You're right guys, greenhouse gases definitely aren't created by burning things, like, say, oil in combustion engines. I was definitely referring to fire being hot when I said "burning."

Regarding your incredibly asinine and borderline-offensively-stupid God Exists paragraph, no. I can't prove God exists by asking you to prove that he doesn't. That isn't even remotely close to what I said. It's exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said. What I essentially said is "if you can't prove God doesn't exist, THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE EXISTS EXISTS." Not that he does, or that there's even reason to believe that does, or that it in any way impacts the possibility that he does. Simply that if you can't prove he doesn't exist, then ... you can't prove he doesn't exist. Nothing more. As it applies to this discussion, if you can't prove that Teosinte naturally mutated, the POSSIBILITY exists that it did. If you can prove that it didn't naturally mutate, great, you eliminated that possibility. I haven't seen sufficient evidence of that to persuade me. That's all I'm claiming. I'm still open to the possibility that you are correct. You're saying it's proven that it didn't - I don't agree, based on the evidence presented to me. I'm not saying "I don't agree with you, so the opposite is true." I'm saying "I don't think your evidence is sufficient, so I don't know. As a random related addendum, here's another possibility which also may be true or untrue."

The logical evidence that man turned teosinte into a nutritive plant is simply the fact that a plant in nature has no reason to be nutritive. What's wrong with that logic?
Other than the vast array of nutritive plants in nature?