Re: somebody's gotta do it...
Ed Conrad (edconrad@sunlink.net)
Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:05:23 GMT
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, myers@netaxs.com (Paul Z. Myers)
responded to Ted Holden's posting to talk.origins, etc.,
bearing the header, ``somebody's gotta do it...":
>In article <5bmjdb$304@news4.digex.net>, medved@access.digex.com
>wrote (the following paragraph, which actually was orginally posted
>by Ed Conrad):
>
>> Contrary to your strongly biased and totally erroneous opinion, the
>> subject matter up for discussion -- the origin and antiquity of man --
>> is certainly not off target as subject matter for the sci.groups such
>> as sci.bio.paleonology, sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo or
>> sci.archaeology.
>> >...
>Well, then (wrote Myers) provide some science, not fantasy . . .
>Come on, Ted . . . there is no information of any value on that web page.
>Every scrap, every feeble little assertion that you or Ed have made
>has been shot down with only the most trivial effort, and the only
>reply you've made is this kind of whining, fact-free complaint that
>science is bad.
>
>There ARE big problems in evolution. Not problems that will "destroy"
>evolution, but problems that haven't been resolved. There are real
>scientists working to answer those problems, and we can expect to
>really learn something from the results. Ed's brand of clueless
>ignorance and wishful thinking is neither a challenge nor a promise
>of any kind of learning . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~
That's what YOU think, Paul Myers!
There is more scientific fact and undeniable evidence relating to the
origin and antiquity of man on Ted Holden's web page at
> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
than can be found in ALL of your scientific establishment's
self-satisfying, theory-promoting, absent-of-fact textbooks.
Brainwashed scientists and/or those desiring to protect vested
interests obviously can see nothing on the web page, and unfortunately
never will.
But anyone with an open mind and reasonable intelligence -- like
junior high school students or, for that matter, even third- or
fourth-graders -- can see a varied collection of intriguing specimens
that, whatever they are, should not be found between coal veins.
You can sqwack all you want, Paul Myers, but the bottom line in this
heated controversy is whether the cell structure of the specimens
I claim are petrified bone is identical to the cell structure of
petrified bone officially recognized as such.
That is, ONLY the Haversian canals remain as an identifying
characteristic, since the surrounding structure -- the web-like image
plainly visible in non-petrified bone -- was displaced via the
intriguing process of petrification.
Meanwhile, you have stooped to a new low by referring to my battle
against the corrupt scientific establishment with your snide reference
to `` Ed's brand of clueless ignorance and wishful thinking."
But, low as it is, I'd say it's still a notch higher than the alltime
low resulting from the incredible effort that has been undertaken
to have me booted from the 'Net.
I have learned from an unimpeachable source that someone from
the sci.groups -- in all likelihood from sci.bio.paleontology -- has
been e-mailing ``FIVE OR SIX LETTERS OF PROTEST A DAY"
to my server, demanding that I be severely punished.
I can only wonder whether it was you or Henry Barwood.
I'm sure lawyers representing the Electronic Freedom Foundation
and/or the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility will have
no problem finding out who has been hitting below the belt.
|