From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thank you, Antti, for discussing things.
Keywords: Antti, evolution, creation, holistic, Menem, Norrblad
Date: 7 Sep 92 10:15:12 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:

>In article <1992Sep2.180036.12365@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes:
>>>Could you name these three non-evolutionist biologists?
>>
>>	Me, Menem, Norrblad
>>

>That's great....tell me more about these people.

	I have told it in t.o .

>Question: What do you mean by "two"?  Could you try to write more
>coherently?  Do you mean you found two evolutionary biologists on
>t.o.?

	Yes, I've found two, but science is no democracy. 
>Antti, is this an example of, "The world is so beautiful, it *must*
>have been created by God!"  Are you telling me to forsake all the
>knowledge I have learned about evolution and biology, to let simple
>emotions make the judgement for me?  This is the idea that I get when
>I hear you say "you need to have a holistic view." What do you mean?
>Use common sense?  Common sense tells you there must be a creator?
>Common sense also tells me that heavier objects should fall faster
>than lighter objects!

	Common sense doesn't mean that you should be blind, on the contrary, 
	you should examine things. At first, when evolution was introduced to 
	me, I believed it. But the more I have studied the more suspicious I've
	become.            
>If so, I used to think that nature was beautiful and perfect, also,
>until I started looking at some of the things in nature that I found
>imperfect.  Bad design in various species (including man), for
>example.  And the fact that the universe is decaying and will one
>day 'die'.  As you know, I used to be a Deist, but now am an Atheist.
>But as a side point, why are you talking to me at all?  Don't
>you know that talking to "apostates" is looked down upon by the
>Watchtower Society?  It might even be a sin before Jehovah!

	I answer first to your last question: I have found out that you haven't
	been disfellowshipped (yet) (although you gave me that impression). 
	Your dying university is a contrary view to evolution, btw. . Can you
	tell me what have you found imperfect ?
>You see, Antti, you can't expect science to have ALL the answers;
>I personally think it never will.  But I think that as time goes
>on, most of the major "problems" with theories of *how* evolution
>happened will be solved.  That is my "faith", in a way, I guess you
>could call it (although I hate that word).  Your questions on
>talk.origins were intriguing, even though I couldn't understand
>some of them, due either to not knowing enough about biology, or 
>not being able to read your writing. ;)  I would expect that over
>the next few days, since you have started participating in t.o.,
>you will get some interesting answers or solutions to your
>problems.  Please don't be scared off or anything. 

	Yes, you have much sense. Science is your faith, and it used to be mine,
	too. I found, however, most scientific talk idle and speculating. If 
	you think this world rationally, there is only one question: How can 
	mankind survive in the future ? All the other questions are irrelevant.
	In spite of doing hard research to find possible survival methods, 
	scientists use their time to empty speculations. I don't say that ALL 
	science is vain, only some is. Now people are much more aware of the 
	ecological problems of the earth, but how many people do you know that
	would give away any of their living standards for ecology ? People 
	don't stop using cars, instead they use catalysator, that give them a
	clean conscience. Let me tell you the truth that few people can spell 
	out: The earth has no future. But the Bible promises it has. Only 
	something must be done, and WE can't do it. 

	I can't affect my writing very much :( . For Tawasthian-speaking people
	it's extremely difficult to learn English. 

	I'm only scared of one thing in t.o : Speculative, scientific talk. I 
	can do it myself, too, but I HATE it so much I don't want to talk like
	that. 

>evolution, could you please tell us what you have read by actual
>scientists about common descent and natural selection?  I hope
>you have read more than _Life: How did it get here?_, because
>even if you refuse to acknowledge the errors in that book, you
>will have to admit that it is much too simplistic to cover such
>a diverse topic as evolution  (To give an example, they have
>one paragraph on _Archaeopteryx_.  I have found entire *papers*
>on that subject alone; it just can't be covered in a 6-sentence
>paragraph).  

	I have read books only in rare languages :(, so I can't recommend any.
	Life-book is an easy-to-read -book and I agree with you. I've found 
	my sources elsewhere mostly. Still that is a good overview, introduc-  
	tion. 

	I read current WT (was it 15.9 ?) and there was an interesting article
	about simplicity.       


>Please note, I am not angry at all.  The only problem I seem
>to be having is understanding the English of your postings.
>I'm sorry if I've been "showing off my vocabulary".  I just
>think that some words explain things better than others
>(how else are you going to say _Archaeopteryx_?).  This is
>great, I can't believe we're actually *getting* somewhere
>instead of throwing stupid insults around like "You ought
>to be on America's Funniest People"... :)

	Yeah, like I said, I can't do so much with my English. 
	Also I don't want to throw insults, but I'm only sad, when I see smart
	people that don't use their own brain. Neither am I angry, if I were, 
	then I wouldn't discuss. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !