PDA

View Full Version : "Foreign" Fetal Tissue



the Sibbie
November 16th, 2004, 02:20 PM
...
Half a century ago, when the amazing mechanism of the human immune system was first being uncovered, Nobel prize-winning biologist Sir Peter Medawar made a significant comment. He declared that the survival of the genetically different child within a mother’s womb contradicted the immunological laws that were thwarting their attempts at tissue transplantation. The immune system normally detects the presence of any “foreign” tissue in the body and it immediately sets up a defence against it (primarily what is now called the “killer T cell” mechanism).

This caused early experiments in organ transplantation to fail—the recipient’s immune system attacked and rejected the donor’s “foreign” organ tissue. So why doesn’t the mother’s womb detect the presence of the “foreign” tissue of the developing embryo and try to attack and reject it?

We now know that it does! And this is the cause of many miscarriages. Recent research has shown that the developing child puts up a very specific defence against the killer T cell attack. And as long as the defence mechanism works properly, the pregnancy will proceed to full term. However, when the defence mechanism fails, miscarriage results.
... Read more... (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1116abortion.asp)

How amazing are the functions and mechanisms of the human body?!

Stratnerd
November 16th, 2004, 03:06 PM
How amazing are the functions and mechanisms of the human body?!

Pretty amazing but not when it doesn't work:

"However, when the defence mechanism fails, miscarriage results."

Then it sucks :( ; but these are traits of animals not just humans.

Itzpapalotl
November 20th, 2004, 05:37 AM
In the apes (naturally including humans) one of the ways the placenta evades the immune system is by using a co-opted viral called syncytin. Unfortunately this protein is occasionally recognised as foreign (because of it's viral origin) and an immune response is launched which may be the cause of multiple sclerosis.

Also if you want to reduce the chance of immune rejection oral sex may be the anwer:

"Correlation between oral sex and a low incidence of preeclampsia: a role for soluble HLA in seminal fluid? Journal of Reproductive Immunology 46 (2000) 155–166"

Turbo
November 20th, 2004, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Itzpapalotl

In the apes (naturally including humans) :rolleyes: Speak for yourself.

Clete
November 20th, 2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Stratnerd
...but these are traits of animals not just humans.

Common design indicates a common designer.

Lighthouse
November 20th, 2004, 06:39 PM
Go Clete!:thumb:

Stratnerd
November 21st, 2004, 11:23 AM
Common design indicates a common designer.

why?

Clete
November 21st, 2004, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

why?
:think:
Why not?

Stratnerd
November 21st, 2004, 12:53 PM
because similar designs can be done by different people and different designs can be done by the same designer so the design of two object could have been done by one or two designers or, in the case of replicating systems with genetic info, common descent.

so design doesn't indicate anything unless you know some rules about designing and God that I don't know.

Clete
November 21st, 2004, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Stratnerd

because similar designs can be done by different people and different designs can be done by the same designer so the design of two object could have been done by one or two designers or, in the case of replicating systems with genetic info, common descent.

so design doesn't indicate anything unless you know some rules about designing and God that I don't know.

I didn't say anything about God, you inferred that intuitively. :think:
The point is that whether it was via evolution or via God, one way or the other systems of such incredible complexity and similarity must have a common designer.
And yes design does indicate at least the presence of one sort of designer or another. If that design is intelligent then that design, by necessity, indicates an intelligent designer because the creation cannot be greater than its creator, an effect cannot be greater than its cause.
Assuming for the sake of argument that there is no God and keeping the first law of thermodynamics in view, how would you account for intelligence, or can you at all?
You know what? My granting you the first law of thermodynamics is too generous! If God doesn't exist, and I mean by God, the God of the Bible, how would you account for the existence of science itself?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Lovejoy
November 21st, 2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Itzpapalotl

In the apes (naturally including humans) one of the ways the placenta evades the immune system is by using a co-opted viral called syncytin. Unfortunately this protein is occasionally recognised as foreign (because of it's viral origin) and an immune response is launched which may be the cause of multiple sclerosis.

Also if you want to reduce the chance of immune rejection oral sex may be the anwer:

"Correlation between oral sex and a low incidence of preeclampsia: a role for soluble HLA in seminal fluid? Journal of Reproductive Immunology 46 (2000) 155–166"

Syncytin is a glucoprotein coded for by HERV-3 (which is viral in orgin, as the name implies). All it does all for the fusion of cytotrophoblast (as a cell-to-cell mediator) cells so that they differentiate into the multinuclear syncytiotrophoblast. The syncytiotrophblast itself is what eventually allows for the immuno-resistant trophoblastic epithelium of the placenta. How it gains its immune privileges is a bit of a mystery, but it involves beta interferon, steroids, and the odd lack of certain of the major histocompatability genes in the trophoblast layer. That means that the neutral immune state swings both ways. There may be a separate HERV that helps with immunosuppresion, but I don't think that anyone as named HERV-3 as the suspect, and if they have, it is still very hypothetical. Even the role of syncytin in MS is very, very tentative.

Lovejoy
November 21st, 2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by the Sibbie

Read more... (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1116abortion.asp)

How amazing are the functions and mechanisms of the human body?!

Quite interesting! Evidence of this behavior has been around for awhile. The placenta puts out quite an array of defences (up to and including a completely separate circulatory system, the use of interferon, and quite a few antiinflammatory type chemicals). Many of the defences are only now coming to light, and quite of few of them will eventually be used to fight cancer, as the mechanisms are similar. Of course, that will be abortion advocates next argument. A fetus is just like a cancer.

I hate to say it, as this sort of science is wonderful, but it will never change anyones mind about issues like abortion. We all know what it takes to really change a persons mind...





JESUS!

Mr Jack
November 22nd, 2004, 09:08 AM
Common design indicates a common designer.

Why should we consider this to be so in nature, when it is so clearly not so among objects we know to be designed? (Cups, clothes, televisions, computers, cars, to name a few - you can find all sorts of common designs between examples from completely seperate creators).

Clete
November 22nd, 2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Mr Jack

Why should we consider this to be so in nature, when it is so clearly not so among objects we know to be designed? (Cups, clothes, televisions, computers, cars, to name a few - you can find all sorts of common designs between examples from completely separate creators).

It's in the details that your argument falls apart. Of course simple single piece creations can be copied very easily but all mugs can be held in a hand for example and so all mugs have been created by beings with hands, the point being that the creation tells you something about its creator. This is especially true when you start to talk about very complex creations. We know for example that the Soviet Union did not design a lot of the electronics that they used in some of there technologies because needless parts that were intentionally introduced into the design by the U.S. engineers who created it in the first place where very faithfully copied because those who were making the copies didn't understand the science behind the design in the first place and so didn't know what if anything wasn't necessary. Thus in complex creations you can look at the details and know that the same individual designed that creation.
In regards to biological systems you have mind boggling complexity that is shared in common with all living organisms, it simply isn't possible for there to be multiple designers.

Resting in Him,
Clete

the Sibbie
November 22nd, 2004, 11:27 AM
To add to what Clete said, think about all the singers and music composers. If you are really familiar with one song sung by Mariah Carey, I'm willing to bet that you can identify other songs sung by her without ever hearing her other songs before. Same goes with music written by a certain composer.

satalien
November 22nd, 2004, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I didn't say anything about God, you inferred that intuitively. :think:
The point is that whether it was via evolution or via God, one way or the other systems of such incredible complexity and similarity must have a common designer.
And yes design does indicate at least the presence of one sort of designer or another. If that design is intelligent then that design, by necessity, indicates an intelligent designer because the creation cannot be greater than its creator, an effect cannot be greater than its cause.
Assuming for the sake of argument that there is no God and keeping the first law of thermodynamics in view, how would you account for intelligence, or can you at all?
You know what? My granting you the first law of thermodynamics is too generous! If God doesn't exist, and I mean by God, the God of the Bible, how would you account for the existence of science itself?

Resting in Him,
Clete

How do you account for the existence of God without God having a designer as well?

aharvey
November 22nd, 2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Common design indicates a common designer.

So do different designs indicate different designers?

Chileice
November 22nd, 2004, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Mr Jack

Why should we consider this to be so in nature, when it is so clearly not so among objects we know to be designed? (Cups, clothes, televisions, computers, cars, to name a few - you can find all sorts of common designs between examples from completely seperate creators).

Sure, I can make a cup and you can make a cup. But if we both make cups without seeing each other's design, we will design different kinds of cups, and a trained eye will know the difference. Thomas Cole, Frederic Church and Albert Bierstadt and Thomas Moran all are famous painters from the 1800s. All of them formed part of a school of painting called "The Hudson River School". They all painted landscapes and often painted New England landscapes, at that. However, a trained eye can tell who the artist was by merely looking at the painting. Each had his own style although Church intentionally borrowed from Cole. Bierstadt and Moran were influenced by the other two. Yet, in the end, the designer is evident to those who know art.

I can tell a Albert Sisley from Eugene Boudin from Claude Monet from Edgar Degas. They are all French impressionist painters. But if you mix up their paintings and show them to me one by one, I guarantee I will know which one belongs to whom, no matter what subject they painted. And there are many people much more knowlegable than I am about French Impressionists. Nevertheless, the common designer argument is a rather strong one, because our intelligence will not come up with the same thing twice. Sure we can get pretty darn close if we are TRYING to copy. There are forgers who could fake me out. But what "forger" is out there in the universe trying to fake us out by creating fakes of the originals?

Clete
November 23rd, 2004, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by aharvey

So do different designs indicate different designers?

No.

Clete
November 23rd, 2004, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by satalien

How do you account for the existence of God without God having a designer as well?

This is a very interesting question. It's inane, but very interesting nonetheless.
I say that this inane question is interesting because it does, in a convoluted sort of way, get us to where I have been trying to get to and that is to ask the following question, "How do we know what design is in the first place?"
It boils down to two basic options...
(1) The Biblical worldview in which God is the creator of all things and the foundation upon which abstract concepts such as logic, design, science and the like are based and validated.
(2) The Materialistic worldview, which I suggest to you, is totally without a logical leg to stand on. It is truly a blind faith founded upon nothing whatsoever.

I can know what design is in the first place because I have a Biblical worldview, which gives be a solid ground upon which to stand. You on the other hand, assuming that you do not hold a Biblical worldview, cannot even explain to me how you know design when you see it, or for matter, you don't even have any way of verifying that you do in fact see it at all.
To show you what I mean, allow me to ask you a question.

How do you come to know anything about the world around you? Is it the scientific method, psychic ability, logic, osmosis or what? This is not a trick question by the way; I'm not trying to trap you or play silly games. If you really want to know the answer to the question you asked, or more precisely, why it's an inane question then you need to first understand why you cannot know what you think you know based upon your own worldview.

Resting in Him,
Clete

satalien
November 23rd, 2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

This is a very interesting question. It's inane, but very interesting nonetheless.
I say that this inane question is interesting because it does, in a convoluted sort of way, get us to where I have been trying to get too and that is to ask the following question, "How do we know what design is in the first place?"

LOL! I see you are neglecting to answer this inane question! Now THAT'S very interesting...

How do you account for God being there? Where did God come from? Did God just happen by accident?



It boils down to two basic options...
(1) The Biblical worldview in which God is the creator of all things and the foundation upon which abstract concepts such as logic, design, science and the like are based and validated.
(2) The Materialistic worldview, which I suggest to you, is totally without a logical leg to stand on. It is truly a blind faith founded upon nothing whatsoever.


Hmm, I think you may have forgotten to include a couple other choices in there.



I can know what design is in the first place because I have a Biblical worldview, which gives (m)e a solid ground upon which to stand. You on the other hand, assuming that you do not hold a Biblical worldview, cannot even explain to me how you know design when you see it, or for matter, you don't even have any way of verifying that you do in fact see it at all.


I'll agree with you that the Materialistic worldview is a less sturdy place to stand. Just based on the limited interactions I've had with others on this board, I am a lot less "certain" about the prejudices and assumptions I have made about the world than those who hold a Biblical worldview. I tend to question, verify, and analyze my thoughts, feelings, and beliefs a lot more and in the process, change. I'm not saying that those who hold Biblical worldviews are necessarily static, unchanging, or even unanalytical, just more certain that the ground they're standing on is unchanging and, more importantly, unchanged.

Anyway, I fail to see how you are any more reasonably assured to verify that you are seeing anything. Especially considering all that Job went through, how do you know that God isn't giving you a false vision to test your faith somehow?



To show you what I mean, allow me to ask you a question.

How do you come to know anything about the world around you? Is it the scientific method, psychic ability, logic, osmosis or what? This is not a trick question by the way; I'm not trying to trap you or play silly games. If you really want to know the answer to the question you asked, or more precisely, why it's an inane question then you need to first understand why you cannot know what you think you know based upon your own worldview.


Are we going to talk about perceptual reality now? I'll answer as honestly and sincerely as I can, though you need not assure me that you're not trying to play games or "trap me". Why would I think that?

Anyway, as far as I can tell, I have sensory receptors on my body. They receive sensations. These sensations are then interpreted by my brain. This is how I come to know the things are around me. In the process of living, I have opportunities to communicate with other beings such as I perceive myself to be and this allows me to, on a very fundamental level, confirm that my observations are within a range of consistency with theirs.

Clete
November 23rd, 2004, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by satalien

LOL! I see you are neglecting to answer this inane question! Now THAT'S very interesting...
It isn't my intention to avoid the question. My intention is to lead you to find the answer on your own. My answering it directly will not get us anywhere because it simply will not be satisfactory to you. But, to satisfy your curiosity, my answer to your question is basically, "Because the Bible tells me so."

See! I told you that you would like it.


How do you account for God being there? Where did God come from? Did God just happen by accident?
God didn't come from anywhere, He was not created, He did not "happen". He has always existed. I know this because God has revealed it to me in through Scripture and by His Spirit, which testifies in agreement with my spirit and makes me quite certain that these things are true.


Hmm, I think you may have forgotten to include a couple other choices in there.
Well, I wasn't attempting to give an exhaustive list. I was basically trying to anticipate what your worldview was based on the subject matter of the thread and the nature of your question. Judging from the rest of response it seems my guess was at least partially correct.


I'll agree with you that the Materialistic worldview is a less sturdy place to stand.
This is gargantuan understatement. "Less sturdy" doesn't begin to describe it. Materialists have no ground to stand on at all.


Just based on the limited interactions I've had with others on this board, I am a lot less "certain" about the prejudices and assumptions I have made about the world than those who hold a Biblical worldview.
I'm not talking about confidence, I talking about certainty.


I tend to question, verify, and analyze my thoughts, feelings, and beliefs a lot more and in the process, change.
How do you verify the results of your analysis?


I'm not saying that those who hold Biblical worldviews are necessarily static, unchanging, or even unanalytical, just more certain that the ground they're standing on is unchanging and, more importantly, unchanged.
Yes, once again, I am not talking about confidence at all.


Anyway, I fail to see how you are any more reasonably assured to verify that you are seeing anything. Especially considering all that Job went through, how do you know that God isn't giving you a false vision to test your faith somehow?
Because God is not a liar, for one. How do I know that God is not a liar? Because the Bible says so, that’s how. That is how I know.

How do you know? That's the real question?


Are we going to talk about perceptual reality now?
No. We are going to talk about how do we know what we think we know. I suggest that you cannot know anything based on your worldview, whatever that worldview is.


I'll answer as honestly and sincerely as I can, though you need not assure me that you're not trying to play games or "trap me". Why would I think that?
I should not have said anything about it not being a trick question until I had good reason to do so. I said it because of the reaction I've seen others have to such questions. It is very common for people to react as though it is some sort of a Jedi mind trick or something other than what it is. I apologize for lumping you into that group; I should not have done that.


Anyway, as far as I can tell, I have sensory receptors on my body.
What do you mean, "I as far as you can tell"? Tell how? Are you attempting to tell that you have sensory receptors via your ability to sense them? If so this is a logical fallacy known as question begging.


They receive sensations.
How have you managed to calibrate your sensors so that you know that they are giving you accurate information?


These sensations are then interpreted by my brain.
Have you determined by some objective means that you brain is functioning properly? This is not intended to be insulting; I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of how you really know what you think you know.


This is how I come to know the things are around me. In the process of living, I have opportunities to communicate with other beings such as I perceive myself to be and this allows me to, on a very fundamental level, confirm that my observations are within a range of consistency with theirs.
See what I mean? You are using your perceptions to verify your perceptions! Question begging at its very finest. How do you know that your perception of your perceptions is accurate?

Resting in Him,
Clete

satalien
November 23rd, 2004, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

"Because the Bible tells me so."

See! I told you that you would like it.



That's cool with me.


God didn't come from anywhere... He has always existed.

Also fine with me. Perhaps this is true of the universe as well? It has always existed?



I was basically trying to anticipate what your worldview was based on the subject matter of the thread and the nature of your question. Judging from the rest of response it seems my guess was at least partially correct.

Oh you guessed well. But my disagreement is not due to being mischaracterized, rather that the 2 options you presented are the only 2 options the matter can "boil down to".



Because God is not a liar, for one. How do I know that God is not a liar? Because the Bible says so, that’s how. That is how I know.

But, similar to what you ask of me, how can you know that the words you are reading in the Bible are real? Because they say they are?



I should not have said anything about it not being a trick question until I had good reason to do so...I apologize for lumping you into that group; I should not have done that.


Don't worry about it. I was just confused. No offense taken whatsoever.



What do you mean, "I as far as you can tell"? Tell how? Are you attempting to tell that you have sensory receptors via your ability to sense them? If so this is a logical fallacy known as question begging.

Actually, yes, that IS what I'm saying. Forgive my ignorance on logical argument-making (not my strong suit! but I'm willing to learn): What question is it begging? How is it illogical for sensory receptors to sense themselves? I see my own eyes in the mirror and see that when I cover up the eyes, my vision is blocked. I can feel my fingers at two points when I touch the tips together...



How have you managed to calibrate your sensors so that you know that they are giving you accurate information?

I can't be certain that the information is accurate. Some people have reported seeing things that others agree aren't there (a phenomenon known as "hallucinating"). In these cases, it seems perfectly reasonable that the one "hallucinating" is seeing the truth and the ones not seeing the giant cake on the horizon are the ones that are unable to see accurate information. Are you certain that your own sensors are accurate? If so, I'd be delighted to know how.



Have you determined by some objective means that you brain is functioning properly? This is not intended to be insulting; I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of how you really know what you think you know.

Hahahah. No insult taken, that's one of the funniest questions I've ever been asked. I don't know how to reply to this. I don't necessarily really know what I know. What I do know is that if the world is a function only of my brain creating a reality on its own, it is so awesome and complex in its creation that I wouldn't want to spoil the fun by waking up. The other people (which again, could be holograms created by aliens who are studying the brain (which could be a simulation of something I can't quite comprehend at this time (and really this nested thing is getting tiresome))) in my life seem to confirm my reality for the most part and I get along fine in the world I was born into. Then again I could not exist at all. Does it matter?



See what I mean? You are using your perceptions to verify your perceptions! Question begging at its very finest. How do you know that your perception of your perceptions is accurate?

I don't. Everything could be made up. I don't care. You're talking about certainty, you say. I am certain that I've woken up into this world with perceptions and I can't NOT have them. To continually doubt them would deny me the pain and pleasures they bring. These things are certain to me. This is part of the ground I stand on. Can you deny these things are true for yourself?

Clete
November 23rd, 2004, 04:09 PM
satalien,

Wow! What a post! :thumb: It usually takes a lot longer to get as far as you've come in only two posts!

I'm sorry but you'll have to wait for a response, I'm up to my eye ball's in work and have plans for this evening so be pateint with me and I'll respond as soon as I can.

Resting in Him,
Clete

satalien
November 23rd, 2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

satalien,

Wow! What a post! :thumb: It usually takes a lot longer to get as far as you've come in only two posts!

I'm sorry but you'll have to wait for a response, I'm up to my eye ball's in work and have plans for this evening so be pateint with me and I'll respond as soon as I can.

Resting in Him,
Clete

No problem! I appreciate the honesty and controlled passion of the discussion we've had so far. Take all the time you want, I am in no hurry (other than looking forward to reading your response. :jump: )

billwald
November 23rd, 2004, 07:26 PM
>Common design indicates a common designer.

Why, then, do all new cars look very much alike? These days there is probably more variation in sewing machines.

Clete
November 23rd, 2004, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by billwald

>Common design indicates a common designer.

Why, then, do all new cars look very much alike? These days there is probably more variation in sewing machines.
Asked and answered! Read the thread, the death of this argument is in the details.

Clete
November 25th, 2004, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by satalien

That's cool with me.
The problem is that if I'm right and you're not, you won't be so cool; if you catch my drift.


Also fine with me. Perhaps this is true of the universe as well? It has always existed?
The universe cannot have always existed or else you and I would not be here. Don't forget about that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics, the one about entropy and all. The universe would be a cold dead place; the stars would have all burned out long, long ago if the universe was literally forever old.


Oh you guessed well. But my disagreement is not due to being mischaracterized, rather that the 2 options you presented are the only 2 options the matter can "boil down to".
I meant the matter between the two of us, as I said it wasn't intended to be a complete listing of all possible worldviews. Glad we got this point cleared up. :thumb:


But, similar to what you ask of me, how can you know that the words you are reading in the Bible are real? Because they say they are?
No, this would be circular reasoning, another logical fallacy. The Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. For an explanation of this see the link at the end of the post.


Actually, yes, that IS what I'm saying. Forgive my ignorance on logical argument-making (not my strong suit! but I'm willing to learn): What question is it begging?
Question begging is when you use an unsubstantiated claim as proof of another unsubstantiated claim. It is a form of circular reasoning (although there are examples of non-circular question begging.) I'll illustrate by using what you've said so you can see the fallacy more clearly.
Q. How do you know that your senses are giving you accurate information?
A. Because I compare what I see with what other people see and I can thereby confirm that what I'm seeing is accurate.
Q. How do you find out what others see?
A. They tell me.
Q. Verbally, telepathically, by written letter, what? By what means is this information conveyed?
A. Pick one it doesn't matter.
Q. Okay, lets say it's verbally, how do you know what they are saying?
A. I hear it.
Q. Your ears sense it then?
A. Yes
Q. How do you know that your senses are giving you accurate information?

Do you see it now? You are begging the very question that is originally being asked and are therefore no closer to an answer to that question.


How is it illogical for sensory receptors to sense themselves?
It is only illogical for them to calibrate themselves. Your senses cannot be used to check to see if your senses are accurate. If you try the circularity will very quickly get you dizzy! :dizzy:


I see my own eyes in the mirror and see that when I cover up the eyes, my vision is blocked. I can feel my fingers at two points when I touch the tips together...
You could be dreaming, you could be the figment of someone else's dream, you could be in the Matrix (cool movie by the way). The point is that you don't know, and have no way of finding out as long as you hang on to a logically incoherent worldview.


I can't be certain that the information is accurate. Some people have reported seeing things that others agree aren't there (a phenomenon known as "hallucinating"). In these cases, it seems perfectly reasonable that the one "hallucinating" is seeing the truth and the ones not seeing the giant cake on the horizon are the ones that are unable to see accurate information.
Yes indeed, the point is with your world view, you could be the one hallucinating and don't know that you aren't.


Are you certain that your own sensors are accurate? If so, I'd be delighted to know how.
I'm going to steal a line from someone in answer to this question because I can't think of any better way of putting it…
"This is known based on the revelation of God, as is all true and certain knowledge. "Knowledge" held by man apart from God is only a "best guess," or what they think they know -- so far."


Hahahah. No insult taken, that's one of the funniest questions I've ever been asked. I don't know how to reply to this. I don't necessarily really know what I know. What I do know is that if the world is a function only of my brain creating a reality on its own, it is so awesome and complex in its creation that I wouldn't want to spoil the fun by waking up. The other people (which again, could be holograms created by aliens who are studying the brain (which could be a simulation of something I can't quite comprehend at this time (and really this nested thing is getting tiresome))) in my life seem to confirm my reality for the most part and I get along fine in the world I was born into. Then again I could not exist at all. Does it matter?
What a question! Does it matter?
From your response I can't really tell if you are taking the question seriously or not. I suspect that you are but asking "Does it matter?" worries me. What else is there in all the world that could possibly be more important, what can you think of that could matter more than whether or not what we think, feel, see, say and do is real? If this life we are living isn’t real then why not "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!", right? If life isn't real then nothing you've ever done or ever will do is at all important. It sounds to me like it matters a whole lot.


…Everything could be made up. I don't care.
You've just plunged into the abyss of irrationality satalien. In doing so, you've also thrown in the towel with respect to this debate. How can you expect to have a rational conversation with someone you just admitted might not even be here? It's insane.
Further, whether you know it or acknowledge it or not, it is sinful for you not to care. You do understand that if you are indeed real then you are in rebellion against an equally real God whom you will one day give an account for the things you have done in this very real life, don't you?
This is very serious stuff we are talking about here and for you to flippantly blow off the idea that you might not even be a real person is pretty amazingly arrogant.



You're talking about certainty, you say.
Indeed I am.


I am certain that I've woken up into this world
No your not! That's just the point. You are not certain of anything by your own admission.


…with perceptions and I can't NOT have them.
Why not? Didn't you just say that people who hallucinate think that their perceptions are "perfectly reasonable"? Haven't you basically admitted that this person who is hallucinating could just as easily be you as anyone else?


To continually doubt them would deny me the pain and pleasures they bring.
The pain and pleasure are perceptions too, satalien! Is that really all life is to you, sensory stimulation, pain and pleasure? How empty of a life is that! What good is pleasure if it is meaningless, if it isn't real? Why would anything be pleasurable in the first place if you couldn't tell if it was even real or not? I do not understand how you can live like that.


These things are certain to me. This is part of the ground I stand on.
You have openly admitted that you are not certain of anything nor can you be with your worldview. You, therefore, are standing on nothing; you have instead fallen into a bottomless pit. I am attempting to throw you a rope, though. Hopefully you'll grab hold of it.


Can you deny these things are true for yourself?
No, I can't but I can claim their truth without being logically incoherent. Do not misunderstand; I am not saying that nothing can be known or that we cannot trust our senses. I am simply pointing out that without a proper worldview those things cannot be coherently accounted for; that without a proper worldview we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where we have to admit that the most important aspects of our lives might not even be real, which should be, to anyone with any integrity at all, a totally unacceptable situation to find themselves in. It is not my point to say that nothing can be known, my point is to demonstrate the logical incoherence of your world view. As you say, you cannot deny that your life is real and yet you have done that very thing by admitting that what you cannot verify anything that you think you know. It is completely incoherent. The Christian world view has no such difficulties.

There is much more that needs to be said but I'm out of time. If you are interested in hearing these arguments given by someone who's a whole lot smarter than me (not to mention a lot more familiar with the arguments themselves than I am), and if you are interested in understanding how the Christian world view is logically coherent and why all others are not, I strongly recommend that you listen to a debate between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein on the subject, "Does God Exist (http://straitgate.com/gbgs.ram)". It is the best debate on the issue that I have ever heard.

If you don't want to listen to the debate, I will attempt to communicate the ideas myself but I don't promise to do so with nearly the clarity that Dr. Bahnsen brings to the issue.

Resting in Him,
Clete

aharvey
November 26th, 2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Common design indicates a common designer.


Originally posted by aharvey

So do different designs indicate different designers?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

No.

Then your first statement is meaningless. If common design indicates a common designer, and different designs indicate a common designer, then the degree of commonality or difference in the design says nothing about the degree of commonality of the designer. And you have to admit this is your perspective: all things, no matter how similar or different they are from each other, were designed by the same designer, right?

Clete
November 26th, 2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by aharvey

Then your first statement is meaningless.
Can you say, "non sequitur"?


If common design indicates a common designer, and different designs indicate a common designer, then the degree of commonality or difference in the design says nothing about the degree of commonality of the designer.
Premise A: Common design indicates a common designer.

Premise B: Different designs indicate a common designer.

Conclusion: The degree of commonality or difference in the design says nothing about the degree of commonality of the designer.

If both premise A and premise B are correct so is the conclusion. Premise B is not correct, therefore the conclusion is false.


And you have to admit this is your perspective: all things, no matter how similar or different they are from each other, were designed by the same designer, right?
Right, but not for that reason. I'm not even suggesting that the similar design is proof of God, only of a common designer. Jumping from this to a belief in God would be more than the evidence of common design could support on its own for the very reason you suggest. While multiple various completely different designs do not necessarily imply a different designer, similar virtually identical designs do suggest a common designer. You are suggesting that I take this further than I do. Nice try though!

Resting in Him,
Clete

aharvey
November 26th, 2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Can you say, "non sequitur"?


Premise A: Common design indicates a common designer.

Premise B: Different designs indicate a common designer.

Conclusion: The degree of commonality or difference in the design says nothing about the degree of commonality of the designer.

If both premise A and premise B are correct so is the conclusion. Premise B is not correct, therefore the conclusion is false.
Well, let's see. First you say that different designs do not indicate different designers. Above, you say that different designs do not indicate a common designer. So therefore, we can conclude nothing about a designer from different designs. Correct? But all designs are different to some degree, are they not? So the above premises only differ in the trivial case in which two designs are identical, right? In which case you really can't call them different designs, and thus we can conclude that there is no way to infer designer number by comparing designs. See, I can play formal logic games too!

Formal logic games aside, it is little more than an empty assertion to say that common patterns equal common designer, especially if you ignore the implications of different designers. Then the only possible outcomes are 1) one designer, and 2) an unknown number of designers. So what is your basis for common pattern indicates common designer?


Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Right, but not for that reason. I'm not even suggesting that the similar design is proof of God, only of a common designer. Jumping from this to a belief in God would be more than the evidence of common design could support on its own for the very reason you suggest. While multiple various completely different designs do not necessarily imply a different designer, similar virtually identical designs do suggest a common designer. You are suggesting that I take this further than I do. Nice try though!
Nope, I never said you used this faulty logic as proof of God (by which I assume you mean the Christian characterization). But you are starting from the premise that there is only a single designer (who happens to be God). That's how you are able to use commonality as support for a common designer, and safely ignore the implications of different designs.

Caine
November 26th, 2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Common design indicates a common designer.

Common design/common designer also indicate common descent.

Boy making proclamations like that is easy.

aharvey
November 26th, 2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Caine

Common design/common designer also indicate common descent.

Boy making proclamations like that is easy.

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?

Caine
November 26th, 2004, 03:53 PM
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?

Aharvey, you're preaching to the choir.

aharvey
November 26th, 2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Caine

Aharvey, you're preaching to the choir.

Yeah, but maybe someone else is listening!

Caine
November 26th, 2004, 04:25 PM
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?



OK, then. When it comes to science, I think that scientists are more likely to be accurate. That is given that the subject in question is somehow related to their area(s) of expertise. Also, I have more confidence in the scientific method than I do the methodology used by fanatical religionists.

At any rate, you have brought up a good point. My fiance and many other people I know, who are somewhat ignorant of science, have a false impression of the "certainty" attached to the claims of science. Lay people are often of the impression that professional scientists are "certain" about most if not all of the claims of science. I often try to point out in the scientific literature that I read where the authors admit their uncertainty. But my audience is, often, not interested. And yet they continue to spew the same misinformation regarding their understanding of science. I see many of the same behaviors and attitudes here, especially with people like Clete.

I have learned from experience that people who often believe they are certain, regarding areas where they have little or no applicable experience, are the least likley to be accurate. At least my fiance admits, more often than not, when she has been mistaken. I very seldom see Yorzhik, Clete, Bob, or others with the same mind set, admit when they are mistaken.

Clete
November 26th, 2004, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Caine

Common design/common designer also indicate common descent.

Boy making proclamations like that is easy.
You haven't read the thread. I already conceded this point.

Caine
November 26th, 2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

You haven't read the thread. I already conceded this point.

Sorry. Sometimes I don't read everything in a thread. I don't have enough time. Well then I guess we are both on the same page.

Itzpapalotl
November 27th, 2004, 03:58 PM
In the apes (naturally including humans)


Originally posted by Turbo

:rolleyes: Speak for yourself.

Since humans meet all the criteria for being classified as apes why do you have a problem with this. I suspect it is becase someone told you what to believe - how about thinking for yourself and looking at the evidence rather that swallowing baseless claims?

It is only by creating artificial distinctions that we apply to no other groups of animals that humans can be placed in a different genera.

Syncytin is one of the unique genes human share with the apes and no other mammals. There are also several unique genomic features that we share only with chimpanzees making us genetically closer to chimps than they are to gorillas. Analysis of gene expression patterns also makes humans the sister group of chimpanzees.

We also share many unique genetic feature with the other apes we don't share with other primates, and we share genes with the primates that other the other mammals don't have - just as you would expect from the theory of evolution.

Direct evidence for the Homo-Pan clade. Wimmer R, Kirsch S, Rappold GA, Schempp W. Chromosome Res. 2002;10(1):55-61.
- A Chromosome 1 to Y translocation shared by humans and chimpanzees.

Human specific loss of olfactory receptor genes. Yoav Gilad, Orna Man‡, Svante Paabo* and Doron Lancet. 3324–3327 PNAS March 18, 2003 vol. 100 no. 6.
- Humans and chimpanzees share many unique OR gene disabling mutations

Alu elements and hominid phylogenetics. Abdel-Halim Salem et al. PNAS October 28, 2003 vol. 100 no. 22 12787–12791.
- Humans and chimpanzees share many identical Alu insertions

Sister grouping of chimpanzees and humans as revealed by genome-wide phylogenetic analysis of brain gene expression profiles. Monica Uddin et al. PNAS March 2, 2004 vol. 101 no. 9 2957–2962.

Clete
November 27th, 2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Caine

Sorry. Sometimes I don't read everything in a thread. I don't have enough time. Well then I guess we are both on the same page.

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
November 27th, 2004, 04:35 PM
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
November 29th, 2004, 02:15 PM
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
November 29th, 2004, 07:31 PM
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 (http://www.tgfonline.org/)

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
November 29th, 2004, 08:54 PM
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 (http://www.tgfonline.org/)

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
December 2nd, 2004, 05:44 PM
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