Finding limitations in Naturalism

[Michael]

Animation: The Nerve Impulse

How did you answer question number five LM, and did you get it right or wrong?

 

[Michael]

Animation: The Nerve Impulse
(See related pages)

Results Reporter

Out of 5 questions, you answered 5 correctly, for a final grade of 100%.
5 correct (100%)

0 incorrect (0%)

0 unanswered (0%)

0 ungraded (0%)

 

[Loudmouth]

Animation: The Nerve Impulse
(See related pages)

Results Reporter

Out of 5 questions, you answered 5 correctly, for a final grade of 100%.
5 correct (100%)

0 incorrect (0%)

0 unanswered (0%)

0 ungraded (0%)

Michael,

If you insulate the axon of a nerve down its entire length there will be no nerve impulse. Do you know why?

 

[Loudmouth]

Any Birkeland current carries electrical information along it's length.

That's is not analogous to anything on a nerve cell.

 

[Loudmouth]

Animation: The Nerve Impulse

How did you answer question number five LM, and did you get it right or wrong?

Answer my question.

If you insulate an axon down its entire length there will not be a nerve impulse. Do you know why?

 

[Michael]

Answer my question.

Why should I bother? You have no integrity. It's your own reference, and the relevant question is right on their quiz. What answer did you give, and was it correct? The fact you won't even answer my question is an example of pure denial on your part and pure evasion too.

 

[Michael]

Michael,

If you insulate the axon of a nerve down its entire length there will be no nerve impulse. Do you know why?

Oh for crying out loud! You took away all the charged particle movement potential in that case and current won't flow in that instance because current won't traverse insulators! Wow. You'll do anything to avoid answering question number five apparently.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why should I bother? You have no integrity.

You won't answer it because it refutes all of your claims. Who doesn't have any integrity?

The fact you won't even answer my question is an example of pure denial on your part and pure evasion too.

Projection at its finest. I have been asking the same quesiton for pages, and you refuse to answer it. Answer mine and I will answer yours.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh for crying out loud! You took away all the charged particle movement potential in that case and current won't flow in that instance because current won't traverse insulators!

I am keeping the ends of the nerve uninsulated. So why isn't there a current from one end of the nerve to the other?

 

[Michael]

You won't answer it because it refutes all of your claims.

I did answer it and it doesn't refute anything. Meanwhile you avoid answering my question entirely! Who doesn't have any integrity?

Projection at its finest. I have been asking the same quesiton for pages, and you refuse to answer it. Answer mine and I will answer yours.

Your question is stupid and pointless and I *did* answer it. Current doesn't flow through insulators. So what? That changes absolutely nothing related to this debate, and you haven't answered my question yet!

 

[Michael]

I am keeping the ends of the nerve uninsulated.

So what? You also intentionally removed *part of the electrical circuit*!

So why isn't there a current from one end of the nerve to the other?

If you'd actually watched that movie, they explain why. Na+ and K+ are *necessary* parts of the *circuit*.

What was your answer now on question five, and did you get it right?

 

[Loudmouth]

So what? You also intentionally removed *part of the electrical circuit*!

No, I am leaving both of the ends open and uninsulated. You are claiming that the current travels down the neuron, and nowhere do I interrupt that circuit. If I completely insulate a wire except for the ends where it makes contact with the battery terminals do I interrupt the current?

If you'd actually watched that movie, they explain why. Na+ and K+ are *necessary* parts of the *circuit*.

Then the circuit is just the few microns across the membrane at a right angle to the actual nerve impulse. The nerve impulse is not a current.

What was your answer now on question five, and did you get it right?

My answer is false which is the correct answer.

 

[Michael]

My answer is false which is the correct answer.

I think that particular statement demonstrates the depth of your denial process about as clearly as any statement could demonstrate it. The correct answer according to the quiz was "True". Anyone is welcome to try it themselves:

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sit...0/chapter14/animation__the_nerve_impulse.html

Ya know....

kellus and I worked out our differences, so apparently you're the *only* person in the entire world who's "right".

http://www.christianforums.com/t7749242-79/#post63546685

 

[Loudmouth]

I think that particular statement demonstrates the depth of your denial process about as clearly as any statement could demonstrate it. The correct answer according to the quiz was "True". Anyone is welcome to try it themselves:

McGraw-Hill is wrong, as both Kellhus and I have shown.

kellus and I worked out our differences, so apparently you're the *only* person in the entire world who's "right".

http://www.christianforums.com/t7749242-79/#post63546685

I agree with kellhus. You can call that a current all you like. So what is your point? That current, if you want to call it that, is not a nerve impulse.

 

[Michael]

McGraw-Hill is wrong, as both Kellhus and I have shown.

I agree with kellhus. You can call that a current all you like. So what is your point? That current, if you want to call it that, is not a nerve impulse.

My point is that you got the *incorrect* answer according to McGraw-Hill, yet you tried to claim it was the "right" answer. Kellhus and I have already agreed with McGraw-Hill, whereas you do not! Do you even know how to give a "straight" or honest answer?

 

[Loudmouth]

My point is that you got the *incorrect* answer according to McGraw-Hill,

But I have the correct answer according to the facts.

If you think I am wrong, then please describe this current that flows from one end of the nerve cell to the other.

Kellhus and I have already agreed with McGraw-Hill, whereas you do not!

Please show me the post where kellhus agreed with McGraw-Hill on that question.

Do you even know how to give a "straight" or honest answer?

Let's just look at your latest lie.

" Kellhus and I have already agreed with McGraw-Hill,"

Kellhus never agreed that the current moves down the neuron. In fact, kellhus specifically disagreed with that description. See how you keep lying?

 

[Davian]

Yes. Did you? If you did, you wouldn't be asking the next question:

Yep.

Probably not since you've dissolved it actually.

I don't think you read and understood the article.

The sugar cube, allowing for random motions of the molecules, should reassemble itself, given enough time.

The article explains that what "saves us" from both your "space brain" and "reassembling sugar cubes" are that the time scales involved exceed the projected end of the cosmos.

Compared to the three or four forms of metaphysical sky entities you're postulating, or something like string theory? Not at all!

Where did I do that?

 

[Heissonear]

I don't think you read and understood the article.

The sugar cube, allowing for random motions of the molecules, should reassemble itself, given enough time.

The article explains that what "saves us" from both your "space brain" and "reassembling sugar cubes" are that the time scales involved exceed the projected end of the cosmos.

Where did I do that?

It is interesting that someone can rationalize a sugar cube illustration about possibilities and require evidence of God.

Having an example of time scale but not going to the Creator of this Creation in their life time.

Everybody on this thread keeps acting like He is not, nor the God who is near.

That is about how much value He is to some - instead they chose to be debators.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is interesting that someone can rationalize a sugar cube illustration about possibilities and require evidence of God.

The sugar cube illustration was based on direct observations of thermodynamics in action. It is based on evidence.

Having an example of time scale but not going to the Creator of this Creation in their life time.

What creator? You need to demonstrate that something exists before you can assert its actions.

That is about how much value He is to some - instead they chose to be debators.

So we should accept everything you say as true and not ask any questions. Is this the only way that religion can thrive?

 

[Michael]

I don't think you read and understood the article.

The sugar cube, allowing for random motions of the molecules, should reassemble itself, given enough time.

Leaving aside your addition of water problem, I'm fine with that concept. Given an infinite amount of time, and *positive net energy*, pretty much anything can happen.

The article explains that what "saves us" from both your "space brain" and "reassembling sugar cubes" are that the time scales involved exceed the projected end of the cosmos.

Ah, there's our difference in a nutshell. I personally favor a static universe, or slowly (currently) expanding universe, but not a Big Bang theory. For all I know the universe is infinite and eternal.

Where did I do that?

You mean besides your claim about the 'end of the cosmos'?

What does current "science" have to offer me exactly? According to them, I need to have "pure absolute faith" in three (or maybe four) invisible metaphysical sky entities. I'd also have to simply ignore all the reports of humans having a relationship with something they call "God". I'd have to "pretend" that metaphysical kludge is somehow a "better' empirical explanation of the universe we live in?

Sorry, I'll stick with empirical physics, and I have no problem ascribing awareness to the universe itself. Awareness occurs in nature in a variety of lifeforms right here on Earth. I have no logical reason to believe that awareness can't be 'scaled to size', nor any empirical experimental data that would suggest that this universe is finite, that it has some "creation date", or that has some "end date".