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]

You should take your own advice sparky. It was YOU that jumped into a conversation between myself and jennyp.

Inciting is a violation.

[ALS]

"Effective August 9, 2003, we, the undersigned, freely and in good faith agree that henceforth we shall treat others on these threads as we wish to be treated ourselves."

"We will not deliberately provoke another to engage in improper conduct. We will not conspire against, scheme or bait any poster for any reason."

Obey the rules!

[gore3000]

And did I say ANYTHING TO ALS?

That makes it doubly worse since you are not even giving him the courtesy of letting him know you were speaking about him.

It just so happened that you thought of ALS?

No I did not think of ALS, I followed the thread and when I got to your post I saw that it was indeed ALS you and Patrick were speaking about. This was one of the things which were expressly mentioned to be uncivil and were to stop - the demeaning of people behind their backs.

[Aric2000]

We are in FULL compliance with the agreement as agreed upon.

Per the moderator of said agreement, as stated in this post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/952079/posts?page=2156#2156

Per section 5 of aforementioned agreement.

5 Language Restraint We will not use obscene or belittling words to describe another complying poster or whatever that poster believes; however, merely factual or logical criticism and rebuttal shall never be considered "obscene or belittling."


If one of us notices another poster creating problems on the thread, we may post a warning in behalf of all of us, to the effect of: "Hey X, that post of yours [number 123] was a bit provocative. You know we have rules about disrupting (or whatever). I understand that you're momentarily swept up in the debate, but please restrain yourself."
Or: [in lieu of the 2nd sentence in bold] "Under our agreement, the actions of provocateurs, trolls, spammers, and disruptors are prohibited, as is the use of obscene or belittling words to describe another poster or his beliefs."

After having made such a good faith attempt to bring the offending poster into compliance, if the problematic poster continues in the offending behavior we may post a warning (such as: "Don't feed the trolls!") to other posters that the problematic party has chosen not to comply. If the problem persists, the offender may thereafter be called a provocateur, troll, spammer, or disruptor, and doing so will not be a violation of this agreement.


We are in compliance, please quit engaging the disruptor, the flamewar he is trying to start is building, it is time to quit engaging and let him stew by himself until he chooses to comply with said agreement.

Until that time, Virtual Ignore is our friend.

Thanks in advance.

[Virginia-American]

Me: There is no way, not even in principle, that ID could be falsified, because we're free to postulate anything we want to about the hypothetical designer.

You: Not correct. Who the designer is does not matter as to whether something was designed. We can look at a car and know it was designed by some human being without knowing the human beings name or the purpose of his particular design.

I don't follow your analogy. We already know, for a fact, that the car was designed by a person (or persons). We don't know this from looking at a car; we know it because we independently know the history of technology. If an ancient person, (or a New Guinea Cargo Cultist) saw a car, they might very well infer Divine Design.

What are we able to say about this hypothetical designer? All I've seen so far is that it has lousy quality control, and that it likes to mimic Darwinism.

My point was that since design is a purely ad-hoc hypothesis, there are no limitations on what can be imputed to the designer. We could use some independent lines of inquiry here.

[ALS]

"Effective August 9, 2003, we, the undersigned, freely and in good faith agree that henceforth we shall treat others on these threads as we wish to be treated ourselves."

"We will not deliberately provoke another to engage in improper conduct. We will not conspire against, scheme or bait any poster for any reason."

Obey the rules!

[Aric2000]

5 Language Restraint We will not use obscene or belittling words to describe another complying poster. Have a nice night.

[gore3000]

Science is not about assuming, it is about proving.-me-

I am unaware of anything in science that has been formally proven.

Of course many things have been proven. Let's take a few - would you say that it has not been proven that the parents genes are not the source of the progeny's genes? Would you deny that that has not been proven? Would you deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Moon around the Earth has not been scientifically proven?

[ALS]

You broke that one too.

[RightWingNilla]

Of course many things have been proven.

No scientific theory has been "proven". There are lots of observations thst occur on a regular basis, but science seeks to explain things.

[RightWingNilla]

Have a good night all.

[jennyp]

we recommend not engaging a non-complying poster because it could lead to disruptive dialogue and flame wars.

I have concluded that Aric2000 is correct: ALS is clearly in non-compliance with sections 5, 6a, 8a, 8b, 8c, and 10. In other words, ALS is acting like a troll.

WARNING!!!

There are lines in the water

Please do not feed the trolls!

[gore3000]

I didn't see an "illogical poster" clause in there, did you?

And none such was stated or implied in the post you were responding to.

[ALS]

I'm not a signator to the name calling agreement, dummy.

Now that leaves you in the unenviable position of realizing you are in violation of your own agreement. Please take a moment to read through it, and getta clue.

[Aric2000]

Thank you for again stating that RWN.

Gore, science does indeed seek to explain things, but NO theory is EVER proven, no matter how you feel that it has been proven.

Evolution is indeed the BEST scientific theory to explain the available evidence, but it will NEVER be PROVEN as you say.

It is assumed by a majority of scientists to indeed be true, but they will never say to you that evolution is proven.

You should know that by now, it's frustrating for you, but it is the truth.

[ALS]

Science not only considers Evolution a done deal as far as having been pretty much proven, but it is the basis of most biological sciences.

Sorry G3K, it has been creationally refuted, nothing more.


2,042 posted on 08/09/2003 7:20 PM CDT by Aric2000

[ALS]

"And none such was stated or implied in the post you were responding to."

So would you say that Aric2000 was in direct violation of oh say, this clause?:

"We will not deliberately provoke another to engage in improper conduct. We will not conspire against, scheme or bait any poster for any reason."

[Stultis]

Excellent analysis. Pannekoek has to create a gratuitous, and almost unrecognizable, version of "evolution" to make it "fit" with communism. This is hardly surprising, as the fit is very poor otherwise.

Communism is an historicist (historically deterministic) theory, whereas evolution is a contingent (non-deterministic) process in the historical dimension.

Communism is a collectivist theory, where mass historical forces are the determinative factor. Darwinian evolution is an individualist theory, where the trial and error success or failure of individuals (to reproduce) is determinative.

Communism is a finalistic theory, where history is (allegedly) progressing to a definite and culminative goal. Evolution is just a process that occurs due to the nature of living things (variation, heretibility, reproduction, death) and will continue so long as there are living things.

Evolutionary theory was (predominately) initially formulated and developed by individuals who embraced Western liberalism, modernization, the growth of markets, industrialism and the prosperity it created, and who saw these forces as positive and good in themselves. Communism was formulated and advanced by individuals who rejected the liberal society, and saw the forces of modernization as creative only in so far as their "internal contradictions" would lead to strife, suffering, and self destruction (leading to the communist utopia).

[ALS]

Take a look at #2215 & #2216.

This is a fine example why aric has zero credibility. Although I will say that he usually contradicts himself within a single post. This time he managed to get them a few posts apart.

[Aric2000]

Please ignore any and all NONcompliant posters that try and critique you on your compliance or noncompliance of said agreement.

By NOT signing on to the agreement, they have given up ANY rights to criticize you on such compliance.

The only people that must be listened to in that regard are those that have signed onto the said agreement.

If you wish to know or are unsure of who and who is not signed onto the agreement, please go to this thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960260/posts

Thank you and have a great night!!