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

[robvalue]

If the answer is always going to come down to "God did it with magic", why the show boating (pun intended)? Why not just magic away all the evil creatures and innocent bystanders, and just leave Noah, his family and a bunch of animals standing?

It seems like he loves to fuck around for the sake of it, and to enjoy the drawn out deaths.

[Redbeard The Pink]

I've actually heard some interesting theories behind why so many ancient cultures have flood stories.

Now, it's true that the villains in stories tend to be exaggerated forms of things that frighten us, especially things we have experienced recently and/or things we regularly deal with. Godzilla is a great example. Godzilla is a terrifying atomic monster that can level a city in moments; he was created in Japan on the heels of WWII. See the pattern there?

So what does that have to do with the flood stories? Why would so many cultures have a global flood story if they're not describing a real event?

Well, sufficiently ancient cultures tended to have the following two things in common:

1. They often thought the world literally stopped at the horizon, the edge of their community, or some other arbitrary point (meaning their "worlds" were actually pretty tiny).

2. They tended to build communities near bodies of water, often near rivers, often in valleys.

This means that to many ancient cultures, one of the most consistent natural threats they faced was...that's right, you guessed it: floods. It also follows that if you think the world stops outside your valley, it's no great stretch to believe that with enough rain, your valley could fill with water and then the whole "world" would be flooded.

So using this information for our model involving Godzilla, it's easy to see why so many old cultures have flood stories. They're not all describing the same flood; they're describing an exaggerated form of a threat that they had in common because of where they usually lived.

The war thing sounds good, though ancient cultures also have stories about massive battles and wars, so I'm inclined to take the flood stories as intended to be about floods. It certainly makes sense from a storyteller's perspective. Picking an exaggerated form of a common fear allows your story to be relatable and emotionally effective for the listeners.

[Alex K]

Also, those were oral traditions, and you know how those get exaggerated. In the first version, some Sumerian guy's backyard was flooded because of a burst pipe, and ten campfires later, it was the whole valley. And so on.

[Mister Agenda]

The idea that snakes used to have legs is not a new concept. Many species of snakes still have vestigial remnants of the limbs their ancestors used to have.

Oh wait, are you trying to say this proves your story about your Gaud taking the limbs from snakes as punishment? That I would deny.

First off, you would need to prove that snakes still had these limbs at the dawn of human history, or at least whenever the "Eden" story is supposed to have taken place. Then you'd have to prove that all snakes stopped having limbs at around the exact same time in history, and it would have to be after the earliest humans showed up, at least. Then it would probably help to be able to prove that these things could talk. If you're suggesting that one snake only talked because of Satan's magic, then you'd have to prove that Satan exists, and/or that it's possible to make snakes talk with magic. Good luck.

So yeah...while it does seem that this fossil is re-sculpting how we think about the evolution of snakes, it in no way proves that Gaud took the legs from snakes because Satan happened to use one for an evil deed one time.

Ah, no.

All this story does for me is to poop on those who I've argued in the past who claim snakes never had legs therefore the story of the legged snake in the garden is yet another 'proof' that the Genesis account is false. That's it that's all.

This is just one more piece of a greater puzzle.

Who exactly was it that you argued with who claimed the ancestors of snakes were legless?

[Mister Agenda]

The same dust that Adam and Eve were created from? Of course this is just a clarification of earlier reports suggesting God brought an animal circus to town tempting Adam with a helpmeet before Adam told God to fuck off and only then did the Almighty create a woman from a rib. You must realize that the dust story doesn't clarify shit.

The story in Genesis reports that the snake talks. Where in this fossil does the 'snake' have a larynx? So much for science proving your fantasy. Other apes have proven a 500 word vocabulary through signs; however, they can't be vocalized because of the throat position of the larynx. Other apes have them, but can't speak; snakes don't have them.

Alas, the fossil being paraded proves evolution and not the Bible. Amusing though; talking snake fucks over another.

In the movie shriek a donkey and ginger bread man speak... So when did animated characters develop a larynx?
-or are you just unfamiliar with the concept of a voice over?

If we can voice to animated pictures well enough to create an illusion that generates hundreds of millions of dollars, how then does it become unthinkable when a more advanced being does it to us?

If it was a voice over, the serpent was just a prop and didn't deserve any punishment, let alone its descendants. It's a just so story, like 'how the chipmunk got its stripes' or 'why elephant's have such long noses'. This on is 'why snakes have no legs'.

[Mister Agenda]

Please provide a citation to show that someone here actually made the claim.

All one need do is search for 'snake legs.'
http://atheistforums.org/search.php?acti...desc&uid=0
Here is a page of examples:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-29989-pa...snake+legs  (This is a good one as several different people are making fun of the idea that snakes have legs.)

since we are not allowed to call people out here is a link to the search I did.

If you take 10 mins you will find people saying 'Snakes do not have legs.'

Snakes don't have legs, sir. But everyone who accepts evolution figured their ancestors had legs, based on the available evidence.

And the rules against calling people out do not prevent you from linking to a particular post in which someone makes the claim to which you refer.

Here's what I think happened: you confused the observation that snakes don't have legs with a claim that the ancestors of snakes did not have legs, and thought an ancestor of snakes having legs would throw the atheists int confused disarray. Now you're trying to sweep your mistake under the rug, as you always do, because you equate admitting a mistake with weakness.

[Redbeard The Pink]

All one need do is search for 'snake legs.'
http://atheistforums.org/search.php?acti...desc&uid=0
Here is a page of examples:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-29989-pa...snake+legs  (This is a good one as several different people are making fun of the idea that snakes have legs.)

since we are not allowed to call people out here is a link to the search I did.

If you take 10 mins you will find people saying 'Snakes do not have legs.'

Snakes don't have legs, sir. But everyone who accepts evolution figured their ancestors had legs, based on the available evidence.

And the rules against calling people out do not prevent you from linking to a particular post in which someone makes the claim to which you refer.

Here's what I think happened: you confused the observation that snakes don't have legs with a claim that the ancestors of snakes did not have legs, and thought an ancestor of snakes having legs would throw the atheists int confused disarray. Now you're trying to sweep your mistake under the rug, as you always do, because you equate admitting a mistake with weakness.

"Boom...boom...
Boom boom...boom...
...
BOOOM!!!"
-Michael Bay

[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.

[Esquilax]

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?

My only conclusion is that it's unwise to believe something without sufficient evidence, least of all when the only reason you have for doing so is because it's convenient with a position that you already hold. In this case, our fossil record of legged snakes stops at about ninety million years ago, and that snake had lost two of the legs that the four legged one had, in thirty million years. That snake is a couple of significant speciation events away from the common ancestor of all extant snakes, and that common ancestor had no legs.

From the evidence that we have, we cannot come to the conclusion that legged snakes existed concurrently with human beings. It's simply an unjustifiable assertion to make, given what we know. You assert it anyway, based solely on the fact that maybe it happened but you have no evidence. You assert it because you want to believe it, nothing more; I am entirely justified in seeing through that transparent ruse, without needing to assume a thing. Of the two of us, I am the one paying deference to the available evidence, and you are the one ignoring it in favor of the assumption that you want to be true.

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.

If we have found no other specimens, that means we have no evidence that they existed during the time periods that you would like them to exist, and therefore it is unreasonable to accept your bald assertion that they did.

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.

Hey, you're the one making a claim based on nothing, sport. Don't blame me for pointing out your utter lack of evidence.

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

So basically, "I haven't seen the cladogram, but I know it's wrong!"?

Hey, real quick: do you even know the species designation of this snake? Because the cladogram- there's a link to it in the references- came packaged with the initial report by the paleontologist who first discovered its significance. Are you literally going to disagree with the person who brought the fossil to light?

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?

Wow, seriously? When did I ever say it wasn't a snake? Do you even know what a cladogram is?

It's a diagram that displays relations among organisms, Drich, like a family tree. This particular one shows that Tetrapodophis isn't a Serpentes snake, it's not a member of the crown group (those members of a species related to their cumulative common ancestor) that all modern snakes are a part of. No modern snake comes from this four legged one, since the common ancestor of modern snakes comes from a separate order of snake that shares a common ancestor with the four legged one, but was not itself that species, while Tetrapodophis itself went extinct. It is still a snake, but there is no snake currently alive that has Tetrapodophis in its lineage. Not directly.

The point I was making is that there were a series of speciation events so significant that they split the clade before we get from your four legged snake to even the common ancestor of current snakes, but it's amazing to see you disagree with me without even bothering to look up any of the concepts I was discussing that you clearly didn't know about. Because, see, anyone who actually knows what a cladogram is would not come to the conclusion that I was asserting that Tetrapodophis was not a snake, since cladograms trace ancestry and thus anything on it would be related to the other things on it. In fact, it's completely baffling to me that I can literally say the words "n fact, it is an extinct order of snake that's fully three significant branches away from even the common ancestor of current snakes," that I can explicitly call the thing a snake in my post, and you still came away with the impression I was saying it wasn't a snake.

Just admit it, Drich: you didn't read that part of my post, did you? You stopped at the first sentence because I started talking all sciency after that and you couldn't be bothered.

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

My conclusions are based on the evidence. Yours are based on what is convenient for the position you already hold, and the fact that the evidence hasn't explicitly disproven that. If you can't see the significant difference between those two states, then you are beyond hope.

Or hey, you could just be erecting a lazy strawman to dodge out of answering what I'm saying, that seems consistent with your behavior too.

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.

So did you know what a cladogram was before you disagreed with the conclusions mine drew or didn't you?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ah, how cute.. Your trying to correct me without understanding how the Kepler space telescope works..
Edge-u-kate yo seff foo.
http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource...pler-work/

That is not using spectrography, which is the measure of the wavelength of radiation, in order to determine size. That is using the variations in the total output of light of the parent star in order to provide a rough guess. Go to about 2:00 in your video: "That dimming is what Kepler is designed to detect."

You should probably quit yammering about education until you've gotten one. You should probably also

If you can't be bothered to watch this video, just know that kepler is not able to determine a planet's viability to sustain life. A rough estimate of a planet's size, orbit, and relative position is what The Kepler ST was designed to determine. Not atmospheric conditions/ablity to sustain life. That fact compared to the headlined "Earth's cousin found" is what I mean by science taking HUGE LEAPS in Faith that God does not expect any of us to take.

Then you should criticize the guilty parties, headline writers, rather than focusing on your pet bugbear.

As for conditions on exoplanets, some can be inferred from data such as closeness to the parent star, and atmospheric composition. You should read up on that, it's pretty interesting stuff and you might actually learn something.

Also, I noticed you did not provide the requested evidence. Why don't you do that before we move this conversation any further? I'm not in the mood to be chasing goalposts today.