Judy: I am not afraid of "Religious answers" when the evidence supports such. However, there is less evidence to support a God-being saying "Behold I have Created you!" than there is to support alternative theories. Genesis and the concept of all creatures being created as they are at the same time is NOT supported by the fossil evidence of thousands of species that have emerged and declined thru our history.
The age of such fossils can be determined not just by "Carbon dating" but also by Geology. The replacement of bone with minerals takes time and the "in Between" fossils Those that still contain bone or carbon residue) are common.
Moreover it does not take a degree to understand that when an object is covered by sediment...anything that is preserved above it is more recent. add to that the amount of time it takes to form sedimentary rock and then Metamorphic rock and you have a much better idea of how old things are.
A lizard is not a snake because of a few physical differences...Most notably, the lack of an external ear, which An adaptation for burrowing. However there are lizards that lack this also. It is a shades of gray issue. Evolution does not follow a single line. it is allways adapting different animals to different soulutions. For example Boas and pythons represent two different approaches to the same adaptation...So Does the glass lizard.
I apologise if (Judy) I offended you. I have a sore spot for people who make a broad claim like you did about no intermediate examples when all you have to do is pick up a book and see they are there.
Saying that "Lots of things don't make sense" is a typical dodge. A vesigal limb is just that. A limb who's purpose is no longer necessary. When a person loses the use of an arm for example the arm shrinks (atrophies). This is not a complete elimination unless generation upon generation doesn't use it and they survive to breed. We have a vesigal organ, the appendex. Removing that organ does us no harm. If you removed the Spur-bone or what ever you want to call it from a snake it would not harm it either as it has no use for the limb...so what's the point?
From the many living examples, we can see that the developement of body propulsion vs limb atrophy occurs at the same time. Limbs were lost as the proto snake became more of a burrowing animal. It is more efficient to lose the legs which interfere with momentum underground. As to why the ancestoral snake did this change in lifestyle is open to speculation.
You might want to look up what a Phylogenic Tree is and how it relates to evolution.
We have species that scoot on their belly today and have greatly reduced limbs....Your point?
By your phrasing Judy, I am going to take a bold step and guess you are of a Protestant faith (not that it makes a difference).
My own background is Catholic. I am very well read in a number of religions (though I would not call myself a expert on them).
I do however, look at all sides of an issue and by that I don't mean reading your church's handout on what Darwin said. I read the Bible for Christian concepts...and to understand what Darwin was saying...I read HIS WORDS.
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."
