HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:47:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug25.110925.21146@odin.diku.dk> klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:
>david@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Bernath) writes:
>
>
>>>>In article <1992Aug20.015531.7842@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
>>>>there are serious health risks in eating.
>>>
>>>There are serious health risks.
>
>>Health is a serious risk.
>
>Be serious.

Be.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15747 talk.origins:10651
From: utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 2 Sep 1992 16:35:32 GMT
Organization: Processed People for a Processed America
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1288@tecsun1.etl.army.mil> riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:

[A tremendous amount of stuff deleted]

>	Point of historical fact. Just *when* was enough empirical
>data gathered to prove:
                  ^^^^^

STOP right here.  There never was AND there never will be enough
empirical data gathered to "prove":
>	- Abiogenesis ?
>	- Natural Selection ?
>	- Speciation ?
>	- Mutation ?
>	- Variations in gene pools ?

[Well worn and partial definition of science mode ON]

SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE A THEORY!!! It can only dis-prove a theory.

[Well worn and partial definition of science mode OF]

>	It might help to think about the question before answering.

It might help to think abou the question before asking.

[A stupendous amount of stuff deleted]

>Bill R.

David Utidjian
From: shirriff@sprite.berkeley.edu (Ken Shirriff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Date: 30 Aug 1992 22:38:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: hijack.berkeley.edu

In article <92243.174004BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>Deusberg is not alone in his view.   A 1988?  1989? BBC documentary I saw
>interviewed a number of researchers who agreed with Duesberg that HIV did
>not cause AIDS.  The one who sticks in my mind is the French co-discoverer
>of the HIV virus who stated that he no longer believed that HIV caused AIDS,
>he believed it was "at best a co-travellor".

"In response to widespread media coverage claiming that Dr. Luc Montagnier
had aligned with Duesberg and no longer believes HIV to be the cause of
AIDS, Montagnier responds: 'The (Sunday London Times) article was highly
misleading since it mixed a corect account of my interview with anti-HIV
non-scientific theories.  I was the first in 1983 to propose HIV as the best
candidate for the cause of AIDS, and I maintain this position.  However, the
possibility remains that HIV is helped by some co-factors.  [...] This is
just the opposite of the view that AIDS is not caused by HIV and is not a
transmissible disease.  I strongly advise patients to rely on antiviral
treatment.'"
Source: San Franscisco Examiner, A-2, May 20, 1992.

Ken Shirriff				shirriff@sprite.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: The Evolution vrs. creationism debate
Keywords: The debate
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:35:12 GMT

dtyler%jt_home.uucp@amber.athena.lkg.dec.com (David Tyler) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>2. Talk to a scientist, find out what happens when two people with the SAME
>gentic-makeup breed and have offspring. If the Adam and Eve theory where
>true, we would all be idoits! 

No, this isn't true.  If is jsut more likely that incest will cause a number
of recessive traits to blossom.  Incest in general creates usually 
healthy children.  Sometimes, the children are sickly.

>3. Think about it, Cristianity is VERY lucky to survive this long, first the
>Romans, then the "light at the end of the tunnel of ignorance and hate"
>(i.e. "The Enlightenment" of the 1700's), In the 1800's, Darwin, who had
>SCIENTIC PROOF FOR HIS THEORY! Then the revelation about the dinosaurs as
>living creatures in the 1900's (When people began to look futher into the
>mesizoic age. (Sorry for the spelling) 

If you unserstand the psychology behind religious belief, you'd understand
why Christianity and other such religions have been around for so long.
People need a comfort against the cruel environment.  Also, once instituted,
religion becomes a self-propogating thing.  People practice religion 
because if they don't, they will feel an anxiety.  Read some Freud and Jung
for more info.

>4. So many fossils are around that creationism seems to be dim in
>comparison.

Again, the religion folk have all the proof they need right within their own 
minds.  They for the most part have had religious experiences which are
interpreted as a proof of God.  They pray, and something listens.  The trouble
is due to their mistaking their own unconscious for a supernatural presence.

>6. In ancient times, man needed to explain the unexplainable, so he
>invented a set of beliefs and gods that evolved into modern religons.

They weren't just "invented."  Rememebr that people actually believe(d) in
these gods.	

keith
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Creationist Logic-NOT MINE!
Date: 31 Aug 92 06:17:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug31.024431.10806@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes...
>In article (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>>In article believer@world.std.com (Frank G Sesco) writes:
>>> We must work to rid the world of Communism, Secular Humanism,
>>> Homosexualism, Evolutionism, and Atheism. All pose a grave threat
>>> to our faith and therefore our very existance.
>>
>>I have already posted a suspicion (?) that Vern is really a Creationist trying
>>to make Evolution look bad.  I am now tempted to say (despite the awkward
>>user-id) you are trying to make Christianity look bad.
>>
>I am not responsible for the article in question. You will find my GIVEN
>name at the bottom of EVERY post I make on ANY newsgroup.

Warren was referring to your signed posts, not to the above Frank Sesco
post.  You know, the ones where you've been making the ridiculous argument
about evolution and the existence of God being logically inconsistent.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:04:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.125346.202636@uctvax.uct.ac.za> fllant01@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>
>"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
>Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
>number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will
>turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Tim 4:3-4
>

How odd of Timothy to predict what his new religion would boil down to.
Some people just do not want to hear from what we evolved.  They,
instead, chose to believe that we were divinely created as the universe's
reason for being.  The myths of creation.  So Timothy was correct.


-- 

Frank Doss 
The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions,
attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affilliated organizations.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:01:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Aug28.002646.4080@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:
>Any involvement, no matter how small, makes it CREATION.

Wow, your redefinition of a commonly used word is very impressive.
 
>Surprise! That's what they are meant to do!  

You intentionally constructed self-contradictory assertions?

I'm not surprised.  I assumed you were stupid.

Now you claim that you tried to "outsmart" us.

That makes you intentionally stupid.

>My entire point was that Evolution is in contradiction to God.

As an argument, your self-contradictory assertions don't hack it.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15369 talk.origins:10353
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 29 Aug 92 04:44:10 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Aug28.151214.15216@acuson.com> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:

[much deleted]

>I thought that I was being clear enough, but I guess I wasn't.  I
>suppose a specific example would be better.

>What do you call the "scientific study" which explaind the origin of
>the horse?  Are you going to tell me that this is not evolution?

>If you are, and that is the consensus of those who study evolution, I
>must confess profound ignorance.

  You have to be clearer, I'm afraid.  The study that explains the origin
of horses from therapsid reptiles is certainly "evolution" (except 
when it's "paleontology" - sciences overlap), but the study that
explains the origin of all life, including the ancestor of all horses,
from nonliving matter is "abiogenesis".  Except when it's biochemistry,
or paleontology.  Like I said, sciences overlap.

-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15780 talk.origins:10705
From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolutionism must be defeated!
Date: 2 Sep 92 07:21:25 GMT
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI

I still want to know what this "Homosexualism" is--worship of
homosexuals, maybe?

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
From: cummings@milton.u.washington.edu (Michael Cummings)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Evol & God : CANNOT Co-exist!
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:15:18 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Washington

In <1992Aug28.002646.4080@ccu.umanitoba.ca> vnelson@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gerald Vernon Nelson) writes:

>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.

	But the evolution (merely a mechanism, NOT a metaphysical
statement) still takes place, whether pushed along by God or not.

	You're changing the rules on us.  Your original question was:

>	I have seen a couple of comments in posts which I find baffling:
>Essentially, they claim that the theory of evolution does not
>interfere or conflict with the concept of God.

>Would one of you guys like to explain how evolution and God can co-exist?

	You didn't ask if the idea of CREATION and evolution can co-exist.
Evolution only conflicts with the "God points finger, man appears with a
poof" variety of creation.

	Creationists generally insist that the literal word of the Bible
must be true, so evolution cannot.  Evolutionists say the literal word of
the Bible cannot be true, since there is a lot of evidence that the world
was created long ago and that life went through a series of stages, rather
than appearing suddenly.  This is not in conflict with the concept of God,
since there are many ways to believe in God without taking the Biblical
creation story literally.  Evolution only precludes beliefs in God which
carry extra baggage that conflict with it, such as the notion that the
Earth was created in 4004 B.C.

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mike Cummings VP, PNOAD			|  "Now take two forkfuls
cummings@u.washington.edu		|   of cooking oil..."
cummings@mailhost.hsas.washington.edu	|   - Julia Child
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
From: marlowe@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas Marlowe)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Applied Kinesiology, or what? (Was: how I heard about it)
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:11:41 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

The statements "Science is a dispassionate and impartial observer of 
competing theories" and "Scientists (and funding agencies) can be emotional 
and political in evaluating work in their fields" are not contradictory;
in fact, their conjunction is almost certain to be true.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: O1ADAMS@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU (Debbie Adams)
Subject: Neandrethal Man, who was he?
Organization: The University of Akron
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 10:27:53 GMT

     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?
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15569 talk.origins:10464
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:44:51 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug28.165010.4881@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>: 
>: Have you ever studied machine architecture even a little bit?

>I have studied machine architecture quite a bit, and there are
>_plenty_ of data structures at the machine instruction level.

(Yea, I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, so sue me.)

I concede this point.  You obviously know _much_ more about
architecture than I do.  I suspect that there is an additional (or
broader) use of the term in architecture of which I was unaware.  The
original point has nothing to do with this battle.

I hardly remember what it was anymore.

[This week has proven that I pick lousy examples]

-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: <None>
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:43:41 EST

In article <1992Aug27.160903.18687@cco.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.065402.19240@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
[...]
> 
>>You claim people are being rude to you by not being logical and by being
>>obsfurscating. I (and most of society) do not regard that as being rude,
>>frustrating maybe, but not rude. We see politicians behaving like that all
>>the time :-) We don't say they are rude, we say they are dishonest.
> 
> Most people participating in sci.skeptic consider that sort of obfuscating to
> be rude in the extreme, as I'd've thought you'd've learned by now.

Giv'em  hell, Carl.  Not that there is any chance that he will learn anything
from it.

GXKambic
standard rude disclaimer

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:15356 talk.origins:10336
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Dan Tops Himself Again
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:32:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.134238.661@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.035211.11619@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.023116.6935@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>>The language you use on the net is an act. You are comparing your acts
>>>with my veiws. At least compare apples with apples.
>>
>>When you deliberately ask questions that you know have misleading implications,
>>you are performing acts too, not expressing opinions.  (Example: asking how
>>science explains so-and-so; the misleading implication is that you don't
>>believe science can explain so-and-so.)                        ^^^^^^^^^^
>                                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                                      That is an assumption.
>
>Ken, you persist in displaying this tremendous psychic ability of reading
>my mind and motives. That's pretty bold stuff on sci.skeptic. You've got guts.
>
>BTW, I think Dan is clever enough to answer for himself, without your psychic
>assumption making.

If you don't want other people participating in your dialog, why don't you
correspond via e-mail?  Is it just that you're too dimwitted to have figured
out that possibility?  This isn't the first time you've complained that someone
responded to something you've posted to a public forum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,talk.origins
From: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:52:46 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

  Drew, you've made a lot of biologists "ignoring God" in our work, and
suggested that we should involve supernatural intervention in our
explanations of the development of life.  Have I understood you
correctly?

  For consistency's sake, shouldn't you go over to sci.physics and 
tell them to consider supernatural intervention as an explanation for
the orbits of the planets?  Shouldn't you tell geologists that
"Divine wrath" is a plausible explanation for earthquakes?  Tell 
meteorologists that Hurricane Andrew was sent by God as a punishment
for the crimes of South Floridians? 

  Why have you picked biology as the only science in which we aren't
permitted to accept the physical evidence as our legitimate field?

-- 
==============================================================================
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits"  -  Mark Twain
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: Cause of AIDS
Organization: JHU/Applied Physics Laboratory
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:13:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.012014.17580@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

|> Eliminating anal sex (sodomy is the act of gang raping guests not anal sex)
|> does not block transmission of disease unless vaginal sex is also
|> eliminated. 

You mean the vagina of an animal (as in lower mammal)?  

Webster's defines *SODOMY* as:

1. copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal

2.  noncoital and exp. anal or oral copulation with a member of
    the opposite sex.

Sodomy sounds like anal sex to me -- no rape involved.

Where did Foard's definition come from?
Why so uptight about calling anal sex sodomy?
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Logic and God
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:24:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.124221.16990@cco.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.115125.19490@cco.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
>>
>>Hmm.. which species are these?
>>
>>keith
>>
>>>In article <1992Aug27.191224.13309@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>>>Far be it for me to defend Lionel Tun (that isn't what I'm doing
>>>>anyway), but what is your response to those who scream that evolution
>>>>is a "proven fact"?
>>
>>>Ok, Drew, what would you call it then when we start with one species, separate
>>>it into two populations, and some years later the two populations are no longer
>>>able to interbreed (i.e., we've now got two separate species)?  This has
>>>(contrary to claims of creationists) been observed to happen with a number of
>>>species.  In this sense, evolution IS a proven fact, in that we have, in fact,
>>>observed speciation.  Any particular theory of evolution attempts to account
>>>for the proven fact of evolution.
>
>Several species of insects, some sort of flower (a full description of this one
>was recently posted to sci.skeptic), some Australian mammal (wallabee?), a
>population of which that was brought to Hawaii by humans is no longer able to
>interbreed with the Australian species.  Could someone post the list that shows
>up from time to time?

It's a wallabee (sp?).  The Hawaiian species can also eat an plant native
to Hawaii which is lethal to Australian wallabees.


--
McCreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com     Computers are like Old Testament gods;
Me? Speak for Compaq?  Yeah, right.   lots of rules and no mercy.
"By this time my lungs were aching for air..."               Joseph Campbell
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.alien.visitors,talk.religion.newage