31 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, Watts suggests that Batten is simply offering three caricatures of evolution and then attacking these caricatures rather than the actual science. In each of these three instances, how is it that you think Watts has got it wrong?
I read the link. But I gave the link to provide the bio on Dr. Don Batten
in contrast to the uknown person provided by FabianFnas that claims to
refute him.[...]
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by FMFI can address your question after some one can tells me who Roland Watts
Well, Watts suggests that Batten is simply offering three caricatures of evolution and then attacking these caricatures rather than the actual science. In each of these three instances, how is it that you think Watts has got it wrong?
is. I don't even know if he is a real person and what are his credentials that
make him qualified to critique a real scientist, anyway. I do not know if he
has a field of expertise or is just presenting his opinions like you and I.
31 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWell why don't you just address what he said? I think I know why you don't want to.
I can address your question after some one can tells me who Roland Watts
is. I don't even know if he is a real person and what are his credentials that
make him qualified to critique a real scientist, anyway. I do not know if he
has a field of expertise or is just presenting his opinions like you and I.
Watts has identified three straw men in what Batten has claimed about science. How is it that you think Watts has got it wrong in each of these cases?
31 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI have to give you a thumbs up and a positive comment for that post, thanks sonhouse!
Same boat. Less brain. I never claimed to be atheist, I just dislike organized religions. Intensely. I think the minuses way outweigh the pluses. I have nothing against anyone who has their own one person religion. It's when 2 or more of you get together I have an ax to grind.
When 2 or more of you get together it is all of a sudden about how to control ...[text shortened]... say the BS gods you people invent to soothe your savage breast are just that, man-made and BS.
I pretty much agree. Once you have and organized religion that is "set in stone" , so to speak, (the JW's come to mind very readily, but so do others), then you have a dead religion.
I try to use the word "religion" in a positive, constructive way. But religion is a personal thing -we all have our own takes on it. Thats what makes it great.
People can agree on a lot of things, and that is fine. But when people agree on everything-or more like they are coerced into believing that which others believe,that's when it becomes twisted. You are agreeing to something that you have not experienced for yourself.
I have brought this up many times before, in different ways,ie . that religion should be based on personal experience. We are all unique and no two people will share exactly the same views-not deep down.
This is another paradox of spirituality/religion, ie. that we all share the one mind, the one "soul", however we are all individual and unique.
It is very sad indeed that the shortest meeting between two parties is a commitee.
We should all embrace paradoxes. Thats why I think it's important that people be able to multi-task/do 2 things at once. Some can do 3 or 4, Great! But two is all we need.
An analogy for this would be peripheral vision. It is a good practice to be able to watch from the cones AND the rods of your eyes AT THE SAME TIME.
This is not easy at first, but it becomes easier,as practising anything does.
Of course there is no being who is "God". Sorry to burst anyone's bubble (not that you will take my word for it), but "God" (with a big "G" ), is just a good idea for understanding the universe and our place in it.
There are beings who are way more intelligent than us and tell us things in dreams and visions,etc. But even they say there is no "Supreme Being".
"God" is just an introduction for beginners/children to start understanding our place in the universe, to start understanding our true/original natures.
I admit it's going to be a very tough shift of moving from a diet of burgers and fries to a diet of pure light, but that is where our "souls" are headed. That is the ultimate aim of every soul-to realize, to become FULLY concious of our true natures.
Simple question : who are you? OR Who are we? Difficult answer.
We are not our bodies or brains. Scientists have searched and have found nothing that can be termed "ourselves". Our true selves.
This is more of a koan than a regular question, but it stands, and I challenge anyone to answer it properly.
Those that know the answer cannot tell it to you in words. Some (that know the answer) can point to it, with "art" and "poetry" ,and stuff like that. But there is no "scientific " answer to this simple question.
Again: Who are you?
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelI am a living soul created in the image of Christ by the life giving Spirit
I have to give you a thumbs up and a positive comment for that post, thanks sonhouse!
I pretty much agree. Once you have and organized religion that is "set in stone" , so to speak, (the JW's come to mind very readily, but so do others), then you have a dead religion.
I try to use the word "religion" in a positive, constructive way. But religion is ...[text shortened]... entific " answer to this simple question.
Again: Who are you?
called God.
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are missing the point completely. Just because a person has a PhD in plant physiology does not mean that they cannot or do not use straw men arguments and other logical fallacies. Batten has made claims about science that have been exposed as straw men arguments. You either have a rebuttal or you don't? With all this flogging a red herring that you're doing, it seems you don't.
Who is this Roland watts?
31 Dec 11
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFHow about giving me time to get his book in the mail and read it so I
You are missing the point completely. Just because a person has a PhD in plant physiology does not mean that they cannot or do not use straw men arguments and other logical fallacies. Batten has made claims about science that have been exposed as straw men arguments. You either have a rebuttal or you don't? With all this flogging a red herring that you're doing, it seems you don't.
can actually read it and see for myself if he is giving straw man
arguments and then I will have enough information to make comments
on them? Anything wrong with that?
P.S. In the meantime maybe you could research and find out who this
Roland Watts is and why I should pay attention to what he thinks
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you have any evidence to support this scurrilous claim? Can you in any way support the claim that atheists are less honest than theists? No of course you can't. If you had any integrity at all you would apologise for this ridiculous post.
You do know those studies were done by atheists and evolutionist don't you?
What other conclusion could you expect from atheist. They are not known
for doing honest studies.
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatHe may get into areas of science in his book in which he is not an expert.
Do you have any evidence to support this scurrilous claim? Can you in any way support the claim that atheists are less honest than theists? No of course you can't. If you had any integrity at all you would apologise for this ridiculous post.
I don't expect everyone to be perfect or experts in everything. However,
his little article on dating with tree rings is in his line of work and study,
since he has a Phd in plant physiology. I'll post the link again to it. See
what you think.
http://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology
31 Dec 11
Originally posted by RJHindsBattan's straw men caricatures of science are what you should be paying attention to, not Battan himself or Watts himself.
In the meantime maybe you could research and find out who this
Roland Watts is and why I should pay attention to what he thinks