The ear is indeed a wonderful thing and I don't know if it evolved into what it is today or if was created by a superior being (God).

However, I do believe that a tiny sperm can meet an egg and within 9 months that can evolve into a baby. I don't think there is anyone who doesn't believe that this happens all over the world everday of the year. If two small cells can evolve into something so wonderful in just 9 months, I think a cell can evolve into something as complex as an ear over a period of 5-6billion years.

I'm not saying for sure that it happens, only that I believe it would be possible.

I haven't read the entire thread, but Zaza., isn't it the more remarkable claim that the ear was designed, rather than evolved?

A perfect example of a hearing device that was designed is the microphone. It is far simpler and yet more effective than the ear. How could anyone have designed the ear when its done so badly?

@dave bishop - Yes I believe in free will. What I'm saying is that the decisions we make are because of the sum of our knowledge and/or experiences in life. Therefore, at a given point in time, our decisions will be what they are. God isn't interferring and guiding those decisions to his end, but every decisions we make interacts with the decisions others around us (near and far) make. Therefore, at a given point in time with an exact set of circumstances, a person will make the exact same decision unless they have knowledge of the future. This is not predestination, but predictability. If I could sit on the outside and monitor every single thing that influences a person and read their thought processes across time, like God, then I could tell exactly what decision they were going to make at that time. It doesn't me I made it for them. It just means I know what they are going to do.

It must be tough being God and knowing the stupid things I'm going to do, yet letting me do them anyhow and not interferring.

The key is predestination says God has actibely determined what will happen, where as free will means God knows because he is omniscient, but allows us to make the mistakes anyhow.

@Ghost - the microphone is actually inferior to the ear. The ear of humans (and more so in many animals) has directional sensitivity that even the best microphones don't. To get direction out of a microphone, you have to use multiple mics and ten you start getting the clumsiness of form far worse than the human ear.

Sigh... why are all these topics so black-and-white? If you want to question the scientific theory of evolution, go ahead. It has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Why should one who doubts evolution be a creationist rightaway (or the other way around)? Are there only two options when thinking about the origin of life? Why do we need an answer, why not grasp in the dark for a while instead of defending one system or the other? Valid questions, if you ask me.

I'm not so sure that the ear is done badly. It does grow and heal itself. That's not something that a microphone can do. For most people the ear works 24/7 for nearly 80 years. It also sends signals directly to the brain to be interpreted. Hearing aids, microphones, etc. rely on people having ears to be useful. Even Cochlear implants come with a range of problems on their own. Have you ever heard of anyone with a set of fully functioning natural ears suggest that they'd like to replace them with current technological implants?

@Draug, but in terms of sensitivity, the microphone is superior.

But a microscope in also more sensitive that an eye. It doesn't mean that it's better suited for use as an optical organ.

@ Acosnist Many of the multiverese theories are not mutally exclusive. No one is suggesting the threories are any more than the byproduct of mathmatical theorums created in attempt to explain known physical laws and events. Theories do not need 100% agreement to be valid. It often takes decades for new theories to be tested and accepted, but have no fear, ideals are being kicked around on how to prove and detect other universes. Till that time as I stated earlyer it is just a neat ideal to kick around.

The god is a lie.

I'll bite. From here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

1. Not much complexity is needed for a functional ear. All that is necessary is a nerve connected to something that can vibrate. Insects have evolved "ears" on at least eleven different parts of their bodies, from antennae to legs (Hoy and Robert 1996). Even humans detect very low frequencies via tactile sensation, not through their ears.

2. The transition from reptile to mammal shows some of the intermediate stages in human hearing. Jaw bones, which likely helped the hearing of therapsid reptiles, became co-opted exclusively for hearing in the middle ear.

3. This is an example of the argument from incredulity. That one does not know how something happened does not mean it cannot have happened.

way to be on topic!

"@ Acosnist Many of the multiverese theories are not mutally exclusive."

OK.

"No one is suggesting the threories are any more than the byproduct of mathmatical theorums created in attempt to explain known physical laws and events."

Just like epicycles and deferents! I feel more confident in MWI already.

"Theories do not need 100% agreement to be valid."

This is quite a retreat from "Everyone believes it anyway!"

Here's a book on how unfalsifiable junk science passes for common knowledge in theoretical physics. http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092756

"It often takes decades for new theories to be tested and accepted, but have no fear, ideals are being kicked around on how to prove and detect other universes."

No, the entire point is that it's NOT falsifiable. That's why I said "This is bad science." Bad science is that which cannot be proven wrong, because it's isolated from the scientific method itself. MWI is like this.

"Till that time as I stated earlyer it is just a neat ideal to kick around."

k

I thought evolution was now considered a fact? Don't the religious teach "Intelligent Design" now because evolution IS a fact? There's proof all around us. i.e. Snakes. Snake have hip bones because the use to have legs and feet. Some species still have a remaining claw outside the body. Dolphins, whales etc. They're mammals and yet live in the water. Also Seals, Sea turtles and there like have evolved flippers where legs once were. And my favorite, Penquins! Birds that no longer fly and instead swim. Again wings turn to flippers and they look less like birds that other species but they are. Then you have the greatest "What the?" species. The duckbill plater pus. Where to start with this thing? It's a mammal that lays eggs and it's the only venomous mammal in the world! Also, it's venom is the only venom that specifically attacks the pain nerves. Evolution is all around us. Just take a look.

@Draugnar

Yet as God made you and made all your surroundings and experiences, if you believe, as you do, that there is no spontaneous freewill where essentially two outcomes (choices) are possible from one set of circumstances (the person+situation of the decision) then God *does* effectively dictate our choices.
So we have no freewill.

Where did I state "everyone believes it anyway".

"There are times when it is okay to say well such and such is a fact and although I can't prove it myself all the experts agree etc."

happy to help

How did eyes evolve? I've been wondering this for some time now. Is it similar to the ear where it only needs one nerve for it to work?

"I'll bite. From here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html

1. Not much complexity is needed for a functional ear. All that is necessary is a nerve connected to something that can vibrate. Insects have evolved "ears" on at least eleven different parts of their bodies, from antennae to legs (Hoy and Robert 1996). Even humans detect very low frequencies via tactile sensation, not through their ears.

2. The transition from reptile to mammal shows some of the intermediate stages in human hearing. Jaw bones, which likely helped the hearing of therapsid reptiles, became co-opted exclusively for hearing in the middle ear.

3. This is an example of the argument from incredulity. That one does not know how something happened does not mean it cannot have happened. "

HINT HINT PEOPLE, GET BACK ON TOPIC, OR OPEN A FREE WILL V. PREDESTINATION THREAD, SOMEONE HERE IS TRYING TO HELP!

on-topic pedantry is dumb

@Acosmist That is not my statement, that was spyman. Make sure you know who stated what. Happy to help.

oh ok sorry

What are you arguing, then?

Nothing other than it is a interesting and reasonable subject of speculation, inpart because so many scientist are speculating and studing the ideal, even if it is not testable at this time. I never claimed that it was an absolute or tested ideal. It was more your cross the board attack that got me going.

@otto Sorry, please don't I beg of you! I will not sin again!

There has to be a criterion of possibility for possibility to mean anything. You can't just say "Hey, this could be!" and expect it to be taken seriously that, yes, that could be. The domain of logical possibility is full of ideas (like epicycles and deferents!) that have no real force to engender belief.

MWI is "not even wrong"

So your saying that there a lot scientist who are willfully wasting their time, and others money on pure speculation and without sound cause. All to save a set of theories that at least this time are not testable, in return leading to unbounded and baseless speculation. Thus we are now in age not unlike during the Greek Classical period of deductive reasoning with no means to test your conclusions.. Or something along those lines.

I thought this thread was about some glitch in a Pokemon game. :/ [/troll]

I didn't mean to imply that all the experts agree on multiple worlds. I was just saying that there are times when appealing to authority has it's place.
Is the notion of multiple worlds worth exploring. I don't know. Some scientists think so.

"So your saying that there a lot scientist who are willfully wasting their time, and others money on pure speculation and without sound cause."

Yep! That will always be the case.

"All to save a set of theories that at least this time are not testable, in return leading to unbounded and baseless speculation."

Yes. Cant is always around.

"Thus we are now in age not unlike during the Greek Classical period of deductive reasoning with no means to test your conclusions.. Or something along those lines."

wat