The Bible And Science: Insects

[Earthling]

Good grief guy. This is silly. You are just going to keep grousing about your loss. Walk it off.

Uh-huh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you mean to accept defeat because you applied the same term to my use of the word "bull****" as a response?

I get that sort of response from atheists and it reminds me of a playground mentality. You know that I'm not defeated. You know there was no confirmation of any such thing. You're playing a game of words. You're spinning it. Like a kid on the playground that says "I know I am, what are you?"

It's silly. @Subduction Zone does this often.

Perhaps you should try to support your claims. I am not the only one that has noticed that you do not appear to be able to do so. The logical conclusion is you don't because you can't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Bible critic will sometimes make the uninformed claim that the Bible isn't scientific because it says that insects have four legs.

This is the claim of the post. If the critic of the Bible is using the text of the Bible and a knowledge of insects to make the determination that the Bible is not a source of scientific information, then they are not making that conclusion uninformed. The Bible implies that insects have four legs and makes no effort to clarify that implication.

Leviticus 11:20-23 - Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to you.

Bats are the only winged creature I can think of that can walk on four legs, with the forelegs being part of the wings. It looks like the Bible is saying not to eat bats. Good advice perhaps, but hardly science.

Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. These are the ones of them you may eat of: the migratory locust according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you.

Insects have six legs. That is one of the defining characters of insects and is common to the entire group of many millions of species. At least as adults. The implication that they have four legs is very clear here and no effort is made to further clarify that except for locusts and then it is incorrectly claimed that they do not use their metathoracic legs to walk with when they actually do.

You would think this would end here, but hardly. The literalist has to stretch, twist and bend the text over backwards and out of shape to defend their obviously refuted position merely to satisfy the emotional need that the Bible is infallible.

In Leviticus 11:22 a the Hebrew word arbeh is translated "locust" and is the migratory locust, fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping, wingless locust, the immature undeveloped locust. (Joel 1:4) and the Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as in Leviticus 11:22 b. That is a leper locust rather than a flier. The Greek akris is rendered "insect locust" and "locust." (Matthew 3:4 / Revelation 9:7)

Even if the original text were accurate and gave a reasonable description of insects based on the evidence that they have six legs, 99.9% of Christians do not read a Bible in the original text.

The leaper insect has two pairs of wings, four walking legs and two much longer leaper legs.

They have six legs. Insects have six legs. The Bible claims that not only these locusts, but all insects walk on four legs. Without any other information about insects, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the text of the Bible is the incorrect conclusion that insects have four legs.

The question put forth by the Bible critic is, does the Bible say that insects have four legs when it says that they are 'going on all fours?' The answer of course is no.

The critics I have seen are not asking this question. They are using the evidence of the Bible to support their claim that the Bible incorrectly implies that insects have four legs and only walk on four legs. This claim is incorrect. The Bible is not an entomology book or a science book for obvious reasons.

The writers of the Bible - in this case, Moses - were not scientist of entomology and botany, but we are talking about Moses' dietary restrictions. They ate the insects. They would have noticed how many legs they had and would have been capable of making the distinction between a leaper insect that actually had six legs but walked on four, or in fact would not have been far removed from using the expression even when considering six legged insects who walk as if on all fours like a four legged creature.

This is speculation, since there is no text describing what was noticed about the insect food that people ate during those times. It may be reasonable to think this, but that is not evidence that insect eaters notice details of their foods anatomy. When you have to stretch speculation into an established fact without establishing it, you get the creationist means for supporting their feelings.

We would use the term walking on all four legs in application to a two legged human doing the same.

But it is widely understood and observed that humans walk on two legs and do not have four legs, so I do not see how this analogy of a person walking on their hands and legs is of any use to clarifying the error of the Bible.

To me it is an example of how far the Bible critic has to stretch the obvious truth in order to substantiate or promote propaganda rather than learning the application of rational thinking. In the name of science?

To me this is an example of desperation to obscure the facts so that a person can continue to erroneously believe something is true that has been established to be an error.

I think it is clear that by this example the Bible is not infallible and does not serve as a source of scientific information. At best, it holds the views of a people of thousands of years ago and, while historically interesting, is well out of date. I have nothing further to add to this discussion and do not feel an emotional need to keep replying to the failed arguments and silliness of others. They may continue to post their feelings of loss, but I have no more interest in reading or responding to them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps you should try to support your claims. I am not the only one that has noticed that you do not appear to be able to do so. The logical conclusion is you don't because you can't.

He did try in some small way to support his claims. He just failed to do that. I think the remaining posts he has made go to directly supporting your conclusion. He is upset that he failed and has nothing left to do but offer silliness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps you should try to support your claims. I am not the only one that has noticed that you do not appear to be able to do so. The logical conclusion is you don't because you can't.

The real question in my mind here is why the need to bend over backwards and support errors in order to establish an infallible Bible. There is no need that it be infallible in order to believe in God and accept Christ. The Bible itself says that such deification is a sin. I think that false feelings of persecution and weak faith drive some people to such extremes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He did try in some small way to support his claims. He just failed to do that. I think the remaining posts he has made go to directly supporting your conclusion. He is upset that he failed and has nothing left to do but offer silliness.

I don't know why he even started these threads. I cannot remember anyone using these attacks. It would make more sense to save one's energy from the big errors in the Bible.

 

[Skwim]

I find his taxonomy response to be very, very amusing. Where does he come up with this stuff?

Hey, it's one of those science words that are flung around from time to time so as to sound scientifically astute. And you're right, it is amusing.

.

 

[We Never Know]

I do get it. I am an entomologist with 30 years of science training and experience observing and studying insects. There are no insects that have four legs unless you pulled off a pair.

A grasshopper has 6 legs. The front 4 legs are primarily used for walking and holding prey while the 2 back larger legs are primarily used for jumping.

However that doesn't mean it only uses 4 legs to walk and/or that the bible is correct because as we observe it, it has 6 legs and many times can and does use 6 legs to walk. Someone the other day said they were a entomologist. He should be able to confirm this.

Hope that helps with the grasshopper argument that's been dragged out for days now.

Took me a bit but I found your post. What can you help with or add here?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know why he even started these threads. I cannot remember anyone using these attacks. It would make more sense to save one's energy from the big errors in the Bible.

I have seen it and other things noted as an example of an error in the Bible. I do not think that rises to the level of an attack. Mostly, he seems to be recycling failed AiG arguments.

There is no error in the Bible that is too small for a 'real Christian' to take on and set all the rest of us, bad Christians, agnostics, atheists and anyone with legitimate questions, straight.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey, it's one of those science words that are flung around from time to time so as to sound scientifically astute. And you're right, it is amusing.

.

Love those sciency words and their misapplication. Always amusing to see that in action.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Took me a bit but I found your post. What can you help with or add here?

I think you have the basics that addresses the claim of the OP. I have added what I think is relevant elsewhere in this thread.

You are correct. This has gone on far too long. I do not think there is any more that I could add. I still maintain my position on the Bible and how it does not need to be infallible to be the basis of Christian theology or that fallibility equates to uselessness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do get it. I am an entomologist with 30 years of science training and experience observing and studying insects. There are no insects that have four legs unless you pulled off a pair.

Hah! Shows what you know. For the last few years I have been working on a racing beetle with only four limbs:

Spoiler

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The Bible critic will sometimes make the uninformed claim that the Bible isn't scientific because it says that insects have four legs.

Leviticus 11:20-23 - Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is a loathsome thing to you. Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth. These are the ones of them you may eat of: the migratory locust according to its kind, and the edible locust after its kind, and the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. And every other winged swarming creature that does have four legs is a loathsome thing to you.

In Leviticus 11:22 a the Hebrew word arbeh is translated "locust" and is the migratory locust, fully developed and winged. The Hebrew word yeleq refers to the creeping, wingless locust, the immature undeveloped locust. (Joel 1:4) and the Hebrew term solam refers to the edible locust as in Leviticus 11:22 b. That is a leper locust rather than a flier. The Greek akris is rendered "insect locust" and "locust." (Matthew 3:4 / Revelation 9:7)

The leaper insect has two pairs of wings, four walking legs and two much longer leaper legs.

The question put forth by the Bible critic is, does the Bible say that insects have four legs when it says that they are 'going on all fours?' The answer of course is no. The writers of the Bible - in this case, Moses - were not scientist of entomology and botany, but we are talking about Moses' dietary restrictions. They ate the insects. They would have noticed how many legs they had and would have been capable of making the distinction between a leaper insect that actually had six legs but walked on four, or in fact would not have been far removed from using the expression even when considering six legged insects who walk as if on all fours like a four legged creature. We would use the term walking on all four legs in application to a two legged human doing the same.

To me it is an example of how far the Bible critic has to stretch the obvious truth in order to substantiate or promote propaganda rather than learning the application of rational thinking. In the name of science?

Trying to defend one of hundreds of pseudo-scientific claims made by the Bible, is only an exercise in futility. Although the Bible never mentions by name, the class "Insecta", or the subphylum "Hexapoda"(six-feet), it is clear that the Bible is talking about flying swarming 6 legged insects(locust, crickets, grasshoppers, and swarming flying creatures). All insects have three parts that must be supported by two legs. They move by using a tripod system of movement(2 outer legs on one side and middle leg on the other side). This is because the nervous system in insects are not fast enough to make balance corrections, like in mammals. Therefore, this tripod method of locomotion would always keep the insect stable, and its body parts off the ground. So, in reality, insects only use 3 legs at one time(not four), and then alternates using the other 3 legs.

Just ask 80% of the world's population that eat insects as a primary food source, just how many legs an insect uses to walk on? I'm sure their answers will be much more honest, than the silly preconditional spin-doctoring you are obfuscating. The only way any insect could walk on four legs, is if you ripped-off two of them. Of course if you did this(PLEASE DON'T!), then either the head, thorax, or the abdomen would be dragging the ground. The insect would eventually die.

To me it is an example of how far the Bible critic has to stretch the obvious truth in order to substantiate or promote propaganda rather than learning the application of rational thinking. In the name of science?

To me, this is just another example of Bible literates trying to save face, by obfuscating clear and obvious fact with clear and obvious lies. Also, walking on six legs is not the same as walking on four legs or two legs. The gaits are totally different, and for different purposes. So, your idiom does not apply. But this comes as no surprise to most skeptics and rational thinkers.

 

[tas8831]

I don't care what you are, what insect that has six legs doesn't have four?

LOL!

That is some seriously desperate apologia! Hilarious, too!

ME: I am only 4 feet tall!
OBSERVER: wait... you are like 6 feet tall.
ME: If I am 6 feet tall am I not also 4 feet tall? What are you in 1st grade, you bad thinker!

 

[tas8831]

You're a waste of space.

So much anger and hatred. You need to pray on your attitude.

 

[tas8831]

Leviticus 11:21 (ESV)
21 Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those that have jointed legs above their feet, with which to hop on the ground.


And surprise surprise the Bible acknowledges there are two hopping legs

But they also walk on them, so...

Is this an example of the 'argument from embarrassment'?

 

[tas8831]

This is a good point and cuts both ways. I'm an atheist, but whether the passages in question are accurate or inaccurate tells me nothing about whether God exists.

Correct - but it does relate to claims of biblical inerrancy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Correct - but it does relate to claims of biblical inerrancy.

The only people buying 'bible inerrancy' aren't coming here to hear discourse on English word roots.

 

[tas8831]

The obvious is often missed and needing of explanation to the uninformed or prejudiced. Especially where there is disagreement. As for You Tube refuting my "strained etymology" it doesn't. I've asked repeatedly how that may be in various ways to various respondents who disagree with the OP's in The Bible And Science Threads and have yet to get an answer. Namely, show me where the Bible says what you say it is saying.

I had only read the first page of this thread when I posted. Not sure why you are challenging me at this stage of the game - your premise was thorough;ly demolished way back in the first few responses and it just got worse for you from there.

 

[Skwim]

LOL!

That is some seriously desperate apologia! Hilarious, too!

ME: I am only 4 feet tall!
OBSERVER: wait... you are like 6 feet tall.
ME: If I am 6 feet tall am I not also 4 feet tall? What are you in 1st grade, you bad thinker!

And, as I told him in post #100

They didn't need a scientist to remind them of how many legs they had, I'm sure they were aware. The point is they walk on four legs. It doesn't say that they can't walk on six legs, it says they walk on four as they typically do.

In other words one would be equally correct in saying "insects walk on one leg" (along with the other five of course)" or "insects walk on two legs" (along with the other four of course), or "insects walk on three legs" (along with the other three of course), or "insects walk on four legs" (along with the other two of course), or "insects walk on five legs" (along with the other leg of course), or insects walk on six legs. All in all a pretty inane point you're trying to make.

​

Actually, other than being exasperatingly dense and intransigent, the guy has brought a bit of amusement to RF's pages, and if I recall correctly, he said his next challenge will have to do with the Flood. Personally, I'm waiting for the cud chewing hares.

.