IT'S 1997 ALL OVER AGAIN -- Ed Conrad Bashes Pseudo-Scientist

[Intrepid]

<
Way back in 1997, a pseudoscientist bearing the initials JF
posted a message to talk.origins which was entitled:
<
< DEBATING CREATIONISTS: ED CONRAD
<
< Ed Conrad is talk.origins' kookiest kook, famous for his claim that
, he has found human remains hundreds of millions of years old in
, coalfields. (To most people, they just look like ordinary rocks.)

< Of course, Ed tends to be a little more skeptical of other people's
finds:

* June 10, 1997, JF:
First attempt to respond to Ed's request for (the
evolutionists') evidence
of human evolution.
<
* Sep 9, 1997, JF:
Second attempt to respond to Ed's request for (evolutionists')
evidence
of human evolution.
<
* Oct 1, 1997, JF:
Third attempt to respond to Ed's request for (evolutionists')
evidence
of human evolution.
<
Twelve days later JF wrote:
<
* Oct 13, 1997, EC:
<
< Ed addresses the evidence with all the integrity anyone
familiar with his
< performances on talk.origins would expect.
<
======================================
<
< BREAKING NEWS
<
We interrupt this program to bring you this special message.
,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.ed-conrad/msg/522305f02e955b66
<
======================================
<
<

Okay, now where were we?
<
Article 251916 on talk.origins:
From: ***@vangelis.co.symbios.com (Jim Foley)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Still waiting for some evidence
Date: 10 Jun 1997 15:05:27 -0400
Message-ID: <5nk8ik$***@herald.ks.symbios.com>
<
In article <***@news.sunlink.net>,
Ed Conrad <***@sunlink.net> wrote:
<

Look at me!
I'm STILL WAITING FOR SOME EVIDENCE
(of man's inhuman ancestry)
to back up the evolutionists' contention.

<
< From JF:
<
What do you consider the following to be?
<
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
<
Brief information on all these is available at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
<
< ==========
<
Jim (Chris) Foley, ***@symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest:
Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii)
<
Article 262936 of talk.origins:
From: ***@NOSPAM_symbios.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Now, let's see? WHERE were we?
Date: 9 Sep 1997 18:08:25 -0400
Message-ID: <5v4fgg$***@herald.ks.symbios.com>
<
In article <***@news.sunlink.net>,
Ed Conrad <***@sunlink.net> wrote:
<

Oh, yes!
Now I remember!
A few weeks ago, I politely asked if anyone out there could kindly
supply some none-rhetorical indisputable physical evidence that man
evolved from inhuman primates.

<
Odd, I replied to a similar request from you back on June 10th, and
my post was ignored. So let me try again.
<
What do you consider the following to be?
<
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg
Loading Image...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.jpg
<
Brief information on all these is available at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
<
< =========
<
Jim Foley ***@NOSPAM_symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest:
Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii)
<
Article 266178 of talk.origins:
From: ***@NOSPAM_symbios.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Gutless N.Y Times, Washington Post -- Kook EC-022
Date: 1 Oct 1997 16:45:24 -0400
Message-ID: <60u9s3$***@herald.ks.symbios.com>
<
In article <***@news.sunlink.net>,
Ed Conrad <***@sunlink.net> wrote:
<

I mean, after all, it's an established fact that these jackasses
possess no physical evidence of any shape, form or kind to back
up their claim of an evolutionary stepladder ascent by inhuman
cat-size, monkey-like primates of 65 million years ago (as the sci
textbooks so incorrectly maintain) to Homo sapiens sapiens.

<
What do you consider the following to be?
<
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.jpg
<
Brief information on all these is available at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
<

When I ask any of them to produce even as little as a scintilla
of undeniable proof, I wind up getting a lot of hot air.

<
Odd, I've posted the above twice so far and gotten no response.
<
--
Jim Foley ***@NOSPAM_symbios.com
Assoc. Prof. of Omphalic Envy Research interest:
Department of Anthropology Primitive hominids
University of Ediacara (Australopithecus creationistii)
<
Article 267965 of talk.origins:
From: ***@sunlink.net (Ed Conrad)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Truth AND Consequences -- Kook EC-032
Date: 13 Oct 1997 20:14:08 -0400
Message-ID: <***@news.sunlink.net>
<
On 9 Oct 1997, ***@NOSPAM_symbios.com wrote:
<

May I take the liberty of informing you that there is nary a scintilla
of undeniable physical evidence backing up the scientific
establishment's insistence that man had evolved from the lowliest
primates of 65 million years ago.

In that case, what are the following?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg

Cow manure?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.jpg

Horse manure?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.jpg

Turtle droppings?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.jpg

Elephant dung?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.jpg

Ostrich outage!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.jpg

Pigeon poop?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.jpg

Dinosaur do-do?
<

Brief information on all these is available at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

<
Thanks for the info, Jim. If we should decide to pay a visit,
would you suggest that we bring along our own clothespin?
<
< ==================
<
As I was saying before so rudely interrupted, there is *nary* a
scintilla of undeniable physical evidence backing up the scientific
establishment's insistence that man had evolved from the lowliest
primates of 65 million years ago.

The scientific establishment's boast that it indeed possesses such
clear-cut evidence ranks as the biggest -- and longest running -- con
job in all of science.
<
To put it in monetary terms, it is approximately 35 cents short of
a dollar.
<
The scientific establishment possesses *no* such undisputed
physical proof, only wishful thinking wrapped rather tightly -- rather
loosely? -- around a whole lot of hot air.
<
Ed Conrad
* ***@sunlink.net

* (PS: Ed Conrad has since moved.)
<
===========================
<
MAN AS OLD AS COAL
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.ed-conrad/msg/522305f02e955b66
<
http://www.edconrad.com
<
================
<
"We can forgive a child
who is afraid of the dark.
The real tragedy of life
is when men are afraid
of the light." -- Plato
<
============
<
THERE SHE BLOWS!
Loading Image...

[RichTravsky]

Paleoanthropology Division
Smithsonian Institute
207 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20078

Dear Sir:

Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled
"211-D, layer seven, next to the clothesline post. Hominid
skull." We have given this specimen a careful and detailed
examination, and regret to inform you that we disagree with your
theory that it represents "conclusive proof of the presence of
Early Man in Charleston County two million years ago." Rather, it
appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie doll, of
the variety one of our staff, who has small children, believes to
be the "Malibu Barbie". It is evident that you have given a great
deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may be
quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior
work in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your
findings. However, we do feel that there are a number of physical
attributes of the specimen which might have tipped you off to
it's modern origin:

1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains
are typically fossilized bone.

2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9
cubic centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest
identified proto-hominids.

3. The dentition pattern evident on the "skull" is more
consistent with the common domesticated dog than it is with the
"ravenous man-eating Pliocene clams" you speculate roamed the
wetlands during that time. This latter finding is certainly one
of the most intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your
history with this institution, but the evidence seems to weigh
rather heavily against it. Without going into too much detail,
let us say that:

A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll
that a dog has chewed on.
B. Clams don't have teeth.

It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your
request to have the specimen carbon dated. This is partially due
to the heavy load our lab must bear in it's normal operation, and
partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of
recent geologic record. To the best of our knowledge, no Barbie
dolls were produced prior to 1956 AD, and carbon dating is likely
to produce wildly inaccurate results. Sadly, we must also deny
your request that we approach the National Science Foundation's
Phylogeny Department with the concept of assigning your specimen
the scientific name "Australopithecus spiff-arino." Speaking
personally, I, for one, fought tenaciously for the acceptance of
your proposed taxonomy, but was ultimately voted down because the
species name you selected was hyphenated, and didn't really sound
like it might be Latin.

However, we gladly accept your generous donation of this
fascinating specimen to the museum. While it is undoubtedly not a
hominid fossil, it is, nonetheless, yet another riveting example
of the great body of work you seem to accumulate here so
effortlessly. You should know that our Director has reserved a
special shelf in his own office for the display of the specimens
you have previously submitted to the Institution, and the entire
staff speculates daily on what you will happen upon next in your
digs at the site you have discovered in your back yard. We
eagerly anticipate your trip to our nation's capital that you
proposed in your last letter, and several of us are pressing the
Director to pay for it. We are particularly interested in hearing
you expand on your theories surrounding the "trans-positating
fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix" that makes
the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently
discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears
Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.

Yours in Science,


Harvey Rowe
Curator, Antiquities