Both are correct.Quote by: Starboy
Both are correct.Quote by: Starboy
Not my point. I understand that there are common but misinformed spellings. I also understand that for the most part people make reference to the so called Ockham's razor when they don't even know anything about the man it is supposed to be attributed to.
Technically, the ideas of religion could become science. Certain scientific discoveries have been made by the process of elimination, therefore by removing certain theories with proof or logic, you can reveal a conclusion.
I will flat-out say that I disagree with evolution, the kind that the staunch evolutionists believe caused our world to be as it is now. Yes, I have considered the possibility, but there's one thing that prevents my belief in it, and strengthens my belief of a Creator.
Evolutionists say that the world came from the "Big Bang," which was supposedly an explosion of energy that caused life to begin. My question is: Where did that energy come from? A proven law of science, the Law of the Conservation of Matter, states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed by normal means. That takes away the chance that the Big Bang actually occurred, unless the energy or whatever matter that caused it had always existed, which leads us to the Steady State Theory. This particular astronomical theory that says that the universe has always existed is outdated, and most scientists - including atheists and evolutionists, I might add - agree that our world had a beginning.
Now I have a question for all you evolutionists. Supposing that my logic is indeed correct, what caused evolution?
Oh yes, and I also have to ask what type of proof that anyone has of evolution, and I will address it as it comes.
Last edited by Petra; 25th June 2005 at 08:16 PM.
Right now I'm having amnesia and déjà vu.
:( I think I've forgotten this before.
Petra, perhaps you should start a new thread in the science technology forum. That seems to be a more appropriate venue for what you are asking for.
Running out so I dont have a lot of time. First of all, thanks to the guy that pointed out the Occam is considered a reasonable spelling. I am referring to the principle of unnecessary plurality that he often argued for. Starboy, if you can't find that in his readings let me know. I can point it out for you. The argument was named after him. We've gotten way off topic, but I have to mention that Starboy - you're giving atheists (i consider myself one) a bad name. You have to stop attacking people claiming they are uneducated. An educated person would know that Ockham is often referred to as Occam. An educated person would also not bother with trying to correct me on whether the city he is from is spelled O-C-C-A-M or O-C-K-H-A-M. This arguement is not over his theory. It is about God. And the principle of unnecessary plurality is a reasonable place to argue from in this case. The classical example of arguing whether or not there is an invisible unicorn in your room right now is one of the first things you learn in an introductory philosophy class.
Thats all I have time for. Lets stick to the task at hand now rather than arguing about spelling.
sorry. one more.
Petra. Nothing "causes" evolution. Evolution is adaptation, mutation and change over time.
But even Ockham would tell you that you should not dismiss something because it appears to be unnecessary. You must show it. And there in lays the problem. And if you knew anything about Ockham you would know this. You would also know that no where in any of the writings of Ockham does he make the statement about unnecessary pluralities. That even he knew that such a concept on the face is meaningless because it changes nothing about the argument. If you can show that something is unnecessary then you do not need to invoke the magical philosophical incantation of Ockham's razor. Consider the possibility that all of us, including you at one time or another in our lives needs to get an education. The other funny thing about Ockham’s is unnecessary plurality is in the eye of the beholder. Ockham would say that the least nominal explanation for everything is god. It is not exactly an argument suitable for an atheist. Class is out.Quote by: Blanh
Proof of evolution?
Ask anyone in the agriculture industry. Finding pesticides that will continue to destroy organisms with short lifespans is ONE form of study of evolution. One problem they take very seriously is trying to combat this.
Yes but it's quite uncertain.Quote by: Blanh
If the mechanism of the adaptation was the loss of genetic information, would you still consider that to be evolution?Quote by: Blanh
NO. you are wrong. any good philosopher would tell you that dismissing something irrationally is unneceesary. Occam's razor suggests only that suggesting an irrational answer is just that - irrational. OCKHAM'S point was just that. He believed that irrational arguments should be dismissed based on their invalidity. You should not multiply entities beyond necessity no more than you should invoke God.
Lets face it, the world is so extremely corrupted now, only the select few at the top probably know how the universe came to be.
People always want to know this, as if it will benefit them in some way!
How? How can you benefit from knowing that? To put your mind at rest?
I would look a lot closer to home (at Earth's problems) first.