BLASPHEMY: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Tue Dec 10 13:17:42 EST 2002


"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:4upbvuc0jeiloo7ku2io1cn03sskqrv207 at 4ax.com...
> JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
> >Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >>JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
> >>>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >>>>No.  Since there is no evolutionary theory that suggests that humans
> >>>>are descended from monkeys.
> >>>
> >>>Sure there is. In fact that's exactly what the theory does, it
> >>>"suggests" that men have apes for ancestors.
> >>
> >>Maybe to you who cannot read English, but to anyone else who actually
> >>reads the theory of evolution as described in science books, it
> >>usually STATES explicitly that men did NOT have apes as ancestors.
> >
> >Maybe you do not know anything WRT what normal, common folks think.
>
> Then normal, common folks need to be educated.
>
> >A short observation made at the infamous "Scopes Monkey trial" shows
> >that everyone knew that scientists were saying in so many words that
> >men evolved from apes....
>
> http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/hunt192.htm
>
> is the textbook that Scopes used in his classes.  It does not say that
> men evolved from apes.  It says just as we do that men and apes are
> kinds of primates and are thus related.
>


Apples and oranges are kids of fruits and thus are kinda related--but that
doesn't mean that an apple "evolved" from an orange or a "common ancestor",
any more than it means that humans and apes had a "common ancestor".

Don't you "evolutionists" ever think it's kinda strange that the bones of
not a SINGLE "common ancestor" have EVER been found?  You make all kinds of
wild assumptions, and claim it to be "science".  You claimed that
Neanderthal and homo sapiens were "related", or had a "common ancestor", or
are "related".  DNA evidence comes along and PROVES you're wrong, you
haven't found ONE single fossile which even BEGINS to demonstrate such
"speciation", yet "evolutionists" are so dedicated to their "religion" of
"evolution" that you continue to make these STUPID and wild claims.

You're utter morons.



> >the current scientific mantra which only 50% of the
> >current scientists believe (if John stats are correct).
>
> They aren't, and only a nincompoop would think that they are.
>

I agree with you that NOTHING from the jew controlled, now discredited
Gallup Organization can ever be accepted at face value, ever again
http://christianparty.net/gallup.htm

With the way Gallup frames their questions, if they report that "Among
scientists, only 5 percent hold the literal Bible view, 40 percent believe
in theistic evolution and a majority, 55 percent, believe in evolution
without help from God" [which they did], then the odds are pretty high that
far less than 55% of American "scientists" are "evolutionists"
http://christianparty.net/gallupcreationscientists.htm

If Gallup were to poll normal American scientists, rather than concentrating
on their fudge packing jew buddy "scientists", this figure would undoubtedly
drop to less than 25%.

You "liberals" might be fooled by this way jews have of making their 1.9%
proportion of the American population appear to be 40%, but the rest of
Americans just don't buy this bs.  This is why, even after DECADES of you
"liberals" preaching "evolution" in our "public" "schools", 91% of Americans
still do NOT accept your little "theory" of evolution.

This little 9% BLASPHEMOUS minority group needs to be exiled from this
putative Christian nation.

After four decades of this nonsense, you've left us no choice.

John Knight







More information about the Neur-sci mailing list