average joe reads with fascination: was (somebody's gotta do it)

Jim Welsh (jlwelsh@ix.netcom.com)
Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:08:51 -0500

Ed Conrad wrote:
>
> 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.

i vote the rock(et) scientists of america, or the world, study Ed's
bones with all the fervor of The Shroud of Turin!

What is the problem here folks ? what difference does it make where Ed
Conrad went to school??? The man has obviously found something worthy of
investigation.

Here you have something tangible, something you can see, touch, examine,
experiment on...

what does the scientific community want, more UFO's ????????

personally i don't know anything about bones, Ed Conrad doesn't need to
know anything about bones, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to walk
along the beach and discover a piece of the space shuttle!

i just popped into this group yesterday cause i like to read about
interesting discoveries.

I'm finding the Ed Conrad vs. the scientific community threads more
amazing than the discoveries themselves.

Is this what it is like to be an archaeologists ?

I feel like a kid again

a gradeschool kid, LOL!

personally Mr Conrad, i am not thrilled to learn that we have actually
been screwing each other like this for 280 MILLION YEARS!!!!!

JESUS CHRIST, ENOUGH ALREADY! HaHaHa!!!!!!!

280 million huh

man that is a long time

well it shouldn't be too much longer, being a computer programmer by
trade, i can tell you that it takes FOUR DIGITS to represent TWO
THOUSAND....ROFL!!!!!

amazingly many of TODAY'S programmers find this a difficult concept...

ie. we've ALWAYS done it this way...HaHaHa!!!!

bunch of dumb monkeys! lol

Hat's off to Mr Conrad, right or wrong!

Jim