C
crazzeto
Guest
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.
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”.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.
You obviously are not listening. It has been debunked because moon said it has been.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 questionsA 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.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”.
No way. That example is observable, repeatable and predictable. It is thus empirical.These are all philosophical questions
So your claim is ATP synthase motor came before the cell?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?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?
God created the natural order. Human beings invented the scientific method in order to study the natural order.God is the Origin of science; thy can’t be seperated.![]()
One should not however, forget the creator when using human derived methods to study the creation.God created the natural order. Human beings invented the scientific method in order to study the natural order.
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.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…
Did I say forget God? I said God is not a legitimate scientific question.One should not however, forget the creator when using human derived methods to study the creation.
Yup, but never seen an observable example of one. At least not one that we can verify as having occurred randomly.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?
See buffalo’s post aboveThe 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.
No way. That example is observable, repeatable and predictable. It is thus empirical.
Edited for clarityDid I say forget God? I said God is not a legitimate empirical question.
I’ve seen it, and quite frankly its a caricature of the scientific method.See buffalo’s post above
This statement demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of biophysics.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?
You’re quite correct, but that doesn’t mean you leave God out of your science… =)Did I say forget God? I said God is not a legitimate scientific question.
Please Explain.This statement demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of biophysics.![]()
It depends on what you mean by that. And like I said I never said forget God or leave God out of life.You’re quite correct, but that doesn’t mean you leave God out of your science… =)