Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by 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?
between
Every chance in the world. Check it out if you doubt me. The evidence is there, if you want to go find it.
BTW balrog666; since we're speaking face to face here, I have a little unresolved "old business" that I wouldn't mind bringing up with you here. You claimed, not too long ago, something about "an idiot with several sycophants who also add nothing to the discussions except to get them pulled.... Until such time as these idiots wake up and behave politely, like the adults they claim to be, or are banned permanently as they should be, what's the point of participating?"
Let me just ask a humble question: This criterion that you cite, by means of which we might reliably know who is or who is not an "idiot" -- does this have any objective existence whatseover at what we might call the formative level, such that it is, in fact, a real principle?
We can all readily see easily enough that your assertion does have effect at the practical level, since you have clearly inserted your own private, "subjective" view into the mix here, and I, among others, have noticed this....
BUT -- on what does the "truth" of this insight depend? Regarding truth: Do the criteria of truth find a source outside of you, or do you get to run the whole show all by yourself, making up rules as needed, as you go along?
(In your dreams, dude....)
I got another one for you, VadeRetro: What is a serious person?
I agree with VadeRetro, how Clintonesque!
Have you really gone over the dark side completely or are you just making waves?
Someone who needs a hobby. Thank God, I argue with nutcases on FR!
And what is a troll, a disruptor, a buffoon? Or should I say whom?
What the heck are you doing then? Or what is the purpose of the wordy PLACEMARKERS exhibited on these threads?
“TOTO, I DON’T THINK WE’RE IN KANSAS ANYMORE.”
"In the once and future Canada"
(( ... America ---too )) …"
"you will know you’re in the Canadian woods when you see caribou skip to water, and a moose removing its antlers and replacing them with a tiara."
"in Canadian tennis, Venus and Serena will be boys’ names."
"Spiderman will not be the only one swinging around town wearing leotards."
"the Official Bird of Canada will be Richard Chamberlain."
"Sissy Cola will be advertised as “the soft drink for soft men.”
"the Canadian symbol, the maple leaf, will be replaced by a daffodil. Both can be replaced by a fig leaf to be worn in Gay Pride Parades.)" "you will know you are in Canada when you see the Mounties riding sidesaddle. The Mountie who gets his man will then expect that “one thing will lead to another.” (Canada will have its own version of the Miranda Rule, which means an arrestee is entitled to have his rights read to him by any officer whose first name is Miranda.)"
"the French province will change its name to Queerbec."
"the flagpole over the Canadian Parliament Building will fly a towel."
"men will shave all the way down to their ankles."
"you will know you’re in Canada when you see a McDonald’s selling quiche burgers."
"elderly men will assure each other, “You’re only as gay as you feel.”
"Canadian karate champs will not be awarded black belts, but garter belts."
"people undergoing sex changes will no longer wear Bikinis. They will be called Betweenies."
"Canadians will not carry identification in their purse. The purse is their identification."
"Most unhappily, sodomy will radically change the game of hockey. Hockey pucks will be replaced by hickey pecks. The Goalie will be called the Girlie and the goal will have chintz curtains. Players will hold hands in the penalty box and penalty time will be extended from two minutes to half an hour because, like sex, a two minute penalty is “over so fast.” Icing the puck will also be a euphemism for we-all-know-what."
"The game will end with the winners asking the losers for forgiveness, and The Stanley Cup may never again be the manly cup. As alluded to above, “The Canadian Mountie always gets his man.” The trick is getting him to the altar."
So maybe it is time, after all, for people to start naming names. You want to go first? (Better have back-up evidence ready if you expect me to take your allegations seriously.)
Your "credibility" is on the line.
|
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations." - Patrick Henry |
I'm wondering at the finger-pointing emanating from that oxymoronic group, the "reasonable creationists."
[Begin rant mode]
Creationism is about never being wrong, never having to say you're sorry. Not for lack of evidence. Not for evidence against. Not for you own behavior. Not for the behavior of others. Creationism sees nothing inconvenient, apologizes for nothing, has no shame, knows no shame.
[End rant mode]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.