HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:39:50 GMT

Another content-free post by Mr. Loucks.

jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>  For trying to confound us He sure managed to get the evidence to fall in a
>>very consistent pattern. 
>I think this is where you go wrong, in my opinion. God is not trying
>to confound us.

You're just avoiding the question Jim.  Just how is this conclusion wrong,
other than you just want it to be wrong?

>> If God's intention was to confuse us wouldn't he have
>>made the tree rings, ice cores, lake bottoms, and coral reefs all disagree to
>>some extent as a hint?
>His intention was not to confuse us.

If he didn't intend to confuse us, then why did he do this?  Mr. Omnicience
surely would have known what what such things would have been taken for.

>>  I have to agree with Dan, you a presenting God as a liar, purposefully doing
>>His best to trick people into believing something false. 
>I don't think this was or is, God's plan.
>> I don't know about
>>you, but that isn't the God I worship.
>Me either. Guess we're kinda stuck now?

Sorry, Jim, but the logic of your statements just doesn't follow.

>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: mensa farce
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:43:02 GMT

alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:

: Tau beta pi is a national electrical engineering society.

Tau Beta Pi is the all-engineering honor society.  Eta Kappa Nu is the
EE honor society.  Eligibility for either is usually based on grade
point average.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Boy, am I glad it's
Rosemount Inc.                                |only 1971...
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
From: rosch@cpdw.enet.dec.com (Ray Rosch)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Energy fields and the like
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:20:19 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Aug17.121145.21639@nijmeg.ingr.com>, jongj@nijmeg.ingr.com (jorrit de jong) writes...
.
.
>It is very simple to see them. If you start with asking a person to stand
>with a dark background and to look a little bit above the head, you will
>start to see a kind of thin white mist around the whole body. This is called
>the ethric of the human (Animals only have an ethric, no aura).
>In a later stage, it is possible to easely feel an aura with your hands.
.
.
.
		ROFL !!!
****
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed do not in any way reflect those of my employer
****
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14414 alt.magick:3839 alt.pagan:7892
From: ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.magick,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Book Review 'Persuasions of the Witch's Craft' (longish)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 01:41:03 EST
Organization: Ailanthus Project

mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:

> I looked at this book in the bookstore, but had some qualms about the
> ethics of pretending to be interested in a coven or circle for its own
> sake, while really meaning to use it as material for a scientific study.
> If I'd been one of her covenmates, I wonder how I would have taken this.
>

from what i hear, she came clean to the group she was working with and they
didn't mind.  also, i hear it is a pretty good ethnography.  personally, i am
glad to have anthropologists studying us.  means we must be real, eh?  B)

                                           -ailsa

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
     ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com                   ________
        I don't need a hero                Silence \      / Action
        I don't need a soldier                =     \    /    =
        I did when i was younger            Death    \  /    Life
        But now i'm so much older.                    \/
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Kinesiology (Re: Pick this experiment apart, please!
Organization: wow, look at all the headers!
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 17:30:17 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1992Aug10.193504.17717@lonex.rl.af.mil> jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims) writes:
>In article <8AUG199216114098@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>In article <zlsiida.19@fs1.mcc.ac.uk>, zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes...
>>>In article <1992Aug05.182707.2856@srg.srg.af.mil> dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552) writes:
>>> 
>>>>In article <zlsiida.1150@fs1.mcc.ac.uk> zlsiida@fs1.mcc.ac.uk (dave budd) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>This sounds like the new 'science' of kinesiology
>>> 
>>>>Oh, man don't say this!  Kinesiology is a reputable science which concerns
>>> 
>>>Then somebody in UK is mis-using the term
>>>(and Mensans are lapping it up) [the mis-used version, that is]
>>
>>Are you sure they aren't speaking of "applied kinesiology"?  There
>>
>>Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>>Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>>University of Arizona
>>Tucson, AZ 85721
>
>This is starting to trouble me.  Is there such a thing as kinesiology,
>or do you mean kinesthesiology?
>
>-- 
>jft

Okay, let me restate.  Kinesiology is the study of the physics and mechanics
of biological motion, generally as applied to humans.  My wife has a degree
in this from the University of Maryland and uses her knowledge in studies of
reptitive motion injuries in a physical therapy setting.  She did not have to
learn anything about acupuncture, chiropractic, aromatherapy, homeopathy or
the like to get her degree.  The coursework is physics and biology, with
applied stuff in sports medicine.

Applied kinesiology, near as I can tell, is a way for chiropracters to sound
like they know what they are talking about.  It involves the hand-pulling 
business described earlier.  Given that classical chiropratic involves
disbelief of the germ theory of disease and attributes all illnesses to 
misalignments of the the bones, usually the spine, I am not about to go to
one of these charlatans and ask him about it.  I put it on a par with the
"neuro-Linguistic programming" idiocy (I am a linguist by training...).

Kinesthesiology would be a study of the sense mediated by end organs in the
limbs and extremeties - ie, of how your body senses the relationship of its
parts to one another.  I don't know whether this is really a large field.

What do you understand kinesthesiology to be?


		David Pipes
robear@digex.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in the bible
Reply-To: btd@IASTATE.EDU (Benjamin T Dehner)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:28:30 GMT

In article <24968@castle.ed.ac.uk>, loki@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) writes:
> Bear Giles writes
> >Now, if mainline Christians would ever get around to telling the fundies
> >to SHUT UP a lot of us would have a lot more respect for them....
> >
> 
> 	I agree. However the fundies just would not listen. Now a declaration
> by the heads of the main churches that the fundies are not Christians might
> have an effect, but I doubt it.

	Nah.  The fundies would just declare that the mainline churches were 
tools of Satan and go about their business.


"No matter how subtle the truth, or how penetrating the observation, I still
probably won't care."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin T. Dehner    Dept. of Physics and Astronomy 
btd@iastate.edu       Iowa State University 
                      Ames, IA 50011

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,rec.org.mensa
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Mensa party animals
Organization: The Cat Factory
Distribution: world,local
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:19:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.191945.25311@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
}In article <qt9mysa.sheaffer@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes in part:
}|>   Yes, but they sure have some neat parties sometimes!

}Are you seriously considering just leaving it at that?  With all of
}us "not-good-enoughs" out here wondering just what goes on?

Yes. (-:{

}Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence!

Only if you have a need to prove them.


The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14680 talk.origins:9761
From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Crop circles: natural or human-made?
Keywords: skeptic
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:17:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Aug19.151738.23757
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science

Tim O'Neill:
|> I don't know enough about chaos theory and its attendant mathmatics to
|> be absolutely sure, but I was under the impression that the Mandlebrot
|> Set was a purely mathmatical construct. I don't know of anywhere where
|> it appears as a 'natural phenomenon'.

Jan Willem Nienhuys:
|> I would say that anything that comes out of a computation is as much
|> a "natural phenomenon" as a work of art. That doesn't preclude it might
|> match up with an actual natural thing, but the M-set is not one of these.

I recall a comment, possibly from Mandebrot, to the effect that the M-set
is "the most compex object ever discovered".  The "naturalness" of such
mathematical objects is a subject of philosophical debate.  I think the
real point is, though, that there aren't any natural processes
or objects for which the M-set is a reasonable abstract model.  There
are lots of cases of self-similarity, but they are not M-sets, per se.
(He says, opening himself for an onslaught of corrections to his
pitiful "computer programmer's" grasp of the mathematics).  From my
look at the photos of the crop-damage, the supposed M-set didn't look
much like the M-sets I've seen.  Of course, you have to allow for the
"granularity" of the medium!

Jan Willem Nienhuys:
|> Secondly, when you think of the huge numbers of graffitti "mysteriously"
|> appearing everywhere, it's not so difficult imagining large numbers
|> of hoaxers.
Excellent point.  I've been amazed that even reporters can't seem to
see this analogy.  Essentially, you can apply all the arguments of the
CC enthusiasts to urban graffitti--it appears mysteriously when noone
is looking, it is highly complicated and shows signs of "non-human
intelligence", rational people (i.e., grow-ups, teachers, accountants)
can see no realistic motivation and can't imagine how it can get there,
and no humans will admit to doing it.  And, I might add, the few cases
where humans are "caught" are easily explained as hoaxers, whose work
can easily be distinguished from the "real thing" by master
graffittiologists.


Tim O'Neill:
|> What is a 'hardened skeptic'?

I'm not sure.  But this is certainly an example of a "pointy" one:
Jan Willem Nienhuys:
|> It is known that those corn circle groups are infiltrated by hoaxers:
|> whatever the corn circle enthousiasts think interesting, is immediately
|> put into effect.  The CCCS thinks that the circles are made by a
|> superior intelligence that is interactive with the human mind. I think
|> they are right on both counts.
Ouch!
  REMcG

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage
From: pclink@cheops.qld.tne.oz.au (Rick)
Subject: Re: Saga of the Family of Light I - Pleiadians13
Organization: Telecom Australia, TNE Computer Support Services
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 05:04:43 GMT

[I'm late to this thread, so don't worry if I'm at a tangent...]

Don_-_Showen@cup.portal.com writes:

>Well RA even if we totally ignore the book that says Tesla was dropped off
>by ETs as a young child.  It is kind of hard to ignore Tesla claimed to
>have daily contact with ETs.  And he did receive the whole AC power system
>as a vision as he was walking home from dinner with a friend. He did not
>write any of his vision down.  But did build the first AC power plant at
>Niagra Falls seven years later.  He also invented radio and remote control,
>a saucer engine, etc.  So I would say AC, radio, and his other 700 patents
>are a little more complex than the wheel.  He also had a way to end war for
>which he was killed.  Now the thing that is really a joke is Tesla is
>hanging around wanting to share stuff,  but all our er, scientist, don't
>believe they can contact him so he comes through old ladies who don't even
>know what rf means.

You know what really grinds my wheel?  It's when people need to invent
explanations to deal with the human organism working at its best.  What's
wrong with Tesla being a normal (if eccentric) human?  Why are aliens
neccessary for the construction of the pyramids, the Peru plains drawings,
Easter Island statues, Greek knowledge of the atom, inventive hoaxes (eg
crop circles), etc, etc?  Granted, a lot of things unknown/poorly understood,
but isn't it more plausible that somebody from *this* planet was responsible?

>DS

>It sounds to me like you belong to that cult that believes the speed of
>light is constant.  Is this post short enough for you?

I'm the member of a cult?  Wow!  What's this cult called?

Rick.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14497 talk.origins:9614
From: bvickers@valentine.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:58:40 GMT
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.

jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>Maybe we shouldn't be messin' around where we're messin' around. I
>believe the Bible to be a revelation of God, not just "religion."
>The Bible states that God will frustrate the intelligence of the
>intelligent, and just maybe this origins debate is one of the
>frustrations. I think we can all admit that man can be extremely
>proud, and wouldn't intellectual pride be an extremely easy trap
>to fall into? Maybe God never intended for us to try to figure out
>how old the earth is, or how he created life. But man with all his
>pride must know, and for this pride, God frustrates those minds.

Ergo, the ICR is just as guilty as the rest of us "intellectuals"
who attempt to discern the facts and laws of the universe.  And
they have certainly proven that their minds have been frustrated,
using the same error-ridden arguments over and over again.

You and the ICR can live with all your "maybes," "what-ifs,"
and appeals to the Bible, but respectable science certainly
will not.  Science makes no assumptions of supernatural
interference and cannot be used to verify such.  That may
seem like pride to you -- if it does, you should admit that
science and creationism have no common ground.

You again prove that creationism is actually anti-science.
Thanks.

--
 ___            _    _     _  _        _
(  _) ___ ___ _( )__( )_  ( )( ) o  __( ) _  ___  ___  ___
(___)(_) (__=) (_)_ (_)_   (__) (_)(_((_)(_'(__=)(_) _(_)
Brett J. Vickers (bvickers@ics.uci.edu)
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: origin of life articl
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:09:18 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <78055@ut-emx.uucp>, llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine) writes...
> 
>also, just because something is very very unlikely does not mean it
>won't happen. the fallacy that because the odds against something like
>dna assembling itself spontaneously are one in some huge number, it
>could never happen is based on the idea that there was some small
>number of events. if there were 3 billion combinations of elements
>formed, then saying that the odds were one in a billion against one of
>them being organic doesn't look so great anymore.

The real fallacy in the original argument about the incredible odds against
complex life evolving by the random mechanism of evolution is that it 
completely misrepresents evolution.

Mutation is a source of *random* variation.

But natural selection is a directional pressure.  It selects specific
traits (generated randomly) which are well suited to current conditions.

Read almost any essay by S.J. Gould if you want to see an eloquent and
intelligent exposition of the true meaning of evolution.

-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,alt.culture.usenet
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: IC conspiracy NOT! (Was: young earth creationist...)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 15:11:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.203410.24227@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>,
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.110814@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
>>What does being polite to a known net.scoundrel gain me?  What is the
>>philosophical basis for being polite no matter how many times one has been
>>bloodied?
> 
> [Bet you weren't expecting an answer to this one!]

 [actually I was expecting a number of answers.  Yours is a beaut, but flawed.]
 
>The philosophical basis is much the same as the philosophical basis for
>letting even Nazis and Communists speak freely.  
>We let them speak, not because
>we think their views are valid, but because if we don't let them speak we have
>to draw a line which leaves them out--and _you_ are not the only person who's
>going to get to draw lines.

   You seem to think I'm engaged in attempting to censor these idiots. 
Insulting them, in my experience, causes them to talk more, not less.  
I want them to talk, to explain, to expound their views.  The only 
possibilities are that they will discover the flaws in the thinking 
presented (mine or theirs) or they will look like worse fools.  Usually
the latter.  So unless you can expand the "much the same" in the 
above paragraph, you are, in essence, encouraging me to insult 
them _more_.  
   
> You can't say "Well, if I think he deserves it, I'll insult him, but he must
> be polite to me whether he thinks I deserve nastiness or not."  It's all or
> nothing.

   At no time have I demanded that ANYONE be polite to me.  Could you please go
back and try again now that I've corrected your input parameters?  In the mean
time I will go on insulting thouse that express views I deem stupid AND ALSO
refuse to back those views with logic or evidence.  Let me ask my question
more clearly:

   When a person expresses an implausible view,
   contradicting my knowledge base,
   and can only defend that view by verbal obfuscation or repitition,
   which are themselves an act of colossal rudeness,
   why should I be polite?  
   What does it benifit me?

Keep in mind:

   (I) Ignoring such people is not an option.  The creationists are on 
       the offensive and subverting the school system, for example.

   (II) What I am doing bears no resemblance to censorship.  I brodcast the
        views of those I oppose unedited and encourage others to come listen to
        them.  Note the posters with .IASTATE.EDU return addresses.  I have
        brought a number of them on board.

BUT thanks for trying to make me a better person.  I'm sure it's possible.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 17 Supposed Evidences against Evolution
Keywords: evolution, creationism
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:43:02 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug18.180219.3190@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:

>to believe them.  Politics comes to mind, for instance. (Why did 
>my fingers try to type "Folitics"?))

Isn't that the system of government where we only place in office
people with healthy hair? ;-)

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,talk.politics.guns
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Killing bers with handguns  (Was:  Re:  A random thought)
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:08:06 GMT

I must take umbrage at this talk of slaughtering my brothers and sisters!

Besides, a bear who recently decided a camper would make a handy snack 
(in Colorado) was fought off by the guy with bare hands.  As I recall he
did require stitches, but he was able to convince the bear to look elsewhere
for a meal.


Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov
From: ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: CFD: New newsgroup sci.siano.vs.schaeffer.battle.to.the.death
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:10:04 GMT
Reply-To: ingria@BBN.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com
In-reply-to: danwell@IASTATE.EDU's message of Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:55:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.125551@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
   In article <1992Aug19.040112.3315@newsroom.utas.edu.au>,
   Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
   > In article <1992Aug18.102314@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
   Ashlock) writes:
   >> 
   >>    Brilliant idea.  Much as talk.abortion and talk.politics.animals give us
   a
   >> place to put the tasmanian-devils-of-the-net,
   > 
   > Hey Dan! Wotcha got against Tasmanian Devils?! I quite like the 
   > little buggers myself, (though it's a good idea not to let them 
   > gnaw on your arm.)

      Um, I'm an American; this means that I think of a Tasmainian devil
   as that sabre-toothed tornado on bugs bunny.

AND the Monster from the Id in _Forbidden Planet_; don't forget that.

						 Comic but leathal.

Hmm.  Back to the original start of this thread.

-30-
Bob
From: dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Shroud exposed at early date (Tim O'Neill)
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:45:25 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide

In article <1992Aug11.200800.20947@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.035024.5531@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>Now that the Shroud has been shown to be 14th Cen., it now becomes a
>>remarkable 14th centuary image instead of a remarkable 33 AD image.
>>
>>Are there any reasonable theories as to how the 14th C artist pulled
>>off the image reversal???
>
>Why do you ask?  Do you think there are none?
>
>And yes, I'm serious when I ask that.
>

To get a thread going :-)


But seriously, because I'm still waiting to find a reasonable theory.
There's got to be one out there!
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:14801 talk.origins:9893