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

Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    If you are unable to prove something false because it is inherently incapable of being proven false, like something that Ken Ham would say:
    Sounds like it's also something a good scientistist would say. If you're already closing your mind to the possiblity that Creationism is correct, then you're not thinking very scientifically. You can spin it how'd you like, but the thought of someone pounding their chest about how scientific their mind works, while dismissing a notion without being able to disprove it, is funny.

    Having concrete thoughts about science, and it's infallibility leads to scientistis to declare Global Cooling factual, and then Global Warming factual, and then after both theories get blown to pieces, Climate Change as factual. Once people start declaring their theory as fact, eyes start rolling.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

      Science isn't about disproving, though. Not to say one should dismiss what can't be proved, but still.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

        Sure it is. Science disproves the Earth is flat. Disproves the our solar system doesn't revolve around the Earth. There are countless scientific theories that were thought to be factual, that science has disproven. Science isn't supposed to confirm theories, and treat them as
        fact. Theories are supposed to be treated as theories that haven't been disproven.

        Our understanding of where the universe came from, or how it was put together, is that of an ant. We aren't even in the infant stage yet. 90% of our universe is made up of dark matter, that we have no understanding of whatsoever. To declare one side right, one side wrong, regardless of where you fall, is pointless. We don't know enough information to have such concrete faith in our theories, on a scientific level.

        Big Bang, Evolution, whatever doesn't come close to suggesting the idea of a Creator is false. Those theories could just merely be the answer to how a Creator created all of this. They aren't necessarily competing theories.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

          (to Hicks)
          Why isn't science about disproving? The whole process is more about seeking evidence that would disprove something than it is about seeking evidence that would ever prove something, IMO. The potential for being dis-provable is critical.

          Example: Einstein said that due to general relativity, light rays must be bent by gravitational forces, such as the sun, at twice the amount that Newton's laws allow (described here: http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...ght_deflection )

          the test: measure the deflection during a solar eclipse (see link above)

          Possible results:
          one result would disprove Newton and be consistent with general relativity
          another result would disprove general relativity and be consistent with Newton
          any other result would disprove both theories

          actual result: the deflection was consistent with general relativity, disproving Newton

          Math has proofs. Emperical science though relies on the absence of disproof where disproof is possible, as strange as that may sound. General relativity has not been proven. All experiments to date have been consistent with its predictions, though, and thus it is accepted to be true.
          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


          • #65
            Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
            Slick, bringing us the latest in cutting-edge 1930's science.

            Firstly, the idea that because DNA doesn't code for proteins, that it's irrelevant to development (junk DNA), and thus mutations involving it are meaningless, is an outdated concept. Slick should put down his musty college textbook and familiarize himself with the ENCODE Project, which released a bevy of papers (30ish) a little over a year ago detailing the findings of over a decade's worth of research.

            ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA
            Junk DNA — Not So Useless After All | TIME.com

            I strongly suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg, as well.

            Secondly, his point regarding most DNA not coding for proteins is irrelevant. What's important is the ratio of harmful-to-beneficial mutations, not the exact number. Focusing solely on the 2% of of DNA which codes for proteins may lower the number of harmful mutations by 98%, but it also lowers the number of beneficial mutations by 98%, leaving us with the same issue: The number of beneficial mutations being swamped by the number of harmful mutations.

            Furthermore, he's actually undermining his own position, as he's giving random mutation far fewer opportunities to produce novelty. When your entire position is based on happenstance creating brilliant technology -- and underneath all the bluster, that's what Darwinism is -- you need as many chances as you can get.




            I'd wager that most people aren't entirely healthy, with everyone having at least some minor health issue. Your problem is, when you think of harmful, you're limiting it to only that which is catastrophic. This is not the case, and it's the reason why the concept of the neutral mutation fails (non-beneficial and non-catastrophic does not make something neutral). There is no such a thing as a neutral mutation, only those with varying levels of harm, from near-neutral to catastrophic. Unfortunately for Darwinists, near-neutral mutations can accumulate, producing much bigger issues. Essentially, the exact same principle behind Darwinian evolution, only from a realistic 21st-century perspective, rather than a fantasist 19th-century perspective.





            If you can prove this, you will have become a hero to Darwinists, worldwide, as gains in novel function are one of the hearts of the controversy.




            The above article is such a sham, that my favorite blog -- Evolution News & Views -- didn't even feel it warranted a thorough rebuttal, just a quick laugh. Looking at what these scientists did, I tend to agree.

            "What about evolution is random and what is not?" - Evolution News & Views



            So, they've created a front-loaded computer-controlled system (read: directed system) with a predetermined goal, and this somehow replicates evolution? Geez... their view of evolution sounds a lot closer to I.D. than to Darwinism. Methinks Slick should read these articles through a little more clearer before he posts them.




            That's called redundancy, and it's a design principle.

            Redundancy (engineering) - Wikipedia

            Funny how those keep popping up in biology.
            You are so downright rude and condescending. You could be the wisest person in the world but you'll never win over people to your viewpoints with such an angry disposition. It is hard to see someone that thirsts for truth when someone can't even express their viewpoints without bringing others down.

            Furthermore, you're position is odd to me. You bring up the ENCODE project which is definitely an amazing achievement in molecular biology (a discipline almost entirely based around evolution and selection, btw) and yet you seem to misunderstand the very nature of "natural selection." There is no such thing as a "beneficial" or "harmful" mutation unless you add a context. For example, sickle-cell anaemia is a "harmful" mutation when applied to our society now as we have malaria cures, but the whole reason it exists is that it allowed resistance to malaria in Africa.

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            I'm just saying in general. 99.9% of the time when this conversation gets going, Creationists are looked at as stupid, inferior, whatever you want to call it.

            Science that we thought was the truth has been disproven throughout the history of science. Why people take science like 100% fact, when it's not supposed to represent findings that way is beyond me. We want to talk about scientific way of thinking, but rarely there's any scientific way of thinking going on. In order to be truly scientific, you would need to have an open mind. Not being able to prove something false, yet treating it as false, isn't an open mind.

            I think it's fascinating that Einstein commonly used the term "God" when talking about the creation of the universe. I understand there's a difference in the way he was using the term, and the Christian God, but it's still interesting to think a man like Einstein openly discusses the possibillity, while those who follow him shun it.
            This is the fundamental issue. Any good scientist will throw away the belief of evolution if it is proven wrong through observation. The problem is that to date we have countless reports showing evolution to be true (well, microevolution), but there are no observational studies for creationism to be true.

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            I think it's at least two problems, as I see it: There are religious folk who want their faith-based beliefs taught as science, when it's not science, and this is very irritating to most secular scientists (and I agree with them on that). Then there are non-religious folks who treat modern science like it's the end of the book on any given topic, nothing else to see here, move it along, and that's a silly attitude to have in general with regards to science because the point of science is to keep looking, keep testing, keep trying, and then make the best assumptions you can based on your evidence and experiments, but it's NOT about declaring truths, generally speaking, either, and the arrogance of secular people in this regard can be quite irritating to me.
            Here is the thing, though, as a scientist my job is to be impartial. I really should have no emotional attachment to my research. If there were to ever be any evidence against evolution then I would gladly take a look at it and reevaluate my trust in the theory. But I have yet to find that. You can make arguments against MACRO-evolution. Large scale evolution of all species from a common ancestor, but almost the entirety of the biomedical field is based around microevolution.

            There are two things I'm noticing about this debate from a scientist perspective (agnostic) and remembering how I felt as a teenager (christian god, but very into philosophy/science);

            1) People are fundamentally misunderstanding the mechanisms of natural selection. When I say survival of the "fittest," what I mean is survival of the one with the most offspring. "Fitness" in biology terms means offspring. Most people interpret that to mean, literally, survival of the biggest and strongest. That is not always the case. Mutations lead to either decreased or increased adaptability and thus mutations are context based. (I.E. my sickle cell example)

            2) There is also a fundamental misunderstanding on what science actually is.

            Let me also state that I don't see any real difficulty allowing both beliefs to propagate and combine. Honestly, the question of why the big bang happened is still a question no one can answer. Perhaps religion can shed some light on that because science can't at the moment. My issue is that creationism isn't a scientifically observed doctrine and as such should not be taught as science. What is creationisms solution to anti-biotic resistance of bacteria? Cancer? Alzheimers? The main goal of science education is to train students to be innovative in finding solutions to these problems.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

              Originally posted by righteouscool View Post
              This is the fundamental issue. Any good scientist will throw away the belief of evolution if it is proven wrong through observation. The problem is that to date we have countless reports showing evolution to be true (well, microevolution), but there are no observational studies for creationism to be true.
              Another problem is that macro-evolution is argued as fact. I don't think you'd find many people who believe in Creationism that don't also believe in micro-evolution.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                So you're saying I need to 'zoom out' a little bit on my perspective here, basically? Stop looking at each tree, start looking at the forest (a forest with only one kind of tree, that is)? I can appreciate that perspective. However, I still see the same thing (and I don't think you were suggesting otherwise, though I'm not entirely sure) that I saw before: The unfit dying off while the better fit keep making more of whatever their species is, resulting in more of the fit kind and less of the unfit kind. It means the species as a whole should continue to do better in said environment as long as enough fit are produced to makeup for the dying unfit. Is that adaptation? Yes and no. The species is getting better at living in its environment, but not because it did anything other than exist, as opposed to 'reading and reacting' in order to better itself. It's like the genetic version of 'guess and check', basically; throwing crap against the wall and seeing which parts stick, so to speak.
                Yes, in the bold font I put in your quote, that's what I was trying to express...an essentially blind but elegant mechanism trundling along...'guidance' coming only from the bumps and dips of the environment.

                Now, to take it to the next inevitable step...Who designed the mechanism?? I think that will be asked / has been asked elsewhere. To me, we must remember that the forest has all the types of trees, existing simultaneously, and (zooming out again) that this evolutionary mechanism which we describe as a separate theory from all the other theories and laws is in fact one facet of the ongoing universe, working hand in glove with gravity, thermodynamics, chaos theory, you name it. All of these mechanisms working together, on all 'parts' of the universe / reality, making up this one biggest clockwork...well, that's what I would call God. But you can use whatever word you want. It is that it is. (Go Spinoza*.)


                * ,,,except Spinoza beieved this God / reality to be impersonal, and I think that is not necessarily the last word on that.
                Last edited by kester99; 02-07-2014, 02:50 PM.


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

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  Another problem is that macro-evolution is argued as fact. I don't think you'd find many people who believe in Creationism that don't also believe in micro-evolution.
                  Well, I can't argue that as I know a lot of people make that mistake. Personally, I see the basis for it in observation, but it is fair from infallible nor is it proven. I think it definitely is a legitimate scientific theory and as such should be taught in classrooms, but I'm not going to justify people misinterpreting it and treating it as complete and utter truth. Science has no such thing as "truths."

                  Now microevolution is proven extensively in literature and is the basis of pretty much all research in the medical field. I use everyday in my research as do most scientists.

                  Originally posted by kester99 View Post

                  Now, to take it to the next inevitable step...Who designed the mechanism?? I think that will be asked / has been asked elsewhere. To me, we must remember that the forest has all the types of trees, existing simultaneously, and (zooming out again) that this evolutionary mechanism which we describe as a separate theory from all the other theories and laws is in fact one facet of the ongoing universe, working hand in glove with gravity, thermodynamics, chaos theory, you name it. All of these mechanisms working together, on all 'parts' of the universe / reality, making up this one biggest clockwork...well, that's what I would call God. But you can use whatever word you want. It is that it is. (Go Spinoza*.)


                  * ,,,except Spinoza beieved this God / reality to be impersonal, and I think that is not necessarily the last word on that.
                  A little off topic, but I know we've got some other researchers here and found this recent paper interesting. also, the question of "does evolution violate the laws of thermodynamics" always comes up in these sort of debates. Pretty fascinating that the drive towards life could just be entropy. Again, the question is raised "who created entropy?" which is another question, but this sort of work is very intriguing.

                  https://www.simonsfoundation.org/qua...heory-of-life/
                  Last edited by righteouscool; 02-07-2014, 03:56 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I don't think you'd find many people who believe in Creationism that don't also believe in micro-evolution.

                    That is progress, because by and large it is a recent development. Creationists not long ago argued that species are immutable (the ones i knew in college in the 80s, anyway) , that Noah's ark carried two leopards, two panthers, two tigers, two lions, etc., two of every species, all as creations of God.

                    My understanding is that many including Mr Ham now say that it is "kinds" rather than species that are immutable, that in their opinion, evolution within a kind can occur, that Noah maybe had two cats, and all the world's species of cats around today came from Noah's cats by evolution. they seem to accept that, and consider it to be microevolution.

                    Why the change? Maybe the sheer realization that there are so many species on Earth, roughly 8.3 million? Caring for 16.6 million beings in an Ark seems difficult for Noah and his kids, and space-consuming! Another reason- it's pretty obvious that things like bacteria do evolve, as you can see it happen in real time.

                    The main element of difference between micro and macroevolution is the element of time. That's why the difference between 6,000 years and 13,700,000,000 years as the age of the universe is important. When two estimates of anything differ by a factor of 23 million, that gap is bound to be important.

                    Also the difference between between micro and macroevolution seems somewhat arbitrary. Through microevolution, Noah's cats led to all of the cat species we have today, if they are of the same kind, according to Mr. ham as I understand it. But of course humans and chimpanzees are definitely not of the same kind, they would argue. We are special, in the image of God.

                    But... it seems likely to me that if one studied the DNA of all cats on Earth, you would find two species of cats with less DNA in common than a man and a chimp, meaning that they are more distantly related, meaning that either man and chimp are of the same "kind" or that the whole idea of a kind needs some adjusting.
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-07-2014, 03:31 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


                    • #70
                      Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                      Also the difference between between micro and macroevolution seems somewhat arbitrary. Through microevolution, Noah's cats led to all of the cat species we have today, if they are of the same kind, according to Mr. ham as I understand it. But of course humans and chimpanzees are definitely not of the same kind, they would argue. We are special, in the image of God.

                      But... it seems likely to me that if one studied the DNA of all cats on Earth, you would find two species of cats with less DNA in common than a man and a chimp, meaning that they are more distantly related, meaning that either man and chimp are of the same "kind" or that the whole idea of a kind needs some adjusting.
                      That was going to be the direction I was going to go. Through these types of discussions, the little I've read, and the programming that I've come across, I've never gotten a good explanation on where the lines between micro and macro are. When I see the fossil record of humans, to me all I see is a bunch of human skulls with variations.

                      Then I see articles like this one, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...uman-evolution , makes me think "how is it possible that one new finding can completely change the thought process?" To me, it seems like the theory hasn't been flushed out all that well, because I fully expect there to be all kinds of fossil records out there that we have no clue about. Modern scientists to me, seem so conceded. It's all about being the first one to throw out your theory, to get credit, forget if there's any real evidence behind it. We take half the story (hell, not even half but a small sliver), argue that it's the the truth, and then worry about new evidence and how it will plug in later or work like there won't be any new evidence. Then we mock and chastise who don't fall into line with the new way of thinking.

                      To me it just seems like a guessing game.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate



                        This is the artist rendering of the skull they found that's 2.5m years old. Outside of the nose, looks like my neighbor down the street.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                          We think that 99.9 percent of all species that every lived are extinct, and that relatively few spots on Earth have the right geology and climate to even show much of a fossil record for much of its history, so most knowledge of the 99.9% is lost. Can we piece together 1% of it? Maybe Thus we have a lot of gaps, of course, and we know that we will always have a lot of gaps. It's exciting to see new discoveries fill some of the gaps, and very often what was discovered was predicted to exist in the gap.

                          Understanding the entire web of speciation on Earth is kind of like asking you to tell me what my car looks like by giving you 1% of its pieces. Anyone who is really confident of having the whole answer is pretty simply a lying fool.
                          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


                          • #73
                            Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                            Originally posted by righteouscool View Post
                            A little off topic, but I know we've got some other researchers here and found this recent paper interesting. also, the question of "does evolution violate the laws of thermodynamics" always comes up in these sort of debates. Pretty fascinating that the drive towards life could just be entropy. Again, the question is raised "who created entropy?" which is another question, but this sort of work is very intriguing.

                            https://www.simonsfoundation.org/qua...heory-of-life/
                            So we'll be seeing more on England's work...seems like a lot of folks are trying to put his theory to the test. Finding the point, or mechanism, wherein the step is made from non-life form to life form? Nothing if not ambitious, and very much on-topic evolution-wise. Right now, I'm getting Lysenkoism vibes....inheritability of acquired characteristics being a fallacy...but he's not even talking about reproducing organisms, at least to start with, so to speak. Instead it's self-organizing, self-replicating groupings of matter...thanks for the link. I'll be staying tuned.

                            Re: Who created entropy? We can always go back another step. Who created God? What was before the big bang? The notion of an eternity without beginning or end (amen) just seems to make many people intellectually uncomfortable....but per omnia saecula saeculorum,eh? Works for me.
                            Last edited by kester99; 02-07-2014, 04:57 PM.


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

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                              As to the point of modern science seeming to be conceited, pompous, arrogant, however you want to put it. People tend to overestimate the sphere of what it is they know to be true. Human nature I guess, and the more inflated that sphere seems to be, the more annoying it is. many authors seem to go there, and more annoyingly take unjustified shots at those making a counterargument.

                              But getting back to the debaters, Bll Nye and Ken Ham, Nye was perfectly willing to say "We just don't know the answer to that!".

                              It was Ham who was Mr. know-it-all. He had all the answers and was 100% sure of it. How is that not conceited / pompous / arrogant to the nth degree? Here's all your answers! Stop looking, you fools! And stop making our kids look too!
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-07-2014, 06:19 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


                              • #75
                                Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                That's too bad, I'd love to hear it.
                                They didn't give it a lengthy rebuttal because it didn't warrant a lengthy rebuttal. Their short-and-to-the-point rebuttal was all that was needed to show the enormous flaws with the paper. It didn't show what they (or you) claimed it did.


                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                The main author Gerry Joyce is generally thought to be on the short list of future Nobel Prize winners in biology since his papers are consistently among the most cited research papers in the field. The secondary author Brain Paegel (then a graduate student) has launched his own faculty career and has already won many prestigious awards as well, including an "NIH Director's New Innovator Award" which is one of the hardest biomedical grants to get.

                                Gerry's wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Joyce

                                Brian's faculty page: https://www.scripps.edu/research/faculty/paegel
                                With all due respect to Gerald Joyce and Brian Paegel, this says far more about the sad state of origin of life research than it does about the brilliance of their work. They are, apparently, the best of an underwhelming bunch. That's what happens when an entire field commits itself to dogma; you limit possible explanations, and, thus, place science in an ideological straightjacket.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X