Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[Subduction Zone]

>>SZ: If you want to claim that GMO is harmful then the burden of proof is upon you. All you have is hysterical rantings on your side, like the belief that DNA can be transmitted from a GMO to people. That is something that is just not possible according to the experts in the field.<<

No, it's up to Monsanto and crazy people like you to show glyphosate and inert ingredients, i.e. Roundup ingredients, are safe. It's clear they're not and has been shown in 1995 (!).

Actually they have shown it to be safe. The toxicity report that you cited is one such example. Don't eat the pure product and don't rub the pure product on your skin. That too much of it can kill you is not surprising. Drinking too much water can kill a person as can eating too much salt. Granted, it would take much less, about an ounce to threaten an adult, but I don't see anyone doing that.

Tell me, how would you test the products? You do realize that the various government agencies would take it off of the market in a heartbeat if there was any indication at all that it was a serious threat, don't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Erm... You have spent the last 10 days claiming gm was harmful

By the way, I did get a good chuckle out of your post. No harmful intent was meant

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you do admit Roundup is cancerous.

There you go foaming again about how do I not understand. What is your background? Maybe you flunked out of UMH. Why should I believe anything you post? It seems like it's you who does not understand that dangers were covered up by these biotech companies. Remember I also pointed out these companies produced chemical weapons of war which were later banned.

No, I did not admit that. Where did you get that idea from? Now it appears that you do not even understand the word "toxic".

You also really need to learn how to debate honestly. Using non sequiturs is not a proper debating technique.

 

[james bond]

May i refer you to this staff post regarding abuse of the funny rating
Abuse of the "Funny" Rating

You are so wacko. I used it once and that constitutes abuse?

 

[ChristineM]

You are so wacko. I used it once and that constitutes abuse?

Read the advice from staff.

 

[james bond]

Erm... You have spent the last 10 days claiming gm was harmful

EFC (edited for clarity) and I claim abuse of "Funny" rating.

 

[ChristineM]

EFC (edited for clarity) and I claim abuse of "Funny" rating.

Very good.

 

[james bond]

No, I did not admit that. Where did you get that idea from? Now it appears that you do not even understand the word "toxic".

You also really need to learn how to debate honestly. Using non sequiturs is not a proper debating technique.

Now, you're going looney tunes on me when you're the one with no credibility. It's typical SZ. I'll go back to ignoring your posts again.

Let me depart with some food for thought about what's happening with GMO foods.

DEMAND FOOD LABELING OF GMO!!!

I didn't even get time to discuss the bees. I see GM bees coming to a hive near you.

STAY SAFE AND EAT ORGANIC. I'll try to be back in a few months.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now, you're going looney tunes on me when you're the one with no credibility. It's typical SZ. I'll go back to ignoring your posts again.

Let me depart with some food for thought about what's happening with GMO foods.

DEMAND FOOD LABELING OF GMO!!!

I didn't even get time to discuss the bees. I see GM bees coming to a hive near you.

STAY SAFE AND EAT ORGANIC. I'll try to be back in a few months.

Oh my, after getting thoroughly defeated for not using skepticism and only making emotional responses what do you do? Make one more huge appeal to emotions using various arguments from ignorance.

When you are ready to learn I am ready to help you. Why are you so afraid to even learn what is and what is not evidence in such a debate? Running away from such a discussion tells us that you know that you do not have any evidence.

ETA: Your most recent problem is that you conflated the terms "toxic" and "carcinogenic". Just because something is toxic to a certain degree does not mean that it is carcinogenic. Don't trust me, you can text this out for yourself. You can test it by eating a gram of NaCN I guarantee that you will not get cancer. In fact it is related chemically to the active ingredient in Laetrile, you know the natural cure for cancer that used to be touted by quite a few quacks.

 

[james bond]

Oh my, after getting thoroughly defeated for not using skepticism and only making emotional responses what do you do? Make one more huge appeal to emotions using various arguments from ignorance.

When you are ready to learn I am ready to help you. Why are you so afraid to even learn what is and what is not evidence in such a debate? Running away from such a discussion tells us that you know that you do not have any evidence.

I didn't get defeated. You did that to yourself. When one loses POSTER CRED then one loses a lot. It's usually most people get poster cred and get daps for it, but you are the exception.

 

[james bond]

Here's the lowdown on the bees. Bayer and some Monsanto.

EPA Finally Admits What Has Been Killing Bees For Decades

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't get defeated. You did that to yourself. When one loses POSTER CRED then one loses a lot. It's usually most people get poster cred and get daps for it, but you are the exception.

Of course you were defeated. You lost because all of your claims were shown to be bogus. I supported my claims with valid articles. Your "best effort" was an article that was retracted and then republished in a pay for publishing journal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the lowdown on the bees. Bayer and some Monsanto.

EPA Finally Admits What Has Been Killing Bees For Decades

Try to find honest sources. When you see emotional hype the claims are usually wrong. It appears that it may be those may be a significant factor, but the jury is still out:

Colony collapse disorder - Wikipedia

 

[james bond]

Very good.

What's not good is Borlaug may have supported GMO. He supported Monsanto and they supported him. I mean he would be in favor of practically everything they are doing. Oh well. Another one bites the dust.

 

[james bond]

Of course you were defeated. You lost because all of your claims were shown to be bogus. I supported my claims with valid articles. Your "best effort" was an article that was retracted and then republished in a pay for publishing journal.

If you were trying to get me to buy GMO foods, then you lost. We are not talking about altruism, but a profit industry. Set aside the GMO foods safety issue, GMO farming issue, toxins issue and the Bayer-Monsanto sale. The consumers do not have to buy GMO foods and products to save the world. They are just looking out for what is good for their children and family. All the consumers are saying is tell us which ingredients are GMO. We have non-GMO and organic labeling, so why not GMO labeling? It's a right-to-know issue. I brought up Campbell soup company and they have labeled their products GMO. I saw a can of Cream of Mushroom soup in my pantry with the label as above and ate it. Will I buy another one? I doubt it. I will go for the non-GMO and GMO soups. Campbell is also coming out with an organic line of soups to meet non-GMO and organic demand which I will buy. It really isn't a matter of who won or lost, but a matter of consumer choice and RTK. Will you accept that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you were trying to get me to buy GMO foods, then you lost. We are not talking about altruism, but a profit industry. Set aside the GMO foods safety issue, GMO farming issue, toxins issue and the Bayer-Monsanto sale. The consumers do not have to buy GMO foods and products to save the world. They are just looking out for what is good for their children and family. All the consumers are saying is tell us which ingredients are GMO. We have non-GMO and organic labeling, so why not GMO labeling? It's a right-to-know issue. I brought up Campbell soup company and they have labeled their products GMO. I saw a can of Cream of Mushroom soup in my pantry with the label as above and ate it. Will I buy another one? I doubt it. I will go for the non-GMO and GMO soups. Campbell is also coming out with an organic line of soups to meet non-GMO and organic demand which I will buy. It really isn't a matter of who won or lost, but a matter of consumer choice and RTK. Will you accept that?

No, I merely showed that you cannot support your claims. And yes, members of wealthy nations do not need to eat GMO's. But countless would starve to death without them and they will be needed more and more in the future.

By the way, every time that you use bogus debating techniques you as much as admit that you are wrong. That the Campbell Soup Company voluntarily prints that they use GMO's is a red herring.

I have never denied your right to buy organic. That is another bogus debating technique. It is a non sequitur that has nothing at all to do with the argument at hand. Thanks for continually tacitly admitting that you are wrong.

 

[james bond]

No, I merely showed that you cannot support your claims. And yes, members of wealthy nations do not need to eat GMO's. But countless would starve to death without them and they will be needed more and more in the future.

By the way, every time that you use bogus debating techniques you as much as admit that you are wrong. That the Campbell Soup Company voluntarily prints that they use GMO's is a red herring.

I have never denied your right to buy organic. That is another bogus debating technique. It is a non sequitur that has nothing at all to do with the argument at hand. Thanks for continually tacitly admitting that you are wrong.

What I'm saying is put our arguments aside and stop trying to support one's claims. We're not going to be able to reach a settlement. You think you are arguing for altruism and that isn't what's at stake here. The organic and non-GMO growers think they can support the increase in population. When you say "But countless would starve to death without them and they will be needed more and more in the future," that is just your opinion. Even the matter of which farming techniques will win out is up to the consumer.

I haven't used any bogus debating technique, am wrong or using a red herring. That's just you and your insecurities talking because you lack credibility.

I will continue to buy organic and non-GMO and avoid buying GMO tainted foods, but I doubt you'll buy GMO foods. I doubt that you are for GMO labeling although you agreed that the consumer has a right to know. Call me a skeptic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I'm saying is put our arguments aside and stop trying to support one's claims. We're not going to be able to reach a settlement. You think you are arguing for altruism and that isn't what's at stake here. The organic and non-GMO growers think they can support the increase in population. When you say "But countless would starve to death without them and they will be needed more and more in the future," that is just your opinion. Even the matter of which farming techniques will win out is up to the consumer.

That is only because you are wrong, and you know it, but you won't admit it.

I haven't used any bogus debating technique, am wrong or using a red herring. That's just you and your insecurities talking because you lack credibility.

This lack of honesty on your part is why you keep losing. If you won't learn from your errors you will merely keep repeating them.

I will continue to buy organic and non-GMO and avoid buying GMO tainted foods, but I doubt you'll buy GMO foods. I doubt that you are for GMO labeling although you agreed that the consumer has a right to know. Call me a skeptic.

The only reason you oppose GMO's is because of your superstitious fears. That is fine with me. And no, you are not a skeptic. You don't even know what a skeptic is. To be a skeptic you need to understand a concept that is far beyond your abilities right now. You need to understand the concept of evidence. But as long as you are afraid you will not be able to learn. You are merely superstitious.

By the way, if a company wants to label their foods with GMO's in them that is their right. If you want to force them to do so you need to come up with a good reason for the labeling. You have failed to do so as of yet.

 

[james bond]

That is only because you are wrong, and you know it, but you won't admit it.



This lack of honesty on your part is why you keep losing. If you won't learn from your errors you will merely keep repeating them.


The only reason you oppose GMO's is because of your superstitious fears. That is fine with me. And no, you are not a skeptic. You don't even know what a skeptic is. To be a skeptic you need to understand a concept that is far beyond your abilities right now. You need to understand the concept of evidence. But as long as you are afraid you will not be able to learn. You are merely superstitious.

By the way, if a company wants to label their foods with GMO's in them that is their right. If you want to force them to do so you need to come up with a good reason for the labeling. You have failed to do so as of yet.

At least, you're persistent. It's not a matter of right or wrong since it's science. Science usually isn't settled (despite what that clown boy/engineer Bill Nye says); It's best theory at the moment. Remember we once thought the universe was eternal? That turned out to be pseudoscience.

I don't think it's my honesty that's lacking, but your dishonesty and wrongness. Just re-read my first sentence and compare it with you trying to win an argument thinking that science is right, so I am right.

I already listed right-to-know, long-term studies, epigenetic changes that are unforseen, toxins that are hazardous, patents in the hand of Nazis, our food source being controlled by mega-corps only interested in profits, greed, people rising up against it and more. You haven't addressed any of it. That's why you have lost poster cred. Now, you don't like me playing the role of skeptic to your "faith" in GMO foods .

I agree. GMO labeling will have to be done by the law. It's about the consumer's right to know and you already agreed on that. In 2018, it will be the beginning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least, you're persistent. It's not a matter of right or wrong since it's science. Science usually isn't settled (despite what that clown boy/engineer Bill Nye says); It's best theory at the moment. Remember we once thought the universe was eternal? That turned out to be pseudoscience.

Oh my, so much wrong in such a short space. Science can show ideas to be wrong. For example the claims of creationists have been shown to be wrong again and again, so much that they no longer do science. And you don't even know what a theory is. Plus the Big Bang theory only tells us what happened after the Big Bang, there still may be a 'before the big bang'. And though the steady state is now thought to be wrong that does not make it psuedoscience. You don't know what psuedoscience is either.

I don't think it's my honesty that's lacking, but your dishonesty and wrongness. Just re-read my first sentence and compare it with you trying to win an argument thinking that science is right, so I am right.

Please we all know that honesty is a huge problem for any creationist. And you know that you can't win since so many of your claims have been shown to be wrong so now you try to change the goals after the fact. That is not honest either.

I already listed right-to-know, long-term studies, epigenetic changes that are unforseen, toxins that are hazardous, patents in the hand of Nazis, our food source being controlled by mega-corps only interested in profits, greed, people rising up against it and more. You haven't addressed any of it. That's why you have lost poster cred. Now, you don't like me playing the role of skeptic to your "faith" in GMO foods .

The problem is that the "studies" that you have linked have been refuted or shown to be utter garbage. It seems you still do not know how serious of a matter it is when a journal retracts an article. That is a major statement on how wrong an idea is. The journal is admitting that they are embarrassed for ever printing that nonsense.

I agree. GMO labeling will have to be done by the law. It's about the consumer's right to know and you already agreed on that. In 2018, it will be the beginning.

Wrong, that is not what I said. If you want to order it done then the burden of proof is upon you. You know that you can't prove an harm in GMO's. This again is an example of you being dishonest. Seriously if you want to deny being dishonest then you should not have a post with so many examples of your dishonesty.