God should be kept out of scientific Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God is the author of al truth, whether it be religious, scientific or what have you. So with that said, I really don’t see why one must seperate the two.
 
I fail to see what that has to do with whether or not the flagellum argument has been debunked?

The flagellum is reducible. End of story. Don’t try to wriggle out of it.
A jackhammer is reducible as well, but if you take a part away it does not function correctly. THAT is the point, not “can you break it down”, but “If you take a part away, can it function”.
 
A jackhammer is reducible as well, but if you take a part away it does not function correctly. THAT is the point, not “can you break it down”, but “If you take a part away, can it function”.
You obviously are not listening. It has been debunked because moon said it has been.

Always remember:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=4483

I have another example or IC. Take away talk origins and atheists cease to function. :rotfl:
 
A jackhammer is reducible as well, but if you take a part away it does not function correctly. THAT is the point, not “can you break it down”, but “If you take a part away, can it function”.
These are all philosophical questions
 
A jackhammer is reducible as well, but if you take a part away it does not function correctly. THAT is the point, not “can you break it down”, but “If you take a part away, can it function”.
ATP synthase is found in five Kingdoms and is thought to have arisen from two modular components.

These modular components both provide a function without each other in releasing energy from ATP.

When did you ever see a jackhammer giving birth to daughter jackhammers?
 
ATP synthase is found in five Kingdoms and is thought to have arisen from two modular components.

These modular components both provide a function without each other in releasing energy from ATP.

When did you ever see a jackhammer giving birth to daughter jackhammers?
So your claim is ATP synthase motor came before the cell?

And thanks for the admission that it is a core component.
 
ATP synthase is found in five Kingdoms and is thought to have arisen from two modular components.

These modular components both provide a function without each other in releasing energy from ATP.

When did you ever see a jackhammer giving birth to daughter jackhammers?
When did you ever see ATP synthase give birth to baby ATP synthases?

Individual parts of a jackhammer can serve a purpose different than the whole, but without each piece, a jackhammer cannot function as a whole.

But this is just a rabbit trail from the OP…
 
God is the Origin of science; thy can’t be seperated.👍
God created the natural order. Human beings invented the scientific method in order to study the natural order.
 
When did you ever see ATP synthase give birth to baby ATP synthases?

Individual parts of a jackhammer can serve a purpose different than the whole, but without each piece, a jackhammer cannot function as a whole.

But this is just a rabbit trail from the OP…
Yes it is. It’s utter stupidity. If parts of a cell can perform a function with a purpose seperate from that of a whole cell, it stands to reason that they can evolve independently and be combined in the right circumstances with the right mutations. You have heard of fusion mutations, I assume?
 
When did you ever see ATP synthase give birth to baby ATP synthases?

Individual parts of a jackhammer can serve a purpose different than the whole, but without each piece, a jackhammer cannot function as a whole.

But this is just a rabbit trail from the OP…
The empirical method has nothing to say about that which cannot be measured. So what if science cannot yet explain some phenomena according to a natural cause? That does not mean that we should therefore include purpose in something that is designed specifically to find natural causes. The scientific method functions on methodical naturalism. What you are giving here is a philosophical argument.
 
Yes it is. It’s utter stupidity. If parts of a cell can perform a function with a purpose seperate from that of a whole cell, it stands to reason that they can evolve independently and be combined in the right circumstances with the right mutations. You have heard of fusion mutations, I assume?
Yup, but never seen an observable example of one. At least not one that we can verify as having occurred randomly.
The empirical method has nothing to say about that which cannot be measured. So what if science cannot yet explain some phenomena according to a natural cause? That does not mean that we should therefore include purpose in something that is designed specifically to find natural causes. The scientific method functions on methodical naturalism. What you are giving here is a philosophical argument.
See buffalo’s post above
No way. That example is observable, repeatable and predictable. It is thus empirical.
 
Yes it is. It’s utter stupidity. If parts of a cell can perform a function with a purpose seperate from that of a whole cell, it stands to reason that they can evolve independently and be combined in the right circumstances with the right mutations. You have heard of fusion mutations, I assume?
This statement demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of biophysics.:confused:
 
You’re quite correct, but that doesn’t mean you leave God out of your science… =)
It depends on what you mean by that. And like I said I never said forget God or leave God out of life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top