Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,377 Year: 4,634/9,624 Month: 409/1,096 Week: 4/110 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 195 of 1725 (535139)
11-13-2009 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by RAZD
11-12-2009 10:55 PM


Re: OMG the latest post
I assumed the bit about Lucy was a joke, I certainly hope it was.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2009 10:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 473 of 1725 (587596)
10-19-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by xongsmith
10-19-2010 4:54 PM


Re: Mornington Crescent in the Peanut Gallery!
Personally I've always enjoyed Boardo more.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by xongsmith, posted 10-19-2010 4:54 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by xongsmith, posted 10-19-2010 7:18 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 1643 of 1725 (632784)
09-10-2011 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1641 by Chuck77
09-10-2011 4:58 AM


Re: Brain function
It seems not all tests are being reported, well, read I mean.
On the contrary it seems they are being reported and twisted to fit the preconceived beliefs of the religious.
I particularly like how after the quote from Andrew Newberg ...
It’s fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak.
... the writer of that piece claims that the evidence supports this and then goes on to describe something which doesn't support it at all.
The fact that there is a lack of intentional control is in no way any confirmation that God is moving through them and controlling them.
Good enough for me.
That says more about you than it does about this research.
The actual paper is available in pdf form here.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1641 by Chuck77, posted 09-10-2011 4:58 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1645 by Chuck77, posted 09-10-2011 6:22 AM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 1655 of 1725 (632902)
09-11-2011 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1645 by Chuck77
09-10-2011 6:22 AM


Re: Brain function
It was a simple study that says
Our brain imaging research shows us that these subjects are not in control of the usual language centers during this activity
Indeed, and where does it say anywhere in the results that god has any involvement? Was it supposed of be in the part you quoted from the paper? Because if so then the 'Fail' is all on your side, unless you can actually explain how it is supporting evidence of course.
I'm also unclear why you don't realise the benefit of referring back to the actual paper rather than a partial 2nd hand report on it. Especially unclear since you yourself took a portion of the paper as a quote to use in your response. Of course if you cared about the research rather than how it was propagandised then you could have given us a link to it yourself, but I guess you only want us to get the adulterated version.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1645 by Chuck77, posted 09-10-2011 6:22 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1656 by Chuck77, posted 09-11-2011 4:38 AM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 92 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 1658 of 1725 (632934)
09-11-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1656 by Chuck77
09-11-2011 4:38 AM


Re: Brain function
it was to demonstrate that brain function tests work both ways
In what way? I brought up a specific objection about the presentation of the research in the article you linked to and you have just been handwaving and waffling to apparently cover up the fact that indeed the article makes completely unsupported claims and pretends that the research supports them, but that's OK because you would like their unsupported claims to be true.
Or are you just critiqing the ones you don't agree with?
As I seem to keep having to point out to you, I'm not critiquing the study at all. I'm criticising the misrepresentation of the study by the source you provided.
All you seem to have shown is that when they want to misrepresent research people can do so, way to go, what a startling revelation.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1656 by Chuck77, posted 09-11-2011 4:38 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024