(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.
