The Law of parsimony prefers Intelligent Design

Before I begin I ask that you only refute points, and not create any new ones because i will not be able to refute them if you do. Except if you wanna say something new in the comments that is fine. It is, the fine tuning argument is an argument that shows the simplicity of ID. Which is a valid argument seeing as we are debating which theory it would prefer, regardless of what you have chosen to argue. Lets look at some definitions. "Noun 1.law of parsimony - the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred" http://www.thefreedictionary.com... "The law of parsimony tells us that when there are alternative explanations of events, the simplest one is likely to be correct." http://www.stat.columbia.edu... "…which is lex parsimoniae in Latin, is often written "entia non sunt multiplicanda prater necessitatem", which I interpret to mean "the simpler the better." William of Occam, the 14th Century English logician, capsulized the principal as Occam's Razor–a means of cutting through verbose and unnecessarily complex philosophical theories:" http://whomdat.wordpress.com... I think that is enough. These definitions prove that the definition i gave in the beginning is sufficient. Just because you disagree does not mean that the law cannot be used in this situation. "You challenge me to a debate: "The moon is softer than a damp kitchen sponge". In your opening argument, you make it clear that you think the word "softer" means "has more mass". I point you to a dictionary and explain that "soft" doesn't mean what you think it means." This is so wrong it's not even funny. Here is a better analogy. I challenge you to a debate on the subject of Christianity only has one God, the word "God" can mean, and is commonly accepted as The on supreme being, creator of the universe. But it can also mean "An omnipotent being" It is obvious in the beginning of which one I am referring too, so i politely ask that we refrain from arguing semantics. However you refuse, and insist on arguing that angels and the devil are gods because you think they are omnipotent. However that's not the definition we are arguing. "Does that make it clear? You will never understand science until you understand why it rejects ID and similar "theories of magic". I can only show you the door. You're the one who has to dodge bullets in slow motion." That does not make it clear, because that analogy expresses a definition that's completely wrong, whereas the this debate, my definition is accepted by everyone except for you. And my analogy makes perfect sense. It is explaining the probability of the earth forming naturally, vs the earth forming with guidance. I'm not sure why it was confusing its pretty simple. This whole debate was taking a simple concept (being the law of parsimony) with a commonly accepted definition, and putting ID against any theory you were supposed to bring forth. I have proven my case, that it is preferred by the law of parsimony. You on the other hand have only tried to sell that the law has requirements, however it doesnt have what you say, it is a simple concept. And your term "Magic" is incorrect. Guidance does not necessarily mean magic, only aid. Sure the Law may be more effective on a different argument however that does not mean that you cannot use it on this one. There is nothing saying what Parsimony can be used on and what it cant, it simply means the simpler theory is to be preferred, like every site i have looked at states. I wish we could have debated what the resolution was, but since my opponent did not i hope that the voters will acknowledge that. I understand that if there was a case like such: Mickey Mouse Created the Earth vs. The creation of the earth happened Naturally The Law of Parsimony may be useless here except The existence of God has plausible, equal evidence, like such. 1. Millions have experienced, and felt Gods presence. 2. The Case of Tacitus 3. The Case of Josephus 4. Caiaphas, which in 1990 his tomb was discovered, and he was the one that presided over Jesus's trial. 5. With so many Accounts outside of Biblical people that recognize and verify the identity of jesus, it is not absurd to think he existed. 6. Etc You would be right, The law of parsimony would reject ID in this debate if only Evolution did not fail to explain the vast majority of details it is needed to. Because it does fail to explain a majority of the details of evolution, this leaves the two cases as equal explanatory power. Therefore the Law of parsimony is accepted here, and would choose the simpler of the two equal explanatory powers which is Intelligent design. Thank you and Goodnight What you mistake, is that you think there is less evidence for ID, or that evolution covers more bases, however like i explained above, there are to many details that evolution does not come near to covering. Again I would just like to point out that he did not argue a more plausible theory. Or that it is simpler by any means.