HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: galster@plains.NoDak.edu (Dwight Galster)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Evolution n
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:02:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: ns1.C0pE8w.Cv4
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

I really, really, really didn't want to get involved in this discussion
but I just couldn't let this one go by.

>>If you're a creationist, consider Adam and Eve, and then consider
>>the diversity among humans today, e.g. Asians, Africans, Europeans.
>>How did this come about if evolution didn't occur?
>
>If one it dumb enough to read the Genesis creation account literally,
>racial diversity would be difficult to explain.
>
>-- 
Consider the domestic dog, whose variety in features far exceeds the
variety in humans.  Yet it is known that these dogs derive from one
species something like the wolf.  There is no reason at all to reject
the notion that all of today's human races derive from a common stock,
and this statement hold whether one believes in evolution OR creation.

The insults about "dumb enough to believe the Bible" are misplaced
and an unfortunate sign of intolerance.  Belief in evolution is every
bit as much a matter of faith as anything else.  There are no "proofs"
on either side, as is always the case with forensic science.  We go
with the evidence we find believeable.  As a statistician, I must say
evolution is statistically impossible (which of course doesn't mean
it's not true.  Such is life in my field).

As this is supposed to be a newsgroup for very intelligent people, let
me remind you that many of the world's geniuses have and still do believe
the Bible.  Evidence for a young earth and a sudden creation exists,
and if it doesn't come in the quantities that evidence for Evolution and
an old earth, it's because the funding ratio is about 1:10000 and  
scientists who don't believe in evolution are routinely discriminated
against in degree granting, hiring, publishing, and promotion.

My own belief is that there is no way to win this argument one way or
the other.  I have read much that goes both ways, and in the end, it
just comes down to faith.

Now shouldn't this discussion be taken to talk.origins?
From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Evolution n
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:47:49 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.mensa

In article <C0pE8w.Cv4@ns1.nodak.edu>, galster@plains.NoDak.edu (Dwight
Galster) wrote:
> 
> I really, really, really didn't want to get involved in this discussion
> but I just couldn't let this one go by.
> 
> >>If you're a creationist, consider Adam and Eve, and then consider
> >>the diversity among humans today, e.g. Asians, Africans, Europeans.
> >>How did this come about if evolution didn't occur?
> >
> >If one it dumb enough to read the Genesis creation account literally,
> >racial diversity would be difficult to explain.
> >
> >-- 
> Consider the domestic dog, whose variety in features far exceeds the
> variety in humans.  Yet it is known that these dogs derive from one
> species something like the wolf.  There is no reason at all to reject
> the notion that all of today's human races derive from a common stock,
> and this statement hold whether one believes in evolution OR creation.
> 
> The insults about "dumb enough to believe the Bible" are misplaced
> and an unfortunate sign of intolerance.  Belief in evolution is every
> bit as much a matter of faith as anything else.  There are no "proofs"
> on either side, as is always the case with forensic science.  We go
> with the evidence we find believeable.  As a statistician, I must say
> evolution is statistically impossible (which of course doesn't mean
> it's not true.  Such is life in my field).
> 
> As this is supposed to be a newsgroup for very intelligent people, let
> me remind you that many of the world's geniuses have and still do believe
> the Bible.  Evidence for a young earth and a sudden creation exists,
> and if it doesn't come in the quantities that evidence for Evolution and
> an old earth, it's because the funding ratio is about 1:10000 and  
> scientists who don't believe in evolution are routinely discriminated
> against in degree granting, hiring, publishing, and promotion.

Since such evidence exists, could you please present it here.  To date, I
can't recall seeing any evidence for a young earth and a sudden creation.
 
> My own belief is that there is no way to win this argument one way or
> the other.  I have read much that goes both ways, and in the end, it
> just comes down to faith.
> 
> Now shouldn't this discussion be taken to talk.origins?

Nope; there are only so many newsgroups that I can keep up with.  I'm not
about to add another one just to follow one topic.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Another thought...(Not even close)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:12:57 GMT
Status: R

Gil, still can't post.  Can I impose again?  Thanks -- Colleen

Will do:

______________


All right, after being a member for five years and reading the last
several weeks' discussion of IQ, I finally give a damn.

I grew up when they didn't tell you your score.  National says I
qualify, but, again, didn't give me an estimate.  DOES ANYBODY HAVE A
BALL PARK FIGURE FOR NATIONAL MERITS SCHOLARSHIP WINNERS (1/2 of 1%)?

I know, that and 60 cents will buy me a cup of coffee, but suddenly
I'm curious. Since my career field isn't even remotely close to ed or
psych, I haven't the slightest notion where I would begin to research
the answer.  Maybe I need to call that 1-900 number??? :-)

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: elbaldwi@eos.ncsu.edu (edward lee baldwin)
Subject: there i go again...
Originator: elbaldwi@c00004-118dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Keywords: kill capital letters...
Reply-To: elbaldwi@eos.ncsu.edu (edward lee baldwin)
Organization: north carolina state university, project eos
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:30:27 GMT


i am god... leave me alone... i am not paranoid...
why did i do it... because i can...
will i do it again... i already have... maybe some more... only i know...
leave me alone...
i am not scott tai... i would not hide behind a mask...
i am not neurotic... no i will not haiku
i know who scott tai is...
i won't tell you though...
he is many... not one...
i am not disturbed... not at all... leave me alone...
who lives and who dies... i have the power.


						elb
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:35:56 GMT

In article <EIVERSON.93Jan6221336@aiaia.nmsu.edu> eiverson@nmsu.edu (Eric Iverson) writes:
>
>I think a good measure of intelligence would be whether, after joining
>Mensa, you have the good sense to quit.  I can honestly say that I
>have never met a bigger bunch of minutiae crazed, self-important
>blowhards in my life.  My next door neighbor (170 IQ, Ph.D in physics
>at age 21) who joined with me was even more infuriated.  Sort of like
>the meeting the bottom 2 percent of the top 2 percent.  As far as I'm
>concerned, the truly intelligent are those who don't have time to pat
>themselves on the back for having such a wonderful brain, because
>they're too busy using it.  But then what do I know?  I'm only working
>on my second Master's degree.  Maybe I shoulda joined Densa instead.
>
>
>--
Yes, I too have noticed this. The worst thing is that those people
think that the fact that they got a high score on one of those tests
proves that they are so smart.... What a joke.

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:55:36 GMT

In article <01GT702KZYRMADDW20@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>
>>From: Eric Roberts <roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
>>Message-ID: <1993Jan5.211313.23465@julian.uwo.ca>
>>
>>I have yet to see how evolutionists account for the fact that
>>their theory presuposes a genetical miracle, among other things.
>>Since evolution is based on the fact that things evolve by
>>genetical mutations, which are 99.99% of the time harmful,
>>rather than helpfull. Mutant varieties almost always die out,
>>or revert to ancestral types; since a mutation is nothing
>>but a random change in an organized system (according to
>>statistical theormodinamics, a random change in the system
>>almost certainly decreses the order therein).
>>Even if a mutation favorable to the system occured, the
>>propability that another mutation would still advance it, is
>>even smaller; which comes down to the question: How could
>>a simple organizm evolve by 'mistakes' into a complex organizm
>>like a human being?
>
>Sorry, but your arguments are too uninformed to debate.  You should
>read some of the introductory discussions on this topic in
>sci.skeptic.  There are solid answers to every single point you've
>raised above.

I have read the sci.skeptic FAQ, and the arguments presented there are
not in the least degree convincing. It response to the argument above,
they state:
ER> Consider the freezing water in the example.  The wonderful
ER> arrangement in crystals arises from the random movement of water
ER> molecules.  But ice crystals do not require divine intervention
ER> as an explanation, and neither does the evolution of life.
ER> 
ER> Also, consider a casino.  An honest casino makes a profit from
ER> roulette wheels.  The result of a spin of a particular wheel is
ER> purely random, but casinos make very predictable profits.  So in
ER> evolutionary theory, even though the occurance of a particular
ER> mutation is random, the overall effect of improved adaptation
ER> over time is not.
ER>

This argument is simply nonsense. The complexity of a water crystal
does not even come close to the complexity of the human body.
To claim that it has evolved by mistakes, is extremely impropable.
Of course there are some favorable mutations, but to claim that errors
can occur, one after another that do not kill the animal, are favorable
and lead to the creation of something as complex as, for example, the
human brain is humorous. I am just as likely to believe that the next
stone I throw will not return to earth, but fly to Mars.
Maybe it was not this answer that you were refering to....
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: questionable cancels?
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:51:00 GMT


FYI, according to this news control message, EDWARD LEE
BALDWIN canceled one of Mike Steiner's messages.  In fact, three
other messages of his were canceled in the same manner, and all
from NCSU.EDU, previously abused by the tedious "Scott Tai".
Mike, did you agree to this cancelation?

Just thought I'd let people know, since most news systems
just silently delete messages in response to control messages,
which only show up in the "control" newsgroup.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Control: cancel <mike_steiner-070193170153@192.35.50.131>
 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Path:
 ns.draper.com!noc.near.net!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!taco!eos.ncsu.edu!elbaldwi
From: elbaldwi@eos.ncsu.edu (EDWARD LEE BALDWIN)
Subject: cancel <mike_steiner-070193170153@192.35.50.131>
Organization: North Carolina State University
 <1993Jan7.060255.2079@julian.uwo.ca> <mike_steiner-070193170153@192.35.50.131>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:47:42 GMT
Lines: 1
From: Geoff@equinox.gen.nz (Geoff Mccaughan)
Subject: Re: Atheism and Intelligence
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:12:33 +1200
Organization: Equinox Networks

gilbert.m.stewart (gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com) wrote:

>Speaking of adding up ages, I remember a story about folks in the Ural
>(sp?) area in Russia.  It seems they all lived to extraordinary ages,
>in the realm of 130-140 years old.  They all ate yogurt.  The Dannon
>people used this in their advertisements.  Some of them died eventually,
>as old people are wont to do, and some dental examinations were done.
>It turned out that they were old enough and had been born long enough
>ago so that records were not well kept, and many of them being beyond
>senility, didn't know when they were born, so they just picked a high
>number, because they "knew" they were "real old".  Dannon doesn't
>run the ads any more.

Getting well off topic here, but...

I recall an investigation that found these folks were more like 80 - 90. A
lot of them had either lied about their age, or taken on the identity of
older people in order to escape conscription for military service. I think
it was in the Caucasus rather than the Urals.

--
Geoff, Sysop Equinox (equinox.gen.nz) +64 (3) 3854406 [4 Lines]
                               Voice: +64 (3) 3852101
        "Hi. You have just entered the fourth dimension. Small isn't it?"
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:46:14 GMT

In article <MHV#7#S52@linac.fnal.gov> matt@severian.chi.il.us (Matt Crawford) writes:
>> > Eric Iverson:
>> >> My next door neighbor (170 IQ, Ph.D in physics at age 21) who joined
>> >> with me was even more infuriated.
>> >
>> Chris Long:
>> >How smart can he be if he's friends with you?
>> 
>gilbert.m.stewart:
>> Actually, I can see his point.  The first time I went to a Mensa
>> activity, I was disgusted by it.  Two guys in particular.
>
>The first Mensa event I went to after joining had an awfully high
[....]
>
>If I came out of a huge library saying that I couldn't find anything
>interesting, would you conclude it was a poor library?

Depends on your credibility.

Seriously, though, to make any rational point from this thread, we
have to recognize the difference between a person's right to act
in accordance with their personal tastes, subjective though they
may be, and a person's right to subject others to their tastes,
both by direct action and by statements to others.

I have no problem with anyone voicing their opinion as long as it is
clear that it is only an opinion.  Most of the time, that's not clear
to many folks.

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: crawford@boole.mitre.org (Randy Crawford)
Subject: Re: Another thought...(Not even close)
Originator: crawford@boole.mitre.org
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:39:00 GMT


In article <1993Jan5.165204.25239@cbnewse.cb.att.com>, gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
> In article <93004.153005FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> <FDMWINK@UCF1VM.BITNET> "Larry Wink" writes:
> >In article <jgs1.726138144@Isis.MsState.Edu>, jgs1@ra.msstate.edu (jimi
> >strickland) says:
> >>
> >>  Having scored an 'A' on the first four reports, I felt that I had
> >>  demonstrated sufficient reading comprehension and ability to report on
> >>  what I had read.  Therefore, I stopped reading the books and reporting
> >>  on them and devoted my time to more academic pursuits.  Needless to say,
> >>  my grade in that class was poor.  The professor let me withdraw from the
> >>  class with a passing grade, but I am required to take it again.
> >
> >An example of what's wrong with the current educational system (and society
> >as a whole) - let's not ever hold someone reponsible for their actions.
>
> [...Larry], you seem to think that "life experience" is not as important 
> as some piece of paper on the wall.  
>
> That's why I continue to practice neurosurgery without having wasted
> seven to ten years in medical school.  I learned it the old-fashioned
> way, but just getting in their and getting my hands dirty.  
> 
> Now that I'm ready to open up my third head, I'd like to volunteer to
> do an operation of his choice on our friend Strickland, completely
> free of charge, satisfaction guaranteed.

Could you define `guaranteed'?
-- 

| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation
|                                                 7525 Colshire Dr., MS Z421
| N=1 -> P=NP           703 883-7940              McLean, VA  22102
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: Something in us going wrong...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:36:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.071539@tostit.ca> radler@nord.tostit.ca (Robin Adler-Pope) writes:
>
>gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan5.141731.22407@wam.umd.edu> amanda@wam.umd.edu (Me again) writes:
>> >In article <1993Jan4.204851.17743@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>> >>In article <01GT3O31M8EAADDQGG@ccfvx3.draper.com> skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum) writes:
>> >>>>From: Eric Roberts <roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
>> No proof has been presented that [intelligence tests] measure what they claim
>> to measure. The evidence available is limited to a few correlations,
>> mostly with school performace.

I didn't write the above.  Careful with the attributions.
>
>Jesus, people.
>
>This newsgroup is getting surprisingly flat.  The arguments about the

You know the obvious answer to that.  Contribute yourself.  You must
be interested in something.

>validity of IQ testing are getting old, and not gracefully.  Anyone
>remember Scott Tai?  Tai's emergence as more than simply a gadfly in
>the early days of rec.org.mensa was in part a result of his own
>cleverness, but also in part a default by the other writers.  It's hard 

Nevermind.

>to avoid the suspicion that the technique Eric Roberts uses here is 
>essentially the same stunt - a formal strategy intended to give a fresh 
>look to some battered, timeworn ideas.  He isn't saying anything in his 
>articles that hasn't been said before, and it's just not very interesting;
>no, it's dead dull - banal by any standard.
>
>Further, some writers here *still* haven't cured their tendencies toward
>prolixity.  Like all clever people, these writers will have to guard
>against falling in love with their own facilities.  Just learn to listen
>a little more.  What a thought.
>
>-robin
>
If everyone posted less, how would that liven up the newsgroup?  If Eric
bores you, read something else.  If there's nothing else, post something.

Guess I don't understand the logic, here.

GMS
Xref: sparky rec.org.mensa:9149 talk.origins:16103
From: schnitzi@cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution?
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:17:29 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

kkirksey@world.std.com (Ken B Kirksey) writes:

>>BTW, what do you believe has caused all the various species of plants and
>>animals (including the extinct ones) to have developed on this planet?  If
>>not evolution, then what?

>We're not discussing his beliefs.  He asked you to prove and defend
>yours.  This seems to be a favorite tactic of those backed into
>a corner when asked for proof of evolution: ask the other person
>if they have a better explanation.  If not, well, evolution
>wins by default.  If a better answer does not exists, it does not automatically
>make yours the right one, or the truth.

Which is why he put a "BTW" at the beginning of it.  Typical creationist
tactic -- attack evolution without ever putting forth an opinion of your
own.  It was a simple question.  Why not answer it?

As far as proof of evolution is concerned, may I point out the fossil
record, which shows less sophisticated physical features on plants and
animals the older (and deeper) you go?  This is what evolutionary
theory predicts.

Mark Schnitzius                  --Not a Mensan, but enjoy debating the
schnitzi@eola.cs.ucf.edu         --smug attitiudes often found here.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: skh4161@mvs.draper.com (Kjeld Hvatum)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: Draper Laboratory
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:48:00 GMT


>From: Eric Roberts <roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca>
>Message-ID: <1993Jan5.211313.23465@julian.uwo.ca>
>
>I have yet to see how evolutionists account for the fact that
>their theory presuposes a genetical miracle, among other things.
>Since evolution is based on the fact that things evolve by
>genetical mutations, which are 99.99% of the time harmful,
>rather than helpfull. Mutant varieties almost always die out,
>or revert to ancestral types; since a mutation is nothing
>but a random change in an organized system (according to
>statistical theormodinamics, a random change in the system
>almost certainly decreses the order therein).
>Even if a mutation favorable to the system occured, the
>propability that another mutation would still advance it, is
>even smaller; which comes down to the question: How could
>a simple organizm evolve by 'mistakes' into a complex organizm
>like a human being?

Sorry, but your arguments are too uninformed to debate.  You should
read some of the introductory discussions on this topic in
sci.skeptic.  There are solid answers to every single point you've
raised above.
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: Vocabulary for IQ?
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:40:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.185539.24782@sci.ccny.cuny.edu>,
hector@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Hector Garcia) writes:

>I am posting this because I still haven't heard a convincing 
>argument for including vocabulary questions on IQ tests.

The following is from "Final Notes on Gf and Gc" by Grady M. Towers in
_Vidya_ issue 124/125 (July/August 1992), page 9:

"QUESTION:  Why do psychometricians think verbal items are such good
measures of intelligence, anyway?  After all, when a subject is asked to
define a word, he's not being asked to do any thinking, he's only being
asked to remember something.  Why isn't this, then, merely a memory
test?

"ANSWER:  No one learns vocabulary by sitting down and memorizing a
dictionary.  Word meanings are most often deduced from the context in
which they are found.  It is this education of an abstract relationship
that is being measured by a vocabulary item.  The word itself is merely
the residue leftover from that mental act, but it is not the act
itself."

Thus, having a large vocabulary is not just evidence of memorization, it
is evidence of thought that has occurred in the past.

                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@rusure.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
From: gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart)
Subject: Re: IQ Test?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:19:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.040946.13039@julian.uwo.ca> roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Eric Roberts) writes:
>In article <mike_steiner-070193104411@192.35.50.131> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.214524.25582@julian.uwo.ca>, roberts@gaul.csd.uwo.ca
>>(Eric Roberts) wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know of any way to predict performance, what I do know is that 
>>> IQ tests fail to do so.
>>
>>SATs have proven to be a valid predictor of performance in the first year
>>of college or university.
>
>What does first year of university predict? It predicts absolutely nothing.
>I have seen just as many people who did poorly in the first year (since
>they were bored to death) and later did very well, as those who did
>well in the first year (in a high school like enviroment) and very
>poorly later.

That's often because most of us take different classes in different years.

GMS
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa