Originally posted by shadowmaster

Up your nose, Eru.

I'd tell you which body part to "up" it, but I'd be modded by a certain moderatorette with a vendetta against bikini pictures.

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

I don't see it as valid since technically, we're no longer apes. We're a different species.

We are a species of ape technically speaking. We are still apes.

Originally posted by MooseOnTheLoose

After all, they're just a bunch of talking apes.

well every human is an ape, so saying we are talking apes is kind of redundant, i don't see that as a problem unless you have issues with being called an ape.

as for the snake.. you do realize that snakes don't have vocal cords right? the idea of a talking snake is absurd since snakes can't talk.
so folks mocking the belief in genesis is solely because talking snakes are absurd.

i have to wonder what your point is other than the old "i'm no monkey!" stuff

Originally posted by reverenddg

as for the snake.. you do realize that snakes don't have vocal cords right? the idea of a talking snake is absurd since snakes can't talk.

Parrots talk and they don't have vocal chords either. So that has no impact upon the issue.

I would think that the fact they have no ears might prove a hinderence though.

Snakes don't have what parrots do that make them special, a bifurcated trachea that they can change the depth and shape of.

as for the snake.. you do realize that snakes don't have vocal cords right? the idea of a talking snake is absurd since snakes can't talk.
so folks mocking the belief in genesis is solely because talking snakes are absurd.

The idea is that the snake itself wasn't talking.

Originally posted by showmeproof

We are a species of ape technically speaking. We are still apes.

Nice picture for this.

Originally posted by MooseOnTheLoose

After all, they're just a bunch of talking apes.

Atheists don't like the idea of talking snakes because it seems like nonsense to them. After all, all of our experiences tells us that snakes don't talk. I don't like the idea of talking snakes (it does seem a bit absurd), but my issue is not so much with talking snakes as it is with the implicit assumption of naturalism that goes along with the idea that snakes don't talk. In a supernatural view, snakes can be made to talk (which is contrary to the natural order of snakes) through miraculous means. What would surprise you more, a snake that talked or man that rose from the dead three days later? I do think, in regard to talking snakes, that many people overlook the heavy metaphorical interpretations of the Biblical accounts in the Bible.

Originally posted by Heterodoxus

Gee, I don't know! Why do Christians belief in a talking ass? (Numbers 22:28-30)

Because we hang out on T-Web.

Originally posted by FlimFlamboyant

Because we hang out on T-Web.

Originally posted by Eru Ilúvatar

The idea is that the snake itself wasn't talking.

You mean it was a sock puppet?

Originally posted by Moksha

You mean it was a sock puppet?

In a manner of speaking, possibly. Could also be an allegory for something else entirely. I don't know.

I don't believe the "creature" was a snake... the word is translated "serpent", and the original language affords many other connotatiions, not necessarily a reptile.

Well, how else are we going to invent the concept of sin other than a story whereby a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

Originally posted by EvoUK

Well, how else are we going to invent the concept of sin other than a story whereby a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

The myth of Pandora works fine.

Originally posted by Eru Luvatar

I'm beginning to think that you're definition of "magic" is so loose that any unusual occurrences would be "magical".

more precisely, anything that violates the laws of nature; you know like gravity and physics and stuff. So basically, by definition, an event that has never (to our knowledge) occured, and one for which we have no reason to assume can occur.