it annoys me that when you debate with a christian, they will ask you a retarded question. and when you are about to answer, they start yelling over you and wont let you talk. and then later they will take up the fact that you didnt answer as an arguement
so here they are.Here is here because of technology on this machine.Regardless of "how" it began..what You-Tube is presenting is made possible through Science & technology.The poetics of Religion is a metaphor-system that involves EVERYTHING in its fables.Religion is an Art-form & Christianity in European Culture ever since the conversion of Constantine has aligned the beliefs of this Art FORM with economics &politics.O'reily is a Constantinian Christian aka 4him its the boss(no,ifs & or buts.
All of you theists are retarded. Open your mind, not your mouth. Science will never have all the answers because of two reasons: 1) We don't have them all yet. But science will continue to find and prove and disprove all the answers it can and 2) Religion has a direct causal link to intelligence and speed. Its teachings slow down the entire human race. In the end, we're all on the same team and a team is only as good as its worst player. It's so sad how many bad players we have on this team.
@jtalfredo22 For the most part, that's where all the argument comes from, but you're right, Christianity and Islam are the big two. Can't forget about Buddhism and Hinduism though. Most religious people, however, are too hard headed to consider changing their beliefs. Their beliefs, which are passed on to their children, won't diminish quite as quickly as you predict but you never know! One can hope lol
Theres two types of people in this world. People who are assholes, and people who are not assholes. There are not only christian assholes or only atheist assholes. There are just assholes.
He doesn't have to, he's not the extremely wealthy Biologist on a mission to convince the entire planet that he, and he alone, has all of the answers to life, the universe & everything.
I've yet to hear Dawkins admit he's been wrong about anything, he's always right, even when he's wrong.
He doesn't have to, he's not the extremely wealthy Biologist on a mission to convince the entire planet that he, and he alone, has all of the answers to life, the universe & everything.
I've yet to hear Dawkins admit he's been wrong about anything, he's always right, even when he's wrong.
Someone correct me if im wrong ... but isnt america and Islamic countries really the only places holding on to religion? Here in Canada atheism is at like... 60% maybe if not more. Japan, China, Europe atheism is all around 50% or higher ... I think religion for the most part will be dead to half the world or more within 100 years.
Not sure who this guy is but he didn't address the issue in his 5 points either. He's very smug & condescending in his presentation. The issue isn't whether science is right or wrong. The issue is that science can NOT explain EVERYTHING. So in these instances where science cannot explain everything, they present their theory of Evolution(emphasis on THEORY) while at the same time, excluding alternative arguments. Faith is what is required when U cannot actually C what UR trying 2 believe in.
@meo1960 I disagree w/O'Reilly that a majority are believers. If that were the case, abortion wouldn't be legal. What I do believe is that many claim 2 B believers when in fact, they are not. A tree is known by it's fruit? & this guy pays O'Reilly a backhand compliment by acknowledging his "debating skills" while at the same implying that what he is arguing 4 is just plain stupid. No agenda here, at all. Science eventually comes around 2 verifying what the Bible has taught from the beginning.
@deanmullen10: i do aggree in 1000 years religion will be spoken of like we speak of greak mythology but id be surprised if more then 30% of the world will be atheist by the end of the 22 century, let alone the start.
shame we were born this century and not 2500 or later
would have been fun reading of people like richard dawkins in the history books. ;p
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
@InSaNoDaCloWn I'd definitely say a physics textbook (or whatever medium to present information they'll be using then) the trends suggest most of Europe will be atheist by around mid-century and I'd estimate that more than 90% of the world will be atheist by the early 22nd century.
I went to a catholic school in england (here a secular curiculum is mandatory), iam atheist. we were taught the standard secular, scientific curriculum. at the end the teacher also mentioned creationalism and said its up to us to choose. also we learned about herretics in science because of galileo and other scientists having a hard time from religion. I like to think we had a good and balanced discussion on all the issues
@ThePhantom135 doesnt mean God doesnt exist just because you claim you dont believe, you still acknowledge Him....which in a way means you do believe.. hmmm. science cant be religion neutrol since God made allllll things..
@forgiveeveryone well, I'm not claiming the non-existence of God, I'm just saying it's not fair to students who weren't raised to believe that the Earth is less than 6000 years old. That kind of theory does have a religious bias to it and has little legitimate evidence to back it up. The theory of evolution has overwhelming evidence and no religious bias whatsoever which therefore makes it more appropriate for a science class. Creationism should stay in religious-based classes.
Science isn't moralistic? what about Scientology?? isn't that both Religion and Science mixed together? why cant people just agree that people differ in opinion and me personally agree with Dawkins, if you have NO proof, DO NOT TEACH IT!! thats is NOT Fascism it is just common sense, human evolution should even be debated about, because humans aren't Perfect! until people and humanity is perfect, no one has the right to judge anyone! imo
@myfaith1969 Do you actualy believe that O'Reilly is the the perfect representation of christians? Have you ever heard of Pascal, Kelvin, Asa Gray, Max Planck just to name a few.
@myfaith1969 Hey dude, don't get technical, im christian, i accept gays, and im not a hypocrite. Have you ever heard the term, Religion is like a penis, dont whip it out and wave it around public and dont shove it down my childs throat. Stop stereotyping bro.
Science doesn't know how it started because they haven't found the empirical evidence. If Bill has empirical evidence to support his theory, then he should be able to put his ideas into the science classroom.
can i say something here,i do not believe my forfathers were apes.Thats sick.If you believe in EVO...then thats what you believe I Believe that God the Father,God The Son and God the Holy Spirit ,crweated me after His own image.
These back and forward science vs faith arguments are so useless. Has nobody mentioned that science only answers HOW. It doesn't and cannot answer WHY. That is a question for philosophy and theology if you believe in it. This is something you should learn in your first year of college.
oh and BTW God IS a fairy tale. The Jewish one anyways. I don't discredit other ideas but I sure as heck can promise you the Jews did not get it right. There are over a thousand races that lived before them. All we have nowadays are adaptions of that. So yes, there may be divine beings or a creator somewhere , but he isn't a large Jewish man.
the reality of the issue. Most Christians think like Bill O'Reily. Sorry, not trying to offend but it's true. Anyone who is a christian conspirator you know Christianity is WRONG but you keep following it. You are afraid fo discovering the truth and you WANT something to cling to. To influence society to agree with YOUR morals. BTW what's with all this evolution christian junk? Why not mention paganism? It deserves just as much credit.
SCIENCE & LOGIC explain an intelligent designer and doesnt assume we started as micro-worms who were destined for more! I'm sorry my turkish friend, Billy O' whatever his name is didnt use any foul play. You cant just teach this random theory to our children when u cant even prove it to yourselfs. EVOLUTION is not SCIENCE.. any1 can find shreds of evidence for anything if they try for long enough. God is a fairytail somehow? evolution claims frogs turn into princes! just give it some time, haha.
@TannerBM1801 what you have done is skew what evolution does. It is not random. It is chaotic. The chaos of nature means that any creature that is more adapted to its' current environment survives to reproduce, while those less suited don't. There is no sudden change, the changes can be as small as a neck that is minusculy longer, but if it helps, it will pass on its' genes, and its' children will have that, and it is passed on. And where is your logic of intelligent design?
@Surfakingdom since when has anyone said a turtle has evolved into a dog? They are both complicated evolution's that may have stemmed from a same position at one point, but what they came from was a much simpler being, that went down two different evolutionary tracts. There is no cross evolution like that
Would that be the same electricity which we pay a lifetime for, and which makes big multinationals zillions of dollars at the expense of the impoverished?
Yeah, let's hear it for a lifetime of dependency, stress & misery.
O'Reilly is retarded. He can't even understand how the moon affects the tides. I'm serious, he is that frigging stupid. My fifth grade kid knows this crap. Science has all of the answers after the big bang until now. Religion thinks the earth is flat, people live inside fish, an 800 year old man gathered up millions of animals and built a giant boat. I could go on forever. Theists are retarded.
What are you guys all arguing about? Science basically proves intelligent design! Just go check out Chuck Misslers lecture on the cell. The complexities of just one cell make it mathematically unreasonable for chance.
@Squarehead29 Think about this! Lets say that you have a wind-up watch and a empty box, and I ask you to take that watch apart, and to put all of the little pieces of that watch into that empty box. Then I tell you to take that box and shake it, throw it and roll it! How long do you think it will take, for that watch to come together by shaking the box? My point is that chance will never put that watch together. Just a single cell is far more complicated than any watch!
@MetalliCxZero lol It is chance. A HIGHLY unlikely chance. You might want to educate yourself on the definition of chance. Any serious scientist knows its more probable that life didnt happen by chance than it did. Only beginner scientist thinks science disproves God.
Look around. Look at the complexity of life. Look at the details. Look at us. Look at everything. Do you honestly think it was all by chance?
@Surfakingdom NO I DONT think it was all by chance, the first thing I said in what you JUST replied to was "it's not chance". And yeah, science doesn't disprove God, but it does contradict what the Bible states. Lastly, looking around and marveling at nature doesn't mean it was created by a supernatural being.
@MetalliCxZero Thats the problem YOU dont think its chance, but in fact it is. Thats what scientific theories on the origins are. They involve chance and randomness. Which to me goes against they very laws of science.
Alright dont just look around and marvel but actually study. Study the details. The possibilities. The complexity. Do the math.
@Surfakingdom Perhaps *when* is by chance, but *if* is certain. And seeing complexity in things doesn't mean God did it, what about basic-ass single celled organisms, are those too simple for God? Life is complex now but it wasn't always like that.
@MetalliCxZero Well to be honest it doesnt seem like you know much yet. Youre deciding and closing your mind to soon without even enough information. Even the "basic-ass single celled organisms" arent really basic.
To build a cell you need protein. Shortest proteins are 100-150 amino acids long. Building a protein is very complex. So many factors. In short the chances of finding ONE functional protein by chance is 1 / 10 to the 164th power. Do you know how huge of a number that is?
@Surfakingdom The point of the single-celled organisms is that life that's complex still comes from more and more basic things, like amino acids (which scientists have found to be naturally occuring.) Though I'd like to know where your Biology facts came from.
@MetalliCxZero Amino acids, proteins, etc were put together. Think of it this way, A box of legos. A box of legos are the building blocks (amino acids, protein, etc) . Have you went to a lego museum? It has amazing masterpieces compiled of lego blocks. They did not end up that way randomly but someone had to have designed it that way.
My facts come from biology itself. Ill explain to you how I got that 1/10 to the 164th power number. I'll break it down in another post.
@MetalliCxZero So the question being addressed is "How likely is that we'd every get a protein to arise by chance with all the amino acids in that prebiotic soup interacting with each other?"
So we know that not every amino acid combination is functional. Functional amino acids are rare. The ratio of functional ones to non functional ones is 1/10*74th. So just to get the amino acid sequence properly you got odds of 1/10*74th. But its get even more complicated.....(next post).......
@Surfakingdom (.........) So we know from chemistry if you want to build a protein you have to attach the amino acids together with peptide bonds. So in nature half the bonds that form between amino acids are peptide bonds and half arent. Non peptide bonds cant form proteins. So a 1/2 chance at each site. With a protein of 150 amino acids long thats a 1/10*45th chance.
@MetalliCxZero (........4) When your building proteins amino acids come in two flavors left handed and right handed called optical isomers. We know the left handed ones are the only ones that can be used. Get even one right handed one in there and your protein wont fold properly. So again thats a 1/2 chance. With a protein of 150 amino acids long thats 1/10*45th.
So lets add all that up.
10*74th x 10*45th x 10*45th = 10 to the power of 164!
@Surfakingdom I'm talking about formation of life, not the Big Bang. Why is it that you're so confident in what science tells you unless it conflicts with your beliefs? I still wanna know where you get these facts from btw.
@MetalliCxZero There is no point in talking with you if you cant even read what I wrote. In all of my 5 posts not once i talked about the Big Bang. I was clearly talking about the formation of life. I even showed you the the probability of the formation life.
If you cant read then there is not point in talking to you. Everything you just asked was already answered in my previous posts.
@MetalliCxZero Obviously. Hence the (..........5) in the beginning and the incomplete post. How do you overlook that. Its what ive been saying the whole time look at the details. Now I know you cant see the details and complexity in life. What a shame. No wonder you think like you do.
@Surfakingdom Good job being a douche. If you're trying to get through to someone then that's definately not how you do it. Well then, let me try and see it your way: "hurpa durpa wow everything so complex dur God must have do it!"
@SonicThunderBYG we are not talking about adaptations of micro evolution but about macro evolution how do we even know their is no established link between homo erectus and common sapiens
@SonicThunderBYG I dont think you realize that Bill O reilly knows what hes talking about. Study up on evolution. Educate yourself. And youll see the flaws. Oh and let me know when those scientist finally turn a house fly into a fruit fly, Ive been waiting years.Thanks :)
@forgiveeveryone Evolution has actually been proven. The Human Genome Project was based on the same scientific principals that evolution is based on. The method of connecting two individuals using dna tests is the same way scientists have been able to prove humans are descendants from apes. Fossils further prove this.
@2103038335 no evolution is not "proven" even if you watch some of the best know evolutionists,when asked how it began and with what they still cant say, there are stars that cant last millions of years, one evolutionist stated it started from crystals piggybacking on other crystals, each evolutionist runs into things that contradict an exact answer, fossils? ok so if we evolved from an ape there would be different fossils of us evolving, which there are none, accept the bible.
@forgiveeveryone How life began and whether evolution exists are two different questions, albeit connected. Just because scientists have not yet discovered how life began on Earth doesn't been they haven't found overwhelming evidence of evolution. We also do have different fossils of earlier humans that shows how we evolved the characteristics we have today. We'v discovered many different intermediate species between apes and humans. The fact that you don't know this, shows how ignorant you are.
@2103038335 scientists want so much to be right they distort the truth. If they had facts without any doubt everyone would believe it. No one argues about the sun rising in the east. because there is proof every day that it does. You place your faith in evolution because you dont want to imagine a God created it. Your focus is placed only in that one thing. Proverbs 30:2 “I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man’s understanding
@forgiveeveryone there was a time, when people believed the earth was the center of everything and sun and the planets revolved around it, when it was showed to be a false belief people resisted in accepting because of their religious belief. we dont have ''faith'' in evolution, it is a fact, just like the sun rising in the east. Religion doesnt know or understand anything but asserts that it and only it is true everything else is false, that is truly ignorant
funny how creationist say " you got no proof of evolution " ........isnt that ironic? you do research , you get proof , in some way or another ...while stupid religious ppl ...show me a book for evidence? OH ARE YOU FUCKING OUT OF YOUR MIND? cant belive how stupid ppl are , it makes me feel verry verry smart.
@Molhedim You obviously have no educational background. If you really studied evolution youd know why people argue against it. But no your just an idiot who thinks hes smart.
Ha Bill - your holy book can't tell you how everything got here either. Men from the Bronze Age made it up. That's why plants and fruit bearing trees were created before the sun was. And why the moon is defined as a light source. I could go on, but 500 characters run out pretty quickly.
"Science is fascism." Few things in existence are as dense as the material that Bill O'Reilly's head is made of.
@ChipArgyle "That's why plants and fruit bearing trees were created before the sun was." Lol did anybody else see what this idiot wrote? What an idiot lol
The holy book tells us that the universe was created by God.
@Surfakingdom Another Christian who hasn't read his Bible. The first massive scientific error in the bible comes within the first 50 words of the book. It just goes downhill from there.
And if you think that book was written by anything but mortal men, I suggest you have a look at Ezekiel 23. It's porn.
@ChipArgyle Who you calling a Christian? Why assuming I havent read the Bible? Why you assuming I dont know who wrote the bible? Why you labeling? Oh thats right its what ignorant people do. Silly me.
I love when atheist think there so much smarter by default just because they dont have religion. lol.
@Surfakingdom I called you a Christian because your profile says you're in the US and your indignation suggests you're a theist. Statistically, it was a good bet. You did say holy book as opposed to Bible though, but you didn't say Qur'an so now everybody's guessing.
As for the error in the Bible, it's the first 50 words. Is that too much for you to research for yourself?
I know you don't know who wrote the Bible. Nobody does. It's unsigned. Definitely not written by God though.
@ChipArgyle Oh man. Just by your last response I can already tell you are an idiot. No offense. But dont hurt yourself trying to act like you know something.
Just because I read the Bible doesnt make me a Christian.
Ive read the first 50 words. I dont see an error. Is it too much to supprt your claim?
You obviously dont know anything about the Bible. Let me inform you on some authors of the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. I think your the one who needs to read the bible.
@Surfakingdom You assert and insult a lot. What do you mean no offense? You're extremely offensive.
You think the Earth was created before the sun was, do you? Not possible. Planets form only after the star they orbit forms. Gravity that makes it happen. Now you know something about reality. You're welcome.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were who? Might as well use Curly, Larry, and Moe. None of the authors were known outside of the book itself.
@ChipArgyle First off the Bible doesnt say the earth was created before sun. You might want to read the Bible again. Youre being really ignorant. If you cant even read the bible correctly dont act like you know what your talking about.
Second: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John were 4 eye witnesses who wrote about Jesus's life when he was alive. Known as the 4 Gospels of Jesus included in the Bible.
Third: Know what your talking about before you talk. Lesson on how not to be ignorant. You're welcome.
@Surfakingdom Genesis 1 v 2 & 3: "And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." What part of that don't you understand?
The Bible was not written in real time. It is generally believed that the "eyewitness" writings were written decades after the Jesus figure's death. It's why all four accounts of the resurrection are different.
I love how Bill only sees science and christianity as the two alternatives. If only he realises he's arguing fro EVERY creation myth to be taught in science classes... Twenty hour lessons 3 times a week anyone?
The thing that really upsets me about O'Reilly is that he occasionally has cogent thoughts but gets off on setting up a war between religion and science. I've been a Christian my whole life and never once have I felt that science is some "boogeyman" who threatens my beliefs. Why shouldn't we Christians want to know how God's universe functions? That was partially what drove Issac Newton to study astronomy and physics and pretty much invent calculus. I think that's awesome.
I wish all Christians (or believers of any religion for that matter) shared your attitude :)
i would even say that it's people like O'Reilly (there certainly are even worse examples than him) who are the "boogeymen" that threaten the progress of science.
If you the world was made in 7 days and man was created on the sixth how where dinosaurs there billions of years before? can someone explain (my theory)
Any intelligent person can see through Reilly's rhetoric. As soon as Intelligent design is in any way substantiated by demonstrable facts, it'll be right in the new edition of the science text books. Until then sorry it's not science.
Bill O'reilly doesn't have any facts in religion. The bible is not a book of facts. It may have some facts like cities, kings and so forth but the stories are anything but based on concrete information. Face it o'reilly, you are not right. It is easy to piss off an intelligent man when you babble about nonsence
This is old but Dawkins still sounded a hell of a lot more erudite than O'Reilly. What a moron.
Changing the burden of proof is very typical of Christians when they debate evolution. Dawkins argues from the very typical scholarly form of debate and creationist typically do not.
I really hate the old vilifying someone by calling them a fascist ploy. It's getting old and apparently no one really knows what a fascist is as people who are so obviously not fascists are being called by that moniker.
The reason the beginning of the universe, or whatever it was O'Reilly was talking about, isn't discussed in science class is because there's no science to explain it (yet). Only that which has been scientifically proven should be taught in science class, and the rest that is still unknown shouldn't receive too much consideration, especially since that category is far larger.
The exact reason why science can't "prove everything" is precisely because the scientific community only pushes forward ideas that are supported by concrete evidence. His fully explanatory beliefs have little to no concrete evidence whatsoever to support his stand. How is it possible for him to make comparisons between the two sides if he can't even prove his beliefs right? Just because another stand is wrong does not mean his own stand is right, particularly if his has less evidence to show.
You can't prove God exists so by Orielly's theory you need to keep it out of classes as well. So out with one on the point that you can't provide absolute proof then you the other must be dismissed as well based on the same principle. Orielly didn't win here he just kept pressing forward with his idea right or wrong.
@superacer1 If you make a statement that you can't prove absolute proof of a point in science then you should not teach it in school then you cannot have religion in schools cause you cannot absolutely prove that God exists. I have no problem with Hebrew schools teaching the Torah cause it's a Hebrew school. Just as a Catholic school teaches the Bible. But in a regular public school you cannot teach any religion cause you will in effect cause you will have to pick one which shuns others.
O'Reilly's remark about science not permitting the development of a moral compass doesn't hold water either. Apart from the fact that you would first need to clearly define what is considered to be moral and what is not (which is universally subjective) in order to show this, I would argue that a general 'moral compass' (though obviously this is not what it is defined as) does indeed emerge in both humans and other animals from a part of the evolutionary process known as behavioural development.
Science is a work in progress and always has been. Scientific theories are amended all the time, based on new information coming to light as a result of further investigation into the subject matter. There's nothing wrong with science not having all the answers yet, and it's simply not right nor logical to fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale makes you happiest in the meantime. To do so is detrimental to the search for true answers.
This is a very minor point, but notice how O'Reilly never refers to Richard Dawkins as 'professor' - it probably means little, but that is his title in a professional capacity.
Bill's a Catholic, too. He shouldn't have a problem with evolution, and might not, but I'm sure he'd fight tooth and nail with Jesus himself to keep his show successful.
Richard Dawkins DONT HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING just because some idiot tells him to you dipshit. How the fuck is Richard wrong now if he can't prove how we all got here? He clearly said science is working on it unlike religion that bases its knowledge around a fake fairytale/h
god christians are retarded
Esgarothares 17 hours ago
it annoys me that when you debate with a christian, they will ask you a retarded question. and when you are about to answer, they start yelling over you and wont let you talk. and then later they will take up the fact that you didnt answer as an arguement
Esgarothares 17 hours ago
how has bill not taken an arrow to the knee?
TheAAMoy 1 week ago
so here they are.Here is here because of technology on this machine.Regardless of "how" it began..what You-Tube is presenting is made possible through Science & technology.The poetics of Religion is a metaphor-system that involves EVERYTHING in its fables.Religion is an Art-form & Christianity in European Culture ever since the conversion of Constantine has aligned the beliefs of this Art FORM with economics &politics.O'reily is a Constantinian Christian aka 4him its the boss(no,ifs & or buts.
tlaniganschmidt 1 week ago
All of you theists are retarded. Open your mind, not your mouth. Science will never have all the answers because of two reasons: 1) We don't have them all yet. But science will continue to find and prove and disprove all the answers it can and 2) Religion has a direct causal link to intelligence and speed. Its teachings slow down the entire human race. In the end, we're all on the same team and a team is only as good as its worst player. It's so sad how many bad players we have on this team.
JonnyAppleWeed 1 week ago
Grrrr these Mormon ads are worse then the Mormons that call at your door!!
TheAlexKiernan 3 weeks ago
@jtalfredo22 For the most part, that's where all the argument comes from, but you're right, Christianity and Islam are the big two. Can't forget about Buddhism and Hinduism though. Most religious people, however, are too hard headed to consider changing their beliefs. Their beliefs, which are passed on to their children, won't diminish quite as quickly as you predict but you never know! One can hope lol
enkuroichigo 1 month ago
Theres two types of people in this world. People who are assholes, and people who are not assholes. There are not only christian assholes or only atheist assholes. There are just assholes.
enkuroichigo 1 month ago
Dawkins doesn't even know how the first cell was produced... lol
ShadyForce4 1 month ago
@ShadyForce4 Do you?
Nat4Brendan 1 month ago
@Nat4Brendan
He doesn't have to, he's not the extremely wealthy Biologist on a mission to convince the entire planet that he, and he alone, has all of the answers to life, the universe & everything.
I've yet to hear Dawkins admit he's been wrong about anything, he's always right, even when he's wrong.
He's a cowardly wee Dick, literally. :)
DastardlyDawkins 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nat4Brendan
He doesn't have to, he's not the extremely wealthy Biologist on a mission to convince the entire planet that he, and he alone, has all of the answers to life, the universe & everything.
I've yet to hear Dawkins admit he's been wrong about anything, he's always right, even when he's wrong.
He's a cowardly wee Dick, literally. :)
DastardlyDawkins 2 weeks ago
your commentaries are absolutly useless.
brazilamaral 1 month ago
Someone correct me if im wrong ... but isnt america and Islamic countries really the only places holding on to religion? Here in Canada atheism is at like... 60% maybe if not more. Japan, China, Europe atheism is all around 50% or higher ... I think religion for the most part will be dead to half the world or more within 100 years.
jtalfredo22 1 month ago 3
Not sure who this guy is but he didn't address the issue in his 5 points either. He's very smug & condescending in his presentation. The issue isn't whether science is right or wrong. The issue is that science can NOT explain EVERYTHING. So in these instances where science cannot explain everything, they present their theory of Evolution(emphasis on THEORY) while at the same time, excluding alternative arguments. Faith is what is required when U cannot actually C what UR trying 2 believe in.
meo1960 1 month ago
@meo1960 I disagree w/O'Reilly that a majority are believers. If that were the case, abortion wouldn't be legal. What I do believe is that many claim 2 B believers when in fact, they are not. A tree is known by it's fruit? & this guy pays O'Reilly a backhand compliment by acknowledging his "debating skills" while at the same implying that what he is arguing 4 is just plain stupid. No agenda here, at all. Science eventually comes around 2 verifying what the Bible has taught from the beginning.
meo1960 1 month ago
@deanmullen10: i do aggree in 1000 years religion will be spoken of like we speak of greak mythology but id be surprised if more then 30% of the world will be atheist by the end of the 22 century, let alone the start.
shame we were born this century and not 2500 or later
would have been fun reading of people like richard dawkins in the history books. ;p
Steamsteam 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hear what God of Israel YAHUSHUA-YAHUWAH (Son and Father are ONE) saying to our generation by His chosen prophets: Trumpetcallofgodonline. com ; Letter called "Purify Your Faith, and Come to the Father as It is Written": EXCERPT: "Only in the Bible and through these very Letters, of which I have given to My prophet of the end of this age, shall you find Him and know Him."
Watch:
" youtube.com/watch?v=YZPmTH6sloo"
"youtube.com/watch?v=lutJYDxP6ys"
"youtube.com/watch?v=R9ike7PKd8U"
Regards.
TrumpetCallofGodLT 1 month ago
arguments like this are why the flying spaghetti monster was invented for
InSaNoDaCloWn 2 months ago
In 200 years I wonder which will be believed in more: The Bible, or a physics textbook?
InSaNoDaCloWn 2 months ago
@InSaNoDaCloWn I'd definitely say a physics textbook (or whatever medium to present information they'll be using then) the trends suggest most of Europe will be atheist by around mid-century and I'd estimate that more than 90% of the world will be atheist by the early 22nd century.
deanmullen10 1 month ago
O'Riley is a moron, intellectual fraud, bastard of epic proportions & that has been said to death in more ways than I can count.
aksh16 2 months ago
I went to a catholic school in england (here a secular curiculum is mandatory), iam atheist. we were taught the standard secular, scientific curriculum. at the end the teacher also mentioned creationalism and said its up to us to choose. also we learned about herretics in science because of galileo and other scientists having a hard time from religion. I like to think we had a good and balanced discussion on all the issues
Ebolahill88 2 months ago
DAWKINS!
atnorman369 2 months ago
We shouldn't teach Intelligent Design in science classes because NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN GOD!! Science is religion-neutral!
ThePhantom135 2 months ago
@ThePhantom135 doesnt mean God doesnt exist just because you claim you dont believe, you still acknowledge Him....which in a way means you do believe.. hmmm. science cant be religion neutrol since God made allllll things..
forgiveeveryone 2 months ago
@forgiveeveryone well, I'm not claiming the non-existence of God, I'm just saying it's not fair to students who weren't raised to believe that the Earth is less than 6000 years old. That kind of theory does have a religious bias to it and has little legitimate evidence to back it up. The theory of evolution has overwhelming evidence and no religious bias whatsoever which therefore makes it more appropriate for a science class. Creationism should stay in religious-based classes.
ThePhantom135 2 months ago
Bill O'Reilly is spectacular retarded
Pittip2 2 months ago 30
@Pittip2
Except, Bill isn't the Autistic one of the two.
DastardlyDawkins 2 weeks ago
"because you guys cant tell me, i blive in jesus" this is so very very retarded.
if there was a god, it woudlnt explain ANYTHING! if there was a god, what was the reason for god?
Pittip2 2 months ago
@Pittip2
"if there was a god, what was the reason for god?"
Extremely good question. Of course, you'd better not expect an answer from theists to this.
MomoTheBellyDancer 2 months ago
Science isn't moralistic? what about Scientology?? isn't that both Religion and Science mixed together? why cant people just agree that people differ in opinion and me personally agree with Dawkins, if you have NO proof, DO NOT TEACH IT!! thats is NOT Fascism it is just common sense, human evolution should even be debated about, because humans aren't Perfect! until people and humanity is perfect, no one has the right to judge anyone! imo
KingPadboy 2 months ago
@KingPadboy Scientology is not science. Quite the opposite in fact. Like all other religion, it is all about imaginative stories.
travmanbw43 2 months ago
Bill is fucking dumb. He's the perfect representation of christians
myfaith1969 2 months ago 20
@myfaith1969 I'd like to rage at that comment since I'm christian, but I know better than to feed a troll.
Depristition117 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myfaith1969 Do you actualy believe that O'Reilly is the the perfect representation of christians? Have you ever heard of Pascal, Kelvin, Asa Gray, Max Planck just to name a few.
TheAwesomeMaths 1 month ago
@myfaith1969 Hey dude, don't get technical, im christian, i accept gays, and im not a hypocrite. Have you ever heard the term, Religion is like a penis, dont whip it out and wave it around public and dont shove it down my childs throat. Stop stereotyping bro.
MrMomoProductions 3 weeks ago
@MrMomoProductions i like the fact that there are people who accept other people and keeps their belifes for them selfs.
but there are about 1, 5 billion christians out there who cant stop being assholes
Esgarothares 17 hours ago
@myfaith1969 really? generalization? i'm not christian, but whatever religion you are he must be your perfect representation
jkbpttrsn 1 week ago
If only HItch was there at his peak.
He would haved ripped O'Reilly 10 new ones
gunnerfan87 3 months ago
football isn't moral, so i prefer jesus
pureintellectual 3 months ago
Man i beileve in god but i really wanted dawkins to just kick oreilleys ass right there. 'stop yelling sir' lollll hes funny
0mrinsertname0 3 months ago
A shame, such a developed world and people still believe in a "myth" called God
MrBobbi1980 3 months ago
Science doesn't know how it started because they haven't found the empirical evidence. If Bill has empirical evidence to support his theory, then he should be able to put his ideas into the science classroom.
mfsx5ip2 3 months ago
can i say something here,i do not believe my forfathers were apes.Thats sick.If you believe in EVO...then thats what you believe I Believe that God the Father,God The Son and God the Holy Spirit ,crweated me after His own image.
torqstranger1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@torqstranger1 Then you are in denial.
Tommax25 3 months ago
Cenk, being an ignorant wanker does not mean that one is good at debate. Stop lauding O'Reilly. The guy is a very smart moron.
essayess1 3 months ago
These back and forward science vs faith arguments are so useless. Has nobody mentioned that science only answers HOW. It doesn't and cannot answer WHY. That is a question for philosophy and theology if you believe in it. This is something you should learn in your first year of college.
bryanmc650 3 months ago
Well. I have a unicorn. You can't prove I don't have one. SO FUCK YOU PINHEADS.
Supercucu123 4 months ago
every argument o reilly uses against atheism and science can be against religion even more
blues9934 4 months ago
Cenk FTW little Panda in the middle of the earth! the "Ying Theory"
mariegoslar 4 months ago
One last note: O'Reily wants a one world government. Listen to what he says.
mariegoslar 4 months ago
oh and BTW God IS a fairy tale. The Jewish one anyways. I don't discredit other ideas but I sure as heck can promise you the Jews did not get it right. There are over a thousand races that lived before them. All we have nowadays are adaptions of that. So yes, there may be divine beings or a creator somewhere , but he isn't a large Jewish man.
mariegoslar 4 months ago
the reality of the issue. Most Christians think like Bill O'Reily. Sorry, not trying to offend but it's true. Anyone who is a christian conspirator you know Christianity is WRONG but you keep following it. You are afraid fo discovering the truth and you WANT something to cling to. To influence society to agree with YOUR morals. BTW what's with all this evolution christian junk? Why not mention paganism? It deserves just as much credit.
mariegoslar 4 months ago
SCIENCE & LOGIC explain an intelligent designer and doesnt assume we started as micro-worms who were destined for more! I'm sorry my turkish friend, Billy O' whatever his name is didnt use any foul play. You cant just teach this random theory to our children when u cant even prove it to yourselfs. EVOLUTION is not SCIENCE.. any1 can find shreds of evidence for anything if they try for long enough. God is a fairytail somehow? evolution claims frogs turn into princes! just give it some time, haha.
TannerBM1801 4 months ago
@TannerBM1801 what you have done is skew what evolution does. It is not random. It is chaotic. The chaos of nature means that any creature that is more adapted to its' current environment survives to reproduce, while those less suited don't. There is no sudden change, the changes can be as small as a neck that is minusculy longer, but if it helps, it will pass on its' genes, and its' children will have that, and it is passed on. And where is your logic of intelligent design?
cptblackamar 4 months ago
@cptblackamar How does a turtle evolve into a dog?
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom since when has anyone said a turtle has evolved into a dog? They are both complicated evolution's that may have stemmed from a same position at one point, but what they came from was a much simpler being, that went down two different evolutionary tracts. There is no cross evolution like that
cptblackamar 3 months ago
Science is a way to explain how things happen, it can't explain why. Science is great, I'm a physics major and I don't see what the problem is.
carlospdrza1 4 months ago
The funny thing is, O'Reilly cannot broadcast his verbal diarrhea without electrical devices invented with scientific rules.
ssssroryssss 4 months ago 20
@ssssroryssss
Would that be the same electricity which we pay a lifetime for, and which makes big multinationals zillions of dollars at the expense of the impoverished?
Yeah, let's hear it for a lifetime of dependency, stress & misery.
DastardlyDawkins 2 months ago
Pause at 0:18 and look at the subtitles it says "old ball of zorro" lolol
medinu001 4 months ago
You americans don't know a shit about fascism. Do you know he can be labelled as a fascists? Bill O'Reilly, so far on the right, and so stupid...
MartiSNTK 4 months ago
i agree with bill, imaginary friends dont have enough focus in the science classes,
not enough kids are healing about Bobby Foofoo my great invisible friend who created the moon!
science does'nt know how the moon was made, but i do, Bobby Foofoo! i have an answer so i must be right!
DemoraX 4 months ago
Anyone who thinks Science doesn't advance us and is a waste of time, should get off the Internet and start living in caves.
Uberlaser 5 months ago
O'Reilly is retarded. He can't even understand how the moon affects the tides. I'm serious, he is that frigging stupid. My fifth grade kid knows this crap. Science has all of the answers after the big bang until now. Religion thinks the earth is flat, people live inside fish, an 800 year old man gathered up millions of animals and built a giant boat. I could go on forever. Theists are retarded.
baxtar1963 5 months ago
What are you guys all arguing about? Science basically proves intelligent design! Just go check out Chuck Misslers lecture on the cell. The complexities of just one cell make it mathematically unreasonable for chance.
322nemesis 5 months ago
Have you ever thought that it is chance, since the universe is so incredibly massive, chances are, that at some point, life will occur.
Squarehead29 4 months ago
@Squarehead29 Think about this! Lets say that you have a wind-up watch and a empty box, and I ask you to take that watch apart, and to put all of the little pieces of that watch into that empty box. Then I tell you to take that box and shake it, throw it and roll it! How long do you think it will take, for that watch to come together by shaking the box? My point is that chance will never put that watch together. Just a single cell is far more complicated than any watch!
322nemesis 4 months ago
@322nemesis No, chance will put it together, it will just be a very low chance.
Squarehead29 4 months ago
@322nemesis Improbablillity is not impossibillity.
MetalliCxZero 4 months ago
@MetalliCxZero Ya but its more probably that life didnt arise by chance than it did.
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom it's not chance, under the right conditions (which earth had) it's an inevitability.
MetalliCxZero 3 months ago
@MetalliCxZero lol It is chance. A HIGHLY unlikely chance. You might want to educate yourself on the definition of chance. Any serious scientist knows its more probable that life didnt happen by chance than it did. Only beginner scientist thinks science disproves God.
Look around. Look at the complexity of life. Look at the details. Look at us. Look at everything. Do you honestly think it was all by chance?
There is no creation without a creator.
No invention without a inventor.
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom NO I DONT think it was all by chance, the first thing I said in what you JUST replied to was "it's not chance". And yeah, science doesn't disprove God, but it does contradict what the Bible states. Lastly, looking around and marveling at nature doesn't mean it was created by a supernatural being.
MetalliCxZero 3 months ago
@MetalliCxZero Thats the problem YOU dont think its chance, but in fact it is. Thats what scientific theories on the origins are. They involve chance and randomness. Which to me goes against they very laws of science.
Alright dont just look around and marvel but actually study. Study the details. The possibilities. The complexity. Do the math.
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom Perhaps *when* is by chance, but *if* is certain. And seeing complexity in things doesn't mean God did it, what about basic-ass single celled organisms, are those too simple for God? Life is complex now but it wasn't always like that.
MetalliCxZero 3 months ago
@MetalliCxZero Well to be honest it doesnt seem like you know much yet. Youre deciding and closing your mind to soon without even enough information. Even the "basic-ass single celled organisms" arent really basic.
To build a cell you need protein. Shortest proteins are 100-150 amino acids long. Building a protein is very complex. So many factors. In short the chances of finding ONE functional protein by chance is 1 / 10 to the 164th power. Do you know how huge of a number that is?
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom The point of the single-celled organisms is that life that's complex still comes from more and more basic things, like amino acids (which scientists have found to be naturally occuring.) Though I'd like to know where your Biology facts came from.
MetalliCxZero 3 months ago
@MetalliCxZero Amino acids, proteins, etc were put together. Think of it this way, A box of legos. A box of legos are the building blocks (amino acids, protein, etc) . Have you went to a lego museum? It has amazing masterpieces compiled of lego blocks. They did not end up that way randomly but someone had to have designed it that way.
My facts come from biology itself. Ill explain to you how I got that 1/10 to the 164th power number. I'll break it down in another post.
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@MetalliCxZero So the question being addressed is "How likely is that we'd every get a protein to arise by chance with all the amino acids in that prebiotic soup interacting with each other?"
So we know that not every amino acid combination is functional. Functional amino acids are rare. The ratio of functional ones to non functional ones is 1/10*74th. So just to get the amino acid sequence properly you got odds of 1/10*74th. But its get even more complicated.....(next post).......
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom (.........) So we know from chemistry if you want to build a protein you have to attach the amino acids together with peptide bonds. So in nature half the bonds that form between amino acids are peptide bonds and half arent. Non peptide bonds cant form proteins. So a 1/2 chance at each site. With a protein of 150 amino acids long thats a 1/10*45th chance.
But it gets even more complicated (...........4)
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@MetalliCxZero (........4) When your building proteins amino acids come in two flavors left handed and right handed called optical isomers. We know the left handed ones are the only ones that can be used. Get even one right handed one in there and your protein wont fold properly. So again thats a 1/2 chance. With a protein of 150 amino acids long thats 1/10*45th.
So lets add all that up.
10*74th x 10*45th x 10*45th = 10 to the power of 164!
Want to know how big that is? (...........5)
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@MetalliCxZero (........5) Wanna know how big that is? There is only:
10*80 elementary particles in the universe.
10*16 seconds since the Big Bang
10*139 events since the beginning of the universe.
Does 1/10*164 chances of finding a functional protein by chance seem reasonable to you?
To me it seems like it was designed by someone. Put together by someone. (Legos)
That is why serious scientist say its more probable that it DIDNT happen by chance than it did.
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom I'm talking about formation of life, not the Big Bang. Why is it that you're so confident in what science tells you unless it conflicts with your beliefs? I still wanna know where you get these facts from btw.
MetalliCxZero 3 months ago
@MetalliCxZero There is no point in talking with you if you cant even read what I wrote. In all of my 5 posts not once i talked about the Big Bang. I was clearly talking about the formation of life. I even showed you the the probability of the formation life.
If you cant read then there is not point in talking to you. Everything you just asked was already answered in my previous posts.
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom 5 posts? I only got the last one I'm guessing.
MetalliCxZero 3 months ago
@MetalliCxZero Obviously. Hence the (..........5) in the beginning and the incomplete post. How do you overlook that. Its what ive been saying the whole time look at the details. Now I know you cant see the details and complexity in life. What a shame. No wonder you think like you do.
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom Good job being a douche. If you're trying to get through to someone then that's definately not how you do it. Well then, let me try and see it your way: "hurpa durpa wow everything so complex dur God must have do it!"
MetalliCxZero 3 months ago
I don't think that Bill O'Reilly realizes that evolution has been pretty much proven.
SonicThunderBYG 5 months ago 14
@SonicThunderBYG He said he believes in it.
AndresPetMonkey 5 months ago
@SonicThunderBYG we are not talking about adaptations of micro evolution but about macro evolution how do we even know their is no established link between homo erectus and common sapiens
TimurTheConqueror 4 months ago
@SonicThunderBYG Please don't say "pretty much" proven. It IS proven.
Darktan2112 4 months ago
@SonicThunderBYG I dont think you realize that Bill O reilly knows what hes talking about. Study up on evolution. Educate yourself. And youll see the flaws. Oh and let me know when those scientist finally turn a house fly into a fruit fly, Ive been waiting years.Thanks :)
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@SonicThunderBYG HAHAHAA! PROVEN..... now that is funny.
forgiveeveryone 3 months ago
@forgiveeveryone Evolution has actually been proven. The Human Genome Project was based on the same scientific principals that evolution is based on. The method of connecting two individuals using dna tests is the same way scientists have been able to prove humans are descendants from apes. Fossils further prove this.
2103038335 3 months ago
@2103038335 no evolution is not "proven" even if you watch some of the best know evolutionists,when asked how it began and with what they still cant say, there are stars that cant last millions of years, one evolutionist stated it started from crystals piggybacking on other crystals, each evolutionist runs into things that contradict an exact answer, fossils? ok so if we evolved from an ape there would be different fossils of us evolving, which there are none, accept the bible.
forgiveeveryone 3 months ago
@forgiveeveryone How life began and whether evolution exists are two different questions, albeit connected. Just because scientists have not yet discovered how life began on Earth doesn't been they haven't found overwhelming evidence of evolution. We also do have different fossils of earlier humans that shows how we evolved the characteristics we have today. We'v discovered many different intermediate species between apes and humans. The fact that you don't know this, shows how ignorant you are.
2103038335 2 months ago
@2103038335 scientists want so much to be right they distort the truth. If they had facts without any doubt everyone would believe it. No one argues about the sun rising in the east. because there is proof every day that it does. You place your faith in evolution because you dont want to imagine a God created it. Your focus is placed only in that one thing. Proverbs 30:2 “I am the most ignorant of men; I do not have a man’s understanding
forgiveeveryone 2 months ago
@forgiveeveryone science isn't intended to refute religion. refuting religion is just a fortunate side effect. dickhead
minion119 2 months ago
@minion119 and you can refute religion, many do. just because you dont want to follow God doesnt mean He doesnt exist.
forgiveeveryone 2 months ago
@minion119
"science isn't intended to refute religion." - Of course it is, you dumbed-down, feral, plebian.
Was Galileo a traitor to the Catholic church? Was Darwin? Was Newton? Was Da Vinci?
Go read some human history you brain dead, muppet.
DastardlyDawkins 1 month ago
@forgiveeveryone there was a time, when people believed the earth was the center of everything and sun and the planets revolved around it, when it was showed to be a false belief people resisted in accepting because of their religious belief. we dont have ''faith'' in evolution, it is a fact, just like the sun rising in the east. Religion doesnt know or understand anything but asserts that it and only it is true everything else is false, that is truly ignorant
SShamit1 2 months ago
@SonicThunderBYG I don't think you realize that Bill O'Reilly is a complete moron and that it doesn't matter to him
Parralyzed 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wait. Wait. If Jesus is God, then wouldn't that make him his own father?
SonicThunderBYG 5 months ago
funny how creationist say " you got no proof of evolution " ........isnt that ironic? you do research , you get proof , in some way or another ...while stupid religious ppl ...show me a book for evidence? OH ARE YOU FUCKING OUT OF YOUR MIND? cant belive how stupid ppl are , it makes me feel verry verry smart.
Molhedim 5 months ago
@Molhedim You obviously have no educational background. If you really studied evolution youd know why people argue against it. But no your just an idiot who thinks hes smart.
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom oh sry for offending your imaginary being xD. I'm sure he would not feel anything bad about me ....since he doesnt exist. lol
Molhedim 3 months ago
Ha Bill - your holy book can't tell you how everything got here either. Men from the Bronze Age made it up. That's why plants and fruit bearing trees were created before the sun was. And why the moon is defined as a light source. I could go on, but 500 characters run out pretty quickly.
"Science is fascism." Few things in existence are as dense as the material that Bill O'Reilly's head is made of.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle "That's why plants and fruit bearing trees were created before the sun was." Lol did anybody else see what this idiot wrote? What an idiot lol
The holy book tells us that the universe was created by God.
There is no creation without a creator.
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom Another Christian who hasn't read his Bible. The first massive scientific error in the bible comes within the first 50 words of the book. It just goes downhill from there.
And if you think that book was written by anything but mortal men, I suggest you have a look at Ezekiel 23. It's porn.
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
@ChipArgyle Who you calling a Christian? Why assuming I havent read the Bible? Why you assuming I dont know who wrote the bible? Why you labeling? Oh thats right its what ignorant people do. Silly me.
I love when atheist think there so much smarter by default just because they dont have religion. lol.
Please inform me on this "massive error"
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom I called you a Christian because your profile says you're in the US and your indignation suggests you're a theist. Statistically, it was a good bet. You did say holy book as opposed to Bible though, but you didn't say Qur'an so now everybody's guessing.
As for the error in the Bible, it's the first 50 words. Is that too much for you to research for yourself?
I know you don't know who wrote the Bible. Nobody does. It's unsigned. Definitely not written by God though.
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
@ChipArgyle Oh man. Just by your last response I can already tell you are an idiot. No offense. But dont hurt yourself trying to act like you know something.
Just because I read the Bible doesnt make me a Christian.
Ive read the first 50 words. I dont see an error. Is it too much to supprt your claim?
You obviously dont know anything about the Bible. Let me inform you on some authors of the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. I think your the one who needs to read the bible.
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom You assert and insult a lot. What do you mean no offense? You're extremely offensive.
You think the Earth was created before the sun was, do you? Not possible. Planets form only after the star they orbit forms. Gravity that makes it happen. Now you know something about reality. You're welcome.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were who? Might as well use Curly, Larry, and Moe. None of the authors were known outside of the book itself.
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
@ChipArgyle First off the Bible doesnt say the earth was created before sun. You might want to read the Bible again. Youre being really ignorant. If you cant even read the bible correctly dont act like you know what your talking about.
Second: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John were 4 eye witnesses who wrote about Jesus's life when he was alive. Known as the 4 Gospels of Jesus included in the Bible.
Third: Know what your talking about before you talk. Lesson on how not to be ignorant. You're welcome.
Surfakingdom 3 months ago
@Surfakingdom Genesis 1 v 2 & 3: "And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." What part of that don't you understand?
The Bible was not written in real time. It is generally believed that the "eyewitness" writings were written decades after the Jesus figure's death. It's why all four accounts of the resurrection are different.
ChipArgyle 3 months ago
if you aren't 100% sure then you dont "believe" you just HOPE jesus exists. suicide bombers REALLY "believe" lol
thedisbatcher 5 months ago
I love how Bill only sees science and christianity as the two alternatives. If only he realises he's arguing fro EVERY creation myth to be taught in science classes... Twenty hour lessons 3 times a week anyone?
th3vampan3z3l0rd 5 months ago
BILL 0'REILLY IS AN ASSHOLER
WAZZA1235 5 months ago
The thing that really upsets me about O'Reilly is that he occasionally has cogent thoughts but gets off on setting up a war between religion and science. I've been a Christian my whole life and never once have I felt that science is some "boogeyman" who threatens my beliefs. Why shouldn't we Christians want to know how God's universe functions? That was partially what drove Issac Newton to study astronomy and physics and pretty much invent calculus. I think that's awesome.
OldJJJ 5 months ago
@OldJJJ
I wish all Christians (or believers of any religion for that matter) shared your attitude :)
i would even say that it's people like O'Reilly (there certainly are even worse examples than him) who are the "boogeymen" that threaten the progress of science.
xxxjczxxx 5 months ago
@Renturd end of your story.....
The555MB555 5 months ago
will you stop shouting at me?? the look on Bill's face! priceless!
Zahariat 5 months ago
Does anyone elses head start to hurt after listening to O'Reilly too much?
Inothep 5 months ago
If you the world was made in 7 days and man was created on the sixth how where dinosaurs there billions of years before? can someone explain (my theory)
camboss97 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Any intelligent person can see through Reilly's rhetoric. As soon as Intelligent design is in any way substantiated by demonstrable facts, it'll be right in the new edition of the science text books. Until then sorry it's not science.
Ghogiel3D 6 months ago
Comment removed
Ghogiel3D 6 months ago
Bill O'reilly doesn't have any facts in religion. The bible is not a book of facts. It may have some facts like cities, kings and so forth but the stories are anything but based on concrete information. Face it o'reilly, you are not right. It is easy to piss off an intelligent man when you babble about nonsence
yomamasapeach 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you can't explain that
Steve02k7 6 months ago
I really, really, really want to hit bill o riley
nee1992 6 months ago
This is old but Dawkins still sounded a hell of a lot more erudite than O'Reilly. What a moron.
Changing the burden of proof is very typical of Christians when they debate evolution. Dawkins argues from the very typical scholarly form of debate and creationist typically do not.
I really hate the old vilifying someone by calling them a fascist ploy. It's getting old and apparently no one really knows what a fascist is as people who are so obviously not fascists are being called by that moniker.
flibbertygibbet 6 months ago
The reason the beginning of the universe, or whatever it was O'Reilly was talking about, isn't discussed in science class is because there's no science to explain it (yet). Only that which has been scientifically proven should be taught in science class, and the rest that is still unknown shouldn't receive too much consideration, especially since that category is far larger.
awsomenesscaleb 6 months ago
Regardless what you think of O'Reilly he did pretty good here.. never seen Dawkins get angry like that before. The stupidity riled him.
Ali74 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkins is the cancer on the planet no O'reilly.
glendaweil 6 months ago
bill o'reilly is a cancer on this planet :/
TheArtClassStudio 6 months ago
@TheArtClassStudio
he is just stupid
ThePimV 5 months ago
The exact reason why science can't "prove everything" is precisely because the scientific community only pushes forward ideas that are supported by concrete evidence. His fully explanatory beliefs have little to no concrete evidence whatsoever to support his stand. How is it possible for him to make comparisons between the two sides if he can't even prove his beliefs right? Just because another stand is wrong does not mean his own stand is right, particularly if his has less evidence to show.
Aviatorsmith 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=o9ktS2U53Qg Write "Logical Evidences for Islam" and watch it...
Why is there A Cretaor? Why is there a religion? Why Islam is the true religion?
shncsr 6 months ago
You can't prove God exists so by Orielly's theory you need to keep it out of classes as well. So out with one on the point that you can't provide absolute proof then you the other must be dismissed as well based on the same principle. Orielly didn't win here he just kept pressing forward with his idea right or wrong.
omga14 6 months ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@omga14 "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
-Christopher Hitchens
retrogamerist 5 months ago
@omga14 what?
superacer1 4 months ago
@superacer1 If you make a statement that you can't prove absolute proof of a point in science then you should not teach it in school then you cannot have religion in schools cause you cannot absolutely prove that God exists. I have no problem with Hebrew schools teaching the Torah cause it's a Hebrew school. Just as a Catholic school teaches the Bible. But in a regular public school you cannot teach any religion cause you will in effect cause you will have to pick one which shuns others.
omga14 4 months ago
@omga14 oh ok
superacer1 4 months ago
O'Reilly's remark about science not permitting the development of a moral compass doesn't hold water either. Apart from the fact that you would first need to clearly define what is considered to be moral and what is not (which is universally subjective) in order to show this, I would argue that a general 'moral compass' (though obviously this is not what it is defined as) does indeed emerge in both humans and other animals from a part of the evolutionary process known as behavioural development.
cagedsexybeast 6 months ago
Science is a work in progress and always has been. Scientific theories are amended all the time, based on new information coming to light as a result of further investigation into the subject matter. There's nothing wrong with science not having all the answers yet, and it's simply not right nor logical to fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale makes you happiest in the meantime. To do so is detrimental to the search for true answers.
cagedsexybeast 6 months ago
SOCCER AND FOOTBALL ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING
PhilClarke1080 6 months ago
@PhilClarke1080 not in america they aren't.
Supremed9 5 months ago
@PhilClarke1080 Not in America, which this guy obviously is. You could've thougt for atleast 5 more seconds ya know...
MetalliCxZero 4 months ago
@PhilClarke1080 Not in america.
choozysuzzy 4 months ago
Comment removed
bbphnix 6 months ago
Comment removed
bbphnix 6 months ago
@bbphnix your an idiot their is no morality in science as a subject only what humans add to it
TimurTheConqueror 4 months ago
Comment removed
bbphnix 6 months ago
This is a very minor point, but notice how O'Reilly never refers to Richard Dawkins as 'professor' - it probably means little, but that is his title in a professional capacity.
AsterMonophthalmus 7 months ago
Religion Is moralistic? Look at the crusades war
NightSpeedRockstar 7 months ago
@onesweetasuzy There's no reality in God, maybe hope but not reality.
NightSpeedRockstar 7 months ago
at this point do we dare listen to what o reilly has to say? what creatures on earth what this abomination of television?
marilynknotborgir 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TRUE goodness is trying to help people even with the fact that none of it will matter when you're dead.
redrum41987 7 months ago
@redrum41987 well said; though few people would go to that extreme; myself including; I do good, mostly when and because it feels good to be good
bbphnix 6 months ago
Flying Spaghetti Monster all the way!
NightSpeedRockstar 7 months ago
Bible<Shit
NightSpeedRockstar 7 months ago
Bill's a Catholic, too. He shouldn't have a problem with evolution, and might not, but I'm sure he'd fight tooth and nail with Jesus himself to keep his show successful.
alphaenemy 7 months ago
I'm sorry, How was that a win??? O'Reilly sounds like a crazy person!
emmmjf 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The problem is: 95 procent of the people are idiots! And as it happens, 95procent of the people believe in god: that can't be a coincidence!!!
greenspan331 7 months ago
Richard Dawkins DONT HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING just because some idiot tells him to you dipshit. How the fuck is Richard wrong now if he can't prove how we all got here? He clearly said science is working on it unlike religion that bases its knowledge around a fake fairytale/h