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?

[balrog666]

I came across a reply recently, a ping from one buddy to another, described as a "Troll from Notre Dame ping." Surely this was not intended as a kind reference, in regard to an unidentified somebody. This kind of name calling is, to me, the tactic of a Gramscian thug. And many such seem to be crawling out of the woodwork around here these days. And they are attacking the very foundations of reason, while stinking up the place as much as possible in terms of personal abuse towards people they disagree with. Whose or what's purpose does this serve?

It's not a rhetorical question. We all know who is referenced, an idiot who posts nothing but irrelevent and off-topic bullsh!t. Furthermore, an idiot with several sycophants who also add nothing to the discussions except to get them pulled.

Until such time as these idiots wake up and behave politely, like the adults they claim to be, or are banned permanently as they should be, what's the point of participating?

[ALS]

You mean like this?


Interesting site but I don't see any mention of Hey-zoose in there.

1,884 posted on 07/23/2003 5:08 PM CDT by balrog666

===
Who is "Hey-zoose"?

[Dataman]

It does seem to reflect more general developments in the broad society outside of FR

You are not the only one who has observed this and I don't think we live in the same part of the country. It seems to be an infectious madness.

and that may well include the infiltration of agents provocateurs.

I agree, and it becomes clearer with time, doesn't it?

And they are attacking the very foundations of reason, while stinking up the place as much as possible in terms of personal abuse towards people they disagree with

Nail on the head. But what is even more intolerable is that the same "they" claim to have a corner on reason and those who don't see it like that are without reason.

[Right Wing Professor]

Things really have been getting pretty ugly around here of late; it is incredibly depressing to me. It does seem to reflect more general developments in the broad society outside of FR: the Kultursmog; the dissonance; the unintelligibility of discourse; the destruction of language and meaning; and the sheer, brutal incivility and monomaniacal selfishness of the current public debate. FreeRepublic is mirroring developments occurring outside of itself; and that may well include the infiltration of agents provocateurs.

American public discourse has always been vulgar. The elite that in other countries punished the publication of the scurrilous and the crude never managed to gain control here. It has its positives and negatives; I don't enjoy being trailed from thread to thread by idiots repetitively posting the same tired links, but I don't see any alternative to a thick skin and a consistent policy of ignoring 'trolls'. Management could, I suppose, do something about it, but it would be a lot of work, and in the end this would be a different website for it. In the end, one has to have confidence in the 'marketplace of ideas'.

[VadeRetro]

Things really have been getting pretty ugly around here of late; it is incredibly depressing to me...

Hold that thought! Now look at this:

I came across a reply recently, a ping from one buddy to another, described as a "Troll from Notre Dame ping." Surely this was not intended as a kind reference, in regard to an unidentified somebody.

The "somebody" you recognized when Patrick wrote "Troll" is Mr. Ugly, personified. When this person takes Viagra he just gets taller. Since he showed up, he's been suspended twice. He seemed to be not long for FR, but he got lucky in that he outlasted Jim Rob's patience. Nowadays the first time Jim Rob gets pinged on a crevo thread, he without investigation moves it to the Smokey Backroom. The second time, he simply pulls it.

I'm not telling you anything you don't know. What strikes me gruesomely funny is that you think it appropriate to complain about Patrick for making what can be recongnized as a reference to Mr. Ugly. Patrick is fair game. Mr. Ugly is not, for he is supposedly on the side of the angels. (In fact, he is an incredible reproach to "his side," especially since none of the angels reproach him).

[ALS]

Looks like I have you positioned perfectly.

[ALS]

[Right Wing Professor]

You two have summed up the growing problem with the usual accuracy and eloquence.

Actually, no, you have, ALS.

When ideological or 'spiritual' alignment becomes more important than the commitment to intelligent discussion; when 'the other side' is seen as the problem, rather than as a partner with broadly similar interests but a different point of view, then we can dig the trenches, lay out the barbed wire, and reload the artillery.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. I think you do much too good an impression of a sanctimonious thug to be a deliberate disruptor. All I can say is that, if you set out to damage conservatism and this forum, you would be following precisely the same course of action you are currently taking.

[ALS]

"When ideological or 'spiritual' alignment becomes more important than the commitment to intelligent discussion"

hmmmm... boy that sure sounds familiar.
oh yeah, here it is:

Marxist Philosophical Materialism
The principal features of Marxist philosophical materialism are as follows:
Contrary to idealism, which regards the world as the embodiment of an "absolute idea," a "universal spirit," "consciousness," Marx's philosophical materialism holds that the world is by its very nature material, that the multifold phenomena of the world constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter, and that the world develops in accordance with the laws of movement of matter and stands in no need of a "universal spirit."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/09.htm

[Right Wing Professor]

The danger arises when those fundamentals transend a basis for principle and are used to 'filter' thought. That is when fundamentalists become extremists undermining the same principles they seek to defend. And often times, they become tools of destruction at the hands of a lurking and sly enemy.

I think that's well put.

[Alamo-Girl]

Jeepers! Talk about hitting the nail on the head...

We learn from each other, and the learning is a continual process in our lives. It has been said (justly IMHO) that Truth is a quest, not a "final possession." For me, the quest is motivated (and guided) by my profound love of God.

I guess what really peeves me the most about scientific materialists in general is the tedious attitude, not only that truth is a final possession, but that they actually possess it.

Thank you! I'll probably use that one in the future.

[betty boop]

When ideological or 'spiritual' alignment becomes more important than the commitment to intelligent discussion; when 'the other side' is seen as the problem, rather than as a partner with broadly similar interests but a different point of view, then we can dig the trenches, lay out the barbed wire, and reload the artillery.

RWP, I think you are here arguing according to a false dichotomy that you took considerable time and energy to set up in the first place. I am certainly not arguing that "spiritual alignment" takes precedence over truth.

For one thing, the formulation of the problem you give here a priori completely delegitimates the argument coming from the "other side," before they can even get their mouths open -- which you refuse (apparently) to credit or understand.

In this process, you demonize your "enemy" for starters, already accusing him of a bad will refusal to engage in enlightened debate. You expect the very worst from him; which neatly cancels out any reasonable deliberation of the real issue before us:

Which is: Whether or not it can be conceived by a rational mind that subjective experience enters into objective experience at some point "downstream" of the subjective experience.

It seems, deliberately or accidentally, that you are "invested" in an outcome that can only result from queering the question right up front: Your strong suggestion that merely proposing this question amounts to a refusal to engage in intelligent discussion.

But you seem reluctant to talk about that. I can only wonder: Why not? Maybe if you could get this question "right," then the "conflict" you note could be avoided or quickly resolved.

[Alamo-Girl]

I agree with all of you about the outrageous conduct of discussion these days - whether it be in Congress, the Texas Legislature (or some hotel in Oklahoma) - TV round tables, radio call-ins or forums, like here on Free Republic:

RWP, you say American discourse has always been vulgar. And perhaps it has, but never before like it is now – not in my experience.

For one thing, there is no longer any shame in telling a lie or intentionally misrepresenting or spinning the facts. I’d go so far as saying it is now a “high five” matter to pull off such a deception.

Indeed, the Clinton presidency made perjury vogue, the CDC admitted that it withheld what it knew about AIDS, federal workers planted Lynx and Grizzly evidence, books teach the art of spinning the facts. This is a huge problem and it has metastasized even to the grassroots of conservatism, including this forum.

It didn’t used to be this way in this country or on this forum. People used to care about credibility, dignity and honor – their own and others as well.

On this forum, at least in discussions with me, other posters didn’t fabricate strawmen to win an argument that wasn’t even on the table. And they didn’t freely chase people around from thread to thread just to make endless repetitive railing personal accusations. Notably, mindless cliches ("it's all about sex, sex, sex") are at the heart of "spinning."

Sure there have always been a few squeaky wheels, but now it seems a lot of even previously staid posters no longer care about their own honor – whether they are seen as mean-spirited, dishonest, rude or vulgar.

For what it’s worth, I join with all who refuse to lower themselves to this new standard of conduct.

[ALS]

Another Blue Ribbon post by the Alamo Girl.

[VadeRetro]

Another Blue Ribbon post by the Alamo Girl.

Who would appear to be refusing to lower herself to your standards. (But you can still publish her articles.)

[ALS]

AG said:
"For one thing, there is no longer any shame in telling a lie or intentionally misrepresenting or spinning the facts. I’d go so far as saying it is now a “high five” matter to pull off such a deception."

Your post exemplifies her point.

[betty boop]

What you said, Alamo-Girl. I've just about had it up to my ears myself....

Can we call a "spade a spade?": Revolting behavior is ineluctibly revolting behavior, especially if it claims to serve the interests of "science." (What kind of "science" could that possibly be???)

[balrog666]

In this process, you demonize your "enemy" for starters, already accusing him of a bad will refusal to engage in enlightened debate. You expect the very worst from him; which neatly cancels out any reasonable deliberation of the real issue before us:

Well, gee, how many chances do YOU give a rude, inconsiderate, ignorant, asinine, multiple-time banned disruptor?

[ALS]

You mean Vadey?

[VadeRetro]

The humor on this page is how our philosophy crew laments the ugliness that has hit these threads, while the pooper-in-the-punchbowl dances among them japing and mocking. Creo blinders demonstrated once again in spades, ruffles and flourishes.