Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 46 of 75 (128271)
07-28-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
07-28-2004 1:37 AM


Because by definition, the supernatural can not be demonstrated, verified, or falsified.
Well then, please demonstrate the big bang. G'nite, er that is, g'mornin here in the East.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 07-28-2004 1:37 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 07-28-2004 3:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 55 by jar, posted 07-28-2004 1:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 56 by jar, posted 07-28-2004 1:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 47 of 75 (128273)
07-28-2004 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 1:33 AM


This forum is not the collegiate science department. It is a public forum in which both views are discussed.
Last I checked, it was an evolution forum where the biological, geological, paleontological, and cosmological sciences were discussed, Maybe you missed the sign?
Isn't science suppose to be about things which may exist in the universe and about the existing evidence of those things?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 48 of 75 (128282)
07-28-2004 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 1:42 AM


The big bang
Well then, please demonstrate the big bang.
You can listen to it if you want. Just tune your radio off station. A fair bit of the noise you hear is the radio (now) radiation from the big bang. (It was a very big "bang" indeed. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 49 of 75 (128342)
07-28-2004 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 1:20 AM


Re: nothing would rot
buzsaw writes:
Specifically which facts, Doc?
The facts of life buz. You know ... Biology.
1. Please teach me how there could be no life without death with Adam and Eve in the garden.
I can hardly teach you biology via email. The fact is simply this: There can be no life without death, Period. Doesn't matter what your name is or what you call your 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.
As I suggested earlier, your view is far from the mainstream take on this. The future world is supposed to be a restoration of Eden, or Eden-like conditions, which the deity declared to be "Very Good." It is difficult to imagine a "very good" world in which three ton predators have run of the place, screams of the dying echo off the trees, rotting corpses perfume the air, and sun bleached bones dot the landscape.
If you haven't already done so, see this argument posted by A.I.G. which explains (from a Christian point of view) why there can have been no death at all prior to "the fall."
Why Does God’s Creation Include Death and Suffering? | Answers in Genesis

Adult Sunday School

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:20 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 10:33 AM doctrbill has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 75 (128354)
07-28-2004 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by doctrbill
07-28-2004 9:42 AM


Re: nothing would rot
The facts of life buz. You know ... Biology.
Generalizations don't cut it here. Remember, Doc?
1. Please teach me how there could be no life without death with Adam and Eve in the garden.
I can hardly teach you biology via email. The fact is simply this: There can be no life without death, Period. Doesn't matter what your name is or what you call your garden.
I'm not asking for a course in biology. I'm asking for a response to the specific question. The is because it is, because it is thing does not cut it here in town. You don't accept it from others so why should others accept it from you.
As I suggested earlier, your view is far from the mainstream take on this. The future world is supposed to be a restoration of Eden, or Eden-like conditions, which the deity declared to be "Very Good." It is difficult to imagine a "very good" world in which three ton predators have run of the place, screams of the dying echo off the trees, rotting corpses perfume the air, and sun bleached bones dot the landscape.
If you haven't already done so, see this argument posted by A.I.G. which explains (from a Christian point of view) why there can have been no death at all prior to "the fall."
Again, I'm not asking for the opinion of others. My question is specifically about what the Genesis account says. You seem to have a pretty good handle on the scriptures and should be able to answer my question yourself with scripture itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by doctrbill, posted 07-28-2004 9:42 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by doctrbill, posted 07-28-2004 10:38 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 51 of 75 (128356)
07-28-2004 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 10:33 AM


Re: nothing would rot
buzsaw writes:
My question is specifically about what the Genesis account says.
Well Buz: If Genesis were the only book of the Bible we'd have a difficult time supporting Christianity now, wouldn't we? In fact, short of reasoning outside that box, neither of us would have much to say.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 10:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 52 of 75 (128369)
07-28-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 1:33 AM


And you wonder why I think you are a clown.
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 is a path to lunacy in the education system. The churches have this market cornered - I don't think any other field want to put up with that nonsense.
Tell me buz, would you write me down a modification of the Friedmann equation with the supernatural element.
Could you maybe devise some experiment for us and highlight what a 'supernatural' measurement would involve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 53 of 75 (128370)
07-28-2004 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
07-27-2004 11:47 PM


Re: LOL
Read what I said. I said you will say 'something like' the examples I chose. I did not say those were exact things you had quoted.
Can you not read?
By the way I could dig up some doozies you used a few months ago on the Sun/star formation thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 07-27-2004 11:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 54 of 75 (128382)
07-28-2004 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 12:44 AM


Re: nothing would rot
buz writes:
Ok Lam, which positive posts of my ideological adversaries have they positively proven? Please specify.
Since when have you proven to us the existence of god, angels, the spiritual dimension, etc...?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 12:44 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 55 of 75 (128386)
07-28-2004 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 1:42 AM


Buz, you're pulling stuff way OT but I see Ned has already answered you.
I'm glad that you did bring this up though because it does give one more chance to stress to you the difference between science and pseudo-sciences like Creationism.
While the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution or the alleged fall or snakes or eden, it is a classic example of how science works. Much of the Evidence for the Big Bang were serendipitous discovery. It was not something that the vast majority of scientists expected or believed.
As our telescopes got better, and we could see further out in space and further back in time, astromomers noticed that it seemed the vast majority of the things out there were moving away from us. And it didn't seem to matter what direction you looked, the general motion was away.
In the mean time, A.A. Penzias and R.W. Wilson were trying to get a new ultra-sensitive horn antenna working but found they were getting some unexplained noise. Further, the noise seemed to come from everywhere they looked. At first they suspected hardware or contamination, but after checking everything and cleaning it completely, they found the noise still there.
And that is the way that real science works.
observation---->hypothesis---->test---->theory---->conclusion.
The supporters of the pseudo-sciece of creation though want to turn things around to
conclusion---->accept only those observations that support conclusion.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Coragyps, posted 07-28-2004 1:24 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 75 (128387)
07-28-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 1:42 AM


Duplicate post somehow. Must have double-tapped.
This message has been edited by jar, 07-28-2004 12:09 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:42 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 57 of 75 (128388)
07-28-2004 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by jar
07-28-2004 1:04 PM


And that is the way that real science works.
observation---->hypothesis---->test---->theory---->conclusion.
And science has ALWAYS reserved the right to insert "fail test----> formulate new hypothesis----> test some more" after "test" in the above. It's not a simple world we live in, y'know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 07-28-2004 1:04 PM jar has not replied

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 75 (128391)
07-28-2004 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 1:33 AM


What is Supernatural?
buzsaw writes:
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?
Supernatural, by definition, means outside (or above) the natural. An object, entity or event could not be described as supernatural if it existed in the real (or natural) universe.
As jar states (and many others have stated before) science works in this manner:
quote:
observation---->hypothesis---->test---->theory---->conclusion
If something is truly supernatural can it be observed in the natural world in which we exist? If it cannot be observed, then science has no starting place. If it can be observed, why is it refered to as supernatural?
thanx
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 1:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 75 (128398)
07-28-2004 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
07-28-2004 1:10 AM


Re: LOL
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?

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 60 by Buzsaw, posted 07-29-2004 1:39 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 75 (128520)
07-29-2004 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Loudmouth
07-28-2004 2:19 PM


Re: LOL
Science only goes where the evidence leads, regardless of the religious implications.
Why then do we not hear from secular science circles as to whether or not the chariot wheels exist in Aqaba? Why is it that only Christian minded scientists are interested and researching it?
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.
No, it's because there are no fulfilled prophecies or historical and archeological evidences for their claims such as the Bible has.
If the supernatural were involved in natural phenomena, why are things easier to model and explain when they are excluded? Mind answering that question?
Because the supernatural cannot be modeled. Why does everything existing in the universe need be modeled? There is evidence for the supernatual -- lots of it which cannot be modeled. Imo, if it exists it should be acknowledged by science that things unexplained may have occured supernatually. They should go to Aqaba and check out whether or not claims are valid and if they are indeed valid base scientific hypothesis on what the evidence shows. Science cannot model anything created, 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?
quote:
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?
So what you're saying is science, doesn't exclude the existence of the supernatural so long as the student understands that any existing supernatural being NEVER DOES ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL. All things must be explained with the assumption that it is impossible for any existing supernatural being to do anything supernatural. Supernatural beings MUST operate totally in the natural so scientists can model what they''ve done. Isn't that what you're saying?
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?
LM this is what I mean. There is no scientific model for a supernatural curse. The text says the serpents were changed. It doesn't say they were changed by evolution of any kind. 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. Their offspring likely went into the ark. This explains why the whole dinosaur kingdom disappeared suddenly while other animals survived. It beats anything science comes up with, imo, as to their disappearance. It also explains why only the legged serpents/reptiles disappeared and the belly crawlers and short legged ones survived. There were small dinosaurs. Why did they die off and small crawlers live?
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-29-2004 12:40 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Loudmouth, posted 07-28-2004 2:19 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2004 1:56 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 62 by Loudmouth, posted 07-29-2004 2:20 PM Buzsaw 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