From: dart@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dartanyan the Witchling)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Thank you, Antti, for discussing things.
Keywords: Antti, evolution, creation, holistic, Menem, Norrblad
Date: 8 Sep 92 07:10:21 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Sep7.101512.25753@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>>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.            

	Common sense is that which tells you the world is flat.

>>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 ?

	A dying universe is not contrary to evolution, as long as random 
stuff happens.  That means that random things that do not fall prey to this
form of death and that occur, thus evolving.
	That's what evolution is.  The ones that can handle more shit live
longer.  The ones that live longer reproduce more.  In this way, the individual
organisms do not live forever, but the _species_ lives longer and longer.
	If humans figure out how not to kill each other off, and spend 1/10
the amount on life-extending research that we do on military (read: ways to kill
each other), we wil eventually even find a way to prevent old age froim affecting
us, thus do humans with technology survive better than humans without.
	Thus humans with technology seems to be an evolutionary step.
	If you raise horses, and you shoot those that break their legs, the ones
with brittle legs wil have less chances to reproduce.  Ones with stronger legs
will have more chances to live and reproduce.  Eventually you will shoot the last 
brittle legged horse before it has a chance to reproduce, and later the last one
with a recessive gene for brittle legs will die without reproducing, as it's off
spring that come out with brittle legs will get shot, and the ones without that
gene will live.  The gene will eventually clear the line, and brittle legged horses
will be extinct.

>>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

	There are no problems.  They just do not understand WHY genes mutate.
They know genes DO mutate.  It's not like you have to get a test model ready.
	We know it works, we know how it works, we just do not know WHY it works.
Ohg, sure, to LIVE, but why this intense desire to live (because all the organisms
without htis desire died off?) why life in the first place?
	Maybe there is no reason.  It's not a coincidence that earth happened
to be the one that got life - it was the one where such was possible and the right
stuff happened.  It's not hard to imageing that this hapened to be the prouct of the
infinite monkey theorem.

>>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 

	Several.  All of them happen to be witches.

>	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. 

	Not me.  Science could be wrong.  Religion could be too.
	Who knows.  Infinite monkeys are still typing.

>
>	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. 

	Are you afraid you might have a though that is not a bible quote?

>
>>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"... :)

	Toothy Chicken.
	
>
>	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. 

	Me too.  I hate it when people blindly follow dogma without even considering
the possibility, "It's so old, but so is greek mythology doesn;t that mean it might
just be all wrong, no matter how mindlessly happy it makes me?"
	


	Ok everybody, EVOLVE!

							Dodger