@farmerman,
Bewildered, when you first started your trip here in A2K (about 2 weeks ago), you first posed as a student who was open minded, abit naive in demanding help, but still somewhat persistent in searching out samples of your questions.
In retrospect, you immediately seemed to ignore the actual evidence of real "tissue fossils" from paleo literature or archeological evidence (bog people, mummies etc). You seemed focused on the ED Cob=nrad specimens which have a definate Cretionist schpiehl attached to them
!specimens are accompanying the geology of an very ancient world.
2Implication that humans lived during deep geological time
OR
3Deep geological time is a bogus concept and the world and all its contents are but a few thousand years old.
These are the conclusions drawn by the Conrad acolytes. (Are you omne?). Getting "experts to agree with you , specially if you prurposely deny any competent mineralaogists or paleontologists from having a view, is easy. There are tons of Creationist anatomists and physicians who would use their limited worldviews to pass on their credo.
If you want folks to even believe your stuff, youve gotta hone your pitch so that your supporters and some of the critics arent able to post their own stuff on the web ner yours.
Im mostly amused at the brain specimen. I think youve got optic specimens from that mixed in here and yet noone seems to give a damn that there are HUMAN FINGERPRINTS on the silicate framework , coearly showing that the specimen was an artifact constructed by human hands acting on a brain specimen. That fact alone rules out that this was anything but an archeological specimen of dubious age. A competent scientific journal of this specimen wouldnt be all full of questions that imply this was from some vanishd age where super humans lived with dinosaurs (especially since it came out of the soil near a creek in Tennessee).The journal would treat this specimen like the FORENSIC CASE that it was. In forensics (and Im surprised that the eminent anatomist in charge didnt call this out), the context and the environment of the specimen is equally important as the specimen itself, (A procedure that seems to have been avoided completely in your presentation and the "Large crayon sized letters" of the supportive headlines that you posted.
There is much associated posting and web site creation by Creation style ministris who have jumpd on the brain and Conrads long "bones" as EVIDENCE for their ministries. I say NOT SO FAST. I havent seen any real published data other than these web sites. WHere is a batch of competent scientists, so convened to evaluate this with the assignemnt to publish in some journal that is pwer reviewed. EVEN were the brain another Piltdown hoax or "Cardiff Giant" the interest alone in the means of preservation and geochemistry and microscopy would make an article that the Journal of Forensic SCiences would be interested in publishing (IMHO).
The ball is in your court bunky. You brought all this up and a few of us have voiuced skepticism. We havent seen anything but what you selectively released to the world. If you dont want to let other associated scientists look at these specimens, that is very telling as concerning your motives in this.
Im ot interesetd in winning anything, I havent made any claims that the long bones are "CArboniferous" you did. I dident imply that the human brain was a fossil of natural origin , you did. LAstly, I didnt agree with your biotic origin of the meteorite (enough evidence to a counter conclusion has been presented by Stanford University and NASA).
Youve got your tasks cut out ofr you Id venture to say.
