Why are there venomous snakes?

It doesn't, but you have to understand that that's the purpose and function of science - modelling that which is modelable.So, that which is unmodelable is outside the purview of science. That's why science directs those questions to the tehology department.That's not science saying "it doesn't exist", that's science saying "answering that question isn't something we can do with the tools we have." But why on Earth would we come to that conclusion when, every time before when we encountered something with no explanation, it was simply that we hadn't come up with an explanation yet?How on Earth would you determine the difference between something that we haven't been able to model yet, and something that we'll never be able to model?The reason that science probably won't say that the unexplainable is the supernatural is because it's never been the case that the unexplainable has turned out to be the supernatural. It's always turned out to be something we just weren't able to explain yet.Do you understand the question, yet? How are we supposed to know the difference between the unexplainable-under-any-circumstances supernatural stuff and the unexplained-because-we-just-haven't-found-the-right-explanation stuff? Are we just supposed to assume everything we can't explain is something we'll never explain, even though that has yet to ever be the case? No. What we're saying is that the assumption "we'll never be able to explain this" should never be made. Why would we make that assumption? How would you know if something is explainable until you try to explain it? Just so you know, dinosaurs aren't reptiles.

Sorry if I repeat what Crashfrog has mentioned, I will try to add to his post instead of repeating it.

quote:

---

Why then do we not hear from secular science circles as to whether or not the chariot wheels exist in Aqaba?

---

Sound like a good OP for a new thread. It is off topic here, but I would be interested in looking at it in a new thread. I figured we should stay with one off topic subject at a time.

quote:

---

No, [christians discount other dieties] because there are no fulfilled prophecies or historical and archeological evidences for their claims such as the Bible has.

---

So you can use objective evidence to exclude a diety? Isn't this exactly what you are accusing evolutionists of doing? If christians are able to discount the greek and roman gods, why can't science exclude the christian God because of lack of evidence as seen in the natural world?

quote:

---

Why does everything existing in the universe need be modeled?

---

So that we can better our health, develop new technologies, and explore the universe. We are a very curious species, and we finally have the key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe that we seek; the scientific method. If modeling didn't really matter, then why do you so vehemently defend the model of creation that is in Genesis?

quote:

---

There is evidence for the supernatual -- lots of it which cannot be modeled.

---

So what evidence of the supernatural fits into a predictable model of the universe? You claim that it exists, yet you are reticent to divulge this information.

quote:

---

Imo, if it exists it should be acknowledged by science that things unexplained may have occured supernatually.

---

When has that ever increased our knowledge of the natural world. When, in history, has assuming the supernatural led to discoveries in the natural world? The history of science, as I remember it, shows that reliable discoveries were only made when the supernatural was excluded as a possible explanatory tool. Can you show me otherwise? For instance, did assigning the creation of lightening to Zeus help us in our pursuit of metereology or electrical engineering? Or, did our understanding of weather increase when we excluded all possible supernatural mechanisms?

quote:

---

Science cannot model anything created,

---

What can not be modelled? Can you name one thing that humans are either incapable of modeling or incapable of ever modeling? It seems that science has been able to model the creation of the universe, the creation of species, and the creation of life. This refutes your claim.

quote:

---

so if science acknowledges the possibility of the supernatural why can't science acknowledge the possibility, I say the possibility, of intelligent design in the universe?

---

For someone to claim that things are intelligently designed, they first have to jump over one very large hurdle; that natural mechanisms are able to create what they claim is intelligently designed. If I looked in a riverbed and claimed that a round rock was created by an intelligent designer, people would look at me funny. Why? Because water erosion is sufficient to explain the roundness of the rock. In the same way, evolution is a sufficient mechanism for creation of complexity and biodiversity that we see today. IDers try to ignore this fact, but it still remains. Why should we assume the interactions of a deity when natural mechanisms are sufficient? Why should we assume that Zeus is throwing down lightening bolts when particle uplift is sufficient for creating differential charges in clouds?

quote:

---

There is no scientific model for a supernatural curse.

---

And there is not reliable evidence that curses exist. At best, the evidence supporting curses are anecdotal, and they also ignore the power of the placebo effect, or rather the ability of the body to produce somatic responses from psychological states. Curses have as much power as sugar pills do in clinical trials of new drugs.

quote:

---

Just as they were created in a day, they were changed so likely their offspring no longer looked like them. Nevertheless, THEY WERE STILL THEIR OFFSPRING.

---

So, you are saying that the offspring, even though completely different than the parent stock, stood in the place of the parents on the ark. To me, this just seems to ingore that the belly crawling serpents and dinosaurs fit every qualification that creationist put forth for different kinds. It is strange that ostriches and nighthawks were considered different kinds, but dinosaurs and snakes are considered the same kind. It really dilutes the explanatory power of the Kind argument.

You don't need always to model, as I stated. You go by the evidence and research that. The supernatural cannot be modeled by the natural. That's why science needs to take a look at the evidence of the supernatural and add another dimension to their model of the universe.......the supernatual dimension.

They have the evidence. That's why I mentioned the Exodus crossing as an example. They simply refuse to even look at it because of their aversion to having to deal with the existing supernatural dimension in the universe. So scientists such as Moller do it and everybody else, including the media are oblivious to it since it contradicts their whole ideological mindset.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-30-2004 01:00 AM

---

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

Instant creation of the sun, for example. Cursing of the serpents so as to change the genes of the offspring to be different for another. Scattering chariot debris across Aqaba for a third example with all the corroborating evidence required for attesting to the Biblical historical account. Maybe then science should interview some folks who have observed levitation. I've never seen it, but believe it exists as witnessed by reliable sources. I would not attend such a thing as I believe it to be demonically driven, nevertheless supernatural. ........sufficient for what? to suit your ideology? But what if your ideology is flawed and you could be wrong? That's not good science, imo. It's too narrowminded.

Dinosaurs are/were reptiles. Why do you deny this?

You do if you're going science. That, after all, is the purpose of science, the formation of predictive models. Which would be the first step of creating models. I honestly don't understand what you're getting at. But if the supernatural, by definition, is that which cannot be modeled, then this just isn't possible.

Because they're not reptiles, Buz.Reptiles are cold-blooded. Dinosaurs are not. Reptiles have reptile-like pelvises. Dinosaurs do not. Reptiles amble around on splayed, bent legs. Dinosaurs have an upright stance.Just like birds aren't reptiles, dinosaurs aren't reptiles. They're dinosaurs.

I think that dinosaurs might well be reptiles. In a subclass of their own perhaps but I'll check around.(added by edit)Not the last word but:from: ADW: Reptilia: INFORMATION

quote:

---

The Reptilia, presented as a Class in our classification, includes turtles (Testudines), snakes and lizards (Lepidosauria), crocodiles and their relatives (Crocodilia), and birds (Aves), as well as a number of extinct groups. Reptiles (including birds!) are amniotes; that is, their eggs are protected from dessication and other environmental problems by an extra membrane, the amnion, not found in the first terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians). Mammals (Mammalia) are also amniotes, but they differ from reptiles in the structure of their skulls (especially the regions associated with chewing and hearing), and because mammals have hair and feed their young with milk produced by modified skin glands (mammary glands).

---

and see
http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/Labs/Classification_Lab/...
Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AM}which agrees with this.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-30-2004 06:10 PMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-30-2004 06:35 PM

Insofar as birds and mammals are reptiles, yes.But I do know that aa distinction is regularly drawn between dinosaurs and other prehistoric reptiles alive at the same time.

Yes, there were other reptilia that are confused with the dinosaurian order (sea and air) but the dinosaurs are, at least in some places classed as reptilia.I can see your argument about warm-bloodedness and such and that may well separate them out at sometime but that change hasn't been made yet.However, they are NOT closely related to snakes other than that. They are more closely related to birds. I wonder why the bible did't tell Buz that they were cursed into being birds.

does this help?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Only the legless birds that crawl on their bellies.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh, of course, those birds.What family was that, again?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-30-2004 06:44 PM

Other than being of dubious quality, shouldn't this be in one of the "humor" topics?Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests