Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Creation scientists have discovered the 6,000-year-old remains of a gigantic snake, from which modern boas are descended. Is this the serpent from the Garden of Eden?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/02/titanoboa/titanoboa.jpeg (broken link)
The small, pale bone between those labeled “a” and “b” is from a modern boa, which is typically about 10 feet long. Creation scientists believe that the supernatural owner of the larger bones was a mammoth 42-foot-long, 2500 pound monster!
Now, many folks who are not familiar with the Bible might think that the serpent in Eden was Satan, the fallen angel. The Bible says no such thing; that is a fiction invented by the Catholic church.
Creation scientist James Harneckie, PhD tells us, “This was doubtless the serpent from Eden. With its incredible size, it could have easily picked fruit from the tree and given it to Eve.”
Yes, doubtless THE serpent from Eden
Because it was big enough to reach way up into the tree and pick fruit.
Damned big evil snake! If it had just been a little shorter we wouldn't HAVE all this mess...
1. Your link stated that this snake was discovered by so-called creation scientists. Not true. This is the reference to the original paper:
Head JJ, Block JI, Hastings AK, Bourque JR, Cadena EA, Herrera FA, Polly D, Jaramillo CA (2009) Giant boid snake from the Palaeocene neotropics reveals hotter past equatorial temperatures. Nature 457(7230):715-718.
No "creation scientists" involved in this discovery. The article you linked contains information that is patently FALSE.
Your article has a COMMENT by a creation scientist...a James Harneckie, PhD. By the way, a Pubmed search shows that James Harneckie has no publications whatsoever, and I question if he even has the scientific credentials to comment on the merit of such findings. In fact, he doesn't even show up on Google!
2. Logic quiz. Does this statment really make sense to you?
The bones of a giant snake was discovered...therefore it is be the snake described in Genesis story of creation. At least this is Harneckie's logic (again makes me question his scientific credentials).
Dang, it really bugs me when you guys do things like this, it's kinda like grasping at straws. The intellectual equvalent of holding your breathe until your face turns blue. "creation scientist" - sorry guys, but science does not start with the conclusion and then trim the quasi-evidence to fit. True science discovers evidences, follows the trail until a conclusion can be logically reached. Darwin did not start out to "discover" evolution, he began by classifing various types and specie of animals, and started noticing similarities, he noticed how they differed in relation to their environment, eventually, after years of work and notations, he began to see a pattern. Theories come from years and years of hard work, not paring the evidence to have it point in the direction you wish.
The small, pale bone between those labeled “a” and “b” is from a modern boa, which is typically about 10 feet long.
Dang Bubba, I spent a year in W.Africa and saw a lot of Boa in the rain forest, a 10 ft. Boa is a baby, 14 to 16 feet is closer to the norm, and the fully matured adults are really big.
1. Your link stated that this snake was discovered by so-called creation scientists. Not true. This is the reference to the original paper:
Head JJ, Block JI, Hastings AK, Bourque JR, Cadena EA, Herrera FA, Polly D, Jaramillo CA (2009) Giant boid snake from the Palaeocene neotropics reveals hotter past equatorial temperatures. Nature 457(7230):715-718.
No "creation scientists" involved in this discovery. The article you linked contains information that is patently FALSE.
Your article has a COMMENT by a creation scientist...a James Harneckie, PhD. By the way, a Pubmed search shows that James Harneckie has no publications whatsoever, and I question if he even has the scientific credentials to comment on the merit of such findings. In fact, he doesn't even show up on Google!
2. Logic quiz. Does this statment really make sense to you?
The bones of a giant snake was discovered...therefore it is be the snake described in Genesis story of creation. At least this is Harneckie's logic (again makes me question his scientific credentials).
I think where you mis-step here is in your approach. In search for truth, you are not supposed to question things and utilize 'logic'.
If I have Seeker's track record pegged correctly, I think he just posted the article for debate as opposed to him believing in such a thing. Just my wild guess.
On the other hand, there are probably some on here who actually might wax orgasmic over the idea that here's yet another example of the bible being proved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
