Bill O'Reily challenges scientest to explain how moon got there...

[Modified]

I think part of this is that O'Reilly is desperately trying to out-stupid other personalities on Fox News in order to seem "relevant", so he is going to make ever more stupid arguments as time goes on.

I'd like to think he's gone too far this time, and even most of his own audience will think he's unbelievably ignorant. Probably not though.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I'd like to think he's gone too far this time, and even most of his own audience will think he's unbelievably ignorant. Probably not though.

Many people in his audience will eat it up, but there will be some folks on the edges who will start wondering, and rightly so, if he's off his meds.

 

[fuelair]

Is that the stupid niche, or just willfully ignornat?

Both! But wait, there's more! Behind Door number 2 there are the religiously deluded and the Voters Who Vote Against Their Own Best Interests. And, if you call in the nest 12 minutes we can also spot you the common rectum breathers, conspiracy testes, small genitaled bashers of gays and a batch of things that prove you can stack feces that high wearing what they refer to as Godwin uniforms.

 

[Beerina]

Regardless of scientists' theories as to how the moon got there, the theory that a god put it there is completely idiotic.



Is Bill O'Reily like five years old?

 

[SonOfLaertes]

Ouch. Just ouch.

 

[Dorian Gray]

He's addressing a niche audience.

Nobody puts O'Reilly in a niche!

Bill, how did the stupid get in your head? That's right, God put it there.

 

[Moon-Spinner]

Bill appears to be one of those people that think that somehow humans existed (somewhere) first, but needed a perfect world to live in, thus, God created the Earth in it's present state just for humans. Of course everything else was created for the humans to use. It always goes back to that 'How come the Earth is only perfect world that we can live on in the universe' statement that shows how their thinking is backwards.

But this video - Good Lord - you can not watch this without your mouth agape at the sheer stupidity. I wouldn't even bother trying to discuss anything with him, he is a lost cause!

 

[Bill Thompson]

http://gawker.com/5750082/bill-oreilly-challenges-scientists-to-explain-how-the-moon-got-there

So, take that you pin heads.

Anything that this guy ever said that ever had a point is now flushed away. It just takes one nutty comment.

A potential conspiracy theory is that Liberals have created a "stupid and insane" drug and is slipping it to O'Reily and Huckabee these last couple of years.

 

[kedo1981]

I wanted to come up with one of my pithy, sarcastic comments, but when someone says things like this, well, why bother?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I actually watched the little video with Bill in it. Taken out of context, his remark seems stupid. OK, so Bill never learned that science pretty much knows where the moon came from. But I think (I hope) his point is that it is an endless argument. You can go on and on about one thing came from something else and there is no end. He is not really a scientist so he can't put this point using the right words. The fact is, our whole solar system came from dust from an exploded star. So, when Bill is told that he will reply "where did that come from?" and when you eventually get to the Big Bang, he might reply "how did that happen? How does existance itself exist?" and eventually we fall off the map of scientific knowledge completely. I believe this is what he means. So he does not know that we know where the moon came from. If you fault him for being uneducated, you will eventualy fault everyone.

 

[carlitos]

 

[Kookwatcher]

He's addressing a niche audience.

If by "niche" you mean "asscrack", then yes.

 

[dasmiller]

deleted

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I actually watched the little video with Bill in it. Taken out of context, his remark seems stupid. OK, so Bill never learned that science pretty much knows where the moon came from. But I think (I hope) his point is that it is an endless argument. You can go on and on about one thing came from something else and there is no end. He is not really a scientist so he can't put this point using the right words. The fact is, our whole solar system came from dust from an exploded star. So, when Bill is told that he will reply "where did that come from?" and when you eventually get to the Big Bang, he might reply "how did that happen? How does existance itself exist?" and eventually we fall off the map of scientific knowledge completely. I believe this is what he means. So he does not know that we know where the moon came from. If you fault him for being uneducated, you will eventualy fault everyone.

Then he should say what he means, instead of trying to be so clever that he ends up a dumbass.

Or maybe he doesn't want to bring up religion directly?

~~ Paul

 

[MattusMaximus]

I made up a blog post in response to this stupidity. Enjoy...

Bill O’Reilly Doubles Down on the Stupid: “How’d the Moon Get There?”

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I actually watched the little video with Bill in it. Taken out of context, his remark seems stupid. OK, so Bill never learned that science pretty much knows where the moon came from. But I think (I hope) his point is that it is an endless argument. You can go on and on about one thing came from something else and there is no end. He is not really a scientist so he can't put this point using the right words. The fact is, our whole solar system came from dust from an exploded star. So, when Bill is told that he will reply "where did that come from?" and when you eventually get to the Big Bang, he might reply "how did that happen? How does existance itself exist?" and eventually we fall off the map of scientific knowledge completely. I believe this is what he means. So he does not know that we know where the moon came from. If you fault him for being uneducated, you will eventualy fault everyone.

In context, his remark is stupid. It's the old thing, if you keep asking "but what was there before?" then eventually you'll get to "I don't know". Some people like to then say "therefore it's God", but that doesn't work for many reasons, just one of which is that you can still ask the question "but what was there before God?" Any answer given about what was there before God can equally apply to a Godless universe.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Then he should say what he means, instead of trying to be so clever that he ends up a dumbass.

Or maybe he doesn't want to bring up religion directly?

~~ Paul

He is just as much a dumbass as those who choose to take his remark out of context and miss his point.

 

[Bill Thompson]

In context, his remark is stupid. It's the old thing, if you keep asking "but what was there before?" then eventually you'll get to "I don't know". Some people like to then say "therefore it's God", but that doesn't work for many reasons, just one of which is that you can still ask the question "but what was there before God?" Any answer given about what was there before God can equally apply to a Godless universe.

which God? Spinoza's God? Athiests use the biblical god, but that is a strawman argument. "godless universe" makes about as much sense to some as "natureless nature"

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

To Bill: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0

 

[tyr_13]

O Reilly is trying to get some of the Beck Audience,I guess.
And as a way of arguing for the existence of God, this is stupid. Any Catholic theologian (O Reilly makes a big deal about his Catholicism) would give a seminary student an "F" who used this to argue the existence of God.My science teacher..who was a Catholic priest..would have had Bill on his back in five minutes in a debate.

But didn't you know that Catholics ain't Christian?