Why are there venomous snakes?

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.

Last I checked, it was an evolution forum where the biological, geological, paleontological, and cosmological sciences were discussed, Maybe you missed the sign? No. Science is about constructing testable models that lead to predictions about phenomena in the universe.Since the existence or non-existence of the supernatural is irrelevant to that process, by definition, it's not relevant to science. Therefore we exclude it from the science classroom.The theology department is down the hall, Buz. What we do here is construct and test models. If you just want to make stuff up, head down a few doors.

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.

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.

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.