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?

    Driving downtown for my wife's bday dinner I noted a FedEx plane lifting and turning over downtown to head east. Why a flight pattern over downtown when lifting and landing are the periods of time when the engines produce the most pollution. There they are dumping all that over downtown how many times a day????

    Why? How does that affect Indy's air quality....and environmental standards? How do those pollution numbers look to businesses thinking of settleing here?

    I would think if this were a real problem (as opposed to a political problem) flight patterns would be altered and the cutting of trees regulated (heck even taxed!!). It makes me wonder how serious this really is.

    as for planting....first and easiest is to requlate cutting. Make anyone who wants to cut down a tree get a permit.....make them do and environmental impact study of the effects of their planned cutting. Etc. I'm only half serious because I don't believe in the government in my life anyway. BUT, if it's a real problem they would be doing something other than putting thousands of miners out of work (not gonna happen, we'll mine the coal and sell it to the Chinese who will use it come hell or high water.)
    Last edited by indygeezer; 08-22-2013, 08:58 PM.
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
      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?
      Well, you try getting a law passed through Congress that would regulate the vegetation on every piece of property (public and private) in the United States. It wouldn't pass.

      Most land use is governed at the local level and even then it does not often wade into regulating the treatment of vegetation.

      Furthermore, there is no political consensus to do anything about global warming at any level of government because of the presence of deniers in positions of power.

      This reality is not a basis to deny the validity of man made global warming which has overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community. The only holdouts have a vested financial interest in denying global warming from the natural resources extraction industries.
      Last edited by hoosierguy; 08-22-2013, 10:00 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        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.
        Don't be surprised that guy would treat you in such a disrespectful manner. After all, he does sickeningly maintain that Democrats are criminals and breed like rodents and his sig-line claims that atheism killed millions of people, as if rejecting belief in a divine entity has any correlation at all to mass murder. He is nothing more than an insult artist that wraps his debasing and absurd remarks in pseudo-scientific jargon and volumes of text.
        Last edited by hoosierguy; 08-22-2013, 09:53 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
          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.
          What comes to mind is a quote from George RR Martin about writing styles. He says that some writers are architects, who plan out everything and every little detail before they start. Others are gardeners. They start off with an idea and let it grow naturally and sees what it becomes. That quote is what I think of when people try to make a line between religion and evolution. I really don't see how evolution contradicts the idea of God. Everything outside of the first few chapters of Genesis is perfect with evolution, and like you said, Genesis works in parables.

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            I'm not even sure what you're asking.

            Germ theory is completely independent to itself. Why it's a theory and not a law has absolutely nothing to do with why evolution is a theory and not a law. That's why there's no point in bringing up germ theory.

            Gravity, thermodynamics, and calculus are observable and they can be replicated. They stay constant throughout each observance and replication, which is why they're called laws. Evolution is not observable, nor is it replicatable, and that's why it's a theory. The laws of gravity, thermodynamics, and calculus are very narrow. They break down to specific equations that can be mathmatically proven. Evolution cannot.
            My response is so what? Evolution explains something completely different than calculus or gravity but is no less valid. There is no scientific evidence invalidating evolution even with all that society has learned since Darwin. If there had been it would have been published in a legitimate scientific journal and the theory would have been modified but it hasn't.
            Last edited by hoosierguy; 08-22-2013, 10:01 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
              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.
              Ignore the primordial soup for a second...and lets revisit the genetic variants you speak of. If you look at the fossil record, then surely you acknowledge that there are variants of early humans. These early humans would have no concept of GOD, only survival, breeding, and maybe rudimentary idea of pleasure and accomplishment. If the Bible is divinely inspired and I.D. is real. Then what sense does it make for the designer to make all these adjustments to our bodies and minds only to reveal itself as our creator a few thousand years ago through a collection of writings assembled and deemed sacred by a council of men and canonized into what you call the Holy Bible. Why would it take millions of years for the designer to reach this point? Does that mean as species from a biological state we are a work in progress, continuously? Surely we are not the end result of what is considered the most complex creation, because we are quite flawed as a species. If we are a result of trial and error by the designer over the course of millions of years, then we can't possible be done, because perfection is not attainable.

              If you separate out the religiousness of ID as some in this thread stake their flag, then we must ask the logical question, if there was a designer, what was the purpose of his designs, and if we are a continuous project, then what is the end goal of the designer? Surely such complexity must have an end goal.

              All the sudden we personifying the designer's intentions and that is where ID falls apart in my opinion. Intelligence is defined by reason, foresight, intention, and purpose.

              In my experience, humans tend to personify things they do not full understand as a way to perceive order.
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                You can't call yourself a scientist, nor even a scientific thinker, if you don't have at least a certain degree of skepticism regarding the global warming movement. There are suspicious red flags everywhere; to ignore them is to shun critical thought, which is the most unscientific behavior a person can engage in.

                Let's do a quick rundown of the red flags...
                • Financial motivations. Proponents are using global warming to line their pockets, as are companies which manufacture "green" products. For example, Al Gore has rode the climate change gravy train to increase his net worth by 5,000% -- from $2M to a whopping $100M.

                • Political motivations. Proponents use climate change for political power, often resorting to scare tactics and guilt trips to get bills passed.

                • History. We have a well-documented history of of climate change nutjobs making bold predictions about the climate and its effects, nearly all of which have proven wrong. From ice ages a few decades back, to melting glaciers today, and everything in between, climate change alarmists have produced fewer correct, and more incorrect, predictions than the flat Earth hypothesis. Their credibility amongst thinking people is running on empty.

                • Hypocrisy. Proponents of global warming are prone to not practice what they preach, which calls into question whether or not they actually believe it. Huge houses, huge cars, globetrotting in large jets... these massive-carbon-footprint-producing activities aren't what we would expect from people who truly thought millions of lives were in danger due to climate change. They're the actions of money-grubbing businessmen looking to get rich off of the general public's stupidity and naive blind faith in scientists.

                • Fraud. The Climategate emails, amongst other discoveries, have revealed a large degree of fraud, from fabricated data, to bogus charts, peer-review corruption. That fraud and deception have played a key role in pushing climate change on the public is no longer a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy fact.

                • Unscientific tactics. Climate change proponents resort to unscientific tactics to defend their views. For example, pleading to a consensus. Consensus isn't science. Science is determined by facts, not by an American Idol-like popularity contest.

                • The intolerance of skepticism is another oft-used unscientific tactic. In science, skepticism is the backbone of progress; the trait which constantly pushes us forward by questioning everything. Unfortunately, with climate change proponents, skepticism is treated as a form of heresy. Question climate change and be prepared to be attacked viciously, which takes us into the next unscientific tactics used by climate change alarmists...

                • Bullying. Attempts to get skeptics to go along with them out of fear of being attacked is common. Hell, we've seen multiple people in this very thread use them. It's not science.

                Look, I get that accepting global warming is some sort of litmus test for liberalism, and so the non-thinkers amongst us will accept it with nary a single critical thought passing through their under-evolved brains, but to those of us who still "get" science, we know B.S. when we smell it.

                Climate change fails every single test of the bologna detection kit, thus, I can't reasonably accept it as true. It could be true. Maybe my bologna detection kit is broken, or perhaps climate change alarmists are so stupid that they've unwittingly made climate change look like a pile of B.S. despite it being completely legitimate. I doubt both. I tend to side with it being exactly what it looks like: Politics masquerading as science.
                Last edited by Lance George; 08-23-2013, 05:37 AM.

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
                  and his sig-line claims that atheism killed millions of people, as if rejecting belief in a divine entity has any correlation at all to mass murder. He is nothing more than an insult artist that wraps his debasing and absurd remarks in pseudo-scientific jargon and volumes of text.
                  Atheism isn't merely the denial of God, it's a worldview which strips humanity of any intrinsic value/worth (we're mere unintentional byproducts of nature), while also denying universal objective mortality (nature is blind and pitiless at its root).

                  If you can't see how those two beliefs, accepted together, would naturally lead to the horror story that has been the history of atheists in power, then I truly pity you.

                  There's a correlation between atheism and death and destruction, and there's sufficient commonsense rationalization to believe that correlation can be elevated to full-blown causation. In simpler terms: It's not a coincidence that atheism and death and destruction go hand-in-hand; atheism is THE driving factor.

                  I would ask you to prove me wrong, but looking at your worldview's history, that might end up with me lying dead in a large ditch, surrounded by other casualties.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Did anyone ever answer my challenge from a few months back of what research finding would falsify abiogenesis?

                    The problem is, abiogenesis proponents can plead to chance to explain away literally any finding. They've clearly proven they care about neither math nor probability, nor empirical warrant, so there's literally nothing we could find that couldn't be explained (in their minds) by pleading to a combination of chance, deep time, and the unknown.

                    To be blunt: Abiogenesis is unfalsifiable because abiogenesis proponents' imaginations are unlimited. The same problem holds true for Darwinism.
                    Last edited by Lance George; 08-23-2013, 07:23 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      Ignore the primordial soup for a second...and lets revisit the genetic variants you speak of. If you look at the fossil record, then surely you acknowledge that there are variants of early humans. These early humans would have no concept of GOD, only survival, breeding, and maybe rudimentary idea of pleasure and accomplishment. If the Bible is divinely inspired and I.D. is real. Then what sense does it make for the designer to make all these adjustments to our bodies and minds only to reveal itself as our creator a few thousand years ago through a collection of writings assembled and deemed sacred by a council of men and canonized into what you call the Holy Bible. Why would it take millions of years for the designer to reach this point? Does that mean as species from a biological state we are a work in progress, continuously? Surely we are not the end result of what is considered the most complex creation, because we are quite flawed as a species. If we are a result of trial and error by the designer over the course of millions of years, then we can't possible be done, because perfection is not attainable.

                      If you separate out the religiousness of ID as some in this thread stake their flag, then we must ask the logical question, if there was a designer, what was the purpose of his designs, and if we are a continuous project, then what is the end goal of the designer? Surely such complexity must have an end goal.

                      All the sudden we personifying the designer's intentions and that is where ID falls apart in my opinion. Intelligence is defined by reason, foresight, intention, and purpose.

                      In my experience, humans tend to personify things they do not full understand as a way to perceive order.
                      Are we so arrogant as to assume we can know or understand the machinations of God? I have come to realize that there must be a creator otherwise how does creation spring from absolute NOTHINGINESS? Now, if I accept there is a Creator then I can accept the fact that the story of Jesus can absolutely be possible. Since we know through recorded Roman history that Jesus did in fact exist, I can believe the accounts of Him. That is not to say that others who recognize the existence of God may not have their own beliefs based upon the single Diety.
                      As to the evolution of man. Look at the eyes and all of the miraculous genetic variants that had to come together to make sight possible. Look at all of the variants that had to come together to create the soda straws in our fingers and toes that keep the tendons from drawing inward and developing into paws and pads rather than our human toes, feet, hands, fingers, and opposable thumbs. They are just two or the miracles of genetics that ALL came together to create this human body as it exists now.....and whatever it becomes in the future.

                      Now, let's revisit that primoidal soup you wanted to avoid.......................................
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by hoosierguy View Post
                        My response is so what? Evolution explains something completely different than calculus or gravity but is no less valid. There is no scientific evidence invalidating evolution even with all that society has learned since Darwin. If there had been it would have been published in a legitimate scientific journal and the theory would have been modified but it hasn't.
                        You don't get to kick the scientific method to the curb, just because you're dealing with a theory that explains something different than gravity, thermodynamics, and calculus.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Is psychology science?

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Is psychology science?
                            Yes it's a more abstract version of neuroscience, a hard science. Psychology is a science when it is based on studies that follow the scientific method (confrontation with reality), and it is not when it doen't use (psychoanalysis, new Age alternative therapies)

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by immortality View Post
                              Yes it's a more abstract version of neuroscience, a hard science. Psychology is a science when it is based on studies that follow the scientific method (confrontation with reality), and it is not when it doen't use (psychoanalysis, new Age alternative therapies)
                              using the term abstract would invalidate it as a science. Thats' rather like saying Scientology is an abstract form of Sociology.


                              SERIOUS QUESTION..... Was Darwin's THEORIES or should I say, was his book on evolution peer reviewed? Serious, I don't know.
                              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                A post I wrote elsewhere a few months back. It's in response to the, "you must prove a designer before you plead to design" argument.

                                Sure; it’s unreasonable to plead to an explanation which is nonexistent. Translation: You can’t have intelligent design without an intelligent designer.

                                I completely understand your argument. I just think it sucks.

                                My counterargument is that the argument for design, as so eloquently explicated by many I.D. proponents, is significantly stronger than your argument that a designing intelligence could not have existed prior to Earth-based life, thus, I side with I.D.

                                Their reasoning and evidence trumps your reasoning and evidence.

                                To be blunt, I find your position irrational, and I’ll tell you why.

                                Your position requires that nature, in itself, be capable of producing advanced intelligence, like human beings, while simultaneously requiring that no such intelligence could have existed prior to that which exists on Earth.

                                See the problem? If nature is capable of producing advanced intelligence, then that undercuts the premise that no advanced intelligence could have existed prior to that were familiar with on Earth.

                                Now, your predictable follow-up will be that if nature, in itself, is capable of creating life, then I.D. becomes superfluous. I disagree. If nature is capable of creating intelligence (you say it is), and this intelligence is capable of bioengineering, then we must be open to the possibly that any life we discover anywhere throughout the cosmos is a product of that intelligence, including ourselves. Yet you’re completely hostile to that possibility. How strange.

                                To develop this idea further, here’s a quick thought experiment:

                                Let’s say the our own bioengineers create life, and we seed that life on five other planets throughout our solar system. That would mean that of the six planets we know which contain life, five of them would be known to be the result of intelligent design.

                                Do you see where I’m going with this? All if takes is one sufficiently advanced intelligence, anywhere throughout the cosmos or beyond, to create life and to seed it elsewhere. And, if that created life is designed to develop advanced intelligence, the process will grow, exponentially.

                                If life forming naturally is a relatively rare event, then this intelligently-designed life will quickly overtake abiogenesis as the most prevalent cause for life throughout the cosmos.

                                In short: Not even abiogenesis-supporting atheists have a reasonable excuse for dismissing I.D., a priori, and yet, from my experiences, most of them do.

                                Of course, these are the same people who often reject the basic laws of logic, and claim to be free thinkers while simultaneously denying free will. I think it’s safe to say that logic isn’t their strong suit.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X