brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Thu Aug 1 19:05:21 EST 2002


johnknight at usa.com (John Knight) wrote:
>How do you know that?  Did the jews tell you this?  Is this how you
>"learned" this "fact".  The Holy Bible, which was widely read at that
>time, never claimed the world is flat.

It did claim in multiple places that there were four corners, which
claim makes no sense unless the world is flat and rectangular:

Isa.11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall
assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of
Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four
corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the
wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Can you tell me exactly where those four corners are, O nincompoop?

>Now we have written evidence
>that numerous civilizations around the world, 500 BC and even earlier,
>knew the world was not flat.

But not apparently the author(s) of the Bible.

>> > It, in fact, is a STUPID supposition piled knee deep on top of faulty
>> > assumptions which bear no resemblance to the scientific term "theory".
>> 
>> Nope.  You're probably thinking of Natural Selection, which is debatable.
>> Evolution is not.
>
>I agree that "evolution is not" debatable.  The reason I agree that
>it's not debatable is that you don't have a SINGLE bone that even
>suggests that the very first homo sapiens didn't look exactly like the
>most recent model.

The most recent model doesn't look exactly like the most recent model.
Do you look exactly like Jesse Jackson, Mahatma Gandhi, Mao Zedong,
Queen Elizabeth, Hillary Clinton, and Ella Fitzgerald?

>The ONE great white hope for "evolutionists" was Neanderthal Man, who
>they claimed was an ancestor to homo sapiens,

False.

>The other FALSE claim was the "Cro Magnon Man", which is an obvious
>hoax to anyone who's ever been there.

Ignorant fool. Cro Magnon was homo sapiens.

>Japanese boys don't have that problem because they have men teachers
>who CAN understand what they are taught about a wide range of
>subjects, not the least of which is religion and calculus.

Most Japanese aren't Christians, and they also teach evolution there.

>> So they should only need a third of that 8%, right?  So how does using too
>> much make education bad?
>
>There's an economic principle called "the law of diminishing returns"
>which private industry MUST obey, but which government never does. 

If it was truly an economic principle, then government would have no
choice but to obey it, silly.

>When government has too much money to spend for something, it starts
>to spend it for all kinds of trivial and irrelevant pursuits and the
>original goal is forgotten. We were capable of teaching calculus to a
>large percentage of American students when education spending was only
>4% of GDP,

We were?  What percentage of American kids took calculus when
education spending was only 4% of GDP?

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list