Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
    I've given similar advice about the Bible.
    Fair enough, but they're very different books.

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      I'm being saracastic. You said it was the test for science, not me. I'm just pointing out that once that threshold of it being in a peer-reviewed journal is met, all of a sudden you change your position on it.
      I'm not changing my position even one tiny bit. I just never thought that anyone would have me back up and explain what a scientific journal actually IS. The National Enquirer has editors. They can call themselves reviewers if they wish, accept outside contributions, and rename their publication the Journal of the National Enquirer. That does not make it a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Is this really THAT hard?

      ... you try and call scientifically supported belief of a great flood a myth, just because it doesn't fit in your square box


      No, I have no square box, or a box of any other sort. I am eager to such purported scientific support. Maybe I can set up a journal alert on those 153 aforementioned reputable geology journals, so I will get an e-mail when such a paper is published for the first time. Scifinder Scholar does a good job with such table-of-contents alerts.
      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
        Ask yourself why virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. Wouldn’t that actually lend credence to the fact there really was a worldwide flood?
        Not really. They wrote about what they thought to be true or what they feared could happen to end their existence. Mother nature and a flood would be a pretty powerful fear, and to a culture who may exist entirely within a walkable area, a local flood is every bit the equivalent of a global deluge. Local floods happen. They are facts. I can see stories of such floods passed down and embellished, passed to other cultures even, maybe with a call for "clean living to prevent the next one" attached

        Plus a great many ancient cultures at some point had a common myth about the Earth being supported on the back of a giant animal, such as a tortoise or an elephant. The prevalence of such myths don't really lend credence to their scientific validity.
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013, 04:35 PM.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          National Geographic has in-depth info on the Ballard flood hypothesis (properly the Ryan-Pitman hypothesis, supported later by Ballard), which is not a global flood but a local flood caused by glacier melt at the end of the last ice age causing a sudden catastrophic rush of seawater into the Black Sea, inundating MANY local civilizations on the then-shore of the Black Sea. His mission is to look for evidence by combing the floor of the Black Sea in search of the remains of those ancient cultures on that pre-flood shoreline.

          An interesting hypothesis with some early data to support aspects of the theory but that suggest a somewhat limited scope of the flooding.

          http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/

          general info here:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_S...uge_hypothesis


          In a nutshell, the map here shows what was supposedly flooded out by the event, with the ancient shoreline in black.





          Further info on the local flood hypothesis provocatively named by the media as "Noah's Flood" but differing in most major respects such as scope (local) an how it would have heppened.

          http://www.pbs.org/saf/1207/features/noah.htm
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013, 04:32 PM.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            IIRC my Indiana History class detailed a flood myth for the Miami Indians in which they saw a giant turtle floating on it's back with mates of all types of animals riding on it's belly.

            But that's an old memory.
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              Why are the odds so bad? We are talking about a time period of billions of years. Thats a long time for whatever primordial soup to interact with lots of different things. How can it be ruled out that the other Amino acids were brought from outer-space? Things hit the earth all the time from outer-space. I think those chances over the course of time we are talking about here make it pretty good odds.
              You should familiarize yourself with the Universal Plausibility Metric/Principle...

              TBioMed | The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)

              Abstract Background

              Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes." A method of objectively measuring the plausibility of any chance hypothesis (The Universal Plausibility Metric [UPM]) is presented. A numerical inequality is also provided whereby any chance hypothesis can be definitively falsified when its UPM metric of ξ is < 1 (The Universal Plausibility Principle [UPP]). Both UPM and UPP pre-exist and are independent of any experimental design and data set.
              Conclusion

              No low-probability hypothetical plausibility assertion should survive peer-review without subjection to the UPP inequality standard of formal falsification (ξ < 1).

              Keep in mind that this is just a set of rules designed to test whether or not something is plausible from a probabilistic point of view. There's still the huge question of whether or not nature is even capable of creating a programming language like that which is the foundation for life (genetic code). Empiricism says it cannot*; faith in abiogenesis says it had to.


              *to the degree that science can prove a negative based on a lack of observation after several centuries.

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                Why are the odds so bad? We are talking about a time period of billions of years. Thats a long time for whatever primordial soup to interact with lots of different things. How can it be ruled out that the other Amino acids were brought from outer-space? Things hit the earth all the time from outer-space. I think those chances over the course of time we are talking about here make it pretty good odds.
                Are amino acids alive by themselves? They are not. So even if you get all the correct amino acids together that doesn't mean you have life.

                The amino acids would need to be energized with life. What happens to cells when the body that hosts them dies? They die too don't they because their energy source is dead, and they had all the correct amino acids.

                The amino acids would need energized with life. The law of Biogenesis says life is only produced by prior life. Further, if you somehow energized a cell, it wouldn't do a thing because it has no genetic code to tell it what to do. Not only is life only produced by prior life, but the genetic code is only passed on by prior life.
                Last edited by Will Galen; 05-08-2013, 11:54 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  Not really. They wrote about what they thought to be true or what they feared could happen to end their existence. Mother nature and a flood would be a pretty powerful fear, and to a culture who may exist entirely within a walkable area, a local flood is every bit the equivalent of a global deluge. Local floods happen. They are facts. I can see stories of such floods passed down and embellished, passed to other cultures even, maybe with a call for "clean living to prevent the next one" attached


                  Plus a great many ancient cultures at some point had a common myth about the Earth being supported on the back of a giant animal, such as a tortoise or an elephant. The prevalence of such myths don't really lend credence to their scientific validity.
                  In post 307 when you said that two of the flood myths were blended together by Bible authors you were talking about Noachian flood myths and how virtually every ancient culture has them. Noachian flood myths would not be Noachian unless some part of the myth resembled what is recorded in the Bible.

                  And as you stated virtually every ancient culture has Noachian flood myths. Thus so many flood myths having elements of the Noachian flood would lend credence to their actually being a Noachian flood.

                  So instead of two of the Noachian flood myths being blended together by Bible authors, it’s more likely it happened the other way around, the Noachian flood myths were derived from an actual Noachian flood.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    The point was that flood stories were re-told for centuries, long before the Bible was written, by cultures that did not believe in God. Then later, essentially the same story was re-packaged with a religious spin put on it front and center.

                    If the theory of sudden burst of the glacier melt-swelled Mediterranean into the Black Sea were true,

                    and if I had survived somehow in a mountain or something while essentially the entire area of the Earth that I know about or that I had ever seen was inundated by 50 feet of water, I would (wrongly) have recorded it as a global flood too. Later re-tellers would further embellish it and spin it to their own purposes. What gets really odd that one of those later re-tellers would have his version of my story decreed to be the word of God!
                    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      So you're just generically addressing arguments that no one in this thread is making, so you can debate points with people who are arguing a completely different idea? What purpose does that serve? It's an awful lot like KStat coming in and saying that there isn't a single Creationist, out of the billions of us that walk the Earth, that addresses dinosaurs. It seems like you're bringing up extreme positions to associate them with arguments being made here in order to respond.


                      Oh, and there is archeological evidence that supports the story of Noah's Ark.
                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2273143.html

                      Here we are supposed to be relying on scientific evidence, while we are mocking and dismissing scientific evidence...
                      OH GOOD LORD, This is the biggest tripe posted yet in this thread. Let us know when that guy actually finds his evidence, the act of searching for is not finding.
                      We already know there was great flood and it happened way before Noah. Infact most ancient cultures have a great flood myth, that in no way supports Noah's Ark.
                      But just so we are clear, the story of Noah's Ark revolved around rain for 40 days and 40 nights. The Theory that this Ballard is trying to prove is that the Mediterranean sea essentially overflowed into the Black Sea.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        I swear this thread has de-evolved into a smattering of pseudo science (read fake) as a way to prove the science behind a book that has no science.

                        For once and for all, who chose the books that made up THE BOOK? Who decided these should be canonized into one book.....Man at the behest of other men!
                        Last edited by graphic-er; 05-08-2013, 11:10 PM.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          I find it funny that all of these science believers are looking for the truth of how all of creation came to be when the truth is right here!



                          And regarding the proof you want, why listen to me and my beliefs when you can learn straight from the Word of God?

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            And in response to those whom say that the bible "can not be the word of God" or is "heresy" I say to you, all of scientology has no proof. While the Bible has much proof. How about the prophecies written hundreds to thousands of years before the events happened? How about the proof that Jesus Christ did indeed live? How about the Ark of the Covenant that is hidden somewhere in the middle east? There is so much proof that the bible was indeed written with the inspiration of the most high God and it's sad that so many people search for the truth when God is standing right beside you calling your name.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by BearBugs View Post
                              And in response to those whom say that the bible "can not be the word of God" or is "heresy" I say to you, all of scientology has no proof. While the Bible has much proof. How about the prophecies written hundreds to thousands of years before the events happened? How about the proof that Jesus Christ did indeed live? How about the Ark of the Covenant that is hidden somewhere in the middle east? There is so much proof that the bible was indeed written with the inspiration of the most high God and it's sad that so many people search for the truth when God is standing right beside you calling your name.


                              I've located a secret photo of it. Apparently it's being guarded by...top men.



                              By they way, you've indicated exactly no proof there.

                              and who brought up scientology, anyway?
                              Last edited by Kstat; 05-09-2013, 04:38 AM.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                What do we have in this thread?

                                Since86 saying to Slick Pickham,

                                Originally posted by Since86
                                So you're just generically addressing arguments that no one in this thread is making, so you can debate points with people who are arguing a completely different idea?
                                Then Graphic-er replying to Since86, saying,

                                Originally posted by graphic-er
                                OH GOOD LORD, This is the biggest tripe posted yet in this thread.
                                Then Graphic-er asking in the very next post.

                                Originally posted by graphic-er
                                For once and for all, who chose the books that made up THE BOOK? Who decided these should be canonized into one book.....Man at the behest of other men!
                                What does your question have to do with the Origin of life and Evolution? Since86 is right! You guys are just generically bringing up questions that have nothing to do with the thread.

                                The thread is about Evolution and the origin of life. It stands to reason that the Bibles creation account would come into the conversation, but you guys are just making random attacks on the Bible.

                                The Noachian Flood, and who chose the books of the Bible have nothing to do with the origin of life.

                                And the bottom line will always be that disproving the Bible doesn't prove Evolution.

                                If you don't believe the Bible, that's fine, but again that's not what this thread is about. How about sticking to the subject and defending Evolution and answering how a bunch of amino acids can come spontaneously to life, when real science says life only comes from prior life?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X