Actually true Ockams razor says..'Do not multiply cathegories if its not necessary'...rule of economy,nothing more,just another interpretation
This was said by William Ockam,medieval scholastic nominalist.
I see that you are follower of Karl Popper,and his falsibility theory.
I am more follower of Paul Feyerabend,and his thesis of plurality of theories,in which all theories are equal,even if those theories are opposite to eachother.
Truth is relative,and depends of circumstances.
The fact that theory is simple,doesent mean that is truthfull(if such thing exist).
Theory can be logical,but not empirically justified.
Also empirical evidence is also relative.Two persons can watch one object from different angles,and each of them will see the thing from its own perspective.Both wiews are thrutfull.
There is also a paradox in falsibility theory...
If a theory is falsible,then its scientific,but not thrutfull.
If its not thruthfull,then its not an object of human knowledge,thus irellavant.Faksibility theory can only have statistic thruth.But statistic truth is not thruth.Reall truth is 100%thruth,not 90% or 80% thruth.
All empiricall evidences are statistic,becouse empirical reality is dynamic and not static.
So with statistic thruth,you can preserve empiristic(scientific)nature of thruth,but you loose logical(certain)thruth.
On other hand,if you have Logical thruth which is 100% certain.You then loose contact with empirical thruth.
Thus logical thruth is isolated from empiria,thus it is METHAPHYSIC and not science.
Scientific theories can sound very logic and thruthfull,but they can always be rejected.
For example...Does atoms exist?
Are they basic particles,from which matter is constructed,or are they just last potential point of cappability of matters division.
First wiew is reductionism,second is holism.They are both thruthfull.It just depends what theory do you LIKE.
1.Creationist theories are based on observation of empirical facts.They just interprate it different.
Creationist theories have falsebility,and evidence of that is that you can make this polemics.
Darwinists tales of human devolopment are not different from Bible tales.
For example question if God exists is classic.
For atheists,facts thatthere are laws in nature,and mechanisms of it is evidence that God doesnt exist.For theists these same fact are evidence that God exists,and that there is a higher reason in nature.Two different wiews on same thing.
2.Huh,you never read Hume's work 'On Human understanding'?
But his critics of Carthesian doctrine,and causality had created revolution in philosophy,unfortunatly scientist dont read philosophy,which is actually basis and source of science.
According to Hume,human mind observe nature and then projects conclusions on it,based on expirience and reason.Thus human mind creates 'rules' for natural mechanisms.But the fact that Human mind projects laws in nature doesnt mean that those laws of nature really exist objectivelly.
Causality is example.Human mind,using observation of HUMAN senses,concludes that every effect has it own cause.This conclusions are based on his own position in nature,and based on nature of his mind.
If i see that one cause can create effect,and this effect can became cause of annother effect,human mind using statistics create conlusion of connection between cause and effect.But can we say with 100% accuracy that cause create effect?NO!
Human mind use induction in its conclusion.Induction is statistical form of knowledge,which never can bee 100 % accurate.
For example,i see that one Gypsy is athief,and another and another.Then i create conclusion 'All Gypsies are thieves'.However i dont have right to such conclusion,becouse i must know every individual Gypsy on this planet to create this conclusion.But i cant do that becouse my powers are limited.
Same thing goes with natural research.You have to be God,to understand infinity.But we are limited and not limitless.
We make our judments,based on isolated examples.
For example,experiments are actually controlled enviroment,which scientist use to find a pattern in things.
However experiments are ALWAYS controlled,thus scientist put matter into conditions that he want,and in which he can always get result that he want.
Result of experiment,depends of expectations of scientist himself.
3.Mutation came from latin word MUTANDIS which mean 'Change'.We can see micro mutation within same basic form,but NEVER a MACRO mutation from one species to another.There is also problem of transitional forms.
Mutations are variations of organisms.Those variations are minimal.We have different breeds of Dogs,but all races of Dogs can breed with eachother.Lets not forget that humans created those races of dogs,and in domestic animals.Without man and forced breed that humans put on them,domestic animals would return to its original form,due to mutual breeding.
Variations also exist in every type of organism.
Mendels laws shows us that variations can occur in same family,and then repead through mendelian pattern.
4.Fossil evidence is actually biggest blow to Evolution.
There is no transitional forms between major types of organisms.
What about ratlle snakes which have thermo sensors?How come that ratlle snake is cold blooded reptile,which evolved before warm blooded animals.
How come they are designed to hund just mammals?
How come that vanilla flower can be inseminated,by only one type of insect?
What about moskitoes?Insects evolved before animals with blood.Moskitoes doesent attack reptiles.Just Birds and Mammals-warm blooded animals,which have evolved according to darvinists just recently,in terms of natural time?
If one organ evolves,then in terms of transition,in middle transitional stage we have organ which has evolved 50%,thus its not capable to make previous function,and also its still not capable to make future function.So transitional evolutive form is doomed and cannot live,thus it cannot produce future evolved form.
5.Darvinism is made of wishfull tests.Like reconstruction of Homo Erectus,based on bones found in 2miles in diameter.So they could combine various bones of humans and monkeys to make their Homo Erectus.
As i allready stated ,in experiments you can put matter in conditions that you want,to got result that you want.
6.Please read MY link.It is made of works of SCIENTISTS,with PHD.S.I have allready seen Darvinist sites,like those.My conclusion is that they are BOTH right.Two interpretations of same facts.
