So what`s Mel Gibson`s profit for his controversial movie you ask?

[Jazz]

Yet another interpretation of faith ... and of course no one can prove him wrong so logically the beliefs he has (given by his elders or peers, not necessarily his family) are as valid as anyone else's religious faiths - of course this is just an example, he may be a bit dull but that's never been a problem for those wishing to use other people and of course there are extremely smart people who believe the same thing ...

HAWARA CHECKPOINT, West Bank — A 16-year-old Palestinian with a suicide bomb vest strapped to his torso was on a mission to kill the Israeli soldiers who caught and disarmed him before he could strike, the army said. The youngster told a newspaper he had been afraid to die.

In an interview with the Yediot Ahronot newspaper Thursday, the boy, identified as Hussam Abdo (search), said he wanted to go to paradise but feared killing himself until he neared the Israeli army roadblock and was stopped.

"When the soldiers stopped me, I didn't press the switch. I changed my mind. I didn't want to die anymore," Abdo said, according to the newspaper. "I'm sorry for what I did."

The military said Abdo's mission was to kill soldiers at the crowded West Bank (search) checkpoint.

"In addition to the fact that he would have harmed my soldiers, he would have also harmed the Palestinians waiting at the checkpoint, and there were 200 to 300 innocent Palestinians there," said the commander of the checkpoint, who identified himself only as Lt. Col. Guy.

During the tense encounter Wednesday, soldiers took cover behind concrete barricades and sent a yellow army robot with scissors to the teenager so he could cut off the vest. Before he finally was detained, the youngster was made to strip to his underwear to prove he had no other weapons.

Leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (search) militant group denied sending the boy, but local members in Nablus' Balata refugee camp said they did. The group has ties to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement.

The family of the teenager said he was gullible and easily manipulated.

"He doesn't know anything, and he has the intelligence of a 12-year-old," said his brother, Hosni.

In the newspaper interview, Abdo said he wanted to reach paradise, which he was taught in school was the reward for suicide bombers.

"A river of honey, a river of wine and 72 virgins. Since I have been studying Quran I know about the sweet life that waits there (in Paradise)," the newspaper quoted the boy as saying.

 

[blueedwards]

the object of one's faith is infinately more important that how much faith a person has. if i climb on board an airliner that is 50 years old, has rusty, loose bolts holding the wings on, and a pilot who is drunk...i can have all the faith in the world in the safety of my flight. won't mean a thing.

 

[Jazz]

We're talking about faith in something which no one has proven exists, whereas at least an airplane is verifiable as far as existing. I submit if you boarded such a plane as you described under those conditions, then you'd have to be a damn moron to have 'faith' in the safety of your flight because all rationality is SCREAMING the flight cannot be safe. Each religious faith's adherents feel exactly as you do, otherwise why would they not be in your faith instead of theirs? Because they believe their faith is correct, and because ain't no one going to be able to prove them wrong. All they can do is argue/discuss, but they cannot prove. That's why we've got teenagers willing to blow themselves up (well that, and the ignorant are a lot easier to get to blow themselves up than the informed).

 

[blueedwards]

jazz, i agree that faith is necessary in each religion. but, in my search i determined that the evidence supports the bible and the christian doctrine. what is needed to believe that the bible and christianity is true is faith, but not blind faith. to believe in islam, for example, takes a lot more faith than to believe in christianity because there is far less evidence supporting islam's truth claims.

the best example of this is evolution versus creation. you can not prove either one...if evolution is true, it is happening so gradually that it can not be measured. if creation is true, it happened long ago and no one was witness to it. the question is, which of the two is better supported by the evidence that we see and which adheres to the laws of science (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, for example).

this was my main obstacle to the christian faith years ago when i was searching. i felt that the evidence supported evolution and that to believe that God created everything we see is ridiculous. well, in my search (which by the way included attending debates between evolutionists and creationists) i determined that the opposite is true.

 

[D2bets]

blue, gradual changes can be measurable and evolution is fact. Evolution, however, is not necessarily inconsistent with creationism. Nonetheless, creationism is bunk IMO.

 

[blueedwards]

to say that evolution is fact shows bias. it is called the theory of evolution for a reason.

now, there are changes within a species that occur. that is micro-evolution. i am not talking about that. i am talking about macro-evolution. i am talking about life starting in a primordial sea as a single-celled organism 4 billion years ago...evolving into a human being.

the evidence does not support macro-evolution. macro-evolution conflicts with the known laws of thermodynamics and goes against reason. you need a lot more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than you do to believe in the biblical account.

 

[blueedwards]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D2bets:
Evolution, however, is not necessarily inconsistent with creationism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

evolution is in direct conflict with the biblical account of creation. you cannot believe both to be true.

 

[Jazz]

blue, here's just one of many refutations of that old saw about the 'known laws of thermodynamics' ... evolution is a theory, but notice the fact that it's constantly being examined by scientists all over the world in a lot of disciplines, and the vast majority of them support it - but it's always open for review, whereas religious faiths are not - they are set in stone.

Henry Morris on Trial: Morris' Scientific Distortions

By Tommy Huxley
Posted on: 4/20/2002


Henry Morris on Trial: How Creation Science Abuses the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Misrepresenting Both Science and Scripture

Let's start with Morris' scientific fallacies. But first, let me state that I'll explain the Second Law of Thermodynamics in a wholly non-technical style. I'm doing this because most Biblical literalists can't grasp technical concepts. If you want a more thorough treatment, search Yahoo or Alta Vista.

Now many of you reading the above will think that I'm being condescending, and I realize that many young-earth creationists do have Ph.Ds in scientific and engineering disciplines. But most Christians who eagerly trot out this "proof" have no idea about what they're talking about. They usually pick up this "proof" second-hand from a radio evangelist or visiting church speaker. And because the details of this proof are so intricate and complex, it sounds persuasive. Scientific illiteracy always dupes the unwary.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that energy always flows from order to disorder unless there is "work" being performed to decrease the entropy, or disorder. That is, water cannot flow upstream without assistance. And if you're boiling water in a pot and then turn off your stove, the boiling water will cool to room temperature until you apply more heat energy to boil the water again. Otherwise, matter and energy seek a state of inert uniformity.

Creationists claim that evolution can't work because evolution is an uphill process. The fossil record shows that life on earth began as one-celled microorganisms that, over time, developed into the multi-cellular animals we see today. But creationists claim that such long-range transformations are impossible because nature seeks uniformity. So the enormous variety of plants and animals we see today could not have risen from lower forms. Instead, God created all the earth's living inhabitants in one ad hoc miracle with little change since the beginning. Any biological changes that have taken place since then are minor mutations to the "created kinds" that are now running downhill.

Despite their credentials, creationists often overlook the obvious. For example, look at an acorn. This unremarkable kernel has little apparent built-in complexity. Even if you examine it under a microscope, you'll only observe a tiny, simple structure. But if you plant this acorn and water it, you'll eventually have a massive oak tree towering over your house that weighs several tons.

Doesn't that violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics? If nature really followed the pattern that most creationists claim it should, wouldn't the surrounding entropy do away with this acorn before it ever sprouted? Do oak trees take root and bud in what's obviously an uphill process with accelerating complexity that defies their encircling disorder?

Entropy is not a one-way destructive force, as most creationists maintain. The Second Law only says that the entropy or disorder of a system increases at the expense of work being accomplished by another. As the oak tree grows, it takes in moisture, nourishment, carbon dioxide, and other essential elements to reach maturity. But this tree is gaining complexity at the expense of its environment, so it's increasing the disorder around it.

But where does this consumed energy source originate? From our sun, which is an extraordinarily effective heat engine. It powers the natural forces of our planet's atmosphere and water cycle to keep the planet running efficiently. And our sun is losing energy and increasing entropy at a far, far greater rate than Earth's plants and animals are gaining from its useful work. Fortunately, though, our sun is a rather durable heat engine that should last another five billion years.

Likewise, a fertilized human egg (or zygote) is a dull rudimentary structure when studied under a microscope. Yet it increases in complexity to develop into an adult. As we consume the elements of our surrounding environment for nourishment, we're increasing the disorder around us. But since we are efficient work engines, we can modify that same environment to sustain us.

But like most heat engines, our bodies exhaust fuel faster than we can harness the available energy to sustain our longevity, so we eventually die. That's one of the Second Law's drawbacks -- no machine works at 100 percent efficiency. We waste more heat energy than we put to work.

What has all this to do with evolution? Because evolution goes through the same cycle as reproduction. Biological transformations occur incrementally as we pass adaptations onto our descendants. As our environment changes, most organisms accommodate those changes or go extinct.

Creationists claim that because of God's curse inherent in the Second Law, nature has been perpetually "running down" in totality since The Fall. But if that's true, then how did the human race move from a primitive pre-industrial society to a high-tech society? How do we keep multiplying our scientific and industrial capabilities, exponentially?

If the universe has been winding down faster and faster since its inception, why do we keep increasing our level of acquired knowledge at an even faster rate? Shouldn't human society descend in the opposite direction? Shouldn't our descendants lapse into the Stone Age?

Whenever I bring up this point to most fundamentalists, they'll claim that our technological advances are the work of the supernatural. "You must understand," they whisper. "The Prophet Daniel predicted that just before the end of time, knowledge will greatly increase in the world before God's judgment." And then they'll quote Daniel 12:4:
But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.
I'm amazed at the lengths people can twist scripture to their advantage. You can take any cryptic oracle from an Old Testament prophet and use it to vindicate a completely unrelated topic. We'll examine more examples of that later.

One final point. Many creationists claim that evolution is impossible because the Big Bang theory violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics because the Big Bang created matter and energy from nothing. As is typical of most creationist tactics, they spread confusion by appealing to irrelevant subjects. The Big Bang theory says absolutely nothing about biological evolution, and linking the two is a confusing subterfuge.

Having said that, I will have to point out that our universe is, even now, harnessing available energy to create entirely new stars and solar systems. The Hubble Space Telescope captured this working process in gorgeous photography.

 

[blueedwards]

i have read huxley's comments quite extensively. he was a brilliant man but, many of his comments are based on data that i believe he has interpreted the wrong way. for example, i do not believe that the fossil record supports life going from a single-celled creature to a man. to say that it does presupposes many things (the accuracy of carbon dating, for one).

one of the underlying themes of the theory of evolution states that beings adapt to their surroundings and, over time, develop certain traits to serve a need. sounds good and seems to make logical sense until you think about it:

how can an organism, living in water (the primordial sea) decide to come out of the water and breathe air? that goes against all logic and reason because we all know that creature would die in a matter of minutes. even if it could survive, how could it reproduce?

also, a single-celled organism cannot see...it has no eye. how can anything which cannot see, develop something as complex as an eye? to say it adapts to its environment makes no sense because how can an organism that cannot see adapt to a world which it cannot see? to say that it could develop an eye to enable sight, without having the ability to see the world to know it needs to develop sight makes no sense.

 

[blueedwards]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz:
evolution is a theory, but notice the fact that it's constantly being examined by scientists all over the world in a lot of disciplines, and the vast majority of them support it - but it's always open for review<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the fact that most scientists believe in the theory of evolution does not persuade me. most scientists believed that the world was flat 500 years ago. they are humans...humans make mistakes.

in addition, i believe that most scientists are pre-disposed to believe that the theory is true and that creation is not true. anything that presupposes God is immediately disregarded by them. now, if someone won't even allow for the possibility of the opposing viewpoint, can you really trust that they are being objective?

 

[Jazz]

blue - first, it's a pleasure discussing anything with you because you don't fly off the handle on potentially explosive subjects - so thank you for that.

However, I have a dental appointment soon and have to be going - I'll check back in later, tomorrow probably because I intend to watch both games today.

But I will answer to this: "one of the underlying themes of the theory of evolution states that beings adapt to their surroundings and, over time, develop certain traits to serve a need."

No. That's a misstatement. When mutations occur in a population, especially over millions of years, the vast majority of those mutations will not prove beneficial. They simply happen. Organisms in such an environment do not purposefully develop traits to survive - once in a very long blue moon, a mutation will occur that proves of aid to a particular organism in dealing with its environment. If that trait, such as being able to stand higher temperatures in (for example) a desert setting, is beneficial then that organism may prove to be more 'successful' in surviving and passing on that trait to its progeny. If it is not beneficial, as most mutations are not, that organism will not be as successful as other organisms without that mutation and will likely die off. To say that an organism 'adapts to its environment' is incorrect in the sense that it somehow drives the process. Quite the contrary: the process simply occurs naturally, and the survivors (i.e. 'winners') in the environment are the fortuitous result of chance, not design.

Later

 

[Jazz]

You're using semantics, blue: 500 years ago was before the Age of Reason, so it's difficult to consider them as 'scientists'. They were simply amateurs, and when one like Galileo stumbled across contradictory information, you could always rely on the Church to threaten them or burn them. Knowing that, most of them simply spewed the Church's line - consider the horrible atrocities spawned by the Spanish Inquisition and you'll get an idea why people back then almost always dared not voice dissension.

 

[blueedwards]

jazz, hope your dental experience was a positive one. speaking of dentists, when you were in his office, did you notice all the instruments he probably had laid out on a tray? there was probably a mirror, a scraper-thing, a drill, etc.

what is more rational to believe...an intelligent being designed and manufactured that dentist drill or, that it was the result of an explosion in a hardware store?

 

[blueedwards]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jazz:
You're using semantics, blue: 500 years ago was before the Age of Reason, so it's difficult to consider them as 'scientists'. They were simply amateurs, and when one like Galileo stumbled across contradictory information, you could always rely on the Church to threaten them or burn them. Knowing that, most of them simply spewed the Church's line - consider the horrible atrocities spawned by the Spanish Inquisition and you'll get an idea why people back then almost always dared not voice dissension.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i bet in 500 years, people will refer to darwin and huxley as amateurs who had grossly misinterpreted data and were biased to a fault in generating their theories.

 

[blueedwards]

jazz, if my understanding of the theory of adaptation is wrong, i apologize...i am not an expert. but, regardless of how "scientific" people make the argument sound, in the end, it comes down to explaining how a being that lives in water can come out of the water and breathe air. not only that but, can produce offspring that breathe air.

i have read and listened to many evolutionists and not one came close to giving a good explanation for that.

also, when it comes to explaining the complexity of the human eye or the central nervous system, the brain, etc...in my opinion, the evolutionists have failed miserably. to say that a series of mutations, over millions of years, have resulted in the human brain and the human eye is no better than saying that a monkey banging away on a typewriter eventually produced a shakespeare (sp?) play.

there are a ton of other problems with evolution. here are two of them:

1) if apes evolved into man, why are there still apes? why didn't they all evolve?

2) in the course of human history, many, many species have become extinct. how many new ones have evolved?

i'll stop here since you are at the dentist and cannot respond yet.

[This message was edited by blue edwards on March 25, 2004 at 06:51 PM.]