vestigial snake pelvis and the serpent in Genesis?

Off topic material hidden hereEdited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Hello again Emily,First of all, no-one is suggesting that they have never heard of a serpent. Serpent is a synonym for snake. Serpents, snakes, call them what you will. Whatever you call them though, they don't speak.If you want to claim that they used to speak, you're going to have to do a bit better than you have so far. We seem to be straying from the topic quite a bit, so for now, I would be grateful if you could just address these two questions;Why would God choose to prove his existence in a way that is indistinguishable from the products of evolution?andWhy should we consider your explanation for the vestigial features in snakes when we already have a compelling non-supernatural explanation, in the form of the Theory of Evolution?The second question is especially important, since the ToE also explains the very similar vestigial structures in whales (along with many other vestigial features and much else besides), something that your theory can't do.Mutate and Survive.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Could you clarify? Well.....Theology not as much, archaeologists and geographers can do their job perfectly well without theology. I suspected as much. And I think the moderator did too, which is precisely why he placed it here I think. Since here we can discuss the theology behind it, as placing it in a science forum would require you to show evidence. Quite correct, this doesn't mean I should agree with you though . Well...Since everything is made up of the same molecules, you kinda have a point there. However, that is not evidence we were made directly out of earth and water. If we take it even further back, everything comes from stars, but you're not claiming stars made us, now are you?

---

I hunt for the truth

To All:
I'll be hiding the off topic material.I suggest that these issues be taken to appropriate threads:1) Dating
Perhaps fearless4yeshua should go over the material in:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
This has so far proved to be unanswerable by those who think the earth is young.2) Humans as Primates:
This is one thread on that topic:
ID/Creationism - Comparison of Human and Chimp GenomesThat should be enough to start.

Off topic material hidden here
Nicely summing it up, these are examples of "Just-so" stories. Why does birth hurt? Why do we till the soil? Why do snakes slither? Why do snakes bite? Why are there rainbows? As Daniel Dennett (2006) has pointed out, there are some very good reasons we make up and believe these stories. In many contexts assigning agency to phenomena can aid survival. The outcome of this is to weave narratives around all important observations and events.Dennett, DC (2006), Breaking the Spell, Viking (Penguin), 464 pp.Trevathan, W (1987) Human Birth: Foundations of Human Behavior. Aldine Transaction, 268 pp.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

You're welcome, but, as you may have suspected, I was just teasing. The "walking snake" of the article is really just an ancient species that still had vestigial lizard legs, with leg bones and joints actually still in place and visible. The legs, being less than an inch long on a creature nearly a yard long, can't have been much use, if any use at all.It is not the earliest snake in the fossil record by any means, and others may have lost their legs completely long before this time. It's just a species that retains a characteristic that clearly illustrates the lizard/snake transition, as do vestigial pelvic bones on modern snakes, and a number of other (non-vestigial) shared features between snakes and the group of lizards they're thought to descend from.Still, never mind. Reality shouldn't stop you using the fossil as evidence for the literal truth of the Genesis story. Since when has reality bothered creationists? As it's the only fossil out of all the millions unearthed that you can possibly use as support for your views, I think you should go ahead.A first step might be to write to the paleontologists who discovered the fossil, and to ask them if there are any traces of soft body parts, vocal chords in particular.Good luck, and welcome to EvC.

Then your first statement makes no sense, since serpent and snake are synonymous in the linguistics of Egyptian and other contemporary civilizations. I think we all knew that most of these ancient civilizations were cognizant of the presence of serpents i.e. snakes.Sorry just being a literal harda**. Ok enough with divergence, we can return to our regularly schedule discussion thread.

---

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Dr. Carl Sagan

I'm sorry I have not been able to reply for a couple of days, I've had to attend some family gatherings but over the course of the next two weeks I will provide examples in science of how my theory about the serpent might hold some weight, and then I'll see about possibly joining a discussion about a worldwide flood and also a discussion on primates vs. Human. AdminNosy seems to be a very amusing person and I appreciate the humor. Humor is good. Citing examples of how creationists haven't been able to answer some things will in no way dissuade me from continuing this line of discussion on the appropriate threads, lol.