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?

    Originally posted by Peck View Post
    So if the universe theoretically doesn't need to have a beginning or end, and it "just is", couldn't we also say the same thing about why God exists, if he does? In other words, if the universe doesn't need to have a creator, neither does God, right?

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      It is simply pointless to try to conduct a debate concerning (science) vs. (denial of science).


      The scientific denialists are obviously not going to be swayed by any science-based argument.

      Therefore the discussion will devolve into a unresolvable impasse between those who look for evidence to test theories based upon the predictions made by those theories vs. those who will do their best to distort any and all facts in order to mold them to fit their preexisting belief system, while conveniently ignoring any facts that are too sturdy to yield to their whim.
      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 if the universe theoretically doesn't need to have a beginning or end, and it "just is", couldn't we also say the same thing about why God exists, if he does? ?
        I got into trouble for asking something like this in 5th grade Sunday school. (Born and raised in a VERY Catholic family).

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I'm not a fan of seeing anyone claim intelligent design is merely faith in the book of Genesis.

          That seems to be the position of the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, as articulated in what is known as the "Wedge Document" at the center of the "Wedge Strategy" which boils down to an organized plan of re-branding creationism as a secular science to help it gain favor with respect to public education, realizing once and for all that the separation of church and state seems to be (unfortunately, in their opinion) an insurmountable obstacle.

          The wedge strategy in terms of the intelligent design (ID) movement, refers to the plan by the Discovery Institute to re-brand creationism in a "scientific" cloak. This plan was outlined in their Wedge Document.

          One part of the Discovery Institutes's strategy is the slogan "teach the controversy". It deliberately tries to make opponents look like they are against teaching "all" of science to students. This, of course, only works with people who don't understand the issue. Dr. Barbara Forrest, of the NCSE, has described creationists wedge strategy as a "Trojan horse," likening it to a computer virus. She says "A Trojan horse is a proposal to 'teach the controversy' about evolution that appears to have some useful or benign purpose (e.g., to promote critical thinking), but really masks the plan to teach intelligent design creationism." And "In this case, the Trojan horse and the public school system become the Discovery Institute's entry vehicle for teaching a religious belief in the public school science class."


          She continues to add, "Remember the ID creationists' main goal: to disguise their creationism so that users of the system (parents and children) and federal judges do not realize what the ID movement is up to.

          The wedge document clearly shows that the Discovery Institute intended ID to further their religious ideals.


          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

          Because of the nature of this document some have claimed that it must be a hoax; this is most definitely not the case. The Discovery Institute has not only acknowledged authorship of the document but has also defended its content.[1] A scan of the original document is also available in PDF format.[2] The introduction to this document also appeared on their website in 1996, as archived by archive.org.[3]

          The story of how it came into the public domain can be found in this Seattle Weekly newspaper article.[4]


          Although the Discovery Institute acknowledges the authenticity of the document, they want to dismiss the supposed Wedge Document "conspiracy theory" as a "pseudo-intellectual urban legend":
          “”It is in the context of our concern about the world-view implications of certain scientific theories that our wedge strategy must be understood. Far from attacking science (as has been claimed), we are instead challenging scientific materialism -- the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone. We believe that this is a defense of sound science.[5]

          However, many of those who use the Wedge Document to criticize the Discovery Institute maintain that it demonstrates the existence of no conspiracy beyond that which the document itself clearly spells out. They further maintain that reading the document is the best way to understand what it says. The full document can be found below.
          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wedge_Document
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-20-2013, 04:16 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?

            Cold, hard fact: That our universe had a beginning was a correct prediction of theism, an an incorrect prediction of atheism.

            Prior to the Big Bang, atheists had asserted that the universe was eternal, no beginning, and infinite, unlimited in size. By asserting this, atheists made the universe their God. It was the very root of existence, timeless and uncreated. This was their explanation for the universe's existence: "It's just always existed."

            The Big Bang destroyed all of that, leaving atheists outraged and fighting science tooth and nail. They've spent the better part of a century concocting excuses hypotheses for how our universe could both have a beginning and still be eternal/infinite. That's what the infinite multiverse and cyclic models are all about; an attempt at defaulting back into the, "it's just always existed" answer for the question of existence. The universe is their God and needs no explanation.

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Evolution is no where near the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, nor calculus.

              I would argue that evolution is THE fundamental conceptual framework for all biological sciences.

              Imagining biology minus evolution is like imagining basketball with no court, ball, hoop, or net.
              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?

                It's nice to see that Slick continues to prove me correct.

                Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                What I see are I.D. proponents making strong evidential-based arguments, while Darwinists spew out motive-mongering and logical fallacies, all while trying to dodge debate and questioning, including in the classroom. That, to me, says that I.D. proponents are arguing from a position of confidence, while Darwinists reek of insecurity.
                Appeal to motive - Wikipedia

                Originally posted by Wikipedia
                Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy.

                Discovery Institute's “Wedge Document”: How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend - Evolution News & Views

                My favorite part...

                At the time the “Wedge Document” was being used by Darwinists to stoke fears about Christian theocracy, the Chairman of Discovery’s Board was Jewish, its President was an Episcopalian, and its various Fellows represented an eclectic range of religious views ranging from Roman Catholic to agnostic. It would have been news to them that they were all part of a fundamentalist cabal.
                It's a pro-Christian conspiracy! ...headlined by a Jew and agnostic.

                The rest of the article goes on to dispel the myths fruitcakes like (ir)rational wiki spread as a cheap substitute for good argumentation. For one thing, nothing in the document implies that I.D. is a retelling of Genesis, or that I.D. is Biblical creationism. What it does is make factual statements (the huge positive impact theism has had on Western culture) while defending theism, Christianity and otherwise. Again, as a nonreligious theist, I agree with them.

                I applaud the wedge document. It explicitly challenges scientific materialism, which is basically the injection of atheism into science. Why wouldn't theists fight such a thing? I'm of the belief that God-deniers ruling science has lasted long past it's sell-by date, so I encourage anything that challenges it.

                Comment


                • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                  Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                  I would argue that evolution is THE fundamental conceptual framework for all biological sciences.

                  Imagining biology minus evolution is like imagining basketball with no court, ball, hoop, or net.
                  I'd counter-argue that genetics and heredity are THE fundamental conceptual framework for all biological sciences. After all, any version of evolution is dependent on them, not vice versa.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    So if the universe theoretically doesn't need to have a beginning or end, and it "just is", couldn't we also say the same thing about why God exists, if he does? In other words, if the universe doesn't need to have a creator, neither does God, right?
                    Right, that's basically what the God vs. atheism debate comes down to. It's the age-old mind over matter vs. matter over mind question. Is existence rooted in a purposeless, non-intentional-acting force of some sort, or a purposeful, intentional-acting mind?

                    I think the nature of existence, the rationality, logic, and comprehensibility of it all, especially the existence of consciousness and intelligence (two traits which I believe are fundamental to existence), clearly points towards the latter being the most likely explanation.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post


                      *On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, if you prefer the full, blatantly racist title.
                      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).
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-20-2013, 08:23 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
                        I would argue that evolution is THE fundamental conceptual framework for all biological sciences.

                        Imagining biology minus evolution is like imagining basketball with no court, ball, hoop, or net.
                        You're more than welcome to argue it. Gravity and thermodynamics are classified as scientific laws, evolution is not. There's quite the major reason why two of them are classified one way, and the other isn't in that category.

                        It's pretty hard to argue they're equal, when actually they're not.
                        Last edited by Since86; 08-21-2013, 09:06 AM.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                          The language is actually fairly arbitrary. For example the idea that some diseases, particularly infectious diseases, are caused by microorganisms such as bacteria & viruses is called the germ theory of disease. It's not called the germ law.

                          Yet germ theory of disease is pretty central to all of modern medicine, wouldn't you say? Or is it fine if your surgeon omits the scrubbing up step, because he wants to wait until it is referred to as a law?

                          I see the theory of evolution in a similar context and broad relevance. There is essentially not much substance to many major sub-fields of biology without evolutionary concepts, including ecology, molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics, infectology, just to name a few.
                          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-21-2013, 11:33 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?

                            We can directly observe the effects of gravity. Pick something up. Drop it. Watch it fall. Gravity proven beyond any and all doubts in three seconds.

                            What observation does belief that simple organisms can evolve to higher organisms via an accumulation of random mutations produce that's on par with the observation above?

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              There's no reason to go off on a tangent about germ theory. The validity of evolution isn't on the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, and geometry. Maybe one day, but not today.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X