Occam’s razor: we were created over evolved

a reply to: thinline

Your attempt at philosophy falls apart with this: if we were created, who created our creator? Where did our creator come from?

The complexities required within such an answer make the Occams Razor analysis on "Creation vs evolution" almost silly.

originally posted by: GetHyped
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.

Not to be a bear here....but they are the same thing. Unless you are using a highly refined derivative definition of those two words.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


The caveat is "all things being equal". That is to say, if both hypotheses have the same explanatory power, the one that makes the least assumptions is the favourable one. A simpler hypothesis that is wrong or has less explanatory power is not selected over a more complicated but accurate hypothesis using Occam's Razor.

The OP's dichotomy fails Occam's Razor because the creation argument has less explanatory power and makes more assumptions than the theory of evolution.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.

Technically it would be 100%, not zero, since it has happened. That makes the odds of life emerging in the universe 100%. The real question would be, "how frequent is it?" One day we'll figure it out.

originally posted by: Raxusillian
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.

Hmm, kind of agree (especially Swype sucking in general, though I'm too OCD to let touch screen completely defeat my spelling), but then I'm thinking about it, and... Is the idea of aliens seeding Earth actually less ridiculous than "God" in the classical sense, seeding Earth?

"Aliens" requires believing that beings whom it's quite safe to say exist, hit the intersection of technology & proximity, and decided to seed life on Earth. Tech + Will = aliens seeding possible. "God" seeding Earth requires an omnipotent being, operating outside of the known laws of the physical universe, choosing to create humanity.

IMO, both are possible, but the physical brings we haven't met yet, but can safely assume exist, based on probability/odds, is a less ridiculous scenario than one with a completely unknown origin / mode of existence.

originally posted by: GetHyped
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.

I understand that, but that wasn't my point. I was talking about the way people use Occam's razor to hide an argument from incredulity.

Which is basically what the OP is doing.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Oh I think we can both agree that OP is both wrong and misusing Occam's Razor.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

Oh I think we can both agree that OP is both wrong and misusing Occam's Razor.

Exactly.

a reply to: thinline

Well you think the odds are long now, watch this video and you will see just how big they actually are.

VIDEO

EDIT:
Be warned some have a bias against the math, to deny the facts, which I find sad and hilarious at the same time.
To me this video should create or confirm agnostics. As after watching this what person can logically say we know 100% for sure everything happened by pure chance ?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

*Yawn*

Standard long-debunked creationist nonsense.

Math or it didn't happen.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Except for one thing: who created our creator? And then who created the creators creator.

If creation is how it happens...then we need to be able to explain the above without magic.

a reply to: Agartha

If we and the universe had been created, we would be just perfect for ever, no stars bursting and killing galaxies, no illnesses and definitely not ravaging the body with faulty DNA that just can't replicate itself and ends up killing us (aging).

That's an interesting statement, a logical conclusion, from a logical thought pattern.
What if that's exactly what happened, and was suppose to happen? But the universe encountered a deadly disease, ruining everything that was intended from the start ? What if the universe was given an inoculation to eventually heal itself and go back to what was suppose to happen as you say ? What if given the age of the universe it seemed to be taking way too long for the medication to work, but actually it was working. What if the earth was the point of the needles injection to solve the universes' current problem. What if the earth and all it's inhabitants are now experiencing the "Herxheimer Reaction" just before we all get better ?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

At least it was only a little over 6 minutes long. I'm just not seeing how the video supports anything though. It takes liberties with logic and fact and other than quote mining and voiding out all context of the quotes and tossing out some random numbers to give the illusion that the odds only favor a Judeo-Christian/biblical creation event, there's not a single equation or bit of math to demonstrate why the videos producers believe that the odds are so insurmountable. It's assumed that people should just take it at face value and accept the desired outcome of whomever produced the video. If they actually ran the numbers and can prove their position then why not show the math that led to such a conclusion? It's a video made for people who already believe in biblical creation to add fuel to their confirmation bias. There's no science math or physics involved anywhere.demonstrating the equations would have gone a lot farther than closing with a biblical quite in my opinion.

originally posted by: BetNun

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.

Hey it's our old buddy "AlephBet"

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

the chicken or the egg?

The answer is the egg. The egg came from something that was almost a chicken. That's how it works, it's not a paradox.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Except for one thing: who created our creator?

Azathoth!

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Except for one thing: who created our creator? And then who created the creators creator.

If creation is how it happens...then we need to be able to explain the above without magic.

we all know you wont get a satisfactory answer to this. no one ever does.

originally posted by: babybunnies
The odds of the Universe being created in six days by a mythical being in the sky is more probable to you simply because the odds of evolution and the Big Bang Theory are so high?

Given enough time, the odds drop dramatically. 14 billion years is an extremely long time. You have to factor TIME into your odds, which you haven't done.

"if you sit in one place long enough, eventually, the thing you wanted to happen, WILL". It's just a matter of time. The Sun being placed where it is in the Universe doesn't have an impact on life on Earth, the biggest impact is the distance of the Earth from the sun.

The creation of the moon was done by two planets impacting each other, that happens fairly regularly, astronomers SEE it happen, it's called SCIENCE. Put two marbles in a bowl, and spin the bowl. Eventually, the marbles collide. A simple experiment can duplicate the events leading to the creation of the Moon.

Your science is as stupid as the 6 days in the Bible.

Actually it is even less likely, than the Bible story which is amazing in of itself.

Whose idea is it anyways that we limit ourselves to these ridiculous propositions ??

Therein lies the truth of who is hiding things, someone sure wants us to stay confused.

I will rejoice if and ever, the masses such as yourself ever try originating a thought for yourself, and stop believing ludicrous and simplistic at best , stories.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Except for one thing: who created our creator? And then who created the creators creator.

If creation is how it happens...then we need to be able to explain the above without magic.

we all know you wont get a satisfactory answer to this. no one ever does.

Except for one thing: what created the ingredient for ingredients? And then what created the ingredients ingredients.

The same answer applies to the silly evolution tale and yet they swallow it whole, accept it and love it.

Face it, neither story is even remotely interesting, neither near any sort of reality, or worth debating.

It is beyond shocking how people can wrap there minds around the evolutionary tale, nod heads and say it is acceptable even in theory, and then use it as fact in the locked down repressed minds they think are free.

NO DIFFERENCE, in the tales, ZERO proof, possible small snippets of truth, and really they are the exact same BS, but you are choosing, and feel that you HAVE to choose, from these possibilities.

Talk about YAWN.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Except for one thing: what created the ingredient for ingredients? And then what created the ingredients ingredients.

The same answer applies to the silly evolution tale and yet they swallow it whole, accept it and love it.

indeed. much better to make one giant ridiculous assumption than to carefully explore the subject and arrive at a verifiable conclusion via peer reviewed evidence.

Face it, neither story is even remotely interesting, neither near any sort of reality, or worth debating.

im sorry, are we still discussing facts or just your opinion?