4 Legged Snake Discovered.

originally posted by: Achilles92x

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Ghost147

Get you head out the ground. Science has no proof what so ever, sure you have a fossil record now. But neither you or anyone else can convince me that you know for a fact that it is 10's of millions of years old I don't care how long of thesis you write to try and prove it. It will never be proof until you travel back in time and bring back the video. All science has and ever will have is pure speculation, you'll never figure out how old it is.

Science is great when it comes to math and building rockets, but they need to lay off the evolution crap, anyone who actually believes that crap is more brainwashed than religious folks. The got more fairy tales than all the religions combined.

They have never observed the creation of the universe, but swear on their life that's how it happened. They have never observed one species changing to the next, but swear that's how it happened. It's ridiculous, but of course, it's better than saying God did it right? Who cares if they can't prove it, just as long as God didn't do it they will believe anything.

Really though, I think if everyone is being honest with themselves and unbiased, abiogenesis is by far the most absurd speculation in science.

Absurd? Not at all. There is plenty of evidence for the many different hypotheses within Abiogenesis (that's right, it's not a singular topic). Abiogenesis merely is the word to describe life not being on a planet, and then life being on the planet. In fact, one could argue that the Genesis story in the Bible is a theory of Abiogenesis (mind you, an unscientific theory, but a theory of how life started on Earth, nonetheless)

Our prevailing scientific hypothesis regarding Abiogenesis actually makes a lot of sense, and is very plausible. I think it's more a matter of people not really understanding what the prevailing hypothesis really says that makes people view it as absurd.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Barcs

What a crappy rebuttal, seriously. The reference is right there in your face and best you can up with was that they made it up give me a break. You can't prove they didn't exist 6,000 years ago, now can you? Oh, wait, you can because science says so.

My rebuttal was dead on. Myths are exaggerated and made up throughout history. The bible is no different, it's just that you choose to place faith in it, so you think it holds more weight than other myths. You aren't looking at this from outside your comfort zone from a neutral perspective, you are looking at it through the narrow scope that the bible is an accurate depiction of reality. The fact of the matter is that it is not. There are countless references and claims in the bible that are flat out wrong AND/OR cannot be verified. You may not like this, but that's the way it is.

I don't need to prove a negative. If you believe they existed 6-10 thousand years ago, then you have to prove that. Otherwise the author of genesis made it up. I don't have to prove it wrong. That's basic burden of proof. The bible isn't a science book. It didn't make a reference. It told a story. The creation story isn't a reference to anything because nobody was there to see it. It was allegedly given to the author in a vision. Even though we still don't know exactly when it happened, I'd wager that the snakes lost their legs around 65 million years ago when the dinosaur age ended, because the ones that were best at burrowing were the ones that survived that massive extinction. It makes sense to me.

The truth is the entire book of Genesis is about one thing. Loyalty to god. You see the theme multiple times. Humans eat the forbidden fruit, they get cursed with a sin for the rest of humankind's existence. A few humans defy god, he drowns the entire planet. The devil temps eve via a talking snake, and god punishes all snakes by removing their legs forever even though it wasn't the snake's fault. These are bedtime stories for kids to scare them into believing.

If the bible references tons of things are demonstrably wrong, please explain why this one is correct, and what evidence you have to prove it. The snake in the OP was from the dinosaur age, not the age of man. That in itself is evidence that the bible is wrong, since these snakes didn't exist 6000-10,000 years ago.

Science is great when it comes to math and building rockets, but they need to lay off the evolution crap, anyone who actually believes that crap is more brainwashed than religious folks. The got more fairy tales than all the religions combined.

That's a complete load of crap. There are hundreds of scientific research papers that back evolution.

Yeah, science is great when it brings you technology that you can't live without (ie refrigeration, internet, automobiles, cell phones, etc etc), but the second it conflicts with your blind faith in an ancient book it's automatically wrong. Do you realize how hypocritical that sounds? You call yourself real truth seeker, you haven't even seeked the truth about evolution, you dismiss it based on nothing but creationist arguments. You haven't even looked into the science. This is where evolution deniers fall short. They never address evidence, or argue against the theory using logic or science. They read creationist propaganda sites and buy into it hook line and sinker.

As somebody who is named "Real Truth Seeker", I kind of expect you to have researched both sides, but this clearly isn't the case.

They have never observed the creation of the universe, but swear on their life that's how it happened.

Horrible horrible argument. Learn to use logic. Have you observed god? Have you observed the creation of the universe? How can you possibly make an argument like that when you blindly believe god did it with no scrutiny whatsoever?

originally posted by: Ghost147
Our prevailing scientific hypothesis regarding Abiogenesis actually makes a lot of sense, and is very plausible. I think it's more a matter of people not really understanding what the prevailing hypothesis really says that makes people view it as absurd.

Yep. Once again it boils down to folks not doing the research. It always "Abiogenesis??? You mean you believe something came from nothing!!??" or some other absurd reference to spontaneous generation, something that has been long debunked. People don't realize that it's merely about the very first life coming together from its basic inorganic components and that there are a few experiments that have replicated parts of the process. Obviously its not definitely proven, but it has more evidence in its favor than any religious myth.