Hi Notarobot, your argument is unfortunately based on a very common misunderstanding of the chemistry of water and salt.

I can assure you that it is an established scientific fact that pure water has the highest heat capacity per unit of its mass compared to any water solutions. The less water there is in a water solution, the less heat capacity that solution has. This is because the temperature of pure water is more proportional to the amount of energy contained within it, which is due to the flexibility of its molecular structure. The more salt you add to water, the less structural flexibility (i.e. purity) there is to distribute and contain energy as the temperature increases. To put it another way, the salt molecules weigh down and restrict the water molecules from moving as freely, which is why salt water has a higher boiling point.

So in fact the more fresh water that is introduced to the oceans, the higher heat capacity and heat conduction there will be.

Furthermore, you grossly oversimplify the problem of climate change by assuming the only change that matters is immediately perceptible to "mammals like us". One of the biggest issues is that even slight variations in temperature can drastically change entire marine ecosystems. If enough ecosystems collapse, it will cause a chain reaction that will be very, very difficult to manage, let alone recover from. Also, even slight variations in salinity can drastically change ocean currents, which in turn affects not just marine ecosystems, but weather patterns throughout the world as well.

I can tell you're an intelligent person, so I hope you'll take me seriously when I say that it's very, very important for all intelligent people to be as diligent as possible when referring to the scientific causes and effects of climate change. Advocate whatever position you'd like as to how we should go about things, but please do your best to validate the information you're using to do so.

One of the results of a warming ocean is melting glaciers and ice caps. That is the addition of fresh water to a salt water system. There is more saltwater than freshwater in the world. One of the properties of salt water is that it conveys heat better than fresh water. The hot-water baseboard heater you use to heat your home would actually be more efficient if it used salt water. We don't use salt water in heaters because salt actually corrodes the metal pipes faster. What does this have to do with climate change? As you dilute the salt water that transfers heat from the warm equatorial waters of the world to the cooler waters in temperate zones, it gets less good at transferring that heat. This change happens very slowly to the perception of short lived mammals like us. In geologic terms, this is how we get to the next ice age.

@chingalara

"Whether the comment in question was or wasn't directed at me is mute point"

- Actually the fact that I was installing an internal joke/ribbing into the comment stream is not a moot point, it as a very celebrated and basic point, also- you were brought aware of this point and then decided to point the comment I quoted above. Just so we are clear- grasping at air... or nothing because air is something you are grasping for anything for an argument, which equates to my standard of you being an attention whore.

ok what else what I thinking of ohh, scrolling above I read it. .

You and your character..and Int *cough* egrity

both of which you have little of here.

let me be clear as my final hello of the morning.

Your integrity here is null, your tenure here is null - chingalara??? why don't you sign is as choggie ? ! ? You have no tenure, I do not know why you were let back in, I have a clue why I was. you.. You offer nothing but the ying to a yang. and you never learn, ever. Deluded salt water taffy.

Now I must water some plants and let a rabbit out to frollic on my carpet.

A latex balloon bio-degrades about as fast as an oak leaf. A birds' most-likely smart enough not to swallow one whole.
No lady, you are passionately mistaken. It takes less time for the latex to degrade in salt water the temperature being a non-issue. Admittedly though, it's a waste of helium and a balloon for the sake of video game software and it might choke a few seagulls, none of which will be missed, as San Fran has seen such an explosive rise in their numbers since being placed on the over-protected list, that they are encroaching on the habitats of less fortunate and more endangered species.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/san-francisco-seagulls_n_3672793.html

Fucking Californians. Heads-shoved-up-one's-own-ass-disorder seems to flourish there like barnacles on a ship's hull.

My personal 5-yr-plan for expatriation began yesterday. If I have to live in any country, I have 3 criteria:

Must be an active volcano within 20 miles and surrounded by ocean
Must be able to dive for shellfish and angle for salt-water fishes from the shore
Tourism economy with the only Americans there visitors or fellow expatriates with the bulk of tourists coming from Europe and other.

I'm shooting for the south-eastern Windward isles, where I can with an EU passport, travel freely to Cuba. Not to mention Jamaica and South America.

It's not so much the fucked government, they're fucked everywhere. It's all about quality of life-Good, fresh, UNTAINTED food, great music, and NO FUCKING AMERICANS!

I used to love my country before the machine started breeding idiots, now all that's left here are ineffectual robots who talk a lot, saying nothing and doing less. As far as I'm concerned, y'all can have this motherfucker....Oh, and I'm gonna join the Freemasons when I get there as well, 'cause Freemasonry KICKS ASS!

Plus ships take on salt water to use as ballast, so they'll have salt-water protection. Anti ju-ju devices like galvanic anodes and whatnot I'd guess.

Humm, 25 seconds to about 30 seconds or so it looks like the flood the bottom level with sea water and tug it out, then bring it back in. Wouldn't all that salt-water be bad ju-ju long term? Or am I seeing it incorrectly?

That's awesome to see. I once saw three at once but they were kind of far away. I have two questions for a waterspout meteorologist: -does it suck up salt water (fish) into the rain cloud? -does it ground the cloud and reduce lightening?

After Hurricane Katrina, I got to see what salt water did to some furniture from the house where I grew up. The furniture sat in 27 inches of water for several weeks.

The other night I watched a Hurricane Sandy report on salt water in the subway system and a discussion of how the machinery will have to be taken apart and cleaned.

Sand? Did they not wash them off with salt water first?

This is actually a pretty basic trick : water and alcohol don't have the same density (water is more dense ~1g/ml whe, alcohol is usualy below 0.8 at ambiant temperature). When the card is moved, gravity is pulling the water. But as the pressure in the two glasses need to be constant, it makes the whisky goes up. You could do that trick with vodka too (but then hard to see the trick). Some oils should work too, depending on how it's made. I'm wondering how milk would behave now, and if the trick would work well with hot salted water and cold distilled water...

>> ^Yogi:

Surfers are tools. If anyone has ever tried surfing if you accidentally take someones wave they turn from cool chill guys into complete asshole monsters. All surfers should be set on fire.


Might be difficult. They're usually covered in salt-water.

Ever looked at a jar of pond water? No thanks. Use salt water.

I'm not at all a scholar of the bible. I've read parts, I've been to
Sunday school before i was confirmed (age 14) and I have at times had
fun reading it.

Well, I would encourage you to try to understand it. Every conversation I've ever had with an atheist about the bible either brings up the same five things from the old testament or their doubts about who wrote the bible..and that's it. I've never actually spoken to an atheist, and I've spoken to many atheists, who even understood the basics. I think that if you're going to criticize something, you should at least try to understand it at a basic level..maybe that's just me. Although, the lack of understanding matches what the bible says, that the truth is spiritually discerned. Without the Holy Spirit, the atheist is going to find it fairly impossible to comprehend.

Arguing from authority is not a strong argument. Just because "the
intellectual scholarship" is much greater than I understand, doesn't
change what the book says. And since new evidence is not uncovered, it
is what it is, you are forced to "interpret new evidence" and that's
not the way the world works.

What you, and many others try to imply, is that what is the bible is simplistic, and for people without any intellectual standards. The truth is that what is in the bible is complex, and it takes a real intellect (supplanted with godly wisdom) to be able to understand it. The intellectual scholarship is vast because the bible is inexaustible. It functions as a cogent whole, and address all the deep questions that human beings have. It is not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

1) Personal evidence cannot be verified. What things were revealed to
you before you ever read or understood them? How were they revealed,
what was revealed, how did you later understand them / where did you
read them?

I would like to understand your thought process, which is why I ask.

Is it possible that you already had a forgone conclusion when you read
X, and therefore you interpreted X the way you wanted?

God had revealed to me through signs that He is a triune God, and that He has a Messiah, someone whose job it is to save the world. So when I finally read the bible, those signs are what initially confirmed it to be true. I didn't have any foregone conclusions about the bible before I read it. I had no actual idea what Christianity was all about.

What happened? How has your life improved, what did you do before,
what do you do now? How can you tell that it happened supernaturally?
Is there any difference from that to just having a profound change of
heart. If you are talking about addiction, it is possible to fill the
void of that addiction with other things - some people exchange
cigarettes with food, why not religion/faith? Does your faith take up
as much of your time as "the unhealthy things" you did before?

Before I became a Christian I was a theist, and before I was a theist I was an agnostic. When I became a theist my bad behavior didn't change. I was like Enoch, in that I believed that none of the religions were true, or that all of them just had pieces of who God is. I believed in a God that loved you the way you are and didn't particularly enforce any kind of behavior upon you, as long as your heart was in the right place. I would think that God, knowing me intimately, and knowing my good intentions, was very understanding if I did something which was out of line. Of course God is very patient with all of us, but the point is that I had plenty of faith in God at the time, and spent my time thinking about Him and pursuing the truth. The difference is that once I accepted Jesus into my heart as my Lord and Savior, everything changed.

It was only when I became a Christian that my behavior changed, and much of that practically overnight. When you're born again, you are spiritually cleansed and start out with a blank slate. You become like new. I had addictions, depression, anger, pain, sadness, and other issues that left me in short order. Some of those things I never thought I would give up, some of them I never wanted to give up, but I immediately lost the desire for them. It was a change of heart; God gave me a new one. It was supernatural because as I said, I didn't do any work. People spend their entire lives in therapy or counseling and spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to get rid of just some of these problems, and often don't see any results. I lost almost all of my baggage in just a few short months.

3) Not really. It only accounts for a visual interpretation of how men act. The writers of it has observed how people act and guessed at reasons why that is. Some are close to reality, some are way off. Which human behaviors does it predict? How and where does it describe in finite detail how those behaviors are created? I'm looking for actual citations here, because this is complete news to me.

It predicts all kinds of human behaviors by describing the mechanisms which motivate them to act. It shows the fundemental dichotomy of the heart of man. As an example:

James 3:3-10

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.

and

Matthew 12:34

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

and

Matthew 15:19-20

But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

4) I disagree. It describes a point of view. The morality of the God of the bible is hardly any good morality. We have an ingrown moral compass, I can agree on that, it's been naturally selected against because it helped our ancestors to survive and procreate. "His moral law" is atrocious, if the bible is any indicator.

If everyone followed the morality that Jesus taught us, this planet would be as close to a utopia it could possibly get. He taught us to love one another, to forgive as a rule, to do good to even those who hate you, to help everyone in need, and to follow the moral law. Your idea of Gods morality being atrocious is plainly false. The passages that you feel are atrocious have an explanation, its just whether you want to hear them or not. As far as natural selection goes, all it cares about is passing on its genes. That is the only criteria for success. This doesn't explain noble behavior in the least, such as sacrificing your life for someone else. That's a bad way to pass on your genes.

5) Which prophecies have been fulfilled? You don't think Israel chose their currency based on the bible instead? Which captivities have been prophecied down to the year and where in the bible?

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/552/


6) This is hardly uncontested. There are parts of the bible that seem to be true, but because some of it is true, does not mean that all of it is. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history#Historical_accuracy_of_biblical_stories

It's positive evidence in the bibles favor when it is verified by archaelogical evidence. There are many things in the bible that historians denied were true in the bible, like the hittite civilization, until archaelogy proved the bible correct.

7) Citation needed. Saying that the universe has a beginning is hardly proof of anything. That's the easy way to say it, anyone apart from earlier theories said that, so of course they did it in there too. In actuality the bible claims that God is eternal, which there is no basis for.

These claims are just claims, there is no basis for saying them in the bible. Blood clotting could be found by trial and error back then, ocean currents can to a great extent be measured by fishermen even back then. Scientists who believed in an eternal universe have since changed their mind, when evidence discredited the theory. It's all about being able to back up your claims. the bible just claims.

This guy discovered and mapped the ocean currents, and he did so being inspired by psalm 8, which is the one that mentions the "paths of the seas"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Fontaine_Maury

Abraham didn't learn from trial and error. They were doing circumcisions on the 8th day from the beginning.

You must think something is eternal, unless you believe something came from nothing. So your problem isn't really with eternal things, just an eternal person.

Here is a list of them

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html

8 ) How did you experience the holy spirit?

It's really impossible quite impossible to describe since it effects every level of your being at the same time, but experientially you could say it's like going from 110 to 220v. It's like you lived all your life being covered in filth and suddenly you're washed off and sparkling clean. It's like being remade into something brand new.

>> ^gwiz665