Radorth

Blah blah blah blah. What a bunch of cynical, preachy, off-thread nonsense. You win Soapbox Thread of the Week Award. I have shown well enough that it takes just as much faith to believe your private proof-starved evolution theory as it takes for me to believe the Gospels. I see you avoided that issue altogether. I'll take your post as an admission you have no relavant arguments left. In my time here I have also shown that attempts at "proving" the Gospels a myth (as you assert) will only degenerate into posts full of gratuitous assertions and theories such as yours.

Well at least you have some idea how the Razor works now. You had no clue when we started, which might explain why you are at odds even with skeptical historians. I doubt you even see why the swoon theory trashes the JM-er theories anyway you slice it. (Pun intended)

Rad

Stephen T-B

A solid gold Radorthism: �...or you are just too intellectually lazy to come up with a theory that is complex enough to explain all the data, while surviving Occam's test. ( I suspect the latter).�
Perhaps Darwin did that? (But you might only think so if you think humans and other life forms are natural, and that natural explanations need to be found for natural phenomena.)

Radorth refers from time to time to the �faith� in evolutionary theory which a sceptic requires in order to regard it as being a more likely explanation for the life we find on the planet than the Christian �it-was-a-miracle� explanation. (Or �nearly-all-a-miracle,� or �a-bit-of-a-miracle,� depending on whether you are a Hard, Medium or Soft Christian.)
I hadn�t, I admit, thought of my acceptance of Evolution as being faith based, but since I am not a scientist,
it must be.
So I opt for Darwin; Radorth opts for the Bible. We each have our own reasons. My reason is that I would rather get my information - which I must take on trust as being reliable because I don�t know enough to be able to confirm its validity - from scientists rather than from either a religious text or priests.
If that makes me a sceptic so be it.
But no more of one than Radorth. We�re just sceptical about different things.

Starboy

Stephen T-B, I think Radorth rants so because deep down he realizes that faith is all he has to go on. And because that is how he deals with existence and reality he assumes that is how atheists must do it. He is stuck in a "truth" trap and he knows it. Read his posts and see how he squirms and protests. These are not the posts of a "true" believer and I suspect it must vex him to no end.

Starboy

guyver2199

have any of you really bothered to figure out what occams razor is? it has nothing to do with accepting or discarding theories based on complexity. it merely states that in the presence of multiple theories, each of which has equal support and equally sound basis, the one which has the least necessary complexities is most likely to be correct, this can be useful in order to attempt to prove only one of a few theories correct, instead of going throigh all of them. there is also a reverse to occams razor, once all possible explanations have been eliminated, the impossible, no matter how improbable, is inevitably true. all ocams razor does is indicate a logical starting point based on an observed statistical probability. it is a way to look at equally valid theories and choose which are most likely to be correct and thus best explored before wasing resources on less likely answers.

Starboy

guyver2199, what observed statistical probability? I have looked and found none. Everyone appears to have accepted this claim but there is no evidence to back it up. An anecdotal observation indicates the opposite is likely. Are you aware of evidence to back up this claim of more likely simplicity? And if it is just a starting point does it matter where one starts if one has no idea if the result will be simple or complex? In other words, WTF is so special or important about OR? Why even bring it up. Why not just say, we will start with the simpler theories and work our way up.

Starboy

guyver2199

Quite simply, there is nothing special about it, I merely reply to its misuse in earlier posts. as to just calling it follow the simple theories first, there is more to it than that, it is also requires that the 'competing' theories be equally well founded and equally 'thus far' indisputable. The ideas are called occams razor because its actually a little less tedious. If one does not already have a theory, and thus know its complexity, OR does not apply. This is a theory for the pre testing phase to choose which theory to test first. In a discussion of what is definitely correct, it has no relevance. When people use it on a topic such as religion, they are simply dismissing the issue. They �usually� are saying �It is simpler to believe that the universe has always existed than to believe it was made by a god who has always existed and there is no real evidence to give one theory weight over the other, and alas no way to test the theories, so I will believe the simpler.� This is a horrible misuse of the theory. It is also simpler to believe god is holding the solar system in place than to figure out all the massive equations of gravity and inertia that govern them, and in Newton�s time the concept had not been thought up. But that would still not make his assumption about constant divine intervention correct. He took the same way out that these people are trying to take. �I give up. This is easier to understand so I�m going to insist its right.�

Interesting about the actual statistics though, I couldn�t find them either, however a physicist explained his use of it thus:
The following argument against Occam's razor is sometime proposed:
This simple hypothesis was shown to be false; the truth was more complicated. So Occam's razor doesn't work.
This is a straw man argument. The Razor doesn't tell us anything about the truth or otherwise of a hypothesis, but rather it tells us which one to test first. The simpler the hypothesis, the easier it is to shoot down. Quote from http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html

Keeping an open mind is virtue - but not so open that your brains fall out.
- Space Engineer James Oberg

guyver2199

I have no evidence for evolution because I've never seen one of these mutations we are assured happened by the millions nor have I ever seen the "equilibrium" punctuated. I am told "but we know it happens, because blah blah blah." - Radorth


on another note, look around on the net for children born with deformities that were not present in their family history. born without a limb or with a congenital defect. DNA undergoes damage and consequently changes constantly. the DNA of two identicle twins it not quite exactly identical because of minute and inconsequential changes sice their egg split into two seperate eggs. all evolution says is that once on a long time a good change happens and that individual will tend to survive and procreate better than those who do not have it.

Starboy

guyver2199, my guess is if a study was ever done, it would be shown to be no better than random chance.

Starboy

guyver2199

now where are your statistics
its obviously gained a following, but then again, so has religeon

Starboy

Please read my post carefully.