nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 100:
Line 100: + +
→What is the evidence that Dinosaurs only ate plants: Link to reply
:::: If you want to argue that the writers of the Bible did not consider plants to be alive in the same sense as animals, I completely agree; I take no issue with that part of your statement. Certainly, they didn't consider bacteria to be alive...it's extremely unlikely that they considered bacteria at all (I suppose it's possible that God revealed the existence of bacteria to them, but it seems pretty doubtful.) However, I disagree that the Bible defines living things as those that breathe air through their nostrils. I think a stronger case could be made for mobility, and even THAT is not offered as an exclusive definition. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
:::: If you want to argue that the writers of the Bible did not consider plants to be alive in the same sense as animals, I completely agree; I take no issue with that part of your statement. Certainly, they didn't consider bacteria to be alive...it's extremely unlikely that they considered bacteria at all (I suppose it's possible that God revealed the existence of bacteria to them, but it seems pretty doubtful.) However, I disagree that the Bible defines living things as those that breathe air through their nostrils. I think a stronger case could be made for mobility, and even THAT is not offered as an exclusive definition. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:12, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
<small>''NB: Following a request from Benp to move this discussion to another page, I have replied to him on [[User talk:Philip J. Rayment#Dinosaur discussion continuation|my talk page]]''.</small>
==Evaluating the stature of resources==
==Evaluating the stature of resources==