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

John Knight jwknight at
Mon Nov 11 17:10:26 EST 2002

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at> wrote in message
news:asdusu0sbbn0pk035mh8o4jngc6p0478ii at
> "John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at> wrote in message
> >news:mt6psuo4a6dunr8patnci9cafb8gbs2h5r at
> >> "John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
> >> >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
> >> >INCLUDE the birth control pill, widespread abortions, and atomic
bombs, could possibly
> >> >be 10,000 years old, can they?
> >>
> >> But we HAVE explained it, and provided you with supporting evidence
> >> that population demographics were not able to support such a growth
> >> rate, and you've ignored that explanation.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, since recorded history is much longer than 1500 years,
> >> your "conservative growth estimates" are inconsistent with known
> >> history.
> >>
> >> But then again you might be trying to convince us that the Roman
> >> empire and its 50 millions took place only a few hundred years ago,
> >> and the Old Testament Israel with its million people at the time of
> >> the Exodus took place less than 600 years ago, which is what your
> >> silly assumption about constant growth rates would require.
> >
> >Nobody's claiming only "constant growth", IDIOT.  There were numerous
> >different growth rates cited, all the way from England's LOW natural
> >rate, to Iran's and Iraq's rampant growth rate.  It's significant that,
> >all these weapons of mass destruction which were USED in the Iran/Iraq
> >their populations STILL managed to increase more than four fold, a rate
> >higher than the world average.
> Bombs are bombs, not "weapons of mass destruction" which usually refer
> to nuclear bombs, and chemical and biological weapons any of which
> would kill *thousands* in a single attack.

Nuclear bombs are petty compared to the weapons of mass destruction used by
the US in JUST the last 6 decades.  According to Japanese sources, 9 million
Japs died in WWII, but only 1/90th as many died of nuclear bombs.

Firestorms in cities like Kyoto and Dresden and Hamburg, and the 2,000 pound
bombs dropped by the truckloads out of B-52s which killed 2 million
Vietnamese, qualify as weapons of mass destruction because they killed
thousands of times more people than nuclear bombs ever have.

> >If war and pestilence cause populations to decrease, then why did their
> >population increase so much?
> 1. Because this is the 20th century, and even 3rd world countries have
> more modern medical care, drugs, food production, and shelter than
> even the best off of countries 200 years ago when "quality medicine"
> meant bloodletting with leeches, and people did not know to wash their
> hands before surgery.

Our "modern medicine" KILLS more people than many wars.  Medical mistakes
alone take more than 100,000 lives per year, the equivalent in American
lives of two Vietnam Wars each year.  The jews who run our "health care
system" have devised more ways to kill Christians through medicine than
we'll ever learn about

And STILL our population is growing at a rate that would put 6 billion
people on the world in only 1,500 years (starting with two people).

> >Your argument was that the Bubonic Plague would have caused a serious
> >decrease in population growth rates, but this was a STUPID argument, and
> >were told why.  And I repeat:  even if disease wiped out a third of the
> >world's population [which Bubonic Plague did NOT], at the known average
> >growth rate of the world population it would take only 25 years to make
> >for it.
> You are still ignoring extremely high infant mortality, death in
> childbirth and a lot of other things. When at most half of kids make
> it to adulthood, and women die in childbirth after 4-5 kids (so that a
> man and a woman manage to produce only 2 kids to replace them),
> population grows slowly if at all.  In 3rd world countries today,
> those women are unlikely to die in childbirth and may have 6 or 8
> children, and 4 or 5 of those will live to adulthood so that a man and
> a woman are replaced by 4 people in the next generation, and
> population doubles every generation.

Fortunately for most parts of the world, they've never even HEARD of a
jewish doctor--and their infant mortality rate doesn't prevent niggers in
Africa from having one of the fastest population growths on Earth, does it?

> The bubonic plague came on top of these other things, in a population
> that was otherwise near zero population growth.  And yes the deaths
> from plague WERE made up, not in 25 years but in 50 or a hundred - the
> only problem is that plague came back every generation and killed a
> few more millions.

Where is your evidence that they had zero population growth?  WHY would they
have had zero population growth when the dumbest niggers in the remotest
parts of Sub-Saharan Africa managed to quintuple their population?

> >And, no, we cannot accept ANY figure from a jew, particularly jew
> >estimate that the Roman  population at his time was 50 million.
> There are many sources other than Jewish ones as to the population of
> the Roman empire.

Which is?

> >It's plausible that Moses led 2-3 million Israelites from Egypt,
> Then you have to explain how 2-3 million people living 3000-4000 years
> ago only have produced 6 billion people today, using your specious
> reasoning.  Actually, since YOU claim that the only descendants of the
> Israelites are Europeans, you only have 1 billion today.

bs.  Nobody ever claimed that they ended up only in Europe.  There's
evidence Israelites were in China, Japan, Korea, India, even southern
Africa, obviously Egypt, Rome, and Greece.

Just because the greatest numbers are in Europe doesn't even imply that this
is the only place they were.  And nobody is claiming that this was 3-4,000
years ago.

> >but it's
> >impossible that there were 50 million Romans at the time of Christ's
> Why is it impossible?

Because 50 million Romans would have been 6 billion people in only 3-4

Even if there were a million Romans, there would have been 6 billion within
5 centuries using the most conservative growth rate.

> >And it's BLASPHEMY for you to claim that Jesus was a jew!
> You speak for the Prince of Lies, so your claims of "blasphemy" are a
> compliment.
> > He was an ISRAELITE, just like Moses was.
> Shall we repeat ourselves a few dozen more times, nincompoop?
> Israelites of the tribe of Judah came to be known as "Jews" after the
> Babylonian Exile.  Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, and thus was a
> Jew; Moses was not of the tribe of Judah; he was not a Jew.
> lojbab

Why does the Holy Bible disagree with you?  Why does the Holy Bible ALWAYS
refer to a member of the Tribe of Israel as an "Israelite", a member of the
Tribe of Judah as "Judah", and a descendant of Jehudi as  a "jew"?

The Hebrew word "Yhudah" appears 762 times in the Old Testament, and every
single time it's translated as "Judah".  Every single place in the New
Testament where the Greek word "Ioudas" appears, it's translated as "Judah".

CONVERSELY, the Hebrew word "Yhudiay" appears in the Old Testament 86 times,
and every single time it's translated as "jew", and the Greek word
"Ioudaios" appears 168 times in the New Testament, and EVERY single time
it's translated as "jew".

The Holy Bible goes to great lengths to explain the huge differences between
jews and Israelites, it never confuses the two races with each other, and it
NEVER refers to a member of the Tribe of Judah as a "jew"!!!

Why is it that you "liberals" can't ever comprehend that?

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list