Bill O'Reilly on Science: You Can't Explain the Tides
O'Reilly flubs science in debate with man behind atheist billboards
By Kevin Spak, Newser User
Posted Jan 6, 2011 12:45 PM CST
Loading... Please wait

(Newser) – Apparently, Bill O’Reilly has never heard of the moon. In a debate Tuesday with Dave Silverman, head of the American Atheist group behind this, the Fox host tried to prove the existence of God by citing the unknowable mysteries of the tides. “I’ll tell you why [religion is] not a scam, in my opinion,” he told Silverman. “Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in.”

Silverman looked stunned. “Tide goes in, tide goes out?” he stuttered. O’Reilly pressed on. “The water, the tide—it comes in and it goes out. It always goes in, then it goes out. … You can’t explain that. You can’t explain it.” Of course, Raw Story points out, people who passed high school science might tell you that tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits the earth. But Silverman had a better response: “Maybe it’s Thor up on Mount Olympus who’s making the tides go in and out." (Click for more on O'Reilly and the very high-profile interview he just landed.)

View 1 image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Bill OReilly to Atheists: You Cant Explain the Tides is...
3%
66%
1%
16%
1%
13%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 268 comments
elephantmanmusic
Jan 10, 2011 11:39 AM CST
I agree with most science. I don't discount it until it gets into gross speculation. That's all. You should just apply the same scrutiny to your god that you do to mine. If you read over all 3 of your posts that you just wrote, and switch the names, pretend you are someone else, you would see that it contradicts itself. You said multiple times now that science is only valid through rigor and it can't speculate unless it proves a theory, which you can then build on. For instance, what you say about Carbon 14 has been proven correct NOW, but it wasn't originally. The current dating technology is based on new ways of doing it, because Carbon 14 dating was proven to be false as you have stated, and I have stated. (Do you realize that I said Carbon 14 dating was wrong, and then you "proved" me wrong by telling me that Carbon 14 dating was wrong?) No one went back over the original theories that Carbon 14 gave arise to and corrected them. They just KEPT the assumed timeline and built another theory. This is NOT science. No one wanted to admit it at the time. As an example, a given fossil had been dated by Carbon 14 as 50 million years old. Then Carbon 14 was found to break down more quickly and even to be seen in living organisms in larger quantities than thought. So instead of the fossil being newly dated to the shorter timeline that the Carbon 14 proved it was, Carbon 14 was abandoned for another dating method that wasn't proven to be that short. Carbon 14 dating was then called flawed, even though they built multiple theories off of it and kept them. They threw out the method once it was proven wrong, and kept the theory that the flawed method put forth. THAT is called an agenda. And people are unfortunately staking their lives on it because they don't want to believe there is any other possibility. I enjoy our dialogue by the way. I am learning from you. :)
elephantmanmusic
Jan 8, 2011 7:03 PM CST
He may be just ignorant. But he may be pointing out a fundamental flaw in scientific reasoning. If I say, "I have the explanation, God made the moon to orbit perfectly so that it gravitationally pulls the tide, and then the earth pulls it back," then I am considered an idiot. If I say, "Science says that somehow the moon orbits perfectly, etc, etc." The rest of the sentence can be exactly the same, and I am a genius. Therefore my God is your somehow.
spectre1
Jan 8, 2011 5:06 PM CST
Bill O’Reilly demonstrates the same trite "logic" demonstrated by all those believing in gods, and all those who ever have -- while revealing it to be precisely the SAME "logic" which leads young children to believe in Santa, which is based on exactly the same kind of ignorance of the real world.