Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ready2go
But the fossils also have obvious legs and lived in the sea. That doesn't jibe with the traditional view of ancestral asps, which are thought of as legless burrowing reptiles.

So in the April 17 issue of the Journal Nature, Caldwell and Lee advance the bold suggestion that snakes are most closely related to the mosasaurs, giant swimming reptiles that lived at the time of dinosaurs.

GOD SAID the serpent was cursed and it would crawl upon its belly.

Aha! Your own evidence betrays you! Snakes were previously sea-dwellers. And yet there was no sea near the Garden of Eden, and every picture I've ever seen of the Garden has the serpent up in the tree. QED.

Also notice that the serpent has already lost his legs. So the loss of legs obviously occurred pre-Fall. Double QED!

644 posted on 10/09/2002 8:32:48 PM PDT by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies ]


To: jennyp
jennyp wrote: And yet there was no sea near the Garden of Eden, and every picture I've ever seen of the Garden has the serpent up in the tree. QED.

LOL....that was what the evolutionist said when they ran into a problem.

Evolutionist said:But the fossils also have obvious legs and lived in the sea. That doesn't jibe with the traditional view of ancestral asps, which are thought of as legless burrowing reptiles..

So in the April 17 issue of the Journal Nature, Caldwell and Lee advance the bold suggestion that snakes are most closely related to the mosasaurs, giant swimming reptiles that lived at the time of dinosaurs..

That was from evolutionist...not me.

And remember camera's hadn't been invented yet, so we don't have a real picture of the event as it happened, just man's drawings & ideas...man is only using his imagination to try and figure out how everything evolved...but I go by what God said & He said this: :)

Gen 3:1 The serpent was the craftiest of all the creatures the Lord God had made. So the serpent came to the woman. "Really?" he asked. "None of the fruit in the garden? God says you mustn't eat any of it?"

Gen 3:2 "Of course we may eat it," the woman told him.

Gen 3:3 "It's only the fruit from the tree at the center of the garden that we are not to eat. God says we mustn't eat it or even touch it, or we will die."

Gen 3:4 "That's a lie!" the serpent hissed. "You'll not die!

Gen 3:5 God knows very well that the instant you eat it you will become like him, for your eyes will be opened--you will be able to distinguish good from evil!"

Gen 3:6 The woman was convinced. How lovely and fresh looking it was! And it would make her so wise! So she ate some of the fruit and gave some to her husband, and he ate it too.

Gen 3:7 And as they ate it, suddenly they became aware of their nakedness, and were embarrassed. So they strung fig leaves together to cover themselves around the hips.

Gen 3:8 That evening they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden; and they hid themselves among the trees.

Gen 3:9 The Lord God called to Adam, "Why are you hiding?"

Gen 3:10 And Adam replied, "I heard you coming and didn't want you to see me naked. So I hid."

Gen 3:11 "Who told you you were naked?" the Lord God asked. "Have you eaten fruit from the tree I warned you about?"

Gen 3:12 "Yes," Adam admitted, "but it was the woman you gave me who brought me some, and I ate it."

Gen 3:13 Then the Lord God asked the woman, "How could you do such a thing?" "The serpent tricked me," she replied.

Gen 3:14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, "This is your punishment: You are singled out from among all the domestic and wild animals of the whole earth--to be cursed. You shall grovel in the dust as long as you live, crawling along on your belly.

663 posted on 10/09/2002 9:18:24 PM PDT by Ready2go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies ]

To: jennyp
So your point is, that the picture is wrong? I would agree, but I know of no one attributing anything to that particular picture in these discussions. However, Scientific American has untruth about this following program(previously posted on this site) and actually uses it in argument


THE COMPUTER PROGRAM IN APPENDIX E IN "UPON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS" BY 
RICHARD HARDISON

10 REM 1984 R. HARDISON
11 PRINT "RANDOMIZING ALPHABET"
12 PRINT "WRITE HAMLET, KEEPING"
13 PRINT "SUCCESSES."
14 PRINT :; REM N-COUNTER: # OF TRIALS
15 REM T=COUNTER:REUSE "TO BE"
16 PRINT "SUBROUTINE TO
17 PRINT "RANDOMIZE AND SELECT"
18 PRINT "LETTER"
30 N = 0
40 FOR G = 1 TO 10
50 T = 0
60 GOTO 80
70 X = INT (26 * RND (1)) + 1: RETURN
80 GOSUB 70
90 N = N + 1
100 IF X = 20 THEN PRINT "T": IF X = 20 THEN GOTO 120
110 GOTO 60
120 N = N + 1
130 GOSUB 70
140 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN PRINT : IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 160
150 GOTO 120
160 N = N + 1
170 GOSUB 70
180 IF X = 2 THEN PRINT "B": IF X = 2 THEN GOTO 200
190 GOTO 160
200 N = N + 1
210 GOSUB 70
220 IF X = 5 THEN PRINT "E": IF X = 5 THEN PRINT : IF X = 5 THEN GOTO 240
230 GOTO 200
240 T = T + 1
250 IF T = 2 THEN GOTO 460
260 N = N + 1
270 GOSUB 70
280 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 300
290 GOTO 260
300 N = N + 1
310 GOSUB 70
320 IF X = 18 THEN PRINT "R": IF X = 18 THEN GOTO 340
330 GOTO 300
340 N = N + 1
350 GOSUB 70
360 IF X = 14 THEN PRINT "N": IF X = 14 THEN GOTO 380
370 GOTO 340
380 N = N + 1
390 GOSUB 70
400 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 420
410 GOTO 380
420 N = N + 1
430 GOSUB 70
440 IF X = 20 THEN PRINT "T": IF X = 20 THEN PRINT : IF X = 20 THEN GOTO 60
450 GOTO 420
460 PRINT "N=";N;" KEYS PRESSED TO WRITE 'TO BE OR NOT TO BE'"
470 PRINT "FOR";G;" RUN(S) OF PROGRAM"
480 PRINT
490 NEXT G
500 END
510 REM  IF THE PROGRAM WERE
511 REM  WRITTEN TO INCLUDE
512 REM  PUNCTUATION MARKS ETC.
513 REM  THE PROGRAM WOULD
514 REM  TAKE LONGER, BUT WOULD
515 REM  STILL NOT BE PROHIBI-
516 REM  TIVE
517 PRINT
518 PRINT  "WITH 3000 RUNS, THE MEAN"
519 PRINT  "# of trials=333"
520 PRINT  "THE MEAN TIME REQUIRED"
521 PRINT  "WAS .14 MINUTES TO PRINT"
522 PRINT  "TOBEORNOTTOBE"
-------------------------------
From this analysis of Darwin, Hamlet, Dawkins, Hardison, coincidence, and 
selective evolution, we may conclude that whether the reality of evolution is 
to be believed or not to be believed, methinks it is like a weasel of truth 
nonetheless.

Michael Shermer

668 posted on 10/09/2002 9:56:33 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson