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?

[ALS]

A. You failed to offer a link for context.
B. In the morning I'm at work, why aren't you?(backstabbing?)
C. Here's the real story http://www.conservababes.com/whine.html
You seem to be pulling(re-editing is just as likely) something from somewhere else, as the post # you give and the post numbers in the link I provide are way out of sync. ESPECIALLY the date.
D. I'm betting you chihuahuas are passing stuff around and don't have a clue what is what. Of course, this is nothing new.
E. The practice of deceiving JR with rhetoric isn't so successful these days, is it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for contributing the specific complaint! Now I await to hear any rebuttal testimony ALS may have. BTW, do you have a link for that so I can read the context?

[VadeRetro]

Like most threads ALS has been on, that one was eventually pulled. However, I'll put the saved HD page I just used where all can see it before I leave tonight.

[ALS]

"The kind of lies and personal smears you are waving away for the Lord:"

Does this mean your bogus tripe is all Lying for Darwin?

And since we are on the subject of the "professor"..

His reaction to a simple question, and yours as well, is quite peculiar. If he is, then he should say so. If he isn't, then why freak? Just say "no". fini

Also, when I asked him, it was in response to him calling on the credentials of someone else, as a debating tactic.
He came out of nowhere and started thumping his chest, so I asked the obvious question.

facts are NOT your friend

[conservababeJen]

which led to the temporary absence of Right Wing Professor

How so?
Why so?
And...
Where'd he go?

[ALS]

The admin that pulled that thread was complaining about the abuse of the abuse button from BOTH sides.
As you can see from this link:
http://www.conservababes.com/whine.html
If anyone is guilty about ticking off the admin, it was the "prof", and who knows who else on your side was leaning on the button.

This canard about a FReeper pulling a thread is a lie.
It's the management that decides to pull a thread.

I doubt even if they would if someone requested it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the offer to put the information where we can all get at it, but it won't be necessary if you confirm the recap on the link provided by ALS:

And why was the "prof" so upset? I asked him if he was a professor. 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. And by the way all his tag team evobots jumped in STILL REFUSING to say YES or NO, it became even more obvious someone must have asked this valid question before.

That is the context I will look for if you make the information available. If this context is correct, then there was no intent to misrepresent or to lie.

Even in a court of law, if the defendant refuses to answer a question, the jury is free to presume that had he answered it truthfully it would have hurt his case.

Hopefully after all the smoke cleared, an apology was forthcoming.

[VadeRetro]

The "Unlocking" Thread, posts 461-480.

The "Unlocking" Thread, posts 481-500.

The particular post number was 468. Reading on the next page, I see that the actual incident of RWP's self-exile was even earlier. RWP and ALS are both back from their absences. ALS however is still lying about what he knows, but RWP by the time of that thread is no longer taking the bait.

[ALS]

Yeah, this is what the Admin said on that particular thread you LYINGLY lay at me feet.

This thread has been pulled.

Pulled on 06/06/2003 5:35 PM CDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
OK, obviously some on this thread have decided to just throw insults back and forth, and expect us to wade through hundreds of posts to see who started it. We decline that task. The 'he started it' routine is something I expect from pre-teens. You want to debate this topic? Then learn to do so without the insults. BOTH SIDES, this applies to you.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/920257/posts?q=1&&page=1821#1821

[ALS]

"The particular post number was 468. Reading on the next page, I see that the actual incident of RWP's self-exile was even earlier. RWP and ALS are both back from their absences. ALS however is still lying about what he knows, but RWP by the time of that thread is no longer taking the bait."

That would mean you lied in the above post.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, can we agree not to call something a "lie" unless there was a willful intent to deceive?

For instance, I didn't gather from Vade's post that he intentionally misrepresented the sequence of events. He did correct it later.

[Mr.Atos]

RE: Post #152

Well said A-G. Well said, indeed. I especially found this point quite enlightening... Jesus did not burden us to be all alike, He choose twelve very different personalities to begin with and clearly acknowledged different church views in Revelations. I am, afterall, Thomas... albeit doubting the details, yet not the fundamentals.

Thank you for the the thoughtful discussion.

[VadeRetro]

If this context is correct, then there was no intent to misrepresent or to lie.

You're out of your mind, Hon! RWP's CV was right there for all to see the entire time. The page was linked directly for ALS many times. He was told to read it. He continued to lie. I don't have to tell you what I'm wearing if you're not blind and you're looking at me while we're talking.

I'm not interested in lawyerly outs. I'm not interested in how there's no making a creo see, except to see how far you're willing to keep the blinders on. But that will be for tomorrow.

[ALS]

"The particular quote above was part of an exchange which led to the temporary absence of Right Wing Professor (whose bona fides are available on his profile for all to see). The situation was corrected when ALS got his butt canned, albeit lamentably only for a few days."

He only "corrected" himself after I showed the proper post # and date. If I hadn't given the correct info, who can say if he would have ever recanted on his own. Personally, I doubt it. But everyone's observations are not expected to be the same.

Thanks

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for the kind words! Hugs!!!

BTW, I'm of the John mind - wrapped up in loving Jesus, joyful and not sweating the details.

[conservababeJen]

He was asked very clearly (repeatedly) and refused to answer (repeatedly). MOF...he still hasn't.

[conservababeJen]

Another thing.......

RWP's homepage is (at last check) COMPLETELY different than it was during that thread.

[ALS]

What CV page? What link?

I remember you yahoos saying it's "right there", but when I asked where is where, that's all I got.
The amazingly curious thing is that I asked each one of you is he a professor or not, and none of you said YES or NO.

Regardless, I don't see what you are trying to prove except the deviousness of your desperate attempt to win something.

Did I call the "prof" on the carpet? You bet I did. Did I do it again later when he started back with his tactics?
You bet I did. Each time he ran. Instead of defending himself, he ran.

The facts as laid on the this link:
http://www.conservababes.com/whine.html

Are exceedingly accurate. There is no stretch. That would be utterly pointless as that link was made available to all.
Anyone could have refuted it at any time. NO ONE did.

[Alamo-Girl]

You're out of your mind, Hon!

Surely you don't really mean that, Vade.

The page was linked directly for ALS many times. He was told to read it.

The link you provided doesn't support these assertions. If you have those pages, please link them as well.

I'm not interested in lawyerly outs.

My use of the jury example was to show that contrary presumptions for refusal to answer a direct question are not only understandable, but legal as well.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I have asked many times if Creationists would condemn false postings (doctored quotes, etc.) and have never got an answer. I must assume that their silence means consent. Note that these quotes still turn up even after having been exposed.

I have had my own postings misquoted (words changed, etc.)and no criticism from the Creationst crowd. I do not believe that I can trust those who deliberatly change my words nor can I trust their enablers.