Deal.Bah ba-dah dah, bah bah bah baaaah!
By the way, I totally get to be Face...
You know who I am.
Deal.Bah ba-dah dah, bah bah bah baaaah!
By the way, I totally get to be Face...
Deal.
You know who I am.
Still nobody interested in providing something science related?
Oh, well. I can offer more. :thumb:
Here we have a clear description of the physics required to generate volcanoes and seismicity. Typically, atheists cannot resist using things like a man's beliefs or the popularity of mainstream ideas in order to argue against alternative ideas. Let's see if they fare any better this time around...
Speaking of Watties - he'll take as long as humanly possible to answer a simple question in the field he has specialised in.
:jolly Apparently, "as long as humanly possible" is 4 minutes in Stripes world (URL="h ttp ://ww w.theol ogyonline.c om/forums/s howpost. php?p =249361 3&postc ount=50 2"]note the times between his post and my reply to it[/URL]).
Then there's the thread where I explain a few things about the moon to BJDavis. He asked me to back up an assertion I made, Dr. Watson and Barbie storm in and ridicule me and then I answer the question. Barbie, at least, had the sense to remain silent after that little humiliation...
...there is more mass to the near side than there is to the far side.
Why do you think this is true?
And, as you've seen, he'll just invent some new story to cover anything that you throw at him.
You surprised me on this one, Stripe. I am forced to forfeit one point to you on this, since I did not know about the off-center mass spoken of in the article.