This should make me laugh but…

Posted by on February 7, 2011 in Thoughts | 23 comments

… and at first I did, but then I got angry.

I know just about every person and their dog has had a say on this topic, but I’d just like to respond publicly to Bill O’Reilly’s youtube.com video, the one he posted on January 26th this year. In this video (it’s posted below) he answers some questions which were prompted by the ignorant and downright stupid comments he made regarding the tides. I talk about the original video here. I’m going to take his argument apart piece by piece. I’m sure you have seen the piece below, and if not, watch it and cry for the ignorance in our world. It shouldn’t take long, and I know none of it is news to you, but I want to get this off my chest.

He starts the video by reading out the question posed to him by “David” of Beverly Hills, Florida. David asks:

“What do you mean when you refer to the tides when you are asked about the existence of God? Science explains the tides… the moon’s gravity pulls the oceans.”

Bill answers, in a rather hurried fashion:

“How’d the moon get there? How’d the moon get there?”

Didn’t anyone ever tell you it’s wrong to answer a question with a question? You certainly aren’t known for your manners or social etiquette, though are you? Well anyway, Bill, since you asked, the moon was created billions of years ago when an object the size of Mars struck the forming Earth, some of the debris settling back onto our planet, and the remainder drawn together by it’s own gravity came together to form the moon. Remember this is billions of years, so over time the moon appeared to smooth, as did the earth. This is plenty of time for all the rough edges to be worn down and drawn into the planet. But of course Bill, you think the universe is 6000 years old right? well I won;t be convincing you of anything with that argument, then will I?

Moving right along, Bill goes on to say this:

“Look you pinheads who attack me for this, you guys are just desperate. How’d the moon get there? (I already answered this above Bill, aren’t you paying attention?) How’d the sun get there? How’d it get there? Can you explain it to me?”

The sun huh? Wow that’s a bigger question, but yes I can explain that to you. That happened a lot longer ago. Clouds of dust and gas are responsible here. I think I’ll let Wikipedia answer this one for you. In the entry under Sun, it says:

The Sun was formed about 4.57 billion years ago when a hydrogen molecular cloud collapsed. Solar formation is dated in two ways: the Sun’s current main sequence age, determined using computer models of stellar evolution and nucleocosmochronology, is thought to be about 4.57 billion years. This is in close accord with the radiometric date of the oldest Solar System material, at 4.567 billion years ago.

So in simple terms, the sun is formed from a hydrogen gas cloud which collapsed in on itself due to gravity. With increased gravity come increased pressure, and with increased pressure come increased heat. The pressure got so high that it ignited, and a star was born. What’s that you say Bill? It came from wikipedia and everyine knows that’s all lies? And you don;t trust scientists? Well I guess I won;t be convincing you with that one either… Oh well on we go…

And he goes on:

“How come we have that, and Mars doesn’t have it? Venus doesn’t have it… How come? Why not? How’d it get here?”

How come we have a sun and a moon and Mars and Venus don’t? Well Bill, they both share the same sun as us, sorry to disappoint you there, but the moons? Well that’s easy, it’s because they are different planets who underwent a different history to Earth. They also sit at a different distance from the sun so therefore are under different pressures than the Earth is from solar radiation. And I told you how the sun and moon got there, you should start to see a pattern here Bill…

“How’d that little amoeba get there? Crawl out there? How’d it do it?”

Wait,which amoeba? And get where exactly? Crawling amoebas? Huh, well i guess you know more about amoebas than I do Bill. I think what you are getting at, but fail to actuall ask, is “how did life begin on Earth?” I suggest you do some reading, star with abiogenesis, and then get back to me. Or are you too stubborn to read something?

What’s that Bill?

“C’mon… You have an order in this universe, you have order in the universe, tide comes in, tide goes out. Ok yeah the moon does it, fine, how’d the moon get there? (Again Bill you’re not payin attention!) Who put it there? Did it just happen?”

You’re asking who put the moon there? Who? Well here’s your main problem Bill, you see, just because something happens doesn’t mean that somebody made it happen. You approach your knowledge of the universe with a preconceived idea that God did it, and that God made it happen. The problem when you do that is that you stop asking questions, and accept false information prematurely. Bill, nobody put the moon there, if you bothered to read the first part of this blog, you’d know that. It happened, but it didn’t “just” happen. There were millions of individual events that led up to the formation of the moon, not just one thing. Cause and effect Bill, it’s the basis of all things.

“Okay if we have existence, if we have life on Earth, how come they don’t have it on the other planets? Were we just lucky? Did some meteor do this? PCCCCHHHHHHHHHH!”

Bill, abiogenesis. Read it and get back to me. I wouldn’t say we’re lucky as such, but it has been a fortunate series of events. But to say that it only happened here is so narrow-minded that I really feel sorry for you Bill. There are billions of stars in our galaxy alone! Each one of them could have planets, and some of these planets are more than likely like ours! And please, stop making noises.

“C’mon, you know I see this stuff, it’s desperate. As I’ve said many times, it takes more faith to not believe and to think that this was all luck, all this human body, the intricacies of it and everything else, all luck… than it does to believe in a deity. There you go.”

Okay, Bill, so it takes more faith to learn, to critically analyse what you are told, to look at the facts presented, collaborated, falsified, improved upon and built on over centuries than it does to believe a story with no evidence ever presented up as to it’s truthfulness? It takes less faith to believe a bunch of stories written over 2000 years ago by a bunch of uneducated goat-herders than it does to believe what you are told by some of the most brilliant minds alive today? Sorry Bill, but what is your definition of faith? I think, if you look it up, it’s about trusting something without reason or evidence to do so.

I have faith in one thing Bill, and that is that no matter what anyone says, no matter how much sense they make, no matter how much evidence they have stacked in their corner, no matter what, that YOU could not be convinced otherwise. This is because you are a narrow-minded person without the ability to think critically.

Bill, the tribe has spoken.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
This should make me laugh but..., 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

23 Comments

  1. I’d not heard of O’Reilly until the weekend just gone, when I saw that very video, as it happens. What an ignoramus. Worse: a wilful ignoramus. Nice passionate rebuttal, Marty

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  2. Okay, so Santa doesn’t exist. How’d my presents get here then, huh? How’d they get here? Can you explain that to me?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  3. Oh whoah is me! Poor Bill! No wonder there’s a section on youtube called “Why people laugh at creationists” Gotta say one thing though, Bill, you’re a laugh a second! Viva la science!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  4. You might have mentioned that Mars in fact does have two moons, Phobos and Deimos, which are believed to be two captured asteroids. Although they were not formed in the same way as the Earth’s moon, we have known about them since 1877.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Agreed about the two moons. But you forget one thing – Bill’s understanding of cosmology predates 1877, so I suppose he’s excused for not knowing about moons of Mars. I would place his understanding around 14th century or earlier.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  5. You forgot to menteion the Mars moons.

    Janne

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  6. This has been talked to death, but I think there is more to this than Bill being stupid, because he is not. I’m sure he understands the basic science of this as well as I do. But his constituency does not, and that is all that matters to Bill. He wants to show his people how easy it is to smack down these pinhead intellectual atheists. The poor souls who follow Bill will eat this up and continue to bask in their own ignorance. Bill’s purpose in life is to keep them ignorant and obedient. He does a great job and is well rewarded for his efforts.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • I totally agree! He’s not stupid at all. He makes money from the stupid!

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  7. I don’t try to think about whether O’Reilly is really that dense. His point was that the Christian biblical explanation for everything is far easier to believe than that evolution and non-supernatural events caused the reality we exist in today.

    For the indoctrinated, that is probably as certain as the nose in front of their faces. That is a dividing line that the divinely-addled just cannot leap.

    Godidit is so much more bumper-friendly, don’tchathink?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  8. BRILLIANT post…thanks for this, you tore Billo a nice new one (tho he would rather DIE than ever consider any real arguments against his BS)…thought you might dig a poster I made that is on the same Bill topic:

    http://www.facebook.com/Kevin.Karstens#!/photo.php?fbid=1782010426634&set=a.1564827077186.81378.1130652688&theater

    Thanks Again…
    -K

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  9. Oops!

    Link didnt work right…tryin’ again:

    http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/180989_1782010426634_1130652688_2031399_741421_s.jpg

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  10. It takes less faith to believe a bunch of stories written over 2000 years ago by a bunch of uneducated goat-herders than it does to believe what you are told by some of the most brilliant minds alive today?

    And which people are those exactly? I hear this phrase thrown out countless times, and I’m just curious which people you are referencing specifically. Because as I recall, the best historical account (which has been verified countless times via archaeology) was written by a doctor of medicine (we call many of those types of people “brilliant minds” today), which by authorial comparison gives credibility to the Gospel of Luke also.

    Moses, who wrote the Pentateuch, was educated in the same courts of Egypt that many of the secularly-revered Pharoahs were educated in.

    Most of the NT epistles were written by a former Pharisee, who were generally respected as some of the most learned men of the time.

    David, an actual goat-herder, mostly contributed to the Bible in songs, and how many well-known musicians were just average Joes before they hit their big break (think Paul Potts)?

    David’s son Solomon grew up in the king’s courts, just like Ashurbanipal, Hammurabi, Alexander the Great, etc. You don’t have any problems with anything you’ve learned from them, do you?

    This statement just screams ignorance. I’d be careful before you go throwing it around loosely.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • @Sabepashubo I stand by this statement. Your reference to David is just plain silly. Just because someone makes songs does not make them plausible.
      Also, regardless of Moses’ education, his learnings would be laughed out of ANY school today. You are grasping at straws here. There is nothing plausible in the Bible. You use this example:

      “And which people are those exactly? I hear this phrase thrown out countless times, and I’m just curious which people you are referencing specifically. Because as I recall, the best historical account (which has been verified countless times via archaeology) was written by a doctor of medicine (we call many of those types of people “brilliant minds” today), which by authorial comparison gives credibility to the Gospel of Luke also. ”

      Those people are astronomers, physicists, doctors, surgeons, geologists et al. Who is this archeologist? Who is this doctor. The literal interpretations of the bible do nothing but cause ignorance to continue. Sorry mate, you;re out of your depth here, defending the willful ignorance of Bill O’Reilly is tantamount to insanity.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      • Marty,

        First, I am not defending Bill O’Reilly’s argument here. It’s too simplistic and accomplishes nothing because it doesn’t have any evidence to support it. I came here because the above statement I quoted is extremely inflammatory and baseless, as I’ve just demonstrated above.

        My reference to David was actually somewhat in support of your argument. You claimed the Bible is written by goat-herders, and I’m showing you what parts of the Bible an actual goat-herder wrote. He wasn’t responsible for historical accounts; he was responsible for poetry that expressed what he feels. I don’t see you disparaging John Lennon, Kurt Cobain, or any other modern-day musician for the same types of emotive poetry. Again, level the playing field.

        @Moses’ education: No different than any of the Pharoahs of ancient Egypt, so reject all of the hieroglyphs found and anything we’ve learned about ancient Egypt then. Once again, level the playing field.

        My question that you quoted was to which people that wrote the Bible are you attributing goat-herder status. I’ve given you one; how many others can you find me?

        You have made a bunch of baseless statements in your rebuttal, and you are doing both yourself and your readers a disservice to not even back any of your claims up a bit. Do some homework, and then let’s have an actual discussion.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • “@Moses’ education: No different than any of the Pharoahs of ancient Egypt, so reject all of the hieroglyphs found and anything we’ve learned about ancient Egypt then. Once again, level the playing field.”

          OK to be completely fair, it doesn;t matter whether they herded goats, were stonemasons or were kings. The fact is that this information was formulated hundreds of years ago by people whose education was sub-par by today’s standards. The information we have now, after 2000 years of scientific endeavour is far superior to pretty much anything that could have been taught back then. 2000 years from now, our education will look the same. Put the strawman back in the field where it belongs.

          “You have made a bunch of baseless statements in your rebuttal, and you are doing both yourself and your readers a disservice to not even back any of your claims up a bit. Do some homework, and then let’s have an actual discussion.”

          Firstly these statements aren’t baseless, if you used common sense you’d know this. We stand on the shoulders of giants, my friend, and undoubtedly some of the teachings of the abrahamic faiths have added to this, but in the true spirit of progress, what we have now is a much more focused and precise understanding of the universe. Secondly, I have done my homework, and I stand by my opinions. This is my blog, it’s not an historical textbook, it is much more like a series of opinions based on my observations. You are the one disagreeing with me. If you don’t like what you are reading why do you keep coming back?

          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
          • I come back because there are fence-sitters who read your blog, and they are owed both sides of the story. When you make such claims as you did in your initial blog post, you leave yourself open to criticism and breaking down of your argument.

            Surely you wouldn’t begrudge anyone testing the validity of your claims, would you? Because otherwise, that does serious damage to the credibility of your worldview. I’m just calling it for what it is, which is what your readers ought to be entitled to. I respect your opinion very much, but when there is no foundation for it I will speak up. If nothing else it ought to at least make you re-examine your position to make sure the foundation is there and then explained, if not changing your position entirely.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Would you believe a modern day doctor if he claimed to have seen Pegasus? If not, please explain why we should accept the 2,000 year old testimony of a “doctor”.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      • Askegg,

        You pre-suppose the outcome from the beginning. Historical accounts verify evidentially that Jesus was an actual man that lived. If you won’t accept a 2,000-year old testimony of a medical doctor, then why accept the writings of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, which are even older and had even less education by our standards today? Level the playing field, and then let’s talk. Don’t fall into the same trap that is perpetuated time and time again on this blog.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        • I am prepared to believe a person named “Jesus” existed, just like any other character in history. However, this does not prove he was born of a virgin, performed any miracles, walked on water, feed thousands with a few fish, was murdered, came back to life, and flew into Heaven to sit next to himself. Seems you have quite a lot to demonstrate before rational people will accept your fantastic claims.

          I am prepared to accept Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle because the ideas they left behind are not predicated on the unbelievable. The Socratic method works just as well no matter who thought of it first. It demonstrably works and thus is valuable. Can you make the same claims with Jesus? No.

          The claims of Jesus are founded on multitudes of presuppositions. Souls, eternal judgement, timeless and all powerful deities, the acceptance of belief and faith over evidence and reason, etc. ow about you start with these things before we move onto the specific claims of a man named “Jesus”?

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
          • This is a straw man argument. We’re not talking about the claims of Jesus. We’re talking about the credibility of the authorship. If the authorship is credible, then the content of what is authored gains more credibility, whether it’s true or not.

            That is where something like the Book of Luke ought to at least be on par with the Plato’s Republic in terms of credibility based on education, which was what was called into question by Marty’s initial comment.

            We can talk about the claims to Jesus at a later date, but let’s keep the conversation on topic, and to use my favorite phrase recently, the playing field fair.

            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  11. “I don’t see you disparaging John Lennon, Kurt Cobain, or any other modern-day musician for the same types of emotive poetry”Likely this is due to the FACT that NONE of the musicians/song writers you mentioned evoked a ‘god’, or expected anyone with an IQ past double digits to take their writings as FACTUAL CLAIMS?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  12. “Historical accounts verify evidentially that Jesus was an actual man that lived. “…WHICH ‘historical accounts’? WHERE? NOTHING historical has EVER been revealed to verify anything more than the probability that ‘Jesus’ was FICTIONAL…if you claim such evidence exists, link to it.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  13. “I think there is more to this than Bill being stupid, because he is not”…Wow…BRILLIANT comment…sans ANY evidence to show how Bill is NOT an idiot…well done. (sloooow…clap…)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Have your say

%d bloggers like this: