1. Comment #51153 by mpslg on June 21, 2007 at 7:23 pm

"I had Richard Dawkins on... and I think I beat him in a debate." Are you kidding? I must have missed that debate because the one I saw clearly showed that O'Reilly has no clue.

Other Comments by mpslg

2. Comment #51160 by JamesDB on June 21, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Oh its amusing to see Bill O'Reilly talk about god with that silly little satisfied feeling he seems to get about knowing whats going on. I can't stand when Kirk Cameron talks. He always tries to sound as intelligent and well rounded as possible when obviously he isn't paying attention.
Awesome edit on the video as well i loved the big bang pop up.

Other Comments by JamesDB

3. Comment #51171 by Angieruns on June 21, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Give praise to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

These two ill-informed morons have made our case for us. Despite the fact that they must have slept through their high school science and math classes, they succeeded in making creationism sound most improbable.

A crocoduck?

I'm glad that Kirk didn't expound on his DNA reference...he probably thinks that it means "Don't no anything."

Other Comments by Angieruns

4. Comment #51177 by Russell's Teapot on June 21, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Buddha created the universe? Really Bill?

Other Comments by Russell's Teapot

5. Comment #51178 by goldmineguttd on June 21, 2007 at 9:10 pm

.... the teleological argument? That's all he's got? Hah.

Other Comments by goldmineguttd

6. Comment #51179 by Spinoza on June 21, 2007 at 9:16 pm

I am SO fucking tired of idiots bastardizing Einstein. The man did not believe in your retarded man-God... he believed in Spinoza's "infinite natural Substance" "God"... which is atheism at its best anyway, he just chose to take the word "Deus" and redefine it as the knowable, infinite, natural Universe, devoid of mysticism, miracles, supernatural powers, a creator, an all powerful, all good, all knowing being... none of that.

You're damn right I'm an angry atheist... I'm angry because you're all a bunch of fucking morons!!!! AHHHHHHH!

Other Comments by Spinoza

7. Comment #51180 by Crazymalc on June 21, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Sad. Sad. Sad. And very arrogant.

Crocoduck? I think Richard Dawkins made an argument about this in TGD. Let's assume that there is not crocoduck in the fossil record. "Aha!", says the creationist. "There is a gap. Evolution is wrong. Let's worship the gap."

And then, low and behold a crocoduck fossil is discovered.

"Aha!", says the creationist. "There is now two gaps!. Where is the croco-crocoduck and the duck-crocoduck? My argument has gotten even better. We now have two gaps to worship."

This of course leads to the absurd position of needing every intermediate fossil. Which is just never going to be possible. We are in fact lucky just to have the fossils we do.

Other Comments by Crazymalc

8. Comment #51184 by Zaphod on June 21, 2007 at 9:43 pm

Bill O'Reilly is a contestable tool and wouldn't know journalism if it kicked him in his pompous ass.

Kirk Cameron is either a completely dishonest fraud or the dumbest person on the planet. Dumber than Homer Simpson or Timmy from South Park.

Other Comments by Zaphod

9. Comment #51186 by Robert Maynard on June 21, 2007 at 10:01 pm

Cameron's argument is the purest Paley, and it should be refutable in less than 20 questions.

- So where did the camera designer come from? Their parents, I suppose.
- Was he or she born with the knowledge necessary to design a camera? Of course not
- So where did the knowledge come from? They learnt it.
- From who? College, probably.
- Where did the college get it from? The contemporary state of engineering and electronics knowledge, and stuff like that.
- Contemporary? So it changes over time? Well yeah, we couldn't always build a flashy camera.
- I see. So you're saying it incrementally improved over time, with effective solutions being kept and faulty ones discarded? Yes. But there was still a first camera designer, of a pinhole camera or something of the sort - you have to admit that.
- Well, maybe. I think an idea that simple could be discovered by practically anyone. So the contemporary designer of the TV camera owes his intelligent complexity to generations of previous designers, but then does that 'first' designer of a pinhole camera necessarily deserve credit for the intricacy of modern TV video cameras? Well no, that's kind of unfair..
- Right. So the camera's "ultimate" designer isn't really responsible for the complexity of modern TV cameras, rather their intricacy is the result of subsequent improvements in the course of a collaborative, incremental, evolutionary process? The credit mainly goes to the process of selection itself, carrying on across multiple generations.
..I ..well, yes.

Okay good. Now shut the fuck up.
(Well, it probably wouldn't go that smoothly with a real person, but you could ask 11 more questions before you hit 20)

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

10. Comment #51190 by krogercomplete on June 21, 2007 at 10:28 pm

I love the argument from design:

All designed things are designed, therefore all things are designed. Say what? The argument might as well be: all red things are red, therefore all things are red.

Other Comments by krogercomplete

11. Comment #51192 by Michael P. on June 21, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Great, though infuriating, clip, and spot-on commentary as well... though the person who did it should get himself a pop filter for his microphone.

O'Riley's arrogance is simply breathtaking. Did someone actually marry him?

Other Comments by Michael P.

12. Comment #51215 by RobertlewisIR on June 22, 2007 at 1:29 am

This silly little man actually thinks he won that debate? His only argument, was, to put it simply: "I don't know everything [anything?], therefore there is a god."

To play by their rules, though: I don't understand precisely what causes cancer, therefore, god is a genocidal madman and humanity should devote all of our collective energy to overthrow him, even against all odds.

Other Comments by RobertlewisIR

13. Comment #51225 by chbg21808 on June 22, 2007 at 2:03 am

Is Bill O'Reilly the most stupid TV show host on the planet?

It is true that Bill O'Reilly does verbally beat up those he disagrees with. But it isn't because of his intellect... It's just that he shouts down his opponents, so that they cannot get a word in edgeways.

I don't think Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris did very well against O'Reilly simply because he didn't let them finish a point.

I think Christopher Hitchens would do better.

Other Comments by chbg21808

14. Comment #51231 by Buddha on June 22, 2007 at 2:43 am

Russell's Teapot: Buddha created the universe? Really Bill?

Without blowing my own trumpet, Bill O'Reilly is actually correct on this point. I'm doing some omnipotent shit at Monkey World near Wareham in Dorset this weekend.

Other Comments by Buddha

15. Comment #51242 by GodlessHeathen on June 22, 2007 at 3:36 am

Sun go up.
Sun go down.

Tide comes in.
Tide goes out.

IT'S A KIND OF MAGIC!

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

16. Comment #51256 by konquererz on June 22, 2007 at 5:40 am

Bill O'reilly should do us all a favor and shut the fuck up! Forever! "I think I won the debate with Richard Dawkins!". I will translate for those of you who don't know what this means in his mind.

"I talked louder and got the last word in with Richard Dawkins which means I won the debate. I also made sure it was very short so actual thoughtful answers were not possible, there for god created my dumb ass and god exists and genesis is true".

Next time anyone has a debate on the O'reilly factor, he should immediately just yell, as loud as he can, "SHUT THE FUCK UP BILL!!!!" then start saying god damn it and jesus christ all over the place to stun him into silence. Then they can talk.

Kirk Camera-devolutionist is just a tool. A "Timmay!" by any other name still sounds just as stupid.

Other Comments by konquererz

17. Comment #51293 by Civilized Worm on June 22, 2007 at 8:16 am

Anyone willing to accept the willfull ignorance of a former child star and a reactionary rabble rouser over actual scientists are beyond hope.

Other Comments by Civilized Worm

18. Comment #51297 by Vinelectric on June 22, 2007 at 8:35 am

Transitional forms:
what about Platypi?

Other Comments by Vinelectric

19. Comment #51304 by Murray Keedis on June 22, 2007 at 8:49 am

Loved the edits to this video. Someone should utilize a measure of evil genius and play this clip on Faux News.

O'Reilly once made me seethe. Now, I find him good for a few laughs. I'm betting it won't be long before he gets "Haggard" again (ie, preaching one way of living while secretly living another.) Odin's Beard, the man was an "anchor" on "Hard Copy", chasing hookers with hidden cameras and sifting through Michael Jackson's garbage. And now he hosts a show that would wither and die without it being an all-spin zone (when he's not sexually harassing co-workers)

Robert Maynard, as usual, your post is a beautiful thing.

Actually, reading through many of the posts on RD Net, I think we atheists are a riot. Far from being angry, humour appears to be our forte.

Other Comments by Murray Keedis

20. Comment #51309 by Rtambree on June 22, 2007 at 8:54 am

Wonderful to see John Logie Baird's invention being put to such good use..... not.

Other Comments by Rtambree

21. Comment #51320 by chezzyd on June 22, 2007 at 10:47 am

Robert Maynard

Your post is sublime...... Maybe Professor Dawkins could make use of it in order to shut up people like O'Reilly.

Other Comments by chezzyd

22. Comment #51356 by _J_ on June 22, 2007 at 1:09 pm

9. Comment #51186 by Robert Maynard

I'm with chezzyd. Brilliant post.

Other Comments by _J_

23. Comment #51362 by Wishavian on June 22, 2007 at 1:28 pm

"Bats have no eyes..." Oops.

Other Comments by Wishavian

24. Comment #51406 by A on June 22, 2007 at 5:08 pm

'Complexity' - no such thing.

Other Comments by A

25. Comment #51415 by sunspark on June 22, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Kirk: "This is so simple a child could understand it."

And atheists are the "arrogant" ones? That fellow could use some humble pie.

Other Comments by sunspark

26. Comment #51433 by Beachbum on June 22, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Did I see O'really sputter on the "Croc-u-duck intro?

I may need to paddle my Kayak to Australia, can one of you Aussies put me up for a while?

I am truly ashamed! The next time I see a "croc" like that -I'll-"duck". And I know my Mom is watching that moron.

Forget the Kayak, I'll swim.

Other Comments by Beachbum

27. Comment #51523 by 1town on June 23, 2007 at 9:01 am

I particularly liked the part where he said he used to be an Atheist, and the edit says he converted at 17. Good shit.

Other Comments by 1town

28. Comment #51529 by Mok on June 23, 2007 at 9:25 am

I think I saw a crockoduck once.............but I was in the hospital under a very large dose of demerol........ok maybe not.
O'Rielly and Cameron are wastes of DNA.

Other Comments by Mok

29. Comment #51572 by MedGen on June 23, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Are these morons supposed to be an example of upstanding citizens. have they ever been to school, seriously, then inane shit they just spouted made my ears bleed. thank god for the additonal commentary otherwise i may have had a 'random' accident, involving some long rope and a tall tree.

Other Comments by MedGen

30. Comment #51595 by gav1970 on June 23, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Crocoduck??? Surely He meant "Crock of shit"

Kirk "Camoron" is an oxygen thief.

Other Comments by gav1970

31. Comment #51614 by Kergillian on June 23, 2007 at 7:16 pm

I'm convinced!

The Argument from Ignorance has brought me closer to God!

Amen! Hallelujah! Praise Jesus and pass me a banana!

Other Comments by Kergillian

32. Comment #51627 by Jeffersonian-Marxist on June 23, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are too soft-spoken and polite to get through on O'reilly's show. I think Hitchens should go on there and smack him around.

Other Comments by Jeffersonian-Marxist

33. Comment #51659 by BT Murtagh on June 24, 2007 at 1:51 am

Bats do have eyes, and they are functional too. They rely more upon their sonar, but sight is a strong second - just the reverse of our setup, in a way.

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

34. Comment #51860 by slummingangel on June 25, 2007 at 12:07 pm

robert maynard what a post brilliant also bill o' reilly said it himself to cameron "your not going to convince any atheists so why bother"

Other Comments by slummingangel

35. Comment #52046 by donaldito on June 26, 2007 at 2:47 am

Kirk Cameron isn't even worth addressing he is such an absolute imbecile. If he wasn't already, and aside from anything else in that video, O'Reilly is an absolute retard, too, for saying NOTHING when Cameron showed that ridiculous picture. I like what someone wrote above: oxygen thieves.

Other Comments by donaldito

36. Comment #52161 by wagnerpe on June 26, 2007 at 11:40 am

Kirk Cameron truly is our ally in the battle against religious irrationality.

Other Comments by wagnerpe

37. Comment #52306 by Alkal on June 26, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Cameron is an ass, and if he is the best the theists have... well a person who does the Banana spil and believes it.. well

Other Comments by Alkal

38. Comment #52522 by Andrew on June 27, 2007 at 7:35 am

I hate to say it, but I think that several of the messages posted here display a serious lack of objectivity. Bill O'Reilly does have a reputation for interrupting/shouting over his guests, but he certainly does NOT do this with Professor Dawkins. Anyone questioning this needs to watch the interview again.

I am a huge admirer of RD, but to be quite honest I don't think he came off too well in his exchange with O'Reilly. Usually he is fantastic at interviews, but I think he had an off day with Bill.

Although I don't agree with O'Reilly's reasons for believing in a higher power, I would consider his line of reasoning (the universe is too grand to have been an accident) to be one of the relatively intelligent arguments for the existence of some sort of higher power.

But coming back to this particular interview, of course I agree with everyone else that Kirk Cameron is at best exceptionally ignorant, and at worst stupid and/or delusional.

Other Comments by Andrew

39. Comment #52526 by Andrew on June 27, 2007 at 7:42 am

Further to my above comment, the following is an extract of an email which I sent to O'Reilly after watching his interview with Cameron.


"You are obviously an intelligent and well educated guy. Therefore, if I may say so, I find it perplexing that you would associate yourself with such a profoundly ignorant individual as Kirk Cameron. His 'arguments' against evolution e.g. the development of the eye have been utterly refuted, as I suspect you are probably aware. (Not to mention the ridiculous 'croco-duck', which was so absurd that it would have been hard for an evolutionist to invent a better parody to mock creationists.)

There may be intelligent reasons for believing in a god. But surely you are not doing your own side any good by - as you would say - "throwin' in" with a buffoon like Kirk Cameron. Wouldn't it be better for your viewers, not to mention your own credibilty, to invite more knowledgeable believers (e.g. a religious scientist) on to the show to represent your side of the debate?

Best wishes..."

Other Comments by Andrew

40. Comment #52560 by Philster61 on June 27, 2007 at 9:33 am

Oh man I cant wait until Hitchens appears on Bill O Reillys show.I dont think he will be as Bill would probably be shitting himself.

Other Comments by Philster61

41. Comment #54001 by Fadeux on July 4, 2007 at 8:34 pm

Very tough to watch, almost as tough as honor killings in the middle east. I mean that, I really do... This assult on reason is painful to see. If o'reilly were to be dragged out in the street and stoned to death, I wonder if he would be angry with his god, or with the society that allows it to happen.

Other Comments by Fadeux

42. Comment #54134 by D'Arcy on July 5, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Following Fadeux's theme, would Cameron be the first one to throw a crocaduck? The man is so obviously convinced by the "design" of things, that the question of how the "designer" came to be is not even considered. Mysterious are the ways of crockaducks!

Other Comments by D'Arcy

43. Comment #54625 by czarethan on July 8, 2007 at 7:52 am

I love that banana bit, classic creationism. To bad that the banana that we enjoy today is in fact the result of domestication of a long period of time of a wild variant(the tooth-shattering pea-sized seeds in wild ancestor are a great lil' prank). I appreciate the zeal, but bats have no eyes? Just one picture would crush this hypotesis. Also they use sonar, not radar. Not trying to be an ass here, but we atheists must represtnt our selves with accurate arguments, lest they be used to damage our credibility.

Other Comments by czarethan

44. Comment #55476 by Stephan on July 11, 2007 at 8:26 am

boy, watching this hurts so badly and it makes me terribly sad... well and somehow it makes me doubt my plans of becoming an americaan citizen some day, considering the Oh Really? Factor is America's most watched "News" show (I don't know how exactly this segment is called technically)...

Other Comments by Stephan

45. Comment #59553 by rpospech on July 29, 2007 at 2:36 pm

"Don't condemn people for their ignorance (in this case, their ignorance is laughable). Use it against them."

Idiots and fools such as O'reilly and Cameron make it all too easy.

Other Comments by rpospech

46. Comment #62799 by tomr on August 11, 2007 at 1:25 pm

They were like two co-newsreaders taking their turns at the same script, with an intellectual level somewhere around that of their crockoduck

Other Comments by tomr

47. Comment #63012 by cradleoffish on August 12, 2007 at 10:51 pm

I feel sorry for anyone convinced by the crockoduck argument. :(

Other Comments by cradleoffish

48. Comment #64225 by alexkx3 on August 18, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Evangalist Billy Graham: "God created everthing perfect"
Woody Allen: "When i look in the mirror i find that hard to believe"

Other Comments by alexkx3

49. Comment #116825 by impy0596 on January 27, 2008 at 2:42 pm

kirk cameron what can i say? hmmm. well for starters he is beyond confrontational. if he were to be that combative here in the midwest he would have his teeth knocked in. even though the majority here are christian. child star ignorant born again christian from california not very well receivable here. creationalism is ignorant and i for one am not comfortable being ignorant. by the way kirk cameron's faith movies suck!

Other Comments by impy0596

50. Comment #180400 by fusilli_jerry89 on May 14, 2008 at 7:46 pm

wow Hitchens vs. O'Reilly would be absolutely awesome! I'm gonna dream of that now. On another note, I wanted to punch that Cameron guy in the face.

Other Comments by fusilli_jerry89