Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution

Original scene from the show... Friends. ^ | NA | NA

[AndrewC]

Similar timescale, but far more pupfish generations.

Okay, then American houseflies and Thai houseflies.

[Right Wing Professor]

Okay, then American houseflies and Thai houseflies.

I honestly don't know anything about Thai houseflies.

[js1138]

There's a specific situation that just popped up on the Darwin in a Box thread that I think relates to one of the clauses in the contract, the one forbidding bringing in material from old threads.

These debates occasionally dabble in actual science. Sometimes predictions are made by us or by our sources that can be tested by actual science. I think it is fair to bring these predictions forward to new threads, especially when someone claims they are crucial and new evidence becomes available.

[exmarine]

What do you think?

Well, since you have no science to back up your assertions, any guess is as good as yours. First, I think aesthetic beauty is often an objective quality, and is not in the eye of the beholder. Beauty exists (e.g. a sunset) because God exists. The many beautiful aspects of the universe were created by an eternal personality and the creation merely reflects His beauty. Humans are created in the image of the Creator and therefore can discern beauty.

[js1138]

This is not directed at you. I have seen this twenty times in the last week from just about everybody.

Atheist, not Athiest. What was that rule about i before e, anyway?

I feel real bad about correcting spelling. My own posts are a mess.

[Right Wing Professor]

There's a specific situation that just popped up on the Darwin in a Box thread that I think relates to one of the clauses in the contract, the one forbidding bringing in material from old threads.

I don't see the clause you're referring to.

[AndrewC]

I honestly don't know anything about Thai houseflies.

You've never heard of "flied lice"?(it's a joke, it's a joke okay!)

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

LOL good one.

[PatrickHenry]

We will make no accusations concerning anything that may have been said or done prior to the effective date of this agreement.

More commentary, A-Girl (I fear this project you have bravely undertaken may be tricker than the Middle-East "Peace Process"):

Some of us have been here for years. Some of our disputes go back a long way. I'm aware of one freeper on the creationist side who has a history of posting erronious material and then never admitting it and never correcting his positions. Often, he will post the same declarations again, notwithstanding clear and unambiguous evidence that he is in error. There's no way to stop that, of course. But a response to such conduct is natural. It's not uncommon for his past transgressions to be mentioned -- often in a jocular way.

So my question: I don't mind forgetting about past unpleasantness, and past insults. Life is too short to dwell on such matters. But what do you think should be done with unadmitted factual errors? It goes to a person's credibility. We live on our track record here. We can't start each thread with a clean slate.

[Right Wing Professor]

:-)

All your lice are belong to us.

[js1138]

Is a sublime sunset hardwired or cultural?

A sublime sunset is nothing without an interpretive viewer, just as there are no faces in the clouds without an imaginative viewer. Our response is either hard-wired, culturally conditioned, or some of both. There is nothing inherent in the sunset.

[longshadow]

generic placemarker

[js1138]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/949088/posts?page=3443#3442

And following. this post makes a specific claim that can be tested. It also labels the claim as crucial to disproving evolution. This is something that can be followed, but take some time.

[exmarine]

A sublime sunset is nothing without an interpretive viewer, just as there are no faces in the clouds without an imaginative viewer. Our response is either hard-wired, culturally conditioned, or some of both. There is nothing inherent in the sunset.

There is a viewer - God - who made it. Man merely looks upon it and acknowledges its beauty. This is an area where none of you can do anything but state your unscientific opinions.

[NewLand]

"That's what I thought. And I'm willing to overlook it and never bring it up again."

Your repsonse tells me and everyone that you still believe I was deceitful, dishonest, and insincere. There is absolutely nothing to be overlooked on my part.

Nothing.

You still have not admitted your character assination attack on me was inappropriate.

You are still spinning...of course you want everyone to moooove on.

No admission of my innocence, no admission of your mistake, no apology...well, then no overlook of your actions on my part. A simple "sorry" or "you didn't contrive any conspiracy" would have done. But you choose not to, so...

It will be brought up whenever necessary, which I expect to be often, unfortunately.

You are now officially bankrupt.

[exmarine]

If you want to study the idea of "sublimity," I recommend you pick up a copy of C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man. It's a real eye opener.

[conservababeJen]

What was that rule about i before e, anyway?

Apparently a faulty one!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

The draft agreement has now been posted to the Smokey Backroom here. I'm sorry it took so long, many of you will need to copy over your specific suggestions.

Thank you all for your good faith participation! Hugs!!!

[inquest]

Thanks, ls, I appreciate your circumspection. You're hereby authorized to indicate me publicly in the future if the situation should arise again. I do find it very unfortunate that Sabertooth was banned (if anyone has any information on that, by the way, I'd much appreciate it), whereas... I probably shouldn't complete the sentence, seeing as how there appears to be a new mood developing that I don't want to spoil.

Anyway, I'm glad that there's been a return to the actual science in the last few hundred posts. Now that things are back on track, I want to ask a question of my own. I know I've brought this up in the past with others, but I don't think the discussion got too far. According to evolutionary theory, how much long-term evolution is the result of actual mutation - meaning something, like a cosmic ray or something, causing a gene to mutate; and how much of it is simply a result of shifting around existing genes through mixing of the parents' genomes? This gets back into the whole "micro-" vs. "macro-" evolution angle that I think needs to be resolved.

[CobaltBlue]

Your theory doesn't explain rap music, polka music, or velvet Elvis paintings.