"Foreign" Fetal Tissue

[Clete]

Originally posted by aharvey

Yeah, but to the evolutionary biologist, the degree of commonality is meaningful, unlike Clete's position. That is, organisms with very similar patterns are likely to be very closely related. Organisms with less similar patterns are likely to be less closely related. Organisms with very different patterns are likely to be very distantly related. And, again unlike Clete, we can quantify what we mean by similar and different, and can identify similarities that are not likely to be due to relatedness.

And if you think my "likely to be" is bet hedging, it's just the way we scientists talk. Clete's pretty glib about all that he is "certain" about, even though his certainty is in all likelihood independent of any actual evidence. You just don't hear "certainty" or "proof" coming out of the mouths or pens of scientists, but if you stacked up the "most probables" of scientists against the "certainties" of non-scientists, who do you think would be right more often?

Could you as breifly as possible explain why you think science (i.e. the scientific method) works?

 

[Caine]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I've been there! :thumb:

To reiterate...
The argument of common design is not intended as a proof for God on it's own because there are other possible sources of this "design" at least in theory. The rub for the evolutionist is when we begin to ask questions about where certain aspects of the design came about. Aspects like life, intelligence, personality, morality, etc. These things cannot have been "created" by some dead, unintelligent, impersonal, amoral force. The atheist in fact has no way at all of account for such things without having their world view break down into logical incoherence. The common designer argument is only the first step.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete, although I do share your faith in God, I do not accept your rationalization for such as valid for my own purposes. There are many examples in nature where chaos can transform into order just from the laws and principles of nature. For me this is evidence for a higher power that guides nature. In fact the broader our scope becomes the more we see patterns and order apearing out of that chaos in nature. This is what Jacob Bronowski refferred to as a God's eye view. Of course no human can have the perfect "God's eye view", but we can learn from our experiences.

The problem that you claim can only be found in atheistic philosophy; "The atheist in fact has no way at all of account for such things without having their world view break down into logical incoherence." - can be demostrated in any worldview or philosophy. I strongly suspect that those such as yourself do not admit this, because this is the bases for their claim of superiority.

Do you have what some like to call "a biblical world view"?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Caine

Clete, although I do share your faith in God, I do not accept your rationalization for such as valid for my own purposes. There are many examples in nature where chaos can transform into order just from the laws and principles of nature. For me this is evidence for a higher power that guides nature. In fact the broader our scope becomes the more we see patterns and order appearing out of that chaos in nature. This is what Jacob Bronowski referred to as a God's eye view. Of course no human can have the perfect "God's eye view", but we can learn from our experiences.

The problem that you claim can only be found in atheistic philosophy; "The atheist in fact has no way at all of account for such things without having their world view break down into logical incoherence." - can be demonstrated in any worldview or philosophy. I strongly suspect that those such as yourself do not admit this, because this is the bases for their claim of superiority.

Do you have what some like to call "a biblical world view"?

Yes I do (although that term could mean different things to different people). And I didn't claim that this problem of logical incoherence can be found only in the atheistic worldview. In fact, I believe it is present in all worldviews other than the Christian Biblical worldview (meaning, for example, that there is one single God who exists in three persons, who created the universe and everything in it, who has always existed and will continue to exist forevermore, etc).
Anyone who does not share this worldview must borrow from it (knowingly or otherwise) in order to maintain the logical coherence of their own worldview. This, of course, includes the atheist but they are by no means alone in this predicament.
If you are interested in more detail here's a link that has some interesting articles on the issue...

Trinity Grace Fellowship Online

Keep in mind, by the way, that I do not agree with everything you can find on this site but most of the articles in the apologetics section are very good.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Caine]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Yes I do (although that term could mean different things to different people). And I didn't claim that this problem of logical incoherence can be found only in the atheistic worldview. In fact, I believe it is present in all worldviews other than the Christian Biblical worldview (meaning, for example, that there is one single God who exists in three persons, who created the universe and everything in it, who has always existed and will continue to exist forevermore, etc).
Anyone who does not share this worldview must borrow from it (knowingly or otherwise) in order to maintain the logical coherence of their own worldview. This, of course, includes the atheist but they are by no means alone in this predicament.
If you are interested in more detail here's a link that has some interesting articles on the issue...

Trinity Grace Fellowship Online

Keep in mind, by the way, that I do not agree with everything you can find on this site but most of the articles in the apologetics section are very good.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete that site seems to be devoted to Paul's doctrine. I do not believe that the doctrine proposed by Paul is exactly as Jesus intended.

Also, could you please explain in your own words how the Trinitarian doctrine is the only philosophical doctrine that escapes logical incoherence when broken down to its core elements?

I really don't have time to mine pertinent info from this site, expecially if I am not already aware of your argument.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Caine

Clete that site seems to be devoted to Paul's doctrine. I do not believe that the doctrine proposed by Paul is exactly as Jesus intended.

Also, could you please explain in your own words how the Trinitarian doctrine is the only philosophical doctrine that escapes logical incoherence when broken down to its core elements?

I really don't have time to mine pertinent info from this site, expecially if I am not already aware of your argument.

Cain,

Sorry for having not responded to you. I somehow overlooked that there had been any activity on this thread. I've been really busy the last couple of days so I probably just missed it.
I'll have to do some homework to get a good answer to your question. And I may solicit the help of some others who are more familiar with the specific arguments that deal with this particular issue if you wouldn't mind my doing so.

Resting in Him,
Clete