# New "View" Co-Host Sherri Shephard doesn't know if the world is flat



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

link

After declaring she didn't "believe in evolution, period," new "View" co-host Sherri Shepherd was asked if she thought the world was flat. The answer is in the clip.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Boy, they really know how to pick winners on that show, don't they.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

Not the brightest bulb in the box.


----------



## Werd2406 (Jun 9, 2006)

I really wonder what their hiring process is like...

"Are you capable of saying some crazy, off the wall $.hit? Oh, you can?!? You start Monday!"


----------



## Lopey (Feb 12, 2004)

they should hire Amber from Big Brother......of course she might cry the entire episode... but she fits the mold as far as intelligence goes. 


is 2 + 2 really 4??


----------



## Sacrilegium (Dec 14, 2006)

So, so dumb. Yet it reproduced. Why did it have to make more of itself?


----------



## yaddayaddayadda (Apr 8, 2003)

Wow.


----------



## hkancyr (Jan 20, 2002)

Thanks View for keeping the dumb woman stereotype alive. 
My bet is that Whoopi will abandon ship soon. I think Whoopi was hoping for some help from Sherri, now she's proven to be as mildly enlightened as Elisabeth. I can't see her trying to straighten out all the BS these two twits spout, day in and day out.
Maybe we can get a TV preacher instead of Babs. Just make it a bible meeting. That way no one has to use their heads, they can just _believe_. I _believe_ I'm gonna stop watching the View.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Sherri Shepherd made it through the American school system without EVER having learned about whether the Earth is round or flat?!!  
She has never seen a globe? Or a picture of the Earth from space?
Ay carrumba!

It reminds me of the "Jay-Walking" segment on the "Tonight Show" where Leno asked College graduates (at their graduation ceremony) the simple question: "How many moons does the Earth have?" One guessed FIVE, another was positive that we have THREE moons.


----------



## snowjay (Mar 27, 2007)

She never thought about it?

WTF, she never saw a GLOBE?!?!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

So what's the correct answer?



I was just telling my GF about how shoddy our education system still is. My example was that in high school they still teach (at least mine did) that Christopher Columbus was trying to prove that the world was spherical and not flat when in fact it was merely a dispute over the size of the earth, and christopher columbus was in fact wrong about that.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Look, you have to view this in context.

She was being attacked. The whole thing started out as, she stated she didn't believe in evolution. So then, Whoopi started in with the, "You don't believe in evolution... so what, do you believe the world is flat?" In other words, "Not believing in evolution is as stupid as believing the world is flat."

She's not saying she believes the world is flat. She's refusing to answer Whoopi's stupid, smartass question. Her point is it's more important to talk about important things, such as feeding your children, than to argue stupid things like evolution, or whether the world is flat.

Watch the clip again.

Greg


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

gchance said:


> In other words, "Not believing in evolution is as stupid as believing the world is flat."


Which is, in fact, true. Insulting to millions, perhaps. But also true.

Of course, there are still geocentrists and flat-earthers out there, too, though they're much rarer than creationists.



> _Her point is it's more important to talk about important things, such as feeding your children, than to argue stupid things like evolution, or whether the world is flat._


...a point with which I don't agree at all. I've never understood people who were so incurious, though I know there are lots of them out there. I don't think growing up poor has much to do with it, either, as she implied (look at the impoverished backgrounds of some famous scientists).

And for the record... understanding evolution means understanding biology, and understanding biology means you can improve crop yields... and put more food on the table.


----------



## bigrig (Jul 1, 2004)

Many U.S. Americans don't know if the world is flat, because U.S. Americans don't have globes. Such as The Iraq, South Africa, and such as.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

bigrig said:


> Many U.S. Americans don't know if the world is flat, because U.S. Americans don't have globes. Such as The Iraq, South Africa, and such as.


 :up: :up: 
Oh, SNAP!


----------



## myriadian (Sep 20, 2002)

wow. that is so sad. but she's bright enough to spread her legs and reproduce. that is terrible.

bad overpaid stupid cow!

M.


----------



## grecorj (Feb 6, 2002)

I hate when people say, "I never really thought about it," when it's such an obvioius thing. I mean, come on. They aren't asking how the internal combustion engine works. To not have given it a thought? Ever? Don't buy it. Sorry. Pretty much a fundamental kid question, kind of like, why is the sky blue? You might not know, but you think to ask the question.


----------



## Fish Man (Mar 4, 2002)

spikedavis said:


> link
> 
> After declaring she didn't "believe in evolution, period," new "View" co-host Sherri Shepherd was asked if she thought the world was flat. The answer is in the clip.


I get this in the spot where the video is supposed to be on the above linked page:



> THE VIDEO YOU ARE TRYING TO WATCH CANNOT BE VIEWED FROM THIS WEBSITE.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

TAsunder said:


> I was just telling my GF about how shoddy our education system still is. My example was that in high school they still teach (at least mine did) that Christopher Columbus was trying to prove that the world was spherical and not flat when in fact it was merely a dispute over the size of the earth, and christopher columbus was in fact wrong about that.


Huh. I always heard he was looking for the shortest trade-route to India.

In any case, I kinda hear what your saying; one thing that bugs me that is still taught - or was when I was in school - was that Columbus 'discovered' America...


----------



## TreborPugly (May 2, 2002)

Oh, I don't think she was refusing to ask a smart ass question. I think she was dumbfounded. 

No matter how smart-ass the question was, the intelligent response is "No, the world is not flat, it's nearly round." Then she can go on to point out that Whoopi's analogy is faulty. Don't let anyone for a minute think you don't know what shape the world is. There goes any credibility for you or any respect from everyone else.


----------



## sn9ke_eyes (Sep 4, 2002)

wmcbrine said:


> Which is, in fact, true. Insulting to millions, perhaps. But also true.


Actually it's not true on a macro scale. Even Darwin believes now.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I saw the replay of this on Jon Stewart or a non fake news show. She made herself seem really stupid. 

Answering "I am not going to answer that insulting stupid question" is a legitimate answer to an insulting question.


----------



## gtarent (Oct 10, 2002)

gchance said:


> She's not saying she believes the world is flat. She's refusing to answer Whoopi's stupid, smartass question. Her point is it's more important to talk about important things, such as feeding your children, than to argue stupid things like evolution, or whether the world is flat.
> Greg


Kind of a ridiculous statement from a host of a daytime show which is about nothing but a group of women talking about issues.  If she wanted to talk about feeding her children than maybe she should be a cohost on the Rachel Ray show.


----------



## super dave (Oct 1, 2002)

myriadian said:


> wow. that is so sad. but she's bright enough to spread her legs and reproduce. that is terrible.
> 
> bad overpaid stupid cow!
> 
> M.


Why must you insult cows, how have they wronged you?


----------



## anom (Apr 18, 2005)

myriadian said:


> wow. that is so sad. but she's bright enough to spread her legs and reproduce. that is terrible.
> 
> bad overpaid stupid cow!
> 
> M.


Dude, did she take a dump on your lawn or something? You're taking this awfully personally.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

sn9ke_eyes said:


> Actually it's not true on a macro scale. Even Darwin believes now.


What are you talking about? What's not true? Evolution?!?!?!

"Even Darwin believes"?!? Which Darwin believes what? Charles Darwin is long dead. He doesn't believe anything anymore...

And what kind of "macro scale" are you referring to? Darwin's Galapagos turtles certainly qualify as "macro scale" and they certainly show the results of evolution...


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

sn9ke_eyes said:


> Actually it's not true on a macro scale. Even Darwin believes now.


That's actually incorrect. I saw an interview with Darwin and Jesus on 60 Minutes and they both stated that this rumor was just that-a rumor.


----------



## dmdeane (Apr 17, 2000)

sn9ke_eyes said:


> Actually it's not true on a macro scale. Even Darwin believes now.


That "macro scale" you are talking about is the fossil record (and also genetics). It proves evolution correct. Darwin actually came to his theory of evolution without any knowledge of most of the fossil record which we now are aware of, and without any knowledge of modern genetics; his theory predicted much of what we would find and has held up very well (with of course the usual modifications all scientific theories undergo over time). Our modern understanding of genetics also supports the theory of evolution and the evidence fits the theory very well, on both the micro and macro scales.

"Even Darwin believes now" is a rather incoherent statement so I'm not sure what you were trying to say. Darwin never changed his mind about evolution, nor have "Darwinists" changed their opinion about the "macro scale". I suspect you are trying to repeat, in garbled form, something you heard from a Creationist source.

As to this lady who "never thought" about whether the Earth was flat or not, she deserves all the ridicule she got. If Whoopi's question was as insulting as someone has alleged, she could have refused to answer it. But she didn't.

The fact is, for religious reasons, she has an _opinion_ about evolution. Therefore, allegedly, she took the time to "think about" evolution and to adopt an _opinion_ about it. And yet she expects us to believe she never took the time to think about whether the Earth was flat or not? Unbelievable. Simply not credible.

Maybe the same religious authority that told her what to believe about evolution, neglected to tell her what to believe about the shape of the Earth. And thus, she "didn't know". If so, that's a very sad statement about how some people chose to (or chose not to) think, and what they consider credible sources of knowledge. 

I hope we don't see the usual "you are attacking my religious beliefs" reaction from all this. :down:


----------



## Sacrilegium (Dec 14, 2006)

> macro scale


Right, because you can drive your car from Florida to Virginia, but you can't get all the way to Maine in it. That's just silly talk.

/insert appropriate smiley


----------



## dmdeane (Apr 17, 2000)

Sacrilegium said:


> Right, because you can drive your car from Florida to Virginia, but you can't get all the way to Maine in it. That's just silly talk.
> 
> /insert appropriate smiley


Yup. This Creationist argument about macro vs. micro is a variation of Xeno's paradox; ie, you can always get halfway to your destination, but you never actually arrive. Well, obviously we do arrive, so the paradox doesn't reflect the real world.

Likewise, there's no real difference between micro and macro evolution; there is no firm dividing line between the two. It's simply a question of change over time. The one (micro) blends into the other (macro).

Evolution is like a journey of a thousand miles that begins with a single step. The Creationists want us to believe that we can take all the single steps we want, but that these single steps will _never_ add up to a thousand miles, no matter how many steps we take.


----------



## panictivo (Mar 3, 2001)

Perhaps she was thinking about the flattening of the world through globalization as described by Thomas Friedman in his book The World is Flat

The world can be physically large and spherical, but effectively flat and small due to modern technology.

By the way, the wikipedia entry on Flat_Earth is pretty interesting reading.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

panictivo said:


> Perhaps she was thinking about the flattening of the world through globalization as described by Thomas Friedman in his book The World is Flat
> 
> The world can be physically large and spherical, but effectively flat and small due to modern technology.
> 
> By the way, the wikipedia entry on Flat_Earth is pretty interesting reading.


No-she says she never gave any thought to it-so something tells me she's not reading books.


----------



## sn9ke_eyes (Sep 4, 2002)

dmdeane said:


> That "macro scale" you are talking about is the fossil record (and also genetics). It proves evolution correct. Darwin actually came to his theory of evolution without any knowledge of most of the fossil record which we now are aware of, and without any knowledge of modern genetics; his theory predicted much of what we would find and has held up very well (with of course the usual modifications all scientific theories undergo over time). Our modern understanding of genetics also supports the theory of evolution and the evidence fits the theory very well, on both the micro and macro scales.
> 
> "Even Darwin believes now" is a rather incoherent statement so I'm not sure what you were trying to say. Darwin never changed his mind about evolution, nor have "Darwinists" changed their opinion about the "macro scale". I suspect you are trying to repeat, in garbled form, something you heard from a Creationist source.
> 
> ...


Sure she deserves some ridicule about her Earth is flat statement but that doesn't make her _opinion_ about evolution any less right or wrong than yours or mine.


----------



## sn9ke_eyes (Sep 4, 2002)

Sacrilegium said:


> Right, because you can drive your car from Florida to Virginia, but you can't get all the way to Maine in it. That's just silly talk.
> 
> /insert appropriate smiley


You couldn't if there was no highway to Maine.


----------



## sn9ke_eyes (Sep 4, 2002)

dmdeane said:


> Yup. This Creationist argument about macro vs. micro is a variation of Xeno's paradox; ie, you can always get halfway to your destination, but you never actually arrive. Well, obviously we do arrive, so the paradox doesn't reflect the real world.
> 
> Likewise, there's no real difference between micro and macro evolution; there is no firm dividing line between the two. It's simply a question of change over time. The one (micro) blends into the other (macro).
> 
> Evolution is like a journey of a thousand miles that begins with a single step. The Creationists want us to believe that we can take all the single steps we want, but that these single steps will _never_ add up to a thousand miles, no matter how many steps we take.


Actually the point is that there needs to be someone to take the first step, otherwise there is no step 2 or 3 or so forth.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sn9ke_eyes said:


> Sure she deserves some ridicule about her Earth is flat statement but that doesn't make her _opinion_ about evolution any less right or wrong than yours or mine.


Well, scientifically evolution is on about the same level as a round Earth...


----------



## sn9ke_eyes (Sep 4, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, scientifically evolution is on about the same level as a round Earth...


depends on what you mean by same level


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

sn9ke_eyes said:


> Sure she deserves some ridicule about her Earth is flat statement but that doesn't make her _opinion_ about evolution any less right or wrong than yours or mine.


Yes it does. It's like having an opinion about whether or not internal combustion engines are real. (Hint: they are)


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Yes it does. It's like having an opinion about whether or not internal combustion engines are real. (Hint: they are)


While I personally believe in macroevolution, your implied assertion that it has been definitively proven, is false. Your comparison of evolution to an internal combustion engine is extremely flawed. 

For the record, microevolution is relatively small changes in an organism to suit it's environment and is not really disputed even by creationists. Macroevolution suggests that all species come from a common progenitor.

Of course, Sherri Shepard is still a dimwit.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

sn9ke_eyes said:


> depends on what you mean by same level


It means it's a fact. Like the fact that Earth is round.

That a bunch of Americans think otherwise just shows what a sorry state our nation is in.

And this idiot on TV spreading even more BS doesn't help.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Raimi said:


> While I personally believe in macroevolution, your implied assertion that it has been definitively proven, is false. Your comparison of evolution to an internal combustion engine is extremely flawed.


I didn't say anything about a single common ancestor.

As you yourself mention, even so-called "creationists" believe that species change over time to suit their environments. That *is* evolution. (In comparison to the misguided belief that a magical creator plopped all existing species as-is onto the world.)

The real common-ancestor issue that some people have a hard time understanding is that humans and other primates share common ancestors. Those who believe in a magical creator like to think that humans were created in exactly our modern form. DNA evidence and the fossil record soundly dispute that.


----------



## Wheens (Jan 1, 2003)

MickeS said:


> It means it's a fact. Like the fact that Earth is round.


The earth could still be flat.  
Dictionary.com's first definition of round is:
having a flat, circular surface, as a disk.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> (In comparison to the misguided belief that a magical creator plopped all existing species as-is onto the world.)


Xenu?

-smak-


----------



## skypimp (Feb 8, 2007)

I'm I the only one that wonders how people can have a dog or cat and not believe in evolution? Or was it God that gave us the poodle, the dachsund and the hairless cat?


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

I think a better analogy (understanding all analogies fall short of what they are trying to illustrate) would be driving a car from FL to VA, and even to ME, but no matter how many times you filled up the tank, you'd never drive that car to the moon. 

Dogs, turtles, finches, all good examples of micro evolutionary steps adjusting what end up looking like major changes, but no amount of changes will make one species turn into another. Even a chihuahua and a great dane can reproduce with each other, but you can't name two species that can mate with each other. 

What I find interesting is that your belief (or non-belief) in a Deity, will usually drive your belief (or non-belief) in random, causeless, evolution, to the point of not being persuaded by logic...Either direction. So, I'm not really trying to persuade any of you, as I'm sure you've alread made up your mind. That's OK. Carry on.

Also, back on the topic of the show... I'm tired of people getting so mad at "stupid" people that they have to insult them. I teach my children that if somebody is really stupid, we should have compassion for them. No more would I call someone stupid would I call someone crippled. If this lady has a "View" different than your own, isn't that the point of the show?


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

stupid cripples.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

drumorgan said:


> What I find interesting is that your belief (or non-belief) in a Deity, will usually drive your belief (or non-belief) in random, causeless, evolution, to the point of not being persuaded by logic...


Mostly in America. The rest of the world mostly understands that evolution does not contradict the existence of god. For some reason, many American Christians can not reconcile the two concepts.

And I'm sorry, but if someone is stupid, I will call them stupid. Some people need to be called on their stupidity, in order to contain it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

drumorgan said:


> Dogs, turtles, finches, all good examples of micro evolutionary steps adjusting what end up looking like major changes, but no amount of changes will make one species turn into another. Even a chihuahua and a great dane can reproduce with each other, but you can't name two species that can mate with each other.


The fact that you think the one has anything to do with the other shows that you simply don't understand the basic concept. Which is pretty typical of Americans...


----------



## jeff125va (Mar 15, 2001)

sn9ke_eyes said:


> Sure she deserves some ridicule about her Earth is flat statement but that doesn't make her _opinion_ about evolution any less right or wrong than yours or mine.


An excellent point. She could say that 2+3=6 but that doesn't mean she's wrong if she says 2+2=4.

If Whoopi Goldberg is so sure about her opinion on evolution, why not just debate her on the merits?


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> I didn't say anything about a single common ancestor.
> 
> As you yourself mention, even so-called "creationists" believe that species change over time to suit their environments. That *is* evolution. (In comparison to the misguided belief that a magical creator plopped all existing species as-is onto the world.)
> 
> The real common-ancestor issue that some people have a hard time understanding is that humans and other primates share common ancestors. Those who believe in a magical creator like to think that humans were created in exactly our modern form. DNA evidence and the fossil record soundly dispute that.


You're right you didn't mention anything about a common ancestor. But you seem to be confusing macro and micro. The evidence is pretty much irrefutable that microevolution has occurred but not so irrefutable when it comes to cross species macroevolution. You seem to be lumping the two together as if evidence of one proves the other. It doesn't. Usually when a creationist is disputing evolution they are referring to macroevolution. And when an evolutionist is debating the issue they tend to use examples of microevolution. So there's a general disconnect between the two sides on this issue.

*And Sherri's still a dimwit


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

jeff125va said:


> If Whoopi Goldberg is so sure about her opinion on evolution, why not just debate her on the merits?


Debating idiots is usually pointless.


----------



## ping (Oct 3, 2005)

drumorgan said:


> you can't name two species that can mate with each other.


Never heard of a Mule? Or a Liger? (or a few dozen others)


----------



## acvthree (Jan 17, 2004)

ping said:


> Never heard of a Mule? Or a Liger? (or a few dozen others)


Dogs and Foxes.

Dogs and wolves.

Al


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

ping said:


> Never heard of a Mule?


In fact the mule is evidence of speciation happening right before our eyes. Horses and donkeys used to be the same species. They evolved apart. The process is almost complete--they can still breed, but their offspring is generally infertile. Eventually, they will not be able to breed at all, and speciation will be complete.

Evolution is not about cross-species breeding. It's about a population within a species being isolated and evolving apart from the rest, until it constitutes a separate species. When cross-species breeding occurs, it's simply a case of speciation not yet being finished.

And macro-evolution is about as close to scientific fact as it gets. Objections to evolution are not scientific; they are philosophical and/or political. And it's highly regrettable that in the United States (and almost exclusively in the United States), science regularly gets trumped by philosophy and politics.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

Raimi said:


> YUsually when a creationist is disputing evolution they are referring to macroevolution. And when an evolutionist is debating the issue they tend to use examples of microevolution. So there's a general disconnect between the two sides on this issue.


To be fair, it usually goes something like this.

"Here are two species. DNA coding shows they have a common mitochondrial ancestor. Here are some other branches of that tree as well (which are or aren't speciated). Speciation: Q.E.D."

"But you didn't actually see speciation happen. In front of you. With a "wacka-wacka" soundtrack. "
"Until I see a wolf turn into a dog (wait, those two can interbreed). Until I see an eagle lay a duck egg, this speciation thing is bunk"

"Uhm. OK. Good luck with that"


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Raimi said:


> Usually when a creationist is disputing evolution they are referring to macroevolution.


Usually when a so-called "creationist" is disputing evolution they claim that evolution says that man descended from apes. This is, of course, not true on several levels.

What *is* true is that humans and other primates (including chimps, gorillas, etc) evolved from a common ancestor. So-called "creationists" don't like to believe this because they think that either their god created humans (as-is) before other animals or that humans were made "in the image of their creator", a belief that appears to be incompatible with the ideas that humans had ancestors of a different form and that "mere animals" like chimps have anything in common with human beings who are the "image of their creator"...


----------



## brermike (Jun 1, 2006)

Wow, you guys can be cruel! Sherri spoke about this the next day on the View and said she was overwhelmed with having to defend her religious beliefs on the air for the first time and that she just zoned out during that conversation. She had only been on the show for about a week. She also said of course she believes the world is round. Give the girl a break.

Now, not believing in evolution, that is an entirely different matter


----------



## bigrig (Jul 1, 2004)

Yeah, here's what she said: 
"So yesterday we were talking and I was really nervous. And so you asked Whoopi did I know if the Earth was round or flat, and Barbara asked if I knew the Earth was round or flat. And I was so nervous, all I heard was 'how many triglycerides does it take to make Pluto when the Robitusson comes in the Earth's sun?'So when they asked me I was like, 'I don't know.'And you know you have one of those, you know senior-brain-poopy moments. You know, and so, I don't know if it was you who said, 'You know Sherri, the Earth is round.'And I was like, 'I know the Earth is round.'". 

Asking if the world is flat shouldn't cause anyone to have a brain cramp.

Matt


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

Sounds like she's had too much Robitusson from the Earth's sun.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

nataylor said:


> Sounds like she's had too much Robitusson from the Earth's sun.


I think it was the senior poopy.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I can understand her explanation for the "Earth might not be round" part. It makes sense.
That doesn't excuse her stupidity regarding evolution.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

brermike said:


> Wow, you guys can be cruel! Sherri spoke about this the next day on the View and said she was overwhelmed with having to defend her religious beliefs on the air for the first time and that she just zoned out during that conversation. She had only been on the show for about a week. She also said of course she believes the world is round. Give the girl a break.
> 
> Now, not believing in evolution, that is an entirely different matter


Ah. I figured it HAD to be something like that. She just totally blanked. Go to the library and get a book on the subject? I think you could pretty much ask anyone over the age of six and they could fill you in too.  What a drag to get caught in such a position. You'd think Whoopie would try to take it a little easy on the new gal. Maybe she's establishing a pecking order. This new gal gives her some seniority.


----------



## kmcorbett (Dec 7, 2002)

nataylor said:


> Sounds like she's had too much Robitusson from the Earth's sun.





DevdogAZ said:


> I think it was the senior poopy.


In any case it was a moment.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

kmcorbett said:


> In any case it was a moment.


...one might say, a defining moment.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

I've always thought that creationists, among other faults, don't have a proper respect for just how much time life has had to evolve on Earth -- _billions of years_. Plenty of time for mass extinctions and restarts.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Graymalkin said:


> I've always thought that creationists, among other faults, don't have a proper respect for just how much time life has had to evolve on Earth -- _billions of years_. Plenty of time for mass extinctions and restarts.


Ah, but haven't you heard? The Earth is only 6000 years old!


----------



## Mrs.Crewman (Aug 24, 2007)

Checked out The View and noticed that the guests Jessica Alba and the Good Luck Chuck guy sailed right past Elisabeth and Shari greeting the others with hugs & kisses. Perhaps encouraged by Barry Manilow's stance, rudeness to your hosts is now acceptable. No matter your political affiliation, you can still be a polite human being without being disloyal to your political party. It is ominous to me that social mores are already breaking down in our society.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Usually when a so-called "creationist" is disputing evolution they claim that evolution says that man descended from apes. This is, of course, not true on several levels...


I can't argue with that. You're absolutely correct, creationists tend to use the "I refuse to believe man descended from apes" argument quite frequently.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Mrs.Crewman said:


> Checked out The View and noticed that the guests Jessica Alba and the Good Luck Chuck guy sailed right past Elisabeth and Shari greeting the others with hugs & kisses. Perhaps encouraged by Barry Manilow's stance, rudeness to your hosts is now acceptable. No matter your political affiliation, you can still be a polite human being without being disloyal to your political party. It is ominous to me that social mores are already breaking down in our society.


I honestly wish "actors" would simply stay the hell out of politics and religion. It's not why we hired them and quite frankly, it's annoying.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bareyb said:


> I honestly wish "actors" would simply stay the hell out of politics and religion. It's not why we hired them and quite frankly, it's annoying.


Especially Fred Thompson!


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Especially Fred Thompson!


And Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

And Gopher!


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Especially Fred Thompson!


Fred Thompson was involved in politics before he was an actor.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

JETarpon said:


> Fred Thompson was involved in politics before he was an actor.


And...? He's still an actor.

And Arnold Schwarzenegger! Although I don't know if people think of him as an actor.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

and Sonny Bono and Clint Eastwood.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

As I said. I wish actors would stay out of religion and politics.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

MickeS said:


> And...? He's still an actor.
> 
> And Arnold Schwarzenegger! Although I don't know if people think of him as an actor.


I'm surprised you stopped with only those two when you could have listed nearly every conservative actor that's outspoken about politics in less than a dozen lines. Of course if we were to list every liberal college dropout turned actor/political pundit here, this topic would already have reached page 100. But why focus on the scores of liberals using their celebrity status to make political points when there's 1/2 a dozen conservatives we can target, right? 

If a liberal or conservative feels the need to use their celebrity to express political views, they had better be prepared for the consequences. In Elisabeth's case, she'll just have to deal with the fact that most celebrities don't share her political views and are completely intolerant when someone doesn't agree with their political views.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Raimi said:


> I'm surprised you stopped with only those two when you could have listed nearly every conservative actor that's outspoken about politics in less than a dozen lines. Of course if we were to list every liberal college dropout turned actor/political pundit here, this topic would already have reached page 100. But why focus on the scores of liberals using their celebrity status to make political points when there's 1/2 a dozen conservatives we can target, right?


Who are the famous liberal actors that also are/became politicians elected into office?


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

MickeS said:


> Who are the famous liberal actors that also are/became politicians elected into office?


Perhaps I missed something but you were responding to barelyb's comment stating that he wished actors would stay out of politics and religion (when quoting a post made about 2 actors not elected to office), weren't you. You don't need to be elected or canonized to be involved in politics and religion. I'll happily give you a list of some of the more notable liberal political activists if you really don't know who they are.

Susan Sarandon, Barbara Streisand, Michael Douglas, Rob Reiner, Sydney Pollack, Jane Fonda, Chevy Chase, Paul Newman, Alec Baldwin, Janeane Garofalo, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Moore, Robin Williams, George Clooney, Sean Penn, Ed Asner, Danny Devito, Tim Robbins, Ted Danson, Bette Midler...

I could go on and on and on of course... but what's the point.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

I wish religion would stay out of politics.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

Raimi said:


> In Elisabeth's case, she'll just have to deal with the fact that most celebrities don't share her political views and are completely intolerant when someone doesn't agree with their political views.


So what you're saying is-not respecting intolerance is in fact-intolerance?


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Raimi said:


> Perhaps I missed something but you were responding to barelyb's comment stating that he wished actors would stay out of politics and religion (when quoting a post made about 2 actors not elected to office), weren't you. You don't need to be elected or canonized to be involved in politics and religion. I'll happily give you a list of some of the more notable liberal political activists if you really don't know who they are.
> 
> Susan Sarandon, Barbara Streisand, Michael Douglas, Rob Reiner, Sydney Pollack, Jane Fonda, Chevy Chase, Paul Newman, Alec Baldwin, Janeane Garofalo, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Moore, Robin Williams, George Clooney, Sean Penn, Ed Asner, Danny Devito, Tim Robbins, Ted Danson, Bette Midler...
> 
> I could go on and on and on of course... but what's the point.


The point is that you didn't answer my question. When I talk about someone "in politics", I mean politicians, not anyone spouting their opinions or contributing to causes they agree with, like the people you mention above.


----------



## justapixel (Sep 27, 2001)

I'm amazed that all you men watch the View and have these long threads talking about it.

I am estrogen-filled, and I've never seen the show in my life.  And have no desire to since each time I'm called to one of these threads, it seems to me that the show consists of women *****ing and complaining at and about each other. I work in an office in a school full of women - I don't need to watch it on TV too. 

In any event, keep in mind that politics and TC don't mix. Please keep this discussion on the topic of the show and whether the world is round or not.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

spikedavis said:


> So what you're saying is-not respecting intolerance is in fact-intolerance?


Not even close to what I'm saying. You're making the faulty assumption that conservatives are intolerant. That certainly isn't the case in my experience. And Elisabeth doesn't appear to be intolerant to liberals on The View. It sounds like she was more than willing to be cordial to Alba and Cook regardless of their political views yet they snubbed her simply because of her political views. That doesn't really support your claim that conservatives are the ones that are intolerant in this case.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

*edited to get away from politics and let the discussion get back on topic.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

Raimi said:


> And Elisabeth doesn't appear to be intolerant to liberals on The View.


----------



## cpalma (Sep 29, 2003)

> Checked out The View and noticed that the guests Jessica Alba and the Good Luck Chuck guy sailed right past Elisabeth and Shari greeting the others with hugs & kisses. Perhaps encouraged by Barry Manilow's stance, rudeness to your hosts is now acceptable.


Or perhaps it was just an oversight with 2 folks walking out onto stage having to greet 4 people. It looked a little confusing to me.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Lopey said:


> is 2 + 2 really 4??


2 + 2 can equal 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

busyba said:


> 2 + 2 can equal 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.


That

is

HILARIOUS!


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

latrobe7 said:


> Huh. I always heard he was looking for the shortest trade-route to India.
> 
> In any case, I kinda hear what your saying; one thing that bugs me that is still taught - or was when I was in school - was that Columbus 'discovered' America...


Pretty much true. But the reason he thought it was the shortest route was that he badly underestimated the size of the earth. 
(The accepted number at the time Columbus sailed was pretty accurate, he just didn't believe it).

Of course, the fact that it was commonly accepted at the time that the world was spherical isn't clearly expressed in elementary school. Probably because the story of Columbus (when first presented in lower grades) talks about how his sailors wanted to turn back because they feared sailing off the edge of the world.

It left the impression, at least in my case, that only Columbus thought the world was round. (Simply because only two groups were mentioned, Columbus and the crewmen.) "Columbus thought he could reach the East Indies by sailing west", "the crew wanted to turn around fearing they would sail off the end of the world".

Nobody mentioned the Columbus miscalculated, and one reason he had trouble getting funding is because everyone knew his calculations were way off.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

mrmike said:


> "But you didn't actually see speciation happen. In front of you. With a "wacka-wacka" soundtrack. "
> "Until I see a wolf turn into a dog (wait, those two can interbreed). Until I see an eagle lay a duck egg, this speciation thing is bunk"


Yeah, the problem is, you could probably see a fox turning into a dog if you had the patience and lifespan. There is a still ongoing (I think?) experiment in russia where they are selectively breeding foxes for tameness. After about 15 generations the fox pups became very dog-like.

Good luck trying to convince someone who denies the possibility of this that they should do this experiment, though. Within 20 minutes you'd have 40 pages of excuses.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Jonathan_S said:


> Of course, the fact that it was commonly accepted at the time that the world was spherical isn't clearly expressed in elementary school.


I've read a 12th-century textbook--actually, probably more a guide for 12th-century teachers--that has a chapter on the round earth with all the reasons why it's logical for it to be round, plus refutations of possible explanations for why it should be flat.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Maybe the world is flat in the alternate universe she lives in and we see a pseudo three dimensional representation of her projected from her universe into ours when she's on The View. Then again, maybe not.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

For some reason all of this talk inspired a vision of a round person looking into a mirror and seeing just a flat reflection, and therefore assuming that she must be flat as well.


----------



## GaryGnu (Jan 22, 2003)

Whoopi was just going down the line. Don't believe in Evolution? OK, how about the spherical earth? No, ok, did you think the moon landing was faked? And so on. At some point much later she would have asked about her zodiac sign and if she's ever spoken to Miss Cleo.

She was just seeing how far down the irrational belief chain she was.


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

I really want this thread to die, but, I feel compelled to give my favorite George Carlin quote.

"Anyone who drives faster than you do is a maniac. Anyone who drives slower than you is an idiot."

Somehow, we are always the measure of what is right.


----------



## GaryGnu (Jan 22, 2003)

George Carlin would think anyone who didn't believe in Evolution was an idiot.


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

That was my point.


----------



## loubol (Apr 16, 2003)

Maybe she saw a map and assumed the world was flat.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

loubol said:


> Maybe she saw a map and assumed the world was flat.


But I heard that "US Americans... people out there in our nation don't have maps", so I think your theory is wrong.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Jonathan_S said:


> Of course, the fact that it was commonly accepted at the time that the world was spherical isn't clearly expressed in elementary school. Probably because the story of Columbus (when first presented in lower grades) talks about how his sailors wanted to turn back because they feared sailing off the edge of the world.


I learned about Columbus from this undoubtedly highly accurate source:








Maybe others did too, and that would explain why we thought he was seeking to prove the Earth was spherical.


----------



## Raimi (Mar 17, 2005)

GaryGnu said:


> George Carlin would think anyone who didn't believe in Evolution was an idiot.


I believe in evolution, but I think George Carlin's an idiot.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

drumorgan said:


> Somehow, we are always the measure of what is right.


No. There is such a thing as objective reality, and measuring it is what the scientific process is about. The fact that some people prefer willful ignorance doesn't change that.


----------



## MasterOfPuppets (Jul 12, 2005)

On Howard Stern today, Wendy The Retard stated that she believes that the world is flat...cars can't drive on a round surface and such.

Must be true.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

MasterOfPuppets said:


> On Howard Stern today, Wendy The Retard stated that she believes that the world is flat...cars can't drive on a round surface and such.
> 
> Must be true.


LOL

Did he buy her some orange juice?


----------



## MasterOfPuppets (Jul 12, 2005)

jsmeeker said:


> LOL
> 
> Did he buy her some orange juice?


That was some funny stuff.
The part about the world being flat came just a few minutes after her whining that she couldn't afford OJ and the whole disgusting incontinence thing.
If you didn't hear it, you should definitely listen to the replay.


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> No. There is such a thing as objective reality...


While postmodernism's rejection of certainty may be true for you, it isn't true for everyone.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

drumorgan said:


> While postmodernism's rejection of certainty may be true for you, it isn't true for everyone.


What are you talking about? He said that there *is* such a thing a objective reality. He didn't reject certainty, he embraced it...


----------



## uncdrew (Aug 6, 2002)

While I'm confident that we here can explain why the sky is blue, I doubt the ladies on The View could.



It has to do with light particles and such, right?

One could make a good case for it being that since Earth is mostly covered by water it's a reflection thing. I'll bet I could sell that to many people.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

uncdrew said:


> One could make a good case for it being that since Earth is mostly covered by water it's a reflection thing. I'll bet I could sell that to many people.


That's what I was taught in elementary school. I did not hear about Rayleigh scattering until I was in JC.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

MasterOfPuppets said:


> That was some funny stuff.
> The part about the world being flat came just a few minutes after her whining that she couldn't afford OJ and the whole disgusting incontinence thing.
> If you didn't hear it, you should definitely listen to the replay.


I FEEL LIKE BLOWING MY MIND UP!!


----------



## PajamaFeet (Mar 25, 2004)

panictivo said:


> Perhaps she was thinking about the flattening of the world through globalization as described by Thomas Friedman in his book The World is Flat


 This is exactly what I was thinking when I first watched the clip. Seemed like she didn't understand the question.

Interestingly enough, Thomas Friedman was on The Colbert Report last week.


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> What are you talking about? He said that there *is* such a thing a objective reality. He didn't reject certainty, he embraced it...


You know, I was in such a rush to put in my witty retort, that I misread his statement. Unless someone went back in time and rewrote his post, you are correct. He did affirm reality. My bad. I'll step up and admit it. Carry on.


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

drumorgan said:


> You know, I was in such a rush to put in my witty retort, that I misread his statement. Unless someone went back in time and rewrote his post, you are correct. He did affirm reality. My bad. I'll step up and admit it. Carry on.


Wow. That's refreshing.  :up:


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

bareyb said:


> Wow. That's refreshing.  :up:


This guy obviously has no future on internet message boards...


----------



## Chester_Lampwick (Jul 19, 2004)

Okay, I'll probably come off sounding like a misogynist but....
What happens to girls around the time of puberty, where they all of a sudden can't grasp scientific or mathematical concepts? Not all girls but most. 

I'm sure the ladies who hang out here bucked the trend, everyone here seems highly intellectual. I hope I can persuade my daughters to not act all flaky when they become teenagers, I know that peer pressure will try to keep them from being "brainiacs".


----------



## PajamaFeet (Mar 25, 2004)

Chester_Lampwick said:


> Okay, I'll probably come off sounding like a misogynist but....


Chester, I'm going to fight the urge to make sweeping generalizations about teenage boys who turn into, well, YOU, and ask you how you can possibly think one _actress_ on a daytime talk show represents the intellect of "not all girls but most?"

Come on. Use your own brain, and your daughters probably will too.


----------



## Chester_Lampwick (Jul 19, 2004)

PajamaFeet said:


> Chester, I'm going to fight the urge to make sweeping generalizations about teenage boys who turn into, well, YOU, and ask you how you can possibly think one _actress_ on a daytime talk show represents the intellect of "not all girls but most?"
> 
> Come on. Use your own brain, and your daughters probably will too.


I never said she represented women as a rule or is a stereotype, but it did bring to mind that many people don't choose to be knowledgable.

Actually I didn't quite articulate what I wanted to say. There were girls who all through the earlier grades outperformed their male counterparts, but when they got to middle-school they just became disinterested in academia. Like they hit a brick wall or something. This was not like their male counterparts who continued being good or bad students.


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

Hey, at least the misogynists take the heat off of us idiots who believe in creation. Thanks, dude.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I wonder if Sherri Shephard believes that humans used to live to be 900 years old?


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

MickeS said:


> I wonder if Sherri Shephard believes that humans used to live to be 900 years old?


She never thought about it. She has to feed her kids.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

GaryGnu said:


> Whoopi was just going down the line. Don't believe in Evolution? OK, how about the spherical earth? No, ok, did you think the moon landing was faked? And so on. At some point much later she would have asked about her zodiac sign and if she's ever spoken to Miss Cleo.
> 
> She was just seeing how far down the irrational belief chain she was.


Ok I get it. If you don't believe the same things that Whoopi believes you are an irrational nut-case. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.


----------



## PajamaFeet (Mar 25, 2004)

crazywater said:


> Ok I get it. If you don't believe the same things that Whoopi believes you are an irrational nut-case. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.


Thanks for saying this! It amazes me that some people who think they are so enlightened have an impossible time believing that anyone who disagrees with them could be right, let alone sane. What hubris.


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

If you don't believe the Earth is round or that we landed on the moon, then yeah, you're nuts. Call it hubris if you want, but you're the crazy one.


----------



## PajamaFeet (Mar 25, 2004)

nataylor said:


> If you don't believe the Earth is round or that we landed on the moon, then yeah, you're nuts. Call it hubris if you want, but you're the crazy one.


 I think the whole thing started with the "if you believe in creation then you are crazy," but thanks for your input. If you can't even open your mind to the _possibility_ of a divine creator, then I feel sorry for you.

And in case you were sleeping through it, when many people talk about the earth being flat, they are referring to our global economy, not the actual physical shape of the planet.


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

PajamaFeet said:


> And in case you were sleeping through it, when many people talk about the earth being flat, they are referring to our global economy, not the actual physical shape of the planet.


Hi. What is this?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

PajamaFeet said:


> I think the whole thing started with the "if you believe in creation then you are crazy," but thanks for your input. If you can't even open your mind to the _possibility_ of a divine creator, then I feel sorry for you.


It's not people who believe in creation that are crazy (or at the very least, wrong), it's people who don't believe in evolution (which is basically like not believing in gravity). The two are not mutually incompatible.


----------



## Sacrilegium (Dec 14, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> gravity


I think you mean _intelligent falling_, my friend.


----------



## PajamaFeet (Mar 25, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The two are not mutually incompatible.


 agreed


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

When people who believe in Creation hear the word Evolution, they are thinking of Websters 4b definition, "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations;" and especially the idea that any improvements, jumps in species, creation of new species are completely random and only directed by adaptation to environment. The idea that human beings are just the natural result of random mutations adapting over time is contrary to the idea of Creation by a God who knew you before time. 

Now, if a person who believes in God/Creation doesn't believe that species mutate and adapt to their environment, then I think they are over-correcting and just not believing that against the evidence.

Without trying to argue here, I think we will find ourselves closer to the same side of the argument if we carefully define our terms here, and admit that there is a distinction. The accepted terms are micro and macro evolution. Nobody, (Well, only a flat earther) believes that micro evolution doesn't exist. 

I'm sorry, but you won't get a Creationist (young or old earth versions) to believe that micro changes within a species, given enough time, will turn a rock into Einstein. 

So, evolutionist, when you say the term and mean, "observable slow changes over time" and can't fathom why us idiots disagree with you, remember, we are bringing a lot more meaning to the term.

I hope that makes sense.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

spikedavis said:


> She never thought about it. She has to feed her kids.


Are you implying that all she thinks about is food?


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

drumorgan said:


> When people who believe in Creation hear the word Evolution, they are thinking of Websters 4b definition, "a theory that ... _<yadda-yadda-yadda>"_


My experience is that a Creationist's interpretation of Evolution very simply boils down to "Man descended from the Apes". Webster's elaborate explanation doesn't seem to enter into the equation.



drumorgan said:


> I hope that makes sense.


I know you were doing your homework on your post, but I had never heard any Creationist argue about macro- or micro- ANYthing before reading this thread.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Flat vs spherical Earth is not even a creationist thing. I also think they believe in the heliocentric solar system vs the geocentric system.

I really dislike incurious people.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> Flat vs spherical Earth is not even a creationist thing. I also think they believe in the heliocentric solar system vs the geocentric system.


IIRC, they even wanted to execute Galileo for daring to suggest otherwise.


----------



## alansh (Jan 3, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> Pretty much true. But the reason he thought it was the shortest route was that he badly underestimated the size of the earth.
> (The accepted number at the time Columbus sailed was pretty accurate, he just didn't believe it).


In addition to the fib about Columbus "proving the Earth is round", there's also the sticky issue of "discovering" someplace that already has people living there. He wasn't even the first European to come here, either.

A more accurate way of putting it would be to say he brought the Americas to the permanent attention of Europe, but that's not as snappy as "discovered".


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

alansh said:


> A more accurate way of putting it would be to say he brought the Americas to the permanent attention of Europe, but that's not as snappy as "discovered".


I vaguely remember something I read years ago that the Native American population decreased by something like 50% every century from 1500-1900. I don't know if it's true but I read it on the internet so it could be . Curious as to how much of that is true.


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

getreal said:


> I know you were doing your homework on your post, but I had never heard any Creationist argue about macro- or micro- ANYthing before reading this thread.


That is my point. You say Evolution and unpack the term in your head one way, (I'll even give you that yours is the CORRECT way), and a Creationist unpacks the definition in their head another way. They have probably never heard the distinction between micro/macro either, and are certainly not using those terms in an argument. I'm merely stating that the biggest part of the argument is merely because we are not using the same definition of the term.

Some people's definition of evolution includes the notion that a supreme being could be in there at the beginning. My definition of "evolution" does not allow for that. So, you think, Hey, how could this guy not just admit there is evidence for "gradual change" and I say, there is no way I am going to deny the existence of "God's creative work". And, both of us use the term "evolution" to make our argument.

See, if we first agree on the definition, we might find we are really arguing on the same side of at least part of this issue. Am I wrong to say many Evolutionists allow for some supreme being at some stage of the process? And conversely, aren't there many Creationists who would gladly say that species randomly mutate and adapt to their environment over time?


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I vaguely remember something I read years ago that the Native American population decreased by something like 50% every century from 1500-1900. I don't know if it's true but I read it on the internet so it could be . Curious as to how much of that is true.


Whoa! You mean Indians have a half-life?


----------



## kyote (Oct 20, 2001)

getreal said:


> Sherri Shepherd made it through the American school system without EVER having learned about whether the Earth is round or flat?!!
> She has never seen a globe? Or a picture of the Earth from space?
> Ay carrumba!
> 
> It reminds me of the "Jay-Walking" segment on the "Tonight Show" where Leno asked College graduates (at their graduation ceremony) the simple question: "How many moons does the Earth have?" One guessed FIVE, another was positive that we have THREE moons.


People graduate without knowing where we are at on the map. If they haven't seen a flat piece of paper that has our country clearly marked on it, how can you expect a person to make the leap in thought that we are on a round sphere flying through space around a bright shiny object???


----------



## kyote (Oct 20, 2001)

drumorgan said:


> That is my point. You say Evolution and unpack the term in your head one way, (I'll even give you that yours is the CORRECT way), and a Creationist unpacks the definition in their head another way. They have probably never heard the distinction between micro/macro either, and are certainly not using those terms in an argument. I'm merely stating that the biggest part of the argument is merely because we are not using the same definition of the term.
> 
> Some people's definition of evolution includes the notion that a supreme being could be in there at the beginning. My definition of "evolution" does not allow for that. So, you think, Hey, how could this guy not just admit there is evidence for "gradual change" and I say, there is no way I am going to deny the existence of "God's creative work". And, both of us use the term "evolution" to make our argument.
> 
> See, if we first agree on the definition, we might find we are really arguing on the same side of at least part of this issue. Am I wrong to say many Evolutionists allow for some supreme being at some stage of the process? And conversely, aren't there many Creationists who would gladly say that species randomly mutate and adapt to their environment over time?


I believe that there is a God and that he may or may not have played some part in our (meaning you and I as humans) creation. My wife, OTOH, believes we were plopped here from the begining in our present form. Or at least she tells me that, I hope that she just likes to argue. I would think that most christians are enlightened enough to take my side on things. While there are some out there who take the other stance. It's unfortunate though, that the ones who believe that we magically appeared here out of the blue and ignore all evidence of evolution and common sense are the more vocal ones who get all the attention.

Like is most often the case in life. It's the vocal ones who get all the attention and screw things up for the rest of us.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

kyote said:


> People graduate without knowing where we are at on the map.


Some of them even go on to become teen beauty queens.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

getreal said:


> I know you were doing your homework on your post, but I had never heard any Creationist argue about macro- or micro- ANYthing before reading this thread.


They probably aren't terms that someone like Sherri Shephard would use, but they're common in "intellectual" Creationism. See, Creationists have a big problem: Evolution is not just real, but readily observed; for instance, in the way that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics. So, to explain this, they contrive a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". In Creationist theory, "macroevolution" is defined as something that doesn't happen, and is taken to mean speciation, or an increase in "complexity" (in itself a concept that's intuitively compelling, but scientifically pretty meaningless). In reality, there is no valid scientific distinction; "microevolution" is just whatever evolution they can't bring themselves to deny.

And to get back to issue of the shape of the Earth... I recommend Isaac Asimov's summary, here:

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

OK, sticking with the subject...

I travel a lot, and find that no matter where I go, people really don't have much of an idea about more than a couple blocks from their house. Asking most people driving directions from the airport to their house stumps them. And, don't get me started about why most people couldn't tell you which way is North. These are otherwise functioning adults, holding a job, raising kids, remembering to brush their teeth. 

I really think the geography gene just isn't hardwired into many people. It seems absurd, but they really don't care, if that information is not useful in a day to day routine. Not too far of a stretch to imagine someone who hasn't thought about the Earth being flat or round. Not all of us get to sit around all day and pontificate on a message board. Some people have to raise their kids.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> _(...)_ but they're common in "intellectual" Creationism.


That's got to be one of the more oxymoronic phrases I've ever heard. How can you be "intellectual" about belief in magic? If you believe in magic, you're abandoning intellect in favor of fantasy...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> That's got to be one of the more oxymoronic phrases I've ever heard. How can you be "intellectual" about belief in magic? If you believe in magic, you're abandoning intellect in favor of fantasy...


But when you're trying to get magic taught in science class, you have to dress it up as science...


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Anyone interested in this topic I highly reccommend Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul, a great book on a recent "Intelligent Design" trial.


----------



## GaryGnu (Jan 22, 2003)

drumorgan said:


> Am I wrong to say many Evolutionists allow for some supreme being at some stage of the process?


Yes, you are wrong. Evolution says nothing about creation.

Creationists assume because they exist, they must be special and had to have a creator. But in the grand scheme of the universe, black holes rule. People and this whole planet don't even rank. And you'd think, maybe, that if you created all these black holes, and created a universe that is perfect for them, you might mention it in your holy book that you inspired people to write.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

GaryGnu said:


> Yes, you are wrong. Evolution says nothing about creation.
> 
> Creationists assume because they exist, they must be special and had to have a creator. But in the grand scheme of the universe, black holes rule. People and this whole planet don't even rank. And you'd think, maybe, that if you created all these black holes, and created a universe that is perfect for them, you might mention it in your holy book that you inspired people to write.


 :up:


----------



## nedthelab (Oct 4, 2002)

This is a forum about TV shows - Right


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

nedthelab said:


> This is a forum about TV shows - Right


Right! I say we all just agree to disagree-what does everyone say?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

It's just sad that you feel the need to disagree when you have me to tell you what's right.


----------



## drumorgan (Jan 11, 2003)

OK, I'm done. I'm willing to disagree. In fact, most people disagree with me. I think that what originally drew me into this conversation was not to convince people to follow my view, but to point out that neither of us should jump into personal attacks on people's intellect, whether they are on television, or they are a poster here, if they happen to disagree with us. I guess we don't all have that ability or desire. 

Let's go to some other threads and talk about all the good (and bad) shows that are on. See you there.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

drumorgan said:


> I travel a lot, and find that no matter where I go, people really don't have much of an idea about more than a couple blocks from their house. Asking most people driving directions from the airport to their house stumps them.


Oh, that's easy. You go a couple of blocks from my house and get on the road that dead ends at the airport (Dulles). 

Actually I could give directions to BWI as well, but National would defeat me. I can drive there, but I don't remember the road names because I almost never go there.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I agree that Sherri Shephard is as dumb as a box of rocks. 

Maybe she proves that evolution is gong backwards right now.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Christians predated everything.


----------



## Sacrilegium (Dec 14, 2006)

Turtleboy said:


> Christians predated everything.


Oh my.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> I agree that Sherri Shephard is as dumb as a box of rocks.


After watching that last clip, I wish to file a formal protest on behalf of the fine rocks of Earth.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I can't figure out if she's serious or deadpanning. I hope for the latter.


----------



## AJRitz (Mar 25, 2002)

MickeS said:


> I can't figure out if she's serious or deadpanning. I hope for the latter.


Hope all you want, but she's serious.
She's the dimmest bulb in the chandelier, the dullest knife in the drawer, the bluntest tack in the box, and more dense than a neutron star. She makes Forrest Gump look like a Mensa member.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

I find this frightening.


----------



## TreborPugly (May 2, 2002)

Of course Jesus came first. He was born in year zero! You don't have anything before zero do you?


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

TreborPugly said:


> Of course Jesus came first. He was born in year zero! You don't have anything before zero do you?


not even the old testement!  Or even parts of the new one.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

Yes, Moses was a Christian, so were Adam and Eve...


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

Let's see people defend this!


----------



## tem (Oct 6, 2003)

She probably thinks Jesus was a Christian as well.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

tem said:


> She probably thinks Jesus was a Christian as well.


Well, I suppose the argument could be made that he was the first Christian if you define Christians as followers of Christ's teachings - since he would be a follower of his own teachings. But since the term didn't originate until much later, you can certainly argue that he wasn't.

And Sherri Shephard is an insult to sentient organisms everywhere.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Why in the nine levels of Hell is she on a talk show? I mean, sometimes talk shows can be very informative but she could not really add anything to the discussion. (I have never seen the show but I think it has had some intelligent people on it.) 

She is obviously uneducated. I don't know any Christian or anyone else who believes that Jesus is the oldest thing on the planet. Now some Christians believe that the Christ is an eternal being predating creation but definately not Jesus of Nazareth who lived in time and space.

Young earth creationists put the age of the earth at between 6 and 10 thousand years.

She is not even knowledgable about her own religion.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

sieglinde said:


> She is not even knowledgable about her own religion.


That's the part that scares me - she doesn't even know what she believes.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Or what the huge majority of Christians believe.


----------



## sketcher (Mar 3, 2005)

sieglinde said:


> She is obviously uneducated. I don't know any Christian or anyone else who believes that Jesus is the oldest thing on the planet. Now some Christians believe that the Christ is an eternal being predating creation but definately not Jesus of Nazareth who lived in time and space.


Actually, according to John 1:1 Jesus was there in the beginning.



> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


It is commonly accepted by Christians that "the Word" in this verse means Jesus.

Whether or not Sherri Shephard knows this, I have no idea.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

sketcher said:


> Actually, according to John 1:1 Jesus was there in the beginning.
> 
> It is commonly accepted by Christians that "the Word" in this verse means Jesus.
> 
> Whether or not Sherri Shephard knows this, I have no idea.


:down:
None of that makes any sense.

Oh, except for the part about Sherri Shephard being an airhead.


----------



## sketcher (Mar 3, 2005)

getreal said:


> :down:
> None of that makes any sense.
> 
> Oh, except for the part about Sherri Shephard being an airhead.


Yeah, ya have to read the book.



> And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...
> John 1:14


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

sketcher said:


> Yeah, ya have to read the book.


Or the post you initially quoted.

It seems to me this:


sketcher said:


> Actually, according to John 1:1 Jesus was there in the beginning.


was covered:


sieglinde said:


> I don't know any Christian or anyone else who believes that Jesus is the oldest thing on the planet. *Now some Christians believe that the Christ is an eternal being predating creation *but definately not Jesus of Nazareth who lived in time and space.


----------



## sketcher (Mar 3, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> Or the post you initially quoted.
> 
> It seems to me this:
> was covered:


Actually, most Christians believe the separate entities she was referring to 


> Now some Christians believe that the Christ is an eternal being predating creation but definately not Jesus of Nazareth who lived in time and space.


are one and the same.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

sketcher said:


> Actually, most Christians believe the separate entities she was referring to are one and the same.


So those Christians don't think that Mary was the mother of Jesus?


----------



## sketcher (Mar 3, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> So those Christians don't think that Mary was the mother of Jesus?


Of course they do.

That's how


> ...the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us...


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Sorry---not up on my Christian mythology...


----------



## sketcher (Mar 3, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> Sorry---not up on my Christian mythology...


That's alright. I invite you to read the book for yourself. Become informed.


----------



## latrobe7 (May 1, 2005)

sketcher said:


> Actually, most Christians believe the separate entities she was referring to
> 
> are one and the same.


I dunno; seems a semantic argument to me, I did not take it to be 'separate' entities, just that the nature of the eternal was different than the flesh. That's what "...the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us... " indicates to me.


----------



## sketcher (Mar 3, 2005)

latrobe7 said:


> I dunno; seems a semantic argument to me, I did not take it to be 'separate' entities, just that the nature of the eternal was different than the flesh. That's what "...the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us... " indicates to me.


I agree. That's why her original quote distinguishing between Christ the eternal being and Jesus who lived in time and space


> I don't know any Christian or anyone else who believes that Jesus is the oldest thing on the planet. Now some Christians believe that the Christ is an eternal being predating creation but definately not Jesus of Nazareth who lived in time and space.


can't be used to show that Jesus wasn't there at the beginning.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> some Christians believe that the Christ is an eternal being predating creation


Some? Isn't the whole idea that Jesus IS God (and also the Son of God)?

Either way, no way was she referencing any of this. She meant Jesus the man, son of Mary.


----------



## USAFSSO (Aug 24, 2005)

MickeS said:


> Some? Isn't the whole idea that Jesus IS God (and also the Son of God)?
> 
> Either way, no way was she referencing any of this. She meant Jesus the man, son of Mary.


She didn't even explain any other way, she is an idiot.

People can be really stupid about Christianity. The other day in my office, two people were arguing about how religion is the cause of everything evil. OK idiots can believe that. (now atheists unite) But one of them said the Catholics allowed Christ to be crucified.

OK now I know people have used the Crucification to be anti-Semites, but thats just plain retarded.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

USAFSSO said:


> The other day in my office, two people were arguing about how religion is the cause of everything evil. OK idiots can believe that.


I don't think that believing that and being an idiot are synonymous. There is more than a little anecdotal evidence that much of the current world tension is based on religious intolerance. You can argue on why they disagree, but the disagreements are factual.


----------



## TreborPugly (May 2, 2002)

Regardless of the divinity of Jesus, there weren't Christians before Jesus was an adult. (And actually, nobody calling themselves Christians until well after his death, even though they followed his teachings) So her original claim about there being Christians with the Greeks when they worshiped their multiple gods is completely uninformed. No matter the theological debate, she's still a dolt.


----------



## tem (Oct 6, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Well, I suppose the argument could be made that he was the first Christian if you define Christians as followers of Christ's teachings - since he would be a follower of his own teachings. But since the term didn't originate until much later, you can certainly argue that he wasn't.
> 
> And Sherri Shephard is an insult to sentient organisms everywhere.


I doubt Jesus would have referred to himself as anything but a Jew or "the follower of his own teachings" as that would have, you know, broken the 2nd commandment.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

USAFSSO said:


> OK now I know people have used the Crucification to be anti-Semites, but thats just plain retarded.


I was conversating with my edumacated friends about the Crucification when I suddenly had the urge to go and masticate for a while.


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

MickeS said:


> I can understand her explanation for the "Earth might not be round" part. It makes sense.
> That doesn't excuse her stupidity regarding evolution.


Wow - just reviewing this thread. I can't believe how dogmatic these types of statements are. No debate. Not even trying to show your point of view. This "If you don't agree with me you are stupid" attitude is totally unhelpful and really makes you look bad.


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> No. There is such a thing as objective reality, and measuring it is what the scientific process is about. The fact that some people prefer willful ignorance doesn't change that.


This is the problem with people who proclaim to be followers of "science". Science seems to have broken down and they currently have no plan to accept scientific criticism anymore. It's a matter of we are right and don't even think about debating anything with us.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

skywalkr2 said:


> This "If you don't agree with me you are stupid" attitude is totally unhelpful and really makes you look bad.


You say "agree" like it's an opinion.

What if someone thought the world was flat? Would you say that she's "entitled to her opinion"?


----------



## WhiskeyTango (Sep 20, 2006)

skywalkr2 said:


> Wow - just reviewing this thread. I can't believe how dogmatic these types of statements are. No debate. Not even trying to show your point of view. This "If you don't agree with me you are stupid" attitude is totally unhelpful and really makes you look bad.


...and your last two posts here really make you look holier than thou.


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

WhiskeyTango said:


> ...and your last two posts here really make you look holier than thou.


Oh - I get it - so I cannot comment that someone is being close minded without being called holier than thou... got it.

I guess we should just cancel all discussions.

My point is that I cannot believe how close minded the so called "informed" people are being in this thread. Regarding the question about the world being flat - there is a difference between something that is observably factual (spherical earth) vs something that is theoretically factual (evolution).


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

Amnesia said:


> You say "agree" like it's an opinion.
> 
> What if someone thought the world was flat? Would you say that she's "entitled to her opinion"?


No - because they would be denying what is observably factual. The "evolution" of single celled organisms into all current forms of life is not observably factual and therefore I think a debate on that is something that is good.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

skywalkr2 said:


> Wow - just reviewing this thread. I can't believe how dogmatic these types of statements are. No debate. Not even trying to show your point of view. This "If you don't agree with me you are stupid" attitude is totally unhelpful and really makes you look bad.


It's not dogmatic to say that "if you don't believe in evolution, you're stupid". You ARE stupid if you don't accept evolution, there are no two ways about it. It's no different than saying you're stupid if you deny that gravity exists.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

skywalkr2 said:


> Regarding the question about the world being flat - there is a difference between something that is observably factual (spherical earth) vs something that is theoretically factual (evolution).


Okay. I'll bite ...
"Theoretically factual" -- uhhh, I think you need to understand that there is a huge difference between THEORY and FACT, so your premise falls apart at the outset.


----------



## Sacrilegium (Dec 14, 2006)

skywalkr2 said:


> This is the problem with people who proclaim to be followers of "science". Science seems to have broken down and they currently have no plan to accept scientific criticism anymore. It's a matter of we are right and don't even think about debating anything with us.


Wow.

Were I a doctor, I'd prescribe you a good dose of listening to the SGU podcast. Listen to an episode a week for, say six months. I think it would really clear up some of your misconceptions about how scientifically-minded people think. At the very least, consider it getting to know your enemy!


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

getreal said:


> Okay. I'll bite ...
> "Theoretically factual" -- uhhh, I think you need to understand that there is a huge difference between THEORY and FACT, so your premise falls apart at the outset.


1) This is why no one will argue with you all - everything is turned around on the poster as an attack
2) Try to understand what I am saying instead of trying to find ways to defend yourself. I was using the term theoretically factual to be nice... theoretically you could be right... that is all i am saying. However, it is possible you are wrong as well.


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

Sacrilegium said:


> Wow.
> 
> Were I a doctor, I'd prescribe you a good dose of listening to the SGU podcast. Listen to an episode a week for, say six months. I think it would really clear up some of your misconceptions about how scientifically-minded people think. At the very least, consider it getting to know your enemy!


I love skeptics. I know people probably hate them, but Penn and Teller's BS is one of my favorite shows.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

All this arguing is making Zeus and Medusa very angry with you.


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

MickeS said:


> It's not dogmatic to say that "if you don't believe in evolution, you're stupid". You ARE stupid if you don't accept evolution, there are no two ways about it. It's no different than saying you're stupid if you deny that gravity exists.


I don't want to get into the already held discussion over micro vs macro. I think you are just trying to start that discussion up again...

The point is that you can never learn anything new without questioning your beliefs.


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

spikedavis said:


> All this arguing is making Zeus and Medusa very angry with you.


I bet I am violating that WWJD rule also


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

skywalkr2 said:


> This is the problem with people who proclaim to be followers of "science". Science seems to have broken down and they currently have no plan to accept scientific criticism anymore. It's a matter of we are right and don't even think about debating anything with us.


Scientists accept scientific criticism all the time...it's called peer review. Do you think all scientist are of one mind on everything? They argue and debate constantly! What they don't accept is non-scientific criticism calling itself "scientific". The creationist argument is non-scientific for many reasons, not the least of which is already having a pre-concieved desired answer before applying any scientific principles to test it out. In real science, that practice would be called unethical and biased.

And what does "science seems to have broken down" mean? The laws of physics aren't working all of sudden? Do you not see the daily scientific advances that are happening, including the ones allowing you to read and write on this forum?


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

TheGreyOwl said:


> The creationist argument is non-scientific for many reasons, not the least of which is already having a pre-concieved desired answer before applying any scientific principles to test it out.


I am not a "creationist", but I have reviewed many debates. I see that both sides have pre-conceived desired answers... And there are quite a few non-evolutionists out there that are trying to find another answer because they believe Darwinian evolution is a flawed theory. Not saying that means creationism (intelligent design or whatever) is the answer... just saying there might be OTHER answers out there.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

skywalkr2 said:


> I am not a "creationist", but I have reviewed many debates. I see that both sides have pre-conceived desired answers... And there are quite a few non-evolutionists out there that are trying to find another answer because they believe Darwinian evolution is a flawed theory. Not saying that means creationism (intelligent design or whatever) is the answer... just saying there might be OTHER answers out there.


Reasons for evolution might be different, and proved or disproved. Evolution itself is as much a fact as gravity. You don't know gravity exists - it could just be God pulling everything down to Earth. If you don't accept that, you're just denying other possibilities...


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I think this is akin to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I never was taught in any church that the human being known as Jesus of Nazereth a poor Jewish boy was physically in existance before he was born.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> I think this is akin to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
> 
> I never was taught in any church that the human being known as Jesus of Nazereth a poor Jewish boy was physically in existance before he was born.


10 points to sieglinde for bringing the discussion back on topic! :up:


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

skywalkr2 said:


> 2) Try to understand what I am saying instead of trying to find ways to defend yourself.





skywalkr2 said:


> The point is that you can never learn anything new without questioning your beliefs.


Oh, if you would only heed your own advice ...


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Reasons for evolution might be different, and proved or disproved. Evolution itself is as much a fact as gravity. You don't know gravity exists - it could just be God pulling everything down to Earth. If you don't accept that, you're just denying other possibilities...


This is my point - people choose what to believe. It doesn't make them stupid.


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

getreal said:


> Oh, if you would only heed your own advice ...


The only belief I am trying to defend here is my belief that the world is better off when people can discuss a topic w/o one side accusing the other of being stupid.

Is that too much of a problem?


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

skywalkr2 said:


> The point is that you can never learn anything new without questioning your beliefs.


Nobody, least of all a scientist, would dispute that. All science is built upon questioning beliefs; in fact, the foundation of science is specifically designed to keep minds open, and to challenge beliefs aggressively. To summarize, science requires the practitioner to:

Observe and measure.
Deduce/conjecture an explanation that fits the observations.
Hypothesize an outcome based on this explanation.
Test the hypothesis.
Publish, for all to see, the results, the test, and how to reproduce the test independently.
Are scientists perfect, always correct, and without bias? They are human; of course not. That is why this last step is so critically important. When you publish not only your conclusions, but your methodology, you are leaving yourself and your ideas vulnerable to challenges not only from sympathetic people, but from people with entirely opposite biases. It is called peer review, and it is only of the most politely brutal arenas in the world.

Despite the bruising of egos, scientists do not hide from this arena; they embrace it. If their ideas survive challenges, they are that much stronger. If other experiments cast doubt on their ideas, those doubts raise new questions, and form the framework of new experiments, that push the boundaries of human knowledge that much further. Science requires a willingness to be incorrect, and an open mind, simply to survive in the field.

Since all science is based on this cycle of observation/deduction/hypothesizing/testing/review, it is reasonable to insist that anybody wanting a seat at the science table (or in the science classroom) apply this same methodology to their own inquiries. Otherwise, the inquiries, while perfectly valid as philosophy and valuable to the human condition, are by definition not science.


----------



## skywalkr2 (Jun 16, 2003)

Fassade said:


> Since all science is based on this cycle of observation/deduction/hypothesizing/testing/review, it is reasonable to insist that anybody wanting a seat at the science table (or in the science classroom) apply this same methodology to their own inquiries. Otherwise, the inquiries, while perfectly valid as philosophy and valuable to the human condition, are by definition not science.


Bravo! I think this is a fantastic response. The point being people would believe in creationism AREN'T trying to be scientific at all. Their whole belief is based on something as simple as faith. They don't want a seat at the scientific table. This doesn't mean they are stupid.

The best response is just to say why you believe differently. If you ever want to convince the other side they are wrong -telling them they are stupid or that they are akin to flat earthers will never get you anywhere.

That being said - on the topic at hand - Mrs. Shephard isn't very educated, but I don't care - she's a comedian.


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

skywalkr2 said:


> That being said - on the topic at hand - Mrs. Shephard isn't very educated, but I don't care - she's a comedian.


She is? If she's a comedian, I'm Harry Truman.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

skywalkr2 said:


> I am not a "creationist", but I have reviewed many debates. I see that both sides have pre-conceived desired answers... And there are quite a few non-evolutionists out there that are trying to find another answer because they believe Darwinian evolution is a flawed theory. Not saying that means creationism (intelligent design or whatever) is the answer... just saying there might be OTHER answers out there.


I didn't mean to imply that you were or weren't a creationist. But that aside, of course there are individuals with a bias on both sides. However, it seems to me that the creationist side is an inherently biased theory. What I mean by that is that there are scientists on the evolution side that believe in God and those that don't. On the creationist side, they all believe in God. This in itself creates an inherent bias not just for certain individuals, but for the philosophy as a whole. Plus on the science side, there are peer reviews so they have to have enough evidence to convince others, and revise the theory if necessary. Not so on the other side.

Like others have already pointed out, evolution is readily observable. There's a reason you have to finish a full course of antibiotics when you have a bacterial infection, and that reason and its consequences are observable. I know some people differentiate that as micro vs. macro evolution, but in real evolutionary theory there is no distinction (and I would note, the Bible also does not mention anything like that). And creationist theory didn't use to make this distinction either until it reached the point that they couldn't reasonably deny it anymore, so they came up with the micro vs. macro evolution as means to "save face". If one accepts "micro evolution" and not "macro evolution", then (in my opinion) that person is just failing to grasp the tremendous amount of time required. Billions of years is just hard to visualize and conceive. "Macro evolution" is nothing but billions and trillions of "micro evolutions" chained together. It doesn't make sense to me for someone to essentially say "I believe micro evolution happens, but I don't believe it happens many times if you wait long enough".


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

skywalkr2 said:


> Bravo! I think this is a fantastic response. The point being people would believe in creationism AREN'T trying to be scientific at all. Their whole belief is based on something as simple as faith. They don't want a seat at the scientific table.


Perhaps you do not want such a seat personally, but I think a large part of the tone of the responses from what you call "evolutionists" is because, overall, this is simply not true. Here are three high profile examples, two of which are less than a month old:

Kansas school board redefines science (from cnn, 2005)
Texas Director of Science Ciriculum forced to resign over statements critical of ID (from nytimes, November 29, 2007)
Evolution Battling Intelligen Design in Florida (from Wired, December 5 -- school board members and the likely speaker of Florida's house supporting placing ID alongside evolution in science classes)
Again, I do not mean to put any words in your mouth at all, but there are quite a few ID proponents who are actively trying to fit creationism into the science classroom. As you point out, this is Faith, not science, but a vocal political minority is attempting to order scientists to teach it, even though it makes no attempt to follow the rules and grammar of science. This is hardly more acceptable to a science teacher than it would be for a Spanish teacher if somebody demanded she teach Italian equally.

Evolutionary Theology might be of interest to hard-liners of all stripes, which suggests just one way that science and religion coexist.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

skywalkr2 said:


> The point being people would believe in creationism AREN'T trying to be scientific at all. Their whole belief is based on something as simple as faith. They don't want a seat at the scientific table. This doesn't mean they are stupid.


Yes, damnit, it does. They're consciously rejecting reason. That's virtually the definition of stupidity.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Yeah, they're stupid.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I highly reccomend the following book to anyone who is interested on the teaching of evolution v. intelligent design.

http://www.amazon.com/Monkey-Girl-Evolution-Education-Religion/dp/0060885483


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I have never watched the show because I am busy being employed at a full-time job at the hour the show is on. Is she funny? That is the important thing for a comedian.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

tem said:


> I doubt Jesus would have referred to himself as anything but a Jew or "the follower of his own teachings" as that would have, you know, broken the 2nd commandment.


I never said that Jesus would refer to himself as a Christian. I just posited that you could certainly make a very reasonable argument that he was the first Christian.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I never said that Jesus would refer to himself as a Christian. I just posited that you could certainly make a very reasonable argument that he was the first Christian.


Of course, she is not a reasonable person.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DreadPirateRob said:


> Well, I suppose the argument could be made that he was the first Christian if you define Christians as followers of Christ's teachings - since he would be a follower of his own teachings.


If you truly define Christians as followers of Christ's teachings, it's entirely possible you'll end up with Jesus really being the _only_ Christian.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

MickeS said:


> It's no different than saying you're stupid if you deny that *gravity* exists.


Actually, I believe they call it "Intelligent Falling"


----------



## dmdeane (Apr 17, 2000)

sieglinde said:


> I think this is akin to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


Forty-two.


----------



## dmdeane (Apr 17, 2000)

TheGreyOwl said:


> Like others have already pointed out, evolution is readily observable. There's a reason you have to finish a full course of antibiotics when you have a bacterial infection, and that reason and its consequences are observable. I know some people differentiate that as micro vs. macro evolution, but in real evolutionary theory there is no distinction (and I would note, the Bible also does not mention anything like that). And creationist theory didn't use to make this distinction either until it reached the point that they couldn't reasonably deny it anymore, so they came up with the micro vs. macro evolution as means to "save face". If one accepts "micro evolution" and not "macro evolution", then (in my opinion) that person is just failing to grasp the tremendous amount of time required. Billions of years is just hard to visualize and conceive. "Macro evolution" is nothing but billions and trillions of "micro evolutions" chained together. It doesn't make sense to me for someone to essentially say "I believe micro evolution happens, but I don't believe it happens many times if you wait long enough".


Claiming to believe in micro-evolution while disbelieving in macro-evolution is like claiming to believe in millimeters while disbelieving in kilometers.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

busyba said:


> If you truly define Christians as followers of Christ's teachings, it's entirely possible you'll end up with Jesus really being the _only_ Christian.


I call BS. By that twisted logic, if I am the only person driving on the highway, I am following myself? :down:

Sherri Shephard is still an airhead, though.


----------



## TheGreyOwl (Aug 18, 2003)

getreal said:


> I call BS. By that twisted logic, if I am the only person driving on the highway, I am following myself? :down:
> 
> Sherri Shephard is still an airhead, though.


I think you might be confusing two different definitions of "follow" in that example.


----------



## omnibus (Sep 25, 2001)

See, there's this loading elevator, like on an aircraft carrier, at the edge of the world which is why ships slowly disappear from view.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

sieglinde said:


> I have never watched the show because I am busy being employed at a full-time job at the hour the show is on. Is she funny? That is the important thing for a comedian.


Isn't that why you have a TIVO? And if you don't have a TIVO, what are you doing in the TIVO Community forum?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

getreal said:


> I call BS. By that twisted logic, if I am the only person driving on the highway, I am following myself? :down:





TheGreyOwl said:


> I think you might be confusing two different definitions of "follow" in that example.


Yeah... my post was just my snarky version of the Ghandi quote: "I like your Christ. I do not like Christians; they are so unlike your Christ."


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

busyba said:


> Yeah... my post was just my snarky version of the Ghandi quote: "I like your Christ. I do not like Christians; they are so unlike your Christ."


Now THAT I can understand. :up:


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

busyba said:


> Actually, I believe they call it "Intelligent Falling"


Wow...



> "Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them falljust that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

PJO1966 said:


> Wow...


The Onion.


----------



## PJO1966 (Mar 5, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> The Onion.


Not familiar with it.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

It's an online satire magazine.


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Amnesia said:


> It's an online satire magazine.


Meaning their articles are jokes.

Mind you I didn't click on the link, but I am familiar with it.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> It's an online satire magazine.


It's actually a real (satire) newspaper with a circulation of over 700,000, and was around before the internet was widespread. Good stuff.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

In reference to the post replying to me after I said I did not watch this show because I have a full-time job - I lied. Yes, I have a job, I just don't watch the show because it sounds really really stupid.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> In reference to the post replying to me after I said I did not watch this show because I have a full-time job - I lied. Yes, I have a job, I just don't watch the show because it sounds really really stupid.


I don't watch the show because I am busy feeding my child!


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

PJO1966 said:


> Wow...


As has been pointed out, it's a satire. But I don't see why proponents of "Intelligent Design" wouldn't agree with it.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

MickeS said:


> As has been pointed out, it's a satire. But I don't see why proponents of "Intelligent Design" wouldn't agree with it.


I think they just want to take things one step at a time....


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

busyba said:


> If you truly define Christians as followers of Christ's teachings, it's entirely possible you'll end up with Jesus really being the _only_ Christian.


Touche.


----------



## bobsbizzy (Jun 20, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> I have never watched the show because I am busy being employed at a full-time job at the hour the show is on. Is she funny? That is the important thing for a comedian.


Not intentionally 

Great thread everybody, I've reall enjoyed reading it all. Very entertaining.

:up:


----------



## Jesda (Feb 12, 2005)

Cant stand any of these cows, Whoopi included.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Sherri Shepherd was in Giggle, a "rich white persons toy store," when her two year old kid started having a melt down.

Sherri was upset that b/c she was in the rich white persons store, she couldn't beat the kid, like she could if she was in the black store.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/12/sherri_shepherd_of_the_view_on_1.html


----------



## bareyb (Dec 1, 2000)

Turtleboy said:


> Sherri Shepherd was in Giggle, a "rich white persons toy store," when her two year old kid started having a melt down.
> 
> Sherri was upset that b/c she was in the rich white persons store, she couldn't beat the kid, like she could if she was in the black store.
> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/12/sherri_shepherd_of_the_view_on_1.html


She managed to put child beating and racism in the same charming little story. How is it she doesn't get fired for saying stuff like this? Picture Don Imus saying the same thing...


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I think she might have just been exaggerating for comedic effect. Not that I doubt the sincerity of what she was saying, but still.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

It was obviously a joke and the other hosts knew she was joking. It points out a problem for Shephard though. Some people, like the blogger, are having a hard time telling whether she's joking or serious anymore.


----------

