did snakes have legs

by tijkmo 77 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  AlanF

  cyborgVision said:

  : I agree that it may sound incredible but not entirely improbable, whether you believe in god or evolution. In fact, taking evolution in this matter seems easier as it would explain bizarre randomness. Read this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm

  I'm not entirely sure where you were trying to go with this post, but your subsequent posts suggest to me that you're trying to suggest that the Genesis account of snakes losing their legs (as claimed by the Watchtower Society) has credibility. With that assumption in mind, I'll comment further:

  First, I think that tijkmo's title for the thread, "did snakes have legs", is somewhat misleading in terms of the question addressed by the Watchtower in the "Questions from Readers" article. Note that question again:

  Did the serpent lose legs or feet as means of movement as a result of the divine curse recorded at Genesis 3:14?

  The point is not about whether snakes ever had legs, but whether they had legs and then lost them as a result of a divine curse. As Genesis 3:14 mentions (quoted from tijkmo's post):

  Upon your belly you will go and dust is what you will eat all the days of your life.

  The Watchtower then comments:

  This is the only place in the Bible where any indication is given that the serpent did not at one time travel on its belly. . . for the symbolic application of this judgment upon the wicked spirit creature who became Satan to have any force there must be a fulfillment of it in the literal serpent, which has come to symbolize Satan. It, therefore, is reasonable to conclude that before God cursed it the serpent possessed legs that elevated it above the ground. As he had the power to create the serpent in the first place, God had the power to transform its body so that it ceased to have legs and was able to move about on its belly.

  Understanding this, I commented:

  It's a pretty stupid concept, snakes having legs very recently. Imagine putting four legs on a modern snake. The body is so long that it wouldn't be able to support its own weight. That alone clobbers the Watchtower's idea.

  Apparently not understanding most of this, you gave a link to an article that discussed the discovery of a fossil snake that had legs: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm . However, the fossil snake only possessed hind legs -- which doesn't do much for the Genesis story. Furthermore, the article clearly stated:

  Rieppel said that it is difficult to tell how the legs themselves might have been used, since they are too small in relation to the animal's whole body to have any locomotor function. Modern pythons have a rudimentary hindlimb, usually little more than a "claw" of cartilage tipped with bone that they use during mating and occasional fighting, and it is possible that Haasiophis' leg served a similar purpose.

  Clearly, this provides no support at all for the Watchtower Society's comments about a snake's legs, but is completely in line with the evolutionary notion that snakes evolved from legged lizards.

  Later, you posted a picture of what is apparently a snake with legs, from this URL: http://dakotabirding.com/Snake_wlegs.jpg . You commented:

  : Its great to have opinionated discussion but perhaps sometimes you've gotta check your fact too

  I have no idea how you found that URL, but a little checking found a similar picture at that website: http://dakotabirding.com/garter.htm . The accompanying caption said:

  The garter snake was first observed and thought to have legs. On closer view, we could see it was swallowing a frog and was almost completely done. It ended up spitting the whole thing out later since it couldn't get it further down. (May 25, 2002 Photo: Jean Legge)

  So the picture is actually nothing more than a snake swallowing a frog! You've gotta check your facts!

  In your last post you said:

  : Or haw about this: http://www.smu.edu/newsinfo/releases/99256.html

  : Your eagerness to discount anything and everything you've read from the bible might prevent you to examine clear scientific evidence.

  I think it's clear by now that you haven't checked the facts or the evidence, or even understood the question. This URL even makes clear that the discovery of a fossil snake with legs supports evolution, not creation.

  AlanF
• 

  EvilForce

  Thanks Alan,
  
  I was looking at that picture thinking.....the legs are right next to it's jaw, and snakes have detachable jaws....oh wait he's swallowing something.
  
  The leg strcture was also backwards from anything I have ever seen before which made me look twice at it.
  
  So the winged serpent is my bet if we are betting!
• 

  jeanniebeanz

  I don't have a problem with snakes having legs if you are going to use evolution as an argument as to why it may have been possible in the distant past, and part of that group memory made it into a creation myth which culminated in the garden of eden story.

  However, for snakes to have had legs as recently as 6,000 years ago is pretty stupid, as is the idea that God would have taken his anger at Satan out on the puppet he used to trick the lady, and curse an entire species over something they had no control over...

  J
• 

  IronGland

  In one of the older publications from the 40's or 50's I cant quite remember, there was an illustration of Eve being tempted by the snake and the snake was pictured with legs.
• 

  cyborgVision

  Alan

  I think you should not read into my post beyond of what I have written, I think I'm pretty consistent with all my posting and respect other people opinion without labeling them as stupid. (No self-respecting academic would ever do that.) Something that many people here can learn from I'd imagine. I don't care about Genesis account, all I pointed out was that it is not entirely "stupid" idea that snake may have had legs. (that's all, so let's leave it at that)

  I'm open minded enough to at least consider all possibilities without labeling them as outlandish.

  I do not know enough about Hebrew theology to be able to make judgment what was meant as figurative and what as literal. What I do know is that there's still a lot to be learned and discovered before we know full story. Labeling something as stupid basically closed the door to reach any level of rationality about the issue at hand.

  By the way by insisting that it is "stupid idea" you are using same tactic as many religionists. Which only lead to quorrel and opposing side will never listen. So what are you gaining? At least I do try to use science in all my arguments without resorting to labeling.

  I think people here are way too much focused on "proving" that WTS is wrong, to me its like trying to prove that moron really needs psychiatric attention. What's to prove???
  Move on.

  p.s. and that about whether it was possible that snake had legs 6000 years ago I don't know but I know that above photo was taken 2 years ago, go figure. I'd imagine that that part of original DNA sequence may still be hiding somewhere.
• 

  ShadowX

  

  I don't know C why you are even bothering with them, most of them have little more than high school lunch time
• 

  IT Support

  NeonMadman,

  Thanks, that's much clearer!

  Is that Quotes' CD you have?
• 

  AlanF

  cyborgVision said:

  : I think you should not read into my post beyond of what I have written,

  Then your comments were pointless, because you completely misunderstood the point of the post. Even after I've spelled it out for you, you still don't get the point. Let me spell it out for you in as simple English as I can manage:

  The original poster's point was not about whether snakes ever had legs. The point was about whether "the curse" of God removed snakes' legs.

  I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand. I even bolded this information in my last post.

  : I think I'm pretty consistent with all my posting and respect other people opinion without labeling them as stupid. (No self-respecting academic would ever do that.)

  So far as I can see, no one labeled you stupid. Do point out where someone did, if you disagree. Various posters have stated that the idea that God removed snakes legs 6000 years ago is stupid. There's a big difference between labeling a person stupid and saying (an even demonstrating) that an idea is stupid.

  The idea that the earth is flat is stupid, given what we know today. The idea that God removed snakes' legs 6000 years ago is stupid, given what we know today.

  I'll leave you to judge whether a person who believes the earth is flat is stupid.

  : Something that many people here can learn from I'd imagine. I don't care about Genesis account, all I pointed out was that it is not entirely "stupid" idea that snake may have had legs. (that's all, so let's leave it at that)

  Which again shows that you entirely misunderstood the point of the original post, and failed to understand my attempt to clue you in.

  : I'm open minded enough to at least consider all possibilities without labeling them as outlandish.

  So you'd be willing to consider the possibility that the earth is flat without labeling it as outlandish?

  I think not.

  : I do not know enough about Hebrew theology to be able to make judgment what was meant as figurative and what as literal.

  Once again, that's irrelevant to the point of the thread. The point is about what Fundamentalists like the Jehovah's Witnesses believe to be literal -- that real, live snakes had literal legs until God literally removed them.

  : What I do know is that there's still a lot to be learned and discovered before we know full story. Labeling something as stupid basically closed the door to reach any level of rationality about the issue at hand.

  I see. I guess I'll have to change my mind about your willingness to consider that the earth might be flat.

  : By the way by insisting that it is "stupid idea"

  Ah! A bit of light! But above, you claimed that you were being labeled stupid. Which is it?

  : you are using same tactic as many religionists. Which only lead to quorrel and opposing side will never listen. So what are you gaining?

  The same thing as people do who label Flat-Earthism stupid. What do you think that might be?

  : At least I do try to use science in all my arguments without resorting to labeling.

  The fact that you don't seem able to understand simple English pretty much disqualifies you from attempting to use science for anything at all.

  The fact that you posted a picture of a snake gobbling down a frog and labeled it "a snake with legs" proves that your ability to use the scientific method needs much honing before it becomes useful.

  : I think people here are way too much focused on "proving" that WTS is wrong, to me its like trying to prove that moron really needs psychiatric attention. What's to prove??? Move on.

  A lot of people are still saddled with a mass of stupid Watchtower ideas. They often need help to "move on" because there's so much nonsense they learned as JWs. The point of threads like this is to help them move on.

  : p.s. and that about whether it was possible that snake had legs 6000 years ago I don't know

  Well you should know. Evolution doesn't work that fast. Alternatively, are you waffling on the reliability of a literal interpretation of Genesis?

  : but I know that above photo was taken 2 years ago, go figure.

  Geez! A recent photo of a snake gobbling down a frog! Who woulda thunk it!

  I think that your statement here demonstrates that you have difficulty comprehending simple English.

  : I'd imagine that that part of original DNA sequence may still be hiding somewhere.

  Ditto.

  AlanF
• 

  Emma

  In one of my old congregations, a young ms gave his first public talk and talked about j's curse on snakes. He said you could tell that snakes once had legs because if you threw one in a bonfire, when the flesh burned off you could see holes where the legs would have been!

  The boe were all over him at the conclusion of his talk!
• 

  cyborgVision

  I was trying to be as polite with you as I possibly could but your comments are really insulting Alan.

  First, I did make mistake with above photo, it was emailed to me a while ago. Now looking at the original address it seems so. In a moment I did think it was a mutant. A living specimen like in the case of Coelacanth.
  
  It was an honest mistake, which I regret. Still that doesn?t discount other accumulated archeological evidence which points toward snakes with limbs.
  Instead of trying to attack my sanity why not have a constructive discussion for a change?
  After all many of my professional colleagues have even more outlandish theories than snake with limbs and no one compares their work with flat-earthism.

  Referring back to my original argument, I'm not trying to prove or disprove Eden legend. What I am saying is that many of old legends have their roots in reality whether you like it or not. And bible is not unique in that regard, similar legends can be found all over the world.
  
  So why is it so difficult to accept by most people that such creatures might have existed? JW of course interpret that part of Hebrew theology (Eden event) literally just as the bible says, but they are not the only religion to do so as you well know. (Not sure how it is viewed in Judaism where everything originated.)
  BUT I didn't even try to go into discussion of any kind of divine curse as you can well discern in my other posting. Simply refered to and I say it again that it all might have had some basis in reality, thats all

  Still, and i maintain, there is quite a mountain of evidence that suggest that many of old legends did have their roots in reality. (In this case being that there were creatures with characteristics unlike anything we can see today)
  And that is my whole argument. Can you accept it as such please?

  I do not attack your personality so I do not expect you would do that to me either, lets treat each other as professionals.