Are fossils of legged snakes evidence of the Bible?

Post Reply New Topic

Are fossils of legged snakes evidence of the Bible being accurate? Some Christians have said that they are, since the Bible said that snakes used to not move around on their bellies.

Only by accident.

It’s evidence of evolution.

Both theories make the same "prediction"...that there should be fossils of proto-snakes with legs.

According to evolution snakes must have evolved from four footed tetrapods...specifically from other reptiles...specifically from lizards.

And the Bible says that God punished the serpent for persuading Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit...punished him by taking away his limbs and forcing him to "crawl on his belly and eat dust".

And there are fossil snakes from the days of dinosaurs that have small hind legs. But they were already pretty much crawling on their bellies even then.

Oddly ..all of the great artists of Renaissance depicted THE snake, interacting with Adam and Eve, as an already fully evolved snake with no limbs (kinda inconsistent doncha think?). In the 2000s counterculture comic book artist Robert Crumb published his own huge comic book illustrated version of the whole Bible that actually shows the Serpent prior to the Fall as having limbs (like a modern snake but kinda upright like some dinosaurs...with large back legs and small (but presnt) arms. Which makes sense given the story.

No.  It is evidence of coincidental evolution.

The Bible never actually specifically said the snake had legs. It could have had wings or wheels.

Now I want a pair of rollersnakes.

Youve got a brand new pair of roller snakes, Ive got a brand new key.

Actually I have heard Biblical scholars say that THE serpent in Genesis was probably winged, and that god prolly tore off his wings.

On the other hand there IS ...the legendary "hoop snake" that would grip its own tail with its mouth and roll around like a wheel. So...I guess a snake can be its own wheel.

So between winged serpents and hoop snakes, maybe Crumb was wrong. And maybe legged proto snakes are not necessary to make the story make sense after all.

But then.... how do you explain those fossils of snakes that did have legs?

Snakes are an offshoot of lizards, and lizards have this odd tendency to evolve leglessness. Apart from snakes, there are at least 9 seperate lizard lineages where some or all members have no legs. Mole lizards have lost their hind legs but still have front legs. The Skink family has everything from pretty normal-looking lizards to ones that are hard to tell apart from worms. These changes are still going on today!

Yes. As David Attenborough said "lizards are always loosing their legs".

Okay.
https://us.rollersnakes.com/?shpxid=185 ... ea98028131

I mean as pets. I want them to keep each other company.

When they breed you will have a set of duals.

AFAIK there's nothing said in the Bible about fossils, so I don't see how fossils could be evidence of its veracity. I guess religious fundamentalists don't like fossils because it's all part of this evolution thing that has led to a map of the timescales of life which is hard to reconcile with the Biblical map. So maybe whoever said fossils of legged snakes corroborate scripture was just trying to co-opt fossils into a fundamentalist narrative? . Another fossil argument I've heard is that fossils were planted by Satan to con us into atheism so he'd get our souls.

Ancient Chinese writings refer to finding "dragon bones" which were probably dinosaur fossils. I can see why they'd think that. If you'd had as much as a suspicion that dragons existed, the sight of a few very dragonesque bones might well have clinched it.

Robert Plot thought a dinosaur thighbone fossil might be from a previous race of giants, but that other fossils he found were just down to mineral crystallisation that by coincidence happened to look a bit like a life form. Quite a clever man, realising the existence of pseudofossils. But probably wrong about the giants.

Maybe he hopped around like Rattly from Donkey Kong Country 2

I dont see your logic at all.

The Bible doesnt have to "say anything about fossils" ...for fossils to be possibly relevant as evidence in investigating the veracity of events described in the Bible.


Charles Darwin "never said anything about" DNA because the molecule wasnt discovered until a century after his time. But that doesnt mean that you cant use DNA to investigate, prove/disprove, or otherwise elucidate, the claims of Charles Darwin.

And indeed they do use DNA for all of the above all of the time.

Julius Caesar never "said anything about" carbon 14, but that doesnt mean that modern archeologists cant use carbon 14 analysis on ancient artifacts they might dig up that are associated with Julius Caesar. Same with figures in the Bible.

However one of the many problems with Young Earth Creationists using the fossils of proto snakes as evidence for something being historical in the Bible is that its blatant cherry picking.

YECs are happy to take the entire vast corpus of the fossil record...and ignore it...toss it into the dumpster....because that vast corpus proves evolution and disproves Genesis...BUT...they latch on to ONE thing in that vast corpus (early snakes having legs) and tout that one thing as being evidence for one thing in the Bible.