Sleipnir

and I'll explain why....to use the bible as a 'fact' in conjunction with science would automatically discredit your argument. "The egg can therefore only exist if it has been created inside a chicken." I find this absolutely . The same argument could be made for 'the chicken can therefore only exist if it has been created by an egg'. Reason for calling it out? Check the phylogenetic info I posted a while back and show me why that is incorrect (don't use the 'because this article says so' which would mean you can't think for yourself).

And how does it normally end?

Said what exactly? Sheesh louise is this guy serious or ? Consensus regarding GMOs are not being ignored (it's a relatively new area of science with ongoing research and experiments to understand the topic better). Consensus regarding climate change isn't as new as GMO - but the sheer overwhelming of evidence that points toward the concept of climate change cannot be reasonably doubted by those with scientific knowledge in the science field relating to this topic. Also, why are you comparing GMOs to climate change? Sheesh.

Mulcair is a federalist.

The only thing that could challenge the concept of evolution is the continuation of human stupidity.

Are you just trying to boost your post count or what?

https://www.forumres..._(20121029).pdf Seems that the nanos poll was an outlier after all...mostly is. Reason why I said that because multiple polling companies shows similar result with Nanos being the odd one outside of the norm.

You failed at trolling betsy.

You're definitely right about that Cybercoma

Really? I figured it would last for like 3 months or so....

Well...now that you mention it I was trying to understand the logic of Tim's argument which, unfortunately, isn't making any sense to me. When he keeps telling me that I failed to refute it...well it gets me more confused

How long does 1 infraction last for?

Come to think of it, political parties are a lot like charities.

Did you even look into the authors

I noticed you completely avoided what I told you earlier Then why did you post it? The points have been addressed in countless of studies, oh here's an idea - try GOOGLE SCHOLAR for starters. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/globalwarming/documents/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf http://biophilosophy.ca/Teaching/2070papers/crist.pdf ^^^These are 2 of hundreds of papers out there. I only do scientific journals, articles and paper - not some opinionated blog (which I always disregard).

Occurrence of Tornadoes are not absolute indicators of climate change, it refers to a whole load of interacting effect. The second 'source' is an opinionated blog, not a good source of reliable info. Try again Timmy

I figured they fall under physics.

I'm going to repeat myself again, hopefully you'll grasp the concept. Weather refers to short time atmospheric phenomenon. Climate change, in this case, refers to long term atmospheric phenomenon. So when you used the term 'climate alarmists' in conjunction with 'harping on how every bit of bad weather...' - it just goes to show you just how knowledgeable you are in this topic, which is nil. Climate change is a conglomeration of physics, geology, chemistry, biology, and mathematics - if you dismissed the topic as nothing more than a made-up fantasy by scientists, well...you don't have much of an educated view.

Yet there is a difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.

Man that would cause so much headache for the Federal Election Commission. I just realized, off topic, that the Ontario legislature is prorogue, how would that affect the efficiency of the provincial government to response to potential disasters? I don't know if it would be worth making a thread about it :/

Sheesh louise how many times a day do people click the report button?

With Hurricane Sandy coming to smash the east coast of the U.S, I am not sure how that would affect the national polls in the upcoming days (power outage, ignoring poll calls due to emergency, etc).

I could say the same thing about my source of information. This ain't a card game in which Queen beats Jack. Lol 'mere opinion' she says...I guess 1+1=2 is mere opinion? Evolution can also be as spontaneous of matter of weeks. Modern humans arrived 50,000 years ago in Africa. The immediate ancestor to the modern homo sapiens (which began 500,000 years ago) are the archaic Homo sapiens which includes Homo heidelbergenesis, Homo antecessor and Homo rhodesiensis - they eventually gave rise to the modern human we know today. I'm a biology nerd for those who are wondering xP

He'll only keep it up for 8 more days - so hang on everyone, it's almost over when Obama wins