A 9 year scientific study [discussed in a 2007 book] poses the epic battle between the 2 sides in an entirely new light and grounds - throwing it entirely open to full-scale debate ... a REAL debate!!!
Author, scientist-discoverer, Denis Towers, himself an anatomist and kinesiologist has discovered that snakes and humans are the precise antithesis of one another - both, applied anatomically and behaviorally.
The conclusion drawn over this study is that this fact, of itself, expresses 'deliberation of design' and is just not possible over all the potential genetic random mutations via the theory of evolution ... that is, if we were to believe evolution!!
The other conclusion drawn by those involved is that this Breakthrough discovery in the debate tends to strongly support the Biblical Adam & Eve account, which involved the snake [its body assumed by Satan] setting Man in opposition to God.
God cursed the snake in a manner to make it opposite man in all things!!
WHAT THINK YE?
2007-06-02 21:17:54 · 7 answers · asked by dr c 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
I think it will change nothing. The people that want to believe in the bible will continue to do so, the ones that don't won't change their minds either.
The problem with all such studies is that there is nothing in what you said that changes anything. If you believe in evolution and you know even the slightest about DNA you know that almost everything is extremely close in make up even if they look different on the surface. So of course you are going to find lots of things that line up in both. They could have done the same study using say dolphins, and come to the same concussions. The problem with so called science this day is that people think that if you set out to prove something you aren't doing good science. But in fact you need to not have a basis either way and let the data tell you what is right, and even then it is not easy to come to the correct conclusion and given the fact that most people are either firmly in the Creationism or the Evolution camp they are extremely biased before they even start.
2007-06-02 21:31:23 · answer #1 · answered by Bulk O 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Another day ... another crackpot "theory" by a so-called "creationist" whose chief accomplishment will be to give the Christian religion a bad name.
1) Every single "creationist" who says that a particular anatomical feature "is just not possible over all the potential genetic random mutations" has been demonstrated to be wrong. Remember the fellow who said: "What's the use of half an eye?" until someone pointed out that for a person with cataracts, imperfect vision is far better than no vision at all. Then there was the one who asked, what would an animal do with half a wing? He had to be shown that flying squirrels do very well gliding on theirs, a lot better than the ones that can't escape from danger by jumping out of the tree.
The "just not possible" argument amounts to nothing more than the fallacy of Appeal to Personal Ignorance. Just because the "author, scientist-discoverer" can't imagine how the snake evolved does not mean that the snake didn't evolve.
2) What's this about snakes and humans being the "precise antithesis" of one another? Snakes and humans have more similarities than differences: they share 98% of their DNA, they are both vertebrates (they have backbones, differing from worms, for example) and, if he looked carefully, the "author, scientist-discoverer" would find that snakes have vestigal legs, which of course they don't use, because they make their living slithering under things rather than walking over them as human do. (Which is their chief difference.)
Of course, the "author, scientist-discoverer" doesn't know about those vestigal legs. That's the problem. His ignorance is the central part of his argument.
3) Since when does the modern snake equal the Biblical serpent? The serpent described in Genesis walked upright and could talk. The serpent apparently possessed intelligence, including the power of reason, and an advanced knowledge of God. This Biblical serpent certainly doesn't sound much like any snake I know!
2007-06-02 22:33:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anne Marie 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't really think that comparing snakes and humans makes for a fair reason to distrust the theory of evolution. Reptiles appeared on earth millions of years before mankind, or any ape or even mammal for that matter. The variation took a long time and created a vast amount of distinctly different animals. Also, the bible doesn't actually say snake, it says serpent, which can be interpreted many ways. Are we sure it was Satan that sent the snake, maybe it was God wanting to test our willpower. And is there any real evidence of Adam and Eve truly being the first humans. Could it be just a story to teach about sin?
2007-06-02 21:32:20 · answer #3 · answered by J 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well I'm convinced.
And I no longer believe in global warming or the earth going round the sun either.
2007-06-02 21:27:47 · answer #4 · answered by Johnny 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think that book is anything but scientific. . .Ha, ha, ha. How long did you sit up to think this up?
2007-06-02 21:25:46 · answer #5 · answered by towanda 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
we have known that since adam and eve.
2007-06-03 16:04:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wow COOL...
2007-06-02 21:21:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋