Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Origin of Life/Evolution?

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

  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

    GRH,

    So if you can't witness it happening in a 5 minute experiment, then it is inconceivable? Speciation does take longer than can be observed in an afternoon. So does most events in astrophysics or even relativity, for that matter. It's not an invalidating weakness.

    And I assume you'll insist we ignore all of palentology and geology, ignoring that distinct and accurately dateable geological strata show related but speciated forms, discernable even with a glance!


    Yet science has still provided evidence to suit your "Show me macroevolution while I stand here on one foot" demands.

    A few examples of macroevolution that HAVE been observed in nature or reproduced in a controlled environment:

    A new non-crossable plant species (a type of fireweed), was noted in the lab following breeding experiments that resulted in a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

    Strains of fruit flies have been found to lose the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species when parts of the group are subjected to different environmental pressures. (See Dobzhansky et al.)

    The Faeroe Islands lacked any mouse population. A foundational species was accidentally introduced on the island and bred to fill the many niches, leading in about 200 years to at least 4 species that are incapable of interbreeding, with many distinct characteristics.

    I hear you... these are different species, but they aren't HIGHER. The only difference is the vastness of time.

    One powerful aspect of any theory is to make specific predictions wherein technology not yet developed but on the horizon will confirm or refute the prediction.

    an example: When it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes but humans have 23, the question rose from creationists "How could they be related? This is impossible!

    The prediction: Humans have a chromosome that arose from the fusion of two chromosomes in a human-ape ancestor.

    Fast forward 40 years to the human and chimp genome projects. Chromosome 2 in all humans is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have exact homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.

    Now the hunt is on to find DNA in fossilized common ancestor species to show when the chromosome fusion occurred. There are estimates out there based on acquired mutations in the corresponding chromosomes over time. So it's yet another precise prediction made based on evolutionary theory.

    Making testable predictions that are both verifiable and falsifiable is central to science, and why ID is not in the realm of science.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-21-2013, 12:20 PM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
      Oh brother.

      "Race" to 19th century naturalists simply meant distinct populations within a specific species. Neither the human race nor human evolution are discussed at all in On the Origin of Species.

      The "races" mentioned in Darwin's book include, pigeon, finch, mollusk, and pig breeds. Any claim that the subtitle is "racist" toward humans is totally absurd and would only be made by someone who has never studied the work in question, even cursorily.

      For the sixth edition of 1872, Darwin shortened the title to simply "On The Origin of Species" because he felt that his original subtitle was misconstrued, not as being racist, but as meaning "survival of the fittest", a phrase he greatly disliked.

      Darwin may have been a bigot-- I don't know--- but for evidence you would have to point to something he wrote about human racial and ethnic groups, something not even remotely discussed in "Origin of Species". (The only allusion to human evolution was a comment in the afterword that he hoped that his work might lead to a day when "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history")

      Personally I would guess that like all of us, Darwin was no saint. He certainly had some goofy ideas that are recognized as utter nonsense, like "pangenesis". Some have surmised that if Darwin had been able to read German, he would have read and grasped Gregor Mendel's theories and Mendel's gene theory would not have been forgotten, only to be rediscovered and embraced decades after Mendel's death (and long after Darwin's as well).
      With all due respect, your ignorance is not a valid rebuttal. That you're ignorant of Darwin making racist statements does not mean Darwin did not make racist statements.

      "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

      --Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man


      Of course, we don't have to stop with racism. There's sexism, too!

      "The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands."
      --Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

      But really, what's so surprising about any of this? The cold, hard truth is Darwin's ideas make racism and even sexism scientifically valid. The backbone of Darwin's idea is inequality; we are NOT created equal. Why should that not apply to human races any more than any other members of the animal kingdom? Political correctness? Different environments favor different traits, so the different races of humans, evolved through the ages in different environments, would not be equal, bar some incredible coincidence.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        Why is there no reason to talk about germ theory? I think he makes a good point in noting it's a theory that is treated like a law even though it's not called a law.
        The reason Evolution is a theory and a law, is because it falls short of required evidence like being observable and being able to replicate it. Bringing germ theory into the discussion might be an interesting factoid, but how it's labeled doesn't address the specific reasons why evolution is an incomplete theory and not a law.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          The reason Evolution is a theory and a law, is because it falls short of required evidence like being observable and being able to replicate it. Bringing germ theory into the discussion might be an interesting factoid, but how it's labeled doesn't address the specific reasons why evolution is an incomplete theory and not a law.
          So why is it germ theory and not germ law, then?

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            GRH,

            You asserted that the subtitle of "On the Origin of Species" is blatantly racist.

            You must also think that the writer of the theme song of the Flintstones was blatantly homophobic when he penned the line "We'll have a gay old time!" Guess what, "gay" didn't mean then what it means to us now. Exact same thing- race in the the context of discussing pigeon, finch, mollusk, and pig breeds in that 1859 work has nothing to with human races. The book had nothing to do with human races.

            Yes, Darwin wrote a later work called the Descent of Man dealing with human evolution. You realize that it is a different work, don't you?

            You have been exposed as a fraud, pure and simple. Your ignorant remarks (since you started throwing insults out there) make it clear that you have not read a single page of "On the Origin of Species" nor do you even know its subject matter, yet you uphold it as a threat to humanity! Oh the hypocrisy!
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-21-2013, 12:33 PM.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              So why is it germ theory and not germ law, then?
              I don't know. I know the reasons are religated to that specific theory though, and it's reasons for not being a law has no influence over whether or not another theory is considered a law. That was the only point I was trying to make.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                So then wouldn't that be admitting that it's not really about whether or not it's called a law or a theory, but rather the merits of the facts themselves? And in turn, doesn't that mean that pointing out that it's a theory means basically nothing?

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post

                  "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated.
                  and he, an outspoken abolishionist, decried it as a horrible path we were taking as a society, to exterminate diversity!

                  He strongly opposed the polygenism theory, developed by scientific racist discourse, which postulated that the different human races were distinct species that were likely separately "created".

                  Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points of difference are so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man.
                  boiled down for you, if Darwin were saying it today: Dark skin, different hair types, different heights, it's all a trifle. Minor variations. We are all one human species with the same evolutionary ancestry. Deal with it, bigots!
                  Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-21-2013, 02:45 PM.
                  The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    So then wouldn't that be admitting that it's not really about whether or not it's called a law or a theory, but rather the merits of the facts themselves? And in turn, doesn't that mean that pointing out that it's a theory means basically nothing?
                    I'm not even sure what you're asking.

                    Germ theory is completely independent to itself. Why it's a theory and not a law has absolutely nothing to do with why evolution is a theory and not a law. That's why there's no point in bringing up germ theory.

                    Gravity, thermodynamics, and calculus are observable and they can be replicated. They stay constant throughout each observance and replication, which is why they're called laws. Evolution is not observable, nor is it replicatable, and that's why it's a theory. The laws of gravity, thermodynamics, and calculus are very narrow. They break down to specific equations that can be mathmatically proven. Evolution cannot.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Of course germ theory is its own thing, but the idea here is that even though we don't call it a law everybody basically accepts it as true and factual despite 'only' being a theory. Therefore pointing out that evolution is a theory doesn't really do anything to change anybody's mind one way or the other.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        I suppose this may be the ultimate question to the evolution doubters, what, to you, would sufficient evidence look like to establish that evolution is actually true? What would it have to be? And why?

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Of course germ theory is its own thing, but the idea here is that even though we don't call it a law everybody basically accepts it as true and factual despite 'only' being a theory. Therefore pointing out that evolution is a theory doesn't really do anything to change anybody's mind one way or the other.
                          I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind. I was just objecting to the comparison between evolution, gravity, thermodynamics, and calculus.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            I suppose this may be the ultimate question to the evolution doubters, what, to you, would sufficient evidence look like to establish that evolution is actually true? What would it have to be? And why?
                            I doubt the Darwinian account of evolution, which doesn't mean I find the entire concept of evolution incredulous.

                            For me, the answer's pretty simple: Darwinists claim their mechanisms are capable of explaining every feature of every biological organism, past and present. In order to demonstrate this as true, they'd have to demonstrate that their mechanisms possess incredible creative power.

                            In my opinion, they've not even come close to doing this.

                            What they've done is offered up underwhelming things like finch beaks slightly changing size and shape, and butterflies changing colors. Considering the amount of time and money that's been poured into Darwinism, and how strongly people want -- NEED -- it to be true, that's very telling.

                            If they can show that their mechanisms are capable of producing complex new traits which demonstrate enough creative power to reasonably explain all of biology, and they can demonstrate that these mechanisms aren't rooted in an intelligence, then I'll accept Darwinism as true.

                            This is why the origin of life is such an important question. People try to argue evolution against design, yet for all we know, evolution could be a designed event. It sure as hell looks that way to me. When I say that biology is software (the genetic code) being read and processed by hardware (organelles; machinery within the cell), I'm not blowing smoke. It's instructions encoded in DNA which are then decoded and developed into... well, all of biology. It's amazing, and it's absurd that so many people make flimsy excuses to forbid the design explanation.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              A physicist who studies relativity is not an Einsteinist.

                              A biologist who studies vaccines is not a Salkist.

                              A astronomer who studies black holes is not a Hawkingist.

                              I know of no such thing as a "Darwinist" and in 30 years of being a practicing scientist I have never heard any scientist use that term. It seems to be an invention of the anti-science lobby intending to paint their adversaries as some sort of pseudo-religious cult. No one has ever worshiped Darwin. On the contrary, for >150 years scientists have sought hard to test many of his proposals. Proving any aspect of them wrong is a powerful incentive!

                              Some of his proposals have indeed been proven to be ridiculous, such as pangenesis, evidence that science must stand on its own legs by what the evidence establishes. Not, ever, by opinions such as "gee, it sure as hell looks that way to me, not based on any evidence, but I just feel that way and you can't tell me how to feel"

                              If ID offers up testable and potentially falsifiable ideas and offers up scientific support for ANY claims, it can be considered a science. Until then IMO it is rightly viewed as a movement created out of whole cloth directly from the creationist movement in the late 1990s, as a strategic initiative to step around the church and state issue, by declaring creationism to be a science with no religious content.
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-22-2013, 08:54 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


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                ^ ^so basically you want to sit down in an auditorium, have a monkey on stage turn into a man in front of your eyes, have that man solve a math problem or something, and then have God step out from behind the curtain to sign an affidavit saying He had nothing to do with any of this.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X