4 Legged Snake Discovered.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement

Claiming that 'on your belly you shall go' encapsulates the information in this article and indicates prior knowledge is a stretch at best in my opinion.

How is it a stretch? If the biblical snake didn't have legs in the beginning, what did it have? Wings or something? It clearly had some other form of movement before being cursed to it's belly. Like I said, people don't have to believe the whole Bible, but at least acknowledge that hey, the Bible was probably right about this one. It's not like your going to be turned into a Bible thumper just because you believe a few things in the Bible are correct.

I feel I may be coming off as too militant in this thread, I have no problem with any religion. I fully understand your point and on a basic level you are right. The bible says God cursed a snake from what we can likely assume was having legs to slithering on its belly. If that is the entirity of your point in this thread then yes, fine with me.

Maybe I took it the wrong way but the way you handled yourself in this thread made me believe you were using this find as 'evidence' that the Genesis creation myth was true, not just one tidbit of it. You say things like:

Facts are facts right? Are you saying that it was not already written in the Bible before this discovery?

As though the bible said everything this article does. It really doesn't. All it says is 'on your belly you shall go'. There's no science or information or palpable understanding of anything this article says other than that they may have walked before, in your understanding of it, God cursed them.

I'm saying that 'on your belly you shall go' doesn't count as prior knowledge to me and at most is likely a visual correlation that the writers made between lizards and snakes.

a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

It's cool. I'm not using the article as proof. Basically I was just saying that we now have more than one reference to the fact that snakes use to have legs. I don't expect people to take this as proof of the Bible's authenticity, just like I don't expect anyone to take the article as proof of evolution. It can go either way depending on your belief.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement
I don't expect people to take this as proof of the Bible's authenticity, just like I don't expect anyone to take the article as proof of evolution. It can go either way depending on your belief.

A well reasoned response, perhaps if that was in the OP I wouldn't be here looking like some militant atheist with an agenda lol. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Revolution9

snakes and lizards are totally anatomically different. a snake us nothing like a lizard without its legs. it's like saying bats are a featherless bird. no their not. it's like saying eels and snakes same thing. one swims that's all.

if anything, if a group of people are claiming snakes and lizards are the same thing minus legs then they are not very observant and not nearly as informed as they seem. basically it would tacitly point out that they are actually no nothing smartasses.

What does the article say? It suggests that they evolved from burrowing lizards.I agree with their synopsis.

How could that happen? The shorter legged burrowing lizards (concentrate on thee word "burrowing") were more adapted to the environment in which they evolved. Competition and scarcity of resources motivated animals to move into ever more challenging environments (humans did exactly the same thing and that is how and why we spread out into challenging environments like the Inuit in the Arctic). Over a very long period indeed their legs practically disappeared. As another poster said, snakes still have the remnants of legs. It is all very logical and obvious to me. It is written all over nature, in archaeology and geography. If it is not to you then go look for another way of explaining it all. May be the talking serpent who got cursed by God better suits your level of understanding. That is for you to decide, but I see it as clear as day how evolution works, from Galapagos to desert cacti to snakes who still have the stubs of their legs like us humans still have the remnants of a tail. You must concede that a four legged serpent with a larynx (voice box) in his throat who can talk like a human has not been found and never will be.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Revolution9

I'll stick to the science though and see the snake as evolving from its lizard ancestors and losing its legs as an evolutionary development because it was in an environment where the lizards with shorter legs thrived and got the girl.

This doesn't make sense. Why would a lizard need to evolve into a snake and put itself at a disadvantage to, well, itself? What would be the purpose of that be?

To repeat:

"What does the article say? It suggests that they evolved from burrowing lizards. I agree with their synopsis.

How could that happen? The shorter legged burrowing lizards (concentrate on thee word "burrowing") were more adapted to the environment in which they evolved. Competition and scarcity of resources motivated animals to move into ever more challenging environments (humans did exactly the same thing and that is how and why we spread out into challenging environments like the Inuit in the Arctic). Over a very long period indeed their legs practically disappeared. As another poster said, snakes still have the remnants of legs. It is all very logical and obvious to me. It is written all over nature, in archaeology and geography."

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Consider this. God told Adam and Eve that if they ate from the forbidden tree they would die. But they did not die right on the spot once they ate, but they did eventually die, 900 and something years later. When God told that to the serpent it could have meant that over time the serpent will no longer have legs. Some may have died before then, thus creating these fossils. That's my theory.

So basically your theory is that over time snakes with legs evolved to be snakes without legs. Ok. Sounds reasonable.

The only unreasonable thing now is that such evolutionary processes had to be mandated by God first. But I guess that can be saved for later.

a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

The bible never describes God as a physical being that I'm aware of

If He isn't a physical being, how did he manage to show Moses His bare bottom?

Exodus 33:17-23

Don't read the Bible much, do you? The Old Testament has plenty of physical descriptions of God.

just a point for those who are using the bible as thier reference on this matter :

please cite where in the bible your alledged "god " removed the serpents ability to speak

the serpents legs were alledgedly stolen - but have you seen a talking snake recently ???????????

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Why would a lizard need to evolve into a snake and put itself at a disadvantage to, well, itself?

The loss of legs would have been advantageous, not disadvantageous, under the conditions prevailing when they were lost. The energy required to grow legs would have been diverted to some more useful trait. Nature's evolutionary motto is 'use it or lose it.'

The legs on the fossil snake in the linked article are vestigial. Obviously they did not support the animal's body; they are much too frail for that. This snake had legs but 'went on its belly' all the same. How do you factor that into the Bibel story?

Holy Moly! They discovered a Lizard!

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
a reply to: Awolscout

No effort went into that at all. At least argue a point, don't just come to poke fun at religion. The bible never describes God as a physical being that I'm aware of, infact (edit: and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong) I'm only aware of him being described as All Consuming Fire (Hebrews 12:29), Spirit (John 4:24), Love (1 John 4:16) and Light (1 John 1:5).

Arguing from ignorance will only embolden your opponents when they see your errors.

Your last sentence was a bit premature I think:

Perhaps you should read the Bible rather than just finding quotes on the internet.

"
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
"

This not only implies that God is physical, it also implies that God is not "all knowing" and certainly not "all seeing".
In fact we know exactly what God looks like, as it is also described in the Bible. We know that God created Man in His image.
Funny thing with God. I always thought he was taller.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

The bible never describes God as a physical being that I'm aware of

If He isn't a physical being, how did he manage to show Moses His bare bottom?

Exodus 33:17-23

Don't read the Bible much, do you? The Old Testament has plenty of physical descriptions of God.

Nah I don't, truth be told. There's some good stories in it though. Can you link any passages that describe his appearance? I'd be interested to learn.

Is the old testament even considered official canon in Christianity these days? I thought they tried to pass it all off as metaphor to disassociate with the idea of a vengeful, petty and immature God.

There are plenty of theological discussions about His "backside" debating that it could be a way of describing his wake (and whether creation is his wake). I can't really answer your question either way since it's a book full of contradictions. God is described as an invisible God in some verses, a burning bush in others. He also says “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live" at some point (edit: haha it's in the verse you linked, I'm dumb), so who exactly is doing the writing?

Even Jesus says, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."

But even then, "see" in Greek and Hebrew can also be translated as to know, or to realize.

originally posted by: HolgerTheDane2
Your last sentence was a bit premature I think:

Perhaps you should read the Bible rather than just finding quotes on the internet.

"
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
"

This not only implies that God is physical, it also implies that God is not "all knowing" and certainly not "all seeing".
In fact we know exactly what God looks like, as it is also described in the Bible. We know that God created Man in His image.

Premature perhaps, but not incorrect. I think you'll find even Christians can't agree on whether God was physically in the Garden of Eden though. A lot of them believe that the 'walk' used to describe God's movement in the Garden of Eden is an anthropomorphisation to make the story more relatable on human terms.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Does this look like a 4-legged snake?
Skink

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Damn you! I just read this entire thread, and was going to say pretty much the exact same thing, but nooooo.....Some monkey beat me to it.

a reply to: BelowLowAnnouncement

There's some good stories in it though.

My favourite is the one about the Philistines getting haemorrhoids and having to make gold effigies of them.

Can you link any passages that describe his appearance? I'd be interested to learn.

See here. Sadly, descriptive evidence is lacking, which leads one to wonder whether these guys really knew what they were talking about.

Is the old testament even considered official canon in Christianity these days?

Except in American Bible-Belt Christianity, I believe so.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Well, if he removed their legs and then threw them out of the garden, then why are we finding fossils with their legs attached still???

Did he miss a few of them??? Did he get lazy and just not get to all of them???

Or is it just stupid to even bother applying myth as if it was literal and factual???

I can't believe I even have to ask this question to an adult in modern times.

Consider this. God told Adam and Eve that if they ate from the forbidden tree they would die. But they did not die right on the spot once they ate, but they did eventually die, 900 and something years later. When God told that to the serpent it could have meant that over time the serpent will no longer have legs. Some may have died before then, thus creating these fossils. That's my theory.

And there's the rub. God told them not to eat the apple and they did. Nobody told me not to eat any apples, just the opposite. An apple a day and all that. So what? I pay reparations to God because one of my dumb ancestors couldn't listen? Or do taking cookies count too? For that I'm guilty.

If God is just, why did the criminal live for 900 years and thousands of years later I'm getting a stiffer penalty than the fruit robbing tree assailant? Just .....not, fair.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
While your theory is cool, my theory is much cooler.

I shall proceed with telling you my theory bellow.

You see this planet was first seeded by a reptaloid race, one of many such seeded planets oh lets call them reptilians for the sake of brevity and effect. So anyways some hundreds of millions of years ago this was one of there evolutionary hatcheries. And then some million of years after, much latter another species comes along this place, stumbles more or less, they make some modifications on this planet, first modification they make they kill off 99% of the dominant species on the planet ie dinos both the sapient kind and the more primitive kind.

After which, they get down and dirty and create there own pet species out of the more docile ones roaming around, one being the great apes. And hence humans are made, then much latter things get a bit heptic. Some of the original ones who first seeded this planet come back you know the reptiles and find it taken over by a new host they have run into before in there travels across the cosmos. And they find there spawning evolutionary grounds taken over, and whats worse they find that there food source is now supposedly the dominant species on the planet, and supposedly sapient.

I mean can you imagine what it would be like for them? It would be like, if we left this planet and some many millions of years latter come back to find that cows are the dominant species on the planet they got there own languages and cities and can talk and walk and even maybe a disposable thumb as well. You would be like "oh what the what? Your not supposed to talk, or be smart, what are you doing here anyways, oh no no, this is all wrong, get in my belly were you belong you willy foodstuff you"

As you can see, there may be some things left out of the stories which became myth which became a mesh of googlybough which in time was written down as children's stories from ages old word of mouth and tradition and eventually were written down in a book which goes by the name or translation of books or scrolls in older languages.

As you can see there once be dragons out there, but most lizards eventually evolved into the more feathered flighty kind both on this world or others.

Do snakes eat dirt ?

yeh thought not , so it looks as though they have to suffer gods wrath of being legless but they can just disobey him and eat anything they please !

Dirt is off the menu my snake friends , bet god is totally raging at that , wonder why he never came back to check they weren't eating dirt ?

Also why if god removed the snakes limbs after the fact Eve ate the fruit why is the snake depicted in all bibles with illustrations as having no limbs from the start when it slithers up the tree and talks to eve ?
Also why cant all snakes talk , did god also conveniently forget to say that he'd stop them talking to us but managed to mention they'd lose their legs and eat dirt but never said anything about taking their ability to communicate with humans away?

More questions than answers really , are there any new versions of the bible I can read which correct these glaring mistakes which god just seemed to forget about in his infinite wisdom?

Aye cheers !


BAH ignorant_ape and
I have been beaten by both you and another

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Wait, are you saying that the bible confirms evolution? I don't have a problem with this if you want to believe it. I mean -I- don't believe it, but hey I'll consider it a victory if a Christian wants to argue in favor of evolution.