Re: SUPER BOWL champions of scientific SUBTERFUGE
Ed Conrad (edconrad@sunlink.net)
Mon, 06 Jan 1997 14:13:36 GMT
On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 21:02:10 -0800, "henry l. barwood"
<hbarwood@indiana.edu> wrote to talk.origins:
>Ed Conrad wrote:
>
>> Boy, are you a dreamer!
>> I am referring to your sarcastic comment: ``Conrad is certainly taking
>> advantage of an empty field to try and score points!"
>>
>Since Andrew clearly announced that he would be absent from t.o., what
>would you call your comments? You, Holden, and Karl Crawford seem quite
>adept at the old weave, bob, duck and skip town when asked to answer
>questions point blank.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't see where Andrew MacRae's recent departure has anything
to do with it.
After all, I didn't wait for Andrew to leave to inform him he had
reached an incorrect conclusion in ``officially'' declaring that
neither of my two specimens that he had examined microscopically
are petrified bone.
Meanwhile, I informed Andrew WHY he was wrong but, undoubtedly,
he turned a deaf ear when I tried to explain that the surrounding
structure of bone vanishes due to the petrification process.
Therefore, only the Haversian canals -- clearly visible at
http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/c2.jpg
-- can be seen in my specimens of petrified bone found between coal
veins.
Meanwhile, I strongly suspect that Andrew did not leave the scene
by his own choice. I am convinced he had been relishing in his own
glory too much to give it up voluntarily.
I distinctly remember how full of glee he was after proclaiming -- not
once but twice -- that my specimens which he examined microscopically
were nothing more than rocks and/or concretions. And I wanted to puke
when personal congratulations kept rolling in from people like you
heralding ``a job well (but dishonestly) done."
As time went on, though, Andrew realized he was being seriously
challenged he began running scared and was never the same afterward.
As for Andrew's web pages, I once-upon-a-time described them as Cecil
B. De Milesque and they still are. They certainly look good,
appearance-wise, but they are laden with deceit.
Unfortunately, the end result -- the despicable result -- is that
Andrew's test results of my two specimens of petrified bone failed
miserably because he -- either deliberately or because of his lack of
expertise in histology -- totally ignored pertinent facts and evidence
that would turn this ballgame around.
This is the very thing that Thomas Alva Edison -- one of the greatest
scientists who ever lived -- so vehemently warned his fellow
scientists:
> ``The right to search for truth
> implies also a duty; one must
> not conceal any part of what
> one has recognized to be true."
| 