Robert F. Smith Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 12 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Tell me, why did our church oppose the LGBT anti-discrimination law? The Church did not. It actually supported the LGBT anti-discrimination law in Utah, which surprised and dismayed some people. 3
Russell C McGregor Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 On 3/4/2016 at 5:07 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: Our church likes to get involved in political issues like... religious freedom. Yes, what business has a church got, being concerned about something like that? 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 On 3/4/2016 at 9:54 AM, Robert F. Smith said: It is already too late to do anything substantial about human-caused climate change. The catastrophe which is coming like a runaway freight train cannot be stopped. We can move people off of South Pacific islands which are already being affected by storm surges. We can plan for the abandonment of large cities like Miami and New York City, and of countries such as Holland and Bangladesh, but it is more likely that we will wait until many deaths have occurred before taking remedial action. Military and civil conflict will come upon many parts of the world. There is only so much that a small organization like the LDS Church can do. While I'm a pessimist that much good will come for our limited efforts to deal effectively with Climate Change. I'm not fatalistic either. There is plenty we can and should do. IE; If each household in the US changed just one incandescent electric light bulb to a more efficient florescent electric light bulb it would reduce our carbon output my millions of tons per year.
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) On 3/4/2016 at 2:29 PM, Kemara said: Climate change need not have any impact whatsoever on food availability. You need to read scientific papers that are up to date with, and discuss, these advanced food producing technologies and not papers that completely ignore this aspect of science. For example: The Paper (from a reputable Journal) I presented is more up-to-date than your paper. I agree there are impressive advancements, I am a fan of GMO, but what about Africa? What about the middle east? What about South America? Peterson linked to an important study “NASA: Drought in Middle East Is the Worst in 900 Years” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/03/nasa-drought-in-middle-east-is-the-worst-in-900-years-httpwww-haaretz-commiddle-east-news1-706659.html but let's ignore food scarcity. What about the other big consequences of man made global warming? Edited March 6, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: Yes, what business has a church got, being concerned about something like that? None. Religious Freedom is already protected in the constitution. The church is getting involved in gay vs "religious freedom" issues. Edited March 6, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Russell C McGregor Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: None. Religious Freedom is already protected in the constitution. The church is getting involved in gay vs "religious freedom" issues. And no American government body has ever overstepped the bounds of your vaunted constitution when it suited them, has it? If you genuinely think churches have no legitimate interest in religious freedom, you desperately need to get a clue. 2
Kemara Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: The Paper (from a reputable Journal) I presented is more up-to-date than your paper. The paper you referenced does not take into account the scientific advancements of the paper I referenced does it? As such its conclusions are based on an inferior food production technology and are not reliable in that regard. 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I agree there are impressive advancements, I am a fan of GMO, but what about Africa? What about the middle east? What about South America? I am not a fan of GMO at all, and you are fool for being one, please read the independent non-corporate funded scientific journals. The advancements discussed in the paper I referenced do not utilise a GMO technology and in any case GMO is old news, yesterdays technology that has been well and truly superseded by scientific advancement. What about Africa, the Middle East and South America? What point are you trying to make? How are those regions any different to any other region in relation to this scientific advancement? The technology can be utilised anywhere. 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Peterson linked to an important study “NASA: Drought in Middle East Is the Worst in 900 Years” What about it? What has this got to do with the scientific advancements I have referenced? The technology is 100% self sufficient in relation to water so it doesn't matter what the drought conditions are. A few years ago I authored a paper (private commission, not published) regarding Israel's agricultural situation. The paper, in addition to other agricultural/food production/arable land matters, addressed water scarcity, water quality (Na being the big issue) and drought protection technologies. I can tell you right now that Israel has more than enough water, so does all of the Middle East, so does the entire planet. The issue is not scarcity, even during times of extreme draught, the issue is quality. Nowadays, this does not have to be a production limiting factor. The biggest problem is getting everyone up to speed with and accepting of the latest science. 3 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: but let's ignore food scarcity. What about the other big consequences of man made global warming? No, lets not ignore food scarcity, lets continue to discuss this issue because it is the actual issue you raised. Why do you want to shift the goal posts so suddenly? Due to you being made aware of the latest scientific advancements in food production, do you maintain the position that climate change will necessarily make food scarcity worse? You refused to answer a question the following question please address it now. Quote The title of your thread implies that the Church has never got involved in a big Christian issue. I believe that it is involved in the biggest most important Christian issue of them all, how do you justify your position? You refused to answer the following question please address it now. Quote Since the advanced indoor growing systems are...well...you know....indoors, and in a climate controlled environment, how will global warming affect this operation. 4
Russell C McGregor Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 20 minutes ago, Kemara said: No, lets not ignore food scarcity, lets continue to discuss this issue because it is the actual issue you raised. Why do you want to shift the goal posts so suddenly? Umm, Kemara? That's what he does. Frequently. My biggest issue with Skeptic isn't that he's so often wrong; it's that he's completely unfocused about whatever point he thinks he's trying to make. Dismantle his argument, and he simply changes tack. It's like trying to get an Australian to admit who really invented Pavlova. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) What? The scientific consensus is that GMF is safe, here is a list of studies. http://genera.biofortified.org/viewall.php 1 hour ago, Kemara said: What about Africa, the Middle East and South America? What point are you trying to make? How are those regions any different to any other region in relation to this scientific advancement? The technology can be utilised anywhere. I am confused. So why not everyone using your droughtproof technology? floodproof technology too? fireproof technology too? http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/agriculture.html 1 hour ago, Kemara said: What about it? What has this got to do with the scientific advancements I have referenced? The technology is 100% self sufficient in relation to water so it doesn't matter what the drought conditions are. I will have to do more research on your miracle technology, I hope it is all true, but even if your technology totally saves agriculture (everywhere) from climate change, what about other sources of food? The sea is being affected by climate change and contamination. In 30 years the sea will have more plastic than fish. What about the animals in Africa? You think many of them will survive even worst drought conditions? Bytheway, I am reading a book that says, "Thus it should be possible to adapt to some extent by modifying or extending existing technologies" To some extent, I see. Edited March 6, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: My biggest issue with Skeptic isn't that he's so often wrong; it's that he's completely unfocused about whatever point he thinks he's trying to make. Dismantle his argument, and he simply changes tack. It's like trying to get an Australian to admit who really invented Pavlova. Nice strawman. I told him that just to give him the benefit of the doubt, to also talk about other big problems. I am not someone to quickly dismiss arguments that contradict my views. I admit I did ignore your previous post because I decided that having a conversation with you about that is a waste of time. You didn't dismantle anything, it is clear that you do not understand what I mean by gay vs religious freedom politics, and you are not interested in understanding my points, but I don't want to continue talking about that. Edited March 6, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Kemara Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 10 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: You are an incredibly rude man Skeptic. This is the second thread on which we have had a discussion that you repeatedly refuse to answer questions that I have specifically asked you to address. The disingenuousness of your participation on this discussion board is obvious to anyone who has tried to engage you in any topic that you have raised. 11 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: What? The scientific consensus is that GMF is safe, here is a list of studies. Do you even know what scientific consensus means? Let me help you - scientific consensus means the generally agreed position on a subject. If you seriously believe that there is general agreement among scientists on the issue of GMO you are living in fantasy land. Have you actually read any of the articles you have linked too? Please have a read, you should notice some glaring holes in some of the research and I use the term research in a fast and loose manner for some of them. For example the testing performed on animals given GMO feed to determine toxicological effects are problematic, the studies is using methodologies that are not entirely suitable - very small sample group, analysis performed on organs after a very short period of time - and of course there is the problem I have already mentioned but you simply ignored, the issue of funding. One of the most widely quoted studies used by the pro-GMO side is Composition of grain and forage from insect-protected and herbicide-tolerant corn...is equivalent to that of conventional corn. Have a guess which Missouri headquartered corporation funded that study. 56 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I am confused. So why not everyone using your droughtproof technology? Are you seriously questioning why there hasn't been a worldwide adoption of advanced scientific technologies in place of inferior technologies? Do you really believe that the most widely adopted technologies are the best and represent all that is currently available? My former bishop Pere Hanara ran his lawn mower on tap water, so why isn't everyone? Why is out dated, inferior and superseded technology, such as GMO for increased food production, still being used? Your ignorance on this subject, which affects almost all scientific advancement, is mind boggling. 56 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I will have to do more research on your miracle technology You believe that science is based on the supernatural? You are a bigger fool than I thought. And who exactly said it was my technology? The technology was originally developed in Russia before the Japanese and Germans got in on the act. Now the Chinese are adopting similar technology but not as successfully as the other three and in particular the Russian technology which is superior to the others in a number of ways. I am hoping to do post-doc research on this technology next year but your assumption that it was mine is way off like practically everything else you have said on the subject. 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: ..but even if your technology totally saves agriculture (everywhere) from climate change, what about other sources of food? The sea is being affected by climate change and contamination. In 30 years the sea will have more plastic than fish. Please pay closer attention to what I am saying. You need to put on your learning hat and be the student and let me, the scientist, teach you what you are clearly ignorant of. Now, go back and re-read the post where I first referenced the technology and report back to me when you have the answer. Off you go now, be a good lad. 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: What about the animals in Africa? You think many of them will survive even worst drought conditions? What has this got to do with anything we are discussing? For the third time, please answer the following questions: 1. The title of your thread implies that the Church has never got involved in a big Christian issue. I believe that it is involved in the biggest most important Christian issue of them all, how do you justify your position? 2. Since the advanced indoor growing systems are...well...you know....indoors, and in a climate controlled environment, how will global warming affect this operation. For the second time, please answer the following questions: 1. Due to you being made aware of the latest scientific advancements in food production, do you maintain the position that climate change will necessarily make food scarcity worse? I will not be answering any more of your questions or correcting any more of your erroneous points, which makes up practically the entirety of your comments, until you answered these questions and the questions I posed in this post. 4
Kemara Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Nice strawman. I did resply to his arguments twice, I was simply adding more problems. However, I admit I did ignore your previous post because I decided that it is not worth a reply. Yes you replied but you didn't address the points I made, went off on irrelevant tangents, tried to shift the goal posts and have repeatedly ignored my questions. This is your typical modus operandi so Russell was entirely correct.
Kemara Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: It's like trying to get an Australian to admit who really invented Pavlova. While a missionary in the New Zealand Christchurch Mission, I had the opportunity to go to the town that Phar Lap was born in. Sorry my American comrades, you probably wont get what me and Russell are referring too but let me assure you that it is good clean humour. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Kemara said: You are an incredibly rude man Skeptic. This is the second thread on which we have had a discussion that you repeatedly refuse to answer questions that I have specifically asked you to address. The disingenuousness of your participation on this discussion board is obvious to anyone who has tried to engage you in any topic that you have raised. Do you even know what scientific consensus means? Let me help you - scientific consensus means the generally agreed position on a subject. If you seriously believe that there is general agreement among scientists on the issue of GMO you are living in fantasy land. Have you actually read any of the articles you have linked too? Please have a read, you should notice some glaring holes in some of the research and I use the term research in a fast and loose manner for some of them. For example the testing performed on animals given GMO feed to determine toxicological effects are problematic, the studies is using methodologies that are not entirely suitable Don't insult my intelligence, and don't call me rude. Of course I know what a consensus is, I have read some papers on GM food. So are you saying the highly reliable encyclopedias like Britannica and others are lying for saying that most scientists agree that GMFs are safe? It is a consensus among relevant scientists. Sure, don't tell me you are talking about that bogus paper about cancer and rats. 8 hours ago, Kemara said: And who exactly said it was my technology? You have the gift of distorting what I say. What I mean by "your technology" obviously is the technology you are talking about, I am not saying it is a technology you invented. Enough. I am going to do some more research about modern agriculture before I keep reading what you have to say on this issue. 8 hours ago, Kemara said: What has this got to do with anything we are discussing? For the third time, please answer the following questions: Sea food obviously. Animals that live in Africa are also a source of food too. For the 100th time, let me do some reading on modern agriculture first, then I will answer your questions. However, you unfortunately lost some credibility for saying that GMO is not safe, and for saying it is not a consensus. Edited March 6, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 8 hours ago, Kemara said: tried to shift the goal posts and have repeatedly ignored my questions Read the OP, it is not only about food scarcity caused by climate change. I also told you many times I will get back to you on your agriculture subject. and you still lost credibility for saying that GM food is not safe.
Sleeper Cell Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 16 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: None. Religious Freedom is already protected in the constitution. The church is getting involved in gay vs "religious freedom" issues. And “gay vs. ‘religious freedom’ issues” have nothing to do with “religious freedom?”
Kemara Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Don't insult my intelligence, and don't call me rude. I guarantee that I will stop insulting your intelligence and calling you rude the very moment that you stop acting in that manner. 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I have read some papers on GM food. And after reading "some papers" you are now an expert in the field. Don't insult my intelligence. 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: It is a consensus among relevant scientists. Complete and utter rubbish. You should know better since you are an expert in the field. 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Sure, don't tell me you are talking about that bogus paper about cancer and rats. Who was talking about that? I was actually referring to the studies that you provided a link too. Please put in a bit more effort and keep up with the discussion. 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: You have the gift of distorting what I say. What I mean by "your technology" obviously is the technology you are talking about, I am not saying it is a technology you invented. Enough. I am going to do some more research about modern agriculture before I keep reading what you have to say on this issue. Enough, I know that your not really going to research anything. You are going to find a paper or two that you can twist to meet your preconceived ideas, come up with a few statistics, skewer everything into an illogical melting pot of ever shifting ridiculousness and claim that whoever doesn't agree with your pseudo-expertise is wrong. That is your modus operandi. Further, on this very thread alone, you have displayed a complete inability to read and comprehend even a few sentences on the subject and you want me to believe that you are going off to research the issue? 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Sea food obviously. And what is your point? Did you do as I instructed? Did you go back to my post where I first referenced the technology and get the answer regarding seafood? If you haven't then off you go, be a good lad. Come and report like a good student. 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Animals that live in Africa are also a source of food too. And what has that got to do with what we are discussing? How does that relate to the technology I presented? 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: For the 100th time, let me do some reading on modern agriculture first, then I will answer your questions. Actually that is only the 2nd time. 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: However, you unfortunately lost some credibility for saying that GMO is not safe, and for saying it is not a consensus. If I tried my very hardest, put in a maximum effort, strained every fibre of my being to the breaking point, I still would not be able to care any less about what a pseudo-scientist like you thinks about my credibility. My colleagues, both national and international, who are real scientists, real experts in their field, are of the general consensus that I can at least hold my own in my field of expertise. Further, no witch doctor who believes science is supernatural should ever use or even think of using the word credibility. For the fourth time, please answer the following questions: 1. The title of your thread implies that the Church has never got involved in a big Christian issue. I believe that it is involved in the biggest most important Christian issue of them all, how do you justify your position? 2. Since the advanced indoor growing systems are...well...you know....indoors, and in a climate controlled environment, how will global warming affect this operation. For the third time, please answer the following questions: 1. Due to you being made aware of the latest scientific advancements in food production, do you maintain the position that climate change will necessarily make food scarcity worse? For the second time, please answer the following questions: 1. Have a guess which Missouri headquartered corporation funded that study? 2. Are you seriously questioning why there hasn't been a worldwide adoption of advanced scientific technologies in place of inferior technologies? 3. Do you really believe that the most widely adopted technologies are the best and represent all that is currently available? 4. Why is out dated, inferior and superseded technology, such as GMO for increased food production, still being used? Please stop avoiding the issues and answer the questions. Edited March 6, 2016 by Kemara 1
Kemara Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Read the OP, it is not only about food scarcity caused by climate change. No it is not only about food scarcity. It is also about wether the church will get involved in a big Christian issue, however, you have failed entirely to address my question even after I requested you do so on three occasions. Quote The title of your thread implies that the Church has never got involved in a big Christian issue. I believe that it is involved in the biggest most important Christian issue of them all, how do you justify your position? Do you care to answer the question now? Apart from food scarcity and a big Christian issue the OP doesn't discuss anything else. So stop trying to shift the goal posts away from these issues. 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I also told you many times I will get back to you on your agriculture subject. Twice. Does twice count as "many times"? Perhaps it does with witch doctors and pseudo-scientists but back in the real world where science isn't supernatural I think its a bit of a stretch. 1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said: and you still lost credibility for saying that GM food is not safe. So says the pseudo-scientist witch doctor.
thesometimesaint Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 With all other imputes staying same increased use of greenhouses doesn't increase yields in human food stuffs. Clean water availability is a major concern even there. Maize(corn), wheat, rice, barley, and sorghum don't do well enough under those conditions to warrant the cost. SEE https://news.vice.com/article/these-nations-are-about-to-start-running-out-of-water
UtahTexan Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 I feel like I am watching Trump vs Rubio here.... 1
Kemara Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 (edited) 48 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: With all other imputes staying same increased use of greenhouses doesn't increase yields in human food stuffs. Clean water availability is a major concern even there. Maize(corn), wheat, rice, barley, and sorghum don't do well enough under those conditions to warrant the cost. SEE https://news.vice.com/article/these-nations-are-about-to-start-running-out-of-water Agreed if we are talking about standard greenhouse technology, but not so much with more recent technology. The ability to produce 600 tons of plant based food and 200 tons of meat and fish products per annum, in a manner that is 100% self sufficient (except for nutrient inputs which is only 90%), produced on an area of 1 ha and done so cheaper than conventional farming probably solves the issue. Clean water is not a concern with this technology. In fact I don't believe that clean water need be a concern in any situation. The biggest problem with clean water availability is getting the scientific advancements understood, accepted and put in place. I know it can be difficult to understand why scientific advancements experience push back but that just seems to be the nature of the animal. Just two weeks ago I met with a former Boeing engineer to discuss his latest waste water purification technology. Granted it would be costly, from a short term perspective, to put in place but its ability to turn even highly contaminated industrial waste water into a potable quality is quite impressive. I only discussed the issue with him and took what he said and the data at face value so I cant really discuss its validity. In any case, the reason he met with me was not to get my input or help with the technology, what he needed was help getting in front of the suits - the powers that be - he had been unable to get a sit down with anyone even after 2 years of trying, no one wants to listen. His technology is by no means the only, or even the best, technology that is available to purify water and especially if we are only talking about purifying water to agricultural standards. I am currently, as we speak, involved in trials using untreated sea water as irrigation for corn. The issue of Na toxicity in the plant is addressed by an inexpensive biological input that inhibits a plants ability to uptake Na and protects the roots...its looking promising. There are right now two technologies that I know of that allow for fodder to be grown using untreated sea water as irrigation without a negative impact on production, simple, very low cost, no capital works required. My take on the issue FWIW. Edited March 6, 2016 by Kemara 2
strappinglad Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 A major problem with food and water in Africa and the Middle East is man's interference. War, political turmoil, corruption etc. disrupt efforts to bring the basics to populations. How long would advanced and useable technologies last in such areas? Some faction would blow them up to prevent others from benefitting . Until humanity is more humane all the best science can offer will be rejected or abused . The message of " love your neighbor as yourself " needs to be heard and spread throughout the world. That is one of the Church's missions and it is really political in the broadest sense of the word. SO be it !! 3
Kemara Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 12 minutes ago, strappinglad said: A major problem with food and water in Africa and the Middle East is man's interference. War, political turmoil, corruption etc. disrupt efforts to bring the basics to populations. How long would advanced and useable technologies last in such areas? Some faction would blow them up to prevent others from benefitting . Until humanity is more humane all the best science can offer will be rejected or abused . The message of " love your neighbor as yourself " needs to be heard and spread throughout the world. That is one of the Church's missions and it is really political in the broadest sense of the word. SO be it !! Yes agreed, as per my first post on this thread... Quote Food scarcity is a man-made issue.
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 On March 4, 2016 at 2:02 PM, cinepro said: In the 1970s, there were huge problems with limited resources and overpopulation. Thankfully, LDS took action and produced a documentary that changed the world and got us back on course. Perhaps we need another voice of warning to the world...? And if places like Europe and Japan had listened their looming problems would not be as serious.
TheSkepticChristian Posted March 6, 2016 Author Posted March 6, 2016 3 hours ago, Kemara said: And after reading "some papers" you are now an expert in the field. Don't insult my intelligence. Give me a break, I don´t have to be an expert to read some papers, and I don´t have to be an expert to read reputable encyclopedias that talk about the scientific consensus on GM food. In your mind there is no possibility of being wrong. The truth is GM food is safe, and Global Warming is real and dangerous.. 3 hours ago, Kemara said: Do you care to answer the question now? Listen, I am simply doing a quick response because I am busy, I will get back to you to answer all of your questions. My mind is very flexible, let me do some reading first.
Recommended Posts