The Law of parsimony prefers Intelligent Design

"You see, this is the problem. You do not understand what parsimony is, and would like to teach you. I can see that you don't understand it because when I asked you to explain why the principle is useful, you just repeated it. Therefor, I will ONLY use semantics. I'm not going to debate the fine-tuning argument, if you want me to do that, challenge me to a debate about it. This is not a true debate because it has an objective answer. Even if ID were actually correct, the principle of parsimony would still favor evolution by natural selection as a scientific theory." It is interesting that you say you will not go into the fine tuning argument, giving that it is a very good analogy at making us understand from a broader point. But yet you bring up the watch analogy. However, I will discuss with pleasure the analogy YOU brought forth. If i were to travel to, say a newly discovered planet, one that to our knowledge is a virgin to humanity as we know it, and I found a watch. However this isn't anything like we know it, we would, like you said rightfully we would want to know how it works, ID does not demolish that. We would as you say, prod the watch in an attempt to figure out how it works, but as is obvious, we would not think the watch naturally formed on this unknown planet. Instead, even after we had theories that have not been proven of how the watch works, rightfully we would think that something guided the creation of this device, because of its constant rhythmical features, and complex design of course we would not come to the conclusion that it came there naturally, but rather was guided. Whether or not you will refute this, I am going to bring up part of the fine tuning argument once again, and if you do not refute it, that should only hurt you. As we look at our world from a scientific and mathematical standpoint, obviously we must observe the complexity of it. The way atoms and molecules bond together, and are able to stay together is on a razor's edge chance of actually occurring consistently enough for say, water and other particles to help in sustaining life. But that is only one thing, the absolutely necessary relationship between plants and humans is to essential to not have become at the same time. The way we cannot live without them, and they cannot live without us is substantial. They take in co2 and produce oxygen that we then inhale, use and produce back the co2 that they will take in and the process continues. The way evolution has it, is that all life came from bacteria, and over billions of years have grown into different species by separation of species. But that would not be able to happen without the plants producing oxygen, and then them turning back co2. That is substantial evidence that we must have been formed at the same time, not over a process of long periods of time. What you have turned into Parsimony, is what you think you need to win, you are twisting it's definition in your favor but say its impossible to do the same for us. Sure, in some cases of equal comparison the Law of parsimony prefers one over the other, however; it is not solely for that purpose. But 1. There is nothing saying ID is any less proven then evolution, or that is possesses and less evidence then evolution. Unfortunately for you, the principle of parsimony does not only work the way you would like it too. If you look at one of my debates about fire breathing dragons, I used the rule, rightfully so. Of course the Law of Parsimony would favor the non existence of such creatures over the existence. Did I not have the right to do so? I think i did, rightfully of course. "The principle includes the condition that "all other things be equal", which they are not by any stretch, but we'll just focus on simplicity for now." This is simply not true. There is sufficient evidence that both parties are possible. And saying that the Law of Parsimony cannot be used as a deciding factor is balderdash, because neither are absolute at the moment. "For every unique species of animal, ID postulates a unique creation event. By abstracting away all the details, the ID proponent can use the same language to say that God created fish or that God created birds. It is language, nothing else, that makes ID seem simple, but because ID does not compress information, it is actually much much MORE complicated than the theory of evolution by natural selection." 1. Nobody necessarily said anything about God, the term Intelligent design merely means that it did not happen on it's own, that something or someone was guiding the process. Say you took a very large cup, and you tore little pieces of paper up, each with one number on each piece, numbering from one to a trillion, you then shook up the cup and took out one piece at a time, evolution suggests that it is more likely that the pieces came out in numerical order. Where as the Law of Parsimony would suggest that something guided the numbers to come out in numerical order. It is much more likely that you yourself looked into the cup and pulled out the numbers in numerical order rather then them falling out in numerical order on their own. The Law of Parsimony acknowledges that fact and therefore can blatantly see, without question that it is more likely that you pulled the numbers our in numerical order. 2. For every species of animal, evolution suggests that it came from one being. Like a tribe of monkeys once inhabited a section of land, but then a volcano erupted and separated the monkeys. So over billions of years, under new conditions the monkeys evolved into different species? And at the same time it happened to the millions of species we recognize today? It is much more likely that the millions of species we know did not evolve from one thing. What you are trying to do is twist the definition of Parsimony to where it cannot be used in a lot of situation,s whereas you cannot do that unless you are the creator of the said law. We are debating theories here not the definition of parsimony, even though it can clearly be used in this scenario.