Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Two New Gaps to Be Filled! started by Arden Chatfield


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 10 2008,09:59

Teach the controversy!

IDC: "There are no transitional forms!!!"

Science: "Uh, we just < found > a 92-MYO fossil snake with legs."

IDC: "Uh..... Darwinists are Nazis!!!"

(Found through PZ)
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 10 2008,10:06

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 10 2008,09:59)
Teach the controversy!

IDC: "There are no transitional forms!!!"

Science: "Uh, we just < found > a 92-MYO fossil snake with legs."

IDC: "Uh..... Darwinists are Nazis!!!"

(Found through PZ)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have already < explained this >, Arden.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That's exactly what you'd expect if God was trying to test our faith.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, no, no, no. This is meant to support the faith. Snakes weren't condemned to crawl on their bellies until after The Fall. This is clearly THE SERPENT and the site it was found on must be the Garden of Eden.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You saw it here first, but how long before AFDave brings up this explanation?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on April 10 2008,10:18

Actually, it was found and described eight years ago. The reason it is in the news now is because of the super whiz bang technology that allowed them to get 3D images of the second leg (which had been hidden).

Edit: But it is cute that way you and Carlsonjok are trying to imitate the great Richardthughes and be all scientifical-like! :D
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 10 2008,11:04

One interesting little side point the article doesn't speculate on is the business of it losing its front legs first. Interesting to ponder why it wasn't the other way around.
Posted by: J-Dog on April 10 2008,11:13

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 10 2008,11:04)
One interesting little side point the article doesn't speculate on is the business of it losing its front legs first. Interesting to ponder why it wasn't the other way around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because God wanted it that way!

HOMO!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on April 10 2008,11:15

Quote (J-Dog @ April 10 2008,11:13)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 10 2008,11:04)
One interesting little side point the article doesn't speculate on is the business of it losing its front legs first. Interesting to ponder why it wasn't the other way around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because God wanted it that way!

HOMO!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But wouldn't it be easier to grip an apple with its front legs?
Posted by: carlsonjok on April 10 2008,11:25

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 10 2008,11:15)
Quote (J-Dog @ April 10 2008,11:13)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 10 2008,11:04)
One interesting little side point the article doesn't speculate on is the business of it losing its front legs first. Interesting to ponder why it wasn't the other way around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because God wanted it that way!

HOMO!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But wouldn't it be easier to grip an apple with its front legs?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, unless the forbidden fruit was really harbles and not apples.

< Harbles. NSFW. >
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on April 10 2008,11:47

< Maybe it had other things in mind for the apple... > and the lack of front limbs was an adaptation for some hot snake on apple loving :O
Posted by: hereoisreal on April 10 2008,14:27

“The first lungless frog has been discovered lurking in the jungles of Borneo.

The enigmatic amphibian, dubbed Barbourula kalimantanensis, apparently gets all the oxygen it needs through its skin.

Scientists first saw one of these frogs 30 years ago, but due to their rarity, just one other specimen had been collected since then and neither had been dissected.

“No one thought to open them up — there was no real reason to believe that they could be lungless,” said researcher David Bickford, an evolutionary biologist at the National University of Singapore.

< http://www.neatorama.com/ >
Posted by: Quidam on April 11 2008,11:24

If the legged snake fossil is examined though a Biblical lens it can be clearly seen to support the Genesis account.  

Posted by: nuytsia on April 13 2008,04:17

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ April 10 2008,03:04)
One interesting little side point the article doesn't speculate on is the business of it losing its front legs first. Interesting to ponder why it wasn't the other way around.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wondered about that but oddly this is happening in a genus of skink found in Australia.
Check out < Lerista >. Apparently some species showing a reduction in digits or limbs, others lack front legs and two species having no legs at all.
The front limbs seem to go first?
They're being studied as a model to try and understand snake evolution.
Very cool skinks.
Posted by: Jbird on April 13 2008,22:28

The sad part is filling 2 gaps just created 4 new gaps   :(
Posted by: Mr_Christopher on April 15 2008,10:50

Quote (Jbird @ April 13 2008,22:28)
The sad part is filling 2 gaps just created 4 new gaps   :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well just fill those gaps with god and call it a day!
Posted by: Henry J on April 15 2008,12:15

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ April 15 2008,09:50)
Quote (Jbird @ April 13 2008,22:28)
The sad part is filling 2 gaps just created 4 new gaps   :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well just fill those gaps with god and call it a day!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that a literal 24 hours or a metaphoric day? :p
Posted by: midwifetoad on April 15 2008,12:26

Damn, I hate to rain on parades, but filling a gap only adds one to the total gap count. Math is a bitch.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.