news:bt4eoj$37ok7$1@ID-35161.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:bt3oo0$7dc$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
> snipping
>
>
> > > Yes. See what happens when you do some elementary research before
> > posting?
> > >
> > > Shoulda done that before you yammered ignorantly about the "moon dust"
> > > and the "we only use ten percent of our brains", huh.
> > >
> >
> > I've already retracted the moon dust on the advice of other Christians,
>
> Instead of just relying on the advice of others, why not check them out
for
> yourself?
>
> > I
> > was just pointing out that some, including my pastor, still isn't buying
> the
> > retraction.
>
> Since your pastor is not a scientist, and hasn't studied the matter for
> himself, why should his opinion matter?
>
He was of the opinion that Asimov said that he predicted the first space
shuttle would sink into the dust, which is something no doubt you can
confirm or deny. If Asomov said it, not us, then clearly it seemed
reasonable to him at the time.
> >
> > As for the percentage of brain use, so far, unless I missed something,
> there
> > has been only anecdotal, journalistic evidence put up by the total use
> side.
>
> Again, you haven't produced any evidence for the "small fraction" claim,
and
> the evidence for full usage comes from actual scientists who have studied
> the brain using PET, and MRI scans. I already provided you with links to
> that evidence. If you missed it, here's some more:
>
> http://www-u594.ujf-grenoble.fr/people/mdojat/papers/aim2000.pdf
I've read that, it's a paper on working towards a co-operative framework for
MRI brain scans. The quality percentages here are nothing to do with the
amount of the human brain that is used, but about the efficiency of the
brain scanning system. I couldn't read anything about the amount of brain
power being used in the entire article.
I can only assume that you gave me this believing I wouldn't read it. It
seems to me that you are being unethical with the evidence. We saw some nice
ethics from your colleague Michael Clark the other day and I thought you at
least were above this.
Now first before I take the trouble to read one of the other three links
please confirn that they actually have something to do with proving brain
power used and are not just a pure cynical attrition tactic like the first
one seems to be.
> http://www.theness.com/articles/brain-nejs0201.html
>
http://www.alzheimersupport.com/library/showarticle.cfm/ID/1582/e/1/T/Alzheimers/
> http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/37/2/17
>
> Also see:
> Kalat, J.W. (1995)
> Biological Psychology, 5th ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publ. Co.
>
> B.L. Beyerstein, Whence Cometh the Myth that We Only Use 10% of Our
Brains?
> in Mind Myths. Exploring Popular Assumptions about the Mind and Brain
edited
> by S. Della Sala, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pages 3-24, 1999
>
>
> Note also you were wrong about Archeopteryx being a Hoazin, there being
only
> one Archae fossil, and nearly every other scientific claim you have made.
> With that kind of batting average, don't you think it might be a good idea
> to check out the claims, before making them?
>
>
> DJT
>
I'm all about checking claims. The first bit of checking I did didn't put
your argument in a very good light, it's my duty to tell you.
Hth.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 |
|