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 dal9 View Post
    ^ ^so basically you want to sit down in an auditorium, have a monkey on stage turn into a man in front of your eyes, have that man solve a math problem or something, and then have God step out from behind the curtain to sign an affidavit saying He had nothing to do with any of this.
    I asked for valid scientific evidence. That you, Slick, and PacerDude seem to find that unreasonable is rather telling.

    The religious motivations of Darwinists couldn't be any more obvious if they created and started wearing their own religious symbol to proudly show off their faith.

    Oh, wait...



    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
      I asked for valid scientific evidence. That you, Slick, and PacerDude seem to find that unreasonable is rather telling.
      Whoooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaa Nellie. Other than the occasional sarcastic comment, you'll find nowhere in this thread that I've shared my thoughts / beliefs / ideas / etc... on this subject.

      I have them, but I'll keep them to myself. That way, people will just continue to think I'm an idiot instead of confirming it to 1/2 of them.

      But I DO think that the chick on the Big Bang Theory is pretty hot. I think that's something we can all agree on.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Personally, I can totally see why some people think the universe was designed by an intelligence. The divide, as I see it, is that there's not enough concrete evidence to prove that it was, even though I think it's a reasonable philosophy or otherwise a reasonable interpretation.

        It's very tough to make a convincing case to the entire population. I mean, how exactly do we establish a benchmark for how complicated/complex the universe has to be in order for everyone to conclude that it has to be due a designer as opposed to having been the result of chaos in motion over billions of years? Particular when the designer appears to be invisible or perhaps non-physical consciousness?

        The flip side is, I don't think it's any more proven to have been purely from chaos, either. To me, we are just racking up evidence for the mechanisms and the configurations of all physical objects in the known universe, but whether that's due to pure chaos plus a sufficient amount of time plus survival of the fittest or whether that's due to an intelligent designer or perhaps to some extent both, that all seems to be unproven and a matter of opinion, no?

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
          I asked for valid scientific evidence. That you, Slick, and PacerDude seem to find that unreasonable is rather telling.
          we give it out the wazoo and you ignore it. We ask you for the same and you tell us what you "believe" and what you "feel", you wrap it up in a cute little bow, and you say it's science.

          It is not. It has never been.

          Evolution as a religion? That is the most laughable piece of baloney I have ever heard. Every single aspect of evolutionary theory is open to scrutiny by experimentation and by the data. If the data says it falls, if falls! There are no sacred cows.

          If the human & chimp genome project said that there is no evidence in the DNA for the fusion of chromosomes in the genome of a common human-chimp ancestor, many ideas would have been thrown out overnight. That's the way science works. You should learn about it sometime.
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-22-2013, 10:47 AM.
          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 dal9 View Post
            ^ ^so basically you want to sit down in an auditorium, have a monkey on stage turn into a man in front of your eyes, have that man solve a math problem or something, and then have God step out from behind the curtain to sign an affidavit saying He had nothing to do with any of this.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PejFLQ1ZxNA


            I'm a devout Catholic and retired microbiologist. (My credentials don't measure up to others on here though). This is my BELIEF. The Bible is devinely insprired, but the Book of Genesis is of the Old Testament and as a Jewish "book" was written in the style of the Jewish people....that of parables.
            Do I believe in evolution? Sure...now tell me where first man came from to evolve into what we are today. I look at amazement to the millions of genetic variants that had to occur to create our body and mind as it is. As I do so, I build my faith around my BELIEF in Intelligent Design.
            I do not believe that so many coincidences could occur as to create human life.


            Hey a question for all...........what spark created life in that primoidal soup that existed 10 billion years ago (whatever)? Tell me it was lightening and I'll challenge you to duplicate it in the lab.
            Last edited by indygeezer; 08-22-2013, 11:14 AM.
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              "Darwinism" originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.[1]

              Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been misused by creationists to refer to the origin of life and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution which have no connection to Darwin's work.

              In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection....

              While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory. For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel, and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of yet more recent developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift for example...

              The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism").
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
              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 Slick Pinkham View Post
                I know of no such thing as a "Darwinist" and in 30 years of being a practicing scientist I have never heard any scientist use that term.
                We've been over this multiple times. Your ignorance is not a valid rebuttal.

                A Darwinist is a proponent of Darwinism.

                "What's Darwinism," you say? "Buy a dictionary," I respond.

                Darwinism - Oxford Dictionary
                Darwinism - Merriam-Webster Dictionary
                Darwinist - Dictionary.com
                Darwinism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
                Darwinist - The Free Dictionary

                Notice that with the dictionaries linking to Darwinism, they list Darwinist as a noun/adjective derivative.

                In short:

                Darwinism = Specific theory of evolution.
                Darwinist = Proponent of Darwinism.

                Rocket science, it's not.

                Two of my favorite sites, Uncommon Descent and Evolution News & Views also tackle the myth that Darwinism/Darwinist are creationist-invented words.

                Uncommon Descent - Frequently Raised But Weak Arguments Against Intelligent Design

                (it's a bit long, so I've added spoiler tags)

                Spoiler Spoiler:


                Busting Another Darwinist Myth: We'd love to take credit for "Darwinism," but we can't. - Evolution News & Views



                Selected Examples of Darwinists Calling Themselves “Darwinists”

                Spoiler Spoiler:




                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                It seems to be an invention of the anti-science lobby intending to paint their adversaries as some sort of pseudo-religious cult.
                Apparently, every major dictionary and encyclopedia in the world is in on the conspiracy, as well as other Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson. Or you're full of ****. Whichever.

                To be fair to Slick, that Darwinist is a creationist-invented term isn't something he's came up with. As the articles make clear, this is yet another lie Darwinists have been using to attack skeptics. Slick has just heard others use it, and has accepted it with nary a single ounce of critical thought. He's the puppet, not the puppet-master.

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                No one has ever worshiped Darwin.
                Darwin has his own religious symbolism, his own view of creation named after him, his own statue within one of the world's most famous churches, Westminster Abbey, has his own holiday celebrating his birth, is honored on money, and is defended fervently by his followers.

                I'd say that's enough to qualify as a certain degree of worship, but this is all subjective, of course.


                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                On the contrary, for >150 years scientists have sought hard to test many of his proposals. Proving any aspect of them wrong is a powerful incentive!
                Yeah, right. Either you're a liar, or you know frighteningly little about science.

                Darwinists don't test Darwinism in hopes of finding it false; they test it in hopes of finding it true. And, surprisingly, they do, regardless of the finding. No matter what the research says, the interpretation will remain the same: "Darwinismdidit."


                As for the whole, "scientists WANT to prove Darwin wrong!" line of thinking, must I remind you about how long, drawn-out, and ugly the history of scientific revolutions has been? Certain individual scientists may want to topple the reigning theory, but scientific consensus, as a whole, fights against it. Why would the scientific consensus want something which most of them have believed in for decades, and in which they have much emotional, political, and financial investment, to be proven false? They wouldn't, and that, ladies and gentlemen, explains the aforementioned ugliness of scientific revolutions.

                Every tactic, every style of argumentation, everything we're seeing today from Darwinists is history repeating itself. It's all been done before.

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                Some of his proposals have indeed been proven to be ridiculous, such as pangenesis, evidence that science must stand on its own legs by what the evidence establishes. Not, ever, by opinions such as "gee, it sure as hell looks that way to me, not based on any evidence, but I just feel that way and you can't tell me how to feel"
                Absolutely. From the perspective of discovering truth, all that matters is the evidence. Scientific consensus means nothing. Motivations mean nothing. Implications mean nothing.

                But, here's the thing: The evidence says design. The origin of life, which is the question that actually matters, says design, and evolution continues to gel with this evidence. It's Darwinists who must fight with dishonesty, censorship, and motive mongering; most I.D. proponents only want to discuss the evidence.

                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                If ID offers up testable and potentially falsifiable ideas and offers up scientific support for ANY claims, it can be considered a science. Until then IMO it is rightly viewed as a movement created out of whole cloth directly from the creationist movement in the late 1990s, as a strategic initiative to step around the church and state issue, by declaring creationism to be a science with no religious content.
                We've been over this before. I.D. is one of the most tested theories in the history of science. Every single scientist attempting to prove an intelligence-free origin of life (abiogenesis) is attempting to disprove I.D.

                I.D. is based on three pieces of extensive knowledge:

                • Knowledge of what was required for life to form.
                • Knowledge of what nature can and can't do.
                • Knowledge of what intelligence can and can't do.


                The three above pieces of knowledge all point towards intelligence being the best explanation for the origin of life. Only intelligence has proven to be capable of doing what is required for life to exist, thus, on inference to the best explanation, I.D. wins.

                The origin of life OVERWHELMINGLY points towards design, and when viewed from a design-perspective, all of biology makes near perfect sense. It's all directed.

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  First of all, Wikipedia should not be viewed as a nonpartisan authority on this debate. The pages on I.D. are notorious for their dishonesty, and for the watchdog basement-dwellers who make sure that dishonesty remains uncorrected.

                  Secondly, your source doesn't even agree with you. You said Darwin-ist/ism is term made up by "creationists" as a part of a worldwide conspiracy, when the article you're quoting says otherwise.

                  Thirdly, when using the term Darwinist, I, and everyone else I know, correctly refers to biology, not abiogenesis nor cosmology, so I'm not sure why you're underlining text in the paragraph referring to those things.

                  Fourthly, Darwinism is a valid term. I've proven that. If Darwinists feel that the term Darwinism is a pejorative and that it makes them out to be religious nuts, then that's just too bad. It's a legitimate term, and I've used it in its proper meaning.


                  Fifthly, and finally, I have to laugh at Darwinists whining over the correct usage of the legitimate term Darwinism when one of their go-to attacks (one used by Slick repeatedly) is to conflate Biblical creationism and I.D. for the sake of confusing the public and "winning" via slaying straw-men arguments.

                  God, Darwinists are sleazy.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                    Your ignorance is not a valid rebuttal...

                    you're full of ****...

                    Either you're a liar, or you know frighteningly little about science.


                    I am tired of this crap!

                    You are added to the ignore list, a select company, you and OldBlu.

                    Yes it's hard to make my list.

                    As to my scientific background, as of now it includes an AB degree (Wabash College), MS degree (Yale), M. Phil degree (Yale), Ph.D degree (Indiana), 23 years of post-Ph.D research, generating 26 published papers, and also 35 published patents or patent applications. Ask Geezer to verify... awhile back I sent him a PM with the basic info on exactly who I am.
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-22-2013, 11:36 AM.
                    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 Slick Pinkham View Post
                      It seems to be an invention of the anti-science lobby intending to paint their adversaries as some sort of pseudo-religious cult.

                      error on my part.

                      It was a term that was not invented by, but rather was co-opted by the anti-science lobby, intending to paint their adversaries as some sort of pseudo-religious cult.

                      Final thought: this looks to be an EXCELLENT book, for those interested in the topic:

                      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/025...epticblog08-20
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-22-2013, 12:18 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?

                        Slick I do have a question from that book. Because I believe in ID and have a disdain for the "science" in man-made global warming, am I lumped in with all to be called a "science denier?". That short intro into the book almost sounds as if one must agree with the author or be labeled a heretic and burned at the stake.

                        Is there room for discussion or is it so ideological that one cannot disagree with one aspect without being labeled a radical?
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          That's my one problem with many books that do lay out the straight scoop on issues such as evolution:

                          None I have read succeed or even try well enough to refrain from also taking condescending potshots at the opposing views. I want them to tell us the facts, why they are passionate about disseminating those facts, and about why they think those who have opposing views went astray.

                          That should not require name-calling or attempted humiliation of those who are on the other side, but it always seems to go at least a little into that area. It would be more effective, IMO, if it did not, but it takes a great deal of restraint that is also against human nature, it seems, in people who feel so strongly as to bother to go to all of the trouble to write a book.

                          Yes, I see that attitude from the synopsis, and I see how it can detract from what might be a good effort.

                          I wouldn't view the flip side of all of those topics as science denial.

                          It has been very very easy to show convincingly that global warming, for example, is a real phenomenon. The extent to which any one factor, such as man's fossil fuel combustion, plays into it has been much harder to establish. Is it 10%, 40%, 70%, or 100% of the problem? Most I think accept it not to be 100% and not to be 0%. What percentage makes it definitively "the cause we most need to address"?

                          Those are issues that should be debated without vilifying people who are reluctant to accept a given set of data, since all data does have some underlying assumptions and all studies are in some way flawed.

                          Most every scientific breakthrough in some way showed that something previously thought to be impossible was indeed possible and understandable. That doesn't mean that the people who used to think something was impossible to do were "science deniers" before the breakthrough. Many (most?) of them just hadn't seen and digested the data that would come from the right set of experiments, or even pondered anything like the proper set of experiments in the first place. The science deniers are those people who will not ever consider any data or any experiments, because they view data and experimentation as irrelevant, because they have arrived at an unshakable contrary conclusion, for whatever reason.

                          A cool part of working in science is when you're saying things like "Wow, I didn't expect that result... I was wrong... what's going on here?... what experiment should I do next to understand what just happened? The science denier would never allow such a thought to enter his/her head.
                          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-22-2013, 03:35 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?

                            I am not getting in to this debate; I too am a scientist with a pretty good history and CV but that doesn't really matter here.

                            Only thing I really wanted to mention is that I recommend a former professor's book pertaining to much of this topic: Children of God, Children of Earth. Very good read. Dr. Jim Curry from Franklin College wrote it several years ago. He was a highly respected professor of genetics.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Tom (Slick)

                              I have two problems with MAN MADE GW. If it is as serious as described and CO2 is now the major greenhouse gas, why do we allow the destruction of even one tree? And then secondly, Has the East Anglia data been scrubbed from all reports and tables where it might have been used? How can I be certain that some of their falsified data isn't imbedded in some long-ago calculation used by, say, NASA in their calculations?
                              I recognize there are matrices that allow for calculations based upon small numbers within a model (N=64) but isn't 150 years a very small sample compared to even as short a time period as 10-11,000 years since the end of the ice-age?
                              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                I'm not up on the 2nd, but as to the 1st, it's pretty clear that carbon sequestration by planting and growing large numbers of trees and/or other plants has real impact. The downside is it's hard to imagine the rate of increase in planting stuff ever matching the rate of increase in fossil fuel consumption, globally. Maybe large scale farming of algae or other efficient photosynthesizers can up the ante though.

                                The only super-flattening of the curve for CO2 will be when fossil fuels are largely replaced with something else. Even more efficient fossil fuel use really just gives a small deflection in the trend IMO. We aren't going to succeed in telling the 3rd world that they shouldn't drive cars because it's bad, and then we do.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X