Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)

Alan Weiner (
5 Nov 1996 17:24:33 GMT

:) I surmized as much. I'm a scientist myself (with degrees in
Mathematics, Biology, and Computer Science) I think what's going on is the
split (which seems to be rampant in this and other scientific newsgroups)
between scientific methodology and faith. Personally, I believe there are
better forums to debate (if you want to call it that :) science vs religion.

Evidently, there are group of people on here who have faith in the
"scientific" evidence this guy is presenting. The scientific facts are
irrelevant to their view -- after all, from their view, if it's not in the
bible, it's not a fact. I'd much rather spend my time on these groups
reading about real science.

In article <>, says...
>In article <55ktc0$>, (Alan
>Weiner) wrote:
>>I checked-out the page you suggested. Evidently, this guy found
>>million-year-old human skull bones. They were not fossilized, but were
>>still the original bone matter. In addition, he found soft tissues,
>>also not fossilized. Evidently, according to the article:
>>"However, the scientific establishment has wielded its powerful
>>disdainful influence deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy to
>>prevent evidence of the most important discovery of the 20th century to
>>be documented as fact and, therefore, keep us from learning a monumental
>>truth about ourselves. I assure you I know what I'm talking about
>>because I discovered these petrified human remains and have had a
>>ringside seat to the scientific establishment's despicable antics of
>>suppressing an aresenal of physical evidence."
>>So, it's obvious to all why everybody doesn't know about this great
>>find. A conspiracy by the scientific community to supress this find.
>>Unfortunately for the conspiratorial paranoids (well, just cauz yer
>>paranoid doesn't mean people aren't really out to get you :) the
>>"scientific community" isn't a monolithic entity. Big science is big
>>business. If somebody came out with some real info that shattered a
>>major theory, it would get out there faster than the speed of light.
>>Unfortunately, that cuts both ways. Some folks think it's a great way
>>to become famous.
>>I'll be happy to keep an open mind about this, but it does certainly
>>conflict with everyting I've learned about archaeology, anthropology,
>>etc. To the 'believers' out there who know it's real, based soley on
>>what the discoverer says:
>>1) Is it possible to do any scientific experiments on these materials to
>>either confirm or deny his assertions?
>It's been done. Conrad has hoodwinked quite a few serious investigators
>into looking at his stuff (usually by pretending to be a naive but
>open-minded amateur who just wants to find out what these odd rocks are).
>Usually, they tell him that this stuff is crap, at which time he pretends
>they don't exist and he moves on to the next victim. In a few cases, he
>has found an Authority who either says something ambiguous, or jollies
>him along for a good laugh -- in which case he adds their little endorsement
>to his collection of quotes, which he will trot out at the slightest
>>2) If so, what would they be?
>Simple inspection of the gross anatomy, and examination of thin slices for
>the histological structure of bone. The rocks are either featureless, or
>have odd bumps and hollows that do not correspond to any anatomical
>feature. Most of them are broken up--Ed has a large collection of "jaws",
>which are basically any rock with a roughly right-angled curve in them and
>broken edges where we ought to find tooth-bearing surfaces or articulations.
>Microscopically, they look like concretions -- see Andrew MacRae's web
>page for a more thorough description. There are tiny translucent spots
>in the rocks that are flecks of quartz; Conrad has seized on these as
>evidence of Haversian canals. However, they look nothing like bone, except
>in the imagination of an obsessed loon. Check out my web page
><> for some examples of images
>Conrad himself set up when he visited my lab this summer. You'll see for
>yourself that his rocks look nothing like fresh human bone or fossilized
>dinosaur bone -- although you may afterwards find his attempts to
>rationalize his messy little rocks as looking kinda like bone absolutely
>>3) Do you really believe that there is a monolithic scientific
>>conspiracy that is actually the reason why your religious beliefs are
>>not confirmed by scientific evidence?
>It's the only excuse he can come up with. He has no training in biology,
>paleontology, or geology, so he's completely lacking in the educational
>ammo to fight a battle of the intellect, so he has to resort to nebulous
>conspiracies and paranoia. He tried, for a while, to pass himself off as
>an expert in bone histology on -- the man's ignorance was
>so blatant and appalling that that didn't last for long.
>Paul Z. Myers
>Dept. of Biology
>Temple University
>Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848