How'd the moon get there, Bill O'Reilly?
By: Cahir O'Doherty | Published Sunday, February 6, 2011, 12:50 PM | Updated Friday, September 9, 2011, 10:04 PM
How did the moon get there, demanded Bill O'Reilly this week.
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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Switch to the desktop site to post a comment.snakehips | May 17, 2011, 04:11 PM EDT
O'Reilly;this simplistic, bombastic, womanizing, "screaming meanie", "Grand Looney" does prove one thing and that is that something (someone)can make money without any substance or talent whatsoever. Maybe God has been carrying him all these years and he owes Him....
maloney | Feb 12, 2011, 01:08 PM EST
I appreciate the support seano. It's nice to know your friends got your back.
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.
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.
maloney | Feb 11, 2011, 09:56 AM EST
paddypower..one thing O'R is not is a redneck. I should know, ask seano.
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!
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.
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.
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.
pacifist | Feb 10, 2011, 06:00 AM EST
seanomelbourne, OK! No longwindedness -so how did something come out of nothing?
seanomelbourne | Feb 09, 2011, 06:11 PM EST
And pacifist try not to be so long winded in your reply.
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.
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!
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.
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".
haikued2 | Feb 08, 2011, 03:09 PM EST
And, I see a few fat fingers in my comment below...so what. What I see a lot of is specific personal experience as a child expanded to a claim that everything the parents and or church taught is wrong. Clearly points out a limited understanding of the nature of knowledge...similar to: I have never seen a black swan, so there can only be white ones....really?
haikued2 | Feb 08, 2011, 03:04 PM EST
Interesting OPINIONS...the "I believe" part of being humans makes for discussion...it is when science or religion thinks they have have the "no room for disagreement" answers that humans part company. We do not get our sense of morality from scientists nor our understanding of quantum mechanics from preachers...there has to be a balance...Science is wonderful up to the point where it is beyond human understanding as to why? The point made by one comment about the Big Bang theory that nothing comes from nothing...points out the limits we have in understanding "origin" or prime mover or whatever...infinite is like that in theology..no beginning, no end...a construct to try to explain what we don't understand...SO don't make fun of the opinions of others, yours maybe just as silly and misplaced as their.
jacersagain | Feb 08, 2011, 02:16 PM EST
I think that anyone who wants to discuss Science or Religion, or both, should look to ICentral’s thinking Megan ‘Finnegans Awake’ blog. People should note that Cahir O’Doherty’s articles are filed by IrishCentral under the sweet term of Entertainment, a topic that only airheads visit. I lost respect for Cahir’s articles many moons ago and have since refrained from even reading them but it must be something in the air with Valentine’s Day coming up that made me look at the title of this article. And so I came to read - about the Moon and Bill O’Reilly - and some posters views... and got only entertainment! I leave you to it. St. Valentine, he whose bones lie in Dublin’s fair city, would give the lot of yez a right oul’ rollicking for denying the Supreme Creator.
jamieLM | Feb 08, 2011, 10:46 AM EST
@nanny2sorli - it's not unusual to wonder about the origins of things. You're entitled to post your comments like everyone else. Agree or disagree, but no one person is the "Poster Policeman" who gets to decide which posts are relevant or not for the rest of the posters/readers on I.C. Blow it off.
pacifist | Feb 08, 2011, 10:30 AM EST
TMcGinty, So where did the matter required for the Big Bag come from? How did something come out of nothing?
nanny2sorli | Feb 08, 2011, 09:06 AM EST
@georgedillion - pointing out that I never said it was my parents who said I was blaspheming, it was the nuns/teachers at my catholic school. And I do think my comment was relevant, surely most people have queried where stuff comes from?
TMcGinty | Feb 07, 2011, 09:27 PM EST
To pacifist - your ignorance of science and the scientific method notwithstanding, I thought that you should know that just as evolution is a theory, so is the concept of the atom(the atomic theory). That's the theory upon which we scientists base the concept of chemistry - you know that form of science that you so readily accept(along with all the benefits to your standard of living). Also your use of the word immutable with scientific laws(which we actually have few) is not what you think. Science is open minded and any theory or law is subject to change - that's why we keep checking ourselves and our work.
maloney | Feb 07, 2011, 08:41 PM EST
Ya never know seano but one thing's for sure, it'll be to late for both of us if he does. See ya in the other down under. We won't be alone.
seanomelbourne | Feb 07, 2011, 06:40 PM EST
ourselvesalone!!O'Reilly claims he's against capital punishment,why then did he call for the executions' of Dr.Tiller and Julian Assange? O'Reilly obviously wishes to be the final arbiter on who should or should not live. hypocrisy comes cheap on Fox.What a wonderful world it would be if God existed.
olovely | Feb 07, 2011, 12:51 PM EST
I don't believe an all powerful almighty God created Bill O'Reilly. I really don't. I mean, why for God's sake? So that he could contradict every teaching of Jesus Christ nightly on Fox News? Get real. In fact, O'Reilly is the best argument I can think of against the proposterous idea that there's a divinity in charge.
pacifist | Feb 07, 2011, 11:02 AM EST
So where did the moon come from, Cahir O'Doherty? And the sun and the stars - well, stars being other suns? As a result of the Big Bang? But Stephen Hawking, an ahetist and one of the most fundalmentalist proponents of the unproven evolutionary theory - and, yes, it is still a theory - once wrote, " The universe has not existed forever. Rather the universe itself and time itself has a beginning, about 15 billion years ago ". So, in other words, he is acknowledgeing that once there was nothing - zilch, zero. But in order for the Big Bang to occur there had to be matter in some form or other possibly in the form, as out outline above. But as the highly respected Stephen Hawking admits that prior to the Big Bang there was nothing from whence did the matter required originate? But the universe and all contained therein - the suns and planets had a beginning - and that universe is ordered by immutable laws such as gravity and physics - did those laws coming into existence at the same time as the suns and the planets? How did it all come about? Did something come out of nothing? Any reputable scientist will acknowledge that that is impossible. But, being steeped in their denial of the existence of God, they deny the only remaining plausible and rational explanation. That explanation, that answer is simple, but it is true. God, the creator, made all these things. Creation requires a Creator and laws a Lawgiver - and the master of the universe is that person - the ever-living God.
hollabackgurl | Feb 07, 2011, 08:19 AM EST
PiperMac52: "Science has become a tool of agenda driven elites with preconceived notions." Hitler and Joseph Goebbels used to say precisely the same thing about art. You can tell what kind of people O'Reilly appeals to.
PiperMac52 | Feb 07, 2011, 02:02 AM EST
Complex answers to simple questions? Sure. the reverse is also true. However, O'Reilly is in agreement with the majority of God believing people. Science has become a tool of agenda driven elites with preconceived notions. There is not open debate. Subjectivity rules. Science is limited by the restrictions of fallen man's recalcitrance and arrogance, denial of the spiritual nature. Reason tells us that epic poems and Boeing 747s do not come into existence in and of themselves...yet we are to believ that the vast universe did???
GeorgeDillon | Feb 07, 2011, 01:47 AM EST
nanny2sorl--Your post proves nothing, except how stupid your parents were. Please don't advance their foolishness here as relevant evidence.
GeorgeDillon | Feb 07, 2011, 01:45 AM EST
More baloney from O'Doherty. O'Reilly, in however inarticulate a fashion, was trying to raise the question of what the medievals called the Primum Mobile, the First Mover. Saying the moon was thrown off by the early earth doesn't answer the philosophical question.
OurselvesAlone | Feb 06, 2011, 11:40 PM EST
Typical of the left in how they seek to recalibrate the center in politics today. O'Reilly is a global warming (oh yeah, "climate change) believer and holds an anti-capital punishment view. Worst of all, he is a admirer/disciple of the late "sainted" RFK (ever wonder what the "F" really stands for?). A real conservative portfolio, don't you think? As for intellect, he went to Marist (a.k.a, Mattress College, the "Hilton on the Hudson"), a tier level 2 institution in catholic higher education. I never see Cahir take on a real conservative like Dr. Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institute. Wait a minute, I forgot he's black; thus, one victim group member (a gay) can't take on another oppressed group member (a black). That is how the game of minority poker is played, is it not? "Holla back at me, gurl."
hollabackgurl | Feb 06, 2011, 11:37 PM EST
Who the hell are you Mike Houlihan and where were you found? And why do think stupidly insulting someone constitutes an intelligent argument?
mikehoulihan | Feb 06, 2011, 10:56 PM EST
Why are you writing for this publication? All you write is negative crap. Where did they find you?
jflanagan | Feb 06, 2011, 10:49 PM EST
I saw an episode of the "Daily Show" last year where the guest was one of the "Big Bang" theory scientists and John Stewart asked him a question about how he could be sure that unanswered questions would be answered some day. The Scientist said something like we keep getting answers and more will come in the future to prove the "Big Bang Theory". John Stewart said "Oh, you have to have faith, huh?". The Scientist smiled and said "Yes, we do".
olovely | Feb 06, 2011, 07:49 PM EST
O'Reilly's inability to answer or even grapple with complexity underlines all the shortcomings of conservative thinking. They dismiss anything they can't resolve.
susanna | Feb 06, 2011, 07:28 PM EST
Better yet, "how did you get there 'Reverend' O'Reilly? He's such a zippy pinhead and so yesterday, like "W" - time to give it up and tend to your "flock."
quixotic | Feb 06, 2011, 05:26 PM EST
O'Relly??? I try not to think of that bullyng fool. And that foxhole/god stuff is O'Reillyish. Religion appears to be something that the desperate and hopeless call out for? The opium of the people.
seanomelbourne | Feb 06, 2011, 05:19 PM EST
The right wing peanut gallery have spoken maybe they think O'Reilly is the second coming or is that Glen Beck's place. vincem13 how many privileged planets are out there? remember to keep an open mind prior to answering.
vincem13 | Feb 06, 2011, 04:53 PM EST
Dear Cahir: Read the book or view the DVD "A Privileged Planet" with an open mind (if possible), then you might be in a position to understand where Mr. O'Reilly is coming from.
McNabb1966 | Feb 06, 2011, 04:50 PM EST
I must have missed the episode of this never-ending saga where the atheists PROVED that God DOESN'T exist... Of course, this is an "entertainment blog" so naturally comedians get quoted in metaphysical discussions. God only knows why the Left is reduced to taking political and now even metaphysical cues from...Comedy Central?
seanomelbourne | Feb 06, 2011, 04:28 PM EST
O'reilly bullies his interviewees when he's caught out lying, as he did to Colmes last week. Until now,I never thought he believed the crap he dishes out to the right wing peanut gallery.BOGSIDEBUNNY his Celtic genes have been diluted by mongrel American genes just like yours. Whether in a fox hole or not the science doesn't change only your state of mind changes when you suck it in.
TheOldPerfessor | Feb 06, 2011, 04:26 PM EST
I'm afraid I didn't find much truth in your response, so let's analyze: 1. It's crap that the universe is 6000 years old and you can't believe that two thirds of your fellow Republicans believe this tripe as reported in a 2007 CBS poll and elsewhere. 2. The universe is really 6000 years old and it's crap to believe the scientists who have invested quite a bit of work in finding out otherwise. Please enlighten.
Magdaleno | Feb 06, 2011, 02:01 PM EST
If you have ever been in a foxhole in your life... you will not have a problem in how the moon got there in our universe.Man has a way of thinking on a plane that does not ever, ever, reach the same level and/or elevation as GOD.
VDDService | Feb 06, 2011, 01:13 PM EST
One Irishman to another coming out of the pub, "Is that the sun or the moon up there?" "I don't know, I'me not from this neighborhood!!"
mayoman | Feb 06, 2011, 12:07 PM EST
If one were to view Bill O'Reilly merely as a sort of bizarre satirist, who doesn't really believe a word of his own inane tripe, and simply enjoys spouting off to entertain and make the big bucks, he would be so much easier to take. Its too bad though that he actually believes his own nonsense, as apparently does most of the right wing morons in his audience.
maloney | Feb 06, 2011, 11:53 AM EST
Start off with the 6000 year old crap.
jdi2269 | Feb 06, 2011, 11:44 AM EST
CAHIR NEEDS TO GIVE UP THE GUINNESS AND GET AN EDUCATION!
olovely | Feb 06, 2011, 11:43 AM EST
Bushothehill writes, without a trace of irony, that Bill O'Reilly is a "king." Goodness, craven much? Apart from being hilarious, that's also inaccurate.
TheOldPerfessor | Feb 06, 2011, 11:27 AM EST
Maloney, Kindly tell me what the truth is.
bogsidebunny | Feb 06, 2011, 11:24 AM EST
O'reilly possesses certain Celtic genes, which include bullying, sanctimony and pompous blustering. Having said that, like his Irish brethren the guy is entertaining, but not to be taken too seriously.
maloney | Feb 06, 2011, 11:24 AM EST
theoldperf. isn't to old to tell lies.
TheOldPerfessor | Feb 06, 2011, 11:05 AM EST
You can't expect much scientific accuracy from right wingers - according to polling three fourths of them believe that the world is 6000 years old in the face of every bit of scientific data to the contrary, They must also believe that either dinosaur bones were planted by the Devil or, like Sarah Palin believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. They just forgot to mention dinosaurs in the Bible.
donal1951 | Feb 06, 2011, 10:11 AM EST
Even Rush thinks Bill O'Reilly is a few bricks shy of a full load when it comes to brain power.
Bushothehill | Feb 06, 2011, 10:11 AM EST
Not difficult to detect where O'Doherty is coming from. Democratic, Liberal, failed Catholic whose fundamental writing skills are restricted to debasing those who don't hew the party line that he does.It would be wise to remember, Mr. O'Reilly is a king in the area of his profession, whereas O'Doherty should look around for another line of work.
colkelley | Feb 06, 2011, 09:43 AM EST
I am a lifelong atheist and O'Reilly has the right to his own beliefs and to state them so long as he does not try to force his beliefs on me or deny me the rights granted under the Constitution. REAL atheists do not have anti-religion as their religion as Mr. Silverman and the American Atheists have made so abundantly clear for themselves. An atheist is someone like me who does not believe in the existence of a God and does not need faith to exist - but it does not mean that we have the right to force our non-belief on others and deny them their right of self-expression just as they do not have the right to deny me self-expression. Silverman is not an atheist, he is an anti-religionist and you fail miserably to see the difference. Then again, you have a long legacy of failing miserably.
nanny2sorli | Feb 06, 2011, 09:40 AM EST
When I was 12 years old I was being told that there HAD to be a God, otherwise who made the earth etc... But when I used that argument to ask "then where did God come from?", I was told I was blaspheming and punished! Still haven't found the answer to the question!