Prove there's a god.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#632086 Jun 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know shit.
Continents are clumps of mass floating on a viscous mass. Supercontinents are just where those masses bunch up, which entails a lot of friction heat and deformation within those clumps.
Now, this will astound you if you had any brains.
ALL OF WHAT WE CONSIDER LAND, MEANING THE WHOLE GLOBAL SURFACE, THE CRUST, IS ONE LANDMASS, AND THUS CONTINENT, WITH A FEW PINHOLES IN IT.
And always has been since it first formed. If you don't have the cooled matter resting on that hot mantle, then you have that hot mantle exposed. The cooling clumps it. There is no exposed mantle, just pinholes down to the mantle. So your drift theory has some holes in it.
The cooled matter forming the crust rolls and tumbles within itself primarily. Subduction displaces mantle that will emerge in other places. In the meantime, fossils would get deformed.
Read the article again. There have been a few clumping close together of this crustal material. The only single land mass that could have existed was when where the mantle first started cooling. Emission of EM out into space as the earth turned and its orbit precessed. Matter cooled into the form you know now in a linear fashion.
Or something like that.
Wait, you say I don't know something that you clearly don't know anything about. Wow. Continents are not "clumps of mass floating on a viscous mass," they are the portions of the planets hard surface that protrude above the water.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#632087 Jun 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Tiny pinholes in the otherwise contiguous crust that has been rolling and tumbling for a while. The mantle material gets displaced from the rocking and rolling and hits weak spots above it. But the vast majority of earthquakes are near the surface. Simple gravity and/or tidal forces causing unbalanced mass to rock and roll.
OMG, I have not seen this level of stupid before.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#632088 Jun 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Tiny pinholes in the otherwise contiguous crust that has been rolling and tumbling for a while. The mantle material gets displaced from the rocking and rolling and hits weak spots above it. But the vast majority of earthquakes are near the surface. Simple gravity and/or tidal forces causing unbalanced mass to rock and roll.
Sure there are pinholes through the crust, they are hot spots.
The Hawaiian Islands, Japan and volcanoes and especially the calderas as well as the black smokers at the bottom of the sea are these things. But only massive eruptions cause large Quakes, not like the 9 out of ten major ones caused by subduction mentioned in the article. I'm sure Thera's explosion or the Santorini eruption and Pompeii caused quakes too. As well as the calderas.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#632089 Jun 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, you say I don't know something that you clearly don't know anything about. Wow. Continents are not "clumps of mass floating on a viscous mass," they are the portions of the planets hard surface that protrude above the water.
Oh...my...God.

And you have an understanding of physics?

"portions of the planets hard surface that protrude above the water"

Wow!!!

I'm a semi patient kind of guy, though.

Kitten, what does that hard surface, AND THE WATER, rest upon? How did that hard surface become "hard"?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#632090 Jun 22, 2013
xianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
exactly ,,gods are Imaginary
why should anyone believe in those?
Your doubt keeps you behind the veil of understanding. It is not until you allow for the possibility of a Godhead to commune with you that you will discover the value of its existence.

There is more value in acknowledging it than to deny it.
Rush

Nebraska City, NE

#632096 Jun 22, 2013
LineDazzle wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Yes. Really.
Rush

Nebraska City, NE

#632097 Jun 22, 2013
LineDazzle wrote:
<quoted text>
Teenage girls have developed a sexuality, that is what matters, son.
Seek help kid.
Rush

Nebraska City, NE

#632098 Jun 22, 2013
LineDazzle wrote:
<quoted text>
The desires are not sick, they are just your little feelings that tells you that, kid!
They are sick cimo. Havind a "desire" for a child, is just plain wrong. Once again, you need help.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#632099 Jun 22, 2013
LineDazzle wrote:
<quoted text>
It's more about physical development, along with other adolescent developments, mentally included, that effects their sexuality as well.
A 4 year old with breasts is not mentally at a level for a sex drive.
Depends on the species, but is anybody ready for 4 year old human sexuality? I think not!

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#632100 Jun 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RetardedRiversideRedneck wrote:
ID is a theory...
<quoted text>
Yes it is.
If you weren't so brainwashed in your atheistic ways, you'd know that.
ID is not a (scientific) "Theory", it does not meet the requirements.

In Scientific Terms it would be a kindness to call ID an hypothesis.

In religious speak, on might call ID a theory, as the religious have no respect for the term.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#632101 Jun 22, 2013
In religious speak, one might call ID a theory, as the religious have no respect for the term.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#632102 Jun 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Depends on the species, but is anybody ready for 4 year old human sexuality? I think not!
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/02/28...

Some are trying. Nothing like stimulating their little minds in that direction under the guise of education and public health, eh?

Fine example of strictly secular thinking.

Personally, I think they should be thrown in jail. At the least.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#632103 Jun 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
How did that hard surface become "hard"?
Playboy?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#632104 Jun 22, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you put God on one side, and nature on the other?
one exists in reality

the other is a projection of fear and paranoia

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#632105 Jun 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit.
No on has answered this question:
How did all that life happen to come to be?
only an abrahamic god may be created with ignorance.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#632108 Jun 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA HA!!!!
"The laws that govern this universe did not exist or even start to resolve until at least 10^-34th of a second after this universe came into existence"
Pfft.....
Provide evidence for that humongous guess.
carefully there, oh ignorant one

you are arguing against yourself.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#632112 Jun 22, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
ID is not a (scientific) "Theory", it does not meet the requirements.
In Scientific Terms it would be a kindness to call ID an hypothesis.
In religious speak, on might call ID a theory, as the religious have no respect for the term.
You're confusing ID with Creationism, a typical ignorant practice.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#632113 Jun 22, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
only an abrahamic god may be created with ignorance.
You didn't a wee the question, either.

Go figure.

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#632115 Jun 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent design:
Noun
The theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
Creationism:
Noun
The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from divine creation, as in the biblical account.
They are different.
Created by "some intelligent entity"?

Gee, who could that possibly be?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#632116 Jun 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You're confusing ID with Creationism, a typical ignorant practice.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
They are identical, both require a god that has no evidence. Neither has evidence. Neither has passed the peer review process. They both state the exact same thing, and that's nothing but an assertion. Neither has any working mechanisms at all.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min River Tam 47,853
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 39 min truth 646,325
White women leaving their white families in dro... (Aug '09) 43 min Johnny 326
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 47 min Annaleigh 105,574
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 1 hr WasteWater 2,012
Poll White Men, Would You Have A BABY by a Black Woman (Apr '10) 1 hr Breedu 493
jb bohsia yg terbesar (Sep '08) 1 hr Jawaking 43
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 7 hr oneear69 38,711
More from around the web