GMOs

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That is if you presume that the name Christ is from Jesus or Christianity. Which in my religion it is not. This is because a time traveller from the future brings awareness of the name to the past where he possesses many secretly with permissions he received by possessing the true Christ in the future from that time. As well he brings knowledge of the future to them that they may prophecize of it which grants him permission to possess to manifest prophecy. Essentially, it's almost as though he from the future has more control over time than those in the past. This person is Lucifer Morningstar who in my religion is one and the same as Satan, and both of whom are deceived by The Devil of my religion, who is in no way also called Satan. So no, not a fringe of Christianity. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion beyond that I mentioned the name Christ.

It isn't it's more from Judaism so I guess you're a fringe group of Judaism?

May I ask why you say Lucifer? Where do you get that name from besides Sandman?

 

[Alceste]

I am not talking about a God you have heard of, so you'd come to no valid opinion against him except by hearing from me. The religion I follow takes from multiple sources for example it states like Christianity and Taoism that Christ is the way, and that he is the Tao in bipedal male form. However it does not state that Jesus is Christ like Judaism, which holds a likeness to my own where it states that a miracle-worker is not automatically the True Messiah. However in my religion even the Jewish prophets accepted of The Devil of my religion by having halos. In my relgion only Christ the True Messiah is meant to have a halo, and his is differently shaped and not meant to be held around the body in a static state, but to flicker in briefly. Too, it accept that like the tao is a universal energy that is the universe and all things except consciousness inside of it, Red Dragon of the mayan calendar is this energy, known by the mayans as the energy of form. It states that the true Christ is Red Resonant Dragon. As well it states that Lucifer Morningstar is Red Skywalker, the time/space traveller who can jump dimensions and CAN (but does not) assist in realizing heaven on earth. It also states that all the people in history who have had religions based around them were real and could work miracles as stated but it does not state that any of them are God or The Messiah.

A true creation can only be made by the God of this religion, in this religion, and it is latent energy given form directly instead of objects brought to life, like Adam is supposedly designed.

So, your religion is...

[youtube]EaqQhdt1qqk[/youtube]
Cypress Hill - Hits From The Bong - YouTube

 

[McBell]

And why is it that you would like to avoid yet another deity, oh ye agnostic one?

Because any deity that condones, advocates, encourages, etc. your blatant dishonesty is one I want nothing to do with.

 

[McBell]

So a fringe of Christianity.

sounds more like a chimera...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It should be pretty obvious what peer reviewed papers I'm talking about, we're talking about GMOs.

And what peer reviewed papers do you want?

If Don - and to clarify, his name is DON - Huber is not a toxicology expert who is?

I don't believe I said he wasn't an expert on toxicology - I personally have no idea of his credentials in that regard. I said that he wasn't an expert on GMOs. I called him a fraud on the basis that has not supported a lot of his claims or submitted them for peer review, and yet still peddles his theories and scaremongering as valid science.

No high up scientist in their right mind would accept an offer from a random audience member to examine and thusly potentially verify as false their work.

You mean, like submiting their work to peer review?

It's like saying a pro wrestler would up and allow themselves to get in a fight with an audience member (not a paid actor) who could be hiding a weapon or anything like that.

No, it's more like a scientist being asked by another scientist for the evidence that supports their work. Which is what it is.

The validity of the article you posted is questionable just by the format. Reminds me of dozens of other scams I've read.

Well, dismissing a web page by virtue of it's format makes a lot more sense than reviewing the contents.

He's not a crackpot because he's against GMOs, and I'm presently of the opinion that due to your immature jokes and lack of ability to adequately represent your opinion without expressing childish jokes or attempts at deluding others by entering some sort of mob psychology prompt where because you joked about me they'll side with you instead, you may as well not post at all.

... Says the guy who thought a bing search results pages should present a convincing argument. If you're going to make silly claims and support them with nothing, you're going to get ridiculed and not taken seriously. That's just the way the world works, I'm afraid.

Just because he has a theory running where he has no peer-reviewed papers, doesn't make everything he has ever known useless.

No, it just makes him extremely suspect and the claims he's made completely irrelevant since he refuses to support them with facts. Even you must admit that a man who makes such claims as he does ought to support them with evidence and submit that evidence to peer review. What possible reason could he have not to?

If you're going to present that he himself has no data with evidence that it's because there are no peer-reviewed papers... you only back up my argument that there is NO DATA on GMOs that is peer reviewed, and I'm QUITE certain that if that is even required, it has been peer reviewed.

Hold on, so you asked for ANY papers on GMOs? THAT is what you were asking for? Have you even TRIED looking??

Here are 818 peer-reviewed papers from Pub Med Central on the subject of (or partially about) genetically modified food:
genetically modified food - PMC - NCBI

Furthermore, you state that he is NOT a toxicology expert, providing evidence that he has a theory which has not peer reviewed and that he rejected someones "generous offer." IN NO WAY does this prove that he is not a toxicology expert.

Again, I didn't say that. I said he wasn't an expert on GMOs.

It's enough for me to say you are just another among a massive number of hypocritical, convinced critics of pro-health pro-organic, anti-GMO people who just want to watch others play God. You provide ZERO evidence that is directly linked to your statements.

Good thing I never made that claim, then. Also, this debate isn't going to go well if you're going to talk in ridiculous hyperbole, not provide any evidence whatsoever, then turn around and accuse me of being a hypocrite.

It is rare for me to not to buy food from an organic food store in which all the labels say NON-GMO, but I'm pretty broke of late. Are you suggesting that even those foods are GMO'd?

Oh, well, if there's a label on it then it must be absolutely 100% accurate. Because, as I'm sure you yourself believe, everything that companies tell us about food is totally accurate and honest.

Once again: selective breeding and cross-fertilization are methods of genetic engineering. Have you ever eaten a banana? Then, guess what, that banana was genetically engineered, because yellow bananas do not grow naturally in the wild. When you learn that GM doesn't mean that a fruit or vegetable was grown in a lab by eeevil scientists, you'll see why this whole debate is a total farce. The real truth is that most people have absolutely no clue what GM actually means or refers to. Most people are extremely under-educated on food and nutrition, and this is the primary cause of the majority of fad diets, health foods with jumped-up prices (that aren't any healthier for you), and our pointless fascination with organic produce which has no demonstrable benefits whatsoever compared with non-organic food.

As well I am not female, despite your presumption,

Erm... What presumption?

so I have more an issue with impotency. I was tempted to respond in kind, but have decided not to harass you with points that might not even apply to you, as you have done unto me.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? Do you not understand what "rearing" means?

Finally, on your statement that he is a crackpot, as derived from the two articles you shared, means nothing.

Kind of like how your suggestion of him being an expert based on the one article you posted means nothing?

Also, you suggest that wikipedia allows crackpots and misinformers to write on their site,

Everything I have read on there has come with perfect source material and a good deal of advanced research, unlike your google search for evidence against - Don - Huber, who you are calling a fraud for showing concern that a toxin that targets GROWING POINTS in it's victim is now being widely ingested - essentially- by the human race. It's no wonder animals are infertile.

You mean, those seven sources - not one of which is a scientifically reviewed paper?

I ask kindly that you re-read my posts, both of the last two, and not quickly scan over them and the articles you provide for OPINIONS instead of facts.

You owe me an entire truck full of new irony meters.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hell, while I'm at it, I'll clearly state... THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS A CRACKPOT THEORY WITH NO DERIVATIVES IN A REALITY IN WHICH A GOD EXISTS. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE DELUDED BY THE ANCIENT SKULLS WE'VE DISCOVERED, THOSE COULD SIMPLY BE ANOTHER SPECIES THAT WENT EXTINCT. SO FAR WE'VE GOT BILLIONS OF BELIEVERS IN A HIGHER POWER IN GENERAL WITH LOADS OF WRITTEN (If no evidence available to the naked eye) EVIDENCE FOR IT, AND A FEW DEAD BODIES AS SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION. Btw, this is coming from someone who used to be an evolutionist. I mean, do you really think we just coincidentally achieved multiple different bodies and forms, can reproduce, and THINK? SERIOUSLY... FOR YOU TO PRESUME THERE ISN'T A DIVINE BEING WHO CAUSED ALL THIS ALIGNMENT IS PLAIN RIDICULOUSNESS. THE CHANCES OF EVERYTHING ALIGNING SO PERFECTLY, EVEN IF AFTER MILLIONS AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS, IS NIL.

Well, thankyou for this incredibly informative and convincing argument that I have never heard, or even considered, before. I shall be sure to change my beliefs entirely in line with yours, because you clearly are a far more intelligent being that myself or the vast majority of scientists.

 

[KMGC]

Just so you know, Raelians are atehists who do not belive in Evolution. (I'm not one, but I thought you should know.)

There are Creationists who belive God used Evolution to create life.

And another point, Monstanto who do a lot of GMO isnot driven by evolution nor atheism but by profit. The reason thry do it is to make money.

But at the same time, they would not be so popular were there more creationists out there who had morals that weren't derived from Godlessness.

I have never heard of Raelians before. Forgive my ignorance .

 

[KMGC]

Well, thankyou for this incredibly informative and convincing argument that I have never heard, or even considered, before. I shall be sure to change my beliefs entirely in line with yours, because you clearly are a far more intelligent being that myself or the vast majority of scientists.

And here is immortal flame expressing typical atheist sarcasm/ immature insults as usual. And before you correct me, I guarantee you I once would have responded that exact way myself. So you are telling me that there is something so inherently wrong with your logic patterns that even though you examine that all of these things are perfectly aligned you believe it all came from nothing but a zygote?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And here is immortal flame expressing typical atheist sarcasm/ immature insults as usual. And before you correct me, I guarantee you I once would have responded that exact way myself. So you are telling me that there is something so inherently wrong with your logic patterns that even though you examine that all of these things are perfectly aligned you believe it all came from nothing but a zygote?

How do you suppose I respond to that post? Do you not find your own words immature? Go back and read them.

Also, in what way are things "perfectly aligned"? Please explain to me how you can demonstrate that this is the case. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to review the arguments you've made in more detail but, frankly, I don't think you put any effort into making or supporting them, so why should I put any effort into refuting them?

 

[Ouroboros]

But at the same time, they would not be so popular were there more creationists out there who had morals that weren't derived from Godlessness.

Morals? So now we're shifting the gears toward morals too? You're all over the place.

You don't need God to have morals. What you're saying now is that a person like me is not moral. Well... thank you very much for continuing being offensive.

Morals come from values, mores, and beliefs. A person who doesn't believe in God is not a person completely without beliefs. I believe that if I don't act good in my personal life, I will suffer consequences in my own future (in this life). I benefit from being moral and having values that are beneficial for my own sake, my family's safety and health, and much more. To say that because I'm godless that means I'm immoral is very, very belligerent.

I have never heard of Raelians before. Forgive my ignorance .

They believe aliens created life on this planet, and that evolution isn't true.

 

[KMGC]

And what peer reviewed papers do you want?


I don't believe I said he wasn't an expert on toxicology - I personally have no idea of his credentials in that regard. I said that he wasn't an expert on GMOs. I called him a fraud on the basis that has not supported a lot of his claims or submitted them for peer review, and yet still peddles his theories and scaremongering as valid science.


You mean, like submiting their work to peer review?




No, it's more like a scientist being asked by another scientist for the evidence that supports their work. Which is what it is.


Well, dismissing a web page by virtue of it's format makes a lot more sense than reviewing the contents.


... Says the guy who thought a bing search results pages should present a convincing argument. If you're going to make silly claims and support them with nothing, you're going to get ridiculed and not taken seriously. That's just the way the world works, I'm afraid.


No, it just makes him extremely suspect and the claims he's made completely irrelevant since he refuses to support them with facts. Even you must admit that a man who makes such claims as he does ought to support them with evidence and submit that evidence to peer review. What possible reason could he have not to?


Hold on, so you asked for ANY papers on GMOs? THAT is what you were asking for? Have you even TRIED looking??

Here are 818 peer-reviewed papers from Pub Med Central on the subject of (or partially about) genetically modified food:
genetically modified food - PMC - NCBI


Again, I didn't say that. I said he wasn't an expert on GMOs.


Good thing I never made that claim, then. Also, this debate isn't going to go well if you're going to talk in ridiculous hyperbole, not provide any evidence whatsoever, then turn around and accuse me of being a hypocrite.


Oh, well, if there's a label on it then it must be absolutely 100% accurate. Because, as I'm sure you yourself believe, everything that companies tell us about food is totally accurate and honest.

Once again: selective breeding and cross-fertilization are methods of genetic engineering. Have you ever eaten a banana? Then, guess what, that banana was genetically engineered, because yellow bananas do not grow naturally in the wild. When you learn that GM doesn't mean that a fruit or vegetable was grown in a lab by eeevil scientists, you'll see why this whole debate is a total farce. The real truth is that most people have absolutely no clue what GM actually means or refers to. Most people are extremely under-educated on food and nutrition, and this is the primary cause of the majority of fad diets, health foods with jumped-up prices (that aren't any healthier for you), and our pointless fascination with organic produce which has no demonstrable benefits whatsoever compared with non-organic food.


Erm... What presumption?


Again, what on earth are you talking about? Do you not understand what "rearing" means?


Kind of like how your suggestion of him being an expert based on the one article you posted means nothing?





You mean, those seven sources - not one of which is a scientifically reviewed paper?


You owe me an entire truck full of new irony meters.

As far as your comment on the bing results. I noticed when I googled Dr. Don Huber that your two response links were both from that search. There's evidence of hypocrisy which I stated you contained - you say not to use search results as evidence.

I did not mean ANY papers from GMOs, I meant ANY papers about health risks OF GMOS.
The very article you provide states that he says he has peers reviewing his work, but that they have yet to provide it for public view. That he did not allow a random third party in the audience to observe his work is unsurprising.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As far as your comment on the bing results. I noticed when I googled Dr. Don Huber that your two response links were both from that search. There's evidence of hypocrisy which I stated you contained.

So me googling a person's name and linking a couple of articles on him makes me a hypocrite because I mocked you for literally typing a phrase into bing and using the results page as an argument? I provided links to actual articles with specific points, you just typed a phrase into a search engine and didn't even bother to select an article. Looking up a person on a search engine to find articles on them and then link to those articles is completely different to typing "opinions that agree with mine" into the search engine and using the results page to bolster your own arguments.

 

[KMGC]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And wrong!


They are. That's exactly what evolution says. They are intermediate species. There are literally hundreds of thousands of fossils, not just skulls mind you, but whole skeletons.

Besides, analyzing skulls is a lot more advanced than you obviously think. There are many things that can be concluded just from studying a skull.


A few dead bodies? The fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution. You can spend your whole life reading about all the research and findings, and your life won't be long enough. The evidence is extremely overwhelming, but since you're not spending time actually reading a book by any anthropologist or paleontologist, it's obvious that you don't want to know the evidence. You avoiding the evidence isn't the same as evidence missing.


I find that hard to believe considering your way of talking about it. You obviously don't even know what evolution is based on your discussion on this board. Also, remember that spinning the truth is a form of lying. If you are, then you're a very bad representation of your own faith.

And also, arguments from CAPS isn't convincing. Not convincing at all.

What I meant was a separate and different species that could POSSIBLY have not evolved into us but solely been wiped out by us "more evolved folk" due to their "lesser" skull structure. (or intelligence) That these bodies were found, no matter the number, does not indicate that they are automatically an intermediate species.

 

[KMGC]

How do you suppose I respond to that post? Do you not find your own words immature? Go back and read them.

Also, in what way are things "perfectly aligned"? Please explain to me how you can demonstrate that this is the case. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to review the arguments you've made in more detail but, frankly, I don't think you put any effort into making or supporting them, so why should I put any effort into refuting them?

Alrighty then... Things are perfectly aligned because there is a planet of life amid BILLIONS and more planets which apparently have no intelligent life. The odds of our planet residing in perfect proximity to a sun amidst all the other planets out there which DON'T is unlikely if it all began from nothing. Of course it is easy to say that with the number of lifeless planets it is more likely that a planet with life would occur, but then again you could say that if it all just exploded from nothing that it with all those planets out there without life there's little likelihood that one would happen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What I meant was a separate and different species that could POSSIBLY have not evolved into us but solely been wiped out by us "more evolved folk" due to their "lesser" skull structure. (or intelligence) That these bodies were found, no matter the number, does not indicate that they are automatically an intermediate species.

So what you are suggesting is that what actually happened is that all of these different, distinct species that all looked very similar to us just appeared (out of nowhere?) one after another, in perfect succession, gradually getting more and more shaped like our own heads - but our ancestors managed to kill every single one of them every time, and yet, surprisingly, not leave a single fossilized body of themselves behind among the bodies of those nearly identical fossilized bodies that they supposedly killed?

Are you joking?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Alrighty then... Things are perfectly aligned because there is a planet of life amid BILLIONS and more planets which apparently have no intelligent life. The odds of our planet residing in perfect proximity to a sun amidst all the other planets out there which DON'T is unlikely if it all began from nothing. Of course it is easy to say that with the number of lifeless planets it is more likely that a planet with life would occur, but then again you could say that if it all just exploded from nothing that it with all those planets out there without life there's little likelihood that one would happen.

There are no odds, not enough information about what even makes life possible hear to even make the statement that odds.

Mind you though, you didn't answer my question. Why do you use words like Lucifer? Christ? Or Satan? those are very Judaeo-Christian beliefs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Alrighty then... Things are perfectly aligned because there is a planet of life amid BILLIONS and more planets which apparently have no intelligent life.

How does that make it perfect? If anything that makes it extremely random and imperfect.

The odds of our planet residing in perfect proximity to a sun amidst all the other planets out there which DON'T is unlikely if it all began from nothing.

How so? Life could have appeared under any conditions whatsoever and you'd still be making the same argument. The fact that our planet happens to be within a habitable zone for it to develop an atmosphere that is conductive to life is no more "perfect" than throwing billions of pebbles at a tiny hole and, by some chance, one of those pebbles happens to fit in the hole.

Of course it is easy to say that with the number of lifeless planets it is more likely that a planet with life would occur, but then again you could say that if it all just exploded from nothing that it with all those planets out there without life there's little likelihood that one would happen.

It's a good thing that nobody says that, then.

 

[KMGC]

So me googling a person's name and linking a couple of articles on him makes me a hypocrite because I mocked you for literally typing a phrase into bing and using the results page as an argument? I provided links to actual articles with specific points, you just typed a phrase into a search engine and didn't even bother to select an article. Looking up a person on a search engine to find articles on them and then link to those articles is completely different to typing "opinions that agree with mine" into the search engine and using the results page to bolster your own arguments.

Actually I know read at least one of those articles as I remember having closed it and deciding, logically, to provide multiple links for my argument rather than just two.

In fact upon opening the history and going back to that link I see that I opened and read not one but nine articles about what I said by the purple text. None of the papers you've provided in that 818 page page attempt at overwhelming me with numbers instead of facts, which in the first several pages contained only one argument saying that there were no health effects, and that only from ONE type of GMO.

 

[KMGC]

How does that make it perfect? If anything that makes it extremely random and imperfect.


How so? Life could have appeared under any conditions whatsoever and you'd still be making the same argument. The fact that our planet happens to be within a habitable zone for it to develop an atmosphere that is conductive to life is no more "perfect" than throwing billions of pebbles at a tiny hole and, by some chance, one of those pebbles happens to fit in the hole.


It's a good thing that nobody says that, then.

As I understand so far, you are an atheist who is absolutely lost in egotism and expressing nothing but disrespect and attacking instead of remaining neutral and providing arguments that nullify instead of debasing or harassing me into a defensive position, which I may not be.

You argument that life could have appeared under any conditions and I'd be making the same argument is moot as long as we presume that God created existence and thusly could create others without much issue. Those may have happened differently, and he would still be the source. And he would not actively combine pesticides and life.

 

[Parsimony]

Things are perfectly aligned because there is a planet of life amid BILLIONS and more planets which apparently have no intelligent life

It is not known whether there are other planets with intelligent life on them or not. It is possible that we are one of the most advanced species of intelligent life and as such most other intelligent species simply have not developed the technology required to communicate with or travel to us. Alternatively, the number of civilizations in the Universe may be relatively small (say, 100 or 1,000 civilizations) but are so spread out that it is nearly impossible for them to learn of one another's existence at their current technology levels.