(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?
"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!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!