Just another bible lie

Originally posted by Eladar
You are saying that you base your religion on Occam's razor. OK.

No, I just said I have no religion.
Do you refute Occam's razor? If so, on what bases? You implicitly use it just like the rest of us on these forums in everyday life even though you clearly don't use it with faith in religion -those who don't ever use Occam's razor might be found in mental institutions for people with severe learning difficulties.

Originally posted by humy
No, I just said I have no religion.
Do you refute Occam's razor? If so, on what bases? You implicitly use it just like the rest of us on these forums in everyday life -those who don't can be found in mental institutions for people with severe learning difficulties.

I know what you say. I'm just telling you the truth of the matter.

Do I refute Occam's razor? When it comes to determining truth? Yes, I deny that you can determine truth by choosing what seems most likely and simplest explanation.

Yes, I understand that you believe that people who disagree with you need to be institutionalized. That is the danger of being a religious fanatic.

Originally posted by Eladar
I know what you say. I'm just telling you the truth of the matter.

Do I refute Occam's razor? When it comes to determining truth? Yes, I deny that you can determine truth by choosing what seems most likely and simplest explanation.

Yes, I understand that you believe that people who disagree with you need to be institutionalized. That is the danger of being a religious fanatic.

I deny that you can determine truth by choosing what seems most likely and simplest explanation.

That is NOT Occam's razor!!! Occam's razor is NOT the principle that the “simplest” explanation is true (although it is often erroneously stated as just that even over the net ) but rather, given the current evidence, the least assumptive explanation is the most probable. Note that means Occam's razor often recommends the more complex explanation providing there is good evidence to support all the elements that make up that greater complexity. In addition, the principle doesn't say the most probable belief is the one that “seems most likely” because what “seems” is extremely vague and subjective and has no place in formal logic.
And, in addition, Occam's razor doesn't say you should “choose” a belief but rather merely states a criteria for saying which is the most probable and, if you accept that criteria (like any rational person would ) , what you would believe to be the most probable would not be a matter of “choice” but logic!

Yes, I understand that you believe that people who disagree with you need to be institutionalized.

I didn't say that. I said those that never use Occam's razor can be expected to be found in mental institutions for people with learning difficulty. I didn't say they "need" to be there in particular. Do you deny ever implicitly using Occam's razor in your everyday life? Yes or no?

Originally posted by humy

I deny that you can determine truth by choosing what seems most likely and simplest explanation.

That is NOT Occam's razor!!! Occam's razor is NOT the principle that the “simplest” explanation is true (although it is often erroneously stated as just that even over the net ) but rather, given the current evidence, the least assumptive ex ...[text shortened]... in particular. Do you deny ever implicitly using Occam's razor in your everyday life? Yes or no?

OK, then current evidence. Current evidence does not necessarily lead to truth. Unless you are willing to admit that you know nothing when it comes to the nature of our reality, then you are putting your faith in something. If you are putting faith into current evidence, then your religious beliefs lead you to do so.

Originally posted by Eladar
OK, then current evidence. Current evidence does not necessarily lead to truth. Unless you are willing to admit that you know nothing when it comes to the nature of our reality, then you are putting your faith in something. If you are putting faith into current evidence, then your religious beliefs lead you to do so.

Current evidence does not necessarily lead to truth.

-unless it is also conclusive proof as in this case (I assume you are talking about evidence for evolution, right? ) thus no faith required here.

You still haven't answered my question:
Do you deny ever implicitly using Occam's razor in your everyday life? Yes or no?
(please make sure you understand my previous explanation of your massive misconception of what Occam's razor actually is before answering that because I hate keep repeating myself. Also read this very carefully and make absolutely sure you understand it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
In particular, note that the principle says "The simplest available theory need not be most accurate" -THAT goes against just one of several misconceptions you have of what the principle says but I observe you have at least two others and maybe you also have more I don't know about )

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Quote from the link: "...the Bible was written or edited long after the events it narrates and is not always reliable as verifiable history."
Not even the gospels were written at the time when the the stories happened. therefore there are a lot of glitches in them. They are written of an agenda.

Another quote: "The camel’s influence on biblical resear ...[text shortened]... as part of the Hebrew Bible."
Well, don't trust the bible. It's written by people of a reason.

History is always written after the events happened. If the author failed to date his writing, then to determined when it was written is a matter for speculation, not science.

Originally posted by woodypusher
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/camels-had-no-business-in-genesis.html?smid=fb-share

This is speculation, not science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is speculation, not science.

You don't know what science is. You are a YEC.

Originally posted by humy

Current evidence does not necessarily lead to truth.

-unless it is also conclusive proof as in this case (I assume you are talking about evidence for evolution, right? ) thus no faith required here.

You still haven't answered my question:
Do you deny ever implicitly using Occam's razor in your everyday life? Yes or no?
(please make sur ...[text shortened]... ays but I observe you have at least two others and maybe you also have more I don't know about )

Conclusive proof is in the eye of the beholder. Of course fanatics like yourself can't see it because they believe their assumptions about the reality of our existence are not assumptions at all, but are fact.

Originally posted by Eladar
Conclusive proof is in the eye of the beholder. Of course fanatics like yourself can't see it because they believe their assumptions about the reality of our existence are not assumptions at all, but are fact.

Conclusive proof is in the eye of the beholder.

-Not only in the eye of the beholder but reality and by that I mean independently of any eye of the beholder. Conclusive proof is, by definition, just that, Conclusive Proof.
Would you think that even a mathematical proof is just “ in the eye of the beholder” by that I assume you mean just a matter of personal opinion?

Would you claim that, for example, Bertrand Russell's proof that 1+1=2 is just “ in the eye of the beholder” and mere opinion not based on fact?
( see http://tachyos.org/godel/1+1=2.html for this proof )
If so, how would you know this and can you show in what way it can be rationally viewed as not being a proof?
And do you refute that 1+1=2? Or do you refute only the proof for 1+1=2 and, if so, exactly which part and why?

Originally posted by humy

Conclusive proof is in the eye of the beholder.

-Not only in the eye of the beholder but reality and by that I mean independently of any eye of the beholder. Conclusive proof is, by definition, just that, Conclusive Proof.
Would you think that even a mathematical proof is just “ in the eye of the beholder” by that I assume you mean just a ...[text shortened]... te that 1+1=2? Or do you refute only the proof for 1+1=2 and, if so, exactly which part and why?

Wow, you are certainly grasping for straws here. There is no absolute proven facts in evolution, only true believers see it that way.

Originally posted by Eladar
Wow, you are certainly grasping for straws here. There is no absolute proven facts in evolution, only true believers see it that way.

You and RJHinds don't know anything about evolution, but you still think that your opinion about evolution is the true?

Are you also a fan of the creationists invention 'evilution'? Where people ride on dinosaurs, that the moon is cooled down with water, and the water of the global flooding has sinked into the soil in only 150 days?

Originally posted by Eladar
There is no absolute proven facts in evolution, ....

Of course there are, and some of them are in fact mathematical proofs. Your statement is as stupid as saying "there are no absolute proven facts in Chemistry".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course there are, and some of them are in fact mathematical proofs. Your statement is as stupid as saying "there are no absolute proven facts in Chemistry".

I mean the theory macro evolution as to how life came into being. It is far from a proven theory.

If you don't like the term proven, the perhaps reproducible is better for you.

Originally posted by Eladar
Wow, you are certainly grasping for straws here. There is no absolute proven facts in evolution, only true believers see it that way.

I wasn't talking about evolution. So I take it that you will not even admit 1+1=2 is a fact and not a mere assumption? Well, that makes you a moron then.