cladking
Well-Known Member
We need Rod Serling...
Rod Serling had some sort of peripheral understanding of the twilight zone.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
We need Rod Serling...
Yes. As a matter of fact I have.
I have created a species of house fly that lands on the bottom of furniture through bottlenecks imposed with a flyswatter.
I have created this species a few times so now the genetic diversity that I CREATED will allow the housefly to survive an event that eradicates all flies not on the undersides of things. I might be the father of a new species someday and all I got for it were a few fly-free summers.
My theory and everything I believe is composed of insights I steal from others. I never know when or where I will find something usable. A forum that does such a good job of discussing religion and science as this one of course gives rise to insights.
Perhaps that is because no one has ever created "an experiment which preferentially supports Darwin's to [your] theory". On the flip side, have you created "an experiment which preferentially supports" your theory to Darwin's?
Why not?
Goodness. Why do you just lay back and accept that?
The folks who proposed Plate Tectonics didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.
The folks who proposed an expanding universe didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.
The folks who proposed Heliocentricity didn't just lay back and accept getting blown off.
Why do you?
Do you honestly believe taking the time to post on a rather obscure forum is the best way to achieve your objectives?
So why hasn't anyone ever shown an experiment which preferentially supports Darwin's to my theory? I'm sure there are some out there but all anyone links can be taken either way.
There are many experiments that preferentially support my theory.
It depends. Relevance?I'm sure you're aware that when a brain suffers damage the activities of that damaged area can be taken up by other areas.OK - so since people are different heights, I guess that means.... you tell me, Johnny Biologist.
Only partly true. The brain loses plasticity (not elasticity - that means to stretch) with age. This is why younger people with brain trauma can adapt more readily than older folks.The brain is a very elastic organ and anything can come to be seen as normal by humans.
Please tell me what part you think this structure is and I can tell you whether or not you've made another blunder. The superior colliculi of the midbrain tectum do play a role in visual reflexes, but that is not really "seeing".There is a structure in the mid-brain that can "see" but the individual is not consciously aware of vision.
No, we don't. Let me remind you - I have taken graduate level neuroscience and have taught neuroanatomy, so your mere say so on these matters will not work on me. The term midbrain has a very specific meaning in neuroanatomy, I suspect that you do not know this. Like you did not know where Broca's area is, or how to spell it.Normal people use specific parts of their brains for specific functions.
We have a perfectly good partially bifurcated speech center back in the mid-brain.
My evidence that you are wrong is:What evidence do you have that I am wrong? What logic drives your understanding of a second unfixed speech center as being perfectly normal?
First correct thing you've done.I never doubted for a moment that you know more anatomy and far more brain anatomy than I.Please tell us all, using actual midbrain anatomy, where this mysterious second speech area is, and provide corroborating documentation that it does what you assert it does.
So what?But this doesn't change the fact that near the CENTER OF THE HUMAN BRAIN is a location through which passes the optic nerves.
Huge decrease?Indeed, I recently learned that there is a huge decrease in the number of nerves that reaches the visual cortex and, logically, it occurs here
This is the ONLY speech center that Homo Sapiens needed or possessed;
Wernicke's area - Wikipedia
Sensible people believe what they see, or what there is evidence for.
This is why you can see so few anomalies. You already understand everything you see. Everything is explicable in terms of anatomy and this is how you know I have a screw loose.
A mathematician knows nothing I say adds up and a philosopher sees mere chaos but everyone sees everything in terms of their beliefs.
No you don't.I share the same affliction as everyone else but I think differently such that I can see anomalies.You may only see what you already believe - that would explain some things - but the things you believe are not in evident in reality.
With regards to biology, I wholeheartedly agree and have understood this for some time.I know nothing.Beyond that - I'm sure you thought that was a gotcha, but that is because you are self-taught.
More fantasy escapism.I share all of the premises of ancient science plus one: I believe all people always makes sense in terms of their premises.
You aren't.Then why am I the one who discovered there were no words for "belief" or "thought" in Ancient Language?You've discovered nothing.
And he never answered....What "experiment" re: Broca's area, and bottlenecks, and speciation , are you referring to, EXACTLY?
THEN PRESENT THIS "anecdotal and experimental evidence"!!!!!cladking: Unlike you I could be wrong but this what anecdotal and experimental evidence shows.
'PASSING THROUGH' does not give sight. You know that, yes?
Huge decrease?
I am an expert in no science.
I have a very good appreciation of modern scientific metaphysics and ancient metaphysics.
I am a generalist (nexialist) and understand the basics of two different sciences which gives me a unique perspective which you sorely lack. You also seem to lack much understanding of any kind of metaphysics but I could be wrong about this. You certainly can't take "yes" or "no" for an answer. You can't even see answers that don't fit all of your preconceptions.
ALL THE WORDS OF SCIENCE EXISTED. "Heca" meant "metaphysics". "Thot" meant "science". "Neters" meant "theories".
No. The transliteration ”heca” or “heka”, means “magic”, not “metaphysics”.
This word heka was later transformed into personification of magic - Heka, the god of magic.
Metaphysics first appeared with Plato.
Tas8831 [has] proven just how little you understand the working of the brain.
I have defined "metaphysics" for you a dozen times as the "basis of science".
If you cut the nerve between the MIDDLE OF THE BRAIN and the visual cortex the individual will not experience "sight". But if you throw a ball at his head he'll catch it.
I know I'm almost perfectly ignortant but you see reality through your beliefs so you can see nothing that doesn't support your beliefs. You see none of the vast swathes of your own ignorance.
I don't allow my ignorance to obscure my vision to the same degree you do.
I answered all of your questions but you don't like the answers and I'm loathe to repeat them.
I am an expert in no science.
I have a very good appreciation of modern scientific metaphysics and ancient metaphysics.
I am a generalist (nexialist) and understand the basics of two different sciences which gives me a unique perspective which you sorely lack. You also seem to lack much understanding of any kind of metaphysics but I could be wrong about this. You certainly can't take "yes" or "no" for an answer. You can't even see answers that don't fit all of your preconceptions.
I know I'm almost perfectly ignortant but you see reality through your beliefs so you can see nothing that doesn't support your beliefs. You see none of the vast swathes of your own ignorance.
A Mathematical Model Unlocks the Secrets of Vision | Quanta Magazine
The EVIDENCE must be one or combination of the following:
- observable or detectable
- measurable
- quantifiable
- testable (which would result in either verification or refutation)
PROVE IT.
ITo me all of reality is explicable in terms of facts and logic.
...the midbrain, etc.