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 Slick Pinkham View Post
    That's an interesting point of view.

    I would instead say that an entrenched belief system is accepted by a great many people as facts that cannot be refuted no matter what, with the threat of eternal damnation to those who dare to use their brain. I don't see a justification for such dogmatic close-mindedness. I find it appalling to see such dogmatic close-mindedness spoon-fed to our children. If you want to home-school your kids and teach them about fairies, dragons, and pixie dust being real, then go right ahead. I will feel sorry for those kids, but in the end maybe they will be able to think for themselves.

    Evolution stands only on evidence, not opinion. It will be a great shame to let those who want to cover up that evidence get their way.
    But creationism isn't taught in public schools. It is taught in parochial schools (.along with many other religeons/theories where my kids went to school). Evolution as the source of mankind stands as opinion that some people wish to claim as fact but that fact has not been proven, it remains a theory. I don't wish to cover up evolution as long as it is presented as a theory and not a fact.
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
      But creationism isn't taught in public schools.
      since when?

      Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio mandate the teaching of alternatives to evolution. The governor of Texas famously bragged that they teach both creationism and evolution in Texas. Most states that mandate the teaching of evolution leave it entirely up to local school districts and teachers as to whether they comply or not. I have nieces who went to public schools in Virginia who were taught by their public school "science teachers" to not believe anything in their textbook. My wife has relatives in rural Georgia taught the same way. The norm throughout the South at least is to have a textbook saying one thing and a teacher who says something else.

      When I grew up in Indiana (born in the 1960s) I took all of the science classes available to me and apparently not one science or biology teacher (before I was in college) had been briefed on the writings of Darwin (Origin of Species is from 1859). Evolution was never mentioned, not even once, in any public school class that I ever attended. I cannot recall if the textbooks had info. They probably did. The teachers just ignored it.

      Is it any wonder kids in the USA are getting a less-than-3rd-world level education in the sciences?
      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-09-2013, 02:42 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?

        Taking a nap helped. There is a problem with life being brought here from elsewhere in the universe. Either seeded or a meteor for example. If we are the product of an alien life, then the laws governing life on earth would be those of the alien life.


        In other words exactly what they are now.


        The law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from prior life. So nothing has changed, life canít arise spontaneously.


        And if life canít arise spontaneously, we obviously didnít evolve.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          Taking a nap helped. There is a problem with life being brought here from elsewhere in the universe. Either seeded or a meteor for example. If we are the product of an alien life, then the laws governing life on earth would be those of the alien life.
          ...and the problem with that is....

          Ultimately something had to have created life, somewhere, sometime. The ID theory certainly comes into play at that point when you consider that we can't create life from nothing. My only point was that it wasn't created on earth, and we certainly aren't special in the grand scheme of things.
          Last edited by Kstat; 05-09-2013, 03:50 PM.

          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?

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
            And if life can’t arise spontaneously, we obviously didn’t evolve.
            One has nothing to do with the other.

            Evolution is concerned with how life forms arise from other life forms. Evolution is the not the same as abiogenesis. If life got started due to the intervention of some divine power, the theory of evolution would be our best explanation to date for how that life has developed ever since that hypothetical moment of creation of that creature or set of creatures. If life got started due to the intervention of aliens, the theory of evolution would be our best explanation to date for how that life has developed ever since that event. Or if life came from non-life, evolution would tell us what happened next.

            Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about abiogenesis and nothing to say about the origin of matter in the universe i.e. the big bang.

            Origin of Life and Evolution are lumped together in the thread title, suggesting to me that a lot of people (wrongly) think that they are related somehow. If, as I did, you take thread title to mean origin of human life/evolution, then there is a thematic connection.
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-09-2013, 04:26 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?

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              ...and the problem with that is....

              Ultimately something had to have created life, somewhere, sometime. The ID theory certainly comes into play at that point when you consider that we can't create life from nothing. My only point was that it wasn't created on earth, and we certainly aren't special in the grand scheme of things.
              I don't understand your thinking on your last point. We haven't found life anywhere else, and as you just wrote life was started somewhere. Why not here?

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                I can't see how one has anything to do with the other.

                Evolution is concerned with how life forms evolve from other life forms. Evolution is the not the same as abiogenesis. If life got started due to the intervention of some divine power, the theory of evolution would be our best explanation to date for how that life has developed ever since that hypothetical moment of creation.
                When I said, "And if life can't arise spontaneously, we obviously didn't evolve," I meant we had to be created to get here. Most people don't separate the two.

                So both you and Kstat's problem is with the Bible's account of creation? Is that right? Or do you differ from Kstat?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                  I don't understand your thinking on your last point. We haven't found life anywhere else, and as you just wrote life was started somewhere. Why not here?
                  .....because the earth was most likely around long before life appeared, and it coincided with major events and changes to the Earth itself, all of which were fully explainable through science. Earth was originally incapable of supporting any sort of life, until it was.

                  Likewise, saying we haven't found life anywhere yet in the universe is like me never leaving my bedroom and concluding I'm the only human on earth because I don't see any people when I look out of my window, just houses and lights.

                  We can detect millions of planets, but that doesn't mean we can detect life on them.

                  As you said yourself, life can't be created from nothing. Actually, nothing can. So it stands to reason that whenever the universe was formed, life formed with it. It didn't just manifest via god magic. Following that logic, since the earth was around long before life on earth, it had to come from somewhere else.

                  There's no logical reason to believe in god magic causing us to spontaneously manifest on earth, other than really wanting to believe it. It requires a complete suspension of disbelief. As bearbugs made very clear, it's for people who would prefer to let a storybook do their thinking for them.
                  Last edited by Kstat; 05-09-2013, 04:38 PM.

                  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


                  • And to be clear, Christianity is not on trial here. But genesis simply cannot be taken seriously as it applies to this thread. There is absolutely no science to support it. There isn't even any logic to support it. It's a fairy tale.

                    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?

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      .....because the earth was most likely around long before life appeared, and it coincided with major events and changes to the Earth itself, all of which were fully explainable through science. Earth was originally incapable of supporting any sort of life, until it was.
                      So why do you call the creation account a myth, that's what it says too.



                      Likewise, saying we haven't found life anywhere yet in the universe is like me never leaving my bedroom and concluding I'm the only human on earth because I don't see any people when I look out of my window, just houses and lights.

                      We can detect millions of planets, but that doesn't mean we can detect life on them.
                      Fair enough, but although we can't detect life on other planets there are still ways of detecting signs of life. Civilization at least as we know it is noisy, and we can detect noisy patterns at a great distance. Another point is if there was life created before us, wouldn't they know more than us, and be able to detect us? No one has contacted us, which would also lend credence to us being created first.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        I have no problem with the Bible's account of creation, on a story-telling level.

                        I like the Star Wars books too. I am not inclined to ask the teachers in schools to teach kids to speak Wookie though. I know that sounds flippant, and I don't want to be, since for all I know some relatively fine men wrote down the books of the Bible. The problem is that people have for centuries gotten all wrapped up in those words as being some sort of immutable truths that justify all sorts of beliefs, from women being inherently inferior to men, to slavery being justifiable, to the Earth being flat, to the Earth revolving around the sun, and yes to the Earth being of a certain age. Throughout history we have discarded many of these concepts because we didn't turn off our brains and decide to blindly swear to uphold some words on a page.

                        If you talk to Christians in Rome, London, Berlin, Dublin, and elsewhere you likely can have an intelligent conversation with them about evolutionary theory, which they generally accept. They seem to be incredulous about the inability of Americans to come to terms with evolutionary theory. Of course they are hardly our peers in scientific education, being more than a bit above us in that regard. Our peers, in terms of education of the general public before age 18 in the sciences, are places like Uganda, North Korea, and Iran.
                        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


                        • Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                          So why do you call the creation account a myth, that's what it says too.




                          There's nothing mysterious of prophetic about that. All it says is that the earth was made and then life put on earth. It would sound silly if you wrote it the other way around.

                          By the way, it also says the earth was created before anything else, which is laughable. Though I suppose a few thousand years ago it made sense for humans to believe that they were gods, and lived in the center of the universe. It makes no sense to believe that now.

                          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                          Fair enough, but although we can't detect life on other planets there are still ways of detecting signs of life. Civilization at least as we know it is noisy, and we can detect noisy patterns at a great distance. Another point is if there was life created before us, wouldn't they know more than us, and be able to detect us? No one has contacted us, which would also lend credence to us being created first.
                          All life doesn't grow or evolve at the same rate. Life on earth grows and dies as the climate allows it to. The evolution of life on earth was moving along at a snail's pace until the climate stabilized. It's no different than humanity growing rapidly as a species once their diet improved.

                          Given that earth has been human-free for roughly 99.9999% of its existence, and we've come this far in such an absurdly short time, I fail to see why such importance is being put on the here and now. There may be complex sentient life well out of our detection, and there may be much older, primitive life in our backyard. All we can logically assume is that we're the only life in our solar system of a handful of planets.....in a universe of trillions of them.

                          Maybe in another million years, we'll have colonized the galaxy...or maybe in a thousand years another event will have wiped us off of the earth like the dinosaurs, and another species on another planet will be wondering if they're the only ones out there.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 05-09-2013, 06:43 PM.

                          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?

                            http://www.universetoday.com/44713/v...restrial-life/

                            The Catholic Church's stance


                            Vatican Holds Conference on Extraterrestrial Life

                            by Nicholos Wethington on November 10, 2009


                            Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

                            Though it may seem an unlikely location to happen upon a conference on astrobiology, the Vatican recently held a “study week” of over 30 astronomers, biologists, geologists and religious leaders to discuss the question of the existence of extraterrestrials. This follows the statement made last year by the Pope’s chief astronomer, Father Gabriel Funes, that the existence of extraterrestrials does not preclude a belief in God, and that it’s a question to be explored by the Catholic Church. The event, put on by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, took place at the Casina Pio IV on the Vatican grounds from November 6-11.

                            The conference was meant to focus on the scientific perspective on the subject of the existence of extraterrestrial life, and pulled in perspectives from atheist scientists and Catholic leaders alike. It was split into eight different segments, starting with a topics about life here on Earth such as the origins of life, the Earth’s habitability through time, and the environment and genomes. Then the detection of life elsewhere, search strategies for extrasolar planets, the formation and properties of extrasolar planets was discussed, culminating in the last segment, intelligence elsewhere and ‘shadow life’ – life with a biochemistry completely different than that found on Earth.


                            Speakers at the event included notable physicist Paul Davies and Jill C. Tarter, the Director of the Center for SETI Research. Numerous astrobiologists and astronomers researching extrasolar planets also were in attendance to give lectures. The whole series of speech abstracts and a list of participants is available in a brochure on the Vatican site, here.

                            The event was held to mark the International Year of Astronomy, and the participants hope to collect the lectures into a book. Father Gabriel Funes, the chief astronomer of the Vatican, said in an interview to the Vatican paper, Osservatore Romano last year:


                            “Just like there is an abundance of creatures on earth, there could also be other beings, even intelligent ones, that were created by God. That doesn’t contradict our faith, because we cannot put boundaries to God’s creative freedom. As saint Francis would say, when we consider the earthly creatures to be our “brothers and sisters”, why couldn’t we also talk about a “extraterrestrial brother”? He would still be part of creation.”

                            Even with the discovery of over 400 exoplanets, the question of extraterrestrial life still remains to be answered in our own Solar System. It is a pertinent question for the religious and non-religious alike. Though it wasn’t answered at this most recent conference, the existence of life outside what we know here on Earth has an equal impact on the findings of science as it does the meaning of religion. This event certainly brought the two under the same roof for what were surely some interesting and fruitful conversations.

                            Source: Physorg, Pontifical Academy of Sciences
                            .

                            Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/44713/v...#ixzz2StLwEO7A
                            Last edited by indygeezer; 05-10-2013, 08:30 AM.
                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              This argument breaks down into two very basic elements. The people who are determined to quote the Bible will never believe in evolution or anything that contradicts Genesis. Facts and evidence are meaningless to them. The people who do believe in evolution have looked at the evidence in the fossil record and observations of life on the planet right now and they can see evolution at work. Facts and evidence do matter to that group. Some of the first group will bend evolution to fit in their religious views. Some of the former will modify their religious ideas to fit the facts of evolution.

                              No meeting of the minds will ever occur. The best that can happen is that they accept their differences. The world has already accepted evolution and rejected divine intervention except among religious fanatics.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Some of your comments are needlessly inflammatory. At the very least they sound put-downish and judgemental. You lose credibility points for this.
                                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X