DEBATE? Any Time, Any Place -- IF the Playing Field is Level
Ed Conrad
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
equal. But obviously they're not!
Emphatic proof is the relentless character assassination of an
honest investigator -- me -- in these news groups. I've been called
everything in the book, and worse.
Granted, I can understand your childish behavior because you
people don't like the unpleasant things I've been saying about
you -- all true.
But you must understand it has been the scientific community's total
disregard for truth that had set this thing in motion, followed by
your incredible arrogance attempting -- unsuccessfully -- to defend
it.
The hard cold fact is that YOU -- same as Pseudoscience Inc. --
don't want facts and physical evidence.You prefer to side
with deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy.
You have been handed a phenomenal scientific breakthrough
on a silver platter. The least you can do is discuss these
discoveries, not make snide jokes about the person who found
them.
The photos posted here and elsewhere are astounding, to say
the very least: petrified bones, teeth and even soft organs discovered
between anthracite veins.
Science has long claimed there were no large animals,
certainly not man, on earth back when coal was being formed.
But Science is wrong -- dead wrong -- because all of these
specimens were found between Pennsylvania coal veins:
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/skulla.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/skullb.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/other1.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z2.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z2_2.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-005S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-006S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-007S.JPG
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/z6femur.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z7femur.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z8femur.jpg
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z5gall.htm
> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z9lung.htm
The Smithsonian Institution, I should note, possesses none of these
Carboniferous-age fossils -- NONE -- unless they've long been buried
in its basement, or had been hauled to a landfill.
See, it cannot accept this astounding amount of physical evidence
because it fully realizes they pose a monumental threat to evolution's
colossal lie.
Meanwhile, It is quite obvious that you -- same as the Smithsonian --
do not want truth. You prefer fiction and fairy tales, which you have
been spoonfed through all of your colleges and universities.
It is nothing more than a conspiracy against truth, this crap called
the Evolution of Man.
You are to be pitied to have allowed the corrupt Scientific
Establishment to warp your mind -- and, much worse, to allow
this despicable fiction to survive for as long as it has.
These discoveries of human remains prove, beyond any reasonable
doubt, that man existed in our almost our present form multi-millions
of years before the conspiratorial evolutionist doctrine places us
here.
I might also emphsxze that these specimens were subjeced to an array
of honest scientific testing and all of the results were favorable.
i.e.: Microcopic search for cell structure (Yerkes bone expert Jeremy
Dahl); CAT-scans (more than a dozen); infrared scans (detecting dried
blood on ALL of the human specimens examined); the opinion of world
reknowned human anatomists Wilton Krogram and Raymond Dart, M.D.,
along with Kingsnorth Patterson, anotehr bone expert, then of McGill
University in Montreal; dental photos, etc., etc.
Meanwhile, it is a fact that some testing was performed by
Establishment scientists but, sadly, the truth was twisted with
fraudulent, deceptive or evasive results. (Hear that, Smithsonian,
Andrew MacRae and others.)
Fortunately, these poor excuses for scientists were caught with
their pants down.
Need I remind you that testing by American Medical Laboratories,
for example, determined that dried blood exists on many
of the human specimens. If you question these results, go to the
horse's mouth and challenge American Medical Laboratories' integrity,
but be prepared for a lawsuit.
The bottom line is that I have charged the Smithsonian and others
with a crime against humanity, and my accusation stands.
I have called you -- especially in talk.origins and sci.paleontology
-- squirmin' vermin,. because you are.
Last but not least: you people DO NOT deserve the truth. You deserve
to wallow instead in your total disregard for honesty and integrity,
your acceptance of deceit, deception, collusion and
conspiracy, and may your erroneous theory of evolution continue
to turn the good earth into even more of a circus than it is now.
May God -- IF there is one -- please have mercy on your grandchildren,
and theirs. Mankind, being denied the truth of its origin and
ancestry, cannot possibly get better, only worse.
Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
Henry Barwood
Ed Conrad wrote:
> Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>
> Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
> equal. But obviously they're not!
Delete rest of self-serving, sniveling, fact-deficient rant.
Wow, this one was over the top even for Conrad. Hate to contribute to the
Spam and Kook Index (the SKI), but I'm phasing out soon and couldn't
resist replying.
The only "debate" Conrad could win would be with his reflection in the
mirror.
Henry Barwood
Ed Conrad
Bullshit, Barwood!
You're a pseudo from the word GO.
Ed Conrad
Boikat
regret it.
But just the same, i think I'll leave him there, since he doesn't have any
evidence to support his claim to begin with.
Boikat
"Henry Barwood" <hbar...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
news:3D321A27...@bluemarble.net...
gen2rev
>
> Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>
> Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
> equal. But obviously they're not!
Why not?
> Emphatic proof is the relentless character assassination of an
> honest investigator -- me -- in these news groups. I've been called
> everything in the book, and worse.
The problem is, you've been caught lying.
> Granted, I can understand your childish behavior because you
> people don't like the unpleasant things I've been saying about
> you -- all true.
No, I suspect you say these things because you don't like the
conclusions that have been reached about your specimens.
> But you must understand it has been the scientific community's total
> disregard for truth that had set this thing in motion, followed by
> your incredible arrogance attempting -- unsuccessfully -- to defend
> it.
I'd say the attempt has been very successful. Your reputation on
talk.origins is less than exemplary.
> The hard cold fact is that YOU -- same as Pseudoscience Inc. --
> don't want facts and physical evidence.You prefer to side
> with deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy.
>
> You have been handed a phenomenal scientific breakthrough
> on a silver platter. The least you can do is discuss these
> discoveries, not make snide jokes about the person who found
> them.
Well then discuss them! Your answers to my questions, when you've
answered at all, have been less than informative.
> The photos posted here and elsewhere are astounding, to say
> the very least: petrified bones, teeth and even soft organs discovered
> between anthracite veins.
It's your identification of these specimens is questionable.
> Science has long claimed there were no large animals,
> certainly not man, on earth back when coal was being formed.
> But Science is wrong -- dead wrong -- because all of these
> specimens were found between Pennsylvania coal veins:
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/skulla.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/skullb.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/other1.jpg
The purported skull. You still haven't answered my questions that I
posted in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D2EF777.E669F759%40crosswinds.net&rnum=1
so I'll post them again:
There is a dome shape visible, but it doesn't extend as far back as one
would expect if one had just seen skulla.jpg. The lighter colored area
extends much farther back than the dome itself. Why is this? As well,
there would seem to be a depression behind the eye socket of this
supposed skull, and it's much to large and far back to be a temple.
Also, the chin area seems to be composed of different material than the
rest of the lower jaw, something darker in color than the rest. What's
your explanation for this?
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z2.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z2_2.jpg
Why are you comparing your 'skull' to Australopithecus skulls? Do you
consider Australopithecus finds to be genuine? Why aren't they evidence
for human evolution?
I'd be far more interested to see the skull removed from the boulder.
Why hasn't this been done? You've been posting these photos for almost
six years now.
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
Why is it that the far side of this alleged skull cap seems to descend
in a very un-skull-like way?
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-005S.JPG
Why is the bone so thick? Do you have evidence that humans ever had
skulls this thick?
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-006S.JPG
Why is the interior so irregular?
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-007S.JPG
What's the point of putting a baseball cap on this?
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/z6femur.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z7femur.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z8femur.jpg
And just why should we accept your claim that this is a femur? How did
you come to this conclusion? Why isn't it a humerus?
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z5gall.htm
No, it's http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z5gall.jpg
Why do I keep having to correct you on this? But anyway, how did you
come to the conclusion that this is a gallbladder, let alone that of a
human? Can you explaun how it became separated from its owner, and why
it's in such good condition?
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z9lung.htm
Why is this a lung? It looks rather wood-like to me.
> The Smithsonian Institution, I should note, possesses none of these
> Carboniferous-age fossils -- NONE -- unless they've long been buried
> in its basement, or had been hauled to a landfill.
>
> See, it cannot accept this astounding amount of physical evidence
> because it fully realizes they pose a monumental threat to evolution's
> colossal lie.
First of all, you have to convince people that it really *is* evidence.
> Meanwhile, It is quite obvious that you -- same as the Smithsonian --
> do not want truth. You prefer fiction and fairy tales, which you have
> been spoonfed through all of your colleges and universities.
>
> It is nothing more than a conspiracy against truth, this crap called
> the Evolution of Man.
>
> You are to be pitied to have allowed the corrupt Scientific
> Establishment to warp your mind -- and, much worse, to allow
> this despicable fiction to survive for as long as it has.
As far as I can tell, you've fallen prey to the geological equivalent of
seeing faces in clouds.
> These discoveries of human remains prove, beyond any reasonable
> doubt, that man existed in our almost our present form multi-millions
> of years before the conspiratorial evolutionist doctrine places us
> here.
Why are my doubts unreasonable?
> I might also emphsxze that these specimens were subjeced to an array
> of honest scientific testing and all of the results were favorable.
>
> i.e.: Microcopic search for cell structure (Yerkes bone expert Jeremy
> Dahl); CAT-scans (more than a dozen); infrared scans (detecting dried
> blood on ALL of the human specimens examined);
Can you explain how the blood survived so long without decaying?
> the opinion of world
> reknowned human anatomists Wilton Krogram and Raymond Dart, M.D.,
> along with Kingsnorth Patterson, anotehr bone expert, then of McGill
> University in Montreal; dental photos, etc., etc.
And what tests did Kingsnorth Patterson perform on your samples?
> Meanwhile, it is a fact that some testing was performed by
> Establishment scientists but, sadly, the truth was twisted with
> fraudulent, deceptive or evasive results. (Hear that, Smithsonian,
> Andrew MacRae and others.)
>
> Fortunately, these poor excuses for scientists were caught with
> their pants down.
>
> Need I remind you that testing by American Medical Laboratories,
> for example, determined that dried blood exists on many
> of the human specimens. If you question these results, go to the
> horse's mouth and challenge American Medical Laboratories' integrity,
> but be prepared for a lawsuit.
>
> The bottom line is that I have charged the Smithsonian and others
> with a crime against humanity, and my accusation stands.
>
> I have called you -- especially in talk.origins and sci.paleontology
> -- squirmin' vermin,. because you are.
>
> Last but not least: you people DO NOT deserve the truth.
So this is why you lie?
> You deserve
> to wallow instead in your total disregard for honesty and integrity,
> your acceptance of deceit, deception, collusion and
> conspiracy, and may your erroneous theory of evolution continue
> to turn the good earth into even more of a circus than it is now.
You've got a lot of gall complaining about a "total disregard for
honesty and integrity" after you misrepresented Hooton.
> May God -- IF there is one -- please have mercy on your grandchildren,
> and theirs. Mankind, being denied the truth of its origin and
> ancestry, cannot possibly get better, only worse.
If things do get better, it won't result from living in a fantasyland.
> Ed Conrad
> > http://www.edconrad.com
Ed Conrad
<boi...@bellsloth.net> wrote:
>I've only had eddo in my killfile for about two days now, and already I
>regret it.
>
>But just the same, i think I'll leave him there, since he doesn't have any
>evidence to support his claim to begin with.
>
>Boikat
>
People with half a brain shouldn't be allowed to use a computer.
>"Henry Barwood" <hbar...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
>news:3D321A27...@bluemarble.net...
>>
>>
>> Ed Conrad wrote:
>>
>> > Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>> >
>> > Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
>> > equal. But obviously they're not!
>>
>> Delete rest of self-serving, sniveling, fact-deficient rant.
>>
>> Wow, this one was over the top even for Conrad. Hate to contribute to the
>> Spam and Kook Index (the SKI), but I'm phasing out soon and couldn't
>> resist replying.
>>
>> The only "debate" Conrad could win would be with his reflection in the
>> mirror.
>>
>> Henry Barwood
Or people with a petrified brain.
>>
>
>
Richard S. Norman
Conrad) wrote:
>
>Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>
>Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
>equal. But obviously they're not!
>
<snip a lot more, including another long list of links to Ed's web
pages of photographs>
I would imagine a "debate" with Ed would consist of him showing
his slides for an hour or two and declaring that the "evidence"
clearly proves his point. He has the data to back him up! What else
matters?
Ed Conrad
Jeremy Dahl
Wilton Krogman
Raymond Dart, M.D.
Catscan results
SEM results
American Medical Laboratories' testing
need I go on?
Ed Conrad
<kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Sir,
>
>The opinions of the people here and at the Smithsonian are obviously
>important to you. For some reason, it is clearly essential to you that these
>people accept your ideas. Your approach to getting this agreement has also
>been unproductive in the extreme. You are making a victim of yourself.
>
>Many of the people here are convinced that you are a "kook". I am sure that
>this is largely because of your approach to the problem, and that fact that
>you haven't adapted or changed your methods. Nevertheless, these people have
>been quite explicit in what it would take to get them to consider your
>hypothesis. They're looking for unbiased independent confirmation in the
>form of published papers in the scientific literature. This does not seem
>unreasonable.
>
>I know that you feel that you have a major scientific discovery on your
>hands, and I know that you believe that you have had some independent
>confirmation of your finds. The problem in this group is that this
>confirmation is not accessible (nothing's been published, sources are
>deceased, etc.), and therefore can't be confirmed to be either unbiased or
>independent.
>
>Your goal should be to find someone who can carry out the necessary tests,
>and who will put their professional reputation behind a peer-reviewed,
>published account of the findings. Without this independent verification of
>your findings, you will have no hope of anyone changing their mind and
>supporting your ideas. Get your findings published and, I can guarantee you,
>the people here will begin to pay you the respect that you merit for doing
>so.
>
>In your posting below, you stated "The hard cold fact is that YOU ... don't
>want facts and physical evidence." I assure you, sir, that this is precisely
>what has been requested. You are simply offended that your word is not good
>enough.
>
>
>By the way, it does no good to complain of being the victim of character
>assassination when you are a perpetrator as well. A quick glance through
>your posting shows this well enough. And you might consider answering
>reasonable questions, on those occasions when any are put to you ... I, for
>one, would be interested to know how a gall bladder fossilizes in perfect
>shape, independently of the body that obviously contained it. Someone else
>posed this question of you some time ago ... you never answered it.
>
Ken:
You seem like a reasonable person.
I, therefore, will try to provide some reasonable answers.
The Scientific Establishment is SO corrupt in this business
of man's origin and ancestry that kind words and kissing
ass will do no good.
I have long accepted that, and the only route to go is to call
them the phonies that they are.
Whatever the result, so be it. But I will NEVER bow to pathetic
deceitful, dishonest "scientists," an insult to all of the honest
scientists who have gone before (and abound in other scientific
disciplines today).
What more can I say then the dishonest, evasive testing
of granules from the rind of the boulder containing a petrified human
skull, a sham performed by the Smithsonian.
As for Peer Review, it only makes me laugh. Don't you realize peer
review isn't worth the paper it's written on?
Meanwhile, I have NO idea how a gall bladder, or a lung, can petrify
in perfect condition independent of the body that contained them.
I do NOT know, either, how a complete human cranium can be found
embedded in a boulder.
I can ONLY theorize that they are the result of catastrophe,
the kind Immanuel Velikovsy wrote about -- but what the Scientific
Establishment insists never happened
Ed Conrad
====================================
>"Ed Conrad" <edco...@shenhgts.net> wrote in message
>news:3d31f68b...@news.shenhgts.net...
Richard Clayton
> Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>
> Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
> equal. But obviously they're not!
And what would you consider a "level playing field" for debate on the
"old as coal" issue? Your modus operandi seems to be to simply handwave
away any evidence that doesn't agree with you as "pseudoscience."
--
Richard Clayton (for...@earthlink.net)
"Hey, that's what I'm here for: Sage, yet disturbing, advice." -- Black
Mage
David Sienkiewicz
Well, I don't know about THAT, Ed, but I guess I agree at least in principle
with your disagreement with Henry.
You would LOSE a debate with your reflection.
Even a mirror has more substance than you.
David Sienkiewicz
>
> Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
Yes, Ed, you do.
> Frankly, I would relish it
Prove it.
Debate me.
> -- if the debating conditions were
> equal. But obviously they're not!
Oh, but they are.
This is an open newsgroup quite readily available to both of us.
We're both amateurs.
You have a high-speed connection. I have a high-speed connection.
You can post without restriction (except for cross-posting). I am likewise
as free and as limited.
> Emphatic proof is the relentless character assassination of an
> honest investigator -- me -- in these news groups. I've been called
> everything in the book, and worse.
And you've deserved it.
Ed, let's face it - you are NOT an "honest investigator."
An "honest investigator" lets the facts lead where they may.
An "honest investigator" would NEVER state - as you have - that no amount of
evidence will convince him that he's wrong.
> Granted, I can understand your childish behavior because you
> people don't like the unpleasant things I've been saying about
> you -- all true.
No, Ed - none true.
Your claims have been revealed to be false - every one of them.
> But you must understand it has been the scientific community's total
> disregard for truth that had set this thing in motion,
No, Ed, it's your own ego and desire to either resurrect a failed career
with a "big story" or to start a career that never got off the ground.
Like gen2rev asked, "why is it edconrad.com and not manasoldascoal.com?"
> followed by
> your incredible arrogance attempting -- unsuccessfully -- to defend
> it.
What kind of arrogance does it take to state without equivocation that no
amount of evidence will convince you that you're wrong?
Do you remember telling us that, Ed?
> The hard cold fact is that YOU -- same as Pseudoscience Inc. --
> don't want facts and physical evidence.You prefer to side
> with deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy.
Ed, we've taken your "facts" and "physical evidence" and falsified every one
of them.
> You have been handed a phenomenal scientific breakthrough
> on a silver platter.
By whom, Ed?
By you?
What was that about arrogance?
> The least you can do is discuss these
> discoveries, not make snide jokes about the person who found
> them.
Um, Ed, do you suppose that's why you were challenged to debate?
> The photos posted here and elsewhere are astounding, to say
> the very least: petrified bones, teeth and even soft organs discovered
> between anthracite veins.
They rocks, Ed.
> Science has long claimed there were no large animals,
> certainly not man, on earth back when coal was being formed.
> But Science is wrong -- dead wrong -- because all of these
> specimens were found between Pennsylvania coal veins:
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/skulla.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/skullb.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/other1.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z2.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z2_2.jpg
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-005S.JPG
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-006S.JPG
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/MVC-007S.JPG
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/z6femur.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z7femur.jpg
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z8femur.jpg
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z5gall.htm
>
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z9lung.htm
We've been through these photos, Ed. You've been challenged to provide some
sort of independently verifiable evidence that supports that these things
are what you claim they are.
Each time you've been challenged, you've run from those challenges.
You are not interested in discussion or debate. You've made that clear by
your avoidance, evasion, bad poetry and your own form of character
assassination (that you complain about character assassination is, of
course, very hypocritical of you).
You whine that we don't want to discuss these claims of yours, but the fact
is that you have NEVER discussed them.
You make claims about them, and when you are challenged about that, you
write bad poetry, make wild, unsubstantiated accusations and generally flee
debate.
Last week you out-and-out REFUSED debate - three times that I saw.
So yes, Ed, you do FEAR debate.
I'll say it again: You are AFRAID of debate.
No amount of whining, repeating yourself or ranting and raving in the
newsgroup will change that simple little fact.
You're afraid.
You know it and I know it.
> The Smithsonian Institution, I should note, possesses none of these
> Carboniferous-age fossils -- NONE -- unless they've long been buried
> in its basement, or had been hauled to a landfill.
You can prove this, of course?
You keep making actionable statements, Ed, and I've already advised you that
this is not a good practice regardless of what people think or how little
credibility you possess.
> See, it cannot accept this astounding amount of physical evidence
> because it fully realizes they pose a monumental threat to evolution's
> colossal lie.
You have no evidence, Ed.
You have a bunch of interestingly-shaped rocks and you have claims you have
made about them.
Your refusal to discuss and debate them makes it difficult to believe
anything else.
> Meanwhile, It is quite obvious that you -- same as the Smithsonian --
> do not want truth.
Ed, you keep whining about truth, while lying to us over and over again.
You are not an authority on truth, Ed. No one with an ounce of sense
believes you.
> You prefer fiction and fairy tales, which you have
> been spoonfed through all of your colleges and universities.
Ah, yes, here we go: The typical rant of the ignorant against the educated
and the institutes of education.
What's the matter, Ed? Did Penn State turn down your application for
admission when you were 19 and tried to apply?
I see this all the time, Ed - the ignorant or those who never went to
college wanting to somehow "one-up" those who got educated.
Resentment is a bad thing, Ed. Deal with it.
> It is nothing more than a conspiracy against truth, this crap called
> the Evolution of Man.
Then let's debate about it.
Let's see if you can do anything other than write bad speeches and worse
poetry.
> You are to be pitied to have allowed the corrupt Scientific
> Establishment to warp your mind -- and, much worse, to allow
> this despicable fiction to survive for as long as it has.
Yawn.
> These discoveries of human remains prove, beyond any reasonable
> doubt, that man existed in our almost our present form multi-millions
> of years before the conspiratorial evolutionist doctrine places us
> here.
No, Ed, it doesn't prove anything of the sort because we have NO REASON to
believe that what you have are human remains.
None.
> I might also emphsxze that these specimens were subjeced to an array
> of honest scientific testing and all of the results were favorable.
Were they ALL, Ed?
Were they really?
Hmmmm...seems to me that PZ and Andrew did perfectly honest tests and they
were FAR from favorable.
Ah, *I* see. The only HONEST tests were those that told you what you wanted
to hear?
Well, Ed, by all means, provide the complete details - where were these
tests conducted, who conducted them, and where might we obtain the results?
I mean REAL results, Ed, not carefully posed pictures of "reports" that you
have posted.
> i.e.: Microcopic search for cell structure (Yerkes bone expert Jeremy
> Dahl); CAT-scans (more than a dozen); infrared scans (detecting dried
> blood on ALL of the human specimens examined); the opinion of world
> reknowned human anatomists Wilton Krogram and Raymond Dart, M.D.,
> along with Kingsnorth Patterson, anotehr bone expert, then of McGill
> University in Montreal; dental photos, etc., etc.
Not one of whom has published these pheonomenal finds - including Krogman
and Dart.
Why is that, Ed?
> Meanwhile, it is a fact that some testing was performed by
> Establishment scientists but, sadly, the truth was twisted with
> fraudulent, deceptive or evasive results. (Hear that, Smithsonian,
> Andrew MacRae and others.)
They're not listening, Ed, because you're lying; and they don't need to
waste their time with lies.
> Fortunately, these poor excuses for scientists were caught with
> their pants down.
No, Ed, they weren't.
The only "emperor" without clothes here is you.
> Need I remind you that testing by American Medical Laboratories,
> for example, determined that dried blood exists on many
> of the human specimens.
Many of them, Ed? Or all of them?
That claims seems to vary depending on what day it is.
You DO remember this, don't you, Ed?
You posted that AML said there was dried blood on all of your specimens.
LATER, you posted that it was on six of the seven - the seventh being the
alleged femur. But you assured us that it would be found on the femur after
it had been tested.
> If you question these results, go to the
> horse's mouth and challenge American Medical Laboratories' integrity,
> but be prepared for a lawsuit.
I'd love to, Ed.
Post the name of the laboratory administrator, who conducted the tests, when
they were conducted, and how we might obtain copies of the reports.
> The bottom line is that I have charged the Smithsonian and others
> with a crime against humanity, and my accusation stands.
Your accusation fails because you have nothing but your own self-importance
to support it.
> I have called you -- especially in talk.origins and sci.paleontology
> -- squirmin' vermin,. because you are.
What was that about character assassination, Ed?
> Last but not least: you people DO NOT deserve the truth. You deserve
> to wallow instead in your total disregard for honesty and integrity,
> your acceptance of deceit, deception, collusion and
> conspiracy, and may your erroneous theory of evolution continue
> to turn the good earth into even more of a circus than it is now.
In other words, Ed, you're going to make all these claims and, knowing
you're going to be called on them, you're going to run again.
You're going to hide.
You're going to fear debate.
Hmph. So what else is new?
> May God -- IF there is one -- please have mercy on your grandchildren,
> and theirs. Mankind, being denied the truth of its origin and
> ancestry, cannot possibly get better, only worse.
Is that all, Ed?
> Ed Conrad
> > http://www.edconrad.com
Looks that way.
Well, Ed, the debate challenge remains.
If you REALLY aren't afraid, you'll debate.
But you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting.
David Sienkiewicz
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 01:09:21 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> <boi...@bellsloth.net> wrote:
>
> >I've only had eddo in my killfile for about two days now, and already I
> >regret it.
> >
> >But just the same, i think I'll leave him there, since he doesn't have
any
> >evidence to support his claim to begin with.
> >
> >Boikat
> >
> People with half a brain shouldn't be allowed to use a computer.
What was that about character assassination, Ed?
> >"Henry Barwood" <hbar...@bluemarble.net> wrote in message
> >news:3D321A27...@bluemarble.net...
> >>
> >>
> >> Ed Conrad wrote:
> >>
> >> > Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
> >> >
> >> > Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
> >> > equal. But obviously they're not!
> >>
> >> Delete rest of self-serving, sniveling, fact-deficient rant.
> >>
> >> Wow, this one was over the top even for Conrad. Hate to contribute to
the
> >> Spam and Kook Index (the SKI), but I'm phasing out soon and couldn't
> >> resist replying.
> >>
> >> The only "debate" Conrad could win would be with his reflection in the
> >> mirror.
> >>
> >> Henry Barwood
>
> Or people with a petrified brain.
Same question.
David Sienkiewicz
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 01:38:17 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Norman"
> <rno...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:59:33 +0000 (UTC), edco...@shenhgts.net (Ed
> >Conrad) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
> >>
> >>Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
> >>equal. But obviously they're not!
> >>
> ><snip a lot more, including another long list of links to Ed's web
> >pages of photographs>
> >
> >I would imagine a "debate" with Ed would consist of him showing
> >his slides for an hour or two and declaring that the "evidence"
> >clearly proves his point. He has the data to back him up! What else
> >matters?
> >
> Jeremy Dahl
Has repudiated your claims about him, Ed.
You lied to him, also, about the origin of the specimen you sent to him.
> Wilton Krogman
Dead.
Never published or apparently uttered a word to anyone about the claims you
have made about him.
> Raymond Dart, M.D.
Dead.
Likewise never uttered a word or published about this "amazing find."
> Catscan results
Never produced for independent analysis.
> SEM results
Never produced for independent analysis.
> American Medical Laboratories' testing
Revealed to be fraudulent.
> need I go on?
By all means, Ed.
Ed Conrad
<for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Ed Conrad wrote:
>
>> Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>>
>> Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
>> equal. But obviously they're not!
>
> And what would you consider a "level playing field" for debate on the
>"old as coal" issue? Your modus operandi seems to be to simply handwave
>away any evidence that doesn't agree with you as "pseudoscience."
If the pseudoshoe fits, wear it.
Ed Conrad
I see David Sienkiewicz has had his Geritol tonight.
Retired lawyers should be confined to Southern Florida, with
no access to a computer.
Ed Conrad.
===================================================
David Sienkiewicz
Um, Ed, maybe you should actually read what's being written to you.
Matt Silberstein
--
Matt Silberstein
They will like us when we win.
Glenn
Ed Conrad wrote:
That's a good one, Ed!
Glenn
Ed Conrad wrote:
> I see David Sienkiewicz has had his Geritol tonight.
> Retired lawyers should be confined to Southern Florida, with
> no access to a computer.
> Ed Conrad.
He likes to talk to himself. But he is not a "retired" lawyer, he says
he "was" a lawyer, but is no longer.
David Sienkiewicz
hiding and gossip, I see.
Well, more power to you.
"Glenn" <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3D327154...@qwest.net...
>
> Ed Conrad wrote:
>
> > I see David Sienkiewicz has had his Geritol tonight.
> > Retired lawyers should be confined to Southern Florida, with
> > no access to a computer.
> > Ed Conrad.
>
> He likes to talk to himself. But he is not a "retired" lawyer, he says
> he "was" a lawyer, but is no longer.
Indeed, when I retired, I was no longer working as a lawyer and hadn't in
some years.
Sometimes you CAN read, eh, sheldon?
< snip lengthy exchange to which sheldon adds - to no one's surprise, I'm
sure - not a thing >
Mark Hanson
> I see David Sienkiewicz has had his Geritol tonight.
> Retired lawyers should be confined to Southern Florida, with
> no access to a computer.
> Ed Conrad.
</lurk>
Mr. Conrad, you are a spineless coward. You demand a debate, but only on
some amorphous terms known only to yourself. When reasonable arguments are
offered -- by Ken Rode, gen2rev, Ronald Stepp, and David Sienkiewicz -- you
belittle them. The only conclusion I can come to is that you are a crank,
unwilling to listen to views that deviate even slightly from your own.
Frankly, I think those 4 posters have gone above and beyond the call of
usenet duty, offering arguments I'm guessing they knew would be ridiculed
and ignored. You and Cornholio are peas in a pod, and I wonder why anyone
bothers replying to you.
<lurk>
Mark
Andy Groves
> Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>
> Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
> equal. But obviously they're not!
>
Yes they are, Ed.You can post here just as easily as anyone else. You
can put forward your ideas and respond to the critiques they receive.
The problem comes when you say things like this:
"Nothing will EVER convice me that I am wrong and. furthermore, I will
never admit that I *might* be wrong. And I will never even consider
that possibility."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c6aee42.177888271%40news.shenhgts.net
If that is the case, then you obviously are not interested in a
debate.
The problem is, Ed, that every time someone comes up with some hard
data to show you that you are wrong, you either dismiss them or call
them a fraud. You dismiss peer review. Your experts are either dead or
have disowned your interpretation of what they said.
The classic example of this mindset is when Andrew Macrae prepared a
section of your rock (at his own expense), and you and Paul Myers
looked at it through a microscope. It did not show the Haversian
systems you claimed were there. Paul has posted about this in detail.
Your response? To label Paul and Andrew as frauds, on the basis of no
evidence whatsoever, other than that they disagreed with your
findings. Your claim that Andrew substituted another sample is
ridiculous, since both you and Paul Myers verified that the outline of
the section you examined was exactly the same as the outline of the
rock from which it was cut.
Let's face it, Ed - your level of debate is to stick your fingers in
your ears and jump up and down like a kid, yelling "I can't hear
you!!!!"
The only thing I find puzzling is why you continue to embarass
yourself in this way.
Andy
Andy Groves
Actually, if you want to see some real dtat on Ed's rocks, check out:
http://homepage.mac.com/myers/misc/bone.html
And
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html
Andy
Frank J
>
> Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
> equal. But obviously they're not!
>
Then, for the umpteenth time, will you please debate the
young-earthers and young-lifers? Yes, I know they fear debating you.
So why don't you start it and see if they run. Start with Zoe and her
isochron. Tell her why it's wrong.
(snip)
> I have called you -- especially in talk.origins and sci.paleontology
> -- squirmin' vermin,. because you are.
But at least we give you the courtesy of a response. YECs and YLCs are
probably nervously laughing behind your back.
>
> May God -- IF there is one --
AHA! You said "if!" Them's fightin' words for YECs, YLCs and even
OECs! Wonder if that'll get them to stop squirmin' and come out
swingin'?
(snip)
Henry Barwood
Ed Conrad wrote:
I rest my case!
Barwood
Ed Conrad
<hbar...@bluemarble.net> wrote:
Henry,
The playing field ISN'T level.
Not with all the petrified brains on your side weighing it down.
Ed Conrad
Henry Barwood
Ed Conrad wrote:
I would agree with you. Knowledge and science vastly tilt the table in favor of
fact, not assertion. You have been plodding along for a number of years trying to
recruit people of similar tendencies with minimal results.
> Not with all the petrified brains on your side weighing it down.
> Ed Conrad
Conrad, It is difficult for me to take you seriously. There was a time when I
poked you with a stick just to see you puff up, but you demonstrated such
masochistic delight at being abused that I stopped doing it. There is nothing I
could say or do that would convince you that you are full of hot air. People like
you do not listen to reason. You are convinced that you own "THE TRUTH" and
everyone else is wrong. Fortunately, there are about 4.5 people on the Internet
who give any credence to any of your claims and they are generally fringe
elements like you.
Barwood
Ed Conrad
<hbar...@bluemarble.net> wrote:
Oh, Henry!
How can you say such a thing?
There are at least 2.5 people on the Internet who, apparenlty
impressed with all the physical evidence I'm presenting, are in my
corner.
But even if there were .0, it wouldn't make any difference.
Truth is truth, no matter how you twist it.
Physical evidence is what counts in science, not rhetorical bullshit.
Might I also take this opportunity to let you know what I think
of You, long before I realized you had a petrified brain.
I correctly identified you as a seasoned Know-It-All Bureaucratic Fart
and Tenured Fossil..
Why, I could smell you 525 miles away.
Ed Conrad
> http:/ www.edconrad.com
Richard Clayton
You didn't answer question. What would YOU consider a "level playing
field"? And what are your criteria for "pseudoscience" other than "everybody
who doesn't agree with me"?
You know, I've e-mailed you several times asking for more information
about your finds. You've ignored every one. Now I have a better idea. I don't
live too awfully far from you-- I'd be more than willing to make a weekend
trip some time and come up to see your evidence. Would you be amenable to
that?
--
Richard Clayton (for...@earthlink.net)
"'Revenge of the Jedi'... Episode 6 in the Star Wars saga, has just finished
filming, according to some friends I have down in Arizona. The release date
for us humans that want to see it is still the summer of 1983. I guess it
takes that long to score all the music, do all the film-editing, prepare all
the promo material, and all that junk. I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing
going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all
nine parts of the Star Wars series."
-- Randal L. Schwartz, net.origins, 1982
Ed Conrad
<for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Ed Conrad wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 02:36:23 +0000 (UTC), Richard Clayton
>> <for...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Ed Conrad wrote:
>> >
>> >> Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>> >>
>> >> Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
>> >> equal. But obviously they're not!
>> >
>> > And what would you consider a "level playing field" for debate on the
>> >"old as coal" issue? Your modus operandi seems to be to simply handwave
>> >away any evidence that doesn't agree with you as "pseudoscience."
>>
>> If the pseudoshoe fits, wear it.
>
> You didn't answer question. What would YOU consider a "level playing
>field"? And what are your criteria for "pseudoscience" other than "everybody
>who doesn't agree with me"?
>
> You know, I've e-mailed you several times asking for more information
>about your finds. You've ignored every one. Now I have a better idea. I don't
>live too awfully far from you-- I'd be more than willing to make a weekend
>trip some time and come up to see your evidence. Would you be amenable to
>that?
Nope! You're not welcome.
Right now I have more than enough petrified brains, found between
anthracite veins, than I can handle.
Maybe you could visit Henry Barwood. At least you two would have
something in common.
David Sienkiewicz
What was all that about character assassination, Ed?
Ed, you ARE a spineless, lying coward.
The playing field couldn't be any more level than it is here in talk.origins
and it's perfect for just such a debate between you and me.
But you refused - three times. You whined about character assassination,
but that seems your only response even when someone registers disagreement
with you.
I mean, REALLY, Ed! Debate me!
You have absolutely nothing to lose.
Steve Hayes
>
>Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>
>Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
>equal. But obviously they're not!
>
>Emphatic proof is the relentless character assassination of an
>honest investigator -- me -- in these news groups. I've been called
>everything in the book, and worse.
You need to learn the difference between debating, spamming and trolling.
Steve Hayes
http://www.suite101.com/myhome.cfm/methodius
stew dean
> >You are convinced that you own "THE TRUTH" and
> >everyone else is wrong. Fortunately, there are about 4.5 people on the Internet
> >who give any credence to any of your claims and they are generally fringe
> >elements like you.
> >
> >Barwood
> >
> Oh, Henry!
> How can you say such a thing?
> There are at least 2.5 people on the Internet who, apparenlty
> impressed with all the physical evidence I'm presenting, are in my
> corner.
> But even if there were .0, it wouldn't make any difference.
> Truth is truth, no matter how you twist it.
One of my once in a while replies to Ed.
Given the fact that the human mind is a very limited bit of equipment
and is prone to error don't you think that the 2.5 figure after all
the many many visits to you web site indicates that you have made a
mistake?
> Physical evidence is what counts in science, not rhetorical bullshit.
Exactly. Now we have a situation where you physical evidence has _not_
been independently confirmed. You claim on your site that it WAS bone
when if you read your own reports the best people have come up with is
it MIGHT HAVE BEEN bone. There is a huge difference here.
Your error is to make a jump of faith that everyone else looking at
the pictures does not see as valid. They do look like rocks. Fossils
would look much closer to the what they where supposed to be. I could
carve better looking specimums and that would make my evidence more
valid than yours, even though they where fake! 'Looks like' counts
for nothing in science. 'Looks like' is subjective.
> Might I also take this opportunity to let you know what I think
> of You, long before I realized you had a petrified brain.
According to you everyone has a petrified brain.
> I correctly identified you as a seasoned Know-It-All Bureaucratic Fart
> and Tenured Fossil..
> Why, I could smell you 525 miles away.
That's just plain childish Ed.
Now do you understand the difference between subjective evidence and
objective evidence and why subjective evidence is not scientific?
If you did I don't think your ego would let you remember it.
Stew Dean
Richard Clayton
Ahhh. So nobody else is allowed to see your Frobozz Magic Double
Secret Evidence? Interesting. How can you then claim that you aren't
running from discussion?
Ed, I'm not a professional scientist. I'm not a "vested interest
pseudo." I'm an amateur, largely self-educated, with an interest in
science. I have no personal stake in perpetuating an erroneous theory.
So why are you scared of letting me, a rank amateur, see the evidence?
John R. Rybock
Please answer the question.
John R. Rybock
Conrad) wrote:
>
>Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>
>Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
>equal. But obviously they're not!
Why not? Questions have been raised, and you've never answered them.
Perhaps you can go through them and answer them for us. Most of us
can't simply go by one photograph.
1) Part of your site says that geologists have firmly established when
coal was formed, which was before man. Therefore, if human remains are
found between two coal layers, then man must be much older.
a) How do you know the scientists that dated human remains are
wrong and not the geologists? Couldn't this be evidence that some coal
deposits formed much later than earlier thought?
b) Is there another way the human remains got there? Was the coal
an envelope that completely surrounded the remains? Is there a diagram
of the dig, of the geological features? Can you share it?
2) What are the scales of these pictures? Can you provide other
pictures with a ruler or other such measurement device so we can put
it in better context? How do we know a leg bone you provide isn't 5"
long?
3) How has the academic establishment become so monolithic? From my
experiences, at one university, there were plenty of professors within
a departement who had differing, and conflicting theories. So for many
of us who have seen that, it is hard to picture the entire profession
as in agreement. It usually seems you can find a handful of
like-minded scientists for whatever you are proposing.
4) What are the methods of fossilization? You seem to have several
types, which would mean different compositions. Yet you seem to lump
it all in the same catagory. Perhaps an illustration of your
understanding of the mechanisms of fossilization would help people
believe you have the knowledge base to draw these conclusions.
5) Who else was with you on these digs? What documentation is there?
The main part of what you are talking about puts a lot of importance
on the location of where these were found. Who can back you up on
that?
6) The Smithsonian is not a research institution, it a cataloging one.
They use experts to verify stuff, but they don't do heavy science. Why
put so much emphasis on them when there are many more institutions
that do work much more in the line of what you are requiring?
7) You frequently hold that because they didn't do every test to
confirm, the Smithsonian is corrupt - but do they really need to? If
one were to early on come across something that ruled out what it is
supposed to be, why keep testing? Many tests can be done on paint on a
DaVinci to confirm it is the type he made himself - but if you come
across something in a visual examination that tells you it couldn't be
a DaVinci, then why bother with the other tests?
8) What can you provide to support the "experts" you have, in other
posts, held on to? Dr. Krogman is, in your words, "world renouned" -
based on what, because he wrote a textbook? A quick search on his name
reveals that his book still is sold, that he founded the Krogman
Growth Center at U Penn in '47, and that he feels a supernatural
explaination is most likely for Spontaneous Human Combustion -
certainly not a lot to make people think "This guy REALLY knows his
stuff, so we better listen to him". Perhaps some more info on these
folks, along with copies of their written support for what you have,
would do a lot to convince a lot of people.
Can you provide answers to these? Is this unfair that I am asking
questions? Because we have to - all you do, for the most part, is put
up a picture and tell us what it is - there is no means for us to test
the theory for ourselves, a key to basic science. You do need to
provide more information, so we can talk it out, test alternate
theories, confirm the findings, etc... That is basic science, not a
conspiracy.
But, like most of my questions I've asked in followup to your posts, I
doubt I'll get a response from you.
Kelsey Bjarnason
"Ed Conrad" <edco...@shenhgts.net> wrote in message
news:3d31f68b...@news.shenhgts.net...
> The hard cold fact is that YOU -- same as Pseudoscience Inc. --
> don't want facts and physical evidence.You prefer to side
> with deceit, deception, collusion and conspiracy.
Since that "you" presumably includes occasional posters such as myself, I
must ask how you come to this conclusion. Since, to the best of my
knowledge, all I'm interested in is the truth of the matter, whether it's
the evolutionary history of life on earth or the validity of various claims
of deity or what have you, it seems to me that in fact, it _is_ the facts
and evidence I want. That doesn't mean I'll accept something as evidence
for a claim while its status is still open to question, any more than I'd
accept something as evidence for a claim if it can't be established how its
existence or properties can be used to single out that claim over other,
comparable claims, or if it can't be established how that thing is supposed
to support the claim in the first place.
For example, if someone showed me "man tracks" alongside "dinosaur tracks",
this would run counter to my understanding of both man's and the dinosaurs'
places in history, so I'd tend to question it. Specifically, I'd want the
following established: that the two tracks are, in fact, man tracks in the
one case and dino tracks in the other, and second, that they were, in fact,
laid down at essentially the same time. As long as either of those
questions remain open to doubt, the utility of the tracks in supporting the
claim that man and dinos were contemporaneous remains unsupported, at least
by that particular evidence.
As another example, if someone claimed that aliens had taken over the
government, and offered as support the fact that "Deelie-Boppers" were once
a fad, I'd have to question this, simply because the "evidence" seems to
bear no relationship whatsoever to the claim.
Now, if you have some evidence, for whatever claim it is you're making,
evidence which is, in fact, directly related to the claim and which has been
firmly established as to type, validity, etc, then it would seem to me that
one would, if one is approaching things honestly, have to conclude that you
have, in fact, supported your thesis.
However... the most common claim which I have happened to have seen coming
from you is your claim about man as old as coal, and the support for this
has been a handful of photos which certainly don't strike me as compelling,
nor do they strike others who, presumably, have more training or experience
in such areas than I do as being particularly compelling. Apparently you've
found some folks who do think those photos or samples are one thing - but
you've also got people, who apparently know what they're talking about,
saying otherwise; thus the evidence certainly isn't compelling, its validity
_as_ evidence is at best open to question, so someone such as me has little
reason to accept it.
So is your complaint that I refuse to accept something which is obviously
true? If so, that's not the case, because it's not obviously true. Is your
complaint that I refuse to accept something as true despite the fact you
have "expert" agreement that it is true? Well, as long as other experts, or
at least, people who seem to know what they're doing, disagree, then I don't
see a reason to accept or deny your evidence or your claim.
If you can show me something which is either undisputed or disputed but
obviously enough correct that the disputers are, obviously, working a
particular agenda which prevents them acknowledging it as true, then I'd
have little choice but to regard your evidence as valid; so far, however,
I've not seen such from you. So are you complaining, then, that I'm
approaching your evidence with the same open-minded skepticism that I'd
approach evidence of, say, cold fusion or any other claim which strikes me
as out of line with what I think is the way the world works? If so, then
too bad.
> You have been handed a phenomenal scientific breakthrough
> on a silver platter.
Not that I've seen; at most, we've been handed a _possible_ breakthrough -
but one which rests upon data which, as far as I am aware, has a low
confidence value.
> > http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z9lung.htm
You know, I don't claim to be any sort of expert in the relevant fields, but
not a one of those pictures strikes me as in any way unambiguously being
what it's represented as being. We've all seen the "face on Mars" and the
"devil's face in the 9-11 smoke" pictures and your pictures seem to me to
run in the same vein - mistaking superficial similarities in form with being
an actual instance of the class of item.
Perhaps that's not the case - perhaps they really _are_ skulls, or lungs, or
femurs - but I, for one, would need more than simply the pictures to make
that determination.
> The Smithsonian Institution, I should note, possesses none of these
> Carboniferous-age fossils -- NONE -- unless they've long been buried
> in its basement, or had been hauled to a landfill.
>
> See, it cannot accept this astounding amount of physical evidence
> because it fully realizes they pose a monumental threat to evolution's
> colossal lie.
Or, it could simply be that they've never been offered such samples, or they
have, but they've determined that they are not, in fact, what they're
claimed to be. Since I don't know you from a hole in the ground, I should
accept your word that this is the only possible reason for them not having
such items... well, why, exactly?
> Meanwhile, It is quite obvious that you -- same as the Smithsonian --
> do not want truth.
On the contrary; it is precisely because we want the truth that a couple of
pictures of dubious value aren't much use to us. Let's have a detailed
analysis from a generally accepted institution or organization - i.e. one
which, by virtue of having been used for similar purposes by the "side" of
the detractors, is thus established as being accept as authoritative by them
and which your "side" likewise agrees does reliable work - which states,
flat out, that yes, these items are what you claim them to be and yes, they
are as old as you claim them to be, etc, etc.
>You prefer fiction and fairy tales, which you have
> been spoonfed through all of your colleges and universities.
Having never attended either, but for the occasional programming course,
that doesn't apply. What little I know is from reading. I have a voracious
appetite for the written word and I generally read both sides of an issue
before making any conclusions. Having read many arguments both for and
against, say, evolution, I have to conclude that evolution does in fact hold
up, if only because I've yet to meet an argument against it which actually
holds up.
Now pay attention to that; it's not that I reject the arguments against
evolution because they're against evolution; I reject them because I've
never seen one that actually stands up to serious examination.
Now perhaps your samples and photos may eventualy be established as valid.
You claim to have one person who says at least one of the samples is; fine.
However, we have at least one person who suggests otherwise. Further, we
have your insinuation above that the Smithsonian was given the opportunity
to examine either or both of the photos and the samples, and rejected them.
To me, this argues against the validity of the samples and/or photos and
thus, against the validity of the claim they're supposed to support.
Thus, my tendency is to reject the photos, not because they're contrary to
evolution, but rather, because of the people I see and am told about who
apparently know what they're doing in regards to such items, the consensus
among them seems to be that no, those things are not what you claim they
are. That you may have one dissenting voice doesn't prove your case, it
simply means that the case isn't established solidly one way or the other -
but since acceptance of the claim requires the scrapping of a largish body
of otherwise well-supported thinking, it leaves me in the state of asking
whether it is more reasonable to reject your questionable data until its
status is better resolved, or to accept it and reject the body of thinking
and attendant body of evidence whose status is, in my opinion, considerably
more sound than the status of your evidence.
Given that choice, the outcome is obvious; why would I choose a thing of
dubious status over something which seems to me to be well-established,
well-supported? I wouldn't; doing so makes little sense. On the other
hand, I don't reject the possibility that your evidence may actually be
established as sound, in which case, I'll have to evaluate its impact on how
I understand the universe.
Now, how this is in any way dishonest, how it implies I would be rejecting
the truth, how it implies I prefer fairy tales, how it implies I reject, out
of hand, anything contrary to evolution, is not clear to me. At most it
would seem that I am rejecting - *tentatively* rejecting, subject to
review - evidence of questionable validity, of questionable quality, until
its validity can be established. Frankly, I don't see that as a bad thing.
So perhaps you could explain to me just how this involves some form of
dishonesty, or adoption of fairy tales, or whatever it is that's really
upsetting you about how I approach such issues. Or, if not, perhaps you
could limit that "you" a little so it actually applies to whomever it's
intended to apply to, because from where I sit, it certainly doesn't seem to
be as globally applicable as would appear you're trying to make it out to
be.
> It is nothing more than a conspiracy against truth, this crap called
> the Evolution of Man.
That should read "evolution". While one may argue that man is special in
regards to language, tool-making, ability to alter his environment, etc, it
doesn't seem to me that the underlying process is significantly different
from the process by which other living things adapt and change over time.
> These discoveries of human remains prove, beyond any reasonable
> doubt, that man existed in our almost our present form multi-millions
> of years before the conspiratorial evolutionist doctrine places us
> here.
Except that it hasn't been established yet that they _are_ in fact human
remains, let alone from what period. Or did I miss some major report in one
of the refereed journals about this breakthrough?
> I might also emphsxze that these specimens were subjeced to an array
> of honest scientific testing and all of the results were favorable.
Oddly, I've just been through much of your site, reading the storyline on,
primarily, the relationship between you and the Smithsonian. From what I
can see based on what's offered, there's something fishy going on... but
it's not necessarily at their end.
Let me give you an example. By trade, I'm a computer programmer. If
someone were to hand me a program, at least one written in a programming
language I know, and ask "How would you rate the skill of the person who
wrote this" it could take me hours poring through the code to make a
differentiation between a good programmer and a _really_ good programmer.
On the other hand, it may require mere seconds to determine that the program
was written by a newbie or someone of minimal skill or experience.
I have little reason to think that the same doesn't hold true in other
fields - that a zoologist needs to perform a detailed genetic analysis to
tell a lovebird from a canary, for example. Nor does it strike me that
someone who, presumably, has a long body of experience examining various
rocks, rock formations and, presumably, fossilized remains of various sorts,
would be unable to, simply by looking over a particular piece of material,
make a snap but correct determination that it is, in fact, a piece of
granite, not a fossilized bone, without the need of detailed analysis.
As I read it, there were at least two, probably more, specialists in
relevant fields who examined the item in question and, from what the site
says, they were unanimous in saying nope, sorry, not a skull.
Perhaps they didn't perform any rigorous testing - but perhaps that wasn't
necessary. Looking at C code, for example, and encountering the use of
items such as "gets" or allocations without checking for allocation failures
scream poor programming and it only requires a few seconds to note such
things; I have little reason to believe they are any less able to spot
similar "failures" in rocks even on a cursory examination.
Since nothing you've offered thus far, at least that I've seen, argues
against this possibility - with, apparently, the exception of a dentist who,
let's be honest, just isn't going to sway many people over when going up
against a passle of specialists from the Smithsonian - it thus follows that
from the outside looking in, nothing seems to have gone particularly amiss,
other than perhaps your reaction to the news.
> i.e.: Microcopic search for cell structure (Yerkes bone expert Jeremy
> Dahl); CAT-scans (more than a dozen); infrared scans (detecting dried
> blood on ALL of the human specimens examined); the opinion of world
> reknowned human anatomists Wilton Krogram and Raymond Dart, M.D.,
> along with Kingsnorth Patterson, anotehr bone expert, then of McGill
> University in Montreal; dental photos, etc., etc.
Yet you didn't publish their reports on your site, apparently; at least,
they don't seem to be linked to your walk through.
> Meanwhile, it is a fact that some testing was performed by
> Establishment scientists but, sadly, the truth was twisted with
> fraudulent, deceptive or evasive results. (Hear that, Smithsonian,
> Andrew MacRae and others.)
And the proof of these claims is...?
> Need I remind you that testing by American Medical Laboratories,
> for example, determined that dried blood exists on many
> of the human specimens. If you question these results, go to the
> horse's mouth and challenge American Medical Laboratories' integrity,
> but be prepared for a lawsuit.
Let's not, since, as far as I can tell, all we have is your word they ever
tested anything.
> The bottom line is that I have charged the Smithsonian and others
> with a crime against humanity, and my accusation stands.
And remains, apparently, unfounded.
> I have called you -- especially in talk.origins and sci.paleontology
> -- squirmin' vermin,. because you are.
Well, thanks, I'm sure.
> Last but not least: you people DO NOT deserve the truth.
Ah, yes. I've heard this before. "Yes, I have the truth, but no, I'm not
going to share it, because you won't accept it anyway, or you're not good
enough..."
It's really easy to claim to have "truth"; it's another thing entirely to
establish it. So far, I'd say, you've done a poor job establishing your
claims.
> May God -- IF there is one -- please have mercy on your grandchildren,
> and theirs. Mankind, being denied the truth of its origin and
> ancestry, cannot possibly get better, only worse.
On the contrary; one view says we are but shallow mockeries of perfection,
designed to be what we are with no hope of improvement; the other view says
we can improve both as individuals and as a species and that this
improvement is, essentially, unlimited. I'll let you figure out which is
which and which leads to "cannot possibly get better."
David Sienkiewicz
>
> Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
The continuing evidence shows that, in fact, you DO fear debate, Ed.
< snip >
> Last but not least: you people DO NOT deserve the truth. You deserve
> to wallow instead in your total disregard for honesty and integrity,
> your acceptance of deceit, deception, collusion and
> conspiracy, and may your erroneous theory of evolution continue
> to turn the good earth into even more of a circus than it is now.
If we don't deserve it, Ed, then why do you bother to continue to post
it - over and over again, through the years?
(This is, of course, accepting ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT that what
you are saying is "truth.")
< snip >
The Ghost In The Machine
In talk.origins, Ed Conrad
<edco...@shenhgts.net>
wrote
on Sun, 14 Jul 2002 23:59:33 +0000 (UTC)
<3d31f68b...@news.shenhgts.net>:
>
> Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>
> Frankly, I would relish it -- if the debating conditions were
> equal. But obviously they're not!
>
[snip what Ed C. has been called :-) ]
> Science has long claimed there were no large animals,
> certainly not man, on earth back when coal was being formed.
> But Science is wrong -- dead wrong -- because all of these
> specimens were found between Pennsylvania coal veins:
I for one have no idea what you're talking about. A search
on www.talkorigins.org yielded a fair number of matches
on "coal", one of them
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html
Granted, the track markers appear to be icons, but they could be
as wide as 2 feet. It's hard to tell without looking at the
original, though -- although there is a link to a bigger-sized
version:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/images/footprints.gif
Our feet are about 12 inches in length.
Where does Science claim that there were no large animals in the
peat moss prior to coal formation?
A google search on
"how long does it take to form coal seams"
generated some interesting links, two in obviously creationistic
websites, but the following link is probably a little more reliable:
http://chemistry.anl.gov/carbon/coal-tutorial/coalgeneral.html
in which the process of coal formation is compared both to the baking
of a layer cake and to sedimentary rock foundation. The process
apparently takes millions of years.
Unfortunately, entering the same query into talkorigins apparently
confused it; it spat up
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/how-not-to-argue.html
subtitled "How Not To Respond to Criticism". (It does, however,
mention Australian coal seams.)
Another link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html
details some interesting anomalies regarding C-14 in coal deposits,
which are not young enough to have C-14 by normal biological
processes, but can get C-14 apparently from adjacent radioactivity
and yet another ecosystem, this one deep underground, in which
coal pyrites are oxidized by various fungi.
Apparently in certain coal seams, the age would be read as 45,000 years,
which is too low.
[snip URLs]
>
> The Smithsonian Institution, I should note, possesses none of these
> Carboniferous-age fossils -- NONE -- unless they've long been buried
> in its basement, or had been hauled to a landfill.
Uh...after hauling to a landfill, the Smithsonian could hardly be
possessing them now, could it? :-)
>
> See, it cannot accept this astounding amount of physical evidence
> because it fully realizes they pose a monumental threat to evolution's
> colossal lie.
I don't see how. Coal is old peat moss. Peat moss is soft.
I'll admit I don't know whether dinosaur skeletons have been
discovered in coal or not (it wouldn't surprise me, although
the talkorigins.org link above doesn't mention bones).
>
> Meanwhile, It is quite obvious that you -- same as the Smithsonian --
> do not want truth. You prefer fiction and fairy tales, which you have
> been spoonfed through all of your colleges and universities.
>
> It is nothing more than a conspiracy against truth, this crap called
> the Evolution of Man.
[rest snipped; ad hom quota exceeded :-) ]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Alfred Einstead
> Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
The correct sentence is "I do NOT fear losing debate", which
happened the instant you posted the pictures of the lumps of
rocks.
> It is nothing more than a conspiracy against truth, this crap called
> the Evolution of Man.
In actual fact, you're the one perpetrating the conspiracy: the
Conspiracy Conspiracy.
If you had been serious (and honest) you would have sent off
whatever you had to a lab for BLIND analysis (you tell them
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) about what the sample is supposedly of
or what its significance may be, and simply ask them to
test for certain items ... instead of making a big fuss
to everyone involved about WHAT you think you found.
That's not science and that's not how science is done. It's
the red flag for crackpottery. It's how circus proprietors
and flim-flam artists publicise their real or imagine wares.
Don Stierman
>
>
>Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I do NOT fear debate.
>
>equal. But obviously they're not!
>
<snip>
Ed, I've invited you to bring your best stuff to an open meeting of The
Geological Society of America. There is a Press Room, so prepare a few press
releases.
Rent a booth and offer some of your inventory for sale to professors and
students. If your stuff is as good as your claim, you will clean up. There
are always several rock and mineral sales areas, but no one offers anything
equal to what you say you have.
The truth is, Ed, I think you ARE chicken.
Just tell me where and when you will bring your stuff to your first GSA
meeting. I want to be there. I do promise not to bias the crowd - that would
spoil the fun.
djs