Hummingbirds Disprove Creationism

[Ubuntu]

A species limited to a certain geographical location doesn't prove anything in itself. All it can tell us is that this place is the only location where a species has survived, not that it never has been elsewhere on this planet.

It has been mentioned before in this thread, but the hummingbird isn't limited to South America, fossils have been found in Germany. So those who believe in evolution basically face a variation of the same "problem" as creationists do.

Evolutionists and creationists are therefore actually forced to agree about the hummingbird. At the moment it is only found in America, simply because it somehow became extinct in other places... The hummingbird is rather specialized, so I guess this explains why the hummingbird became extinct in Eurasia.

* * *

About the flight characteristics of the hummingbird... The hummingbird can "cross 800 km (500 mi) of the Gulf of Mexico on a nonstop flight." (wikipedia.) That's actually quite impressive!

 

[crossnote]

In Post #24, Crossnote said:
"Look at these pics and tell me that it all came about by chance..."

That's what I was responding to. Living things are not the result of chance but the result of a complex process.

Thanks for the correction.
But that 'complex process' you call Darwinian Evolution, it's foundation is chance.

 

[Dale]

And what do you call a Christian who rejects the word of God and leans on his own understanding?

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.

 

[Dale]

Shows how much you know.

Einstein didn't tell us to throw away our clocks and calendars.
So Wanderlust has a point.

 

[Dale]

A species limited to a certain geographical location doesn't prove anything in itself. All it can tell us is that this place is the only location where a species has survived, not that it never has been elsewhere on this planet.

It has been mentioned before in this thread, but the hummingbird isn't limited to South America, fossils have been found in Germany. So those who believe in evolution basically face a variation of the same "problem" as creationists do.

Evolutionists and creationists are therefore actually forced to agree about the hummingbird. At the moment it is only found in America, simply because it somehow became extinct in other places... The hummingbird is rather specialized, so I guess this explains why the hummingbird became extinct in Eurasia.

* * *

About the flight characteristics of the hummingbird... The hummingbird can "cross 800 km (500 mi) of the Gulf of Mexico on a nonstop flight." (wikipedia.) That's actually quite impressive!

We know that hummingbirds can cross the Gulf of Mexico. The world smallest bird is the bee hummingbird, found in Cuba. I'm not sure the bee hummingbird can reach the mainland.

As a member of the Audubon society, I am knowledgeable about birds. Many birds migrate for thousands of miles, but their breeding area is still limited. They will travel for thousands of miles, then return to one area to breed. That means that they mate, build nests and raise young in an area that is much smaller than the area they migrate over. That hummingbirds could travel is one thing, and that they would change their breeding area is something else.

The ability of hummingbirds to cover distance is much less than many other birds. The most extreme example if the Arctic Tern, which migrates from the Arctic to the Antarctic every year. That's 23,500 miles, quite a trip!

 

[ScottA]

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.

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]

Einstein didn't tell us to throw away our clocks and calendars.
So Wanderlust has a point.

No...Wanderlust claimed that Einstein did not define time as an "illusion", when, in fact, he did. Instead, he chose to claim a half-truth, saying that he defined time rather, as "relative."

Instead of picking and choosing what we like or understand out of the whole truth, and then making our own claims, we would do better to listen and learn. Einstein opened the door. Few have gone holy through it.

 

[Wunderlust]

No...Wanderlust claimed that Einstein did not define time as an "illusion", when, in fact, he did. Instead, he chose to claim a half-truth, saying that he defined time rather, as "relative."

Einstein never defined time as an illusion. He never actually said time was an illusion. You are quoting Einstein as saying something that he never said and is contradictory to his work.

Instead of picking and choosing what we like or understand out of the whole truth, and then making our own claims, we would do better to listen and learn. Einstein opened the door. Few have gone holy through it.

I think having a basic knowledge of what a person is saying is important.

 

[ScottA]

Einstein never defined time as an illusion. He never actually said time was an illusion. You are quoting Einstein as saying something that he never said and is contradictory to his work.




I think having a basic knowledge of what a person is saying is important.

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."

 

[Wunderlust]

And what do you call a Christian who rejects the word of God and leans on his own understanding?

Creationism isn't the word of God. Creationism is a theory of men based on interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 as literal. It is also absurd because Genesis 1 and 2 give contradictory accounts of creationism.

 

[ScottA]

Creationism isn't the word of God. Creationism is a theory of men based on interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 as literal. It is also absurd because Genesis 1 and 2 give contradictory accounts of creationism.

It is the providence of God to insure that His Word does not return void...making what history has attested to of His word - His will.

Misinterpretation is a cop out, a complete misunderstanding - there is nothing contradictory in His word.

 

[-57]

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.

It may not be rejecting the whole word of God...but it certainly rejects how sin came about when it forces the bible to conform to evolutionism.

 

[DingDing]

A few facts and a conclusion:
Hummingbirds Disprove Creationism

Hummingbirds are birds; they neither prove nor disprove anything (other than that they exist). If you don't believe me, go ask a hummingbird.

 

[Starcrystal]

Simple...the land was different back then, and the 2 hummingbirds took off from the ark and flew to the Americas where they stayed.

 

[Speedwell]

Einstein opened the door. Few have gone holy through it.

That's what is know as a "Freudian slip."

 

[ScottA]

That's what is know as a "Freudian slip."

Except it was intentional.

 

[wayfaring man]

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 !

 

[Rhapsody]

Assuming the earth was exactly the same as it is now thousands of years ago, the closest point between Russia and Alaska, with their small isle separation isn't too great a distance for a hardy little bird to cross. Less than 100 miles, but the larger of the islands has actually hosted this bird.

If they gradually populated the earth, starting from a point in Turkey, there is the idea their end in the Americas could have been a case of last frontier, Europe being peopled for centuries, America being the less traversed.

 

[Speedwell]

Except it was intentional.

LOL! I thought you meant "Wholly."

 

[ScottA]

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

All things come in parables...meaning there are two ways to look at historical events - two different timelines.

As for biblical stories being literal or not...all things, both biblical and historical, are "created"...meaning, made up (as it suits God's purpose).