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

  • #76
    Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    On a neat little sidenote, Thomas Jefferson, the father of the separation of Church and state, was a noted deistic teleologist, who explicitly rejected teleology being a religious concept, but one based on reason and evidence.
    Horse and buggy era. Doesn't count.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
      Aww, well hell. I'm sure I can use all these quotes again soon...
      Being familiar with how often those from your side resort to quote mining, I'm sure you'll use them time and time again, in short snippets, completely removed from context.

      Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
      Really, anything you say after bashing one of the greatest thinkers in the last 300 years, constantly referring to him as ignorant, will no doubt be ridiculed.
      Charles Darwin may have been a great thinker, but the theory of evolution wouldn't be evidence for this, and when I say that, I'm not referring to the quality of the argument. I'm referring to the fact that nearly every concept addressed in the book originated elsewhere. Darwin's real claim to fame wasn't that he originated some breakthrough scientific revolution; it's that he had the social clout to get his largely unoriginal work published.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
        Horse and buggy era. Doesn't count.
        Some ideas have withstood the test of time. Others have not.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Teleology is a take on the purpose of life, not the creation/origin of life itself.

          Given that teleology is about one degree short of darwinism (Darwin himself was arguably a teleologist), I'm going to go ahead and call BS on this one, unless he's really been trying to argue "Darwin was a complete and utter fool....but I still believe he was 95% accurate" all this time.
          Last edited by Kstat; 04-29-2013, 03:09 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


          • #80
            Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
            The Discovery Institute is a great organization with top-notch thinkers with elite educations. Their Evolution News & Views blog is a daily read for me.

            Unfortunately, the fact that they challenge Darwinian evolution makes them public enemy #1 to a certain class of people, which in turn has lead to a massive smear campaign against them. It's shameful and dishonest, but shameful and dishonest is the name of the game when it comes to protecting outdated ideas like Darwinian evolution.

            ------

            As for intelligent design, as an I.D. proponent myself, I'll have to object to your claim that it's repackaged creationism. This is a myth that was started in order to try to refute I.D. without having to actually address it's argument. It's what we call a straw man argument; an intentional misrepresentation of an argument in order to create the illusion that you've actually refuted the real argument.
            Here's a page on intelligent design from the Discovery Institute:

            http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

            Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
            Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
            Design implies designer, does it not? "Intelligent cause." Who exactly is designing all of these things in nature? If you're trying to tell me that ID is not relabeled creationism, the definition above from the Discovery Institute is not helping your cause. Just because they're being intentionally and underhandedly vague, doesn't mean that they're not referring to a creator.

            The Discovery Institute's criticism is earned. As I said earlier, they are a wolf in sheep's clothing. They purport this image of a scientific organization when they are really an organization devoted to promoting socially conservative causes (ie limited government, Judeo-Christian beliefs). Peruse their "About Us" page and you'll see that they don't even deny their theistic ties.

            http://www.discovery.org/about.php

            Discovery Institute is an inter-disciplinary community of scholars and policy advocates dedicated to the reinvigoration of traditional Western principles and institutions and the worldview from which they issued. Discovery Institute has a special concern for the role that science and technology play in our culture and how they can advance free markets, illuminate public policy and support the theistic foundations of the West.

            ----

            Mind, not matter, is the source and crown of creation, the wellspring of human achievement. Conceived by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks and Christians, and elaborated in the American Founding, Western culture has encouraged creativity, enabled discovery and upheld the uniqueness and dignity of human beings.

            Linking religious, political, and economic liberty, the Judeo-Christian culture has established the rule of law, codified respect for human rights and conceived constitutional democracy. It has engendered development of science and technology, as well as economic creativity and innovation.

            ---------

            Religion and Public Life. The worldview of scientific materialism has been pitted against traditional beliefs in the existence of God, Judeo-Christian ethics and the intrinsic dignity and freedom of man. Because it denies the reality of God, the idea of the Imago Dei in man, and an objective moral order, it also denies the relevance of religion to public life and policy. Our program on Religion and Civic Life defends the continuing relevance of traditional religious faith to public life within a pluralistic democracy. Specifically, it seeks to defend the importance of Judeo-Christian conceptions of the rule of law, the nature of man and the necessity of limiting the power of government. Thus, it also seeks to protect religious liberty, including its public expression in pluralistic democracies.
            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
            First of all, what evolutionary theory are you referring to? Notice how I'm always careful to specify not just evolution, but Darwinian evolution? That's not an accident. My primary objection isn't to the common descent, but to the laughable random mutation/natural selection nonsense. If that's the variation of evolution you're referring to, then I'll have to strongly disagree with your claim that it was developed using observation, evidence, and proper scientific methodology.
            I wasn't a biology major, so I can't go into detail as to the different aspects evolutionary theory. I was taught natural selection/random mutation in high school and it doesn't seem "ridiculous" to me. But I'm not certain of it. I'm not digging my heels or dying with my last breath to defend it. I think everyone should be at least somewhat skeptical about what they learn. If natural selection proves to be incorrect someday, I'll say "OK, cool," and move on. But I'll take natural selection/mutation any day over "God did it" or "Whoa, this looks really complex! There's no way this could've occurred naturally. This must have been created designed by God an intelligent agent!"

            Like I said, science doesn't have all of the answers and I don't expect it to have them. Quite frankly, I'm only mildly curious about we got here. Until we can actually invent a time machine to go back and witness things happen, we'll never know for sure. All I know is that I'm here now and while it'd be great to know for sure how things got here, it really doesn't affect my everyday life. The only reason I'm participating in this discussion is because intellectual dishonesty and pseudoscience bother me.

            To me, intelligent design reeks of religious parents being scared that science class will turn their children away from religion. To combat this, they try to spread this idea that there's a "controversy" regarding evolution and that evolution/natural selection is old and outdated. You tell a lie enough times and some people are bound to believe it, especially if it fits with their religious beliefs.

            Scientists have no reason to defend evolution/natural selection to the death if there are legitimate, scientific challenges to it. You don't see this in any other area of science.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              Personally, I don't buy the allegation that the 7 days stuff could mean some kind of 'special God days' versus just plain old 24 hour days. The only reason I can see for anyone to assume that spin is to make what would otherwise be a square peg fit in a round hole, in my opinion. Not that you can't believe that if you want, but I find it dubious and contrived myself.
              I think one of the major driving forces to this point of view is a learned attempt to deal with the immensity of time since the beginnings of the universe and, in contrast, the paucity of time since the appearance of homo sapiens on our planet.

              The known age of the universe since the big bang, by current best scientific estimates, is about 13.8 billion years. The earliest homo sapien, by current best scientific estimates, first walked our planet about 250,000 years ago. Many young Earth creationists seem to focus on 6,000 years as a purported age of everything.

              Those numbers are a bit too disparate to appreciate (at least to me, anyway!) without an example, if you forgive me.

              Let's scale the history of the universe to one of our calendar years, such that the big bang occurred at midnight the morning of January 1 and right now it is midnight one year later. The earliest homo sapien, by current best scientific estimates and scaled to this one year concept, first walked our planet (if my math is correct) 9.5 minutes ago, or 9.5 minutes before midnight on December 31. The 6,000 year period favored by many young Earth creationists began 13.7 seconds before midnight on December 31. Jesus, if you believe in him, may have lived and died at about 4.6 seconds before midnight, after which the Bible was written , a book telling (in some people's opinion) the entire accurate history of that whole year! The oldest person on Earth (116) was born 0.26 seconds ago, based upon this one year scaling concept. Your lifespan is likely one-fifth of a second, if you are fortunate.

              Bottom line: The history of mankind is very very small relative to the history of the universe, based upon our current knowledge. 13.8 billion years = 13,800,000,000. The history of everything living that we can see, or that ever lived, is incredibly small as well. The first age of dinosaurs began about 240 million years ago, or late in the day on December 25th, by our scaled year analogy.

              A side point, if you will. If the history of everything only amounted to 6,000 years, the scientific evidence to support such a recent date would be completely clear and unmistakable. There would be no fossil record dating back beyond that time point. There would be evidence of simultaneous emergence, or at least regularly staged emergence, of all currently-existing species in the fossil record. You would not see objects in the sky whose light must have taken more than 6,000 years to get to us. That fact alone would make the heavens a dull, dark place. There are many more inconsistencies between established data and the 6,000-old proposal, but entire textbooks have been written on the subject, so a message board post by me would be but a paltry summation.

              Hey, I don't put myself forward as the be-all-and-end-all of science knowledge or qualified to "speak for science". I have a Ph.D. and am a faculty member in a scientific discipline, involved in interdisciplinary research in chemistry and biology. That fact makes my opinions neither right nor wrong. It does help me understand and appreciate disparate pieces of scientific evidence in support of an "old" universe. The totality of evidence as I see it is clear and is consistent with the formation of galaxies, of stars, of planets, the emergence of life, the emergence of species, the recorded history of speciation, and (if you happen to afford some particular significance to it) the emergence of man as all being events fully driven by natural laws, acting over an enormous abundance of time. If you wish to invoke a God as a "source" for the existence of these natural laws or as the driving force behind the existence of the big bang singularity, it is certainly your prerogative. There's no data as to that position, to my knowledge, so it is solely in the realm of faith. I respect faith. Mine is wavering at times, admittedly. I have never fully embraced agnosticism nor any particular religious belief, though I do find the concept of a God to be comforting to many, and at times to myself.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 04-30-2013, 09:29 AM.
              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


              • #82
                Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                When did the 24 hours makes a day system come into effect?

                I honestly never thought of that before, but I could see where translations get changed years after years (or hundreds or thousands, etc). Just think of how much the message in the telephone game gets changed, and that is usually a group/class of 15-20 people and 45 seconds
                I mean, I don't know when it started being cut into 24 pieces, but I think for all of human history a day was seen essentially as one "sun cycle", to speak. You have one day and one night, and then repeat. They may not have thought of it as 24 hours, but it's the same span of time.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                  I don't take issue with anyone's religious beliefs. People are free to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old if they want to. Or that God created the universe. You can believe whatever you want to, as long it doesn't affect others negatively.

                  What I DO take issue with is people trying to shoehorn their religious beliefs into the science classroom. Organizations with names like the "Discovery Institute" have been trying to dress up the wolf in as much sheep's clothing as they can, but the wolf is still a wolf and people can see it. Organizations like the Discovery Institute, which use underhanded tactics to try to get religion into science textbooks, are the reason that scientists have gotten so defensive.

                  Disagree with evolutionary theory all you want, but it was developed using evidence, observation, scientific testing and the scientific method. Creationism was not. Evolutionary theory is not perfect, it hasn't delivered all of the answers yet (many will never be able to answered definitively), but it never claims to. Scientists continuously search for new answers and expound on old ones. That's the great thing about science. It's never satistfied. It continues to look to expand knowledge. That's why evolution belongs in the classroom and creationism (or Intelligent Design or whatever name people try to use to hide their true intentions) does not.
                  I'm broadly in agreement with you here (I don't really know anything about Discovery Institute), but it makes me wonder: If science is 'never satisfied' and scientists 'continuously search for new answers and expound on old ones', why do many so-called science lovers/team science/whathaveyou (and this really isn't necessarily targeting you or any one person, but broadly) tend to be so dismissive of the ideas they don't subscribe to? Such as on topics such as psy, the possibility of an afterlife, or even a rare species of ape that some people might call 'Bigfoot'? Why do they go from 'never satisfied' and 'continuously searching' to close-minded know-it-all's depending on which topics they do or do not feel fits their paradigm?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                    This is where I get to quote you! I knew you were a young earth creationist! Totally called that one out LOL. So let's look at your quote and think about how far the human race has come from the Bronze Age to Charles Darwin. Now, let's let this quote sink in a while.

                    "I believe Darwin was an ignorant product of an ignorant time". - GRH 2013
                    I think you may have just put your foot in your mouth. I'm 99% positive he is into old Earth creationism, and the "(I believe)" later in the quote as him approximating the beliefs of young Earth creationism believers.

                    This post kind of demonstrates the point some of us have made about the attitudes of some athiests materialists with this "LOL gotcha!" kind of post...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by Thingfish View Post
                      Horse and buggy era. Doesn't count.
                      Huh? Explain.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Hicks, a scientific mind is rooted in skepticism, which is NOT a bad word. A skeptic asks you to show me the evidence for what you believe to be true, if you want me to give you an opinion. Every cop, judge, juror, etc. is a good skeptic.

                        I think that the feeling that there is a "scientific arrogance" and "religious fanaticism" both come out of a fundamental clash between 1) those who demand evidence as a starting point to begin any discussion and 2) those who totally dismiss the concept that any such evidence should ever be needed, often because "I think that God says it to be so" or because "to me it makes a good story, and I don't trust science"

                        I am perfectly willing to accept the existence of Bigfoot or the existence of a 6,000-year old history of the universe as fact if you should me the evidence. If you have no evidence that passes even the minimum scientific muster, I will oppose your efforts to pretend otherwise on scientific grounds. I will certainly oppose any efforts to teach it to our youth as being established fact.
                        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


                        • #87
                          Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          I'm broadly in agreement with you here (I don't really know anything about Discovery Institute), but it makes me wonder: If science is 'never satisfied' and scientists 'continuously search for new answers and expound on old ones', why do many so-called science lovers/team science/whathaveyou (and this really isn't necessarily targeting you or any one person, but broadly) tend to be so dismissive of the ideas they don't subscribe to? Such as on topics such as psy, the possibility of an afterlife, or even a rare species of ape that some people might call 'Bigfoot'? Why do they go from 'never satisfied' and 'continuously searching' to close-minded know-it-all's depending on which topics they do or do not feel fits their paradigm?
                          I think if you presented a scientist with evidence as to the existence of "psy, the possibility of an afterlife, or even a rare species of ape that some people might call 'Bigfoot'," they would not be so quick to be dismissive or seemingly "close-minded." It's probably not great that some scientists can come off as arrogant know-it-alls and people should probably try to be more patient, but I think they just get tired of it after a while. I mean, 9/11 truthers claim to have mountains of evidence that the government planned and executed 9/11, but a lot of people are dismissive and take a condescending attitude towards them. Should people be more polite towards this (conspiracy) theory as well?

                          I don't think any of the concepts you mentioned are new to scientists. I'm sure they've considered them and run their own tests. I think if there was anything to those things, they would be a part of scientific study already. What do scientists have to gain by dismissing truths? I would think a groundbreaking discovery would be welcomed in the scientific community, not shunned.
                          Last edited by Aw Heck; 04-29-2013, 05:20 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                            Hicks, a scientific mind is rooted in skepticism, which is NOT a bad word. A skeptic asks you to show me the evidence for what you believe to be true, if you want me to give you an opinion. Every cop, judge, juror, etc. is a good skeptic.
                            Absolutely. I have no issues with skeptics. My issues is with all of the others who call themselves skeptics, but what they really are are cynical, goal-post-moving, naysayers. Essentially their attitude boils down to, "If it doesn't fit my paradigm, I don't believe you, and there will never be the requisite evidence to change that no matter what facts you may bring forth." Those are the 'skeptics' I have a problem with. Speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing.

                            But a true, honest skeptic like you describe? I'm with you on them. That's where I try to be, that's where I wish more people tried harder to be. But it's easy to fall out of that mode and start leaning on your beliefs. Some people are more aware that they're doing that than others.

                            I grew up in and around Christianity, became a materialist atheist, and now I roughly consider myself something else but not sure what. I think it's left me with a reasonably open and skeptical mind, but I know like any other human being I have to base at least some things on belief. The trick is to not be a dick about those beliefs.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Absolutely. I have no issues with skeptics. My issues is with all of the others who call themselves skeptics, but what they really are are cynical, goal-post-moving, naysayers. Essentially their attitude boils down to, "If it doesn't fit my paradigm, I don't believe you, and there will never be the requisite evidence to change that no matter what facts you may bring forth." Those are the 'skeptics' I have a problem with. Speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing.

                              But a true, honest skeptic like you describe? I'm with you on them. That's where I try to be, that's where I wish more people tried harder to be. But it's easy to fall out of that mode and start leaning on your beliefs. Some people are more aware that they're doing that than others.

                              I grew up in and around Christianity, became a materialist atheist, and now I roughly consider myself something else but not sure what. I think it's left me with a reasonably open and skeptical mind, but I know like any other human being I have to base at least some things on belief. The trick is to not be a dick about those beliefs.
                              The thing is Hicks, there are people with the attitude you describe everywhere. I think it's indefensible in the scientific field and everywhere else.

                              I consider myself an agnostic and skeptic. I don't believe in a higher power. I'm open to the possibility, but I don't think that it's likely. I have my own thoughts and beliefs, but I try not to shove them down people's throats. I try to keep myself in check, so I hope I have not come off that way in this thread.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                                I think if you presented a scientist with evidence as to the existence of "psy, the possibility of an afterlife, or even a rare species of ape that some people might call 'Bigfoot'," they would not be so quick to be dismissive or seemingly "close-minded."
                                And that's the problem: You'd think so, but from what I've read that doesn't seem to be the case. There are those who do research into things like psy, and typically the response from 'skeptics' is to dismiss the evidence, even when it's people who appear to be doing honest, solid work (Dean Radin comes to mind). They bend over backwards to come up with alternatives instead of what the evidence (in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of most generally open-minded if uncertain people) would suggest that there IS something to psy. I even recall one skeptic (name escapes me, but he's out there to be Googled) who basically was eventually forced to admit that the evidence, when judged by the same standards as other fields of study (the ones that AREN'T dismissed as woowoo), seems to suggest psy is real, so what did he say in the same breath? That it was time to RAISE the standards because of this! He's so dug in to his belief system that it can't be real, that when his own standards suggest otherwise, rather than adjust his beliefs, he wants to change the standards. I find that incredible.

                                It's probably not great that some scientists can come off as arrogant know-it-alls and people should probably try to be more patient, but I think they just get tired of it after a while. I mean, 9/11 truthers claim to have mountains of evidence that the government planned and executed 9/11, but a lot of people are dismissive and take a condescending attitude towards them. Should people be more polite towards this (conspiracy) theory as well?
                                I could only answer this after examining the alleged evidence myself. I know you're wanting me to say "Of course not," but while it's true my default assumption is the 9/11 was not a government conspiracy, why would I jump to a conclusion without examining what they have to present? Sure, I doubt it, but I wouldn't be arrogant and say "I know they're full of crap." Maybe they are. I might even assume they are. But unless I'm going to take the time to examine the alleged evidence for myself (which is the attitude I believe Buddha preached, by the way), who am I to give them a bad attitude? Now, if they start hurting people in the name of their allegations, I have a problem with THAT, but that would be a different concept.

                                I don't think any of the concepts you mentioned are new to scientists. I'm sure they've considered them and run their own tests. I think if there was anything to those things, they would be a part of scientific study already. What do scientists have to gain by dismissing truths? I would think a groundbreaking discovery would be welcomed in the scientific community, not shunned.
                                Generally, what they gain is they keep their positions and their scholarship money by not rocking the apple cart. What I've read multiple times is that when scientists start to look into psy, the 'powers that be' in the scientific community basically threaten to blacklist them from certain jobs and scholarships if they try to pursue it. They're kept in line by fear, in those cases. If you really take the time to read into it, it's not nearly as neat and tidy as you might like to think. Contrary to idealistic beliefs, many scientists DO hold onto THEIR belief systems, even though they're not based in religion, and they WILL cop an attitude when their peers start to push back against them. At least when it's a topic they consider 'woowoo' like psy. I find it childish myself.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X