4 Legged Snake Discovered.

i always thought snakes evolved over time to loose their legs.

but im learning that god got pissed at snakes one day and took their legs away suddenly.

now to figure out why nearly all boas and pythons still have visible rear leg appendages.

guess God wasn't so thorough when he was getting rid of the legs. heck he even screwed over some innocent lizards and took their legs away too although he was mad at snakes. yeah there are legless lizards, thanks god I'm sure the lizards really appreciated that. kinda like he screwed over Eve for eating an Apple because he didn't give her the knowledge to know any better just said dont, and do everything I say, doesnt matter that i purposely made you dumb and without knowledge to understand and obey. sounds like God was on a bender that day...or just is crazy. great a psychopath at the helm just what humanity needs.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Revolution9

You make it seem like they didn't know the difference between a serpent and a lizard, that would be incorrect. I'm pretty sure they knew the difference.

Leviticus 11:29
29 “And these are unclean to you among the swarming things that swarm on the ground: the mole rat, the mouse, the great lizard of any kind, 30 the gecko, the monitor lizard, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. 31 These are unclean to you among all that swarm."

Whether we believe it or not, according to the Biblical tale the serpent had legs before he tempted Eve. The legs were removed because of what the serpent did. If the God of the Bible is real then doing such a thing would not be impossible would it?

I clearly stated in my post that the ancient Hebrews DID know the difference. Read my post. I said we should give them credit for being able to spot that a snake is pretty much a lizard without legs. It is a species development on a theme.

What I said is that the serpent had legs at the time it tempted Eve. God took its legs away for being naughty. A snake with legs has been found and it looks like a close relative of the burrowing lizards. The snake evolved out of the lizard.

If you are satisfied with the Genesis version of events who am I to deprive you. I'll stick to the science though and see the snake as evolving from its lizard ancestors and losing its legs as an evolutionary development because it was in an environment where the lizards with shorter legs thrived and got the girl.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

anyhoo, a four legged snake. sounds like another example of evolution in the fossil records.

I know where to find the rear leg appendages in snakes wonder where to look for the front legs.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

For me it is a fascinating allegorical tale. It suited our pre science agricultural ancestors. Yes, you are right to wonder at the way that Genesis got the order of snake losing legs, having had them before. I'm not ruling out there being a Creator and your just too nice to argue with.

Catch you later...(slithers away back to the tree wishing I had legs)

a reply to: Revolution9

snakes and lizards are totally anatomically different. a snake us nothing like a lizard without its legs. it's like saying bats are a featherless bird. no their not. it's like saying eels and snakes same thing. one swims that's all.

if anything, if a group of people are claiming snakes and lizards are the same thing minus legs then they are not very observant and not nearly as informed as they seem. basically it would tacitly point out that they are actually no nothing smartasses.

I am 46 years old and my science teachers taught me that some snakes had residual limbs. 30 years ago. Very often just behind the head and in some cases towards the back of the body, in front of the anus.

originally posted by: Revolution9

I'll stick to the science though and see the snake as evolving from its lizard ancestors and losing its legs as an evolutionary development because it was in an environment where the lizards with shorter legs thrived and got the girl.

This doesn't make sense. Why would a lizard need to evolve into a snake and put itself at a disadvantage to, well, itself? What would be the purpose of that be?

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Who said I was waiting for science to do anything?

I don't know. Who did say you were waiting for science to do anything? Certainly not me, I asked if you were waiting for science to catch up to anything else in the bible, and asking for an example of such if you had an answer in mind.

I just happen to stumble across this today and thought it was interesting. The point is, this knowledge was already known, it is not new information for those of us who believe in the Bible.

For science this has always been a theory, well now they have solid proof so what's the big deal.

No big deal, I just don't see your connection between this topic and the bible as relevant (especially if, and I don't insinuate you do, you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old).

Claiming that 'on your belly you shall go' encapsulates the information in this article and indicates prior knowledge is a stretch at best in my opinion.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

hominids evolved from tree shrews. last time I checked a tree shrew and I have very little in common other than were both mammals, got four limbs and evolved from the same lineage.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

to burrow. thats why they lost their legs according to scientific consensus. kinda like a dachshund has tinsy legs to get into burrows and narrow holes.

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Revolution9

I'll stick to the science though and see the snake as evolving from its lizard ancestors and losing its legs as an evolutionary development because it was in an environment where the lizards with shorter legs thrived and got the girl.

This doesn't make sense. Why would a lizard need to evolve into a snake and put itself at a disadvantage to, well, itself? What would be the purpose of that be?

Could be anything. Perhaps they hunted something that lived in narrow dug-out tunnels where legs are a hindrance? Perhaps the original ancestor was semi aquatic and so got streamlined?

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Well, if he removed their legs and then threw them out of the garden, then why are we finding fossils with their legs attached still???

Did he miss a few of them??? Did he get lazy and just not get to all of them???

Or is it just stupid to even bother applying myth as if it was literal and factual???

I can't believe I even have to ask this question to an adult in modern times.

Consider this. God told Adam and Eve that if they ate from the forbidden tree they would die. But they did not die right on the spot once they ate, but they did eventually die, 900 and something years later. When God told that to the serpent it could have meant that over time the serpent will no longer have legs. Some may have died before then, thus creating these fossils. That's my theory.

Why would god punish or take the legs away from all future lizards/legged serpents over the actions of one?

What kind of god is that?

That's just stupid and nonsensical; hence, it's a myth. A fable. A story.

(but I agree with you about the dying part. They won't immediately die, but eventually die, because they've stepped down from their pure state into a state of dualities (life/death, good/evil, etc).

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Evolution of Reptiles

i dont know why you find this remarkable, they have been around for millions of years. they were ancient when the first god was thought of.

The only thing remarkable is the fact that it took science years to discover this when the answer was always there in the Bible.

I think that this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen, ever.

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement

Claiming that 'on your belly you shall go' encapsulates the information in this article and indicates prior knowledge is a stretch at best in my opinion.

How is it a stretch? If the biblical snake didn't have legs in the beginning, what did it have? Wings or something? It clearly had some other form of movement before being cursed to it's belly. Like I said, people don't have to believe the whole Bible, but at least acknowledge that hey, the Bible was probably right about this one. It's not like your going to be turned into a Bible thumper just because you believe a few things in the Bible are correct.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Evolution of Reptiles

i dont know why you find this remarkable, they have been around for millions of years. they were ancient when the first god was thought of.

The only thing remarkable is the fact that it took science years to discover this when the answer was always there in the Bible.

I think that this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen, ever.

Care to explain how?

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
Now here is something interesting. A 4 legged snake fossil has been found in Brazil. The snake, named Tetrapodophis amplectus by the team, measured just 20 cm from head to toe. Source

Now the first known fossil of a four-legged snake has been discovered by scientists who believe it may help unravel the mystery of how exactly the slithering serpents lost their legs.

Dr Martill said: “It is generally accepted that snakes evolved from lizards at some point in the distant past. What scientists don’t know yet is when they evolved, why they evolved, and what type of lizard they evolved from.

“This fossil answers some very important questions, for example it now seems clear to us that snakes evolved from burrowing lizards, not from marine lizards.”

Of course this is no surprise to me, the Bible speaks of the serpent in the same fashion:

14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go.....

Cool find whether you believe it or not.

Don't go all squishy on the Bible being the oldest reported source of this type of reptile. The Chinese have documented these creatures for thousands of years before the Bible's supposed story was taking place never mind when the novel was written. So I wonder who plagiarized who here?

never mind

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

hey I can play that game too. in my version it goes like this.


and then God said. Damn you whales and dolphins!!! you've been very naughty. I hereby remove your legs and cast you into the sea, forever to swim never setting foot on your ancestral land.

makes about as much sense as you arguing that God removed the legs from snakes over a sin. just admit that they had no idea why snakes lost their legs and that they demonized them through an irrational and all too human fear of things different from them. in this case the lack of legs. I wonder if they also thought about writing some none sense about how God punished slugs cause they have no legs.

if you want to find some real truth I suggest seeking out your local library and get to reading the wide assortment of other books man has written. but when you do I'd advise you to ask the librarian where the non-fiction section is.

originally posted by: notmyrealname
Don't go all squishy on the Bible being the oldest reported source of this type of reptile. The Chinese have documented these creatures for thousands of years before the Bible's supposed story was taking place never mind when the novel was written. So I wonder who plagiarized who here?

I never said it was the oldest reference, only that it was written before this discovery. I don't know about the Chinese documents, but if you provide the source I'd be more than glad to look at it.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Everything was written before modern science when we talk about religion, right?