Are fossils of legged snakes evidence of the Bible?

Post Reply New Topic

And yet nobody has put forward a sensible explanation as to how leggy snake fossils support scripture. The best they have is "look, a leggy snake fossil - that fits perfectly with the creation story about the serpent." But they don't sensibly explain how it's supposed to fit. The idea that early snakes had legs might get them a bit closer to it, but even if that were true, the evolutionary path of snakes is a very different thing to the Biblical tale of one serpent, and our leggy snake fossil is hardly the atheist's nightmare.

Bible: "One serpent had legs but lost them during his lifetime." Therefore his fossil would not have legs, if he even managed to die in time to have formed a fossil. There's nothing in there about any other snakes, legged or otherwise.

It only seems to work at all if very weak, superficial thinking is used - "Bible say snake lose legs. Fossil say snake lose legs. Therefore fossil support Bible."

I'm sure you're right about the way they ignore all else about evolution, but I don't think we need to use it here - the fundamentalist reasoning presents no case to answer.

Genesis is the creation epic that is about the origins of everything we see now.

Its not about one damned individual snake. Its about all descendents of that snake down to the present time.

THE snake in the Bible was supposedly the snake species equivalent of Adam and Eve. All snakes descended from him...well him and the lady snake (who was offstage in the story I guess) just like we are all descended from Adam and Eve. So all snake kind suffered from God's punishment. Just like all us humans are also still suffering because of Adam and Eve's transgression. We humans got ...banished from the Garden of Eden, we are no longer immortal (have to die sometime), have to earn our living by the sweat of our brows, get old age and disease, and all of that stuff. And on top of that ...women get the extra kick in the ass of "having to give birth through the agonizing pain of labor of child birth" (forget how its stated but thats the idea).

And because the snake persuaded the first human couple to transgress...its not one damned snake...all of his descended...all members of the many serpent species from then on down to the present..."are forced to crawl on their bellies and to eat dust". And women and snakes are supposed to also have a special enmity. All mankind is punished. All womankind. And all snake kind.

So if the story were literally factually true then...there was a period in time when there were snakes who did not crawl on their bellies...then came the fall...and then all snakes after that crawled on their bellies.

So in theory one could prove the story by finding the fossils of snakes that did not crawl on their bellies (ie had limbs) because they lived before the fall.

Its like Kipling's "Just So Stories" which include the story about how the elephant originally had a "short snoot like a boot", but got into a fight with a crocodile. The Croc grabbed his snoot with the croc's jaws and stretched the elephant's snoot out, and thats how THE elephant got its long trunk (he and all elephants after that). Which would be an example of "Lamarkian Evolution" (inheritance of acquired characteristics) if it were true, but I digress. If you were crazy enough to take Kipling's children's stories literally you might go out and look for fossils of elephants with boot sized snoots.

But the snake and his descendents wouldn't have had legs. So why the fossils?
OTOH, if this picture is accurate, fossils of legged snakes are never going to even vaguely support scripture:

Birth existed prior to the fall, but not death. So there would have been generations of snakes.

There would have been generations of snakes that had legs prior to the fall. But THE snake and his descendents would not have legs after the fall. Ergo...there could be fossils of pre fall snakes with legs, and post fall snakes with no legs.

Actually I could be wrong. My understanding of the story is death did not exist prior to the fall, but birth did exist. Adam and Eve were already cranking out babies, and so were the animals.

But you're right that if neither birth nor death existed prior to the fall, then there would have been just one of every kinda animal, and just two humans (and each individual animal and human was immortal) then then that one snake would have lost his legs at the moment of the fall...before he died later of old age (or whatever), and thus he couldnt have been fossilized in his original leg-equipped-condition of his pre fall youth. And all of his descendants, being legless from birth could only be fossilized as legless. So yes..if that had been story then there could be no fossils of leggy snakes.

And even if there had been generations of leg endowed snakes prior to the fall...those fossilized snakes would indicate that...we have discovered the actual garden of eden itself as a fossilized biome! But no one claims that.

I never heard of the idea that there were more than 2 people prior to the apple event. AFAIK scripture doesn't say there were or there weren't, though I haven't read it all. It rather reminds me of the 2 stories of Judas, which Augustine reconciled by assuming an important detail not confirmed nor refuted in the text, though your idea doesn't seem quite such a crooked fit as that one does.

I don't understand why some fundamentalist isn't already touting your idea that they've found Eden. There were supposed to be angels on guard to keep people out. Scripture doesn't say they weren't later redeployed elsewhere though.

Well in that case it should be easy to find Eden. Just find the place where, when you try to enter you repelled by an angel with a flaming sword.

Dang!

Ive been googling the question just now.

One source says "that the bible doesnt say one way or the other whether Adam and Eve had children while still in Eden but it seems that they didnt. Their most famous three children: sons: Cain, Abel, and Seth, were all born after they were kicked out of the garden".

But the site "Never Thirsty" says unequivocally that they "had no children before they sinned...according Genesis three and four".

And I always assumed that too- that they didnt start making babies until after God kicked their asses out of the Garden. But a satirical anti religion cartoon video I saw a few years ago said they were already cranking out babies before they got booted out of the Garden. So thats were I got the counter notion that I stated above in the thread.That video was probably wrong about that detail of the Bible, or at least its not the common interpretation of the Bible.

They probably didn't know how! I mean, if they didn't know they were naked that implies a certain level of neavity on matters of the flesh.

I know that in real life cultures without a nudity taboo are quite capable of procreating but since the people who wrote the Bible did have a nudity taboo, they probably thought people who didn't know that casual nudity around the opposite sex is bad didn't have any concept of sex.

Yes it's a clever story. You get explanations of how the snake lost his legs, how human life began, how people acquired the state of "original sin," how people became embarrassed about nudity, and a lesson - disobedience may have dire consequences even if the command seems rather arbitrary.

One expert's opinion on the issues. He favors the wing idea...that the serpent was originally a "winged seraphim".


https://youtu.be/0zvtf7jpIKA

In Greek mythology the Gods gave Pandora a footlocker and told her to not unlock it. But she disobeyed, opened it up, and all of the evils of the world came tumbling out. Similar to the Bible story of how "Eve harkened unto the serpent and partook of the forbidden fruit" and caused all suffering in the world.

It's always the chick that messes things up!

BO-ING!

A bed spring style of locomotion ...cant be ruled out. Lol!

Its been an interesting journey.

So...when did they start making babies? Thats the question raised above in the thread.

I think I have figured out the source of the main problem with the internal logic that someone raised above. The reason that its ambiguous whether or not they had babies prior to the fall while still in Eden.

One would think that sex-and-death would come together as a package.

And that IS the common interpretation of the Genesis story. That Adam and eve were immortal virgins prior to the fall, and then after the fall they became mortal, but began doing the nasty and cranking out babies - so the species could continue in lieu of immortality. Makes sense. Sex and death started both started with the fall.

And further...that didnt only apply to humans. Animals were also immortal but sexless and baby-less.

And if thats the case then ...yes...fossils would be irrelevent. You have to die to become a fossil. So if there were a snake or many snakes in the garden that had legs then those snakes would not have died until AFTER the fall of Adam and Eve, and they would have died in their post-fall legless condition. So no pre fall legged snakes could possibly have been fossilized because none would have died at the point. So any fossil snake you find with legs has nothing to do with the Genesis story -even if you are a believer in the Genesis story being literally true- because it would have nothing to do with the internal logic of the story (forget about the external logic).

But some folks interpret the story differently and think that the Bible indicates that Adam and Eve were reproducing even before the Fall (but aparantly child birth was easy for humans like it is for other mammals back then).

The reason for this difference of opinion is that Genesis in the Bible is really two different stories imperfectly spliced together that contradict each other.

Genesis One tells one tale...God makes animals first, then makes both man and woman at the same time out of dust, and then tells the couple to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth".

Genesis two and three is a whole different story. God makes man first, then makes the animals, and THEN pulls a rib out of Adam...and fashions Eve. And the explains how he is keeping them in this here garden -from all these other trees, but dont touch this here tree...

So in chapter one god commands the couple to get it on and breed from the get go.
But in the tale told in two and three its a whole different ball game, and they dont start making babies until after this forbidden fruit fiasco.

So go figure. Take your pick.

Yes. Many people still have this idea that awareness of the sexual connotations of nudity is some kind of a corruption. I suppose they observed that young children don't notice such things, and so figured that innocence must have something to do with it.

According to Genesis 1: 27 and 28:

This is said to have occurred on the sixth day of creation, before the Fall.

The Bible doesn't say whether Adam and Eve actually had sex before the Fall, but apparently God invited them to "be fruitful and increase in number," which would imply having sex.