When I first came across this information, I read about excavators who had dug that site and piled the debris we speak about where the skull cap was found. I also read that these excavators were subject to a lie detector test…of course anyone could fabricate anything. I will see if I can find that original article where I learned about this.
Thanks for the info.
While you’re hunting for info, maybe you could track down those letters that Conrad claims to have received from Jeremy Dahl (formerly of Yerkes) and Jonathan Powell (Teledyne). When someone claims to have evidence in writing about something spectacular, I expect to be able to view a picture of the letter with my own two eyes. If it’s not available, you will understand why I would be very skeptical.
Hi Chris: I am distressed by the possibility that that Taiwanese “scientist” could have posted such a seeming professional looking scientific review for it to be fake. It makes me sick to my stomach what people will do for a buck. And I suppose that CNN can’t weed out all the garbage either. What a world we live in.
I sought to find a way to contact Ed Conrad (is he still alive?) and came across his website with really no pathway for contact. I am interested to learn if this common man, Ed Conrad has found actual human fossils in the carboniferous strata from the coal excavation piles there in PA. this website which does not have a lot of pizzaz, but I’m the kind of person who believes that truth sometimes comes on the back of common more than it does on glitz that all too many times has a money trail or for feeding the flesh.
If I had a few million in the bank, I’d put Conrad on a lie detector if he was willing to see what resulted then if what he says rings true, comb the area Conrad proposes he found human fossils for a search for more… then I’d hire the best scientists in the world to test any find. (I think you’d be a great candidate!)
Can you offer an unbiased opinion about Conrad based on anything worthy from the information on his website here? Does the potential fact that these fossils are found in a pile from coal digs of years ago upset the ability to prove that such a supposed fossil find was indeed carboniferous?
Hi Chris: There is an email address to Conrad on his website…I did not look far enough the first time. I tried the email but it was sent back undeliverable. Did you say you had a good address for him?
If it was a “pretty significant find”, we would be reading about it in “pretty significant” scientific journals. If it was a “pretty significant find”, we wouldn’t have a difficult time finding many mentions of it online. (If nothing else, it would be cited by every Young Earth Creationist website as their very best evidence against evolution!) Instead, it appears that the skull has only been reported on an obscure and definitely insignificant website where anybody can post anything. That doesn’t sound significant to me.
Lie detectors are junk science. That’s why they are rarely admissible in court trials. Polygraphs don’t detect lies. They detect various bodily responses to stimuli, including stern questioning. If a person BELIEVES that a polygraph detects lies, they MAY in some cases exhibit stress responses which MAY in SOME cases lead observers to QUESTION why the subject is showing stress reactions. That’s about it. If you investigate the use of polygraphs in controlled studies where “lie detection” was put to the test, you will discover what I just explained and you will learn why they have such a poor reputation.
A skull spotted on top of some dirt is a find without certain provenance. Period. End of story. The opinions of equipment operators is irrelevant. Adding “lie detectors” to the story only makes it more comical and last resort desperate, not more certain.
How do we know that some prankster didn’t put a human skull into the bucket of the excavation machine while the crew was at lunch? If that sounds far-fetcher, it shouldn’t. There have been several such practical jokes which have wasted the time of paleontologists who were visited by excited crews who thought they were going to make a fortune selling their “discovery” to a museum, only to be told by the paleontology professor a few days later that the clay packed inside of the skull contained a Coca-Cola bottle cap. (The fact that a victim of a practical joke might pass a lie detector test is irrelevant.)
I come from an area of the Midwest where Indian mounds and ancient grave sites are common, I knew farm families who had Native American relics and even bones which had been passed down through the generations of their family since pioneer days. Typically, a great great grandfather had dug up a small Indian mound in hopes of finding “treasure” inside but found those items instead. And during the Depression years, some families thought that they might be able to make more money from their finds if they placed all but one or two relics back into the mound and took the others to the nearby university extension campus. If they were lucky, the archaeology professor would send a couple of graduate students to the farm in order to evaluate the site for a potential excavation. (Of course, they hoped the university would pay them a “rental fee” while using the land.) What the grad students usually discovered was a hopelessly disturbed hole in the ground with limited archaeological value. My favorite story was about the grad student who quickly found the arrowheads that had obviously been reburied by the family—alongside a small steel garden spade and the lost wallet of the teenager whose dad had told him to “seed” the site with the arrowheads. It was later discovered that the arrowheads reburied in the mound were from a different civilization and period than the one known for building such grave mounds, so apparently grand-dad had forgotten where his father had found the arrowheads. There again, lie detector test results wouldn’t change the fact that the excavation site and the provenance of the items were beyond accurate determination. (The Paluxy River Tracks also have their own Depression Era stories where family members hoped to convert “manufactured finds” into quick cash.)
Of course, all of this is of little more than just anecdotal amusement. I’m less interested in a tall tale about an alleged human skull in some particular coal strata than in why one NEVER finds ANY angiosperm’s pollen in ANY ancient strata on the entire planet where one finds fossils of dinosaurs and trilobites, for example. If scientists are wrong and the earth is just a few thousand years old, doesn’t that seem odd?
Did you use the address on his domain registration? I looked up his record and it showed the domain updated/renewed just a few weeks ago. So I’d be amazed if the email address on the registration is invalid just one month later.
Hi Greg,
Once again I admire your persistence and pluck. Unfortunately, I do not have any contact information for Mr. Conrad. I will have to peruse his personal site later, probably this weekend, due to my software project commitments this week.
Blessings,
Chris
I did not find this nor would I know how to. There was an address on his website itself that I tried last night and it came back undeliverable. This is the one: econrad@evenlink.com
I agree mainly with what you say here. People are flaky, egotistical, money hungry and tend to push against anything ultimate other than themselves at times. I have been guilty of all of the above! And the gospel is indeed goodnews for me and now God is becoming more and more my ultimate! As far as people who fool lie detectors -they are highly trained to fool them. There is tremendous science behind them. My cousin an FBI agent has to submit himself to lie detectors I think it was monthly if not weekly and he would be the one more able to fool them.
In light of what you say however, if there is a mainstream viewpoint out there that evolution of a sort that circumvents the idea of God as creator that is established by the ebb and flo of the majority of the scientific community which dictates what is on 99% of science textbooks in grade schools high schools, colleges and these viewpoints are using language that never brings to light opposing views-included the idea of God, which is a perfectly rational argument considering something cannot come from nothing…and there is a find in PA that could point to evidence that is strongly contrary to those views, I do not believe that the science establishment rushes to the scene to investigate. It may do the opposite-run away from it and tarnish anyone who may be trying to bring to light this evidence contrary to the mainstream views (which are lavished with big monetary contracts and reputations)
If I had the resources, I’d look into this. This older man would not be able to fool a lie detector-I beg to differ. I’d test the material he found and if he had evidence that would potentially ruffle a lot of feathers in the cap of evolutionary theorists today because it would debunk their truth claims, I’d seek sponsors to scour that region for new finds and submit for testing.
I really believe that the information in all of these textbooks about evolution in the form displayed that uses language very bold, is tainted by a preconceived believe system and this can become a strong roadblock in their minds that inhibits the flow of new information. Science in and of itself is a belief system because it HAS TO rely on the presupposition that observation of evidence of our deep past is capable to determine what occurred which I believe is very likely miracle after miracle after miracle.
If God can put the universe together, then He can destroy it as easily as He could turn water into wine or give sight to the blind. If this is my viewpoint (and it is mine) then my human reasoning about the deep past is frail at best.
You should contact, by phone, the regional history museum/society in the county where the artifact was said to be discovered.
By the way, I haven’t found a single article that says anyone received lie detector tests. Not even Conrad seems to know THAT story !! …
Problem being the evidence we have shows no indication that creation is the result of a string of miracles. Yes God could create with an appearance of age or an appearance of common descent, but then why would God lie to us like this?
Is there anything in the literature (not the web) on this?
Do you actually examine textbooks, or simply see snippets from them on creationists sites? How do you get your 99% figure? How familiar are you with the scientific community–do you meet scientists? If so which ones?
NOW you are intruding into the topic of separation of RELIGION for public schools. This is a “no go” topic. Creationists are trying to wedge religious versions of creation into public schools. Most BioLogos supporters oppose such initiatives.
The proper place to discuss God’s guidance of Evolution is in Church, Sunday School, Prayer Meetings and the like.
Have you already stated that God did not use the natural laws of Evolution to create species? As far as you are concerned, God invented all life in six days, and the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?
In fact, the reality is almost perfectly opposite of what @grog describes!
When it comes to science books from 1st to 12th grade, Texas Creationists have an overwhelming influence on the book publishers … up to the extent that law allows!
Here is relevant discussion. It points out that the State Government of Texas decided the best way to influence all the Nation’s books was to offer book reimbursement to all the schools and school districts in Texas … IF books they review and approve are the ones purchased! If any other state has tried to compete against Texas, I haven’t heard about it yet …
"When it comes to meddling with school textbooks . . . the difference is due to size - - 4.8 million textbook-reading school children as of 2011 - - and the peculiarities of its system of government, in which the State Board of Education is selected in elections that are practically devoid of voters, and wealthy donors can chip in unlimited amounts ofmoney to help their favorites win.
. . . In 2009, the nation watched in awe as the state board worked on approving a new science curriculum under the leadership of a chair who believed that “evolution is hooey.”
. . . Ever since the 1960s, the selection of schoolbooks in Texas has been a target for the religious right . . . . Texas originally acquired its power over the nation’s textbook supply because it paid 100 percent of the cost of all public school textbooks, as long as the books in question came from a very short list of board-approved options."
“. . . . Julie McGee, who worked at high levels in several publishing houses before her retirement. “If you [each publisher] didn’t get listed by the state, you got nothing.” On the other side of htte coin, David Anderson who once sold textbooks in the state, said that if [your publisher’s] book made the list, even a fairly mediocre salesperson could count on doing pretty well…”
“What happens in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas when it comes to textbooks,” said Dan Quinn, who worked as an editor of social studies textbooks before joining the Texas Freedom Network. . . . As a market, the state was so big and influential that national publishers tended to gear their books toward whatever it wanted."
Go to the Whois.com website and enter Mr. Conrad’s domain. That will bring up the registration record where he apparently updated his information on December 18. His email address is shown. (I don’t want to post his address here because that wouldn’t be appropriate.)
What is your evidence that this is a problem in “the realm of science”? Do you have personal experience in the science academy?
I find it interesting that the people who tend to talk the most adamantly about this alleged problem within the science academy are usually people with zero experience as science professors or published scholars.
Yes. The fact that such training is so effective is clear evidence that “lie detectors” have very limited value in detecting lies. As you said, the results can indicate training rather than lies.
Especially under J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI was well known for various kinds of pseudoscience and miscellaneous reflections of Hoover’s paranoia and his being decades behind in terms of science and reality in general. I have enough personal experience with the FBI to find the claim of weekly polygraphs (or even monthly ones) quite dubious. (Is it possible that your cousin is pulling your leg?) The expense and wasted time on polygraphs would surprise me as a routine procedure for the average agent.
However, it would make sense to me in just one context: agents working undercover. A polygraph is very useful in training (and screening) agents who are going to be placed within various targeted criminal elements, such as drug gangs and white supremacist organizations, and even suspected spy networks. Why? A polygraph is a great way to evaluate an agent’s ability to remain cool and casual under pressure. An undercover agent who sweats bullets and hyperventilates when asked, “Are you a cop?” or “Are you wearing a wire?” is ill-equipped for lying routinely as part of his/her job. So here again, the purpose of the device is not to detect lies. It detects stress reactions.
So if your cousin regularly infiltrates criminal organizations and his/her life depends upon being a good actor, then polygraph testing was probably part of his evaluation. But I’ve never heard of it being used so often with any agent doing more routine FBI work.
Years ago I knew an employee of the bureau who did polygraph testing. He summed up his job quite well in words much like these: “When it comes to ‘lie detection’, a polygraph would work just as well if it were a black box with wires and just randomly moving markers on a paper drum. My job is mainly about watching the subject to evaluate reactions to my interview. Sometimes just the process of wrapping the subject with wires connected to a scary looking device is enough to provoke a plea bargain. On the other hand, many people are so nervous that they react strongly to every question, regardless of their guilt.” He said one of his favorite techniques was to react strongly as he looked at the telemetry printout and repeatedly return to the same question. It convinced a lot of subjects that he was “on to something” and they would start sweating bullets. Unfortunately, he said that the tactic would have the very same impact on an honest subject. Stress is stress.
Customs agents are trained in “lie detection” by looking for telltale signs of extreme stress among those who are smuggling drugs and other contraband. There’s a lot of research underway involving automation for visually detecting metabolic changes. It’s basically an effort to evaluate crowds of people in ways similar to what customs agents do one-at-a-time.
If you go to Google Scholar and search on keywords like “lie detector” and “pseudo-science”, you will find plenty of peer-reviewed articles on this topic.
interesting. I am battling a customer currently who is on a seeming pathway towards not paying what is due. We have treated him so well with absolutely exemplary, sincerely honest work and I know that he knows it. Yet he is telling lie after lie via email about contractual items and taking stabs at my character. I have asked him over and over and over to meet with me face to face to no avail. He asked me why he wanted to meet and I told him that communication is 80% non verbal. I also told him that it would be great for his girlfriend to be in on the conversation. Its easy to lie in an email. Much harder to hide guilt face to face! There is so much Bible and Christian Gospel in that too. 1Jn I think. Tangent
So this guy in PA. So far I don’t get the sense that he is out for a buck. He seems like a person who found something of interest and is on a quest for truth. Would that not be astronomical to have truly found a human fossil in Carboniferous?
My wife homeschools our kids and there textbooks are based in a judeo Christian worldview, yet are very honest! They might say that these such and such geologic layers are interpreted by young earth creationists but then states the honest problems… and interpreted by old earth folks but then records the honest problems there too. I love that.
The middle and high school textbooks we reviewed from the Indian Hill public school district were not that honest and frequently made truth claims that could not be proven true by any stretch.
I am not calling the schools to teach religion. I am calling all science to honesty. I am calling all science to differentiate a law from a hypothesis-especially when it comes to historical science. I am calling science to be honest about fact that it must believe something fluffy and subjective and this is the belief that all scientific observations about natural history are based upon the subjective view that God was not involved. I understand ya’ll that we cannot determine when and where God entered the story, but why the arrogant language that potentially calls clubs, spades based on a subjective belief that God is dead?
Yes, the separation of church and state is a good thing. The minute we try to force Christian belief on folks we have entered a paradigm not Christian. But still naturalistic-Science-that -makes- truth- claims- about- the -history- of -the- earth via naturalistic science, call what you engage here for making such claims just as much a belief system as the Christian does.
I visited this issue of textbooks via another post.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.