Why is this site overwhelmingly atheist?

[eschereal]

@Miller

Right. But again, in the context of this thread, it’s not fundamentalists using Biblical literacy to attack non-Christians, it’s atheists using Biblical literacy to attack moderate Christians. Biblical literacy is an intellectually bankrupt idea, but it is not a necessary component of the Christian faith, and there’s nothing hypocritical about believing that the Bible is a human-written history of legitimately divine events, while still being subject to the same risk of error or bias that affects any other history.

From a cultural perspective? As a sort of anthropo-/sociological study? That could actually be pretty interesting, even useful.

[dougie_monty]

@Sage_Rat

Respect is irrelevant. You can’t get someone to respectfully tell you that you can fly, and because he was so god dammed polite, you’re able to lift off and float into the air. On the other hand, someone who rudely tells you that there’s a cliff edge hidden by a row of bushes and that you’d be a moron to walk through the bushes, cause you’d fall to your death, well I’d suggest believing him, regardless of how much he’s disrespecting you.

At the end of the day, reality is whatever it is, irregardless of your feelings on the subject.

Now do you actually have an argument you want to make any more?

Point well taken. Now, did you read the * rest * of Post # 299?

[Sage_Rat]

@dougie_monty

Point well taken. Now, did you read the * rest * of Post # 299?

Yep. I have no interest in the hare topic other than making a joke about “go forth and multiply”, which I’ve done now.

[simster]

@dougie_monty

Point well taken. Now, did you read the * rest * of Post # 299?

This part about the Hare? (bolded by me)

@dougie_monty

I followed the link to that odious skeptics’ site. They don’t make points with me for objective or respect. As for hares and rumination, I refer you to the Proceedings of the London Zoological Society, Volume 110 (1943). Now: What’s this about bats?

where you get it wrong again …

[QUOTE=Ruminant - Wikipedia]
Monogastric herbivores, such as rhinoceroses, horses and rabbits, are not ruminants as they have a simple single-chambered stomach. These hindgut fermenters digest cellulose in an enlarged cecum, allowing the easy digestion of fibrous materials.
[/QUOTE]

Get better sources - or atleast more current -

[simster]

@simster

This part about the Hare? (bolded by me)

where you get it wrong again …

Get better sources - or atleast more current -

and I can’t find any reference here -

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1469-7998/issues

so - you have a copy handy? or a link?

Ahh - Found it - 1941 - “Psuedo-Rumination” - as a place holder term.

[QUOTE=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1941.tb08466.x/abstract]

*Taylor (1940) gave the following reasons for the new term “The physiological process seen in the rabbit may be regarded as an essential attribute of the species Oryctolagun cuniculus, just as the ruminating process is an attribute of Bos taurus: ‘ coprophagy’ is too wide a term, and, as applied to mammals, is suggestive of abnormality, nor does it convey any idea of the very specialized process of alimentation now seen to take place in the rabbit; ‘ pseudo-rumination’ is, therefore, suggested until more is known about the process and a better term is found. For the present it may be denned as a process of alimentation which involves a special rhythm of the caecum resulting in the production of two kinds of fæces, one of which is taken directly from the anus and reingested by the animal.”
[/QUOTE]

so - to recap -

a) your cite is incorrect (wrong year)
b) your reasoning is incorrect (its not saying that its rumination)
c) you’re fully wrong again.

[dougie_monty]

@simster

and I can’t find any reference here -

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1469-7998/issues

so - you have a copy handy? or a link?

Ahh - Found it - 1941 - “Psuedo-Rumination” - as a place holder term.

so - to recap -

a) your cite is incorrect (wrong year)

1

b) your reasoning is incorrect (its not saying that its rumination)
c) you’re fully wrong again.

About the time I found that reference, I was corresponding with Edward Darling (since deceased), who co-authored, with Ashley Montagu, a book titled * The Ignorance of Certainty. *. After I sent the letter with the reference to “pseudo-rumination,” he replied:
“…I had heard before of hares in this connection, but never had the documentation. You probably know that in ruminants the alimentary canal is 27 times the length of the body…”

Since I began posting, I located two other references: * The Natural History of Mammals, * 1954, article by François Bouliere, taking up the topic of “refection”; and * Mammals of the World, *, Vol. II, pp. 647, noting similarity to “chewing the cud.”

[simster]

@dougie_monty

About the time I found that reference, I was corresponding with Edward Darling (since deceased), who co-authored, with Ashley Montagu, a book titled * The Ignorance of Certainty. *. After I sent the letter with the reference to “pseudo-rumination,” he replied:
“…I had heard before of hares in this connection, but never had the documentation. You probably know that in ruminants the alimentary canal is 27 times the length of the body…”

Since I began posting, I located two other references: * The Natural History of Mammals, * 1954, article by François Bouliere, taking up the topic of “refection”; and * Mammals of the World, *, Vol. II, pp. 647, noting similarity to “chewing the cud.”

Rabbits still do not ruminate - the second reference notes “similarity to chewing the cud” (according to you) - so

your point?

[dougie_monty]

@simster

Rabbits still do not ruminate - the second reference notes “similarity to chewing the cud” (according to you) - so

your point?

Much like the usage “kind” in Genesis, as compared to “species” and “genus” worked out in the 19th Century by Mendel, the term 'cud-chewer" as used in Leviticus is not the same as modern “Ruminant.” In short, the hare fits the criteria given earlier in the chapter without being of the (order?) of Ruminantia.

[Smeghead]

@dougie_monty

Much like the usage “kind” in Genesis, as compared to “species” and “genus” worked out in the 19th Century by Mendel, the term 'cud-chewer" as used in Leviticus is not the same as modern “Ruminant.” In short, the hare fits the criteria given earlier in the chapter without being of the (order?) of Ruminantia.

That’s creationist for “when the facts don’t match my beliefs, I just redefine words until they do”.

[simster]

@dougie_monty

Much like the usage “kind” in Genesis, as compared to “species” and “genus” worked out in the 19th Century by Mendel, the term 'cud-chewer" as used in Leviticus is not the same as modern “Ruminant.” In short, the hare fits the criteria given earlier in the chapter without being of the (order?) of Ruminantia.

a) nothing you’ve cited backs that up
b) you could have just started with this “explanation”

because - >

@Smeghead

That’s creationist for “when the facts don’t match my beliefs, I just redefine words until they do”.

is entirely accurate.

If “GOD” inspired the bible - he should have known that the mech’s were different for the critters and gave the hare’s a different reason for not eating them - like because he needs them for easter or something.

BTW - I have no problem with MAN refining his understanding of the rabbits intestinal systems - and at one time classifying them as “cud chewers” based on simple observation only later to find out they do it differntly - but for GOD to do it - well, thats just wrong.

[Voyager]

@dougie_monty

Much like the usage “kind” in Genesis, as compared to “species” and “genus” worked out in the 19th Century by Mendel, the term 'cud-chewer" as used in Leviticus is not the same as modern “Ruminant.” In short, the hare fits the criteria given earlier in the chapter without being of the (order?) of Ruminantia.

Got a cite that Mendel did anything in this area? Linnaeus in the early 18th century (over 100 years before Mendel) is usually credited with defining the taxonomy we use today.

[common_good]

Why not ?

[dougie_monty]

@Smeghead

That’s creationist for “when the facts don’t match my beliefs, I just redefine words until they do”.

So much for your opinion. That doesn’t account for how the term as understood before the modern notion was worked out, any more than a similar glib answer could explain “kind” before Mendel’s system was approved.

[eschereal]

Rabbits have hooves?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@dougie_monty

So much for your opinion. That doesn’t account for how the term as understood before the modern notion was worked out, any more than a similar glib answer could explain “kind” before Mendel’s system was approved.

Of course, this is part of the problem. “Kind” is a completely meaningless term. It quite literally means nothing. What is a kind? Err… Uh… Oh. It’s not defined. We can sort of guess that it means “group of animals”, but what sort of group? Species? Genus? Family? Order? Something else entirely?

(By the way, I think my favorite thing ever is the old Kent Hovind video where he refuses to define “kind” because, and I quote, “it’s a child’s term! Everyone knows what a kind is!” Yes, you’re right kent - Kind is a child’s term!)

Of course, rabbit ostensibly means “rabbit”. Nothing even remotely related to a rabbit chews its cud. Unless you want to define “pooping something out, then eating it again” as chewing the cud, which is more than a little bit pathetic. If your word games extend that far, then something has gone wrong.

[crowmanyclouds]

@dougie_monty

So much for your opinion. That doesn’t account for how the term as understood before the modern notion was worked out, any more than a similar glib answer could explain “kind” before Mendel’s system was approved.

Tell me if I’m parsing this correctly. (For instance, I assume that first as is supposed to be was?)

Are you suggesting that before Mendel (really John Ray {if Wiki is correct}, then Linnaeus) the division of animals into “kinds” wasn’t based on easily observed differences between animals? (Easily observed differences between animals being a glib answer to explain “kind”.)

That no one could explain the differences between “kinds” until the sorta modern definition of species was worked out?

CMC fnord!

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, DNA is one of God’s wonders left for us to discover, don’tcha know?

[Colibri]

@dougie_monty

Much like the usage “kind” in Genesis, as compared to “species” and “genus” worked out in the 19th Century by Mendel

For the record, Mendel had absolutely zero to do with anything related to speciation or the defining of species or genera. He was a plant breeder, not a taxonomist or evolutionary theorist.

the term 'cud-chewer" as used in Leviticus is not the same as modern “Ruminant.” In short, the hare fits the criteria given earlier in the chapter without being of the (order?) of Ruminantia.

What’s the criterion for “cud-chewer,” exactly?

[eschereal]

@Colibri

What’s the criterion for “cud-chewer,” exactly?

Presumably it would imply that the animal’s digestive system produces cud, “a bolus of semi-degraded food regurgitated from the reticulorumen of a ruminant.”

[monavis]

@Trinopus

Well, yes, very good. You’ve identified a flaw in a classical Christian argument that goes back some thousand years or so.

Now – beam and speck – learn from this and stop making the same mistake yourself with the “God has to have a place to be” argument. It is very similarly wrong.

If God is nowhere then where is he? He has to be in existence if he exists. All beings need a place to be. So perhaps God is not " a" being but being?