Hummingbirds Disprove Creationism

[JacksBratt]

Did you fail basic reading comprehension? The order of creation is different.

Well then I guess it's all hogwash............lets go home.

If you do not understand that Genesis 1 is the literal chronological explanation of the creation in a day by literal day agenda, while Genesis 2 goes into more detail while not totally chronological...then toss it....go ahead, believe that it took a billion years because a tree and a rose bush cannot, for some reason survive for one day without sunlight???

Sheesh.......I doubt if your going to convince anyone who believes that Genesis is literal by pointing out the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. We've read them already.... We're OK with it. We still believe that God created everything in six literal days....

I also believe that I'm not going to convince you to change your mind. Your set.... so am I.

If you don't believe it, so be it. However, if you cannot believe the first two chapters of God's word..... how on earth do you know that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are worth believing either?

As I said....toss it all if you like....As for me, and my house.... we believe.

Check out this article. It explains it quite well...

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-genesis-1-and-2-contradict-each-other/

 

[JacksBratt]

I already did that.

/////Genesis 2;
Before plants and rain, there were streams
Then God made Adam
Then God made trees
Then God made animals and birds
Then God made eve

A Creationist will read that and go into desperate mental contortions.
////

There was no rain before the flood..... not a drop.

 

[JacksBratt]

Actually, I saw a hummingbird evolve from a caterpillar.....

Oh, wait, sorry, that was a butterfly.

Still no observable, repeatable, testable proof of the TOE.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Genesis 1 and 2. We've read them already.... We're OK with it. We still believe that God created everything in six literal days....

Amein! HalleluYAH !
All thru HIS WORD YHWH confirms this.. Complete and Perfect HARMONY that everything reproduces after its own kind. There's nothing even untoward or unbecoming for believers today or any reason in YHWH'S WORD to denigrate their souls.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Actually, I saw a hummingbird evolve from a caterpillar.....
Oh, wait, sorry, that was a butterfly.
Still no observable, repeatable, testable proof of the TOE.

You already know that's not 'evolution' by any ones definition or wild theory.
YHWH CREATED butterflies , YHWH CREATED all life,
YHWH CREATED reproduction - one egg and one sperm joins and there is still LIFE ! ONLY ! when YHWH gives LIFE ! .
Even TODAY, all life depends on YHWH, HIS GIVING LIFE and HIS SUSTAINING LIFE.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Do you have a scripture that states this. Or at least a reference?

Its scientific knowledge. Stuff you reject because of your religion.

 

[JacksBratt]

You already know that's not 'evolution' by any ones definition or wild theory.
YHWH CREATED butterflies , YHWH CREATED all life,
YHWH CREATED reproduction - one egg and one sperm joins and there is still LIFE ! ONLY ! when YHWH gives LIFE ! .
Even TODAY, all life depends on YHWH, HIS GIVING LIFE and HIS SUSTAINING LIFE.

Ya, I know. I apologize for being so sarcastic..just in a strange mood.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Ya, I know. I apologize for being so sarcastic..just in a strange mood.

No worries --- it is a strange thread! .....

 

[JacksBratt]

Its scientific knowledge. Stuff you reject because of your religion.

Do you have any text that back this up? I don't mean some university course that I need to attend. Just some intelligent fact that explains how you can arrive at a date like 75 to 85 million years?

You do realize that that is a huge amount of time previous to any recorded history, previous to any humans, previous to any written record. It is actually a number someone predicted, extrapolated, assumed or guessed. It is un testable as nobody was here to view it, nobody was there to record it and there is no possible way you can measure the time that hummingbirds morphed, evolved or hatched for the first time, with any accuracy whatsoever.

You can site the "geologic column" yet it has trees growing up through it. You can site carbon dating, yet it is only accurate to 50,000 years. You can site fossil data, yet fossils have been shown to form in 3 months in a laboratory setting. Given that we can throw out any date on a fossil's age. Given this, your 75 - 85 million years is hyperbola.

 

[Dale]

If someone leaves Christianity because of creationism their faith was very weak to begin with. In fact one would wonder if they really received salvation if they are shaken so easily. But then Jesus did say that there were all kinds of different hearts and only those with good soil would be saved. Others would fall away.

This is a reason why evolution is so insidious. Ultimately it forces people to defend scripture as written or twist it to try and force it to say something it doesn't. Ultimately it places doubt upon God's word.

Something I think the devil is very good at.

rjs330 :
<< If someone leaves Christianity because of creationism their faith was very weak to begin with. >>

That is not for you to say. Maybe their sense of logic is stronger than yours. Maybe their sense of evidence is better than yours. Maybe they are turned off by the foolish things that creationist ministers say.

The contradictions of creationism are endless. It can't explain the racial diversity in the world today, for instance.

As far as what “the devil is very good at,” don't assume that whatever you disagree with is of the devil. That can be rigid and dangerous thinking.

 

[Dale]

My comment was not just about Genesis being literal. It is about all these assumptions and twisting of words, stretching a phrase, ignoring plain text, using rare meanings and contexts of words or phrases ...... all for one thing,..... backing evolution.

Yes, YEC or TOE may not be a game changer as far as believing the gospel and accepting Christs gift of salvation.... however, if you are going to believe the carbon date method of men, the interpretation of the fossil record by men, the genealogy investigation and interpretation by men, or the interpretation of any scripture as interpreted by man that is used to reinforce evolution.....which is one of the biggest anti Christian, anti biblical, anti GOD movements of history.....I would think twice.

God clearly stated that the wisdom of men is foolish.

I would rather take the Biblical account, as written and be wrong. Than take man's account of history and be wrong.

JacskBratt:
<< however, if you are going to believe the carbon date method of men, the interpretation of the fossil record by men >>

If you believe that the age of the earth is determined by carbon 14 dating, you don't know a thing about geology. You must have gotten that notion from a fundamentalist minister whose ignorance of science is total. This is why it is hard to talk to a creationist—they think they know everything and they don't know the first detail.


<< used to reinforce evolution.....which is one of the biggest anti Christian, anti biblical, anti GOD movements of history >>


I don't see how any of these things are true. How is evolution against any of the things you mentioned? If God uses evolution, then evolution isn't against God, but simply revealing his handiwork. Most creationists say that God uses “micro-evolution,” a term not used by biologists, so even they say that God uses evolution.

 

[JacksBratt]

If you believe that the age of the earth is determined by carbon 14 dating, you don't know a thing about geology. You must have gotten that notion from a fundamentalist minister whose ignorance of science is total. This is why it is hard to talk to a creationist—they think they know everything and they don't know the first detail.

I do know that carbon dating is only accurate to 50,000 years back, if it is valid at all.
I do know that there are fossil trees that exist right up through supposedly millions of years of layers.
I do know that old earth believers can use "science" to assume their way out of anything that contradicts their billion year idea.
I also know that, in the end, this science that men lean so hard on will be shown as foolishness.
I do know that I will take literal scripture over anything that science is portraying and I solidly believe that science is getting less and less reliable as a source of fact.

I don't see how any of these things are true. How is evolution against any of the things you mentioned? If God uses evolution, then evolution isn't against God, but simply revealing his handiwork. Most creationists say that God uses “micro-evolution,” a term not used by biologists, so even they say that God uses evolution.

God uses the type of evolution where two humans can multiply into all the races we have today. That two canines could evolve into all the wolves, coyotes, dogs breeds that we have today, that two felines could evolve into all the different types of cats.

I totally refuse to agree to any "common ancestor" for apes and men, birds and lizards, or any other ideas of one small microbe evolving into all life forms.

God created all animals "in their kind" plants "in their kind"

What is the most common belief of atheists for how we all got here? Do you, as a believer, follow the same belief as a person who doesn't even believe God exists? Follow a theory that basically removes the need for God?

 

[Wunderlust]

That is not much of a case. That is why I asked you to elaborate.

It is you who are taking things literally, reading them as if they were completely chronological. They are not. That is just a form of writing and explanation: to give a brief summary, then go into greater detail regarding certain matters of importance. Nevertheless, there is no contradiction, it is just one story. You are making something out of nothing.

They give two contradicting accounts of the order. That's obviously important when you take both accounts to mean that God created the Earth in a literal six days. Then you turn around and call it a metaphor and the details, when they contradict, aren't important.

Genesis is a metaphor, that's where the truth of it exists. If you are going to take it literally, you run into the problem of two different orders of creation.

 

[Wunderlust]

There was no rain before the flood..... not a drop.

Metaphorically speaking, since it is overwhelmingly evident that rain has existed for billions of years.

 

[Wunderlust]

Well then I guess it's all hogwash............lets go home.

If you do not understand that Genesis 1 is the literal chronological explanation of the creation in a day by literal day agenda, while Genesis 2 goes into more detail while not totally chronological...then toss it....go ahead, believe that it took a billion years because a tree and a rose bush cannot, for some reason survive for one day without sunlight???

Sheesh.......I doubt if your going to convince anyone who believes that Genesis is literal by pointing out the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. We've read them already.... We're OK with it. We still believe that God created everything in six literal days....

I also believe that I'm not going to convince you to change your mind. Your set.... so am I.

If you don't believe it, so be it. However, if you cannot believe the first two chapters of God's word..... how on earth do you know that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are worth believing either?

As I said....toss it all if you like....As for me, and my house.... we believe.

Check out this article. It explains it quite well...

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/do-genesis-1-and-2-contradict-each-other/

The truth of Genesis is in the story, not in a literal belief that God created the Earth in six days with some element of creation happening each day. It is bizarre to say Genesis was literal in God creating the world in specific days, but wait... when it contradicts in that order between the two chapters... God was being metaphorical.

It is choosing to take one part metaphorical to keep another part literal, for no apparent reason, and totally contradictory to scientific evidence.

 

[Wunderlust]

]
If you do not understand that Genesis 1 is the literal chronological explanation of the creation in a day by literal day agenda, while Genesis 2 goes into more detail while not totally chronological...then toss it....go ahead, believe that it took a billion years because a tree and a rose bush cannot, for some reason survive for one day without sunlight???

People do not believe in creationism because the stories are obviously metaphors and science overwhelming shows evolution and it taking billions of years... not because trees cannot go a day without sun.

 

[Wunderlust]

Do you have a scripture that states this. Or at least a reference?

The very tired argument of asking for scripture where it is completely irrelevant.

"In 1939, Hitler invaded Poland..."
'Do you have scripture to back that up?'

 

[JacksBratt]

The very tired argument of asking for scripture where it is completely irrelevant.

"In 1939, Hitler invaded Poland..."
'Do you have scripture to back that up?'

No but there are photos, survivors that were there and history books by the score.

 

[JacksBratt]

Metaphorically speaking, since it is overwhelmingly evident that rain has existed for billions of years.

Actually, no there was no rain before the flood.

 

[JacksBratt]

The truth of Genesis is in the story, not in a literal belief that God created the Earth in six days with some element of creation happening each day. It is bizarre to say Genesis was literal in God creating the world in specific days, but wait... when it contradicts in that order between the two chapters... God was being metaphorical.

It is choosing to take one part metaphorical to keep another part literal, for no apparent reason, and totally contradictory to scientific evidence.

Again with the contradiction of Genesis 1 and 2. Please check previous posts. It's like saying that the Bible calls Christ a lion and a lamb so it contradicts itself.