creationism being backed into a corner

[Grxycxt]

peanus~

[WildFoxAppears]

Xx-The_Cursing-xX

peanus~

OuO....no comment

[Sandokiri]

Batyah

Quote:

Source. It's in Latin, but Lepus (rabbits) was in Order Glires, not Order Pecora as all ruminants were. (At this point, cetaceans were an order of fish, not of mammals.) 3nodding

so i keep gong through stuff and found this again
It is known that rabbits practice what is called "refection," in which indigestible vegetable matter contains certain bacteria and is passed as droppings and then eaten again. This process enables the rabbit to better digest it. This process is very similar to rumination, and it gives the impression of chewing the cud. So, the Hebrew phrase "chewing the cud" should not be taken in the modern technical sense, but in the ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and refection in the modern sense
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-badger-and-rabbit-chew-cud
and im not really sure what you linked me XD

What I linked was the first version of what Linnaeus wrote. It's called Systema Naturæ and its tenth edition is the basis for taxonomy - the system of showing how animals (and plants and minerals!) are related. Though he set out to establish humans as having a unique place in the world - he was a creationist, after all - he ended up grouping humans under Anthropomorpha (later Primates) with the other apes, because the science pointed him that way.

One of Dr. Sarfati's claims in your other rabbit link is that Linnaeus originally had rabbits classified as ruminants. I linked the first edition (from 1735) to show that Linnaeus had rabbits classed with the rodents (Glires,) not the ruminants (Pecora.)

Meanwhile, I see that your CARM link says nothing that Sarfati didn't already say, and its reference link is to a creationist book. So we'll stick with Sarfati.

[Batyah]

dh8d1

Batyah

dh8d1

Batyah

dh8d1

Rosa the White Wizard

You have God's word, which requires faith

Hence creationism being backed into a corner (as the title of this thread states.) If creationism was not backed into a corner, it wouldn't need to resort to claiming that the position requires faith, it'd be able to use evidence, logic, or science to continue the discussion.

*raises hand*excuse me kind sir, but it can and does use those things, although i am not the best person to portray it, i shure as heck am doing my best, but there are many sites of people who do this for a living, and my walk with Christ is based of my scientific findings before faith in Him ever accured.

No. You do not get to say that faith is involved in reason, logic, or science. It isn't. Anything with faith is not reason, logic, or science. It is hoping, wishing, and wanting.

alright, prove i cant have logic and faith in the same thing, ill start with proving it, logicly i know a chair is built stable enough to hold me, i have faith it will when i sit, and that it isnt rotted out, or flimsy, or a sibblings unbloted it.

Equivocation.
You are comparing unlike definitions of the same word.

Faith, as you describe for God's Word is not the same as the reasonable certainty demonstrated by repetitious use of chairs throughout your lifetime.

Your point is invalid.

If you think that faith is within logic, show me one formal class on logic using faith within it. Oh. Sorry, you CAN'T.

Faith is believing something without having justifiable reason to do so. Faith is a mother saying she believes her abducted child will come back alright. Faith is not believing that your car will start when you turn the key in the ignition. One of these two things is believed because of things leading up to it that show it to be so the vast majority of the time, the other is not.

Faith has no place in science, reason, or evidence. If you think it does, try hinging your prosecution on it in court. You'll be the laughing stock.

oh on the woman thing, that you just discribed was hope, but ok. and yes you can have faith in a chair, if you didnt you wouldnt sit.alright lets start with simon greenleaf, He was a lawyer and went in with a lawyer fine tooth comb to disprove Jesus and the like, with cort room like methods, here is a link
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
but lets see if your a troll or if you really care about this subject,but chances are your just gonna go on and cont. assuming

[Batyah]

Riahlize

Batyah

Riahlize

Rosa the White Wizard

If God is real, then he is the authority. If he told us he made everything in six days, then he made it in six days. ... You have God's word, which requires faith. ...

Except God didn't tell us those things and we don't have God's word, we have the Bible and it's vast array of translations and versions.

which if you studied it even a ittle bit, with the vast new technology we have today called google, i bet you can find people who study the language berrriors, pluse things like the dead sea scrolls which are 95-98% i forget which, the same as the bibles we have today, before the Catholic church cannoned stuff.

Which version does it match more? The New International Version, King James, English Standard, New Life, Darby Translation, GOD'S WORD Translation, Contemporary English translation, New King James, American Standard, New Living, Wycliffe, Todays NIV, New Century, The Message, Lexham... Etc.
These are just some of the English versions.
I excluded other languages.
And why 95-98%? Why not 100%? Though I'd imagine that'd be rather difficult with all of these versions. Not to mention the various sects and denominations of Christianity.

why not 100% cause everything is curropted by human error i guess, that i dont know,
according to google, kjv, also it ssuggested to read many translations to make sure the message is the same for example,and here is a site http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-6.htm,
New International Version (©1984)
because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you.
New Living Translation (©2007)
This confirms that what I told you about Christ is true.

English Standard Version (©2001)
even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you—

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you,

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:

International Standard Version (©200 cool
while, our testimony about the Messiah has been confirmed among you

they all say things alil diffrently, weather from one language to another or from old language no one hardly speaks but in play to new "modern" slang, give or take

[Batyah]

Sandokiri

Batyah

Quote:

Source. It's in Latin, but Lepus (rabbits) was in Order Glires, not Order Pecora as all ruminants were. (At this point, cetaceans were an order of fish, not of mammals.) 3nodding

so i keep gong through stuff and found this again
It is known that rabbits practice what is called "refection," in which indigestible vegetable matter contains certain bacteria and is passed as droppings and then eaten again. This process enables the rabbit to better digest it. This process is very similar to rumination, and it gives the impression of chewing the cud. So, the Hebrew phrase "chewing the cud" should not be taken in the modern technical sense, but in the ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and refection in the modern sense
http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-badger-and-rabbit-chew-cud
and im not really sure what you linked me XD

What I linked was the first version of what Linnaeus wrote. It's called Systema Naturæ and its tenth edition is the basis for taxonomy - the system of showing how animals (and plants and minerals!) are related. Though he set out to establish humans as having a unique place in the world - he was a creationist, after all - he ended up grouping humans under Anthropomorpha (later Primates) with the other apes, because the science pointed him that way.

One of Dr. Sarfati's claims in your other rabbit link is that Linnaeus originally had rabbits classified as ruminants. I linked the first edition (from 1735) to show that Linnaeus had rabbits classed with the rodents (Glires,) not the ruminants (Pecora.)

Meanwhile, I see that your CARM link says nothing that Sarfati didn't already say, and its reference link is to a creationist book. So we'll stick with Sarfati.

im lost on how this has anything to do with the bible XD all im hearing is what some newer older guys did or didnt do lol

[Riahlize]

Batyah

why not 100% cause everything is curropted by human error i guess, that i dont know,

Thank you for indirectly conceding to my original point.

Batyah

according to google, kjv, also it ssuggested to read many translations to make sure the message is the same for example,and here is a site http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-6.htm,
New International Version (©1984)
because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you.
New Living Translation (©2007)
This confirms that what I told you about Christ is true.

English Standard Version (©2001)
even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you—

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you,

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:

International Standard Version (©200 cool
while, our testimony about the Messiah has been confirmed among you

they all say things alil diffrently, weather from one language to another or from old language no one hardly speaks but in play to new "modern" slang, give or take

Really?
http://bible.cc/matthew/18-11.htm
Well look at that. A verse omitted from several versions. That's certainly just keeping up to date on modern slang, right?

[Batyah]

Riahlize

Batyah

why not 100% cause everything is curropted by human error i guess, that i dont know,

Thank you for indirectly conceding to my original point.

Batyah

according to google, kjv, also it ssuggested to read many translations to make sure the message is the same for example,and here is a site http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-6.htm,
New International Version (©1984)
because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you.
New Living Translation (©2007)
This confirms that what I told you about Christ is true.

English Standard Version (©2001)
even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you—

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you,

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:

International Standard Version (©200 cool
while, our testimony about the Messiah has been confirmed among you

they all say things alil diffrently, weather from one language to another or from old language no one hardly speaks but in play to new "modern" slang, give or take

Really?
http://bible.cc/matthew/18-11.htm
Well look at that. A verse omitted from several versions. That's certainly just keeping up to date on modern slang, right?

oh wow, i knew the new age version was missing stuff on purpose, but dang. good thing that message is found elsweare. But say you knew the truth, and the eneme tried to hid it, they would do so by trying to change or omit small stuff. Fortunetly in the Bible we see this message throughout it, old testamnet looked to the cross , new observed its time, and then took backed to cross. but ty for pointing this out to me. I wounder if they are having a comp error or if its really not in that versions.Yay for being able to gain this info with internet smile again according to google kjv

[Sandokiri]

Batyah

im lost on how this has anything to do with the bible XD all im hearing is what some newer older guys did or didnt do lol

That's what I mean about understanding your argument before you present it. I'll try to give a summary.

1. Leviticus 11:6 makes a claim, which is confirmed in all translations (even the Septuagint and Vulgate,) that rabbits chew the cud.

2. You presented an apologetic for this, which involves three claims:
-a. That the Ancient Hebrews had not only a broader sense for what "chew the cud" means, but that the phrase ma'alath ha-gerah speaks to their knowledge that reingestion and rumination are both done for similar nutritional purposes;
-b. That when a rabbit eats cecotropes, it looks like it's chewing the cud, such that Linnaeus initially placed rabbits among the ruminants;
-c. That 'alah, a root meaning "go up," has several broad senses, such that insisting that the specific ma'alath ha-gerah must mean something beyond chewing the cud: the apologist renders ma'alath as "bring up," but then renders gerah as "that which was swallowed."

3a. I dealt with the first by pointing out the differences between reingestion and rumination, and why the former does not involve any process of "bringing up" anything.
3b. I dealt with this by showing that Linnaeus did not place rabbits among the ruminants, but among the rodents.

And now I deal with the third.

Gerah is a form of garar, a root referring to the sound of something being pulled or dragged along something else.

Specifically, if you look at gerah, the word is chosen because of its reference to the hocking sound made when a cow barfs up its cud to be chewed. Rabbits do not do this.

-----

Blue Letter Bible, in its treatment of 'arnebeth, suggests a different defence: that maybe 'arnebeth isn't a hare after all, but some unknown ruminant. Of course, while this defence is powerful, it robs Peter to pay Paul: it speaks against the reliability of the translations.

[MisdreavusPrincess]

They'll have to accept the truth, eventually.

[Sandokiri]

Batyah

alright lets start with simon greenleaf, He was a lawyer and went in with a lawyer fine tooth comb to disprove Jesus and the like, with cort room like methods, here is a link
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
but lets see if your a troll or if you really care about this subject,but chances are your just gonna go on and cont. assuming

Actually, at no point did he ever set out to "disprove" that which he invariably assumed throughout that writing. It's apologetics, through and through. Specifically, it's a shifted burden of proof, peppered throughout with rampant foundational bias, focused efforts to deny this line of argument to any other religion on the grounds that all other religions aren't Christianity and are therefore depraved (ad hominem,) and at least a few examples of begging the question (such as his descriptions of Matthew and John.) The argument takes this very short form:

-A claim is made, which is of something impossible. For instance, polymorphing water into fine wine, or a man walking around with a gaping spear hole which had not only proven to the spearman that he was dead, but also bled him dry, with profuse bleeding that faithful poets centuries later would call "the tide, flowing from his pierc-ed side."

-Faced with the challenge to prove that such a thing is possible, the apologist instead uses the language of a court of law, arguing that because the claim was made by someone purporting to be an eyewitness, the burden lies with the skeptic to either impugn the witness or prove the impossibility of the event...

-...the latter being excluded by "goddunnit."

[Batyah]

Sandokiri

Batyah

im lost on how this has anything to do with the bible XD all im hearing is what some newer older guys did or didnt do lol

That's what I mean about understanding your argument before you present it. I'll try to give a summary.

1. Leviticus 11:6 makes a claim, which is confirmed in all translations (even the Septuagint and Vulgate,) that rabbits chew the cud.

2. You presented an apologetic for this, which involves three claims:
-a. That the Ancient Hebrews had not only a broader sense for what "chew the cud" means, but that the phrase ma'alath ha-gerah speaks to their knowledge that reingestion and rumination are both done for similar nutritional purposes;
-b. That when a rabbit eats cecotropes, it looks like it's chewing the cud, such that Linnaeus initially placed rabbits among the ruminants;
-c. That 'alah, a root meaning "go up," has several broad senses, such that insisting that the specific ma'alath ha-gerah must mean something beyond chewing the cud: the apologist renders ma'alath as "bring up," but then renders gerah as "that which was swallowed."

3a. I dealt with the first by pointing out the differences between reingestion and rumination, and why the former does not involve any process of "bringing up" anything.
3b. I dealt with this by showing that Linnaeus did not place rabbits among the ruminants, but among the rodents.

And now I deal with the third.

Gerah is a form of garar, a root referring to the sound of something being pulled or dragged along something else.

Specifically, if you look at gerah, the word is chosen because of its reference to the hocking sound made when a cow barfs up its cud to be chewed. Rabbits do not do this.

-----

Blue Letter Bible, in its treatment of 'arnebeth, suggests a different defence: that maybe 'arnebeth isn't a hare after all, but some unknown ruminant. Of course, while this defence is powerful, it robs Peter to pay Paul: it speaks against the reliability of the translations.

hmm well when the commandentt was first given, and it was contrary to observation, dont you think they would of rejected it as false??i wonder if there is a meaning here we are not seeing as to why people then took it as truth when today we dissagree

[dh8d1]

Batyah

dh8d1

Batyah

dh8d1

Batyah

*raises hand*excuse me kind sir, but it can and does use those things, although i am not the best person to portray it, i shure as heck am doing my best, but there are many sites of people who do this for a living, and my walk with Christ is based of my scientific findings before faith in Him ever accured.

No. You do not get to say that faith is involved in reason, logic, or science. It isn't. Anything with faith is not reason, logic, or science. It is hoping, wishing, and wanting.

alright, prove i cant have logic and faith in the same thing, ill start with proving it, logicly i know a chair is built stable enough to hold me, i have faith it will when i sit, and that it isnt rotted out, or flimsy, or a sibblings unbloted it.

Equivocation.
You are comparing unlike definitions of the same word.

Faith, as you describe for God's Word is not the same as the reasonable certainty demonstrated by repetitious use of chairs throughout your lifetime.

Your point is invalid.

If you think that faith is within logic, show me one formal class on logic using faith within it. Oh. Sorry, you CAN'T.

Faith is believing something without having justifiable reason to do so. Faith is a mother saying she believes her abducted child will come back alright. Faith is not believing that your car will start when you turn the key in the ignition. One of these two things is believed because of things leading up to it that show it to be so the vast majority of the time, the other is not.

Faith has no place in science, reason, or evidence. If you think it does, try hinging your prosecution on it in court. You'll be the laughing stock.

oh on the woman thing, that you just discribed was hope, but ok. and yes you can have faith in a chair, if you didnt you wouldnt sit.alright lets start with simon greenleaf, He was a lawyer and went in with a lawyer fine tooth comb to disprove Jesus and the like, with cort room like methods, here is a link
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
but lets see if your a troll or if you really care about this subject,but chances are your just gonna go on and cont. assuming

I reject your "disprove Jesus and the like with cort room like methods" because it is shifting the burden of proof. One does not need to disprove Jesus, the person who is claiming Jesus is the savior/divine needs to prove it.

But let's see if you're a troll or if you really care about this subject by proving the divinity/saviorhood of Jesus using evidence, science, and logic.

[dh8d1]

MisdreavusPrincess

They'll have to accept the truth, eventually.

If this "the truth" you speak of is demonstrable, evident, verifiable, and/or logical, then sure, I'll accept it.

[stealthmongoose]

I would like to take this moment and risk my post being removed to point out something very unimportant and irrelevant in this thread.

See the voting like/dislike button? See the score? This is nothing more than a guage of the type of people voting and posting within this thread.

Anyone who would like to take the amount of votes in this thread as a sign of any kind of truth or verifiable opinion...


You're welcome to vote on the color of the sky, the location of a famous mountain, or the gender of my dog to see if it changes.

THAT is about the extent of power that your belief has. Remember this as you argue with people who are scientifically and logically minded: Nothing you say will change reality, you can only act to change it or synchronize your views with it. Reality remains when belief is absent.