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

  • Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    It seemed to be a bad idea to even try, and it did raise a lot of money through ticket sales for the Fred Flintstone-really-rode-dinosuars Museum, but...

    even a creationist web site has a poll up as to who won the debate, and the latest results are


    92% Nye
    8% Ham

    http://www.christiantoday.com/articl...time/35688.htm

    debate summary & analysis links, some with video of the event:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-nye-wins-creation-debate-against-ken-ham-2014-2


    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...n-science-wins

    http://www.nbcnews.com/science/scien...faceoff-n22076

    http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/bill-n...s-and-who-won/

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...ye-and-ken-ham


    Ham's odd assertion that science has to be "observational" rather than " historical science based on belief" was hilarious. His claim: You can't tell how old the Earth is, 'cause we weren't there when it formed. You can't tell how fossils appeared in Grand Canyon rocks, 'cause we weren't there...


    Of course, science based on historical reconstruction, when done properly, is just as valid as science based on direct, real-time observation. As Nye pointed out, just looking up into the sky is a historical reconstruction.


    Everyone firmly believes many things that happened in the past that they didn't have a chance to observe. I'd ask Ken Ham "How do you know that Abraham Lincoln was President? After all, you never met him?" How do we know anything about Greek civilization, or that there were Ice Ages?"

    Of course Ham had no answers for the existence of ice cores with records of 680,000 winters (rather than 6,000) and the billions of stars that are over 6,000 light years away.

    Overall it was a good night for reason over superstition, for both non-believers and believers alike (the overwhelming majority of followers of every major religion worldwide, including Christianity, accepts the fundamental principles of evolution as established science)
    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!).

  • #2
    Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

    I'd be highly skeptical of those poll numbers. Darwinists/atheists are notorious for loading polls in their favor. I'd love to see a list of voter I.P. addresses.

    I remember a time when every single book on Amazon.com which challenged the Darwinist position was rated 1-2 stars, with most of the votes coming from people who not only didn't read said book, but very likely couldn't read it due to illiteracy. Amazing took care of that, thankfully.

    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
    Overall it was a good night for reason over superstition, for both non-believers and believers alike (the overwhelming majority of followers of every major religion worldwide, including Christianity, accepts the fundamental principles of evolution as established science)
    I side with evidence, not popular opinion, and the evidence says the blind watchmaker view of evolution is wrong. Random mutation is destructive, not creative, and natural selection is a culling process, not a designer mimic. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.
    Last edited by Lance George; 02-05-2014, 11:52 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post


      I side with evidence, not popular opinion, and the evidence says the blind watchmaker view of evolution is wrong. Random mutation is destructive, not creative, and natural selection is a culling process, not a designer mimic. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.
      Why does it have to be creative? How is natural selection a culling process? What? You seem to take the words natural selection to literally.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

        Originally posted by immortality View Post
        Why does it have to be creative? How is natural selection a culling process? What? You seem to take the words natural selection to literally.
        It has to be creative because it has to explain the engineering of every trait of every organism which has ever existed.

        Natural selection is a culling process in that it eliminates the weakest, most-defective organisms from the gene poll. It doesn't select only the strongest; it selects only the weakest.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          Overall it was a good night for reason over superstition, for both non-believers and believers alike (the overwhelming majority of followers of every major religion worldwide, including Christianity, accepts the fundamental principles of evolution as established science)
          Not to pick on Slick (I believe he has me blocked due to my challenging of his beliefs in this thread), but I'll have to challenge the above statement.

          Three polls:

          Harris poll, December 2013 (.PDF file):

          Spoiler Spoiler:


          This poll shows less than half of all adults accept evolution, at least Darwin's infamous version. Is less than half an overwhelming majority? Yeah... I think not.

          Pew Research Center, December 2013:

          Spoiler Spoiler:


          This is a little more evolution-friendly, but it still shows less than an "overwhelming majority" of any of the listed religious adherents accepting evolution. I'd argue that not even the 76% of those unaffiliated (nonreligious) constitutes an "overwhelming majority."

          Gallup, June 2012:

          Spoiler Spoiler:


          This is limited to just the religious, and again, it challenges Slick's claim, which anyone who attends church at least once a month being more likely to deny evolution than accept it.

          That's 3 strikes for Slick. If this were baseball, he'd be out.

          This all begs the question: If Darwinists can't even get the easily-verified facts correct, whether intentional or not, why should we believe them on the more controversial issues?

          My answer? We shouldn't.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
            It has to be creative because it has to explain the engineering of every trait of every organism which has ever existed.

            Natural selection is a culling process in that it eliminates the weakest, most-defective organisms from the gene poll. It doesn't select only the strongest; it selects only the weakest.
            I'm not following your creative enviornment, why does it have to explain every trait of every organism? Some traits are through environment, look at North Korea, it's been shown North Koreans are shorter compared to the South Koreans due to decades of malnutrition. Alot of is it also epigenetics.

            No it does not select the strongest, it selects the genes that provide the best chance of survival, some of these are recessive and not everyone expresses them.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
              Not to pick on Slick (I believe he has me blocked due to my challenging of his beliefs in this thread), but I'll have to challenge the above statement.

              Three polls:

              Harris poll, December 2013 (.PDF file):

              Spoiler Spoiler:


              This poll shows less than half of all adults accept evolution, at least Darwin's infamous version. Is less than half an overwhelming majority? Yeah... I think not.

              Pew Research Center, December 2013:

              Spoiler Spoiler:


              This is a little more evolution-friendly, but it still shows less than an "overwhelming majority" of any of the listed religious adherents accepting evolution. I'd argue that not even the 76% of those unaffiliated (nonreligious) constitutes an "overwhelming majority."

              Gallup, June 2012:

              Spoiler Spoiler:


              This is limited to just the religious, and again, it challenges Slick's claim, which anyone who attends church at least once a month being more likely to deny evolution than accept it.

              That's 3 strikes for Slick. If this were baseball, he'd be out.

              This all begs the question: If Darwinists can't even get the easily-verified facts correct, whether intentional or not, why should we believe them on the more controversial issues?

              My answer? We shouldn't.
              You are ignoring the whole point of the debate, it was to argue evolution is a theory, just like the theory of relativity, which through current quantam mechanic research is being questioned, just as some parts of evolution theory has been questioned. Creationism is not a theory, definitely not a scientific theory, and is more of a belief like religion, it cannot be considered a science. Nye's entire point was to stop the spread of anti-science.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                Are we doing this again?
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                  Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                  Are we doing this again?
                  As long as people can assert their position is as strong as the observable force known as gravity while not being able to present even a shred of compelling evidence, this debate will live on.
                  Last edited by Lance George; 02-06-2014, 05:29 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                    Originally posted by immortality View Post
                    I'm not following your creative enviornment, why does it have to explain every trait of every organism?
                    Anything(s) posited as the cause behind the origin and/or diversification of life must be responsible for every aspect of natural life. Where else would said traits have originated?

                    Originally posted by immortality View Post
                    Some traits are through environment, look at North Korea, it's been shown North Koreans are shorter compared to the South Koreans due to decades of malnutrition. Alot of is it also epigenetics.
                    Differing height is related to genetics, which have been know about, at least in part, since the early Greeks. These type of changes are minor, being cosmetic differences, and have nothing to do with the debate. Darwinists will claim otherwise, but they're trying to trick you. The debate is over the origin of life (including the genetic code programming language), and the origin of novel traits and bodyplans (morphology/organism structures).

                    Darwinists have no evidence of random mutations or natural selection being responsible for any of this, hence the trickery. They want you to believe differences in height prove their theory because they don't have actual proof for it. It's nothing less than shameful.


                    Originally posted by immortality View Post
                    No it does not select the strongest, it selects the genes that provide the best chance of survival, some of these are recessive and not everyone expresses them.
                    No, you've set the bar for natural selection way too high. This is a mistake Darwinists have made throughout history. Natural selection doesn't select for only the upper-tier of organisms. Rather, it eliminates (culls) the lower-tier. Darwinists claim it's the driving force behind change, mimicking design, yet it actually acts by weeding out defects, and, thus, stabilizing populations (read: it acts as the chlorine for the gene pool).

                    Basically, 90% of everything you were taught about biology in school is wrong, being based on 19th and 20th century ignorance. Unfortunately, ideology, money, and indoctrination prevents certain people from evolving into the 21st century, so we're left in a position where only a scientific revolution -- which typically takes one or more generations -- will save us from Darwin's great argument from ignorance.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                      I understand that Nye trumped the 'unmoved mover' logic of Aristotle with a simple demonstration involving mint toothpast, a Dr Pepper, two paperclips and an empty jelly jar.


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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                        The people on Earth who have any issues with the scientific concept of the biological evolution of species are largely Americans and Australians who are a subset (perhaps <30%) of the slice of the pie marked "5.78%"



                        I cannot see many of the posts on this thread because I (wisely IMO) decided to place on ignore a certain poster who when challenged on ANYTHING would result in name-calling and personal attacks coupled with completely avoiding the topic under discussion, since he has not even a rudimentary understanding of the basic principles being discussed. I plan to keep my ignore list at its current status of two people, GRH and Ole Blu, though I understand that the latter person ceases to post at PD.
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-06-2014, 09:59 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


                        • #13
                          Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                          Originally posted by Suaveness View Post
                          Are we doing this again?
                          I believe that it was the most-watched online debate in internet history, followed up with extensive coverage on CNN, so I felt that it seemed worthy of discussion.

                          Some postulate that it may be a turning point in American science education. Let's hope so. We rank ~50th or so in science literacy, even behind places like Iran.

                          Even creationists, many of whom imagine themselves to be practitioners of science, seem upset that Ham decided not to try to argue anything on scientific grounds, rather time and again arguing that he knew evolution has to be wrong because in his opinion the Bible (or his translation of certain books of the Bible) gives alternative explanations. Since the debate topic was the relevance and scientific validity of creationism, he sidestepped the topic completely and thus could not win in any reasonable analysis. One debater was discussusing the scientific method and scientific evidence, the other was repeatedly saying "look at my book! It has all I need to know!"

                          Granted, it IS a fine book. The Bible is a perfectly wonderful compendium of historical accounts and an invaluable guide for many to living a moral life. It is worthy of personal study and even for academic analysis in theology classes. It is not, however, a science textbook. As a practicing Catholic, I certainly cherish many passages. It doesn't help me much in my career as a scientist, however.

                          Nye allowed Ham to undermine himself before the audience. By in effect preaching, rather than sticking to scientific assertions, Ham demonstrated what we've always known about creationism, and what many canny anti-evolutionists have sought to conceal: It's a religious doctrine, not a scientific one. When asked what kind of evidence would change his mind in the question and answer phase of the debate, Ham had no answer other than "The answer to that question is, I'm a Christian, And as a Christian, I can't prove it to you, but God has definitely shown me very clearly through his word, and shown himself in the person of Jesus Christ, the Bible is the word of God. I admit that that's where I start from." That's also where he finishes. The picture of a dogmatist, holding out against all evidence for an Earth that's somehow supposed to be only a few thousand years old, where somehow all plant life survived being inundated for months by Noah's flood, shone through.

                          In the debate we saw what Young Earth creationists really, really think. They believe in vegetarian lions and an Earth that younger by THOUSANDS of years than the known, verified age of its oldest-living tree! And for most thoughtful people, there's just no way that makes any sense.
                          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-06-2014, 11:54 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


                          • #14
                            Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                            The people on Earth who have any issues with the scientific concept of the biological evolution of species are largely Americans and Australians who are a subset (perhaps <30%) of the slice of the pie marked "5.78%"
                            Seems unlikely. Lots of Hindus and Muslims unaccounted for. Someone polled the animists in the Amazon basin on this topic? Link?


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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Bill Nye totally crushes Phil Ham in creationism debate

                              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post


                              Differing height is related to genetics, which have been know about, at least in part, since the early Greeks. These type of changes are minor, being cosmetic differences, and have nothing to do with the debate. Darwinists will claim otherwise, but they're trying to trick you. The debate is over the origin of life (including the genetic code programming language), and the origin of novel traits and bodyplans (morphology/organism structures).





                              No, you've set the bar for natural selection way too high. This is a mistake Darwinists have made throughout history. Natural selection doesn't select for only the upper-tier of organisms. Rather, it eliminates (culls) the lower-tier. Darwinists claim it's the driving force behind change, mimicking design, yet it actually acts by weeding out defects, and, thus, stabilizing populations (read: it acts as the chlorine for the gene pool).

                              Basically, 90% of everything you were taught about biology in school is wrong, being based on 19th and 20th century ignorance. Unfortunately, ideology, money, and indoctrination prevents certain people from evolving into the 21st century, so we're left in a position where only a scientific revolution -- which typically takes one or more generations -- will save us from Darwin's great argument from ignorance.
                              No, I've said multiple times the debate was not about the origin of life, but was pointing out that creationism is not science. Evolutionary theory still has a lot of holes in it, I agree but it more based on science than creationism ever will be.

                              Not everything has to be "creative" in terms of evolution, if it were truly creative, animals would have ball-and-socket joints instead of the ones we have right now.

                              Differences in height was merely an example of plethora of other examples.

                              Natural select does not eliminate lower-tier. Thoroughbred horses are the most desirable of horses, but they have a low survival rate due to the changes in their lungs, that help them in running, but fail to protect them against diseases. You are arguing centuries of research in genetics and biology is wrong, which is fine by me you can believe that. But if you believe that then how can you believe Creationism is a science?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X