GMOs

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Except you didn't. Here's an example of what you did:

proof of geocentrism - Bing

See? There's the proof that the earth is the center of the Universe.

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.

I'm so sorry that you wasted so much of your time.

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.

So, you just skimmed the first page and didn't bother reading anything or checking the sources or doing your own searches on PubMedCentral?

 

[KMGC]

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.

Not in my religion. Those are words that they used as well because of the time traveller from the future who knew these terms and brought them back in time. There may be no evidence to you but lets just say there is to me.
None of those words or names come from a belief system. They come from reality, in which Lucifer is a time traveller from the future who is bent on misusing the terms used to describe all the most powerful people in existence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I understand so far, you are an atheist

Who says that?

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.

Actually, no. I responded to your arguments perfectly reasonably. Also, you now owe me several trucks worth of irony meters.

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.

But he apparently has no problem giving newborn children leukemia, so it's not much consolation, is it?

 

[KMGC]

Except you didn't. Here's an example of what you did:

proof of geocentrism - Bing

See? There's the proof that the earth is the center of the Universe.


I'm so sorry that you wasted so much of your time.


So, you just skimmed the first page and didn't bother reading anything or checking the sources or doing your own searches on PubMedCentral?

Now that you mention it I hadn't searched. BUT, if YOU had you'd never have asked that question, because when I did, only that one result for that one type of GMO was present in the first few pages

 

[KMGC]

Who says that?


Actually, no. I responded to your arguments perfectly reasonably. Also, you now owe me several trucks worth of irony meters.


But he apparently has no problem giving newborn children leukemia, so it's not much consolation, is it?

By blaming God for something man clearly does by his own free will BY choosing that despite that GMOs are disease causing he will feed them to his pregnant wife or she to herself, you display great ignorance on the subject of God. I ask that you compose a respectful debating response instead of harassing me with typical atheist garbage. Which is exactly the mindset your coming from by your statement on God giving leukemia. If you knew religion you would know God does not give us diseases but gives us the immune system.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Now that you mention it I hadn't searched. BUT, if YOU had you'd never have asked that question, because when I did, only that one result for that one type of GMO was present in the first few pages

Except for the fact that I was the one who went to PubMedCentral in the first place and provided you with all of those hits in response to your claim that there was not a single peer-reviewed paper on GMOs. Kind of blows your claim out of the water, huh?

 

[KMGC]

So, your religion is...

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

Wayness, Taoness, Truthness. Deceptionless.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

By blaming God for something man clearly does by his own free will BY choosing that despite that GMOs are disease causing he will feed them to his pregnant wife or she to herself, you display great ignorance on the subject of God.

You're right. It's the mother's fault her newborn child has leukemia. I'll be sure to tell her that next time I see her.

I ask that you compose a respectful debating response instead of harassing me with typical atheist garbage.

So, responding to the claim that a child having leukemia is the fault of their parents is perfectly respectful?

Which is exactly the mindset your coming from by your statement on God giving leukemia. If you knew religion you would know God does not give us diseases but gives us the immune system.

So God gets credit for all the good stuff, but none of the bad stuff despite having the power to prevent it easily? And we should therefore blame ourselves?

 

[KMGC]

Except for the fact that I was the one who went to PubMedCentral in the first place and provided you with all of those hits in response to your claim that there was not a single peer-reviewed paper on GMOs. Kind of blows your claim out of the water, huh?

I meant peer reviewed papers on THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF GMOS. READ THAT AGAIN. HEALTH EFFECTS OF GMOS. AND THAT CAME UP WITH ONE RESULT AND THEN EMPTY BOLOGNA WITH NO real informative value. Simply discussion papers on social response.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I meant peer reviewed papers on THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF GMOS. READ THAT AGAIN. HEALTH EFFECTS OF GMOS. AND THAT CAME UP WITH ONE RESULT AND THEN EMPTY BOLOGNA WITH NO real informative value. Simply discussion papers on social response.

Oh look, you're lying:

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.

Also, scrolling down just the first page of results, I found eight papers that specifically investigated the effects of GMOs on health:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3678139/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3833814/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3558185/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130127/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389757/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2556401/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3725665/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1115027/

 

[KMGC]

You're right. It's the mother's fault her newborn child has leukemia. I'll be sure to tell her that next time I see her.


So, responding to the claim that a child having leukemia is the fault of their parents is perfectly respectful?


So God gets credit for all the good stuff, but none of the bad stuff despite having the power to prevent it easily? And we should therefore blame ourselves?

Allow me to inform you of something. God lets it be so. That is why Jesus said "Let it be so then and let all righteousness fall into our/my hands" He believed that with righteousness in his hands from God he would have greater authority over reality and blah blah blah. God, by remaining an essentially neutral agent who provides a select few with powers to govern reality allows those select few to govern in his stead. Unfortunately many do not allow him to govern righteousness and instead try to seize it themselves. It is my opinion that it is subsidiaries of God like Jesus and his God who clearly had some type of power who allow the damned to affect our reality.

 

[KMGC]

Oh look, you're lying:

There's a typo there. It's meant to say no data on the HEALTH effects of GMOS.

 

[KMGC]

Oh look, you're lying:

Not only that detaching that response from the rest of the page it came from makes it seem other than how it was posed originally.

 

[KMGC]

Except you didn't. Here's an example of what you did:

proof of geocentrism - Bing

See? There's the proof that the earth is the center of the Universe.


I'm so sorry that you wasted so much of your time.


So, you just skimmed the first page and didn't bother reading anything or checking the sources or doing your own searches on PubMedCentral?

And what you did was google it and provide links you had already opened instead of just the search page. Google may be a better search engine, and I had regretted using BING, so lets say you win on that I shouldn't have posted a BING page.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Allow me to inform you of something. God lets it be so.

Then God is clearly evil for allowing evil to happen to innocent people.

 

[KMGC]

Except you didn't. Here's an example of what you did:

proof of geocentrism - Bing

See? There's the proof that the earth is the center of the Universe.


I'm so sorry that you wasted so much of your time.


So, you just skimmed the first page and didn't bother reading anything or checking the sources or doing your own searches on PubMedCentral?

Once again, by providing the multiple links made available to you by displaying a page of searched stuff I clearly DID provide multiple links. You simply linked two pages FROM a search engine.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not only that detaching that response from the rest of the page it came from makes it seem other than how it was posed originally.

So you're saying I took your words out of context? That's another lie. You're welcome to go back and review those posts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Once again, by providing the multiple links made available to you by displaying a page of searched stuff I clearly DID provide multiple links. You simply linked two pages FROM a search engine.

You really don't seem to understand what my objection to what you did was, do you? It's really quite simple:

What you did:
Type in a key phrase designed to produce specific results that fit with your preconceptions and supported your view, despite showing no evidence whatsoever of having reviewed those links or checked them for any kind of validity, as evidenced by the fact that the first result was from a website that quoted itself as a source.

What I did:
Typed an individual's name into a search engine to find any links about their work, finding two articles which were particularly critical and showed that individual to be potentially dishonest, then present those articles to you. And, may I add, you have yet to refute a single thing presented in those articles.

 

[KMGC]

Oh look, you're lying:



Also, scrolling down just the first page of results, I found eight papers that specifically investigated the effects of GMOs on health:

Effects of genetically modified T2A-1 rice on the GI health of rats after 90-day supplement
The use of whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops: Limitations and recommendations
Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns
Suggested Improvements for the Allergenicity Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants Used in Foods
Ethical Discourse about the Modification of Food for Therapeutic Purposes: How Patients with Gastrointestinal Diseases View the Good, the Bad, and the Healthy
Genetically modified food from crops: progress, pawns, and possibilities
Review of the regulation and safety assessment of food substances in various countries and jurisdictions
Science, medicine, and the future: Genetically modified foods

Amidst those links I find the rat one I talked about where its health risks in rice tested on rats, next one I find wanting of containing reference to HEALTH RISKS - it says SOCIAL CONCERNS, as stated by myself in the quote you happily quote in an incomplete matter. There is another on allergens, which is not specifically related to health risks like infertility cancer etc. from eating GMO food. There's one which interviews some people about their opinion having had gastrointestinal issues and eating GMOs... overall those are just not the health risks I have been discussing. The next one discusses the possibilities from GMOs, not health risks, just how it might advance society. It appears you did not even read them, just posted links to debase my responses. Lets continue. The next examines the regulations around studies of health risks of GMOs, The last one is just called "Genetically Modified Foods" and contains nothing on health risks, it just talks about them and how we already eat DNA... my argument to that, not that it's related, is that we have yet to, for three generations of births, eat GMO'd DNA strains and allow them to combine into ourselves by the assimilation processes of digestion.

 

[KMGC]

Then God is clearly evil for allowing evil to happen to innocent people.

In fact, the God I believe in is evil. Or was at the moment of releasing the universal energy from outside in formlessness where all known things began from him. However I do not define evil as lawlessness, immorality, unjust behaviour or anything like that... evil is something most people lack true conception of and the term is misused for things like rape and murder which are moreso derived of mental illness rather than evil. Even the KKK is not evil to me, and some of my best friends are black.