Re: Way to eliminate nutcases from newsfeed
Jiri Mruzek (jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca)
Sat, 07 Dec 1996 11:16:10 -0800
Ed Conrad wrote:
>
> hegeman@wchat.on.ca (Toby Cockcroft) wrote:
>
> >In article <583um0$5cg@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
> >>Hey, Dickover:
> >>Something tells me you're scared of the truth by playing ostrich and
> >>burying your head in the sand.
> >>Does Truth frighten you THAT much?
Actually, we would all prefer to have been created - to be eternally
and immutably perfect. At least the process of evolution could not
reverse directions towards degeneration of the human race, as it has
since the end of the stone-age, and the onset of agri-barbarism, oops,
I mean agri-culture.
But unfortunately for your theory of immutability, the processes
of degeneration, of lapsing into lower forms of life prove the
existence of evolutionary mechanisms in negative.
> >>Obviously, some other close-minded ``ostriches" will follow your
> >>advice and, personally, I couldn't care less.
Altho, you come across as an intelligent and fairly well educated
person, it seems to me that you like controversy for the sake of
turmoil alone.
> >>But I assure you there are countless others out there who ARE
> >>open-minded and have long felt that the scientific establishment
> >>certainly has not been honest and forthright in dealing with the
> >>question of man's origin and ancestry.
Where are they? Would one of this mass of Ed's creationism fans
please rise, so as to substantiate what seems as a trumped up claim?
> >>And I think they're rather pleased that they're finally tuned to the
> >>right channel where I'm calling a spade a spade..
> >The only reason that people have resorted to kill files is because of your
> >mindless drivel.
TO the contrary, your drivel is presented with maximum decor.
> >You don't like the results so you claim that the scientific community isn't
> >being forthright and honest . . . what a load of bullshit that is . . .
> >The truth has never frightened us and the only person who is close minded
> >here is yourself.
Objectively speaking, if the truth weren't scary, you would be
attempting to debunk my theories, instead of trying to beat up on
little kids like Ed. If you like to take up a real substantial
fight, go to http://www.lynx.bc.ca/~jirimruzek
> >The TRUTH is on our side while you have been stuck in Lamarkian science
> >others have progressed and made new discoveries and new inquiries to the
> >origins of humans and human nature.
> There is absolutely *NO* scientific evidence of ANY kind == not one
> soliltary shred == to back up the scientific establishment's
> contention that man evolved from the cat-size, monkey-like insectivore
> of 60-65 million years ago.
And so man devolved from the giant Big-Feet?
> There is *NO* evidence whatsoever that man had an inhuman ancestor.
>
> Meanwhile, the discovery of petrified human bones and petrified soft
> organs in strata muti-multi-millions of years older reflects the
> absurdity of clinging to a theory that isn't really worth the time of
> day.
A couple of photographs on your webpage is supposed to do all that?
Hmm, I find your scientific proof rather inconclusive. Rather, I feel
like you are begging, pleading, and so on, rather than using sharp
logic.
> The anthropological community, most certainly, has *NOT*
> dealt with the issue of human ancesry and origin and continues
> to be scared shoutless.
It saddens me to hear you think that they haven't tried. What about
the Origins by Darwin?
> > ``If you can't stand the heat,
> > stay the hell out of the kitchen."
Your half-cooked theories prove you don't like the kitchen much
yourself.
Jiri (a close relative of the Nasca Monkey)
If you don't believe in evolution, you can also eat monkey-meat
without compunctions.
|