I've been thinking alot about my faith recently, it happens sometimes. And I thought I'd share with you in the hope of recieving input to further this train of thought.

Firstly: Animal Behaviour

If it were proven that all animals with unique practices - such as migration in birds - had these exact same skills at the earliest moment in time we can gather evidence from, would it not be evidence that these birds haven't even adapted in the time period accounted for and therefore it is logical to assume they have most definately not evolved as adaptation is an easier & shorter process.

It's a rough argument, and I'm unable to word it better because that is the limit of my thoughts/knowledge on the matter

And a question - Christians cannot claim time is infinite, because we believe in the end of the world and heaven, which is timeless?

arx_

Being a molecular biology student myself, I do not believe, albeit observe, the fact that evolution is a sound and theory. It has its own mysteries, however.

The only thing I can say is this: evolution is a scientific theory and does not really disprove God's existence. You may always place him somewhere above the evolution, a personal Immovable Mover sounds crazy but is possible. You may interpret the six days of the Bible as six aeons, etc. Science can be used to fight dogmatism, true, i.e. evolution abolishes Creationism and modern physics has taken an agnostic approach towards Intelligent Design. Positive sciences, however, do not harm the essence of any religion, not even Christianity.

The opposite is also true --in fact, even if there's no evolution, there are several other possible scenarios, so you cannot reach to God wherewith science, nor you can disprove his existence with experimentation. If people understood this, they would not make such a fuss over the topic.

quote:Originally posted by arx:



If it were proven that all animals with unique practices - such as migration in birds - had these exact same skills at the earliest moment in time we can gather evidence from, would it not be evidence that these birds haven't even adapted in the time period accounted for and therefore it is logical to assume they have most definately not evolved as adaptation is an easier & shorter process.



What do you mean by "at the earliest moment in time we can gather evidence from"? What evidence? Evidence that they migrate?

If we can find evidence of them migrating as early as we have evidence of birds existing (I assume that's what you mean by "at the earliest moment in time we can gather evidence from"), it wouldn't necessarilly refute evolution. at least not at first glance.

1. That we can find evidence of birds existing only starting at a specific time, does not do away with the possibility of finding evidence of a much longer existence of birds, something which would extend the time-table.

2. Assuming we can find evidence of migration, I doubt it would be so exact so as to rule out any possible time for the birds to commence migrating in and of themselves.

3. Even if we still find tendencies to migrat, so exact so as to rule out the possibility of them having learned that on their own, one explanation could be that they maintained such instincts from the ancestors they evolved from.

4. Even if there were no explanations, any possible theory that would replace evolution would have to account for all the humongous evidence supporting a gradual process of speciation among organism due to selection and genetic change in addition to explaining this "problem" (assuming it holds true for the sake of argument) as well. Thus, it would have to be very similar to evolution.

Eosis, I have believed that science is God's creation since I can remember; it always has made sense to me.

I still enjoy debating matters such as evolution though, there's nothing like a good mystery http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

As to my other question?

arx_

quote:Originally posted by arx:



Firstly: Animal Behaviour

If it were proven that all animals with unique practices - such as migration in birds - had these exact same skills at the earliest moment in time we can gather evidence from, would it not be evidence that these birds haven't even adapted in the time period accounted for and therefore it is logical to assume they have most definately not evolved as adaptation is an easier & shorter process.

arx_

Adaptation is just another word for evolution actually. Species have to adapt or die, and in order to adapt they have to evolve.

Also, adaptation is defined in connection to the environment. A species that lives in a stable environment and it is succesful has no reason to "adapt".

Your hypothesis would make some sense if we found evidence from fossils that indicate a species was not adapted in its environment, which is absurd because then it wouldn't survive long enough to leave fossils. Unless we are mistaken about the environment itself in which case a part of our theories has to be revised. I don't think you can find a single piece of evidence that can damage the theory of evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Eosis:



The opposite is also true --in fact, even if there's no evolution, there are several other possible scenarios

No, there aren't. There are scenarios but they are much less possible than evolution.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

No, there aren't. There are scenarios but they are much less possible than evolution.

Kind of self-contradictory, is it not? I've expressed the fact that there are other possible scenarios, to which you gave consent, but you've still used the expression "No." I didn't say other scenarios were more likely, did I.

It's fine by me if you accept science as a creation of God, it's a question of faith. But I personally believe Christianity is not the ideal truth or the ultimate path, actually it's worse than many religions. As for evolution, I have to stick to my previous statement that refuting or proving evolution does not refute or prove the existence of God. Sadly, I didn't hear of anyone developing a faith in God after studying any of the positive sciences. Those who already believe in divine Volition will of course view science as a creation of God, alternatively, those who want to disprove such an existence shall use science in a similar fashion.

Science forbids religious dogma, creationism for example, so I believe it favours the latter approach in a way.

Anyway, it's the 2nd year of my education and evolution keeps making bloody sense to me. Cheers. Even if it's disproven, as it's already been stated, there are heaps of evidence pointing to a gradual development.

quote:Originally posted by arx:

I've been thinking alot about my faith recently, it happens sometimes. And I thought I'd share with you in the hope of recieving input to further this train of thought.

Firstly: Animal Behaviour

If it were proven that all animals with unique practices - such as migration in birds - had these exact same skills at the earliest moment in time we can gather evidence from, would it not be evidence that these birds haven't even adapted in the time period accounted for and therefore it is logical to assume they have most definately not evolved as adaptation is an easier & shorter process.

It's a rough argument, and I'm unable to word it better because that is the limit of my thoughts/knowledge on the matter

And a question - Christians cannot claim time is infinite, because we believe in the end of the world and heaven, which is timeless?

arx_

1: We have proven (beyond any reasonable doubt) that the continents are continually moving.

2: We have proven (beyond any reasonable doubt) that birds existed hundreds of millions ago.

Based on 1 and 2, we can deduce one of the following:

a: Birds did not have migratory patterns hundreds of years ago. Thus we must accept that migratory patterns are the product of evolution.

b: Birds had migratory patterns hundreds of years ago, and as the continents have shifted, the migratory patterns have chagned significantly.

Either way, microevolution holds its ground. Even the folks at ICR concede that microevolution is true. Why are you disputing it?

quote:Originally posted by arx:

I've been thinking alot about my faith recently, it happens sometimes. And I thought I'd share with you in the hope of recieving input to further this train of thought.

Firstly: Animal Behaviour

If it were proven that all animals with unique practices - such as migration in birds - had these exact same skills at the earliest moment in time we can gather evidence from, would it not be evidence that these birds haven't even adapted in the time period accounted for and therefore it is logical to assume they have most definately not evolved as adaptation is an easier & shorter process.

It's a rough argument, and I'm unable to word it better because that is the limit of my thoughts/knowledge on the matter

And a question - Christians cannot claim time is infinite, because we believe in the end of the world and heaven, which is timeless?

arx_

I believe the answer you are looking for is in convergent evolution.

I'll quote Jared Diamond in "The third Chimpanzee" for you.

quote:

...a second, stronger argument is that life on Earth is characterized by what biologists term convergent evolution. That is, seemingly whatever ecological niche or physiological adaptation you consider, many groups of creatures have converged by evolving independantly to exploit that niche, or to acquire that adaptation. An obvious example is the independent evolution of flight by birds, bats, pterodactyls and insects. Other spectacular cases are the independent evolution of eyes, and even of devices for electrocuting prey, by many animals...

That quote wasnt written to answer your question, but hopefully it will give you an idea of what you're asking. Convergent evolution can be applied to animal behavior as well, such as in woodpeckers.

Anyone?

And a question - Christians cannot claim time is infinite, because we believe in the end of the world and heaven, which is timeless?

I can't speak for all Christians, but from my observation, I'd say most believe that time is not infinite. Time, even though it isn't tangible, still has original properties and can be manipulated. Because time and space are conjoined... They aren't separate from one another. Aside from this, in the physical realm, a true infinite is impossible. The reason, being, what can you add to infinity? You can't. What's 1 + infinity? Its infinity, not infinity + 1 more. If you can add to it, then it isn't infinity. And since things procreate, we know that there was a definite beginning, and if there was a beginning, it cannot be infinite. So, therefore, whatever exists, including time, comes from outside the physical realm to allow for the possibility of existence and something to bring it to fruition. That means: There is a Creator. We can argue over the theological aspects all day long, but at least we're heading in the right direction. Does that answer your question?

what created the Creator?

There is a creator, the big question is, is it intelligent, some sort of God, or is it another natural process that has either been obfuscated by the last 14 billion years or something not observable because of boundaries?

Evolution occurs. It is a documented fact, evolution has been observed taking place. The theory of evolution in opposition to the theory of creation is something altogether different.

How can you evolutionists explain the geological colum? You use the fossils to date the places they were found, yet you date the fossils according to where they found. And where are all the transitional fossils? There are millions of fossils of animals and not one of them is transitional (there are mabey 1 or 2 that could be questionable).

The geological column is good evidence for evolution, why should we need to "explain it" What are you talking about dating fossils, the geological column doesn't rely on dates. However what you describe are index fossils. Fossils are dated with proper use of dating methods. When a fossil is constantly found in a specific strata it becomes an Index fossil, a quick way to tell how old the ground you are digging into is. (Index fossils were first discovered by creationists http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) )

Define a transitional fossil and explain why no current fossils match said definition (Caution, if your definition doesn't match what we should expect based on a proper understanding of evolution you may expose ignorance about the topic (in otherwords if you say we don't find any half bird half fish fossils, expect laughter)).

How do you define a transitional fossil? and if animals slowly evolved over millions of years, why shouldn't there be lots of reptilian/bird fossils?

You said there were no transitional fossils, I assume you can tell me what you think a transitional fossil is. Otherwise it's about as valid as saying there are no flaber fossils so evolution is false (note flaber is a made up word).

There are fossils that share both bird and reptile characteristics.