Genetically Modified Organisms

[ST88]

The biotech industry has come up with numerous examples of how GMOs might offer the opportunity for better lives. Rice that contains beta-carotene, potatoes and corn that repel insect pests, tomatoes that have longer shelf lives, among others. These are plant examples, but it is certainly possible to alter animals in similar ways, such as beef with less fat, chicken with more protein, or fish that can eliminate mercury from their systems.

There are scientific as well as ethical objections to these practices, and many are uncomfortable with "accelerating the evolution" of different species. But some see a food supply in the world in danger. Pollution, deforestation, the rise of food-borne diseases, and corrupt food donation programs all contribute to human malnutrition and famine. GMOs offer a scientific solution to these problems, but at what cost?

Should GMOs be allowed or banned, and why or why not? Should we allow only plants to be modified? Or maybe limit the modified animals to seafood?

[Gangstawombatninja]

John, I want you to know it's exausting to repeat myself. Not only repeat myself but feel like I'm talking to myself.

I've adressed this over and over. Ok. You say the only wisdom you can find is in Christianity and Jesus' philosophy. Ok. I get what you're saying; the Bible is entirely entheal and the only entheal book and thus the only wisdom. Fine. But wisdom is the internal (mental) and intangible whereas fact is the external (physical) and tangible. We can study the external and use the external to come to fact based conclusion. But with wisdom, yes, we look outward but what wisdom comes down to is that it has only logic, as opposed to physical and tangible and substance, to support it.

There is no proof to refute what you have say about Christianity; it's entierely faith-based without tangible support. I've used logic extensively to adress why YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible is misguided but you won't even take ten minutes or less to read my posts which, granted, are long, but that's because I have a lot of argument which you won't even read. You said before that you understood where I was heading with all of it. No, because you aren' reading and you're only using circular logic to support your side of the argument.

Debating is defined as an argument bringing into question the respective validities of two opposing ideas. You have brought, not once, into question the realisticness of my proposal not once. If you don't want to argue a debating forum is not the place to. I'm not trying to be rude or hostile I just want you to keep up your side of the implication of posting in debate forum.

Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." You aren't even entertaining my ideas; not even taking ten min. to read or a few minutes to respond. You aren't opening your mind a smidgen to understand what I have to say.

[/quote]You quote many widely held positions on the veracity of scripture and I will not be bothered to refute each one because they have previously been refuted many times elsewhere.[quote]

I would like to know EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. Tell me. Saying that is just blowing wind and does nothing to support your argument. I'm not trying to be rude but that statement is spineless--without any substance or support, that is. If I am wrong I would like to correct my mistakes. But I from what I understand... well, YOU tell ME what's wrong with them.

I'm going to repeat what I said in my original post. I want you to tell me EXACTLY what's unrealistic about. Not "the Bible says this thus it's wrong" (when in fact your interpretations are flimsy at best--what passage says God is against GM??). Tell me why my assertions are unrealistic.

[/i]Well, if we could genetically engineer a gland that would release massive spikes of chemical euphoria whenever a person does a kind act (just like serotonin supposedly does) then, well, that would make it so that everyone finds their bliss and happiness by make others happy. So that if everyone is catering to your happiness and everyone else is catering to your welfare, well, there's isn't anything to worry about because everyone is happy: utopia.

[Johnin Spain]

You said:

I've addressed this over and over. Ok. You say the only wisdom you can find is in Christianity and Jesus' philosophy. Ok. I get what you're saying; the Bible is entirely entheal and the only entheal book and thus the only wisdom. Fine.

Reply:

Actually, more than just wisdom, the bible is….

”The starting point of all doctrinal discussion must be the Bible. Upon the foundation of the Divine inspiration of the Bible stands or falls the entire edifice of Christian truth. - "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Ps. 11:3). Surrender the dogma of verbal inspiration and you are left like a rudderless ship on a stormy sea-at the mercy of every wind that blows. Deny that the Bible is, without any qualifications, the very Word of God, and you are left without any ultimate standard of measurement and without any supreme authority. It is useless to discuss any doctrine taught by the Bible until you are prepared to acknowledge, unreservedly, that the Bible is the final court of appeal. Grant that the Bible is a Divine revelation and communication of God's own mind and will to men, and you have a fixed starting point from which advance can be made into the domain of truth. Grant that the Bible is (in its original manuscripts) inerrant and infallible and you reach the place where study of its contents is both practicable and profitable”

http://www.ccel.org/p/pink/inspiration/ ... l#Heading1

You said:

I would like to know EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. Tell me. Saying that is just blowing wind and does nothing to support your argument. I'm not trying to be rude but that statement is spineless--without any substance or support, that is. If I am wrong I would like to correct my mistakes. But I from what I understand... well, YOU tell ME what's wrong with them.

I'm going to repeat what I said in my original post. I want you to tell me EXACTLY what's unrealistic about. Not "the Bible says this thus it's wrong" (when in fact your interpretations are flimsy at best--what passage says God is against GM??). Tell me why my assertions are unrealistic.

Reply:

We start from different perspectives; you assert that humanity can, by itself, solve the problems of this world. I stand on the assertion that humanity, by itself, is helpless to solve the problems of this world, indeed, that humanity, in it’s attempts to solve problems remote from God, will actually increase those problems until the world becomes impossible to sustain.

Until anyone accepts the absolute divinity of scripture, which they cannot do unless they first accept that Christ is who He says He is and stop their rebellion against God, then you are right, debate is useless because the objective of your debate is to persuade me to accept your ‘truth’ whereas the objective of my debate is to bring you to accept the truth of the bible, whereupon your perceptions would change and your comprehension would ascend through the ‘logic lock’ and reach an understanding of the bible.

Understanding the bible is not possible without faith, and you do not seem to have that faith in God, you place your faith in humanity.

That faith in humanity will always be futile.

Years ago I preached a different ‘gospel’, one which stated that if only all people were selfish, they would be so centered on themselves that they would realize that keeping all men content was the best manner of assuring their personal security. It was as wrong as your ‘lets all be nice to each other’ concept.

Mankind is infinitely damaged by sin and left to its own devises will NEVER reach the pinnacle of lovingness that your concept relies upon. That is why I do not discuss your philosophy – because it is simply impossible in a sin ridden world to achieve.

So we are left with little to discuss.

Frankly I care not one bit whether mankind continues to seek GM methods of saving themselves and the fact that such meddling is an offence against God makes little difference to those who deny Gods absolute authority over this world, and why should it, they have their own aspirations and like Satan wish to usurp Gods authority, build their ‘tower of Babel’ and become gods themselves.

But they will fail.

Years ago I felt inclined to try and debate everyone into the kingdom of God, but time has shown that indeed the bible is true: few will find it and even fewer will enter.

Without a clear understanding of what scripture outlines for the future history of this world it must be tempting to believe that our technology will save us.

As for me and my house, we will follow God.

God’s solution does not include what you hope for and therefore your desires may well be achieved but they will not succeed in their objectives.

[hannahjoy]

To Johnin Spain:
How is GM "playing God" any more than performing surgery or taking medicine? Apart from the belief that humans can solve the world's problem, what is wrong with using this technology to alleviate a few problems? Or are you also against taking medicine?
I can see how there could be good reasons against it, but your reason, carried to its logical conclusion, would eliminate the study of medicine. Is that what you're advocating?

Hannah Joy

[Johnin Spain]

Dear HannahJoy

you ask:

How is GM "playing God" any more than performing surgery or taking medicine?

reply:

GM refers to changing the genetic structure of something to produce something which differs from the genetic structure God created. God has omnificence and we do not. I have no idea what the final outcome of GM could be but suggest that based upon our (mankinds) record of self help (nuclear power, which we use to kill with, etc.) we can be sure that GM would eventually be bad for this world.

I have no objection to that happening, this world is scheduled for such horrors in the bible and maybe GM will allow those massive plagues to develope that are prophesied.

you said:

Apart from the belief that humans can solve the world's problem, what is wrong with using this technology to alleviate a few problems? Or are you also against taking medicine?

reply:

I have a natural suspicion of man made medicines, always have had even before I came to belief. Apart from the fact that drug companies are cartels designed for profit not need, they also create (or design) chemical structures that deal with symptoms rather than causes of disease.

First disease is significant of sin in our lives.

Drug companies never state that we should 'repent and pray 3 time per day before taking' nor do most people normally consecrate those chemical fixes before taking, and also most folk cannot claim a 'good conscience' when they submit to those drugs.

When we go to the 'pharmacist- we actually visit the 'sorcerer' ; check out 'pharma' in your Greek dictionary, it means sorcerer.

When we use chemical drugs, we use 'poisons' ; use that dictionary again.

God has provided ALL we need in natural plant, herb and seed form to ensure our health. This is a massive subject, which I have studied these last seven years. If you want to learn more I will provide URL's to allow you to find out the truth.

I also agree that these man made chemical drugs do have a purpose, especially as most of the worlds population do not have the protection of Christ to guide them to natural health solutions.


You said;

I can see how there could be good reasons against it, but your reason, carried to its logical conclusion, would eliminate the study of medicine. Is that what you're advocating?

Reply;

In no way do I see the study of medicine as needing to be eliminated, but I would question the motives. Drug cartels are very interested in the study of Gods natural cures, but only in order to recreate those cures as chemical signatures which can be patented. You cannot patent Gods elemental substances. No profit there!

So my objections to GM and suchlike is that they are inspired by profit motives and in doing so they ignore Gods ways. They are correct for a lost humanity, but ill advised for believers.

We are in the world, but not of it. The whole word 'church' indicates that we are 'set aside', seperated from the world. We must be very cautious in choosing what and where we interface with the world, our main relationship should be to warn them of their predicament and to bring those who will hear the gospel of Christ.

Blessings,

John

[Jose]

In no way do I see the study of medicine as needing to be eliminated, but I would question the motives. Drug cartels are very interested in the study of Gods natural cures, but only in order to recreate those cures as chemical signatures which can be patented. You cannot patent Gods elemental substances. No profit there!

Well, people actually have patented God's natural substances, but that's a minor issue. The critical focus of many of the drug cartels is to improve drugs that need improvement. When we use pencillin and its analogs so extensively that we select for penicilliin-resistant bacteria, then we need alternate drugs to cure our infections. By studying the mechanisms that bacteria use to counter penicillin, and then searching for compounds that counter the bacterial countering mechanism, they came up with clavulanate. The preferred treatment for many infections is now a mixture of amoxacillin (a penicillin analog) and clavulanate--called Clavamox when prescribed for dogs, and Augmentin when prescribed for people.

The point is, most of the natural compounds are imperfect at doing what they do. Chemical alteration can improve the effectiveness significantly. We really do need the chemical companies for our way of life. The alternative is to go back to steam engines, subsistence farming, and frequent disease and death. (Well, many deaths among people, not many per person!)

[Johnin Spain]

Hi Jose,

Ever heard of Colloidal Silver? it will deal with most things that need dealing with and is not liable to resistance because nothing nasty meets it twice.

You can make it in your kitchen and it costs pennies per gallon to make.

It was the standard antibiotic in use until 1938 when they patented pennicillian and started the antibiotic overload that has caused this mess.

The unbelieving secular world does indeed need man made chemical drugs to keep them alive and ready for work within the world system, whilst making 3000% profits for the drug cartels, as they pay inflated prices for FDA approved drugs, whilst being forbidden to buy the same generic drugs from abroad at substantially less cost.

God has provided for ALL of our needs and for those who are His people He will save them from the hunters snare and the deadly pestilance.

I'm not saying chemical drugs do not work in suppressing the symptoms of disease, I'm saying that Gods ways do work for maintaining our health.

For those who shun Gods ways it makes little difference how far they journey down the road of man made and chemically created remedies, they will be lost anyway, but granted with mans medicine they will not feel the pain of their degeneration as they slip slowly into Hell.

[Jose]

Gosh, John, I wouldn't want to rely on colloidal silver. As reported here , it has been banned as a therapeutic, but can still be sold as a "nutritional supplement," thanks to the Republican Congress' Contract With America, and their Nutritional Supplements Health and Education Act of 1994. As long as they don't claim to cure a specific disease, they can sell anything as a nutritional supplement--at least until it has been proven to kill enough people that the FDA can take action (as they finally did with ephedra).

Now, here's the dilemma. If we rely on one interpretation of the Bible, God will take care of us. On the other hand, if we rely on the equally-fiercely-believed tenets of some other religions, God won't. If we look at the likely history of the Bible itself, a very strong case can be made for it's origin as the written version of the collected stories of a tribe of nomads--that is, written by Man.

If the latter is the case, and I happen to favor that interpretation for a variety of reasons, then, well....God won't take care of us. We're all there is, and have to take care of ourselves and of the planet that sustains us.

The question that this thread revolves about is whether GMOs are an appropriate way to help with the problems we can foresee. I guess the answer depends on your estimate of the appropriate number of people that should be alive at one time. If your number is higher, then you need genetically-modified plants to sustain that population. If your number is lower, then you might be able to get by with the way we do things now. If your number is much, much lower, then you might be able to get by with strictly organic farming. Done properly, genetic modification is entirely reasonable. We know exactly what the genes we've inserted will do. Certainly, it is possible to do things sloppily, but since the GM companies are interested in making at least enough money to sustain the company, there's a strong economic incentive for doing things right. Certainly, a case can be made for the companies trying to get rich at the expense of us consumers, but isn't that why so many Americans voted for George Bush--so he could help lots of companies get really, really rich at our expense, and at the expense of the environment? It's hard to complain very much about companies getting rich, when our entire economy is based on the principles that enable them to do so, and when we elect their champions to public office. Spain may be more sensible than we are in this regard, and have more environmental and scientific understanding, but at least from here in the US, this is the view I see.

It also turns out, oddly enough, that if the "latter possibility" mentioned above is true (that the bible is of human origin), then it's pretty risky to rely on God's natural bounty for our health. Then, you're relying on hope (which is a strong factor in health!) and the various chemical compounds that happen to have arisen during the course of evolution. Few of these compounds arose to help Man; most have their origins as defense compounds to keep animals from eating the plants.

[Johnin Spain]

Fact.

There is no evidence of ANY recorded death from Colloidal Silver.

Fact.

Doctors are the third largest cause of death in America.

Chemical medicine kills thousands of people each year and enslaves millions of others.

As to the veracity of the bible I direct you to one of my earlier posts, (it's just above) and suggest you read that rather than I waste time replying further.

I guess the answer depends on your estimate of the appropriate number of people that should be alive at one time. If your number is higher, then you need genetically-modified plants to sustain that population. If your number is lower, then you might be able to get by with the way we do things now. If your number is much, much lower, then you might be able to get by with strictly organic farming.

The sustainable number of people for this world is determined by available water, not food. In America you have excessive amounts of food, in Europe we also have more than sufficient food. What is lacking is any real desire to provide that excess to those who do not have sufficient.

I am not talking socialism here (Christianity without Christ) but just calling the straw man arguement you provide. If you are really concerned about feeding the world you would first consider educating the northern hemisphere to stop gorging themselves to excess.

For the record, I have never seen the children of the righteous begging for food.

God provides where He guides.

Blessings,
John

[Jose]

You are absolutely right, John. Water is a bigger problem than food--but my reading on the topic suggests that this is, in part, because water is needed to grow the plants we use for food. You are also right that food distribution is woefully unequal. We fat Americans (well, fat Norteamericanos) have more than we need, while many other countries have too little. We do seem to be pretty lousy at distributing our excess to them.

I arrive at my conclusions by thinking some years ahead. At some time--and I don't expect it to be very far off--all of us will face shortages of food and water. I think that this will bring serious political chaos, but aside from that issue, we can ask how to proceed. The GM folks (some, at least) have considered improving the nutritional balance of amino acids in grains, and increasing the content of proteins in them. This isn't hard to do, really, and would have the effect of significantly decreasing our requirement for protein from meat. This alone would make more food available to more people, from the same quantity of irrigation water.

Another effort is to decrease the water tolerance of food crops, so that they can survive in more arid regions. This would be a tremendous help to northern Africa, which is quite arid. It has been very difficult to select major increases in drought tolerance by traditional breeding mechanisms, so gene transfer offers a possible method to achieve this in the limited time available to us. Even with this "improved" method, there is much still to be figured out, since tolerance of low-water conditions involves many different genes.

As to comments on other bits of your last post:

Indeed, there are no recorded deaths from Colloidal Silver, though there are reports of argyria (unhealthy, high levels of silver in the blood). It was the lack of deaths that allowed the Colloidal Silver Companies to make vast amounts of money selling their products as "nutritional supplements." The stuff doesn't have to do anything; they just have to convince the anti-medicine public that it might work. The nutritional supplement industry probably makes more profit than the real chemical industry, because they don't have to do any testing (expensive), or qualiity control (expensive), and are allowed to package anything in their bottles, regardless of what the label claims.

So, it may be that chemical medicine enslaves millions, but "nutritional supplements" enslave millions with no actual benefit except to the company that sells the stuff. I think this is weird, but an interesting insight into human nature.

---

I accept your statement of "not talking socialism" and agree with your basic sentiments. I disagree that I've provided a straw man argument. I'm considering a longer-term perspective, relevant to nations that even now are having difficulty feeding everyone. I'd like to see methods that work within their existing cultural and religious framework, which in the end, is not handouts from the US. Right now, the US is not particularly well thought-of, after all.

I also don't think it will work to apply the biblical "God will provide" argument, for the very reason I mentioned above: the best solution is not one of imposing our views on others, but developing a solution that works within the cultural and religious framework that already exists. Much of the world is not Christian, and even among the Christian, there are differences.

[Johnin Spain]

Jose,

CS is something I have used for the last two years on myself, my family and other people (and animals) with health conditions, some serious.

It works very well and I am evidence of it's worth and safety.

The 'grey' issue concerns much earlier silvers which were not produced the same way as CS is produced today, there are ONLY two reported cases of people going grey, CS is much safer than antibiotics, which deplete the immune system whereas CS restores it.

The reason I do not concern myself with longterm problems is simple:

As a believer in Christ I recognise that His return as imminent and the problems you indicate are indicative of that imminency, indeed they are requirements for prophesy to be fulfilled.

As there are nearly 700 specific prophesys in the bible and in view of the fact that all but 38 have been fulfilled 100%, (with the unfulfilled ones relating to current events anyway) I accept that when the bible tells me that 'the end (for an unbelieving world) is near', I can rely upon it coming to fulflillment.

I find no joy in this, quite the opposite, but facts are facts and evidence points to the fact that WHATEVER you clever GM people attempt will not change the ultimate outcome.

Jesus Christ will return and sit in judgement upon a rebellious and unbelieving world, and EVERY knee WILL BOW and EVERY tongue WILL CONFESS that Jesus Christ IS LORD OF ALL.

Of course those who will can escape the wrath to come if they come to belief in Christ, and watch, and pray.

But like I said, few find the gate and even fewer will enter.

That's what free will is all about.

Blessings,

John