Another alleged contradiction bites the dust

Atheists and various and sundry other unbelievers like to say that the Bible is full of contradictions and errors.  Alas and forsooth for their worldview, it just tain’t so.  Here from the pages of Answers in Genesis is the solution to one such alleged error for your edification and enlightenment.  It is something that has also puzzled me, but utilizing proper inductive reasoning, one doesn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.  (I.e., given the weight of all the evidence for the historicity, authenticity, and accuracy of the Bible, the inability to figure out one problem here or there does not invalidate the general claim to said historicity, authenticity, and accuracy.)  Be careful with whom you share this; we are not responsible for cranial implosions of any liberals who might read this!  The following comes from Dr. Tommy Mitchell over on said website:

The “Problem”

One of the most often cited “contradictions” in the Bible involves the lowly rabbit.¹ Does the Bible actually indicate that rabbits “chew the cud”? And if this is what Scripture says, then isn’t it in error?

Two places in the Bible include the hare among animals that chew the cud.

Among the animals, whatever divides the hoof, having cloven hooves and chewing the cud—that you may eat. Nevertheless these you shall not eat among those that chew the cud or those that have cloven hooves: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; the rock hyrax, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you; the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you. (Leviticus 11:3–6)

Nevertheless, of those that chew the cud or have cloven hooves, you shall not eat, such as these: the camel, the hare, and the rock hyrax; for they chew the cud but do not have cloven hooves; they are unclean for you. (Deuteronomy 14:7)

In the modern scientific classification system, animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. Cattle, sheep, deer, giraffes, and camels² are ruminants. Ruminants have four stomach compartments. They swallow their food into one stomach compartment where food is partially digested. Then the food is regurgitated back into the mouth, chewed again, and then swallowed into a different stomach compartment. This process is called rumination.

So is the Bible wrong? After all, rabbits are not ruminants.³ They do not have four-compartment stomachs. How can they “chew the cud”?

The Solution

Obviously, rabbits do not share the digestive anatomy of modern ruminants. However, to describe rabbits chewing the cud is not incorrect. Simply stated, it is not reasonable to accuse a 3500-year-old document of error because it does not adhere to a modern man-made classification system.

Consider what rabbits do. They engage in an activity called cecotrophy. Rabbits normally produce two kinds of feces, the more common hard feces as well as softer fecal pellets called cecotropes. Cecotropes are small pellets of partially digested food that are passed through the animal but are then reingested. As part of the normal digestive process, some partially digested food is concentrated in the cecum where it undergoes a degree of fermentation to form these cecotropes. They are then covered in mucin and passed through the anus. The rabbit ingests the cecotropes, which serve as a very important source of nutrition for the animal.

Is this the same as cud? In the final analysis, it is. Cud-chewing completes the digestion of partially digested food. Why would it be strange to think that centuries ago, the idea of “cud” had a somewhat broader meaning than a modern definition.

But does the rabbit actually chew the cud? The Hebrew word translated “chew” is the word ‘alah. With any attempt to translate one language to another, it is understood that there is often more than one meaning for a given word. A cursory glace at any Hebrew lexicon reveals that ‘alah can mean go up, ascend, climb, go up into, out of a place, depart, rise up, cause to ascend, bring up from, among others. Here it carries the implication of moving something from one place to another. So the phrase translated to English as “chew the cud” literally means something on the order of “eats that which is brought forth again.”

Also, most reference material on rabbit digestion says that the cecotrope pellet is swallowed whole and found intact in the rabbit stomach. However, experts have observed that rabbits keep the cecotrophe in the mouth for a time before swallowing.⁴ So even though the mucin membrane covering the cecotrope is not broken, the rabbit is able to knead it in its mouth before swallowing, possibly to enhance the process of redigestion.

Conclusion

So is the Bible in error here? No it is not. Rabbits re-ingest partially digested foods, as do modern ruminants. They just do so without the aid of multiple stomach compartments.

Footnotes

1. In the modern system of classification, there are differences between hares and rabbits. However, most Biblical creationists would consider them to be a part of the same created “kind.” For the sake of this discussion, “rabbit” will include both rabbits and hares.
2. By some modern classification systems, the camel, the llama, and the alpaca are actually “pseudo-ruminants” because they only have three stomach compartments.
3. Although rabbits and horses are not, by definition, ruminants, they are considered “hind-gut fermenters.” Similar fermentation takes place in the “rumen” compartment of the stomach during rumination. Of course, rabbits—but not horses—add reingestion of cecotrophs to this process.
4. R.M. Lockley, The Private Life of the Rabbit (Suffolk: The Boydell Press, 1964), 105.

Hypocrisy, thy name is…

For those watching Climategate 2.0…

…you can catch up on all the nitty-gritty here.

Luke 12:3 strikes yet again!

Get all the juicy details here with more here.

(HT for picture here)

(“Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.”)

There’s a Reason They’re Supposed to be Peer-Reviewed…

In a classic example of the MSM being gleeful over an alleged justification of their world view, we have before us (another typical) rush to judgment regarding globaloney warming in the supposed recent “conversion” of a skeptic to into a “true believer” in anthropogenic globaloney warming, said individual being one Dr. Richard Muller and his so-called BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) dataset.

As one example, Mr. Eugene Robinson over at the IBD Editorials On The Left waxes eloquently to this point and concludes his rhapsody thus:

And now we know, thanks to Muller, that those other scientists have been both careful and honorable in their work.

Nobody’s fudging the numbers.  Nobody’s manipulating data to win research grants, as Perry claims, or making an undue fuss over a “naturally occurring” warm-up, as Bachmann alleges.  Contrary to what Cain says, the science is real.

It is the know-nothing politicians – not scientists – who are committing an unforgivable fraud.

Query:  is this true?  Has globaloney warming been shown to be true “finally” and the skeptics should now just shut up and go away and let our victorious scientists go about their business of solving this problem?

Well, I would invite you to read the proverb at the top of this blog:

The simple believe every word, but the prudent considers well his steps.
Proverbs 14:15

And to that effect I would advise going to this link and reading the various critiques of the data found there.

Guy Benson provides another summary here.

The primary problems for those who don’t have the time to read the documentation:  first, Dr. Muller was never really a skeptic; second, he cherry-picked the data (where have we heard that before?); third, he didn’t do his statistical analysis correctly (oopsie!); fourth, he “published” in the popular press prior to having his findings, data and methods peer reviewed and published in an appropriate scientific journal that could have “vetted” his work.

Perhaps just as embarrassing, it wasn’t scientists who first raised the red flag, it was a journalist!  As Guy Benson describes it:

After examining the BEST project’s raw data, the Daily Mail staff produced an eyebrow-raising chart, which I’ve reproduced below.  The top data-set is the graphic Dr. Muller has circulated to support his claims.  The bottom graph picks up where Muller’s expurgated data leaves off, plotting the data collected over the last decade:

 

 

Pay careful attention to the scales on the axes, both of which are different.  The time scale is magnified by the expanded scale on the bottom graph.  Nevertheless, the point is made.

It should also be pointed out that even if this data analysis were accurate, that doesn’t alter the facts of the manipulation of the data and the subsequent coverup revealed in the ClimateGate documents as Mr. Robinson would like you to believe.

Especially when we know the real reason for global warming is aelurogenic, not anthropogenic!

The Ultimate Arrogance

Originally posted 11 July 2008 but just as applicable today as ever (edited only to read from a more contemporary viewpoint):

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. (Isaiah 14:12-14)

This passage with all its “I will” statements is usually assigned to Satan himself in his rebellion against his sovereign Lord and Creator. The declaration expresses an extreme pride and ultimate arrogance, forming an unbounded hubris that proclaims a created being will be like God.

This is precisely what man does when he thinks he can make judgments on the so-called “quality of life” of other individuals. Ultimately, to make such judgments even about one’s own life is a proclamation of one’s own godhood and a denial of the wisdom and sovereignty of the true and living God. The slippery grounds of the bioethics arena are slippery precisely because man thinks he has the wisdom and knowledge of God and thus the ability to make decisions for himself and others that are, in fact, not within his jurisdiction at all.

I am sick of euthanasia advocates whining about people’s “quality of life” as a justification for murder, to give “assisted suicide” its true name. I am sick of the arrogance that decides to starve and dehydrate someone who is inconvenient to maintain physically (usually related to monetary expense) all because they think/believe/conclude this loved one has no “quality of life” and on that basis should be terminated. “Oh, it’s the only humane and dignified thing to do!” Really? How would you know, since your decision is based on your emotions and peer-pressure rather than objective principles rooted in reality and God’s Word?

Let’s examine this for a moment with this hypothetical thought experiment:

The grandmother is an alcoholic and the father spends his evenings out drinking in the taverns. His mother has tuberculosis. She has already given birth to four children. The first child is blind, the second child died, the third child is deaf, and the fourth child has tuberculosis. Now the mother is pregnant again. Given the extreme situation and the “obvious low quality of life” the fifth child is sure to experience, would you recommend an abortion?

Think carefully and make your choice before reading on.

A Much Needed Sanity Check

…is provided for us by Walter Hudson over at Pajamas Media regarding the role of science in public policy relative to the nature of the scientific enterprise.  As a scientist myself, this brief exposition, particularly in light (pun intended, sort of) of the most recent episode calling into question the speed of light itself, is an excellent concise discussion of the limitations of the scientific method.  The article in its entirety is reproduced below for your edification, with some emphases added.  Enjoy!

~~~

When Science Is Wrong:  The Threat of ‘Truth’ by Consensus

The potential derailment of Einstein reminds us of our limitations and man’s finite knowledge.

October 4, 2011 – 12:00 am – by Walter Hudson

Einstein may have been wrong. New evidence suggests that the speed of light, central to his special theory of relativity, may not be the ultimate speed limit. If the findings hold up, everything we think we know about the inner workings of our universe will need to be revised.

This potential discovery reminds us that science is a continual process which is rarely conclusive. That should inform our regard for politicized scientific claims.

A team of researchers at CERN pass the time by shooting muon neutrinos from Switzerland to Italy. While doing so, they noticed something they weren’t expecting.

… the particles showed up 60 billionths of a second earlier than they would have done if they had travelled at the speed of light.

This is a tiny fractional change — just 20 parts in a million — but one that occurs consistently.

The team measured the travel times of neutrino bunches some 16,000 times, and have reached a level of statistical significance that in scientific circles would count as a formal discovery.

But the group understands that what are known as “systematic errors” could easily make an erroneous result look like a breaking of the ultimate speed limit.

That has motivated them to publish their measurements.

This is how real science works. Observations lead to hypotheses. Hypotheses are tested through experimentation. Results are scrutinized and duplicated to inform theories. Certainty is rare. Laws are few.

You wouldn’t know that as a causal observer of political discourse. Science is often evoked as an authority rather than an empirical yet uncertain process. Anthropogenic climate change is a “fact” established by “consensus,” its skeptics ranked alongside Holocaust deniers.

The potential derailment of Einstein reminds us of science’s limitations. They are the limitations of man, finite perception and finite knowledge. Our theories are all contingent upon the next unforeseen discovery.

Surely, we ought to respect the scientific process. We live in an objective reality with absolute truths, many of which can be discerned through observation and experimentation.

However, the same humility which informs our respect for science should temper any reverence for its claims. If Einstein’s view of the universe is indeed wrong, it would hardly be the first time a widely held belief was disproven.

Scientists in the 17th century thought a substance called “phlogiston” was an element contained in combustible objects, released upon burning. They believed that the loss of all phlogiston caused a fire to burn out. They thought animals exhaled to dispose of excess phlogiston in their bodies. Eventually, science revealed the real secrets of combustion and respiration, making phlogiston a term of the past.

We continue to unearth ever more intricate layers of complexity where we previously assumed simplicity. The atom was once thought the smallest of particles. The cell was once thought a simple organism. We now know of subatomic particles and understand cells to be remarkably complex with internal systems far more integrated than Darwin could have imagined.

DNA was all but dismissed nearly a century after its discovery. Scientists did not believe such a deceptively simple acid could carry the amount of information necessary for heredity.

Before the advent of “germ theory,” doctors blamed contagious diseases on air quality and fluid “imbalances.”

From the anatomy of the human body to the structure of the solar system, the state of scientific thought at any given moment has always been wrong. Yet, despite acknowledging new theories, each generation assumes that the latest paradigm is unassailably correct.

We roll our eyes at the ignorance of “flat earthers,” while forgetting that finite perception and finite knowledge once deemed their belief sensible. That was the “scientific consensus” of its time.

The point of highlighting the fallibility of science is to engender some healthy skepticism about our modern scientific paradigm. When Governor Rick Perry questions the claims of anthropogenic climate change, he is regarded as a heretic. Of course, heresy is relevant to articles of faith, not scientific claims. Science is not a belief system. Science proclaims no dogma. Science is not democratic, and its findings are certainly not contingent upon consensus.

In the closing months of 2009, which saw the revelations of Climategate, a quieter story broke which was just as damaging to the green gospel. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT found that increases in global temperature correlate to increases in the amount of heat escaping the atmosphere into space. This finding was precisely opposite the assumption upon which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based their computer models predicting disastrous global warming. As any respectable computer programmer will tell you, when you put garbage in, you get garbage out.

Again, that’s how real science is done. What is true is true despite any consensus to the contrary. That’s the lesson of scientific history and moments like CERN’s when previous beliefs are challenged or shattered. Since truth is not a matter of consensus, and since the nature of government is force, the politicization of science is something to both avoid and decry.

~~~

Well said.

I conclude this post with one of my favorite quotes regarding science and consensus which you can find on my Quotable Quotes page:

…Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear:

the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

-Michael Crichton, speech at California Institute of Technology, January 17, 2003

Amen and yea, verily!

Reaping what you sow, or don’t sow in this case

Over at the Weekly Standard, Jonathan Last has a fascinating analysis of the demographic trajectory China finds itself embracing as an unintended consequence of their One-Child policy.  Having come to the forefront of our collective attention with Biden’s recent comments, Mr. Last answers his question regarding the verbal admiration for this policy with this observation:

But the more charitable (and likely) explanation is that people who claim to admire China’s One-Child policy simply don’t know very much about it. Like where it came from. Or how it actually works. Or what it has really done to China’s demographics.

And he then goes on to explain the history, methods, and what it has really done to China’s demographics.  His conclusion:

For the Chinese, this is the scariest number of all because it suggests that even if One-Child were lifted tomorrow, it might not matter. If One-Child has eroded not just real fertility, but even the desire of the Chinese to have children, then there is no way out. Governments have tried coaxing and coercing people into having more children than they want to for centuries and it never—literally never—works.

China’s One-Child policy has been a demographic disaster for China. And the worst is yet to come.

The reality is that once again man’s “wisdom” is absolute sheer folly compared to God’s:

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb is a reward.  Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth.  Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; They shall not be ashamed, But shall speak with their enemies in the gate.

Psalm 127:3-5 [NKJV]

It’s the sun, stupid!

Yet another recently published study, this time by scientists at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, points to the sun as a key factor in the determination of the earth’s temperature (as opposed to man and his puny activities).  As the summary from Investors.com website succinctly puts it (emphases added):

The results from an experiment to mimic Earth’s atmosphere by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, tell researchers that the sun has a significant effect on our planet’s temperature. Its magnetic field acts as a gateway for cosmic rays, which play a large role in cloud formation.

Consequently, when the sun’s magnetic field allows cosmic rays to seed cloud cover, temperatures are cooler. When it restricts cloud formation by deflecting cosmic rays away from Earth, temperatures go up.

Or, as the London Telegraph’s James Delingpole delicately put it:

     “It’s the sun, stupid.”

This new finding of 63 scientists from 17 European and U.S. institutes from an experiment that’s been ongoing since 2009 is, if we may paraphrase Vice President Joe Biden, a big deal. Which is exactly why the mainstream media, with so much invested in global warming hysteria, is letting last week’s announcement from CERN pass like a brief summer shower, ignoring it.

Please note the number of scientists and institutes involved in the study.  This is not one lone rogue quack.

Yep!  Not only does it not fit their agenda, it flatly contradicts their agenda.  Therefore, they aren’t going to let on that they even know about it.  Which is yet another example of their bias.

Of course, the concept that the sun plays a major role in earth’s temperature is not new, and has been considered a “no-brainer” in the past, at least until AGW advocates started trying to convince us otherwise.  One would think that, being a “no-brainer,” this should be easy for neuronally-challenged liberals to grasp.  But no, they’d rather stifle any debate and declare themselves the victors and therefore the ones to decide the policy.

 

The level of their desperation is clearly seen in their increasingly shrill rhetoric and absurd denunciations of all who differ from them.

If you recognize this…

…then you are a.) really old, b.) a true geek, or c.) both!

Check out this article in which a modern geek attempts to use the above for 21st century tasks.  The results may surprise you.

Why, you may ask, even bother doing this?  Because today is the 30th anniversary of the introduction of the IBM 5150, which box of electronics started our whole computer era.