# someone is sssssupressssing the truth; picture in article



## turmeric (Apr 19, 2006)

here's the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/19/fossil.snake.ap/index.html


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 20, 2006)

That does it. I just put black marker through the first couple chapters of Genesis.


----------



## JeremyConrad (Apr 20, 2006)

Well, maybe original serpents DID have legs . . . but then . . . they lost them here:

the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, 
"Cursed are you above all the livestock 
and all the wild animals! 
You will crawl on your belly 
and you will eat dust 
all the days of your life. (Gen. 3:14)







[Edited on 4-20-2006 by JeremyConrad]


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 20, 2006)

Jeremy, that was my first thought too. In fact, I emailed my wife as soon as I saw the article and said they had found the pre-fall snake.

Imagine how impressive a two-legged talking snake would look to our first parents. Talk about cunning.

But I wonder why the call it an evolution. It seems like loosing your legs would be devolution.

But I got a kick out of them giving it the Hebrew name. At least some evolutionists have a sense of humor, or maybe it is dread.

Vic


----------



## Scott (Apr 20, 2006)

Would there have been enough time prior to the fall for a snake to die?


----------



## turmeric (Apr 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> Well, maybe original serpents DID have legs . . . but then . . . they lost them here:
> 
> the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
> ...


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Apr 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JeremyConrad_
> Well, maybe original serpents DID have legs . . . but then . . . they lost them here:
> 
> the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,
> ...



is the curse on the serpent pronounced on all snakes or just that one?

there doesn't appear to be a way to distinguish between these two possibilities from the text. what reason would there be for cursing an entire suborder for the activities of one. Unless you propose a sort of federal headship for all snakes here?

it is more natural to the text that the curse is just on this one particular serpent.
and says nothing about the ~2500 of species in the suborder serpentes.


----------



## Nomos (Apr 22, 2006)

Richard asked:

"is the curse on the serpent pronounced on all snakes or just that one?"

Since the curse seems to be, "Cursed are you above all the livestock 
and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust 
all the days of your life.", and all serpents seem to be in this position, I suppose one might conclude the curse is upon all serpents, but that would be affirming the consequent in the form of:

If the curse applies to all serpents, then all serpents will crawl on their belly. All serpents crawl on their belly, therefore the curse applies to all serpents.

After all, there are other mamals that crawl on their bellies and eat dust (like the Pygopodidae family). I guess I don't know. What difference does it make anyway?


----------



## LarryCook (Apr 22, 2006)

Matthew 15:14
Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."


----------

