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?

    I add this because other article about extraterrestrial life seems to muddle the fact that the Vatican has declared that they believe evolutionary theory is wholly consistent with the Christian faith. I agree.



    Evolution, not intelligent design, is fundamental Catholic teaching, Vatican Observatory director says

    http://www.catholic.org/national/nat...y.php?id=18524

    Christianity... is not best described by the “crude creationism” of the fundamental, literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis or by the Newtonian dictatorial God who makes the universe tick along like a watch. Rather, he stresses, God acts as a parent toward the universe, nurturing, encouraging and working with it.

    In his remarks, he also criticizes the cardinal archbishop of Vienna’s support for Intelligent Design and notes Pope John Paul’s declaration that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis” but is “a fundamental church teaching”

    He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge,” which then serves to “unduly complicate the debate over evolution.”
    This in my experience is a position now widely-held by Christians world-wide (with many Americans excluded from the consensus)
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-10-2013, 04:14 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 indygeezer View Post
      Some of your comments are needlessly inflammatory. At the very least they sound put-downish and judgemental. You lose credibility points for this.
      Well, that wasn't my intent but this whole discussion reminds me of a few months ago when a former Presidential Candidate (Huckabee) said that the killings of 20 small children in a school was God responding to his being taken out of schools. You can't argue with this nonsense.....

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
        One has nothing to do with the other.

        Evolution is concerned with how life forms arise from other life forms. Evolution is the not the same as abiogenesis. If life got started due to the intervention of some divine power, the theory of evolution would be our best explanation to date for how that life has developed ever since that hypothetical moment of creation of that creature or set of creatures. If life got started due to the intervention of aliens, the theory of evolution would be our best explanation to date for how that life has developed ever since that event. Or if life came from non-life, evolution would tell us what happened next.

        Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about abiogenesis and nothing to say about the origin of matter in the universe i.e. the big bang.

        Origin of Life and Evolution are lumped together in the thread title, suggesting to me that a lot of people (wrongly) think that they are related somehow. If, as I did, you take thread title to mean origin of human life/evolution, then there is a thematic connection.
        Nonsense.

        Abiogenesis and evolution are no not synonymous, no, however they are closely related. If the evolution of life represents the branches of the tree, then the origin of life represents the roots and base. More importantly, when someone claims that evolution is an ateleological (design-free) process, they imply that the origin of life was an ateleological event. That's yet to be proven, and in fact seems to contrary to current evidence.

        If life was designed, as I believe it was based on the evidence, then any evolution is a programmed event. Sure enough, the more we learn about what evolution actually is, and how it actually operates, the stronger the appearance of programming becomes. It appears to be sophisticated nanomachinery and software all the way down, a finding which would surely make Darwin blush in shame if he were alive today.

        On the other hand, if life was not designed, if a blind, intent-free nature just-so-happened to create life in some magical chemical soup, then there's zero reason to believe there's any design in evolution.

        This is why the origin of life is such a crucial question, as I stated in a post several days ago. You can't claim that design has been refuted and then tuck your tail between your legs and run from the question of the origin of life, which is also the origin of the evolutionary process itself, which is what Darwinists all-too-often do.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
          I add this because other article about extraterrestrial life seems to muddle the fact that the Vatican has declared that they believe evolutionary theory is wholly consistent with the Christian faith. I agree.



          Evolution, not intelligent design, is fundamental Catholic teaching, Vatican Observatory director says

          http://www.catholic.org/national/nat...y.php?id=18524



          This in my experience is a position now widely-held by Christians world-wide (with many Americans excluded from the consensus)
          My experience is that roughly 99% of people have no idea what intelligent design is or says, and typically speak on it out of ignorance, having been fooled by the obvious widespread smear campaign against it, or are, themselves, a part of that campaign.

          Reading the above-cited article, it seems Father Coyne lives down to my experiences.

          Originally posted by Catholic Online
          “... three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’
          Actually, it is, as per the very definition of the "theory," a definition which is used in many textbooks.

          Furthermore, if he's saying that evolution is a guided, planned process of non-random variation, then what he's describing is much closer to intelligent design -- the thing he's arguing against -- rather than neo-Darwinian evolution -- the thing he's arguing for.

          He seems deeply confused at best, and an outright liar for Darwin at worst.


          Originally posted by Catholic Online
          four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer;
          How does one believe that God is behind the existence of life, including human life, yet simultaneously believe that the evolutionary process is designer (God) free?

          Again, he's either confused or he's lying for Darwin. I'm starting to get the creeping suspicion that it's the latter, unfortunately.


          Originally posted by Catholic Online
          five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,’” Father Coyne says.
          Ah, yes, the generic, "it's not science" bald assertion.

          Can Father Coyne define what is science, why abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution qualify, and intelligent design does not? If he uses the testability/falsifiability argument, then I'll simply ask him two questions:

          (i) How do we test/falsify whether or not evolution is a product of non-design?
          (ii) How do we test/falsify whether or not the origin of life was a product of non-design?

          If he attempts to give me an answer to either question, I'd use the same flawless argument I used earlier in this thread to point out his dumbassery and then laugh hysterically as he turns bright red in the face.

          Any test which can falsify non-design, in either the origin of life or evolution, must simultaneously prove design; there is no middle-ground.

          YOU CANNOT PROVE NON-DESIGN AS FALSE WITHOUT PROVING DESIGN AS TRUE, AND VICE VERSA. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.

          If it's possible to test for non-design, it's possible to test for design. If testability is your benchmark for science, and you believe non-design is science, then you must also accept that intelligent design is science.

          If it's possible to falsify non-design, it's possible to prove design. If falsification is your benchmark for science, and you believe non-design is science, then intelligent design is science.

          You can't eat your cake and have it, too, folks.

          By the way, when I say "non-design," I'm referring to any design-free origin-of-life-and-evolution scenario, regardless of the specific details; chemical soup, space debris, hydrothermal vents, etc.

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            On the subject of the probability of life forming anywhere throughout the universe, Hugh Ross has one of the best articles I've read due to the fact that it actually tries to quantify the question with legitimate math and science, rather than going with the, "Gee, golly! The universe is just so gosh darn big that there MUST be other lifeforms out there!" pseudo-argument.

            Of course, Hugh Ross is a theist, so that will give unreasonable people like Blue&Gold an easy cop-out for rejecting anything he says. However, every probability he lists, or at least the overwhelming majority he lists is backed up via citation; 322 total probabilities, and 258 total citations.

            Reasons To Believe : Probability For Life On Earth

            Originally posted by Hugh Ross
            Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10-304

            Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe ≈ 1022

            Thus, less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

            If Ross' science is to be believed, then there's no logical reason to believe in nature magic causing us to spontaneously manifest on Earth, other than really wanting to believe it. It requires a complete suspension of disbelief. As Kstat made very clear, it's for people who would prefer to stick to a math-free probability argument (who knew such a thing could even exist? ) rather than actual science.

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
              Ultimately something had to have created life, somewhere, sometime. The ID theory certainly comes into play at that point when you consider that we can't create life from nothing. My only point was that it wasn't created on earth, and we certainly aren't special in the grand scheme of things.
              It's the age-old mind-over-matter/matter-over-mind argument.

              Is intelligence (mind) at the root of existence, or is it the unintentional byproduct of an intelligence-free, ultimately chaotic universe?

              The typical answer is to plead to Darwinian evolution as the explanation for intelligence. That doesn't really address the question. That might explain how the existence of intelligence came to be realized, but it doesn't answer how/why the potential for intelligence exists in the first place.

              Intelligence only exists because, for whatever reason, the properties of nature allow it to exist. If I were an atheist, that thought would cause me many, many sleepless nights.

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post

                If life was designed... then any evolution is a programmed event.
                No, not unless every physical process that drove evolution was also a programmed event. Every volcanic eruption, every shift of a tectonic plate, every hurricane, every soot-producing factory built near yellow butterflies, every asteroid impact, every alteration in magnetic field, every tsunami, ...

                evolution responds to natural or unnatural alternations in habitats that are unprogrammed and random. Evolution is only effective because it is also unprogrammed and random.
                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-11-2013, 10:06 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?

                  As to proving that non-design is wrong, I fear you must have missed the first day in kindergarden science class.

                  Proving negatives in not in the realm of science.

                  If I claim to be an immortal shape shifter with magical powers, it is not up to someone who doesn't believe me to prove that my assertions are untrue. It is up to me to prove that they are true. If I fail to do so, all can assume I am a liar, absent evidence that immortal shape shifters with magical powers are everywhere to be found.
                  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 Kstat View Post
                    . . . But genesis simply cannot be taken seriously as it applies to this thread. There is absolutely no science to support it. There isn't even any logic to support it. It's a fairy tale.
                    I disagree.


                    The Bible is not a science textbook, however it’s simple narrative is always scientifically correct.


                    The bible’s order of creation (Genesis the first chapter) is supported by science.
                    The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.


                    Geologist, Wallace Pratt says, “If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis.” Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.


                    Pratt, also noted that the order of events — from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals — is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.


                    What are the chances that the writer of Genesis, (Moses) just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!


                    To say Moses just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.
                    -----

                    According to the Bible’s creation account all mankind living today descended from Adam. Scientists agree that we have a common origin. The concept was speculative until the 1980s, when it was corroborated by a study of present-day mitochondrial DNA, combined with evidence based on physical anthropology of archaic specimens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_..._modern_humans


                    “All varieties of man belong to the same species and have the same remote ancestry. This is a conclusion to which all the relevant evidence of comparative anatomy, paleontology, serology, and genetics, points. On genetic grounds alone it is virtually impossible to conceive of the varieties of man as having originated separately.”—Anthropologist M. F. Ashley Montagu.


                    It took science thousands of years to confirm what Genesis says in it’s opening pages. This is very easily deduced though. It’s common knowledge that everyone has both a mother and father. Working backward you would eventually end up with the first pair.
                    -----


                    Another point where the Bible is scientifically correct. The Bible says God created man from the dust of the earth. Science says all the elements mankind are made of are found in the dust of the earth.

                    Again, the Bible is not a science textbook, however it’s simple narrative is always scientifically correct.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      By the way, it (the Bible) also says the earth was created before anything else, which is laughable.

                      You are mistaken. The Bible shows the angels shouting in applause as God was creating the earth. So they obviously had to have been created before the earth. (Job the 38th chapter)


                      That aside, I believe you are referring to a misunderstanding of what the Bible’s creation account is actually saying. The Bible’s account actually shows the earth being created last, rather than first.


                      People make the mistake of thinking the earth was created before the material universe when they overlook other statements the Bible makes. Let’s take a look at what the Bible actually says.


                      Genesis 1:1,2, says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s spirit (active force) was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”

                      Note the order the creation account gives, the heavens being mentioned first, then the earth.


                      The 2nd verse then starts describing the condition of the earth at that time, the first part saying. “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste . . . “


                      Note the earth was termed waste. Where do you think this waste came from? Just as a sculptor has left over material after creating something, evidently this formless waste was what was left after God created the heavens.


                      Before we go on to the next verse you need to know three things. The first being that Moses wrote the creation account in Hebrew, and from the perspective of a person who would have been standing on the surface of the earth. That makes a big difference in understanding the account.


                      The third thing you need to know is a statement made in the 38th chapter of Job. There God is questioning Job and asks him a series of questions about where Job was when he (God) was creating the earth.


                      At Job 38:8,9 God asks Job, “. . . who shut up the sea with doors when it broke forth and issued out of the womb? 9 When I made the clouds the garment of it, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it?” (Amp)


                      Notice the thick darkness mentioned in Genesis verse two is referred to again, and this time it’s described as a swaddling band. Swaddling is an age-old practice of wrapping infants in blankets or similar cloth so that movement of the limbs is tightly restricted. In context of what we are talking about this would mean the clouds are so dense they are like a swaddling band wrapped around the earth clear down to the surface.


                      Now lets read verses 3 and 4 which say, “And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be.” Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.”


                      Here we read God brought about a division between the light and the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that he had started the earth rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, would both have periods of light and darkness. And it’s likely that the rotating of the earth produced winds that started disbursing the swaddling bands of clouds and thus the darkness.


                      This would be a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J.W. Watts: “And gradually light came into existence.” (Ge 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis)


                      Genesis 1:6-8, and 9-13, describe the 2nd and 3rd creative days.


                      6 And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day.



                      9 And God went on to say: “Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.” And it came to be so. 10 And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas. Further, God saw that [it was] good. 11 And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 12 And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good. 13 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a third day.


                      Note that vegetation was created on the 3rd creative day. That’s an important point in as much as some people think the 4th creative day is describing the sun and moon and stars being created. However we find the description means they become discernible from the surface of the earth due to the earth’s rotation dissipating the swaddling bands of clouds.


                      Genesis 1:14-19, says, And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good. 19 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day.


                      In view of the description of these luminaries, the greater luminary was obviously the sun and the lesser luminary the moon.
                      Now you need to know something about Hebrew the language Genesis was written in. Previously, on the first creative day, the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ʼohr, meaning light in a general sense.


                      However, on the fourth creative day, the Hebrew word changes to ma·ʼohr, which refers to a luminary or source of light. So, on the first day diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the actual sources of that light could not be seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth day, it’s evident the swaddling bands have dissipated enough that the actual source of the light could be seen.

                      It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba·raʼ, meaning “create,” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb ʽa·sah, meaning “make,” is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.


                      Hebrew being translated to English is probably the biggest reason the Bible’s creation account is somewhat hard to understand.


                      If you think the sun and moon and stars were created on the 4th creative day, the Bible creation account would of course not make sense to you. You would wonder where the light came from on the first creative day. You would also wonder how the vegetation created on the third creative day stayed alive with no heat or light until the 4th creative day.


                      I believe what I’ve related shows the creation account in the Bible is consistent and sensible to Bible readers who actually take the time to discern what it says. Obviously knowing what other parts of the Bible say helps in it’s understanding.


                      That goes for the whole Bible, but some people read something they don’t understand or something that doesn't make sense to them and find fault with the Bible instead of earnestly trying to find an answer.
                      Last edited by Will Galen; 05-14-2013, 09:17 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        Originally posted by Will Galen View Post

                        The Bible is not a science textbook, however it’s simple narrative is always scientifically correct.
                        So you are telling me that...

                        the Earth really is flat,

                        the earth really is at the center of the universe,

                        the sky (firmament) forms a "roof" over the world,

                        everything in the universe has existed for something like 6-10,000 years,

                        bats are birds,

                        Unicorns are real,

                        dragons (fiery serpents) are real,

                        giants were real,

                        rabbits chew their cud and are thus unclean,

                        All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 animals per second! onto that 450 foot long boat!,

                        birds and whales appeared before reptiles and insects,

                        flowering plants appeared before any animals (plants thrived even before the sun existed!),

                        Adam personally named several million species (that must have taken awhile, even just for the 500,000 species of beetles!),

                        you can rid your house of leprosy by sacrificing a certain bird and dripping its blood on your house,

                        you can easily tell if a woman is an adultress: The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed,

                        and the Earth was formed before the Sun, but depending entirely on what part you chose to believe: The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day?
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-15-2013, 09:27 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?

                          Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                          As to proving that non-design is wrong, I fear you must have missed the first day in kindergarden science class.

                          Proving negatives in not in the realm of science.
                          Really bizarre statement.

                          First of all, science can prove many negatives with the same degree of certainty as it can prove positives. They may say differently during the first day of kindergarten science class, but they teach you otherwise during the first day of big boy science class. If it's detectable in any way, and we're capable of performing an exhaustive search for it, then we're capable of proving whether or not it exists.

                          Secondly, "proving something wrong" is falsification. If you're saying that science is incapable of falsifying (proving wrong) the claims that the origin of life and evolution were/are non-designed events, you're saying that neither claim qualifies as science. Yet, strangely, both are treated as such, including by you and in school text books.

                          Thirdly, I've already explained what I meant by "non design." I explained it at the bottom of one of my recent posts:

                          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert
                          By the way, when I say "non-design," I'm referring to any design-free origin-of-life-and-evolution scenario, regardless of the specific details; chemical soup, space debris, hydrothermal vents, etc.
                          You can change the term non-design to unintentional or natural (as opposed to artificial), and the argument still stands.

                          The argument stands. If we cannot test for design we cannot test for non-design, and vice versa. Either both views are subject to scientific methodology, or neither view is. This is why the "I.D. isn't science... but abiogenesis/Darwinism is!" claims have absolutely zero merit to them. They're cliched talking points; nothing more.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Time and time again, it just flies right over your head....

                            I never said that something cannot be proven wrong. Any testable hypothesis might be proven to be false.

                            But, as I said before, if I claim to be an immortal shape shifter with magical powers,

                            someone who does not believe me should not be expected to prove beyond any doubt that my assertions are false. They should not have to prove that magic and shape-shifting do not exist anywhere in our universe.

                            It is rather up to me to prove that what I say is true. If I fail to do so, or if I don't even try, then everyone can assume that I am a liar and am incapable or shape-shifting or magic.




                            with respect to evolution, natural selection, genes, DNA, etc. for those really unfamiliar with the whole area, I recommend this site for some clear, concise videos: http://www.statedclearly.com/
                            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-15-2013, 05:28 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
                              So you are telling me that...

                              the Earth really is flat,

                              the earth really is at the center of the universe,

                              the sky (firmament) forms a "roof" over the world,

                              everything in the universe has existed for something like 6-10,000 years,

                              bats are birds,

                              Unicorns are real,

                              dragons (fiery serpents) are real,

                              giants were real,

                              rabbits chew their cud and are thus unclean,

                              All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 animals per second! onto that 450 foot long boat!,

                              birds and whales appeared before reptiles and insects,

                              flowering plants appeared before any animals (plants thrived even before the sun existed!),

                              Adam personally named several million species (that must have taken awhile, even just for the 500,000 species of beetles!),

                              you can rid your house of leprosy by sacrificing a certain bird and dripping its blood on your house,

                              you can easily tell if a woman is an adultress: The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed,

                              and the Earth was formed before the Sun, but depending entirely on what part you chose to believe: The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day?
                              Not to mention the part where there were people who were living for hundreds of years without dying.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                                So you are telling me that...

                                the Earth really is flat,

                                the earth really is at the center of the universe,

                                the sky (firmament) forms a "roof" over the world,

                                everything in the universe has existed for something like 6-10,000 years,

                                bats are birds,

                                Unicorns are real,

                                dragons (fiery serpents) are real,

                                giants were real,

                                rabbits chew their cud and are thus unclean,

                                All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 animals per second! onto that 450 foot long boat!,

                                birds and whales appeared before reptiles and insects,

                                flowering plants appeared before any animals (plants thrived even before the sun existed!),

                                Adam personally named several million species (that must have taken awhile, even just for the 500,000 species of beetles!),

                                you can rid your house of leprosy by sacrificing a certain bird and dripping its blood on your house,

                                you can easily tell if a woman is an adultress: The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed,

                                and the Earth was formed before the Sun, but depending entirely on what part you chose to believe: The Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ Genesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day?
                                Oh come on now....what are the odds Moses could have gotten so many things wrong? What are the odds, like 82373611 to 1? He must have been getting his misinformation from somewhere...

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X