Hummingbirds Disprove Creationism

[Dale]

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 Bible is not a textbook of geography, history, biology, geology, astronomy, or any other science. Have you consider this?

I know for a fact that people are leaving Christianity because of creationism. I've talked to people who have. Fundamentalist ministers go out of their way to encourage this when they say that there is nothing in between creationism and atheism.

Anne, you say that you are willing to be thought a fool over creationism. Are you willing to drive people out of God's church over it? That's what is happening.

 

[prodromos]

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?

I would think it is rather obvious how all the animals ended up scattered all over the globe. It was by supernatural means that all the different creatures were gathered in one place to board the ark, Noah certainly didn't have to go travelling anywhere to search them out. The very same means took them to where they would once more populate the regions where they are now found.

 

[Dale]

I would think it is rather obvious how all the animals ended up scattered all over the globe. It was by supernatural means that all the different creatures were gathered in one place to board the ark, Noah certainly didn't have to go travelling anywhere to search them out. The very same means took them to where they would once more populate the regions where they are now found.[/QU


So every objection is met by supposing another miracle.

Surely God's plan is more than a series of ad hoc improvisations.

 

[prodromos]

So every objection is met by supposing another miracle.

Surely God's plan is more than a series of ad hoc improvisations

It was a miracle which brought the animals there, so why is another miracle such a stretch. God's interaction with mankind tends to be filled with miraculous events.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why not just accept it as the evidence He left for us tells us it is? That would be perfectly in accord with scripture, and would mean that He isn't deceptive.

 

[Dale]

It was a miracle which brought the animals there, so why is another miracle such a stretch. God's interaction with mankind tends to be filled with miraculous events.

Why not just accept it as the evidence He left for us tells us it is? That would be perfectly in accord with scripture, and would mean that He isn't deceptive.

It is far more sensible to treat the creation story as a parable. It has meaning but it is not intended that we should fail to look at the natural world to see what we can learn from it.

Prodomos, I have been told by EO on CF that they have often interpreted the creation story in a nonliteral way.

I have talked to many creationists and they can't make sense out of a literal creation story. They have far more questions than answers.

 

[prodromos]

It is far more sensible to treat the creation story as a parable. It has meaning but it is not intended that we should fail to look at the natural world to see what we can learn from it.

Prodomos, I have been told by EO on CF that they have often interpreted the creation story in a nonliteral way.

The interpretation of the creation account has not been dogmatised, so you will get different opinions among EO, however if the accounts of creation and the fall are just parables then it calls into question the core of our beliefs regarding salvation. If death was not introduced by the sin of one man, our forefather Adam, then how is that enemy defeated by the death and resurrection of one man, our saviour Jesus Christ?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Why not just accept it as the evidence He left for us tells us it is? That would be perfectly in accord with scripture, and would mean that He isn't deceptive.

It is far more sensible to treat the creation story as a parable.

Yes. My point. When St. Augustine wrote "The Literal Meaning of Genesis", he pointed out that reading it as a literal history would produce all sorts of contradictions. The literal reading is that it is a parable.

As with EO Christians, the Roman Catholic Church does not require one to accept Genesis as a literal history or as a parable.

And for a Christian, it really shouldn't matter to one's faith. It's just not something that makes a difference.

And reading Genesis as a parable does not rule out the fact that we are descended from a single pair of humans.

 

[rjs330]

Barbarian asks:
Why not just accept it as the evidence He left for us tells us it is? That would be perfectly in accord with scripture, and would mean that He isn't deceptive.



Yes. My point. When St. Augustine wrote "The Literal Meaning of Genesis", he pointed out that reading it as a literal history would produce all sorts of contradictions. The literal reading is that it is a parable.

As with EO Christians, the Roman Catholic Church does not require one to accept Genesis as a literal history or as a parable.

And for a Christian, it really shouldn't matter to one's faith. It's just not something that makes a difference.

And reading Genesis as a parable does not rule out the fact that we are descended from a single pair of humans.

It might be interesting to note that the majority of church fathers believed in the literal Genesis. Even Augustine didn't adhere to old earth which is required for evolution. He may have had an issue with the literal six days but not in the young earth. So to use Augustine as a support for evolutionary teaching is not correct. The earliest fathers believed in the literalist interpretation of Genesis. Evolution from a common ancestor is false and unsupported by Scripture. And using the church fathers to support it is disingenuous at best.

ECG: Creation and the Church Fathers

 

[rjs330]

The Bible is not a textbook of geography, history, biology, geology, astronomy, or any other science. Have you consider this?

I know for a fact that people are leaving Christianity because of creationism. I've talked to people who have. Fundamentalist ministers go out of their way to encourage this when they say that there is nothing in between creationism and atheism.

Anne, you say that you are willing to be thought a fool over creationism. Are you willing to drive people out of God's church over it? That's what is happening.

If what you say is true then those "Christians" were people described by Jesus in the parable of the seed and sower. They were not good soil and did not fully embrace the gospel. Blame their hearts not the literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

It might be interesting to note that the majority of church fathers believed in the literal Genesis.

If they had. But as you see, they didn't. When St. Augustine published his article, it was widely distributed, and not one person challenged his description of Genesis as an allegory.

Even Augustine didn't adhere to old earth which is required for evolution.

He merely showed that Genesis was not literal, which is required for YE creationism. Genesis says nothing about the age of the Earth, or about evolution. It just says that YE creationism is false.

So to use Augustine as a support for evolutionary teaching is not correct.

Actually, that's wrong. He just thought that the development of living things came about much faster than we know it did today. He wrote that God created the world with the potentiality for all things to come, and from that, living things emerged.

The earliest fathers believed in the literalist interpretation of Genesis.

Nope. Augustine, when he wrote that it wasn't literal history, wasn't contradicted by any other Christian theologian. YE creationism is a modern revision of scripture, no older than the last century.

 

[rjs330]

If they had. But as you see, they didn't. When St. Augustine published his article, it was widely distributed, and not one person challenged his description of Genesis as an allegory.



He merely showed that Genesis was not literal, which is required for YE creationism. Genesis says nothing about the age of the Earth, or about evolution. It just says that YE creationism is false.




Actually, that's wrong. He just thought that the development of living things came about much faster than we know it did today. He wrote that God created the world with the potentiality for all things to come, and from that, living things emerged.



Nope. Augustine, when he wrote that it wasn't literal history, wasn't contradicted by any other Christian theologian. YE creationism is a modern revision of scripture, no older than the last century.

Hmm... You didn't read the article did you? Let me quote Augustine from his later work.

The world was in fact made with time, if at the time of its creation change and motion came into existence. This is clearly the situation in the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are named, until God’s creation was finished on the sixth day, and on the seventh day God’s rest is emphasized as something conveying a mystic meaning. What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”1

Note he said this we must believe without hesitation. He also said that the earth was 6000 years old.

Liberal biblical scholars need to brush up on their church history not to mention the scriptures themselves.

We're their some that believed in old earth? Sure. But the majority did not. Evolution requires old earth. The earliest fathers did not believe that. In fact putting such stock in the church fathers over what Jesus and the apostles taught is simply stating that a few of the fathers knew better than Jesus or the apostles. It doesn't hold water.

Now I will say this. The age of the earth could be very old. God created the heavens and the earth. We do not have any idea scripturally how long the earth hung around before God began the creation process of life.

 

[rjs330]

Also for those that respect the church fathers this site quotes them that stand with literal Genesis against evolution. Theophilus and Basil are two that believed in creation of Genesis and sided with Paul on the subject.
There are more. But bottom line is that making it sound as if the church fathers all thought Genesis was allegory and did not believe the earth was young is simply being disingenuous. It's what liberal scholars love to do.

Genesis and Early Man

 

[The Barbarian]

Hmm... You didn't read the article did you?

I read the original.
Listen to what Augustine says:
What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

So, as he points out, not literal days. He goes on to say:

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”

Again, he makes it clear that these could not be literal days, but that we must accept it as it is. Note he said this we must believe without hesitation. While he believed that the Earth was a few thousand years old, he also asserted that we must be willing to change our opinions if evidence indicated.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

De Genesi ad literam, 2:9

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines our position, we too fall with it.
De Genesi ad literam

Creationists need to brush up on their church history not to mention the scriptures themselves. As you now see, St. Augustine asserted that the days of creation could not be literal days.

Evolution requires old earth.

St. Augustine believed that a few thousand years were sufficient for the gemmae created by God to bring forth all living things. He was in error on that, although he did recognize that God created the earth to bring forth life, something that creationists have repeatedly refused to accept in scripture.

Scripture has stated that the earth brought forth the crops and the trees causally, in the sense that it received the power of bringing them forth.
De Genesi ad literam

Let God be God, and accept His word as it is, rather than as you'd like it to be.

 

[rjs330]

Barbarian asks:
Why not just accept it as the evidence He left for us tells us it is? That would be perfectly in accord with scripture, and would mean that He isn't deceptive.



Yes. My point. When St. Augustine wrote "The Literal Meaning of Genesis", he pointed out that reading it as a literal history would produce all sorts of contradictions. The literal reading is that it is a parable.

As with EO Christians, the Roman Catholic Church does not require one to accept Genesis as a literal history or as a parable.

And for a Christian, it really shouldn't matter to one's faith. It's just not something that makes a difference.

And reading Genesis as a parable does not rule out the fact that we are descended from a single pair of humans.

But how do you know that except from Genesis. Genesis is the book that tells us where we came from. Paul tells us that as well as the genealogies listed in the New and Old Testaments.

You are right in that our Christianity is not dependent upon literal or non literal Genesis. what is at stake is not salvation. What is at stake is whether we give ourselves the power to decide what is true and what is not in Scripture. It also empowers the athiests and skeptic. Why? Because they use exactly the same thoughts to say the Bible is not reliable. Therefore they do not have to believe or trust it. And we give them the ammo for the gun they point at us. They skoff at Scripture and use the very arguments against us. I can't tell you how many times I've heard about the unreliability of Scripture and as evidence they point out "even Christians don't believe in it.". If we don't believe why should they.

 

[rjs330]

I read the original.
Listen to what Augustine says:
What kind of days these are is difficult or even impossible for us to imagine, to say nothing of describing them.

So, as he points out, not literal days. He goes on to say:

In our experience, of course, the days with which we are familiar only have an evening because the sun sets, and a morning because the sun rises; whereas those first three days passed without the sun, which was made, we are told, on the fourth day. The narrative does indeed tell that light was created by God…. But what kind of light that was, and with what alternating movement the distinction was made, and what was the nature of this evening and this morning; these are questions beyond the scope of our sensible experience. We cannot understand what happened as it is presented to us; and yet we must believe it without hesitation.”

Again, he makes it clear that these could not be literal days, but that we must accept it as it is. Note he said this we must believe without hesitation. While he believed that the Earth was a few thousand years old, he also asserted that we must be willing to change our opinions if evidence indicated.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

De Genesi ad literam, 2:9

In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines our position, we too fall with it.
De Genesi ad literam

Creationists need to brush up on their church history not to mention the scriptures themselves. As you now see, St. Augustine asserted that the days of creation could not be literal days.



St. Augustine believed that a few thousand years were sufficient for the gemmae created by God to bring forth all living things. He was in error on that, although he did recognize that God created the earth to bring forth life, something that creationists have repeatedly refused to accept in scripture.

Scripture has stated that the earth brought forth the crops and the trees causally, in the sense that it received the power of bringing them forth.
De Genesi ad literam

Let God be God, and accept His word as it is, rather than as you'd like it to be.

You need to read him more carefully. He acknowledged what we all acknowledge which is we don't understand how God did it. But we must believe it. God said he did it that way therefore we must believe without hesitation.

He's trying to tell us that faith plays a part. And those that proclaim that Augustine is the be all and end all of church fathers need to pay attention to church history. There were church fathers that existed before him and after him that accepted literal Genesis. Even if Augustine didn't what makes him more reliable than any of the other fathers? You need to brush up on church history my friend. I provided links. Augustine is not the only father out there.

And once again Scripture itself teaches the literalness of Genesis. Jesus taught it, Paul taught it and Moses proclaimed it as well as Chronicles. There is not one place in Scripture that even hints that Genesis is not literal. I have yet to find someone who can point to a single Scripture that says Genesis is allegory.

 

[The Barbarian]

But how do you know that except from Genesis. Genesis is the book that tells us where we came from.

It says we came from God. But it doesn't give us the details. Which aren't important to our salvation, or He would have given them.

Paul tells us that as well as the genealogies listed in the New and Old Testaments.

The geneologies of Jesus, for example, are conflicting if we take them to be literally true. So we know that they are not.

You are right in that our Christianity is not dependent upon literal or non literal Genesis. what is at stake is not salvation. What is at stake is whether we give ourselves the power to decide what is true and what is not in Scripture.

No. It has nothing to do with "true." If Jesus uses a parable, it's not Jesus telling us something that's not true.

It also empowers the athiests and skeptic.

Insisting on a literal Genesis empowers atheists and skeptics.
Why?

St. Augustine makes it clear:

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, The Literal Meaning of Genesis

And if we insist on denying the figurative parts of Genesis, we give them the ammo for the gun they point at us.

As St. Augustine makes very clear.

 

[The Barbarian]

And once again Scripture itself teaches the literalness of Genesis. Jesus taught it, Paul taught it and Moses proclaimed it as well as Chronicles.

Not one of those, in any passage of scripture, says they aren't parables or allegories. Not once. So no.

 

[Rajni]

I think hummingbirds disprove evolution.
Why? Because one would think that by now they'd have evolved beyond just humming to actually knowing the lyrics.

Sorry... couldn't resist. Carry on.


-

 

[rjs330]

Not one of those, in any passage of scripture, says they aren't parables or allegories. Not once. So no.

If you study biblical literature, which I have a degree in by the way, you will note that parables and allegories all have certain literature signatures. NONE of the passages in the New Testament even hint at allegory. NONE. They all read and indicate that the writer and speakers speak of actual events not allegory. Sorry, but you are just flat wrong there. But it is the typical liberal mantra to proclaim such without any actual evidence of that. Please quote me some scriptures that indicate that Jesus and Paul spoke of the events in Genesis as allegory. Show me where Jesus said it was allegory. Show me where Paul said it was allegory. There is no indication in their language or the writings that would indicate such. It's a false premise without evidence.

Again, Augustine is not the only church father out there is he? He's not even the oldest church father. So even IF he believed it allegorical, it means nothing as he is no more reliable than any other church father that did believe that Genesis was literal.