> Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> Davey,
>
> You quit too soon. Read the rest. For me, the MRI info was
> interesting as a foundation for seeing how brain structure can be
> imaged; taken with the rest, it seems a fair introduction to the
> brain, albeit this was specific to structure. More info on
> function is in the subsequent links. If you're looking for some
> pithy quotes to prove a case, try the second link. If you are
> interested in a broader discussion of brain structurally and
> functionally, the links work well together.
>
> I'm interested that you seem quick to attribute bad motives to
> Dana (and perhaps others here). You aren't always this quick on
> the trigger, are you?
>
> Tom McDonald
>
No, and at first I trusted Dana more than most others, but she has really
sat on the fence on this Michael Clark issue, whilst some, such as yourself
and Ernest Major, have shown integrity and of course I now find that I trust
Dana less than I did and some others more.
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 |
|