Re: WELCOME TO OUR WORLD!
Bob Casanova (casanova@crosslink.net)
Sat, 07 Dec 1996 20:42:08 GMT
On 7 Dec 1996 15:36:11 GMT, in sci.anthropology.paleo,
edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>
>julia <jburns@enternet.com.au> wrote to alt.archaeology:
>
>>Greetings and Salutations!
>> My name is Julia and I love history. I am 15, and plan to do a PhD
>>in History at the Australian National University, might as well learn a
>>little now!! Just thought I'd introduce myself...
>
>>Smile everyone
>>Julia :)
Now Ed's attempting to subvert minors. Why am I not surprised.
>
>Goodness gracious, Julia, what a pretty smile!
>Welcome aboard!
>My name is Ed Conrad and I, too, have a fascination for history --
>really, really OLD history.
>
>The difference between me and most of the people you'll hear from --
>via postings to the pertinent scientific news groups -- is that I deal
>in facts and evidence.
"Evidence" only Ed accepts. That's called a "delusion", Julia.
>The vast majority of others have long dabbled in fantasy and fiction.
>I contend -- and have the proof -- that man existed on earth while
>coal was being formed.
Ed has no such proof, as experts who examined Ed's "evidence" have
pointed out. He has odd-shaped rocks and coal, no more.
That's a long, long time ago (at least 280
>million years ago, if science's geological dating is correct).
>
>My opponents cling to an erroneous theory that man evolved fromsmall
>small inhuman monkey-like primate -- called an insectivore -- that
>lived some 65 million years ago.
>And I say, IF man existed in almost his present form
>multi-multi-millions of years before the initial emergence of the
>insectivore, then common sense dictates that man certainly has no such
>ancestor.
This would be a true statement, if it didn't start with a false
premise. Which it does.
>
>It means my opponents have to come up with another explanation for
>man's existence eons upon eons earlier.
Not until there is evidence for such, which there isn't.
Obviously, one possibility is
>that we were created -- but they want no part of that.
>Therefore, without the type of answer they know they require to
>enhance their Godless position and shoot me down, they've gone
>bananas in their criticism of my discoveries.
Ed's "discoveries" are garbage. Watch out for charlatans, Julia. One
indicator is the "Everyone's trying to bury my discoveries, which only
I am competent to judge." syndrome.
>
>They can get pretty nasty, too. I've been called a moron, a loon, an
>imbicile -- and much, much worse.
Like liar, delusional. charlatan. Maybe not all true (Ed may actually
*believe* his garbage), but mostly correct descriptions of Ed's posts.
>They're demanding evidence -- a bushel basketful-- even though they
>themselves are fully aware that their adamant stance concerning man's
>evolution from the insectivore lacks a single shred of undisputed
>evidence.
How about rephrasing that as "...evidence undisputed by Ed Conrad and
other scientifically-ignorant creationists and similar charlatans, but
accepted by competent professionals."; that would seem a more correct
picture of the actual situation.
>
>I tell them that and they get angrier and angrier, but not one of them
>has put their cards (their evidence) on the table.
Plenty of evidence, but Ed doesn't have the education to understand
it. That's why you need a good education, Julia, so the charlatans
can't fool you.
>They can't do it because it simply doesn't exist.
Read this as "I don't understand it, so it doesn't exist.".
>
>The saddest part of this story, Julia, is that the scientific
>community -- eager to protect its erroneous theory -- has resorted to
>deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy in an effort to deny my
>discoveries and my evidence.
>Sadly, some of them actually have tampered with the results of the
>evidence.
Here is Ed's conspiracy theory in full bloom, Julia. He can't accept
that his "evidence" is garbage, so someone must have tampered with it.
>
>For example, my discoveries of human bone (and soft organs!)
>between the coal seams in Northeastern Pennsylvania are petrified,
>which means they have been transformed to a rock-like appearance.
>
>Yet the Haversian canals, a telltale indicator of the cell structure
>of bone, still exist and can be seen under the microscope. But my
>opponents, the vast majority who have never examined *petrified* bone
>in their life, insist that it must precisely resemble the cell
>structure of bone that has not petrified.
No, they don't. They do, however, say that it does *not* resemble
petrified bone, and that Ed is mistaken. Of course, this is
unthinkable, so Ed imagines a conspiracy.
The balance of Ed's post is more of the same, so I'll only encourage
you to get a good education, and examine the evidence knowledgeably.
Good luck in your chosen field, and,once more, beware of the
charlatans, particularly those who feel persecuted by the scientific
"establishment".
>
>I keep telling them that only the Haversian canals remain from the
>complete Haversian systems because of the petrification process which
>has removed the visibility of the surrounding structure so it can no
>longer be seen -- but they don't want to hear it.
>Their unflinching denial -- this total lack of openmindedness -- is
>caused by the brainwashing job that has been so successfully
>accomplished over a period of many, many years.
>
>Those poor souls didn't DARE question what they were being taught
>because to have done so would've been considered a sacrilege. Then,
>after graduating and landing a nice job and eventually gaining access
>to substantial ancillary income, they soon realized that you don't
>dare make waves by asking questions in response to ridiculous answers.
>Quite simply, it is called protecting your vested interests.
>
>Oh, by the way, Julia, the static these individuals are giving me only
>matches the static that I have been tossing back. You'll find most of
>it by calling up talk.origins but some can also be found in the
>``sci"-related groups like sci.bio.paleontology and sci.anthropology.
>I put up with none of their gibberish, gobbledygook or nonsense.
>
>In conclusion, I'd like to emphasize that you'll NEVER find me
>thumping the Bible on your computer screen. I AM NOT a creationist, in
>the strictest sense of the word, and you'd be shocked to learn that
>even the creationist organizations worldwide are deathly afraid of me,
>along with the evolutionists.
>
>Now isn't THATsurprising? But it's true!
>
>I've been placed in a situation where, because of stringent opposition
>from BOTH sides, I'm not supposed to have a ghost of a chance at
>making any headway.
>
>Yet such monumental obstacles haven't seemed to phase me and
>certainly aren't stopping me. I just continue chugging along, eager to
>contribute something substantial to my fellow man.
>
>Finally, Julia -- over there in Australia -- I'd like to leave you
>with a very brief synopsis of what's been going on over here.
>
>I'll lete my late, dear friend tell you -- in his inimitable style --
>the way he once told me:
>
>> ``They know they have a skeleton
>> in their closet and they don't want
>> to open the door."
>> Clayton Lennon
>> (1900-1996)
> Cordially,
> Ed Conrad
> Shenandoah, Pa.
> (edconrad@ptdprolog.net)
>
>P.S. -- The truth can be found at
>http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
>
>The fabrication (especially the sad, deplorable orchestrated effort
>to deny that my specimens are indeed petrified bone) can be found at
>http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html
>
>
>
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
|