tas8831
Well-Known Member
Max Planck at least used evidence to support his claims.The German physicist Max Planck said, "Science advances one funeral at a time".
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!
Max Planck at least used evidence to support his claims.The German physicist Max Planck said, "Science advances one funeral at a time".
So, I will not hold my breath waiting for you to provide evidence that Wernicke's is now "is at least partially bifurcated" as opposed to your previous most-certain and frequently asserted (with no support, of course) position that there is a (unnamed) bifurcated speech center in the' middle of the brain'.
No, you won't.You have a couple of new points in your long diatribe to which I'll later respond.
Playground seems about right.
Where I come from (the playground?), this is the middle of the brain and "bifurcated" means "split in two" and is applied to the brain because it comes in two mostly split hemispheres. These sections are vertical and cause the two parts (to the degree that area is split) to be mirror images of one another.
That is about all you are capable of, so maybe you should reconsider.I'm not here to play word games nor to play mind games.
No it isn't.
Show us your treatise on who built the pyramids or whatever nonsense you claim about tall that - show us your PUBLISHED papers that provide EVIDENCE for your claims.
The only person I see on these forums that claims to know everything is you and several creationists.
No, because that is not how species is defined in actual biology - in your simple sam's biology, maybe, but not in real life.
We can just want to grow a new brain area, according to you.
Broca's area AND Wernicke's area are "fixed" (though they generally switch hemispheres in left-handed people).
Do you EVER get tired of making a fool of yourself?
The level of knowledge you exhibit on these issues - the incorrect spellings, the off-the-wall depictions and descriptions of location and function, the certainty with which you present totally incorrect claims, your refusal to admit error, etc. - reminds of the way a child acts.
One means that Science can see only a part of human life while there is much more to it for which it is not properly equipped. Right, please?I am a scientist and I believe that all objects and objective phenomenon are best studied by application of scientific method only.
This thread is to try to raise awareness that indeed there are eminent physicians who place the subject, the self, as a different category from the objects.
So, esteemed Max Planck says that the ultimate mystery is 'ourselves' that science cannot solve. Who will know the knower? Who will see the seer?
Yes, in the day to day worldly matters application of scientific method is beneficial.I am a scientist and I believe that all objects and objective phenomenon are best studied by application of scientific method only.
This thread is to try to raise awareness that indeed there are eminent physicians who place the subject, the self, as a different category from the objects.
So, esteemed Max Planck says that the ultimate mystery is 'ourselves' that science cannot solve. Who will know the knower? Who will see the seer?
Science cannot solve the final mystery
But there are many "ifs" attached to the scientific method. How did the starting things "Science studies/postulates with the help of things/objects that are evident or obviously known" come to exist. Who or what made them to come by and for what purpose? That is out of the scope of scientific method and or the Science but very important.
So, there is much more to the human life, that humans should not ignore and reflect on it.
Humans, some of them, ignore the aspects of human life that are out of the domain of science, as they follow science blindly.After a volcanic eruption, there were some people for whom volcanoes were "things/objects that are evident or obviously known".
After seeing the moon rise many times, there were some people for whom the path of the moon was among "things/objects that are evident or obviously known".
What is your point?
What things do you suppose humans are ignoring?
Sorry, I don't get one exactly. Please elaborate for me.After a volcanic eruption, there were some people for whom volcanoes were "things/objects that are evident or obviously known".
After seeing the moon rise many times, there were some people for whom the path of the moon was among "things/objects that are evident or obviously known".
What is your point?
What things do you suppose humans are ignoring?
Humans, some of them, ignore the aspects of human life that are out of the domain of science, as they follow science blindly.
Regards
No. It is not be too hard to understand.Sorry, I don't get one exactly. Please elaborate for me.
English is not my first language.No. It is not be too hard to understand.
Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.cladking:
Your assumptions are riddled with errors and half facts.
Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.
It's not difficult to deduce peoples' assumptions. We all employ countless thousands of them to make sense of our world. We use words that reflect these assumptions. You, for instance believe there exist four dimensions despite the impossibility of them all occuring simultaneously. You assume that reality behaves according to the "laws of nature" and these laws are mathematical or can be expressed mathematically. You believe that science has a good handle on the basic formatting and outline of what is real.Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.
It's not difficult to deduce peoples' assumptions.
Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are...
There are any number of things I might deduce from this. It's too little evidence to be certain of anything but you probably think I'm too stupid to see that you just glossed over what I said (and you quoted).
There are other possibilities, of course, and more data will make it clear exactly why ignored everything I said and the source of how I know your assumptions. Every time we say anything we are saying more about ourselves than anything.
I arrange them logically and coherently, and you rearrange so as to fit your fantasies.