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?

[general_re]

I'll call 'em as I see 'em, if it's all the same to you. We've got an offer to knock off the garbage from that poster, and all we have to do is meet some completely subjective standard of non-Christian-bashing. Post exactly as he dictates, and he'll back off. Such a deal.

No thanks. Call me when you people have a serious offer on the table, and not simply an attempt to dictate the terms of discourse around here - save that junk for your own forums.

[CobaltBlue]

Not calling people things like "monkey spanks" should be part of any deal.

Everybody knows that "spanking the monkey" is slang for masturbation.

I'd like to see us agree that we would not discuss each others' hypothetical sex lives (whether hetero or homo), menstrual cycles, bowel movements, urination, and/or other personal bodily functions, at a bare minimum.

[whattajoke]

I trust that you would not tell anybody to their face that their religion is a "silly superstition," regardless of your heartfelt beliefs

Depends on the context and my relationship to that person. I assure you that I have done exactly as you say at times. Perhaps not with the qualifier, "silly," though. I have no interest in ever "going with the flow" when it comes to things I find personally based on nonsense. Be it crystals, astrology, remote sensing, dowsing, magnetic socks, holy ghosts, creationism, prayer, chiropracty, or... liberalism.

[general_re]

I'd like to see us agree that we would not discuss each others' hypothetical sex lives (whether hetero or homo), menstrual cycles, bowel movements, urination, and/or other personal bodily functions, at a bare minimum.

What a shame that this even has to be suggested...

[CobaltBlue]

I don't consider keeping a civil tongue the same as "going with the flow."

[conservababeJen]

Don't dish it if you can't take it. I will say this one last time (since you missed it the first 4 times).... I (nor anyone else in these threads) EVER made a comment about your menstruation. Try really hard to remember that.

[Right Wing Professor]

I think unilateral disarmament is called for her also.

It was a demonstation of the power of MAD that got the other side to the negotiating table. I'm willing to agree to 'no first use', but not unilateral disarmament, if only because, if the topic has changed from 'evolution' to, e.g. 'is Darwinism the cause of racism?', we need to be able to discuss the other causes of racism, such as churches that were founded specifically to further racism. And if the world has gone to heck since poor old CD wrote his books, we need to see how much better it was when you got burned at the stake for suggesting it wasn't all created in 6 days.

[Tribune7]

Why do I post on crevo threads? I'm a proud conservative. I do not want my politics nor my party overrun by bible literalists.

But we really don't want the GOP or conservative movement to become overrun by radical secularists, do we now?

That's what happened to the Dems and look what's happening to the now.

Our country is founded on the axiom that God exists and God exists.

God bless America. :-)

[AndrewC]

Sorry, I missed this till now. I agree 100% with your exceptionally clear explanation of the Galileo affair and your attitude concerning the Ad Hominem approach used by others when engaged in "debate" with you.

My observation of that attitude is what drew me into these "debates". Prior to that observation, I only engaged in taking out my frustrations on political threads concerning the "Clintoon".

[conservababeJen]

wow, in all honesty I had never heard of these tracts. I just browsed the entire site. While I believe that ministering is a wonderful thing, I find his approach in extremely poor taste.

[Doctor Stochastic]

We shall see if any Creationists criticizes the poster.

[VadeRetro]

We shall see if any Creationists criticizes the poster.

He's fighting molecular clocking with fire.

[general_re]

Prior to that observation, I only engaged in taking out my frustrations on political threads concerning the "Clintoon".

Perhaps we ought to elect someone like that again, just to turn our collective attention away from feasting on each other.

...

Naaaaaahhhhhh ;)

[CobaltBlue]

Regardless of whether you were talking about my menstrual cycle, or whether I am pregnant, or going through menopause, or whatever you meant by "hormonal", I fail to see why you consider any of the above an appropriate topic of conversation.

Perhaps you can explain how "hormonal" is appropriate and/or how someone's hormones are appropriate subjects?

I have to go file something in court so won't immediately respond.

[VadeRetro]

What's to criticize? I thought I was reading a betty boop post at first. ;)

[AndrewC]

Perhaps we ought to elect someone like that again,

WOW! You don't know how close you came to having my family sue you for wrongful death!

[betty boop]

Answer the question, Do you consider the words "Genesis is a silly superstition" abuse?

Yes RadioAstronomer. Unless a good faith argument is forthcoming to demonstrate the reasoning behind the statement, the statement is a taunt. The point is, in making the statement, does one open up the possibility for reasoned discourse or shut it down by way of an ad hominum attack? To my mind, that would be the "litmus test" for any determination of abuse. If one can't take the time and trouble to back up the statement, one ought not to make it.

[VadeRetro]

Same thread, as RightWingNilla, AndrewC, and Nebullis wrangle over mutational distances, another voice of reason pops up. Maybe "loser" is one of those red flag words?

[conservababeJen]

I called you "hormonal" because you attacked me without provocation, solicitation or reason. Your behavior was irrational. It was behavior that's generally attributed to women who cannot control themselves because of hormone imbalance. I had never said a single word to you, yet you made the choice to take your mood-swing out on me. You still do it in your posting style. It was indeed, said as a dig, but one that was very likely accurate. You may not have considered it "appropriate", but it most certainly was no less appropriate than your post that I was responding to.

YOU initiate insults then act indignant by the retort. Do you do that in court too? You've displayed that countless times in these threads....I drew the conclusion then that it was hormone-based-mood-swings, and quite frankly I still do.

As general_re so eloquently stated..."I'll call 'em as I see 'em.".

[general_re]

Don't do that - I'd sure hate to think that someone I knew got the short-end of the natural selection stick. But I guess I'd be pleased that you ended up in a better place afterwards, a place without Clintoons ;)