As long as this chunk of OT spam is being talked about anyway, let me
put in my two cents worth.

edconrad@verizon.net (EdConrad) wrote in message news:<f1fd1794.0411181140.60994425@posting.google.com>...
> The anthropologists and paleontologists of this nation
> are confronted with facts and physical evidence that man existed,
> in almost our present form, long before Charles Darwin and
> his factless theory put us here. They're guilty of a monumental
> cover-up.

Mr. Conrad's political agenda is made quite obvious by his pretense
that evolution is basically a U. S. issue, even as he cites Darwin,
who was an Englishman. The fact is that evolution and paleontology are
studied by scientists from a great many countries.

Furthermore, his pretense that human evolution is merely Darwin's
theory overlooks a huge amount of post-Darwin paleoanthropology. Most
of what's in the fossil record that is connected specifically to human
evolution was found after Darwin. Likewise, most specific ideas about
how humans evolved were formulated after Darwin.

As for his cover-up theory, that is mere paranoia. A cover-up with
that many independent participants is practically impossible,
especially since there are always some scientists ready, willing, and
eager to look into almost any idea that might turn out to have
evidence on its side. Competition and controversy between scientists
with conflicting theories is normal and almost inevitable.

> Isn't it about time someone -- like YOU -- took sides with
> Truth and Integrity and put your foot down.
> > Isn't it about time you helped shove evolution into the garbage truck?

How interesting. He seems to imagine that it is more honest for the
government to impose and enforce beliefs (an action that could only be
anticonstitutional and illegal) than for scientists to be allowed to
communicate about their studies and findings regardless of whom they
agree or disagree with.

> Isn't it about time a spade was called a spade, that my incredible
> discoveries between coal veins -- documented by state-of-the-art
> testing . . .

In spite of himself, he said something that is probably true. He
called his discoveries "incredible", which (strictly speaking) means
"not credible".

Aside from their credibility, he has been awfully coy about the actual
dates of these alleged discoveries. Instead, he keeps saying things
like "between coal veins". Does this mean in a syncline or anticline
or water gap between two places where the same layer of coal is at or
near the surface, perhaps found among the sediments recently deposited
in a stream bed? Or was this a graveyard located between two coal
mines? Or did he murder some people whom he found in some place that
was "between coal veins"? Maybe his "discoveries" need to be
investigated by the police.

If the actual dates supported his conclusions, he should have made
them into a very prominent part of his argument.

> Naturally, catching Oma bien Laden and bringing the peace
> to Iraq are, of course, much higher priorities. . . .

"Oma" who? This hardly supports Mr. Conrad's personal credibility,
which is really the main thing that he bases his argument on.

-- 
Alex Clark

Lard lover do it mom (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)