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?
... Except that it does not void copyrights.
Said, "unmentionable poster" is on permanent VI from me anyway, thus I am unaffected by his misbehavior.
Pure, unadulterated BS (am I allowed to write this?). I read the drafting thread, and nowhere is the faintest suggestion that you tricked the evos or anyone else. Sour grapes, if you ask me...I'm sticking with the agreement.
I said some harsh things to you on the Phoebe thread. You've shown me wrong and have been a true force for peace and civility. (Even as I kept duking it out.)
Hugs!
Incredibly, we are still on the Phoebe thread!
My post about revolving was tongue in cheek. I hope your insistence on proof from science is in a similar spirit.
When a certain unmentionable poster sent me that Freepmail last night
...LOL! What a riot.
Seriously, though, being a good troll requires many of the same skills as being a good poker player: subtlety, patience, self control, inscrutibility, unpredictability, and a willingness and ability to vary one's tactics. The poster in question is utterly lacking in all of these skills. It is a discredit to all of us, on both sides of the crevo fence, that such an inept disruptor ever succeeded in disrupting to any degree. But, by the same token, an inept poker player may take a few pots intitially just because the other players incorrectly assume he's not the incredible fool he appears to be. Once the other players have his number, though, and that won't take long, the fool is dead meat and might as well find another game.
I will. In the sense of "proven" meaning demonstrated as necessarily true by rigorous logical argument -- or in the sense of "proven" meaning that, by any means, any possible contradictory claims have been presumptively eliminated -- heliocentrism is NOT "proven". It is a theory. The purpose of a theory is to explain facts. Heliocentrism explains facts, that is: the specific polar coordinates, wrt the earth, of the sun and the other planets at specific times.
It is logically possible that other theories might explain the same facts, and explain them better. Indeed it is an historical fact that other theories HAVE at times explained these facts and explained them better, even though heliocentrism prevailed in the end.
Even though (nearly) everyone thinks that heliocentrism actually IS true, and will continue to prevail, and will not be replaced by any substantively divergent theory, this does not change its status as a theory.
That's interesting, considering that you agreed to sign the agreement at least two different times prior to the 'troll' amendment being added.
Why were you OK with the agreement before that was added or discussed, but now you say you would have been disappointed or dropped out if it passed without that.
Maybe that is where the confusion for some people starts.
I plan to completely ignore any and all trollish behavior, while occassionaly and at descretion responding to substantive, if dubious, claims made by offending posters. Since the poster in question makes very few substantive claims, this is no great burden.
Is this considered to be in violation of the agreement? That is, responding to non-trollish aspects of an offending user's posts? Or treating claims by offending posters matter of factly for the purpose of dispassionate refutation or dispute (effectively removing them from the context of attempted disruption, if even they might have been put forward in that context)?
I suggest that, in principle, the theory could become an observed fact. This would require stationing an observatory above the plane of the solar system, located above the sun, so that it would remain stationary with respect to the sun. From that vantage point, the motion of the earth could be observed and recorded. At the end of a year, we would have taken the theory and reduced it to an observed fact. The tape which recorded the observations could be played for anyone who wanted to see the evidence. Not only that, the observation could always be repeated, as desired.
More than you might think. Unlike the fantasy of "Contact" or "The Arrival", we are not looking for any messages at all. We are only looking for that extremely narrowband signal signifying a carrier, not what was carried.
If I recall correctly, at each stage of the agreement I was pleased with the progress we were making. The "troll calling" provision was a late addition, and when it began to be discussed, it became something I wanted, because I thought it was important. Before it became an issue, it didn't enter into my thinking.
YOUR CHARACTER has never been in question! Another poster's certainly is.
I signed on knowing full well what was going to happen. Not to worry, I knew you were completely aboveboard! :-))
I agree completely.
Personally, I don't see how it could be a violation. But if an alleged troll says something like: "All who believe in evolution are Marxists; furthermore there are no transitional fossils," I don't know why you'd respond to any part of such a post. But that's up to you.
Yes it does!
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.