Occam’s razor: we were created over evolved

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: BetNun

You do realise it's not E and volution. ..its EVOLVE....when put into a theory it becomes evolution. All that time wasted researching a simple definition

And definition of a hologram. Lmao. Im not even religious but can understand the basic teachings of that passage

Hologram - A hologram represents a recording of information regarding the light that came from the original scene as scattered in a range of directions rather than from only one direction, as in a photograph. This allows the scene to be viewed from a range of different angles, as if it were still present.

No formation apart form informing. No insight unless sight is within. No evolution apart from involution first. AlephBet is the word Father in Hebrew. The Son is the Word made form the letters. DNA is the shadow of this process.

a reply to: BetNun

your understanding of evolution is hopelessly warped and corrupted as a result of attempting to cram a square peg in a round hole. you cant fight the facts - actually, you can fight them, but you cant beat them - so you try to incorporate it while not compromising the essential structure of your spirituality. but heres another fact: one day, you will have to make more room for one or the other, and you will have to choose superstition or science. but not both.

Dinosaurs laid eggs, chickens are descended from Dinosaurs, so as regards chickens, I would say the egg came first.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Dinosaurs laid eggs, chickens are descended from Dinosaurs, so as regards chickens, I would say the egg came first.

the first chicken egg was laid by a "proto-chicken". just like the first homo sapiens came from a "proto-human".

a reply to: thinline

I would ask how you can possibly comment on the odds are for life emerging on a planetary system without actually knowing it.

All you know is they are HUUUUUUGGGEEE!!! But do you know the odds for either creation or the emergence of life? Didn't think so.

Sorry, but you cannot present any numbers for the frequency of life in the milky way galaxy. We don't know them yet, so stop speculating about it. Even if the odds are 1 in 1 billion, life is inevitable in our galaxy because there are hundreds of billions of stars. The more you roll the dice, the more likely your number will hit. Roll em 200 billion times, and you'll hit millions of times, even though the odds might be extremely low on each individual roll.

Occam's Razor is about picking the option that requires the least assumptions. For creation / religion, sorry but the entire thing is assumptions. Evolution itself is based on evidence, so it wins the Razor.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: thinline

I would ask how you can possibly comment on the odds are for life emerging on a planetary system without actually knowing it.

All you know is they are HUUUUUUGGGEEE!!! But do you know the odds for either creation or the emergence of life? Didn't think so.

Sorry, but you cannot present any numbers for the frequency of life in the milky way galaxy. We don't know them yet, so stop speculating about it. Even if the odds are 1 in 1 billion, life is inevitable in our galaxy because there are hundreds of billions of stars. The more you roll the dice, the more likely your number will hit. Roll em 200 billion times, and you'll hit millions of times, even though the odds might be extremely low on each individual roll.

Occam's Razor is about picking the option that requires the least assumptions. For creation / religion, sorry but the entire thing is assumptions. Evolution itself is based on evidence, so it wins the Razor.

this Razr?

not a bad prize.

I've always had the mindset that if we wanted to create artificial life, or man made life it would need to be strictly confined to a computer, create a massive universe type thing, create some laws, add a bunch of empty data and create our own 'big bang' and let the physics engine take it's course, let everything inside the 'universe' evolve on it's own.
This of course will takes trillions of terabytes of space, and most likely millions of years to happen, but i think it could work.

originally posted by: strongfp
I've always had the mindset that if we wanted to create artificial life, or man made life it would need to be strictly confined to a computer, create a massive universe type thing, create some laws, add a bunch of empty data and create our own 'big bang' and let the physics engine take it's course, let everything inside the 'universe' evolve on it's own.
This of course will takes trillions of terabytes of space, and most likely millions of years to happen, but i think it could work.

and it would be a virtual equivalent. sprites are not real beings.

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

-- Douglas Adams

a reply to: BetNun

And welcome back SuperiorEd / EnochWasRight / AlephBet... I was missing my diet of word salad.

a reply to: thinline

There are no odds on something that has already happened. So no, the odds that the sun and the rest of the universe developed organically is exactly zero.

a reply to: randyvs

Tis better to burn out than fade away

a reply to: BetNun

Welcome back aleph bet/Enoch/whoever you are this month. Just how many accounts do you actually need on ATS anyway? While the name might keep changing it's always comforting to see your consistency with the script/schtick!

a reply to: thinline

Would not Occam's razor dictate that the only reason I can write this post from my house was because my surrounding and myself were created and the same reason applies to why you can read this....

Occam's razor is it's own logical fallacy. We can't base an epistemology on what is inherently an argument from incredulity, "X is too complex, therefore invalid...."

No, observation doesn't work that way.

a reply to: TechniXcality

We are, how do you say, in agreement.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

That's not what Occam's Razor states at all.

originally posted by: thinline

On the other hand, The odds of the sun and the rest of the universe developed organically where we know they are located, is a super huge number. It's super huge before we even begin factoring in life and that live changing and evolving to create you and me. The odds are better that your favorite celebrity crush will knock on your door.

If one theory is probable and the other theory has odds so long, it would probably take your whole life to write It down to the last digit. Would not Occam's razor dictate that the only reason I can write this post from my house was because my surrounding and myself were created and the same reason applies to why you can read this....

The old creationist argument of "the odds are so against everything happening to sustain life, it's proof of creation" is dead.

We've found multiple planetary bodies in our own backyard that are earth-like and capable of harboring life. It seems, now, that life is abundant in the cosmos.

I'm not saying you're a creationist... I'm just saying that you're using a creationist argument and it's no longer valid because (big surprise) new scientific discoveries have invalidated the belief that the conditions necessary to sustain life are astronomically rare. Pun intended.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

That's not what Occam's Razor states at all.

That is precisely the way people apply Occam's razor--as a way of ignoring complexity in an argument or observation.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

It's not about complexity though, it's about assumptions. All things being equal, the hypothesis that makes the least assumptions is the more favorable. It doesn't mean the least complicated hypothesis is the favorable one.

a reply to: babybunnies

It baffles me that the same people that choose science as a religion also push the time argument. Isn't it a direct contradiction?

Also most Christians I know do not believe in s literal six days.

Also isn't it funny that it goes from God being the creator to aliens seeding us? If the first is ridiculous the second is even more so.


Give me a pass on spelling and grammar. Swype on new phone sucks.