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 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.
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.
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.
Only if you're unwilling to do any additional research before declaring victory, which apparently is the way you want to go on this.
Now, on with the show:
(July 28, 2015 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: 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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
"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!