The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Zen Badger]

I have to agree with rjh4 here. Whilst the Bible clearly gets things wrong by our standard of classification, this standard wasn't adopted until after the Bible was written. You might be able to use this fact to justify a claim that God didn't write the Bible, or that God isn't omniscient (else why didn't he write it so it wasn't so ambiguous to later generations?) but it would be a very weak position to hold and defend.

To be honest, there are far greater examples of the Bible getting things wrong that would lead to a much better debate than quibbling over methods of classifying animals. With a basic method of classification, I can totally see why bats and birds would be put together.

The point is that SaW etc keep on about the bible being the infallible word of god and scientifically reliable, yet their god doesn't even know the difference between birds and mammals.

And yes that classification method makes sense if written by men who didn't know better.

P.s my original question to SaW being "where the bible and science differ which do you consider to be right?"

---

I already did that, Zen, and you didn't like my answer...and you failed to provide any reasons why my system is not "sensible".

No you didn't, you have not provided a classification that lists bats AS birds, you provided one that lists them with birds(as opposed to plants).

By that system you can class them with fish.