• CARDYKEV - February 3, 2011 2:49 p.m.

    Parallel universe is the easy answer.
  • Japanaman - February 3, 2011 2:46 p.m.

    I think what Bill is trying to say is how come Mars doesn't have moons that pull oceans around? Well, that's because Mars is icy and has little water. You have to admit, how could the universe randomly place Earth in just the exact spot for temps to be warm enough for life? God did it. There is only one proper place for a planet to be based upon it's solar system's sun's size, so there can be only one Earth in each solar system if that many exist.
  • Darkhawk - February 3, 2011 2:12 p.m.

    "Why do people listen to him? Why'd'they listen? Why'd'they listen?"
  • fetalspray - February 3, 2011 1:57 p.m.

    He's eitha trying to saw two things one; that mars doesnt have any moons which makes him a fucktard of the highest order or two that mars' moons dont work in the same way that our moon (which I thought was called lunar) does, so seeing as though our moon is tidally locked to us which gives us the tides and mars doesnt have any water on it how the fuck would he know that they dont work in the same way, given the presence of oceans on mars, again making him a fucktard of the highest order.
  • Odis - February 3, 2011 1:55 p.m.

    You guys should see some translated Rabbi's on youtube. You want boorishness, you get a bowl full. "There are millions of cells and in those cells there are mini-cells (rough translation)". That is a quote from a Rabbi.
  • AuthorityFigure - February 3, 2011 12:50 p.m.

    Well I think we all know how much the O'Reilly Factor is worth now then don't we? This ignorant noise-maker is about as informative as dirty sock.
  • pr0tostar - February 3, 2011 12:37 p.m.

    I don't know what was more epic. The O'riley lulz or the A:ZOE nostalgia surge. Either way, Thank you for making my day with this article, Brett.
  • jameseverett - February 3, 2011 11:47 a.m.

    I almost feel sorry for Fox News anchors, finding something to criticise is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'm so glad we don't have idiots like that in the UK media.
  • killorabbit - February 3, 2011 11:39 a.m.

    Simple. He's fibbing. Mars really does have two moons and this is just a very clever anti-games campaign. Probably.
  • sirdilznik - February 3, 2011 11:25 a.m.

    The only thing "unique" about the Earth's moon is it's size in proportion to the planet it orbits (easily the highest proportion known to date). Celestial bodies orbiting other celestial bodies occurs repeatedly throughout nature on pretty much every level. Moons orbit planets, planets orbit stars, stars orbit a super massive black hole at the galactic center, and galaxies orbit other larger galaxies. Heck for all we know our universe orbits another bigger universe in the... multiverse? It works in the other direction too. Electrons orbit a nucleus in an atom. It might even work on the sub-atomic/elementary particle level, though I could be way off on that.
  • kyle94 - February 3, 2011 10:20 a.m.

    @Myself: And I just realized I made a few mistakes. Don't blame me. It's 5 AM where I am. I'm tired. Anyway, a scientific law and a scientific theory are basically the same thing (though there are differing definitions). Gravity is technically a law, as scientific laws usually explains a relationship. For example, Newton's work on motion are laws because they're mathematically provable, can be repeated and tested, and deals with results. Scientific theories try to explain something, while scientific laws are just recorded results TL;DR version: Scientific law = results. Scientific theory = explanation. So, because there's no formula for how the moon was formed, it's not a scientific law. However, there are scientific theories which have some evidence to them that give them credit. And the nice thing about scientific theories and laws are that they are not set in stone. They're expected to not be perfect, and as new evidence is found, they change to fit the evidence.
  • ricochetguro - February 3, 2011 10:14 a.m.

    This reminds me of magnets........
  • kyle94 - February 3, 2011 10:11 a.m.

    @Larinah I don't intend to start a debate or anything like that, but there is a difference between a theory in the scientific world and a theory in everyday life. In everyday life it's basically an educated guess. In the scientific world it's something that is commonly accepted and has evidence backing it up, but is not testable or mathematically provable. Gravity is technically a theory.
  • CountFenring - February 3, 2011 9:24 a.m.

    The Moon are all in the spin zone, since they revolve around Earth. Bill O'Reilly is in the "No Spin" zone, this accounts for the lack of Moons.
  • Synchronatic - February 3, 2011 8:39 a.m.

    That article made my day. And it was a really shitty day. Not anymore though. Thank you.
  • abhorerofmoppets - February 3, 2011 8:33 a.m.

    O'Reilly upsets me too much with his stupidity. So, I'll just say this: Oh, how I've missed the old Armored Core series.
  • Larinah - February 3, 2011 6:43 a.m.

    I think what he's referring to is the way our moon affects our planet, and how theirs doesn't have as significant of an impact. I myself believe firmly in Creationism so I don't believe the crackpot theory that our moon is a chunk of the earth, but then again, we have no way of proving any theory, which is why they're a theory. What it comes down to, is what you believe. I'm going to open a floodgate with this post but I couldn't really care less, SOMEONE needs to come to his defense.
  • ChiefLethal - February 3, 2011 6:25 a.m.

    Lol. He has the comments disabled on youtube. Also, 64 'likes' and 2251 'dislikes'. The internet hates them some Bill O'Reily.
  • RonnyLive19881 - February 3, 2011 6:24 a.m.

    Christianity fails again? Who is this idiot Lol
  • ChiefLethal - February 3, 2011 6:20 a.m.

    O'Reily is just another one of those goons that won't listen to argument. Whenever a left leaning person appears on his show he bullies/makes an example of them for the countless other goons watching his show that don't want to argue about their opinions, but instead want to see an opposing argument belittled and cast aside as far-left propaganda. Not a single one of these people are interested in having their ideologies contested. You could tell him the answer to every question and his argument against every answer would be "well, how'd that get there?" He doesn't want to know the answer. He wants to live in his world, behind his camera and his desk in his expensive clothes, as a figure of authority. He has no interest in the other side other than to denigrate them on national television, thus enforcing his level of authority. The good news is, his authority extends only out to his supporters and the number of his supporters isn't growing. This man is anti-science and seems to have a real problem with Lincoln-Logs.

Showing 41-60 of 96 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.