On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:18:30 GMT, "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com>
wrote:
>"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
>news:ce660175.0207141147.10aa9d8 at posting.google.com...>> John Knight wrote:
[..]
>> >But to the rest of the normal people in the country, namely the 91%
>> >who reject this "theory" of evolution,
>>>> Do you have a cite for this claim? (A non-subjective one)
>>Well, it's a bit difficult to come up with a "non-subjective" cite for
>public opinion, as public opinion is precisely that--subjective.
>>The Gallup Poll, where it has its serious credibility problems, shows that
>only 9% of Americans accept the "theory of evolution" as its been
>historically defined:
>http://christianparty.net/gallupcreation.htm
Well, the sample size is large enough (1000) *if* it was a random
selection from across the whole of the USA, and it does show that
only 9% of the people questioned believe that God had *no part*
in the development of humanity.
It is evidence that most people in the USA do not believe in the
theory of evolution. It is not evidence that the theory of evolution
is wrong, nor is it evidence that the theory of creationism is right.
There cannot be any evidence of the latter, by definition, as it
is a matter of faith.
As an aside, why do you believe that all known forms of dating
material are wildly incorrect? If humanity is only 3000 or 6000
years old (both figures are given on the above website), all the
dating of all human remains or human-created items older
than 3000?6000? years must be wrong. Or are you arguing that
there were people on Earth before humans?
[..]
>> Angilion also mentioned the case of a man who was found to have very
>> little brain mass, yet was functioning successfully in his educational
>> career. ...So obviously, there is something else going on besides
>> just that.
>>Most people who're functioning successfully in "education" in the US have
>test scores which would make it appear that they have even less of their
>brains remaining than the man in Angilion's example
The man was undertaking a scientific degree in an English university, some
years ago. His test scores were high - he wouldn't have been able to get
on the degree course otherewise.
He's about my age. I undertook a minimum of ten exams per year
every year from the age of 10 (when I took the entrance exam to
my senior school) to 16 (when I finished mandatory education), then
a minimum of 3 advanced exams per year from 17 to 24, when I
finished my voluntary education. He would have had to have undertaken
a minimum of 20 exams, including 6 advanced exams, merely to have
got a place on the course. English education 20 years ago was not
a joke, though it was a lot easier than it was further back in the past.
I recall taking one of the maths exams my maternal grandfather took
when he was 12 at school and finding it more challenging than the maths
exam I took as part of an Advanced Level qualification in maths (age
16-18). Granted, he was taking an advanced exam and was awarded
a maths scholarship on merit, but it was far above the maths exams I took
at the age of 12.
Examples like the man I referred to are not rare. Medical literature is
littered with them.
Another example...the man has has earned an first-class honours
degree *in mathematics* from Sheffield University. In case you are
unfamiliar with UK degree grading, I'll point out that a first class
honours degree is the highest attainable first degree and not at all
common, especially in courses like mathematics. A very good student will
usually get an upper second. A lower second is still classed as a degree
with honours and a third is a normal degree. The man has virtually
no cerebral cortex - it is a millimeter thick. His brain mass is between
3% and 10% of average (current brain-scanning techniques do not return
an exact figure for mass), and it's almost entirely taken up by the
primitive structures at the base of the brain. Here is a link to an
article on John Lorber, a neurologist based at Sheffield University, in
which the man is referred to:
http://www.enidreed.com/serv01.htm
They have tested approximately 60 people with the most
severe possible form of hydrocephalus, in which almost all
of the cerebral cortex is missing. More than half of them
have IQs above 100.
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else. (Anon)
