Serpent now Slithers

[Imaginosis]

According to Genesis Chapter 3, God cursed the Serpent by saying it would now slither on the ground. Does this imply that snakes before the Fall had legs?

 

[dad]

According to Genesis Chapter 3, God cursed the Serpent by saying it would now slither on the ground. Does this imply that snakes before the Fall had legs?

I'd say yes, maybe even a different type of creature completely. Very importantly, it also shows that evolving, or adapting could then take place extremely fast!

 

[Mallon]

I'd say yes, maybe even a different type of creature completely. Very importantly, it also shows that evolving, or adapting could then take place extremely fast!

Except in this case, I don't think it could be argued that the snake "adapted" at all. It was not influenced by its environment to cope with new stresses. God simply lopped off its legs miraculously.

 

[Dannager]

Haha, it "adapted" to God's will?

 

[chaoschristian]

It was unnaturally selected.

Strike that.

It was supernaturally selected.

 

[Dannager]

It was unnaturally selected.

Strike that.

It was supernaturally selected.

There's a difference between the two?

 

[dad]

Except in this case, I don't think it could be argued that the snake "adapted" at all. It was not influenced by its environment to cope with new stresses. God simply lopped off its legs miraculously.

No. Some commentaries on the bible seem to think the serpent was quite a different creature. Not just a matter of some similar creature that may have had legs. So, it adapted or changed very quickly. Of course it was not some silly old age evolution reason for the change. Neither their timetable.
The past was quite different, and much closer in tune with God's will. He spake, things happened, it was linked quite directly. It was the order of the day. Natural selection did not apply, because what is now natural was then non existant!
All evolving and adapting even after the flood was much like this. Where did God know they needed to migrate? What changes were needed to adapt to a changing planet? What about all the death and dead meat that was around at the fall? A lot of meat eaters were needed. What about the changed climate likely after the flood? What if elephants needed to adapt to survive cold? No problem. All evolution is young earth cretion based. The paganistic Darwinistic speculations amd wild imaginations end up in some imaginary pond in some imaginary past. Ridiculous. It was Natural selection, not present natural selection. And no science can disagree!

 

[Willtor]

There's a difference between the two?

Typically, unnatural has negative connotations in any context.

 

[Mallon]

All evolving and adapting even after the flood was much like this. Where did God know they needed to migrate? What changes were needed to adapt to a changing planet? What about all the death and dead meat that was around at the fall? A lot of meat eaters were needed. What about the changed climate likely after the flood? What if elephants needed to adapt to survive cold? No problem. All evolution is young earth cretion based. The paganistic Darwinistic speculations amd wild imaginations end up in some imaginary pond in some imaginary past. Ridiculous. It was Natural selection, not present natural selection. And no science can disagree!

I fail to see how anything you say is scientific, let alone biblical. But I highly suggest you read the latter half of Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God to help shed some light on your rather minimalistic view of God, boxed-in to past events.
Besides, we know that God acted via naturalistic means in the past as He does today. Consider carefully the words of Genesis 2:4-5...

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth

 

[dad]

I fail to see how anything you say is scientific, let alone biblical. But I highly suggest you read the latter half of Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God to help shed some light on your rather minimalistic view of God, boxed-in to past events.

Sorry your grasp of science and the bible is such you can't even see that much. Keep up the studies, though, where there is life, there is hope.

Besides, we know that God acted via naturalistic means in the past as He does today. Consider carefully the words of Genesis 2:4-5...

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground


OK, I considered them. So this has what to do with anything here?

 

[Mallon]

OK, I considered them. So this has what to do with anything here?

"Sorry your grasp of science and the bible is such you can't even see that much."
(What's good for the goose is good for the gander. This is why we stick to objective, evidence-based science and quotable Scripture when discussing science and theology in these threads -- otherwise, we wind up copping out with veiled, un-Christian insults like this.)

 

[dad]

"Sorry your grasp of science and the bible is such you can't even see that much."
(What's good for the goose is good for the gander. This is why we stick to objective, evidence-based science and quotable Scripture when discussing science and theology in these threads -- otherwise, we wind up copping out with veiled, un-Christian insults like this.)

That things will be different and a new heavens coming, etc, and that there were big differences in the past is not something science can oppose, and you ought to know enough as to realize it is quite scriptural. Since you seem to miss these basics, what I said wasn't an insult, but an observation from your statement. I tried not to take your statement as an insult, though it sounded that to me.

I fail to see how anything you say is scientific, let alone biblical

So, if your grasp is pretty fair, rather than trying to say who is christian like or scientific or with or without the bible, why not make an actual point. For example, 'what you say, dad is unscientific, because the heavens will not really pass away, and new ones be revealed, because of these verses......'
Or, 'science tells us the heavens will never pass away, and could never be different, because....' etc.
After all, you don't want to come off sounding like a narrow minded religious whiner who doesn't know the bible much, and has some closeted idea of science that can't stand the light of day, do you? It might be best to avoid the appearance of that. But what do I know?

 

[Mallon]

That things will be different and a new heavens coming, etc, and that there were big differences in the past is not something science can oppose, and you ought to know enough as to realize it is quite scriptural.

I fail to see what is scriptural or scientific about your assertion that "the serpent was quite a different creature. Not just a matter of some similar creature that may have had legs. So, it adapted or changed very quickly."
Perhaps you can teach me.

Since you seem to miss these basics, what I said wasn't an insult, but an observation from your statement.

I will tell you what is insulting: your implication that I know neither the Bible nor good science, despite the fact that I have been brought up with the former, and have focused the last five years of my life seriously studying the latter in university. To be told by someone like yourself that I have a weak grasp of both the Bible and science -- so much so that I can't see the obvious -- is highly insulting and completely uninformed. There is nothing more annoying to a theistic evolutionist like myself than to travel the hard, faith-shaping road where science and religion meet, only to reach the end and have a fundamentalist such as yourself, who never left his comfort zone, waiting there to tell me that I'm naive and don't know what I'm talking about. Thankfully, from this side of the finish line, I feel closer to God now than ever before, and I no longer feel the need to deny scientific reality in the face of a literal reading of Genesis. Evolution is a beautiful thing and I see no good reason why the God of the Bible could not make use of it for His own good purpose. If, on the other hand, you chose to believe that modern snakes are simply hyper-evolved versions of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, that catastrophic plate tectonics is supported by the earth sciences, and that everyone on this Earth is deluded except yourself, then that's your perrogative. There is obviously no changing your mind no matter what the evidence set before you, and so I will no longer hold your assertions in this thread up to the light of reality.
End rant.

 

[dad]

I fail to see what is scriptural or scientific about your assertion that "the serpent was quite a different creature. Not just a matter of some similar creature that may have had legs. So, it adapted or changed very quickly."
Perhaps you can teach me.

I said
"Some commentaries on the bible seem to think the serpent was quite a different creature"

This is true, some do lean that way, whether you fail to see it or not. How different, I guess we really don't know. Different enough, however to mean that it was very different, and was changed. We have rapid change right from the getgo. No doubt.

I will tell you what is insulting: your implication that I know neither the Bible nor good science, despite the fact that I have been brought up with the former, and have focused the last five years of my life seriously studying the latter in university. To be told by someone like yourself that I have a weak grasp of both the Bible and science -- so much so that I can't see the obvious -- is highly insulting and completely uninformed.

It was solely based on your own comments! Are you now claiming that you are misinformed as well!!?? Fine. Since I don't know you from Adam, I'll have to take your word for it.

There is nothing more annoying to a theistic evolutionist like myself than to travel the hard, faith-shaping road where science and religion meet, only to reach the end and have a fundamentalist such as yourself, who never left his comfort zone, waiting there to tell me that I'm naive and don't know what I'm talking about.

You may have travelled to the edges of the fishbowl, but apparently failed to realize that there were edges, and limits. Faith doesn't just meet the limits, it leaves pitiful little box science in the PO dust there, and sails of to a glorious undisputible eternity as seen in the bible!

Thankfully, from this side of the finish line, I feel closer to God now than ever before, and I no longer feel the need to deny scientific reality in the face of a literal reading of Genesis.

Now, once again, would this be what you think is victory, or defeat?

Evolution is a beautiful thing and I see no good reason why the God of the Bible could not make use of it for His own good purpose.

Me too. Any evolving was an ability He gave His creations. -Those 6000 years ago.

If, on the other hand, you chose to believe that modern snakes are simply hyper-evolved versions of the serpent in the Garden of Eden, that catastrophic plate tectonics is supported by the earth sciences, and that everyone on this Earth is deluded except yourself, then that's your perrogative. There is obviously no changing your mind no matter what the evidence set before you, and so I will no longer hold your assertions in this thread up to the light of reality.
End rant.

Of course I believe the bible. Of course you are shown to have nothing but rants to offer in leui of proofs and evidences. If you claim bible or science, make a case accordingly, if you can next time. Rather than just brag how clever you think you are with them.

 

[Redwolf]

According to Genesis Chapter 3, God cursed the Serpent by saying it would now slither on the ground. Does this imply that snakes before the Fall had legs?

Isn't this cool?

"Ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the sky, they will tell you; or speak to the earth, it will teach you; the fish of the sea they will inform you" (Job
12:7-8).

It would seem so.

New Fossil Snake With Legs, Reported In Science

Washington, D.C. -- Appearing like the punchline to an evolutionary riddle, a new fossil snake with legs has emerged from 95 million year-old deposits near Jerusalem. Its sedimentary surroundings suggest a seafaring lifestyle for this ancient reptile, but its advanced anatomy could overturn a current theory about the marine origin of snakes.

Cool, isn't it? I read about it in our newspaper.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm

 

[dad]

Isn't this cool?

"Ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the sky, they will tell you; or speak to the earth, it will teach you; the fish of the sea they will inform you" (Job
12:7-8).

It would seem so.

New Fossil Snake With Legs, Reported In Science

Washington, D.C. -- Appearing like the punchline to an evolutionary riddle, a new fossil snake with legs has emerged from 95 million year-old deposits near Jerusalem. Its sedimentary surroundings suggest a seafaring lifestyle for this ancient reptile, but its advanced anatomy could overturn a current theory about the marine origin of snakes.

Cool, isn't it? I read about it in our newspaper.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm

Yes, but perhaps the serpent was changed from a different creature. Something, say, that used to walk upright, or maybe fly, etc.? If that were the case, the serpent with the legs would only be some adaption, or variety of the changed creature.

 

[Imaginosis]

"Ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the sky, they will tell you; or speak to the earth, it will teach you; the fish of the sea they will inform you" (Job
12:7-8).

It would seem so.

New Fossil Snake With Legs, Reported In Science

Washington, D.C. -- Appearing like the punchline to an evolutionary riddle, a new fossil snake with legs has emerged from 95 million year-old deposits near Jerusalem. Its sedimentary surroundings suggest a seafaring lifestyle for this ancient reptile, but its advanced anatomy could overturn a current theory about the marine origin of snakes.

Cool, isn't it? I read about it in our newspaper.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm

Way cool. I'll check it out. Some of my friends are herpetologist and we discuss this issue.