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?

    Where did I say that you personally believe in Noah's Ark and the Biblical creation of ever species? I didn't. My thoughts were not directed at you in any specific way whatsoever.

    Lot's of people do, apparently, believe in such things. That fancy new creation museum in Kentucky, with its ark replica, is reportedly wildly popular. The fact that it is a popular destination for school field trips is something I find troubling, however. College students taking courses in pseudoscience might benefit from a visit, though.
    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
      Where did I say that you personally believe in Noah's Ark and the Biblical creation of ever species? I didn't. My thoughts were not directed at you in any specific way whatsoever.

      Lot's of people do, apparently, believe in such things. That fancy new creation museum in Kentucky, with its ark replica, is reportedly wildly popular. The fact that it is a popular destination for school field trips is something I find troubling, however. College students taking courses in pseudoscience might benefit from a visit, though.
      So you're just generically addressing arguments that no one in this thread is making, so you can debate points with people who are arguing a completely different idea? What purpose does that serve? It's an awful lot like KStat coming in and saying that there isn't a single Creationist, out of the billions of us that walk the Earth, that addresses dinosaurs. It seems like you're bringing up extreme positions to associate them with arguments being made here in order to respond.


      Oh, and there is archeological evidence that supports the story of Noah's Ark.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2273143.html

      Here we are supposed to be relying on scientific evidence, while we are mocking and dismissing scientific evidence...
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
        Here's my problem with the whole intelligent design movement: 90% of those articles you linked and that evolution news blog are focused on discrediting and exposing the incompleteness of evolution theory. Where is the argument for ID? It is claimed to be a scientific theory, but where is the evidence? Disproving one theory does not prove the other.


        The argument for Intelligent design is all around you, in the things made. Romans 1:20 speaking of God says, "Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. [NRSV]

        My argument is the intelligent design movement is made up mainly of scientists that can see the theory of Evolution isn't possible because life doesn't start off simple, it's complex right from the beginning. Thus they acknowledge that things are intelligently designed, but they don't or won't give the credit to God.

        GrangeRusHibbert
        The scientific method is commonly described as a fourstep process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). . . . When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
        Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
        1. If a natural object is designed (by an intelligent agent), then it will contain complex and specified information.
        2. Life is complex and specified
        3. Therefore life was produced by an intelligent agent.

        It's a fallacy. Just because intelligent agents have the ability to produce complex and specified information does not lead to the conclusion that all complex and specified information was produced by intelligent agents.
        That’s like saying just because someone can build a car doesn’t mean he built a bicycle. Which is true, but it’s also obvious. However, irreducible complexity in biology is what’s being talked about and every living thing is complex.

        To those having problems following this argument I’ll try to catch you up to date.

        Charles Darwin said, To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Origin of Species (1859) p.186

        If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Origin of Species (1859) p.189

        Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system." An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box," 1996.

        Such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex."Unlocking the Mystery of Life," documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.

        As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe presents the humble mousetrap. “It contains five interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.”

        “An irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.”

        How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box"-something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell.

        Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated.
        http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011...fossil-flight/

        It also seems to me that the male and the female reproductive organs would of necessity be a type of irreducibly complex system. They don't reproduce without each other. How did Evolution evolve two separate systems that only work together?

        That also gives rise to the question, if we evolved , how had life been proceeding before the complete formation of both?

        I don’t know how many types of life we have on earth, but it seems all the ones that reproduce sexually would be irreducibly complex systems. So how did all these evolve separably? Evolutionary scientists of course give answers, highly unsatisfactory answers.

        “Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. . . . It seems that some of the most fundamental questions in evolutionary biology have scarcely ever been asked . . . The largest and least ignorable and most obdurate of these questions is, why sex?”—The Masterpiece of Nature, by Professor Graham Bell.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          ... while we are mocking and dismissing scientific evidence...
          I certainly oppose all such efforts.

          Let's see if his "evidence" is published in any peer-reviewed journal, which is the test of it actually being science, or if rather it only appears in such fine forums as the Huffington Post, next to anti-vaccine scares and updates on the status of Bat Boy.
          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
            I certainly oppose all such efforts.

            Let's see if his "evidence" is published in any peer-reviewed journal, which is the test of it actually being science, or if rather it only appears in such fine forums as the Huffington Post, next to anti-vaccine scares and updates on the status of Bat Boy.
            Yes, because that's the bar that dictates whether or not it's actually science. Anyways here you go, here's an article about the evidence supporting a flood in a peer-reviewed journal. I have a feeling that you're not going to accept that journal, and come up with another reason why it's no good.

            http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...gy-of-israel-2

            Scientists talking about creationism from a scientific POV. No way....
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              The issue isn't even settled in the scientific community. Let's stop pretending that if you disagree with the concept that all life evolved from the same beginning that you're somehow dismissing science, when scientists in the very fields this discussion is revolving around are torn.

              http://www.livescience.com/379-scien...iscipline.html
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                where did the water for the global flood come from, and where did it go?

                Earth’s water cycle results in all water residing somewhere on Earth’s surface in the form of oceans, ice, and freshwater lakes, beneath Earth’s surface in subterranean reservoirs that produce springs and geysers, or in Earth’s atmosphere as moisture. The last component, 0.001% of earth's water, is the immediate precursor of what we call rain. Sudden complete depletion of the atmosphere of all of its moisture could raise ocean levels by a little over an inch. It can wreak tremendous havoc, locally, and do next-to-nothing, globally. Until magic gets involved, I guess.

                Virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. We know that at least two of them, from earlier Mesopotamian cultures, were blended together by Bible authors. One of these is a tale from the Epic of Gilgamesh, among the world's earliest surviving works of literature and well-known to ancient Israelites.

                It's a great story, apparently. So is Star Wars, IMO. I don't plan on launching a "journal" for the purposes of vindicating the "facts" of Star Wars.
                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013, 01:43 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
                  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.

                  What you are describing could just as well be natural. If you have a predator that sees yellow butterflies better than brown of course the brown ones will have a better chance of surviving. But the question is do mutations really produce entirely new species?

                  Was life Created - Evolution Myths and Facts, 2010, p 19-20.
                  In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently.


                  “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.” In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.


                  Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.” And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants ... died or were weaker than wild varieties.”


                  Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
                  So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, by Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, “Expectations in Mutation Breeding,” 2005.


                  Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                    where did the water for the global flood come from, and where did it go?

                    Earth’s water cycle results in all water residing somewhere on Earth’s surface in the form of oceans, ice, and freshwater lakes, beneath Earth’s surface in subterranean reservoirs that produce springs and geysers, or in Earth’s atmosphere as moisture. The last component, 0.001% of earth's water, is the immediate precursor of what we call rain. Sudden complete depletion of the atmosphere of all of its moisture could raise ocean levels by a little over an inch. It can wreak tremendous havoc, locally, and do next-to-nothing, globally. Until magic gets involved, I guess.

                    Virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. We know that at least two of them, from earlier Mesopotamian cultures, were blended together by Bible authors. One of these is a tale from the Epic of Gilgamesh, among the world's earliest surviving works of literature and well-known to ancient Israelites.

                    It's a great story, apparently. So is Star Wars, IMO. I don't plan on launching a "journal" for the purposes of vindicating the "facts" of Star Wars.
                    Kind of what I thought would happen. You want scientific evidence, when it's presented you want it in a peer-reviewed journal, when that's presented you simply dismiss all of it.

                    Here is scientific evidence of a flood covering the area, and you don't want to talk about the science, you want to talk about myths just because it doesn't fit inside your predetermined view point.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                      What you are describing could just as well be natural.
                      It is! Hence the term, natural selection.

                      So we try like we can in a 1/10 of a second (relatively speaking) to "speed up evolution" that we witness having gone on for eons, and we claim failure, it means the whole idea is woo?

                      I guess it depends on what you call failure.

                      Cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, and Brussels sprouts all were "evolved" from the exact same plant, by the smarts of their human handlers. They are in fact the exact same genetic species, differing only in what genes are expressed at what times in the plant's life cycle.


                      Is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job?


                      Given hundreds of millions of years, rather than 40 years using a misguided protocol of gamma radiation to induce all change, absolutely and emphatically yes.
                      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 Since86 View Post
                        You don't want to talk about the science, you want to talk about myths just because it doesn't fit inside your predetermined view point.
                        I asked you two very straightforward scientific questions you chose to ignore. Where did the water come from and where did it go?

                        The flat-Earth society has their own self-proclaimed scientific journal. How does it stand up? Is it worth my time reading it? I think not. Same as the drivel you linked. saying they are scientific and using sciency-sounding words does not make their journal scientific.
                        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
                          The flat-Earth society has their own self-proclaimed scientific journal. How does it stand up? Is it worth my time reading it? I think not. Same as the drivel you linked. saying they are scientific and using sciency-sounding words does not make their journal scientific.
                          But it's in a peer-reviewed journal, so it passes the test of actually being science.... That's your standard, not mine, and now you want to turn your back on your standard.
                          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 it's in a peer-reviewed journal, so it passes the test of actually being science.... That's your standard, not mine, and now you want to turn your back on your standard.
                            No it's not, unless you consider a room full of like-minded self-proclaimed scientists to be peers.

                            Again, the flat-Earth society has a journal, with editors from the flat-Earth society as the peer reviewers. What person would call it a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a straight face? You would, I guess...

                            the top 153 journals in the field of geology, by citations and impact factors:

                            http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1907

                            And don't tell me that anything controversial will not be published in any such journal. It will, if it's well-reasoned and scientific. Einstein was jeered off a few podiums for relativity being "out there" until he laid it all out logically and pointed people toward yet-untested consequences of relativity that would either support it or tear it apart. The big bang hypothesis also was an out-there idea published with great controversy ("big bang was actually a derogatory term poking fun at what some thought a silly idea).

                            If you publish a journal of Pacers Digest and three of your buddies comprise the editorial board, please don't call it peer-reviewed science. Isn't it clear that it's not?
                            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-07-2013, 03:17 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
                              Where did the water for the global flood come from? and where did it go?

                              Earth’s water cycle results in all water residing somewhere on Earth’s surface in the form of oceans, ice, and freshwater lakes, beneath Earth’s surface in subterranean reservoirs that produce springs and geysers, or in Earth’s atmosphere as moisture. The last component, 0.001% of earth's water, is the immediate precursor of what we call rain. Sudden complete depletion of the atmosphere of all of its moisture could raise ocean levels by a little over an inch. It can wreak tremendous havoc, locally, and do next-to-nothing, globally. Until magic gets involved, I guess.

                              Virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. We know that at least two of them, from earlier Mesopotamian cultures, were blended together by Bible authors. One of these is a tale from the Epic of Gilgamesh, among the world's earliest surviving works of literature and well-known to ancient Israelites.

                              Where did the water for the global flood come from?
                              No magic. The Bible explains during the second creative period, or “day,” when the earth’s atmospheric “expanse” was formed, there were waters “beneath the expanse” and waters “above the expanse.”


                              Genesis 1:6,7, says, And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” 7Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse.”

                              The Bible at Genesis 7:11,12, describes the flood thus, In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12And the downpour upon the earth went on for forty days and forty nights.

                              It appears obvious from the Bible’s account that there was a lot of water above the expanse since it says the downpour went on for 40 days and 40 nights.

                              Where did the water from the flood go?
                              Since it’s apparent there is no water above the expanse nowadays, the water evidently is still here on earth. Today there is about 1.4 billion cu km (326 million cu mi) of water on the earth. It covers more than 70 percent of the globe’s surface. The average depth of the oceans is 4 km (2.5 mi); average elevation of the land is only 0.8 km (0.5 mi) above sea level. If the earth’s surface was smoothed out, it would all be covered with water to a depth of 2,400 m (8,000 ft)

                              Water is heavy and as you yourself wrote can cause tremendous havoc locally. It therefore logically could cause tremendous havoc worldwide if their was enough of it. Since the Bible says the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened there was likely enough to cause worldwide havoc.

                              Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth’s surface. In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles deep at the plate boundaries. It is quite likely that—perhaps triggered by the Flood itself—the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing the water to drain off the land.

                              Virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. We know that at least two of them, from earlier Mesopotamian cultures, were blended together by Bible authors. One of these is a tale from the Epic of Gilgamesh, among the world's earliest surviving works of literature and well-known to ancient Israelites.
                              Ask yourself why virtually every ancient culture has a flood myth. Wouldn’t that actually lend credence to the fact there really was a worldwide flood? If any of your relatives went though a worldwide flood wouldn’t the story get told by your family generation after generation? Sure it would, and after a time wouldn’t the story become distorted. Yes again.

                              I believe it very reasonable to believe a real worldwide flood caused virtually every ancient culture to have a flood myth.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                No it's not, unless you consider a room full of like-minded self-proclaimed scientists to be peers.

                                Again, the flat-Earth society has a journal, with editors from the flat-Earth society as the peer reviewers. What person would call it a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a straight face? You would, I guess...

                                the top 153 journals in the field of geology, by citations and impact factors:

                                http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?category=1907

                                And don't tell me that anything controversial will not be published in any such journal. It will, if it's well-reasoned and scientific. Einstein was jeered off a few podiums for relativity being "out there" until he laid it all out logically and pointed people toward yet-untested consequences of relativity that would either support it or tear it apart. The big bang hypothesis also was an out-there idea published with great controversy ("big bang was actually a derogatory term poking fun at what some thought a silly idea).

                                If you publish a journal of Pacers Digest and three of your buddies comprise the editorial board, please don't call it peer-reviewed science. Isn't it clear that it's not?
                                I'm being saracastic. You said it was the test for science, not me. I'm just pointing out that once that threshold of it being in a peer-reviewed journal is met, all of a sudden you change your position on it.

                                I about started mentioning all the different topics that have been in peer-reviewed journals that have been found out to be not as scientifically strong as once though, like Global Warming, or mention how other articles are just flat out rejected after they've been published. But in the end, I figured getting you to stomp all over the standards that you laid out would prove my point a little bit better.

                                I find it quite ironic that you mention about how Einstein was once thought to be "out there" as you try and call scientifically supported belief of a great flood a myth, just because it doesn't fit in your square box.
                                Last edited by Since86; 05-07-2013, 03:34 PM.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X