brain sizes: Einstein's and women's: pop quiz

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at
Mon Aug 19 20:21:52 EST 2002

"John Knight" <johnknight at> wrote:
>Do you think anyone is surprised that you'd "feel" that a question that
>included the word "God" is worded "so grossly"?

The use of the word "God" has nothing at all to do with it.

>> I would like to know what the "theses" in question have to do with
>> feminism.  The issue involved in one of biology and its interaction
>> with religious belief.  As phrased, they appear to be religious
>> questions rather than biology questions, pertaining to God's role in
>> the process.  But of course he thinks he is asking about evolution,
>> which operates whether or not God was involved, and which says nothing
>> about the origin of life, which is unknown.
>Your "reasoning" is exactly the moronic "interpretation" of the Holy Bible
>that permitted feminazism to raise its ugly head in the first place.

I made no interpretation of the Holy Bible in the text above.  I did
make an interpretation of your nincompoop "question"(s), based on the
context in which you first asked it.

>It was a single question about how these MORONS "think" that Americans would
>respond to a three part poll which included those three theses.

I don't much CARE how Americans might respond to a poorly worded poll,
though I might hope that they would spit in your face for having the
nerve to inflict such a thing on them for your obnoxious purposes.
Since the topic is evolution, it doesn't matter what Americans think
anyway.  The world is the way it is, and all the opinion polls won't
change it.  If God set forth evolution as part of His design, why
would He change it merely because Americans don't believe in it?

And it wasn't a "3-part poll", but a "1-part poll" in which you appear
to be limiting people to one of 3 answers.  If it were a "3-part
poll", it might be asked something like "For each of the following
questions, please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, are
neural, disagree, or strongly disagree."

Needless to say "Dunno" is something it is hard to have an opinion on.

>Their response was so limited that 32% of the test wasn't even statistically
>significant, and on 23% that was statistically significant, it was only
>statistically significant because they scored lower than if they'd just
>guessed.  This leaves a whopping 45% of the test to try to measure what they
>knew, which was durn little.  They scored significantly lower than boys on
>24% of the test, and significantly higher on only one question.

The above is a bunch of statistical terminology thrown around in a
meaningless manner.  You don't know what "statistically significant"
means, based on the above gibberish.

>Since they're obviously incapable of answering the question anyway, let's
>not wait around any longer, and answer it for them.  Based on the Gallup
>Poll (a VERY biased source):
>87% of Americans would have answered 1)  God created life.
>9% of Americans would have answered 2)  Life evolved with no help from God.
>4% of Americans would have answered 3)  Dunno.

Thereby proving that you did not consider it three questions, but only
one.  Furthermore, you doctored the actual results reported by Gallup
in 1999 by combining two different answers to the question they asked
into one.  Since poll answers are specific to the EXACT wording of the
question, you really have no idea how people would react to those
specific choices.  Finally, the Gallup question referred to the
development of "humans", not to "life", and you therefore changed the
question in a very significant way from what was actually asked.

Furthermore, the 2001 version of the same Gallup poll questioning,
reported at
which has slightly different results numbers, went into the question
of wording more carefully.  Putting the question into simply
"evolution" vs. "creation", it was 33% who chose "evolution" and 57%
that chose "creation".

Since you insist on going on and on about polls and evolution:
>    In a November 1997 poll by the Gallup Organization that quizzed
> people about their views on the origin of humans, 44 percent agreed
> with the statement, “God created human beings pretty much in their
> present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” 
>     “That’s a lot of people,” Bishop says. “That’s not like it’s some
> small minority position.” 
>     Another 39 percent subscribed to a “theistic evolution” view,
> that humans did develop over millions of years from lower life forms,
> but God guided the process. Only 10 percent said they believe in
> evolution with no participation from God. Seven percent had no
> opinion.

But in a separate poll result on the same page, only 23.3% of almost
12,000 sampled agreed with "God created human beings pretty much in
their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so",
only half the percentage of the Gallup poll from 2 years before.

>Your childish, "liberal", feminazi little games with this question aside,
>this is exactly what the airy fairy faggots at Gallup were trying so
>desperately to conceal:  only 9% of Americans have accepted this "thesis" of

And that is a pure LIE, since you did not correctly state any "thesis
of evolution", and per the above, 33% chose "evolution" when given the
specific choice between "evolution" and "creation" in those words.

>Why is it that you "liberals" are always in the teeny wheeny minority of the
>population all the time?

When did you stop beating your ten wives?

Look at the majority of the voters who voted for Al Gore, and explain
that in terms of your thesis about "liberals".


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list