How'd the moon get there, Bill O'Reilly?
Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2011 at 08:29 AM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
56 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Will New York Senator Chuck Schumer ditch gay couples for an immigration deal?
- If nobody's happy, it's working – the abortion debate and Irish politics of stalemate
- Conservative news entertainment complex claim Barack Obama leader of Al Qaeda
- Why Irish grudges are passed on - a long tradition of never forgetting
- Boston man confronts Infowars conspiracy nuts over 'false flag' claim
Archives
It sounded like a song more than a question.
For the Irish O'Reilly's question recalled indelible lines in Sean O'Casey's play Juno and the Paycock: "Th' whole worl's in a terrible state o' chassis - what is the moon, what is the stars?"
O'Casey's play makes it clear the drunken Irish derelict asking the question doesn't know the answer.
O'Reilly's speech makes it clear the Irish American in the Brooks Brothers blazer does know the answer and he knows there can only be one: God.
3000 miles and a Chaminade High School education has resolved O'Reilly of all his doubts.
This surprising meditation had its origin last month when Bill O'Reilly dismissed atheism and the president of the American Atheists group Dave Silverman by claiming that the daily ebb and flow of the tides was evidence of the existence of God.
It was a conjecture that astounded even his supporters. After all, the reason why the tides ebb and flow has been settled by science for centuries. The gravitational pull of the moon was long ago observed to be the cause.
So when O'Reilly claimed that "nobody can explain the tides" he must have been speaking for himself (and possibly some of his viewers).
When he was roundly mocked for his apparent ignorance, O'Reilly changed the question by fuming:
"Okay, how'd the moon get there? Look, you pinheads who attacked me for this, you guys are just desperate. How'd the moon get there? How'd the sun get there? How'd it get there? Can you explain that to me? How come we have that and Mars doesn't have it?"
It's disconcerting to see the anchor of a Fox News opinion show grow metaphysical. But he's asking interesting - although blatantly leading - questions.
It's an old shell game, this: O'Reilly is posing scientific questions but will only accept theological answers.
Here is a mind that has no time for - or patience with - science. Here's a mind that embraces fundamentalist principals. Because of that master satirist Stephen Colbert mocked him on his show this week without the following questions:
"How come I have two faucets? Hot comes out of one, cold comes out of the other, never a miscommunication? You can’t explain that."
Where does Bill O’Reilly come? He’s on my TV he’s off my TV then he’s back. Where’d he come from?"
"Sometimes he’s on my radio and I’m watching him on the TIVO at the same time. You can’t explain that. How come my TV thinks I want to watch Swamp Loggers? Nobody knows. Can’t explain that."
"And as long as nobody knows, the answer must be God."
If Bill O'Reilly is feeling anxious about the origin of our solar system there are people who can help relieve him. The question of how the sun got there has an entire scientific field of star formation devoted to it, in fact.
The Cliff Notes answer posits that a molecular gas cloud - many of which exist in our galaxy - collapsed under its own gravity, which was probably triggered by the explosion of a dying, massive star.
That gave rise to the Sun, along with a proto-planetary disk of gas and dust that collapsed to form the planets, comets, and asteroids.
The fact that in life there can be many complex answers to deceptively simple questions is something that fundamentalist natures like O'Reilly's can't accept.
It would be wise to bear that in mind the next time he tries to convince you he has all the answers.
56 comments
Next
Page 1 of 4 pages
maloney | Feb 12, 2011, 01:08 PM EST
I appreciate the support seano. It's nice to know your friends got your back.
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | Feb 11, 2011, 09:34 PM EST
Padypower!O'R is not a redneck he just plays to the redneck peanut gallery,ask Maloney he's one of them.
Report abuse
jacersagain | Feb 11, 2011, 07:26 PM EST
I read Stephen Hawking’s book “A Brief History of Time” a good few years ago, just after it was published and before it became a popular read. After reading it, I, a simple man of the street, wrote to Professor Hawking, challenging some of his assertions and asked him to reply to my points. I got a letter back (I still have it), signed by his assistant, kindly acknowledging receipt of my letter and apologising in basically saying that Mr. Hawking was indisposed and unable to respond to my challenges on his assertions. Enough said... even Hawking's brilliant mathematical mind could not answer. I think that is so because Hawking and his kind are barking up the wrong tree. pacifist is on the right track, long may s/he bark.
Report abuse
maloney | Feb 11, 2011, 09:56 AM EST
paddypower..one thing O'R is not is a redneck. I should know, ask seano.
Report abuse
pacifist | Feb 10, 2011, 07:35 PM EST
seanomelbourne, As Hawking the atheist and evolutionary proponent acknowledges there was a beginning for matter and time and the conclusion must be that prior to that there was nothing. The question remains for him, you and others is how did something come out of nothing. I have given my answer and that is God made all that is because nothing is impossible for Him to do. There is no purpose in keeping this exchange going as we are not going to be of one mind on the subject. With that I'll wish you well and go to bed as it is 1.34 in the morning here. Good night!
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | Feb 10, 2011, 06:25 PM EST
I'm glad you were there pacifist so you could enlighten us.Your truth is there for all to see. Show me the proof a continuum from before the big bang to now.
Report abuse
paddypower | Feb 10, 2011, 10:40 AM EST
Billy O Reilly personifies the lethal mixture of redneck ignorance and imbecile arrogance that has made America (sic) hated around the planet. For that at least he can be proud.
Report abuse
pacifist | Feb 10, 2011, 06:21 AM EST
seanmelbourne, But the proof is there for all to see. It is in what was made in all its intricacy and complexity. Human society itself needs civil laws made by man to regulate an orderly society. The universe functions according to the invisible laws created by God to have order in the universe - one example being that of gravity. Eeven your "mad " molocule was created by the supreme designer, God. The universe and all it contains did not happen as a result of an accident - by blind chance.
Report abuse
pacifist | Feb 10, 2011, 06:00 AM EST
seanomelbourne, OK! No longwindedness -so how did something come out of nothing?
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | Feb 09, 2011, 06:11 PM EST
And pacifist try not to be so long winded in your reply.
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | Feb 09, 2011, 06:10 PM EST
Pacifist!talking about suppositions why not suppose that you may be wrong. You seem to take a high moral ground on the existence of something you cannot prove.I think I will consult with my maker the mad molecule.
Report abuse
pacifist | Feb 09, 2011, 02:34 PM EST
I've been getting impatient waiting for an answer to my question as to where the matter involved in the Big Bang originated, but so far nothing - just as there was nothing prior to that event. But Cahir O'Doherty wrote in his article the following: " The Cliff Notes posits that a molecular gas cloud - many of which exist in our galaxy - collapsed under its own gravity, which was probably ( What - only probably? ) triggered by the explosion of a dying, massive star. That gave rise to the sun, along with a proto-planetary disc of gas and dust that collapsed to form the planets, comets and asteroids. The fact that in life there can be many complex answers to deceptively simple questions is something the fundamentalist natrures like O'Reilly cannot accept ". An interesting thought process this - going from the supposition, for that is all it is, that a molecular gas cloud collapsed under its own gravity which was probably triggered by an explosion ( another supposition ) of a dying, assive star . . . . yet another supposition. And then even more suppositions following on from the first. All this, supposedly, gave rise to the sun, along with a proto-planetary disk of gas and clouds to form planets, comets and asteroids. All based on an initial supposition. Cahir O' Doherty correct up to a certain point when he writes, " The fact that in life there can be many complex answers deceptively simple questions is something that fundamentalist natures like " - and here I drop his words and insert my own words, by adding " Cahir O'Doherty can't accept ". All of what he was wrote only concerned our galaxy, not the entire universe. The question is simple, not complex as is the answer: How did the entire universe, not just our own galaxy, come into being? How was something made out of nothing? It was all made by God!
Report abuse
pacifist | Feb 09, 2011, 04:43 AM EST
There is ample - in fact overwhelming evidence for the existence of God. The very universe itself is that proof - the very sky itself on a clear night. Out in the stars is the mechanism - that great, perfect God-created Master Clock by which the earth bound man-made imperfect Master Clock is set which is in turn used to set the time on all other made-made clocks. Even the invisible laws in force keeping the universe in order in the universe, gravity being one example, are evidence of the existence of the creator God. Man can make nothing equal to the intricacy and complexity of God's creation in any field. Man made computers cannot compare to the human brain and the human eye did not happen by accident but was created by the Eternal Creator God.
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | Feb 09, 2011, 01:28 AM EST
Not everything parents or the church taught is wrong.Some parents do pass on their slanted views to their children like love of god and country.There is no evidence for the existence of God and as far as country is concerned what doe's "love of country"really mean. Is it some form of jingoistic nationalism to denigrate those who oppose a counter point of view or is it like patriotism "the last outpost of a scoundrel".
Report abuse
Next
Page 1 of 4 pages
Report abuse