Proof of the Biblical GOE story.

Genesis 3 Well, we are now one step closer to being able to actually date the moment in history. The hippest serpent in history has finally come to light.

This is a cool article! Except that it is a 90 million year ago snake as opposed to the 6000 year old one! Now if we could only prove that the snakes actually talked!What the GOE really needed was a weed whacker!

Are you suggesting that humans existed 90 million years ago? (Remember, the snake's curse is related to the fall of man.)It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that God would curse an entire species because Satan assumed the form of one member of the said species either. Seems unjust by today's standards. Maybe it made more sense to those who believed in punishing future generations of unlawful folks.To me, it the article seems entirely unrelated to the GOE story.

Proof for god, yes. You're just wrong about which god.

Jar is being quite cynical with regards to the GOE. Besides, "Proof of teh Biblical GOE Story" gets you much more hits than, "Snake fossil found with hips". In the latter case you might actually trick some eager YECs into actually looking at some evidence for evolution.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This tidbit could do double-duty in the to land from water discussions: here's a creature whose lineage grew legs and came to shore (or vice versa), began to burrow underground, then lost legs and both stayed on land and moved back to sea. Quite a "feet": now you see 'em, now you don't.

that's really interesting. nice name, too:

quote:

---

The newly discovered species, Najash rionegrina, lived around 90 million years ago in Patagonia, Argentina.

---

najash? nachash?

---

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

Are you joking dude?

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.A nf the age of this fossil shows - again - that snakes evolved long before the extinction of the dinosaurs.

quote:

---

Regardless of what anyone can argue, We're moving closer to the buzsaw/Biblical hypothesis and further from the conventional secularist mai nline science traditional hypothesis with this discovery.

---

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. 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”This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-10-2006 02:27 AM

nope. sorry. clearly dinosaurs are birds, and not lizards.

To be a tad more precise.. birds are decendants of the therapod dinosaursThere was more than one kind of dino.

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. 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? 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. 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

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