@newtboy
Your mind is made up that there's no issue of ocean warming, rising, and/or acidification, so of course you will be taking advantage of those islanders that have been 'tricked' by the climate change frauds (oh, and also tricked by that water in their homes, the loss of snails, shellfish, fish, and the destruction of their reefs), and you'll be buying their properties at reduced rates, because the ocean rising is a fraud and you'll make a mint when everyone sees the 'truth' in 30 years...right?

Well, I have to say that you'd have me beat if I'd said any of that...
I've already stated the planet is warming.
I've already stated that CO2 is rising.
I've already stated we are responsible for the CO2 rise.
I've already stated that the CO2 rise has caused the TOA energy imbalance.
I've already stated that TOA energy imbalance is causing temp rise.
It seems redundant, but I'll spell it out more as it seems you don't understand me.
The Ocean's are warming, they are in fact absorbing alot more energy than the rest of the planet, as water does that alot more quickly than air.
The additional CO2 is acidifying the ocean's, that's once again HS chemistry.
Sea level is rising, and has been for the last century or more at a relatively consistent and steady rate, and no doubt again is because of the energy increase/warming.
Shell fish and coral reefs are dependent on acidity levels in the oceans and shifts absolutely will impact them.

Now, with that all on the table, where my opinion diverges from yours is when you state:
by 2050 is going to solve the issues, (issues that will be totally disastrous by then by most estimations, for tens of millions it already IS disastrous)

I've pointed out the severity, as assessed by an international body of relevant experts in the IPCC, disagrees starkly with your opinion. The scientific community simply does not assign disastrous results right now for tens of millions from climate change, I'm sorry but that is contrary to the science. The scientific community simply does not predict the severity of these consequences to be disastrous by 2100, let alone your claimed 2050.

You've linked to blogs and a news blurp, and I've responded with direct links to the IPCC affirming my position, and at least a dozen scientific journal articles corroborating their position. If you want to claim any actual scientific veracity to your position back it up or lay off mis quoting and misrepresenting what I've claimed to try and make cheap points burning a strawman.

Christians have often tried to enforce their 'morality' on the rest of us....it NEVER works out well for anyone, and in hind sight is always seen as evil and stupid, as well as non-christian. Morality is a personal decision. When you start legislating/forcing it, you've lost your freedom to decide for yourself. In America, it's 100% legal to sin, the only excuse for singling out this 'sin' is the hatred for those disenfranchised by doing so.
The bible also said I'm to stone anyone working on Sunday, or worshiping incorrectly (even if they're Christian), or worshiping idols (like a cross), or adulterers...where's the standing up for that, if it's so important to follow the bible? It also said to take slaves, rape, murder, sacrifice children, ...shall I go on explaining why 'the bible said so' is the worst argument ever?
Doesn't the bible say it's not OK to marry a different 'race', what about a different religion...why aren't you fighting to end inter racial marriage, and inter faith marriage? Come on, let's hear the logic.
The day marriage was recognized as a civil process, the institution was removed as a religious one and became a civil one, which means one religious groups idea about it matters not. Even if you believe it was 'created by god', you must admit it's now a civil process with civil benefits, not religious one's, so YOUR religion has nothing to do with it anymore. That's YOUR religions fault for insisting on benefits for 'married' people.

As for 5 men...well, I can't really see a reason plural marriage is illegal beyond someone's morals...but a tree? How does a tree consent and affirm their wish to be married? If it can, go for it. Why do you want to stand in the way of that tree's happiness?

Hey kceaton1,

I'm sorry to hear about the narcolepsy and sleep paralysis. I remember watching a video someone put out recently (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PuvXpv0yDM) that sort of explained what it is like and it didn't seem like very much fun. I can't really imagine what you're going through. I have a friend who has narcolepsy but it must be a mild version because it seems like she kind of winds up to it and comes out of it pretty easy.

In regards to your question, I appreciate you not writing off my response as one thing or another. In regards to supernatural experiences, I can see why you have a lot of skepticism as well. You have experienced things on the order of what you've heard other people call supernatural experiences, but you have a natural explanation for them.

Having a supernatural experience can be hard to quantify, and usually when God is revealing something to you, it goes beyond sense impressions. You could perhaps write some of them off as one thing or another but three experiences in particular stand out to me as being undeniable. They aren't necessary what led me to Christ but they really defy any kind of naturalistic explanation.

The first was from before I was a Christian, when I was into the new age. At the time I was exploring a lot of eastern spiritual practices. There is one in particular, which I wont go into detail about, that for a few minutes allowed me to see with my eyes closed. When I was in the shower one day I closed my eyes to rinse my hair and when I did I was utterly shocked and amazed to be looking right at my feet and the water falling down upon them. It was real time and the only difference from normal vision was it had kind of an energetic haze over everything, kind of matrix looking. It was otherworldly but still completely in sync with my normal vision when I opened my eyes.

I wasn't hallucinating because I was able to test it in real time by opening and closing my eyes and looking at various things. It was all completely consistent and completely real. I could see what was going on to minute detail with my eyes closed and when I opened them everything matched perfectly, and vice versa. I wasn't dreaming because I immediately got out of the shower and told my then significant other who would vouch for that happening. It didn't last long but I did experience it and there isn't a naturalistic explanation.

The second thing that happened to me is that is undeniable is that I was physically healed by a Christian praying over me. My left leg used to be shorter than my right leg by a quarter inch. I know this because I measured it a few times and it caused me to walk somewhat unevenly. The man prayed for someone else who had the same problem except worse, and I saw their leg grow out and even up with the other. When I saw that I asked to be prayed for and the same thing happened to me. I know it did because I measured my legs and they are exactly the same length. I also had to learn how to walk correctly after this happened. Again, no naturalistic explanation.

The third thing happened at my baptism. I knew I needed to get baptized, although at the time I didn't really understand what it was all about. When I got baptized, it completely changed me. The easiest way to described it is, when I went into the water I was one person, and when I came back up I was a different person. Different in this sense, that I was cleansed on the inside. Emotionally and spiritually, it was like a thick black sludge had been removed from the walls of my heart. An emotional weight had been lifted, depression and anger and sadness disappeared; it was replaced with an incredible lightness, with true peace and joy. This wasn't superficial; I was utterly changed. I was a different and better (healed)person, and on top of that I could sense the tangible presence of the Holy Spirit, from that moment on until now.

People have given me different explanations; hallucinations, psychotic break, etc. I've have a lot of experience with people who have mental illness; the things that happen to them aren't positive, they're negative. When they think they have entered Nirvana, their behavior is completely off and often self-destructive. Delusional psychosis doesn't heal, it hurts. One way or another, the whole thing is going to unravel because it isn't real. What has happened to me is very real and I experience Gods love, care and guidance every day of my life. The Lord is good, and He is faithful; He cares even about the little things of my life.

I am a Christian not simply because I have seen miracles, it is because I believe the gospel. I know I am a sinner and that I need a Savior. I know that Savior is the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for my sins and was raised to life on the third day. The Lord has made that clear to me and I don't have any trouble agreeing with Him. He gave it all for me; why should I do any less? Before I knew the Lord I was resigned to a meaningless death. Today, I have a living hope. But I didn't come to be a Christian because I am afraid of death. I came to be a Christian because God revealed Himself to me, that He created me for a reason, and that my true fulfillment and purpose can only be found in Him. Since I have given my life to Jesus Christ, I have found that to be completely true, in ways I could never have imagined. My life affirms the truth of this scripture:

Ephesians 3:20 Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
Ephesians 3:21 to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen.

The ancestry of living beings isn't just traceable through the fossil record. The study of genetics shows us a huge and utterly overwhelming amount of evidence for the common ancestor idea. Common genes can be traced back to show the lineage of different animals and plants and groups of animals and plants.

Homology is a complex subject..it would take awhile to get into. I found a good link that illustrates the argument against it being a proof that macroevolution occured. If you want to take a look we could discuss further:

http://creation.com/does-homology-provide-evidence-of-evolutionary-naturalism

Ring species show that small changes can indeed lead to separate species. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are evolution in progress. You say that just because small changes can be seen it doesn't follow that big changes can evolve but that's stupid. Big changes are just a series of connected little changes.

I guess it depends on who you ask?

Erwin, D.H. (2000) Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evol. & Devel. 2:78-84.

the independence of macroevolution is affirmed not only by species selection but also by other processes such as effect sorting among species.

Lieberman, B.S. and Vrba, E.S. (2005) Gould on species selection. in MACROEVOLUTION: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency. E.S. Vrba and N. Eldredge eds. supplement to Paleobiology vol. 31(2) The Paleontological Society, Lawrence, Kansas, USA

Micro- and macroevolution are thus different levels of analysis of the same phenomenon: evolution. Macroevolution cannot solely be reduced to microevolution because it encompasses so many other phenomena: adaptive radiation, for example, cannot be reduced only to natural selection, though natural selection helps bring it about.

Scott, E.C. (2004) Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction. (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press).

Macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution, and we must envision the process governing its course as being analogous to natural selection but operating at a higher level of organization.

Stanley, S. M. (1975) A theory of evolution above the species level. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 72: 646-650.

In conclusion, then, macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with microevolutionary theories, but macroevolutionary studies require the formulation of autonomous hypotheses and models (which must be tested using macroevolutionary evidence). In this (epistemologically) very important sense, macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution: macroevolution is an autonomous field of evolutionary study.

Ayala, F.J. (1983) Beyond Darwinism? The Challenge of Macroevolution to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. reprinted in PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY, M. Ruse ed. p. 118-133.

When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

videosift.com

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am contacting you on behalf of Viacom Inc. (Viacom). Under penalty of perjury, I assert that I am authorized to act on behalf of Viacom, the owner of exclusive rights in the copyrighted work(s) identified in this notice, and that the information in this notice is accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

A search has detected that your web site, videosift.com, is hosting and/or linking to material that infringes Viacom’s exclusive rights in copyrighted work(s). The information provided below is a non-exhaustive, representative list of the Viacom copyrighted work(s) infringed by videosift.com, as well as the links and/or URLs corresponding to each listed infringement.

I have a good faith belief that the Viacom copyrighted work(s) identified in this notice of infringement has not been authorized for use or distribution via videosift.com by Viacom, its agent or the law. Therefore, I request that you immediately remove or otherwise disable access to the infringing material identified in this notice, and cease and desist from any further infringement of Viacom’s copyrighted work(s).

In complying with this notice, videosift.com should not destroy any evidence which may be relevant in a lawsuit relating to the infringement alleged, including all associated electronic documents and data relating to the presence of the infringing items on videosift.com, which shall be preserved while disabling public access, irrespective of any document retention or corporate policy to the contrary.

Nothing in this notice shall absolve you of any affirmative obligation to prevent or limit the infringement of Viacom’s exclusive rights in the copyrighted work(s) irrespective of whether you receive a notice of infringement for a specific work. Moreover, this notice is not intended as a full statement of the facts, and does not constitute a waiver of Viacom’s right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any unauthorized or infringing activities occurring on your network or site. All such rights, as well as claims for any other relief, are expressly reserved by Viacom.

If you need to contact me, I may be reached at the following address:

Sincerely,

Brad Bo
On behalf of Vobile as an agent for Viacom
2880 Lakeside Drive, Ste 360
Santa Clara, CA 95054
v: (408) 217-5000
agent@viacom.copyright-notice.com


Infringed Viacom property and URL/location of infringing content to be disabled or removed:
ColbertReport

http://videosift.com/video/Colbert-regarding-the-new-ATT


*kill

At what point will 'white privilege' be considered over? How many years / decades / centuries must pass? How many affirmative action programs / laws must be enacted to consider all races/ women on equal footing?
When sentencing certain individuals in our Canadian courts here, judges here are required to take their ancestry into consideration.
Here in Canada, there's also a big move afoot for governments to apologize for historical injustices -- Japanese, Chinese, Sikhs, natives, Jews, etc.
My problem is that we are looking at history through a modern lens which is crazy. How far back are we going to go? 50 years? 100 years? A millennia? Should Christians today should apologize for the Crusades?
PS. Before somebody accuses me of a hidden agenda, I have no axe to grind. I am part native but don't make a big deal of it. I certainly don't look at a white guy and think, "Hey that guy owes ME something because of what his great-great-great-grandfather did."
I think Bill is right... at some point people have to stop leaning on laws and affirmative action movements as a crutch/excuse and get on with working things out for themselves.

Well, it's rather difficult to address so many false assumptions at one time, so I'll deal with your first one, that she knew they weren't dealing with a burglary suspect.

Is the woman psychic? Does she know what he's been doing? Has a burglary suspect ever worked in a domestic situation?

No, you can't answer that one question with an affirmative response.

The fail is in your court.

...ever repugnant, the putrid "little...choggie thing" slinking in the shadows to futilely attempt to assuage the pain of the emptiness of Its half existence seeking banality as an improvement.

Patience, "little...thing," the affirming attention you so desperately long for is nigh.

You know what -- forget that, @dag.

After seeing all the circumstantial evidence previously mentioned, I just noticed a bit more evidence that to me absolutely affirms for me that tellier is definitely a self-linker.

*BANG!

I think the reason "we do that", is because such a large proportion of our resident's roots in the United States go back no more than 100 years, and there are SO MANY different cultures and ethnicities you can encounter, especially in Urban areas. Oftentimes an ethnicity or culture will live in a specific town or part of a city and will preserve much of their culture and tradition. I guess we could pretend like everyone is the same, but there ARE differences in culture and tradition, and i think we only use those terms when we are acknowledging/talking about those things. I don't know how that differs from where you are from, but maybe the difference for us is the sheer size of the country and its diversity means we have much larger clusters of people with a shared or common foreign ancestry and so they get more attention?

However, I don't think "African American" or "Hispanic American" are used as commonly as you think, aside from the news where topics like racism and affirmative action get more exposure, and a way to delineate differences is necessary. Or when we want to figure what kind of food to eat for dinner

Look MilkmanDan, it was not the intention to offend you in particular, we merely leapt like a robot at an opportunity to snub a nose at rules-of-engagement relative to rules in-general and some of the more didactic pet-peeves some but not all have with regards to what we personally regard as insignificant, but that some folks seem to get bent-sideways about and begin these tiresome pedantic, didactic dull-ass comment threads.

Who cares if it's tagged incorrectly, who cares if it's marked long when it's really short? Who cares obviously some folks do and it bothers the shit outta them. There is no 'why', simply the questions of how what, when and who had a part in creating these inconsequential concerns in some people that it matters at all?

That you wanted to down-vote a comment suggests perhaps someone thought someone else was crude, mean, rude, or too direct or forward in their protest. We can live with that, as well as the supercilious reasoning for your not voting this video up, in our LTHO.

At the end of the day, you got yer cute kitty dragging someone's be-bootied -with-shoe-cover foot being dragged up close-in to a mischievous, playful cat's clawing with head-banging glee, and it's AS cute, as that slammin' chick's back-side in the screen-shot, unless you are from some other planet where rippin' asses don't stir your loins a bit, be you male or female, gay, straight or otherwise.

Glad you dug the misdirection as much as myself an we thank you for your sincere feedback.

Personally, I vote shit up based on the fact that the original submitter enjoyed the video enough to embed it, and at the end of the day it makes folks happy about contributing to the site and therefore the entire sift community benefits.

What really IS an affirmative vote anyway, but a gesture of goodwill and kindness directed outward from the wealth of consideration one has for oneself?

Do unto others, then run away as fast as you can...to paraphrase the rule.

Oh and the ass-wiping analogy was meant for all the OCD retentive types, the kind of people where everything has to be just-so or their fucking heads will explode....perhaps I should check a mirror??

A question to believers in prayer being positively answered...why does God hate amputees? Never once in the history of humanity has a prayer asking God to fix a missing limb been answered in the affirmative. Sounds to me like God is a f*cking dick.

Vote for yer own stuff don't forget, and don't mind the resident copper-If he had to ask he couldn't find any dirt on ya...unless you answer his question to the affirmative, in which case you may be granted some sort of reprieve or simply be-double-teamed-

In general, there is no intrinsic, self generated peace and internal affirmation from those who live the homosexual life style. Hence the perpetual need for external affirmation and support from all quarters.