LittleNipper wrote:Did you know that rabbits will consume their own select pellets (poop) and chew on them to get as much nurishment out of them as possible. And that insects will use their front appendages as we would arms and hands to grasp and groom? (I'm step ahead of you there) Who is being too literal now!
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.
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.
I'm sure that I must be missing something, Nipper. What is it you're trying to say here that has to do with the Bible, or museums, or Museums of the Bible?
He just copied and pasted something. He doesn't read it first.
LittleNipper wrote:Did you know that rabbits will consume their own select pellets (poop) and chew on them to get as much nurishment out of them as possible. And that insects will use their front appendages as we would arms and hands to grasp and groom? (I'm step ahead of you there) Who is being too literal now!
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.
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.
I'm sure that I must be missing something, Nipper. What is it you're trying to say here that has to do with the Bible, or museums, or Museums of the Bible?
I was answering Paracelsus' questions regarding supposed Biblical error. It seems there are none...
LittleNipper wrote:Did you know that rabbits will consume their own select pellets (poop) and chew on them to get as much nurishment out of them as possible. And that insects will use their front appendages as we would arms and hands to grasp and groom? (I'm step ahead of you there) Who is being too literal now!
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. 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.
Morley wrote:I'm sure that I must be missing something, Nipper. What is it you're trying to say here that has to do with the Bible, or museums, or Museums of the Bible?
LittleNipper wrote:I was answering Paracelsus' questions regarding supposed Biblical error. It seems there are none...
He didn't say anything about rabbits. You seem to have just randomly started sharing trivia about them.
Maksutov wrote:[T]his example would probably fall under Lysenkoism, which was disproved in the last century.
I don't think so. Simmons has a perfectly Darwinian theory of long giraffe necks. He just thinks the reproductive advantage of long necks lay in headbutting rival males, rather than in getting more food from higher branches.
My question for Simmons would be whether female giraffes also headbutt. I'd be surprised if they did, because the neck-swinging headbutt sounds like an attack that only really works well against other giraffes, and I don't think the females would need to fight off rival females to get the best males. Males have enough to go round.
If females don't need long necks for fighting, and fighting is the main app for long necks, then I'd have expected long necks to be restricted to males, the way big antlers are in most deer species. A web page tells me that male giraffes do have somewhat longer necks than females, even in proportion to their overall larger body size. So maybe fighting has driven the extra length of male giraffes' necks. Female giraffe necks are still awfully long, though.
LittleNipper wrote:Did you know that rabbits will consume their own select pellets (poop) and chew on them to get as much nurishment out of them as possible. And that insects will use their front appendages as we would arms and hands to grasp and groom? (I'm step ahead of you there) Who is being too literal now!
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. 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.
Morley wrote:I'm sure that I must be missing something, Nipper. What is it you're trying to say here that has to do with the Bible, or museums, or Museums of the Bible?
LittleNipper wrote:I was answering Paracelsus' questions regarding supposed Biblical error. It seems there are none...
He didn't say anything about rabbits. You seem to have just randomly started sharing trivia about them.
Fence Sitter wrote:I always get a chuckle watching religious fundamentalist attack science using a computer.
Fundamentalists do not in fact attack science, what they fight are secular mistakes in both reasoning and translating data.
A distinction without a difference.
When you attack evolution you attack a variety of other sciences as well as the scientific method, but keep using that computer because I am sure somehow the scientist and engineers developing computer are just better at "reasoning and translating data" than biologist, virologist, geologist, archaeologist, paleontologist, climatologist, astronomers, physicist, and so on.
Or is it just evolution and geology that somehow are wrong even though their results are verified throughout a variety of different fields and using the same basic methodology?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
LittleNipper wrote: A distinction without a difference.
When you attack evolution you attack a variety of other sciences as well as the scientific method, but keep using that computer because I am sure somehow the scientist and engineers developing computer are just better at "reasoning and translating data" than biologist, virologist, geologist, archaeologist, paleontologist, climatologist, astronomers, physicist, and so on.
Or is it just evolution and geology that somehow are wrong even though their results are verified throughout a variety of different fields and using the same basic methodology?
When you attack the Bible you attack the supernatural. Science is purely a hands on study. Leave theory to philosophy and we will all get along.
