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?
Dang! I wish! I could use an intelligence boost! LOLOLOL
Neither was it you.
I certainly would like to drop it, that's why I asked him to apologize for his statements and that's what I would prefer he would do. I am not interested in discussing personalities and I am as eager as all for a new start and letting bygones be bygones. However, we cannot allow someone who has signed on to the agreement to say, I recant it while I get one more insult out and then I will go back to complying. Further, and aside from anything else mentioned, it was totally wrong of him to try to apply an agreement's clauses to what had happened before the agreement.
I took NX's post as a set of suggestions for what will be necessary for peace in the future. (PS: Nakatu is female.)
As did I! I hope Gore does not keep pushing. It will not serve him in the least.
I was quite impressed by Nakatu X's post. It was very succinct, to the point, and not degrading. (even to Gore3000)
It portrays one big happy family...
Gore3000, go back and read what she wrote carefully. Nakatu is not insulting you. The slate is clean; just for future reference it is ok to admit when mistakes are made. That in essence was all she was saying.
Ah, life's simple pleasures.
Indeed! :-)
Pursuant to §8, please include your evidence in your accusatory posts.
but in the spirit of the name calling agreement and in the interest of honesty(which is severely lacking from the evo side)
If I understand your response, it can be boiled down to this:
(1) TOE is dependent upon "natural law" for the cause.
(2) Natural law in this context can be defined to be mutations.
(3) Ergo, mutation drives TOE.
But where is the evidence for this? Since almost all mutations cause negative effects, where is the demonstrated "increased fitness"? Remember, "fitness" is defined as: increased number of offspring, or greater survival ability of offspring, or both. (That's not my definition, that's the accepted definition of fitness which arose, I think, to counter the tautology problem of the "Survival of the Fittest" phrase.)
You are begging the question when you assert: "...it is known why an apparent mutation (i.e. a difference between chimps and man) would be advantageous" since you have not demonstrated that those differences are in fact due to mutation as the causative factor. Your argument here boils down to:
(A) Mutation causes genetic change.
(B) We see differences between similar species.
(C) Therefore, these differences have been caused by mutation.
Again, this is reasoning "by induction". Which is weak. Yes, there is evidence of mutation. But evidence that mutation works to produce "fitter" critters is lacking, I assert. And the whole TOE hangs upon this one point.
If she had used you as an example in the same way, you would not be saying the above.
I note that she did not treat anyone from the evolutuionist side as an example of what should not be done, so her statement was definitely not fair.
Seems to me also, that you should be asking her to call her post a mistake (preferably by Freepmail - as the posts made by the three of you should have been addressed) instead of excusing it. Civility goes two ways, not one.
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.