Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Philosophy & Science > The World Of Academia


Posted by: SCShamrock 28-Jul-2005, 08:09 AM
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!! smile.gif

Posted by: Siobhan Blues 12-Sep-2005, 03:19 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 28-Jul-2005, 09:09 AM)
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.

huh.gif
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...

Posted by: MDF3530 12-Sep-2005, 05:10 PM
If humans didn't evolve from apes, then why do we have:

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

Posted by: stoirmeil 12-Sep-2005, 05:20 PM
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!!

Posted by: SCShamrock 13-Sep-2005, 08:26 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 12-Sep-2005, 06:20 PM)
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.




QUOTE (MDF3530)
If humans didn't evolve from apes, then why do we have:

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


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?

Posted by: stoirmeil 13-Sep-2005, 09:44 AM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 13-Sep-2005, 09:26 AM)
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. smile.gif

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

Posted by: sniper 13-Sep-2005, 11:36 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 13-Sep-2005, 11:44 AM)
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. smile.gif

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.


Posted by: stoirmeil 13-Sep-2005, 12:44 PM
QUOTE (sniper @ 13-Sep-2005, 12:36 PM)
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 13-Sep-2005, 11:44 AM)
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. smile.gif

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.

Oh, my . . . unsure.gif
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.

Posted by: MDF3530 13-Sep-2005, 03:36 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 13-Sep-2005, 09:26 AM)
QUOTE (MDF3530)
If humans didn't evolve from apes, then why do we have:

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


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:

user posted image

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."

Posted by: sniper 13-Sep-2005, 05:22 PM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 13-Sep-2005, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE (sniper @ 13-Sep-2005, 12:36 PM)
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 13-Sep-2005, 11:44 AM)
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. smile.gif

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.

Oh, my . . . unsure.gif
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.

Posted by: SCShamrock 13-Sep-2005, 06:39 PM
QUOTE (MDF3530)
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."


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.

Posted by: stoirmeil 13-Sep-2005, 09:40 PM
QUOTE (sniper @ 13-Sep-2005, 06:22 PM)
Considering you weren't drawing a literal comparison, your example is severely flawed. You have compared two nationalities to two species.


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. happy.gif

Posted by: sniper 14-Sep-2005, 09:11 AM
QUOTE (stoirmeil @ 13-Sep-2005, 11:40 PM)
QUOTE (sniper @ 13-Sep-2005, 06:22 PM)
Considering you weren't drawing a literal comparison, your example is severely flawed. You have compared two nationalities to two species.


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. happy.gif

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 biggrin.gif

Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Sep-2005, 10:59 AM
QUOTE (sniper @ 14-Sep-2005, 10:11 AM)
I thought someone was actually trying to claim evolution happened, my bad.

smile.gif
Why would anyone want to do that?
*ironic smilie*

Posted by: MacEoghainn 14-Sep-2005, 11:00 AM
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

Posted by: SCShamrock 14-Sep-2005, 11:57 AM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 14-Sep-2005, 12:00 PM)
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

Maybe, but I'll bet it makes its way to a religious discussion before too long. smile.gif

Posted by: reddrake79 14-Sep-2005, 10:30 PM
Can you have science without religion (or personal beliefs)?

Posted by: Dugadelphia 14-Sep-2005, 10:57 PM
Without religion, yes.

Without personal belief or some degree of preconceived notions or bias, no.

Posted by: stoirmeil 15-Sep-2005, 08:47 AM
QUOTE (Dugadelphia @ 14-Sep-2005, 11:57 PM)
Without religion, yes.

Without personal belief or some degree of preconceived notions or bias, no.

True. I also think that even without a specific dogma, a scientist that is dedicated to his or her work is very likely to be moved by the phenomena being studied, and not just remain matter of fact about it. There's a baseline enthusiasm that turns into something like awe when it's confronted with the beauty, or the intricacy, or the elegance of whatever it is.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 15-Sep-2005, 09:17 AM
Platypi are so funny.

Posted by: Siobhan Blues 16-Sep-2005, 01:42 PM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 13-Sep-2005, 04:36 PM)
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.

LOVE the picture!!! That makes me think God has a good sense of humor, like looking at a hippo does.

But as far as the evolution theory goes, I don't think the fact that humans have a backbone means that they ever had a tail. It just means that they just have backbones.


Posted by: stoirmeil 18-Sep-2005, 03:49 PM
There is a vestigial tailbone in humans (coccyx) that has no practical function, except to get bruised and very painful and slow to heal when humans have sit-down accidents like slipping on ice and landing on their butts. Also, human fetal development follows the overall pattern of evolution, and embryos and early fetuses certainly do have tails. smile.gif

This need to split the issue into "either-or" really mystifies me. Is it impossible to postulate that God used evolution as a tool?

Is it that God isn't getting equal time in the educational system that is the issue?

Or is there a desire to separate the human species from all the rest of nature, so some superior (and therefore privileged) position and prerogatives can be inferred?

It's kind of sweet that you make the jump from YOU finding hippos and platypi funny-looking, to GOD has a sense of humor for making them that way. The hippos and the platypi, however, probably don't see it that way at all, and why should they?smile.gif

Posted by: Antwn ap Ioan 27-Sep-2005, 02:30 PM
I've had similar questions Stoirmeil. Why isn't evolution the methodology of an intellegent designer? Why is creation thought of as finished not ongoing? Why isn't it thought of aesthetically, as a work of art so adroit that aspects of the creation also create, perhaps perpetually.

To me, its sad that intellegent design as a theory is so often hijacked as a surreptitious attempt to justify Christian dogma via science, and that there's a dearth of a more creative approach to possibilities which don't conform to Christian assumptions. Christian concepts seem to follow intellegent design everywhere like loyal pooch to master begging for biscuits of vindication.

Acknowledgement of a creator implies no specific intent except to create and facilitate continuity of an orderly functionality thereof. While amorality for example has affected the microchasm (human society), its effect hasn't circumvented the cosmic order, though I guess that would depend on your definition. I just have trouble gazing at the universe and imagining a teleological argument that includes a cosmic overseer fixated upon micromanaging the morality of mankind and enacting "His" judgements within a reward/punishment paradigm. Its a kindergarden idea bereft of beauty or intelligence, IMO, whereas the universe itself is not (understatement du jour).

The persistence of human tendency to parse viewpoints into opposite extremes, as if only those possibilities were worthy of consideration, is probably one of the most dysfunctional bits of pseudo-comprehension imaginable, not to mention frustrating to interact with. Considering the lack of utility of such encapulations (assuming a true and comprehensive understanding is sincerely desired to begin with), one wonders why such habits are held so tenaciously. Enlighten me Stoirmeilanandaji!

By the way, wasn't this thread about the pains of Academia? Come now, evolution vs. creationism can't be the ONLY arthritic restraint to intellectual mobility in that august body!


Posted by: Celtic cat 14-Nov-2005, 04:07 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 28-Jul-2005, 09:09 AM)
What's driving me nuts is the two classes I am taking right now: Religions of the world, and environmental science.

Just think of the classes in a way that you think of the stories more than the religious aspects. For instance, Mecca. This is a great story. Even if you don't believe in why it happened it still happened and it is history. Don't take the religions class as anything other than a history course. Think of it as understanding other cultures, and how can one see something wrong with that. What is really funny is that as a Christian you may still dissagree with what your book says about Christianity. As far as science goes, well I understand look at it with an open mind. Try not to look at it too indepth just memorize what the book/notes say and take the test.

Posted by: SCShamrock 15-Nov-2005, 07:37 AM
QUOTE (Celtic cat @ 14-Nov-2005, 05:07 PM)
Just think of the classes in a way that you think of the stories more than the religious aspects. For instance, Mecca. This is a great story. Even if you don't believe in why it happened it still happened and it is history. Don't take the religions class as anything other than a history course. Think of it as understanding other cultures, and how can one see something wrong with that. What is really funny is that as a Christian you may still dissagree with what your book says about Christianity. As far as science goes, well I understand look at it with an open mind. Try not to look at it too indepth just memorize what the book/notes say and take the test.

Thanks Cat for the advice. Actually, I finished those classes and have since taken and finished two others.

So I'll give a little update. Currently, I have 30 credits earned since December 24 of last year. I received my first -A this last set of classes, and am now sitting at a 3.97 GPA. Now I am taking a break, the first since starting 10 months ago. I'll take a month off, and then get back to it and finish in another 10 months.

Posted by: Celtic cat 15-Nov-2005, 03:46 PM
Opps sorry about the lateness then, but grats on finishing your "semester" well.

Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 11-Dec-2007, 09:57 PM
On the possibility of Evolution I have but 2 things to say. Firstly, man is not superior to the apes, they do not rob eachother nor steal eachothers mates. Second no ape would ever stoop so low as to try and rig an election to become the leader as George Bush did, thus Apes are superior, and yet that may prove Evolution for if you pile a load of wood and pipes and wires it does not evolve into a building it rots so in fact Evolution may be going from a superior form to an inferior!

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)