(July 25, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(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.
I'd like to know where you got the 120million years ago?
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.
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.
Sorry lax, but it doesn't seem your argument has a leg to stand on.
