<Sure you did:>
NO, I didn't...
And Thank you for copying my REAL words... as I said, I didn't say "GMO is bad science".
According to YOU, what I actually said is:
<Nothing. It's bad science (including some GMO products).>
Meaning FDA process... including "some" GMO... as any one without their "wacko googles" on can clearly see.
<I don't recall you being anywhere near that specific.>
Because you never read my posts and ponder... you pick out you "got points"... in this case "GMO" and run off to your wacko web sites for information.
<I see. Its just a generic name-calling thing.>
Yes... the sites you get your information from (generic Brummar sites) are normally "wacko".
<Its just a term for anything you disagree with. >
You can't POSSIBLY know that... since the only person discussing things here is YOU.
So scientifically speaking (based on population of posters and ALL data points here); YES, to YOU virtually everything I disagree with is WACKO. As you keep proving over and over.
NOW! For the board... if anyone is actually reading... the ISSUE here is the quality of science used in "evolutionary study"... ie. the science backing existance of evolution, VERSUS the quality of science in getting food products approved and on your shelf... INCLUDING "some" GMO products.
Some people have a hard time staying on track due to lack of knowledge on these subjects yet an inability just to shut up, or {gasp}, go out and actually study and learn these things.
FURTHER, if new viewers think I unduely harsh, Brummar knows NOTHING about the topic in general, as evidenced by his not knowing companies patent sequenced DNA segments, including genes as a normal part of business.
DAK |
