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 GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    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.
    We assume it's correct based on the available scientific evidence. Don't knock it unless you can falsify it or provide a legitimate, scientific, alternative theory. Otherwise you're guilty of the same thing you accuse me of.

    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    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.
    Abiogenesis is a scientific explanation for the origin of life. It is based on scientific evidence utilizing the scientific method. It doesn't explain everything. But that's why scientists haven't given up, taken their ball and gone home. They're continuing to study it. And who knows? Maybe someday it will be falsified and we all will have been wrong. Hasn't happened yet though.

    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    They're putting the theory before the evidence. 100% dogma.
    Says the guy pushing Intelligent Design.

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
      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.
      So are you saying the "scientific model" is flawed? We should just throw out Hypothesis, Theories and Laws. The one thing about science is that it is ever correcting. So when it is wrong, some other scientist will come along and correct it eventually. Its only a matter of time before the law of gravity itself is redined and corrected as new situations arise.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        So are you saying the "scientific model" is flawed? We should just throw out Hypothesis, Theories and Laws. The one thing about science is that it is ever correcting. So when it is wrong, some other scientist will come along and correct it eventually. Its only a matter of time before the law of gravity itself is redined and corrected as new situations arise.
        But until that happens, are we supposed to just latch on to faulty science, just because that's the closest thing we have to being right?

        The problem here is that the evolutionary design theory is taught as fact, and anyone who questions it is labeled anti-science or ignorant, while the acknowledgement a that theory, that goes along with it, has some major holes in it (contradictory to scientific law) and the possibility that it might be outright false.

        I'm all for teaching science, I'm against pushing an agenda just to have something to teach.

        EDIT: And I really don't think that the scientific method is really being all that followed, and that's the overall point from my POV. Scientific method is designed to help weed out our personal biasness, not give a platform to argue them.
        Last edited by Since86; 05-02-2013, 03:12 PM.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          But until that happens, are we supposed to just latch on to faulty science, just because that's the closest thing we have to being right?

          The problem here is that the evolutionary design theory is taught as fact, and anyone who questions it is labeled anti-science or ignorant, while the acknowledgement that theory has some major holes in it (contradictory to scientific law) and the possibility that it might be outright false.
          The key point is that we have no proof that it is faulty.

          I'm not sure how one can say that there is a possibility that evolution could be outright false. When we see it on display with reproducing viruses and bacteria all the time.
          Last edited by graphic-er; 05-02-2013, 03:18 PM.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            I'm talking about macroevolutionary theory.

            Of course there is some evolution going on, you can clearly see that on just how the human body shape has changed over the last couple of centuries. Just because there is micoevolution going on, doesn't mean the evolutionary theory that we crawled out of some primordial soup is accurate.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Even if you assume that the process happens very, very slowly, it's logical to assume that we had to evolve from something....we didn't just manifest out of nowhere.

              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?

                Sure, but without solid evidence of macroevolution, you're dependent on your faith in science that it's correct.

                Why is it okay for your theory to hinge around faith, and not mine?
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  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.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I'm talking about macroevolutionary theory.

                    Of course there is some evolution going on, you can clearly see that on just how the human body shape has changed over the last couple of centuries. Just because there is micoevolution going on, doesn't mean the evolutionary theory that we crawled out of some primordial soup is accurate.
                    So how far back does microevolution account for before you dismiss it as Macroevo-junk science? Centuries? Millienum? I mean come on....If you can admit that some evolution is going on then that means it must have always been going on.
                    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.
                      A blatant example of special pleading from Neil deGrasse Tyson, and a pretty weak argument. Magnify the evidence you believe argues against design (bad design); ignore the evidence you believe would support it (good design).

                      Here's why this is such a weak argument against design, and why it can actually be turned around as strong evidence for design...

                      What Tyson is doing is using quality of design as a measuring stick. The thing is, this is a two-way street. If bad design is evidence against intelligent design, then it stands to reason that good design is evidence for it.

                      If we look at all of life, the bad and the good, it seems pretty clear to me that the latter absolutely dwarfs the former. For every example of so-called bad design people can find, I can give you a dozen examples of engineering that puts our own engineering to shame.

                      If we were to create an Intelligent Design Evidence Scale, and place the bad design (evidence against I.D.) in one side, and the good design (evidence for I.D.) in the other side, the latter would have far more weight behind it.

                      The quality of design argument supports I.D.

                      To make matters worse for the "bad design" argument, much of the bad design has proven to be anything but, and the argument's been exposed as yet another argument from ignorance. Their reasoning goes like this:
                      We don't know what purpose A has.
                      Therefore, A has no purpose.
                      No designer would design something with no purpose.
                      Therefore, design is false.
                      Darwinismdidit.

                      The problem with this is it's based around ignorance, and as that ignorance fades away, so, too, does the validity of the argument.

                      For example, for years the appendix was used as evidence against design. No one knew what purpose it served, so it served no purpose. Bad design. What's happened is that in the past few years, it's been revealed that the appendix actually operates as a "storage building" for helpful bacteria.

                      This is just one example of many. There have been dozens of so-called functionless organs over the years that are now known the be functional. It extends beyond organs, too. One of the huge stories in biology last years was the ENCODE Project finding evidence for function in what was previously thought to be "junk" DNA, and new functions are being found on what seems like a daily basis.

                      Lastly, what's so wrong with the fact that we use the same pathway for both breathing and eating? That looks like nice, streamlined design to me. Sure, there's a potential hazard if you don't know how to properly chew food, or you like chewing on things that don't belong in your mouth, but that's our own recklessness, not faulty design. If someone hops in their car and drives like an idiot we don't Ford for "bad design."

                      It's just an awful argument, no matter how you look at it.

                      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.
                        Why is that so much harder to believe that there is a "God" out there doing everything. Just because we don't know something yet doesn't mean we have to make up a "God" to explain it. That is how humans worked thousands of years ago. We know better now and more and more research and perhaps space travel will eventually tell us more....
                        Last edited by Blue&Gold; 05-02-2013, 04:17 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I'm talking about macroevolutionary theory.

                          Of course there is some evolution going on, you can clearly see that on just how the human body shape has changed over the last couple of centuries. Just because there is micoevolution going on, doesn't mean the evolutionary theory that we crawled out of some primordial soup is accurate.
                          The key is theory. Science will keep investigating and changing theories until they have the facts. The religious group simply shuts off their minds and they have decided that they have the answer for everything when history shows that they really don't have a clue. Just because we don't have a complete factual answer now doesn't mean that we will never get it and we have to have a God to make responsible for everything. Religion basically says that the earth is 4000 years old. Dinosaurs couldn't have existed. The fossils that show that man developed from apes cannot exist and for many of the religious sort, they don't exist. But the fact is that they do. We know how old the earth is and even how old the universe really is. God had nothing to do with any of it and only very weak minded people really believe that he did. Religion lost me at age 12 when on a church outing at a state park the pastor asked me what the stones at my feet showed. I said that I thought that stone was made up of shelled creatures who lived here millions of years ago when this was all ocean. The pastor said, "I think they were put here by the devil to trick fools like you." I went to my parents and told them the pastor was an idiot and I have only been in church for weddings and funerals since and those had nothing to do with any belief in God. I do respect the beliefs of people even when I think they are silly until they start wanting to base the law of the land on what they believe or start trying to force feed their BS to students in public schools. The founding fathers made the separation of church and state a part of the constitution. One of the silliest things the country ever did was in 1953 to start printing "In God We Trust" on our money. The founding fathers would not have been amused.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by Blue&Gold View Post
                            Why is that so much harder to believe that it is to believe there is a "God" out there doing everything. Just because we don't know something yet doesn't mean we have to make up a "God" to explain it. That is how humans worked thousands of years ago. We know better now and more and more research and perhaps space travel will eventually tell us more....
                            In my opinion the something from nothing issue is non-sequitur. It does not really matter, and has no basis on the conclusion of whether the BBT theory was cause by God or not. There are some things that can only realistically be reduced down to a certain level before they just are or is. There is no way to either prove or disprove. In the end we are all just a mass of sub-atomic particles.
                            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              So how far back does microevolution account for before you dismiss it as Macroevo-junk science? Centuries? Millienum? I mean come on....If you can admit that some evolution is going on then that means it must have always been going on.
                              Just because there is microevolution, does automatically mean that macroevolution is true.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                You can argue with yourself OlBlu.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X