brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Sat Oct 5 21:11:41 EST 2002


"Dave Wilson" <testaccount2002 at btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:3D9EB23E.6020204 at btopenworld.com...
> Jd wrote:
> >
> > For your information, philosphers have been addressing evolution for
> > centuries.  It wasn't until the 18th century that science entered
> > the discussion.  In other words, your Lord Darwin did not invent
> > evolution like Al Gore did not invent the internet.
> >
> > It's people like me and Mr. Knight who keep you guys from perverting
> > dictionaries, encyclopdias and bibles and turning civilization into
> > mass meanigless chaos.
> >
> > Jd
> >
>
> Given that 'science' (especially biology) is the obvious descendent of
> 'Natural Philosophy', your distinction between the two is puzzling.
> Likewise, Darwin's idea didn't just suddenly appear from nowhere - he
> was influenced by the thinking of previous thinkers.
> In science, ideas *can* be speculated upon for quite a while before
> being developed, put on a proper footing, and codified by a particular
> person.
> How much is the result of that one individual's own inspiration is
> irrelevant to science (though maybe not to history), what matters is
> whether what they have said stands up to scrutiny.
>
> Dave Wilson
>

Darwin was not a scientist.  At the time of his education, there WERE
scientific models to follow, but he didn't follow them because he wasn't
educated in them and didn't even understand how to write a hypothesis or a
theory.  Even though he went to the seminary, he never even finished his
schooling there either, so he didn't even understand anything that had been
written thousands of years before him about history, sociology, biology,
medicine, etc.  Socrates proved 2,500 years ago that the Greeks knew far
more about these things than Darwin could ever hope to understand by trying
to educate himself on some cruise around the world.

So when Jd said "your Lord Darwin did not invent evolution like Al Gore did
not invent the internet", he's 100% correct because Darwin's "theory" was a
REGRESSION in human intellect from Socrate's time.  Darwin didn't move
thinking forward--he moved it BACK to some time prior to 500 BC.

The term "science" DOES apply to Socrates' writings, the Holy Bible, the
Koran, but it does NOT apply to anything Darwin ever wrote, by definition.

Yes, he did write "The Origin of Species", but even he admitted that this
was NOT a scientific exposition, it was NOT based on the science
methodology, and that he was not even qualified to make such a claim.  He
collaborated with real scientists, almost none of whom agreed with his
postulation.  This disagreement was based on SCIENCE, not just "religion",
so it's just plain flat incorrect to claim that "evolution" is either
"science" or a "theory".

The Holy Bible is the most accurate SCIENCE in the world, which is why it's
the best selling book in human history.  American "scientists" have proven
time and again that where they contradict the Holy Bible, they are wrong.
Half of American "scientists" believe in "evolution", compared to only 9% of
Americans, and this is an indictment of our POOR "education" system rather
than this Christian nation's "far right wing fundamentalist Christianity".

Of course "evolutionists" don't understand it.  Neither do feminazis, 900
million pagan niggers in Africa, sodomites, jews--and "liberals".

But most of the other 264 million Christians in the US, and most of the
other 2 billion Christians in the world, DO understand it.  Intimately.
Easily.  With all their heart.

And they don't even care if jews, niggers, feminazis, sodomites and other
muds and "liberals" never understand it.

John Knight










More information about the Neur-sci mailing list