Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 24 2006,14:19)|
|I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's [sic] razor.|
Zardoz, you can call it anything you want, but that does not make it so.
You were given this Link that covers pretty much every creationist anti-evolutionist arguement. You'd be wise to use it.
Oh, and here is what have already been said about Ockham's razor...
Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation should be preferred. That explanation is creation.
Morris, John D., 1999 (15 Sep., 100-110 PDT), "Forum", KQED radio.
Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary.
Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson