I did say it. Try it out. Put some water in a glass, then put some ice floating in it and let it melt. See happens to the water level. 

Greenland and antartic are different matter, as the ice isn't floating in the sea. 

We're talking about the concept of a "belief" or "faith" in science.  The singularity is a mathematical consequence of some models we use to describe the evolution of the universe.  That doesn't mean that a singularity actually occurred though.  I don't think we will find any cosmologist who says, "I believe in the singularity" or "I have faith in the singularity" because there is no evidence to debunk/support it either way.  We continue using the model until we find evidence that disagrees with it, then we update or replace the model.

The LHC and other particle colliders are used to observe characteristics of elementary particles like quarks, leptons, etc..  Although these properties are significant after the Big Bang, they aren't supporting or debunking the mathematical singularity.  

don't misunderstand, i'm not saying i disagree with you, i'm just saying that scientists have been saying that sea levels are rising

i personally have not done the tests or looked properly into the data

since ice is less dense than water though, some bits of the ice tend to float above the surface of the water, if i remember correctly when that ice melts the part that would have floated over the water is then incorporated and increases the water level

i could be wrong on that but as far as i know that's how it works

i agree with you and thank you for your response

Well this is long and drawn out. But I think before we can Science or Religion (believe in something) we must have intellect. God, if that's what you believe, gave us this intellect. He did as much as set up the game of Life and we're the ones in charge of playing it. You can use your intellect to enforce your science or religion on others. Should you with out asking? Well that's where morals come in and another slew of religions/beliefs. The best that I can do personally is collaborate as best as possible with my fellow Man and Woman to discuss the things that come up and come to agreements. But as you get more and more people and more disagreements we tend to conflict. That's why we think we have borders. You believe what you want over there and we'll agree to disagree with our border over here. But then you have local disputes and uprising. At the end of the day society can't help that people are different. People think differently. That's a fact of life we will always have that right/wrong possibility. Good/Bad. Good/Evil. Dark/Light. Positive/Negative. That's how our atoms are built. With friction. It seems as though with this friction that life/death is possible. I guess try to find some balance along the way before the next Big Bang.

There is ice over water (iceberg) and ice over land (glacier).  The ice over water has already displaced the amount of water it would displace if it melted -- with minor variances due to the salt concentration of the water vs the iceberg.  The ice or snow that's on land has not displaced any water yet and could significantly contribute to an increase in the sea level if melted.

yes in my other reply i didn't consider the ice on land and displacement my bad

thanks for your clarification

This is not a rebuttal and more of an admission of your ignorance of the nuances of the situation that show that the Syrian conflict was initiated by religious extremism that was subsequently exacerbated by intervention. The second part of your response only supports my point that the US contributed to the worsening of the Syrian conflict, but not the initiation.

The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim. You also have yet to prove that there is a cause and effect between prayer and the subsequent event that occurs. Already, I have observed that you are only nitpicking certain parts of my points while you do not address the entirety of them. What you are doing is completely lazy.

Again, you are deliberately omitting specificity. Our current conditions are a consequence of the what of science?

And this is another pivot that I will not bite on. You assert that it is not irrelevant to the statement, but fail of explain why. Overall, your argument is equivalent to claiming that guns kill people. Just because guns have the capacity to kill people doesn't mean that they do the action. The same applies to science. It has the ability to cause climate change, but it cannot do the action. As a mentioned multiple times, it is because of the people's overuse of certain products of science that caused climate change. The fault lies on the "wielder", not the "weapon". Do you agree or disagree that the cause of global warming is more to do with the people abusing certain products of science than just science itself?

So do you agree that religion is not the only regulatory factor? Do you agree that there are many other alternatives?

See my 4th paragraph. Science cannot do actions.

Again, I will point to my 4th paragraph.

There is a need to be specific because we need to understand the contexts of these events. If your claim only hinges on that the events did happen, then once again, this is another ad hoc fallacy. Your arguments continue to rely on correlation rather than causation, hence why I asked for specificity so we can determine the causes.

Another empty assertion where you do not explain your side of the debate. "Nuh-uh" is not an argument. The same applies to the second part. What makes it "obvious" that it cannot be specified further? How is it "obvious" when humans are "seemingly" infinitely limited? I don't even need to break this poor excuse of an argument piece by piece. It instantly fell apart when you contradicted a definitive statement with a qualifier.

Addendum - Because your arguments are dependent on being general and not being specific, I will not respond any further because you have shown that you do not want to be specific when asked to be. I will just let other people read the exchange and let them make their judgments on whose points were better supported. Have a wonderful day.

"This is not a rebuttal and more of an admission of your ignorance of the nuances of the situation that show that the Syrian conflict was initiated by religious extremism that was subsequently exacerbated by intervention. The second part of your response only supports my point that the US contributed to the worsening of the Syrian conflict, but not the initiation."

this was your initial claim

"Syria's turmoil was largely caused by the uprising of extreme Islamism prior to the US's interventionist proxy war.""

i disproved it and now you're rewording it to talk about initiation

the turmoil was caused for the most part by the united states adding fuel to the fire they had already started decades earlier

had the united states not intervened the rebels would have had no chance against the government and the united states acknowledged this by claiming that the syrian rebels were being oppressed

kind of sick how you're dishonestly trying to defend the actions of the united states(and failing) here but whatever

"What you are doing is completely lazy."

it was a joke, i figured you'd have realised by now

"Again, you are deliberately omitting specificity. Our current conditions are a consequence of the what of science?"

my argument is not contingent on being specific

this is like me saying i got bit by a dog and you asking which teeth in the dog's mouth caused the damage to establish the fact that i got bit by a dog... you'd consider something like that to be ridiculously stupid right?

"You assert that it is not irrelevant to the statement"

because its not relevant

" Just because guns have the capacity to kill people doesn't mean that they do the action"

"The fault lies on the "wielder", not the "weapon". "

true, and without the weapon the wielder cannot carry out the action

are you for gun control?

"Do you agree or disagree that the cause of global warming is more to do with the people abusing certain products of science than just science itself?"

why should i answer this question when you've refused to answer mine - "do you agree that science has caused the current levels of global warming we are experiencing""

"So do you agree that religion is not the only regulatory factor? Do you agree that there are many other alternatives?"

yes, did i claim otherwise? if not, why ask this question?

"See my 4th paragraph. Science cannot do actions."

science is an action that results in technology... lmao

"Your arguments continue to rely on correlation rather than causation, hence why I asked for specificity so we can determine the causes."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm_GPkOfVKI

you've gone off the deep end mate

you just asked me to provide a time period to evaluate the cause? its historical fact that blood letting happened wtf lol

"Another empty assertion where you do not explain your side of the debate."

saying that humans are limited is something anyone that understand what limited means would agree to

"I will not respond any further because you have shown that you do not want to be specific when asked to be."

you have been entertaining, thank you

Easy: religion posing as science. Germany, Russia and China were all "scientific" countries. They also happened to tally up well over 100 million murders amongst them.  A huge part of Marxism is religion of government.  If people have no soul, they are just genetic material and can be treated as such.

Of course there is "evil" religion which actively tells its members to eliminate any "non" believers and encourages any and all sorts of immoral behaviour as long as it involves eliminating these infidels.    But their murderous numbers pale before the "science" regimes.