Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

Just wondering what the news is like in other countries concerning the Gulf oil/gas gusher. It is becoming common knowledge over here that the entire gulf coast of the usa might be wiped out not only by oil but possibly a tsunami which would be the result of the methane bubble bursting. the bubble has already caused the gulf floor to rise 10 feet in a 20 mile radius around the first leak. i say first because folks are now finding out the gulf floor is also cracking which is allowing more gas and oil out.
oh and the gas and oil is under pressure of 10k+psi.

...and when the methane/petrol filled tsunami goes inland and is sparked by some power lines or any other source the tsunami will ignite and the entire gulf coast will face the horror of a flaming, burning gigantic wall of flame that will sweep and burn anything it comes across. The sight will be literally hell on earth.

To prevent that horrifying destruction more effort must be done to remove the oil in the sea and in order to do that the U.S. needs more ducks to absorb it out of the sea. SEND MORE DUCKS TO THE SEA!

lol! you are hilarious shadow!
btw for some of the sources of this info go here ---> http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pag ... 071?ref=ts

actually the ducks are close to migrating down to south america so you may be quite prophetic... mmmmm fried duck!

It is becoming common knowledge over here that the entire gulf coast of the usa might be wiped out not only by oil but possibly a tsunami which would be the result of the methane bubble bursting.

Who knew that "common knowledge" truly was another phrase that means "completely stupid gibberish"?

...and when the methane/petrol filled tsunami goes inland and is sparked by some power lines or any other source the tsunami will ignite and the entire gulf coast will face the horror of a flaming, burning gigantic wall of flame that will sweep and burn anything it comes across. The sight will be literally hell on earth.

Beaten:

I can never top the awesomeness of a tsunami alligator army in flames.

btw for some of the sources of this info go here ---> http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pag ... 071?ref=ts

I really don't consider a Facebook page as a source of scientific info with regard to topics like that. For all I know the articles have been selected based on the bias of the page creator.

they were created with a bias... I started the site.
btw there will always be bias.... no matter who it is.
also that cartoon does not even bring out the worse case scenario.
here is the worse case scenario.
Methane bubble blows. creates tsunami that wipes out gulf coast. it also sets off the new madrid fault. this in turn could set off massive quakes around the world. one of these quakes could set off Yellowstone Nat park creating an eruption of that volcano which in turn could destroy a large percentage of the western usa. also later on a hurricane could cross the area with the oil, gases and dispersant and spread the concoction up the east coast (by epa standards one of the chemicals in the dispersant is deadly by any amount to humans and is also one of the gases being emitted.). this in turn will kill the crops. voila! no more usa! and no more me as an earthly human!

All persons have biases to base their opinions but presenting other opinions/choices help to clear or minimize that bias. Limiting myself in knowing only one side of the issue clearly doesn't help.
For example, I could easily dismiss you as an idiotic retard but I would like to know your opinion first before I conclude that you really are an idiotic retard or just a plain idiot or retard separately.

It seems you and I are in agreement on that point! except for the conclusion. I don't believe anyone is an idiot if they do have an opinion. In fact the mere semblance of rational thought decrees they are not an idiot. However the ideas presented by any person may deem them as normal or eccentric. by definition due to being not mainstream i could be considered eccentric. I would gladly take that title.

I don't believe anyone is an idiot if they do have an opinion. In fact the mere semblance of rational thought decrees they are not an idiot. However the ideas presented by any person may deem them as normal or eccentric. by definition due to being not mainstream i could be considered eccentric. I would gladly take that title.

Keywords, rational thought. Let me spell it for you. R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L (SPACE) T-H-O-U-G-H-T.
Even past thinkers who were considered outside the mainstream during their respective times (Einstein, Tesla, Wright Brothers etc.) had a logical or at least structured approach to their 'eccentric' theories or opinions, which when viewed because of its own ordered structure can be considered rational.
Even an idiot can have an opinion if it lacks logic or rationality behind it.

however it has taken many years for guys like Galileo to be proved right at the time the thought of the day was that he was an idiot for suggesting the earth was not the center of the universe.

He wasn't thought of as an idiot, he was thought as a heretic. He was in trouble because his observations went against the teachings of the church and that challenged the power hold of the church. It was more about politics and smear campaign than him being an idiot. The heliocentric model has been in prevalence even before? (Chinese, Arabs) or during the time of Galileo. He was the first one that openly declared his observations and the church took that as being showed the middle finger by Galileo.




There is nothing eccentric with your worst case scenario. First the tsunami because of the methane breakout, that has already been considered as high impact but low probability event. Nothing eccentric there, it was already considered before by scientists, the only reason it seems weird is because of its low probability which made it less of a mention and when it was mentioned now people just went OMG WTF OH NOES!
Second, you just combined multiple scenarios (that have been mentioned as probable by scientist, though each separately) together to produce your worst case scenario. For someone who believes in the Bible-based theory of life, you sure are easy to clump together scenarios and hope by chance that all of it will fit together and happen (which is what critics of evolution are mocking the evolutionists).

Don't flatter calling yourself eccentric. That would be the same as me saying to myself that I have a 13 inch dick.

so an evolutionist can say "this may cause that", but a christian cannot? Actually evolutionist scientists are saying "This will cause that!" when it comes to climate change anyways. Though imho this spill will cause climate change!

I'm referring to 'the beginning of life' debate where some Christians believe in intelligent design while most evolutionists believe in a setting that has factors present (DNA, RNA, conducive environment) and somehow by 'chance' a functioning living organism spawned from it (which is severely attacked by those who believe in intelligent design).

Here's an easy to understand guide:
You = clumping together separate possible scenarios and hope/conclude that your worst case scenario is a plausible conclusive one.
Evolutionists = clumping together factors and hope that it all adds up for the plausible conclusion that life spawned from it by 'chance'.

I'm not saying a 'Christian' or evolutionist may say this/that or not to. I'm saying that you combining together all those scenarios to present your worst case scenario is as credible and accurate as Michael Bay's documentary of Pearl Harbor.

This will cause that what about climate change? So you're saying that if a scientist says this about climate change you automatically believe it?
Just because a scientist says it doesn't mean I'll automatically believe it same way that I would instantly reject it if a 'Christian' says so.

well i have evidence of my belief, while an evolutionist must force something into his belief system to make it work.
it takes more faith to say there is no God than to say there is God.
as to evidence? my sister has seen angels and demons quite frequently.

That's not evidence. Evidence of a mental illness or narcotics abuse maybe but not evidence of God/angels/demons.

why do i keep forgetting Matthew 7:6

as to evidence? my sister has seen angels and demons quite frequently.

So have alot of people, Dan Brown and Tom Hanks are quite popular.

As to the point: You gotta remember, everyones perception of the world is different. Where some people see angels? I see sunlight being refracted. Where some people see UFOs, i see a shooting star. Where some people see "evil" acts, I see two people who love each other. Its all a matter of perspective and everyone has their right to have one, but no one perspective is any more true than another when talking about abstracts.

it takes more faith to say there is no God than to say there is God.

Hmm, care to explain?

oz. the last sentence you wrote just contradicted everything else you wrote. As a result you entire argument is flawed.

el badman. sure i would be glad to explain.
To say there is no god requires you to know for a fact that nowhere in the universe there is no higher power and you must ignore any evidence to the contrary. However to believe there is a higher power all you do is accept that there is a higher power after seeing the truth.
Now to know that there is no higher power anywhere in the universe you must be everywhere at once. This makes you omnipotent..... which makes you god. Therefore the atheistic argument makes them liars because by definition they are calling themselves god.

its like this.
Atheist: There is no god/higher power. If he is wrong he is in big trouble!
Christian: There is A God. If he is wrong, no harm no foul. Unless he tries to force everyone else to become his brand of "Christianity" through the sword in which case he is not a christian but heretic.

oz. the last sentence you wrote just contradicted everything else you wrote. As a result you entire argument is flawed.

How? we all have a right to a perception of things. I dont have to agree with your perception and you dont have to agree with mine. You believe in angels and demons, i dont. We have different beliefs based on our perception of the world and everyone has the right to make their own assumptions. I may think you're wrong, it doesn't mean you are wrong or vice versa.

And atheism is a lack of faith. Your argument is flawed for having a basis of the higher power existence as a "truth". Atheists arent lying. I don't know a single atheist who claims to know everything: exactly the opposite. They just need proof through our own five senses of a higher power, rather than some old book written by various authors and through umpteen edits to believe something.

And arent you trying to convince us that you're right and we're wrong? The "sword" doesnt have to be physical torture/manipulation. isnt that unchristian as you defined it? You're a heretic putt. <sarcasm>

To say there is no god requires you to know for a fact that nowhere in the universe there is no higher power and you must ignore any evidence to the contrary. However to believe there is a higher power all you do is accept that there is a higher power after seeing the truth.

To the risk of of continuing the off-topic on this, that's where your argument is flawed then. What some people CHOOSE to see as what you call "evidence" that there is a higher power makes no sense whatsoever to those you choose not to believe. It is only "evidence" to you because you already believe in the premise that there is a reason for it: because you believe there is a God, then you believe that your sister truly saw angels and demons. The fact remains that it's not irrefutable proof that nobody in their right mind could deny, it's still things that YOU interpret as evidence.

Claiming that atheists believe that they are themselves gods, or God, is absurd. Because you choose not to believe what does not have any tangible proof (and never will) does not make you someone who thinks he/she is omnipotent, it just makes you someone who doesn't believe in stories/theories that have no logical grounds, based on what we as humans know what works and what doesn't work in this world.

el. you are right this did get off topic, because a certain person decided to bash me... ahem. (no not you el badman)
one final point on the off topic topic... can you explain why on a hot, muggy day with no wind why after I pray, while mowing, for a breeze that said breeze pops up? this has happened every time i have prayed in such manner. and i have done so numerous times. Can you explain dreams that come true the next day?

but now back to the normal topic
here is a video done by CNN concerning the 1st amendment being taken away from them on the gulf.
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=203

el. you are right this did get off topic, because a certain person decided to bash me... ahem. (no not you el badman)
one final point on the off topic topic... can you explain why on a hot, muggy day with no wind why after I pray, while mowing, for a breeze that said breeze pops up? this has happened every time i have prayed in such manner. and i have done so numerous times. Can you explain dreams that come true the next day?

Yes I can explain that phenomenon. Its a natural psychological theory called attribution theory. We attribute positive outcomes to something positive we did to believe we are responsible for the consequence of whatever the action was. But lets say you prayed and that breeze didnt come you'd attribute it to "well, the Lord has more important things to take care of" or simply just forget about it. Its part of the self rationalization everyone does.

Dreams that come true the next day: why does that have to be provided by an omnipotent being. Maybe every day we watch tomorrow and we simply dont remember. You cant know why or how it works. Trying to figure it out results in things like religion which can vary based on region, leader, or historical era.

Not caring BP, but I care pelicans... We cant do anything from Turkey, I'm so sad for animals

Send more ducks.

requires you to know for a fact that nowhere in the universe there is no higher power and you must ignore any evidence to the contrary. However to believe there is a higher power all you do is accept that there is a higher power after seeing the truth.
Now to know that there is no higher power anywhere in the universe you must be everywhere at once. This makes you omnipotent..... which makes you god.

So God is an atheist now?

There is no higher power than God, if there is he/she/it wouldn't be 'the' god. God is omnipresent.
So based on your reasoning, God can be considered an atheist too?
Blasphemer! May God bitch smite you for your incoherent lies.