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?

    What's the point of that, though? That's essentially an ancient aliens explanation with no original source. I get that it supports the idea of an intelligence designing biology/life, but it states in this case that the intelligence in question was built by other intelligence which was in turn built by another intelligence, ad infinitum. How can you reconcile relying on an ancient alien engineer theory on the one hand to justify that intelligence could create life, and on the other hand presuppose that life was originally created by a supernatural being such as God?

    It seems like while it supports one part of your theory, it undermines the other part, no?

    Comment


    • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

      The point of it is to show that no one, whether atheistic or not, can rule out design as a possible explanation. If you look at those people who reject design, probably the single biggest reason is their a priori belief that design absolutely cannot be the answer. They don't actually look at the evidence and say it's wrong; they say it's wrong because it can't be right. My argument refutes that line of reasoning. If you believe nature is capable of creating life, and that life is capable of creating other life, then you must be open to the possibility of design. And if nature producing life is fairly rare, then it's very plausible, probably even likely, that I.D. would overtake abiogenesis for the leading cause of life in the universe.

      There's no valid reason to reject I.D. beforehand, which means the #1 reason for rejecting it is intellectually bankrupt.

      For the record, I do believe the designer is God, and I believe that design extends beyond biology and into the very fabric of existence. I guess you could say what I've said above undercuts that argument in that it doesn't make I.D. synonymous with God, and leaves open the possibility that I.D. could be true and God still not exist.

      Comment


      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

        I agree there's no good reason to reject ID as a possible explanation. What I don't know how to answer is: How could science ever specifically prove it? Science establishes that on many levels biological and abiological objects are extremely complex and remarkably organized, yet technically that's all it proves: Complexity and organization.

        It's up to human reason to decide or conclude that it all has a conscious architect. The shoe may fit, it may seem extremely reasonable, but without being able to document that consciousness itself, I don't think science as we know it is capable of definitively proving God. God would have to make itself plainly visible and/or make direct contact in a lingual sense with humanity to allow for physical observation and documentation.

        I can only conclude that if there is a God it specifically does not want that to happen. My theory as to why that may be is perhaps physical existence as we know it is merely a subdivision of what reality actually is. Perhaps we exist only as some form of non-physical consciousness before and after physical life-and-death, and to make physical life achieve what it's meant to achieve, for it to have substance or meaning or purpose, perhaps we are purposefully meant to live a physical life without definitive knowledge of, or direct contact with, God.

        Or maybe we're just biological robots forged by eons of chaos, and when we die we turn off like a light and there was no meaning to any of it. A total bummer of a concept, but it's also possibly the truth. I hope not, but it could be.

        Comment


        • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          I agree there's no good reason to reject ID as a possible explanation. What I don't know how to answer is: How could science ever specifically prove it? Science establishes that on many levels biological and abiological objects are extremely complex and remarkably organized, yet technically that's all it proves: Complexity and organization.

          It's up to human reason to decide or conclude that it all has a conscious architect. The shoe may fit, it may seem extremely reasonable, but without being able to document that consciousness itself, I don't think science as we know it is capable of definitively proving God. God would have to make itself plainly visible and/or make direct contact in a lingual sense with humanity to allow for physical observation and documentation.

          I can only conclude that if there is a God it specifically does not want that to happen. My theory as to why that may be is perhaps physical existence as we know it is merely a subdivision of what reality actually is. Perhaps we exist only as some form of non-physical consciousness before and after physical life-and-death, and to make physical life achieve what it's meant to achieve, for it to have substance or meaning or purpose, perhaps we are purposefully meant to live a physical life without definitive knowledge of, or direct contact with, God.

          Or maybe we're just biological robots forged by eons of chaos, and when we die we turn off like a light and there was no meaning to any of it. A total bummer of a concept, but it's also possibly the truth. I hope not, but it could be.
          I'll admit, I'm not some cold hearted atheist who believes that there is nothing beyond this physical existence, but if I find myself diving too deep in to the idea of an after-life, I find myself sounding ridiculous. For instance, I hope beyond all hope that my recently departed dog is in some happy place, maybe a giant field playing with other dogs, waiting for me to show up one day. I mean thats how everyone would want it to happen right? But then you get the logistical side of things, how would my dog recognize me 30-40 years later? If its my spirit then how would he recognize me? How would I recognize his spirit? What if in 40 years I barely remember anything about that dog? (not that it would be the case, but just in general). I have no idea how that could be true though.

          Certainly the idea that it all works out for you in the end, is reason enough to have hope in an otherwise harsh journey that is life. But if you accept that reality...how far down the rabbit hole do have to go? Whether you believe in the idea of a designer, or the idea of a Big Bang, its all one form of magic vs another.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

            First off....who is this "nature" if not another name for the creator? Nature created this and nature caused this to evlove...bah, it's a simplified way of saying God without admitting the existence of God.
            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

            Comment


            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

              Who said nature is a 'who'?

              Comment


              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                First off....who is this "nature" if not another name for the creator? Nature created this and nature caused this to evolve...bah, it's a simplified way of saying God without admitting the existence of God.
                An anti-evolutionist may marvel at the beauty of something in nature and see it in terms of an awe of God's handiwork, while right next to him/her a more mainstream Christian (i.e., almost any non-American Christian, most Catholics, or other non-fundamentalists), might well experience the same (or higher) level of awe and appreciation for nature, recognizing that the universe is amazing and literally awesome, but at the same feeling no need to attribute everything to an actively interventionist higher power.

                Taking it a step further, an atheist next to them both may well have the same awe. In some ways the sense of appreciation might be even higher for the non-believer, IMO, because he/she seeks to understand exactly why/how a marvelous natural phenomenon happens, rather than digging no deeper than thinking "God is good to give us this pretty sight to see".

                For example, watching a solar eclipse is an awesome experience. To me, thinking about how it occurs actually adds to the wonder. If I look and just conclude that "God just made the sun disappear" and think no more, then I really don't see the awesomeness in that. I'd just fear that the next act of God might be something less beautiful and more harmful.
                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 a practicing Roman Catholic I don't get that comment about Catholics not feeling the need to attribute everything to a higher power. You'll have to explain that to me. I know that I believe in God and at the same time I know I never feel closer to God than when I am sitting along a quite stream or pond fishing or watching the steam come up off a frosty field in the early morning sun. And yes, as a scientist I can marvel at how things work and seek answers to what makes them work...but with the understanding that it was God's creation in the first place.
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                    What I meant is that most all Catholics (the ones I've met anyway) agree with former Pope John Paul's clear statement that the fundamental ideas of evolution are "much more than a hypothesis".

                    People paint the debate on evolution as "Christians vs. Science" rather than "A vocal minority of (mostly) American non-Catholic Christians vs. Science".

                    Further, many of that vocal minority try to paint people who consider evolution to be established science as necessarily being atheists, which is far from the truth. For example, the most coherent teaching in evolutionary biology my kids ever received in elementary & middle school was when they were in Catholic schools, rather than in public schools.
                    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-25-2013, 02:53 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?

                      A more accurate description would be 21st-century minded scientists vs. 20th-century minded scientists. We have one side recognizing that biology is a top-down designed process, from the origin of life and on, and the other side which still insists that Darwin's ignorance-based hypothesis was largely correct, bar some tweaking.

                      For example, Slick probably still thinks all non-protein-coding DNA is junk, inspired by the Darwinian narrative, when we 21st-century thinkers now know otherwise.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                        very interesting study, single-celled organisms to multicellular life, in 60 days


                        http://scitechdaily.com/evolutionary...ve-in-the-lab/
                        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?

                          Regarding the article posted above...

                          More Darwinian Degradation: Much Ado about Yeast - Evolution News & Views

                          Originally posted by Michael Behe
                          Recently a paper by Ratcliff et al. (2012) entitled "Experimental evolution of mulitcellularity" appeared and received a fair amount of press attention, including a story in the New York Times. The authors discuss their results in terms of the origin of multicellularity on earth.

                          The senior author of the paper is Michael Travisano of the University of Minnesota, who was a student of Richard Lenski's in the 1990s. The paper, published in PNAS, was edited by Lenski. The gist is as follows.

                          The authors repeated three steps multiple times: 1) they grew single-celled yeast in a flask; 2) briefly centrifuged it; and 3) took a small amount from the bottom of the flask to seed a new culture. This selected for cells that sedimented faster than most. After a number of rounds of selection the cells sedimented much faster than the beginning cells. Examination showed that the fast-sedimenting cells formed clusters due to incomplete separation of replicating mother-daughter cells.

                          The cell clusters also were 10% less fit (that's quite an amount) than the beginning cells in the absence of the sedimentation selection. After further selection it was seen that some cells in clusters would "commit suicide" (apoptosis), which apparently made the clusters more brittle and allowed chunks to break off and form new clusters. (The beginning cells already had the ability to undergo apoptosis.)

                          It seems to me that Richard Lenski, who knows how to get the most publicity out of exceedingly modest laboratory results, has taught his student well. In fact, the results can be regarded as the loss of two pre-existing abilities: 1) the loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division; and 2) the loss of control of apoptosis.

                          The authors did not analyze the genetic changes that occurred in the cells, but I strongly suspect that if and when they do, they'll discover that functioning genes or regulatory regions were broken or degraded. This would be just one more example of evolution by loss of pre-existing systems, at which we already knew that Darwinian processes excel. The apparently insurmountable problem for Darwinism is to build new systems.

                          Literature Cited
                          Ratcliff, W. C., R. F. Denison, M. Borrello, and M. Travisano, 2012 Experimental evolution of multicellularity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA doi/10.1073/pnas.1115323109
                          So, the multicellularity which evolved was actually a lineage of yest cells which had lost the ability to separate from their mother cell, hence the two unicellular lifeforms "sticking" together and forming pseudo-multicellularity. Rather than a single, multicellular lifeform, as they want you to think, it's actually two unicellular lifeforms. Yawn.

                          Mutations can degrade. Mutations can destroy. No one's ever doubted that. What is in doubt is whether mutations can "build up," that is engineer, producing complex new traits. That's what they must show the ability to do if they hope to claim responsibility for the brilliance of the biological world.

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                            Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
                            What I meant is that most all Catholics (the ones I've met anyway) agree with former Pope John Paul's clear statement that the fundamental ideas of evolution are "much more than a hypothesis".

                            People paint the debate on evolution as "Christians vs. Science" rather than "A vocal minority of (mostly) American non-Catholic Christians vs. Science".

                            Further, many of that vocal minority try to paint people who consider evolution to be established science as necessarily being atheists, which is far from the truth. For example, the most coherent teaching in evolutionary biology my kids ever received in elementary & middle school was when they were in Catholic schools, rather than in public schools.
                            I can completly agree with that...I must have just misread what you had written. IMPO there is nothing wrong with evolution as long as you realize that it doesn't explain where life came from to begin with...and recognize to that there is no evidence for evolution of species to species evolution. Wasn't it JP that also stated that Christianity does not preclude the possiblity of life on other planets?
                            Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                              I'm a christian who is studying physics. I'm an old earth creation believer. I believe in dinosaurs, mammoths, and other creatures of the past. I just don't believe I evolved from anything.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

                                The answer is very simple folks...


                                God created evolution!


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X