GMOs

[KMGC]

Yep, pretty much.

Good, because everything from that site was unimportant to me. Thanks.

 

[KMGC]

Yep.


I totally believe you. Because it's impossible to click and link more than once.


Says you, and - as I have repeatedly demonstrated - you clearly have no interest in making any effort whatsoever into reading these papers yourself.


I have yet to see evidence of this.


Actually, there were two pages. And that "civilian" was actually a plant biologist named Kevin Folta: Kevin Folta « Biology Fortified, Inc.

You may seriously want to go back and re-read that article.

Had you opened link I sent you would have seen the evidence in the page itself.

Kevin Folta, based on this page - Kevin Folta's Laboratory and Research Programs
Is a (this could be more eloquently put) flavour analyst, not a toxicology expert

 

[Enai de a lukal]

that GMO's are a health concern

If you're talking about genetically modified food specifically, then it would seem the scientific community disagrees, judging by statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, and others that assert that genetically modified food does not present any significant health risks, and studies in several academic jouranls such as Nature Biotechnology and the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry with the same conclusion. So.. what did they miss, exactly?

and that most people who follow or indicate no religion whatsoever (like yourself) are pro-GMO....

A. no religion=/=atheist
B. what is this claim based on, and wtf could it possibly have to do with anything?

In any case, the simplest explanation is often the best and it shouldn't be surprising that atheism, the religious position most consistent with known scientific facts, frequently correlates to a lack of opposition to GMO's, which is also consistent with known scientific facts. We atheists love our science, perhaps to a fault.

 

[KMGC]

If you're talking about genetically modified food specifically, then it would seem the scientific community disagrees, judging by statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, US National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, and others that assert that genetically modified food does not present any significant health risks, and studies in several academic jouranls such as Nature Biotechnology and the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry with the same conclusion. So.. what did they miss, exactly?


A. no religion=/=atheist
B. what is this claim based on, and wtf could it possibly have to do with anything?

In any case, the simplest explanation is often the best and it shouldn't be surprising that atheism, the religious position most consistent with known scientific facts, frequently correlates to a lack of opposition to GMO's, which is also consistent with known scientific facts. We atheists love our science, perhaps to a fault.

If you examine the previous statements I have made, there are actually studies by many individuals which indicate that GMOs are actually unsafe. What it has to do with is that I am saying essentially that atheism is a plague on existence that is obsessed with taking apart and recomposing God's creation when you have no right to. Nor do you have the power to determine on your own a definite source other than God, even if there is no evidence of God to you.

 

[Parsimony]

People of all beliefs take apart and recompose God's creation. How do you think your computer was constructed?

 

[Skwim]

What it has to do with is that I am saying essentially that atheism is a plague on existence that is obsessed with taking apart and recomposing God's creation when you have no right to. Nor do you have the power to determine on your own a definite source other than God, even if there is no evidence of God to you.

Which, of course, includes those atheists who are determined to subvert the genetic ills and deformities god visits on newborns by correcting such disabilities. Evidently true Christians don't stoop to such heinous recomposing of God's creation.

Good for them, then ?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If you examine the previous statements I have made, there are actually studies by many individuals which indicate that GMOs are actually unsafe.

Ok, but what reason do we have to prefer these studies over the many studies which indicate the opposite?

What it has to do with is that I am saying essentially that atheism is a plague on existence that is obsessed with taking apart and recomposing God's creation when you have no right to.

A. You've yet to argue, much less show, why "taking apart and recomposing God's creation" (i.e. GMO's) has any necessary or essential connection to atheism, as opposed to merely being a contingent correlation, if it is even that (which remains to be shown as well).

B. Even if both of your unsubstantiated and highly implausible claims were granted- that GMO's are unsafe and atheism is somehow responsible for GMO's- it would not follow that atheism is "a plague on existence"; or else it would be the case that anything which has unsafe consequences, regardless of any other redeeming qualities it may have, is a "plague on existence" as well. Clearly this is not always the case. And

C. Obviously you're presupposing that life is "God's creation"- which is not only not born out by (any) empirical evidence, but is ultimately incoherent.

... And since omnipotence trivially entails the capacity of self-destruction, no being can be both omnipotent and necessary (and omnipotence and eternality poses a similar problem for the exact same reason), as this is contradictory...

... it is characteristic of the Christian god-model that it is an intervening/acting deity; it is defined, at least in part, by its actions in the world- addressing mortals, sending floods/plagues/etc., and so on. But it is often held that God is atemporal- that is, that he is not subject to temporal relations. But clearly, performing an action (in the world) is to enter into temporal relations; an action takes a given amount of time to perform, there is then a pre-action and post-action temporal period, and so on...

...not only is transcendence frequently attributed to God and theistic gods generally, it is arguably the sine qua non of theistic gods- is any entity which is not transcendent in a metaphysical sense (as opposed to as a result of human cognitive limitations) properly a theistic god? No theistic religion worships or professes a non-transcendent god, and even when Christians try to have it both ways by describing God as both immanent and transcendent, immanence is always subsumed under transcendence as the property which characterizes this God- i.e. God was transcendent prior to being immanent (i.e. in the world which he created), transcendence is the independent variable. But a being which is transcendent in a metaphysical sense transcends all conditions and relations, in short, all being, so far as we can tell- conditions and relations are precisely what distinguishes existence from non-existence. Thus, the attribution of transcendence nullifies that which distinguishes existence from non-existence- thus a transcendent and existent god is, if not a contradiction, a problematic concept to say the least.

And aside from what appear to be explicit contradictions, there are other logical tensions inherent in the Christian concept of God; clearly the problem of evil is a popular one, as is God's non-physicality- what exactly is entailed in positing a being which exists (without spatial location), knows and thinks (without a brain), and sees and hears (without eyes or ears) ? But the frequent attribution of perfection or maximal greatness is also problematic- it is often claimed that God is perfect in every respect, or maximally great in every respect- that God is perfectly/maximally compassionate, patient, knowledgeable, and so on. But having various attributes to the highest possible degree also appears to be self-contradictory, no less than being completely white and completely red all over (such as in Aquinas's Fourth Way); maximal or perfect justice would seem to preclude maximal forgiveness, maximal courage maximal prudence, and so on. ...

 

[fantome profane]

If you examine the previous statements I have made, there are actually studies by many individuals which indicate that GMOs are actually unsafe. What it has to do with is that I am saying essentially that atheism is a plague on existence that is obsessed with taking apart and recomposing God's creation when you have no right to. Nor do you have the power to determine on your own a definite source other than God, even if there is no evidence of God to you.

Cool, I've always wanted to bring about the Apocalypse.

 

[idav]

Which, of course, includes those atheists who are determined to subvert the genetic ills and deformities god visits on newborns by correcting such disabilities. Evidently true Christians don't stoop to such heinous recomposing of God's creation.

Good for them, then ?

OMG, if we waited for god to fix it we would never find any cures. Maybe we should wait a couple more centuries for god to fix our ills?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, it's good to see that you're at least reading as far as the title of these articles. The very paper has a section helpfully entitled "Health Risks Associated with GM Food Consumption":

Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns

Evidently, you didn't even bother with a cursory glance through the paper itself.



So, a study on allergens isn't related to health?


So, you've gone from "There are no peer reviewed papers on GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the health effects of GMOs" to "there are no peer reviewed papers on the specific health effects of GMOs that I am particularly interested in".


Since I've already demonstrated that you didn't even go one step further than reading the titles of these papers, I really am amazed by the fact that you have the gall to accuse me of not reading them.

You are so busted, young man.

You are awesome.

 

[Simurgh]

...and i am still trying to figure out what all of this has to do with atheism? apparently, i did not get that memo...

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Atheist are destroying the world Simurgh don't you know?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you examine the previous statements I have made, there are actually studies by many individuals which indicate that GMOs are actually unsafe. What it has to do with is that I am saying essentially that atheism is a plague on existence that is obsessed with taking apart and recomposing God's creation when you have no right to. Nor do you have the power to determine on your own a definite source other than God, even if there is no evidence of God to you.

I'm a Christian and I think it's imperative that humans do those things as I think it's part of the reason we exist as a species. God gave us these gifts for a reason. We're obviously not created to be completely satisfied with things as they are. That's why we left the wild and live in man-made dwellings and live lifestyles that cut us off from the natural world. We're restless misfits on this planet. If you have a problem with this, take it up with whoever/whatever made us.

My problem with GMOs is the corporate aspects of it that pose a real threat to the world's food supply, seed supplies and farmers. I have no issues with genetic meddling (when ethics are applied). If I had the resources and knowledge, I'd partake in some wetware hacking myself.

 

[Simurgh]

Atheist are destroying the world Simurgh don't you know?

aha, that's why we are being crucified on a daily basis for all kinds of things. another memo i did not get, i really thought that it's us feminists who do that.

 

[Ouroboros]

...and i am still trying to figure out what all of this has to do with atheism? apparently, i did not get that memo...

Because atheists are arrogant and immoral basturds who want to destroy the world through genetic modified stuff... there ya' go! Now you got the memo from the atheist conspiracy center.

 

[Simurgh]

Because atheists are arrogant and immoral basturds who want to destroy the world through genetic modified stuff... there ya' go! Now you got the memo from the atheist conspiracy center.

Thank you so very much. does that mean i finally made it onto the top secret mailing list? I certainly wish to contribute to the cause.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

But evolution is generally only believed in by atheists, so it still does.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thank you so very much. does that mean i finally made it onto the top secret mailing list? I certainly wish to contribute to the cause.

Yes! You're on our secret mailing list now, but don't tell anyone about it.

 

[Ouroboros]

My problem with GMOs is the corporate aspects of it that pose a real threat to the world's food supply, seed supplies and farmers. I have no issues with genetic meddling (when ethics are applied). If I had the resources and knowledge, I'd partake in some wetware hacking myself.

True.

My biggest concern is Monsanto's 10 year effort to undercut the smaller seed producers and replace them with their own seeds. Monsanto, as rumor has it, can make seeds with a kill-switch. Basically, what could happen is that you have to buy seeds only from them, but the seeds can only produce one generation crops. This would be extremely dangerous since all crops would eventually depend on one company's production of seeds. If something happens to their production or the company, a whole world could be starving within a year. We're not there now, but I don't like the potential threat.

 

[Sees]

I like that

Some people are in denial that most "evolutionists", are in fact......theists!