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?

[Stultis]

Here's more to refute your lame defense of marxism.

LOL! I'm not defending Marxism. I understand, of course, that you aren't defending Marxism in general either. BUT YOU ARE defending A PARTICULAR CLAIM of Marx's, namely that Darwin's evolutionary theory -- in some way that you refuse to state -- supports his (Marx's) theory of history, economics and "class struggle".

IOW, even though you don't agree with Marx in general you DO agree with him on this point.

So, the ONLY person defending Marx in this thread is YOU!

The only person filling this thread with links to communist propaganda is YOU!

Instead, why don't you just state WHY you think Marx was correct about the relationship between communism and evolution. You know no freeper is going to read all the commmunist pap you keep linking. Just summarize the argument (making the large assumption that there actually is one).

[ALS]

Yeah it is. It's your belief system. If you find flaws in it you dislike, you need to deal with that instead of getting angry at the observer.

slay your own dragons

[Stultis]

Who said Darwin embraced Marx, besides you?

Maybe you misstyped, but you said in 2079 that, "Marx was endeared to Darwin".

[gore3000]

I don't follow your analogy. We already know, for a fact, that the car was designed by a person (or persons).

No, my analogy is correct. Even if you saw a new gizmo in a store or on the street you would not think it occurred by chance. We know that certain things are made by men, and are not the products of nature.

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.

Oh please, could you make a single living cell? I don't think so. So we certainly can say that this designer is a lot smarter than us. Therefore you cannot criticize the design if you yourself cannot understand it or do better. Further, it is beyond science to ascribe motives to a design. It can tell how something works, but not why someone made something. The motives of even a human designer can be quite unintelligible. Someone may create a new product to make money, another may do so just because he thought of it and wanted to see if it would work, another might have done it to benefit humanity. The motive of the designer is thus beyond a scientific discussion so it is a false objection.

As to mimicing Darwinism, I don't think so. Species were around long before Darwin. Perhaps it would be better to say that Darwin tried to fit the theory to what he saw in nature but did not quite succeed.

[gore3000]

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

No, I was stating the facts. You were discorteous to a fellow poster in talking behind his back. Further ALS is a complying poster and you belittled him and I was objecting to your attacking him behind his back.

[gore3000]

Of course many things have been proven.-me-

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

Are you denying that "the Earth orbits around the sun" has been proven? Are you denying that the parent's genes are the source of the progeny's genes? Answer that. If you cannot deny it then indeed science has given proof of some things.

[ALS]

Your post is a putrid violation of your rules.

Let's break it down since your peers are incapable.

I do not think "marx is correct". Hiding some twisted dementia within parenthesis just shows you are using deceptive devices in desperation to be a maroon.

I've clearly shown that Marx embraces evolution, and your boy stultis even says the same just a few posts above.

Then you take license to call me a troll because you don't like losing.

Then you make up "belittling" signs with my name in it.

Here's some rules you are breaking:

"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."

1. Purpose The limitation and restrictions expressed in this agreement are to promote reasoned discourse by avoiding unpleasant and disruptive behavior

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

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."

(NONE of this was done. You just rolled out the spam-o-rama sign, showing you've only read the parts of the agreement that sanction name calling and not the restrictions against name calling. OH YES, they're in there!)

8. Disclosure We will not bring an accusation against another poster or his beliefs without also bringing, on the same post, the evidence for that accusation.
(You failed this one BIG TIME. I see accusations, but NO EVIDENCE IN YOUR POST)

C. We will not question another poster’s motives or accuse him of trolling, disrupting, etc. without specific evidence.
(Again, NO EVIDENCE, just name calling)

10. Errors When we are wrong about a factual matter or in our conduct, we will acknowledge it. We will encourage others to do the same; and thus we will not acquiesce in improper conduct by those whose views we generally support.
(You either need to argue that Stultis is wrong or admit your error. I doubt seriously that your "clan" will uphold the latter part of 10)

Repetition of previously-rebutted statements of fact can become abusive, especially when the statement has been decisively rebutted and is being posted again with no new evidentiary support. We will not engage in such aggressive amnesia.
(Clear violation as I've shown my side several times to several different posters, and one of you even admitted I was correct, thereby fulfilling the "decisively rebutted" portion. Since you are the one I was in this conversation with, YOU are repeating "previously-rebutted statements of fact ".)

So much for the honesty of the evos. I've seen several abuses of the agreement that shows you guys see it just as a device to lord it over others and to continue the very practices that brought you to the signing table.

SHAME!

[ALS]

More like you misunderstood, which is nothing new under the sun.

[gore3000]

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

Unless you can deny the examples I gave, then my statement is correct. Are you denying them???? If so on what basis?

[ALS]

mail check

[jennyp]

Further ALS is a complying poster and you belittled him and I was objecting to your attacking him behind his back.

LOL!!! ALS is an intellectually dishonest troll. See 2151 & 2178.

[ALS]

More lies and deception.

Here's a sample:

YOU said:
"You have practically charged me with being a Marxist. Prove it."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/952079/posts?page=2151#2151

To: jennyp

au contraire!

I said you embrace the same dogma that Marx embraced. If that finds you with a guilt complex, that's your dragon to slay. As well you should.

Thanks for the fluff piece though. It kept you busy didn't it :)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/952079/posts?page=2153#2153

Lying and deception isn't a problem for atheists is it?

[gore3000]

He is NOT a signatory to the agreement, he backed out of it.

Where did he back out from it? He is there as agreeing to it except for the troll provision which is not the subject of the matter. Secondly civility is to be used towards all posters not just against those who sign it. It was uncivil of you to treat him uncivilly according to the rules of the agreement whether he is a signer or not. There was a long discussion on that because obviously newbies would not be signers of it since they did not know about it. Thirdly - anyone is able to complain about incivility. As far as I know there are no second class citizens on FR. In fact, the agreement was to make those signing on to it the ones with the fewer rights. The agreement was to restrain ourselves.

[ALS]

Did you sign the agreement? Because if you did, you certainly need to disavow it if you want to keep posting the lies in #2261.

I'm seeing a complete evo-meltdown. I will personally be surprised if your peers call you on this. Of course, the rules prohibit them from not calling you on it.

10. Errors When we are wrong about a factual matter or in our conduct, we will acknowledge it. We will encourage others to do the same; and thus we will not acquiesce in improper conduct by those whose views we generally support.


Specfically in these statements:
"So, the ONLY person defending Marx in this thread is YOU!"

"The only person filling this thread with links to communist propaganda is YOU!"

"Instead, why don't you just state WHY you think Marx was correct about the relationship between communism and evolution."


I despise Marx and you know it.
I'm not filling any thread with communist propaganda. I'm giving sources for marxists supporting evolution, which is the discussion, and this was already stated as a valid thing to do by Alamo-Girl when the argument was brought up by js1138 regarding links on websites.
And I never made any such claim that I believed "Marx was correct about the relationship between communism and evolution".

You've also violated this rule:
8. Disclosure We will not bring an accusation against another poster or his beliefs without also bringing, on the same post, the evidence for that accusation.

You made accusations but provided NO evidence in your lying post.

[Stultis]

"So, the ONLY person defending Marx in this thread is YOU!"

And so you are. No "lies" on my part.

I despise Marx and you know it.

Of course I do, which is why, in the very same post, I explicitly noted that you were not defending marxism as an ideology, or marxism in general, or Marx in general. I carefully noted the one point on which you DO agree with Marx, that evolution supports communism (though you won't say how).

And I never made any such claim that I believed "Marx was correct about the relationship between communism and evolution".

Oh, puh-lease. You may not have put it in that formulation, but you have repeated, for example, the mantra (paraphasing from memory) "how can evolution support conservatism when it supports marxism?" across multiple long threads.

Now, just maybe you don't really believe that Marx was justified in claiming that darwinian evolution somehow supports his historical and economic theories, but you have put forward this suggestion in so many different forms and so persistently that either you DO agree with Marx (on this particular point) or you are willingly putting forward a fallacious or "strawman" argument even though you don't. Until such time as you withdraw this fallacious argument I am certainly entitled to infer that you do agree with Marx (on this point) for this is a clear implication of your arguments (unless they are disengenuous).

[Stultis]

False on all counts. First of all ALS signed on to the agreement, the only part he withheld from accepting and being bound by was the 'troll' section.

Agreement of the Willing - Free Republic Science Threads ^
			Posted by ALS to general_re On News/Activism ^ 08/08/2003 9:02 PM CDT #332 of 579 ^ why that's funny. so why are you trying to convince andrewc to? no sorry, the agreement I signed on to "did not pass" and I clearly stated I would not support an agreement that sanctioned name calling, as everyone knows. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies
Agreement of the Willing - Free Republic Science Threads ^
			Posted by ALS to general_re On News/Activism ^ 08/08/2003 9:09 PM CDT #334 of 579 ^ It was "my baby", but what it turned into wasn't, as you previously made clear: "LOL - disappointed that your baby got pulled out from under you, eh?" I did not sign the agreement that won. Which means, an agreement I couldn't get you guys to sign on to, you happily signed on to, and all it took was a bit of child psychology, and walla! *tick tock* :) see ya at midnight! Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies
Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution ^
			Posted by ALS to jennyp On The Smokey Backroom ^ 08/10/2003 1:34 AM CDT #2,214 of 2,275 ^ 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. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2,212 | View Replies

[Stultis]

Further ALS is a complying poster

You can't be serious.

[BMCDA]

"Guilt by association" placemarker

[Junior]

Functional placemarker.

[gore3000]

If it weren't beneficial in the Darwinian sense, it wouldn't occur in 40% of some populations.

I think we looked at that once and if it did occur anywhere at 40% it was in a very small area. The death toll would be tremendous from it. As to why it occurs in some places, why are there black people in Africa and Mongoloid in China? We still have many blacks in the US with the trait. A harmful recessive trait can survive in populations for a long time.

No-one said, and I explicitly denied, that hemoglobin-S is the *only* protection against malaria.

Survivability from a disease is due to many things. Few people die from the flu in their 20s and 30s but the death rate rises sharply among seniors. So it is not just one factor.

I do not deny that traits are inherited and that bad traits can dissappear from populations. What I am saying is that this is not the kind of mutation on which evolution - the transformation of one species into a more complex one - can be built upon.