cyborgVision said:
: I was trying to be as polite with you as I possibly could but your comments are really insulting Alan.
You can take them as insulting or as instructive. I would hope you'd do the latter.
: 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.
That's about what I thought. And that's why I turned your own words back on you about checking your facts.
: It was an honest mistake, which I regret.
An honest mistake that took two posts from me to get you to investigate the link I gave you in the first one.
: Still that doesn?t discount other accumulated archeological evidence which points toward snakes with limbs.
True, but once again, irrelevant. Irrelevant because not a single poster has disputed the fact that snakes once had legs. The only comments that directly said anything about this were, in fact, supportive of the idea that snakes once had legs, which is in line with modern evolutionary thought. Note these:
AlanF: It's a pretty stupid concept, snakes having legs very recently.
BrendaCloutier: That snakes had legs is not totally outta line with evolution.
AlanF: This URL even makes clear that the discovery of a fossil snake with legs supports evolution, not creation.
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 . . . However, for snakes to have had legs as recently as 6,000 years ago is pretty stupid
AlanF: 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.
So, just which poster/s do you still think dispute the fact that snakes once had legs?
: Instead of trying to attack my sanity why not have a constructive discussion for a change?
That's what I've been trying to do. Unfortunately, you seem unable to carefully read what people say and comprehend it. It's extremely difficult to have a constructive discussion with someone who ignores what you say, and can't seem to understand the written word.
For example, after both I and BrendaCloutier made remarks that show we agree that snakes once had legs (but obviously, not a mere 6000 years ago), and no one had disputed this, you said about the links you had posted:
cyborgVision: Did any of you actually read this
cyborgVision: Your eagerness to discount anything and everything you've read from the bible might prevent you to examine clear scientific evidence.
But no one had discounted what those links said! How did you manage to come to such a wrong conclusion?
And it's pretty obvious from this last remark that you're stating outright that a number of posters are so prejudiced against the Bible that they're willing to discount clear scientific evidence.
And again, after you posted those links, the only comments made were supportive of the fact that, according to modern evolutionary thought, snakes once had legs:
AlanF: This URL even makes clear that the discovery of a fossil snake with legs supports evolution, not creation.
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 . . . However, for snakes to have had legs as recently as 6,000 years ago is pretty stupid
AlanF: 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.
And even after all this, in your post after this one here, to which I'm replying, you posted two more links and said:
: Plenty of other sites stating that snakes possibly at one stage did have legs for quite some time after exiting primordial waters
Which proves that, even after this stuff has been explained to you at least twice, you still don't get it.
So how do you expect to hold an intelligent written discussion when you demonstrably don't comprehend what you read?
: 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.
See what I mean? You just don't get it. I didn't compare a theory about snakes once having limbs to flat-earthism; I compared the theory that God's curse removed snakes' limbs 6000 years ago 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.
I'm glad that you finally made a clear statement about what your point was.
: So why is it so difficult to accept by most people that such creatures might have existed?
It isn't. Which poster/s do you think have difficulty accepting that?
: 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.)
And? Did I not already state that "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"?
: 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.
No, but because of your above statement that obviously castigates doubters of Genesis, and because your postings of links to sites showing that snakes once had legs when no one had disputed that would be pointless, and I assumed that your posts were not pointless, the only conclusion left was that you were obliquely trying to give evidence that supports a Fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis.
So really, after your denial here, I can only conclude that your posts are almost completely pointless, because you're preaching to the choir. But not just gently reminding the choir of certain facts, but demanding that the choir change its mind.
: Simply refered to and I say it again that it all might have had some basis in reality, thats all
The notion that snakes once had legs has some basis in reality, that's true.
: 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?
Well why didn't you say so in the first place? Why the posting of links to websites that supported what various posters had said, as if they had said the opposite?
Nevertheless, your argument, while I'm sure that it's sometimes valid, still doesn't apply to the Genesis/snakes thing. Evolutionary history proves that snakes once had a full complement of legs, but probably no later than perhaps 100-150 million years ago. The notion that snakes had legs a mere 6000 years ago isn't even in the ballpark.
What's your point again?
: I do not attack your personality
Nor did I attack yours. I did draw attention to your difficulty with reading comprehension, just as I've done in this post. This difficulty is a demonstrable fact, not an ad hominem.
: so I do not expect you would do that to me either, lets treat each other as professionals.
Like I said, it's difficult to hold a professional conversation with someone who fails to comprehend 3/4 of what is said, or who fails to comprehend even after having it explained several times.
AlanF
