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?

[gore3000]

I challenged them to go 1000 posts without insults, they never made it

Did they make it to 50 at least?

[JesseShurun]

you know it got up into the hundreds before they lost it

[gore3000]

Nobody's asking you to take personal responsibility for ALS and C-Jen, but if you're going to run point fingers you need to get out of the pig-pen.

Is that an example of civility or is it an example of utter hypocrisy?

[ALS]

Their cookies?

That's a lotta cookies. Did their mothers know?

[gore3000]

http://www.conservababes.com/whine.html

See for yourself.

Yup, they are still there and show quite well who got the thread pulled and why - yourself.

It shows something about evolutionists - they refuse to answer questions and they will do anything to 'win'. I think everyone should read it.

[JesseShurun]

pitiful, just pitiful

[Alamo-Girl]

Jeepers, this has been a wild ride!

First of all I wish to thank everyone for contributing to this effort. I just caught up reading the posts and making notes so that we can have a summary of what has transpired. I’ve tried to summarize the flow by issues and leave it open, so anyone who wishes to, can add to the accumulation. It is heavily paraphrased and ranked by relative importance (in my view.) Please feel free to correct my impressions on the debate (the numbers are post numbers on this thread) – the comments are my personal analysis of the problem and how it might be resolved:

Complaint: That ALS wrongfully disputed RWP’s credentials, i.e. that he is a Professor
220 VadeRetro complained about ALS’ treatment of RWP concerning his credentials. Evidence was produced and discussion followed. At 263 ALS apologized to RWP At 284 RWP refused the apology. At 316, RWP repeats that he does not accept the apology. At 372 RWP disputed ALS’ version of the events, but offered no evidence. At 592. RWP continues to not accept the apology and accuses ALS of lying. At 596, ALS says that RWP’s complaint preceded his apology by months. At 602, RWP says the old post is proof that ALS was given the link months ago. At 603, ALS disputes that claim saying it proves that RWP refused to answer the question. At 609, RWP says he posted the same link that I posted – but ALS only read mine.

Comment: The only way this can be resolved is if RWP accepts the apology. Since he refuses to do, nothing further should be said from the ALS camp. At the point of apology, the weight is transferred IMHO.

Complaint: That Fundamentalist Christians are being intentionally marginalized in conservative politics
249 unspun complains about RWP’s sentence targeting fundamentalist Christians, to keep them from influencing conservatism. At 258 I join unspun’s complaint. At 259 ALS joins unspun’s complaint At 283 RWP asserts that he has no qualms about generalizing about Fundamentalist Christians. At 301 he repeats the aversion to fundamentalist Christians. At 321, PH denies there is Christian bashing (4 year old posts were quoted.) At 432, Junior admits to a sore spot wrt fundamentalist Christians.

Comment: This is religious discrimination and is wrong in every respect (1st Amendment and others). It is the offense which is called “Christian bashing” and will surely continue to incite flame wars.

Complaint: That one side (or the other) is responsible for flame wars
304 PH complains that ALS is a disruptor. 313 VR complains that ALS and Jesse lead a flame war. Evidence provided. 319 RWP complaints that there was flame war against CobaltBlue and Junior that was ugly. No evidence. At 342, js1138 provides more links. At 345, VR provides more evidence. At 351, conservababe complains the evos do the same thing. At 368, MEGoody agrees (as did js1138 earlier on the thread) that misbehavior is on both sides. At 414, js1138 offers an olive branch. At 428, VR offers more evidence. At 477, ALS offers an olive branch, that the flaming will end if the evo side will quit Christian-bashing. At 514, ALS shows RWP’s post of 512 as evidence from the other side, declares creos justified. At 544, js1138 provides evidence of flaming by ALS. At 549. ALS provides evidence that the flames were provoked. At 550, ALS repeats the offer to quit the flaming if the evos quit bashing Christians. At 551, VR disputes ALS’ rebuttal. At 554, headsonpike accuses ALS of being the worst offender.

Comments: This appears to be the heart of the problem in the eyes of most people. The thread itself is an example of flames from both sides. An offer is on the table from the ALS side to stop all flames if the evos will stop bashing Christians (see above complaint.) That is the best solution.

Complaint: Turning an argument into something unrelated, questioning motives
381 betty boop makes the complaint. At 405, <1/1,000,000th% agrees. At 485, Virginia-American agrees. I agree also but did not respond on thread.

Comment: A response is needed.

Complaint: That the creationists refuse to condemn and cease false postings
240 Doctor Stochastic complains that the crevo side does not condemn false postings (doctored quotes, etc.) - that these quotes still turn up even after having been exposed and that his own postings misquoted (words changed, etc.) At 295, DS retracts part of the complaint (that not one had condemned false postings) and expands the misrepresentation as systemic to the internet wrt creationism

Comment: We must correct our own mistakes openly. And we should also let a website know if the information they carry is in error and if they refuse to make the correction, to cease relying on that website as a source. Additionally, it is always helpful to check the sources and look for confirmations from other, unrelated and credible websites.

Complaint: That VadeRetro caused the pulling of a thread.
252 conservababe complains that VadeRetro caused the pulling of a thread. Evidence posted at 272, 275, 277, 309. At 311 PH counters that it appears that thread pulling is the fault of crevo posters. At 377, f.Christian puts the blame on the evo side for thread pulling At 483, whattajoke agrees with PH’s assertion. At 562, ALS provides more evidence that VR pushed abuse on conservababe. At 563, VR says that was the wrong thread. At 567, ALS disputes providing more evidence.

Comment: The “who” in the issue is not the point, at least to me, the fact that anybody would actually want a thread pulled is.

Complaint: That Newland is trying to get PatrickHenry banned from Free Republic
385 PH accuses Newland of plagarizing his disclaimer on another thread for the purpose of getting him banned. Evidence provided. At 508, PH corrects and clarifies the complaint but leaves it standing.

Comment: A response is needed.

Complaint: ALS accuses js1138 of lies with regard to the image posting complaint
472 ALS accuses js1138 of lies wrt posting of images. At 481 js1138 disputes that a personal contact was made, evidence given.

(I haven’t researched this one well enough to make a comment.)

Complaint: ALS accuses evos of calling Gore3000 and other Christians liars
509 ALS accuses evos of calling g3k a liar and produces evidence (CobaltBlue.) At 511 expands it to calling “us” liars for Christ. At 515, general_re accepts responsibility for the liars for Christ statement but says it was directed only to ALS At 516, ALS shows that jlogajan used it generally (“us”) At 526, VR provides evidence for the liars accusation. At 529, ALS disputed the evidence. Comment: There have been many accusations of “liar” coming from both sides. I believe it is time to close the door on all past accusations –– and resolve from this point forward not to call someone a liar unless you have clear proof of the intent to deceive. Most especially, it would be important to not bring forward past accusations.

Complaint ALS accuses Aric2000 of being a hypocrite
682 ALS accuses Aric2000 of being a hypocrite, provides evidence Comment: A response is needed.

Complaint: That js1138 misrepresented information linked from DesignedUniverse.com
268 ALS complains about js1138 misrepresenting information linked from DesignedUniverse.com. Complaint withdrawn initially.

[conservababeJen]

C-Jen's absolutely vile behavior.) July, not June. Who do you think you're fooling?

"vile behavior"???????

hahahahahhahahahhahaha.......... SHOW EVERYONE your idea of "vile behavior". C'mon.

[Alamo-Girl]

Sorry to lump all these replies in one post, but I'm exhausted after a day of varnishing and must head off to bed...

CobaltBlue, at 323 you said:

If the others don't see any problem with the trolls that speaks volumes about their standards. The trolls are in public, right in everyone's faces. If the "philosophy sisters" haven't caught on, either they're wilfully obtuse or they don't mind.

I don’t mind trolls or squeaky wheels. We’ve always had plenty of both on the political threads. What I do mind is when the decorum has degraded so much that the most staid and respected posters here are reduced to using tactics they would have never previously so much as considered. BTW, I have another response to you at the bottom of this post...

Tribune7, thank you so much for the encouragements at 334!

ConservababeJen, at 369 you said:

And I see nothing wrong with that [fighting fire with fire]. It's a debate tactic. The thing that angers me and fuels my fire, is that, myself, nor ALS, show ANYONE here less respect than we ourselves are given. If I don't get respect...I'll rarely offer any in return....If I don't GIVE someone respect, I don't EXPECT to get any back...

Indeed. Fighting fire with fire is a tactic of choice, as is the choice to treat someone with equal respect but no more. As for me, I choose not to meet fire with fire and to respect and love posters who openly loathe me.

Right Wing Professor, at 372 you wondered:

I've always wondered about these Lurkers. Are there really people who sit around and read ther people's slanging matches, without joining in?

Indeed. We have many Lurkers. Some in the media, some in congress, some big names most people here would recognize – but most are probably ordinary people like me who just haven’t decided whether it’s worth it to join in.

general_re, at post 375 you said:

I do not believe this position [choosing not to indict anyone by name] is tenable, A-G. Given that BB has called for the "naming of names" in post 193, and you have apparently signed on to this in your post 270, I fear that it would appear hypocritical of you to complain broadly on the one hand, while not meeting your own standard of airing specific grievances on the other. Bring specific accusations to the table, A-G, and let those involved step up to defend themselves, or drop the broad hints about particular instances and the theatrical sighs lamenting the decline of the Republic. We have disagreed in the past, A-G, but, I think, on generally reasonable and even friendly terms. And on those same terms, I am here to tell you that you simply cannot have it both ways. Name names, or begone.

Well, I’m not going anywhere and I’m not naming names either. All offenses against me personally are forgiven and I shall try to remember them no more.

Nakatu X, at 447 you said:

I'd wager few feel comfortable in naming names or spreading gossip. Also, if you won't name names and yet demand the same of the other side, it, well, doesn't look very good. I have more indepth personal knowledge of the poster(s) mentioned in this thread, and I truly am afraid of these/that posters'/poster's abilities and for my safety.

Please freep mail me. Hugs!!!

VadeRetro, at 380 you said:

Threads started being pulled as fast as they were made in early June. Jim Rob was threatening to ban the crevo threads and all regular players thereon in June. Threads have been regularly dumped full of graphic chaff and trash talk pollution since June. A-G's first clue was within the last week.

betty boop and I have been on this forum for about 5.5 years now – and we’ve seen many a flame war and an occasional exodus of disgruntled posters. I was aware there was a flaming going on, but not paying attention because they tend to work themselves out. It was when I noticed that the most staid and respected posters on this forum were being affected by it – that it got my attention. There are always squeaky wheels, but the anchors have never budged … until recently.

ALS, thank you so much for all your kind words and encouragements at 467! Indeed, my refusal to fight fire with fire is not a sign of weakness. I shall continue to love God with all my heart, mind, soul, strength and understanding – and love my neighbors – all of them - unconditionally.

Aric2000, at 666 you said:

I am not too surprised, A-G tells us that she will not "attack" or otherwise disagree with a fellow "christian". I find it pretty sad that that includes not telling a fellow Christian that they are going way and above and beyond what is reasonable.

Indeed. I will not interfere with another Christian’s mission or belief. God puts us to work in many different ways. That is the same reason I do not criticize Catholics, Methodists, etc. I also refuse to judge or rebuke other people – whether Christian or not.

CobaltBlue, thank you for the insight at post 694. I see I need to do some reading. You said:

I have a hard time figuring out where fundamentalists stand on orthodoxy vs. heresy. On the one hand, I read your posts to the effect of there being 12 Apostles and Jesus never settled their disputes and Revelations says there are more than one church, and on the other hand I am told that I am not a real Christian because I don't believe this and that.

We Fundamentalist Christians share the same Spirit and thus agree on spiritual matters, but we do not all think the same way on worldly issues. I would never say that you or any other Catholic is not a Christian. Some of my brothers and sisters in the Lord do not believe that people who see things differently could possibly be saved. I’m sure the Lord has a use for those who hold that view as I am sure He has a use for me and for you! .

[f.Christian]

1/1,000,000th% ...

I will say that this is one of the weirder threads I've ever seen. But a very interesting "evolution" of the forum. I wonder if we'll be successful at self-policing? I personally believe that if you two "philosophy sisters" can't do it, it can't be done. ;)

[general_re]

I'm not seriously suggesting you leave, A-G - I am suggesting that you either make your accusations specific, or drop them entirely, rather than making vague and elliptical references to them in passing. Since you appear to be dropping them, I am satisfied. Fair enough?

[Junior]

A "You'll know we are Christians by our love" placemarker.

[f.Christian]

To all the lurkers,

There are certain arrogant, evolutionists on these threads that spend their time posting veiled Christian insults (particularly toward "fundys"). They mock Bible believers and suggest that their "scientific" theories are superior to the Word of God. When they're not doing this they are busy posting stupid blue placemarkers, "don't feed the trolls"/"virtual ignore" graphics and pompous suggestions that the opinions of people who believe that God created ALL should take their thoughts elsewhere. When they get bored with the above, they then take on the innocent role. They get that "deer in the headlights" look about them and cry that the Christians are being mean to them.

These people are a detriment to this website, and to the Conservative cause. Please carefully note who these people are and DO NOT respond to them.


407 posted on 07/28/2003 12:39 PM PDT by conservababeJen

[ALS]

I'm not seriously suggesting you leave, A-G - I am suggesting that you either make your accusations specific, or drop them entirely, rather than making vague and elliptical references to them in passing. Since you appear to be dropping them, I am satisfied. Fair enough?


751 posted on 07/29/2003 2:24 AM CDT by general_re


I hope you think about doing the same regarding this "Liars for Christ" campaign you are on.

[ALS]

Comments: This appears to be the heart of the problem in the eyes of most people. The thread itself is an example of flames from both sides. An offer is on the table from the ALS side to stop all flames if the evos will stop bashing Christians (see above complaint.) That is the best solution.

The problem will never end until this is addressed. We could sit around here for years, lying in wait to spring forth buckets of embarrassment on each other OR we could address this problem and bring a healing to FR the likes of which it's never seen.

It's up to US folks. Think about it, seriously.

I'm game and willing to let it all be forgiven and a memory if we can ALL agree to address and resolve this issue.

[Jeremiah Jr]

Sefer Yetzirah: The Book of Creation: In Theory and Practice
Aryeh Kaplan

http://www.servantsofthelight.org/Archives/QBL/Books/BW/Yetzirah_0.html

http://www.www.yashanet.com/reading.htm

[gore3000]

Complaint: That the creationists refuse to condemn and cease false postings 240 Doctor Stochastic complains that the crevo side does not condemn false postings (doctored quotes, etc.) - that these quotes still turn up even after having been exposed and that his own postings misquoted (words changed, etc.)

This is a particular sore spot with me because it is an accusation made by evolutionists constantly any time evidence is posted which they dislike. For example I have been accussed of 'out of context' quoting for giving a direct quote from Darwin, almost a whole paragraph, with no ellipsis from the end of the Origins which has been directly cut and pasted from the source. The evolutionists use this accusation constantly. Further, if someone quotes an evo author on some facts they make the same accusation because they say that the author's interpretation is different. It is not the interpretation that matters, but the facts and it is not misquoting when an opponent is forced to admit facts which are contrary to their views, in fact, it is perhaps the strongest evidence possible.

And as to misquoting, the evolutionists do plenty of that themselves deliberately. They will often rephrase what I have said to make it look silly and treat it as a quote. They will even go as far as to 'quote' from a response of mine and make it look as what I was disagreeing with was what I had said. This is outright dishonesty

[general_re]

A "You'll know we are Christians by our love" placemarker.

You would think that being even tangentially associated with this kind of behavior would bother people, but it's just amazing how many people are perfectly willing to rationalize what is, simply, an ongoing pattern of deception, misinformation, and deceit - so long as it's for the proper higher purpose, anything goes, apparently...

To: general_re

suddenly found God? ways back you were spewing anti-christian crap

3,019 posted on 07/08/2003 2:59 AM EDT by ALS (http://designeduniverse.com Featuring original works by FR's best. contact me to add yours!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3017 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: ALS

ways back you were spewing anti-christian crap

Graduating to lying for Jesus now? Pull out one single post of mine in its entirety that's "anti-Christian".

3,025 posted on 07/08/2003 3:05 AM EDT by general_re ("Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3019 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Right Wing Professor]

Comment: The only way this can be resolved is if RWP accepts the apology.

And yet the statement for which he has 'apologized' is still on his web site; he has posted the link to the statement since his 'apology' for it; and has discussed that page with others!

I'll be charitable here, AG, and attribute this to a hard day, the effort of wading through 400-odd high-noise posts, and perhaps varnish fumes.

[Condorman]

It is the offense which is called “Christian bashing” and will surely continue to incite flame wars.

Does pointing out that the creationist camp (of any flavor) brings nothing to the science table count as "Christian bashing"?