rat snakes venoumous???

Originally Posted by *salAMANDA88*

haha..you do realize that most "Theorys"...are prooven true...and at least a theory has undergone many tests and plenty of research....and factors that "exist" are looked at...not just some bedtime story for people sinking in life, that need something to grab to say a-float.
*support science....not superstation*
but..ha...I digress...

"I have found this very interesting and so I thank you. I saw a program in which they created a chicken embryo with teeth and a tail. My sister was watching it. (Shes doing dinosaurs at uni lol). "
.........Yeah dude!..it was on the Science channel..I taped it...I can't recall what it was called tho...
It was a great program...it also said that the "mutations" also sometimes just naturally happened...the gene for some reason just snapped on...weird...

"I find it interesting that Dr. Fry has stated that they found venom proteins in ratsnake saliva... it would certainly explain some of the skin reactions people have to bites. "
yeah that makes sense..I hope my yellow rat never bites me...I don't think he will...(knock on wood)...but he is so relaxed..haha..
BTW...where can I find this report..I'd love to read the whole thing...Thanx

This will be my last post, because I think this quoted post was going to far. I never down played anyone else's beliefs, I was just having a discussion. To say my beliefs are bedtime stories was in my opinion out of line. On a side note, it is called "Creation Theory", for the same reasons your beliefs in evolution are theory. Use the spell check from now on.

Originally Posted by onelifetolive45

This will be my last post, because I think this quoted post was going to far. I never down played anyone else's beliefs, I was just having a discussion. To say my beliefs are bedtime stories was in my opinion out of line. On a side note, it is called "Creation Theory", for the same reasons your beliefs in evolution are theory. Use the spell check from now on.

People fear and ridicule things they don't understand......
Religion relys on faith... If there was proof, there wouldn't be the faith....
And it's worth remembering...
Omnipotent beings can create things at an age....
Just to put a different slant on things....

[quote=onelifetolive45;701747]

Originally Posted by *salAMANDA88*

On his death bed he claimed it was all theory, just keep that in mind. It is a theory

[quote=snakewispera snr;701787]

Originally Posted by onelifetolive45

And I believe it wasn't even his theory in the first place.....

Would either of these (if they were true) go ANYWHERE toward discrediting evolution?

As for your beliefs, I have nothing against them and I have no problem with faith or anyone having faith. I certainly won't mock your faith.. But I have to say it.. Creation Theory and Evolution Theory are not using the word 'Theory' in the same way. Anymore than us getting in an argument about the word light when you mean 'little weight' and I mean 'daylight'..

[quote=tom e;702686][quote=onelifetolive45;701747]

Originally Posted by snakewispera snr

Would either of these (if they were true) go ANYWHERE toward discrediting evolution?

As for your beliefs, I have nothing against them and I have no problem with faith or anyone having faith. I certainly won't mock your faith.. But I have to say it.. Creation Theory and Evolution Theory are not using the word 'Theory' in the same way. Anymore than us getting in an argument about the word light when you mean 'little weight' and I mean 'daylight'..

Those quotes were not meant to discredit the validity of evolution just to keep in mind that even Darwin recognized there were flaws and that it was a theory not a law. In regards to the term "theory" in the two cases I feel that the two are used in the same way and rightfully so. For you to say that "Creation Theory" is not using the term "Theory" in the same manner is simply demeaning "Creation Theory" and there is no backing for such an accusation. I can not say with any amount of certainty that all of us and all of the earth and all of the universe were created by an accident, I refuse to believe that my life has no purpose and I am a mass of molecules that happened to come together in a specific order to create life. I know I said that my previous post would be my last but, I got drawn back in.

The reason why I say they aren't used in the same way is because a scientific theory is something that can be invalidated by data. Creation Theory is predicated on ideas that cannot be disproven. They are ideas from the realm of faith. No one will ever prove or disprove the existence of god because you can't get data for that. That's what I would say is a 'theory' rather than a Scientific Theory.
I may say I have a theory that people are basically good, I may even be right about it. You may say it's JUST a theory (and you are right) rather it's true or not. But it's not a scientific theory.. Even if I call it that and put it up against another one that is..

I can agree with that, I do not but a lot of weight in "Scientific Theory's" anyway(I know I'm going to get a lot of flak for that one). Data can and will be manipulated to prove any point. Why is it that the "Theory Of Evolution" and "The Big Bang" and other such theories change so frequently, it seems like every 5 years the information changes.

Originally Posted by tom e

The reason why I say they aren't used in the same way is because a scientific theory is something that can be invalidated by data. Creation Theory is predicated on ideas that cannot be disproven. They are ideas from the realm of faith. No one will ever prove or disprove the existence of god because you can't get data for that. That's what I would say is a 'theory' rather than a Scientific Theory.
I may say I have a theory that people are basically good, I may even be right about it. You may say it's JUST a theory (and you are right) rather it's true or not. But it's not a scientific theory.. Even if I call it that and put it up against another one that is..

You brought up a very good point- about how they change (don't usually change much, but they certainly do..)

Here's something I'm lifting from my link on the last page of this thread (or maybe two pages ago..)

"Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced."

Originally Posted by onelifetolive45

This will be my last post, because I think this quoted post was going to far. I never down played anyone else's beliefs,

...suckin' wind..
Okay...and neither was I...I made 2 statements....one that Darwin was the man....and I never said anything else about him before that....the whole T.O.E...part was brought up by other people...and...so what Yeah I mentioned that I do indeed support it....
and second of all..I pointed out no single, one religion, no one belief...and no single person...and you were lifting your leg all over evolution... .so stop being so defensive...
I didn't mean or shoot to piss anyone off...but I really do not care anymore...the reason why I was here was to discuss the article mentioned in the first post....and not get into a heated arguement...
so sorry to everyone else if I ticked you off....
but....ANYWHO.........



*I was just having a discussion. To say my beliefs are bedtime stories was in my opinion out of line.*

So yeah..thanks for the credit...but I didn't.I never said anything about you..or your beliefs...read it again if you have too...I was stating that it was not just some story......with characters, and such........just evidence...

On a side note, it is called "Creation Theory", for the same reasons your beliefs in evolution are theory. Use the spell check from now on.

lol.....awe..cute..lol

What a convoluted mess. I appreciate many posters takes, and have opinions I won't even bother to share after reading most of this thread. But I will say this: tom e is on the side of science. And science works... assuming we hope to determine facts, and not pre-conceived notions. But this isn't the vp debates here, so I'll just share my thoughts. I have bred dozens, maybe scores of ratsnake species. Only one has given me an "allergic" (toxicity? dunno) type reaction. And that is the Kunisar Island rat. I had two pairs, and never got a good bite from an adult. I did get varying sores from bites that occurred from trying to pop the babies to determine their gender. Clay Davenport and I *think* Mike Beaver also got bites from them and experienced whelps as well. Radiated, Taiwan's, blue beauty, cave's, diadems, and a slew more I can't think of have nailed my/our skin. Some make your skin break out a tiny bit (like an eastern hognose), most are just a corn's bite, but my Kunisars caused swelling! For all I know, it could be a beaded lizard-type bacterial thing. And I won't claim to have worked with more than the four adults (3 of which never bit once) and their many offspring. But those bites gave a reaction, and conservatively speaking -some three hundred corns, milks, bulls, racers, waters, garters, boas, pythons and kings that have bit me didn't. I'd speculate that there is a possibility/likelihood that some colubrid species are evolving (or adapting, if you prefer) towards venom. But to know that, you'd need to take saliva samples and analyze them, study modern specimens and compare them to fossil evidence, and evaluate prey and environmental pressures that would favor this trait in existing animals, which I haven't. And if my anecdotal evidence is wrong, I'm happy to learn. As Albert Einstein wished he'd said: Science works, bitches!

Interesting post ELROJO! I just have one question about this:

But those bites gave a reaction, and conservatively speaking -some three hundred corns, milks, bulls, racers, waters, garters, boas, pythons and kings that have bit me didn't.

Are you really small, white, furry and smell like a rodent?
Just kidding...How long have you been keeping snakes that you've been bitten so often? What species (non-ven.)gives the most painful bite (boas?)