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.
I think I've had just about enough of Campbell's nonsense.
OK, C34. Since you want to make a case, let's just go back to your original post then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
According to Genesis 3:14 when God saw that the serpent had deceived Eve in the garden. God stated that the serpent from then on would travel on his belly. I use to tell people that snakes once had legs, and according to the Scriptures walked upright. Of course every non believer thought that was simply a foolish myth from the Bible.
Really? Every non-believer? Really??? I was taught in the 1960's that snakes did indeed evolve from reptiles that had legs. And that snakes most likely did have legs in their early history. Having once read Darwin's Origin of Species, your post struck a faint memory. So I went back and did a search...
Yep, there it is. Darwin's Origin of Species, Chapter 13, under the section "Rudimentary, atrophied, or aborted organs":
"...in other snakes there are rudiments of the pelvis and hind limbs."
So, in 1859,Darwin himself noted that snakes probably evolved from legged reptiles. It seems Campbell, that maybe it was YOU who had a poor science education while growing up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
...Now science will tell you this is a riddle. Their question will be. "Why do these snake species have hind limbs? If legs were the norm for snake ancestors, it would make sense to see the species advanced anatomy as only superficially similar to more modern snakes.
WOW. What a way to put words into the "Mouth of Science." And then scapegoat it in favor of a feeble claim for Biblical historicity. "Now science will tell you this..." Huh? Only you would have the audacity to proclaim what the entirety of science says, especially when it's clear you have a poor grasp of what science actually says on the subject.
Really, C, you are embarrassing yourself here. And it does not reflect well on truly wonderful Christian people I've known that don't give a rat's behind about such matters. Why? Because they don't have fragile egos. (Hint, hint...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
On the other hand, the stubby limbs on the fossil snakes might represent an evolutionary reversal.
Ummmm...DUH. There are countless examples of evolutionary reversals. The problem that you obviously have with them is that they actually reinforce the mechanism of evolution! Here's just one example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
The fact that these snake fossils have been found with legs, only confirms the Biblical account.
Do you mean (as Rifleman and others have pointed out) the Biblical accountthat snakes can talk and walk upright?
SNAKES CAN TALK? Campbell, can I be any more clear about that? That's what the Bible says!
SNAKES.
TALKING.
TALKING SNAKES.
You know what?. This actually sounds a lot more like Harry Potter than anything else.
Oh man, I am done with this...
Last edited by Astron1000; 11-28-2010 at 06:17 PM..
So if the fossil of a snake with legs proves the story in the Bible, does that mean that its being found in a 92 million year old deposits then proves an old earth scenario?
No, no, no!! That's not how Campo's mind works. For Campo, if science confirms the Bible then science works and is acceptable. If science shows the Bible to be false then it doesn't work and is unacceptable.
92 million years old is not a young earth. You want it both ways. Prove the bible correct because the fossil had legs but stick to a young earth even though the fossil is 92 million years old.
You cannot have it both ways.
Sorry but you are just not credible.
Can you prove to us the fossil was 92 million years old? Did my words just go over your head again? Such assumptions of age are based on (ASSUMPTIONS ALONE). No science required, just a belief dressed up in science. You claim I can't have it both ways. Yet the fossil is the only certain fact here. The fossil was not found with a date stamped on it. However, it did show an advanced snake with legs. And that we all can agree on.
Sorry, but unless you can give us slamdunk evidence for age. Your belief is based more on blind faith dressed up as a fact of science. And that is the problem with science. So often facts presented by them, and defended to the death by it's believers. Are often found to be tomorrows errors. The believers in the science of assumption, must often wait to receive their new truth. And this goes on all the time. The facts of science especially when assumptions are pushed, are fluid at best, and are subject to change. I would hate to base my eternal life on such a set of ever changing and fluid facts.
Last edited by Campbell34; 11-29-2010 at 07:53 AM..
Can you prove to us the fossil was 92 million years old? Did my words just go over your head again? Such assumptions of age are based on (ASSUMPTIONS ALONE). No science required, just a belief dressed up in science. You claim I can't have it both ways, but the fossil is the only certain fact here. The fossil was not found with a date stamped on it. However, it did show an advanced snake with legs. And that we all can agree on.
Sorry, but unless you can give us slamdunk evidence for age. Your belief is based more on blind faith dressed up as a fact of science.
And a fossil is just a fossil. There is not proof it backs up the bible. It is a piece of rock with an imprint of a lizard like creature. I am listing some other fossils found that seem to be snakes with legs. They are also dated around 90 to 97 million years of age. These fossils do show an evolutionary process.
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Ancient serpent shows its leg
What was lost tens of millions of years ago is now found.
A fossil animal locked in Lebanese limestone has been shown to be an extremely precious discovery - a snake with two legs.
Scientists have only a handful of specimens that illustrate the evolutionary narrative that goes from ancient lizard to limbless modern serpent.
Oldest snake fossil shows a bit of leg - life - 19 April 2006 - New Scientist
The fossil was found in a deposit from the late Cretaceous period and Zaher says the snake is at least 90 million years old. "This fills an important morphological gap of information regarding the early evolution of snakes," he says.
Fossil snake sheds light on snake origins (http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/snake.html - broken link)
Fossil snake sheds light on snake origins
Jeff Poling
The discovery of a new fossil snake may shed light on the poorly known evolution and ancestry of snakes, paleontologists announced April 16, 1997.
The scientists stated that the 97 ma old lizard fossil, discovered in Israel, may be one of the earliest snakes ever found. They also stated that the fossil provided "surprising and compelling" evidence that the nearest relatives to snakes were mosasaurs. Mosasaurs were giant marine lizards that became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous, and are thought to be closely related to modern varanid lizards such as the Komodo Dragon.
The fossil, named Pachyrhachis problematicus, was examined by Michael Caldwell of the Field Museum in Chicago and Michael Lee of the University of Sydney. The specimen was originally identified as a lizard, but Caldwell and Lee decided it looked more like a snake that still had tiny hind legs.
Some modern boa snakes still have vestigial legs, and other anatomical features of the fossil indicated it was a snake and not a lizard. The scientists stated that "Pachyrhachis has a small, narrow, lightly-built skull showing most [of the] derived features of modern snakes."
The scientists also believe certain anatomical characteristics show strong resemblances to those of marine mosasaurids, which they said could be, among lizards, the "nearest relatives of snakes."
SMU Paleontologists Publish Findings Of Fossil Snake With Legs
The fossil snake, which lived 95 million years ago, is named Haasiophis terrasanctus after a Hebrew University professor named George Haas who obtained it from quarry workers more than 20 years ago. The well-preserved fossil sat largely unstudied in storage until Mike Polcyn, an SMU graduate student in paleontology, brought back pictures of it and other undescribed specimens that he took while on a business trip to Israel in 1996.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html There is a whole article of interest. Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods
Michael Benton
The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:
Millions of fossils have been discovered.
They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds — have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Some skeptics believe that all fossils are the same age.
Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.
Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.
The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.
The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence.
Scripture indicates that snakes walked. And did not crawl on their belly. It is (MY BELIEF) they walked upright.
Rifleman's comments: Sorry. A simple examination shows the pelvic positioning, the swing axis and rotational plane would not allow them to walk upright, just as we humans are no longer well adapted by Evolution to walk on all fours. It's just simple, accurate comparative physiology, Tommo, but then, you just go with the child's super-simplified version anyhow: it has legs so it can walk upright; "heck it can probably jog if my fantasy needs it to!"
Fossil evidence shows us that some of the ancient snakes had rear legs and hip vetebrae. Yet Scripture does mention in the same breath that snakes like the beast of the field will now crawl on their belly.
(don't forget: they've also got to eat dirt as punishment. Hmmm: What about all them insects, frogs and even rabbits? )
It may be possible that snakes had four legs and not two. Yet so far the evidence only suggest two rear legs. Yet I feel the most important fact here, is that science has just come to the realization that snakes once had legs.
(No new realization, as in "Oh my Gawd! Look what we overlooked, or what doesn't fit in to our cast-in-stone ideas! Quick; start lying!" Sorry: Only religion is thus encumbered, Tom)
Whereas the Bible understood that snakes had legs 3,000 years ago. Here again, science is just catching up to Scripture. And that's the funny thing about the Scriptures. They always seem to have these advanced tidbits of knowledge. And this knowledge existed before sciences big reveal, and before the appropriate time.
The Hebrew word for serpent is nachash, and the Greek equivalent is ophis. Which interpreted means, snake.
(Unfortunately, your sum-total of "truth" is only as long as the bible, and that is being summarily disproven on it's logical content on a near-daily basis. Meantime, science's discoveries, as you see right here on the link you provided, continue to advance at an ever-accelerating pace. one day, everything you cling to will be officially outdated. Most of it is already. Sorry.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Maybe you should consider going back to school. C-14 is still being used today, and they have tested dinosaur bones that are unfossilized. And it would be untrue to suggest that fossils are never found with organic material in them. I hope you come up to speed on this reality. However, the topic is on the snake fossil discovery that is helping to confirm the Biblical account.
Yes, C14 is used today where appropriate, but you try to use it in the wrong ways as often. You don't have a wooden clue as to the technology behind it, couldn't explain it to a student to save your hide, but claim it's always completely accurate when it was incorrectly used (Acambara, ICA stones, NAMI™ etc.). Yet when it is used correctly (within it's approx. 200 - 50,000 year old accuracy window:
...it's very useful on purely organic materials that have been correctly and carefully collected.
(Unlike, for instance, it's use on the faked Acambara figurines that were just loosely handled by unskilled field hands with shovels and old canvas bags, scooped up with other C14-laden dirt, not packed in airtight plastic bags, and thus were fully contaminated. Not to mention that the figurines alone are inorganic, which eliminates their dating by C14, but as per Tom the Truthful: it's OK. I mean, who cares, huh? Certainly not Tom.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
C14 is only to short for dinosaur bone testing, because you have already assumed the age of the dinosaurs. C14 worked well on the Shroud of Turin because it confirmed the patch material removed from the Shroud was placed there during the Middle ages. However, the topic in question is really about the fossil discovery, and the Biblical account of the Serpent.
They thus did not use C14 to date this fossil sample.
This is not assumptive, Tom. If you have an unidentified organic sample and you check it for traces of Carbon 14 isotope, but there is none, then of course, Tom, it's past it's decay prime and is OBVIOUSLY, not assumptively, older than the ≈50,000 years limit to C14.
So you then move on to other methods that can operate within a longer time frame, and voila, what do we find, not by assumption but by logical deduction? In this case, 92+M years-old fossils, confirmed by the geomorphology that it was found in, independently dated by other means and other groups.
Since it is of very old origins, it will no longer contain any residual organic material, and in any case, all the C14 isotope had long since decayed. No blatant assumptions here, just fact. No biases, no estimates, just cold-hard scientific knowledge which far FAR exceeds your level of understanding.
Logic, stepwise reasoning and research, deduction based on the obvious evidence. So you claim that's always assumptive and dishonest, Tom? Nope: another LOGICAL EPIC FAIL!
Sadly, this also does NOT position you to intelligently criticize that which you haven't a clue about, Tom. It would have been Potassium-Argon or other long-age method. Care to explain that process to us, Tom? It's limitations and requirements for sample collection, plus it's range of accuracy? Please: do tell, ewlde chep! We await your seminal dissertation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzymom
92 million years old is not a young earth. You want it both ways. Prove the bible correct because the fossil had legs but stick to a young earth even though the fossil is 92 million years old.
You cannot have it both ways.
Sorry but you are just not credible.
But... but... he LIKES it both ways, Jazzy! That's the only way he can fit it all in to The Big Lie! Or, as someone said of Bill Clinton in the bad years of his failed presidency; "You're irrelevant!"
That certainly applies to Tom's continued but self-celebrated ignorance, his doleful assurances that his conclusions are accurate despite what the newest technologies tell us, and his claims are completely accurate whenever he needs them to be. Of course, in every one of those cases, the work was either done by some non-accredited, or non-existent, or faith-based Wacko center like The Creation Institute, etc. Pure Hovind Hive-Mind think, proven over and over.
For a man who always arrogantly insults us with his insinuations of science's overall complicity and intentional lies, he's got a lot of attonin' to do...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Can you prove to us the fossil was 92 million years old? Did my words just go over your head again? Such assumptions of age are based on (ASSUMPTIONS ALONE). Wrong, of course, as always. It's based on reproducible, duplicatible, blind-test-confirmed sampling, repeated many times on controversial samples. You only wish it was done hap-hazardously, with no regard for protocols and accuracy. You only wish you could begin to even fathom how it works, but of course to do so would leave a real sinking feeling in your heart when you saw the inherent accuracy in it all.
What an EPIC FAIL on your part, Tom. EPIC!
No science required, just a belief dressed up in science. You claim I can't have it both ways. Yet the fossil is the only certain fact here. The fossil was not found with a date stamped on it. However, it did show an advanced snake with legs. And that we all can agree on.
Really? We all agree on? The fossil was: Advanced? Retarded? Transient? Reverse-evolved?
Forward evolved? Able to stand upright (nope, BTW)? Able to talk?
Talk about making assumptions... you only wish your version was the only one possible.
Sorry, but unless you can give us slamdunk evidence for age. Your belief is based more on blind faith dressed up as a fact of science.
How so? Please explain, accurately, the method and sources for dating error used in this study? Provide links as to where you read up on this particular find. And the university that did the dating study, and why it's assessment of the snake's limb physiology is amazingly correct, to the point of allowing upright bipedal motion (huh? they did that? Or is it you who makes things up here?), but oddly, their physics department radio-isotopic equipment is somehow completely faulty.
Again, what an EPIC FAIL, Tom.
I'd be pretty embarrassed if I were you, but then, I have some dignity and a sense of intellectual honesty. You? Apparently not so much.
And that is the problem with science. So often facts presented by them, and defended to the death by it's believers. Are often found to be tomorrows errors.
Nope. completely WRONG again, Tommo. Science is completely happy to update our current knowledge base. We're not constrained, as Christianity is, to clinging to a single, inalterable but ancient biblical story, no matter what new facts emerge, or how impossible that old, scientifically illiterate text so obviously is. Like for instance, Evolution, an ancient earth, the cosmos, consistent isotopic decay rates, and other irritating little facts.
The believers in the science of assumption, must often wait to receive their new truth. And this goes on all the time. The facts of science especially when assumptions are pushed, are fluid at best, and are subject to change. I would hate to base my eternal life on such a set of ever changing and fluid facts.
Oh Please Master! Outline the key elements of two simple ideas for us all, Tom! We'll all move in nice and close so there's no misunderstandings any more.
One: Tom's Science of Assumption (it's essential rules and methods),
...and, for comparison and contrast,
Two: Real Science's prime directive and systemic approach. It's key elements, as it were.
Point-form will do (FYI: I could do it in two short paragraphs. Well, one short paragraph and a simple one-liner for your idiotic Point One: The Science of Assumption; Here it is: there's no such thing. That ideas' pure illogical rubbish. Wow! Tom's EPIC FAIL again!
Imagine that: you've been misguided and wrong all this time! Well, OK: it's time to move on and learn something real, Tommo, old boy.
(BTW, as per your last line, if you were to base your eternal life on a non-fluid set facts, like those provided by sciences' achievements to date, you'd have no doubt arrived there a lot earlier. Unless you don't happen to believe in modern medicine, right? You wouldn't happen to be the recipient of any of that marvelous science, now would you, Tom? As I hear it you are!)
EPIC FAIL, again! This must be embarrassing for Tom!
Maybe you should consider going back to school. C-14 is still being used today, and they have tested dinosaur bones that are unfossilized. And it would be untrue to suggest that fossils are never found with organic material in them. I hope you come up to speed on this reality. However, the topic is on the snake fossil discovery that is helping to confirm the Biblical account.
C-14 has WAY too short a half-life (you DO know what that means??) to be useful in dating dinosaur bones from the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods. Just because VERY rare bones have minute amounts of organic material in them doesn't mean that carbon-dating can work. It can't. Do you ever actually read up on any of the subjects that you make such arrogant ("come up to speed on this reality") statements about?
You can make up your own OPINIONs and I'll respect that but you can't just make up your own FACTs!
Originally Posted by Campbell34 Scripture indicates that snakes walked. And did not crawl on their belly. It is (MY BELIEF) they walked upright.
Rifleman's comments: Sorry. A simple examination shows the pelvic positioning, the swing axis and rotational plane would not allow them to walk upright, just as we humans are no longer well adapted by Evolution to walk on all fours. It's just simple, accurate comparative physiology, Tommo, but then, you just go with the child's super-simplified version anyhow: it has legs so it can walk upright, heck it can probably jog if my fantasy needs it to!"
Fossil evidence shows us that some of the ancient snakes had rear legs and hip vetebrae. Yet Scripture does mention in the same breath that snakes like the beast of the field will now crawl on their belly.
(don't forget: they've also got to eat dirt as punishment. Hmmm: What about all them insects, frogs and even rabbits? )
It may be possible that snakes had four legs and not two. Yet so far the evidence only suggest two rear legs. Yet I feel the most important fact here, is that science has just come to the realization that snakes once had legs.
(No new realization, as in "Oh my Gawd! Look what we overlooked, or what doesn't fit in to our cast-in-stone ideas! Quick; start lying!" Sorry: Only religion is thus encumbered, Tom)
Whereas the Bible understood that snakes had legs 3,000 years ago. Here again, science is just catching up to Scripture. And that's the funny thing about the Scriptures. They always seem to have these advanced tidbits of knowledge. And this knowledge existed before sciences big reveal, and before the appropriate time.
The Hebrew word for serpent is nachash, and the Greek equivalent is ophis. Which interpreted means, snake.
This has officially become a very silly conversation. It is in the same vein as crystal palaces in the sun and an Earth Centric universe.
Can you prove to us the fossil was 92 million years old?
Can you prove to us that the fossil was 6,000 years old?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
I would hate to base my eternal life on such a set of ever changing and fluid facts.
We get it already. NOTHING can break YOUR faith because you feel that your "eternal life" is on the line if you question YOUR God. The "devil" questions your God and he doesn't seem to have a problem with eternal life (yet one of MANY contradictions within your belief system). What about the "fallen angels" huh? Why desire "heaven" if your forgiving God will kick you out of "heaven" even after you have reached angelic status? Furthermore, why would I want to be the son of a God that sends me to Earth to be murdered? Why would a talking snake (created by God) tempt man (created by God) with a fruit (also created by God) that caused man to have "sin"? That's enough to make even a child question God's motives eh?
The bottom line is that your belief system is flawed IMO. Your bible is flawed IMO? Hence, your logic is flawed IMO. This is not a personal attack on you because I am CERTAIN we would get along just fine on non-religious issues. However, your belief system (as well as the belief system of MANY theists) has some issues.
This has officially become a very silly conversation. It is in the same vein as crystal palaces in the sun and an Earth Centric universe.
Just become silly? It was goofy from the beginning....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 Scripture indicates that snakes walked. And did not crawl on their belly. It is (MY BELIEF) they walked upright.
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.
