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 Kstat View Post
    If you believe we magically manifested on earth, there's really no discussion to be had. There nothing logical or scientific in that discussion. It's religious brainwashing overriding critical thinking.

    Obviously, the universe had to be created from something. in that regard, the existence of god is a logical question. But there is no evidence to suggest earth itself was directly created by an omnipotent being that used "god magic" to place us here. None.
    If you accept the idea of a God presence then that makes anything possible. Remembe it is tthe THEORY of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution, it hasn't been proven so don't be so all fired sure what you are speaking of. Look at the millions of miracles that happend to create mankind. Look at sight alone, home many thousands of genetic variations had to develop to see that "evolve" to where it is today, Do you realize there are little soda straws in our hands that channel the tendons and allow them to work properly? Did you know that without the soda straws our fingers would curl up into unusable pads? How many genetic evolutions did it take to get that right? And I've only mentioned fingers and eyes....name any other appendage or organ and think about the miracles that occured to create them. That is an awful lot of coincedences.
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
      I suppose one should not bother him with things like if Adam and Eve were really the first humans as described in the Bible, who did Cain and Abel marry? How that part where they said there giants on the earth in those days, the men of old? I find most people who make his argument are woefully ignorant about what the Bible really says...
      Then you need to talk with Will Galen.
      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        We would not exist today had we not evolved from something very small and inhuman.
        Yes. We all were sperms.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Not to mention that all the matter in the BBT had to come from somewhere, so if it wasn't placed here by a supreme being, then something would have had to manifest from nothing.
          And, honestly, if it's somehow eventually proven true that nothing can give rise to something, does it get any more 'magical' than that? I mean if THAT is found to be actually possible, damn near anything is possible, as far as I can see. If you can literally generate matter out of a nothingness, that's like how an illusionist tricks an audience... only this time it's actually real. 'Magic' is basically proven as fact if we prove that nothing can generate something. If that kind of 'magic' is possible, who the hell are we to laugh at the idea of God?

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            Same reason all of the other planets look like nicely shaped spheres. Gravitational pull.
            Why do we think gravitational pull 'smooths out' enormous objects like that? I mean I get it, the planets we observe are spheres. Are all of their moons spheres? For some reason I thought I recalled that some of them were misshapen or otherwise not spheres?

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Just because there is microevolution, does automatically mean that macroevolution is true.
              Isn't one of the problems with macroevolution that it's hard to explain the transition period from when life forms were very small and didn't have organs to when they got bigger and then did have organs (hearts, livers, brains, etc.)?

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                Happy Anniversary of Hicks' Origin of Life...
                Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                  I'm basing my assumption on the work and evidence of scientists using scientific methods. He's basing it on gaps in science and non-testable claims.



                  I'm not asking him to falsify an assumption. I'm asking him (and other ID proponents) to falsify abiogenesis or provide a scientific alternative.



                  It's only true in that it's based on what evidence is available. But like I said, it's not 100% certain. There's no "must" in there. Scientists have been studying this for a while. If there were any other viable scientific alternative, it would be studied also.



                  Except one set of assumptions is based on scientific evidence and study and the other is not.
                  Well, is abiogenesis scientific fact, or not? It sounds like it's not, but rather it's the best available scientific theory, and if that's the case, on some level it still has to be considered an assumption, I think. An educated guess, but a guess.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                    Or our knees (see basketball) or our eyes (I wear glasses and almost everyone I know has a problem with their sight) cancer, mental illness and all the other genetic shortcomings inherent in who we are.
                    If we humans (and the rest of all life) were created by some deity, it sure did a shoddy job. Especially since we humans now know how to fix the genetic defects that this supposed deity screwed up on. But yea, that's not what happened.
                    I think you quoted the wrong post, but nonetheless:

                    I don't know if I agree about the shoddy job. It depends on other factors. Why we're here, what we're supposed to get out of being here, is this the only 'here' there is or do we exist before and/or after this in some kind of non-physical form. Depending on the answers, this physical human existence can make a lot more sense. If our natural state is non-physical, if the purpose of life is to experience it, good, bad, and/or ugly and to learn from it, then the world starts to make sense again in a lot of ways where it might otherwise appear chaotic/nihilistic. We may be deliberately imperfect, deliberately breakable, deliberately finite in physical form. Non-physical life could be the 'real world' and the physical universe could be sort of like 'the Matrix'. Just a thought. And personally I think it's an interesting one if it turns out that, to go along with all of the ********, lies, and fairy tails, that there's also some truth to psi and/or an afterlife and/or reincarnation, in other words if there really is more to 'life' than the physical one.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      Yes. We all were sperms.
                      I know that's an aside comment / a joke, but that assertion always kind of rubbed me wrong. It's like no one has ever heard of an unfertilized egg, which is literally the other half of what makes us 'us'. It's not like we start out as sperm and then get changed by an egg (or the opposite). A sperm isn't a human being. It's half of the recipe.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by Natston View Post
                        Happy Anniversary of Hicks' Origin of Life...
                        Technically wouldn't that have been sometime around July or August of 1983?

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                          If you accept the idea of a God presence then that makes anything possible. Remembe it is tthe THEORY of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution, it hasn't been proven so don't be so all fired sure what you are speaking of. Look at the millions of miracles that happend to create mankind. Look at sight alone, home many thousands of genetic variations had to develop to see that "evolve" to where it is today, Do you realize there are little soda straws in our hands that channel the tendons and allow them to work properly? Did you know that without the soda straws our fingers would curl up into unusable pads? How many genetic evolutions did it take to get that right? And I've only mentioned fingers and eyes....name any other appendage or organ and think about the miracles that occured to create them. That is an awful lot of coincedences.
                          Sorry that's not how Laws and Theories are defined. A Law is an observable fact. Like Gravity, the speed of light, the speed of sound, etc... its is literally impossible to have the Law of Evolution. A theory is an explanation of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times. They explain facts and, sometimes, laws. So the Theory of Evolution has indeed been proven.

                          Now as to your miracles of human complexity. Plenty of bipedal species that came before humans have hands and fingers and eyes.
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Why do we think gravitational pull 'smooths out' enormous objects like that? I mean I get it, the planets we observe are spheres. Are all of their moons spheres? For some reason I thought I recalled that some of them were misshapen or otherwise not spheres?
                            Technically a moon is just an a mass orbiting a planet. Misshapen moons do not have enough dense mass to form the spherical shape that gravity enables. So those types of moons are really just captured asteroids in many cases.

                            There is some pretty solid science behind this. For instance some of the moons of Mars are only like 12 miles wide.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              SAo the Theory of Evolution has indeed been proven.
                              Apparently the evidence for the so-called "theory" of evolution has evolved consciousness, gotten shy, and went it hid, because it's nowhere to be found. It certainly isn't found in the fossil record, which completely contradicts a slow, step-by-step, micro-to-macro gradualism, nor is it found in lab research, which has demonstrated random mutation to be a creatively inept mechanism. It's not found in genome sequence comparisons, either, which have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the tree of life does not exist, at least not in any way similar to how Darwin drew it up.

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              Now as to your miracles of human complexity. Plenty of bipedal species that came before humans have hands and fingers and eyes.
                              If we're talking about the miracles of human complexity, it begins and ends with our mental faculties/cognition. There's nothing else in the animal kingdom even close to us. How odd that this one animal, man, has managed to evolve so far beyond the rest. It's almost like it was a planned event. Nah... can't be. It was all one happy little accident.
                              Last edited by Lance George; 05-03-2013, 09:34 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                Technically wouldn't that have been sometime around July or August of 1983?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X