For your (facepalming) amusement

[Aeadar]

I've watched it three times and I just don't know what to say.:facepalm:

 

[Cairan]

Oh dear... There are ignorant people on both sides of the political spectrum, but here this is a fine example of RTFB (B as in Biography) before talking about someone!

 

[TSPenguin]

I need some help here!

 

[jedimaster1214]

:rofl:

 

[Blacklight]

I have a feeling that even if you tried to explain the real reason that the sun come up and goes down without interruption, he still wouldn't understand. He's too happy living in his mystical world where his maps say "Here be dragons" in the unexplored bits.

 

[Aeadar]

The way things are going, that may be a lucrative business; The Third Party Facepalm Squad!

---

Not so many years ago, I would have assumed that someone in his position didn't get there through ignorance, but now I think of how many people I've met who not only realize their ignorance, but take pride in it, I'm not so sure.

Of course, it may be that those are the very people he's appealing to.

 

[statickid]

The sun rises and sets because of the fiery chariot it drives across the sky road of course; that was proved by scientists many years ago.

 

[jinglesassy]

For when one facepalm isn't enough theres 1000.

 

[RisingFury]

Can someone remind me again why 3 million people watch this guy?

 

[DanM]

That sounds suspiciously similar to an argument I had with a bunch of people at school the other day (of course, they sounded like O'Reilly and I sounded like Hawking).

 

[TSPenguin]

I sounded like Hawking

You should see a doctor immediately!

hthedrama:

 

[IgnoreThisBarrel]

That sounds suspiciously similar to an argument I had with a bunch of people at school the other day (of course, they sounded like O'Reilly and I sounded like Hawking).

Sounds like me with some of my religious friends (who accept the Big Bang but like arguing with me anyway), except I have Dawkins' signature stutter.

At least none of the people I know (creationist or not) watch Tide-Man.

 

[edsupagood]

I believe that God created the Earth. What is wrong with that?

 

[RisingFury]

I believe that God created the Earth. What is wrong with that?

Deppends... How old is Earth?

 

[edsupagood]

I believe it is around six thousand years old, but as God was creating it, he made it look way older. In the creation story we can see that God made Adam and Eve mature, not as babies, he made the animals mature and everything else, so why not make earth old as well.

 

[tl8]

Lets not go there

 

[Rtyh-12]

In my point of view, you can believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, 4500000000 years old, 15*10^1000000, or that it's made of infra-pink teapots, I don't care. Why do people need to complain about other people's beliefs all the time?

 

[RisingFury]

In my point of view, you can believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, 4500000000 years old, 15*10^1000000, or that it's made of infra-pink teapots, I don't care. Why do people need to complain about other people's beliefs all the time?

Because 2 seconds after that those beliefs get pushed into science classes in school. Creationism is not science. It's not even legally science.

Put it in the philosophy class if you must, but leave it out of science class.

 

[Linguofreak]

Deppends... How old is Earth?

Well, tracing the development of the universe back according to the currently observed laws of physics, we get an age of about 4.5 billion years.

But when we ask "Did God create the Earth/Universe/Mankind", we also bring up the question "How far back, and to what degree, can we trust that the laws of physics currently observed have been valid?"

That is not a question answerable by science, which depends on consistently valid laws of physics to be able to say anything about the past.

Religion generally claims that the supernatural can interact with the natural, which, if true, implies that the currently observed laws of physics are not universally valid (though they may be arbitrarily close to being so within the physical universe if supernatural forces do not often interfere, or generally do so in small ways).

Religious answers to the age of the Earth question depend on religion and interpretation of a religions scriptures, but for Christianity:

If the years given for peoples lifespans and various events in the Bible are historical, mankind is about 6 or 7 thousand years old. There is indication in Genesis that for the first 2000 of those years human lifespans were an order of magnitude longer than at present, which implies drastic divine interference on some level or other, which, if true, brings into question our ability to trust the laws of physics further than 4 or 5 thousand years back.

The creation account in Genesis, if read with "day" meaning "day", and not being symbolic for some longer length of time, indicates that the Earth is about as old as humanity, which, with the previously given approximate age for humanity according to the Bible, means that the Earth is also approximately 6000 or 7000 years old.

However, this is one of the parts of the Bible where I'm not quite sure how it was meant to be interpreted.

Some parts (such as the Gospels) were obviously meant to be read as historical accounts (you may argue if you wish as to whether they were totally made up: The point is that if they are fabrications, they are fabrications meant to look like historical accounts, and if they are not fabrications, they are historical accounts).

Other parts of the Bible (such as the book of Revelation) are fairly obviously meant to be symbolic (Revelation talks about the fall of Babylon, which had already happened long ago by the time the book was written, in order to say something about a future event that will be like the fall of Babylon).

With the creation account in Genesis, I'm not quite sure. It certainly says that God created the Heavens and the Earth (which is an old fashioned way of saying "The Earth and the rest of the Universe").

Being a Christian and believing the Bible is true, I can thus say that I believe mankind to be about 6000 or 7000 years old, and the Earth to be somewhere between that and 4.5 billion years old (with the most likely ages in that range being the endpoints).

I personally don't find O'Reilly's statement here to be too facepalmish. It's not particularly useful or intellectually robust, but I've heard much, much worse from Young Earth Creationists. Sometimes they will try to make scientific arguments for Young Earth Creationism. *That* is facepalmworthy, as science only covers what we can know *naturally*, and cannot say a thing about whether anything supernatural exists or not.

 

[jedidia]

positive: He doesn't try to argue with pseudo-scientific arguments.

negative: He doesn't seem to have any background on current scientific theories whatsoever. I certainly hope that "he cannot explain how the sun comes up and goes down" was more a poetical argument in a universal context (The arguments he uses are long-standing metaphors for the unexplicable), since I'd expect every child that finished a school to know that the earth is revolving and that that is a pretty sound explanation for that particular phenomenon.

sad: This is really a missed opportunity to point out Hawkings surrender to the metaphysical in his last book, where he has no other explanation to offer for the existance of our particular universe than the multiverse hypothesis, which is about as much scientific a concept as is God himself (since it sin't falsifyable nor proovable). If the man would keep taps on science and take it seriously, he should have noticed that. So he mumbled around with (I hope) metaphors instead of making the one argument that would expose some degree of hypocrisy in Hawkings last book.

I believe it is around six thousand years old, but as God was creating it, he made it look way older. In the creation story we can see that God made Adam and Eve mature, not as babies, he made the animals mature and everything else, so why not make earth old as well.

There's not much that can be said against that. As long as you're not trying to get "scientific" arguments out of your hat to prove it (which you didn't, but many creationists nowadays are doing it), since that's basically accusing God of sloppy workmanship. As it stands, the assumption "God magically aged the earth, therefore any analisis we make of it must show that it is way older than it actually is" makes perfect sense as a statement of faith, as noone will be able to find any proof for or against it.

Anyways, the debate wasn't really around creationism, but rather around the fact that the man gives the impression of not knowing that the earth is revolving, and not knowing that scientists indeed can offer pretty sensible explanations where the earth comes from (although, as already stated, Hawkings last argument where the whole universe came from was somewhat of a facepalm moment too). I really, really, really hope O'Reily was being poetical. If not, that would be reason for major concern about the educational system...

However, this is one of the parts of the Bible where I'm not quite sure how it was meant to be interpreted.

Noticing that the universe in Genesis is still surrounded by water pretty much solved that question for me. If that isn't metaphorical or mythological, God's just asking too much of me. Luckily for us, it's not a question our salvation depends upon! :lol: