Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
Okay, then American houseflies and Thai houseflies.
I honestly don't know anything about Thai houseflies.
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.
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.
I don't see the clause you're referring to.
You've never heard of "flied lice"?(it's a joke, it's a joke okay!)
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.
All your lice are belong to us.
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.
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.
Apparently a faulty one!!!
Thank you all for your good faith participation! Hugs!!!
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.