The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

---

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.

---

I am assuming I am "SaW" in this post? I am standing by my original claim. The Hebrew word you are referring to in the Bible is Owph, which really means in Hebrew "Owner of a Wing". Since last time I checked even modern Biologists agree that bats have wings, they would be accruately described by this Hebrew word that was used in the Bible. I suggest you drop this rather meager argument.

---

P.S. Gliding mammals are not flying mammals.

Did you just refer to a bat as a 'gliding mammal'?

Nope, the person I was replying to included gliding mammals in with bats.

Oh sorry, my mistake.

Not a problem :-)

---

---

Please tell me, using your Atheistic Worldview why it would be wrong for a person to view women as inferior. This ought to be good.

Because secular humanism is a vastly superior moral base than the mysoganistic, genocidal, sadistic and otherwise just plain weird bible and although you do not have be a secular humanist to be an athiest most seem to have leanings in that direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

I didn't ask for why the person who wrote that Wiki article thought it was wrong, I want to know why you think it is wrong. So tell me in your own words and be specific.

Why the fuck would I want to do that?

The link was to a perfectly good article that explained the concept better than I could.

So I'm not going to play your little game.

I have neither the time or inclination.

---

So you think it's only wrong, because some other person tells you it's wrong? Not very satisfying.

---

---

Sorry, Zen, that was not your challenge to me. This was your challenge:

"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. " (emphasis added)

Note, you are the one that used the word "with" instead of "as". I provided such a classification system.

@rjh4

So just where is the reference in the bible/ koran/torah that states that bats are NOT birds but mamals???

---

It does not need to say that. It only included them in with the animals that have wings. Bats have wings, the Bible is still legit. See my other post on this.