Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[Dan From Smithville]

Good news. You made the unclean list.

4 “‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

I know! I'm a dirty little bunny!

Duck Season!

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Duck Season!

Sorry, not sorry.

 

[John53]

Sorry, not sorry.

And that pretty much sums up the "debate" in this thread.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And that pretty much sums up the "debate" in this thread.

A keen observation that I agree is spot on.

 

[F1fan]

And that pretty much sums up the "debate" in this thread.

Can you quote where the Bible says this?

 

[McBell]

Can you quote where the Bible says this?

Which version?

For example, the KJV


The Modern KJV

 

[F1fan]

Which version?

Damn you!!!

 

[McBell]

Damn you!!!

I got another 30+ versions I can share....

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know which thread I'm on.

I'm just going to have to declare victory over them all.

I win. All claims against science, including the real science of origins of living things, evolution, cosmology, dating and the ages of the Earth and the universe remain solid, sound and supported science and all the gish gallop, burden of proof swapping false claims of victory are refuted.

I win again!

As stated before, scientific and biblical terminology do not always agree. For instance, rabbits have a digestive system that meets the biblical critieria of cud chewer. I know you guys will have a good time refuting that as if you're right (oh, pardon me, science is right and the Bible is wrong say you and some others) -- but, regardless, doesn't matter since some things are so clear, especially as I read some of your posts. Thanks. Anyway, the digestive system of rabbits is interesting.

 

[John53]

As stated before, scientific and biblical terminology do not always agree. For instance, rabbits have a digestive system that meets the biblical critieria of cud chewer. I know you guys will have a good time refuting that as if you're right (oh, pardon me, science is right and the Bible is wrong say you and some others) -- but, regardless, doesn't matter since some things are so clear, especially as I read some of your posts. Thanks. Anyway, the digestive system of rabbits is interesting.

Here's pet owners refuting it.

Do Rabbits Chew Cud? | Pet Care Advisors

The bible contains numerous errors.

 

[YoursTrue]

Here's pet owners refuting it.

Do Rabbits Chew Cud? | Pet Care Advisors

The bible contains numerous errors.

I can go into the more technical cud chewing part of the rabbit's digestive system later -- but again -- despite your claims to the contrary, the biblical classifications do not always agree with scientific definitions. You know, like humans are considered apes by the scientific classification.

 

[John53]

I can go into the more technical cud chewing part of the rabbit's digestive system later -- but again -- despite your claims to the contrary, the biblical classifications do not always agree with scientific definitions. You know, like humans are considered apes by the scientific classification.

It's not a science site, it's a pet owners site but go as technical as you want. Rabbits don't chew their cud. The simple fact is the bible gets stuff wrong.

I guess you prefer the bats are birds classification?

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not a science site, it's a pet owners site but go as technical as you want. Rabbits don't chew their cud. The simple fact is the bible gets stuff wrong.

I guess you prefer the bats are birds classification?

I understand a pet owners site is different from a science site. Although scientific sites may also declare that rabbits are not cud chewers as they see it. Again, the digestive system of rabbits is interesting. And I may possibly go into more detail about that later. I'll look into the bat discussion another time, but for me right now, yes, I'm mentioning that science's definitions do not have a requirement to agree with the Bible. So perhaps 'll go into cuds and rabbits another time in more detail. Because it is interesting. But again -- scientific definitions and biblical ones do not have to agree. Yes just like apes, animals, and humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand a pet owners site is different from a science site. Although scientific sites may also declare that rabbits are not cud chewers as they see it. Again, the digestive system of rabbits is interesting. And I may possibly go into more detail about that later. I'll look into the bat discussion another time, but for me right now, yes, I'm mentioning that science's definitions do not have a requirement to agree with the Bible. So perhaps 'll go into cuds and rabbits another time in more detail. Because it is interesting. But again -- scientific definitions and biblical ones do not have to agree. Yes just like apes, animals, and humans.

Why does it matter if the Bible gets minor things wrong? You do know that at least one of the Nativity myths is wrong, don't you? Shouldn't you be more concerned about the big questions?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well Answers in Genesis is peer reviewed, uses the scientific method and publishes papers, etc.

lol, that's quite wrong on all 3 counts.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

lol, that's quite wrong on all 3 counts.

In what possible way is that not true?

 

[shunyadragon]

I can go into the more technical cud chewing part of the rabbit's digestive system later -- but again -- despite your claims to the contrary, the biblical classifications do not always agree with scientific definitions. You know, like humans are considered apes by the scientific classification.

No, you cannot because rabbits are NOT cud chewers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In what possible way is that not true?

Well...
- they don't submit to proper journals, so they aren't peer reviewed
- They don't use the scientific method. In fact, you even need to sign a "statement of faith" if you wish to join them, where you in fact explicitly agree not to use the scientific method and instead just operate through an assumed dogmatic religious conclusion.
- they don't publish any papers (and "posting" articles on your own dogmatic religious website doesn't count)

 

[shunyadragon]

In what possible way is that not true?

Easy, by policy of AIG they reject any scientific evidence and Methodological Naturalism that does not confirm a literal Bible.

AIG rejects Carbon-14 dating. In fact, AIG rejects ALL scientific dating methods,

 

[Little Dragon]

But the point is the evolution and billions of years cannot account fro all that information. It is impossible.

If it was impossible (evolution via natural selection) you wouldn't exist. So clearly your logic is flawed, and your understanding, wanting.
There is no evidence whatsoever that your God created living things one by one, by magic. It is an untestable hypothesis, thus a dead end of inquiry.

As for evolution, new species of organism have been observed to evolve within the timeframe of a few centuries. Micro organisms can evolve in petri dishes, over a few weeks. Evolution (theory of) is, not only testable and falsifiable, it is also supported by empirically derived data and direct observation.