HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: btd@iastate.edu (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: He visited the ICR in person
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:50:50 GMT

	After reading the recent description of the ICR, I was strongly
tempted to cut out clips and descriptions and go on a rampage about this
particular stupidity or that lie or this other bit of illogic.  (Sorry,
one of my faults.  :)  But now the idea has come that these people have
an entire religion based on the premise that modern science in wrong.  The
description of the ICR institute made it sound almost like a shrine to this
religion, and there is really no sense starting a flamefest that will get
nowhere. 
	So what DO you do about this sort of thing?  Ignore it and hope it
will go away?  Keep a watchful eye one them?  Picket them (as one person
suggested) to make people aware of the danger?  I just don't know.
	Also, kudos to Steve Linke.  I'm not sure I would have had the
stomach to go through the whole thing without becoming physically ill.
(error error intellectual underflow)

Ben 

"Not even the gods themselves can protect man from his own stupidity"
-- Isaac Asimov
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Neandrethal Man, who was he?
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:52:51 GMT

In article <168565AE9.O1ADAMS@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU>, O1ADAMS@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU
(Debbie Adams) writes:

   First of all I would like to thank Debbie Adams for a wonderful straight
line.  I will forebear cataloging my favorite neadrathals.

>      A friend and I were discussing some of these articles, and the subject
> of Neandrathal Man came up. We don't know much except he co-existed with
> man and walked upright, what we would like to know without doing research
> is, Was he a man? Was he a tool maker?. Where does he fit in on the chain.   
> he think like man?
> Neandrathal man?

   Neandrathal man is currently controversial (nor his existence, just
everything about him).  He definitely made tools but not as cool of tools as
our direct ancestors.  There is an argument as to wether we are in part
descended from neandrathals.  Since I look like a neandrathal (a little bit[1])
I think its not implausible that some interbreeding went on.  If it did, then
neandrathals are just a subspiecies of homo sapiens.

   The time line for where/when neandrathals and homo sapiens lived is currently
under revision.  There were some recent finds from somewhere in the ?Middle
East? that had neandrathals and homo sap. overlapping in new and wierd ways. 
Talk.origins is likely the place to get good info.

[1]Humorous anecdote.

   About six years ago I was walking over to my wife's parent's house past the
natural history museum in Lawrence, Kansas.  A bunch of kids had been down in
the basement looking at the dinosaur bones, the LaBrea tarpit segment, and all
that jazz, and they were out front doing chalk art of what they had seen on the
sidewalk.  One was doing a really good pterodactyl, so:

(me) "Hey, is that a pterodactyl?"

(kid) "Yeah."

(me) "With little fingers on the wings?"

(kid) "Yeah."

(kid looks up, looks puzzled)

(kid) "Mister, are your a cave man?"

*sigh*

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
"Sorry for the spelling mistakes"
-Dan Ashlock
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15345 talk.origins:10331
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS (long)
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Organization: SPS
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:47:50 GMT

In article <schumach.714875167@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
|> 
|> >I suppose you have not heard of the persons who have AIDS like symptoms,
|> >but no HIV antibodies? Whatever else this might mean, it would seem to
|> >demonstrate that a certain retro-virus may not be the cause, or assuming
|> >that it is -a- cause, not the sole cause of immunodeficiency.
|> 
|> This is not a threat to the idea that HIV causes classic AIDS. After all,
|> there are lots of ways for an immune system to screw up: why should it be
|> surprising that, once we started looking for failing immune systems so
|> intently, we would find a few (*) with various and unrelated causes? These
|> other disorders could have been around forever, caused by who-knows-what,
|> but no one noticed because we weren't looking very hard for such things.
|> Now we are.
|> 
|> (*) And I do mean a few. Less than 40 such are now known world-wide. As
|> yet they appear to have no demographics in common, except that a few
|> victims are the adult children of other victims.

Maybe you missed it so I'll quote the relevant passage from Bethell's _National
Review_article: 
        Until  the latest flurry of reports from Amsterdam, patients
        with  AIDS-indicator  diseases  but  without  HIV  were  not
        counted  as  AIDS  cases.  For reasons that are not clear, a
        decision has now been made to play  up  the  "discovery"  of
        such  cases.  There may have been thousands of them already.
        Robert Root-Berstein, a professor of physiology at  Michigan
        State  University, says that such cases were reported in the
        medical literature  in  the  mid  1980s.  And  according  to
        Duesberg,  in  about  half the AIDS cases enumerated so far,
        patients were never actually tested for HIV. They were  pre-
        sumed to be positive but may not have been.

-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: Re: Linguistics and evolution
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 03:58:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.180735.11356@u.washington.edu> gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>In article <1293@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>>In article <87705@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>>...
>>>Is the word "dendogram" even part of your vocabulary?
>>
>>	Nope.
>
>	Ummm...three syllables.  Didn't think so.

Ummm...you're missing the point. Try looking up "dendogram" in a dictionary.
	o
	o
	o
OK, now try looking up "dendrogram".

Thank you.

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15672 talk.origins:10586
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Only a Fool Fights a Pointless Battle (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:00:30 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug31.144442.19731@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes...
>-- 
>Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
>lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

The best thing about Drew's posts is his .sig, which I like very much.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
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: world,local
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:26:46 GMT

In <27AUG199210150013@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>Leaving aside the problem with this that abiogenesis is distinct from
>evolution, why do you exclude the possibility that God created life
>*by using* evolution?

Read your own sentence back, "God CREATED life *by using* evolution"
The involvement of God defines it as CREATION!
Any involvement, no matter how small, makes it CREATION.
 
To say that god did it by letting the natural process take course,
is the same as saying God did it, by doing nothing.

>>If you answer god for any stage, then it could be god for
>>all of the stages, and you believe in creation, not evolution.

>>If you answered evolution for any stages, then you are implying
>>that a single stage can be modified without gods assistance, 
>>Any stage could be likewise modified without assistance.
>>Therefore, you believe in evolution, not creation.

>This contradicts your previous paragraph.  (Anybody who answers
>"God created the first cell, then evolution did the rest by
>itself" is, by your previous paragraph, a creationist and not an
>evolutionist, but by this paragraph, an evolutionist and not a
>creationist.)

Surprise! That's what they are meant to do!  
My entire point was that Evolution is in contradiction to God.

>>You cannot answer god for some stages, and evolution for others.
>>I have 2 cats, a siamese and a persian. You cannot say god
>>created the siamese, and the persian evolved from a lower species.

>Why can't anyone say that?  Even the most hardcore creationist
>accepts microevolution, and therefore claims that God is responsible
>for some changes (the formation of new "kinds") while evolution is
>responsible for other changes (change within "kinds").

But, I can take the changes that you say God HAD to make,
and split them up into thousands of small microevolutions.
Enough evolutions within "kinds" will form a new "kind"

You said ONLY God could do that, but when the problem is reduced to 
a series of small steps, evolution can do it too.

Vern Nelson
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:14:42 GMT
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug28.025231.3103@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>The only effective means in the past has been vacines. 

"Isolation" is the only currently effective means.

Therefore, opposition to tracing of contacts translates into opposition
of identification and isolation.
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Voyager(TM) light and sound device
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:19:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Sep3.171911.23056
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <1992Sep02.233220.3923@microsoft.com>, ryb@microsoft.com (Danger Mouse) writes:
|> It's a small walkman-like box, with headphones and opaque glasses with two
|> LEDs 3/4" apart over each eye. There are eighteen programs ranging from 10 to
|> 60 minutes in length; each program is a different sequence of flashing the
|> LEDs and making a tone at varying frequencies. It appears the faster the
|> flashing, the faster the tones, and so on. You have your eyes closed so
|> patterns appear to form on your eyelids from the LED flashes. The headphones
|> have a stereo mini-plug; from the patterns it seems the link is inside-inside
|> LEDs & outside- outside LEDs.
|> 
|> The idea is that the combination of audial and visual stimuli can alter your
|> brain from beta to alpha, theta or delta states -- good for relaxation and/or
|> subsequent study. There are various other wonderful benefits "users are
|> reporting" which I'm not buying into -- if it at least works for relaxation
|> it will be a boon to my wife who often has difficulty doing so. So far, from
|> the two times she's used it, it appears to work, so we're going to get one and
|> try it out for 30 days.
|>  
|> Has someone else tried Voyager? Is there something to this idea of light and
|> sound devices? The literature mentions a researcher in the 1940's named Gray
|> Walter who discovered "photic driving" -- that brainwave activity tends to
|> fall into lockstep with flickering light, particularly in alpha and theta
|> range.
|>  
|> Any comments would be appreciated.
|>  
|>   -- Danger Mouse

Is there "something" to this?  Yes, there is a phenomenon of "phototic driving"
and related EEG "driving" by sound.  This driving is primarily useful for
triggering epileptic seizures in a few susceptible people.  What else it does
is not clear.  The sonic driving offects only the auditory areas of the
brain, and has nothing to do with alpha, etc..  I really wonder if 
visual and sonic driving together do anything, and if so, what.  I have
acouple of articles on this, but I have to look them up.

One may well wonder whether this device actually ACHEIVES such driving, or
indeed what, if anything, this particular device actually does to your
EEG or consciousness.  This would be easy to determine in a psychophysiology
lab.

Perhaps your wife should compare it to a blindfold and a walkman playing
quiet music.  This might acheive just as much relaxation as the Voyager.
I might also point out that a warm bath or a short nap tend to produce
just as much measurable benefit than alpha-enhancing feedback systems, 
which is another comparison to consider.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
From: kml@cellar.org (John Galt)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Only a Fool Fights a Pointless Battle (was: Young earth creation
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:40:20 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:

> In article <25916@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) write
> > In article <1992Aug31.144442.19731@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Law
> > >-- 
> > >Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
> > >lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
> > 
> > The best thing about Drew's posts is his .sig, which I like very much.
> 
> At least it's only incomplete, rather than wrong.  (You *could* be
> part of the evaporate . . .)
> 
> 	--Hal

Or part of the superstrate.  In either case, it's an unattributed steal
from Steven Wright.  Or perhaps his .sig file spontaneously appeared...



       As a matter of fact, no, I don't have a life.
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com - My other account is a Mercedes.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
 <1992Aug26.010533.23587@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Sep1.045645.9620@meteor.wisc.edu> <1992Sep2.062405.3854@desire.wright.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:55:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.062405.3854@desire.wright.edu> sbishop@desire.wright.edu writes:

   One of the more interesting suggestions I have heard about handling JWs when
   they show up on your doorstep, is to say, wait a minute, go get a notebook
   and ask each one of them for *their* address, saying you want to come to
   *their* house next week and talk about YOUR views.  So far I haven't tried
   it, but I bet if you act wierd enough they won't give out the address.

Actually, once upon a time in my youth (when I was much nastier than I
am now... if y'all can believe that):

<knock, knock>

<I open the door to find a short, negro, female JW>

JW: [Standard pitch about sould saving, etc]

me <pointing to the mezuzah on the door frame of my parents house>:
This is a jewish household...

JW: That's okay, you can still be saved...

me: No.  You missed the point, I know my hebrew name.
<A puzzled look on the JW's face>

me: The letters in my hebrew name add up to 666.

<JW turns white and leaves the house just as quickly as she can.>

Talk about fun!



--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | II - A well regulated Militia, being
Field Robotics Center,          | necessary to the security of a free State,
Carnegie Mellon University      | the right of the people to keep and bear
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | Arms, shall not be infringed.
(412) 268-3856                  | 
                                | 
The opinions expressed are mine | 
and do not reflect the official | 
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | 
or any other organization.      | 
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15340 talk.origins:10326
From: 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:08:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.171036.12606@acuson.com>, 
 lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.131853.8962@bsu-ucs.uucp> 
> 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.162037.5468@acuson.com>, 
>> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>> In article <1992Aug21.155926.8939@bsu-ucs.uucp> 
>>>  00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer) writes:
> 
>>>>Let's try to clarify the meaning of "deception" here.  Can we agree on
>>>>the minimal requirement that someone who [1] intentionally [2] does
>>>>something that he [3] knows will [4] result in your coming to believe
>>>>something that is [5] untrue is practicing deception?  That is, can we
>>>>agree that the 5 elements listed (intention, action,  knowledge of the
>>>>consequence, causation and false belief) is sufficient to assert
>>>>deception?
>>> 
>>> Sorry, I don't think we can.  Your 5 points state nothing about intent.
>>
>>Huh?  What do you think point [1] is?  Or are you quibbling about the
>>difference between "intention" and "intent"?  Do you claim that
>>"intent" is required for deception and that "intention" is different
>>and insufficient?  Do you speak English?
> 
> Yes I do speak English, perhaps more critically than you do.

You have certainly given no evidence of it so far.

> There is a difference between intentionally doing something and doing
> something with intent.
> 
> I can intentionally shoot a gun without intending to shoot you.  I can
> intentionally build a tower without intending you to fall off of it.

Yes, indeed you can.  And you can intentionally build a swimming pool
without intending that a neighbor child will drown in it.  But if you
do build a swimming pool, in the knowledge that it is an "attractive
nuisance", and fail to build a fence around it, then if some child
does drown in it, you will rightly be held to have significant
responsibility for that child's death.

Now, let's cut the BS and get back to the question of deception.  Why
are you horsing around and not responding to the serious question of
what *you* can agree to for what constitutes deception?  My suspicion
is that anything you could name will find too close a parallel in your
interpretation of the Bible, so you are unwilling to be explicit
enough to allow us to see that.

BTW, I *do* agree that this is central to the question of whether God
is deceiving us or not.

-- 
Paul Neubauer   00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  00prneubauer@bsuvax1.BITNET
                00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP       neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:40:08 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <3630@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>>>>lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>>
>>>>This whole thread
>>>>really centers around a metaphysical issue:  Are your
>>>>senses/experiences a source of truth?
>
>What is your definition of "truth"?
>
>If this is a metaphysical issue, why are you trying to argue
>with scientists?


I wasn't meaning to argue this with scientists.  It was an observation
I was making.  I really didn't expect anyone to respond to it, as it is
one of those points which says, "The real answer cannot be proven."

>What is your definition of "truth"?

Mike,
  has anyone ever told you that you have a tendency to repeat yourself?

As many will agree here, _my_ definition of truth has bo bearing on
anyone else.

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: sci.skeptic FAQ version 0.2.
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:26:33 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Aug31.175817.15105@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
|No, the reason that the second law doesn't prohibit evolution is that
|the word `order' (which is used to evoke the apparent conflict) is 
|irrelevant to the thermodynamic concept.  In statistical mechanics, 
|a *much* better term would be `diversity', as in "systems approach 
|maximum diversity of available energy states."  Interestingly, this 
|is also part of what evolution predicts: "mutation increases the 
|genetic diversity of a species."
|
Or even more appropriately, evolution predicts that repeated speciation
will tend to increase the diversity of life on Earth.

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Help! I'm bein' opressed (was: Derek tops Dan)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:49:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.122910.10513@actrix.gen.nz>,
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.004557.26097@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:

                          [Derek tops Dan thread]
> 
> 
> I'd like to point out that in the UK, NZ and Australia, to "top" someone
means
> you killed them.
>  
> If you "top" yourself.....you commit suicide. 
>  
> Thought you might like to know......:-)
> 
> Steve
>  
   Jesus Q. Budda!  I have to watch out for Aussie assasians now?  Yikes.
I'll warn everyone with about sixty feet of me, since Derek is picking the 
assasians.

   In order to help prevent needless bloodshed: I am 5' 10", weigh 285 pounds,
and can be found alone as about 8:00am (CST) on my (black, Schwinn) bike.  |I
wear a blue bike helmet and a blue backpack.  Try Tripp street, it has the
fewest residences of any street on my route, and some of them are nonflammable
brick.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
:)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic