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
    ...since god did not write the bible, taking anything genesis says seriously, even in the metaphorical sense, is absurd.

    Genesis is a fairy tale. It was written by people who obviously were not around to witness the events depicted. There is no reason at all to believe anything genesis says other than simply wanting to believe it.
    But the evolutionary theory that was written by men who weren't around to witness the events is fact. Such a logical conclusion to discredit something because it was seen first hand, as you argue a theory that hasn't been seen firsthand. Good to know we're working with two different sets of standards.
    Last edited by Since86; 05-03-2013, 09:59 AM.
    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 the evolutionary theory that was written by men who weren't around to witness the events is fact. Such a logical conclusion to discredit something because it was seen first hand, as you argue a theory that hasn't been seen firsthand. Good to know we're working with two different sets of standards.
      Ouch.

      You bring up a good point, though. Certain events aren't directly observable. This is what separates operational science, which deals with the study of nature as it currently operates, from historical science, which deals with past events (planet formations, the origin of life, etc.). While there's some crossover, there are also methodologies exclusive to each branch, which is why I like to point and laugh at the morons who yelp about the scientific method, as if it's some singular process. I wont mention any names. They know who they are.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
        But the evolutionary theory that was written by men who weren't around to witness the events is fact. Such a logical conclusion to discredit something because it was seen first hand, as you argue a theory that hasn't been seen firsthand. Good to know we're working with two different sets of standards.
        But they have fossils and other evidence to examine that clearly shows evolution exists. Take the horse, for example, that species has undergone huge changes that are apparent in the fossil record. Islands like Madagascar and the Galapagos show how isolated populations can evolve very quickly....

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
          It certainly isn't found in the fossil record, which completely contradicts a slow, step-by-step, micro-to-macro gradualism
          incorrect

          And nothing about genetic mutation means that an effect is necessarily slow to develop, at least on a geological time scale. But if you incorrectly allow 6,000 years rather than 13,700,000,000 years for it to occur, you may be right

          nor is it found in lab research
          lab research is actually quite convincing. We can track DNA homology between related species (humans, apes) even unrelated species such as humans zebrafish, and crawdads, and get a good picture of how speciation progressed through the eons of time. We possess decendents of the genes to make a tail, gills, feathers, etc.

          random mutation to be a creatively inept mechanism.
          depends again on the time. In a 13,700,000,000-year old universe, no. In a 6,000-year fantasy, yes

          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.
          in one aspect, mental faculties/cognition. We aren't the fastest, the biggest, the strongest, most long-lived, etc.

          We are the dominant intellectual species in our world-wide niche, but it's the height of arrogance to think that we are set apart among all species as being he most special and Godlike. Maybe we had some lucky intelligence influencing mutations fall our way, or maybe some cosmic collision thwarted the evolution of super-smart creature of another form.
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-03-2013, 02:51 PM.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
            Remember it is the THEORY of Evolution, not the Law of Evolution.
            It should be called the Law of Evolution. At some point the theory of gravity started being called the law of gravity, even though to this day we do don't know completely, at a subatomic particle level, exactly how gravity arises.

            Evolution is as fundamental a guiding principle to understanding modern biology as gravity is to understanding modern physics.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              But the evolutionary theory that was written by men who weren't around to witness the events is fact. Such a logical conclusion to discredit something because it was seen first hand, as you argue a theory that hasn't been seen firsthand. Good to know we're working with two different sets of standards.
              Yeah...one of them actually requires evidence....


              Remind me again what logic and reason was used to write the bible?

              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?

                Slick, before I get around to refuting your misinformation, would you mind pointing out anywhere in this thread where I claimed to believe in a six-thousand-year-old Earth?

                You will not, because you cannot, because at no point have I said such a thing.

                On the contrary, I've made it explicitly clear that I am an areligious theist, so trying to tie religious concepts to my beliefs just makes you look silly at best, and outright dishonest at worst.

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  How many different men wrote individual books that were approved by the ruling council of Catholic men to be included in the officially sanctioned Bible, based on a vote?

                  And just how many things have we at some point held dear because "the Bible says it is so" but then we eventually abandoned due to our good sense, apparently gained in just a couple of centuries of microevolution?

                  The idea of the Earth being flat, the Earth being the geometric center of the Universe, the idea that we should consider slavery an acceptable institution, that idea that women should be in service to men and by no means doing things like voting or owning land, that we out to cut off the hands of thieves, that homosexuality is against God's will, and that the Universe must be only as old as the "begats" listed in the Bible...

                  the list of ideas big and small we Christians have the sense to discard based upon new-found sensibilities that eluded the otherwise good men who wrote the books of the Bible is rather long. and growing! Thank God.
                  Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-03-2013, 03:24 PM.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                    incorrect

                    And nothing about genetic mutation means that an effect is necessarily slow to develop, at least on a geological time scale. But if you incorrectly allow 6,000 years rather than 13,700,000,000 years for it to occur, you may be right



                    lab research is actually quite convincing. We can track DNA homology between related species (humans, apes) even unrelated species such as humans zebrafish, and crawdads, and get a good picture of how speciation progressed through the eons of time. We possess decendents of the genes to make a tail, gills, feathers, etc.



                    depends again on the time. In a 13,700,000,000-year old universe, no. In a 6,000-year fantasy, yes



                    in one aspect, mental faculties/cognition. We aren't the fastest, the biggest, the strongest, most long-lived, etc.

                    We are the dominant intellectual species in our world-wide niche, but it's the height of arrogance to think that we are set apart among all species as being he most special and Godlike. Maybe we had some lucky intelligence influencing mutations fall our way, or maybe some cosmic collision thwarted the evolution of super-smart creature of another form.

                    Isn't there something like about 1% difference between our DNA and chimp DNA? I know we can study DNA to determine when species separated like humans from their primate ancestors....

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                      Slick, before I get around to refuting your misinformation
                      You need factual information in order to correct misinformation, and secondly you need the misinformation in need of correction to actually exist. I have my doubts about the first and have no doubt at all that the second is something that you lack.


                      would you mind pointing out anywhere in this thread where I claimed to believe in a six-thousand-year-old Earth? You will not, because you cannot, because at no point have I said such a thing.
                      what is your numeric estimate?

                      Maybe you are not off by a factor of 2,300,000 like some others. If your estimate were 20,000 years, the error would be a factor of "only" 690,000.

                      I apologize for giving the impression that I attributed the 6,000-year figure to you because I was quoting you. It was not my intent.
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-03-2013, 03:26 PM.
                      The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        It should be called the Law of Evolution. At some point the theory of gravity started being called the law of gravity, even though to this day we do don't know completely, at a subatomic particle level, exactly how gravity arises.
                        You're confused. A natural law is a regularity. It's something which can be observed to happen with 100% regularity when specific conditions are in place. A theory is an evidence-backed explanation.

                        So, the law of gravity is just the observation of gravity. Any theory of gravity is an attempt at explaining the root causes behind gravity.

                        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                        Evolution is as fundamental a guiding principle to understanding modern biology as gravity is to understanding modern physics.
                        Genetics and heredity -- both based upon biological information -- are the guiding principles to understanding modern biology. A person can understand biology perfectly well if he understands those two aspects of it. Believing that magical invisible mutations turned pond scum into space-traveling, poetry-writing human beings is entirely unnecessary.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          Remind me again what logic and reason was used to write the bible?
                          The accumulated logic and reason of generations of intelligent people of prescientific culture.

                          Genesis is not a fairy tale. Hansel and Gretel is a fairy tale. Genesis is a creation myth.


                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Doesn't there have to be a starting point along the lines somewhere?
                          If God is an eternal being, whose existence is timeless, then, no...our need for a beginning point would just be picking some arbitrary date on which something we're involved in occurred. It would just be another point along an eternal timeline.

                          As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen amen.

                          --------------------
                          I tell you what....my internet goes down for a few days, and there's a lot of reading to do to catch up.
                          --------------------

                          I have to say, as a Christian and skeptic, that I have never been that hung up on the topic of the evolution of the physical being. Scientific research into this is an ongoing process and interesting, (if frustrating...just the changes in my adulthood in our opinion on neandertal vs cromagnon vs modern vs etc etc are enough to convince you that we are still learning).

                          For me, Genesis has an interesting lesson that addresses the state of humanity in relationship to God, and it's one that certainly doesn't require any measuring or lab research, but more likely introspection, life experience or meditation to understand.
                          --------------------

                          How long was a day in Genesis? Well, since the 24 hour day is a measure of our diurnal rotation, which we judge from sunrise to sunrise, for instance, and the sun apparently wasn't even created until the 4th 'day' or so, then the topic gets pretty silly (to me)...while still being of deadly serious importance to others who have every right to their concerns.

                          ------------------------------
                          I've been more interested (in recent decades) in the origin and evolution of consciousness than in the biological or cosmic (big bang) origin speculation.

                          I believe this sort of 'genesis' is also addressed in the New Testament, to whit: 'In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god'....which can take you towards the concept of the Logos, towards Piaget's theory of cognitive development, and into all sorts of cool stuff...all of it without dissecting frogs or smelling turtles.

                          ---------------------

                          And we beat the Hawks....this argues for intelligent design.
                          Last edited by kester99; 05-04-2013, 05:52 AM.


                          [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                            The accumulated logic and reason of generations of intelligent people of prescientific culture.
                            ....which is like locking up the most intelligent chimpanzees in a room with keyboards and using their combined efforts to write a novel...

                            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
                              ....which is like locking up the most intelligent chimpanzees in a room with keyboards and using their combined efforts to write a novel...
                              ...which is eerily similar, at least in substance, to how Darwinists believe we got here.

                              The monkeys aimlessly wailing away on the keyboards represent the blind forces of nature and chemistry, and the novel being the gigabyte after gigabyte of biological information within our genomes.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                ....which is like locking up the most intelligent chimpanzees in a room with keyboards and using their combined efforts to write a novel...
                                This is you talking about your ancestors. But if that's how you feel...

                                And of course, it's not like that at all, anyway.
                                Every early culture had a creation myth of some sort handed down through generations. They help define a people. They teach lessons.

                                If you think others are ignorant for confusing them with real scientific descriptions, then you might as well stop it also. They aren't science. There is a difference between factual and true, however.

                                And having said that your analogy was false, I'll say I can see some truth too...because we are primates, and we collectively 'write' our cultural myths. Doesn't make us chumps, or chimps.
                                Last edited by kester99; 05-04-2013, 07:09 AM.


                                [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X