edconrad@no-spam (Ed Conrad) wrote in message news:<3efbab10.18817396@no-spam>...
> The evolution of man: Greatest conspiracy against truth
> in the history of science.
>
> ================================================
>
> > ~~ MAN AS OLD AS COAL ~~
> > (Evolution in Trouble in the Wake of Startling New Evidence)
>
> ================================================
Well, of course, there's nothing "new" about this "evidence." You've
been posting it for years.
Here's just one article that refutes it:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35fa3772.0306111624.39df8505%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
This article was written by me and, Ed, I'm the LEAST qualified to
refute you from the scientific standpoint.
Now, Ed, here's the most recent challenge from which you have been
running:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35fa3772.0306250135.409c9c56%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
I also sweetened the pot and offered to pay full costs of a polygraph
and, if any of the experts agree that any of your specimens are
genuine - even ONE of them - I said I'd get you that special on Fox.
If you were really that confident in your claims, you'd jump at this
chance.
So why are you running from it?
< snip >
That's a good challenge, David.
Of course, Ed has already been put to the test, and his theories found to be a load of nonsense.
He's a Grade A Net Kook.
http://homepage.mac.com/myers/misc/bone.html
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/conrad.html
http://www.bibleandscience.com/conrad.htm
In article <35fa3772.0306271252.6e237072@no-spam>, David Sienkiewicz wrote:
> edconrad@no-spam (Ed Conrad) wrote in message news:<3efbab10.18817396@no-spam>...
>> The evolution of man: Greatest conspiracy against truth
>> in the history of science.
>>
>> ================================================
>>
>> > ~~ MAN AS OLD AS COAL ~~
>> > (Evolution in Trouble in the Wake of Startling New Evidence)
>>
>> ================================================
>
> Well, of course, there's nothing "new" about this "evidence." You've
> been posting it for years.
>
> Here's just one article that refutes it:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35fa3772.0306111624.39df8505%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
>
> This article was written by me and, Ed, I'm the LEAST qualified to
> refute you from the scientific standpoint.
>
> Now, Ed, here's the most recent challenge from which you have been
> running:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35fa3772.0306250135.409c9c56%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
>
> I also sweetened the pot and offered to pay full costs of a polygraph
> and, if any of the experts agree that any of your specimens are
> genuine - even ONE of them - I said I'd get you that special on Fox.
>
> If you were really that confident in your claims, you'd jump at this
> chance.
>
> So why are you running from it?
>
>< snip >
--
Jim Lippard lippard-usenet@no-spam http://www.discord.org/
GPG Key ID: 0xF8D42CFE
On 27 Jun 2003, david.sienkiewicz@no-spam (David Sienkiewicz)
tapped on a keyboard and the electrons formed this:
[whatever...]
What the hell are you clowns doing in bc.general and az.general..?
Stay in your k12 playground.
--
Larry Jandro - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
"David Sienkiewicz" <david.sienkiewicz@no-spam> wrote in message
news:35fa3772.0306282046.6c0bd2c5@no-spam
> Larry Jandro <usenet@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<Xns93A7A7BF739A9larryathome@no-spam>...
> > On 27 Jun 2003, david.sienkiewicz@no-spam (David Sienkiewicz)
> > tapped on a keyboard and the electrons formed this:
> > [whatever...]
> >
> > What the hell are you clowns doing in bc.general and az.general..?
> >
> > Stay in your k12 playground.
>
> Sorry for the intrusion. I tend to think that Ed should be exposed
> whereever he posts his claims. Usually, when he posts in newsgroups
> other than those in the sci hierarchy or in talk.origins, it's a
> hit-and-run as we saw.
>
> So we won't be here for long.
I for one appreciate your "intrusion", you are right to draw attention to
hocum et al.
hyp