brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
nospam at spam.com
Wed Jul 17 21:11:22 EST 2002
"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in
news:a7iZ8.4796$Fq6.252191 at news2.west.cox.net:
> "GodEvolved" <nospam at spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns924CF201DEFF6nospamcom at 220.127.116.11...
>> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in
>> news:rRJY8.63879$P%6.4315616 at news2.west.cox.net:
>> > "Angilion" <angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:3d333c95.21227708 at news.freeserve.net...
>> >> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:18:30 GMT, "John Knight"
>> >> <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>> >> >"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:ce660175.0207141147.10aa9d8 at posting.google.com...
>> >> >> John Knight wrote:
>> >> [..]
>> >> >> >But to the rest of the normal people in the country, namely
>> >> >> >the 91% who reject this "theory" of evolution,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do you have a cite for this claim? (A non-subjective one)
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, it's a bit difficult to come up with a "non-subjective"
>> >> >cite for public opinion, as public opinion is precisely
>> >> >that--subjective.
>> >> >
>> >> >The Gallup Poll, where it has its serious credibility problems,
>> >> >shows
>> > that
>> >> >only 9% of Americans accept the "theory of evolution" as its been
>> >> >historically defined:
>> >> >http://christianparty.net/gallupcreation.htm
>> >> Well, the sample size is large enough (1000) *if* it was a random
>> >> selection from across the whole of the USA, and it does show that
>> >> only 9% of the people questioned believe that God had *no part*
>> >> in the development of humanity.
>> >> It is evidence that most people in the USA do not believe in the
>> >> theory of evolution. It is not evidence that the theory of
>> >> evolution is wrong, nor is it evidence that the theory of
>> >> creationism is right. There cannot be any evidence of the latter,
>> >> by definition, as it is a matter of faith.
>> >> As an aside, why do you believe that all known forms of dating
>> >> material are wildly incorrect? If humanity is only 3000 or 6000
>> >> years old (both figures are given on the above website), all the
>> >> dating of all human remains or human-created items older
>> >> than 3000?6000? years must be wrong. Or are you arguing that
>> >> there were people on Earth before humans?
>> > The main problem with these long timeframes are the known
>> > population growth rates of humans, which are mostly linked to
>> > http://christianparty.net/population.htm
>> > To summarize, at the rate the US population grew (not counting
>> > immigration), with abortion and the pill, it would take only 1,200
>> > years to grow from 2 people to 6 billion. Even at the slow rate
>> > the UK has grown lately, it would take only 1,800 years.
>> > Now without the pill and abortions, it would take only 900 years,
>> > and at the rate African populations grow, only 600 years.
>> Do you account for Acts of God which may result in draconian
>> reduction in population, locally *and* globally? Such things as
>> earthquakes, heat waves, cold snaps, mountains explodin, tornadoes,
>> desease, accidents, wild predators who enjoy muching on your
>> children, pissing off your
>> king, molten rock which flows out of a perfectly good mountain for no
>> particular reason, rainfalls which last for weeks followed by really
>> impressive flooding?
> Yes, of course. These population growth rates during the last 50
> years that are so well documented included all of the above, plus
Are you suggesting that people die now of natural disasters at the same
rates as those in ages past?
> some. It included the low birth rates of countries like the US
> resulting from rampant abortion and birth control pill usage, which is
> a relatively new condition. It included the rampant AIDS and cancer
> epidemics which may be as bad as or even worse than some other
> historic epidemics. It included the tens of millions of Africans who
You're deluding yourself.
> murdered each other in coups, wars, and sheer acts of genocide, which
> may be nothing new, but which were made more efficient with modern
> weapons. It included the Korean and Vietnam and Gulf "wars" which
> used some of the finest military technology to kill people in ways
> that were inconceivable up until just a century ago.
> There's a widespread misperception that the Great Flood described in
> the Holy Bible was a worldwide flood, but this is a translation error.
> The original Hebrew confirms that it was a local flood. It did drown
You wouldn't know original Hebrew from UT-translated Klingon if your life
depended on it.
> almost all the people in that area, but those who survived were
> documented. And the problem, as you can see, is that these known
> population growth rates mean that it could not have been that long
> ago, particularly since there were already millions of other people
> around the world who were out of the flood area.
Actually, I don't know that anyone's argued that the Flood was all that
long ago, relatively speaking.
> John Knight
"...What you have to understand, young lady, is that the Greeks, not
content with dominating the culture of the Classical world, are also
responsible for the greatest, some would say the only, work of true
creative imagination produced this century as well. I refer of course to
the Greek ferry timetables. A work of the sublimest fiction. Anyone who
has travelled the Aegean will confirm this..." Professor Watkin - Dirk
Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
More information about the Neur-sci