If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Interesting, your opinions is correct while his is not, simply because you deem it so. I mean if you have proof of evolution, by all means post it, however, if you do not, seems to me you can only claim one of the two opinions, yet...
. . . .

The above denial of evidence for evolution was written by a human with vestigial ear wiggling muscles that can no longer be used, in our species, for turning ears towards sound. And for good reason, because our stationary ears allow instant phase analysis to accurately determine sound directions, an advance over the hearing of earlier mammals. But the ear wiggling muscles remain, useless, but evidence of an evolutionary past.

Creationists, of course, can utter words disparaging this evidence. Doesn't change the reality that we are physically descended from a previous species that could turn its ears towards sound.

 

[AV1611VET]

So there's your problem.

Does GrannyM still post on CARM?

 

[Kenny'sID]

The above denial of evidence for evolution was written by a human with vestigial ear wiggling muscles that can no longer be used, in our species, for turning ears towards sound.

And for good reason, because our stationary ears allow instant phase analysis to accurately determine sound directions, an advance over the hearing of earlier mammals. But the ear wiggling muscles remain, useless, but evidence of an evolutionary past.

Creationists, of course, can utter words disparaging this evidence. Doesn't change the reality that we are physically descended from a previous species that could turn its ears towards sound.

Then you are saying that proved evolution is a fact? And there could be no other explanations to your ear thing there?

Looks to me like you're throwing something out there that is questionable at best, as to whether or not it is even evidence, and whats worse, is putting it out there in answer to my requests for proof of evolution from you.

 

[Speedwell]

Then you are saying that proved evolution is a fact? And there could be no other explanations to your ear thing there?

No, it's a fact that we have ear-wiggling muscles that we don't need or use. Evolution is one explanation for that fact. What's the creationists' explanation?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution is one explanation for that fact.

Then you admit there may be numerous more? and you can't really disagree with any of my post?

What's the creationists' explanation?

Honestly I never even considered it, but all that proves is I'm not so desperate I need to clutch at straws to prove my end of this.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's a fact that we have ear-wiggling muscles that we don't need or use. Evolution is one explanation for that fact. What's the creationists' explanation?

How do you know we don't use those muscles?

Ever had a bug get in your ear?

Ever gone down a hallway whose forward walls suddenly shift?

You want out quickly, don't you?

Are you going to run on further down the hall; or are you going to turn around and run out the way you came in?

 

[AV1611VET]

Honestly I never even considered it, but all that proves is I'm not so desperate I need to clutch at straws to prove my end of this.

Same here, but it's not beyond me to make something up, just to see them deny it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Same here, but it's not beyond me to make something up, just to see them deny it.

Oh, I'm working on that now that they got the gears turning.

I'm liking, how can we be sure those muscles don't do something we aren't aware of? I mean it's not like we ever we're 100% aware of all things about the human body, so seems to me, to make that assumption is a bit senseless.

As good a straw as any.

 

[Speedwell]

Then you admit there may be numerous more? and you can't really disagree with any of my post?

I don't know of any, but it is a principle of the scientific method that any theory may be wrong, and it is the business of science to keep looking for more information to either confirm the theory or falsify it.

Honestly I never even considered it, but all that proves is I'm not so desperate I need to clutch at straws to prove my end of this.

At least the theory of evolution provides a plausible answer; you may think it's wrong, but at least it's an answer. Creationism, it appears, has no answer at all.

If you are going to teach creationism in science class you need ready answers to elementary questions like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm liking, how can we be sure those muscles don't do something we aren't aware of?

Exactly!

Science is myopic.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm liking, how can we be sure those muscles don't do something we aren't aware of? [/QUOTE]
Sounds like a potential area of creation science research.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you are going to teach creationism in science class you need ready answers to elementary questions like that.

No, I don't, you're just making that up because you think it sounds good, when if given some thought, it does not. You pretend that question even means anything, yet I have to be ready to answer it? Do you even have a "proven" fact ready answer yourself? Have you any business even bringing up the question in school if it isn't a fact, or are you maybe going to suggest it's fact to the kids?

See, where you ere is you are still pretending you have some truth to offer as answer to their questions, when in reality, it's still theory, so in affect, you have no ready answer either but expect one from me from the silliest of questions evolutionists can only claim means something.

 

[Speedwell]

No, I don't, you're just making that up because you think it sounds good, when if given some thought, it does not. You pretend that question even means anything, yet I have to be ready to answer it? Do you even have a "proven" fact ready answer yourself? Have you any business even bringing up the question in school if it isn't a fact, or are you maybe going to suggest it's fact to the kids?

No need to "bring it up." Some smart AP biology student will certainly be asking questions like that.

See, where you ere is you are still pretending you have some truth to offer as answer to their questions, when in reality, it's still theory, so in affect, you have no ready answer either but expect one from me from the silliest of questions evolutionists can only claim means something.

Yes it is a theory--that's how it's taught. But theories are supposed to be explanations of facts. The fact is that we have apparently unused muscles in our ears. Paul of Eugene already told you what the evolutionary explanation is. What's the creationist explanation? Why do we have those apparently unused muscles in our ears?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

How do you know we don't use those muscles?

Ever had a bug get in your ear?

Ever gone down a hallway whose forward walls suddenly shift?

You want out quickly, don't you?

Are you going to run on further down the hall; or are you going to turn around and run out the way you came in?

If you wish to point out that ear twitching was also useful to our ancestral species, keeping bugs out, as well as pointing towards sound, well thanks for the reminder. I don't see any connection between your post and the idea of evolution. You seem to be under the impression people can use those ear wiggling muscles. Most cannot. I can wiggle my ears, but my ear wiggling abilities would do nothing to hinder bugs . . . but I do have heavy ear wax, that is a great bug defence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, I don't, you're just making that up because you think it sounds good, when if given some thought, it does not. You pretend that question even means anything, yet I have to be ready to answer it? Do you even have a "proven" fact ready answer yourself? Have you any business even bringing up the question in school if it isn't a fact, or are you maybe going to suggest it's fact to the kids?

See, where you ere is you are still pretending you have some truth to offer as answer to their questions, when in reality, it's still theory, so in affect, you have no ready answer either but expect one from me from the silliest of questions evolutionists can only claim means something.

Historically the idea of evolution has been called a theory but don't be fooled by that accident of language and history; the science is settled that evolution happened. Deniers of evolution are in the same league as deniers of a global earth. They are stubbornly wrong, and the rest of us know that.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Does GrannyM still post on CARM?

I haven't posted on CARM for a long time now . . .

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Then you are saying that proved evolution is a fact? And there could be no other explanations to your ear thing there?

Looks to me like you're throwing something out there that is questionable at best, as to whether or not it is even evidence, and whats worse, is putting it out there in answer to my requests for proof of evolution from you.

Yup, I'm throwing something out there as evidence, and in response to your requests for proof. And as I predicted, you utter words disparaging the evidence. You are not an impartial interpreter of the evidence, we all know that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I haven't posted on CARM for a long time now . . .

Okay, thanks.

I was just wondering.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is not a matter of what religious students a university is receiving money from, but of what the professors and required texts are teaching, and believe me, to the most part, they are not teaching things that honor God, but dishonor him. They may not be teaching atheism per see, bluntly and openly, calling it by name, but they teach it as "practical atheism."

Nope; neither honouring or dishonouring God, nor the personal religious beliefs of lecturers, tutors, or students, are relevant to academic teaching and study. If you want to honour your deity (and/or dishonour other people's deities) as you study, go ahead - as long as you don't disturb the other students. You're not required to believe, you're expected to learn and understand the subject.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did you ever think to slip a wafer into your pocket and send it to AncestryDNA™ for analysis?

It's been done: DNA analysis of consecrated sacramental bread refutes Catholic transubstantiation claim.