Do Creationists Believe in Talking Snakes?

[Job 33:6]

I am no Evolutionist by any means, but there are fish with feet that exist in our real world today.

The second photo is not of a fish but of an amphibian called an axolotl.

Axolotl - Wikipedia

It is a salamander. Which is a distant relative of tetrapodomophs that were transitional between fish and reptiles.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is just embarrassing. Dinosaurs have been gone for millions of years.

You have been fed the lie that the earth is millions of years old so much that it has become fact to you. Try reading the Bible more and you will not come away with the conclusion that the Earth is millions of years old. For starters: Just look at the genealogy of Jesus Christ in the line of Mary in Luke chapter 3. Oh, and did you watch the entire video all the way through?

As much as the hovind family wants to keep the dream alive, in this modern day of advanced technology, where we can use satellite images to track people around the planet, nobody on earth has any evidence for a currently living dinosaur. Or even further, we don't have any evidence of currently living early cenozoic mega fauna either. Because they've been gone for millions of years.

These guys look like they're just trying to sell their books. Nothing more than con artists.

I don't watch the Creation Today Show anymore. In fact, I disagree with the concept of a Creation Ministry. Our ministry is Jesus Christ and not the creation of the world. Yes, I know they at times will talk about Jesus, but that is not good enough. Jesus is the one in whom we preach and it is not Genesis or the creation, or that the Earth is young. Yes, I believe the Earth is young. But that is not what we preach. We preach Jesus Christ and His saving grace, and how He can change our lives. Anyways, my point here is that even a partially blind squirrel can find a nut. The point is not that dragons may exist still today, but they existed in recent history before all the satellites or monitoring technology we have today.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The second photo is not of a fish but of an amphibian called an axolotl.

Axolotl - Wikipedia

It is a salamander. Which is a distant relative of tetrapodomophs that were transitional between fish and reptiles.

By whose authority? Some guy in a room who has a lot of Science degrees? Is this creature a Transformer? Looks like a fish to me. For if I were to draw a picture of this creature for you and I did not show you the angle of its feet in my drawing, and I asked you “what is this?” You would say “it's a fish.” So let's stop thinking wordly Scientists (who reject God) determine the truth of things.

 

[Job 33:6]

You have been fed the lie that the earth is millions of years old so much that it has become fact to you. Try reading the Bible more and you will not come away with the conclusion that the Earth is millions of years old. For starters: Just look at the genealogy of Jesus Christ in the line of Mary in Luke chapter 3. Oh, and did you watch the entire video all the way through?



I don't watch the Creation Today Show anymore. In fact, I disagree with the concept of a Creation Ministry. Our ministry is Jesus Christ and not the creation of the world. Yes, I know they at times will talk about Jesus, but that is not good enough. Jesus is the one in whom we preach and it is not Genesis or the creation, or that the Earth is young. Yes, I believe the Earth is young. But that is not what we preach. We preach Jesus Christ and His saving grace, and how He can change our lives. Anyways, my point here is that even a partially blind squirrel can find a nut. The point is not that dragons may exist still today, but they existed in recent history before all the satellites or monitoring technology we have today.

At the end of the day, this idea that dinosaurs even existed just a couple thousand years ago, is similar to ideas of bigfood or the loch ness monster or even things like ghosts or ufos (aliens in particular).

People always enjoy proposing ideas and giving fractional evidence. Here's a blurry image of something in the woods or something in the water. I heard a noise in my attic etc.

But none of the above goes any further.

And the reason that none of it goes any further, is because these beliefs are limited to the imagination of those proposing it. They simply aren't real.

And there's nothing really the people who propose these ideas can do about it. Sure, they can write books about Bigfoot, sure they can make these TV shows where they run around with cameras with infrared imaging where they see an object in the distance but then they can't catch it.

People can definitely make money off of these ideas. Indeed we see right there in the YouTube video These people selling books. The people who made your YouTube video are making money off of these ideas. But they don't actually have anything substantial to back it all up.

They really are con artists. Making money off of ideas that cannot be supported.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I believe Satan possessed or influenced the serpent, but the serpent is not a code word for Satan (with no actual real serpent present).

But satan is called the serpent in Revelations 12 brother.

And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭12:9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Job 33:6]

By whose authority? Some guy in a room who has a lot of Science degrees? Is this creature a Transformer? Looks like a fish to me. For if I were to draw a picture of this creature for you and I did not show you the angle of its feet in my drawing, and I asked you “what is this?” You would say “it's a fish.” So let's stop thinking wordly Scientists (who reject God) determine the truth of things.

They aren't fish based on genetics and morphology.

You can call an elephant a fish too if you want to. But that's just not what it is. It's an axolotl, which is a salamander.

Axolotl - Wikipedia

I would agree that people 2,000 years ago might have thought dinosaurs still lived if they saw a dinosaur skull. Even people on more modern times thought that extinct animals were still alive upon finding their fossils.

But that's just not the reality of the history of earth.

Dinosaurs have been gone for a long time. Long before people were ever created.

And all we have to do is ask ourselves the simple question of why dinosaur fossils aren't found in paleozoic or cenozoic strata. We find plenty of dinosaur bones in Mesozoic rocks. And that's why people always travel to the Midwest to collect dinosaurs. But we don't really see people collecting dinosaurs in Florida or in New England Appalachia, or more specifically in any non mesozoic rock.

And it's really that simple.

Sure, guys like hovind would give some questionable image of a human footprint inside a dinosaur footprint. They may even show pictures of an alleged cave painting of an unknown painter in an unknown location of an abstract nature with no further evidence.

But again, it's just like the bigfoot chasers. They can show blurry and questionable images all day to sell their books, but if such things truly existed, their existence would be common knowledge. Not abstract observations through con artist book sales.

 

[BNR32FAN]

By whose authority? Some guy in a room who has a lot of Science degrees? Is this creature a Transformer? Looks like a fish to me. For if I were to draw a picture of this creature for you and I did not show you the angle of its feet in my drawing, and I asked you “what is this?” You would say “it's a fish.” So let's stop thinking wordly Scientists (who reject God) determine the truth of things.

Well I think the determining factor would be does it have gills and is it required to breathe air in order to survive. If I’m not mistaken this is the defining characteristics that separate fish from amphibians.

 

[Job 33:6]

Well I think the determining factor would be does it have gills and is it required to breathe air in order to survive. If I’m not mistaken this is the defining characteristics that separate fish from amphibians.

It's common for salamanders to have gills. But salamanders are not fish. They're amphibians, like frogs.

In fact, at early stages in their lives, frogs also have gills. But we know that frogs are not fish.

Aside from genome sequencing, with respect to anatomy, salamanders have bones on their feet. Whereas fish just use fins.

So in bibles pictures, he posted a yellow fish that used fins to walk. But the axolotl has bones in it's feet.

 

[renniks]

The swine possessed by demons expelled from “Legion” did not talk. All they did was destroy themselves.

Have you noticed that nowhere in the Bible is there are command not to listen to talking animals? Where is the command: “If an animal talks to you, don’t listen, the animal is possessed by a demon.” I’ve seen no such verse, and that’s probably because a devil speaking through a possessed animal is impossible.

God can speak through a donkey, but Satan can't speak through a snake?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well I think the determining factor would be does it have gills and is it required to breathe air in order to survive. If I’m not mistaken this is the defining characteristics that separate fish from amphibians.

Then what do you make of mudskippers?

They can breath on land, and yet they have gills, too.

Read more at this article here:
Mudskippers-Fish Out of Water - NWF | Ranger Rick

Does the Bible classify fish in this same way Science does, though? What if God classified animals based on their appearance and not in how we classify them?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well I think the determining factor would be does it have gills and is it required to breathe air in order to survive. If I’m not mistaken this is the defining characteristics that separate fish from amphibians.

Also, the axolotl has three pairs of external gills. It is a creature that looks like a fish, but it is classified as an amphibian. But it has gills.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's common for salamanders to have gills. But salamanders are not fish. They're amphibians, like frogs.

In fact, at early stages in their lives, frogs also have gills. But we know that frogs are not fish.

Aside from genome sequencing, with respect to anatomy, salamanders have bones on their feet. Whereas fish just use fins.

So in bibles pictures, he posted a yellow fish that used fins to walk. But the axolotl has bones in it's feet.

But it looks like a fish. If I were to draw you a picture of a fish, you would say it is a fish. What if God classified animals differently than the way secular worldly Science (that rejects GOD) classifies them? You do realize that adherents of popular Science of our day rejects GOD, right? So why should we follow their classifications? Should we not go to the Bible instead? Granted, the Bible does not classify the animal kingdom on the same level as Science does, but I think that is the point.

 

[Tolworth John]

I assume that you are advocating what has been called newspaper exegesis. How do you know that God intended the Bible to be read as we read a modern newspaper? There were no newspapers when the books of the Bible were written.

I haven’t noticed that creationists are concerned about accuracy. For instance, many creationists believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, although no book of the Bible says any such thing. Creationists simply retain ideas they find interesting, or easy to understand, and dismiss or reject anything they find uninteresting.

No I am advocating two things.
That it be demonstrate how one should understand the many strange events in the Bible.
And that we should be consistent in how we understand the Bible.
If genesis creation account is really thousands or millions of years then references to that same period should also be understood in terms of the same time period.

 

[Toro]

Animals make noises, have you never heard "the cow says... "moo" ..or the dog says "bark".?

Is it really so far fetched that before the fall of babble where language got muddled that man could understand what these noises meant?

Even with this language barrier that exists today, when my cat meows and is looking at me, I know she wants treats, food or to go for a walk...... guess to the person that believes a serpent couldnt "talk" in the garden believes that a cat saying "meow" is just a figure of speech.

Or, that by the same logic, that Chinese people, Spanish speaking people or anyone speaking a language they themselves do not understand... do not really speak at all.

Animals even to this day communicate, people are no different, lack of understanding what is said doesnt invalidate it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The second photo is not of a fish but of an amphibian called an axolotl.

Axolotl - Wikipedia

It is a salamander. Which is a distant relative of tetrapodomophs that were transitional between fish and reptiles.

There is no such thing as a transitional fossil. God just made the creature that way (without any Evolution involved). Macro Evolution is a lie, my friend. Darwin (who at the time of his life was an atheist) is the father of Macroevolution. Jesus says a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. So his thoughts were based upon a worldview that rejected God. That is why Macro-Evolution exists. Jeffrey Dahmer said he believed in the lie Macro-Evolution. For he said he did not have to be held accountable to a creator God if everyone just came from the slime. It's no doubt why he killed. Life is meaningless if everything can be explained away by nature means (Which is what Macro-Evolution does). Jeffrey gave his life to Christ before he was killed. You can check out his testimony here:

 

[Norbert L]

What I have read is that the serpent/snake being on the ground and 'eating dirt' is a reminder to mankind of what Satan is like and how God is in control.

I can see that too. It just occurs to me there's a difference between reading the Bible as a textbook versus a non-fiction novel. Because when you start dealing with dialogue between two characters, it's much less about symbolism and more about motive.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, the axolotl has three pairs of external gills. It is a creature that looks like a fish, but it is classified as an amphibian. But it has gills.

Look at it's skeleton. It has feet bones rather than walking on fins. It's a salamander. And not just feet bones but it has very explicit digits and rotating wrists.

Frogs look much like the above in their nymph stage. Do you think frogs are fish too?

 

[Job 33:6]

There is no such thing as a transitional fossil. God just made the creature that way (without any Evolution involved). Macro Evolution is a lie, my friend. Darwin (who at the time of his life was an atheist) is the father of Macroevolution. Jesus says a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. So his thoughts were based upon a worldview that rejected God. That is why Macro-Evolution exists. Jeffrey Dahmer said he believed in the lie Macro-Evolution. For he said he did not have to be held accountable to a creator God if everyone just came from the slime. It's no doubt why he killed. Life is meaningless if everything can be explained away by nature means (Which is what Macro-Evolution does). Jeffrey gave his life to Christ before he was killed. You can check out his testimony here:

Saying "it's a lie" doesn't erase the synchronization of phylogenetic trees. And being confused about what is a fish and what is an amphibian also doesn't help your case. How could anyone ever know the first thing about evolution if they don't know the difference between fish and amphibians?

 

[Job 33:6]

Look at it's skeleton. It has feet bones rather than walking on fins. It's a salamander. And not just feet bones but it has very explicit digits and rotating wrists.

Frogs look much like the above in their nymph stage. Do you think frogs are fish too?

Here's a picture of a frog or more specifically, a tadpole that has not undergone metamorphosis. It does look somewhat like a fish. But in fact, it is not.

The axolotl really is a similar case. It holds features of a nymph stage, but it is more specifically an amphibian. It is genetically and morphologically distinct from fish. See examples of their skeleton below:

 

[Job 33:6]

But it looks like a fish. If I were to draw you a picture of a fish, you would say it is a fish. What if God classified animals differently than the way secular worldly Science (that rejects GOD) classifies them? You do realize that adherents of popular Science of our day rejects GOD, right? So why should we follow their classifications? Should we not go to the Bible instead? Granted, the Bible does not classify the animal kingdom on the same level as Science does, but I think that is the point.

I was merely pointing out that the axolotl is not a fish by any modern terms. Sure, maybe 2,000 years ago someone saw a frog and called it a fish as well. And sure, maybe God has completely different words for things. Maybe God calls giraffes by the name of "zanzibars".

But by no modern classification is an axolotl a fish. Nor is a frog a fish, nor is a giraffe a fish. But rather, it is cladistically an amphibian. And this is an important distinction.

Dolphins look a lot like fish too, but they are not fish. They are warm blooded, air breathing mammals.