Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution

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

[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?

[conservababeJen]

I have no idea. If RWP wants the issue dead, he'll take down his own link and accept the apology.

[Right Wing Professor]

All I have on my web site is one uncommented page with a few selected posts, which would still be on FR for anyone to see if the thread had not been pulled. I am not retracting what I said on that thread; ALS is surely not ashamed of what he said; so what's the problem?

I haven't asked ALS to remove www.conservababes/whine.html. Its continuing existence proves that while he was 'apologizing' for what he posted, he continues to maintain a web page that does exactly what he claimed he was apologizing for. That web page speaks to his credibility far more convincingly than I ever could.

At the point he apologizes, which necessarily requires (as you and I both learned in Catholic School) that he stops doing the things he says he's sorry for , I'll be delighted to accept the apology, and I will let the matter drop.

[f.Christian]

Author ? Author ?

[exmarine]

Yes he was, by the cardinal rule derived rationally by multiple societies: Treat others as you'd want to be treated. He could not be trusted to act in a rational and civilized manner and posed a major risk to the rest of the world's survival.

Do unto others - is that a manmade standard or does that come from God? If it is a manmade standard, then it carries no weight at all if I have my own standard. All you can do is FORCE your moral standard on me (might makes right), but there is no higher moral standard in your world - all are manmade; therefore all are equal. Whether or not a behavior is beneficial to survival has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. People make moral choices every day without consideration to their survival. You need to find a model that works IN THE REAL WORLD.

Also, when you use the word "wrong" here, you are incoherent as it suggests a STANDARD. All you can say is that other societies didn't agree with Hitler's moral preferences and so they forced their moral preferences onto Hitler. You really need to stop using words that denote moral standards.

[VadeRetro]

I just said I was dropping this, but I love how creationists are the Christians who ain't Christian. I want to get an answer from you on just one thing:

VadeRetro: Is RWP saying anything untrue about ALS?

conservababeJen: I have no idea.

No idea and no problem. But what ALS is still saying is utterly false and that may be the one thing which can be proven for sure. Does truth not matter?

If RWP wants the issue dead, he'll take down his own link and accept the apology.

If I were making certifiably false, obviously defamatory statements about someone on my web site--and I hadn't the slightest defense for my behavior except the insanity plea--I'd take such statements off at once rather than make the removal of such part of a blackmail negotiation.

[VadeRetro]

Sarcasm! Sarcasm!

[conservababeJen]

First off... ALS apologized...And it was rejected.. Does that matter?

And RWP did, in fact, make defamatory remarks against ALS.

Both of these men should let this issue die and remove their remarks against one another.

[exmarine]

You don't consider "natural selection issues," you consider whether or not it's beneficial to you and yours. Treating others like you'd like to be treated is beneficial in that it increases your chances of survival. We all think about survival every day, even if we don't call it that.

Yeah right and I have a bridge I want to sell you. When someone commits adultery (a moral choice), do you really think they consider their survival in any way, shape or form? Get real. Again, Stalin lived to 70 years old and died in his bed - so how did his behavior decrease his chances of survival? He considered his actions (murder, genocide, assassination, repression, oppression, hatred) to be beneficial to his survival - that's why he used them, and assassination did go along way to ensure his survival, didn't it? Your logic is flawed because your model is flawed.

We know what we need to survive and we strive to obtain that (money, food, shelter, safety); moral actions promote that survival. Immoral ones don't. You are still hung up on the "every man for himself" mentality you believe to exist in nature. It doesn't, or at least it doesn't for long. Cooperation for humans is the key to survival, and morality promotes cooperation.

Those are all basic needs. In America those needs are all met for most people. By your defintion, then, adultery is not immoral and neither is stealing, lying, cheating, etc., because in many cases, these have nothing to do with basic survival needs. It has to do with ENVY and COVETOUSNESS and JEALOUSY and REVENGE. Join the real world. Your world doesn't exist except in neodarwinian textbooks. You have left the door wide open for just about anything.

[VadeRetro]

If I was the only one caught out in a lie, I'd fix that in a hurry. But that's just me.

[Lurking Libertarian]

[Me]:I'm glad to see that you finally agree with me.

[You]: Not so ... I was quoting ' truth in mystery ' --- veritas_en_enigma !

I thought you agreed with the texts you cut and paste.

[Right Wing Professor]

ALS apologized...And it was rejected

I kick you in the head three times. I say 'I'm sorry for kicking you in the head', while continuing to kick you in the head. What do you say? Apology accepted?

[Nebullis]

When I was a kid, I used to look at science books in which the atoms were color-coded, and I thought for that reason that oxygen atoms were red (and hard and shiny looking!). Of course, even to talk about the color of an atom is specious. But yet everything we see in our everyday world has a color, so it's difficult to accept that to talk about the color of an atom makes no sense.

There are people with a very strong sense of synesthesia. They attach a color to everything in their minds eye. I can still see the molecular models from 7th grade (dutch system) chemistry, but I don't remember any of the color assignments.

[Stultis]

I have no idea what the above sentence means. What does "best jaw length" mean? What does "everything will be driven" mean?

AndrewC is using some non-standard terminology, but seems to be talking about a standard idea, originally introduced by Sewall Wright, of an "adaptive lanscape". This is a topological schemata where the Z-axis represents relative fitness, and the X & Y axes (sp?) represent genetic or phenotypic variation. In a given environment, X/Y coordinates of high fitness represent "peaks," and ones of low fitness represent "valleys". AndrewC causes confusion by writing about "stable" environments, but of course virtually no real environments are "stable" in the sense that peaks and valleys in the adaptive landscape remain fixed.

A random mutation in the length of the jaw bone doesn't carry everything else along with it.

Actually it usually does, in fact, do exactly that. This is due to mechanisms of embryological development in which, for instance, architecture develops according to position along chemical gradients, and the growth of structure is influenced by, and coordinated wrt, adjacent structures.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Great stuff. Bump. The left struggles to keep discredited 19th century ideas like Marxism and evolutionism alive, and they're succeeding so far, having brainwashed a couple of generations of school kids and college students in the last few decades. The TRUTH about the left will come out, however, despite having evolution, global warming, the coming ice age, hole-in-the-ozone and other ... politically motivated junk-science --- from colleges being repeated unquestioned and unproven by the brainwashed.

159 Posted on 08/25/2001 19:22:32 PDT by gg188

[jennyp]

It should be clearly spelled out that no one will be accused of CB merely because of:

1. opposition to a literal interpretation of Genesis (or other scripture passages);
2. opposition to "creation science" or to "intelligent design theory";
3. advocacy of the theory evolution;
4. posting any evolution-oriented thread;
5. advocacy of (or merely explaining) the scientific method;
6. or any similar activities.

Also, pointing out that apologetics is not science is not the same as CB.

[ALS]

There is nothing on the webpage that is inaccurate. It captures the events as they happened and that is precisely what happened. Including my conclusion, and why.

For one thing, it is NONE of your business, so butt out.
My offer to remove the page was an act of kindness. It is no admission the page is false. To state that would be a lie.

Let's take a look at the part you WHINE about:
"Although his username is RIGHT WING PROFESSOR, he refused to say yes or say no. So it became obvious he isn't and was embarassed of his username.")

INDEED, He REFUSED to say so. And indeed it BECAME obvious he isn't. A perfect capture and rendering of the events.
What possible reason could he or YOU EVOS have for REFUSING to state yes or no. In fact, believe it or not, NONE of you INCLUDING HIM have yet to say yes or no.

I apologized for questioning his status AFTER I learned he is, although I still find it odder than odd there has still been no declarative admission by RWP.

Since RWP and YOU seem to want to make this a "we got ALS" game, and no acceptance of an apology has been made, I'm considering leaving the page as is, as it does indeed capture the truth of the event, and appending a statement that it was LATER learned he is. I'll include he STILL HAS NOT said YES or NO, if he refuses to do so.
That would keep that page accurate as to what REALLY HAPPENED.
Now go sit down and shut your whiney piehole before I make a special page just for YOU.

[Right Wing Professor]

Yeah, this code of conduct is going to work.

[PatrickHenry]

Also, pointing out that apologetics is not science is not the same as CB.

Come to the new "drafting thread" and ping Alamo-Girl with your suggestions. HERE.

[VadeRetro]

What a lovely post! No wonder people think I'm irrational for claiming you might be at fault for any decline in the atmosphere of these threads! (Tell the truth now! You got A-G or bb to write it for you, didn't you?)

Let's look at what you say on the web page:

"Although his username is RIGHT WING PROFESSOR, he refused to say yes or say no. So it became obvious he isn't and was embarassed of his username."

Zooming in:

... he isn't [a professor]

Now, either this is true or false.

There is nothing on the webpage that is inaccurate.

So you're saying it's true.

And indeed it BECAME obvious he isn't.

So you're saying it's true.

I apologized for questioning his status AFTER I learned he is ... [a professor].

So it's false.

A perfect capture and rendering of the events.

Except for all the parts you left out and your inability even now to decide what you know.

For one thing, it is NONE of your business, so butt out.

I was on that thread and linked RWP's CV page in a post to you at the time. Several of us did it; many saw. I'm ... well, call it witnessing.

Now go sit down and shut your whiney piehole before I make a special page just for YOU.

That's especially nice. I think it was that Larry Flynt brand of Christianity that made me decide to ping A-G and bb yet again. (Sorry, gals!)

[VadeRetro]

I have a really good feeling already.