"Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<rMn19.54$dn3.22579 at news20.bellglobal.com>...
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> news:6zn19.42178$Fq6.3842467 at news2.west.cox.net...> > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:qRV09.567$tY5.97366 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > > news:JBT09.34237$Fq6.3324300 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > >
> > > > "Parse Tree" <parsetree at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:ChJ09.26202$dk1.2320939 at news20.bellglobal.com...> > > > > "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:2KI09.31078$Fq6.3191106 at news2.west.cox.net...> > > > > > "Jd" <JDay123 at BellSouth.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3d42d259.3050523 at news1.lig.bellsouth.net...> > > > > > > In alt.education Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's,
> > > > > > > Shadow Dancer wrote...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >(1) You spend too much time in sexual fantasies to learn
> anything,
> and
> > > > > > > >(2) Your reading comprehension scores are SO low that you did
> not
> > > > > > > >understand any of the credible evidence we presented to refute
> you,
> and
> > > > > > > >(3) You cannot answer the same questions you claim girls scored
> lower
> on.
>> > > > > > > >Same goes for you, Jd.
>> > > > > > > >Bible verses do not mean squat when one is talking about a
> secular
> > > > > > > >organization; namely, the United States. Remember the
> separation
> of
> Church
> > > > > > > >and State? Do you even know the meaning of it? Better learn
> fast
> if
> you
> > > > > > > >hope to live in this country successfully.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shallow Dunce, this is a CHRISTIAN nation, founded by our
> CHRISTIAN
> > > > > > Forefathers, for CHRISTIANS, who live amongst 264 million fellow
> > > > > CHRISTIANS.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that why the US scores so low on TIMSS?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that why Japan scores much higher, since it is not Christian?
> > > > >
> > > > > By your reasoning, this must be the case.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Since spoken Christian prayer in "public shools" was BANNED in 1964,
> SAT
> > > > scores plunged 98 points, leaving graduates of those miserable "public
> > > > schools" DEAD LAST of 17 of 34 TIMSS subjects which we used to teach
> before
> > > > Christian prayers were banned.
> > > >
> > > > But graduates of "private schools" [read: mostly CHRISTIAN schools
> where
> > > > Christian prayer has not been banned] score even higher today than the
> > > > average American student scored before school prayer was banned, in
> every
> > > > state, on every test.
> > > > http://christianparty.net/naep.htm> > > >
> > > > It's only these private American religious schools which keep the US
> from
> > > > becoming an instant third world country, because they produce
> graduates
> who
> > > > score even higher than the Japanese and Koreans (who scored at the
> EIGHTH
> > > > GRADE LEVEL more than 100 TIMSS math points higher than us).
> > >
> > > And you think their prayer made them do well? If I ask God to be smart,
> > > will that make me smart? Will knowledge be instantly planted in my
> head?
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure it won't.
> >
> > You're right. It won't.
>> And thus you acknowledge that prayer is useless.
>
Yes, correct. Prayer, Christianity, even religion, are useless to
those who don't understand them. To those who do, they're invaluable.
Students in Christian schools within this country score 100 SAT
points higher than students in public schools who don't have prayer.
Even public schools of 40 years ago who DID have school prayer scored
98 SAT points higher than they do today.
"Dr." Dean O'dell laughs about the fact that those who pray recover
from disease and surgery, and have longer life expectancies, than
those who don't, as if though the world's worst "health care system"
is better for one's health than prayer.
He (and you) can laugh about it all you want--you're the ones who
lose, though.
> > > > They also don't teach "gender equality", "multiculturalism",
> "evolution",
> > > > "White race genocide", "nigger love", "Jesus was a jew", and a whole
> host
> of
> > > > amoral "ideas" which only the STUPIDEST people in the world would
> accept.
> > >
> > > Actually, evolution is a fact. The method is the only thing that is
> > > debated.
> > >
> >
> > What you meant to say is that "it's my 'opinion' that evolution is a
> fact",
> > because this is NOT the opinion of 91% of the American population.
> > http://christianparty.net/gallupcreation.htm>> So 91% of the American population is stupid.
>
It could be that 91% are stupid. Or it could be more accuarate that
the morons who "believe in evolution" can never support their "belief
system", which is why they always resort to ad hominems and character
assassination. The "evolutionist" web sites which attempt to debunk
the scientists who've been critical of "evolution" as a "theory" never
debunk the critique--they always engage in character assassination
instead.
Why is that? If they have a valid point, why do they need to always
resort to character assassination?
That alone should make you suspicious of just how firmly their beliefs
are held.
> Regardless, thinking that since more people believe something is true,
> makes it true, is a fallacy.
>> Most people believed that the world was flat, back in Columbus' time.
>
How do you know that? Did the jews tell you this? Is this how you
"learned" this "fact". The Holy Bible, which was widely read at that
time, never claimed the world is flat. Now we have written evidence
that numerous civilizations around the world, 500 BC and even earlier,
knew the world was not flat.
Unless you did a survey, you don't know this, and instead must rely on
writings from jews who ALWAYS LIE.
> > It, in fact, is a STUPID supposition piled knee deep on top of faulty
> > assumptions which bear no resemblance to the scientific term "theory".
>> Nope. You're probably thinking of Natural Selection, which is debatable.
> Evolution is not.
I agree that "evolution is not" debatable. The reason I agree that
it's not debatable is that you don't have a SINGLE bone that even
suggests that the very first homo sapiens didn't look exactly like the
most recent model.
The ONE great white hope for "evolutionists" was Neanderthal Man, who
they claimed was an ancestor to homo sapiens, but now the DNA studies
(almost none of which have been published in the US, but which have
been widely circulated in more than 20 other countries) have
completely RULED this possibility out.
The other FALSE claim was the "Cro Magnon Man", which is an obvious
hoax to anyone who's ever been there. There's a huge, crude statue at
the entrance to the cave that the guide readily admits is not to
scale, and was not even erected by this putative "Cro Magnon Man"--he
openly admits that the local villagers put it there to attract
tourists. Other than that, there's nothing about the cave that
suggests it's particularly old, or that Cro Magnon Man didn't look
exactly like homo sapiens. There's only ONE intact skull which can be
used to measure cranial capacity, and measurements show it to be
within the range of homo sapiens. It's very unconvincing.
In spite of attempts by "evolutionists" to turn this into "scientific
evidence" of "evolution" it looked just like a cave occupied by human
beings, and nothing else. And there's NO scientist in his right mind
who would dare to claim that the contents of this cave have been
properly dated, a subject that the tour guides avoid like the plague.
>> > 12 year old boys see right through this silly argument, even though they
> > must sit before STUPID American women teachers all day long listening to
> > this nonsense (teachers who come from way down the left side of a "bell
> > curve" that's so flat that it makes pancakes look like boobs).
>> Who were told this info by people way up there on the right side.
>
But who obviously didn't understand it, because they're incapable of
understanding it. And if they're incapable of understanding it, then
they certainly are incapable of teaching it. And if they are
incapable of teaching it, then it's no wonder that our boys do so
poorly on all the international tests.
Japanese boys don't have that problem because they have men teachers
who CAN understand what they are taught about a wide range of
subjects, not the least of which is religion and calculus.
> > > It's much like calculus in that respect. Anyone with knowledge,
> understands
> > > that it is true.
> > >
> >
> > You haven't even figured out H04 or the probability of getting four
> multiple
> > choice questions correct yet, and now you want us to think you can comment
> > on what people think of calculus with some kind of credibility?
>> I answered H04 already. Just check back in your history, or look on Google.
>> Also, I have answered the CORRECT probability of getting 4 multiple choice
> questions correct. You have given a wrong figure, because you have no
> familiarity with basic statistics.
>
Perhaps you did, but if you DID, then why didn't you at least copy
your responses to this post? Since you didn't even take the time to
do that, we could only assume that you didn't.
> > > > The fact that they also cost one third as much per student as public
> schools
> > > > tells even feminazis what the immense loss public "education" is
> > > > http://christianparty.net/schoolprayer.htm> > >
> > > Why do they cost one third less? Evidently you could get a job with the
> > > Federal Government of the US and optimize their education spending.
> > >
> >
> > This is because you're a moron who doesn't even realize that the federal
> > government hasn't gotten anything right in more than half a century, and
> > certainly can't ever get "education" right
> > http://christianparty.net/fedgov.htm> >
> > It's only because the federal government has been using 8% of GDP for so
> > long for "education" [read: propaganda] that so many Americans can't even
> > read, much less do algebra or calculus, which is why so many "think" like
> > "liberals".
>> So they should only need a third of that 8%, right? So how does using too
> much make education bad?
There's an economic principle called "the law of diminishing returns"
which private industry MUST obey, but which government never does.
You reach a point where increasing expenditures doesn't improve
anything, and eventually deteriorates it. Our education expenditures
passed that point in 1955 when they were 4% of GDP.
Private industry can't do that because it doesn't have unlimited funds
like tyrannical government does. What happens when you get too far
beyond "diminishing returns" is that quality starts to fall
dramatically. The highest level of education quality in the US was in
1962 when expenditures had reached 4.8%, but since then spending (as a
percent of GDP, not by the CPI or PPP) almost doubled and SAT scores
plunged 98 points.
When government has too much money to spend for something, it starts
to spend it for all kinds of trivial and irrelevant pursuits and the
original goal is forgotten. We were capable of teaching calculus to a
large percentage of American students when education spending was only
4% of GDP, but now with it being 8% of GDP, we can't.
It could be argued that education spending should be fixed at 4% of
GDP, which is still higher than most countries, like Japan, whose 8th
graders still scored 105 points higher than ours.
But this ignores the simple fact that TIMSS is scientific evidence
that THIS government must be BANNED from any participation in
"education" whatsoever, ever again. It cannot be trusted to ever
police itself, nor to show even the slightest degree of respect for
"the law of diminishing returns".
John Knight
