"How'd the moon get there? Who put it there?"
February 02, 2011 2:29 pm ET by Simon Maloy
Remember last month when Bill O'Reilly tried to prove the existence of God by pointing to the rising and falling of the tides? "Tide goes in, tide goes out. ... You can't explain that."
Unfortunately for O'Reilly, you can explain that -- the tides are caused by the moon's gravitational effect and the earth's rotation. In fairness to O'Reilly, this has only been known for about 300 years and was first explained by that otherwise disreputable quack, Isaac Newton.
But long-established scientific explanations for observed physical phenomena are not enough to deter O'Reilly, and he has responded to all those science-familiar "pinheads" out there with a simple question: "How'd the moon get there?"
How did the moon get there? I mean, this is a moon we're talking about. One doesn't just hang moons in the sky like a loofah on a showerhead.
Many theories have been posited, including O'Reilly's "It was God, so shut up" hypothesis. The theory that most astrophysicists and other "pinheads" of their stripe adhere to is the so-called "giant impact," in which a celestial body roughly half the size of earth collided with our planet some 50 million years after it first formed. The impact kicked up unheard of amounts of debris, which accreted into what today we know as the moon. The theory isn't perfectly formed yet, but it does help to explain why moon rocks have similar chemical compositions to terrestrial rocks.
So yeah, O'Reilly's follow-up is a little more difficult to answer than his original query on the tides, but no more disqualifying of natural explanations for the physical world.
But he wasn't done quite yet!
"How come we have that, and Mars doesn't have it? Venus doesn't have it?"
Are we still talking about moons? Because if we are, O'Reilly will be disappointed to know that Mars has not one, but two moons, named Phobos and Deimos, the Latin names for two Greek gods.
While I'm tempted simply to mock O'Reilly's almost purposeful ignorance, I will point out that he's right that Venus has no moons. And given his track record, half-right ain't half bad.
H/T Wonkette
And, Bill-o? I'll try to state this simply for you, in the terms you established: It's an extremely vast World (Universe? Multi-verse?) and it's been operating a long time... a very long time.
"Why" is something you perceive as orderly? That's simply because you wouldn't be here to frame the question otherwise. I know you're still bewildered however. Just try to stop fearing the overt fact you live a finite life. Terrifying? Yes. It's wonderful too, though, if you will just let go.
Science is all about observation so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Bill-O and the other pinheads are asking us to ignore what we see and believe something else. The right wingers have been asking their followers to do that with economic and social policies for years. Why else would they still be pushing supply-side economics when it has never actually shown to increase jobs, bolster the economy or increase government revenues (all things that they continue to claim as true)? If Bill-O's audience actually started to think critically about observations they were making, it wouldn't be long before they realized what a hack he is.
Click this link to see a well-realized antidote,informed free-thinking fearlessness: This Remarkable Thing
How surprising is it, then, that fanatical followers of a god would attack science and its practitioners.
/sarcasm
Good post Simon, thanks.
But I guess in your world, the moon was formed by an invisible man.
And as the above notes: Mars has two moons. Is Bill-O really that ignorant?
ummm....
When I think of all the brilliant minds of the past who would have killed to have lived in our scientific age, then look at these clowns who simply ignore or scoff at all the knowledge that lies at their fingertips, it makes me both angry and sick.
They are not worthy of the 21st Century.
Science = Facts = Liberalism
5 year old: "Gravity."
Billo: "How'd the moon get there?"
5 year old: "Again gravity.."
Billo: "How come we have that, and Mars doesn't have it? Venus doesn't have it?"
5 year old: "Actually Mars have two small moons and they.."
Billo "If you say gravity one more time I'll cut your mike you little smart-ass!"
O'Reilly then complains why Hawking won't come on his show to defend these claims. However, I expect Hawking's electronic voice would quickly short out after having to dumb itself down so much.
"Good f-ing Christ, I never thought I'd meet somebody so insanely stupid. What the hell is wrong with you?!"
Now, said from a normal person's voice it's funny enough, but picture in your head the Stephen Hawking voice saying it as he's there in his wheelchair and berating O'Reilly and it truly becomes an epic moment that I wish would happen.
I would PAY to see that.
"I can't fathom how the moon got there myself, so it must have been God."
Tell me, Bill, how did your god get there? (Where is he, even?)
Why dispute the tides and the moon, which you can see, but not think twice in believing in a giant in the sky?
Best answer I can think of is Fear...but that's still pathetic.
Should I fear the Sirens in the Mediterranean? An old book says they're dangerous if you get lured in.
God was clearly formed by gravity. And since gravity was first defined by Newton, Newton is God.
End of story.
Of course none of that changes the fact there is a very obvious reason Bill-O has the term pinhead on his tongue at all times.
He's basically asking how did everything start. Where did everything come from originally? Yeah, we know about the Big Bang and all that, but what was before the Big Bang? Where did those materials come from? Where did the forces that acted on those materials come from? They don't just manifest out of thin air, do they?
I'm of the opinion that there is a Creator who created the natural materials and natural laws to set everything in motion. Perhaps it's as simple as a living thing that exists in another plane of existence that our brains can't possibly comprehend.
Considering how large the universe is--even just our solar system, since we can't study much beyond that--I don't know why it's such a stretch for an extremely small portion of it to be able to sustain life as we know it, since every part of the universe has its differences in atmosphere.
We all follow the same physical laws of nature within this atmosphere. Not this "dimension." There is strong evidence of life on Mars, but we would not survive on its surface. Something may or may have, though, and it would be a completely different form of life.
You keep talking about "laws of this dimension." Any sources who say what those laws are?
If this is you thinking critically, that's fine, and I don't want to come off as snarky, but it seems like you're coming up with theories with no evidence to support them.
Did God create the Big Bang? Who knows, but it's not a question of science because it cannot be proven or disproved through observation. I don't know any scientist (and I know quite a few) who have anything against religion or anyone's personal philosophical beliefs. But science cannot rely on God because that would be abandoning the very tenets of science and crossing over into myth and conjecture. There's nothing wrong with faith, but if it can't be proven, then it bares no relation to science.
That's a pretty simple, obvious question, and it's pretty simple and obvious to ask it using those words. It's so simple that even you can do it.
Does it bother you that the smartest person on Fox News can't articulate with kindergarten ability? Will it make you never watch or defend Fox News again?
Wouldn't you like to watch a news channel with people smarter than you on it?
E=MC^2
or
E/M=C^2
or
M=E/C^2
Where E=energy, M=mass and C=speed of light.
A German Jew came up with that equation back in the 20th century.
The crucial query would be, How did the initial asymmetry arise?
I don't see how that could be; after all, he is moronic.
I thought here was my chance to give a full explanation of what entropy is, with equations, to explain where the concept came from experimentally, which demonstrates how "randomness" is a terrible translation for "entropy", to explain how sunlight really does drive all of life by putting energy into the Earth. Finally there is the specific example that if the logic of the creationist regarding entropy were right, the same logic would preclude every baby growing into an adult or a seed into a tree.
At first I thought the effort was worth it, as he said something to the effect that the thermodynamic argument for creationists didn't seem to be any good.
But how about all these other arguments, he said. Certainly they kill evolution, right?
Look, if someone puts together 50 arguments against evolution, and 40 can be quickly dismissed as invalid, do creationists mourn? No, they trumpet their remaining 10 arguments and say, look, you couldn't defeat these so easily, could you!
Only if their efforts at making arguments are so flawed, why have any confidence in their last 10 arguments?
On the other hand, you have to be pretty dedicated at science to go through all the data and analysis necessary to show that every last argument against evolution is wrong. Why bother if your opponent is just going to produce another bogus idea and claim not to be defeated?
The fact is that all Christian creationists simply trust Genesis over science. All further reasons for their creationism are just excuses and misdirection. There's plenty written about what's wrong with Genesis scientifically, how the order of creation in Genesis can't possibly be right given the fossil record, things like that. If anyone is open-minded, he or she has plenty to read about things like that without getting sucked into this game of science has no answer for something creationists dream up. Alternatively people can wait for their death and see who was right based on whether there's an afterlife after their own death and what kind it is. That's good enough for me.
Thanks for that!
Thanks for that!
Science is hard, and it can't be settled sitting at a table with someone. Scientists aren't gods, but the procedure for arguing against them is forced:
1) find several scientists with neutral motives who agree with you. Failing that,
2) become a scientist, and see if you still think what you think. And even if you do,
3) convince other scientists you're right.
This procedure can be short-circuited by realizing that anytime you ask "I wonder if the scientists have thought of this", the answer is yes.
Wingnuts ring, ting-a-ling-a-ling and you'll sing Loofah Bella,
Excuse me, but you see, back in old No Spin Zone, that's O'Reilly.
1) O'Reilly asks, rhetorically, how the moon got there. He never answers this question, because he's a coward.
2) The sun and the moon/And even mars/The milky way and/<a href="http://boingboing.net/2010/04/10/actually-know-what-i.html">f-in shooting stars</a>' Yes, O'Reilly is apparently an ICP fan.
Not that this has any real bearing on the conversation. I just find astronomy more interesting than Bill O'Reilly.
Hundreds of years ago people likely DID make the argument that God causes the sun to rise and set, because we actually didn't know why it did back then. Now we know, and we know it wasn't God.
There is a lot we don't know about the Universe. Does that mean it's unexplainable or that God did it? No, it just means we aren't smart enough yet.
The "we couldn't possibly be that lucky" people are funny too. Yeah, a lot of specific things probably had to happen for life to develop on the Earth, and the probability of some of these things happening may have been very low. But you know what? There's 200 billion galaxies and 200 billion stars in each galaxy, most of which we think have planets. Life is bound to develop somewhere.
Not to mention we have a pretty good idea of how stars form and have a pretty good theory on where the moon came from. Just because Bill O'Reilly doesn't know or understand, doesn't mean nobody does.
But half-right ain't half bad. =P
[/nerd]