Hummingbirds Disprove Creationism

[Speedwell]

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

Why is that the only alternative?

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.

Or where He knew it would? But maybe your god isn't that smart...

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...

That is all described in different books for which there is corroborating evidence in the form of Apostolic Witness.

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

LOL! As any good Preterist would.

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"

More like reading accounts by two different people about how a third person built a cabin. Some discrepancy is to be expected.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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

But you have given up the right to call extended speculation a reason for criticism, because you just did it yourself.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

But any scientist would know that the point of origin
has no relationship with the diversity of a species.
Diversity is strictly a matter of ecological niches to
fill. This would have no correlation to point of origin.

Put another way, spread out all birds evenly across
the globe and the results may be the same in a few
years.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Diversity is strictly a matter of ecological niches to
fill.

To me this doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

To me this doesn't make sense at all.

What he means is . . . every species has to have a way of life that the environment allows for. Grazing on grass, for example, or eating grass grazers, for another example. The more ways of life that exist, the more species the environment can sustain. What about sucking blood from grass grazers and grass grazing preditors alike? What about hitching a ride in mosquito saliva and infecting grass grazers? and so forth and so forth. Ecological niches. A place to put new species, should they come along via evolution.

 

[Dale]

But any scientist would know that the point of origin
has no relationship with the diversity of a species.
Diversity is strictly a matter of ecological niches to
fill. This would have no correlation to point of origin.

Put another way, spread out all birds evenly across
the globe and the results may be the same in a few
years.

The point of origin certainly is important because there are many barriers to the spread of species. There are elaborate theories to explain how various species crossed oceans and spread from one continent to another, for instance. This is particularly significant for small birds like hummingbirds that do not fly for thousands of miles.

Perhaps the Creationists could explain why hummingbirds became extinct in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia and most of the world's islands, since they assume that hummingbirds can easily fly to all these places. Hummingbirds seem to do well wherever there are flowering plants with flowers for them to feed off of.

Why are there hummingbirds in Arizona, where there is very little food for them, but no hummingbirds in the forests of Europe? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Dale]

Why are there hundreds of hummingbird species in South America and only a handful in North America? Because for millions of years conditions weren't right for any entry of hummingbirds into North America. The continents for a connection through Panama about three million years ago after tens of millions of years of separation.


“A well documented example of geodispersal in between continental ecosystems was the Great American Biotic Interchange (GABI) between the terrestrial faunas and floras of North America and South America, that followed the formation of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago.”

--Wikipedia article on Geodispersal

 

[SkyWriting]

Perhaps the Creationists could explain why hummingbirds became extinct in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia and most of the world's islands, since they assume that hummingbirds can easily fly to all these places.

No creationist has ever said that.

 

[Radrook]

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?

They aren't descended from two birds.

“You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth” (Genesis 7:2-3,

 

[Dale]

They flew.

No creationist has ever said that.

Skywriting,

You say that no Creationist ever said that two or more hummingbirds could fly all over the world.
A Creationist said it in post #44, as I just quoted.

 

[Dale]

I have quoted the passage about seven pairs to creationists before. You're not telling me anything I don't know about. Creationists have always corrected me, saying that applies to clean animals.

As far as the distribution of hummingbirds around the world, one pair or seven pairs makes no difference. Either way, we still need to know how they got to the Americas without colonizing Asia. I don't see any way it could be done or any reason to believe it would happen that way.

They aren't descended from two birds.

“You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth” (Genesis 7:2-3,

Radrook,
I answered that absurd claim in post #22.

Maybe you can show me a source where a rabbi ever classified hummingbirds as clean animals. There was certainly no such source in the ancient world because hummingbirds don't live in the middle east.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do we know that the earliest hummingbirds were hummingbirds exactly as we know them?

Could the tendency of birds to migrate make things simpler? Or more complicated?

The Earliest hummingbird fossils as far as I know, have been found in Germany.

Skeleton doesn't seem to be that of a hummingbird. The old world has lots of pollinating birds. But not, as this one is not, hummingbirds.

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe you can show me a source where a rabbi ever classified hummingbirds as clean animals.

Hummingbirds certainly are birds of the air. So seven of them, assuming that evolution is false, and there were hummingbirds around at the time.

 

[Dale]

Hummingbirds certainly are birds of the air. So seven of them, assuming that evolution is false, and there were hummingbirds around at the time.

You're not making a serious reply. It doesn't matter how many pairs of hummingbirds there were at the Ark because they could never fly far enough to get to South America where most of them now live.


On whether there were two pairs or seven pairs, that depends on whether you believe Genesis 6 or Genesis 7. They don't agree.


20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive
--Genesis 6:20 NIV


2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
--Genesis 7: 2-3 NIV

 

[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?

That doesn't disprove creationism. First of all, literal seven-day creationists who believe in a global flood do not need to posit two hummingbirds were on the ark to be consistent with their position.

Second, the flood and creation are two different issues, so creation is not dependent on the flood having occurred. Evidence for evolution would not disprove that life or matter was created either.

And since "ha 'eretz" does not always refer to the entire land mass on the planet, a regional flood where mankind lived is a feasible interpretation as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

TAnd since "ha 'eretz" does not always refer to the entire land mass on the planet, a regional flood where mankind lived is a feasible interpretation as well.

Yes. That's quite true.

 

[Dale]

That doesn't disprove creationism. First of all, literal seven-day creationists who believe in a global flood do not need to posit two hummingbirds were on the ark to be consistent with their position.

Second, the flood and creation are two different issues, so creation is not dependent on the flood having occurred. Evidence for evolution would not disprove that life or matter was created either.

And since "ha 'eretz" does not always refer to the entire land mass on the planet, a regional flood where mankind lived is a feasible interpretation as well.

I've never talked with a creationist who would agree with anything you have said here.
They do regard the Flood as essential just as they regard Eden as essential. They would not consider a local flood.

The creationists I talk to have absolutely refused to consider the possibility of a new species. I have given them lists of new species, plants in particular. Creationists reject these out of hand. They don't have to have a reason. They just know that it can't be.

So where did hummingbirds come from?

 

[The Barbarian]

I've never talked with a creationist who would agree with anything you have said here.

I've talked with many creationists who would.

They do regard the Flood as essential just as they regard Eden as essential.

Some do. Some don't. A literal flood is not a requirement for Christian or even creationist belief.

They would not consider a local flood.

Some do. Some don't.

The creationists I talk to have absolutely refused to consider the possibility of a new species.

"Answers in Genesis" now admits that speciation if a fact. They just revised the meaning of "evolution" to exclude the evolution of new species.

So where did hummingbirds come from?

Hummingbird Evolution

 

[TurtleAnne]

In my personal perception, there are multiple battle fronts coming at Christians in attempts to assail our faith. One is a battle that targets the heart, such as trying to convince us that we are all horrible bigots because we think that homosexual acts are a type of sin. Another is a battle that tries to wound our cerebral pride by mocking our intelligence with all of these "facts" and so on.

I really do believe that a great deal of it is deception. I know that many people, the majority of people, will laugh at me all the way to my grave for this, and that is fine with me. I know that people in my position are considered foolish, ignorant or crazy, or some combination thereof.

But this is something that I wish more people could understand. This is what faith is, for some of us, maybe even many of us, who call ourselves Christians. We believe the scriptures even when the world argues fiercely against it and presents all manner of evidence as perceived by the world's most esteemed scientists or leaders or whatever. If it contradicts the scriptures, then it is a form of deception, part of the great delusion, and we will choose our faith over it, every time.

There is no form of any "proof" that I would ever accept if it contradicts the scriptures. I will see it as deception, because my faith is in God of the scriptures, above all else. It doesn't matter if I am considered foolish or stupid or crazy or whatever. I have faith in a God who can do whatever He pleases, and if that means dispersing some hummingbirds, then so be it. By His word He created the whole planet, so He can move around some birds lol.

I just perceive things in a very different way. Science is tool that has some uses in our worldly life, but I notice far more how science will not save us from ourselves. Most advancements are quickly used for wicked purposes, out of greed or hatred or a desire for control and power. Thousands of years of human intelligence and wisdom, and we are still in a world that is rife with murder, rape, child abuse, war and so on, everything against which Jesus taught thousands of years ago. We are utterly pathetic in spite of ourselves, and so is our intelligence, wisdom, technology and "science". We can fathom a perfect world, but we cannot attain it, because of SIN. It all makes sense to me, anyway, despite the ignorant fool that I faithfully am.

 

[The Barbarian]

The problem ever is, that people try to map their own ideas onto scripture, and then proclaim that it is God's word.

At the beginning of the Christian era, one particularly God-fearing man wrote about this issue, and the damage it does to God's wish that none be lost:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."
St. Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis