Jay Leno’s “Point. What’s your point?”

Have you seen this bit on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno called Point. What’s your point? I just caught it for the first time and I must say that it’s a bit depressing to think there are people that friggin’ stupid out there. Leno has already had a long running bit called Jaywalking where he goes out on the street and finds folks who are generally clueless about various things, but not outright stupid. In this new bit Leno appears to have found two genuinely stupid people and convinced them to come on the show occasionally where he can ask them various questions such as, from tonight’s show (which I think is a repeat), “Should creationism be taught in addition to Evolution in schools.”

The two people involved in this “debate”—a young woman and a young man who’s names I’ve already blocked from my mind due to the painful experience of watching them try to form coherent thoughts on national television—actually disagreed on this topic. The man said that it should be taught in school, but for no apparent reason while the young woman argued that it shouldn’t be because it would “confuse children.” But that’s not the stunning bit. The stunning bit is that neither one of them could summarize the creationist story in the Bible! The woman thought Eve ate Adam’s rib and that’s what started all the trouble in the first place. The guy at least knew that Eve was made from Adam’s rib, but not a hell of a lot more.

We won’t even go into how neither one of them had a clue what a filibuster was let alone whether Congress should get rid of it.

Some of the people that show up in the Jaywalking bits can be pretty stupid, but these two make most of those folks seem just this side of Einstein in comparison. You almost wonder if you could slap some smarts into them and chances are it wouldn’t do much damage to try it out. I was most amused, or perhaps it was appalled, it’s hard to tell sometimes when I’m watching stuff like this, by the faces the woman was making as she was thinking of her answers. She literally looked like she was straining to come up with something intelligent to say and was failing terribly at doing so. When asked how many books a year people should read she replied that it depends on whether people wanted to escape reality. When Jay followed up by asking if watching TV was escapism she said that books were different because you had to move your eyes and it was a lot more work than watching TV. Wow.

If ignorance is bliss, those two are surely ecstatic…

37 thoughts on “Jay Leno’s “Point. What’s your point?”

  1. Depressing isn’t it. I’ve always thought that chronic stupidity should be a Capital offence.

  2. The woman thought Eve ate Adam’s rib and that’s what started all the trouble in the first place.

    This reminds me of the time when one of my science students asked me which gender had more ribs.  I told her that they had the same number of ribs.  She, along with other students, were suprised at this because they beleived that the male had one less rib due to the female being created from a male rib by God.

    Oh yeah, I want a Creationist doing surgery on me…yep yep yep…

  3. I experience the stupidity of people all the time. For example I have people call me screaming their head off because they can’t understand their phone bill. I get a stupid response, “Oh….” when I ask them if they looked on both sides of the bill. Yes people, Paper can be printed on both sides!
    Dumbasses.
    (btw, I am a customer service rep for a phone company, just in case some stupid person is wondering why people call me about their phone bill.)

  4. Stegbeetle, I don’t think making stupidity a capital offense is the right solution only in part because we all have moments of blinding stupidity and it’d be a hassle to have to prove that, normally, you’re not as stupid as you just appeared to be.

    It used to be that the problem of stupid people sorted itself out through natural selection in the form of someone doing something incredibly stupid and killing themselves in the process, but we’ve passed all these laws now-a-days that protect them. Stuff like the mandatory helmet and seatbelt laws. As a result more stupid people are surviving longer and thusly breeding and filling a new generation with their ignorance.

    Worse, the lawyers have figured out that these stupid people are a great source of income for them. First they’re stupid enough to injure themselves, then they’re stupid enough to believe the lawyer will make them rich by suing someone, then they make sure as many other stupid people as possible are on the jury for the trial. Voila! Instead income for the lawyers.

    Well, that’s my theory anyway and I’m sticking to it.

    UG, I’ve gotten into the unpleasant habit of questioning my medical professionals on their personal beliefs as a result of some of the things I’ve read in the paper over the years.

    Macbros, I don’t work for the phone company anymore myself so why the hell are these idiots calling me about their phone bills?

  5. Smartass Chicago columnist Mike Royko’s desk phone used to have the same number as the phone company’s 800- customer service line, only without the 800-.  So he got calls all the time from people too stupid to dial 800.  You can imagine what he did with that opportunity!  cool smirk

    When the phone company got pissed off at jerking their customers around, he said; “I had my desk phone number first – you change your phone number!  They couldn’t, so they started advertising “Don’t forget the 800-!”

  6. OMG! Macbros’ avatar is tres awesome!  I can’t tell if he’s snickering behind his paw, or flipping me the bird, but either way, he rocks!

  7. Oh yeah, I want a Creationist doing surgery on me…yep yep yep…

    Look warbi, I can copy and paste, too!

    Creationist Scientists:

    Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) (glacial geology)
    Charles Babbage (1792-1871) (computer science)
    Robert Boyle (1627-1691) (gas dynamics)
    David Brewster (1781-1868) (optical mineralogy)
    Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) (comparative anatomy)
    Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) (hydraulics)
    Humphrey Davy (1778-1829) (thermokinetics)
    Henri Fabre (1823-1915) (entomology of living insects)
    Michael Faraday (1791-1867) (electromagnetics)
    John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945) (electronics)
    William Herschel (1738-1822) (galactic astronomy)
    James Joule (1818-1889) (reversible thermodynamics)
    Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) (energetics)
    Johann Kepler (1571-1630) (celestial mechanics)
    Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) (systematic biology)
    Joseph Lister (1827-1912) (antiseptic surgery)
    Matthew Maury (1806-1873) (oceanography)
    James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) (electrodynamics)
    Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) (genetics)
    Isaac Newton (1642-1727) (calculus)
    Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) (hydrostatics)
    Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) (bacteriology)
    William Ramsay (1852-1916) (isotopic chemistry)
    John Ray (1627-1705) (natural history)
    Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919) (dimensional analysis)
    Bernhard Riemann (1826- 1866) (non-Euclidean geometry)
    James Simpson (1811-1870) (gynecology)
    Nicholas Steno (1631-1686) (stratigraphy)
    George Stokes (1819-1903) (fluid mechanics)
    Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) (pathology)
    John Woodward (1665-1728) (paleontology)

    I don’t know, Uber but if Lister were still with us-I think I’d trust him to perform sugery on me if I were in need. And I also might ask, Uber, what have you done that can even begin to compare with these great men?

  8. Errrr, just trying to bait you and see if you were stalking me to every thread I go to, just as I suspected. shock

  9. Hey, chief, you are correct (even in the gender department).  I actually sent her an e-mail that said more or less what you just said and explained that I didn’t want to clutter the thread with irrelevant crap.  (addressing me directly was the main issue, but I do scan the new posts.)  And, Les, I do apologize for posting way off topic.  Peace.

  10. And all of those Creationist scientists are either hypocrites or morons.Im sorry but to spend all that time in study and still believe in god? Must be a proper spastic.

  11. and please Karen – tell me why a scientist knowledgeble about optical minerology,gas dynamics or oceanography should sway me in any way towards a belief in creationism? – cause of some fancy degree?

  12. Karen says:

    And I also might ask, Uber, what have you done that can even begin to compare with these great men?

    Hmm…well…Not that it matters Ms. P.A. Karen but I have had the balls to open my mind and question/disbelieve a fairy tale dogma EVEN THOUGH the dogma is incredibly popular among the masses and its followers tend to promote it through harassment, hatred, prejudice, brainwashing, and violence.  That’s a little something.

    Karen, Bring me a scientist who has scientifically PROVEN creationism, or scientifically proven anything WITH creationism, and I’ll be impressed.  I do not think ANY of those scientists proved anything about creationism.

  13. Oh yeah, as an afterthought:  Ms. P.A. Karen, where did you “copy and paste” this list from, people who care about sources want to know…

  14. Hmm…well…Not that it matters Ms. P.A. Karen but I have had the balls to open my mind and question/disbelieve a fairy tale dogma EVEN THOUGH the dogma is incredibly popular among the masses and its followers tend to promote it through harassment, hatred, prejudice, brainwashing, and violence.  That’s a little something.

    Oh my gosh! Uber!  We have more in common than you think!  I have done the very same thing with the trinity and have received that very harrassment, hatred, prejudice, etc. Some of it from someone right here on this blog that referred to me as a cultist and nutty.  None of this makes me special, it just means I have settled on a belief-as you have.  Oh and let me also state that I have found the “masses”-wether they be christian or non-christian-are usually wrong.

    I was asking what YOU have done in comparison to those great scientists.  I wasn’t insinuating that the list proved anything about creationism, just that intelligent people DO believe in it.  It isn’t just a bunch of dummies-as you tried to insinuate via your surgery comment.  Got it?

    Oh and why are you calling me P.A? lol The site is right here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=creationists+scientists

    I thought it seemed like a fair site since it also gave sources and dissenting opinions on why those scientists “don’t count”.  Go ahead and pick the site apart, though. I didn’t spend all night researching it.  I have however engaged in this debate before and recognized all those names.

  15. and please Karen – tell me why a scientist knowledgeble about optical minerology,gas dynamics or oceanography should sway me in any way towards a belief in creationism? – cause of some fancy degree?

    Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. Frumpy, that wasn’t my point. I am in no way trying to sway anyone’s opinion on creationism. I was attempting to point out that many intelligent, influential people historically and presently believe in creationism. Creationists aren’t a bunch of fantasy beliving, brainwashed dumb asses.

    So hold tight to your opinion, hun. I don’t really care what you believe.

     

    And all of those Creationist scientists are either hypocrites or morons.Im sorry but to spend all that time in study and still believe in god? Must be a proper spastic.

    This is exactly my point about the collective mentality of this board! Believe as I do, align your thinking with what makes sense to me or your are a “moron”, “cultist”, “small town retard”, “sociopathic”, “nutty”, etc etc etc ad nauseum.

  16. I actually sent her an e-mail that said more or less what you just said and explained that I didn’t want to clutter the thread with irrelevant crap.

    You sent me an email? I didn’t receive any email from you, warbi.  Try sending it again: EKYax@sbcglobal.net

  17. I think it is telling that although many scientists may believe in a creator in some form, they rarely try and prove it scientifically. I have not seen any scientific argument to prove the creationists view.

    Unless of course you count people with self awarded credentials such as Kent Hovind, and I think we’ve already done ‘Dr Dino’ to death here.

    At the end of the day it comes down to belief vs provable facts, in my view. This doesn’t mean that to believe in a creator is ‘wrong’, but trying to insist it is a provable fact is.

  18. Two things, Karen ..

    First of all, if you’ve got multiple points to comment on, you can, in fact, put them in the same post rather than making several different posts a few minutes apart. This isn’t the first topic i’ve seen you do that in. It’s annoying, and you sound like someone who keeps saying “And another thing!..” when you finally think of something else to say.

    Second, most of those people you mentioned who you claim are creation scientists ARENT.  They were involved in other branches of study.  They may very well have been Christians, but look at the times they lived in.  Most of them died at least 150-200 years ago! Letting it be known publicly back then that you weren’t as devout as the next guy could get you killed!  The best that could’ve happened is that their careers would have been over and noone would have taken their work seriously.

    Besides, there’s no such thing as a creation scientist .. the two are mutually exclusive.  One can be a scientist and believe in creationism (although I’d take their work with a grain of salt), but a researcher into creationism?  That’s crap and you know it.  The only research necessary into creationism is to turn off your brain, drool out of the corner of your mouth, and intone the creationists creed “God did it”.

  19. Most of those scientists were pre-Origin of Species. Before then, there weren’t any real alternatives to Creationism, so how, pray tell, could they have been anything but Creationists?

    You’re just being silly.

  20. Karen, your list of “Creationist Scientists” has been pretty well answered already, but here’s another way of looking at it.

    I could make an equally long list of scientists, starting with, say, Aristotle, and going from Ptolomey up through Tycho Brahe and a bit beyond, who were all geocentrists.  After Copernicus and Gallileo came along, however, their numbers tapered off considerably, and nowadays you’d be hard pressed to find a geocentrist who isn’t just a tinhorn crackpot.

    Today, a bit more than a century after Darwin’s death, there are still a few scientists who consider themselves creationists.  But not many, and none of the caliber of Aristotle or Newton.  Why not?  For the same reason that there are no geocentrist scientists now:  scientific progress.

  21. Worse, the lawyers have figured out that these stupid people are a great source of income for them. First they’re stupid enough to injure themselves, then they’re stupid enough to believe the lawyer will make them rich by suing someone, then they make sure as many other stupid people as possible are on the jury for the trial. Voila! Instead income for the lawyers.

    This paralegal can’t argue with that.  Those stupid people keep a roof over my head and fuel in the Benz.  After 20 years, it has, however, led to a decreased tolerance for stupidity that I do not get paid to deal with.

  22. Kent Hovind is a total nutter.  I met him once though, he came to the school I was going to at the time.  He had some neat tricks for shooting rubber bands 30 feet, and a nifty paper airplane you could shoot over a building, but that’s about it. 

    Crazy as a loon he was.

  23. The only research necessary into creationism is to turn off your brain, drool out of the corner of your mouth, and intone the creationists creed “God did it

  24. Most of those scientists were pre-Origin of Species. Before then, there weren’t any real alternatives to Creationism, so how, pray tell, could they have been anything but Creationists?

    You’re just being silly.

    Ummmm, Darwin was born in 1809. There are a great many on that list that lived when he did or after.  You’re just being stupid. You are obviously an evolutionist but you don’t even know when the founder of it was born.

  25. Ummmm, Darwin was born in 1809. There are a great many on that list that lived when he did or after.  You’re just being stupid.

    Darwin didn’t develop his theory in the womb, you know. Origin of Species was published in 1859, and it took a while to gain complete acceptance by scientists (you know, those pesky scientists tend to actually look at the evidence before jumping to conclusions).

    You are obviously an evolutionist but you don’t even know when the founder of it was born.

    You use the words “evolutionist” and “founder” as if the theory of evolution is a religion. Evolution is not a religion. Is “Germ Theory” a religion?

  26. Why am I debating with this person? Eh…whatever.

  27. Thread Drift Warning

    Karen,

    You listed several names of individuals that you believed were scientists that believed in creationism taken from an unknown website.  I went to the link you provided.  It is not a website, but rather a list of search results from google. Can you provide a link for me to the website proper? 

    It appears to me, though I can’t find a quote from you, that you are a proponent of creationism. (I’m not certain of this so I have asked for you to clarify this below.)  In most instances, though not all, that is indicative of a literal reading of Genesis. Yet, you have said that you are not a Christian.  Given that, and the fact that I’m easily confused, I’m requesting that you help me clarify what your exact positions are.  Will you please set forth the following so that I no confusion exists about what your positions are:

    1) Your definition of creationism

    2) Your definition of evolution

    3) Are you a proponent of creationism as you have defined it?

    4) Are you a proponent of evolution as you have defined it?

    5) Your definition of Christianity

    6) Do you profess a belief in Christianity as you have defined it?

    7) If not, do you profess a belief in God?

    8) If you do profess a belief in God, would you be so kind as to provide a brief “profession of faith” that you adhere to?

    9) If you do not believe in a God, would you be so kind as to provide a brief synopsis of your ethos for human behavior? I’m most specifically interested in your beliefs regarding how we treat each other.

    Thank you in advance for your consideration.

  28. Consi said:

    I went to the link you provided.  It is not a website, but rather a list of search results from google. Can you provide a link for me to the website proper?

    I happened to go to that “source” she provided as well, and took the time to check out a couple of the sites.  The ones that had a similar (or identical) list to the one she provided still did not provide any sources.  As far as I can tell, the list has no source validation (quotes from the scientists themselves, sections of diaries or biographies, referenced published material, etc.).

  29. Wow. How tolerant you are. And your proof that those scientists weren’t creationists, based on how long ago they lived and the times they lived in is very weak. Is that the best you got to refute the list? And the list is not mine per se. It was a list I found. I think I also clarified that already.

    Well.  Here we go again.  First of all, that wasn’t me being intolerant.  I am remarkably tolerant regarding stupidity.  What you were on the receiving end of was my meanness, hostility, and arrogance toward those who spout stupidity.  Second, I didn’t even bother to prove that they weren’t creationists.  Come to think of it, I believe I said that a lot of them did, in fact, believe in creationism.  What I was pointing out, as that Who says I have a name? fellow did, was that since a great many of them lived before Origin of Species was published and accepted, they didn’t actually have a choice in the whole Creation vs. Evolution thing.  There weren’t exactly a lot of options.  And as for it being someone else’s list, hey, you were the one who came in here and posted it.  Fair game.

    Oh and I could care less how annoying my posting habits are to you. I think I have made that quite clear, as well, on several other threads to people here who are equally as anal about it as you are.

    Nobody is as anal as me.

    If you don’t like it then just simply don’t respond to me. I honestly don’t care at this point.

    Are you saying we should start annoying other people? smile

  30. I was asking what YOU have done in comparison to those great scientists.  I wasn’t insinuating that the list proved anything about creationism, just that intelligent people DO believe in it.  It isn’t just a bunch of dummies-as you tried to insinuate via your surgery comment.  Got it?

    Only intelligent people who lived between 100 and 500 years ago believe in it apparently. I guess if you want a 19th century geologist to perform surgery on you then you would be the person who lacks intelligence!

  31. Chris, unless you’re replying to the wrong thread, you’ve not spoken up before so I have no idea who the hell you’re addressing. What list is it you’re speaking of?

    I’d be happy to debate your point, but you don’t appear to have one yet.

  32. I don’t know, Uber but if Lister were still with us-I think I’d trust him to perform sugery on me if I were in need. And I also might ask, Uber, what have you done that can even begin to compare with these great men?

    This is at the end of Karens post 3 July 05. One and the same?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.