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

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Sun Nov 10 13:44:09 EST 2002


"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:aqhskf$3pp$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article  "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> writes:
> <
> <
> <"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> <news:aqbpmc$gvs$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> <> In article <Iqdy9.5629$Ku.476765 at news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"
> <<jwknight at polbox.com> writes:
> <> <>
> <>         {...}
> <> <>
> <> <
> <> <
> <> <There has been virtually NO instruction or education or even
scientific
> <> <investigation of the simple fact that the world may not be more than
> <10,000
> <> <years old.  If you're a Christian who accepts the Holy Bible 100% as
is,
> <and
> <> <no other source, then you really wouldn't know how old the Earth is,
> <because
> <> <there is no magic figure in the Holy Bible.  If you accept the idiocy
> <from
> <> <jew Carl Sagan as being somewhat credible, then you might not believe
> <that
> <> <creation occurred within the last 10,000 years, so even if you believe
> <every
> <> <single word as written in the Holy Bible, and believe that God created
> <life,
> <> <you still can't select C), can you?
> <> <
> <> <You DO have an "opinion", so you can't honestly select D), though many
> <> <"Christians" may have done so anyway.
> <> <
> <> <You certainly can't accept B), if you're a Christian, which leaves
only
> <one
> <> <choice which is "most like" your opinion--but which doesn't reflect
your
> <> <TRUE opinion, at all, which is A).
> <> <
> <>
> <>
> <> Oh, stop it.  You're just embarrassing yourself now.  Not to mention
being
> <> offensively patronizing to those Christians who knew exactly what they
> <thought
> <> and, to your horror, stood up and said it.
> <>
> <> Incidentally, even the most rabid and unyielding of the Young Earth
> <> Creationists now routinely offer a figure of 7,000-10,000 years for
> <> the age of the earth, based on what they feel is sound scriptural
> <> interpretation.  You're way out of step with your fellow know-nothings.
> <>
> <>
> <> -- cary
> <>
> <>
> <>
> <
> <
> <But they cannot explain how a human population which would grow from 2
> <people to 6 billion people in less than 1,500 years, using the MOST
> <conservative population growth estimates known to man, growth rates which
> <INCLUDE the
> <birth control pill, widespread abortions, and atomic bombs, could
possibly
> <be 10,000 years old, can they?
> <http://christianparty.net/population.htm
> <
>
>
> The "MOST conservative growth estimates known" to those who actually
> study this sort of thing are zero percent -- typical of hunter-gatherers,
> who represent all but the most recent flicker of the history of our
> species.  Zero, or when times get bad, negative.  Why do you think
> every "primitive" culture has had its fertility rituals, and why do
> you think contemporary cultures do not?  Why do you think the great
> majority of all cultures in human history have vanished?
>

Who do you accuse of "thinking" that "the great majority of all cultures in
human history have vanished"?  This is your argument, not reason.  You
"liberals" claim that 3-6 million  Israelites just "vanished", but most
Europeans know that they're the genetic descendants of the Israelites.
Modern jews claim to be descendants of the Moabites, Edomites, and
Ashkenazi, so they don't claim to have just "vanished".  Iranians trace
their ancestry straight back to Babylon, and they don't claim to have just
"vanished".  Italians are mostly descendants of the Romans, modern Greeks
are direct descendants of the Greeks who built the Parthenon, and they both
give regular tours of the structures built by their ancestors, so you can't
claim that they just "vanished".

Not even the Khazars, who lasted only a century after converting to
"Judaism", just "vanished"--they're now pretending to be "jews" and using
that as the excuse to take over "Israel".

> The Amazon Basin has been occupied for considerably longer than your
> 1500 years.  Why do you think it remains sparsely populated, as opposed
> to featuring wall-to-wall Yanomami? Why is the Arctic not shoulder to
> shoulder with Inuit?

And you have a calendar which shows how long the Yanomami have been in the
Amazon?  Or do you take their word for it (or do they even make such a
claim)?  You have not a clue how long they've been there, do you?
>
> A rate of growth of even 1% is a very recent phenomenon.
>
>
>
> You can do arithmetic, I will allow you that.  You just can't do math.
>

Why would a 1% growth rate be a "recent phenomenon" when even niggers in the
basest parts of Africa (but who HAVE benefitted from abortion and the birth
control pill to "control their population"), but who DID die by the millions
from starvation, wars, pestilence, draught, saw their populations skyrocket,
all the way from three fold in Ethiopia to four fold in Swaziland?

Can you name even one African country which experienced LESS than 1% per
year annual growth?  NO.

We have documented evidence that the Bablyonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans,
even some niggers in Africa, developed agriculture right from the get-go, so
they can't be classified as "hunter-gatherers" [whatever THAT feminazi word
is supposed to mean].

Only a handful of countries have experienced growth rates less than 1% per
year, and most of the reason for their low population growth is emigration
to other countries (like the US).

Where is your evidence that this is a "recent phenomenon"?

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list