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 indygeezer View Post
    When do you accept the story of a fish developing legs and becoming a man (yeah I left out alot of steps)....when do you accept that as a fairy tale? When do you accept that it is not a scientific fact but it too is a creation myth?
    Because there is a fossil record of that happening. There is evidence. The fish didn't become a man. It evolved into other species that eventually evolved into man. Darwin predicted it and the fossil record backs it up. Dinosaurs became today's birds. It is in the fossil record if you will do some research....

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      To some, "facts" seem to be considered to be valid or invalid valid only based on their ability to pass through the hurdle of being in agreement with a set of books written by men 1,900 or so years ago.

      I see no reason to apply such a filter.

      We have already discarded a great many of the ideas that at one point in time were rejected because they failed that hurdle, according to the leading interpreters of that set of books at the time. We woke up and decided to no longer jail persons who thought the Earth revolves around the sun. We decided to no longer allow the enslavement of people. We decided to allow women to actually speak in public, to own land, and even to allow them to vote!

      So Church leaders say "The Bible says A is true so we will never stand for B, not matter what! No compromise!"
      Then a generation later, church leaders say "Our bad, the Bible really says that B is OK"

      Doesn't the long history of these lines in the sand, eventually abandoned, make you question the wisdom about continuing to insist on such arbitrary attitudes?
      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-17-2013, 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?

        And Scientist insisted that the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that it was impossible to travel faster than sound or to the moon...doesn't their changing attitudes prove worrisome to you?

        Now look, I'm a microbiologist by training (with a minor in Geology) and 40 years practical science experience. I know what the fossil records indicate and I also know that I have no problem with SOME evolution. I also know that I resent the putdownish attitude some posts exhibit. People are entitled to their beliefs.

        As a matter of arguement, Will Galen has offered specific examples from his readings to back up what he believes. I have yet seen any of the science believers offering similar documentation for the science they accept as fact. It is said "well science has proven" or some similar. Prove what you are saying. Show us the science and expain it to us. Some are speaking as if they understand the science when all they are doing is spouting what they believe science is telling them.
        One thing PD has always demanded..........LINK.
        Last edited by indygeezer; 05-17-2013, 10:32 AM.
        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
          And Scientist insisted that the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that it was impossible to travel faster than sound or to the moon...doesn't their changing attitudes prove worrisome to you?
          No, because they changed their opinion based on generating and acquiring new data after carefully designing new experiments. They did not change their thoughts because they read some old books or because some wise-looking man insisted that they should do so.

          People are entitled to their beliefs.
          Of course. They should not, however, give fake reasons for having those beliefs. It's OK to say "I believe X because my faith tells me that I must believe it."

          It's not OK to say "I believe X because the scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms what my faith tells me must be true" when you have not looked for such evidence.

          I have yet seen any of the science believers offering similar documentation for the science they accept as fact.
          I have certainly tried, as in with the examples of the whales having embryonic legs, having actual humerous, ulna, radius, metacarpals, and carpals within their modified hands that we call flippers, etc.

          I will try harder. Entire textbooks are really needed to explain it well, though.
          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 Blue&Gold View Post
            Because there is a fossil record of that happening. There is evidence. The fish didn't become a man. It evolved into other species that eventually evolved into man. Darwin predicted it and the fossil record backs it up. Dinosaurs became today's birds. It is in the fossil record if you will do some research....
            It's a fairly well-known fact that the fossil record has never supported Darwin's idea. Early on this was credited to an incomplete fossil record; the fossils would fit Darwin's theory just as soon as we found them.

            Unfortunately, the exact opposite has happened. The more complete the fossil record becomes, the more obvious it becomes that Darwin's ideas -- and any sort of gradualistic view of development -- is wrong.

            If you really want to watch a Darwinist sweat bullets, bring up the Cambrian explosion. I don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head, but I believe 20+ of the 35 known animal phyla first appear in the Cambrian. This means roughly 60% of life's major development took place in a fraction of a single percent of life's entire history on Earth. If life is 4.3-billion-years old, and the Cambrian explosion represents 5-10-million-years (it could be even lower), that would equal 0.12-0.24% of life's entire history on Earth.

            This takes a big, stinky, steamy dump all over the notion that life evolves gradually, in a Darwinism-like step-by-step, micro-accumulating-to-macro fashion. Life develops in a much more abrupt fashion. The question is: How (or "Why," if you're not afraid of those type of questions)?

            Of course, there are some people, people who badly want Darwinian evolution to be true, who exaggerate their claims, and try desperately to fit the evidence to the theory (backwards science), including to the point of making up stories about how life developed. These people's imaginations do not equal valid evidence. Call them out on their bluffs.

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
              It's a fairly well-known fact that the fossil record has never supported Darwin's idea. Early on this was credited to an incomplete fossil record; the fossils would fit Darwin's theory just as soon as we found them.

              Unfortunately, the exact opposite has happened. The more complete the fossil record becomes, the more obvious it becomes that Darwin's ideas -- and any sort of gradualistic view of development -- is wrong.

              If you really want to watch a Darwinist sweat bullets, bring up the Cambrian explosion. I don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head, but I believe 20+ of the 35 known animal phyla first appear in the Cambrian. This means roughly 60% of life's major development took place in a fraction of a single percent of life's entire history on Earth. If life is 4.3-billion-years old, and the Cambrian explosion represents 5-10-million-years (it could be even lower), that would equal 0.12-0.24% of life's entire history on Earth.

              This takes a big, stinky, steamy dump all over the notion that life evolves gradually, in a Darwinism-like step-by-step, micro-accumulating-to-macro fashion. Life develops in a much more abrupt fashion. The question is: How (or "Why," if you're not afraid of those type of questions)?

              Of course, there are some people, people who badly want Darwinian evolution to be true, who exaggerate their claims, and try desperately to fit the evidence to the theory (backwards science), including to the point of making up stories about how life developed. These people's imaginations do not equal valid evidence. Call them out on their bluffs.
              That is still millions of years of evolution and changing ecosystems can make life evolve very quickly. The Galapagos Island and Madagascar are examples. The evidence is clear but the Cambrian age cannot even exist according to the Bible.

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                I have corrected several parts of your rant:

                Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert; with corrections added in BOLD

                It's a fairly well-known fact that the fossil record fully supports the overall theory of evolution.

                No we do not have a complete fossil record. It takes very specific and rare geological processes to preserve fossils. But enough of them exist to tell a huge part of the story. Do you believe that the great library of Alexandra did not exist because all of the books (scrolls) in it were lost to history? Of course not. We can trace whale evolution back through at least 10 pre-whale mammals species, back through much of the 50 million years since they diverged from a land-dwelling ancestor. Were there more than 10? Yes! Will we find them? I hope so!

                Early on this was credited to an incomplete fossil record; the fossils would fit Darwin's theory just as soon as we found them.

                In part that has happened. Sometimes Darwin was off in his proposed lineages or proposed time frames, and the tree of life was adjusted with the aid of this new data. As an example, when the movie Jurassic park was made, some of the dinos were shown with feathers because it was a new idea. Now that has been so much supported that if the movie were re-made today, every one of those dinos would be shown (properly, we think) COVERED in feathers!

                The more complete the fossil record becomes, the more obvious it becomes that Darwin's overall idea was completely correct! Darwin didn't quite realize that catacalysimic events have actually been common in geological time, thus he didn't model the extent to which evolution would be very sudden. Now we know better, and such new info had contributed greatly to modern views of evolution. It is typically a gradual process requiring the millions of years, that we have fortunately had, but sometimes strong pressures greatly accelerate the process.

                The Cambrian explosion, for example, was an era of immense population change, and is well-modeled by current evolutionary models.

                Evolutionists have know for decades that the step-by-step, micro-to-macro evolution is complemented by evolution occurring in a much more abrupt fashion. Darwin himself noted this possibility, in that Galapogos evoution, and island formation in general, is tied to volcanic processes which abruptly change habitats, causing both mass extinctions and massive rates of adaptations. He didn't realize how common it was, though, that much of life's history was studded even with periods of heavy cosmic bombardment.

                Of course, there are some people who ignore facts, ignore science, and spout utter nonsense.

                They commonly have several prefferred names- intelligent designers, creationists. They are often well-minded and good-intentioned, but please try to see through their bull-crap.

                Call them out on their idiocy.
                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-17-2013, 02:56 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?

                  In general support of my statements:

                  From "Catholic Answers"



                  Adam, Eve, and Evolution

                  http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Share on twitterShare on emailShare on printShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponMore Sharing ServicesThe controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others.

                  People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.
                  Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.



                  The Catholic Position


                  What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

                  Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

                  The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

                  Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

                  Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

                  While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.



                  The Time Question


                  Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

                  Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

                  The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

                  It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.



                  Chronological Reading


                  According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days.

                  Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.

                  That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).



                  The Topical Reading


                  This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

                  The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment.

                  On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

                  But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.



                  Real History


                  The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

                  Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

                  The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).

                  It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.



                  Adam and Eve: Real People


                  It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

                  In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

                  The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).



                  Science and Religion


                  The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

                  As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.
                  NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
                  presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
                  Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

                  IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
                  permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
                  +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

                  .
                  Last edited by indygeezer; 05-17-2013, 03:00 PM.
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    the link you gave, geezer, is dated and is not in any way the position of the Vatican.

                    I gave the position of my church, the Catholic church, earlier, as clearly stated by Pope John Paul himself.

                    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...olution-theory


                    In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is "more than just a hypothesis" and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith.


                    In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin and others first proposed it in the 19th Century. The academy, a body of scientific experts, advises the church on scientific matters.

                    It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge," the pope said in his message Wednesday. "The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
                    The church's previous position on evolution was established in a 1950 encyclical, issued by Pope Pius XII. This statement, Humani Generis, raised no objections to discussions of evolution and said it was not incompatible with Christian teachings, but warned that the theory played into the hands of communists eager to eliminate God.


                    The pope's message went much further in accepting the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth, with one major exception: the human soul.


                    "If the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God," the pope said.


                    Most mainstream Christian denominations take similar positions on evolution, said Martin E. Marty, who teaches the history of modern Christianity at the University of Chicago. "The Bible can't be comprehended as a textbook on how the world and human life began," he said. "I think you have to look at the world in more than one way. The important thing for all theists is that humans are related to nature. That's why I think this (statement) has a lot more weight to it: You can keep the distinctiveness of the human as the image of God, and still see the human as part of this billions-yearlong process."


                    Although the pope's message may seem more a matter of nuance to some lay observers, Italian newspapers treated it like a bombshell. "Pope says we may descend from monkeys," screamed the front-page headline on the conservative newspaper Il Giornale."
                    "It is a big-deal day," Marty said. "This is a pope who engages in every kind of what I call creative foot-dragging about all these things in the late 20th Century. This (statement) suggests that it's very important to him to make his position known while there's time."


                    The health of the 76-year-old pontiff has been a subject of recent concern and speculation. Earlier this month, his inflamed appendix was removed, and a tremor in his left hand has led to widespread reports that he is suffering from Parkinson's disease.


                    By addressing his statement to a body of Catholic scientists, the pope essentially is signaling the church's acceptance of research into the evolutionary origins of life. But it also appeared aimed at the U.S., where evolution and creationism has progressed from a spiritual debate into a potent political issue, particularly among staunchly conservative Christian political activists.


                    These "creationists" have renewed their efforts recently to seek the mandatory teaching of creationism instead of evolution in public schools, especially in the South and West.


                    In Tennessee, where teacher John Scopes was fined $100 for teaching evolution and became the subject of the famous 1925 Monkey Trial, the state legislature this year narrowly voted down a bill that would have banned teaching the theory of evolution as fact. Because most creationists belong to branches of Protestant denominations, the pope's position will have little impact on their efforts.


                    Nor does the pope's statement portend major changes in how Catholic schools handle the subject. The 138,000 students in the Chicago archdiocese's elementary and secondary schools already learn about evolution in science classes and the biblical account of the creation of the world in religion and theology classes.

                    The debate it seems is really NOT a debate between atheists and Christians, it is a debate between fundamentalists American Evangelicals and the vast majority of Christians world-wide who accept biological evolution as a fundamental principle of science.
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-17-2013, 03:15 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?

                      Did you read mine? I think they are saying the same thing with mine adding that the emergence of the SOUL as wholly God's doing. Differeces appear to me to be a matter of writer style.

                      Yes, mine is from 2004....that makes it 9 years old. How old was yours (I didn't notice as it didnt have the imprimatur affixed) oh wait, yours is from a 1996 newspaper article.
                      Last edited by indygeezer; 05-17-2013, 03:30 PM.
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        well, certain lines in your link were stated in a strange way that Pope John Paul II would stand up and complain about, I am sure, such as:

                        "Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time."

                        The Pope would say "Hey, dude, were you even listening to me?"

                        And the term "
                        cosmological evolution" seems to be talking about the origins of the universe, with the "evolution" word tacked on to it, and is just downright confusing and non-sensical. As we been noted time and time again, evolutionary theory is is a fundamental theory of biology, and is concerned with changes in life over time. The theory of evolution says NOTHING about how life first came into existence. NOTHING.

                        The theory of abiogenesis is not connected in any way with the theory of evolution. There are certainly people who are proponents of both. Just as I like pie and I also like steak.
                        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-17-2013, 03:34 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?

                          Well yes, it was linking evolution to the development of the universe. I took it to mean how the universe has aged and expanded.
                          I object when some use evolution do "disprove" God's creation of life. As to the Church's position on developmnet of various life forms, Human is not the only form of life.

                          I still challenge everyone as to when human emotion evolved. What was it's seed?


                          BTW....the site I linked is an Apologetics site. As you know, we Apologetics tend to be more conservative.
                          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                            Well yes, it was linking evolution to the development of the universe. I took it to mean how the universe has aged and expanded.
                            I object when some use evolution do "disprove" God's creation of life. As to the Church's position on developmnet of various life forms, Human is not the only form of life.

                            I still challenge everyone as to when human emotion evolved. What was it's seed?


                            BTW....the site I linked is an Apologetics site. As you know, we Apologetics tend to be more conservative.
                            Nice challenge since it happened hundreds of thousands of or perhaps even millions of years ago. What do you want now, a time machine? I don't have any objection to what you believe. I do object when people try to get around the separation of church and state and get their mythology into the schools...

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              Human emotions are certainly complex, but I would not say that emotion is limited to us humans.

                              That being said, then couldn't a non-human ancestor have had some emotions?

                              Darwin believed that emotions evolved into higher complexities when they were beneficial for evolution, and that emotions more often than not improved chances of survival. For example, the brain uses emotion to keep us away from a dangerous animal (fear), away from rotting food and fecal matter (disgust), in control of our resources (anger), and in pursuit of a good meal or a good mate (pleasure and lust).

                              I think that evolutionary psychology is a pretty big and active field.

                              In principle, understanding human psychology in evolutionary terms is understanding the brain's evolution. The overall idea is not really that different that understanding, say, the evolution of opposable thumbs. It's a bit harder though. We can scour the animal kingdom for species with thumbs that to varying degrees are "like ours" and we can do the same in the fossil record. We can't get nearly as much info at all easily on their brains though, and none based on the fossil record.
                              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-17-2013, 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?

                                More questions answered.

                                [2] the earth really is at the center of the universe
                                I asked for the scriptures that say the earth is the center of the universe. You never got back to me on this.


                                [3] the sky (firmament) forms a "roof" over the world.
                                Again, you have yet to provide me with the scripture that says this. However, if you look up the definitions of ‘roof,’ the sky can be termed a roof.


                                [7] dragons (fiery serpents) are real.
                                Are you referring to the angel that rebelled and became the devil? From the Greek drakon, depicting a terrifying monster, a serpentlike devourer. It occurs 13 times, but only in the highly symbolic book of Revelation, and it represents Satan the Devil, not a Hollywood type flying dragon.


                                [8] giants were real.
                                Since no scripture was provided I will assume this is referring to Goliath from the story of David and Goliath, which everybody is somewhat familiar with.


                                That account is found at 1 Samuel the 17th chapter. Verse four says, “And a champion began to go out from the camps of the Philistines, his name being Goliath, from Gath, his height being six cubits and a span.”
                                How tall would that make him?


                                I didn’t find a definitive answer. Depending on the source Goliath was apparently 6'9" to 9'5 3/4" feet tall. The 9'5 3/4" figure is based on a cubit of 17 I/2 inches, and a span as half a cubit.


                                Archaeology has shown that the heroes buried in the “royal tombs” at Mycenae thousands of years ago were 5.775 to 5.905 feet tall, while the height of the average man at that period (according to the skeletons excavated) was 5.380 feet tall. both in the Aegean lands and in Canaan.’ Margalith, ‘The Sea Peoples in the Bible’, p. 49 (1994).


                                (Assuming) heights for David’s time were about the same as those above, even the shortest height I found for Goliath, that being 6'9" would make him a foot and a half taller than the average man at that time.


                                Leonid Stepanovich Stadnyk, is reportedly the tallest man living today. He’s 8'5.2 inches or 2.5721 meters tall. The tallest man in modern history was Robert Pershing Wadlow (1918–1940), from Illinois, in the United States, who was 8 ft 11 in. (2.72 m)


                                The question starting this discussion implied giants in the Bible were not real. I think the discussion shows giants were, and are, real.




                                [9] rabbits chew their cud and are thus unclean.
                                Certain British scientists made close observations of the rabbits’ habits under careful controls, and the results they obtained were published in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1940, Vol. 110, pp. 159-163.


                                Briefly this is the way the hare reingests its food: If a rabbit eats a breakfast of fresh food, it passes through the stomach into the small intestine, leaving behind in the cardiac end of the stomach some 40 or 50 grams of pellets that were already present when the fresh food was eaten. From the small intestine the morning meal enters the caecum or blind end of the large intestine and there remains for a period of time. During the day the pellets descend, and in the intestines the bacterial protein in them is digested. When they reach the large intestine they bypass the material in the caecum and go on into the colon where the excess moisture is absorbed to produce the familiar dry beans or droppings that are cast away. This phase of the cycle completed, the material stored in the dead end of the caecum next enters the colon, but instead of having all the moisture absorbed it reaches the anus in a rather soft condition. It is in pellet form with each coated with a tough layer of mucus to prevent them from sticking together. Now when these pellets reach the anus, instead of being cast away, the rabbit doubles up and takes them into the mouth and stores them away in the cardiac end of the stomach until another meal has been eaten. In this way the special rhythmic cycle is completed and most of the food has passed a second time through the digestive tract.


                                Living Mammals of the World, 1955, p. 114, says, When fresh green food, as opposed to desiccated [dried] winter forage, is available, the animals gobble it up voraciously and then excrete it around their home lairs in a semi-digested form. After some time this is then re-eaten, and the process may be repeated more than once. In the Common Rabbit, it appears that only the fully grown adults indulge this practice.”


                                Some scientists say the above happens but the hare is just eating it’s own droppings, and they don't consider this chewing the cud. However, scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud provides no basis for judging what the Bible says, as such classification did not exist in the time of Moses.


                                Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, once Head Curator, Department of Zoology of the Smithsonian Institution, once said, “There seems to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the reports of various workers that rabbits customarily store semi-digested food in the caecum and that this is later reingested and passes a second time through the digestive tract.” He also observed that here is an explanation for 'the phenomenally large caecum of rabbits as compared with most other mammals.'


                                Bottom line. The Bible says the hare chews it’s cud, how modern science describes the rabbits eating and digestive process can’t be ruled out as what the Bible was talking about in as much there was no scientific classification of what constitutes chewing of the cud in Moses day.


                                [10] 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!


                                This question is based on the assumption that the scientific classification, ‘Species,’ and what the Bible refers to as ‘Kinds,’ are the same thing. They aren’t.


                                Genesis 1:25, says, “And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind.”


                                The Bible’s ‘kinds,’ are the boundaries within which creatures are capable of bearing offspring together. For example cats and dogs are two different ‘kinds’ and you can’t breed them together. Whereas science lists animals as different species even though they can breed and have young together. For example, there are reportedly 36 cat species.


                                Noah was instructed to preserve only representatives of every “kind” of land animal and flying creature. Some investigators have said that just 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles could have produced the great variety of species of these creatures that are known today. An ark as large as Noah’s would have had no problem at all carrying that many animals.

                                [11] birds and whales appeared before reptiles and insects,
                                What’s the complaint here? Genesis 1:20 says, And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let the flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.”


                                [12] flowering plants appeared before any animals (plants thrived even before the sun existed!)
                                This appears to be complaining about vegetation being planted on the 3rd day and the sun appearing on the 4th. However as was already explained in an earlier post the sun already existed.


                                [13] Adam personally named several million species (that must have taken awhile, even just for the 500,000 species of beetles!)
                                Answer to question ten also answers this question.


                                [14] you can rid your house of leprosy by sacrificing a certain bird and dripping its blood on your housse.
                                [15] 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.


                                Fourteen and fifteen come under the heading of miracles. A miracle, amazing to the eye of the beholder, is something beyond his ability to perform or even to understand fully.


                                Thus, many acts that God has performed or empowered humans to preform in his behalf, like those above, are amazing to humans beholding them but are merely the exercise of God’s power.


                                Romans 1:20 says of God, “For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”


                                Nowadays even scientists are being convinced that things in this world have an intelligent design, yet most still don’t give the credit to God.


                                Here’s the thing. If a person has perceived ‘by the intelligent design of the things made,’ that the Universe has to have had an intelligence behind it’s creation. Then is not that intelligence equivalent to a God to us?


                                And since we alone of all the creatures on earth are sentient do you think that our being sentient is a mistake made by such an intelligence? That’s not very likely!


                                If he didn’t create us by mistake, then it follows logically that there’s a reason we were created with sentience. So why were we created with sentience would be our next question? The fairly obvious reason is so he could converse with us and tell us why he created us.


                                Here’s where the Bible comes into the picture. The Bible answers the question of why God created us, (To care for the earth and the animals and the life forms on it) and many more. What's more it says it's a book from God. 2 Timothy 3:15, says, 16 All Scripture is inspired of God. 2 Peter 1:20, 21 says, 20. . . no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.


                                Being inspired by God, wouldn’t what the Bible says have to be accurate? That’s the litmus test . . . A litmus test as most know is a test using a single issue or factor as the basis for judgment. The issue in this case is the Bible getting it’s facts right?

                                My answer is yes the Bible gets it’s facts right.


                                I’ve found that most complaints are like those I’ve answered on this list. They are from people that give the Bible short shift. They read the Bible until they find something they don’t understand, or disagree with because of lack of knowledge on their part, and then make claims that are unfounded.


                                And just so everyone knows, no I don’t think this list was thought up by Slick Pinkham. I think it obvious he downloaded it from the Internet.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X