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.
"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."
You thought I think who confirm? I'll repeat my simple question
again: So coneys refect or don't? Can you explain it the same
way as the rabbit?
"I still don't
quite get your double-standard point." - I'm
saying you have double standard on your posts and the other users
here.
"Again, what
false attribution? Add some details can?" - What does
creationists have to do with our discussions on ruminants and
refection?
"Dude, I said
not restrictive meaning, it does not mean unlimited meaning lah!
Fallacy count start for you?" - You said
"...limited scientific meaning...". Things are either limited or
not. They are mutually exclusive. What fallacy did you think I
commit? Name and list like I do if you can... which I doubt.
: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. -
You said "It's
like you telling
me..." Whatever happens aside from chewer of the cud,
is strawmaning....
"Anyway, would
you like the challenge of counting fallacies committed by atheists?
I'm sure you would find it easier to count."
- Yes its easier to count just because its
lesser. Glad that we agree on something....
