Snakes with legs? E or C?

Please, give me a moment to reply. I've come down with the flu and I have not been able to check many messages. Its not like I'm online every hour of the day. I will answer the questions that I see are honest, non-Marxists, and academically real.

According to snake experts, nothing has really changed in the biological make-up of snakes for the exception of the missing legs.Now the Marxist/punk-rocker/liberal slur that the Bible isn't history is not an academically supported one and this is the reason why I've replied to you and ignored the others who enjoy spinning the topic with meaningless comments that have little to do with professional investigatve science, journalism, or history.What we have is what we know. We cannot assume anything. There are fossilized snakes that have legs. What does this say? What information do we have to go on to determine whether ot not it's evolution or Creation evidence? Occam's Razor forbids assumption and demands we shave it away. So maybe we should look into history, anywhere, and see if we can find anything mentioned that will help us explain these ancient fossilized snakes.The Holy Bible is the only document I've found that makes mention of this in Gen.3:14, when God cursed the serpent and it lost the DNA code that produces legs. Before this, we also find the first surgery performed in Gen.2:21. Genesis contains many scientific implication that any true scientist today should not ignore. There was science in the past like gravity and everything we know today and have not yet discovered. So ancient text can shed light on modern scientific mysteries conciderings we drop the Marxist bias and research this without the priori commitment that all evolutionists have to sign before they can work for an Institution. (That why I enoy my indepentent research. I can search and search and am allowed to find the correct answer without some Institution censoring me).The Bible mentioned this fossil mystery. Evolutionists assume it evolution. The Bible is a Book of Creation (Gen.1:1). God CREATED CREATED CREATED! There is no evolution in the Bible and there is nobody here that can provide a single text proving otherwise. (*Note: All faulty interpretations made in the Bible by evolutionists are refuted and then used against evolution as a science because of the lack of discipline that went into the analysis. If evos cannot understand that the Bible teaches creation then that error of analysis will be urged against the theory of evolution scientists. Proper methodology is all that I personally accept).The Scoreboard. We have the snake fossils. We have the story written in our Holy Book. The Law of Identity favors the Biblical account! Evolutionists rely on ad hoc assumptions to explain away the evidence and continue hiding the truth of our real origin.

quote:

---

Proper methodology is all that I personally accept).

---

Good start.

quote:

---

The Holy Bible is the only document I've found that makes mention of this in Gen.3:14

---

So the bible nicely covers how snakes have legs, now please direct me to where I can resolve the issue Archer brought up - Where does the bible say why whales have legs?Do I refer to the bible for all questions regarding science? I am just curious to know. When the bible doesnt specifically answer my question, on what basis do I judge another documents validity? (or do I simply ignore all questions that the bible does not specifically answer - blood suger levels for diabetes, warning signs for medication overdoses, etc. My job, and my clients lives depend on such information)

Unless you can SCIENTIFICALLY prove that the story in the Bible is valid and true on the point of snakes, then you cannot use it as evidence! This is a SCIENCE forum, and you need to use SCIENTIFIC evidence to support your argument.The Bible is NOT a scientific document! This topic is about SNAKES! It is not about human beings. "Our real origin" can be discussed in a different thread! You can't just use this thread to keep spitting out Biblical nonsense. You may have started it, but it now belongs to everyone else. Some people would perhaps like to actually discuss this on a scientific level, without you ripping into them about how they are communist arses, or whatever you're saying!

\   \
<~~===============O<~
           /   /

See... it's my legged snake. Did you even follow that link I provided?J0N

When I was a young boy I spent alot of time studying whales. There is not a single species of whale that has legs or ever did. The presumptions of evolutionists are ad hoc ones, and not acceptable to Occam's Razor.Evolution is filled with fallacious illusions that man was once an ape and whale once crawled on land. This, however, is philosophy...not science.

This site begs to differ. Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution Abe- These ones too.Philip D. GingerichThe Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent EvidenceIndiana University BloomingtonEdited by Infixion, : A few additions

Jon,First of all we have to go on knowable facts. This is hard for evolutionists because they are so used to accepting the assumptions from their evolutionary Professors, who trusted the assumtpions of their evolutionary Professors and so on.The Bible contains the Divine history of the world. It was preserved through the Jewish people because God made a covenant with Abraham that he would be the father of the nation that would eventually bear the Messiah. Abraham was chosen because he listened to God and obeyed without being argumentive.Now, Genesis records the fact that there is mentioned of the snakes with legs, and tells us how they lost them. Evolutionists have no historical document to say otherwise apart from their modern ad hoc assumptions which are shaved away by Occam's Razor.Now your reasons for denial are force fed ones that you only accept out of rebellion. But if you use the reasoning of analysis provided by the laws simple logic: Law if non-contradiction, Law of Identity, Law of Excluded Middle, you see that the Genesis narrative cannot be ignored just because of some modern political agenda that stems from Marxist ideolgy.Understand that it is not science vs.religion--nay; in reality, it's politics vs. science and religion!!Do you think we can deny historical information for the sake of politics? The great founders and contributers always accepted history and science because they have to harmonize together in order for a correct understanding of the events that provide the information necessary to understand science and origins.You and say and believe what you like, but keep in mind that the denial of the Genesis narrative in the subject of the snakes with legs is not a logical order of analysis.

What scientific evidence do you have to show that the Bible is true? Why is not anyone else's religious doctrine true?What evidence do you have to show that God exists?And stop calling us Marxists. Name calling doesn't get you anywhere, and eventually people will just stop listenning to you... I know J0N

Jon I have argued for a long time here that all reptiles became belly crawlers and were radically changed physiologically at the time of the Genesis curse from legged creatures such as dinos. This curse did not say that all would lose their legs but that they would become belly crawling creatures. So even though your snake links depict legged snakes, they like the other reptiles such as lizards, crocks, gators, et al have either no legs or short legs as per the Biblical record. The word for "serpent" (Hebrew nachash) is the only Old Testament word that I am aware of for reptilians or serpents which would include dinosaurs.We cannot confirm the credibility of the Biblical record on this, but as Origen is saying, it is the only historical record that records an explanation for legged reptile/snake fossils.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Infixion,I can find a website that argues that the earth is flat! The Flat Earth Society denied that the earth is round. But does that make the website a source of truth?The website you plugged in provided one Big GUESS! Do you have any ancient source-documents to support this modern guesswork? Just because its proven that snakes once had legs doesn't mean that evolution happened. The Bible supports the evidence but denies the evolution myth that became popularized in America through Marxist/KGB spies who infiltrated our government, media, and every arena of life to Americans. In fact, the Communists used to even build American cities so that their spies could adapt to living like an American. The communists knew that they could never take America through military combat, so they sought out to break the spirit of the country folk by propagating evolution through hijacking science. The American liberals helped them. Heavy metal music, free-sex, drugs, rap-musics and the like, were used to break down the soul of the American people and all of the was justified by the theory of evolution and the great many $tereotypes $old for political power. Richard Dawkins was a hit the Marxism with his slander on all Christians being $tupid in his book The Blind Watchmaker. Carl Sagan with his famous $tatement on his series the Cosmos, "Evolution is not a theory...it's a fact" $old out the media without scienctifc proof. Planned Parenthood calliing all poor people and non-believers in evolution "weeds" was one of the lowest peroids of mankind since Nazi Germany. The list in endless and this history of evolutionary politics is true. Study it for yourself and see.The method of scientific analysis has been oppressed by those who hate God and gained power over the world through deception and infiltration. I've seen this for myself first hand and this is a great evil. And this great evil is traced to the original sin that Satan spoke from the serpent.

Jon,This topic is not about all the scientific evidence there is for the Bible. I do not have time to get involved with the circular arguments that evolutionists want to engage with in in, so I write everything in a book and then offer it to those who care. I have just provided solid evidence in this topic with the serpent's curse and the legs that scientist have proven they have lost through this curse first written in the Bible. There you go. Only a Marxist will deny it.

Of course not. But not all websites are equally credible, and because some websites are inaccurate/wrong doesn't mean that all
websites are inaccurate/wrong. Fallacy of tradition: older does not mean better, or more accurate. The topic is "Snakes with legs"? not whether the theory of evolution was spread via Marxist/KGB spies. Again you stray from the topic.

On page 5 there are two photographs of embryos with hindlimb buds. Also there are two photographs of hindlimbs in adult skeletons.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://whitelab.biology.dal.ca/lb/Bejder%20and%20Hall.pdfThis photograph is quite good also
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/PLTWHL02.JPGI can also "see the evidence" in whales, so is this the point where Occam's Razor begins to apply?Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

perhaps you should look into the academic worlds of biblical archaeology, and the study of the bible itself. i think you'll find that your ideas about the bible as history are the ones that are not supported academically. even the parts of the bible that were written as history aren't especially honest. perhaps asking where the bible talks about DNA would go a bit too far. let's start with the simple question.where does the bible say the serpent in genesis 3 had legs? god curses the serpent the crawl on its belly, which presumably means it was once upright, but where does it say this involved legs?perhaps you should read the book instead of making assumptions.

---

This website also would agree with the already refuted evolution of the human embryo drawing! Thats all I see here--drawings. The photographs say nothing more than the fact that evolution can interpretate whale fins has hands if they want to, but the analysis is pure assumption--which is not uphelp by the Occam's Razor view of analysis.