GMO's and God's design

Tried this thread a few days ago, and kept getting side tracked by people trying to claim that saying it isn't Christian to support GMO's, is like saying if god wanted people to fly, then he would have gave them wings.

This of course is absurd, as flying in a airplane, is nothing like changing your genetic code to actually allow you to grow wings.

Then another poster came along and used a phrase that made it much more difficult to conflate these ideas in, "God's design"

So let's try this again:

Explain how you can call yourself a Christian while supporting GMO's, which alters God's design?

 

God gave us enormous intellect, and it would be insulting to him not to use that gift to it's full potential in order to make the world a better place. And for the record, nothing you eat today is genetically identical to anything that was roaming around 10,000 years ago. Domestication results in genetic modification every bit as much as something you might do in a lab. The lab can just do it more quickly.

 

By this same logic, you could argue that god gave us the intellect to choose to have children when we want, which makes abortion OK.

Yeah, cross pollination is the same thing as creating corn that you can drench in 1,000's of gallons of roundup without killing it.(<------E-sarcasm)

 

Same reason children playing with matches isn't a great idea.

 

Christians also believe in morals. Manipulating plant genetics is not considered immoral. Choosing to have children is also not considered immoral. Killing human life is considered immoral.

'Round Up Ready' seeds allow farmers to use less herbicide. GMO plants allow farmers to grow more using less insecticides. Feeding more human beings is the moral thing to do.

 

You lose all credibility here!!

What GMO's do is allow more pesticide to be sprayed on them without dieing from the pesticide that would normally kill it!

As to your general point, not sure how changing God's design has anything to do with morals.

 

How do people change god's design all the time?

I think if you give specific examples the difference will be obvious.

 

The difference is that when you die, so does your tattoo.

The changes made at a genetic level will eventually dominate the whole species.

This would be the equivalent of giving the entire human race two noses, by changing the building blocks of life.

 

If you look for the information you will see seed banks popping up all over the world, to protect the original genetic structure of all these plants.

 

First of all, Round Up is a Glyphosate which is a molecule that inhibits rapidly growing plants (weeds). It is not indicated as a hazard to humans.

GE soybeans, corn, and cotton are designed to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which has fewer adverse environmental effects compared with most other herbicides used to control weeds.

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1135

The second issue is insecticide. Pesticide resistant plants produce a protein called Bt. Different strains of Bt produce different versions called Cry. The Cry protein must be activated by an enzyme found in insect guts. Insects do evolve resistance however Bt strains adapt in turn and become highly specific with regard to insects.

Read it again until you understand OR go to the link. It is important that you understand the facts.

Now...Cry has been used for decades as a 'natural' Bt spray and has been lauded as a 'natural' insecticide. The problem is that it degrades in a matter of days and faster if it happens to rain. Inserting Cry genes into plants is much more efficient and precludes having to spray MORE insecticide.

Given what we know about Cry proteins, there is very little reason to be concerned about the safety of eating it. These are proteins that have evolved to kill insects &#8211; and not just insects in general, but very specific subsets of insects. And humans are not insects. Regulatory agencies in the US and Europe have consistently rejected claims that plants that produce their own Cry cause problems in either humans or farm animals.

 

Anyone can readily buy Heirloom seeds and keep them for extended periods or just grow them and continue to collect seeds. I prefer standard seed (the kind you can buy in the local nursery) because it is much easier to grow and has much higher yields. The Heirloom seeds are for preppers.

 

So... To use an analogy... If the playground equipment is not "proven unsafe", you can FORCE my child to play on it (e.g. Unlabeling food). But... I have a HIGHER STANDARD THAN YOU: Prove it is safe!!, and it is *MY* child, and *MY* decision, and I am telling *YOU* to label your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing food, so we don't have to eat it!!!

Now... On GMO and God's design... The Bibble says: "Don't lie". That mean don't pass off a hybrid as the original thing.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

 

Apparently that study was faulty.

Monsanto has responded, saying that (a) Roundup formulations do contain surfactants (detergents) to help the active ingredient penetrate the waxy cuticle of the plant. (b) The surfactants are indeed more toxic than the glyphosate. (c) "If you put a detergent of any sort on cells in a petri dish, the cells get sick (and will die if you get the concentration high enough or recover if you remove the detergent soon enough)"; (d) the cell types chosen in these studies and the parameters measured were selected more to score political points than to help fully describe the risks of glyphosate and surfactants; (e) the experiments are artificial and not helpful – no one is supposed to drink Roundup, and it is not ever put on naked cells (we all have skin and workers are meant to wear protective clothes.[66]

What are you arguing, that Round-Up could be hazardous at point of application? Every herbicide or pesticide can be hazardous at point of application. I see no conspiracy by Monsanto to somehow poison the world.

 

If God didn't want us to mess with it, he should have made his code harder to crack.

 

Mansanto's non scientific reply means nothing,

Their "reply" isn't a peer review nor offered up for scientific scrutiny in the field.

They do nothing other than what loads of other people on this forum do, that is with no science involved, simply come on here and spout off how global warming, evolution etc. are bullocks but they can't actually challenge it scientifically.. They are just saying they refuse to accept it.

Mansanto to the best of my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, haven't actually published any scientific works.

 

Well, it's a betterment of society because you can certainly feed way more people with the GMO's and it was discovered by humans. However, if you think we can live off the seeds of these you are mistaken. They won't reproduce into anything. You need heirloom seeds to ensure that. So if we loose heirlooms, we are screwed.

 

Doing it all the time does not make it right, otherwise abortion would be considered OK also.

 

No no, he wanted to place temptation in our way, so that he could judge us and send us to hell for eternity if we fell into his little trap.

And being as the religious pro-GM types are excusing their stance, without any evidence whatsoever that god actually considers messing with his creation to be OK, I'd say that they were either a) playing with fire regarding their eternal souls, or b) don't really believe in the whole god business in the first place.

I'm guessing answer b) is the correct one as christians rarely follow the word of christ.

 

You're a bit late to the party with this concern.
Look up Gregor Mendel. He was a Christian monk, by the way.
Go to a dog show.
We have been manipulating nature's designs for centuries without any complaints from God.

 

Indeed. God or nature (whatever your preference) has wonderful design. Bacterial and viral infections are the epitome of efficient parasitic (and symbiotic) design - and we are always trying to come up with clever ways to circumvent that design. So is cancer. Genetic mutations and the diseases the offer us such as Huntingdons, Alzheimers, ALS, Cystic Fibrosis, are all very natural and full of wondrous design on the molecular machinery level of existence. And I'd bet the farm that nearly every Christian family that was passing the 4p16.3 HTT gene would do anything to have that gene corrected so that would produce only about 1/2 as many CAG repeats and thus prevent a substantial percentage of their progeny from having their brain cells progressively destroyed to the point of becoming walking zombies before God has mercy and finally kills them.

 

Monsanto certainly has conducted scientific research that's how they came up with their seed processes in the first place. Their findings were thoroughly vetted by the FDA/USDA who did not find any contraindications for human consumption. I provided a link in an earlier post to a non-partisan scientist you might want to read.

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1135

Also...You can go to Monsanto itself for more info on their processes

http://www.monsanto.com/Pages/default.aspx

I would also like to add that there is absolutely no proof of any human suffering from GMO foods. Moreover there is quite a bit of evidence of humans being sickened by improperly grown so-called 'organic' foods because they are fertilized by manure that is sometimes not composted for long enough causing E-Coli poisoning.

If ever there was an argument for the organic industry to buckle down and finally start field testing, this is it: The E. coli outbreak in Europe has now resulted in at least 44 deaths and over 3,700 illnesses. The outbreak was caused by bean sprouts originating from an organic farm in Germany.

http://www.realclearscience.com/art...anic_industry_for_e_coli_outbreak_106245.html

More info..

Natural fertilizers like manure actually have serious problems. Feces, you may recall, are not very sterile. They can contain pathogens like E. coli and salmonella. Remember the big recall on organic spinach a few years ago? That's what happens when you grow your food in a toilet and fail to properly sanitize it

And...As to the Bt argument...

Next on the list is the claim that pesticides are not on your conventionally grown produce. They are. They're also inside your food. Long before humans, plants evolved pesticides and fungicides to kill off their would-be attackers. This accounts for most of the pesticides you consume. There are also synthetic pesticides found on both conventional and organic produce but the levels are low and safe.

http://www.browndailyherald.com/dav...-food-is-bovine-manure-1.2191349#.UPCpUPJUr6Q

The so-called 'organic' industry has flooded the Internet so its hard to get more objective information.