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?

[RadioAstronomer]

But, but, .... I thought that species of pigeon is extinct!

ROFL!!!!!!!! :-)

[ALS]

Holding an agreement hostage for 3 days so you can get your troll calling sanctioned is flatulence.

[RadioAstronomer]

You're orbiting the earth's center of mass

Well kinda. :-)

Both objects are orbiting a COMMON center of mass. Just so happens with small satellites, the mass is so tiny compared to the Earth it is negligible.

[RadioAstronomer]

But couldn't you shoot a probe far above the ecliptic, in an "orbit" that's fixed relative to the Sun, and another fixed relative to the Earth, and then see which one takes more fuel to keep itself in position? Seems like that should be a valid proxy for finding the true "objective fixed observer". (Recognizing that the solar system itself is in transit towards - Vega, is it?)

I am a bit confused on this one. What do you mean "fixed relative to the Sun"? One thing thatis interesting is that you can use the Earth as a fixed point of reference (or the moon, sun, galaxy etc.) instead of the center of the solar system.

[PatrickHenry]

I think the overall point is that you could, if you wanted to, select earth as the frame of reference, and plot everything's movement from that perspective. But that's just the old Ptolemy system. My understanding is that it works, and you could probably do the computations needed to send probes to the other planets that way, but it's devilishly complicated.

[RadioAstronomer]

I think the overall point is that you could, if you wanted to, select earth as the frame of reference, and plot everything's movement from that perspective

Indeed you can :-)

My understanding is that it works, and you could probably do the computations needed to send probes to the other planets that way, but it's devilishly complicated.

Actually we use stellar navigation and a solar orbit to accomplish that. We place the spacecraft into a solar orbit that intersects the planets orbit path. It just has to be such that the planet is there when the probe gets there. What is also interesting is that the planet is not always there the first time around. Sometimes it takes two solar orbits by the spacecraft before they meet. The Magellan did that.

[PatrickHenry]

What is also interesting is that the planet is not always there the first time around. Sometimes it takes two solar orbits by the spacecraft before they meet.

If the spacecraft were manned, that's a ghastly way to get where you're going. Would it make more sense to delay the launch until the target had moved to a more favorable position? That way, we'd be letting the earth do some of the traveling for us. Seems more comfortable.

[gore3000]

Just one of the problems with Newton's law is that it assumed that the gravitational attraction was an instantaneous force.

And how has that been disproven?

[VadeRetro]

Geostationary. :-) A geosynchronous orbit need not be over the equator.

D'oh!! Me wrong.

[VadeRetro]

I disagree. There's no such hard and fast rule anywhere. Where, for instance, were your protests upon this earlier outrageous revelation of private correspondence? Where, in fact, were anyone's? There is no such rule.

[Aric2000]

I think that he means that gravity travels at the speed of light, it is not instantaneous from one point to another.

[Aric2000]

But over the equator is where the satelites would be at the 22,000 mile mark, or thereabouts, but above the equator the satelites would have to be a little closer to the earth?

Correct, or am I Just looking at it totally wrong?

[PatrickHenry]

Googling around, I blundered into this website: Geosynchronous Orbit.

[VadeRetro]

Found a good web page on the topic.

Here are two example orbits, one geosynchronous and one geostationary.

The geostationary is circular and right on the equator. The geosynchronous is circular and inclined. Both include the center of the earth. No stable orbit will let you hover over a pole. There is such a thing as a polar orbit, but it crosses both poles.

As such, there is only one geostationary orbit—a belt circling the earth's equator at an altitude of roughly 35,786 kilometers.

[jennyp]

Private communications are private. The rule at FR clearly says that, logic clearly says that and I think ethics clearly says that also. If one wants to disclose something from a private communication one should ask the person for permission to do so first.

I have to agree with gore3000 on this: I think freepmail should be considered private. The only situation where I'd be comfortable with posting someone's freepmail in the open is if the Moderators were being called in on them or something.

I vote that nobody does this again.

[Stultis]

While I like Popper's political views, I do not like or agree with his overall skepticism. To say that we really cannot know anything is silly.

Yes, it would be, but of course this is not what Popper says. Popper might say it's silly to pretend that our knowledge of nature, even our best knowledge, is certain when it isn't, or that the value of that knowledge is dependent on it being so.

[jennyp]

Where, for instance, were your protests upon this earlier outrageous revelation of private correspondence? Where, in fact, were anyone's?

Ah, I thought that was something that Aric2000 had already posted in the public forum. But on re-reading it, it was a different post that had been private.

ALS, please don't do that again. Characterize the freepmail post if you want, but I think quoting it without asking the poster is bad form.

[RadioAstronomer]

But over the equator is where the satelites would be at the 22,000 mile mark, or thereabouts, but above the equator the satelites would have to be a little closer to the earth?

Not above the equator. What happens is an orbiting object orbits the common center of mass, which happens to be close to the center of the earth for a satellite. So for an orbit to cross above the equatorial plane, it also must descend below that plane as well. All geosynchronous orbit periods match the period of the Earth's rotation. A geosynchronous orbit that is orbiting on the equatorial plane (and in the same direction the Earth is turning) is also called a geostationary orbit.

All Geostationary orbits are geosynchronous. Not all geosynchronous orbits are geostationary.

[VadeRetro]

I agree that it shouldn't be the norm, for reasons I discuss in 2362. Generally, you consider private correspondence as confidential.

But it's really up to you, the recipient. Getting a freepmail is or should be the same as getting a letter. In my experience mail contents are frequently disclosed publicly. Business correspondence, "Dear John" letters tacked to bulletin boards for peer-group comments, whatever. No one should assume a right to abuse, taunt, threaten, etc. behind a shield of "privacy."

[Nataku X]

G3K...

Indeed, you deserve an apology for my not posting this sooner. I should've posted it first thing in the morning of the 8th, posted it before going to bed, or whatever. My excuse, as weak as it is (and in no way weakens the need to apologize) is that my boyfriend and I were together three hours past my bedtime. For not posting the agreement in a more timely manner, I apologize. For making the post itself, I do not apologize.

I substantiated, completely and fully my charges against Patrick Henry Post# 1377 of the Draft Agreement thread

Yes, I know... if you'll look in my original post, I said: You did a very good job of backing yourself up with PH. Though, certainly, I didn't specify the thread, and that wasn't right of me.

I shall expect an apology for that and I shall also expect YOU to backup your charges against me.

I backed up my specific charges regarding R-A by providing links. I didn't think that you'd have to be reminded the numerous times you've said that Junior (or CobaltBlue) were self-evidently not Christians, and heaven knows that you've been the victim of being reminded of your own mistakes often enough.

And, if you think I left out some people, it's probably because I think they'd be hopeless cases. But, anyway, I will speak no more of this, nor of any of the contents of this post.