Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,432 Year: 3,689/9,624 Month: 560/974 Week: 173/276 Day: 13/34 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof of the Biblical GOE story.
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 25 (310640)
05-09-2006 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
04-20-2006 10:40 AM


Moving Closer To Buzsaw/Bible Hypothesis
The evidence is showing that Buz and Bible or rather Buz via Bible hypothesis, as has been claimed by buzsaw in previous threads, that the first snakes originated on land and had legs is more scientifically correct than the mainline secularist science hypothesis that snakes originated in the sea and evolved into land creatures.
Genesis three, verse fourteen states that the serpent's curse for seducing Eve to disobey God is that the serpent would thereafter be a belly crawler, implying that it was originally created on land with legs.
1. My buzsaw hypothesis on dinos is that they were the pre-cursed serpents. Could this recently found Najash rionegrina legged serpent/snake with hips have been a small dino? If not, why not?
2. Some of the sites that cover this are claiming that this creature crawled on it's belly. As I understand it, the leg fossils are not complete, leaving it a mystery as to how this creature actually motivated. Imo, it is very feasible that it ran about on its two hip reinforced legs as did dinos.
3. Regardless of what anyone can argue, We're moving closer to the buzsaw/Biblical hypothesis and further from the conventional secularist mainline science traditional hypothesis with this discovery.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 04-20-2006 10:40 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-10-2006 1:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2006 2:26 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 11 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-10-2006 2:33 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 25 (310917)
05-10-2006 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
05-10-2006 2:26 AM


Re: Moving Closer To Buzsaw/Bible Hypothesis
PaulK writes:
You mean "disproving Buzsaw/Bible Hypothesis. Again"
This is the fossil of an early snake - it's not a dinosaur or even a close relative. We've covered the fact that snakes are closely related to lizards and not dinosaurs in the previous disucssions.
No. I mean moving closer to.
1. Snakes originated on land, not in the sea -- no small factor.
2. Early snakes had legs as per Buzsaw/Bible hypothesis and contrary to conventional science erroneous theory.
PaulK writes:
A nf the age of this fossil shows - again - that snakes evolved long before the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Could it be that the folks who made such a huge blunder on the origin of snakes also got their extinction dates wrong on dinos?
PaulK writes:
No, that's completely false. The fossils further supports that scientific view in that it shows that snakes evolved rather than being transformed by a Divine curse.
1. The fossil lends more support to the Buzsaw/Bible hypothetic view that snakes originally had legs and originated on land then it does that snakes evolved. This incredible discovery establishes credence to two Biblical claims heretofore considered by conventional science as absolute unscientific absurdity, i.e that early snakes had legs and originated on land.
2. The fossil diminishes the view that snakes evolved in that natural selection should add legs rather than subtract them for the survival and mobility of the species.
PaulK writes:
It also confirms the view that there is no connection between the evolution of snakes and the extinction of the dinosaurs. As such it is yet nore evidence that the "Buzsaw/Bible" view is false. But then we already knew that.m”
The only thing it really confirms is that snakes didn't evolve from sea creatures and they had legs. The Buzsaw/Bible hypothesis also says that legless snakes preceeded the extinction of dinos, but of course, within a much later timespan. The Buzsaw/Bible hypothesis alleges that due to the far different atmospheric conditions and chemical makeup due to it, et al dating methods could have an erroneous reading.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2006 2:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by kuresu, posted 05-10-2006 11:55 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2006 2:28 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2006 2:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 25 (310920)
05-10-2006 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by macaroniandcheese
05-10-2006 2:33 PM


Re: Moving Closer To Buzsaw/Bible Hypothesis
Bren writes:
nope. sorry. clearly dinosaurs are birds, and not lizards.
1. Dinos and snakes,lizzards both reptilian. Birds not. The dissimilarity of blood, et al as per the Buzsaw/Bible hypothesis is likely due to the curse. That the cursed offspring crawlers in the dust would likely require physiological adjustments from walking creatures.
2. Keep in mind that the same folks who for eons insisted that snakes originated in the sea and were legless are the folks who insist that birds evolved from dinos.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-10-2006 2:33 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-11-2006 8:41 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 25 (311018)
05-11-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
05-11-2006 9:28 AM


Re: Summing up Buzsaw's hypothesis
PaulK writes:
Buzsaw's hypothesis is that the serpent in Genesis was a dinosaur and that God turned all dinosaurs into snakes, explaining their extinction. Buzsaw has carefully avoided mentioning this fact.
Not exactly. If you go into the archives, you will see that my hypothesis did not have God turning all dinos into snakes. Rather it has the reproductive genes of the dinos living at the time of the fall being transformed via the curse to cause all the offspring of the then living dinos to be born as belly crawlers.
Furthermore I have consistently alleged that the likely the parent dinos lived all the way up until the flood which would have been some 1500 years or so. The atmospheric pre flood chemical makeup, et al, imo, could translate hundreds of years into millions of dating years as per the chemical makeup of the environment today. If man lived around a thousand years, it is feasible that the dinos could have lived until the flood caused their extinction, only the young offspring belly crawlers being taken in the ark. Thus snakes preceeded the extinction of the dinos. I believe even now some reptiles such as certain species of turtles live substantially longer than humans.
I need to be out of town most of the rest of today. I'll try to get some other responses in another time. Thanks for your patience.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2006 9:28 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2006 11:53 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 23 by kuresu, posted 05-11-2006 4:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 24 by jar, posted 05-12-2006 11:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024