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

Jd JDay123 at
Wed Dec 11 16:58:05 EST 2002

John Knight wrote: 

>"Jd" <JDay123 at> wrote in message
>news:3df551ae.5867183 at
>> Cary Kittrell wrote:
>> >Jd's been saying this and similar things from the first time this
>> >topic came up, and I STILL cannot understand what he's trying to
>> >say -- not as bad as John' mysterious personal version of the
>> >theory of evolution, with it's inter-species hybrids, but it
>> >verges on it.  Jd, in what way would a series of species whose
>> >evolutionary descendents included humans have violated "biological
>> >breeding rules"?
>> >
>> >-- cary
>> No matter how you slice it, the ancestors of humans would by
>> evolutionary definition be in inferior species, which is in
>> opposition to what the bible says about humans being created after
>> the likeness of God (a superior being) and His methodology of
>> replenishing the earth whereby life forms having within themselves
>> the ability to reproduce themselves... do so without relying on
>> evolutionary forces, with man having dominion over the other life
>> forms from the getgo, not gradually evolving onto the top of the
>> food chain...
>> Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
>> yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,
>> whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
>> Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature
>> that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
>> kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was
>> good.
>> Genesis 1:27-28  So God created man in his own image, in the image
>> of God created he him; male and female created he them.  And God
>> blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
>> replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish
>> of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living
>> thing that moveth upon the earth.
>> Besides, since the "common ancestor" theory could be extended all
>> the way back to an ameoba, I couldn't ever possibly even begin to
>> hope to partially list 1/1 billionth of the biological breeding rule
>> difficulties involved in getting from there to a trilobite.
>> Jd
>Well said, Jd.
>There's another anamoly in the "theory" of evolution that's been revealed by
>the DNA studies, which is that the difference in the DNA structure of an
>amoeba and a human is something less than 20%.
>Needless to say, this extra 20% packs a heck of a whallop.
>By what process could such intelligent information be added to an amoeba
>through "evolution"?
>The point is that it's already impossible, regardless of the amount of time
>available, for 2.4 million base pairs to just randomly arrange themselves in
>the sequence necessary to create an amoeba, and going from that to a human
>compounds the complexity by an incomprehensible amount.
>"Evolutionists" just don't seem to appreciate the complexity of the problem,
>nor the fact that "intelligence" was REQUIRED to put these base pairs into
>the proper order (not to mention the organic chemistry required to create
>the protein base pairs in the first place, understanding the minute
>differences between DNA that produce huge differences in the final product,
>John Knight

Exactly. Evolutionists like the Cary and Bob versions, avoid all the
complications from the getgo by saying 'one species gave birth to
another species over a real long period of time' or words to that

It's as if  '.....long period of time'  puts their brains in some
sort of trance-like state which allows them to contridict their own
rules of science where nothing is believed unless evidence exists.  

They simply don't have the evidence of what they say occurred
'....over a long period of time' because it can't occur according to
biological breeding rules.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list