| There's no dogma there at all. | As I said, scientists, and those that take a scientific | approach, (as opposed to a DOGMATIC approach) question | everything based on EVIDENCE. | OK. I explained it as much as I can.
| > OK. Then why didn't you question the Oklahoma | > study? And what are your evidence and conclusions | > about GMOs and organic food? I'm not asking you to | > discuss religion here. I'm only questioning the limits | > of science and alleged science. Isn't that allowed as | > a topic of scientific inquiry? Shouldn't we be able to | > discuss something like GMOs and organic food as a | > scientific topic? | | You appear to have me confused with someone else. | | Let's see Oklahoma GMO study...maybe this: | |
I'm talking about the study that you, yourself brought up in your first post! You started out making fun of public ignorance about science by mentioning a survey in which 80% of people thought DNA should be banned from food. But you trusted the "science" and didn't look at the actual survey, which is here:
I've already explained why the survey itself was more pro-GMO propaganda than science. Anyone who cares to follow up can look back up the thread.
| As far as GMOs vs Organic (which I have not commented on | up to this point), I prefer not to worry. I think I'll live | longer not being afraid of everything. |
You equate avoidance of toxins and knowledge of the food supply with fear? OK. Not very scientific, but... we do have freedom of religion around here, so I guess that's your choice. :) At least it relates to the topic at hand.