Hummingbirds Disprove Creationism

[Dale]

Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time

Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:

Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.

Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

You say that A. Einstein said this when he was consoling the family of a colleague who had passed away. This is rather like what one says at a funeral. What someone says at the funeral of a friend probably isn't the best guide to what the speaker knows. It isn't the best guide to their philosophy.

 

[Dale]

There is no problem of reconciling the word of God as stated in Genesis with science. The problem - is not believing God to be true.

There is no allowance for private interpretation.

Instead of seeing just how the two schools of thought do in fact reconcile, some turn to their own way of interpretation, rather than taking God at His word. That is the path of those who go astray (from God).

ScottA:
<< There is no problem of reconciling the word of God as stated in Genesis with science. >>

I guess that explains why one of our outspoken creationists on CF is using the slogan: “Science can take a hike.”


<< There is no allowance for private interpretation. >>

Every creationist has their own private interpretation.

Do you have any idea how many creationist views I have heard? I have been told that Noah's Ark was a submarine. I have been told that God sent the Flood to destroy the Nephilim, then clumsily allowed more Nephilim to be produced, such as Goliath.

By comparison, any paradoxes that arise by taking science seriously are negligible.

 

[ScottA]

You say that A. Einstein said this when he was consoling the family of a colleague who had passed away. This is rather like what one says at a funeral. What someone says at the funeral of a friend probably isn't the best guide to what the speaker knows. It isn't the best guide to their philosophy.

ScottA:
<< There is no problem of reconciling the word of God as stated in Genesis with science. >>

I guess that explains why one of our outspoken creationists on CF is using the slogan: “Science can take a hike.”


<< There is no allowance for private interpretation. >>

Every creationist has their own private interpretation.

Do you have any idea how many creationist views I have heard? I have been told that Noah's Ark was a submarine. I have been told that God sent the Flood to destroy the Nephilim, then clumsily allowed more Nephilim to be produced, such as Goliath.

By comparison, any paradoxes that arise by taking science seriously are negligible.

You seem to be under the assumption that this is a debate. It's not.

God (and those who are of One spirit with Him) is the source of all knowledge and truth. Science, on the other hand, has take away the key of knowledge and is experimenting with only a fraction of the information and drawing conclusions without knowing the end. Luke 11:52

All you had to do...was ask.

 

[LinkH]

A few facts and a conclusion:

Hummingbirds live in the Americas but not in the Old World of Europe, Africa or Asia.
There are hundreds of hummingbird species in South America but only 15 to 17 in North America.
Conclusion: It looks like hummingbirds evolved in South America.


The Creationist view:

According to Creationists, there were only two hummingbirds on earth when Noah and the Ark landed on Mt. Ararat, or the Ararat range. This happened a few thousand years ago.

If all the hummingbird species in the world are descended from two birds a few thousand years ago, we would expect the greatest number of species to be near the point of origin. Given that hummingbirds aren't evenly distributed throughout the world, we would expect the greatest number of species to be within one or two thousand miles of where they started. Perhaps it isn't surprising that these small birds haven't been able to colonize the entire world. Any creationist would expect to find the greatest variety of these birds near the Ararat range.


Question for the Creationists:
How did hummingbirds get to the Americas without passing through Asia?

You are making some assumptions.

One, you are assuming a global flood, as opposed to a flood of 'the land', the inhabited land where man dwelt.

You are also assuming a slow continental drift, as opposed to some kind of fast separation in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25). If continents separated rapidly after the flood, and the flood were global, these birds would only have had to make it to Africa/South America and would not have had to transverse Asia.

 

[Dale]

You are making some assumptions.

One, you are assuming a global flood, as opposed to a flood of 'the land', the inhabited land where man dwelt.

You are also assuming a slow continental drift, as opposed to some kind of fast separation in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25). If continents separated rapidly after the flood, and the flood were global, these birds would only have had to make it to Africa/South America and would not have had to transverse Asia.

I don't see how creationists would accept a local flood when the Bible refers to a worldwide flood. If the flood didn't cover all land, why would an Ark be necessary?

The story of Peleg only refers to the beginning of language barriers, as I've pointed out before.

On the possibility of a rapid separation of continents, there is no mechanism for such a thing. People knowledgeable about physics have told me that with a rapid separation of continents would release enough heat to vaporize those continents. Oddly enough, this holds even neglecting friction!

 

[Daniel Marsh]

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/ancient-hummingbirds-in-surprising-places/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3691169.stm
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2004/05/ancient-hummingbirds-were-european

 

[JacksBratt]

A few facts and a conclusion:

You mean "a few assumptions, extrapolations, guesses and wishes", followed by a conclusion based on the "wisdom of men".

The only thing that will disprove creation is an evolutionist.
The only thing that will prove creation is a creationist.

You are not going to budge from your views. I will not budge from mine.

Any thread with the topic of TOE or YEC or anything of the sort will draw the same arguments that I have seen a hundred times.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

footnote: note all the deception and false assumptions and false conclusions/ false "facts" accepted world wide.....
in the 'scientific' (very biased) reports.

Scientific reports are based on evidence.

Other reports are based on conjecture.

Your idea is that restricting one's ideas to evidence is being biased.

I don't buy that nonsense,

 

[JacksBratt]

Scientific reports are based on evidence.

Other reports are based on conjecture.

Your idea is that restricting one's ideas to evidence is being biased.

I don't buy that nonsense,

So, if they found evidence of humans, millions of years ago, you would except it?

1/ How about a hammer in 400 million year old rock that is 96.6% Iron and 2.6% Chlorine (which is impossible to bond with iron with today's technology) The hammer itself is dated as 500 million years old..

2/ A petrified shoe sole found embedded in Triassic rock in Nevada was discovered by John T. Reid, an engineer and geologist. This Triassic rock is claimed to be 213 - 248 million years old.


3/ In 1944, as a ten year old boy, Newton Anderson, dropped a lump of coal in his basement and it broke in half as it hit the floor. What he discovered inside defies explanation based upon current scientific orthodoxy.
Inside the coal was a hand crafted brass alloy bell with an iron clapper and sculptured handle.

When an analysis was carried out it was discovered that the bell was made from an unusual mix of metals, different from any known modern alloy production (including copper, zinc, tin, arsenic, iodine, and selenium).

The seam from whence this lump of coal was mined is estimated to be 300,000,000 years old!


There are many more. These are proof of human existence long before evolution would have us around and/or the fact that mans dating methods for ancient articles is useless.

 

[rjs330]

Interpreting Genesis differently is NOT rejecting the word of God!

I'm going to start charging the minimum wage for the time I spend repeating that point.

Let me point something out. If you are Roman Catholic or Protestant, your theology goes back to Augustine of Hippo or St. Augustine of Hippo, if you prefer. Theology before Augustine was chaotic.

Augustine did believe in trying to reconcile Christianity with what educated people believed at the time. His efforts might seem silly to us, but he realized that Christianity cannot succeed by deliberately flying in the face of what all reasonable people believed.

Well apparently you do not believe in creation. Therefore you reject the word of God. Because it says in Genesis "In the beginning God created..."

Now you may interpret Genesis creation process differently like saying God created by evolution. But you have to agree that God created all things otherwise you do not believe in creation.

 

[rjs330]

Are all Biblical accounts meant to be taken literally as a historical record ?

Or are some illustrations designed to teach about the nature of things and convey a moral lesson ?

And if there are some of each - Literal record + teaching illustration, who can distinguish perfectly which is which ?

To me, I mainly look for the lesson...whether it be a historical record, or an informative illustration doesn't really change the moral lessons conveyed.

And these lessons appear to be repeated over and over throughout Scripture.

When I study Scripture I'm mainly looking for transformative truth, not academic fact.

Perhaps you have a different approach ?

Doesn't really bother me if you do.

It's not like I feel it's necessary for everyone to agree with my current perspective.

My confidence comes from the belief that the nature of the fruit which forms from the way we believe will be the confirming component of how spot on we are...., and not the degree of intensity with which assertions can be made one way or another.

And since the present path is evidently yielding good fruit, I have confidence within; and am at peace...even if /when others strongly disagree.

May The Lord Be Pleased !

I actually look for both. Now we do know the primary focus of the bible is not on academics such as science. It is a work of fact though. Facts of things that occurred and how they occurred. It is a book written for the purpose of showing us our fallen nature and that we need redemption. The bible doesn't going into chemistry and explain how h2o makes water etc. It just says what is and what was. Go ahead and look for spiritual truth, for that IS the primary focus of Gods word. But it is also fact based as God uses those to portray and further his spiritual truths.

 

[rjs330]

You mean "a few assumptions, extrapolations, guesses and wishes", followed by a conclusion based on the "wisdom of men".

The only thing that will disprove creation is an evolutionist.
The only thing that will prove creation is a creationist.

You are not going to budge from your views. I will not budge from mine.

Any thread with the topic of TOE or YEC or anything of the sort will draw the same arguments that I have seen a hundred times.

Boy ain't that the truth.

 

[Dale]

So, if they found evidence of humans, millions of years ago, you would except it?

1/ How about a hammer in 400 million year old rock that is 96.6% Iron and 2.6% Chlorine (which is impossible to bond with iron with today's technology) The hammer itself is dated as 500 million years old..

2/ A petrified shoe sole found embedded in Triassic rock in Nevada was discovered by John T. Reid, an engineer and geologist. This Triassic rock is claimed to be 213 - 248 million years old.


3/ In 1944, as a ten year old boy, Newton Anderson, dropped a lump of coal in his basement and it broke in half as it hit the floor. What he discovered inside defies explanation based upon current scientific orthodoxy.
Inside the coal was a hand crafted brass alloy bell with an iron clapper and sculptured handle.

When an analysis was carried out it was discovered that the bell was made from an unusual mix of metals, different from any known modern alloy production (including copper, zinc, tin, arsenic, iodine, and selenium).

The seam from whence this lump of coal was mined is estimated to be 300,000,000 years old!


There are many more. These are proof of human existence long before evolution would have us around and/or the fact that mans dating methods for ancient articles is useless.

I don't know any scientist who is against further investigation of the items you mention. It is possible that some of these items are misunderstandings. What was taken to be a shoe sole might be something else, for instance. We sometimes force everything we see into a category we recognize.

One thing I've noticed is that creationists start from the assumption that creationism is a fairly reasonable idea. They think that if they can poke one hole in evolution, or science, then creationism is the only thing left standing. The problem is that creationism isn't a reasonable idea. Any number of specific problems with the evolutionary timeline still leave creationism a complete mess. Creationists still don't know who Adam and Eve's sons married, for instance, especially since Genesis doesn't mention Adam and Eve having any daughters.

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't know any scientist who is against further investigation of the items you mention. It is possible that some of these items are misunderstandings. What was taken to be a shoe sole might be something else, for instance. We sometimes force everything we see into a category we recognize.

One thing I've noticed is that creationists start from the assumption that creationism is a fairly reasonable idea. They think that if they can poke one hole in evolution, or science, then creationism is the only thing left standing. The problem is that creationism isn't a reasonable idea. Any number of specific problems with the evolutionary timeline still leave creationism a complete mess. Creationists still don't know who Adam and Eve's sons married, for instance, especially since Genesis doesn't mention Adam and Eve having any daughters.

The problem that I find is that humans find it almost impossible to ignore what they think they see and accept what God has told them.

All it would take is one little discovery that would prove that the way men date things is false, and the whole TOE would be disproven. They rely on one thing...... time and lots of it.

Thing is, there were items found, created by men, dated by this process to be formed many millions of years ago and people still believe the TOE

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Creationists still don't know who Adam and Eve's sons married, for instance, especially since Genesis doesn't mention Adam and Eve having any daughters.

YHWH Created Adam and Havah(Eve) right?
Every life is a gift from YHWH.
Man and wife have babies - all good so far, right?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . Creationists still don't know who Adam and Eve's sons married, for instance, especially since Genesis doesn't mention Adam and Eve having any daughters.

Well that's not true.

Gen 5:4
4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
NASU

 

[JacksBratt]

Creationists still don't know who Adam and Eve's sons married, for instance, especially since Genesis doesn't mention Adam and Eve having any daughters.

This is the kind of thinking that has evolution soaring....

Really? Think about it.. Adam and Eve, put here to populate the earth but all they had was sons?

Can we not make logical deductions from the data we are giving? When has common sense been so rare?

Again, this is the type of thinking that starts opinions like "the term day really meant a long period of time" or " God has no hands so He couldn't have formed Adam with His own hands" and "Adam didn't die so the Bible is wrong when God said you will surely die".

People, God gave us intelligence. Let's not insult our God by stating such foolishness.

Also, as one poster mentioned, it does state that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters.

If you want to gamble your eternal existence on such nit picking blatant presumptions and twisting of scripture, ignorance of deductible evidence..... it's your call.

 

[Dale]

Well that's not true.

Gen 5:4
4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
NASU

Thanks for pointing that out.
It is true that the daughters are not named.

 

[Dale]

This is the kind of thinking that has evolution soaring....

Really? Think about it.. Adam and Eve, put here to populate the earth but all they had was sons?

Can we not make logical deductions from the data we are giving? When has common sense been so rare?

Again, this is the type of thinking that starts opinions like "the term day really meant a long period of time" or " God has no hands so He couldn't have formed Adam with His own hands" and "Adam didn't die so the Bible is wrong when God said you will surely die".

People, God gave us intelligence. Let's not insult our God by stating such foolishness.

Also, as one poster mentioned, it does state that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters.

If you want to gamble your eternal existence on such nit picking blatant presumptions and twisting of scripture, ignorance of deductible evidence..... it's your call.

JacksBratt:
<< gamble your eternal existence >>

You are making beliefs about creation and the interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis a matter of salvation. Why? They aren't in any church creed.

Point of fact: Every day, people are severing their last connection with Christianity because of creationism. People are leaving the church because it doesn't make sense. By pushing creationism, you are gambling with their salvation.

I have talked with people who ceased to identify as Christians because of creationism. I have talked to at least one who escaped that fate through a miracle. When people are raised as creationists, it is very hard to become a non-creationist Christian. After all, they have been taught that there is no such thing.

 

[Schroeder]

first there is no evidence of the theory. all the evidence shows evolution too be true. micro evolution. that species change over time. The thing is it all shows a depletion of genes not adding to it. they loose info or combine info or rearrange them never add anything not already there. you speak of the ark as if every species today was on it then. not true. God created a perfect world. all the species he created had the ability to become what we have today. but not by the theory of simple to complex. but highly complex to less. its called speciation. a fact and well proven and shows the reason of the humming bird and extinctions and the reason most species are stuck in their region of the world. they have lost their ability to adapt because they speciated to fit certain niches of environments. the animal world isn't speciating upward or into higher stronger species but weaker ones. that's what I see anyways.