[CaptJosh]

I would just like to note that in no way does the Evolution model for the formation of life fit Occam's Razor.

[Colonol Dekker]

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?
<old london expression-circa 1920>

[aldo_14]

I would just like to note that in no way does the Evolution model for the formation of life fit Occam's Razor.

'Formation' is wrong.

Evolution is the model for the complexity of life; abiogenesis is the model for the creation of life. 

And I'd suggest you back that statement up, because it has a whiff of - if you'll forgive the phrase - ignorance about it.

[Colonol Dekker]

Chickens, Eggs,... At the end of the day they both end up on my plate. Its a nice argument but at the end of the day it all boils down to point of view or thereabouts.
You may as argue paradoxically about the schrodingers cat, or the grandfather murder paradox.

[TrashMan]

You can't answer this question untill you answer one other question - what makes a egg a chicken egg?

If the orgnism that laid the egg is clearly a chicken, does that make the agga choicken egg?
Or is the egg defined by the organism that is inside it?

[Flipside]

Chickens, Eggs,... At the end of the day they both end up on my plate. Its a nice argument but at the end of the day it all boils down to point of view or thereabouts.
You may as argue paradoxically about the schrodingers cat, or the grandfather murder paradox.

LOL Yeah, but it took scientists several years to figure out that Schrodinger was trying to politely take the piss

[Colonol Dekker]

To be a Scientist, you must sacrifice at least 3/4 of your common sense.
The same with accountants...........

[Edward Bradshaw]

I would just like to note that in no way does the Evolution model for the formation of life fit Occam's Razor.

Yes it does. Occams Razor doesnt mean you're free to make up whatever you like, its the "simplest explantion is usually the correct one" that explains all the evidence. Otherwise Occams Razor would be the most ridiculous idea ever.

[Edward Bradshaw]

You can't answer this question untill you answer one other question - what makes a egg a chicken egg?

Exactly my point!

If the orgnism that laid the egg is clearly a chicken, does that make the agga choicken egg?
Or is the egg defined by the organism that is inside it?

Unlike what many Creationists will have you believe Evolution doesnt say any organism can ever give birth to anything fundamentally different to itself. A chicken can only give birth to a chicken. An ape can only give birth to an ape. A dog can only give birth to a dog. Populations evolve, not individuals.

[Flipside]

It's like the whole 'Things must get simpler' thing, which doesn't take account that when you exploit a new medium, such as wings, you are doing something similar to jumping energy levels in chemistry. All of a sudden there are millions of new possibilities for development.

[aldo_14]

I think many creationists believe a cat can be expected (by their misunderstanding of the theory) to evolve into, say, a frog......

[Colonol Dekker]

Thats quite a disturbing concept, now a budgie -Rhino is much more plausible.

[Flipside]

The idea of a Rhino charging across the Serengeti roaring 'Ooos a Pretty Boy Den!' is certainly an amusing one

[Colonol Dekker]

I actually saw a Budgie wheigh 600K with a rhinos head flying around an old dears back garden, but yours sounds cool too 

[Grug]

I actually saw a Budgie wheigh 600K with a rhinos head flying around an old dears back garden, but yours sounds cool too 

Blame that on being high.

[Colonol Dekker]

Ugnhhhh, Not literally you peanut 
My Dept manager wouldnt take it to well if i yelled from my side of the building, "Oi mate, run down the garage and get me some FRICKIN PRINGLS !!!!"
 now would he 

[aceofspades]

It's funny that the same argument has been used at least one page back, and I answered it with my own, but the only response has been the repetition of the original argument by several people.
Also...the idea that Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is correct is ridiculuous.
"Ah, but Mr. Fellow Scientist, how do you explain *set of evidence*?"
"God decided so."
Roughly same thing for why calling ID a scientific theory is wrong. Imagine if Einstein has been thinking about the Michelson/Morley 1887 results in 1905 and had said...
"Well, this is obviously pretty complicated. A complex law like this could only be designed by an intelligent agent."

[karajorma]

Also...the idea that Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is correct is ridiculuous.
"Ah, but Mr. Fellow Scientist, how do you explain *set of evidence*?"
"God decided so."

Except that you've missed the fundemental flaw in your argument. God is not simple. If you want to claim God did it you have to explain God.

Considering that mankind has spent thousands of years trying to do that and isn't one iota closer (in fact we're further away according to most faiths) I don't think you can make any reasonable argument that God did it is simpler.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Also...the idea that Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is correct is ridiculuous.
"

Like I said a page back Occams Razor makes perfect logical sence, the simplest explanation that explains all the evidence IS usually the correct one. And that means not resorting to unverifiable supernatural explanations.

[aldo_14]

It's funny that the same argument has been used at least one page back, and I answered it with my own, but the only response has been the repetition of the original argument by several people.
Also...the idea that Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is correct is ridiculuous.
"Ah, but Mr. Fellow Scientist, how do you explain *set of evidence*?"
"God decided so."
Roughly same thing for why calling ID a scientific theory is wrong. Imagine if Einstein has been thinking about the Michelson/Morley 1887 results in 1905 and had said...
"Well, this is obviously pretty complicated. A complex law like this could only be designed by an intelligent agent."

Ah, but Occams Razor is based on observable evidence.  God is only possible as an explanation if there is actual, proper evidence of God, and there isn't.