Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are there venomous snakes?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 75 (128231)
07-27-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Yaro
07-27-2004 11:36 PM


Re: nothing would rot
umm... last time I checked Bacteria werent plants.
Did you know bacteria multiply by the millions every second? If they didn't die, or eat the decomposing bio-matter around them, they would litteraly smoother the world in their mass.
Like the Blob
Bacteria eat dead things, they decompose things, they ferment them. Also, another chink in the armor of the argumen.
SOME BACTERIA DONT DIE OF OLD AGE!
Thats right, many kinds of bacteria are essentialy imortal, they don't age, and don't die as a result of age. So how do you account for this?
Alright, make it plants and some bacteria. Big deal!! Yaro, it's obvious, you're desperate here, for a thread of something, anything for refutation. Oh well, I sense your need.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Yaro, posted 07-27-2004 11:36 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Yaro, posted 07-28-2004 12:00 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 40 by doctrbill, posted 07-28-2004 1:08 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 32 of 75 (128233)
07-28-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
07-27-2004 11:55 PM


Re: nothing would rot
Im not desparete for anything.
I was just following the train of logic from the OP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2004 11:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 12:16 AM Yaro has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 75 (128236)
07-28-2004 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Loudmouth
07-27-2004 11:55 PM


Re: LOL
The only thing mainstream science states is that supernatural mechanisms do not affect natural phenomena, not that the supernatural does not exist.
Oh, really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, that's a new one on me!!!!!!!!!! So humanistic higher education in America is now admitting that the supernatural dimension in the universe is a reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOWIE!!!!!!!!! LM, pray tell now, which universities now, can I send my kid to who will teach him that the supernatural phenomonen in the universe actually exists and that he can be sure of that???????? Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth?? Which ones, LM?
Also, in a previous post, you claimed that the dinosaurs lived up until the flood, yet you claim that they were not put onto the ark. From post #11 of this thread:
.........and LM, what did I say about that in refutation to your post? Please read thoughtfully and carefully and there's your answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Loudmouth, posted 07-27-2004 11:55 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Loudmouth, posted 07-28-2004 12:43 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 75 (128237)
07-28-2004 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Yaro
07-28-2004 12:00 AM


Re: nothing would rot
Im not desparete for anything.
I was just following the train of logic from the OP
Well, then, peace, Yaro. Maybe you need also to thoughtfully reread responses to the OP. {Shrugs).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-27-2004 11:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Yaro, posted 07-28-2004 12:00 AM Yaro has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 75 (128238)
07-28-2004 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
07-27-2004 11:22 PM


Re: nothing would rot
Not that it matters much since no one has ever been able to provide any evidence that there was a fall, or eden, or serpent, or Adam, or Eve or...
..........Nor to refute the fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 07-27-2004 11:22 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 07-28-2004 12:29 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 36 of 75 (128240)
07-28-2004 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 12:20 AM


Re: nothing would rot
buz writes:
..........Nor to refute the fact.
Um... buz, the burden of proof always falls on the side that claims the positive. Otherwise, people could claim that there are green goblins running around and we would have to accept that as a fact until someone can disprove that they don't exist... which would be a mess because how the hell do you refute something that doesn't exist in the first place?

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 12:20 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by SRO2, posted 07-28-2004 12:35 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 12:44 AM coffee_addict has replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 75 (128243)
07-28-2004 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by coffee_addict
07-28-2004 12:29 AM


Re: nothing would rot
100% correct Lam. A negative cannot be proven, only a positive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 07-28-2004 12:29 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 75 (128246)
07-28-2004 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 12:12 AM


Re: LOL
quote:
LM, pray tell now, which universities now, can I send my kid to who will teach him that the supernatural phenomonen in the universe actually exists and that he can be sure of that???????? Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth?? Which ones, LM?
Probably all of them since each one has a theology department. I am particular to liberal arts colleges as compared to the larger universities which force students to have most of their credits in their majors. However, I didn't say that mainstream science says that there IS a supernatural realm. Mainstream science says that it may or may not exist, but it doesn't matter to science since the supernatural does not affect what it is measuring, the physical, natural world. The supernatural is a focus for theology and philosophy, not science. Science deals with the idea of God as much as it deals with which girl OutBack Jack should pick. It is not something that science is set up to deal with or explain.
quote:
.........and LM, what did I say about that in refutation to your post? Please read thoughtfully and carefully and there's your answer.
Alright, stop me if I put any words in your mouth.
First you claim (post 11):
quote:
Imo, the prefallen serpents were the dinosaurs whose offspring became snakes, lizzards, allegators, etc.
So the prefallen serpents were the dinosaurs seen in the fossil record. Correct?
This is reiterated in post 15:
quote:
Each of the various zapped belly crawling offspring of the parent dinosaurs would be descended from the dinosaur forbear of the variety it descended from.
So it is the offspring of the dinosaurs that are belly crawling, but the original, prefallen dinosaurs are still dinosaurs.
And, again, this quote from post 11:
quote:
I do not agree with most creationists such as ICR who believe and teach that dinosaurs were in Noah's ark. I do believe however, that the parent prefallen dinosaurs lived very long lives and many survived until the flood which would have been about 1500 years since many humans lived nearly a thousand years.
So again, we have the prefallen dinosaurs in their original form, and they lived until the flood waters came. Therefore, since they were alive when God commanded that Noah fill the Ark with everything that crept on the earth, the still alive prefallen dinosaurs should have made it onto the Ark. You claim that they didn't, which means that you don't agree that either Noah didn't follow God's commandment, or you don't believe in a literal translation of Genesis. Or possibility number three, that this whole cooked up scheme is your own fantasy world conconcted to frustrate and beguile those who abide by logical and consistent arguments. I am thinking a combination of options two and three.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 12:12 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:10 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 75 (128247)
07-28-2004 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by coffee_addict
07-28-2004 12:29 AM


Re: nothing would rot
Um... buz, the burden of proof always falls on the side that claims the positive. Otherwise, people could claim that there are green goblins running around and we would have to accept that as a fact until someone can disprove that they don't exist... which would be a mess because how the hell do you refute something that doesn't exist in the first place?
Ok Lam, which positive posts of my ideological adversaries have they positively proven? Please specify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 07-28-2004 12:29 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by coffee_addict, posted 07-28-2004 12:45 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 40 of 75 (128255)
07-28-2004 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
07-27-2004 11:55 PM


Re: nothing would rot
Any facts which challenge your point of view should give you pause to reconsider your conclusions. Well, that would be the case for a reasonable person.
P.S. - Your position regarding the existence of death prior the entrance of sin is unique. What brings you to this conclusion? You must realize that this puts you on the fringe Christendom, which asserts that there was no death - period - before the entrance of sin.
And by the way, the truth of life is this:
There can be no life without death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2004 11:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:20 AM doctrbill has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 75 (128256)
07-28-2004 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Loudmouth
07-28-2004 12:43 AM


Re: LOL
Probably all of them since each one has a theology department.
..........and which of the miraculous Biblical claims do they teach?
I didn't say that mainstream science says that there IS a supernatural realm. Mainstream science says that it may or may not exist
Oh, so since it may or may not exist, they really don't know and since they don't know, they play it safe and ultimately the student is taught that it doesn't exist?? Is that how it works?
,
but it doesn't matter to science since the supernatural does not affect what it is measuring, the physical, natural world.
Oh, so maybe the supernatural exists, but for all practictal purposes and to suit our own personal ideologies, we're just going to assume in this class that it doesn't exist and go with what is secularistically natural? Is that the way it works and is that why the kid graduates fully indoctinated into humanistic secularism?
The supernatural is a focus for theology and philosophy, not science. Science deals with the idea of God as much as it deals with which girl OutBack Jack should pick. It is not something that science is set up to deal with or explain.
So now, we come back full circle to my original point that SCIENTIFICALLY THERE IS NO SUPERNATURAL DIMENSION IN THE UNIVERSE ACCORDING TO CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE AS TAUGHT IN SECULARISTIC UNIVERSITIES.
So again, we have the prefallen dinosaurs in their original form, and they lived until the flood waters came. Therefore, since they were alive when God commanded that Noah fill the Ark with everything that crept on the earth, the still alive prefallen dinosaurs should have made it onto the Ark. You claim that they didn't, which means that you don't agree that either Noah didn't follow God's commandment, or you don't believe in a literal translation of Genesis. Or possibility number three, that this whole cooked up scheme is your own fantasy world conconcted to frustrate and beguile those who abide by logical and consistent arguments. I am thinking a combination of options two and three.
LM, I fully explained that the descendendents of the originals were in the ark. If your mind cannot comprehend that, I'm afraid I can't help you. By your logic, all the forbears of the ark passengers should be aboard the voyage. LOL and bonvoyu. I'm hittin hay! G'nite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Loudmouth, posted 07-28-2004 12:43 AM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2004 1:15 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 59 by Loudmouth, posted 07-28-2004 2:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 75 (128259)
07-28-2004 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 1:10 AM


Oh, so since it may or may not exist, they really don't know and since they don't know, they play it safe and ultimately the student is taught that it doesn't exist?? Is that how it works?
No, buz. I imagine that students in physics classes who inquire about the supernatural are directed to the theology or psychology departments, much as they would be directed to the CS department if they inquired about microprocessors, or the biology department if they inquired about the metabolic molecule ATP.
In other words, things irrelevant to science are not handled by the science department. There are no science textbooks that say that the supernatural does not exist. There are no evolution textbooks that say God does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:10 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:33 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 75 (128263)
07-28-2004 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by doctrbill
07-28-2004 1:08 AM


Re: nothing would rot
Any facts which challenge your point of view should give you pause to reconsider your conclusions. Well, that would be the case for a reasonable person.
Specifically which facts, Doc?
P.S. - Your position regarding the existence of death prior the entrance of sin is unique. What brings you to this conclusion? You must realize that this puts you on the fringe Christendom, which asserts that there was no death - period - before the entrance of sin.
And by the way, the truth of life is this:
There can be no life without death.
1. Please teach me how there could be no life without death with Adam and Eve in the garden.
2. You have yet to aprise me of your notion that Genesis states or implies there is no death of things other than mankind in the garden of Eden. I'm all eyes, awaiting this revelation from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by doctrbill, posted 07-28-2004 1:08 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by doctrbill, posted 07-28-2004 9:42 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 75 (128267)
07-28-2004 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
07-28-2004 1:15 AM


In other words, things irrelevant to science are not handled by the science department. There are no science textbooks that say that the supernatural does not exist. There are no evolution textbooks that say God does not exist.
1. Please then, tell it to Eta, the town physicist. This forum is not the collegiate science department. It is a public forum in which both views are discussed.
2. If there is a real possibility of the existence of a supernatural dimension in the real universe, why is it banned from the science classroom? Isn't science suppose to be about things which may exist in the universe and about the existing evidence of those things???????
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-28-2004 12:35 AM

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2004 1:15 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 07-28-2004 1:37 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 07-28-2004 2:11 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 52 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-28-2004 11:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 58 by portmaster1000, posted 07-28-2004 2:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 75 (128268)
07-28-2004 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 1:33 AM


2. If there is a real possibility of the existence of a supernatural dimension in the real universe, why is it banned from the science classroom? Isn't science suppose to be about things which may exist in the universe and about the existing evidence of those things???????
Because by definition, the supernatural can not be demonstrated, verified, or falsified.
In addition, it is simplly not needed. There is more than enough evidence to support the TOE without bringing in supernatural powers.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:42 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024