| 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