Baloney. Your statements don't jive with any WIKI page on this topic, McGraw-Hill or anyone *besides yourself* apparently. You can't even cite any external reference that actually *agrees with you*!
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Finding limitations in Naturalism
- Thread starter Heissonear
- Start date
- Status
Baloney. Your statements don't jive with any WIKI page on this topic, McGraw-Hill or anyone *besides yourself* apparently. You can't even cite any external reference that actually *agrees with you*!
K
kellhus
Guest
Difference, is a YEC espouses a delusional fairy tale and I'm explaining basic cell biology.
No, I'm not. I don't know why you have this weird delusion that I say ionic flux across a phospholipid membrane is not a form of current.
No, they are not.
Which I think is lazy writing and confusing. A valid concern, since it's clearly led you to think nerves are copper wiring in our head.
I honestly think you're hallucinating. If you're trying to be funny, it's not. Not even remotely. It's just bizarre at this point.
Upvote
0
Animation: The Nerve Impulse
Your own reference from McGraw-Hill was talking about *both*. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.....
Upvote
0
False. Please look at the references. They are not moving down the neuron. They are moving across the membrane of the neuron at a right angle to the nerve impulse.
Upvote
0
Animation: The Nerve Impulse
Your own reference from McGraw-Hill was talking about *both*. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.....
McGraw-Hill shows the ion flux across the membrane at a right angle to the nerve impulse.
Upvote
0
Michael,
If you completely insulated the nerve axon there would be no nerve impulse. Do you know why?
If you completely insulated the nerve axon there would be no nerve impulse. Do you know why?
Upvote
0
Now imagine that YEC explaining basic decay mechanisms and their claims didn't actually jive with any written reference. In fact the references they cited all said *exactly the opposite* of what they claim.
The problem is that nobody except you seems to have a problem with it. All those WIKI authors used those terms. McGraw-Hill uses those terms as well. Only you seem to have a "problem" with it.
Apparently you can't keep your strawmen straight in your head. You said that, not me.
I think you're just being difficult to be difficult. Nobody but you seems to have a problem calling it a current.
Upvote
0
The problem is that you refuse to understand the context of those terms. It's as if you heard that there are river currents and then decide that rivers are made of electricity.
If you want to call the movement of sodium ions down a concentration gradient through a pore in a protein a current then knock yourself out. You still are not describing a nerve impulse.
If you completely insulated the nerve axon there would be no nerve impulse. Do you know why?
Upvote
0
So what? The net result is the movement of charged particles, aka *current*! Holy cow! Neither one of you can even provide a reference that actually agrees with you. Every WIKI reference and every other external reference *calls it current*!
Apparently only you two need current to run in straight lines.
Upvote
0
K
kellhus
Guest
Maybe you should explain why you have such an extreme obsession with this minor piece of semantics.
Upvote
0
I understand them just fine, and I'm fine calling it a "current" just like everyone else except you two. McGraw-Hill agrees with me. WIKI agrees with me too. Only you two don't seem to understand the terms "voltage" and "current".
Upvote
0
K
kellhus
Guest
Maybe you should explain why you have such an obsession with this minor piece of semantics.
Upvote
0
Me? You're the one that started this whole debate over pure semantics. Oddly enough everyone *except* you is fine with those very same semantics. They use the the terms "voltage" and "current" just like I do.
Upvote
0
This means that the nerve impulse is not a current. The current is not moving in the right direction. In order for nerve impulses to be currents it needs to move from one end to other end of the neuron, but it doesn't. Instead, the ion flux is across the immediate surface of the membrane at a right angle of where it needs to go.
We aren't talking about the current. We are talking about the nerve impulse which is not a current.
Every single references shows the ion flux at a right angle to the nerve impulse. Every single one. They all agree with me.
Upvote
0
No, you don't, as demonstrated by this statement:
"Charged particles are moving down the neuron."
All of the neurophysiologists I am aware of call it an action potential and not a current, just as kellhus here does. That is what I was taught in my physiology course.
Not a single one of them states that charged particles move down the neuron.
I understand it better than you do, quite obviously.
Upvote
0
Michael,
If you completely insulated the nerve axon there would be no nerve impulse. Do you know why?
If you completely insulated the nerve axon there would be no nerve impulse. Do you know why?
Upvote
0
K
kellhus
Guest
Jesus Christ, fine, transmembrane ionic flux during an action potential is a "current". Now do you have a point to all?
Upvote
0
Baloney. Go back and replay your own video from McGraw Hill. They explained it about as clearly as one could possibly explain it.
What is the 'right' direction for charged particles to move?
*If* that were actually the case, McGraw-Hill and all those WIKI authors would not have called it a current!
Who's we?
Animation: The Nerve Impulse
They talked about that current at McGraw-Hill.
So what? That direction of travel of the charged particles is irrelevant.
More denial I see. Not a single one of your references actually agreed with you. They all used the term "current" and they explained the movement of charged particles *correctly*. They all agreed with *me*, and not one of them actually agreed with you.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
