Re: Subbie, at "If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?"
Thank you both.
But I insist on sharing the nomination with caffeine who made essentially the same point I did. Not sure how I missed it, really. Must not have read all the way down to the bottom of the thread.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
Author: Rahvin Forum: Faith and Belief Thread: If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?" Message #:47
I don't know what a nomination means from me, but I felt compelled to nominate this post.
Thank you, Rahvin, and countless others on this forum that provide such an outlet for thought-provoking discussion.
And of course, thank you, Percy. Your service to us is simply immeasurable.
A portion of Rahvin's post is below:
Whenever we look in a place where god is supposedto be, we find an absence of evidence. Outright falsification is impossible becasue of the nature of the idea of god(s) - sentient entities can simply not cooperate with experiments for example, and after all, god works in mysterious ways. But we looked at lightning, and discovered no evidence of Thor, Zeus, or Jupiter. We looked at the Sun, and didn't find a chariot wheel. We examined the dying, and detected nothing suggesting a "soul." We've tried prayer, and not once has appealing to a deity for intercession resulted in a statistically significant result.
Percy's summary of Kimura for those untrained in biology
Author: Percy Forum: Biological evolution Thread: Adding information to the genome Message #: Message 168
For those who work with biology, the information and careful explanation that Percy provides must be really simple, basic, humdrum stuff. Maybe I "sort of" understood some of Kimura's conclusions before reading what Percy said (I never took a biology class at any level -- I just know what I've read in magazines and web forums), but I learned a lot from that one post, I think I understand things a lot better now, and it makes me want to learn more.
(I'd like to think that Kaichos Man would learn something as well -- it's hard to imagine that anyone who misunderstands biology could read that post and not learn something -- but that remains to be seen.)
autotelicadj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
That's endemic of the overall problem; people trying to define what God is. I'm not here to defend or deny God (I literally take the agnostic position on the subject), I'm simply pointing out the futile attempt at employing logical fallacies as a means to an end.
Note that this represents 5 out of a total of 8 posts on that thread, with the thread total at 381 ... all quality, all succinct and to the point.
Actually not one of my favourite Wounded King posts (one of the many great posts with references to pertinent and interesting papers etc), but as soon as I read it I wanted to draw big arrows around it and simply exclaim "This!" since it succinctly and simply cuts through the haze of misunderstandings and explains the issue that has dominated the thread.
quote:In terms of the sort of long term complex gross morphological changes you are talking about, i.e. evolution of the eye, obviously both of these things must come into play. In terms of a simple demonstration of natural selection all we need is a population with allelic variation producing differential survival/reproductive success in a particular environment. Obviously the original source of this variation is likely to be due to mutation of some form but having observed that original mutation doesn't change the natural selection we can observe operating in the population subsequently.
I also point out that I was composing a post that was longer and more confusing version of this and so that probably factored heavily in to my decision to POTM it. Since I was thinking the same thoughts, and I'm incredibly awesome, this clearly deserves high praise.