Remains of an ancient snake with legs found in Argentina supporting the Genesis account

Snakes, today, are best known for their ability to slither around on the ground, but paleontologists working in Argentina discovered the fossilized remains of a snake that once walked on legs in the Rio Negro province.

Like most fossils it’s rare to find the full animal and in this case they only dug up the head.

But it is well known that snakes once started off with legs and this particular fossil was named “najash rionegrina” a purposeful spin off of the Hebrew word for snake “nachash.”

Of course, in the Biblical account of Adam and Eve’s fall into sin, it was the snake that played the pivotal role in first tempting Eve. In the account, God not only judged Adam and Eve, the Lord also judged the snake:

¹⁴The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
Genesis 3:14 NASV

Since God condemned the snake to a life on its belly, by implication at one time it had legs and walked.

Of course, evolutionists have dated this particular snake to being 93 billion years old, yet somehow the Bible knew about this change.

This is not the first time that evolutionary dating has been challenged. Over the past few years, they have been discovering soft material, cartilage and blood vessels, inside the fossilized remains of dinosaurs believed to be tens of millions of years old, seriously challenging the age of these particular finds.

In fact, when soft tissue was first reported in 2004 by Mary Higby Schweitzer, an Evangelical Christian with a PhD in micro biology, one evolutionary journal refused to publish the information because stating it was impossible. Schweitzer found the soft tissue inside a T-Rex bone discovered in Montana thought to be 69 million years old.

When she finally published information about her discovery in 2008, her findings were challenged in another article, but that article was later withdrawn when they started finding soft tissue in other dinosaur bones around the world.

With the millions of fossilized bones studied over the past couple centuries, is it reasonable to believe that 2004 was the first time someone noticed soft tissue inside these remains?

Since finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones would counter the evolutionary narrative, one wonders if such discoveries were either discounted or perhaps even suppressed.

Sources: