Re: New Diary Entry - PT

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Hmm.  I see billions and billions of items around me that were the 
> result of careful design.

You know, it really burns me up how Creationists are so quick to dismiss 
as absurd the idea of complicated structures coming about through millions 
& millions of years of evolution & natural selection, & yet they are so
quick to embrace the notion of an invisible man (surely not a woman), way
up in the clouds, sitting at a workbench, manufacturing everything, includ-
ing all life.  Society is doomed.  

> Not accidentally, umm, made? No, accidentally popped into existence. Like 
> my brain. 

Once again, your lack of understanding of how evolution through natural
selection actually works has shackled your mind in chains of ignorance &
lies.  I really need to buy you some literature & send it to you.  I want
so much for you to learn & understand the truth, Jon.    

> Or the little motor that powers the flagella on a one celled euglena.  

Ah ha, someone's been reading the propaganda & false assumptions of Michael
J. Behe.  Like you, his bias & lack of understanding has led him to incor-
rect conclusions.

> This is concrete proof that you just ignore. 

No.  It's proof of evolution that you misinterpret.

> There happens to be so much proof that people become blind to it.  Then 
> make up a theory to claim that it is all accidental!  

<sigh>  Listen to me carefully, Jon:  Evolutionary theory *does not* state
that complicated organisms arise by accident or chance.  That's an incorrect
assumption.  You've been lied to.  The tornado blowing through the junk-
yard & making a 747 is a false analogy.  That's not how evolution works.

The only "accidents" in evolution are small chance mutations in organisms
that, if beneficial, will remain to be passed on to future generations.
This is natural selection at work.

What stumps many people is how these little "chance mutations" can lead to
seemingly complicated structures like brains & eyes.  This confusion arises
because humans have difficulty perceiving the massive amounts of time which
evolution & natural selection have had to work.  Humans are used to think-
ing in terms of decades or centuries, not hundreds of thousands of years. 

> My computer was designed and built. My brain wasn't?  Preposterous!

Another misconception because you're ignorant of the facts, Jon.  Something
as complicated as your brain *can* arise through evolution & natural sel-
ection, as it has in other animals.  I admit it sounds hard to believe but
evolutionary theory shows that it *can* happen - and surprisingly rather
quickly, too.  There is no need to invent a Creator to satisfy the evidence.
Evolution through natural selection is quite capable of generating complic-
ated organs & organisms.  And there is proof to back that up. 

> But I know that the Spirit exists.  

No, you don't.  You're hoping it exists, because it sounds quaint & is com-
forting on some level.  But there is absolutely no evidence that spirits,
or auras, or life energies are anything but human fantasies.

> You are speaking in the realm of knowledge and I am speaking in the realm 
> of Life.  Two different trees altogether.  

See, you're forced to invent your "Life tree" & claim it is separate from 
the "Knowledge tree" because you have no evidence to prove the Spirit 
exists.  Simply saying something is beyond the realm of knowledge or science
is not proof it exists.  You must show me evidence for me to believe in it.


I will not waste my time here on Earth obsessing over ideas which aren't
grounded in reality & can't support evidence to their legitimacy - especial-
ly ideas which are so obviously constructed by man because of a fear of 
death & the unknown.   

> Spiritual is spiritual.  It is not physical.

In other words, you can't prove it because you can't prove it.  Taking the
easy way out, huh?  Sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling.  

> Radios detect signals. The human spirit detects the things of God.  You 
> have one!!!

I pray to God to strike me down right now if I have a spirit.  <waiting>
I said, "I PRAY TO GOD TO STRIKE ME DOWN RIGHT NOW IF I HAVE A SPIRIT!!!"
<still waiting>  Nothing.  God must be busy at the moment.  Perhaps he's
overseas in some overpopulated, starved, diseased, poor, third-world country
teaching the evils of contraception.

Here's a neat website that answers many Creationist arguments against evol-
ution.  Please check it out, Jon.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EE
DF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

Re: Pete Townshend (finally, some Who content!)

> That belief was based on careful observation. ;-)  I read ADB, and I knew 
> what it was that he was fighting.  I also didn't see any evidence at all 
> that he indeed did something unseemly, so why make it up, or believe it 
> when others that don't know him say it?  

Well, none of us knew he was actually *looking* for child porn sites on the
computer!  It's one thing to campaign against something, it's another to
immerse oneself in the evil one is fighting.  

I understand the concept of "Know thine enemy," but to find out Pete had 
visited a child porn-related site was quite a shock, & I must admit I wasn't
so quick to brush that evidence aside & say that he was obviously only doing
research.  

I've seen too many hypocrites exposed in my day to make such snap judgments.

I was *hoping* the allegations weren't true but I needed more information.
My Who albums stood silently & told me nothing.  I needed to hear from Pete.

> Pete is also an honest person when it comes to things of this sort.  

But Pete can be so contradictory & confusing at times, too.  Sure he *seems*
to be a good honest person but no one knows what evils lurk inside the minds
of men.  (I'm not saying Pete is evil.  I'm just saying that I like to re-
serve judgment until more facts come to light.)

How many Rush Limbaugh fans were adamant the charges against him were false?
How many made snap decisions that he was being framed by "the liberal
media?"
The proof was there.  Rush had ranted & raved *against* drug abusers for
years & years.  It was part of his campaign, his ideology.  All the evidence
pointed to his innocence.  And we all know how that turned out.

Now, I'm certainly not comparing Rush Limbaugh to Pete Townshend.  I'm just
trying to point out that things aren't always what they appear to be.
People *do* deceive.  People *do* lie.  Good people & bad people.  The only
certainty we have is Truth, which must be bolstered by evidence & facts.
Faith doesn't always cut it.  It didn't for Rush Limbaugh's fans.    

> He was too bold in what he said that first day, and he came forth on his 
> own.

Looking back on it now, that seems to be the case.  But the total absurdity
of the situation at the time had me very confused & uncertain.  I guess I'll
commend you for sticking to your guns, even though I feel that that approach
doesn't always work & will sometimes bite you in the arse.

Again, thank you for your stimulating discussion, Jon.  I admire your pas-
sion.


- SCHRADE in Akron

An extraordinary claim requires equally extraordinary evidence. 
    - Carl Sagan