Science Vs The Bible

[True Disciple]

Re: no fault here

I am confused however, about the four legs for insects. Seems to me (think of that right proper praying mantis) that a lot of insects use the front pair like hands. We don't say humans have four legs (In spite of those evilutionists who said our ancestors walked on all fours) so why should we say that insects have six? But you say its the middle pair that should be not included. My biology teacher was propagandist for evilotion so I am not real strong on this subject. Could it be that some insects have 'front hands' while others have middle 'pseudo-legs'?

I personally think that osects were divinely created with four legs on day six of creation. For the occurrence of the extra pair of legs I propose the following hypotheses:

1. As the originally created insect kind got of the ark, it diversified into the millions of species we have today within a few hundred years, acquiring two extra arms in the process.
2. Satan gave them a pair of extra legs to confuse us.

[Hank]

Re: Science Vs The Bible

If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck its a duck.

Bats have wings, they fly, they are birds.

What part of this cant you dimwit homasexuals understand?

[Aristotle]

no fault here

As far as I'm concerned, God's Word does not mention rabbits and thus I need not address the problem you have in finding fault (in an arch manner) with The Lord of Hosts (Whose Wrath is Biblical) but insects clearly have 4 legs, the central pair are "pseudo-legs" and are used for balance in flight. Many ignorant people are unaware of this.

I have no fault with Leviticus 11.5-6 but with those Atheist biologists who say hares(rabbits) don't chew cud.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.

I am confused however, about the four legs for insects. Seems to me (think of that right proper praying mantis) that a lot of insects use the front pair like hands. We don't say humans have four legs (In spite of those evilutionists who said our ancestors walked on all fours) so why should we say that insects have six? But you say its the middle pair that should be not included. My biology teacher was propagandist for evilotion so I am not real strong on this subject. Could it be that some insects have 'front hands' while others have middle 'pseudo-legs'?

Looking to find the right Biblical answer,

Aristotle

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Science Vs The Bible

Thank you Pastor Backfire for correcting my error. Next we should discuss how rabbits chew cud and insects really have only four legs like the Bible says 'cause those that are used like hands or wings don't really count.

As far as I'm concerned, God's Word does not mention rabbits and thus I need not address the problem you have in finding fault (in an arch manner) with The Lord of Hosts (Whose Wrath is Biblical) but insects clearly have 4 legs, the central pair are "pseudo-legs" and are used for balance in flight. Many ignorant people are unaware of this.

[Aristotle]

Re: Science Vs The Bible

Please! Let's not be ridiculous here - birds are not bats, bats are birds!

Thank you Pastor Backfire for correcting my error. Next we should discuss how rabbits chew cud and insects really have only four legs like the Bible says 'cause those that are used like hands or wings don't really count.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Science Vs The Bible

[...] Therefore, birds are bats. QED

Please! Let's not be ridiculous here - birds are not bats, bats are birds!

[Aristotle]

Re: Science Vs The Bible

The Bible also says that bats are birds ... not much science going on there.

Why simple set theory says you are wrong. Birds are animals that fly. Bats are animals that fly. Therefore, birds are bats. QED

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Science Vs The Bible

The Bible also says that bats are birds ... not much science going on there.

God says that bats are birds. Do you claim to know more than God?

[Hieronymous Bosch]

Re: Science Vs The Bible

You didn't specify where it is that you think the bible claims that bats are birds; however, since you used birds instead of fowl I will assume that you are referring to Deut. 14:11 thru 14:18.
If you knew even the slightest bit of Hebrew you would not make the argument that you did.
The word that is translated 'birds' is Tsippowr which comes from the root word tsaphar. Tsaphar means to skip around. The word Tsippowr can only define a type of bird like a sparrow or maybe a road runner. In addition to letting Bats out of the list pelicans, eagles, storks and herons wouldn't fit in the list either. So whats up?
The 'but' that separates the word 'bird' from the rest of the list. It is an adversarial usage.
All this list is saying is you can eat birds that skip on the ground but don't eat bats.
BTW do you eat bats? Vlad Țepes may want to have words with you if you do.

[PackJason3]

Re: Science Vs The Bible

The Bible also says that bats are birds ... not much science going on there.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Science Vs The Bible

Tycho Brahe was weird and ungodly; he had a golden nose and went to Cheka Czecka Chkoslovenka central Europe where he became a mathematician* He was cursed to death by God with uraemia** for (a) this occupation and (b) trying to see Him whilst in that land of bacon and pornography, Denmark.

No wonder he could only see a few stars, God held back the discovery of the telescope until he died to teach us all a lesson. (Rather similar to The Tower of Babel)

* “The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.” Augustine.

**which is suitably protracted and painful.

[Hieronymous Bosch]

There are a lot of pseudo-scientists out there that claim that the Bible is not a scientific book. Hmmmmmm. I would agree there is not a lot of science discussed in the HB; however, that which is mentioned and is provable by modern day science is correct.

Take Genesis 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies...

Another verse: Hebrews 11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

So, more than two thousand years ago the Holy Bible was saying the stars were 'innumerable': Equivalent to the number of grains of sand on all of the sea shores of this planet.

What was science saying as near as 1600? Tycho Brahe's list had 777 stars that he had charted. The highest estimates were up to 6000 or so. I have not ascertained if this is for just the Northern Hemisphere or both hemispheres. Nevertheless the scientific count was far less by orders of magnitude then the Bible statement of fact.

So my friends here is just another example where the HB beat science to the punch by thousands of years.