Ha, huh because.... Science says so!

[Simon Moon]

When I first joined this forum, I had the initial impression that Dritch had a bit better grasp on rationality than Christians I was running into at other sites.

That impression was quickly proven false, however.

As if the ancient (150 million years) existence of legs on the ancestors of modern snakes somehow provides evidence for the Biblical creation myths is laughable. Really Dritch, you may have reached a new low in rational thinking.

[Esquilax]

Okay, so, first of all: to everyone who inquired about Luckie, thank you. She's doing fine, we just got some... unexpected bleeding, which needs to be checked over when there's blood thinners involved. It was dramatic and scary to look at, but scans show nothing wrong and the hospital sent us home. Still, the well wishes are very appreciated.

Now, on with the show:

I'd like to know where you got the 120million years ago?

I did a little thing called "additional research," which apparently you didn't do: the fossil has been dated to around 120 million years old, give or take. Just google its scientific name, it'll show up.

We have one specific snake found with legs, and even if that one specific snake had legs 120 million years ago doesn't mean that one snake was the last one or only of its kind. The only thing you can say for sure is this specific snake lived 'X' number of years ago, and because we do not have any other examples of this kind of snake we ASSume that the snake died off 120 million years ago.

Actually no, we don't need to assume that at all, as that is the conclusion that the evidence points to. Fossils can actually tell us a lot of things, and in this case, the fact that we've found no fossils of similar species in later strata is a good indication that that particular evolved trait died out millions of years ago. One would not be making an assumption by recognizing that no evidence exists of this kind of snake being alive at later dates; in fact, the assumption being made here is you, assuming that it did exist later on the basis of exactly no evidence. Projection has always been one of your strong suits, Drich.

Furthermore... you are aware that this particular four legged snake is not the ancestor of any currently extant snake species, yes? There was a cladogram made as a result of a phylogenetic study of the fossil done earlier in the year which shows that it is not a Serpentes snake; it and its four legs are actually several distinct branches on the cladogram away from the common ancestor of every modern snake. In fact, it is an extinct order of snake that's fully three significant branches away from even the common ancestor of current snakes. The idea that the four legged trait might have been inherited further down the line is fairly ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that the branch of the cladogram nearest to the Serpentes common ancestor without being in the same order is of a non-legged snake that predated some of the dinosaurs by 20 million years or so. So to be clear: the common ancestor of all extant snakes had no legs, and the preceding significant branching event also had no legs, and that was 80 million years or so back... in fact, the earliest snake we have knowledge of that had legs was 90 million years old, again before the origin of any language.

All of the evidence we have available points to what I'm saying, and yet you call it an assumption. You make a claim completely contradicting all the evidence based on nothing, and that's apparently fine.

In fact 'we' don't know what lived in the garden outside what the bible tells us do we? Therefore to say this animal did not live there when in fact the genesis account says that it does means your not only stepping out side the bounds of 'science' you are also speaking outside of the recorded History found in genesis.

So... what was that about assumptions? You're assuming the garden of eden existed, Drich.

Moreover, if you're just going to appeal to magic when you're backed into a corner, why bother with this pretense of respecting science in the first place? You'll crow high and low that science confirms something in the bible, but when you're pointed to additional science showing that it doesn't show what you think it shows, suddenly science doesn't matter, because it hasn't disproved what you want to be true. You're being a hypocrite; you can either accept what the science says in full or not, but you don't get to cherry pick and still assert that science confirms Genesis.

Sorry lax, but it doesn't seem your argument has a leg to stand on.

Only if you're unwilling to do any additional research before declaring victory, which apparently is the way you want to go on this.

[Lemonvariable72]

The bible says it.

You 'good' people doubt it.

Science proves it.

http://www.nature.com/news/four-legged-f...st-1.18050

First off, awesome article. I love shit like that

Now first off lets address some issues with this being the snake in eden. Firstly if the snakes legs were lost through a curse and not evolution then why do some species of snake still have vestigial limbs? Secondly it saws this fossil here is 160-120 million years old, how does that match up with the geneologies listed in the bible that lead us too the conclusion that the earth is less then 10k years old?

[robvalue]

I guess that bit of science is inaccurate, even though it's regarding the same piece of evidence. Some theists have this sort of spidey-sense.

[Longhorn]

Okay, so, first of all: to everyone who inquired about Luckie, thank you. She's doing fine, we just got some... unexpected bleeding, which needs to be checked over when there's blood thinners involved. It was dramatic and scary to look at, but scans show nothing wrong and the hospital sent us home. Still, the well wishes are very appreciated.

That's a relief! Best of wishes to both of you

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Here are some other things in the 'because Science says so' set of cool stuff:

-The human race is not descended from a single Middle Eastern couple.

-There has never been a global flood.

-Biological evolution is real.  Like, really real.

-The Universe is billions of years old, the Earth likewise.

-Photosynthesizing plants don't function without sunlight.

-Not all plants are fit to eat.

-Bats are not birds.

-Venomous snake bites require antivenom, not statues.

-Figs do not cure boils.

-Ostriches are actually very good parents.

Too many more to list.  It seems that the Bible, contrary to the claim too often made, is a stunningly bad guide to science.

Boru

[robvalue]

It only has to be half right on a couple of things, after severe interpretation, and that's good enough apparently for a divinely inspired book.

Once again, the bar is so low you could stumble over it in your sleep.

[Iroscato]

It only has to be half right on a couple of things, after severe interpretation, and that's good enough apparently for a divinely inspired book.

Once again, the bar is so low you could stumble over it in your sleep.

Yet a not-insignificant number of christians fail to reach even that high and disregard evolution entirely as either the work of Satan or God testing our faith, which apparently changes depending on their mood...

[Drich]

When I first joined this forum, I had the initial impression that Dritch had a bit better grasp on rationality than Christians I was running into at other sites.

That impression was quickly proven false, however.

As if the ancient (150 million years) existence of legs on the ancestors of modern snakes somehow provides evidence for the Biblical creation myths is laughable. Really Dritch, you may have reached a new low in rational thinking.

Again the thing is sport that the only example of a legged snake we have just so happens to be 150 million years old (supposedly ) even so, it does not mean that was the last legged snake in existence.

Do you understand what that means?

It only means that that particular group of snakes with those specific type of legs 150 million years ago look like this.. That's not to say bigger snakes smaller snakes, snakes with 6  or more legs did not exist. It only means this one genus and species of snake existed how ever old they say this fossil to be. THAT DOES NOT MEAN no other legged snake or even this one particular genus and species did not exist well into the time Man walked the earth.

Remember flash, aligators got their start 150 million years before this fossil, and have not changed much since.

[Drich]

Here are some other things in the 'because Science says so' set of cool stuff:

All that sodding has negitivly effected the common sense part of your brain.

-The human race is not descended from a single Middle Eastern couple.

The bible does not say this either. It says one couple introduced Children with a soul into the sea/cities of existing humanity.

-There has never been a global flood.

how do you know? because you were taught to look for indicators that something like a tsunami would leave behind? where water is pushing soil and debris from one area to another? You do understand that model is not consistant with how a GLOBAL FLOOD will work do you not? If the whole globe floods at once 'flood debris' would remain in place.

-Biological evolution is real.  Like, really real.

so?
The bible makes no claims against it.

-The Universe is billions of years old, the Earth likewise.

so, the bible makes no claims against it.

-Photosynthesizing plants don't function without sunlight.

are you sitting down?
here is not only evidence that say otherwise but a link to a page that represents a WHOLE INDUSTRY that says other wise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics And if you look further you will note some plants grow better under the lamps than in direct sunlight... almost as if these plants we adapted to work in sunlight but perfered the light of Someone Else.

-Not all plants are fit to eat.

Soo.. you think that in a GARDEN Planted by God, one could not eat everything... Well that was true, in that their was forbidden fruit.

-Bats are not birds.

so?

-Venomous snake bites require antivenom, not statues.

God healed those people not a 'statues.'

-Figs do not cure boils.

if figs could cure boils wouldn't it stand to reason the bacteria that created a fig cured boil then would become extinct over this much time?

-Ostriches are actually very good parents.

it depends on the situation. Ostriches in captivity/farm just lay their eggs anywhere and don't care for them very well/they get trampled.

Too many more to list.  It seems that the Bible, contrary to the claim too often made, is a stunningly bad guide to science.

Boru

maybe you should list them because the ones you did list failed pretty hard