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?

    There's hard evidence to believe there was zero life at all on earth in the beginning, then at some point, somewhere, life was delivered via a collision with another stellar body, resulting in the formation of the moon, stabilizing the earth's orbit and allowing life to grow.

    The issue with me is always, where the original mass came from. I sincerely doubt we'll ever be able to trace it but that's the smoking gun if there is one.

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

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

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
      "Welp, we can't explain this yet. Must be God."
      The thing about this: How sure are we that science will one day have ALL of the answers? I get what you're saying for the most part, but isn't it also possible that eventually we will bump up against a topic where science isn't capable of measuring something, therefore we're left to other avenues (logic, faith, personal experiences) to try to figure that part out?


      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
      and "This biological structure looks and operates like a machine! Wait a minute...machines are MADE! But only intelligent beings make machines. Machines don't occur naturally. Oh wait, I got it. God!" is all I really hear from ID proponents.
      Honestly, in this specific instance, I think there is a real logic here.

      I don't subscribe to "God of the gaps" thinking, and I don't think this one necessarily applies because I see a real logic here.

      Specifically this concept, that the more we learn about the human body down to the genetic/atomic level the more we see order, structure, programming, that remind us of a machine or a computer, and the fact that every other example of this is constructed from an intelligent designer or designers, shouldn't that make us pause and 'do the math' at least a little bit?

      That doesn't mean I then assume anything about a religion being true, it doesn't mean I know anything about this hypothetical designer, it doesn't mean I then jump to other conclusions, it just means that in this instance you would think that something like the human body would be intelligently designed. At least I would.

      I think the counterargument is that since the universe is theoretically unlimited, that in a world of chaos, eventually the perfect combination of events happens to accidentally produce this, but that just seems incredible to me. Like if I keep blowing up enough ink factories, eventually one of them is going to paint the walls with a novel or an encyclopedia or something like that. I know God always sounds like "fantasy magic" to people but then again the alternative also sounds kind of ridiculous to me, too.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        A smaller counterargument I heard recently was from Neil Degrasse Tyson, where he pointed out how flawed the human body is, citing in particular the fact that we share the same pathway for breathing and swallowing food, which of course often results in people choking and/or dying.

        That does give me pause, I won't lie.

        On one hand, who said God was trying to make us perfect to begin with?

        On the other hand, why did he set us up to choke in particular?

        It's a silly concept, but yet I'm forced to seriously consider it.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          There's hard evidence to believe there was zero life at all on earth in the beginning, then at some point, somewhere, life was delivered via a collision with another stellar body, resulting in the formation of the moon, stabilizing the earth's orbit and allowing life to grow.

          The issue with me is always, where the original mass came from. I sincerely doubt we'll ever be able to trace it but that's the smoking gun if there is one.
          That theory could be true, but it philosophically just kicks the can further down the road.

          As for the creation of the moon, my question about that is that is something so violent were to happen that could cause that, why do both the earth and moon today essentially look like nicely shaped spheres? Something that devastating, I would think, would leave one or both looking like some jagged or otherwise misshapen or mangled hunk of rock versus the result being two pretty clean spheres. That part always seemed pretty strange to me.

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
            Of course, ID proponents don't acutally use the term "God" because then they wouldn't be able to get ID into public school textbooks. Interesting that the term "intelligent design," as we know it today, popped up shortly after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court case, which ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools was unconstitutional.
            I'm opposed to teaching a religion's origin story in public schools as though it's the definitive answer.

            Separately, let's say for a moment that we eventually somehow determined that some kind of God did create the world/universe. Wouldn't we have to teach that at that point? Not as a religious belief but as the truth as we know it?

            So they renamed creationism "intelligent design" and once again tried to get it into public schools. And in the 2005, teaching intelligent design in public schools was ruled unconstitutional in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District federal case. The judge in the case, John E. Jones III (a Republican appointed by George W. Bush, by the way), wrote in his ruling, "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." (You can read the ruling here: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf)
            Yeah, in the meantime, trying to get intelligent design in classrooms at the moment seems extremely premature to me at best, an attempt to promote a given religion at worst.

            Again, this is all fine if you believe it. Some of you have stated that God cannot be scientifically proven and must be taken on faith. I'm fine with that. Just don't try to argue that it is science.
            And I would agree that anything not explicitly established by science has no business being taught in science class. I'm sure things will evolve (ha!) over time, but don't put the cart before the horse. Let science play out first, then put it in the classroom, one way or another.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              That theory could be true, but it philosophically just kicks the can further down the road.

              As for the creation of the moon, my question about that is that is something so violent were to happen that could cause that, why do both the earth and moon today essentially look like nicely shaped spheres? Something that devastating, I would think, would leave one or both looking like some jagged or otherwise misshapen or mangled hunk of rock versus the result being two pretty clean spheres. That part always seemed pretty strange to me.
              Same reason all of the other planets look like nicely shaped spheres. Gravitational pull.

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

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

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
                The amusing thing about this is that you would be the first to reject real evidence like discovering Christ's remains in a tomb or grave.
                Given that I've already stated I'm a non-religious theist (I think deism is unreasonable), I doubt it.

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  The thing about this: How sure are we that science will one day have ALL of the answers? I get what you're saying for the most part, but isn't it also possible that eventually we will bump up against a topic where science isn't capable of measuring something, therefore we're left to other avenues (logic, faith, personal experiences) to try to figure that part out?
                  We don't know that science will have all of the answers. Barring the invention of a time machine, we may never know the answers. After that, yeah, it's left to other avenues. Like I keep saying though, don't make those other avenues a part of science.


                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Specifically this concept, that the more we learn about the human body down to the genetic/atomic level the more we see order, structure, programming, that remind us of a machine or a computer, and the fact that every other example of this is constructed from an intelligent designer or designers, shouldn't that make us pause and 'do the math' at least a little bit?

                  That doesn't mean I then assume anything about a religion being true, it doesn't mean I know anything about this hypothetical designer, it doesn't mean I then jump to other conclusions, it just means that in this instance you would think that something like the human body would be intelligently designed. At least I would.
                  I think it's only human to make the connection between the human body and a machine. Humans are pattern-seeking creatures. It's been a major reason why we've been successful as a species. But just because we see a pattern or connection doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. This pattern-seeking had led to a lot of advances but also to a lot of superstition. If an athlete plays well after not washing his socks, continuous to avoid washing his socks and continues to play well, are his dirty socks the cause for his good play?

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  I think the counterargument is that since the universe is theoretically unlimited, that in a world of chaos, eventually the perfect combination of events happens to accidentally produce this, but that just seems incredible to me. Like if I keep blowing up enough ink factories, eventually one of them is going to paint the walls with a novel or an encyclopedia or something like that. I know God always sounds like "fantasy magic" to people but then again the alternative also sounds kind of ridiculous to me, too.
                  It sounds crazy. But there are billions of planets out there with no life on them (that we know of). Maybe Earth is that ink factory that painted a wall with a novel.

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  Separately, let's say for a moment that we eventually somehow determined that some kind of God did create the world/universe. Wouldn't we have to teach that at that point? Not as a religious belief but as the truth as we know it?
                  Yes. If we were somehow able to scientifically determine that a God created everything, then yes, it would have to become part of the curriculum.

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  And I would agree that anything not explicitly established by science has no business being taught in science class. I'm sure things will evolve (ha!) over time, but don't put the cart before the horse. Let science play out first, then put it in the classroom, one way or another.
                  I'm all for that.
                  Last edited by Aw Heck; 05-02-2013, 01:51 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                    It sounds crazy. But there are billions of planets out there with no life on them (that we know of). Maybe Earth is that ink factory that painted a wall with a novel.
                    woah woah woah woah there...

                    That's not a terribly big statement. How would we know if any planet has life, outside of our own solar system? For all we know, millions of them could be sustaining life.

                    I don't like making assumptions, but the odds of there being life (even intelligent life) out there are far, far higher than there being none.

                    Again I point to the fact that the earth was most likely barren itself until a cosmic even changed it. No reason to think the same thing couldn't have happened to any of the other billions of planets out there.
                    Last edited by Kstat; 05-02-2013, 01:56 PM.

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

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

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      woah woah woah woah there...

                      That's not a terribly big statement. How would we know if any planet has life, outside of our own solar system? For all millions of them could be sustaining life.
                      Yeah, I didn't articulate that correctly or fully. You're right. There are billions of planets out there and of the ones we've encountered or have been able to explore, we haven't encountered any life on them...yet.
                      Last edited by Aw Heck; 05-02-2013, 02:01 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                        That theory could be true, but it philosophically just kicks the can further down the road.

                        As for the creation of the moon, my question about that is that is something so violent were to happen that could cause that, why do both the earth and moon today essentially look like nicely shaped spheres? Something that devastating, I would think, would leave one or both looking like some jagged or otherwise misshapen or mangled hunk of rock versus the result being two pretty clean spheres. That part always seemed pretty strange to me.

                        The earth only appears Spherical because water finds its level. So the oceans are on the same level all the way around the globe. In reality it is very Jagged all over the globe. Almost 2/3rds of Mauna Kea is below Sea level, making it the tallest mountain in the world from base to peak. Take away the water and the earth is not a clean sphere, but just the surface or crust, the plates if you will. But expand this further. What makes the planets or moon round. Both the earth and moon have magnetic cores, These cores emit a gravitational pull. Gravity pulls from all directions. The more dense the matter the stronger the pull. So everything is being pulled and crushed into a ball over time. Not really strange at all.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          A smaller counterargument I heard recently was from Neil Degrasse Tyson, where he pointed out how flawed the human body is, citing in particular the fact that we share the same pathway for breathing and swallowing food, which of course often results in people choking and/or dying.

                          That does give me pause, I won't lie.

                          On one hand, who said God was trying to make us perfect to begin with?

                          On the other hand, why did he set us up to choke in particular?

                          It's a silly concept, but yet I'm forced to seriously consider it.
                          Whats really funny about this that most creationists use the human body as the argument for god. Saying how could evolution end up with something so complex and purposeful as the human body. How did evolution account for the spleen or the liver? Concepts like are even more silly and are only proof of the narcissistic nature of humans.
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                            Whats really funny about this that most creationists use the human body as the argument for god. Saying how could evolution end up with something so complex and purposeful as the human body. How did evolution account for the spleen or the liver? Concepts like are even more silly and are only proof of the narcissistic nature of humans.
                            Uhh, the liver is pretty important.

                            Now that I think about it, maybe I should quit trying to kill mine every weekend.
                            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                            -Lance Stephenson

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              The thing about this: How sure are we that science will one day have ALL of the answers? I get what you're saying for the most part, but isn't it also possible that eventually we will bump up against a topic where science isn't capable of measuring something, therefore we're left to other avenues (logic, faith, personal experiences) to try to figure that part out?
                              It's not really an argument from ignorance. It's a positive argument based on knowledge. People like Aw Heck assume it's an argument from ignorance because they assume their position is correct, and thus, any other position must be wrong, and rooted in ignorance.

                              When Aw Heck talks about science not yet having an answer, he's using a loaded definition of science which is limited to only abiogenesis as a possible explanation (notice how adamant he is that my non-abiogenesis view isn't science?).

                              When he says science doesn't yet have the answer, what he's really saying is, "Science doesn't yet know how abiogenesis took place, but by golly, it did!" They know abiogenesis is true -- their metaphysical presuppositions say it MUST be true -- and now they just have to find that elusive evidence which proves it so.

                              They're putting the theory before the evidence. 100% dogma.


                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Honestly, in this specific instance, I think there is a real logic here.
                              If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you'd better have damn good evidence if you're going to claim it's not a duck. I just don't see that evidence from abiogenesis proponents. I see a lot of wild speculations, a lot of wishful thinking, and a lot of assumptions being taken as facts (including that abiogenesis actually happened), but not a lot of evidence.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                                Uhh, the liver is pretty important.

                                Now that I think about it, maybe I should quit trying to kill mine every weekend.
                                Yup its important, but idea that because our bodies are so complex and everything is working in perfect harmony together is proof of creationism is just silly. As Dr. Tyson pointed out the design is very flawed.
                                You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X