Hum Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 What was lost tens of millions of years ago is now found. A fossil animal locked in Lebanese limestone has been shown to be an extremely precious discovery - a snake with two legs. Scientists have only a handful of specimens that illustrate the evolutionary narrative that goes from ancient lizard to limbless modern serpent. Researchers at the European Light Source (ESRF) in Grenoble, France, used intense X-rays to confirm that a creature imprinted on a rock, and with one visible leg, had another appendage buried just under the surface of the slab. "We were sure he had two legs but it was great to see it, and we hope to find other characteristics that we couldn't see on the other limb," said Alexandra Houssaye from the National Museum of Natural History, Paris. The 85cm-long (33in) creature, known as Eupodophis descouensi, comes from the Late Cretaceous, about 92 million years ago. source & video Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berserk87 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Its funny how what you guys are claiming is evolution here, also fits with the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giga Veteran Posted April 10, 2008 Veteran Share Posted April 10, 2008 Its funny how what you guys are claiming is evolution here, also fits with the bible. The 85cm-long (33in) creature, known as Eupodophis descouensi, comes from the Late Cretaceous, about 92 million years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zab Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Its funny how what you guys are claiming is evolution here, also fits with the bible. The 85cm-long (33in) creature, known as Eupodophis descouensi, comes from the Late Cretaceous, about 92 million years ago. No, What was lost tens of millions of years ago is now found. ( Reality ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted April 10, 2008 Veteran Share Posted April 10, 2008 Its funny how what you guys are claiming is evolution here, also fits with the bible. That's what I was just thinking, Gen 3:14 :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bawx Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 The Bible is a neat piece of fiction. Good read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted April 10, 2008 Author Share Posted April 10, 2008 ^ The Bible is a mixture of real history, visions, dreams, and some fictional inventions, based on the beliefs of the times in which the various books were written. Even the accurate parts are sadly misinterpreted. Anyway -- I'm glad they found that pesky Garden of Eden serpent -- hehe. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundayx Veteran Posted April 10, 2008 Veteran Share Posted April 10, 2008 My first reaction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Its funny how what you guys are claiming is evolution here, also fits with the bible. That's what I was just thinking, Gen 3:14 :yes: I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 We all know how accurate scientist dating is... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PricklyPoo Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Its funny how what you guys are claiming is evolution here, also fits with the bible. Because the bible talks about a serpant, maybe the one in my backyard? We all know how accurate scientist dating is... :laugh: You can prove it wrong? Go ahead and be the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kernatch Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulugod Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 The bible = a bunch of chinese whispers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 We all know how accurate scientist dating is... :laugh: Man do you even know how carbon dating works? by your use of 'scientist dating', i guess no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 I know how it works....and I know how inaccurate it is. Why do you think scientists dont use most of there dating methods anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 I know how it works....and I know how inaccurate it is.Why do you think scientists dont use most of there dating methods anymore. Really? Well, oh fount of all knowledge, enlighten us as you how you think carbon dating works, and why it's not apparently used anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vykranth Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Really? Well, oh fount of all knowledge, enlighten us as you how you think carbon dating works, and why it's not apparently used anymore? And, please, let's have a new argument instead of the half life of C14 which does not allow datation of things older than 60000 years old. Otherwise, the dozens of posts with Potassium/Argon datation are going to be recycled ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 I know how it works....and I know how inaccurate it is.Why do you think scientists dont use most of there dating methods anymore. Please describe how "it" works, Jason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGS4-SS Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 I know how it works....and I know how inaccurate it is.Why do you think scientists dont use most of there dating methods anymore. No, you don't. Prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Its not worth the arguement, so i'll leave it... I have better things to do than argue with a bunch of big headed know it alls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acies Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Its not worth the arguement, so i'll leave it... I have better things to do than argue with a bunch of big headed know it alls. :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGS4-SS Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Its not worth the arguement, so i'll leave it... I have better things to do than argue with a bunch of big headed know it alls. So you can't prove it, therefore you're wrong. And so all your posts claiming that the dating methods scientists use are inaccurate, are in fact, without any type of knowledge on the field. So concluding, you're pulling **** out of your head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Read what I said, dummy. I could prove it if I wanted, but whats the point. Ill get flamed for the hell of it and Like I said, Im not going to argue, why should I swoop down to your level?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Read what I said, dummy.I could prove it if I wanted, but whats the point. Ill get flamed for the hell of it and Like I said, Im not going to argue, why should I swoop down to your level?? Well in reality, with the claims you make out to be fact that totally ignore proven methods, there really isn't anywhere for you to go but up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Where ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts