Hummingbirds Disprove Creationism

[Wunderlust]

Or miracles?

Of course.

God created the entire Universe. Things that we still cannot scratch the surface of.

But when it came to creating life on a tiny speck of a planet orbiting a typical yellow star in an obscure arm of a otherwise ordinary galaxy in a boring part of the universe...

GOD COULDN'T PRODUCE LIFE THROUGH EVOLUTION. He showed His Glory by making living things magically appear and then making it look like He used evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

He showed His Glory by making living things magically appear and then making it look like He used evolution.

Good thing He didn't create a loaf of raisin bread ex nihilo.

You'd be saying He created it to look like it was baked and had aged grapes in it.

Correct?

 

[Wunderlust]

Are we talking about actual God or Calvinist God? Calvinist God does all kinds of random arbitrary stuff to show everyone he is sovereign. Because that is apparently important to Calvinism God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Calvinist God does all kinds of random arbitrary stuff to show everyone he is sovereign.

Like documenting what He did, when He did it, where He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it took Him to do it, why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitnesses were?

Then, after that, preserving that Documentation for all generations, including scientists, to read and understand?

 

[JacksBratt]

Genesis 1 and 2 give contradictory accounts of the exact same story. The order is different.

We really need to understand..
http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/Creation/Genesis1vs2.html


Whether one believes in a creative period of six literal 24-hour days or in six “age-days” should make no difference in perceiving Genesis 2 as being an account consistent with Genesis 1. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, who believe that God created in six 24-hour days, sum up well their view of the consistency between the two chapters:

The material dealing with the creation in the first two chapters of Genesis should be treated as a unit for a correct understanding of the creation and its theological teachings. The second account is complementary to the first, dealing more fully with the creation of our first ancestors, while the initial account gives a description of the world which was being fashioned for Adam and Eve to occupy. A much more detailed explanation is given in a chapter entitled, “Don’t Genesis one and two contain two contradictory accounts of creation?” in McDowell and Stewart’s book, Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask about the Christian Faith. Similarly, Ross, who opts for the six “age-days” (billions of years) of creation, states this: Without question, the description of creation in Genesis 1 is markedly different from that in Genesis 2. However, an examination of the point of view in each passage clarifies why. Genesis 1 focuses on the physical events of creation; Genesis 2, on the spiritual events. More specifically, Genesis 1 describes those miracles God performed to prepare the earth for mankind. Genesis 2 presents God’s assignment of authority and responsibility.

Careful attention to verb tenses and to the purpose of each account eliminates any supposed contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Plants, rain, man, animals, and woman are subjects of discussion in Genesis 2, but creation chronology is not the issue. The man (Adam) simply interacts first with the plants, then with the animals, and last of all, with the woman (Eve). His role with respect to each is delineated. Misunderstanding of the creation chronicle (Genesis 1) and development (Genesis 2) has prevented many from taking seriously the rest of what the Bible has to say. By accepting the explanations put forth above as plausible, hopefully many skeptics will be able to open their minds to consider additional Bible messages and revelations as believable.

 

[ScottA]

Einstein gave us a glimpse of God?
Einstein was an agnostic.

Any glimpses he gave us must be unintentional.

Perhaps. Nonetheless, he came close, whether knowing or unknowing.

 

[ScottA]

Instead of addressing the content of my post you arbitrarily accuse me of approaching "God and the story of His Son" like a lawyer and then you quote passages about lawyers.

My post had two parts:

1. The truth regarding the content of your post.
2. Where that places you.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . .Careful attention to verb tenses and to the purpose of each account eliminates any supposed contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. . . . .

False speculation about creative alternative verb tenses is how some creationists reconcile the two accounts. You won't find the carefully accurate translations making that mistake. They allow the contradictions to remain. For example, the King James translation shows the contradiction quite plainly.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If the Ark was a TARDIS booth, it could have housed a trillion dinosaurs.

And you will never, never again criticize people who use speculation in their arguments . . . right?

 

[AV1611VET]

False speculation about creative alternative verb tenses is how some creationists reconcile the two accounts. You won't find the carefully accurate translations making that mistake. They allow the contradictions to remain. For example, the King James translation shows the contradiction quite plainly.

I love to ask people how many times, according to Genesis 2 alone, God put Adam into the Garden?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Once or twice?

 

[AV1611VET]

And you will never, never again criticize people who use speculation in their arguments . . . right?

I'll criticize anyone who contradicts the Bible; just as I would expect them to criticize me.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I love to ask people how many times, according to Genesis 2 alone, God put Adam into the Garden?

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Once or twice?

Oh, clearly 2:15 is merely a restatement of 2:8. Why do you even bother to ask? It's not as if the 2:8 statement contained a contradiction with the 2:15 statement.

Here's another question for you. When was Eve created?

a) At the same time as Adam (see Genesis 1:27)

b) Some time after the creation of Adam (See Genesis 2:15 - 22)

 

[AV1611VET]

When was Eve created?

a) At the same time as Adam (see Genesis 1:27)

b) Some time after the creation of Adam (See Genesis 2:15 - 22)

B

A is a frame narrative.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Oh, clearly 2:15 is merely a restatement of 2:8. Why do you even bother to ask? It's not as if the 2:8 statement contained a contradiction with the 2:15 statement.

Here's another question for you. When was Eve created?

a) At the same time as Adam (see Genesis 1:27)

b) Some time after the creation of Adam (See Genesis 2:15 - 22)

B

A is a frame narrative.

It may be of interest to you to point out how the rabbis of Israel, in their literalistic approach to scripture, decided that the 1:27 creation of woman was not actually Eve. Instead, they made up another woman, whom they named Lillith, and started telling all manner of wondrous stories about her, making her to become a demon, for committing the sin of wanting to have sex on top of Adam instead of underneath him . . . . which tells us more about them then about scripture.

But they also rescued the scripture from contradiction. I'm sure you understand the purity of their motive.

 

[AV1611VET]

It may be of interest to you to point out how the rabbis of Israel, in their literalistic approach to scripture, decided that the 1:27 creation of woman was not actually Eve.

Why would that be of interest to me to point that out?

Instead, they made up another woman, whom they named Lillith, and started telling all manner of wondrous stories about her, making her to become a demon, for committing the sin of wanting to have sex on top of Adam instead of underneath him . . . . which tells us more about them then about scripture.

But they also rescued the scripture from contradiction. I'm sure you understand the purity of their motive.

And your point is what?

What makes them any different than scientists today who, in an attempt to rescue true science, make children in the womb out to be nothing more than removable tissue?

 

[JacksBratt]

False speculation about creative alternative verb tenses is how some creationists reconcile the two accounts. You won't find the carefully accurate translations making that mistake. They allow the contradictions to remain. For example, the King James translation shows the contradiction quite plainly.

Well, you win, the bible is now an unreliable book of fables. What can we believe? I guess when God said that He created everything He really meant that He gave life to some small amoeba and then pushed the evolutionary rock down the hill and let it go where it may.

I guess, I cannot have the hope of everlasting life, or forgiveness of my sins or trust that it is true about Christ rising from the dead...Cause, the Bible cannot be trusted...

Look, if you cannot read Genesis 1 and 2 without getting all mixed up, how are you going to handle the book of revelation?

It's like hearing someone tell a story about how they built their log cabin, to two different people, and saying "well they told it differently both times so I believe they built a boat"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Well, you win, the bible is now an unreliable book of fables. . . . . . "

Just because there are some minor contradictions here and there does not mean the Bible is useless. God uses it to save people every day.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why would that be of interest to me to point that out?And your point is what?

OK I'm sorry your natural curiosity has been extinquished. My condolences for your loss.

 

[Dale]

We really need to understand..
http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/Creation/Genesis1vs2.html


Whether one believes in a creative period of six literal 24-hour days or in six “age-days” should make no difference in perceiving Genesis 2 as being an account consistent with Genesis 1. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, who believe that God created in six 24-hour days, sum up well their view of the consistency between the two chapters:

The material dealing with the creation in the first two chapters of Genesis should be treated as a unit for a correct understanding of the creation and its theological teachings. The second account is complementary to the first, dealing more fully with the creation of our first ancestors, while the initial account gives a description of the world which was being fashioned for Adam and Eve to occupy. A much more detailed explanation is given in a chapter entitled, “Don’t Genesis one and two contain two contradictory accounts of creation?” in McDowell and Stewart’s book, Answers to Tough Questions Skeptics Ask about the Christian Faith. Similarly, Ross, who opts for the six “age-days” (billions of years) of creation, states this: Without question, the description of creation in Genesis 1 is markedly different from that in Genesis 2. However, an examination of the point of view in each passage clarifies why. Genesis 1 focuses on the physical events of creation; Genesis 2, on the spiritual events. More specifically, Genesis 1 describes those miracles God performed to prepare the earth for mankind. Genesis 2 presents God’s assignment of authority and responsibility.

Careful attention to verb tenses and to the purpose of each account eliminates any supposed contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Plants, rain, man, animals, and woman are subjects of discussion in Genesis 2, but creation chronology is not the issue. The man (Adam) simply interacts first with the plants, then with the animals, and last of all, with the woman (Eve). His role with respect to each is delineated. Misunderstanding of the creation chronicle (Genesis 1) and development (Genesis 2) has prevented many from taking seriously the rest of what the Bible has to say. By accepting the explanations put forth above as plausible, hopefully many skeptics will be able to open their minds to consider additional Bible messages and revelations as believable.

I respect what Josh McDowell has to say about the New Testament and the Resurrection.

He is wrong about the first chapters of Genesis.

 

[Dale]

Well, you win, the bible is now an unreliable book of fables. What can we believe? I guess when God said that He created everything He really meant that He gave life to some small amoeba and then pushed the evolutionary rock down the hill and let it go where it may.

I guess, I cannot have the hope of everlasting life, or forgiveness of my sins or trust that it is true about Christ rising from the dead...Cause, the Bible cannot be trusted...

Look, if you cannot read Genesis 1 and 2 without getting all mixed up, how are you going to handle the book of revelation?

It's like hearing someone tell a story about how they built their log cabin, to two different people, and saying "well they told it differently both times so I believe they built a boat"

What if you miss important points in the Scripture because you are too busy refusing to compromise on any detail?

Have you ever heard the phrase "Can't see the forest for the trees!"?