Sherri Shepherd of The View Doesn't Believe in Evolution
The earlier clip showed that Sherri Shepherd doesn't know if the Earth is flat. Here's a longer version where she admits to not believing in evolution. Whoopi seems to have a problem with this. So do I. There's something about this video clip that's deeply disturbing.
Well, in some Christian quarters the likes of Sherri (and myself) are told not to worry our pretty little heads about these really seriously difficult technical questions (Sherri pretty? Judge for yourself) and that they are best left to our spiritual and intellectual superiors like Ken Hamm or perhaps Michael Hehee (HaHaa? BaHaa? - I’ll get it right one day). I’m sure that suites you Larry as you then only have one lot of 'IDiots' to deal with.
Tell you what, why not go the hole hog and do it as they did in days of old when respective sides selected their champion who then slug it out vicariously for them; the winner takes all and the losers then run for their lives. After all, this should suite both Ken Hamm as its Biblical (David and Goliath et similia), and the atheists as they clearly feel the creationists are a load philistines.
So if you atheists would like to select your champion, say Richard ‘Dawkobot’ Dawkins…. us theists don’t even have to do that as Ken ‘bug beard’ Hamm clearly selects himself (and no arguments). We can now sit back and watch the fight and do absolutely nothing, except perhaps, when the time comes, to run away. Frankly, I’m on the run already.
Tell you what, why not go the hole hog and do it as they did in days of old when respective sides selected their champion who then slug it out vicariously for them; the winner takes all and the losers then run for their lives.
No thanks. I will continue to base my answers on the evidence.
No thanks. I will continue to base my answers on the evidence
I think we need to understand that what people SAY, what people do, what people are like, who we trust, who we like, who we dislike, who we know, who has a reputation and who doesn’t etc… etc all have a bearing on the way we process evidence. My piece above satirizes the situation. Evidence and social texts have a large domain of overlap. As the saying goes: “It’s who you know, not what you know”. Although I hope that that is not as true as it sometimes seems. I live in hopes.
How has our social system with its billions for education produced a lady with such a glaring deficiency?
The very advanced state of the Supernation may have something to do with it, ironically. Luddites in England’s industrial revolution smashed machines because of the perceived threat, whereas more primitive nations on this score, at least, were more at ease with themselves. As far as Sherri is concerned I’m sure that a toxic blend of cultural factors, (such as leadership or absence of it, the sense meaning, existential angst, social anonymity, alienation, perceived failures of science etc etc) are involved.
Haha. There's got to be a formula to find out who is framing and who is a just stupid.
ReplyDeleteWell, in some Christian quarters the likes of Sherri (and myself) are told not to worry our pretty little heads about these really seriously difficult technical questions (Sherri pretty? Judge for yourself) and that they are best left to our spiritual and intellectual superiors like Ken Hamm or perhaps Michael Hehee (HaHaa? BaHaa? - I’ll get it right one day). I’m sure that suites you Larry as you then only have one lot of 'IDiots' to deal with.
ReplyDeleteTell you what, why not go the hole hog and do it as they did in days of old when respective sides selected their champion who then slug it out vicariously for them; the winner takes all and the losers then run for their lives. After all, this should suite both Ken Hamm as its Biblical (David and Goliath et similia), and the atheists as they clearly feel the creationists are a load philistines.
So if you atheists would like to select your champion, say Richard ‘Dawkobot’ Dawkins…. us theists don’t even have to do that as Ken ‘bug beard’ Hamm clearly selects himself (and no arguments). We can now sit back and watch the fight and do absolutely nothing, except perhaps, when the time comes, to run away. Frankly, I’m on the run already.
BTW: The above would be a great subject for 'Celebrity Death match'... Oh, the downright primitiveness of it all!
ReplyDeleteWhen a citizen of Supernation stumbles and falls on her face, very much like a child; we could ask ourselves, as scientists: How could this happen?
ReplyDeleteHow has our social system with its billions for education produced a lady with such a glaring deficiency?
Isn't that what we are discussing in this blog?
Tell you what, why not go the hole hog and do it as they did in days of old when respective sides selected their champion who then slug it out vicariously for them; the winner takes all and the losers then run for their lives.
ReplyDeleteNo thanks. I will continue to base my answers on the evidence.
Tegumai, the guy is describing the adversarial scam used by lawyers in the law game. It started in the middle ages.
ReplyDeleteToday it means big money for lawyers - the client is the mark and goes away bloody, battered, and bewildered!
The lawyers, of course, were only shadow boxing, or playing tv wrestling.
tegumai said..
ReplyDeleteNo thanks. I will continue to base my answers on the evidence
I think we need to understand that what people SAY, what people do, what people are like, who we trust, who we like, who we dislike, who we know, who has a reputation and who doesn’t etc… etc all have a bearing on the way we process evidence. My piece above satirizes the situation. Evidence and social texts have a large domain of overlap. As the saying goes: “It’s who you know, not what you know”. Although I hope that that is not as true as it sometimes seems. I live in hopes.
Gerald said..
ReplyDeleteHow has our social system with its billions for education produced a lady with such a glaring deficiency?
The very advanced state of the Supernation may have something to do with it, ironically. Luddites in England’s industrial revolution smashed machines because of the perceived threat, whereas more primitive nations on this score, at least, were more at ease with themselves. As far as Sherri is concerned I’m sure that a toxic blend of cultural factors, (such as leadership or absence of it, the sense meaning, existential angst, social anonymity, alienation, perceived failures of science etc etc) are involved.