Snake found with a full limb (Attaching the photo of snake with claw)

Atheists have latched on to this poor cursed creature with one remnant hind limb, as if it were "walking". Far from it, and how geneticists have established the snake will NEVER walk again.


The picture says _everything_ anyone need know. When God "curses" -- don't underestimate the implications. Meant exactly what's written in literal black and white.

Snake with foot found in China
A snake with a single clawed foot has been discovered in China, according to reports.

Already this information is being used by Atheist(Anti-Theist) hatemongers to say,

The book of Genesis FAIL. A snake in China grew one of it’s legs back.


They will scoff as they may, but I have already explained vestigial appendages on snakes, and why the snake will never walk again.
  • While humans may regain tails,
  • While cetaceans may sprout the bud of a hind limb...
  • While Pythons continue to retain spurs from their past life...
    the snake shall NEVER walk again. The HOX GENE shift moved the body plan forward where it can not and will not grow forelimbs.

    So, according to the science of Genetics, all the days of the snake' evolutionary future, it will inevitably -- go on its belly, and while slithering around on the ground to attack its prey, rolling around and around to asphyxiate and/or retain its victim in its clutches, they will get dust[dirt] on their prey... therefore, do indeed EAT DUST[dirt].

    Now, if anyone finds a sea serpent that has re-evolved all four limbs again,... lol, share that please! I'll be open to the enlightenment.

    Again, for posterity, I don't see that snake "walking" on four limbs... does anyone else?

    God=Science, or either, God just isn't "God". YEC tend to deny Science, therefore, have denied knowledge and God will reject them. (Hosea 4:6)




    Comments



    An Atheist, pretending to be a Christian (how sad), left a new comment:
    "...oh, and the photo is obviously photoshopped. those guys just wind you idiots up and watch you...you guys just show yourselves as ignorant fools."


    Hmmm, how interesting Mr. Atheist. You claim the snake with the claw found in China, is a "photoshopped" sensationalist fiction. Even if it is by any chance a fictional story, it does _not_ invalidate a word I said about vestigial limbs in snakes, nor does it change the fact that AN ATHEIST used the same story/photograph, believing the story entirely to claim "snakes" are walking!! So I guess Atheists are credulous wind-up buffoons too? Thanks for pointing out the one-sided hypocrisy, because here it is:
    "The book of Genesis FAIL. A snake in China grew one of it’s legs back.

    And what does that prove? That the snake is walking??! Of course not. The book of Genesis did not "fail" because a snake regains a leg or not. The fact is, that science has established snakes are not "walking," period, and never will walk again.

    The Atheist pretending to be a Christian, adds this too:
    "...is all that remains on them of limbs. it is impossible for the mutation of a gene to cause a snake to grow a fully formed limb...because of the sheer number of genes involved in the process of making a limb (no, it isn't one gene that 'makes legs')

    Intermission: Citing Herpetologist (reptile expert) Lenny Flank, who wrote: "there was a change in one of the HOX genes that shifted the body plan forward a bit... Since, genetically, front limbs appear right where the cervical vertebrae begin, snakes can't have front limbs."

    Continue...
    and the fact that the animal lost limbs so many millions of years ago (before mesozoic era) that those genes for the formation of full limbs no longer exist in ANY snakes dna. yes. i am earning interest on the mind god gave me, because somebody has to actually minister to intelligent people every once in a while. you guys go convert the dumb. you will win numbers, and that is good. but in your ignorace you will turn some away- i'm not willing to have that on my head.

    Sure you are, Atheist. Also, I really don't believe the Atheist understood a word I wrote. #1, to this day, humans may not have tails (like monkeys do), but humans certainly do retain and carry genes to grow them, and on a rare occasion, do re-grow tail remnants. Also, cetaceans (whales and dolphins) still posess genes for hind limbs, observed in wild and the laboratory, and on occasion fishermen have caught such creatures. There's a vast difference between a) not having an appendage and yet carrying the gene to re-grow those limbs vs. b) not having an appendage due to an actual shift in HOX Gene expression. As in the case of fossilized snakes. Snakes do not fossilize well, period. Therefore, it is unknown to scientists, exactly when snakes lost the ability to grow forelimbs. That's the mistake they make when discussing forelimb loss in snakes. Just because a snake doesn't have the limbs (millions of years ago), did not mean the genes were absent.
    As for the number of genes, oh well, I was citing the ATHEIST Herpetologist, who wrote: "there was a change in one of the HOX genes that shifted the body plan forward a bit..." Ole Lenny happens to be a Herpetologist and probably knows his snake genetics better than an angry, frustrated Atheist pretending to be a Christian.
    LENNY FLANK WRITES: "As an aside, we now know, from genetic analysis, why snakes don't have vestigial FRONT limbs. During the evolutionary appearance of snakes, there was a change in one of the HOX genes that shifted the body plan forward a bit. As a result, snakes now have no neck vertebrae --- they are all thoracic and abdominal. Since, genetically, front limbs appear right where the cervical vertebrae begin, snakes can't have front limbs. The vestigial rear limbs appear where the abdominal vertebrae meet the tail. As photos show, the tail of a snake is extremely short. So, even though a snake LOOKS like it is all neck or all tail, in reality, it is all body."
    Creation "Science" Debunked
    My Reptile Page

    Scientists do not know when snakes lost the ability to grow forelimbs. In the evolutionary history of snakes, the loss of the genetic information occurred at some time or another and they don't know when... they would need actual fossilized tissue of snakes to analyse the DNA to know exactly "when". Sorry, that is not available. Just because snakes did not grow forelimbs, did not automatrically mean, they didn't possess the genes to regrow forelimbs! Big difference. To this day, many creatures are absent of limbs, yet still carry genes that lay dormant. Until this day, snakes retain genes to sprout hind limbs, even though they haven't grown them in millions of years... just as some birds retain genes to grow teeth. There is no scientific "evidence" from genetics that millions of years ago, snakes "lost" any gene, just simply, they stopped growing forelimbs and hindlimbs. The loss of limbs vs. genetic information, are two very different issues. This shift in the Hox Gene, may have occured 100 thousand years ago, even a million... or it could've happened only about 10,000 years ago, like it is stated in the book of Genesis.

    Last but not least, but here's outright denial of what's written in black and white text by this person, pretending to be a Christian :
    ok. 1. no snake in the garden. come on. we know that this was passed down orally for hundreds of years before the hebrews and others ever developed writing. but for the sake of argument, the animal 'snake' was not itself cursed. the snake was already a snake.

    Quoting the "Curse on the Serpent" : The serpent in Genesis is clearly a serpent, "the shrewdest beast of the field that the Lord God had made," and it was cursed to crawl on its belly and eat dirt "all the days of its life," and was understood to be a serpent by ancient Hebrews according to even the Evangelical Christian Wheaton College professor of Old Testament, Walton, who wrote the NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on GENESIS (2002), available at any major Christian bookstore.
    Serpent figures were common in the ancient world, and the description in Genesis of the serpent being stepped on and biting the heel of the seed of woman is merely a generic description of conflict. Hardly proof of anything. Consider Genesis, chapter 49 when Jacob blesses his children before his death, part of his blessing to Dan in verse 17 is: "May Dan be a snake beside the road, a viper by the path, that bites the heels of the horse so that its rider falls backward," (NET Bible). The generic term for serpent, "nahash," is used here (just as in Genesis when the "nahash" spoke to Eve). Most commentators believe that the serpent image in this passage is positive since this is a blessing. Dan, though a small tribe, will be as shrewd as a serpent, able to bite its enemies' heels so that they are defeated.
    [NET Bible, 131, note no. 6; Sailhamer, 278; Henry, 92; The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, 46; H. C. Leupold, Leupold on the Old Testament. Vol. 2, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House and The Wartburg Press, 1942), 1188-1189]"


    ...the devil was cursed and told that he would remain in that form of the animal he took and would therefore be cursed to crawl on his stomach, get his head stomped, etc...just like all the oither snakes were doing before he appeared in the garden in that form. the devil was cursed, not the snake.


    No where does the term "devil," "satan," "evil spirit" or any such superstitious garble appear in the Garden of Eden account. It states "beast of the field," implying the serpent.

    jesus people. jesus is going to be expecting more than what he gave you when he returns, and our most valuable talent is our minds- too afraid to use it 'cause you thought that massa was a hard man, so you bury it in the dirt? i think when god returns or we get to him (whichever first) you are going to be some shocked people, because it isn't even close to what you have been duped into beleiving by guys like Gish, etc. they'd be better off having a swim with a millstone necktie than having spout out the garbage they have (knowingly, mind you) in order to try to defend their faith. oh yes. Jesus will demand interest on his loans.


    Sure. Okay. You say.

    "Hard Sayings of the Bible", (Intervarsity Press)


    The demon and satan babble has got to end. It's the very same idolatry that lead to God destroying Israel and Judah.

    Solomon's Idolatry (Excerpt from scribd.com)
  • 3 comments:

    1. wha?
      You can clearly see that the snake has eaten something still in its gut. Notice the abrupt change in contour several inches in both directions of the "claw". Snakes are known to be able to swallow things larger then their own girth. Looks like the leg of something eaten has poked out. This kind of hokum gets passed around all the time. You may want to base your religious views on something better documented then a sketchy pic like this.

      ReplyDelete
    2. Dude, that's cool! Make sure to remind the Atheists that the book of Genesis did not "fail" just because a snake has a single hind-limb bulging from it. Whether or not its even real, isn't the issue. The point is, that thing wasn't walking in the first place, without forelimbs.

      ReplyDelete
    3. I find the remnant leg to be a testimony to the fact that it used to HAVE legs to begin with, and that a little glitch in it's make up, caused a useless (to the snake -- and probably a hindrance to how it naturally moves) leg to grow, reminding us of the account in the garden, with our first parents, and the curse of the Creator. The thing that has always puzzled me is, how did Satan get the creature to cooperate with him in the first place? And was Satan doing a sort of ventriliquist act, or was it a case where, juast as Balaam's donkey spoke, via supernatural power, did this creature receive a temporary ability, without vocal chords? Fascinating.

      ReplyDelete

    SEARCH NOW:
    by title by author

    If educated and reason-minded Christian men of science like Louis Agassiz found it plausible to embrace the concept of a supernatural entity at work in nature, then the possibility is good enough for me.

    Science Fact: "The Sun and all the planets were formed at around the same time, depending on when you define the birth of the sun. Before the Sun became as it is today it was a proto sun, which had all the elements it has now but it just had not started the nuclear reaction which fuels today's sun. As the sun started to form from the debris of the dust/particle cloud so did all the planets."
    The entire commentary (link).
    The Earth is not Young, but the Sun's nuclear reaction, is... based on fossil evidence, a wee 500 million years old.

    Astronomers Discover Coldest Star Ever [VIDEO]

    Early Earth

    But what about Stromatolites and photosynthesis 3.5 billion years ago?

    That's covered here in full.

    Had there been any sunlight, it would have never reached the surface of the Earth, anyway.

    Early Earth

    I profess my innocense of the crime of Bibliolatry, however, I am scathed with certain Atheists who've somehow came to the conclusion their deconversion (which soon lead to blasphemous attacks on people of faith and anti-religious tyrades) supposedly equal a one size fits all, "patent truth"(TM), or even worse, a "scientific truth." Only the religious minded are under the delusion they advance their creeds by deception and claims to possess a monopoly on "absolute truths". Not unlike their counterparts Theistic Fundamentalists, who also believe they monopolize some sacred "Truth of Truths"(TM)... yet in my years acquainting both extremes, not much appears to be about an actual search for greater truths, understanding or knowledge. Rather, hatred and bigotry tend to be the motivating factor behind their many senseless squabbles.

    Straight from Scripture Commentary:

    Trees Before Sunlight
    See the King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991 for yet another reprint of this century-old LIE. This EVIL lie has been told and retold by theologians, biblical scholars, preachers and priests to paralyze brains of the religious, so that they may continue unabated generating billions in tithes and donations from the faithful, never again to question the dishonest anti-Darwinist rhetoric, so the church can continue fighting to stamp out truth and enlightenment. These men within the hallowed halls of the establishment of organized religion, just as those priests, the murderers of Jesus, are the enemies of God because "God" can only be found on the side of what is proven to be TRUTH. And I present the truth here vs. their evil lies that have deceived millions.

    Prototaxites, A Fossil Fruiting Fungi, 'Tree'
    Scientists discovered this fossilized, non-photosynthetic, fruiting "tree," and call it Prototaxites.

    They said it couldn't be done, but here it is, thanks to modern science and praise to God for revealing the truth about the fossil record. Still waiting on evangelicals to address this fossil discovery and begin owning up to their wretched LIES and DAMNED LIES for over a century... if it looks, waddles and quacks like a tree... its probably a tree.
        "The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"
    Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991

    Excuse my French but that's complete and utter scientifically illiterate BULLSH*T!!!

    Yes, finally, trees exactly as described in Genesis, before, and without sunlight. And no, it's not another lame hoax. (Short) and (Long). See, Prototaxites, Fossilized "Fruiting Fungi," 'Tree'.

    Also see Evolution of the Earliest Plant Organisms, specifically the "Fruiting Fungi" which fits an identical description,
    1. Has fruit with "seed" (spores) inside itself, and
    2. Can survive without sunlight (exactly as described in Genesis). Such organisms would have certainly existed during the Vendian/Precambrian.
    3. For a long time, scientists presumed or presume a giant "mystery fungi" was a tree, a conifer, to be precise... and some have now described it as one of the "Fruiting Fungi".

    Also, see "Fruit Trees Before Sunlight".

    I Challenge All with this Thousand Dollar Question:
    Please engage brain and point out where either term, "Create" or "Design," even appear in this text of Genesis?
    Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth (tender) grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
    Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

    Still Waiting...

    When you Atheists or Fundamentalist Xtian Darwin-haters can squeeze "creation" or "design" out of any of those verses which imply natural selection, let me know.

    And yes Atheists... please spare your sermon. Don't preach to the choir. I know all too well what you believe.

    Just because people become familiarized with Atheism, hardly means they are so blown away... so mesmerized with "The Truth"(TM) and taken in by a few persuasive argument fallacies that they automatically deconvert and lose faith. That they didn't accept your religion, hardly constitutes a lack of understanding. Perhaps it's just that Atheism is that unappealing. *The Shock* *The Awe* -- how could everyone not see things your way? They're just in denial. (Sound familiar?) Every religious adherent is *in shock* and *in awe* when others do not want to buy into their brand of religion and they fail to convince potential converts. Just as my views might not interest you, well, perhaps I am fully understanding your views and yet, Atheism still remains just that unappealing. Mainly because of the hateful attitudes and blatant lies that often accompany "The Truth"(TM). Any religion that has that extent of negativity in it can't be good for anyone's emotional well-being. Meanwhile, I fully understand why most people will not subscribe to my views. Foremost, it requires a minimal amount of knowledge of several scientific fields of study and secondly, reasoning that requires "thinking outside the box". Lastly, I'm not proposing to have any "One and Only Truth(TM)". Just presenting scientific facts whilst challenging long-held cherished falsehoods as well as faith in people to exercise critical reasoning and make up their own minds, and whatever conclusion people may arrive at is fine with me.