[aruanan]

To even consider their notions of "science" as anything remotely credible takes a leap of faith, my friend. Once you do that, even bats can be considered "fowl,"

And bats being considered part of a group of "flying creatures" isn't unscientific, mistaking mammals for birds. It's just a matter of different taxonomies.

[kosta50]

And bats being considered part of a group of "flying creatures" isn't unscientific, mistaking mammals for birds. It's just a matter of different taxonomies

You are making up definitions of words. "Fowl" does not mean "flying creatures," because then flying insects would be "fowl" too. It means birds, hens, checkens.

To call bats "birds" or "fowl" is not a matter of "different taxonomies" but of sheer ignorance. And if every word in the Bible is God-inspired and inerrant, then such errors can not exist.

[Forest Keeper]

And bats being considered part of a group of "flying creatures" isn't unscientific, mistaking mammals for birds. It's just a matter of different taxonomies.

Exactly right. A while ago I posted this to Kosta on another thread:

Now, as far as bats being fowl, .... My argument was that this does not offend science at ALL. Words like "fowl" or "bird" or "mammal" or "fish" are only scientific classifications, based on the whim of the scientists who make them whenever they do. They are simply a method of grouping, and establish convenient relationships. This has nothing to do with facts, because it is all based on choices. Scientists might have decided to put men and ducks in the same category because we both have two legs. That would have been fine too. Scientists decided, based on then current knowledge, what would be the most efficient way of grouping and went with that. All well and good.

Whoever was in charge of such things back then put bats into the grouping called "fowl". So what? It worked for them, then. Now, today's scientists have decided to reclassify them into a new group called "mammals". That's fine, but it says absolutely nothing about whether the former classification was "wrong". It is only "wrong" by today's standards, which were not in effect then. 100 years from now, bats may be in some brand new category. Are you going to say that would make today's scientists "wrong"? I would not.

Sounds like the same thing you are saying.