"Angilion" <angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d333c95.21227708 at news.freeserve.net...
> 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?
>
The main problem with these long timeframes are the known population growth
rates of humans, which are mostly linked to
http://christianparty.net/population.htm
To summarize, at the rate the US population grew (not counting immigration),
with abortion and the pill, it would take only 1,200 years to grow from 2
people to 6 billion. Even at the slow rate the UK has grown lately, it
would take only 1,800 years.
Now without the pill and abortions, it would take only 900 years, and at the
rate African populations grow, only 600 years.
But, yes, it really is impossible to measure time backwards with any degree
of accuracy. Every method of doing it requires assumptions at the front end
which would throw them all off. Even the carbon dating based on the
Bristlecone Pine has one serious flaw, which is that 4 or 5 rings can be
formed in one year, so that tree could be 1,000 years old rather than more
than 4,000 years.
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.
>
It's truly an amazing outlier, but still, it's an outlier. How it happened,
who knows?
When brain size of entire populations are compared to the GRE Quantitative
scores for entire populations, these outliers have almost no effect on the
correlation, which is as high as 0.8832.
It's important to note that correlation is bad with "IQ scores", which means
it's also important to note that Wechsler threw out the 94% of the "IQ
problems" which men did well on, and kept the 6% which he believed "proved"
his ideal of "gender equality".
Feminazis at work );
John Knight
