[meteorite-list] More Muck from Darren

From: Darren Garrison <cynapse_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:37:33 -0400
Message-ID: <pebuc3tb4b73e861p1om6fs4etj5a4f8lh_at_4ax.com>

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:20:24 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>Hi all -
>
>I see that rather than discussing how the new holocene
>start impactites may be marketed, Darren wants to
>persist in insulting my book, without having bothered
>himself to read it.
>

No, I'm not "insulting your book", I'm asking you a direct damn question. And
you sidestepped them and went off on a unrelated tangent, just like I knew you
would and predicted that you would in writing. But I'm not as dumb as the crop
circle and alien astronaut and Roswell aliens crowd that have been giving you
the interviews and reviews that I've found on the web so far (what's that about
birds of a feather?) so I'm not going to be fooled by your asides. Here's the
damn questions. Not insults. Questions. Questions that you have the burden of
proving, not me the burden of disproving, if you want your "science" to be taken
seriously.

Question 1-- By what means do you provide evidence that the creation myths you
cite as being historical accounts are indeed accurate historical accounts?

Question 2-- By what means do you determine WHICH creation myths are accurate
ancient history and which creation myths are just myths, when most creation
myths are mutually contradictory with one another?

Question 3-By what system do you determine that the stories have been
transmitted accurately over 13,000 years by this specific story when no other
equally ancient histories exist anywhere else on the Earth?
 
If the answers to those questions are anything other than the fact that they can
be interpreted to fit the conclusion that you started with, I would be glad to
hear it. Evidence. Not just the assumption that it is accurate. Something
that would have any chance at all of standing up in a peer reviewed journal
instead of a self-published book that you need to visit websites to push. And I
will publicly apologize to you if you provide reasonable evidence to those
questions.

And here are a couple of new questions-the first-do you REALLY believe in a
culture of 7 1/2 foot tall Native Americans, as I found you saying in another of
your advertisements for your book that I found while searching for comprehensive
reviews?

http://www.dailygrail.com/node/3792

>As these Native American people were 7 and a half feet tall,
>all the other peoples remembered them, and remembered their
>wars with them. These traditions and the CTG's archaeological
>remains are set out in rock solid detail in "Man and Impact in the Americas".


And a personal question to satisfy my curiosity-are you a Native American?
Because I can't understand another reason for you to be accepting these accounts
so uncritically unless they border or religion for you.

Oh, one more question-do you have an evidentiary rebuttal to the web sites I
pointed out (among many) that most modern scholars reject your reference story,
or are you going to continue to ignore it just like other hard questions and
continue to whine about "insults"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walam_Olum

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/walam/index.htm

>character and my work: Darren, if you bothered to buy
>yourself a copy of my book, you would not be making a
>FOOL of yourself by making unfounded statements.

You will never get one penny of my money, and being called a fool by someone who
falls for fraudulent fairy tales and 7 1/2 foot tall Indian tribes has no weight
with me. If you had stuck with geological evidence for these impacts, I might
have taken you seriously. But once your credibility is brought into doubt by
things like this
 well, a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Received on Fri 24 Aug 2007 03:37:33 PM PDT