artsylady Posted December 23, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2011 In other words you can't answer it, you don't care, it challenges your belief and therefore don't want to look into it, . . . . Do you have anything better to offer than to extrapolate my reply into a baseless ad hominem? Nebula is correct in her interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 23, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted December 23, 2011 The general criteria for "simplicity" would be a hypothesis that introduces the least number of new assumptions, but you're right that simplicity is subjective and needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. You're also right that proper use of Occam's Razor does not involve claiming that competing hypotheses are false, since it is generally meant to provide a starting point for research instead of being a logical principle or scientific result itself. What you have consistently failed to address, however, is the fact that the God excuse offers zero explanatory power and is a cop out instead of an explanation. No matter how simple it gets, it does not qualify for consideration under Occam's Razor, the same way that omnipotent pink six-headed pigs do not qualify for consideration under Occam's Razor either. Under Occam's Razor, the God excuse doesn't even qualify to participate in the race at all. Please explain how "Occam's Razor" is a valid answer to statement given (which started this whole debate): What about this if you can open your mind for a moment. God decided to make it look as though primates and humans had a common designer. Occams Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. One says species B arose from species A. One says a common design is woven throughout. How is one explanation "simpler" than another in this discussion? I wish I could see your body language, because your words do not come across apologetically. In any event, when you said, "Mendel was not an intellectually bankrupt person and did not invoke God as an explanation for everything he did not understand," that comes across as a claiming anyone who invokes God this way is "intellectually bankrupt." If you were on the receiving end, would you not regard this as a subtle insult? Resorting to cop outs instead of trying to find an explanation, and rejecting all attempts at discovery and research in favor of the cop out, is a form of intellectual bankruptcy. This is a simple statement of fact. I don't know if anyone here fulfils those criteria, and I don't believe I've accused anyone of it. But like I said, if you think the shoe fits on you, there isn't much I can do. God is not a cop out. This is where you err. There's a difference between stating, "Column-shaped cells evolved to secrete and absorb," and stating, "Column-shaped cells are designed to secrete and absorb." For theists whose main interest is in bulldozing in God as the "explanation" for anything and everything despite the complete lack of evidence, yes, there is a difference. But the difference is one of ideology rather than having anything to do with the explanation itself. For those who are simply interested in finding out how epithelium cells function, the presence of God or lack thereof in the explanation does not change anything. We do not understand any less about epithelium cells because they came by via evolution, nor do we understand any more about them because they were designed by a sentient creator. So why object to a person who presents the cells as having God-origin rather than random chaos/no meaning origin? My point was that eliminating the people changes the outcome in how one understands science. Eliminating the creator, if there is one, changes the outcome in how one understands the universe. That is your assumption. The fact, on the other hand, is that God is a complete non-factor in the theories and explanations discovered and proven by those scientists. None of them used God as the explanation for anything and succeeded in proving it. And the simple reason for that is, as I've said, because the God excuse has zero explanatory power. The God excuse is simply a fancy rewording of "well, that's just the way it is!". The numerous anomalies and self-contradictions that come along with the God excuse are all handily waved away with "we can't question/understand God". The God excuse fails to explain even itself, much less anything else, and is hence not valid for consideration under Occam's Razor. Again, God is not an excuse. You seem to have a high arrogance with regards to why people believe in God and view life as belonging to Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 23, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted December 23, 2011 there is more than a 95% similarity. How many genes are contained within the 4-5% differences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted December 23, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2011 Ah, okay. I think I understand where the disconnect is now. You're right that the differences between humans and primates is clear and obvious. What you seem to have difficulty grasping is that there are extremely vast similarities as well, and once you look past the surface and at the underlying genetic code, there is more than a 95% similarity. If humans were entirely distinct from every other species on the planet, that makes the case for creationism a lot stronger. And while that appears true on the surface if you emphasize the differences, a detailed inspection of our genetic codes tells a different story. If there is indeed a God, he apparently recycled more than 95% of his previous work on other species when creating mankind. I indeed see the 95 percent. A common designer used the physical attributes a few times. I agree. It's the 5 percent that separates us. Humans are spiritual, we are thinkers, ponderers, intelligent and able to communicate, and want to communicate beyond the subjects of food and survival. Intelligence, speech, and communication are most certainly not unique to humans, although primates practice it on a lower level due to inferior intelligence, and even then that's debatable; how intelligent do you think a human would be if he was raised in the wild outside of civilization, in the same environment as chimpanzees? I could answer 2 opposite ways. One is that the human is still more intelligent or has the capability to be more intelligent. Two - that the human will not have ability to speak (based on the study of feral children) and therefore can't communicate, can't learn to reason etc. But with this answer, it's your chicken egg scenario, it's your mystery to figure out that if a modern human raised by chimps is a stupid as a chimp, did intelligence really 'evolve' at all? I'm not sure about philosophy, but if I had to make a guess, I'd say chimpanzees have it too to some degree given that they are among the few species that are self-aware. Pardon? That's quite a garguantan guess. You think chimps sit around wondering if there is a god, why we're here, what happens to them when they die? Please tell me why do you think this? It sounds like you don't put much value on the intelligence, communication, speech, reasoning, philosophizing that separates humans from other mammals. Am I getting this correctly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valoran Posted December 23, 2011 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 200 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/11/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2011 Please explain how "Occam's Razor" is a valid answer to statement given (which started this whole debate): What about this if you can open your mind for a moment. God decided to make it look as though primates and humans had a common designer. Occams Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. One says species B arose from species A. One says a common design is woven throughout. How is one explanation "simpler" than another in this discussion? The first explanation makes one assumption; that species B arose from species A. The second makes two; that a designer exists, and that he decided to use a common design. When we factor in other data known to us, the second explanation becomes even more untenable. It assumes that the designer intervened through hundreds of millions of years, making microscopic changes to living beings through each generation, creating all sorts of mutations, branching out organisms into various orders, families, and species, and slowly retiring older species into extinction. This designer also incorporates inefficient, useless, and/or redundant design at various stages of his work, and replicates those non-ideal designs in his new creations. At the end of the day, the actions and decisions made by this hypothetical designer defy common sense and does not fit our expectations of how an intelligent designer would behave. This is, of course, assuming that the "designer" hypothesis has any explanatory power whatsoever to qualify for consideration under Occam's Razor. It does not, so at the end of the day the question is pretty much moot. There's a difference between stating, "Column-shaped cells evolved to secrete and absorb," and stating, "Column-shaped cells are designed to secrete and absorb." For theists whose main interest is in bulldozing in God as the "explanation" for anything and everything despite the complete lack of evidence, yes, there is a difference. But the difference is one of ideology rather than having anything to do with the explanation itself. For those who are simply interested in finding out how epithelium cells function, the presence of God or lack thereof in the explanation does not change anything. We do not understand any less about epithelium cells because they came by via evolution, nor do we understand any more about them because they were designed by a sentient creator. So why object to a person who presents the cells as having God-origin rather than random chaos/no meaning origin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 24, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Valoran, what you are telling me is that the only way I can be a scientist is to deny Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valoran Posted December 24, 2011 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 200 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/11/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted December 24, 2011 Valoran, what you are telling me is that the only way I can be a scientist is to deny Jesus. Actually, what I'm saying is that you cannot be a successful scientist if you are incapable of not allowing your personal ideologies to interfere with the scientific process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 24, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Valoran, what you are telling me is that the only way I can be a scientist is to deny Jesus. Actually, what I'm saying is that you cannot be a successful scientist if you are incapable of not allowing your personal ideologies to interfere with the scientific process. No, you are saying I have to begin the evaluation with the assumption that there is no God, God was not involved in the process. You have said nothing that allows room for one to approach the evidence with belief of a creator and a creative process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valoran Posted December 24, 2011 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 200 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 5 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/11/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted December 24, 2011 No, you are saying I have to begin the evaluation with the assumption that there is no God, God was not involved in the process. You have said nothing that allows room for one to approach the evidence with belief of a creator and a creative process. I'm not sure how you inferred that from what I said. I said that the God excuse has zero explanatory power. You're free to start off your investigation with the assumption of the God excuse if that's what you like, it's just that invoking Occam's Razor to justify it is incorrect. And of course, assuming the God excuse at the beginning of the investigation is a valid approach (assuming you're actually going to investigate instead of simply using the God excuse itself as a cop out), but trying to present it as the result of investigation without supporting evidence is not how science is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 24, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted December 24, 2011 I said that the God excuse has zero explanatory power. You're free to start off your investigation with the assumption of the God excuse if that's what you like, it's just that invoking Occam's Razor to justify it is incorrect. And of course, assuming the God excuse at the beginning of the investigation is a valid approach (assuming you're actually going to investigate instead of simply using the God excuse itself as a cop out), but trying to present it as the result of investigation without supporting evidence is not how science is done. As I've said before, God is not an excuse. As long as you keep saying this you will lose your Christian audience. Likewise, I was not invoking Occam's Razor to justify anything. Stargaze is the one who did that. What I did was point out how he couldn't claim the one explanation was more simpler than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts