Posts by iconoclastic

60

Why don’t we have a better story?

by iconoclastic in

1. some say we are all gods, and god is omnipresent..

2. some say: god created his children who later challenged his sovereignty, who in turn asked his eldest son: go down to the world, do not resist the wicked, but be murdered by them, the value of which will be used to atone the sins of the world..

3. universe arose out of a big bang.

iconoclastic

LisaRose

You can go on taking instances from ocean theory of evolution—that will not prove there is no God. If Darwin had been in our time and had a glimpse into the complexities of DNA or a Cell, he would not have thought about evolution even in his most irrational dream.

You have all the answers in the following observation:

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.

60

Why don’t we have a better story?

by iconoclastic in

1. some say we are all gods, and god is omnipresent..

2. some say: god created his children who later challenged his sovereignty, who in turn asked his eldest son: go down to the world, do not resist the wicked, but be murdered by them, the value of which will be used to atone the sins of the world..

3. universe arose out of a big bang.

iconoclastic

cofty

I am sorry to say my subject is not about about how many genders there are.

60

Why don’t we have a better story?

by iconoclastic in

1. some say we are all gods, and god is omnipresent..

2. some say: god created his children who later challenged his sovereignty, who in turn asked his eldest son: go down to the world, do not resist the wicked, but be murdered by them, the value of which will be used to atone the sins of the world..

3. universe arose out of a big bang.

iconoclastic

StrongHaiku

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.

60

Why don’t we have a better story?

by iconoclastic in

1. some say we are all gods, and god is omnipresent..

2. some say: god created his children who later challenged his sovereignty, who in turn asked his eldest son: go down to the world, do not resist the wicked, but be murdered by them, the value of which will be used to atone the sins of the world..

3. universe arose out of a big bang.

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).

60

Why don’t we have a better story?

by iconoclastic in

1. some say we are all gods, and god is omnipresent..

2. some say: god created his children who later challenged his sovereignty, who in turn asked his eldest son: go down to the world, do not resist the wicked, but be murdered by them, the value of which will be used to atone the sins of the world..

3. universe arose out of a big bang.

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?’

60

Why don’t we have a better story?

by iconoclastic in

1. some say we are all gods, and god is omnipresent..

2. some say: god created his children who later challenged his sovereignty, who in turn asked his eldest son: go down to the world, do not resist the wicked, but be murdered by them, the value of which will be used to atone the sins of the world..

3. universe arose out of a big bang.

iconoclastic

Cofty, and done4good

By resorting to labeling me, you admit that you don’t have the answer

60

Why don’t we have a better story?

by iconoclastic in

1. some say we are all gods, and god is omnipresent..

2. some say: god created his children who later challenged his sovereignty, who in turn asked his eldest son: go down to the world, do not resist the wicked, but be murdered by them, the value of which will be used to atone the sins of the world..

3. universe arose out of a big bang.

iconoclastic

cofty & cantleave

Your too simplistic response (calling a too serious question as “wrong” and “ignorance”) validates my conviction. Thank you for that. I have originally heard this question from very eminent scientists themselves.

60

Why don’t we have a better story?

by iconoclastic in

1. some say we are all gods, and god is omnipresent..

2. some say: god created his children who later challenged his sovereignty, who in turn asked his eldest son: go down to the world, do not resist the wicked, but be murdered by them, the value of which will be used to atone the sins of the world..

3. universe arose out of a big bang.

iconoclastic

You all are explaining this with such an ease you would explain how giraffe got its long neck.

But here it is reproduction, a core-issue—as important as creation—the very process that ensured the next generation. So question is not that easy!!!!!

How can an organism (whether the simplest form or extremely complex form) come into existence—first without the copying ability, and pick up the copying ability later on its way?

60

Why don’t we have a better story?

by iconoclastic in

1. some say we are all gods, and god is omnipresent..

2. some say: god created his children who later challenged his sovereignty, who in turn asked his eldest son: go down to the world, do not resist the wicked, but be murdered by them, the value of which will be used to atone the sins of the world..

3. universe arose out of a big bang.

iconoclastic

Doltologist

When people try to replace religious stories, they should come up with something better. Sadly, evolution theory does not do better! Though we have oceans of information, beneath the details it does not even qualify to be called a story. I will give just one example: Reproduction of species! Among the two types of reproduction (asexual and sexual), sexual reproduction is a great puzzle equally for both evolutionists and creationists. Evolutionists adhere to the view that the first organisms on earth were asexual. If so, why only some species would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction? Exactly how did we arrive at two separate genders—each with its own physiology? Biology texts illustrate amoebas evolving into intermediate organisms, which then give rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, eventually, humans. Yet, those books are conveniently silent on exactly when or how independent male and female sexes originated. Somewhere along this evolutionary path, both males and females were required in order to ensure the procreation that was necessary to further the existence of a particular species. Evolution is an upward climb; hence asexual reproduction cannot evolve into sexual reproduction which is an inefficient way to reproduce. Think about what all the sexual process entails, including the complexity involved in reproducing the information carried within the DNA. This process, and the manner in which it is copied from generation to generation, are too complex. In addition, sexual reproduction is absurd in many ways: It is like trying the trick of first making two copies of a message, then breaking each into short bits at random, combining equal amounts from the two to form the version to be transmitted, and throwing the unused half away. Again, it is also like an absurd way of reading a book—you buy two copies, rip the pages out, and make a new copy by combining half the pages from one and half from the other, tossing a coin at each page to decide which original to take the page from and which to throw away. How can God bring in such a costly and inefficient method of sexual reproduction with its attendant labor pain so excruciating that some of the would-be-mothers even die in the labor room itself?

Thus replacement of religious stories raises only more questions than answers!

26

Why Jehovah Does Not Want An Effective Preaching Work

by konceptual99 in

so we all know how ineffectual the preaching work really is.

we also know how much the wts hypes up the scope and scale of the global preaching effort.

what the gb should be doing however is emphasising the ineffectiveness of the preaching work.

iconoclastic

Very interesting point you brought! Thanks for that.