John McCoy and "gullible evolutionists"
David Sienkiewicz
recently.
Nevermind that we can't get you to tell us what an "evolutionist" is
supposed to be. We'll take it for the sake of argument that it's
someone who disagrees with you on these issues.
But "gullible?"
Tell me, John, who was it that, in his zeal to disagree with
"evolutionists," agreed that Ed Conrad was making sense and had
evidence - even if that evidence disagreed with all of his basic
premises and despite the fact that Ed has been less than kind to
creationists over the years?
It wasn't an "evolutionist," John - it was you.
You claimed that Ed's evidence was convincing, even after it was
exposed as false or fraudulent.
You even claimed that you were going to visit Ed and check out the
evidence for yourself.
By the way, John, did you ever do that?
After we exposed the evidence as false, you got REAL quiet and never
approached the subject again.
I did visit eastern Pennsylvania, John, and tried to track Ed down.
He made it a point to avoid me.
So how did you fare?
Andy Groves
David,
Did you ever get around to setting up the web page that dealt with
your little detective trip? I'd be fascinated to see it.
Andy
J McCoy
> recently.
In all seriousness I do think you're gullible.
>
> Nevermind that we can't get you to tell us what an "evolutionist" is
> supposed to be. We'll take it for the sake of argument that it's
> someone who disagrees with you on these issues.
No, that would not be a good definition.
> But "gullible?"
Yes.
Let me explain. Gullibility used to be confined (in our minds), to
cheap magic tricks and pseudo phenomena. For instance, supposed
statues of goddesses that weep. Wood grain that look like people, and
that sort of thing. People who believe that a film of a flashing sun
(in reality the shutter having been open and shut in rapid sequence),
as indicative of a miracle.
Nowadays, gullibility is the belief in nature as having powers that
we've never seen before. Of nature able to build life on it's own.
We also see gullibility in the word "scientist." Whenever an
evolutionist says something, he loads his phrases with "scientists"
and this seems to be the therapy that should relax our minds. This is,
not accurate. The accurate term would be "some scientists." When I
think of scientist, I think of, what are the arguments used by the
scientist in question. But ye evolutionists never get past the word
"scientist" and probe into the real arguments. I call that
gullibility.
While you jump the gun in criticising creationists, you never seem to
question your fellow evolutionists. You accept what you're told and
never probe. Have you ever wished to actually physically handle
"Lucy" and compare them with other skulls for yourself? Well, if some
guy wants to do so, you have to sign a letter stating that you promise
not to criticize "lucy". Is that right?
>
> Tell me, John, who was it that, in his zeal to disagree with
> "evolutionists," agreed that Ed Conrad was making sense and had
> evidence - even if that evidence disagreed with all of his basic
> premises and despite the fact that Ed has been less than kind to
> creationists over the years?
>
> It wasn't an "evolutionist," John - it was you.
>
> You claimed that Ed's evidence was convincing, even after it was
> exposed as false or fraudulent.
It hasn't been exposed as a fraud. Here's where you and I differ. I
want to go see Ed Conrad and check out his evidence for myself. I may
be able to do that. I have postponed further judgement. The evidence
he has presented looks to be authentic. But, as you have suggested
that Conrad has fabricated additional supporting documents to buttress
his position. Thus we have a problem. Which is why I need to check out
Conrad's rocks for myself.
>
> You even claimed that you were going to visit Ed and check out the
> evidence for yourself.
Yes, I will.
>
> By the way, John, did you ever do that?
No. And I haven't gone to Noah's Ark or any of the other sites that I
have been talking about going to in the last five years. Fact is,
these other sites have more priority to me than Conrad's rocks. But I
intend to see Conrad as soon as it is feasible for me to do so.
>
> After we exposed the evidence as false, you got REAL quiet and never
> approached the subject again.
Truth is, I abandoned the newsgroups altogether, several times.
> I did visit eastern Pennsylvania, John, and tried to track Ed down.
I believe that I will be able to see Ed Conrad. I'm not closed minded
as you are. I think he might have something there. It looks very
credible.
J McCoy
Michael G.
wrote:
[...]
Even other creationists have said Ed's claims are false. Creationist
Kurt Wise has examined them, and described them as follows:
" It is very possible that most, if not all, his material is
inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil
material at all."
See:
http://tinyurl.com/96rt
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/wise.html
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message
news:<35fa3772.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > John, you've referred to "evolutionists" as "gullible" several times
> > recently.
>
> In all seriousness I do think you're gullible.
In all seriousness, I think you are a liar.
>
> >
> > Nevermind that we can't get you to tell us what an "evolutionist" is
> > supposed to be. We'll take it for the sake of argument that it's
> > someone who disagrees with you on these issues.
>
> No, that would not be a good definition.
Then what's your definition?
>
>
> > But "gullible?"
>
> Yes.
Showing you don't know the meaning of the word.
>
>
> Let me explain. Gullibility used to be confined (in our minds), to
> cheap magic tricks and pseudo phenomena. For instance, supposed
> statues of goddesses that weep.
Or "Noah's Ark" finds. Or fancy overpriced dowsing rods.
>Wood grain that look like people, and
> that sort of thing. People who believe that a film of a flashing sun
> (in reality the shutter having been open and shut in rapid sequence),
> as indicative of a miracle.
Or people who think that "drouge stones" will keep an overloaded, over
extended, and impossibly constructed wooden boat floating in the Mother of
All Storms.
>
> Nowadays, gullibility is the belief in nature as having powers that
> we've never seen before. Of nature able to build life on it's own.
No one claims that nature has powers we've never seen. There is nothing in
our experience that shows that life is unable to begin on it's own.
>
> We also see gullibility in the word "scientist."
No, we see gullibility in the word "McCoy".
> Whenever an
> evolutionist says something, he loads his phrases with "scientists"
> and this seems to be the therapy that should relax our minds.
Are you saying that scientists opinions are not valid in scientific
discussions? If not, just what are you saying here?
> This is,
> not accurate. The accurate term would be "some scientists." When I
> think of scientist, I think of, what are the arguments used by the
> scientist in question. But ye evolutionists never get past the word
> "scientist" and probe into the real arguments. I call that
> gullibility.
Is that why when Creationists claim to be "scientists" we ask for their
credentials, and where they have published? What "real arguments" do you
feel we aren't probing? What I call gullibility is uncritically accepting
whatever agrees with your personal beliefs, and rejecting anything that
doesn't.
>
> While you jump the gun in criticising creationists, you never seem to
> question your fellow evolutionists.
What questions do you feel aren't being addressed?
> You accept what you're told and
> never probe. Have you ever wished to actually physically handle
> "Lucy" and compare them with other skulls for yourself?
I wouldn't mind holding the Hope Diamond either but it's not likely that's
going to happen. The specimen nicknamed "Lucy" is a valuable fossil, and
they don't let just anyone handle valuable fossils. You can, however, get
an exact replica, and handle them all you like.
>Well, if some
> guy wants to do so, you have to sign a letter stating that you promise
> not to criticize "lucy". Is that right?
No, it's not right. No scientist would ever accept such conditions.
"Lucy", and any other fossil, may be criticized by anyone who chooses to do
so. It's the Creationists who sign pledges not to criticize a literal
reading of the Bible. Any scientists with the proper credentials can
examine the "Lucy" specimens.
>
>
>
>
Snipping McCoy's gullibility regarding Ed Conrad's fraudulent fossils
DJT
Dick C
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com:
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message
> news:<35fa3772.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>> John, you've referred to "evolutionists" as "gullible" several times
>> recently.
>
> In all seriousness I do think you're gullible.
>
>>
>> Nevermind that we can't get you to tell us what an "evolutionist" is
>> supposed to be. We'll take it for the sake of argument that it's
>> someone who disagrees with you on these issues.
>
> No, that would not be a good definition.
>
>
>> But "gullible?"
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Let me explain. Gullibility used to be confined (in our minds), to
> cheap magic tricks and pseudo phenomena. For instance, supposed
> statues of goddesses that weep. Wood grain that look like people, and
> that sort of thing. People who believe that a film of a flashing sun
> (in reality the shutter having been open and shut in rapid sequence),
> as indicative of a miracle.
Yeah, like believing that some charlatan found Noah's Ark, the
Red Sea Crossing, The Ark of the Covenant, and so on.
Yes, John, we are all familiar with who is gullible here.
>
> Nowadays, gullibility is the belief in nature as having powers that
> we've never seen before. Of nature able to build life on it's own.
>
> We also see gullibility in the word "scientist." Whenever an
> evolutionist says something, he loads his phrases with "scientists"
> and this seems to be the therapy that should relax our minds. This is,
> not accurate. The accurate term would be "some scientists." When I
> think of scientist, I think of, what are the arguments used by the
> scientist in question. But ye evolutionists never get past the word
> "scientist" and probe into the real arguments. I call that
> gullibility.
Many of us are not scientists. We do that because it is the scientist
who finds the evidence and works with the theories.
>
> While you jump the gun in criticising creationists, you never seem to
> question your fellow evolutionists. You accept what you're told and
> never probe. Have you ever wished to actually physically handle
> "Lucy" and compare them with other skulls for yourself? Well, if some
> guy wants to do so, you have to sign a letter stating that you promise
> not to criticize "lucy". Is that right?
Try again, we all get criticized and corrected when we make a
mistake. Instead of arguing forever about it, we accept that
we goofed, correct it, and move on. On the other hand there have
been some very interesting threads where proscience people have
disagreements about something.
Your statement above is ridicously false. Of course, that has been
your style for years.
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: crav...@msn.com
observa
news:<35fa3772.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > John, you've referred to "evolutionists" as "gullible" several times
> > recently.
>
> In all seriousness I do think you're gullible.
John, I've never been called gullible. A sceptic, yes, arrogant, yes, a
know-it-all, yes, but never gullible. Can I accept that as a sign of
respect, because you seem to prefer the views of other gullible people.
(Please calibrate irony meter.
Alan Jeffery
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.470 / Virus Database: 268 - Release Date: 8/04/2003
J McCoy
Nope. If you want to examine Lucy you need to sign a statement.
J McCoy
David Sienkiewicz
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > John, you've referred to "evolutionists" as "gullible" several times
> > recently.
>
> In all seriousness I do think you're gullible.
Actually, I don't think you have any idea what constitutes "gullible."
> > Nevermind that we can't get you to tell us what an "evolutionist" is
> > supposed to be. We'll take it for the sake of argument that it's
> > someone who disagrees with you on these issues.
>
> No, that would not be a good definition.
Then what WOULD be a "good definition?"
Here you had a golden opportunity, John, and you blew it.
> > But "gullible?"
>
> Yes.
Well, John, you're wrong so often, I suspect one more time won't
matter, will it?
> Let me explain. Gullibility used to be confined (in our minds), to
> cheap magic tricks and pseudo phenomena. For instance, supposed
> statues of goddesses that weep. Wood grain that look like people, and
> that sort of thing. People who believe that a film of a flashing sun
> (in reality the shutter having been open and shut in rapid sequence),
> as indicative of a miracle.
This is what we call "misdirection," John.
You won't find a single one of your opponents who believes or ever
believed any of these things. Those who tend to oppose you are
empiricists. They believe in evidence and fact.
> Nowadays, gullibility is the belief in nature as having powers that
> we've never seen before. Of nature able to build life on it's own.
That's not gullibility, John - that's SCIENCE.
Your speeches notwithstanding, the generan concensus is that life
arose through naturalistic processes. The reason that is believed IN
SCIENCE is because that is what the evidence suggests.
The evidence also suggests that living things evolve.
EVIDENCE tells us that, John - evidence you try very hard to avoid
discussing.
Instead, you make speeches and accuse others of being gullible.
> We also see gullibility in the word "scientist."
No, WE don't, John.
I'll ask again whom you presume to represent.
To me, it's far more gullible to believe a dead man (Jesus) is
responsible for everything we see around us. There is NO evidence for
that and, after all, he's dead.
> Whenever an
> evolutionist says something, he loads his phrases with "scientists"
> and this seems to be the therapy that should relax our minds. This is,
> not accurate. The accurate term would be "some scientists." When I
> think of scientist, I think of, what are the arguments used by the
> scientist in question. But ye evolutionists never get past the word
> "scientist" and probe into the real arguments. I call that
> gullibility.
What you call "gullibility" is of no consequence; and the
"evolutionists" whom *I* see in this newsgroup and elsewhere DO "probe
into the real arguments."
The problem is that if a real argument is ever presented, YOU are
generally found wanting - or not found at all.
> While you jump the gun in criticising creationists, you never seem to
> question your fellow evolutionists.
I have yet to have good cause to criticize my "fellow evolutionists,"
whatever THAT means.
John, I'm not a scientist. I am not an "evolutionist."
I am a layperson, just like you. I have an interest in this area.
YOU, as a creationist, should be trying to convince ME that there's
something to what you're saying.
You're not going to do that with games, evasion, sophistry and
rhetoric. You're not going to do it with lies and dishonesty.
You'll do it with FACTS, evidence and a good argument.
You have none of those things.
I criticize you and your fellow creationists for THAT reason; and no
other.
> You accept what you're told and
> never probe.
If I never probed, John, I wouldn't be challenging YOU.
> Have you ever wished to actually physically handle
> "Lucy" and compare them with other skulls for yourself?
Sure.
But there's only so much I can squeeze in my lifetime, John. I leave
that sort of thing to the experts. I leave the tune up on my Lexus to
skilled mechanics, I leave the treatment of my heart condition to my
doctors and I leave biology to biologists.
I have my own sense for things, and a good instinct for common sense.
I am skilled in the objective evaluation of evidence and I know a good
argument when I see one.
I don't see one coming from you. My instincts tell me that you cannot
be trusted. The facts that I KNOW are true that you fail to deal with
honestly are clear indicators.
> Well, if some
> guy wants to do so, you have to sign a letter stating that you promise
> not to criticize "lucy". Is that right?
No, it is not right.
This is the sort of thing I am thinking of. This is a pretty flagrant
lie, John.
How do you expect to convince anyone that there's anything to you if
you lie so badly and so obviously?
> > Tell me, John, who was it that, in his zeal to disagree with
> > "evolutionists," agreed that Ed Conrad was making sense and had
> > evidence - even if that evidence disagreed with all of his basic
> > premises and despite the fact that Ed has been less than kind to
> > creationists over the years?
> >
> > It wasn't an "evolutionist," John - it was you.
> >
> > You claimed that Ed's evidence was convincing, even after it was
> > exposed as false or fraudulent.
>
> It hasn't been exposed as a fraud.
Yes, it has.
When I provided the specifics to you the last time it came up between
us, you ducked from the discussion.
Why did you do that, John?
> Here's where you and I differ. I
> want to go see Ed Conrad and check out his evidence for myself. I may
> be able to do that. I have postponed further judgement. The evidence
> he has presented looks to be authentic. But, as you have suggested
> that Conrad has fabricated additional supporting documents to buttress
> his position. Thus we have a problem. Which is why I need to check out
> Conrad's rocks for myself.
Conrad's rocks have been evaluated by qualified scientists. His
"documentation" is clearly either fabricated or misrepresented. I
presented my arguments about that and challenged you to discuss it.
You ran.
As far as I can tell, John, you make public statements in support of
Ed because of your own juvenile hatred of science and the
"evolutionists" in this forum. You didn't understand (and you still
don't understand) that if Ed is right, everything you have said for
years is wrong.
I knew that. That's why I challenged you.
You knew it, too. That's why you fled the discussion.
> > You even claimed that you were going to visit Ed and check out the
> > evidence for yourself.
>
> Yes, I will.
That was quite a while ago, John. Frankly, I don't believe you'll
ever do that.
I think you were bluffing.
> > By the way, John, did you ever do that?
>
> No. And I haven't gone to Noah's Ark or any of the other sites that I
> have been talking about going to in the last five years. Fact is,
> these other sites have more priority to me than Conrad's rocks. But I
> intend to see Conrad as soon as it is feasible for me to do so.
I wasn't asking you about Noah's Ark or the "other sites." I asked
about your claim that you would go to Pennsylvania and check Ed's
rocks.
I'm not interested in excuses, John. *I* made the trip (Ed hid from
me, though - pity.).
You can, too.
> > After we exposed the evidence as false, you got REAL quiet and never
> > approached the subject again.
>
> Truth is, I abandoned the newsgroups altogether, several times.
No, John, you were still in the newsgroup and yammering about other
subjects. But you steered pretty clear of this one after I sent you
links to messages explaining the fraud.
Tell me, John, do you believe in Bigfoot and Neesie, too?
> > I did visit eastern Pennsylvania, John, and tried to track Ed down.
>
> I believe that I will be able to see Ed Conrad. I'm not closed minded
> as you are.
You are a presumptuous fool, John. I am NOT closed-minded; and you
are being hypocritical whenever you presume to tell someone ELSE that
they are closed-minded.
Rejecting Ed's "evidence" does not make me "closed-minded." I
objectively evaluated what Ed had to say, took into account the claims
of others and the scientific evaluation of his rocks. I considered
that what he was claiming flew in the face of all evidence and I
discovered that his "documentation" was fraudulent. Because of that
and other things I discovered, I came to the conclusion that Ed is a
fraud.
YOU accept uncritically the claims of those who happen to agree with
your own beliefs as they already exist. You don't like evolution
because it takes those things away. You can't refute it - you don't
even know much about it. But you definitely don't like it, so you
rail against it.
YOURS is the closed mind.
> I think he might have something there.
He does. Rocks.
> It looks very credible.
Why? Are you like Ted and Ed and tend to figure that looking at
pictures is enough?
David Sienkiewicz
I'm struck by a bit of laziness since Ed has stopped posting and
hasn't been around for a while.
I DID start it. It's at http://www.geocities.com/hdsienkiewicz/
But you're right. I did promise to do it, so I shall endeavor to
finish it.
>
> Andy
Cybdelis
> never probe.
Well, did you ever try to read science papers ?
Do you know material & methods are described there, and that it is
possible for you to verify every point that has been made ?
Before writing anything about evolution, we even didn't ask you to
check everything that is scientifically alleged on the subject. But
you could. And if you are sceptic, just do it. But please don't come
back before you finished all your stuff please. You got a lot of work
to do.
But if you want to keep your ignorance, you're right, but don't try to
fool other people. You won't succeed here. You just look what you
are... I didn't even know there was still people like you, but I got
facts now.
Cyb.
Patrick James
(in message <3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com>):
If this is so, please:
1 provide the text of this statement
2 show where we can confirm that this statement is required
A URL pointing to the statement will suffice as an answer to both of the
above. Failing that, the name, author, and ISBN of the book where you got
this from plus the page number where the statement is shown will do. If you
got it from a magazine, the name of the magazine, its ISSN, the name of the
article, the author of the article, and the page number where the statement
is shown will do.
You _can_ do this, right?
And, BTW, you _still_ haven't replied as to whether or not horses and donkeys
are the same kind, given that they can (in a very few cases) cross-breed and
have fertile offspring. How about those gulls, nameless? Are the British
lesser black-backed gull and the British herring gull one kind or two? Are
lions and tigers one kind or two?
Enquiring minds wanna know, nameless.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Dana Tweedy
"J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message
news:<b72gjt$a98lr$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
> > > david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message
> > news:<35fa3772.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > John, you've referred to "evolutionists" as "gullible" several times
> > > > recently.
> > >
> > > In all seriousness I do think you're gullible.
> >
> >
> > In all seriousness, I think you are a liar.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Nevermind that we can't get you to tell us what an "evolutionist" is
> > > > supposed to be. We'll take it for the sake of argument that it's
> > > > someone who disagrees with you on these issues.
> > >
> > > No, that would not be a good definition.
> >
> > Then what's your definition?
You ignored this McCoy. Why?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > But "gullible?"
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Showing you don't know the meaning of the word.
And this. Why did you ignore this?
snipping
> >Well, if some
> > > guy wants to do so, you have to sign a letter stating that you promise
> > > not to criticize "lucy". Is that right?
> >
> > No, it's not right. No scientist would ever accept such conditions.
> > "Lucy", and any other fossil, may be criticized by anyone who chooses
to do
> > so. It's the Creationists who sign pledges not to criticize a literal
> > reading of the Bible. Any scientists with the proper credentials can
> > examine the "Lucy" specimens.
>
> Nope. If you want to examine Lucy you need to sign a statement.
What "statement" is that? Do you have a copy of that statement? Where can
we see that statement? Does the statement say "you can't criticize Lucy"?
I am confident this is simply another one of your lies, which you will
refuse to provide any citations to support.
So, produce the "statement" or once again, show the readership here that you
are without any honor, or any credibility.
DJT
Brent Howatt
> david.si...@attbi.com (David Sienkiewicz) wrote in message news:<35fa3772.03040...@posting.google.com>...
>> John, you've referred to "evolutionists" as "gullible" several times
>> recently.
>
> In all seriousness I do think you're gullible.
That's a personal opinion to which you are entitled.
>>
>> Nevermind that we can't get you to tell us what an "evolutionist" is
>> supposed to be. We'll take it for the sake of argument that it's
>> someone who disagrees with you on these issues.
>
> No, that would not be a good definition.
Then what is a good one?
[snip]
> Let me explain. Gullibility used to be confined (in our minds), to
> cheap magic tricks and pseudo phenomena. For instance, supposed
> statues of goddesses that weep. Wood grain that look like people, and
> that sort of thing. People who believe that a film of a flashing sun
> (in reality the shutter having been open and shut in rapid sequence),
> as indicative of a miracle.
Agreed.
> Nowadays, gullibility is the belief in nature as having powers that
> we've never seen before. Of nature able to build life on it's own.
Depends. You deny that things occur in nature that are regularly observed
to occur. Biologists do not "believe" in nature havng powers to do
things; they observe nature doing them and report on it. You regularly
deny the existence of such observations when they conflict with your
religiousl beliefs. As to building life on its own, that's an open
question.
> We also see gullibility in the word "scientist." Whenever an
> evolutionist says something, he loads his phrases with "scientists"
> and this seems to be the therapy that should relax our minds. This is,
> not accurate. The accurate term would be "some scientists." When I
> think of scientist, I think of, what are the arguments used by the
> scientist in question. But ye evolutionists never get past the word
> "scientist" and probe into the real arguments. I call that
> gullibility.
Hardly. Scientists spend a lot of time questioning things. That's how
progress in science is made. Every major advance in science has come from
questioning the basic assumptions of the existing paradigm. Special and
general relativity are good examples. So is evolution.
> While you jump the gun in criticising creationists, you never seem to
> question your fellow evolutionists. You accept what you're told and
> never probe. Have you ever wished to actually physically handle
> "Lucy" and compare them with other skulls for yourself? Well, if some
> guy wants to do so, you have to sign a letter stating that you promise
> not to criticize "lucy". Is that right?
No, that is not right. Please post your reference for this statement.
"Lucy" is generally taken to mean a specific example of the species
_Australopithecus afarensis_ discovered by Johansen and White. There are
quite a number of other fossil examples of that species. As to handling
them, it would be cool, since I personally value darsan (in a broad sense
of the term). However, my level of expertise in comparative anatomy of
hominids is such that I could learn as much from handling museum grade
casts of the skulls. In addition, I'd like take a look at the hip joints
and the knee joints. However, since the focus of my degree in biology was
on cryptogamic botany, I'd much rather get my hands on a good fossil of a
bryophyte with a branched sporophyte.
>>
>> Tell me, John, who was it that, in his zeal to disagree with
>> "evolutionists," agreed that Ed Conrad was making sense and had
>> evidence - even if that evidence disagreed with all of his basic
>> premises and despite the fact that Ed has been less than kind to
>> creationists over the years?
>>
>> It wasn't an "evolutionist," John - it was you.
>>
>> You claimed that Ed's evidence was convincing, even after it was
>> exposed as false or fraudulent.
>
> It hasn't been exposed as a fraud.
Only the terminally credulous could make such a statement. But then, you
persist in believing that Ron Wyatt found the ark, even after what David
Fasold posted in this group.
> Here's where you and I differ. I
> want to go see Ed Conrad and check out his evidence for myself. I may
> be able to do that. I have postponed further judgement. The evidence
> he has presented looks to be authentic.
If so, it certainly trashes the idea of young earth creationism. Are you
going to section his "fossils" yourself?
> But, as you have suggested
> that Conrad has fabricated additional supporting documents to buttress
> his position. Thus we have a problem. Which is why I need to check out
> Conrad's rocks for myself.
Be sure to visit the UFO museum on your way.
>> You even claimed that you were going to visit Ed and check out the
>> evidence for yourself.
>
> Yes, I will.
When?
>> By the way, John, did you ever do that?
>
> No. And I haven't gone to Noah's Ark or any of the other sites that I
> have been talking about going to in the last five years. Fact is,
> these other sites have more priority to me than Conrad's rocks. But I
> intend to see Conrad as soon as it is feasible for me to do so.
Well, Pennsylvania is a lot closer than Turkey, and you're less likely to
be shot at.
>>
>> After we exposed the evidence as false, you got REAL quiet and never
>> approached the subject again.
>
> Truth is, I abandoned the newsgroups altogether, several times.
Yes, but here you are again. It remains true that Wyatt was a fraud.
There is no ark in the mountains of Turkey. There are no chariot wheels
in the Red Sea. Conrad remains a net.kook of the first water.
>
>> I did visit eastern Pennsylvania, John, and tried to track Ed down.
>
> I believe that I will be able to see Ed Conrad. I'm not closed minded
> as you are. I think he might have something there. It looks very
> credible.
Hmmm... I can make you a good deal on the Samoa Bridge. Call me if
you're interested.
--
H. Brent Howatt | The deluded are always filled with absolutes
hey...@die.spammers.rootshell.be| The rest of us have to live with ambiguity
PGP keys by email or keyserver | _Aristoi_ Walter Jon Williams
Brent Howatt
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b72gjt$a98lr$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>> > guy wants to do so, you have to sign a letter stating that you promise
>> > not to criticize "lucy". Is that right?
>>
>> No, it's not right. No scientist would ever accept such conditions.
>> "Lucy", and any other fossil, may be criticized by anyone who chooses to do
>> so. It's the Creationists who sign pledges not to criticize a literal
>> reading of the Bible. Any scientists with the proper credentials can
>> examine the "Lucy" specimens.
>
> Nope. If you want to examine Lucy you need to sign a statement.
>
> J McCoy
Bunk! What is your reference for this statement. You're talking about
gullibility here, so where is your proof for this statement. You have
none. You will either ignore the demands for a reference or provide some
reference to some creationist web site that simply makes an unsupported
allegation that this is true. Do you even know where the Lucy fossil is
located? To whom do you apply for museum priviledges there? Are you
talking about the single Lucy fossil or are you referrring to all examples
of _Australopithecus afarensis_?
It is a fact that the Lucy fossil has been examined by a number of
paleontologists who disagree with Johanssen on his interpretation of some
feature of _A. afarensis_ including his placement of these fossil in that
taxon. One such is Mary Leakey. As Casey Stengel said, "You could look
it up." But I forgot, you'ld rather gullibly accept the word of
creationist web site.
AC
> "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote in message news:<b72gjt$a98lr$1...@ID-35161.news.dfncis.de>...
>> "Lucy", and any other fossil, may be criticized by anyone who chooses to do
>> so. It's the Creationists who sign pledges not to criticize a literal
>> reading of the Bible. Any scientists with the proper credentials can
>> examine the "Lucy" specimens.
>
> Nope. If you want to examine Lucy you need to sign a statement.
Please provide a copy of this alleged statement along with independent
confirmation that scientists have to sign it.
--
A. Clausen
maureen...@nospam.alberni.net (Remove "nospam." to contact me)
Ann Broomhead
> > John, you've referred to "evolutionists" as "gullible" several times
> > recently.
>
> In all seriousness I do think you're gullible.
>
> Let me explain. Gullibility used to be confined (in our minds), to
> cheap magic tricks and pseudo phenomena.
"Gullibility" is from the verb "gull", meaning to deceive, to cheat,
or to dupe. Its origin is in Middle English, so it is not at all a
modern term. It refers to *any* sort of dishonesty, as should be
obvious. "A gullible person would buy a pig in a poke." is a
statement that would garner agreement over many centuries, and deals
only with ordinary events.
(snip)
> Nowadays, gullibility is the belief in nature as having powers that
> we've never seen before. Of nature able to build life on it's own.
No, I disagree. Gullibility is more obvious in the bald, unsupported
claim that a "feeder" for an animal such as a dog, can be built from
Bronze Age materials, using Bronze Age tools.
Just for example.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
Floyd
> > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote in message
> > news:3f355ee.03040...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> > > You accept what you're told and
> > > never probe. Have you ever wished to actually physically handle
> > > "Lucy" and compare them with other skulls for yourself?
> >
> > I wouldn't mind holding the Hope Diamond either but it's not likely that's
> > going to happen. The specimen nicknamed "Lucy" is a valuable fossil, and
> > they don't let just anyone handle valuable fossils. You can, however, get
> > an exact replica, and handle them all you like.
> >
> > >Well, if some
> > > guy wants to do so, you have to sign a letter stating that you promise
> > > not to criticize "lucy". Is that right?
> >
> > No, it's not right. No scientist would ever accept such conditions.
> > "Lucy", and any other fossil, may be criticized by anyone who chooses to do
> > so. It's the Creationists who sign pledges not to criticize a literal
> > reading of the Bible. Any scientists with the proper credentials can
> > examine the "Lucy" specimens.
>
> Nope. If you want to examine Lucy you need to sign a statement.
>
> J McCoy
In order to get a fishing licence you need to sign a statement. In
order to buy a used volkswagen, you need to sign a statement.
It's true that direct access to the remains are restricted, and for
precisely the reason Dana implied with the Hope Diamond analogy; each
hominid fossil is unique in some way, and by their rarity,
Australopithecus remains are more valuable than diamonds. However,
the statement obviously has no provision that "you must not criticise
Lucy," or there would be no debate over the nature of the remains. I
can prove to you, beyond any doubt, that there is no such restriction
against "criticizing Lucy" (if, by that, you mean disagreeing with the
consensus view of her place in our phylogenetic tree). I have a
number of references, both popular and technical, that display a wide
variety of opinions about the relationship between "Lucy" and humans.
The opinions range from claims that she was the "trunk of the family
tree" (e.g. Johanson & Edey 1981) to claims that she is not an
ancestor at all, but a mere side branch (R. Leakey and Walker 1978),
and from claims that she got around pretty much exactly like we do
(Lovejoy 1975) to claims that she spent a substantial portion her life
in the trees (Susman, Stern, and Jungers 1984). These are all people
who have actually spent time analysing the remains.
If scientists were required to sign a statement to the effect that
they had to support the consensus position about "Lucy," this range of
diversity of opinions would not exist. Either that, or a considerable
proportion of these researchers would have been sued for breach of
contract. Since the later has not happened, and the former is
demonstrably counter to the evidence, no such statement exists; QED.
You may be thinking of this:
http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm
All members of the CRS are required to affirm acceptance of this
Statement of Belief, and are thereby prohibited from publishing any
evidence that they find that is contrary to this statement. I know of
no scientific journals or organisations that have similar
requirements. If you have evidence of such, please let me know, and I
will join you in repudiating that organisation or journal. Ideally,
your evidence will be sufficiently detailed, so I can investigate the
situation myself. Names and dates will be particularly appreciated.
(Of course if you have no evidence that such a statement is required
by any scientific organisation, I will understand that people
sometimes make mistakes, and I'll graciously accept your appology for
the misstatement and say no more about it.)
-Floyd
observa
"observa" <obs...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message news:...
> news:<35fa3772.03040...@posting.google.com>...
> > > John, you've referred to "evolutionists" as "gullible" several times
> > > recently.
> >
> > In all seriousness I do think you're gullible.
>
> know-it-all, yes, but never gullible. Can I accept that as a sign of
> respect, because you seem to prefer the views of other gullible people.
> (Please calibrate irony meter.
>
> Alan Jeffery
> >
> > >
> > > supposed to be. We'll take it for the sake of argument that it's
> > > someone who disagrees with you on these issues.
> >
> > No, that would not be a good definition.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> > Let me explain. Gullibility used to be confined (in our minds), to
> > statues of goddesses that weep. Wood grain that look like people, and
> > that sort of thing. People who believe that a film of a flashing sun
> > (in reality the shutter having been open and shut in rapid sequence),
> > as indicative of a miracle.
> >
> > we've never seen before. Of nature able to build life on it's own.
> >
> > evolutionist says something, he loads his phrases with "scientists"
> > and this seems to be the therapy that should relax our minds. This is,
> > not accurate. The accurate term would be "some scientists." When I
> > think of scientist, I think of, what are the arguments used by the
> > scientist in question. But ye evolutionists never get past the word
> > "scientist" and probe into the real arguments. I call that
> > gullibility.
> >
> > never probe. Have you ever wished to actually physically handle
> > guy wants to do so, you have to sign a letter stating that you promise
> > not to criticize "lucy". Is that right?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > "evolutionists," agreed that Ed Conrad was making sense and had
> > > evidence - even if that evidence disagreed with all of his basic
> > > premises and despite the fact that Ed has been less than kind to
> > > creationists over the years?
> > >
> > > It wasn't an "evolutionist," John - it was you.
> > >
> > > You claimed that Ed's evidence was convincing, even after it was
> > > exposed as false or fraudulent.
> >
> > want to go see Ed Conrad and check out his evidence for myself. I may
> > be able to do that. I have postponed further judgement. The evidence
> > that Conrad has fabricated additional supporting documents to buttress
> > his position. Thus we have a problem. Which is why I need to check out
> > Conrad's rocks for myself.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > evidence for yourself.
> >
> > Yes, I will.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > No. And I haven't gone to Noah's Ark or any of the other sites that I
> > have been talking about going to in the last five years. Fact is,
> > these other sites have more priority to me than Conrad's rocks. But I
> > intend to see Conrad as soon as it is feasible for me to do so.
> >
> > >
> > > approached the subject again.
> >
> > Truth is, I abandoned the newsgroups altogether, several times.
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that I will be able to see Ed Conrad. I'm not closed minded
> > as you are. I think he might have something there. It looks very
> > credible.
> >
John Wilkins
Floyd <far...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> mc...@sunset.net (J McCoy) wrote...
> > "Dana Tweedy" <twe...@cvn.net> wrote...
> > > "J McCoy" <mc...@sunset.net> wrote...
--
John Wilkins
"Listen to your heart, not the voices in your head" - Marge Simpson
AC
> Nomination for post of the month
I second this.
--
Floyd
> Nomination for post of the month
Thanks, I'm flattered. (That was the usual 100 unmarked,
non-sequential Quatloos, right?)
Actually, I neglected to include the cited references (which IMHO,
should disqualify the post from consideration, not that I'm
complaining). They are as follows:
Johanson, D. and M. Edey
1981 _Lucy: The Beginnings of Mankind_ Warner Books, NY
Leakey, R. E. F. and A. Walker
1978 _The Hominids of East Turkana_ /Scientific American/ vol.
239, no. 2,
pp. 54-66.
Lovejoy, C. O.
1975 _Biomechanical Perspectives on the Lower Limb of Early
Hominids_
Pp.291-326 in R. H. Tuttle (Ed.) /Primate Functional
Morphology and
Evolution/ Mouton, The Hague.
Susman,R. L., J. T. Stern Jr., and W. L. Jungers
1984 _Arboreality and Bipedality in the Hadar Hominids_ /Folia
Primatologica/ vol. 43, Pp. 113-156.
Cheers;
-Floyd
J McCoy
Can you prove that they had accessed Lucy, or can you cite an opinion
that challenges it, rather than giving another evolutionistic opinion?
> >
> > If scientists were required to sign a statement to the effect that
> > they had to support the consensus position about "Lucy," this range of
> > diversity of opinions would not exist. Either that, or a considerable
> > proportion of these researchers would have been sued for breach of
> > contract. Since the later has not happened, and the former is
> > demonstrably counter to the evidence, no such statement exists; QED.
> >
> > You may be thinking of this:
> > http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm
> >
> > All members of the CRS are required to affirm acceptance of this
> > Statement of Belief, and are thereby prohibited from publishing
This is irrelevant. We all know that evolutionists maintain
underground black lists and do not allow creationists to publish in
their journals. This is sinister as it is secretive without honest
disclosure.
any
> > evidence that they find that is contrary to this statement. I know of
> > no scientific journals or organisations that have similar
> > requirements.
I know of several statements made by evolutionists who would deny
creationists of degrees or publication. The evolutionists on
talk.origins freely admit that they agree that creationists shouldn't
be allowed to be published.
J McCoy
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>We all know that evolutionists maintain
>underground black lists and do not allow creationists to publish in
>their journals.
No, we don't all know that. In fact, many of us have good reason to
believe that "evolutionists" do _not_ have or maintain _any_ kind of
blacklist. Got any evidence for your claim?
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Mark VandeWettering
[ snippage ]
> We all know that evolutionists maintain underground black lists and do
> not allow creationists to publish in their journals. This is sinister
> as it is secretive without honest disclosure.
Perhaps you could supply us with a list of papers submitted by creationists
which were rejected by scientific journals?
The simple fact is creationists don't submit scientific papers about
creationism to scientific journals. There is no blacklisting: the
journals can only publish what is submitted to them. Even creationists
know they aren't doing science.
> I know of several statements made by evolutionists who would deny
> creationists of degrees or publication. The evolutionists on
> talk.origins freely admit that they agree that creationists shouldn't
> be allowed to be published.
Like who? I have nothing against creationists getting published,
but they need to do science to be published in science journals.
Creationism isn't science. I have no problem with them publishing
in Ex Nihilo or anywhere else they see fit. That's just freedom
of speech.
Mark
> J McCoy
Floyd
Several of the citations I offered have photographs. For Johanson and
Lovejoy, there is actually video of them doing so in the form of a
NOVA special titled _In Search of Human Origins_ part one. The
transcript is found at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html the video
should be in your public library, or available via inter-library loan.
Please let me know if it is not and I'll see if I can find some other
way to provide you access to the footage.
> or can you cite an opinion
> that challenges it,
Sure, I can cite several opinions that challenge the consensus
evaluation that "Lucy" was part of our lineage (if that's what you
mean by "challenge" in this context). Included among the citations
are
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-029.htm
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/lucy.html
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-011b.htm
and
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n2_knuckle_walker.asp
(appologies for wrapping, http://tinyurl.com/9cye should take you to
the same site)
All of these sites offer mistaken information, however. If you are
interested, I would be happy to pint out where they are wrong as well.
Of course, since we haven't met, I'm not sure which, if any, of their
arguments stike you as convincing or interesting. I'm also sure that
your time is as valuable to you as mine is to me, so if you want to
pick their best argument(s) and discuss those, I'll be happy to
explain where the mistakes are, but one at a time, please. Thanks.
> rather than giving another evolutionistic opinion?
What, in your opinion, is the definition of the term "evolutionist?"
Is it merely someone who accepts evolution as the mechanism by which
modern biological diversity came to exist, or is there something more
to it than that? (e.g do "evolutionists" have to be atheists? Can
agnostics be "evolutionists" too? Can theists be "evolutionists" as
well? If so, can Christians be "evolutionists" also? Why or why
not?)
>
>
> > >
> > > If scientists were required to sign a statement to the effect that
> > > they had to support the consensus position about "Lucy," this range of
> > > diversity of opinions would not exist. Either that, or a considerable
> > > proportion of these researchers would have been sued for breach of
> > > contract. Since the later has not happened, and the former is
> > > demonstrably counter to the evidence, no such statement exists; QED.
> > >
> > > You may be thinking of this:
> > > http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm
> > >
> > > All members of the CRS are required to affirm acceptance of this
> > > Statement of Belief, and are thereby prohibited from publishing
>
> This is irrelevant.
What do you mean by that? You made a claim that "evolutionists"
require statements of faith. I replied that they don't, but
recognised that you might be thinking of someone else, and offered by
best guess as to the group about whom you might be thinking. If
that's the wrong group, fine, but it's not "irrelevant" in my opinion.
You haven't shown any evidence to support your claim, although I am
still open to hearing it.
> We all know that evolutionists maintain
> underground black lists
My share of "we" doesn't know any such thing. As I said in my
previous response, if you can provide any evidence, or even a hint,
that some "evolutionist" journal or organisation is doing so, please
let me know, and I will join you in your effort to stop that abuse of
scientific protocol. Of course if you have no such evidence, I will
accept your appology for mistakenly suspecting scientists of
practicing such unacceptable behaviour and say no more about it.
However, I must add that this is the second time in as many posts that
you have made this accuasion, without supporting it, and I'm beginning
to suspect that you are avoiding supporting the accusation because no
such evidence exists. You could prove me wrong, of course, by simply
offering a journal name and issue, an editor's name and example of
bias, or even a website run by an "evolutionist" that makes the claim
that evidence supporting creationism will not be published. Any
journal, organisation, or website that prohibits publication of
evidence in support of creationism has earned my ire and I will join
you in your effort to convince them to reform their ways (note that
for the purposes of this analysis, critiques of evolution are not
equivalent to support for creationism).
> and do not allow creationists to publish in
> their journals. This is sinister as it is secretive without honest
> disclosure.
Fine. As I said, present evidence that such is the case, anywhere,
and I will use my own abilities, as well as garnering supporters in my
own and other academic departments, to convince the perpetratos to
desist from their bias. Give me the title, the editor's name, the
e-mail address, or any single lead to any journal, department,
organisation, or website that refuses to publish evidence favorable to
creationism, and I will personally do my best to convince them to
change their policy, and I will gladly co-author a publication
critical of that a priori prohibition of creationist evidence with
you. What professional journal or organisation is prohibiting
publication of evidence favorable to creationism? (Again, I'm talking
about evidence that supports creationism, not just complaints about
evolution. There is an important difference.)
>
>
>
>
> any
> > > evidence that they find that is contrary to this statement. I know of
> > > no scientific journals or organisations that have similar
> > > requirements.
>
> I know of several statements made by evolutionists who would deny
> creationists of degrees or publication.
Cool, we can probably make a good case then. Give me the names and
dates and I'll look into the issue.
> The evolutionists on
> talk.origins freely admit that they agree that creationists shouldn't
> be allowed to be published.
Again, give me some names and dates, or perhaps even a URL to the
relevant post, although of course "some guy on usenet said..." is not
really a good basis for a court case. Give me something that will
convince an undecided person and we'll see what I can do. Of couse,
given the "track record" of creationism so far, I would strongly
advise you to take a look at the t.o. FAQs before you present any
evidence, just to make sure that it hasn't already been answered
before. We would look really silly in front of a judge, parading
around the old Paluxy Man Tracks forgeries as though they were
evidence, wouldn't we?!?
-Floyd