We humans should be born at 11 months... but that would kept us in and we'd be dead. That's why our mother's body cast us out at 9 months.... otherwise our head would not go through our mom's pelvis

Anytime someone uses Occam's Razor to prove something is just laughable. Occam's razor is a tool used to show preference to two equally valid explanations and does not eliminate conclusions but trims away unnecessary premises.

So how did I use it improperly? Slow change through evolution makes
more sense than being flawed clay men.

Wow, you have FAR more patience than I do. I would have written that guy off as a creepy stalker/pseudo-intellectual whack job and banned him a long time ago. No point talking to a bar of soap and all that.

I like not what he writes, but I would die to see that he remains able
to. I don't hope to ever have to ban somebody or censor anything. :)

Sent from my iPod

It's not a censorship issue unless you're the government. Do you listen to every word the Jehovah Witnesses have to say every time they come to your house? Or do you say "no thank you," and close the door? And if you don't listen to every word they want to say to you on your own property, does that make it censorship, in your opinion?

If the Pope tells Galileo he is under house arrest for the rest of his life for casting doubt on church doctrine, it's censorship. If CBS refused to air an ad purchased by the Klan during the Superbowl, it would not be censorship.

Note that I'm in no way asking you to ban him. I'm just saying. I would ban someone who was purposely irritating on a site I owned; you wouldn't. That's got nothing to do with rights. It's a personal choice made by the person who owns the site. He is free to create his own site and share his own views, whether you or I allow him to do so on a site either of us owns or not.

Heidi, you call me a "pseudo-intellectual whack job" but the irony is that I am the one who uses reason and logic and you resort to ad hominem character attacks and never actually interact with anything that I say. Do you not see the irony?

And you also show that your ignorance is not only about logic and reason, but history as well. You flat understanding about the Galileo incident shows that you have not actually studied the event, but rather believe unquestioning (blind faith?) what has been passed down to you. I'm not a catholic so I'm not trying to protect the Pope or anything, but if you start reading up on what actually got Galileo in trouble was not his rejection of the teaching of the Bible, but the worldview of the time (Aristotelianism) which actually had MORE secular academics up in arms than churchmen. (And Galileo was under "house arrest" in some of the most affluent homes. He was basically put under house arrest in palaces.) When you ACTUALLY study the event, you will see that Galileo was actually strongly supported by the Jesuits and was most fiercely opposed by the secular professors who used political clout to get him in trouble. A big part of what got him into trouble was also that Galileo seemed to have no tact or political savvy and would often inflame controversy with his bluntness and hostility, more so than with his ideas. I recommend reading John Lennox's treatment on this in God's Undertaker or the book length biography "Galileo's Daughter."

But how about before you open your mouth and show just how ignorant and biased you are, you make sure that you know what you are talking about. And if you are going to accuse someone of being a whack job, make sure that you are not being more biased and led by blind, unreasonable faith than they are.

I wasn't speaking to you. And I believe I've told you before that I would neither read, nor engage in your pointless drivel. Don't bother to address me again.

you call it "drivel". tell me, how is it drivel? Where was I illogical?

as you plug your ears and say "la la la la, i cant hear your logic". ha. Godless is respectable because he is willing to read and engage with the other side. You however bash the other side (without reason) and do it in the name of rationalism and free-thought. Sad really.

Those are some good points. I just prefer to let people say whatever
they want here, to an extent. I'm sure I'll have to ban somebody at
some point.

Occam's razor is not a law of logic that proves anything, but actually a tool when faced with two equally valid explanations, neither of which commits a logical fallacy or unfactual premises. Then Occam's razor is used to show preference to the one that uses the least amount of assumptions, but even this is only for working theories since sometimes the most complex explanation actually IS the true explanation. And it seems the massive amount assumptions that have to be made to get from non-existence to existence and non-life to life without purpose or cause are actually more severe and unfounded that assuming the logical necessity of a creator. Whenever we see order, uniformity, and information we ALWAYS assume intelligence in EVERY other instance but the naturalist, in order to deny God, deny it in the instances of the universe/biological life. So even IF Occam's Razor was useful in this case, it actually would cut the other way. The naturalistic explanation is actually much more complex and requires more assumptions in the long run, and would thus be the least preferred options.

Theism -
1) In every case of order, uniformity, and information, we can rightly infer an intelligent cause.
2) The universe has order, uniformity, and information.
3) Thus we can infer intelligent cause.

or,

1) Whenever we see life, we know a living being brought it about.
2) The universe contains life.
3) Thus a living being brought it about.


But naturalism must either deny the first two premises (an exceedingly difficult task) or come to difference conclusions by adding extra premises, thus making them more complex.

You still want to try to get Occam's Razor on your side?