Current Scientific Understanding and The Bible Are Not Reconcilable.

Rebuttals:Fowls and Insects:As my glorious translation so wonderfully puts Leviticus 11:20-23'(20) Of things that fly, whatsoever goeth upon four feet, shall be abominable to you. (21) But whatsoever walketh upon four feet, but hath the legs behind longer, wherewith it hoppeth upon the earth, (22) That you shall eat, as the bruchus in its kind, the attacus, and ophiomachus, and the locust, every one according to their kind. (23) But of flying things whatsoever hath four feet only, shall be an abomination to you:'From this it can clearly be seen that the entire passage is referring to insects, rather than birds. Additionally, it can also be seen that there is a distinction made between 'feet' and 'legs'. Look at some locusts [4]. For some reason, the first picture is pornographic, but if one scrolls down the page work-safe locust images may be found. It is clear that the locust has four small-ish legs and two massive ones 'wherewith it hoppeth upon the earth'. Without a doubt, 'four feet' refer to the little feet and the 'legs behind the longer' refer to the two huge legs. Add those together and you get six feet in total, which is not in conflict with science. Bat Classification:Because I want to artificially inflate my argument's length, I will requote Leviticus 11:13-19 from my preferred translation. '(13) Of birds these are they which you must not eat, and which are to be avoided by you: The eagle, and the griffon, and the osprey, (14) And the kite, and the vulture, according to their kind, (15) And all that is of the raven kind, according to their likeness. (16) The ostrich, and the owl, and the larus, and the hawk according to its kind. (17) The screech owl, and the cormorant, and the ibis, (18) And the swan, and the bittern, and the porphyrion, (19) The heron, and the charadrion according to its kind, the houp also, and the bat. 'Of course, this is merely a translation, and not the actual text. According to a concordance, the actual Hebrew word used ('עוֹף') means 'Flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds' [1]. This cannot, therefore, be taken as as unreconcilable with modern science unless my opponent posits that bats are not flying creatures. The Value of Pi:I don't really see much of an issue here, personally. My opponent himself shows that the difference is only roughly 1.4 cubits. Possibly the measurements were rounded, if the diameter was roughly 9.7 cubits (for example) and the circumference was roughly 30.4 cubits, you could hardly blame the author for rounding the values to 10 cubits and 30 cubits respectively. This can easily be reconciled with science by recognizing that the measurements were not by necessity 100% accurate and completely exact. Rabbits and Cud:Leviticus 11:5-6'(5) The cherogrillus which cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof, is unclean. (6) The hare also: for that too cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof. 'Pro wrote 'The problem here is that cud is food that is regurgitated from the stomach into the mouth so that it can be chewed again and neither the rock badger or the rabbit regurgitate their food into their stomachs to chew. 'I don't quite see where my opponent got 'rock badger' from (my wonderful and glorious translation uses the beautiful word 'cherogrillus', and my opponent failed to quote a verse containing the words 'rock badger'), so I will not respond to that yet. Forgive me, as my explanation of this will be rather. .. gross. It appears that rabbits eat their own feces [2] in order to extract further nutrients from them. While that is not chewing cud in the very modern meanings of the word, it is not unreasonable to assume that Moses simply defined 'cud' differently than is defined today, and as rabbits do in fact engage in a process not dissimilar from chewing cud, this is fully reconcilable. Pro writes 'Another problem with this is rabbits or hares do not have hooves. 'You cannot part a hoof if you do not have one. I don't see this verse as claiming that rabbits are hooved. Time Gap:My opponent hypothesizes that an immense time gap between modern science and the Bible make them by nature irreconcilable, however this is a claim of such laughable absurdity that I'm not even sure how to address it. Definition of reconcilable: 'capable of being brought to a state of acquiescence or acceptance. ' [3]. What my opponent here puts forth would make anything from hundreds of years ago automatically unable to agree with modern science just because they were written hundreds of years ago. Does my opponent doubt that Caesar's 'Commentarii de Bello Gallico' can be reconciled with modern science? It contains nothing contrary to science, yet it was written over two thousand years ago, therefore it must be irreconcilable by my opponent's logic. If I lived in the 9th century B. C. and I at that time wrote the phrase 'The Earth exists', does my opponent declare that that writing can never be reconciled with modern science merely because of a time gap? Either this argument is preposterous, or am I greviously misinterpreting it. In unrelated news, my opponent's list of the books of the Bible is heretical. Conclusion:The Bible is in no way irreconcilable with modern science. Sources:1. . http://www.blueletterbible.org...;2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...;3. . http://oed.com...;4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...;