4 Legged Snake Discovered.

This is great news. The fossil must be pre Garden of Eden and the great apple crimes of biblical history
So the snake would still be part of the talking snake family. This will confirm the bibles history is correct.

Well maybe not.

I'll just leave this here...



discovered in China; September 2009.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Are you going to source that picture so we can read about the discovery or are we supposed to just trust you?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Source of the image:

www.popsci.com...

-----------------------------------------------

It is interesting to note that such a mutation in snakes is not impossible. Some snakes have the remains around their hips, and also vestigial remnants of limbs around their cloaca (i.e. the posterior opening that serves as the only opening for the intestinal, reproductive, and urinary tract). Moreover, all snake genomes contain the DNA needed to produce a limb, so such a mutation can occur with a little tweak of these Hox genes, which determine the body's structural plan. You can see pictures of few snakes with such limbs in the reference section below.

www.hoaxorfact.com...

Just Google snake with foot; there are plenty of sources. It's a vestigial limb.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Ok thanks. It irritates me when people post information without actually showing where it came from.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

the bible is not fact!

another religious, bible, whatever thread

see ya

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Evolution of Reptiles

i dont know why you find this remarkable, they have been around for millions of years. they were ancient when the first god was thought of.

The only thing remarkable is the fact that it took science years to discover this when the answer was always there in the Bible.

Hilarious that you'd try to use a million year old fossil to try to suggest the bible had it right, when it does nothing of the sort. These creatures predate humankind by millions of years, so the bible is STILL wrong. Snakes didn't lose their legs because the devil tempted Adam or Eve. Sorry. It's just bedtime stories.

I love when creationists post evidence that confirms evolution and then use it to justify their lose interpretation of ancient myth.

"OMG the bible also mentioned lions and lions really exist so the bible must be right about everything else!!!" That's what you call a fallacy.

What about all the stuff that the bible is demonstrably wrong about?

The point is, this knowledge was already known, it is not new information for those of us who believe in the Bible.

Um, it was already known by scientists as well, they just didn't know when it happened. It says it right in the article you posted in the OP.

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?

Ah yes. Mr real truth seeker that still doesn't get the basic mechanisms behind evolution. Obviously snakes got to the point that slithering was more efficient than walking and the legs became a hindrance to burrowing and thus the legs became useless and faded away over the years. It's never about a "need" to evolve, and this trait was lost by snakes like fifty million years before man walked the earth so the bible's guess is still wrong.

originally posted by: Barcs
this trait was lost by snakes like fifty million years before man walked the earth so the bible's guess is still wrong.

If they were lost 50 million years ago then why is there a reference that snakes had legs 6,000 years ago? The Biblical reference may not prove that God is real or anything like that, but it does prove that it didn't take millions of years for these snakes to evolve. The question is why do we have this reference at 6,000 years ago, yet science says this happened millions of years ago. Where did the writer of this fairy tale get that kind of information?

I'm not trying to debate evolution here, we can leave that for a different thread.

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.

Most translations I've seen, particularly older ones, say "in the day" (you eat of the fruit). Not tomorrow, not next week, and not 900 years later. What should be considered here, is that the story is not literal, and has more symbolic meanings. To connect snake evolution to the verses you quoted in Genesis is simply being dishonest with yourself. I can understand how and why you want to connect those dots, but there aren't actually any dots to connect.

Weigh this in mind too. What information that the Bible provides is known to be inaccurate? Let's just stick with Genesis for now. How much of Genesis do you think is scientifically accurate? Not very much, if any. The "if any" is nothing to cling to like a life preserver either.

Another thing to consider is how the story of the Garden of Eden was told back before more modern times. There are some older traditions there, if I'm not mistaken. In some, the serpent was partially human and female.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
If they were lost 50 million years ago then why is there a reference that snakes had legs 6,000 years ago?

Because the Bible is not typically an accurate source of information.

Science and History in the Bible

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
If they were lost 50 million years ago then why is there a reference that snakes had legs 6,000 years ago?

Because the Bible is not typically an accurate source of information.

Science and History in the Bible

I have not been trying to make any connection between evolution and the Bible, I don't know why people keep thinking that. All I've said is that there is a 6,000 year old reference to snakes having legs before this discovery.

But seriously, how can anyone say that this is inaccurate. The story clearly shows that the snake had legs before being cursed. Doesn't matter if the story is a myth or not. The fact is, it was written before this discovery, I don't see what's so hard about accepting that. You can hate the Bible all you want, but let's not be blind here. It's a clear cut reference. It's not like the whole theory of evolution has been put on trial because of this gsssh.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
I have not been trying to make any connection between evolution and the Bible, I don't know why people keep thinking that. All I've said is that there is a 6,000 year old reference to snakes having legs before this discovery.

Because that's exactly what it sounds like you're doing when you link an article talking about snake evolution and even have this excerpt in your OP:

Dr Martill said: “It is generally accepted that snakes evolved from lizards at some point in the distant past. What scientists don’t know yet is when they evolved, why they evolved, and what type of lizard they evolved from.

“This fossil answers some very important questions, for example it now seems clear to us that snakes evolved from burrowing lizards, not from marine lizards.”

But seriously, how can anyone say that this is inaccurate. The story clearly shows that the snake had legs before being cursed. Doesn't matter if the story is a myth or not. The fact is, it was written before this discovery, I don't see what's so hard about accepting that. You can hate the Bible all you want, but let's not be blind here. It's a clear cut reference. It's not like the whole theory of evolution has been put on trial because of this gsssh.

Who in God's name said anything about hating the Bible. Because people tell you that the Bible is full of documented fallacies and inaccuracies means we hate the Bible and I suppose by extension God himself?

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Doesn't matter if the story is a myth or not.

It really should matter if you take this seriously.

a reply to: Joneselius

Surely you see that this is the problem, though?

I don't think people would be turned off by "Jesus" if it wasn't used as a weapon against people, to belittle them. Maybe not your thing....but growing up in "The Buckle of the Bible Belt" here, I know a thing or two about being brow beaten for not being Christian enough.

originally posted by: Awolscout

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Evolution of Reptiles

i dont know why you find this remarkable, they have been around for millions of years. they were ancient when the first god was thought of.

The only thing remarkable is the fact that it took science years to discover this when the answer was always there in the Bible.

The bible also says a bearded guy sits in the sky watching us all masturbate but I doubt thats true.

It actually doesn't, but I know you atheists love your strawmen.

originally posted by: HolgerTheDane2

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.

God having the ability to manifest in a physical form is not synonymous with being restricted to a physical form.

Being made in God's "image" is a heavily debated topic that many have mistakenly assumed means that God looks like a human being. However, biblical scholars have reason to believe that this "image" does not refer to the English sense of the word.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

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.

Most translations I've seen, particularly older ones, say "in the day" (you eat of the fruit). Not tomorrow, not next week, and not 900 years later. What should be considered here, is that the story is not literal, and has more symbolic meanings. To connect snake evolution to the verses you quoted in Genesis is simply being dishonest with yourself. I can understand how and why you want to connect those dots, but there aren't actually any dots to connect.

Weigh this in mind too. What information that the Bible provides is known to be inaccurate? Let's just stick with Genesis for now. How much of Genesis do you think is scientifically accurate? Not very much, if any. The "if any" is nothing to cling to like a life preserver either.

Another thing to consider is how the story of the Garden of Eden was told back before more modern times. There are some older traditions there, if I'm not mistaken. In some, the serpent was partially human and female.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
If they were lost 50 million years ago then why is there a reference that snakes had legs 6,000 years ago?

Because the Bible is not typically an accurate source of information.

Science and History in the Bible

That link contains the most absurd, nitpicking crap I've run into in a while. I feel less intelligent having bothered skimming through that plethora of ignorant, strawman BS. Did you or the author ever stop to think about the fact that there is not one single kind of information or truth?

Seriously, the one regarding the phrase "he thought from his heart" where the author adds "most people think with their brains, Israelite people think with their hearts" speaks enough foolishness for itself. The author apparently lacks the intelligence to interpret things as anything but literal. He is totally ignorant of phrases, expressions, and symbolism.

a reply to: Achilles92x

I agree, some of it is simply nit picky and antagonistic for the sake of it.

Still... many other things can't be ignored.

If you don't like the source I've used to demonstrate many of the Bible's inaccuracies, you're more than welcomed to find one of your own!

Did you or the author ever stop to think about the fact that there is not one single kind of information or truth?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

yeah I'm wondering what he meant too by not one single kind of truth.

I thought about it and I think he means besides factual truth there is also half-truths, false-truths, made up stuff, lies, and delusions.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

If they were lost 50 million years ago then why is there a reference that snakes had legs 6,000 years ago?

Where in the Bible does it say snakes had legs?

In Paradise Lost, Milton made the serpent walk upright on the coils of its tail. They didn't have the Theory of Evolution in those days, either.

a reply to: Achilles92x

Being made in God's "image" is a heavily debated topic that many have mistakenly assumed means that God looks like a human being. However, biblical scholars have reason to believe that this "image" does not refer to the English sense of the word.

Excuses, excuses.

Is the Bible literally true or not? If it is, God has hands, eyes, a face, a backside, etc. If it isn't then snakes didn't lose their legs six thousand years ago when cursed by God.

You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Achilles92x

Being made in God's "image" is a heavily debated topic that many have mistakenly assumed means that God looks like a human being. However, biblical scholars have reason to believe that this "image" does not refer to the English sense of the word.

Excuses, excuses.

Is the Bible literally true or not? If it is, God has hands, eyes, a face, a backside, etc. If it isn't then snakes didn't lose their legs six thousand years ago when cursed by God.

You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.

The Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of books written by different authors, at different time periods, to different audiences, and with different messages and intentions. Even some parts of one book, such as Genesis, we're not all originally part of the same book nor written at the same time. That is a result of the Hebrews compiling it into one book.

There is no rule that the Bible be assessed as an all or nothing "literal or not." That is your own biased demand.

There is also not one single form of truth, there are many forms. The type of truth in the creation story of Genesis does not answer a "how." It is intended to answer the "who" and "why." In other words, its intention is to state that God created all things, why he did it, and why some things are the way they are.

Not all Christians will agree with me.

Assuming modern science is true, what good would it do for God to articulate the exact means by which he created the universe? Those concepts and the time frame behind it would be so far beyond the people's head thousands of years ago that it would only serve to confuse them and hinder God's message. It is explained in a way that was comprehensible to those people (and really, the exact, scientific method of creation would not have been comprehensible to people up until fairly recently). Regardless today, it still carries its more important, intended message: the who and why.
Furthermore, the necessary words to explain the science behind the Big Bang and evolution would not have even existed in the ancient languages (Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew in particular. But really, ANY ancient language).

In short, no. It does not need to be all or nothing literal or not. That is ONLY your arbitrary demand placed on it. But hey, whatever it takes to make the message fly right over your head so that you don't have to believe (because inside, deep down, you simply don't want to), right?