Why are there venomous snakes?

quote:

---

Imo, the prefallen serpents were the dinosaurs whose offspring became snakes, lizzards, allegators, etc. They are all of the serpent family.

---

According to the fossil record, dinosaurs are not the ancestors of any living reptile today. However, they are possibly the ancestors of birds, although that is still a hotly debated topic.

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.

---

Then you have abandoned a literal reading of Genesis which very emphatically states that all of the creatures that creep upon the earth were put onto the ark. If they were around, they would have been on the ark if they survived till the flood.

quote:

---

Eta, can you spell C R E A T I O N I S T? I am a creationist who believes in a supernatural dimension in the universe and which, imo, mainline science bulligerently denies.

---

The only thing mainstream science states is that supernatural mechanisms do not affect natural phenomena, not that the supernatural does not exist.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:

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, the dinosaurs lived until the flood but Noah did not put them on the ark. This is in direct violation of God's orders to put everything that crept upon the earth into the Ark. So again, have you abandoned a literal interpretation? It is shocking that you can not even remain consistent with the Bible, much less scientific data. Or, given your track record, maybe it isn't that stunning.

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.

quote:

---

..........and which of the miraculous Biblical claims do they teach?

---

I suppose, since they are mostly based on christian theology, they teach the life and ressurection of Jesus the Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth if they first assume that the Jews were right and Jesus was not the Messiah. Wheaton College near Chicago, for example, teaches Genesis as a metaphor and relies on science to explain the natural world, just as one example of a theology department that understands the implications of God's creation.

quote:

---

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, that is not how it works. Read very carefully. Science states that natural phenomena are not affected by supernatural mechanisms. This in no way says that the supernatural does not exist, but rather it is not reliable in describing the natural world and natural phenomena. This does not rule out that the Christian God exists, or that the afterlife exists. Instead, science is simply neutral on the issue of the existence of the supernatural. It neither confirms nor denies the existence of dieties, an afterlife, or the supernatural. Let's take this to a different arena, let's say a clinical trial for a new drug. In this trial, no mention is made of the supernatural. They simply record the benefice of the drug and side effects as compared to the placebo group. No mention of the supernatural is made, nor does it need to be made. Let's go to yet a different arena, astrophysics. Even though Newton believed in a Creator God, he did not include the presence of the supernatural in his calculations or his Laws of Motion because they are not cogent to the data, math, or theories. Science does not make a statement on the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, it is neutral on the subject. Science only goes where the evidence leads, regardless of the religious implications.

quote:

---

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?

---

And christian fundamentalists are just going to assume that the Greek and Roman Gods do not exist along with the enlightenment of Budha, the Norse Gods, the Hindu pantheon, etc because of their personal ideologies. Science is only excluding one more god from natural phenomena than you are, buz. However, science has a much better track record than inquiries that rely on the presence of the supernatural, in case you haven't noticed. If the supernatural were involved in natural phenomena, why are things easier to model and explain when they are excluded? Mind answering that question?

quote:

---

SCIENTIFICALLY THERE IS NO SUPERNATURAL DIMENSION IN THE UNIVERSE ACCORDING TO CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE AS TAUGHT IN SECULARISTIC UNIVERSITIES.

---

And you can bold and italicize it and it still won't be true. Supernatural explanations for natural phenomena are excluded within the sciences, but this in no way excludes the existence of the supernatural outside the realm of natural phenomena. What is it about this statement that you have trouble understanding?

quote:

---

LM, I fully explained that the descendendents of the originals were in the ark.

---

So going from dinosaurs to snakes is microevolution? Weren't dinosaurs one of the original, biblical kinds, and so if they were around they should have been put on the ark? If the descendents were significantly different than the predecessors (dinosaurs) who where still alive at the time, why weren't they put on the ark?

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.