brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Wed Nov 6 16:01:21 EST 2002


"Dave Wilson" <testaccount2002 at btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:3DC280A4.2040308 at btopenworld.com...
> John Knight wrote:
> > "Dave Wilson" <testaccount2002 at btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:3DBF321D.1020709 at btopenworld.com...
> >
> >>Cary Kittrell wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article  "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> writes:
> >>><
> >>><
> >>><"Dave Wilson" <testaccount2002 at btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> >>><news:3DBA9B4F.6040104 at btopenworld.com...
> >>><> Cary Kittrell wrote:
> >>><> >
> >>><> >     Although it is seldom aired in public, there is a sharp debate
> >>><> >     among scientists today about almost every aspect of
> >>
> > evolutionary
> >
> >>><> >     theory. The controversy is not over evolution per se, but over
> >>><> >     the means by which it happened. The crux of the issue is not
> >>><> >     evolution, but teleology
> >>><> >
> >>><> >
> >>><> > <and it's not the other 91% of Americans who are the STUPID ones.
> >>><> >
> >>><> > Of course, out of the "91%" you claim, 4% had no opinion,
> >>><> > so right there we have a typical John Knight non-Jewish LIE --
> >>><> > rather like the that plus-or-minus 3% margin of error in the
> >>><> > TIMSS which you arbitrarily decided needed to be minused
> >>><> > from those poor girls' scores (another non-Jewish LIE)--
> >>><> > and another 40% say the believe that "Human beings have
> >>><> > developed over millions of years from less advanced forms
> >>><> > of life, but God guided the process".  Hardly sounds like
> >>><> > Genesis to me.  Sounds more like intelligent Christians.
> >>><
> >>><
> >>><
> >>><First of all, you already know that this is an intentionally
misleading
> >>><question, don't you, cary?
> >>><
> >>>
> >>>Of course not, my increasingly desperate friend.  Now pay attention,
> >>>and you'll find this is VERY simple.  If someone asks you:
> >>>
> >>>    "Human beings have developed over millions of years from
> >>>    less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>but you think the world is 5000 years old, then you answer NO.
> >>>
> >>>Can you say "oh!"?  I knew that you could.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I doubt that the devout 40% who answered "yes" would appreciate your
> >>>trying to rescue your indefensible position by by telling them
> >>>how they REALLY meant to respond, if only they weren't dumb as dirt.
> >>>I thought you had a higher regard for your 264 million that that.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>No Cary, I'm sure that John is right again, and none of the 'majority of
> >>Christians', who at his alleged 264 million out of the total population
> >>of 280 million (pretty good going there, John)  saw any conflict
>>between  evolution over the few-thousand-year
> history they all truly >>beleive in and a Bible that makes no mention
> (AFAIK) of *any* species >>evolving over the whole of recorded time from
> creation up to AD0 or >>later.
> >
> >
> > Let's take this a step at a time:  two different sources, Infoplease and
> > Gallup, report that 86% of the 290 million Americans today (or 249.4
> > million) are "members of a church".  Infoplease measures it by reports
from
> > the churches themselves and Gallup measures it by polling people
directly.
> > Another 7% of Americans claim to be Christians even though they don't
belong
> > to a church (kind of like Thomas Jefferson), for a total now of 269.7
> > million Christians in the US
> > http://christianparty.net/christianpopulation.htm
> >
> > Do you have a better reference than the above?  No?
> >
> > THEN SHUT UP and accept it as a FACT.
>
>
> First, I noticed you snipped the last part of my post (reinstated
> above), presumably because you couldn't respond to it.
>
> First, define 'church' - did that
>
> According to the CIA world factbook, the US population as at July 2002
> was estimated at  280,562,489.
> Their (admittedly 1989) figures for religions were
> Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10%
>

288.4 million Americans as of 12:30 EST today
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

> I'd assume those percentages to be relatively stable. Even assuming the
> 4% 'other' as some form of Christian, that's still leave 12%
> non-christian, or 249 milion christians (88%) in total, assuming the 4%
> are non-christian would give 238 million (84%). Your stated 264 million
> would have meant 94%, which seemed just too high, given how many
> liberals, atheists and jew you seem to be tormented by.
>

The point is that there just aren't that many feminazis, jews, faggots, nor
"liberals" around to be tormented by.  They're mostly one and the same
[read: most jews are "liberals", faggots, and feminazis, and since jews are
only 1.9% of the population, this entire sect can't be much larger than 2%].

Who, then, are the other 8% of the 10% who claim to not belong to a church?

Men like Thomas Jeffereson, who wrote profusely "I am a real Christian", but
who was accused by church leaders themselves to NOT be a Christian just
because he didn't attend their church?

Mr. Jefferson was a FAR, FAR better Christian than jew Billy Graham, or Pat
Robertson, or any of the other "judeo-Christian" ministers who LIE daily on
our national airwaves.

These CIA figures show 84% to be members of churches, up to 8% of this 10%
could be Christians like Mr. Jefferson, and usually "other" includes the 1%
who are Mormons who do profess a belief in Jesus Christ, for a total of 93%
who may be Christians.

Do we KNOW this?  No.  SHOULD we know this?  With jews running Gallup, you
can bet that they'll never be the source to reveal the facts.  Could it be
less than 93%?  Maybe.

But maybe not.

The most conservative statement would be that between 85% to 93% of
Americans are Christians, and that figure will rise as soon as the jews are
gone (which won't be very long now if our own poll is any indicator
http://christianparty.net/poll.htm ).


> Looking at the Gallup Millenium religious survey, as reported at
> http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itsv/0397/ijse/gallup.htm
> "Fifty-six percent [of Americans] are churched -- people who are members
> of a church or have attended services in the previous six months, other
> than for special religious holidays."
>

The jews who run Gallup are bending over backwards to distort the results of
their own polls, as evidenced by their actions at censoring the FACTS about
abortion from the internet http://christianparty.net/gallup.htm

Gallup has NEVER been able to get their faggot polls straight, reporting
that only 43% of Americans would vote for laws banning sodomy at the very
same time that 70% of American voters passed laws banning sodomite marriages
http://christianparty.net/sodomy.htm

So, when their own polls show that 55% were members of Protestant churches,
24% were members of the Catholic Church, 1% were members of the Orthodox
Church, 1% were members of the Mormon Church (for a total of 81% who are
Christians)

http://christianparty.net/gallupchristians.htm

 you must question why a Gallup "poll" would report that only "Fifty-six
percent [of Americans] are churched".




> Also, the Gallup survey showed the usual negative correlation between
> intelligence and educational level on the one hand, and religious belief
> on the other.
>
> http://senrs.com/still_one_nation_under_god.htm
>
> was interesting as well.
>

What this negative correlation indicates is that affirmative action has been
a "success" [read: all the IDIOTS now attend our "institutions of higher
learning", while the intelligent Americans have become the productive
workers who keep the economy afloat and the taxes paid].

>
> >
> > Have you EVER seen ANY species "evolve", much less "speciate", from one
> > species to another?  No.  Have you ever met anyone who has?  NO.
> >
> > Can you EVER produce one single shred of *scientific* evidence that
> > speciation ever did, could, or possibly WILL occur?  NO.
> >
>
> Yes - bucketloads of evidence. Plants that change their chromosome
> numbers by doubling up, and then cease to be interfertile with members
> of what were their species are not uncommon. Nuclear and mitochondrial
> DNA analysis can easily show the connectedness of related species.
> Analysis of geographically isolated populations of insects and higher
> animals (the Hawiian islands are an excellent natural laboratory) can
> show extremely good evidence for evolution of species and adaptation to
> different conditions.
>

Which is NOT "evidence".  It is SPECULATION, piled high and deep, poured on
all levels, but NONE of *this* is proof of "speciation" or even "evolution".

> Mutations happen all the time. It is obvious to anyone with a biological
> education that it is entirely possible for a single mutation to result
> in huge push towards speciation (the reduction of fertility between
> members of a species posessing the mutation, and those who do not). Once
> there is relative isolation, there is more chance for subsequent changes
> in one or other branch to enhance the separation to the point where true
> speciation results.

The PROBLEM, of course, is that you have not ONE single fossile, photograph,
bone, picture, or any other solid visible evidence of ANYTHING that
represents the cross between two different "species", which is REQUIRED for
"speciation".  Do you?

>
> The results of evolution are all around for anyone with open eyes to
> see. That's why the overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution
> as by far the best theory around.
>

But you're ignoring the affirmative action which created these "biologists",
coupled with the fact that 91% of Americans have NOT accepted this as a
"theory" at ALL, coupled with the fact that almost half of American
"scientists" don't even accept it as a "fact".
http://christianparty.net/gallupcreationscientists.htm

You might believe it--but you ARE in the minority, and you ARE a fool.

>
> > ...it's a true testament to the TRUTH, objectivity, and honesty of the
> > Holy Bible that 90% did NOT accept this jew nonsense, isn't it?
>
> Your 10%/90% split is wrong. The survey showed that 40% also say they
> believe that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from
> less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process".
>

You need to read up on this red herring question
http://christianparty.net/gallupcreation.htm

> Just calling something 'jewish' because it's beyond your comprehension,
> or doesn't square with your narrow beliefs really doesn't make your
> attempts at argument any better. It just shows up your woeful ignorance
> and bigotry.
>

Except that what you claim to be "narrow beliefs" are beliefs shared by up
to 93% of Americans, and in this specific case, less than 9% support your
"theory" of evolution.

Plus, as many as 91% want to exile these jews that you claim we're "bigoted"
against http://christianparty.net/poll.htm

>
>
> >>Honestly, you'd think that even with all that begatting and marrying
> >>close relations going on, someone in the bible would have noticed the
> >>rapid pace of evolution and asked another character
> >
> >
> > Whew.  First of all, in this country, less than 3% of all marriages are
> > "interracial marriages".  Second of all, a jew marrying a nigger ain't
> > "speciation", "evolution", legal in most countries, nor moral even in
the
> > jewSA.
> >
> > No wonder you "believe in evolution":  you can't even comprehend what it
is.
> >
> > If you COULD learn what it is, you would not "believe in evolution".
> >
>
> Once again your lack of comprehension of humour shows itself like a
> brighly burning bush. What I said was *despite* all the breeding and
> suchlike going on in the Bible, if evolution (whether purely
> mechanistic, or God-directed) had taken place over anything like the
> supposed biblical timescale for the existence of the Earth, then someone
> around at the time would be likely to have noticed, and mentioned it
> somewhere. They didn't.
> Given that you had snipped my earlier comment about evolution in
> biblical timescales in general, not merely among humans, I suppose you
> could be forgiven for your mistaken assumption that I was making any
> reference to interfaith of interracial marriages, or the lack of the same.
> I was wondering where your idea that black/jewish marriages are
> generally illegal outside the USA comes from, or what you fear from such
> relationships anyway?

The Holy Bible goes to great lengths to describe a process by which to
preserve one's race, all the way to exiling the children born to "foreign"
[read: non-Israelite] wives from the land, and banning bastards from the
"Congregation of the Lord" to the tenth generation.

This goes back several thousand years, at least--and now you have to ask
"where your idea that black/jewish marriages are generally illegal outside
the USA comes from"?

It was prohibited for an Israelite to marry a jew, but it was the DEATH
PENALTY for an Israelite tomarry a nigger--and you need to ask "where" this
comes from?

Try peeking in your dog-eared copy of the Holy Bible.

>
>
> Anyway I must apologise to Cary for entering this thread and possibly
> distracting John from the main question he was asking, so I'll
> restate/rephrase it here
>
> John, A simple question :
> Of your 84-94% of Americans who claim to be christians, roughly how many
> of them (% figures please) actually believe in:
>
> a) the creation of every creature in its current form, a
> few-thousand-year-old earth, and *no* evolution?
>

Even Gallup polls show that only 29% of Americans oppose the teaching of
creation in public schools.  If 93% of Americans are Christians, and if all
of the 7% who are not Christians oppose the teaching of creation, then it's
possible that 22% who oppose the teaching of creation are Christians who
don't want the public schools to confuse their own children with such an
important subject, particularly since they've already proven that they can't
even teach math.
http://christianparty.net/gallupcreation.htm

So the best guestimate is 89%.

> b) An earth at least millions of years old, and current species arising
> from others by a process of God-guided evolution.
>

2%

> c) An earth at least millions of years old, and current species arising
> from others by a process of nod-God-guided evolution.
>

9%

> d) Other (please specify)
>
> Dave W.
>

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list