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

  • Originally posted by kester99 View Post
    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.
    ...except we're not discussing great historical myths in proper context. This is a thread on the history/origin of life. In that context, genesis has zero relevance.

    2,000 years from now, I hope that humanity looks the same way at a lot of our unproven theories.

    You said it yourself. they aren't science. so.....why is genesis even being referenced in this thread? Because a lot of people don't treat it that way.

    If we were discussing proper methods of cultivating crops of corn, and I advocated sacrificing two virgins every season, citing "the combined logic and reason of our ancestors," would that be taken seriously?
    Last edited by Kstat; 05-04-2013, 12:21 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?

      I think kester does make a good point that there's a difference between 'it's not supported by scientific fact as of today's date' and 'it's not true'.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        You said it yourself. they aren't science. so.....why is genesis even being referenced in this thread? Because a lot of people don't treat it that way.
        I don't recall anyone from the antiDarwin camp in this thread holding out a strict interpretation of Genesis as the truth on the matter. Perhaps they did and I missed it. I'm still trying to catch up 5 or 6 pages I missed. But I do recall several dismissive snipes at the book, and those were what I was replying to.

        I believe we are in agreement as to what it is and what it isn't. I was ceretainly not holding Genesis up as an answer to the OP. I'm a science guy as well as a Christian. I don't even buy the I.D. approach.

        It was the contemptuous direction you took when you asked what logic or reason went into the Bible that prompted my remarks. You didn't even say 'Genesis.' You said 'Bible.'

        Maybe you just got carried away in the heat of discourse.


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

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I think kester does make a good point that there's a difference between 'it's not supported by scientific fact as of today's date' and 'it's not true'.
          I wasn't even going there so much as holding out for the merit of the truth in morality tales and such. They're not meant to be factual, but to teach other sorts of truth. Like the story of GWash 'fessing up to chopping down the cherry tree teaches honesty and taking responsibility for one's actions, even though the incident never occurred.


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

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Here is another way of explaining what Kester is saying imo...

            It should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII,*Providentissimus Deus*18).*
            Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
            I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
              Believing that magical invisible mutations turned pond scum into space-traveling, poetry-writing human beings is entirely unnecessary.
              You are the only one who regards natural genetic mutations, which occur in the fertilization of every egg with every sperm, as being magic or invisible. They are neither.

              It may cause you some distress that they are random, but they are real. I suppose my situation is not all that abnormal in that my wife bore three children and sadly had three miscarriages. Most likely all three miscarriages were triggered by embryonic-lethal genetic mutations. My three children that were born happily have a host of apparent mutations from the parental genes that manifest in endearing personality traits that distinguish them from their parents, such as my daughter's deep passion for performing classical music.

              These one generation mutations may seem small and trivial, but again we are talking a lifespan equaling less than a blink of an eye in the one year calendar that is the history of everything.
              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?

                Oh, mutations exist. That wasn't in question. My comment referred to the widespread belief that random mutations are the engineers of life; the creative force behind the design found throughout the living word.

                I'll let you in on a little secret: Mutations are overwhelmingly harmful, to the point where the ratio of harmful-to-beneficial mutations is still in question due to the rarity of the latter. Even those mutations considered to be neutral aren't truly neutral, but harmful, albeit very minutely.

                The end result is genetic entropy, which is the accumulation of harmful mutations leading to the degradation the genome. It's basically the same principle as Darwinism -- the accumulation of mutations -- only it's based in reality, not ignorance and superstition. It's the degradation of life based on the fact that mutations are harmful, rather than the engineering of life based on the superstition that mutations possess immense creative power.

                It's the nonexistence of these mutations that lead to me referring to them as "magical invisible mutations."

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Mutations are not overwhelmingly harmful. Most mutations lead to nothing. And so many mutations lead to changes that aren't "harmful" but you just don't notice because, well, they aren't harmful.

                  I think the world is flat.
                  Last edited by Suaveness; 05-06-2013, 02:16 PM.
                  Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Why do embryonic whales have limb buds that resemble the embryonic forms of mammalian legs?

                    Why so whale flippers have the internal structure of mammalian hands?



                    why do embyonic whales have facial hair?

                    Why do they have a vestigial pelvis?


                    ---
                    These are just many simple-to-understand natural consequences of macroevolution occurring, as land mammals gave rise to new species of aquatic descendants over eons of time.

                    Of course in chapter 14 of Origin of Species, Darwin predicted that such conservation of structures and traits would be found, like our tailbones which remain from our tree-dwelling ancestors, our wisdom teeth and appendix that remain from our herbivore past, and numerous other examples found all over the animal kingdom, even at the molecular level.
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-06-2013, 03:35 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 Aw Heck View Post
                      This is all I really read from you. I hear you attacking the holes in Darwinian evolution, but I never hear a legitimate, scientific argument for Intelligent Design.
                      All you had to do is ask.

                      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                      I can play that game too: "Intelligent Design theory has been revealed as one great big argument from ignorance. 'I don't understand how it happens and science hasn't explained it yet, therefore, God an intelligent agent must have done it.' You could replace all of their arguments with that single sentence and you'd in no way change the substance of their arguments."
                      Incorrect. I'll elucidate more down below, since you pretty much repeat this same argument.

                      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                      The key thing here, is that Intelligent Design simply is not science.
                      It might not conform to your dogma-fueled definition of science (the search for truth, as long as that truth fits into my worldview), but it does the real definition of science (the search for truth, period, regardless of our presuppositions).


                      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                      It fails to qualify as a scientific theory.
                      Yes, it does. It's based on observation, it pleads to a force known to exist within nature (read: it's not supernatural, as idiots claim), it's testable, and it's falsifiable in theory (I'd argue it's not falsifiable in practice due to it being true).

                      It fulfills every requirement of a scientific theory.

                      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                      It asserts a conclusion that is not scientifically testable or sustained by further explanation.
                      Here's something that I'd say no more than one-in-a-thousand people who partake in this debate actually grasp, that I actually learned from reading the great atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel: Abiogenesis/Darwinian evolution and intelligent design are inherently linked.

                      What do I mean by that? It's simple. The two ideas are simply the opposite sides of the same coin. They are the opposing answers to the same question -- Is there design in biology?

                      Thus, if one isn't testable, then neither is the other. You can't test for one without testing for the other; it's logically impossible. Any test that will strengthen one will weaken the other.

                      Any test that strengthens the idea that biology is design free will weaken the idea that biology is designed.
                      Any test that strengthens the idea that biology is designed will weaken the idea that biology is design-free.

                      Any test that validates that biology is design-free will falsify biology being designed.
                      Any test that validates that biology is designed will falsify biology being design-free.

                      Using this flawless logic, the only conclusion we can reach is that either both ideas are science, or neither idea is science. There is no middle-ground. You can't reasonably say that no design is testable/provable/falsifiable while saying that design isn't testable/provable/falsifiable, yet this is exactly what people like Aw Heck (including many academics and scientists) do. It's nuttiness.

                      Every single test for abiogenesis is inherently a test for I.D. Every single time a scientist attempts to prove that life originated via some chemical soup, absent any design or purpose, he's attempting to falsify I.D.

                      Every single time a scientists attempts to prove that evolution is an ateleological process (no design), he's attempting to falsify biological teleology (design).

                      So, not only is I.D. not untestable, it's been tested repeatedly for decades now. It's past every single test with flying colors, which is why I support it.


                      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                      It hasn't proposed a scientific means of testing its claims. It's a position devoted almost entirely to attacking Darwinian evolution. It's the "God of the gaps" argument, which argues that because there are gaps in scientific knowledge, this MUST be evidence or proof for the existence of God.
                      See above.

                      I.D. claims that the basis of life, biological information, is artificial, rather than natural, based on our experience of what produces information. This claim can be tested via any test which attempts to demonstrate nature producing biological information from scratch, as would be required with the origin of life.


                      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                      "Welp, we can't explain this yet. Must be God." 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.
                      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 say it's not a duck. Biology looks designed, and is full of design principles, so until somebody proves how it came to be, absent design, it's completely reasonable to call it design. Common sense 101.

                      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.
                      If you're going the copy-and-paste route, you really should find smarter sources than Wikipedia.

                      The term intelligent design traces back centuries. In its modern usage, it traces back to Sir Fred Hoyle in the late 1970's. Coincidentally (or not), Hoyle also coined the term big bang.

                      What you're referring to, albeit in a fragmented, confused fashion, is the book Of Pandas & Panda. It's the book where the term creationism was replaced with the phrase design proponent. This was highlighted by Darwinists who pointed out the term cdesignproponentist appears in the book -- and obvious search-and-replace gaffe. Their claim was that this proves creationism and intelligent design are one-and-the-same, and the term was switched as a result of the aforementioned court case.

                      There's just one problem with this claim: It's demonstrably wrong.

                      I say this based on two facts. One, the term design proponent was used in the drafts of the book, prior to the court ruling. I know things like

                      Two (and this is the big one) if you actually LOOK AT THE CONTEXT in which the term is used, it's clearly not being used in the same sense that the term creationism is typically used, which is an appeal to Biblical six-day creationism. In fact, the authors of the book explicitly reject bringing religion into science, and insist

                      One of my favorite authors, the brilliant Casey Luskin, has an article knocking this dishonest myth out of the ballpark, including scans of the book which clearly show that any usage of the word creation/creationism was used in an entirely Constitutional, scientific manner, not as an appeal to supernaturalism nor the Bible, as the sleazebuckets trying to keep biology in the Dark Ages claim.

                      Originally posted by Casey Luskin
                      Yet pre-publication drafts of Pandas juxtaposed the word "creation" with statements to the exact opposite effect, noting that science cannot scientifically detect a supernatural creator. Consider these important excerpts from pre-publication drafts of Pandas, making it clear that from the beginning, their project did not advocate what the courts have defined as "creationism":










                      In each of these excerpts from pre-Edwards v. Aguillard drafts of Pandas, it is clear that the idea of "creation" discussed was specifically NOT trying to postulate a supernatural creator. The concepts advanced by even pre-publication, pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas were sharply different from what the courts have defined as "creationism." These early drafts were not trying to study the supernatural.

                      ID was formulated in its present form--an empirically based argument that would not stray into the supernatural--before the Edwards case was decided. Thus, even before Edwards v. Aguillard, ID lacked the very quality that caused creationism to be declared unconstitutional: it did not postulate a "supernatural creator." ID was not "masterminded" by an attorney, but formulated by a scientist who understood information theory and "want[ed] to stay within the empirical domain and do what you can do legitimately there."

                      Barbara Forrest's theory about the origins of ID was wrong. Stay tuned for the next five posts in this series which will provide further critique for Barbara Forrest's style of argumentation.


                      So, not only are Darwinists wrong (as usual), but their version is the exact opposite of the truth: The creationism-to-design-proponent switch wasn't to hide the fact that I.D. and creationism are the same, but to make it clear that they are NOT the same.

                      Let's also not forget that I'm both an I.D. proponent and areligious. Thus, I, myself, refute the notion that I.D. is Biblical creationism or motivated by Christianity.

                      The question remains: Why do Darwinists stoop to this level of dishonesty?

                      The answer: It's all they've got. If they could refute I.D. based on what it actually is and says, they would, but they can't, so they must intentionally conflate it with Biblical creationism. This does two things:
                      (i) It allows them to motive monger. By claiming that I.D. is just Biblical creationism, they can claim that I.D. proponents are motivated entirely by their religion, not science, and use that to attack I.D. and I.D. proponents' credibility.

                      (ii) It's a straw man argument. By claiming that I.D. is just Biblical creationism, they can refute it with the same arguments they use to refute Biblical creationism; arguments about the age of the Earth, common descent, speciation, etc.

                      It's all a load of crap.

                      If you believe that the age of the Earth refutes I.D., you are too ignorant of what I.D. is and says to have a valid opinion on it.
                      If you believe that speciation refutes I.D., you are too ignorant of what I.D. is and says to have a valid opinion on it.
                      If you believe that whale flippers having a similar structure to mamallian hands refutes I.D., you are too ignorant of what I.D. is and says to have a valid opinion on it.

                      I could go on.


                      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                      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)
                      First of all, the Dover ruling was limited to the Dover distract; it has no bearing on anything outside of that small Pennsylvania county. Sorry to disappoint you.

                      Secondly, the demarcation problem has troubled philosophers of science for centuries now. Shockingly enough, it hasn't been solved by a judge with zero training in either science or philosophy. For those unaware, the demarcation problem is the problem of figuring out what is and is not science, and what standards should be used to make that ruling. It's not nearly as cut-and-dried as most Internet pseudo-scientists think it is. Just Google it if you want to learn more.

                      Thirdly, and this one's kind of hilarious, it was discovered that the judge copied his ruling from the ACLU's briefing, completely with nonfactual claims and typographical errors (). I'm neither an attorney nor a judge, but I know this is bad for two reasons (more Roman numerals on the way).
                      (i) It strongly creates the impression that the judge is activating for one side of the issue. Bias isn't thought highly of in the judicial circuit.

                      (ii) It strongly creates the impression that the judge couldn't justify his own ruling in his own words, which, in turn, calls into question the credibility of that ruling. If a judge is too ignorant on a subject to be able to elucidate his ruling on that subject, then he has no business making the ruling in the first place. Simply put: The demarcation problem, specifically as it deals with the question of whether or not there is design in biology, is a matter for philosophers of science to determine, not some slack-jawed judge whose expertise on the subject is limited to copy-and-paste.

                      Dover was, what, seven-and-a-half years ago? Yeah, it's time to get over it. I.D. remains alive and well, and it grows stronger with each and every discovery which furthers reveals the design of life.


                      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                      If you haven't already, I encourage you all to watch the PBS documentary about this case, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI).To save GRH some time rebutting that case, you can just go here: http://www.discovery.org/a/2879 .
                      If you want to remain in the dark about what's up for debate, watch the PBS documentary. If you're prefer to be educated on the subject, and want to know the actual I.D. arguments from I.D. proponents themselves, read the following articles:

                      Originally posted by Casey Luskin
                      As their birthday gift to Charles Darwin, yesterday many PBS stations apparently re-aired the "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" movie that they first released in November, 2007. The "documentary" purports to re-tell the story of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, but it portrays an extremely inaccurate, biased, and one-sided view of the case. In this regard, below are some links to responses to the "Judgment Day" that Discovery Institute produced when it first came out in 2007:

                      Better yet, do what I do and make the entire Evolution News & Views blog a regular stop. It's brilliant; name any anti-I.D. claim and it's very likely already refuted it with facts and flawless logic.


                      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                      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.
                      Design is distinguishable from natural occurrences; it's how you're able to recognize the text you're reading right now from pure noise, for one.

                      This distinction is what makes attempting to recognize design in any avenue a valid scientific proposal, including in biology.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        more succinctly:

                        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 Hicks View Post
                          I always found the explanation of the 'chemical soup' creating the first life on earth to be dubious. From what I recall reading, scientists have been trying for decades if not centuries to purposefully replicate that soup and failed. So why on earth would I decide that it happened on accident to begin with? Sounds like gap filling to me. Not that it couldn't be true, just that I think it currently requires a lot of faith, given what I just said about their purposeful attempts.
                          Hicks, you hit the nail on the head.

                          Whether you fall more toward the side that something arose from nothing and by chance or that there was a systematic creator, it takes a large measure of faith.

                          One of the biggest problems for Scientists is that despite their best efforts, they have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. They might be able to generate some amino acids and proteins but they cannot replicate or really explain how complex cells came into existence other than to say they happened by chance or that they evolved. This leaves a lot of gaps science has been unable to fill with tangible proof.

                          Taken from the publication "The Origins of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking":

                          "Think of the challenge facing researchers who feel that life arose by chance. They have
                          found some amino acids that also appear in living cells. In their laboratories, they have, by means of carefully designed and directed experiments, manufactured other more complex molecules. Ultimately, they hope to build all the parts needed to construct a “simple” cell. Their situation could be likened to that of a scientist who takes naturally occurring elements; transforms them into steel, plastic, silicone, and wire; and constructs a robot. He then programs the robot to be able to build copies of itself. By doing so, what will he prove? At best, that an intelligent entity can create an impressive machine. Similarly, if scientists ever did construct a cell, they would accomplish something truly amazing—but would they prove that the cell could be made by accident? If anything, they would prove the very opposite, would they not?

                          All scientific evidence to date indicates that life can come only from previously existing life. To believe that even a “simple” living cell arose by chance from nonliving chemicals requires a huge leap of faith."
                          Last edited by naptownmenace; 05-06-2013, 04:38 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                            Mutations are not overwhelmingly harmful. Most mutations lead to nothing.
                            Yes, they are, it's just that the harmfulness is so minor and so unapparent that they're incorrectly labeled as being neutral. The more accurate label would be near-neutral.

                            Think of it this way:

                            You have a 1,000-page book. During the printing of that book, an error took place, and accidentally added extra characters into one of the sentences within that book.

                            Is that error harmful, beneficial, or neutral to the book?

                            If you said neutral, then you are incorrect.

                            No, it wasn't a huge error, and no, it didn't harm the overwhelming majority of the 1,000-page book, but it harmed it, nonetheless.

                            The same logic applies to mutations in biology. Most don't lead to catastrophic harm, no, but they're still degrading the genome.

                            Now, here's where things get interesting: Natural selection works on the entire organism, not individual traits. Nature doesn't take an organism, find any beneficial mutations, keep them, and then throw away the rest. Nature selects the entire organism, which means taking the bad with the good.

                            When you combine the above fact with the fact that the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, including near-neutral mutations, you've got a huge problem. You have an accumulation of mutations, passed on from generation to generation, with the overwhelming majority of them being harmful. The end result is a gradual degradation of the genome -- genetic entropy.

                            If you're not getting what I'm saying, let me try to make it clearer.

                            You have an organism that's been subjected to 10,000 mutations, 9,999 of them harmful, and 1 beneficial.

                            That 1 beneficial mutation may provide a reproductive advantage, but those 9,999 harmful mutations will be passed on along with that 1 beneficial mutation. The offspring of that organism will not only have those 9,999 harmful mutations passed along, he'll also be subjected to mutations himself, which, if we keep the same rate, will end with a total of of 19,998 harmful mutations, and 2 beneficial mutations. Rinse and repeat, generation by generation/

                            See how quickly the bad ends up completely swamping any good? This is random mutation in a nutshell, and you can see why it's such a destructive force.

                            Darwinists believe this destructive force somehow created us. They believe that mutations repeatedly lucked into the right sequences of DNA to produce functional proteins, and these functional proteins self-assembled into the nanomachinery of the cell, which in turn accumulated to produce the technological marvels that are you, me, and everyone who has ever lived, as well as every living creature, past and present.


                            Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                            And so many mutations lead to changes that aren't "harmful" but you just don't notice because, well, they aren't harmful.
                            Well, no, we've been over this. Most mutations are near-neutral (but still harmful), some are catastrophically harmful, and a very, very, very select few are beneficial.

                            The fascinating thing is that even when beneficial, mutations tend to be deleterious. What I mean is that these beneficial mutations aren't building up new traits, they're simply damaging preexisting ones, which, as strange as it may seem, can be beneficial in certain circumstances. This is how bacterial resistance works, for example.


                            Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                            I think the world is flat.
                            You might as well. I mean, you hold a silly, archaic view of biology, so you might as well hold a silly, archaic view of geology, too.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post

                              Think of it this way:

                              You have a 1,000-page book. During the printing of that book, an error took place, and accidentally added extra characters into one of the sentences within that book.

                              Is that error harmful, beneficial, or neutral to the book?

                              If you said neutral, then you are incorrect.

                              No, it wasn't a huge error, and no, it didn't harm the overwhelming majority of the 1,000-page book, but it harmed it, nonetheless.
                              Every word of every book gets read, which is the fatal flaw in your analogy. A mistake leaves a change in meaning.

                              The vast majority of genes are not transcribed. Totally silent.

                              You are not harmed in the least by mutations in your silent gene sequences that in your tree-dwelling hunter ancestors gave you a tail, more grippy toes, better smell, or thicker fur. You are not harmed in the least by mutations in your silent gene sequences that in your primordial ocean-dwelling ancestors gave you more buoyancy or more efficient gill slits. We know these genes. They exist. They are silent.

                              So a better analogy is that your thousand page book was forever ignored by all of humanity except for a single sentence on page 524. Changing a word at random in that book is very unlikely to alter that one key sentence on page 524.
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-06-2013, 05:09 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 GrangeRusHibbert View Post

                                You have an organism that's been subjected to 10,000 mutations, 9,999 of them harmful, and 1 beneficial.
                                You have an organism that's been subjected to 10,000 mutations, 9,995 of them neutral, 4 harmful, and 1 beneficial.

                                That's more in line with reality.

                                Every once in a great while a beneficial trait emerges. If it's a real doozy and gives a survival advantage, then of course it becomes dominant, often in only a few dozen generations.

                                We see such survival mutations happening all the time even on our timescale of almost nothing. A species of yellow butterfly has a mutation to make a brown version, but the brown version isn't recognized by a predator for whatever reason (maybe it lives near a sooty factory?),

                                then a few dozens of generations later later you just have oldtimers showing you yellow butterflies they captured when they were kids, but having the same genome as a whole species / population of living brown butterflies that were descended from them.
                                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-06-2013, 04:59 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

                                Working...
                                X