Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   New View host stumped when Whoopi asks her if the world is flat. Galileo, Miss Teen South Carolina unavailable for comment. LGT video   (youtube.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

28546 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Sep 2007 at 1:13 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



775 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-09-19 02:35:47 PM  
honk: Huh? The earth IS flat.

In places, anyway. I've seen it.


IOWA comes to mind.

Pontus and the Nail Drivers:
given the nature of life"


are you serious?

given the sum total of creation, I posit that your IQ is below 80.
 
2007-09-19 02:36:06 PM  
improvius:
That's irrelevant to science. All we require of science is that it is practical. Entertaining notions of solipsism will get you exactly nowhere.


Right! But it's not irrelevant to the discussion of the relative merits of religion vs. science -- which I assumed was going on here, without going back to read the whole thread.
 
2007-09-19 02:36:07 PM  
NineInchNader: Then I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Things that can be observed, verified and reproduced have nothing to do with fallacy of popularity. If people thought Batman was real even though no Batman had ever been observed, that would be a fallacy of popularity. Or claims that Keano Reaves was the greatest actor in the Universe.

Your claims to fallacy fall apart in that I can reproduce my experiment with the stone at any time, for any one. That's not fallacy of popularity, that's iron clad proof.


That's a fallacy of popularity. You're using the premise that a lot of people agree with it to "prove" that it's true. It's pretty much a textbook example.

Even if everyone in the world agrees with something, that's not logical proof that it's true.

Now you're just edging on circular reasoning as well, by assuming that your observations are valid, when all you can base that on is those same observations. That it's repeatable is irrelevant, since the validity of your ability to observe is what's in question.

Do you even know what the word 'observation' means?

I sure do. You might want to look up some basic logic, since apparently my point's flying right over your head.
 
2007-09-19 02:36:09 PM  
TheCharmerUnderme: Science is NOT based on unprovable assumptions. Only in a world of pseudo-philosophical mumbo-jumbo can you make such a statement.

Wiki has a pretty good summary on the philosophical assumptions that science is based on. And although science rests on a pretty firm philosophical framework, it still is philosophy, not scientifically-provable facts that can be proven by experimentation.
 
2007-09-19 02:36:45 PM  
Troy McClure: This is how every evolution vs. creation debate goes. Each side gets so dug in that they'll never admit anything.

Quite right. The side that believes the earth is flat shouldn't be forced to accept the "round earth" theory. I mean, it's only a theory, right? Only fair that both sides should be taught in the classroom.
 
2007-09-19 02:36:47 PM  
Bob_Laublaw: You_mean_Im_gonna_stay_this_color: The ONLY reason people doubt evolution is because it conflicts with their insane religious beliefs.

I'd also suspect that a fair amount of Americans bristle at the thought that their original ancestors were African.


Do you mean that it was also unlikely that Jesus was so pale skinned when he was born in the middle east?
 
2007-09-19 02:37:54 PM  
img249.imageshack.us
 
2007-09-19 02:37:54 PM  
Pro Zack:
IOWA comes to mind.



Never been to Iowa I see.
 
2007-09-19 02:37:54 PM  
Thorak: All I'm comparing is the way in which both assumptions are unproveable, not which is more likely or has greater value.

You're wasting your time, Thorak. To actually comprehend, much less argue against, your argument would require that they do something like read a book. And that's just not going to happen, not when there's a thread one door up on the topic of large-breasted Chinese women.
 
2007-09-19 02:38:13 PM  
the_american_president

The whole "anthropogenic climate change" thing is merely a way to shame people into conserving fossil fuels. Rationing won't work and price controls won't work and taxes won't work, so the current tack is to convince the guilt-ridden pseudo-adults of the industrialized world that they can "save the planet" by "reducing their carbon footprint." It's really all about buying time by stretching out the fossil fuel supplies. I doubt it'll work, though.
 
2007-09-19 02:38:32 PM  
Ok, let's get this straight:

1. God exists, even though there's no evidence of any kind to prove this fact. Except the Bible. Which also claims the sun revolves around the earth.

2. He loves us all equally. Even those born with terrible, painful, terminal defects. And torture/murder victims. Unless we reject Jesus. In this case, we are to be tortured for all eternity.

3. The earth is FLAT, because the Bible tells us so.

4. Christians aren't DUMB, they just believe 1, 2 and 3.

You know what? Screw you guys. There aren't enough synonyms for "ignorant" or "self-deluded" to cover it.
 
2007-09-19 02:38:46 PM  
found a transcript of the conversation, for those interested:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/19/cohost-of-the-view-d.html
 
2007-09-19 02:38:51 PM  
xadrian: So, if your observations are not proof of your reality, what is your logical bases? I can understand trying to theoretically explain an observation, but leaping to 'shared delusions' is being argumentative when 'shared acceptance' could be just as fitting.

I accept that observations are proof of reality. The only difference, here, is that I recognize that that is fundamentally an illogical assumption to make. It's one that's pretty much necessary to move beyond solipsism, but it's a leap that can't be logically proven to be valid. That's sort of the entire point of a solipsist argument. It's why we have a name for it. Because it's a very important point to make, and one that too many people these days don't recognize.
 
2007-09-19 02:38:53 PM  
GilRuiz1: Wiki has a pretty good summary on the philosophical assumptions that science is based on. And although science rests on a pretty firm philosophical framework, it still is philosophy, not scientifically-provable facts that can be proven by experimentation.

Is it time for someone to bring up Godel's theorem?
 
2007-09-19 02:38:59 PM  
Three legged dog: But who am I kidding? No one will take me seriously. Everyone here has already made up their minds and of course if someone doesn't think what you think then they must be stupid.

Actually it's some one's refusal to look at evidence combined with them pushing a god that they have no proof of that makes them stupid. Waita try to appeal to emotion though (new window).
 
2007-09-19 02:39:08 PM  
SubLurker: Pro Zack:
IOWA comes to mind.

Never been to Iowa I see.


well, not ALL of it. but the part I went through was extremely flat

or is it that you haven't been out of iowa...
 
2007-09-19 02:39:09 PM  
Well the believers are gonna have the last laugh when they are being Raputred up to Heaven and look down to see all the non-believers hanging on for dear life as their fail boats try to navigate burning rivers of sin and blood.
 
2007-09-19 02:39:36 PM  
To be fair, she was thinking of the world after Rosie O'Donnell sat on it.
 
2007-09-19 02:39:37 PM  
Son of Thunder: You're wasting your time, Thorak. To actually comprehend, much less argue against, your argument would require that they do something like read a book. And that's just not going to happen, not when there's a thread one door up on the topic of large-breasted Chinese women.

Really? Damn.

Excuse me, they're calling my name next door.
 
2007-09-19 02:40:07 PM  
Wasn't there a farkette who was a true-blue flat earther? Or was she merely geocentric?

I can't remember her name.
 
2007-09-19 02:40:08 PM  
This: LibertyFirst: Punctuated equilibrium without a doubt. Matches up best with other competative systems and experimental evidence.

I'm an agnostic when it comes to the ins and outs of evolution as I just don't know enough, but I agree with you here. If a mechanism for punctuated equilibrium could be found, it would shake up the world of biology.
 
2007-09-19 02:40:17 PM  
SubLurker: Pro Zack:
IOWA comes to mind.

Never been to Iowa I see.


Yep. Iowa is actually quite hilly. If you want real flat, you need to go to Oklahoma.
 
2007-09-19 02:40:32 PM  
Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calcuated the circumference of the earth "within 50 miles of the present estimate."

Over and out.
 
2007-09-19 02:40:38 PM  
You know who else thought the world was flat...?
 
2007-09-19 02:40:41 PM  
From The View Web site, this is part of the bio on the new host:

"Whether on stage or screen, Sherri Shepherd's magnetic personality and hilarious sense of humor never fail to delight audiences. A self-described "class clown," she relocated to Los Angeles during high school and considered being a mortician, but took a job as a legal secretary instead."

Some legal secretary.

Lawyer: Sherri, can you file this for me?
Sherri: I don't know, I never thought about it.

Gimme a break. Someone let the hot air out of her before she explodes and messes up Elisabeth's hair.
 
2007-09-19 02:41:01 PM  
MR_DING: So I guess you you are just glossing over the fact that she doesn't believe in evolution?

Come on, she probably can't even spell "evolution"! Do you think somebody with a mind like hers has ever even given it even a minute of thought?

But if it makes you feel better to believe that intellects like hers must be the result of religion and it can't possibly be because there are just dumb people in the world, go ahead and have your prejudices.
 
2007-09-19 02:41:07 PM  
I found that clip painful... Any conversation in which Whoopi Goldberg comes across as "the smart one" makes it possible for me to be dubbed as "the pretty one".
To see why that's painful, just check the pic in my profile.
 
2007-09-19 02:41:18 PM  
Jacoban and nothumbs

I was just going to make the same reference. Before clicking the link I was actually kinda hoping it wasn't the obvious "She's an idiot and doesn't know if the world is round or flat"- but it was.
 
2007-09-19 02:41:42 PM  
Horace Wimp: Well the believers are gonna have the last laugh when they are being Raputred Raptored up to Heaven and look down to see all the non-believers hanging on for dear life as their fail boats try to navigate burning rivers of sin and blood.

www.g0tr00t.co.uk
 
2007-09-19 02:42:13 PM  
Crewmannumber6: Holy God!!!!! (see what I did there?)

You_mean_Im_gonna_stay_this_color: I am truly AMAZED at the amount of ignorance and stupidity religion causes.

Religion didn't make her a dumbass. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive, Newton and Keppler were not agnostic.


Newton also believed in alchemy. Accomplishments in science are not mutually exclusive to irrational beliefs.
 
2007-09-19 02:42:14 PM  
img.villagephotos.com
 
2007-09-19 02:42:18 PM  
LibertyFirst: BTW, what is everyone's favorite theory of evolution? Punctuated equilibrium? Neo-Darwinism? Classic Darwinism? Phyletic gradualism? quantum evolution?

______
You are misusing the terms.

Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis that the predominant mode of speciation is cladogenesis.

"Neo-Darwinism" is simply a term applied (usually condescendingly by opponents) to those who emphasize selection over all other forces as the mechanism by which evolution happens.

"Classic Darwinism" refers to Darwin's original ideas that selection was an important (but not the sole) cause of phenotypic change through generations.

"Phyletic gradualism" is the hypothesis that anagenesis is the primary mode by which speciation happens.

"Quantum evolution" refers to part of Simpson's notion that the rate at which phenotypic changes accumulate was variable.

These are not "competing theories" per se. Most evolutionary biologists recognize that each of those interpretations has merit in different situations.

HTH
 
2007-09-19 02:42:25 PM  
Tortilla Burger:


Telos: Out Of Bounds: Maps. More proof that we need more maps.

But maps are flat, and could easily trick people. We should get more globes, instead.

this made me chuckle


This also made me chuckle...the first hundred times I read it
 
2007-09-19 02:42:29 PM  
LibertyFirst: This: LibertyFirst: Punctuated equilibrium without a doubt. Matches up best with other competative systems and experimental evidence.

I'm an agnostic when it comes to the ins and outs of evolution as I just don't know enough, but I agree with you here. If a mechanism for punctuated equilibrium could be found, it would shake up the world of biology.


Punctuated equilibrium seems perfectly consistent with the mechanisms described by Darwin - the only the wrong was the imagining of evolution itself as continuous instead of involving periods of stagnation where the existing organisms entrench themselves. I don't see what "mechanism" is missing.
 
2007-09-19 02:42:40 PM  
improvius:

Yep. Iowa is actually quite hilly. If you want real flat, you need to go to Oklahoma.


I suppose it is a matter of perspective. Tennessee is hilly. iowa did not appear to be.
 
2007-09-19 02:43:03 PM  
Pontus and the Nail Drivers: Well, if you're dumb enough to believe there is an invisible sky wizard whom no one has ever ever seen and who loves us, given the nature of life, all bets are off on the Cavalcade of Religious "Thinking"

You mean like Galileo?
 
2007-09-19 02:43:05 PM  
Amazing, simply almost unbeliveable and amazing.

Heres my usual rant on this is proof religion is "herion" for the feeble minded super naive and that the monotheistic religions are incredible evil by nature. Remind Farkers that there is primarely hate, fear, bigotry, ethnic cleansing, oppression, black mail, fraud, pedofelia, torture and massive amount of bad things in the history of monotheistic religion (They even do business with the mafia ffs. Please also accept my "go fark yourself" to the "you must be retarded and superstious like me or I must hate you and blame you for crime" Farkers in advance..

Kill It With Fire
www.foxnews.com
 
2007-09-19 02:43:24 PM  
Mind farking boggling.

How on a flat earth did she get employed on this show?

Not that they have stringent standards, but holy shiat!
 
2007-09-19 02:43:27 PM  
NineInchNader

Your're right that Einstein didnt believe in traditional dogma but I dont recall that he considered himself an atheist.
 
2007-09-19 02:43:47 PM  
GWLush: The earth isn't flat?

Don't believe the hype. It IS flat.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
 
2007-09-19 02:44:00 PM  
Holy God, that was insanely ignorant remark by that Sherri woman. Is Barbara hiring stupid people (first Hasselbeck and now this borderline retard) deliberately just to make herself look smarter?
 
2007-09-19 02:44:13 PM  
SubLurker: NineInchNader: mvfreeman: This guy didn't seem to have a problem with it...(refering to God in Science)

Actually, Einstein's views on religion were often misrepresented in the media. He believed in a Universal system that was greater than, and untouchable by, mankind. He believed that nothing we could ever do would alter the fact that E=MC^2, and yet it both permeated and comprised our world. It was something greater than we could ever hope to be, but it wasn't some fakring white bearded git dicking with us all day long.

When he claimed to want to know the thoughts of God, he was being poetic in trying to understand the underlying nature of reality.

Now stop abusing his memory.


Nicely put NIN, his own words on the subject:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not beleive in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein


Ironically however it was this lack of belief in the conventional God that led Einstein to flub a major discovery. He believed firmly in a static, eternal, universe, and when the numbers didn't match up with that, he went searching in vain for a cosmological constant that would validate this conclusion. Instead he should have reached the obvious conclusion staring him in the face: that the Universe was created at a finite time and had been expanding outward every since. (the Big Bang theory). He refused to reach this conclusion mostly because a "created" universe smacked too much of a religious notion not a scientific one.
 
2007-09-19 02:44:23 PM  
some_wild-eyed_8-foot_tall_maniac: ThrobblefootSpectre: Because it actually depends on the observer's inertial frame of reference. At relativistic speeds, the Earth would be compressed in the axis of observer travel - i.e. "flat".

"Compressed" and "flat" are not the same. There is no attainable relative velocity that would cause the earth to appear to have zero thickness.


It would look like a disc - i.e flat. I didn't say it would have zero thickness.
 
2007-09-19 02:44:39 PM  
Thorak: That it's repeatable is irrelevant

No... that it's repeatable is reality. That it's observable is reality. That you can't understand that is disturbing.

Thorak: You might want to look up some basic logic, since apparently my point's flying right over your head.

You have no point. All you have is a baseless claim that cannot be directly observed or repeated. Saying "Gosh, what if...", is not the same as the scientific method.

And fallacy of popularity is when thousands of people believe in something that cannot be directly observed or that can be reliably proven to be wrong. Thousands of people observing direct evidence of the structured functioning of the universe is... REALITY!

fakr it. I give up. Fortunately, since you're unable to observe my posts I guess I've been arguing with myself all this time.
 
2007-09-19 02:44:56 PM  
DrewCurtisJr: Pontus and the Nail Drivers: Well, if you're dumb enough to believe there is an invisible sky wizard whom no one has ever ever seen and who loves us, given the nature of life, all bets are off on the Cavalcade of Religious "Thinking"

You mean like Galileo?


Oh, is he on The View now? Didn't see him. All I was were a pack of fat old hens of varying degrees of swarthiness.
 
2007-09-19 02:45:33 PM  
Horace Wimp Well the believers are gonna have the last laugh when they are being Raputred up to Heaven and look down to see all the non-believers hanging on for dear life as their fail boats try to navigate burning rivers of sin and blood.

I feel a lawsuit coming on.

/Senator Chambers to the front desk, please. Paging Senator Chambers to the front desk.
 
2007-09-19 02:45:45 PM  
the_american_president: someone who believes in faith-healing or astral projection.

Please leave my mother-in-law out of this. She is the nicest person you'll ever meet and makes sure there is plenty of good beer in the house when we go and visit.
 
2007-09-19 02:46:09 PM  
Prohest: Heres my usual rant on this is proof religion is "herion" for the feeble minded super naive and that the monotheistic religions are incredible evil by nature.

Your punctuation, grammar, and spelling all suggest that you're at least as "feeble minded" as the people you're ranting about.

If you want to criticize others for being stupid, make sure you can handle English above a 6th grade school level.
 
2007-09-19 02:46:41 PM  
Magellan would like to have a word with her.
 
2007-09-19 02:46:45 PM  
squidloe: kornkob,

No, that's not Starr Jones. But since they all look alike we'll forgive you.

/oh snap. No he dint.


Sure looks like Star Jones to me:

For your photoshopping pleasure.
 
Displayed 50 of 775 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report