Are you going to answer my simple question? If you recall, about
the badger/ coney thingy?
I'm not into arguments... actually. But I love the
challenge
Just for fun...
"What double standards are you
talking about?" - You can post what you like but its not
needed when other post the same to you.
"And what false attribution are
you harping about?" - False attribution to the creationist,
if you can recall.
"Can you accept the fact that to
the Hebrews the phrase "chewing the cud" has a broader meaning
rather than the limited scientific meaning it has today?" -
So can you use your unlimited meaning to explain coneys,
finally?
"And how is my "gay" analogy a
strawman? I'm simply illustrating the point that words today may
take on a more limited meaning, and perhaps for words like "gay" it
may even take on a new
meaning!" - Your actual words " It's like you telling me that if
the word "gay" appears in the Bible..." when I did
not say that and both of us know that the word "gay" did not appear
in the bible... originally.
P.S. You illogical fallacies count still stands at 2.
I thought I already answered that. I reproduce again the answer
from the website.
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are
called ruminants. They hardly chew their food
when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the
food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again,
and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this
include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs.
Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern
sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means
‘raising up what has
been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go
through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus,
the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first
classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise
refection, which is essentially the same principle as
rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’.
The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a
special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish
the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now
has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed,
rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more
specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the
sceptics are wrong.
God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite
could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with
Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake
about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would
have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to
observation, which it is not.
I still don't quite get your double-standard point.
Again, what false attribution? Add some details can?
Dude, I said not restrictive meaning, it does not mean unlimited
meaning lah! Fallacy count start for you?
For my "gay" analogy I used the conditional "IF". Anyway, the
word "gay" does appear in the KJV in James 2:3. Does that mean you
reduce my fallacy count by 1. Actually I think you should reduce it
by 2.
Anyway, would you like the challenge of counting fallacies
committed by atheists? I'm sure you would find it easier to
count.