/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8994225
>NO, I do not accept that they exist - whales, maggots, caterpillars
Contra principia negantem non est disputandum, faggot.

>all my contention with Evolution treats them as if they do and is based on the information its proponents provide and nothing more. What is supremely ironic is that all counterarguments provided here do not.
Yes, we """"Materialist-Evolutionists"""" actually bring in evidence to support our claims.
I don't know what kind of whackadoodle purity test you subscribe to, but it is not generally considered a good thing to construct arguments solely out of blind conjecture, unsupported assertion, and fundamental misunderstanding of information (really? you don't know what a cladogram is? really? you think humans emerge from a larval stage?) supplied by others. Your inability to back up your claims with any sort of evidence and your wholesale rejection of ANY sort of evidence are failings, not virtues.

And here you are, arguing with someone who (by your imbecilic standard of evidence) doesn't exist. After all, you've never personally met me, so you must be conversing with a figment of your own conceited imagination.
Since you reject the very existence of anything you have not personally experienced, and deny the reliability of any and all written documents, I tell you that all accounts of people dying from consuming bleach (aqueous sodium hypochlorite) are imaginary, and that all warning labels exhorting you not to drink it are a clever lie intended to fool you. Clearly, the only way for you to know if bleach is poisonous is for you to drink it yourself; I suggest you investigate this swiftly. Pic related.

>>8530610
>I'm going to draw some lines on a graph to make it say what I want it to say
>see, if you ignore the sudden decreases, the trend is actually neutral, not decreasing!
this is what deniers actually believe

>>8530622
>this one effect causes warming in the upper troposphere
>therefore if it's actually happening, we will observe net warming in the upper troposphere
>because surely there are no other factors in atmospheric science that could possibly drown out or obscure this signal

>>8530643
>Instead, lets look here:
>Observed AMO index, defined as detrended 10-year low-pass filtered annual mean area-averaged SST anomalies over the North Atlantic basin
YOUR OWN LINK DEFINES THE AMO INDEX AS WHAT THE OTHER GUY SAID IT WAS AND WHAT YOU SAID IT WASN'T. You literally just told someone they were wrong and cited a source showing that they were right.
How does it feel to be too retarded to actually scroll down and read the rest of the webpage?