| 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:
|
| http://canola.okstate.edu/gmofacts

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 he

http://agecon.okstate.edu/faculty/publications/4975.pdf

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.