Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 25, 2015 at 12:26 pm
(July 25, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Esquilax Wrote: (July 25, 2015 at 12:11 pm)Drich Wrote: modern snakes do not have legs.. Of course not. Even the Genesis account tells us why. Even so, in the nature.com article the snake with legs was still identified as a 'snake' first, with the qualifier 'with legs.' So Despie how you cheese might want to split 'hairs,' Genesis AND the Nature.com article are speaking of the same animal.
As far as 'my links' are concern I disagree. So now your turn. You Try again.
The claims you now have to support are twofold: firstly, that the Genesis account was talking about this specific animal (and no, simply asserting that does not do so) and secondly, that the Genesis account is remotely reflective of reality.
'Cause, see, there's actually more problems with the idea of the serpent than just that it has legs, or didn't you notice?
Again I point back to my first post to pink beard's comment. This is just one small piece of a larger puzzle. This thread is to simply reaffirm the one fact that Snakes did indeed have legs. This affirmation only speaks to those who use the argument 'snakes never had legs' to discount the genesis account. That it. That's all.
Posts: 67292
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 25, 2015 at 1:24 pm
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2015 at 1:26 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
No, snakes didn't have legs, I don't know why this would be important either way, since it isn't a snake..but a dragon, in the garden, in your holy book. Shouldn't you be holding out for science to demonstrate that dragons existed?
Bit like pointing to some research paper about creeks overflowing their banks and saying "See, the deluge was really real!".......meh.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 25, 2015 at 2:27 pm
(July 25, 2015 at 12:26 pm)Drich Wrote: Again I point back to my first post to pink beard's comment. This is just one small piece of a larger puzzle. This thread is to simply reaffirm the one fact that Snakes did indeed have legs. This affirmation only speaks to those who use the argument 'snakes never had legs' to discount the genesis account. That it. That's all.
No no, you made a specific claim in your last post, that the Genesis account was speaking of this precise variety of snake, and you've given no justification at all for that. You also said in your first post that the bible said it, and science proved it, which means that you also happen to think that this specific species of snake, which lived roughly 120 million years ago, before the advent of any language at all, knew how to speak, and I'd just love to know how you came to that conclusion.
Or should we just not take seriously the words that you say? Because you did say these things.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 5436
Threads: 138
Joined: September 6, 2012
Reputation:
58
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 25, 2015 at 6:27 pm
Like I said before, this doesn't 'affirm the genesis account.' It doesn't even help. These snakes lived millions of years before man, and still crawled around on their bellies, legs or not.
Posts: 2174
Threads: 89
Joined: August 26, 2012
Reputation:
38
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 25, 2015 at 7:14 pm
(July 25, 2015 at 12:26 pm)Drich Wrote: This thread is to simply reaffirm the one fact that Snakes did indeed have legs. This affirmation only speaks to those who use the argument 'snakes never had legs' to discount the genesis account. That it. That's all.
So was the "serpent" in the Eden story alone? Wasn't it a dick thing to do for god to punish the snake's brothers, sisters, and snake children because of the actions of this one snake?
Find the cure for Fundementia!
Posts: 15351
Threads: 118
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
117
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 25, 2015 at 8:38 pm
This animal existed 120 MYA.
Humans did not exist 120 MYA.
There's a small problem with your timeline, Dripster.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Posts: 30974
Threads: 204
Joined: July 19, 2011
Reputation:
141
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 25, 2015 at 8:43 pm
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2015 at 8:46 pm by Jackalope.)
(July 25, 2015 at 8:38 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: This animal existed 120 MYA.
Humans did not exist 120 MYA.
There's a small problem with your timeline, Dripster.
Oh he's got an answer for that. It's epistemologically unjustifiable ad hoc nonsense, of course.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 25, 2015 at 8:45 pm
Drippy hates facts as a vampire hates sunlight.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 26, 2015 at 12:13 am
(July 25, 2015 at 8:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Drippy hates facts as a vampire hates sunlight.
Because when it comes down to it trying to disprove facts is like punching a brick wall.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 6946
Threads: 26
Joined: April 28, 2012
Reputation:
83
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 26, 2015 at 12:41 am
(July 25, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Or should we just not take seriously the words that you say? Because you did say these things.
Don't be too hasty. Let's not forget that he also claimed that the talking snake was just like a cartoon voice-over. Perhaps god is testing us with his hand up Drich's ass in some morbid ventriloquist act.
|
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)
