(and inferences) based
on it can be replicated.

In summary, beware of quoting anything based on twin-separated-at-birth
studies for another
decade.  If you have the resources, look for the articles describing the
largest scientific
scandal of all times.

Jeff Barnett