[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='100506' dateline='1287623602']


Those words are not too big for me, but thanks for offering!!! An infinite number of scientists conducing an infinite number of tests all using the same erroneous pre-suppositions does not amount to a hill of beans. This is why your appeals to popular belief and consensus are no less illogical today than they have ever been. I will give you credit though, you are good at masking your logical fallacies with Scientific jargon.

So, again, what you are saying is that every scientist who has ever worked on any field of science is wrong about every aspect of science but you are right. You really should see a therapist for that erroneous ego you have. Come on, grasshopper. Dance with me over at the outcrops near the creation museum. Put your money where your mouth is. What have you got to loose, except the argument? It's just an argument, right?

OGM:
[quote] So what you are saying is that beduin tribes in the middle east when Genesis was written, had no concept of the rise and fall of the sun every day,and didn't accept the natural daily rhythms of the planet as a measure of time, but made up some other kind of system for keeping track of time that no one else on the planet at the time was using, based on what you believe today is "observed time?[/quote]

Statler:
[quote]No, I am saying that they used the same definition of time as every other person did in the history of the World before the development of calculated time in the 20th century! Pretty simple. Do you seriously think people didn't keep track of time before the 20th century? Well if they did (which they did) they did it in observed time.[/quote]

No, what you are saying is that the clocks prior to the 20th century measured time in some way that is so different from the way we measure time today in that today's time measurement is somehow bogus. And that is unadulterated horse manure. Like I said, the only way you can argue your point is to throw out all known science. And that will not get your your coveted M.A. in Geoscience, I'm afraid.

OGM:
[quote] Yeah, let's talk about some of those, shall we? How many of those PhDs are working in the field of geology, biology, geophysics, etc, and have published peer-reviewed scholarly works in accredited journals promoting creationism? Can you name one such publication by any of them that has any relevance to current scientific thought on the theory of evolution, the geologic time scale, or current cosmological theory? Even one? The fact is that there is no body of scholarly work done by any of the people you cite ore may cite that promotes creationism as a valid alternative to todays broadly accepted scientific theories.

---

SW:
[quote]I am glad you asked! Dr. Jonahtan Sarfati (Ph.D in Physical Chemistry) was published in Nature when he was only 22 years old. He is actually a really interesting person. He has beaten a dozen peolple simaltaneously at chess while he was blind-folded. He is also more educated in the field of Science than Richard Dawkins (having actually earned his doctorate).

Well you will notice that the above question is answered by my post about Sarfati. He was published in your beloved journals and more than once. So that was pretty easy. He is more educated than you will ever be so to see you mock him kind of makes you look...well just that....uneducated lol. [/quote]

The scholarly publications of these people had nothing to do with creationism. That's the point, or have you forgotten what we were discussing?

snip

[quote]Not sure why you posted this. None of these experiments involve measuring the one way speed of light. They all either just divde a beam of light traveling in two directions by two (the mirror experiment) or they have obvious clcck syncrinization problems due to special relativity. You can infer the one way speed of light by measuring two directional light, but it is impossible to truly measure it for obvious reasons. Figure otu a way and I will come over to see your nobel prize![/quote]

What makes you think that measuring the speed of light in one direction is different than measuring it in two directions and dividing by two? There is no ether, dude.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Kind of funny you would say that. So how did people measure time before Calculated Time was first used in the 20th Century? People just not believe in time back then? Did they not have a way of measuring it? Wow you own all of those Phsyics books? The one I own is Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett, “Physics for Scientists and Engineers,6 Ed”. Yes it does have a section about observational time vs. calculated time so you can stop saying I just made those up. As I have said nearly a dozen times before, you are arguing against something that Creationists do not even claim (that light propagates an-isotropically using claculated time), so I really do not know why you continue to beat that dead horse.

Do I need to own them? Is that a necessary component of reading or understand them or does using libraries and the internet not count?
No, Statler, back then people counted seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenia, millions of years, and billions of years the same way we do and certainly during all the times of most ancient civilizations on record.

I've done every search I could on google and otherwise. There are no books, websites, articles, blogs, or anything - not even AIG or similar websites - that contain any information about
a) an-isotropic propogation of light
b) calculated/observational time as being two different things

The only thing that I can conclude based on this is that a) the only place this exists is in that one textbook or b) it doesn't exist at all. I assume you're misreading it somehow if it is, in fact, there but I haven't found the book online, or rather I did but there were no preview portions of it that I could peruse through and I haven't made rounds at the library yet this week.
There are no disparate definitions of time according to any source I can find and those physics textbooks I linked were the only ones I had time to search through out of the dozens more I googled.

As such, I have no reason to believe either of those things are actually anything more than an attempt to explain how the universe can violate the laws the physics and either be much smaller than it's observed to be (physically impossible - proven by that hated youtube video) or light has to be reaching us much faster than it actually is observed to be reaching us (physically impossible, proven by that hated youtube video.) In conclusion, I can only assume that you don't believe in gravity or physics and your sources are non-existant.

If I can find your textbook somewhere - online or otherwise, I'll look at it at the first available opportunity but the fact that I can't find this supposedly basic creation-proving theory anywhere else (including other physics textbooks) seems to point toward it being not an actual thing of any relevance to anything.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually AIG doesn't believe in a global flood on Mars. So I suggest you actually read the New York Times article and stop blaming all of this on AIG. It is not their fault you can't find the article it is the New York Times fault I guess (or your own). This website cites the same article, so contrary to your little conspiracy theory, I am quite sure it existed.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/nati...index.html

If you had actually checked the links I showed you, you'd understand better how wrong you are. The NY times article doesn't exist anymore. The one you gave above was the one I showed you which is a list of links that include the broken link to the actual article that no longer actually exists but moves you to the main NY Times page. I showed that it actually exists because of that link you fed back to me and it includes a small amount of preview information, but the article is gone.
You'll also note the other links I gave which also gave accounts of the same story and AIG is the ONLY ONE that mentions a flood on mars and an upheaval as you described.
Granted I haven't quite gotten as amused with your statements as you have with mine, but your understanding of science makes just about everything you say as quotable, in context. I just don't care that much.
I should also note that I read the article as it appeared copied on that forum I linked but I can't be 100% certain that its' a copy paste, so I didn't bother to do more than mention it becauese at worst it's a second article accredited to the same source.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Still using your high school textbooks eh? lol. Non-catestrophic plate technoics would take a very long time, but this in turn assumes no flood so you cannot turn around and use this to argue against catestrophic plate tectonics because you'd be assuming the very thing you were trying to prove. Assuming the proof, bad bad bad.

It wasn't a high school textbook, but please, make your moving the goalposts fallacy that much more obvious, at least about as obvious as the fact that despite my ability to keep piling evidence in your direction in any way that I can you still have not refuted or explained anything with any clarity other than responding to everything I give you with "Nope. Didn't happen that way."
So go on. You're only making yourself out to appear more foolish than you already do.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: "I don't need to understand what details about [evolution] that [evolutionists] believe to know it's wrong."

That's adorable but I don't care about knowing or understanding fantasy, yours or otherwise. Evolution actually happens and it's provable beyond a reasonable doubt and I've provided youtube videos using basic science and math to prove this point and now I've provided numerous textbooks and links that have outright refuted your claims.
Yet, this is the best response you've given. I'm sure you're proud of yourself.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Rapid Speciation does occur, don't make me use your own Evolutionists to argue against you. That just would not be right, kind of like Darth Vader being killed by his own light saber.

And I'm sure you'll explain it in a manner completely ignorant of how evolution or speciation has actually proven to work according to those books I linked or even your own account.
Rapid speciation doesn't allow a brown bear to become a panda bear, according to those books you've claimed to not understand in my quote above.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You have done this more than once, when you say "arc" you really mean "ark" right? Just making sure we're on the same page here. The rest of this paragraph does not make a lot of sense, but I will try to guess where you are going with this. We already discussed that rapid speciation can occur, so I don't think I have to address that any further. We can get different types of dogs really quickly using artificial selection, yes natural selection would be a bit slower but not a lot slower considering the animals would have been re-populating new empty niches and experiencing lots of selective pressures while the Earth was settling down after the flood.

As for the genetic inormation thing, were you talking about the Ecological rule that you need a minimum of 50,000 animals in a population to have a healthy population?

The fact that it can occur is one thing, but as those links (youtube and evolutionary biology books both) pointed out, that your idea of how that works is completely off-kilter for the reason that speciation, rapid or otherwise, never allows things like brown bears birthing polar bears (especially if one or both had died off in a mass extinction).
Which is a fundementally christian idea that is unabashedly wrong. As that 'foundational falsehoods of creationism' youtube videos pointed out, speciation describes the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.
What it doesn't do is allow one species to become another one that already existed - even when filling the same ecological niche. Speciation is essentially a synonym of evolution, which doesn't allow anything like what you've described - it doesn't allow you to only save one species of dog and later find all the ones that went extinct at a previous point in time.

Speaking of which, I do have to give you credit for not referring to 'Crocaduck' or some similar nonsense, though you are using the same arguement that led up that idiocy so I wouldn't be surprised if you did bring it up later.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I am sure you are aware that there are books about the fossil record written by Creationists (one of which got his Ph.D from Harvard). So your assertion that only people who know what they are talking about deny the biblical account of Creation is complete circular reasoning.

Strawman.
I've presented plenty more than mere word games despite word games being all I've been getting in return.

If there are any such creationist geologists, you've certainly done nothing to enlighten me of who these people are and what works they've done and given that all of my searches both on and offline have produced almost nothing (that almost being your physics book, but nothing yet on what you say it contains) on your 'scientific' concepts, I have no reason to believe or accept these things as true.
You haven't even provided a wikipedia page or youtube video that I could argue against or even some assinine thing from AIG or other creationist website.

Several threads, countless pages of bickering, and the only ones who have presented anything to the end of evidence are the ones arguing against creationism.
Otherwise, you're just examplifying the motivational poster that minimalist posted some time ago depicting someone with their eyes closed and fingers in their ears representing how creationists see contrary evidence.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You used an Evolutionary Biologist to talk about dendrochronology? I at least used someone with a Ph.D in Agronomy and Horticultural Sciences. I will take his word on Tree Physiology any day over Mr. Dawkins. Dawkins does not write for a like minded audience? Please tell me which Creationists are on his peer-review boards when he submits articles. They are all a bunch of like-minded non-objective Evolutionists like yourself. It's easy to get away with bad science when everyone who reviews your work practices the same bad science. Dawkins is small-time.

Moving the goalposts again?
You realize that the link I provided was a book explicitly on dendrochronology right?
Of course not, after all, why would you bother to check links?
Oh right. I mentioned "Dawkins" on a seporate but nearby note and the topic instantly shut down.
Also - peer review boards? You do know how scientific peer review works, right? Or am I going to have to explain this and provide professional links to prove this point as well?

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Hardly, the first video you posted looked like something made by some guy with flash animation and Windows Movie Maker in his dorm room. What did you do before youtube? Did you just not try and argue your case?

And? So what? That doesn't detract from the points the guy makes nor does the science he uses any less correct in its use or applications or explainations.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: More circular arguments. I am sure you are aware that Creation guys HAVE been published in your so called "reputable" peer reviewed journals. This must make them reputable now right? Yay!! Creation Scientists are finally reputable in the eyes of the TheDarkestAngel!

Circular arguements only apply to arguements that use circular logic.
If creationists could prove their worldview using the exact same methods as scientists, I would believe them. The problem is that they never have.
If creationists go through the same process that science uses to gather evidence, build a theory, test that theory and have success in repeated tests, tempered through peer review, then yes, I'm sure there are some that have done actual science.
My problem here is that you have yet to provide even a shred of evidence for your arguement or even people anywhere that support it.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Using observed time it does travel exactly how I said. Using calculated time it travels exactly how you said it does. You should know though that it is impossible to meausre the one way speed of light. If you can devise an experiment that does this you will win yourself a nobel prize my friend.

You're absolutely right. And that's why it's not science - there is no evidence to support it and it refutes the current laws of physics and it's apparently impossible to replicate or test.

Given that, why on earth do you even believe that this is a 'thing' that happens? What evidence do you have that supports either of those things?

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Relativity only applies to calculated time. Fail.

So you seem to think, again, without any such evidence.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Considering the evidence you think you have given does not even pertain to what I have been talking about this whole time, I think it's pretty obvious you really do not understand "my theory".

My understanding of your understanding of the topic revolves entirely around this:

Quote:"..using the observational definition of time, the speed of light depends on its direction of propagation relative to the observer. (Again, this is a property of spacetime, and not a property of light. All relativistic particles such as neutrinos would also move at different speeds in different directions.) Light travels at the canonical speed of 1,079 million km/hr only when moving tangentially relative to an observer. It moves at half the canonical value when moving directly away from the observer, and it moves infinitely fast when travelling directly toward the observer—travelling instantaneously from point A to point B."

The theory of relativity was proven entirely because of the nature of space-time - it was even einstein to solidified the idea that space-time was a thing which is now a mainstay of physics.
This also said a great deal about gravity, which has been proven to warp space time around mass which all goes into his all-too-famous E=MC^2 equation which equivicates mass and energy as the same thing.
So special relativity nor general relativity does not merely apply to light - but also to the nature of spacetime to which your 'theory' does apply.
Given that light moves 'canonically' at exactly the same speed in all directions to any observer, this is not only saying something about relativistic particles, such as the neutrinos you've mentioned, but also light and space-time.

This theory not only doesn't possess any kind of evidence that you've shown to support it, but it also violates relativity for the reason that the proven theory states that the speed of light is constant and space-time does not allow the speed of light to be anything other than its cannonical speed, which my youtube video also proved using simple observation and mathmatics to show that the universe must be old, very large, and the speed of light must be constant.

This version of the universe does not have a stated size but an assumed age (because you're a creationist who has stated what you believe the earth's age to be) and a speed of light that changes to the observer depending on its direction - which you stated to be infinate when moving towards the observer (which is impossible) and half when moving away.

Given that you state that this is the nature of space-time but you do not explain how space-time allows light to propogate in this manner - especially when it's relative to the observer.

This not only violates relativity for all of those reasons but it leaves it a crying mess that is forced to call special victims unit. I understand how your theory works. What you don't understand is why it's a catastrophic failure, despite an easy-to-understand youtube video that I graciously provided and several athiests who have all stated and linked evidence to the contrary.

(October 20, 2010 at 8:46 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So when he agrees with your pre-conceived ideas he is a legit Scientist, but when a Scientist doesn't agree with your idea he is not one? That makes so much sense now! That way you always look like you agree with the "legit" Scientists out there! When in all actuality you have cherry-picked the guys you want to call legit and thrown out the ones that disagree with you and call them not real scientists.

I would love LOVE to see a legit scientist confirm any of this. I'm dead serious on that matter.

(October 20, 2010 at 9:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Those words are not too big for me, but thanks for offering!!! An infinite number of scientists conducing an infinite number of tests all using the same erroneous pre-suppositions does not amount to a hill of beans. This is why your appeals to popular belief and consensus are no less illogical today than they have ever been. I will give you credit though, you are good at masking your logical fallacies with Scientific jargon.

For your argument to have weight to it Statler you would first have to provide some proof that the pre-suppositions used are erroneous. This might include a number of articles in the published, primary literature casting doubt on the viability of the methods. As of yet, this has not been forthcoming so it seems a little hasty.

Put simply, if this infinite number of scientists were working under the scinetificaly accepted theories, consistantly adding conciliatory evidence to them it would ammount to a lot of evidence.

(October 20, 2010 at 9:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No, I am saying that they used the same definition of time as every other person did in the history of the World before the development of calculated time in the 20th century! Pretty simple. Do you seriously think people didn't keep track of time before the 20th century? Well if they did (which they did) they did it in observed time.

I don't remeber reading a post as yet that contained this assertion. I would say that in general we accept that before the rise of calculated time people monitored the passage of time based on the rise and fall of the sun & moon and the procession of the starts above them.

Using the observed time v. calculated time argument in defence of the biblical account of creation is an untenable position because the Bible dictates when things were created NOT when they became apparent to, as yet non-existent observers on earth.

(October 20, 2010 at 9:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: We already discussed what he meant when he used that quote, it's not his fault he understands the nature of evidence relative to absolute truth better than you do. I love your circular reason and someone contradictory statements.

"There are no Creationists who have real degrees and work in the field, and the ones that do should have them take away!" hahaha. I am glad your bigoted and pro-cencorship views don't dominate a country like America. Freedom of ideas is important to me, even if I disagree with those ideas.

As to your claims about my "mystery" professor, he has a name and is a real person I assure you. However, considering your obviouis bigotry I do not give out personal information like that for fear you may mail a pipe bomb to his office or something like that (in the name of Science of course).

In fairness Statler, could you concede that gaining a degree in a subject you hope (because of your faith) is completely wrong would seem slightly intelectually dishonest? I am willing to concede that if these people are on the other hand trying to prove their views through good science then this is to be applauded. However, the problem is that these scientists often admit that even in the face of evidence they would choose their beliefs. This is not good science and is a hinderance to the scientific method.

In the opoposite; If a an evolutionary scientists or a conventional geologist claimed to be Young Earth then began systamaticaly trying to uproot these claims within a 'Creationist' school it is highly likely he would loose his position.

(October 20, 2010 at 9:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:So your degrees are not science degrees but "arts' degrees. That makes sense. Why not get a MS in geoscience? Is the math too difficult, or is it really an ethical problem for you to answer geology questions correctly on the tests when you believe in your heart that they are the wrong answers?

I have a B.S. from the University of Louisville with a major in Geology and a minor in mathematics and psychology. I was previously an an anthropology student at EKU and was one semester from completing a B.A. when I switched schools and changed majors. I have a M.S. from the University Of Kentucky. Although my specialty was originally invertebtrate paleontology (I am published in the Journal of Paleontology), the economy being what it was at the time, I became an environmental consultant (and am a registered professional geologist in Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee), specializing in groundwater hydrology, and site remediation methodology. Nevertheless, I have remained active in paleontology and mineralogy for the past 21 years. I have also been an avid amateur astronomer since childhood, and am an active member of the Louisville Astronomical Society, and a member of the GSA. I am currently disabled.

Well last time I checked the degree B.S. stood for Bachelor of Science, so I am pretty sure that still counts as a Science degree, not an arts degree. As for the M.A.- the universty was originally going to make it an M.S. but they realized that GeoScience is better served by final research projects not a research thesis. So that is the only difference. Nice try at belittling my education, but fail.

Maybe in terms of this discussion we could accept that both parties have gained relevant qualifications to have some say on the issues raised. This bickering about degrees makes this thread difficult and pointless to read. I don't mean to offend anyone here but it just seems that on the internet there is always some level of assumption that what people say is true and enough time has been expended arguing this point.

Cheers

Sam

Quote:You are starting to finally figure out what observed time means. If the stars appeared on day 4 on the Earth that was created on day 1, then the Biblical account would be completely accurate using observed time which it was of course because calculated time was not even used for another 5900 years.

But the bible very specifically stated that the stars were madeon the fourth day, not that they appeared. So your "observed time" theory is in direct contradiction of what the bible says.

Quote:I have a very good knowledge of the Bible actually, it is your's that appears to be lacking since you still failed to give me the verse. For all I know, you just made that up.

Tsk,tsk,tsk, I deliberately did not give you the actual verse, only references to it to see if you would recognise it.
Since you have just failed basic bible reading 101, I have serious misgivings regarding your other areas of "expertise"

Here you go, from Levitcus;

11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
11:15 Every raven after his kind;
11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

And @ Rjh4, If you can come up with a classification system that can put a furbearing, lactating, tooth equipped creature in with feathered egg laying avians that don't lactate I would love to hear it.

Quote:Actually there is a lot of similarity between what you said and what I said.

No there isn't. I've read it more than once and there still is no similarity.

Quote:creationists would destroy you in a debate. So you are afraid to debate them

And this is coming from someone who doesn't answer questions posed and who trys to avoid them? Purhaps you're the one who's afraid?

Quote:So you make up some excuse that they are too stupid to debate.

Make up an excuse? You have been demonstrating it within your first few posts on this forum.

Quote:Grizzly bears would destroy me in a wrestling match

So would a french school girl.

Quote:I am too scared to wrestle one,

Which one? The bear or the french school girl?

Quote:but I make up an argument that says they are weak so I don't feel weak myself.

That's your tactic? Sheesh!

Here's an idea, how about you answer the questions given and stop running away with your tail between your legs?
You wanna answer the question I posed before? You know, the one you avoided!
What purpose does god have with glory? Are you going to dance around that one or what?

Don't let him belittle you Syn. A physicist is someone who studies / practices physics. Students of physics study physics, and I'm very sure they also practice it. There isn't any specific job entitled "physicist" out there; you get physics educators & researchers at university, administration positions in governments, etc. The word "physicist" applies to all of them, and it applies to students of physics too.

(October 21, 2010 at 7:43 am)Tiberius Wrote: Don't let him belittle you Syn. A physicist is someone who studies / practices physics. Students of physics study physics, and I'm very sure they also practice it. There isn't any specific job entitled "physicist" out there; you get physics educators & researchers at university, administration positions in governments, etc. The word "physicist" applies to all of them, and it applies to students of physics too.

Motorcyclists......You learn really quickly about basic PHYSICS!!!

(October 21, 2010 at 6:16 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And @ Rjh4, If you can come up with a classification system that can put a furbearing, lactating, tooth equipped creature in with feathered egg laying avians that don't lactate I would love to hear it.

Plants
(All plants subdivided here)
Animals
-----Animals that fly
(All animals that fly subdivided here including what we now generally call "birds" as well as "bats")
-----Animals that don't fly
(All animals that don't fly subdivided here...would not include "birds" or "bats")

Do you really lack that much imagination, Zen, that you couldn't come up with this yourself? Man has chosen to classify animals in a certain way. There isn't just one way to classify things. Furthermore, I am certainly not arguing that the current classification system is "wrong". I think it is perfectly fine. But to say that the Bible is "wrong" because it clearly classifies things differently than we do it now is ludicrous.

OhhOhhhh Ohhh I know dis one!!!
Monotremes!!!

betchya fucking god/alla/jebus didn'think of THAT one!!!

(October 21, 2010 at 8:46 am)rjh4 Wrote:

(October 21, 2010 at 6:16 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And @ Rjh4, If you can come up with a classification system that can put a furbearing, lactating, tooth equipped creature in with feathered egg laying avians that don't lactate I would love to hear it.

Plants
(All plants subdivided here)
Animals
-----Animals that fly
(All animals that fly subdivided here including what we now generally call "birds" as well as "bats")
-----Animals that don't fly
(All animals that don't fly subdivided here...would not include "birds" or "bats")

Do you really lack that much imagination, Zen, that you couldn't come up with this yourself? Man has chosen to classify animals in a certain way. There isn't just one way to classify things. Furthermore, I am certainly not arguing that the current classification system is "wrong".

So what you're saying is that since bats aren't plants they must be birds.
Yes, I'm sure it takes quite a bit of imagination to be able to classify a bat as avian, it really does.

Quote: I think it is perfectly fine. But to say that the Bible is "wrong" because it clearly classifies things differently than we do it now is ludicrous.

How pray tell can it possibly be right?

By what astounding feat of mental gymnastics can you arrive at the conclusion that the the bible is in fact correct? When a BAT IS NOT A BIRD!!!