One small note: the earth is a closed system in the sense that no material (or close to none) is added to it. But it's an open system in the sense that energy (largely from the sun) flows through it.

The atheist argument is quite fascinating, especially because just recently I've been looking more deeply into various worldviews.

The question of whether global warming is anthropogenic is very real: the majority of scientists agree that the globe is warming up; they just aren't sure how much humans have to do with it.

Corinne, did you know that earth is a closed system? And as such, all the carbon in the atmosphere today, has always existed on earth? How can you then say that we are unbalancing the earth, given that we're not actually adding anything to the system?

On another note, if the scientist does not understand, is that not a reason to investigate, rather than to demand that teachers teach better? Surely it is not the teacher's fault that they do not yet have the full truth. It is the role of the scientist to discover, to question, rather than to accept truth.

Furthermore, I'm sure that as an atheist, you realise that thousands of documents may not actually prove anything, other than that thousands of documents exist and may say the same thing.

On another note, how is this an argument tht proves global warming is anthopogenic?