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?

[VadeRetro]

The lying sack is still pretending he can't see. What do you see?

You know what a CV is, right?

Out for the night. We'll take it up tomorrow.

[ALS]

You whining falls on deaf ears given the fact that many many many times your ilk have said the most grievous remarks and never have any of you done anything but either add to it or defend it.

another hypocrite and not a very smart one either.
All of us are aware of what goes on around here.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

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.

From my point of view - for whatever the reason - he did recant and thus I cannot assess ill motive to the original misstatement, even though the original statement was not kindly worded. IOW, having ill will does not necessarily mean an intent to deceive.

My two cents as a third party observer...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank y'all for your posts and testimony!

Here is Right Wing Professor's Curriculum Vitae

[conservababeJen]

Are you claiming that his homepage is the same (today)as it was that day?

[unspun]

I have the feeling I'm missing something here --but not in the sentimental sense. ;-)

ALS: I think I may be with you, but let's try not to be ad hominem --even among the folks in these threads. ;-)

[ALS]

what's a CV?
and if you are referring to the LINK in his homepage, it doesn't explain why to this day not a one of you have said if he IS or is NOT a professor.
As a matter of fact, something is really fishy here. If I recall, his homepage made reference to him taking that name from the guy shown in the link. Even that is misleading. And now it's all gone!

Maybe that explains why you all played the game of refusing to answer.

I got the distinct impression I wasn't the first to ask.

[ALS]

aww shux!

[unspun]

Oh, is this the subject of the moment?"

"I have a strong interest in keeping conservatism from being taken over by fundamentalist Christians who have made it a mission to anathematize portions of science because they think it conflicts with the Bible."

Have you seen many folks who comply with this description engaged in conservative politics? I don't find myself using up many fingers at all, trying to count them up.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your grievance!

In response to betty boop's challenge, we are examing specific instances.

Would you kindly post the evidence for an unrecanted false statement?

Likewise, would you kindly post the evidence of your statement being misquoted and not recanted?

Hopefully, we are agreed that only an intentional false statement will be called a "lie."

[ALS]

"Thank y'all for your posts and testimony!

Here is Right Wing Professor's Curriculum Vitae"

I had not seen that page. And I'm still puzzled as to what's the game with everyone refusing to answer the question and why if he is a professor, he has never admitted to it, and chose to endure embarrassment over simply stating so.


interesting...

[conservababeJen]

BTW....

The following is also a FALSE assertion...

VadeRetro: "which led to the temporary absence of Right Wing Professor"

He was still posting 2 days later.
MOF, I noticed that RWP disappeared immediately after getting caught (by ME) in a lie he posted. That was 2 days after the thread you mentioned (questioning his credentials). I called him on his lie and presented proof. YOU clicked "abuse" on ME and the thread was pulled minutes later. YOU were the last to post on that thread. I have the posts to prove it. My post to him was completely accurate.

[f.Christian]

bb ...

On his own theory, Steven Pinker is utterly inexplicable. For matter randomly playing out in a blind chain of causation cannot account either for his being or his mind. He is not allowed to be a "subjectivity," because his own theory denies there is such a thing. On his own theory, Steven Pinker is utterly inexplicable. For matter randomly playing out in a blind chain of causation cannot account either for his being or his mind. He is not allowed to be a "subjectivity," because his own theory denies there is such a thing. Indeed, it takes pains to remove such a thing from scientific relevance.

bb (( fC )) ...

Indeed, it takes pains (( honesty - philosophy - objectivity )) ...

to remove such a thing (( bias - ideology - religion - fantasy )) ---

from scientific relevance (( truth - reality // cause - effect )) .


fC ...

People's choice of methodology (( reason - materialsm )) is really their belief system (( subjectivity - IDOLATRY )) !

Just fabricate * input * your ego delusians (( ph - rwp - ah2 )) ...

stick to your mantra - SCHLOCK - SUBJECTIVITY (( ph - rwp - ah2 )) ---

and * block out * reality - thinking - OBJECTIVITY (( ph - rwp - ah2 )) !

And " attack * conservatives --- creationists --- real science !

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post! Sleep well!

The lying sack is still pretending he can't see.

See, that kind of statement ("lying ... pretending") is not helpful. No intent to deceive has been shown on ALS' part in knowing what a CV is or where to find it.

I posted a direct link to Right Wing Professor's Curriculum Vitae (CV) - yours was to his Free Republic home page.

[ALS]

Any chance of him not knowing he pushed the abuse button and the thread getting pulled right after?

I ask because he made the accusation based on an unrelated post that it was ME that "got the thread pulled".

In fact, I've heard this time and again from his side. Twice I know of where I wasn't anywhere near the internet when they were pulled.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your grievance!

In keeping with betty boop's challenge, would you kindly post the evidence for your assertion?

[conservababeJen]

sure thang... Stand-by.......

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

Actually, we're in a kind of truth or dare mode - but the sentence you found also troubled me very deeply. I believe it was on the post captured by ALS at #238 and was made by Right Wing Professor:

I have a strong interest in keeping conservatism from being taken over by fundamentalist Christians who have made it a mission to anathematize portions of science because they think it conflicts with the Bible.

I am hurt and offended by the sentence because it makes me feel the object of a purge, since I am a Fundamentalist Christian. I am not a second class conservative. I've put in many years of work in helping the conservative cause. It is deeply troubling to be targeted in this way.

Now, to be completely fair, we need to hear Ring Wing Professor's response.

[ALS]

I too am deeply offended by this tactic employed by the evos in many threads.
As we all know, they've made spurious references to "fundamentalists", at will, and when called on the carpet, they later attempt to redifine what they "meant".

My problem with this is that if a person gets to enjoy the "bliss" of such personal denigration, they shouldn't be backpeddling afterwards, and take their medicine for such pathetic hate-mongering.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

I had not seen that page. And I'm still puzzled as to what's the game with everyone refusing to answer the question and why if he is a professor, he has never admitted to it, and chose to endure embarrassment over simply stating so.

I really don't know why the question was not answered directly and/or backed up with a direct link to his curriculum vitae. Leaving it unanswered caused a hurtful presumption and much ill will.

Certainly, Right Wing Professor's credentials are substantial and he deserves our respect for his accomplishments though we may not agree with his views.