Will our Church get involved in a big Christian issue?

[TheSkepticChristian]

So how can we create enough greenhouses for the future 9 billion population?  Greenhouses may be indoors but they are built to trap and harness solar energy. The "climate control" comes at a huge energy cost. The Earth has already lost a third of arable land in the last forty years and anybody who thinks this will have no effect on food production is just engaging in techno-utopianism, which it is a possibility, but there is no evidence that it will happen. Not every new innovation pans out and we shouldn't assume it does

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[volgadon]

8 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Britannica for example. Go to your local library to look at other reputable encyclopedias. 

http://global.britannica.com/science/genetically-modified-organism

You  did not read what I just said, humanity has never ever experienced a rapid global climate change warming. The climate scientists are the people that use advanced technology and sophisticated methods to study the climate. 

The interesting thing about encyclopedias is that they are meant to provide (fairly) brief, general overviews of the entry. Of necessity there will be oversimplification and distortion as the subject is condensed into an entry. You cannot really fit too much nuance and such in to it. Encyclopedias aren't really intended for much else than quick reference. It strikes me that your use of encyclopedias is decidedly unscientific.

 

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

No you didn't, and I did. 

Skeptic aren't you getting tired of being proven wrong yet? Or at least, why do you make it so easy? Your frank admission that you have not "read everything you say" might explain why you are wrong so often, fail to keep the discussion in context and don't address the issues I raise. I think it would be good practice for you to start reading everything if you want to engage in a meaningful dialogue that isn't punctuated so frequently by your being wrong. 

The fact of the matter is that I have explained why, now go back and read my posts properly and report back when you have found my explanation.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

....and I did. 

No you have not. Please explain to me why the articles you have linked too, which you have placed your entire argument on, are reliable if they do not discuss any no long-term studies or epidemiological analysis.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

What long-term effects?

 Oh good grief. Skeptic you are completely out of your depth here and with this statement you have actually proven my point. There are no studies on the long term effects of GMO food, that is the point, that is the issue. If there are no long term studies then how can it possibly be determined that GMO is safe?

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

You can't do long-term studies on a human...

This is almost beyond belief. So science cannot do long-term studies on a human? Skeptic you simply do not belong here, you have absolutely no place in any discussion regarding science.

A simple 5 second internet search proves you wrong.

http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?q=long+term+studies+on+human+health&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik27X576_LAhVEo5QKHRyiCCkQgQMIGDAA

 

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

...and your question is also meaningless.

My question regarding there being no studies on the long-term health effects of GM food is meaningless in a discussion that is about the safety of humans eating GM food? It doesn't happen too often but I am lost for words to describe the illogical stupidity of this statement. You do not belong in any discussion regarding science.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Here is a very important paper 

An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research

Did you pay the US$54 to read the article or are you just linking to it because you think its title supports your position. Answer me this Skeptic - does this article address long-term studies and epidemiological analysis regarding GM food and human health - yes or no? If you have not actually read this article then you are guilty of intellectual dishonesty and a breach of some fairly fundamental scientific ethics. I know that this is not the first time during our few discussions that you have been guilty of this conduct, and you seem quite fine doing it, but to my mind this is simply another reason why you do not belong in any discussion regarding science.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Listen dude, it would be very hard to replace all fields with greenhouse facilities. I don't think many countries in Africa can afford to make them everywhere. 

1ha of land using the scientific technology I referenced can produce 20 - 30 times the amount of food produced via conventional farming. As such you can approach this three ways:

1. Build greenhouse facilities the same size as the current agricultural fields and get 20 - 30 times the production from the same area.
2. Reduce the total area currently used for agriculture, build the greenhouse facility and maintain current production levels. 
3. Reduce the total area currently used for agriculture, build the greenhouse facility and increase current production levels but not to the extent of a 20 - 30 times increase.

Let me restate a couple of comments I  have already made, hopefully it sinks in this time:

1. Did you read my summary of the paper I referenced regarding the scientific technology? It seems to me that either you haven't read it or you simply cannot comprehend it. So lets break it down very simply for you - if an area the size of 1 ha can produce 600 tons of fruit and vegetables and 200 tons of meat and fish products then what will 2 ha produce? What will 3 ha product? What will 300 ha produce? What will 100,000 ha produce? 

2. After initial capital outlay to construct the growing facility, the food can be produced significantly cheaper than conventional farming systems. On average a conventional farming system will produce 30 tons of tomatoes per ha. A standard greenhouse or indoor growing system, such as hydroponics or geothermal, will produce 120 tons per ha. The most advanced indoor growing systems will produce 800 tons per ha, a 2566% increase over the conventional farming system and a 566% increase over the standard indoor growing system. Since the advanced indoor growing systems are...well...you know....indoors, and in a climate controlled environment, how will global warming affect this operation. Like I said, climate change need not have any impact whatsoever on food availability.

Read these two points over and over again until they sink in and then report back.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

It doesn't make sense because it would be extraordinarily expensive and hard, but we will be force to do it if our planet becomes 5 degrees warmer. 

This explanation does not change the fact that you contradicted yourself.

Now, you have objected to the technology on economic grounds on a number of occasions, so please, tell me how much it will cost to build a 1ha greenhouse facility. You must know because you have made the claim that it would be too expensive, so what is the cost? I know one way we could fund greenhouse facilities in places like Africa, we could stop spending so much money on out dated technologies, like GMO, and put it into advanced technologies. You have also objected to the technology on the grounds of it being too hard, so please, tell me what is so hard about replicating something very similar to greenhouse facilities all over the world?

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Nice try.

That was a nice try on your part to divert attention away from your contradiction. Sorry but you were caught out. Look, I wouldn't worry about your contradictions too much, you have other things that are far more embarrassing than contradictions to worry about.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am busy, I will get back to you later. 

You don't have too...I mean really, its not bother to me if you don't

However if you do get back to me, then you are required to answer all my questions. You yourself have said that you will answer all my questions so I think its about time that you honoured your word. You keep coming back with irrelevant nonsense and thereby avoid my questions and the real issues. These are the questions that remain unanswered and you are required to answer them in the context that they were asked:

1. Since the advanced indoor growing systems are...well...you know....indoors, and in a climate controlled environment, how will global warming affect this operation?
2. 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?  
3. 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?
4. Have a guess which Missouri headquartered corporation funded that study?
5. Are you seriously questioning why there hasn't been a worldwide adoption of advanced scientific technologies in place of inferior technologies?
6. Do you really believe that the most widely adopted technologies are the best and represent all that is currently available? 
7. Why is out dated, inferior and superseded technology, such as GMO for increased food production, still being used?
8.  Do you really believe that you know enough of the GMO issue, after having read "some papers", to make the matter of fact statements you did?
9. Or, in your expert opinion, do you believe that the safety of food can be established without studies on the long term effects and epidemiological analysis?
10. Do you think any scientist can make the legitimate claim that GMO foods are safe if there have been no studies on long term effects and no epidemiological analysis?
11. I have attached a picture of a greenhouse facility in Spain, it covers an area of 100,000 ha. In your view does 100,000 ha qualify as an entire field? 
12. Since you have read some of these articles can you advise the results of the studies on long term effects and epidemiological analysis? 
13. So lets break it down very simply for you - if an area the size of 1 ha can produce 600 tons of fruit and vegetables and 200 tons of meat and fish products then what will 2 ha produce? What will 3 ha product? What will 300 ha produce? What will 100,000 ha produce? 
14. Are you seriously unable 2 comprehend man kinds ability 2 build a greenhouse in practically any location? Where is your faith in science now?  
15. You said you would answer all my questions. Can I believe you?
16. Why are you ignoring the obvious flaws in the reports?
17. Why are you ignoring reputable reports that say GMO is not safe?
18. Are you saying that the science doesn't need 2 be done? Should we instead just have faith?
19. Do you believe that science should be limited by how long it takes 2 come up with the answers?
20. Does it matter how long it takes to scientifically determine the safety of GMO?
21. Why do you feel you have the ability to argue about a subject that you fully admit you "know very little" about? 
22. Are you arguing just for the sake of being argumentative, are you arguing because of a preconceived idea or bias, or are you arguing simply because you don't want 2 admit that you are wrong yet again?
23. So you admit you don't know enough about the issue, then why on earth do you feel you are in a position to argue about it?   

Once you have provided answers to these questions I will then require you to address the issues that you have ignored. I will list them once you have answered all the questions. 

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Kemara

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

So how can we create enough greenhouses for the future 9 billion population?  Greenhouses may be indoors but they are built to trap and harness solar energy. The "climate control" comes at a huge energy cost.

Skeptic you really need to stop commenting on things you know absolutely nothing about. And even more to the point please read what I have already written on the subject, that way I wont have to repeat myself and prove you wrong yet again. As I said in my second post on this thread:

Quote

To summarise this paper - 600 tons of fresh fruit and vegetables and 200 tons of meat and fish products from an area equivalent in size to 1 hectare. 100% self sufficient in energy and water. 90% self sufficient in nutrient inputs.

So what is the huge energy cost from a system that is 100% self sufficient in energy? This is not a rhetorical question, you are required to answer or do I need to remind you to keep your word that you would answer all my questions.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

The Earth has already lost a third of arable land in the last forty years and anybody who thinks this will have no effect on food production is just engaging in techno-utopianism...

It has had an effect on food production and one of those effects is that science has, and continues to, develop technologies to produce food using less money, less land, less water and less inputs.

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

....which it is a possibility, but there is no evidence that it will happen. Not every new innovation pans out and we shouldn't assume it does.

Our discussion has not centred on what 'will' happen it is centred on what 'could' happen. You yourself in your opening post said:

Quote

Even if it is uncertain, even if it only has a 25% chance of happening, we still have to take the threat seriously 

You also linked to an article with the following buy-line:

Quote

"Food scarcity caused by climate change could cause 500,000 deaths by 2050, study suggests" 

I have never said that the technology 'will' happen I simply advised you that a solution is available.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Kemara

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

So how can we create enough greenhouses for the future 9 billion population?  Greenhouses may be indoors but they are built to trap and harness solar energy. The "climate control" comes at a huge energy cost.

As Kemara said: that's just silly. In fact, it's absurd right on its face. I can see that, and I'm no expert in the field. (Or in the greenhouse, either.)

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

The Earth has already lost a third of arable land in the last forty years

Call for references, please.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, volgadon said:

The interesting thing about encyclopedias is that they are meant to provide (fairly) brief, general overviews of the entry. Of necessity there will be oversimplification and distortion as the subject is condensed into an entry. You cannot really fit too much nuance and such in to it. Encyclopedias aren't really intended for much else than quick reference. It strikes me that your use of encyclopedias is decidedly unscientific.

 

In the past encyclopediads tended to be out of date by the time they were published as well.  I don't know if online options have the same problem, but anything on the shelf will.

[ERayR]

On 3/6/2016 at 1:53 AM, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not someone to quickly dismiss arguments that contradict my views. 

LOL ROFL.  OOps you were serious.  Carry on.

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, volgadon said:

The interesting thing about encyclopedias is that they are meant to provide (fairly) brief, general overviews of the entry. Of necessity there will be oversimplification and distortion as the subject is condensed into an entry. You cannot really fit too much nuance and such in to it. Encyclopedias aren't really intended for much else than quick reference.

 

Many encyclopedias say the same thing about the scientific consensus on GM food, no details are required for that. I did go to the library in the University. 

1 hour ago, volgadon said:

 It strikes me that your use of encyclopedias is decidedly unscientific.

I am not a research scientist, are you? 

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

 Oh good grief. Skeptic you are completely out of your depth here and with this statement you have actually proven my point. There are no studies on the long term effects of GMO food, that is the point, that is the issue. If there are no long term studies then how can it possibly be determined that GMO is safe?

No dude, what do you mean by long term? Do you mean lengthy studies on a group of humans? That is illegal! 

There has been no long term study that computers cause cancer. 
 

However, for the last 20 years there has been extensive studies that GMO are safe. No shred of evidence has been found that they are harmful. 

The burden of proof falls on you. 

 

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

A simple 5 second internet search proves you wrong.

Now you sound like Jeremy Runnels. None of that has anything to do with what I am saying. Since you like the internet, perhaps you can read this 

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/22/debunking-claims-of-no-long-term-and-independent-gmo-studies/

Like I said, I don't have time for a long response, I will be back. 

He cites important scientific papers, you can see his video in the meantime

 

 

 

 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

In the past encyclopediads tended to be out of date by the time they were published as well.  I don't know if online options have the same problem, but anything on the shelf will.

I read new editions, and they are up-to-date online. Ask your friends Dr. Greg Smith or Dr. Hales about GM food. 

I will be back, I am busy. 

Edited March 8, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Please keep your gay marriage apocalypse out of this thread, we are talking about important issues that affect humanity and the planet.  We already know how much you are against gay marriage, but please respect that. 

OK.  You, however, were the first to introduce the topic into this thread.  I give you credit: You're a smooth operator; you tell me to cease and desist from a topic you introduced into the thread, gave TheSometimeSaint a rep point because you agree with his position, and then tell me to shut up before I can respond. 

Nice.

Just a hunch: You're not a graduate of Dale Carnegie's program How To Win Friends and Influence People, are you?

I wasn't particularly inclined to attempt to engage or to take you seriously previously, and you're continuing to move the needle in that direction.  Thankyouverymuch.

[TheSkepticChristian]

2 hours ago, Kemara said:

This explanation does not change the fact that you contradicted yourself. 

or perhaps you can't admit that your accusation is wrong, when did I say it is 100% impossible? Doesn't make sense is not 100% impossible. 

 

2 hours ago, Kemara said:

Skeptic you really need to stop commenting on things you know absolutely nothing about. And even more to the point please read what I have already written on the subject, that way I wont have to repeat myself and prove you wrong yet again. As I said in my second post on this thread:

Give me the link to that paper, I can't find it on google scholar. You too, I have so much evidence that GM Food is safe, but I really have no time to present a strong case and refute everything you cut and paste. Okay, I really need to get back to what I am doing.

Maybe I will have time for one last reply today. 

[Kemara]

16 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am not a research scientist, are you? 

It is plainly obvious that you are not a research scientist. As I have said previously, you have absolutely no business even discussing science. A person does not have to be a scientist to discuss science in a rich and meaningful way, however you have consistently demonstrated a complete inability to engage with even the simplest ideas, you have consistently shown that you do not have the cognitive capacity or discipline to discuss scientific concepts in any meaningful way. 

I will not be addressing any more of your illogical nonsense until you have answered all my questions. After you have answered my questions you will be required to address all the issues I have raised that you have ignored or failed, to either logically and/or contextually, address. I have addressed all the issues you have raised and proven them to be wrong, illogical, unscientific and juvenile. After you have answered my questions it is time for you to man-up, cowboy-up, gut-up or whatever term you prefer to denote personal character and address the issues I raised.

In addition to the list of questions I have already provided you are also required to answer the following:

1. Skeptic aren't you getting tired of being proven wrong yet? Or at least, why do you make it so easy?
2. Please explain to me why the articles you have linked too, which you have placed your entire argument on, are reliable if they do not discuss any no long-term studies or epidemiological analysis.
3. If there are no long term studies then how can it possibly be determined that GMO is safe?
4. So science cannot do long-term studies on a human?
5. My question regarding there being no studies on the long-term health effects of GM food is meaningless in a discussion that is about the safety of humans eating GM food?
6. Did you pay the US$54 to read the article or are you just linking to it because you think its title supports your position?
7. Answer me this Skeptic - does this article address long-term studies and epidemiological analysis regarding GM food and human health - yes or no?
8. tell me how much it will cost to build a 1ha greenhouse facility?
9. tell me what is so hard about replicating something very similar to greenhouse facilities all over the world?  
10. So what is the huge energy cost from a system that is 100% self sufficient in energy?
11. do I need to remind you to keep your word that you would answer all my questions?    

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 minutes ago, Kemara said:

It is plainly obvious that you are not a research scientist.

LOL and what about you? You are research scientist on that field? I wonder what is your politics?  

I am a strong Bernie supporter (he is for GMO labeling), so you can't tell me that my politics dictates my science. 

Anyways, I really need to finish what I am doing, I will not be back for another 2 hours. 

Expect a very strong response. 

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 

Refer to my previous post.

     

[volgadon]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Many encyclopedias say the same thing about the scientific consensus on GM food, no details are required for that. I did go to the library in the University. 

I am not a research scientist, are you? 

No details needed because an encyclopedia said something so it must be true? Are you trying to prove me right? I'm not a research scientist, but I don't need to be one in order to understand the limitations of encyclopedias.

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Kemara said:

Refer to my previous post.

You know what, I am not going to allow MDDB to consume too much of my time, you are asking me too many question. 

Just be brief and ask 2 or 3 at most. 

2 hours ago, volgadon said:

No details needed because an encyclopedia said something so it must be true? Are you trying to prove me right? I'm not a research scientist, but I don't need to be one in order to understand the limitations of encyclopedias.

Many reputable encyclopedias simply say there is a consensus on GM food, do we really need a formula, a telescope, or a thermometer to verify that?

Tell me, how complex is that? When many reputable encyclopedias say the same thing, I usually conclude that it is highly likely true. 

 

 

 

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Just be brief and ask 2 or 3 at most. 

Ok then, I will ask you just two brief questions from the list of 34 that you have failed to answer: 

1. Do I need to remind you to keep your word that you would answer all my questions? 
2. You said you would answer all my questions. Can I believe you?

These were your words were they not? 

Quote

...let me do some reading on modern agriculture first, then I will answer your questions

These were your words were they not?

Quote

Listen, I am simply doing a quick response because I am busy, I will get back to you to answer all of your questions. 

Please note that the bolded emphasis was yours not mine, you actually emphasised the fact that you will answer all of my questions.

Well I suppose that I really asked you four questions, but surely you can deal with four little questions...cant you? (Oops, that makes five)

If you refuse to answer those questions then refer to my previous post. 

One more point, but you don't need to answer this points question, I wouldn't want to over burden you.

These were your words were they not?

Quote

Anyways, I really need to finish what I am doing, I will not be back for another 2 hours. Expect a very strong response.

You latest post was your very strong response?    

Edited March 8, 2016 by Kemara

[Sleeper Cell]

9 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

 Many reputable encyclopedias simply say there is a consensus on GM food, do we really need a formula, a telescope, or a thermometer to verify that?

Tell me, how complex is that? When many reputable encyclopedias say the same thing, I usually conclude that it is highly likely true. 

I’m reminded of a sign on the wall of a research lab where I once worked:

“One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions.”

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Call for references, please.

He could be referring to one of these.

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Earth+has+already+lost+a+third+of+arable+land+in+the+last+forty+years&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[TheSkepticChristian]

9 hours ago, Kemara said:

Ok then, I will ask you just two brief questions from the list of 34 that you have failed to answer: 

1. Do I need to remind you to keep your word that you would answer all my questions? 
2. You said you would answer all my questions. Can I believe you?

Listen grandpa, 

I don't have all the time in the world. Stop with the cut and paste and stop asking me so many questions. 

You only ask e 2 or 3. 

9 hours ago, Kemara said:

These were your words were they not? 

How about I give you links so you can do some research on your own so you can learn that GM food is safe. 

Like I said, I don't have all the time in the world just for you.  I spent a lot of time looking for your Paper that I never found, and it probably doesn't exists, so I can't take you that seriously. 

Edited March 8, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

13 hours ago, volgadon said:

No details needed because an encyclopedia said something so it must be true? 

You mean when the church says something it must be true?

How many complex methods do we need to know so we can verify that there is a Scientific consensus on GM Food?

13 hours ago, volgadon said:

 I don't need to be one in order to understand the limitations of encyclopedias.

I agree encyclopedias have limitations, but how is a saying "Scientific Consensus" a limitation? 

Give me a break. I did prove most scientists believe GM food is safe.  I gave a linked to many Papers and presented Pew stats. 

 

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

14 hours ago, Kemara said:

3. If there are no long term studies then how can it possibly be determined that GMO is safe?

because there has been no evidence in more than 20 years that GM food is unsafe. If anti-GMO "scientists" have issues, why are they not making their so-called long-term studies? 

There is no long term studies that computers are safe and don't cause cancer.  

However, it depends what you mean by long-term. You mean 50+ years? 70+ years? You mean a long and extensive studies for years on a human? That is illegal. 

There is a long term study of 25 months on cows. I can also point to other examples. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20579187

17 hours ago, Kemara said:

14. Are you seriously unable 2 comprehend man kinds ability 2 build a greenhouse in practically any location? Where is your faith in science now?  
 

It is possible, but very hard, especially for poor countries. So why are many farmers that are being affected by climate change not making them? 

Just give me a break. 

17 hours ago, Kemara said:

17. Why are you ignoring reputable reports that say GMO is not safe?

What reputable reports? CFR From the Nature Journal? Science Journal? 

I will change my mind if you give me plenty of reputable studies from respected and well-known Journals. 

 Okay, that is enough. Like I said, I don't have all the time in the world, I can't afford to answer 1000 questions and respond to your long posts. Le

Learn to keep it brief, I have a life. 

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

There is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides. GMO as understood by the public mostly refers to organisms modified by placing a different species' DNA directly into the cell of the host organism. While scientists generally refer to GMO as any modification of genetic traits by any means available, including selective breeding. Neither one is totally correct. 

With any new technology there is the filtering out effect. With time standardization becomes the norm. We right now don't know enough to make a valid determination which, if any, methods will prevail. We are in effect conducting a big experiment on ourselves.

What if any effect will having plants and animals producing their own antibiotics, and pesticides have on the people who eat them?

Edited March 8, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides. GMO as understood by the public mostly refers to organisms modified by placing a different species' DNA directly into the cell of the host organism. While scientists generally refer to GMO as any modification of genetic traits by any means available, including selective breeding. Neither one is totally correct. 

With any new technology there is the filtering out effect. With time standardization becomes the norm. We right now don't know enough to make a valid determination which, if any, methods will prevail. We are in effect conducting a big experiment on ourselves.

In the past you shared videos by potholer54, here is another one

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

In the past you shared videos by potholer54, here is another one

 

 

 

Again I reserve the right to agree with or disagree with anyone at my own choosing. BTW I don't disagree or agree with his premise. Though I do believe more study is warranted.