The World Of Academia, Driving me crazy!

I think most of you might have seen the post I entered telling how I started attending online classes. It is really awesome, getting the opportunity to finally get a college education--especially at my age and with three kids in the house. What's driving me nuts is the two classes I am taking right now: Religions of the world, and environmental science. The science class is old hat, rehashing Darwin's evolution theory. What's changed about that is the intricate detail in revealing (snicker) how life evolved on a lifeless planet, all from inorganic material. The metaphysical process involved in the emergence of life could be right on target (the time frame of 3.7 billion years I think is in error), but there is no suggestion of intelligent design at all. Like I said, old hat.

The other class, religions of the world, is a bit different from anything I've ever studied. Last week's focus was on Hinduism. Now there's an easy way to get completely confused. That religion is so complicated that even its followers are unsure of much of its meaning. It wreaks of what I have seen of the New Age movement in America-rife with symbolism and ritual. We do get to study Christianity in week six, but Islam will also be part of that week as well. God help me!!

And they present all that detail, with such conviction, when THERE IS NOT ONE BIT OF EVIDENCE FOR IT.
It's all speculation! There are no fossils of the in-between stages of man's development, not that can be proven absolutely to be human... there are none from the stages of animals development either to support the theory that everything came from mud and muck.

Even ol' Darwin himself said in the end that he had no explanation for the very first spark of life.

I've always suspected that God made monkeys & chimps look a bit like us, just to throw us a curve ball! Who says He doesn't have a sense of humor...

If humans didn't evolve from apes, then why do we have:

1. Hair?
2. Opposable thumbs?
3. Tailbones?

I'm serious now, Rob -- you'd get a lot more out of a course where you don't already know what you think. Still, it's nice to hear you're doing it. Hope you enjoy yourself a lot!!

You're probably right Lynn, but it would be hard to find a course where I don't have many pre-conceived ideas. As for the whole evolution thing, science hasn't proven those theories, and so I disagree with it being taught as a matter of fact.

I don't even know why you think these things indicate we evolved from apes. There are many such similarities in nature that are unrelated.

I would like to ask you: If humans evolved from apes, what force the evolution, and why are apes still here?

Divergence by mutation, and the variant redundancy of the system. Possibly a safety net. I would call that a rather intelligent design factor, if you want to look at it that way.

Like, some Irish diverged and we got Scots, but we still have the Irish. Yes?

That's a pretty back-handed way to call the Irish, monkeys.

That's a pretty back-handed way to call the Irish, monkeys.

Oh, my . . .
Well, I have to hand you credit for thinking of it, because I didn't. Not everything is a literal analogy. And besides, this isn't the forum for that kind of back and forth, or at least I don't think it is.

I don't even know why you think these things indicate we evolved from apes. There are many such similarities in nature that are unrelated.

I would like to ask you: If humans evolved from apes, what force the evolution, and why are apes still here?

I am a Christian (Roman Catholic) like you. However, I don't accept what my church hierarchy tries to spoon feed me. Logical thought prevents that. I regard the Book of Genesis as a nice story.

Some species of monkeys still have tails. What holds that in place? A tailbone. Humans have tailbones too, which is clear evidence that, at one point during the formation of the human body, it had a tail.

BTW, if you want proof that God or evolution does have a sense of humor, just look at this picture:



It was like "OK, I'm gonna take an otter, give it the tail of a beaver and the feet and bill of a duck."

That's a pretty back-handed way to call the Irish, monkeys.

Oh, my . . .
Well, I have to hand you credit for thinking of it, because I didn't. Not everything is a literal analogy. And besides, this isn't the forum for that kind of back and forth, or at least I don't think it is.

Thanks for the clarification.

Considering you weren't drawing a literal comparison, your example is severely flawed. You have compared two nationalities to two species.

In nature, genetic mutations do happen, however; I have seen nothing to indicate phylogenetic mutation of man and ape, or chimpanzee, is anything more than a hypothesis provided by Darwin and supported by some with a more devious agenda than "pure" science.

EXACTLY. And that signifies creation rather than evolution. All of evolution theory would argue against the platypus as proof of evolution, because the theory would have the creature, at the most, with features of two types of animals. This animal is a mammal, yet it lays eggs. So the idea that it is a cross breed of two other animals is null and void. Since there are no fossil records of pre-platypus animals, then all that's left is speculation, or a ridiculous reach. I'll leave it to you to decide which.

For heaven's sake. It's mildly ironic. As in HUMOR, man.

As far as I know, there was no genetic effect in the migration that created the scots, except maybe a few extra pictish or viking donations after the fact. I am hardly likely to confuse species with nationalities in a serious comparison.

I realize this medium has limitations as to tone.

For heaven's sake. It's mildly ironic. As in HUMOR, man.

As far as I know, there was no genetic effect in the migration that created the scots, except maybe a few extra pictish or viking donations after the fact. I am hardly likely to confuse species with nationalities in a serious comparison.

I realize this medium has limitations as to tone.

The use of the smilie face or the inclusion of the letters "lol" are appropriate when writing satire or sarcastic humor. Nothing about your comment reflected you weren't serious. Now that I know everyone thinks evolution of man from any other animal is preposturous I won't take the conversation as anything put pure humor.

I thought someone was actually trying to claim evolution happened, my bad.
I should have known no one actually buys into such a ridiculous notion of evolving from apes.
I did think the comparison of the tail as proof of evolution was hilarious, almost made me blow coka-cola through my nose when I read it. lol

Why would anyone want to do that?
*ironic smilie*

You can call me an old stick in mud if you'd like but this thread appears to belong in the Philosophy, Science & Religion forum.

Just my two cents,

MacE