Ma Nature vs. The Least Educated

[mark francis]

I'll debate you on Dawkins any day.
Is that your new childish name for him? How mature and inventive. That comes with dementia.

Dawkins refuses to debate non-evolution scientific experts.

 

[mark francis]

You talked about a science guy not me
I am not a science ***** like you
Science consists of many researchers not one guy lol

Science is a wide field with lots of debate, discussion, and disagreement.

 

[pjmret]

Science is a wide field with lots of debate, discussion, and disagreement.

well, duh. thanks captain obvious. lol.

but a petition signed by random people proves nothing, only a ***** like you would think it does

 

[mark francis]

well, duh. thanks captain obvious. lol.

but a petition signed by random people proves nothing, only a ***** like you would think it does

Experts also signed the claim of validity for Hillary's fake Trump/Russian conspiracy theory, proving you cannot always trust experts.

 

[pjmret]

Experts also signed the claim of validity for Hillary's fake Trump/Russian conspiracy theory, proving you cannot always trust experts.

irrelevant to climate science.

you are so desperate and pathetic. lol

 

[mark francis]

irrelevant to climate science.

you are so desperate and pathetic. lol

The most devout believers in global warming alarmism refuse to acknowledge the serious contradictions to prevailing narratives by leading scientific reports.

 

[pjmret]

The most devout believers in global warming alarmism refuse to acknowledge the serious contradictions to prevailing narratives by leading scientific reports.

which "leading scientific reports"

link them and prove they are credible. lol.

 

[Boris Norris]

Dawkins refuses to debate non-evolution scientific experts.

No. Dawkins refuses to debate idiots like you.

If a scientist with notable experience believes in creation. He's not a scientist.
So show a list of them and I'll show you their silly religious affiliation.

 

[mark francis]

which "leading scientific reports"

link them and prove they are credible. lol.

Is Antarctic ice melting or not? Some does and some doesn't, depending on the day of the year and square foot of property involved.

NASA - What's Holding Antarctic Sea Ice Back From Melting?

What's Holding Antarctic Sea Ice Back From Melting?
09.01.09

Ozone depletion has caused more intense low pressure systems (shown in blue) to develop over the Amundsen and Ross Seas, while higher pressure systems (red) have developed on the periphery of the Southern Ocean. Ozone loss has likely strengthened the cyclonic wind flow across the Ross Ice Shelf and made winds cooler and stormier. Such changes can increase sea ice extent by pushing ice offshore and maintaining coastal polynyas (inset), areas of open water that tend to produce and export sea ice rapidly. Credit: Mike Marosy/NASA

Since 1979, sea ice volume has decreased in the Bellingshausen and Amundsen Seas, while it has increased in the Ross Sea and around much of the rest of Antarctica.

Since the late-1970s, the area covered by Antarctic sea ice has increased by approximately one percent per decade. This visualization, based on imagery from the AMSR-E instrument aboard the Aura satellite, shows changes to the sea ice as seen from space between June 4, 2005 and November 18, 2005. Credit: NASAGlobal temperatures are increasing. Sea levels are rising. Ice sheets in many areas of the world are retreating. Yet there’s something peculiar going on in the oceans around Antarctica: even as global air and ocean temperatures march upward, the extent of the sea ice around the southern continent isn’t decreasing. In fact, it's increasing.

Why is there such a drastic difference in the behavior of the two poles? Scientists from Goddard and the University of Washington, Seattle, recently described three theories — ozone depletion, changing ocean dynamics, and the flooding of sea ice — for what's happening in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica.

 

[mark francis]

No. Dawkins refuses to debate idiots like you.

If a scientist with notable experience believes in creation. He's not a scientist.
So show a list of them and I'll show you their silly religious affiliation.

Dawkins is a blowhard who has gained a huge following of likeminded rebels against God who would not understand true science if their paychecks depended on it.

 

[pjmret]

Dawkins is a blowhard who has gained a huge following of likeminded rebels against God who would not understand true science if their paychecks depended on it.

"true science'? says the science *****. lol

 

[Boris Norris]

Dawkins is a blowhard who has gained a huge following of likeminded rebels against God who would not understand true science if their paychecks depended on it.

All that could be true although I doubt it but it doesn't diminish his skill at proving god does not exist.
You've never read any books of his but merely parrot the religious crap you've been indoctrinated with.
Now, Rey with another meaningless Bible quote. That always works.

 

[mark francis]

"true science'? says the science *****. lol

Don't argue with science, says science incarnate.

 

[mark francis]

All that could be true although I doubt it but it doesn't diminish his skill at proving god does not exist.
You've never read any books of his but merely parrot the religious crap you've been indoctrinated with.
Now, Rey with another meaningless Bible quote. That always works.

Really? Darwin proved God does not exist? How? By atheist religious dogmas? By eyewitness testimony? By actual observable science? By 'scientific' speculations and assumptions? By empirical evidence. By mob opinion?

 

[Boris Norris]

Really? Darwin proved God does not exist?

I never said Darwin proved there was no god. He discovered evolution and has since been proven to be a fact. You're living proof of it and your intelligence will be extinguished by natural selection.

How? By atheist religious dogmas? By eyewitness testimony? By actual observable science?

That's correct and you can research it if you chose but it's not in your silly scriptures.

By 'scientific' speculations and assumptions? By empirical evidence. By mob opinion?

No speculations until it passed the theory stage of continuous testing it.
Then, to much disgust from the godbotherers, it was given approval by the science community to be fact. The ONLY people left to be convinced are, you guessed it, the godbotherers.
Sound familiar?