Bill O'Reilly: "How'd the moon get there?"

[Wanted Man]

UyHzhtARf8M

:blink:

[Fulanito de Tal]

lol. What an idiot.

And he didn't even bother to research where the moon came from. This reminds me of a story my dad made up to show how religion came about. He said that humans have a need to explain nature. One day, there was a huge lightning strike and many people asked the leader of the group, "Where did it come from?!" The leader said, "God threw it." The people accepted that answer and they were able to get back to work.

Bill O'Reilly is doing the same thing.

[Lunatic Concept]

Someones clearly never heard of the big bang. :lol:

[Meridian]

There is nothing logical about what he says.

"Luck" or "chance" are not applicable words describing the current state of the Earth and human beings. Things could have been in a completely different manner, we could have had three moons instead of one, for example, and Bill O'Reilly could have asked the same question; you think this was all luck?

What makes it comical is that he is asking that question as if it is particularly deep.

[Proukunin]

I really cannot stand looking at that guy. His mix of Christian beliefs with neoconservatism is ignorant and stupid.

[The Vegan Marxist]

:confused:

I am so confused as to what the hell Bill O'Reilly is talking about. Mars does have moons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Mars)! And it does have the sun! Not to mention we've found planets that contain habitable conditions (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/100930-new-planet-discovered-first-habitable-earthike-water-gliese-581g-science-goldilocks/) to that of Earth.

How'd it get there Bill? Huh? How'd it get there?

You know what, here's an even more valid question for you Bill. How'd God get here? Huh, huh? How? :tt2:

[ckaihatsu]

This is the first time I've ever heard an argument for religion using a principle from science -- but such co-optation is probably more common than I know....

He's like, "Dude, c'mon, where'd you leave your brain today? In the washing machine again? C'mon, the tides are due to the moon, right? So how'd the moon get there? (repeat 10 times) It's easier to believe in supernatural stuff so then that must be correct because it's *easier*. So shut up and go play."





Occam's razor

The earth revolves around the sun. Although there will always be elaborate explanations that could allow this to be otherwise, Occam's Razor leads us to the sun-centered model of the solar system.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle which generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2] For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the Razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power.

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[The Vegan Marxist]

Hell, even within one Fox's dooms day scenario news articles, they explain how the moon got here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525706,00.html

So take that Bill! lol Your own media corporation explains it, yet you refuse to side with reason. Doesn't surprise me, though.

[ckaihatsu]

Actually, the *simplest* explanation is "Fuck you." *That's* the one he *really* wants to use...!

[Proukunin]

he even stated in an argument with an atheist that even if religion wasnt real he would still be a believer because thats what fits his life and suits him. he doesnt open up to anything that opposes his arguments and gets furious if he feels belittled. He constantly calls any person who is in opposition a pinhead and yells at them and doesnt let the opposer speak in debate.

same with glenn and his constant misuse of isms. I mean seriously wtf is a fascist-communist??

[ckaihatsu]

I mean seriously wtf is a fascist-communist??


In the absence of a rational, systematic approach to politics and the political spectrum (as with a historical-materialist one), they invent this bullshit that the (arbitrary) "ends" of the spectrum "meet up" in a circular way.

Just 'cause they say something doesn't make it true...(!)

[Princess Luna]

I mean seriously wtf is a fascist-communist??
:cursing:OBAMA!!!!!!!!111 :cursing:

[Proukunin]

this brings me back to the debate I watched with communist party USA chairman sam webb and glenn beck.

when beck said that nazi meant 'nationalist socialism' and that was proof that hitler was a socialist like stalin.

what I cant understand is why sam didnt say anything about Hitlers dislike of Marx and socialism/communism in general and the fact that communism was one of the big 'fears' that brought Hitler into power.

[The Vegan Marxist]

this brings me back to the debate I watched with communist party USA chairman sam webb and glenn beck.

when beck said that nazi meant 'nationalist socialism' and that was proof that hitler was a socialist like stalin.

what I cant understand is why sam didnt say anything about Hitlers dislike of Marx and socialism/communism in general and the fact that communism was one of the big 'fears' that brought Hitler into power.

Because Sam Webb wasn't the most brightest of all communists, to be perfectly honest. I don't like Bob Avakian, but Avakian would kick Webb's ass on a debate about Communism.

[Proukunin]

Because Sam Webb wasn't the most brightest of all communists, to be perfectly honest. I don't like Bob Avakian, but Avakian would kick Webb's ass on a debate about Communism.

oh yes, i know i dont like cpusa's ideology at all really. especially when their chairman can't even win a debate against the neocons.

[Black Sheep]

Laughter and extreme anger lead me to an urge to punch him to a bloody pulp.

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

Whenever a creationist asks me to explain how the universe or a part of the universe came to be if not for god i say that i did it and then come up with several bullshit excuses for why things are as they are in order to shine a light on how stupid their arguments are. That is what i do in an ideal world, generally i just piss them off.

[NGNM85]

O'Reilley really puts the 'ignorance' in 'argument from ignorance.' There used to be right-wing intellectuals, it seems they're going the way of the dinosaur. The memeplex seemes to have evolved from a hatred of Lefty intellectuals, to a hatred of intellectualism, and, finally, making a virtue of stupidity.

[Amphictyonis]

UyHzhtARf8M

:blink:

oh my god. If this doesn't straight up run parallel with his so called 'political' cometary then my REVLEFT name isn't Amphictyonis.

I was painfully reminded of this:


_-agl0pOQfs

[Os Cangaceiros]

Fuck you. I was just about to come on here with some snarky comment about "you know what gets me, man? Fuckin' magnets."

[Amphictyonis]

O'Reilley really puts the 'ignorance' in 'argument from ignorance.' There used to be right-wing intellectuals, it seems they're going the way of the dinosaur. The memeplex seemes to have evolved from a hatred of Lefty intellectuals, to a hatred of intellectualism, and, finally, making a virtue of stupidity.

Somewhat comparable to thinking Obama's health care plan is a step in the right direction egh? Pragmatism pragmatism....megh blah?

No real difference between Keith Olberman and Bill O besides the fact Keith wouldn't say the moon came from god but that Dem/Rep identity politics distraction has you going doesn't it?

The way you see people who think Bill O is intelligent is the way I see you when you fawn over democrats. Not trying to force you to live in bad faith here but sometimes it's good to see yourself as others see you.

[Amphictyonis]

Fuck you. I was just about to come on here with some snarky comment about "you know what gets me, man? Fuckin' magnets."

I should neg rep you for saying fuck you ;) Happened to me the other day.

[Wanted Man]

After 22 posts in this thread, I'm still at a loss to explain this phenomenon. It's basically the celebration of ignorance. It is quite possible to not be aware of the fact that Mars has moons, but not knowing shit is a pretty poor basis for a belief system.

But what do you know, with your snooty liberal science? I'm just asking questions. How'd it get there? How'd it get there, eh???

@Amph: I actually quite liked Olbermann, and it's a shame he's apparently been forced to quit. Of course he was "just" a left-liberal (something which can be quite difficult on national TV in America these days, it seems), but he wasn't uncritical of Obama either:

c_408ieYAy0

[Amphictyonis]

After 22 posts in this thread, I'm still at a loss to explain this phenomenon. It's basically the celebration of ignorance. It is quite possible to not be aware of the fact that Mars has moons, but not knowing shit is a pretty poor basis for a belief system.

But what do you know, with your snooty liberal science? I'm just asking questions. How'd it get there? How'd it get there, eh???

@Amph: I actually quite liked Olbermann, and it's a shame he's apparently been forced to quit. Of course he was "just" a left-liberal (something which can be quite difficult on national TV in America these days, it seems), but he wasn't uncritical of Obama either:

c_408ieYAy0

Forgive me if I vomit :) If it were up to me, if I had some magical powers, I'd destroy every last major news network satellite in space. That alone would get people thinking for themselves to some degree. The CIA probably just flagged this post? LOL

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Giant impact hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis)

"The giant impact hypothesis proposes that the Moon was created out of the debris left over from a collision between the young Earth and a Mars-sized body. This is the favored[1] scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon. Evidence for this hypothesis includes Moon samples which indicate the surface of the Moon was once molten, the Moon's apparently relatively small iron core and a lower density than the Earth, and evidence of similar collisions in other star systems (which result in debris disks). The colliding body is sometimes called Theia (or Euryphaessa) for the mythical Greek Titan who was the mother of Selene, the goddess of the moon.[2][3]

There remain several unanswered issues surrounding this hypothesis. Lunar oxygen isotopic ratios are essentially identical to Earth's, with no evidence of a contribution from another solar body.[4] Also, lunar samples do not have expected ratios of volatile elements, iron oxide, or siderophilic elements, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Earth ever had the magma ocean implied by this hypothesis."

Even if it turns out not to be true, it's still a hell of a lot more interesting than "Goddidit"

[mikelepore]

O'Reilly is being a poor spokesperson for his own viewpoint. He's trying to use the god-of-the-gaps argument, but he's so science illiterate that he doesn't even cite situations where there actually are gaps. Instead he cite situations that science explained a long time ago.

[NGNM85]

...but sometimes it's good to see yourself as others see you.

In that case I'm starting to suspect you're an idiot. Feel better? Back to the subject at hand...

[Amphictyonis]

In that case I'm starting to suspect you're an idiot. Feel better? Back to the subject at hand...

Funny seeing you didn't even understand what I said since it's not a Chomsky or Obama quote.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Is there a possibility that the LHC will show us the formation of the moon? If so, either way it happened, I'll expect for O'Reilly to then choke on his own words. :)

[Quail]

That's not even an argument. He sounds so ridiculous he could be a parody of himself.

[ZeroNowhere]

Silly O'Reilly, it was the Man in the Moon. Doesn't everybody know that?

[NGNM85]

Is there a possibility that the LHC will show us the formation of the moon? If so, either way it happened, I'll expect for O'Reilly to then choke on his own words. :)

It doesn't any more difference than it did when people tried to explain to him the forces that control the tides. His views aren't based on facts, and, thus, aren't susceptible to them.

[graymouser]

The fun part of this argument is that it actually proves that there couldn't possibly be a reason why everything exists. If you come up with any reason, even God, then God would exist for no reason - if there was a reason God existed, then that would need its own existence, and so on, ad infinitum. It's a vicious cycle that can only be stopped by saying: something exists for no reason at all, not even randomness. It just exists for no reason. There is no ultimate cause, no man is behind the curtain because then we'd have to define how he got there.

Does this make sense? Well, no. It can't make sense. Stuff just exists, period. Aquinas's cosmological argument, even in the bastard version Bill O'Reilly wants us to swallow, just shows us that the universe exists without any reason.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The fun part of this argument is that it actually proves that there couldn't possibly be a reason why everything exists. If you come up with any reason, even God, then God would exist for no reason - if there was a reason God existed, then that would need its own existence, and so on, ad infinitum. It's a vicious cycle that can only be stopped by saying: something exists for no reason at all, not even randomness. It just exists for no reason. There is no ultimate cause, no man is behind the curtain because then we'd have to define how he got there.

Does this make sense? Well, no. It can't make sense. Stuff just exists, period. Aquinas's cosmological argument, even in the bastard version Bill O'Reilly wants us to swallow, just shows us that the universe exists without any reason.

Can we get to a logical basis to where we accept the possibility that the universe, or to whatever triggered the formulation of said universe was simply there with no beginning in the first place? No creation, no beginning, nothing. Was just there. To me, this touches on a more logical point than that of the never ending debate of "who created who, what created what."

[Die Rote Fahne]

Has anyone ever asked O'Reilly how "God" got there?

[the last donut of the night]

Has anyone ever asked O'Reilly how "God" got there?

well duh he was always there

[DuracellBunny97]

oh, fucking christ, I think a true sign of desperation is trying to pass off your misunderstanding of the natural world as evidence for your religion. even if the natural world were totally un-explainable and we had to resort to superstition, I'd become a pantheist. There isn't any evidence for pantheism either, but at least it's not a religion.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Fuck you. I was just about to come on here with some snarky comment about "you know what gets me, man? Fuckin' magnets."

Word.

It's all magic.

eQQ5eBG2f7k

[Apoi_Viitor]

The intelligent beings in these regions should therefore not be surprised if they observe that their locality in the universe satisfies the conditions that are necessary for their existence. It is a bit like a rich person living in a wealthy neighborhood not seeing any poverty. - Stephen Hawking

[The Vegan Marxist]

How did the moon get there? How did the sun get there? How did it get there?

Will someone PLEASE direct this moron to a science book or something?


Where did the Moon come from?
Jul 3, 2003

Astronomers believe that the Moon was formed when a Mars-sized body smashed into the Earth, ejecting matter into orbit and lengthening our day to its present value of 24 hours. Until recently, however, estimates of much of the Moon is “impactor material” that came from this impactor object, as opposed to the Earth, have varied wildly - from 1 to 90%. Now, by comparing the compositions of lunar and terrestrial rock samples, astronomers in Germany have calculated that no more than two-thirds of the Moon is impactor material. Moreover, they estimate that the Moon must be at least 4.5 billion years old (C Münker et al 2003 Science 301 84).

Carsten Münker and co-workers at the University of Münster compared the ratios of niobium (Nb) to tantalum (Ta) in samples of rock from the Moon, Earth, Mars and meteorites. The team found a Nb/Ta ratio of 17 for the Moon, compared with 14 on Earth. The ratio in the other samples was almost 20, which should be consistent for bodies throughout the solar system – including the object that collided with the Earth.

According to the researchers, this variation suggests that the impact that formed the Moon took place during the formation of the Earth’s rocky mantle and iron core - a process that geologists believe was aided by the impact. Under high pressures, niobium becomes ‘siderophile’ or iron-loving, so much of the terrestrial niobium would have become incorporated into the Earth’s core when it formed, leaving a niobium-poor mantle.

If the giant impact occurred while the core and mantle were forming, the Earth would have contributed little niobium to the Moon. But Münker and colleagues calculated that the lunar Nb/Ta ratio would be boosted to the observed level if up to 65% of the Moon consisted of impactor material.

This theory also leads Münker’s team to believe that the Moon must be at least 4.5 billion years old, since radioisotope dating shows that the Earth’s core and mantle were fully formed by that time.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/17802


Where Did The Sun Come From?
May 22nd, 2007

A new research is trying to find our Sun's family tree throughout the complex history of the galaxy, by studying its chemical composition. Open clusters could also provide clues concerning the Sun's genealogy.

The team, led by Gayandhi De Silva, at the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope (VLT) used the instrument's Ultraviolet and Visual Echelle Spectrograph (UVES) to look at three open star clusters in our galaxy.

They are more compact groups of stars that can count a few thousand stars bound together and are thought to have formed from the collapse of a giant molecular cloud of gas, up to 10 billion years.

"Open clusters are invaluable objects for tracing of the formation and evolution of the disk of our galaxy," De Silva said." The older clusters hold clues to the formation history of the galactic disk."

The Sun was also born in such a cluster, around 4.6 billion years ago, along with thousands of young stars. The star nursery resembled a grape, where each individual star was located close to each other in a cluster formation.

For now, the most compelling evidence for this model can be found in meteorites, in which traces of radioactive elements have been found. The radioactive decay of the iron-60 isotope was measured in many such meteorites and the presence of the isotope itself can only be explained as being the result of a large star exploding in a supernova.

The latest data produced by the VLD observations are confirming the fact that stars of the same cluster have similar compositions.

"The main result was that the member stars of each cluster shared the same chemical composition. Such chemical homogeneity is expected if all the stars are formed together within the same parent gas cloud," De Silva said.

What does this mean? De Silva believes this chemical resemblance to be an indication of the fact that the initial gas cloud where the stars formed was a homogeneous mix. This means that the present chemical composition of the stars coming from the same cluster must be roughly the same.

"The elemental abundances of these stars are preserved despite the star cluster being kinematically dispersed. With detailed high accuracy measurements we should be able to find the chemical signatures of dispersed clusters that are otherwise unidentifiable," De Silva said.

Finding stars with a similar composition to that of our Sun and a matching age could reveal a real family tree of our benefactor.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Where-Did-The-Sun-Come-From-55317.shtml