brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Jd JDay123 at
Fri Oct 25 13:51:59 EST 2002

"John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote: 

>"Jd" <JDay123 at> wrote in message
>news:3db864d0.5719717 at
>> Gray Shockley <gray at> wrote:
>> >Am I correct in believing that your "religion" consists of using the
>parts of
>> >the Bible that are "convenient" for you and re-inforce what you want to
>> >and the "inconvenient" parts you ignore?
>> No.  There are no inconvenient parts.
>> All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
>> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
>> righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly
>> furnished unto all good works. (2Timothy 3:16-17)
>> Don't forget Christians in Jesus are new creatures which are yet to
>> be classified by science.  And it's been 2000 years now.  That's why
>> some of these things may seem a bit odd to you i.e. the world at
>> large is a bit slow in accepting new things.
>> Jd
>AND many, if not most of the "new" "discoveries" by "scientists" which
>contradict the Holy Bible have been proven to be WRONG.
>American "scientists" were just lucky that they found out that the world
>isn't flat, because if many of them had to rely on what they believe the
>Holy Bible says about it, they'd believe that the Holy Bible claims that the
>world is flat.
>It doesn't.
>"Evolution" is a tiny example of how scientists discredited themselves,
>rather than Christianity, by trying to prove that the Holy Bible's account
>is wrong.  Less than 9% of Americans, but half of American "scientists",
>accept the "theory of evolution" as is, and it's not the other 91% of
>Americans who are the STUPID ones.
>John Knight

50% .91%?  Gosh I didn't know so many rejected the ToE.  Thanks for
the info,  I'll have to keep this message for reference.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list