Re: Najash rionegrina should not exist!
- From: Robert Weldon <rweldon.spamblock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 16:25:51 +0000 (GMT)
"AXBH" <mraustinbell@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1148522980.415395.271170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Robert Weldon wrote:
"AXBH" <mraustinbell@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1148426746.526927.159010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm a Christian, and I see that the other Christians/Creationists here
are not making valid points. Allow me to remedy this. Unlike the other
Creationists here, I won't avoid the topic at hand. This fossil snake
having robust hind legs does not defy the Word in any way. You may say
"Well, according to Genesis, the snakes' legs disappeared on the spot."
Well, if you recall, the Bible never said the Serpent's legs completely
vanished. It ONLY said the Serpent and all of its offspring would from
that day forth crawl on their bellies:
Genesis 3:14: And the Lord God said to Serpent, "Because you have done
this, you are cursed above all livestock and above every wild animal.
You will crawl on your belly, and you will eat dust for the rest of
your life.
It has already been conformed by scientists that although Najash had
robust back legs, it crawled just like any present day snake. The legs
of Najash were functional, and they were clearly useful to the
prehistoric snake. However, they were very small. Too small, in fact,
to ever even have a chance of allowing the snake to walk upright or
lift itself above the ground like a lizard. Consider the large-scaled
grass lizard, or the burrowing mole skink. They have long, slender
bodies like snakes, and they have small legs like Najash. But these
legs are too short to allow the lizards to run. No, instead, the short
legs of burrowing lizards are used to aid in digging; the lizards dig
by kicking and shuffling their small legs in the dirt. Najash's legs,
in comparison to the rest of its body, were the same size as the legs
on burrowing lizards. Also, take for example the scaly-foot lizard, a
snake-like animal with very short back "legs" which are actually flaps
of skin and muscle. It's flaps are similar to Najash's short legs. The
lizard can't stand. It crawls like a snake. You said yourself it wasa
four-legged snake. Najash only has two.
My impression is that before the curse on the Serpent in Eden, all
snake species had a full set of legs, front and back. They would have
resembled small lizards with darting tongues and slender bodies (Or
large lizards). After the Serpent lied to Eve and tricked her into
eating of the fruit tree, God made the legs useless (For walking, at
least), and in some snakes, like culubrids, removed them completely.
Why would he leave the legs on some and take them away from others?
Simple. Some snakes still had other small uses for their legs, such as
helping them dig. Pythons and boas have tiny back legs called spurs.
They need those to aid them in fights and to tickle females during
courtship. Other snakes needed no leg remnants, and God took them away
completely.
In short:
Najash, though having legs, crawled on its belly, as God commanded
Najash had other uses of its short legs
Snakes had four legs in Eden
Please, though. I respect that you don't believe in the Bible; it's
your right to think what you want. God's not a dictator. But just don't
insult and make fun of people just because they do believe the Bible.
That's our right. That's what we believe. Just as you believe
evolution. That theory is just as dumb to us as Creation is to you.
Please, don't disrespect people with different beliefs and values.
Does your brain hurt when you twist it around like that? And by the way,
many religious types have no problem with the fact of evolution, or the
current theory used to explain it.
What exactly do you mean by "twisting" it? Are you talking about the
way I made a good point? It's true, supposing you actually even read
all of it. I was only saying that Najash had legs, but still slithered.
This has already been conformed by paleontologists. The legs were too
short to support the body.
I'm actually quite aware that some Creationists believe in evolution.
I'm only saying that you shouldn't make fun of religious groups who
don't believe in such theories. I happen not to believe in evolution.
Why? Well, I believe the Bible, and there is no possible way for the
two to co-exist. They are polar opposites. It's like having ice in a
lava flow. It doesn't work.
It seems you're also avoiding the topic. Seriously, why didn't you
respond to the point I made, ie what you thought about it? I'm not
trying to force the Bible on you. According to my beliefs, that's a sin
in itself, forcing people to think a certain way. So please don't think
that. I'm just a thirteen-year-old boy who studies science too.
I'm not avoiding anything. If you study science, you should then know that
evolution is a fact, it has been observed occurring, and is well documented.
So how can you not believe in reality? The current theory of evolution is
the best explanation we have of that fact. And it was difficult to dig
whatever your point was out of that word salad you posted. I certainly
think your attempts to force biology into your version of religion,
resulting in that silliness about snakes, was crap. That was the source of
my comment about your brain hurting, you are twisting science around in an
attempt to force it to fit into your religious worldview. And as I said,
the vast majority of christians, or other religions, have no problem with
the fact of evolution. It is mainly the fundamentalist, bible literalists
that have an issue with this. Are you one of those?
.
- References:
- Najash rionegrina should not exist!
- From: boikat
- Re: Najash rionegrina should not exist!
- From: AXBH
- Najash rionegrina should not exist!
- Prev by Date: Re: The "I'd rather have her get cancer than have sex" dept.
- Next by Date: Re: Few Questions
- Previous by thread: Re: Najash rionegrina should not exist!
- Next by thread: Re: Najash rionegrina should not exist!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
