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

[Drich]

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.

Not what I meant. I am not questioning the age of the fossil. I'm questioning the idea that this creature only lived then. Your initial assumption concluded that this creature and all of it's counterparts died 120 million years ago. Again as I have point out in later posts aligators first came onto the scene 150 million years before these things did, and still remain. So again, what makes you think this particular species died out at the age this only example we have happens to be?

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.

so by this logic we should only have One t-rex or one stegosaurus.. Uh, no. The only thing this tells us is that we have not found any other animals, which means given the creatures very delicate bone structure we probably wont. Just having the One example is not conclusive evidence of anything other than the fact this one example was found in strata that dates it to a given time period. we can only guess at everything else.

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.

Again a statement in either direction as to whether or not this animal survived past the 120 million year mark is just speculation. we are in the same boat sport.

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.  

What a tangled web of misdirection and deception we weave when we choose to deceive laxie.

First of all no citation. I know you fancy yourself as smart man, but seriously do you consider yourself an expert? do you see your self as being more of an expert than say...
Jean-Claude Rage, a palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in Paris
Nick Longrich of the University of Bath, UK, who is a co-author of the study concerning this creature.
Jacques Gauthier of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University?

No you say?!?!

Well, then know your in pretty good company, because I don't see you in abrighter light than these men cast on the subject either.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2...g-origins/

The article does in fact quote one guy who oppsoses the idea that the fossil found was a snake. even if this one guy mentioned is right, it only points to the scientific communities own inability too decide for certain what this creature is or is not despite the evidence. So then how can you claim such definitive knowledge?

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.

soo... you believe your unfounded assumptions based on what you want to believe, are more valid than my own based on the same thing?

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

I know you guys like to pretend that I don't research EVERYTHING I speak on here, but don't tell me you are starting to believe your own hype.

If so it make it more fun for me to show you up.