This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Ahem, this should clear things up.worlock77
That's certainly one way to try to spin an idiotic statement.
What exactly did he say, in quotes word for word, to which you deem idiotic, and explain to me why you feel that it is idiotic. I read the transcript, and unless that website is missing out huge information, I see him saying nothing of the sort that Earth is the only planet with a moon.Ahem, this should clear things up.Stevo_the_gamer
First of all, Newsbusters is a ridiculous site because they are so biased themselves. If they want to combat bias, they should try to be somewhat objective. Why not combat all kinds of media bias?
Secondly, that doesn't clear anything up. All they are doing is making excuses.
Bill O asks how come we don't have life on other planets and in the course of the same argument, he asks why two planets that don't have life don't have moons.
O.K. How did the moon get there? How did the moon get there? Look. You pinheads who attack me for this, you guys are just desperate.How did the moon get there? How did the sun get there? How did it get there? Can you explain that to me? How come we have that, and Mars doesn't have it? Venus doesn't have it.How come? Why not? How did it get here?Billy O Reily
It's funny that they bold that sentence when that's the one that makes it clear that, paired with his statement about other planets not having life, he is making an argument that Earth is special partly because of its moons.
O'REILLY: David from Beverly Hills, Florida: 'What do you mean when you refer to the tides when you are asked about the existence of God? Science explains the tides ... the moon's gravity pulls on the ocean.' O.K. How did the moon get there? How did the moon get there? Look. You pinheads who attack me for this, you guys are just desperate. How did the moon get there? How did the sun get there? How did it get there? Can you explain that to me? How come we have that, and Mars doesn't have it? Venus doesn't have it. How come? Why not? How did it get here? How did that little amoeba get here, crawl out there? How did it do it? C'mon. You have order in this universe, you have an order in the universe. The tide comes in, tide goes out. O.K. Yeah. The moon does it. Fine. How did the moon get there? Who put it there? Did it just happen? If we have existence, if we have life on Earth, how come they don't have it on the other planets? What, are we just lucky? Some meteor do this? (Explosion sound.) C'mon, I see this stuff. It's desperate. As I've said many times: It takes more faith to not believe, and to think this was all luck - all this human body, the intricacies of it, and everything else, all luck - than it does to believe in a deity. Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/02/05/lat-falsely-attacks-fncs-oreilly#ixzz1DIK14VSuOmni-Slash
Somebody all ready posted that silly link.
he is making an argument that Earth is special partly because of its moons.GreySeal9
Its moon. Singular. Life on Earth wouldn't exist without the moon, so yes, it is damn well special.
Edit: The moon has been an intregral part of the evolutionary process on Earth, any scientist would tell you this.
it's no sillier than this rediculous argument.....I don't even like O'reilly and this is just a BS story....Somebody all ready posted that silly link.
GreySeal9
Its moon. Singular. Life on Earth wouldn't exist without the moon, so yes, it is damn well special.[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]he is making an argument that Earth is special partly because of its moons.Stevo_the_gamer
I meant moon. The extra s was a typo.
I don't mean special as in important. I mean special as in the existence of a moon being defining characteristic of Earth.
That is clearly his implication, which is why he wrongfully says that Mars doesn't have a moon.
Why do you think he would say that Mars has no moon while being aware that other planets have moons?
That wouldn't make sense in this particular context. What would make sense is that he's using Mars as an example of a planet that lacks life because it lacks a moon (in his estimation of course).
His argument was not specific to Mars. He was using as a general example to talk about planets without life.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]it's no sillier than this rediculous argument.....I don't even like O'reilly and this is just a BS story....Somebody all ready posted that silly link.
Omni-Slash
Considering Bill O'Reily's arrogance, I think it's perfectly legit to call him out on his ignorance.
Obama thinks there's more than 50 states.
[QUOTE="debusentel"]
I get what you are saying their. It's my opinion though that his most perceived insult is the word "loon", which I believe (I could be wrong) he has (for lack of a better word) changed the definition of when used in the context he uses it in. I'm not saying people shouldn't/don't find it offensive but more often than not he's referring to someone outside of his own perceived mainstream views.
I admit, I do watch the show and for purposes of this debate I'm trying to stay neutral. That said, I don't believe he insults every-ones intelligence.
worlock77
No, he doesn't insult everyone's intelligence, only those he disagrees with (which you seem to confirm with the first half of your post).
No, I don't believe I'm confirming that he insults every-ones intelligence of those that disagree with him. I'm just simply pointing out his own interpretation of what the word means (same thing with "pinhead"). Basically, his perception of what mainstream views are/should be and the opinions of those that he disagrees with.
Another thing is that if he disagrees with a certain viewpoint, etc... He will have them on to debate/explain their point of view. So, I really don't believe he insults the intelligence of others. (Aside from obviously crazy individuals). But if you have a clip/link of him doing this I would like to see it.
Edit: That came across seeming a bit condisending but I'm not.
I mean special as in the existence of a moon being defining characteristic on Earth.
That is clearly his implication, which is why he wrongfully says that Mars doesn't have a moon.
Why do you think he would say that Mars has no moon while being aware that other planets have moons.
GreySeal9
Our Moon is a defining characteristic of our planet in the solar system. :? Again, because it was intregral in the evolutionary process. While he doesn't mention that, and probably isn't aware of it to beginw ith, our moon is... *immensely* important; and unique in many senses.
Mars has tiny moons, which are asteroids. Not even close to being similar to our moon; it was an easy mistake. I don't wish to dive into semantics, but the correct terminology would be to refer as satellites. Even then, you guys are hounding Bill for such a petty thing.
I'm not even sure if you're being serious. :?
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="debusentel"]
I get what you are saying their. It's my opinion though that his most perceived insult is the word "loon", which I believe (I could be wrong) he has (for lack of a better word) changed the definition of when used in the context he uses it in. I'm not saying people shouldn't/don't find it offensive but more often than not he's referring to someone outside of his own perceived mainstream views.
I admit, I do watch the show and for purposes of this debate I'm trying to stay neutral. That said, I don't believe he insults every-ones intelligence.
debusentel
No, he doesn't insult everyone's intelligence, only those he disagrees with (which you seem to confirm with the first half of your post).
No, I don't believe I'm confirming that he insults every-ones intelligence of those that disagree with him. I'm just simply pointing out his own interpretation of what the word means (same thing with "pinhead"). Basically, his perception of what mainstream views are/should be and the opinions of those that he disagrees with.
Another thing is that if he disagrees with a certain viewpoint, etc... He will have them on to debate/explain their point of view. So, I really don't believe he insults the intelligence of others. (Aside from obviously crazy individuals). But if you have a clip/link of him doing this I would like to see it.
He called the people (who are not crazy) who were telling him that tides can be explained pinheads. Pinhead is a term for a dumb person:http://www.answers.com/topic/pinhead.That is insulting the intelligence of others.
His argument was not specific to Mars. He was using as a general example to talk about planets without life.Then he is correct in saying the Earth is unique because of its moon. Earth's life is tied directly to its singular moon, with multiple moons... or no moon at all, we may not be here today. No other planet in our solar system is similar to Earth with its moon. Earth is an outlier, and the odds of a planet with a moon like ours in the perfect "life zone" in distance from the Sun... are absolutely so astronomical that to even think that this was all chance requires some *serious* believing.GreySeal9
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
I mean special as in the existence of a moon being defining characteristic on Earth.
That is clearly his implication, which is why he wrongfully says that Mars doesn't have a moon.
Why do you think he would say that Mars has no moon while being aware that other planets have moons.
Stevo_the_gamer
Our Moon is a defining characteristic of our planet in the solar system. :? Again, because it was intregral in the evolutionary process. While he doesn't mention that, and probably isn't aware of it to beginw ith, our moon is... *immensely* important; and unique in many senses.
Mars has tiny moons, which are asteroids. Not even close to being similar to our moon; it was an easy mistake. I don't wish to dive into semantics, but the correct terminology would be to refer as satellites. Even then, you guys are hounding Bill for such a petty thing.
I'm not even sure if you're being serious. :?
..........What are talking about.. He illuded to that there were no other moons in the solar system more or less.. And no it really isn't a defining characteristic of our planet in the astronomy sense.. The majority of planets in our solar system have moons, the mere fact that our planet happens to have a moon does not some how make it unique.
Then he is correct in saying the Earth is unique because of its moon. Earth's life is tied directly to its singular moon, with multiple moons... or no moon at all, we may not be here today. No other planet in our solar system is similar to Earth with its moon. Earth is an outlier, and the odds of a planet with a moon like ours in the perfect "life zone" in distance from the Sun... are absolutely so astronomical that to even think that this was all chance requires some *serious* believing.[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]His argument was not specific to Mars. He was using as a general example to talk about planets without life.
Stevo_the_gamer
:| Uh huh.. In a galaxy with a estimated 100 billion stars.. Amongst a universe of hundreds of millions of galaxies..
What are talking about.. He illuded to that there were no other moons in the solar system more or less.. And no it really isn't a defining characteristic of our planet in the astronomy sense.. The majority of planets in our solar system have moons, the mere fact that our planet happens to have a moon does not some how make it unique.sSubZerOo
You are reaching for a statement that doesn't exist; *assuming* at an end that was not stated. The name of this topic is misleading, and has caused confusion for I see nothing of the sort; in fact, you are now pulling the implied powers into the discussion to which subjectivity -- clouded by pre-conceived notions -- will play a roll in how they are presented. I will not argue against implied meanings, for there is no way to come to agreement in such petty meanings.
The majority of planets have satellites -- many of them in fact, yet the means in which they got to their planet aren't hotly debated. How Earth's moon got into Earth's orbit is *hotly* debated because we don't exactly know for sure yet, we are still hypothesizing to that end. And no other moon in the solar system has had as much importance on its planet as Earth's -- again, the odds by which life came to be on Earth are a direct result of its moon.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
I mean special as in the existence of a moon being defining characteristic on Earth.
That is clearly his implication, which is why he wrongfully says that Mars doesn't have a moon.
Why do you think he would say that Mars has no moon while being aware that other planets have moons.
Stevo_the_gamer
Our Moon is a defining characteristic of our planet in the solar system. :? Again, because it was intregral in the evolutionary process. While he doesn't mention that, and probably isn't aware of it to beginw ith, our moon is... *immensely* important; and unique in many senses.
Mars has tiny moons, which are asteroids. Not even close to being similar to our moon; it was an easy mistake. I don't wish to dive into semantics, but the correct terminology would be to refer as satellites. Even then, you guys are hounding Bill for such a petty thing.
I'm not even sure if you're being serious. :?
I meant defining as in exclusive.
Yes, let's not play the semantics game. We all know he was not being that technical.
Tiny moons are still moons. Every moon is different. Why does it matter that Mars' moon is not like Earths. Mars moons are also not like Jupiter's. He made the error that Mars doesn't have moons because he assumed that moons are a special characteristic of Earth because we have life.
I'm being dead serious. If he was aware that other planets had moons, why would he make the mistake of thinking Mars has no moon, especially when he was using Mars as a general example, and especially when he was emphasizing the lack of life on that planet and others?
I think it makes more sense that he believes that because Earth has a moon, it has life. And because planets like Mars (in his estimation) have no moons, they don't have life. That is what comes out of the context on his statement. Your defense relies on semantics and technicalities.
That's nice, but that is also factored into the odds of life appearing on a planet--Again, the odds have been statistically shown to be astronomically low, unless you wish to argue that these scientists are, in fact, pinheads.:| Uh huh.. In a galaxy with a estimated 100 billion stars.. Amongst a universe of hundreds of millions of galaxies..
sSubZerOo
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]What are talking about.. He illuded to that there were no other moons in the solar system more or less.. And no it really isn't a defining characteristic of our planet in the astronomy sense.. The majority of planets in our solar system have moons, the mere fact that our planet happens to have a moon does not some how make it unique.Stevo_the_gamer
You are reaching for a statement that doesn't exist; *assuming* at an end that was not stated. The name of this topic is misleading, and has caused confusion for I see nothing of the sort; in fact, you are now pulling the implied powers into the discussion to which subjectivity -- clouded by pre-conceived notions -- will play a roll in how they are presented. I will not argue against implied meanings, for there is no way to come to agreement in such petty meanings.
The majority of planets have satellites -- many of them in fact, yet the means in which they got to their planet aren't hotly debated. How Earth's moon got into Earth's orbit is *hotly* debated because we don't exactly know for sure yet, we are still hypothesizing to that end. And no other moon in the solar system has had as much importance on its planet as Earth's -- again, the odds by which life came to be on Earth are a direct result of its moon.
.. Actually your wrong.. The astronomy community is pretty much dead set on the idea that it was due to a collision early in Earth's life.. And finally its a RESULT of many thing.. The moon is key, but so are numerous other reasons.. The point being is he either made a terrible talking point in which he wasn't clear what he was talking about.. Or he doesn't know what he is talking about.. And decided to insult the people who disagree with him as more or less being stupid..
That's nice, but that is also factored into the odds of life appearing on a planet--Again, the odds have been statistically shown to be astronomically low, unless you wish to argue that these scientists are, in fact, pinheads.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
:| Uh huh.. In a galaxy with a estimated 100 billion stars.. Amongst a universe of hundreds of millions of galaxies..
Stevo_the_gamer
Well LUCKY for us Steveo we have a pool of astronomically high bodies. Which was my point.. You keep on going that its astronomically low.. While I just provided you with numbers that is mind bogglingly high, impossible to comprehend.
Then he is correct in saying the Earth is unique because of its moon. Earth's life is tied directly to its singular moon, with multiple moons... or no moon at all, we may not be here today. No other planet in our solar system is similar to Earth with its moon. Earth is an outlier, and the odds of a planet with a moon like ours in the perfect "life zone" in distance from the Sun... are absolutely so astronomical that to even think that this was all chance requires some *serious* believing.[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]His argument was not specific to Mars. He was using as a general example to talk about planets without life.
Stevo_the_gamer
lol do you have any idea how many earth like planets have been found just in the last couple of years?
[QUOTE="debusentel"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
No, he doesn't insult everyone's intelligence, only those he disagrees with (which you seem to confirm with the first half of your post).
No, I don't believe I'm confirming that he insults every-ones intelligence of those that disagree with him. I'm just simply pointing out his own interpretation of what the word means (same thing with "pinhead"). Basically, his perception of what mainstream views are/should be and the opinions of those that he disagrees with.
Another thing is that if he disagrees with a certain viewpoint, etc... He will have them on to debate/explain their point of view. So, I really don't believe he insults the intelligence of others. (Aside from obviously crazy individuals). But if you have a clip/link of him doing this I would like to see it.
He called the people (who are not crazy) who were telling him that tides can be explained pinheads. Pinhead is a term for a dumb person:http://www.answers.com/topic/pinhead.That is insulting the intelligence of others.
Yeah, your probably right when used in the conventional way but the way/when O'reilly uses the term is much,much more broader and vague.Then he is correct in saying the Earth is unique because of its moon. Earth's life is tied directly to its singular moon, with multiple moons... or no moon at all, we may not be here today. No other planet in our solar system is similar to Earth with its moon. Earth is an outlier, and the odds of a planet with a moon like ours in the perfect "life zone" in distance from the Sun... are absolutely so astronomical that to even think that this was all chance requires some *serious* believing.[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]His argument was not specific to Mars. He was using as a general example to talk about planets without life.
cobrax55
lol do you have any idea how many earth like planets have been found just in the last couple of years?
Pretty hilarious when we are only looking into a few % of our known galaxy alone..
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="debusentel"]
No, I don't believe I'm confirming that he insults every-ones intelligence of those that disagree with him. I'm just simply pointing out his own interpretation of what the word means (same thing with "pinhead"). Basically, his perception of what mainstream views are/should be and the opinions of those that he disagrees with.
Another thing is that if he disagrees with a certain viewpoint, etc... He will have them on to debate/explain their point of view. So, I really don't believe he insults the intelligence of others. (Aside from obviously crazy individuals). But if you have a clip/link of him doing this I would like to see it.
debusentel
He called the people (who are not crazy) who were telling him that tides can be explained pinheads. Pinhead is a term for a dumb person:http://www.answers.com/topic/pinhead.That is insulting the intelligence of others.
Yeah, your probably right when used in the conventional way but the way/when O'reilly uses the term is much,much more broader and vague.:| I see so if I started using a racial slur it would be ok because I meant it in a more board and vague idea...
Then he is correct in saying the Earth is unique because of its moon. Earth's life is tied directly to its singular moon, with multiple moons... or no moon at all, we may not be here today. No other planet in our solar system is similar to Earth with its moon. Earth is an outlier, and the odds of a planet with a moon like ours in the perfect "life zone" in distance from the Sun... are absolutely so astronomical that to even think that this was all chance requires some *serious* believing.[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]His argument was not specific to Mars. He was using as a general example to talk about planets without life.
Stevo_the_gamer
First of all, that last statement is incredibly flawed. If something did happen by chance, there is nothing that saying that perfect conditions couldn't have arrived by chance. After all, if chance is involved, anything can happen by chance.
Secondly, your defense of his statement is wholly reliant on you strengthening his argument (which is a common tactic when one is trying to defend someone) with details he probably didn't have in mind. As his statement reads, he is clearly saying that Mars has no moons and is citing lack of life as a reason for it as evidenced by the other parts of his argument.
He is incorrect in that. If he wasn't so arrogant about his ignorance, I would give him a break. But he's still calling people pinheads by being incorrect.
I meant defining as in exclusive.
Yes, let's not play the semantics game. We all know he was not being that technical.
Tiny moons are still moons. Every moon is different. Why does it matter that Mars' moon is not like Earths. Mars moons are also not like Jupiter's. He made the error that Mars doesn't have moons because he assumed that moons are a special characteristic of Earth because we have life.
I'm being dead serious. If he was aware that other planets had moons, why would he make the mistake of thinking Mars has no moon, especially when he was using Mars as a general example, and especially when he was emphasizing the lack of life on that planet and others?
I think it makes more sense that he believes that because Earth has a moon, it has life. And because planets like Mars (in his estimation) have no moons, they don't have life. That is what comes out of the context on his statement. Your defense relies on semantics and technicalities.
GreySeal9
Yet again, you are diving towards a means that you don't exactly know for sure what he was meaning. However, I would in fact argue that Earth's moon is exclusive in the sense it's (Earth) the only planet in the solar system with a singular moon; one incredibly important moon which has been an intregral factor in our planet's history. Again, the importance of the moon cannot be dismissed nor ignored. Mr. O'Reilly is not off base here in questioning -- or bringing up -- the notion of how incredible it is how Earth came to be, and the odds in which in doing so merely by *chance* by astronomical odds... it is truly a sight to believe.
You are again, reaching for an end that *does not* exist. Grapsing here for an end that you *want* to exist. Because he said Mars has no moons *DOES NOT* by any calcuable measure means that no other planets have moons. It does not work that way, you cannot SPIN a statement like that to reach your own preconceived thoughts. You can't.
Again, you are looking at a means that are not laid out. You are creating them to suit your needs. I am arguing for which is laid out on the table for us all to see and readily argue upon. I try not to argue about implications, for the subjectivity behind that is clouded by our own notions.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="debusentel"]
No, I don't believe I'm confirming that he insults every-ones intelligence of those that disagree with him. I'm just simply pointing out his own interpretation of what the word means (same thing with "pinhead"). Basically, his perception of what mainstream views are/should be and the opinions of those that he disagrees with.
Another thing is that if he disagrees with a certain viewpoint, etc... He will have them on to debate/explain their point of view. So, I really don't believe he insults the intelligence of others. (Aside from obviously crazy individuals). But if you have a clip/link of him doing this I would like to see it.
debusentel
He called the people (who are not crazy) who were telling him that tides can be explained pinheads. Pinhead is a term for a dumb person:http://www.answers.com/topic/pinhead.That is insulting the intelligence of others.
Yeah, your probably right when used in the conventional way but the way/when O'reilly uses the term is much,much more broader and vague.And what is your evidence for thinking that O'Reily is not using it in the conventional way?
I think you are misconceiving what it deemed "Earth-Life."lol do you have any idea how many earth like planets have been found just in the last couple of years?
cobrax55
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
I meant defining as in exclusive.
Yes, let's not play the semantics game. We all know he was not being that technical.
Tiny moons are still moons. Every moon is different. Why does it matter that Mars' moon is not like Earths. Mars moons are also not like Jupiter's. He made the error that Mars doesn't have moons because he assumed that moons are a special characteristic of Earth because we have life.
I'm being dead serious. If he was aware that other planets had moons, why would he make the mistake of thinking Mars has no moon, especially when he was using Mars as a general example, and especially when he was emphasizing the lack of life on that planet and others?
I think it makes more sense that he believes that because Earth has a moon, it has life. And because planets like Mars (in his estimation) have no moons, they don't have life. That is what comes out of the context on his statement. Your defense relies on semantics and technicalities.
Stevo_the_gamer
Yet again, you are diving towards a means that you don't exactly know for sure what he was meaning. However, I would in fact argue that Earth's moon is exclusive in the sense it's (Earth) the only planet in the solar system with a singular moon; one incredibly important moon which has been an intregral factor in our planet's history. Again, the importance of the moon cannot be dismissed nor ignored. Mr. O'Reilly is not off base here in questioning -- or bringing up -- the notion of how incredible it is how Earth came to be, and the odds in which in doing so merely by *chance* by astronomical odds... it is truly a sight to believe.
You are again, reaching for an end that *does not* exist. Grapsing here for an end that you *want* to exist. Because he said Mars has no moons *DOES NOT* by any calcuable measure means that no other planets have moons. It does not work that way, you cannot SPIN a statement like that to reach your own preconceived thoughts. You can't.
Again, you are looking at a means that are not laid out. You are creating them to suit your needs. I am arguing for which is laid out on the table for us all to see and readily argue upon. I try not to argue about implications, for the subjectivity behind that is clouded by our own notions.
..........Yet again Mars does have moons... Just because YOU don't think they are important, doesn't disuade from the fact that the astro-physics community defines them as moons.. If he really was trying to say our specific moon was special, why didn't he compare them with Mars? He didn't he pretty much said Mars had no moons to begin with, which is in fact false.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
I meant defining as in exclusive.
Yes, let's not play the semantics game. We all know he was not being that technical.
Tiny moons are still moons. Every moon is different. Why does it matter that Mars' moon is not like Earths. Mars moons are also not like Jupiter's. He made the error that Mars doesn't have moons because he assumed that moons are a special characteristic of Earth because we have life.
I'm being dead serious. If he was aware that other planets had moons, why would he make the mistake of thinking Mars has no moon, especially when he was using Mars as a general example, and especially when he was emphasizing the lack of life on that planet and others?
I think it makes more sense that he believes that because Earth has a moon, it has life. And because planets like Mars (in his estimation) have no moons, they don't have life. That is what comes out of the context on his statement. Your defense relies on semantics and technicalities.
Stevo_the_gamer
Yet again, you are diving towards a means that you don't exactly know for sure what he was meaning. However, I would in fact argue that Earth's moon is exclusive in the sense it's (Earth) the only planet in the solar system with a singular moon; one incredibly important moon which has been an intregral factor in our planet's history. Again, the importance of the moon cannot be dismissed nor ignored. Mr. O'Reilly is not off base here in questioning -- or bringing up -- the notion of how incredible it is how Earth came to be, and the odds in which in doing so merely by *chance* by astronomical odds... it is truly a sight to believe.
You are again, reaching for an end that *does not* exist. Grapsing here for an end that you *want* to exist. Because he said Mars has no moons *DOES NOT* by any calcuable measure means that no other planets have moons. It does not work that way, you cannot SPIN a statement like that to reach your own preconceived thoughts. You can't.
Again, you are looking at a means that are not laid out. You are creating them to suit your needs. I am arguing for which is laid out on the table for us all to see and readily argue upon. I try not to argue about implications, for the subjectivity behind that is clouded by our own notions.
This is a man who didnt know that there has been an explanation for tidal forces for the last several hundred years. You are completly overthinking this, the man is a complete moron.
I think you are misconceiving what it deemed "Earth-Life." Do you even know what they are? They are planets found with similar size and similar distance/propotional distance (based on the star) away from the sun.. Furthermore these are planets found specifically with in our very small neighborhood because we don't have the technology to detect planets extremely far away.. Meaning that we are most likely looking at less than 1% of our galaxy alone.. A pool of 100 billion stars.. And as stated earlier there is a estimated some 250 million known galaxies in our universe..[QUOTE="cobrax55"]
lol do you have any idea how many earth like planets have been found just in the last couple of years?
Stevo_the_gamer
It is also nearly impossible to comprehend how life came to be on this planet, and how the solar system came to be, with the moon coming in. It is all incredible to think about. The odds are still there, one way or another.Well LUCKY for us Steveo we have a pool of astronomically high bodies. Which was my point.. You keep on going that its astronomically low.. While I just provided you with numbers that is mind bogglingly high, impossible to comprehend.
sSubZerOo
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]What are talking about.. He illuded to that there were no other moons in the solar system more or less.. And no it really isn't a defining characteristic of our planet in the astronomy sense.. The majority of planets in our solar system have moons, the mere fact that our planet happens to have a moon does not some how make it unique.Stevo_the_gamer
You are reaching for a statement that doesn't exist; *assuming* at an end that was not stated. The name of this topic is misleading, and has caused confusion for I see nothing of the sort; in fact, you are now pulling the implied powers into the discussion to which subjectivity -- clouded by pre-conceived notions -- will play a roll in how they are presented. I will not argue against implied meanings, for there is no way to come to agreement in such petty meanings.
The majority of planets have satellites -- many of them in fact, yet the means in which they got to their planet aren't hotly debated. How Earth's moon got into Earth's orbit is *hotly* debated because we don't exactly know for sure yet, we are still hypothesizing to that end. And no other moon in the solar system has had as much importance on its planet as Earth's -- again, the odds by which life came to be on Earth are a direct result of its moon.
The earth's moon is a satellite too. And the formation of most of the moons in our solar system is debated.[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
I meant defining as in exclusive.
Yes, let's not play the semantics game. We all know he was not being that technical.
Tiny moons are still moons. Every moon is different. Why does it matter that Mars' moon is not like Earths. Mars moons are also not like Jupiter's. He made the error that Mars doesn't have moons because he assumed that moons are a special characteristic of Earth because we have life.
I'm being dead serious. If he was aware that other planets had moons, why would he make the mistake of thinking Mars has no moon, especially when he was using Mars as a general example, and especially when he was emphasizing the lack of life on that planet and others?
I think it makes more sense that he believes that because Earth has a moon, it has life. And because planets like Mars (in his estimation) have no moons, they don't have life. That is what comes out of the context on his statement. Your defense relies on semantics and technicalities.
Stevo_the_gamer
Yet again, you are diving towards a means that you don't exactly know for sure what he was meaning. However, I would in fact argue that Earth's moon is exclusive in the sense it's (Earth) the only planet in the solar system with a singular moon; one incredibly important moon which has been an intregral factor in our planet's history. Again, the importance of the moon cannot be dismissed nor ignored. Mr. O'Reilly is not off base here in questioning -- or bringing up -- the notion of how incredible it is how Earth came to be, and the odds in which in doing so merely by *chance* by astronomical odds... it is truly a sight to believe.
You are again, reaching for an end that *does not* exist. Grapsing here for an end that you *want* to exist. Because he said Mars has no moons *DOES NOT* by any calcuable measure means that no other planets have moons. It does not work that way, you cannot SPIN a statement like that to reach your own preconceived thoughts. You can't.
Again, you are looking at a means that are not laid out. You are creating them to suit your needs. I am arguing for which is laid out on the table for us all to see and readily argue upon. I try not to argue about implications, for the subjectivity behind that is clouded by our own notions.
No, it does exist simply if you look at the whole argument and not just the part you want to. Even just looking at his bare statements, he stresses that Earth is the only one with life and then he poses the question "Why doesn't Mars have a moon?" I guess you can go ahead and have faith that he is simply making a mistake with Mars exclusively, but if you're looking at the whole argument/rhetorical strategy, it is pretty clear that he is using Mars as a general example of a planet with no life. Why do you think he'd be making an argument about Mars exclusively? What makes you think that when he used Mars and Venus, he wasn't also extending his argument to other planets without life?
Also, I don't know for sure what he meant, but then again we don't know for sure what anybody means unless explicitly clarified or starkly obvious and even then we don't truly know as we are not mind readers. So we have to go with what is likely.
To not deal with implications is to not deal with arguments. It is impossible to unpack arguments without examining implications.
Do you even know what they are? They are planets found with similar size and similar distance/propotional distance (based on the star) away from the sun.. Furthermore these are planets found specifically with in our very small neighborhood because we don't have the technology to detect planets extremely far away.. Meaning that we are most likely looking at less than 1% of our galaxy alone.. A pool of 100 billion stars.. And as stated earlier there is a estimated some 250 million known galaxies in our universe.. sSubZerOoI'm well aware of the numbers.
Yeah, your probably right when used in the conventional way but the way/when O'reilly uses the term is much,much more broader and vague.[QUOTE="debusentel"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
He called the people (who are not crazy) who were telling him that tides can be explained pinheads. Pinhead is a term for a dumb person:http://www.answers.com/topic/pinhead.That is insulting the intelligence of others.
GreySeal9
And what is your evidence for thinking that O'Reily is not using it in the conventional way?
First off, when I watch the program it just would not fit correctly the conventional way in the context of some of the topics. Second, their is a small section in his book were he goes into this and lastly, many, many people he usually agrees with have been called pinheads, not do to their intellect but for a point of view.
It is also nearly impossible to comprehend how life came to be on this planet, and how the solar system came to be, with the moon coming in. It is all incredible to think about. The odds are still there, one way or another.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
Well LUCKY for us Steveo we have a pool of astronomically high bodies. Which was my point.. You keep on going that its astronomically low.. While I just provided you with numbers that is mind bogglingly high, impossible to comprehend.
Stevo_the_gamer
Lucky for us yet again we have a immense pool to play those odds from.. Furthermore life does not need to exist in the current setting we live on.. Our discovery of ocean life at the bottom that lives off of toxic water volcanic water vents ranging in the 400 degree temps.. Pretty much shows that life does not need sun light to survive.. Or to be close to the sun for heat what so ever.. That life can thrive off of thermal energy from a active core... Take in that fact along with the astounding numbers I just produced you, where our galaxy alone is quite "average" in size.. Then there being the possibility there may be hundreds of bodies that life could thrive on a single star.. Than 100 billion stars in our solar system which is quite average.. Than add in the amount of galaxies in the universe.. And no its not incredible for me to think about.. Because I consider our chance of probility.. If life didn't happen here it would happen some hwere else..
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Do you even know what they are? They are planets found with similar size and similar distance/propotional distance (based on the star) away from the sun.. Furthermore these are planets found specifically with in our very small neighborhood because we don't have the technology to detect planets extremely far away.. Meaning that we are most likely looking at less than 1% of our galaxy alone.. A pool of 100 billion stars.. And as stated earlier there is a estimated some 250 million known galaxies in our universe.. Stevo_the_gamerI'm well aware of the numbers.
It sure doesn't seem like it.
No, it does exist simply if you look at the whole argument and not just the part you want to. Even just look at his bare statements, he stresses that Earth is the only one with life and then he poses the question "Why doesn't Mars have a moon?" I guess you can go ahead and have faith that he is simply making a mistake with Mars exclusively, but if you're looking at the whole argument/rhetorical strategy, it is pretty clear that he is using Mars as a general example of a planet with no life. Why do you think he'd be making an argument about Mars exclusively? What makes you think that when he used Mars and Venus, he wasn't also extending his argument to other planets without life?
Also, I don't know for sure what he meant, but then again we don't know for sure what anybody means. So we have to go with what is likely.
To not deal with implications is to not deal with arguments. It is impossible to impack arguments without examining implications.
GreySeal9
Regurgitation. Ugh, I will not regurgitate anymore, nor should you. I've heard this all before, and My outlook remains the same. This is just going to go in circles, I will not debate areas that do not exist; such subjectivity is clouded by bias. This is an incredibly petty thing to hate on O'Reilly for, and with that, I will agree to disagree here.
Because my view does not coincide with your own? I will respect your opinion, perhaps you should do the same.It sure doesn't seem like it.
sSubZerOo
He's a talking head. Most of the people who read the news or do commentary aren't terribly bright.
I have not made anything up in this thread -- everything I have stated is based upon astronomy and biology research; all of which is readily viewable for your pleasure on the interwebs. I personally love watching this on my Xbox every other night. You guys should watch it, it is very interesting.And I think you are making things up as you go along.
cobrax55
I think what he meant was: "Why does Mars not have a tidal system that is conducive to the survival of life?" Not: "Why does Mars not have a moon?"
In context, this makes sense because the conversation being referenced here is one where Mr. O'Reily asks someone, in a bumbling attempt at the teleological argument, why does the earth have a tidal system conducive to life?
Moreover, I think that the blogger who posted this article knew that was what O'Reily meant and chose to structure his article in a way that portrayed O'Reily in a less that flattering manner.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
No, it does exist simply if you look at the whole argument and not just the part you want to. Even just look at his bare statements, he stresses that Earth is the only one with life and then he poses the question "Why doesn't Mars have a moon?" I guess you can go ahead and have faith that he is simply making a mistake with Mars exclusively, but if you're looking at the whole argument/rhetorical strategy, it is pretty clear that he is using Mars as a general example of a planet with no life. Why do you think he'd be making an argument about Mars exclusively? What makes you think that when he used Mars and Venus, he wasn't also extending his argument to other planets without life?
Also, I don't know for sure what he meant, but then again we don't know for sure what anybody means. So we have to go with what is likely.
To not deal with implications is to not deal with arguments. It is impossible to unpack arguments without examining implications.
Stevo_the_gamer
Regurgitation. Ugh, I will not regurgitate anymore, nor should you. I've heard this all before, and My outlook remains the same. This is just going to go in circles, I will not debate areas that do not exist; such subjectivity is clouded by bias. This is an incredibly petty thing to hate on O'Reilly for, and with that, I will agree to disagree here.
Because my view does not coincide with your own? I will respect your opinion, perhaps you should do the same.It sure doesn't seem like it.
sSubZerOo
I will not press the issue if you don't wish to debate it anymore, but simply saying the word "bias" does not mean my argument is wrong. I admit I'm biased, but so are you. The fact that I can't stand O Reily does not mean that my argument about his argument is automatically invalid.
Also, implications can very well exist. And not looking at implications can be seen as being motivated by bias as well.
While we're on the subject does Earth's moon have a name? I know we just call it 'moon' but there are so many cool names for moons int he solar system (Europa, Titan, Triton, Calypso...etc). All we get is the generic term moon.BreakTheseLinksWell it gets the generic term "moon" because it was the first and only "moon" we knew of for a long time. Its real name is Luna, which is where the terms lunar eclipse, lunar cycle, etc come from. Our sun also has an official name, which is Sol.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment