HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Clinton and Creationism
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:42:00 GMT
Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems
Originator: keithh@sydrd14


In article <1992Oct8.155217.20940@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au>, keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:
(But puts the wrong distribution on it.)
> 
> In article <LEET.92Oct2093956@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
> 
>  . . . .
> > I refuse to be so rash as to draw any conclusions about science
> > teaching's effect on economic viability of a nation, since both Japan
> > and the former USSR have taught evolution exclusively during this
> > century, and have not performed similarly in the world marketplace.
> > 
> 
> Not USSR. Evidently Marxist theory said something like ``you shouldn't
> inherit anything from your parents, not even blue eyes'', so Mendelian
> genetics, Darwinian Evolution and even modern breeding techniques were
> thrown out. There is a book, title ``Death of a science in the Soviet 
> Union'' plusminus ten percent, author unknown; or look up `Lysenko' 
> in a detailed history of the USSR.
> 
> Keith Harwood.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: s7356911@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (DYLYN)
Subject: Re: Satan: Big Business
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:38:00 GMT

In article <wosHsB2w164w@cellar.org>, revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
> 
>        Me, too--Ijustfinished the first draft of an article on the Satan 
>panic, but I
>m always open for more sources.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org

	I found a review of a book you may be interested in while reading
a back issue of ``Anarchy''.  The salient info is:

	_Satanism in America:  How the Devil Got Much More than his Due_
by Shawn Carlson and Gerald Larue.  Published by Gaia Press, POB 466, 
El Cerrito, CA 94530-0466,  1989.  283pp, $12.95 paper.

	The review is a favorable one, and mentions that the authors are
a physicist and a professor of Biblical History and Archaeology at USC,
respectively;  It also states that the work is a final report on the
``Satanism scare'' for the `Committee for Scientific Examination of 
Religion. 
	I quote: ``_S.i.A._ analyzes and debunks some of the major allegations
concerning Satanism.  It examines some of the widespread social and
institutional effects produced by the scare.  And it examines some of the
prime movers in the Satanist conspiracy hoax.''
	Unfortunately, I haven't got the book myself (poverty sucks).
Just thought interested parties might appreciate another source.
					dp

_/\  /\ dp: (daniel prosser) == S7356911@UCSVAX.UCS.umass.edu  /\
   \/  \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/  \/~~~~~
	``Shit happ+++ATHO
NO CARRIER
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.binaries.pictures.d,talk.origins
From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: creationism-explained.gif (part 01/01) [cartoon]
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:01:38 GMT



lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>Could someone clever please explain the creationism-explained
>cartoon. Are strings, torches and batteries, dogs and chickens
>meant to equal the earth or what??

Without a theory, all that could actually be taught with regards
to "explaining" creationism is pure voodoo.

Keith

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Ezekiel Space Ship
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 03:29:53 GMT

In article <1254@tdat.teradata.COM> swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>
>If you *must* have a naturalistic explanation an hallucination due to fasting
>is *much* more likely than that a spaceship matching the rather bizarre
>description given by Ezekiel.  (sort of :-))

Ezekiel didn't exactly fast. The Lord commanded him to bake his bread
for 390 days using human dung. When he balked at this, The Lord
relented, and permitted him to aromate it with cow shit instead 
(Ezekiel 4:9-15).

Maybe the space aliens sniffed Ezekiel making his lunch, and departed
in a cloud of relativistic smoke?



-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.binaries.pictures.d,talk.origins,rec.arts.comics.strips
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: creationism-explained.gif (part 01/01) [cartoon]
Organization: City University, London
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 15:37:21 GMT

Could someone clever please explain the creationism-explained
cartoon. Are strings, torches and batteries, dogs and chickens
meant to equal the earth or what??

--
Lionel Tun   (lionel@cs.city.ac.uk)
Vision Group, City University, London, EC1V 0HB. 071-477 8000 x 3889
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: obrien@netcom.com (Robert O'Brien)
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
Summary: awww!  wrong Larson!
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:36:07 GMT

Dewey Larson?   Oh, darn.  I was hoping for Gary Larson's physics & astronomy.
                                            ^^^^

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Can quantum terminology be flakeproofed?
Date: 13 Oct 1992 14:25:14 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <5923@tuegate.tue.nl>, wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:
>The physicist will as a rule take the moment that the measuring apparatus
>has undergone an irreversible change as the moment on which the measurement
>takes place. 

I'm afraid that this claim flies in the face of the Schrodiner's Cat thought
experiment.  The conclusion drawn from that experiment is that the measurement
doesn't take place until the box is opened, despite the fact that a cat dying
is certainly a macroscopic irreversible change.

>I understand that as follows: when the particle hits a detector, theoretically
>the chain of events might be reversed and the particle re-emitted from the
>detector and hit another detector or no detector at all.  However, when this
>has become so improbable that this can be neglected, we consider the 
>measurement done.

Then the wave function of the cat collapses shortly after it inhales the
cyanide?  That's not Schrodinger claimed.

>No consciousness needed. Just one detectable bit of information in the universe
>changed suffices.

I don't think 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
From: jeffp@netcom.com (Jeff Papineau)
Subject: Re: Travis Walton "Abduction" (was: UFOS and BOOMY IN THE NIGHT)
Keywords: UFO
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: World
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 05:18:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.232517.14922@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <gdavis.718655154@griffin> gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes:
>>  I have always considered myself and open-minded skeptic. For those
>>who need a closed minded skeptic at least two examples come to mind,
>>Scientific American's Gardner and the Amazing Randy. These two
>>indiciduals almost seem to have an ax to grind when it comes to PSI or
>>UFOs.
>>
>>However,at least one rather bazzar UFO story was presented about two
>>or so years ago on PBS's NOVA.
>>I have forgotten many of the details,but I believe a group of forest
>>workers spotted a UFO and one was allegedly abducted. The abductee
>>remained missing for about a week,then after being found wandering on
>>a back road,related an abduction tale that was cleared through giving
>>him several polygraph exams.
>
>This is the famous Travis Walton case, which even many pro-UFO types
>sized up as a hoax. For a detail discussion of this case, see
>chapters 18-23 of "UFOs, The Public Deceived" by Philip J. Klass.
>
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
(Pompous .sig file deleted)

Anybody that does not realize that Klass is a hoax in himself is really
out of touch...with reality.

Walton was no different than the dozen or so contactees that I met tonight
in Berkely, except they kept him a little longer. I sure do get tired of
people that have to debunk every UFO contactee that ever makes any kind
of noteriety...

Jeff-


Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Addiction (Was Re: Soul)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:58:35 GMT

In article <1bcv3lINNhim@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.201008.29751@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>Well, yes and no.  Given sufficient reason to stop, addicts CAN break the
>>>addiction.  When I was told that if I kept smoking, my ulcer would probably
>>>take much longer to heal, I quit smoking.  Period.
>>
>>I did not say it was impossible, just that the nature of an addiction is
>>not "I can stop whenever I want".
>
>My point was that the nature of at least some addictions is "I can stop
>whenever I want to enough.  For the time being, I don't want to stop that
>badly."

You are attempting to define addiction as a voluntary thing, and as I
understand it, it is not, regardless of how it started.

If you -can- stop, then by definition, you are not addicted. If you
cannot, then you are. 

>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17724 talk.religion.newage:4634 alt.alien.visitors:7288
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Gods Trapped in Illusion-Pleiadians16
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:57:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Oct9.165700.13714
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

In article <67422@cup.portal.com>, Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:
|> A Conversation With The Pleiadians

Look, if there isn't going to be anything about breeding wipt "beautiful 
daughters of earth" I'm not going to read this stuff.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:17906 alt.binaries.pictures.d:4819 talk.origins:12965 rec.arts.comics.strips:2817
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.binaries.pictures.d,talk.origins,rec.arts.comics.strips
Subject: Re: creationism-explained.gif (part 01/01) [cartoon]
Date: 13 Oct 1992 20:59:12 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <domalley.718980582@unix1.tcd.ie>, domalley@unix1.tcd.ie (Slartibartfast (alias Daniel O'Malley)) writes:
|> >|> Well, well. If Mr Bales explained it to you and you still
|> >|> did not get it, I don't stand a chance.
|> 
|> >Oh, but I believe in trying again.   Now you say it's easy
|> >to explain, so why don't you go ahead, and I'll tell you
|> >where I start to get into difficulaties in understanding
|> >it.
|> >If I tell you exactly where I start to find it difficult to
|> >understand, you might even be able to improve your explanation.
|> >On the other hand, if you claim it's easy to explain, and 
|> >then you refuse to even try, people might wonder.
|> 
|> Enough already!!!!
|> 
|> The whole point of the cartoon is that it makes no sense - just like
|> Creationism itself. (Don't flame me for saying this...)
|> Anyway, trying to analyse Larson's cartoons to death does not work - 
|> remember 'Cow Tools'?

What on earth are you talking about?   We're not talking about
cartoons.    I'm asking Mr Tun to deliver on his promise to 
explain the fossil record according to a Flood model.

Please read what you reply to, eh?

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell)
Subject: "Spiritual hunger" explained (was: Gerry Roston...)
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 08:23:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.155558.20146@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>max@admin.mport.COM (Max) writes:
>: [...]
>: are you seriously asking why one has to judge the meaning of life for
>: themself? would you like to have your meaning determined for you?
>
>I wouldn't, but a great many people would.  They also want somebody
>else to tell them what is right and what is wrong.  This dread of
>thinking for one's self appears to be what was called "spiritual
>hunger" in another thread.

Aha! Very succinct. Thank you for the clarification!

-- 
ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Focus on Crucifiction (was: Cruxed for Prophecy?)
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:00:43 GMT

In article <KENTD.92Oct6142647@zappa.FtCollins.NCR.com> kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton) writes:
>>>>>> On 5 Oct 92 18:52:30 GMT, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) said:
>
>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Oct 1992 19:40:50 GMT, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) said:
>
>Robert> (Another significant deletion is that of Mark's youth who fled
>Robert> naked in the garden, for reasons that might best be discussed
>Robert> on "soc.motss".)
>
>Lee> This has usually been interpreted to have been Mark himself, who was
>Lee> probably the best individual to have known how well the youth was
>Lee> dressed.  
>
>I thought it was commonly believed among scholars that the Mark who
>wrote the gospel was not one of the disciples and had in fact never even
>met Christ? As I remember it, Mark is recognized as the oldest of the
>gospels, but most of the stuff I've read concerning the history of the
>gospels places it around 50 years after the crucifixion, at the
>earliest.
>
>Lee> He fled naked (much to his shame) rather than be caught and
>Lee> arrested. So, Robert, how does "soc.motss" come into the picture?
>
>He's implying that it might be construed as evidence that Jesus was
>homosexual.

Here's the referenced passage from the NIV Bible:

MAR 14:51   A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following   
            Jesus. When they seized him,
MAR 14:52   he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.  

Sure doesn't sound like any homosexual behaviour to me, but everyone can
make up their own mind.

>
>--
>/* Kent Dalton                   * EMail: Kent.Dalton@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */


-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Astrology: Scientific Research (Was Re: Doubters Of Astrology)
Organization: The Crimson Permanent Assurance Company
	<KETIL.92Oct15041145@spurv.ii.uib.no>
	<1992Oct15.152448.10794@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:48:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.152448.10794@cbnewse.cb.att.com> gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
   As I've said before, there's really no reason to assume that people's
   moods and subsequent actions are not affected by the movement of
   heavenly bodies.  For instance, the pull of the moon has an effect,
   and effects on weather have an effect on people's actions.  Heck,
   I know people that a clumsy, non-creative grumps when the barometer
   goes down.

   The things I'm skeptical of are:
   1) People's rather bizarre extrapolations of these principles, and
   2) the ornate detail some put into their ability to supposedly
   "predict" these principles.

I don't think Luna plays a very significant role in astrology.
It's more of "the effect of the planets".
-- 
   /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (V.32bis/USR-HST,24h/d) */
 /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1B18/SF-40100 Jyvaskyla/Finland, ICBM: 62.14N25.44E */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: WHERE WAS BILL???
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:18:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.schumach.718939139
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
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.

>: |>  D> Washington, DC (AP) - Mary Matalin, designated Bush campaign attack-bitch,
>: |>  D> followed up recent charges related to Democratic presidential candidate Bill
>: |>  D> Clinton's secret meetings in Moscow with high-ranking officers of the KGB by
>: |>  D> demanding to know why Clinton has no alibi for November 22, 1963, the date
>: |>  D> of President Kennedy's assassination. Asked Matalin, "why won't Bill Clinton
>: |>  D> come clean with the American people?"
>: |> 
>: |> 	Heh heh heh.  Man goes to Moscow, can't remember a thing about
>: |> it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"
>: |> 
>:  	Heh heh heh.  Man attends meeting in the white house on support 
>: 	to Iraq, can't remember a thing about it.  Anyone ever see 
>: 	"The Manchurian Candidate?"

>  	Heh heh heh.  Man is President for eight years, can't remember a
>	thing about it.  Anyone ever see "The Manchurian Candidate?"

Heh heh heh. Man votes Republican for president three times, 
can't remember a thing about the consequences. Anyone ever see
"The Manchurian Candidate"?
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 12 Oct 1992 19:44:31 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct11.020408.5917@hfsi.uucp>, ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>o Even outside those sects, there are quite a few others that, while not
>>  frowning on medicine, still ascribe any cures to their prayers being answered.
>
>So how could you disprove that?

Disproving it is impossible.  However, one could find evidence that the belief
was false by comparing recovery rates among those who pray and among those who
do not.  Of course, God *COULD* choose to grant/deny requests based on actuarial
likelihoods of what would happen without his intervention.  So, to a believer
like yourself, even such evidence would just be further proof of God's
omniscience (he has instant access to any and all actuarial statistics).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Help me! Quantum physics are being claimed to create vampires!
Date: 7 Oct 1992 11:57 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <21016@plains.NoDak.edu>, dhenry@plains.NoDak.edu (David Henry) writes...
> 
>>Go read up about worm holes and such, but remember that Quantum
>>mechanics proves that the universe is entirely SUBJECTIVE.  Anything
>>I believe is in fact true and you can't even think about changing that
>>one.
>> 
>>Also a physics major>-- I only drink blood in my spare time.
>>-DQ
>>God save the Queen, God bless us all.

A physics major?  Not very likely.  I can guarantee that you will 
nowhere in a physics textbook find a statement to the effect that
quantum mechanics proves that the universe is entirely subjective.

QM, as any accurate description of the physical world must, includes
the effects of the measurer upon the measurement.  The measurment 
necessarily disturbs the system being measured.  This simple fact leads
to many interesting consequences, which I will spare you since they 
are not the subject of discussino at the moment.  

However, neither the wishes nor imagination of the observer can actually
determine the outcome of the measurement.  Two different scientists 
using the same apparatus to make the same measurement on the same 
system will, if all goes well, get the same results every time.  You
must be careful to interpret the word "results" to mean "measured
probability distribution for the given observable."  To obtain such 
results may require more than one single observation.  It may, in fact,
require measurement on many identically prepared identical systems, or
on the same system, prepared in the same way, over and over again.

>*******
>Me again, the poster of this thing. I'm sure that I've seen a nice way
>to show that "quantum mechanics proves that the universe is entirely
>subjective" argument to be silly on this group somewhere. What is it?
>Is there anything else I should be pointing out to this chap?

Not likely.  If someone claims that General Relatvity proves that 
Batman exists, where are you going to look for counterproof?  The only
real hope for this fellow is for him to pick up a good undergraduate book
on quantum mechanics from his local University book store, and to learn
what quantum mechanics is really about.

-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