Why don’t we have a better story?
by iconoclastic 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Splash
iconoclastic "how giraffe got its long neck."
This is well understood.
Very many generations ago one of Chuck Norris's ancestors kicked a horse under the chin.
From that day on we got giraffes.
-
punkofnice
iconoclastic "how giraffe got its long neck."
the governing body commanded Jar hoover to give a spotty horse an overlapping neck
-
iconoclastic
cofty
`Educate' in the real sense of that word does not mean to transmit from the teachers to the student some information, but to bring about a change in his mind -which means that one has to be extraordinarily critical. One has to learn never to accept anything that he himself does not see clearly, never to repeat what another has said.
Louis Pasteur, James Joule, Joseph Lister, George Washington Carver, Gregor Mendel, Warner von Braun …..... who are the “fathers” of pasteurization, thermodynamics, antiseptic surgery, genetics, and modern rocketry were all opposed to Theory of Evolution.
Do you mean to say these great scientists ‘have never read a single science book in their entire lives?’
-
iconoclastic
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) once said, “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”
Despite all of the advances in engineering and computer technology, the development of a robotic hand that is as dexterous as a human hand still exceeds the grasp of modern science.
“‘A robotic hand which can perform tasks with the dexterity of a human hand is one of the holy grails of science,’ said Dr Honghai Liu, who lectures [about] artificial intelligence at the [Portsmouth] University Institute of Industrial Research. The Institute specialises in artificial intelligence including intelligent robotics, image processing and intelligent data analysis.Nothing which exists today even comes close” (ScienceDaily).
-
LisaRose
If Sir Issac Newton were alive today I doubt he would be making that statement, we have learned a thing or two in the last three hundred years . You argument is known as an "appeal to authority", but it is weak because, while Isaac Newton was a really smart guy, he knew nothing about DNA, the fossil record and evolution, and a few thousand other things that have been discovered since his time.
And scientists are actually quite close to creating a functioning artificial hand. While evolution got a head start of millions of years, recent advances in all fields of science make it a certainty that fully functioning artificial limbs will be a available in the near future.
Way back in the early eighties I worked for a company that had a computer to automate tracking their manufacturing process. The computer took up an entire large room, and it held less data that my current smart phone. In fact, knowledge in all science fields has increased dramatically in those 35 years. At that time I was still a JW and believed evolution was a hoax perpetrated by scientists, but to believe that today you have to stick your head in the sand. Why would you do that?
If God exists, he certainly doesn't want you to live in ignorance. At one time people were persecuted for believing the earth revolved the sun, as if that somehow disproved God's existence. But knowledge won out and people kept believing in God. Not believing in evolution today is equivalent to believing the sun revolves around the earth. So why are you so afraid to look at the evidence objectively? Is your faith so weak that it will wither if you do?
-
StrongHaiku
iconoclastic - Despite all of the advances in engineering and computer technology, the development of a robotic hand that is as dexterous as a human hand still exceeds the grasp of modern science.
Yes. The "human hand still exceeds the grasp (pun intended?) of modern science"...at this time. In the future this may not be the case about the human hand, artificial intelligence, interstellar travel, etc. We keep making progress and we have just barely started in these areas compared to the timescale of evolution, as other posters pointed out well.
Regardless, the idea that - 'a human can or cannot make a "human hand"' still says nothing about about evolution or the argument for God. All the argument can say is that there are times humans can replicate nature, or can't (at this time). However, what we are finding out is that with some ingenuity and hard work we can often exceed nature in remarkable ways (e.g. airplanes, etc.).
The thing that bugs me the most is how this "we can't make something...therefore God" argument has been "moving the goalpost" for thousands of years. If humans do end up making a human hand, people who use this argument will simply point to something else that currently has not been achieved.
-
cofty
You have never read a single science book in your entire life have you?
-
iconoclastic
You say “a human can or cannot make a "human hand"' still says nothing about evolution or the argument for God.”
Yes it speaks against evolution, as such sophistication will not come from lower forms (or species) [at a time super-intelligent humans now with all the computer advancement simply fail to even duplicate the dexterity of human hands]
When information is lengthened as far as possible (as happened in the case of theory of evolution), you are lost in the ocean of information and you are forced to feel this may be true.
When you shorten the information to its essence, as I did in my original post, you will see clearly, what is possible and what is not possible, and what is true and what is false.
-
cofty
You have never read a single science book in your entire life have you?
Have you figured out the fundamental difference between male and female yet?