IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Jd JDay123 at BellSouth.com
Tue Oct 8 19:40:18 EST 2002

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote: 

>JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>>Matthew Amsel <matthew.amsel at mail.mcgill.ca> wrote: 
>>What I can't accept is the notion that men just began wondering
>>about the origins and development of life here on the planet, in the
>>last couple of hundred years.
>They didn't.  But until the modern era, there was a shortage of
>information that would give much of a clue, and enough educated people
>to gain those clues (ever heard of the printing press and the
>Renaissance?), and sufficient questioning of religious orthodoxy to
>allow the clues to be shared (ever heard of the Inquisition?)
>It wasn't until the 1600s, when bacteria and cells were first
>observed, and we first had a clue that there WERE simple life forms
>from which life could have evolved.  It wasn't until the 1700s that
>the mysticism of alchemy started to become chemistry and the idea of
>nature as a bunch of interacting processes became evident.  Also in
>the 1700s, Linnaeus devised the modern idea of taxonomy, which imposed
>enough order on the multitudes of lifeforms that the patterns could be
>Science builds on the shoulders of those who came before.
>Evolutionary theory was not possible until all the building blocks had
>been identified.
>>This seems to be the postion of a few
>>folks here, and they probably would still be believing Al invented
>>the internet if it weren't for all those conservatives out there who
>>knew the history of the whole thing.  
>The difference here seems to be that scientists know the history of
>science, and you don't.

One thing I know for sure, you're a jerk.  That's what you get for
inviting demons into your life.

>>That which cannot be proven is a matter of faith.
>That for which there is no evidence is a matter of faith.  
>If there is evidence, then the processes of science can be applied to
>test theories.  Science does not prove anything, nor does it rely on

You have completely lost it Bob.  The above statements of yours are
below the level of an idiot.

>>We Christians know God created
>>everything and therefore, do not have to wait for biochemists to
>>invent another theory.
>We Christians who are scientists are not merely satisfied with
>"Goddidit".  We want to know HOW he did it, and to contemplate the
>wonder of his creation, which is far more wondrous if you actually
>understand how it interacts.

You've been interacting with demons which will never let you rest.
You will never be satisified and never find peace as long as you
keep entertaining them and letting them occupy your mental


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net