118 replies to this topic

[emerkeng]

"Jamel Cherry, is a certified Holistic Health Consultant, herbalist, spiritual life coach and third-degree reiki master."
The author of that article is a liar and a con man.

Your entire argument is a mess. You say eating natural is better, but you won't accept that everything we eat is farmed in such a way that it hasn't been "natural", or "as god made it", for centuries.

I have no idea what you're going on about with respect to fish and grain. Fish and grain don't have the same nutritional content, even though they both contain vitamin B. And for the record, thousands of people are allergic to fish.

Chemicals that are applied to an ovum cannot persist in amounts that can be harmful, if at all. That's not propagaganda, that's simply a fact.

And I wasn't saying there was no difference between modern farming, and historical farming. That would be mind-numbingly stupid. What I was saying was that your "as god made it" argument was undeniable irrelevant.

You say that we are not eating food naturally anymore. I disagree however, people can still get natural sources of food for instance I get my fruits and my vegetables and other groceries from the farmer's market or the farm. The farms I know that are related to the products I obtain do not use pesticides or any unnatural growth hormones and even make raw unpasteurized milk. And the majority of people who are allergic to fish tend to eat farmed fish that are fed on a unnatural diet of fish pellets or some other stuff that are rarely part of their diet since it is cheaper for farmers. However, people that "allergic" to fish that eat wild fish which tend to be stronger and healthier in their life do not report any allergic reactions as least that's what I know due to experience. Also you have no proof that he is a con man or a liar you're just assuming. Show me an article about chemicals that are applied to ovum cannot persist in amounts that can be harmful since I've shown you so many of my articles and you're trying to disprove me why don't you give me something I can read instead of just saying it's a fact or making your own assumptions. In my view as god made it=natural foods that are not processed or have not had pesticides used on them or any unnatural substances such as wild fish, free range chickens and cows that feed on grass, eggs that are from free range chickens and fruits and vegetables that have not had pesticides used on them. Which is possible and is a better alternative to eating GMO's, I know this through experience since fruits and vegetables from the store which tend to genetically modified have made me feel weak and unhealthy but organically grown fruits and vegetables have given me more energy and strength.

[Waser Lave]

You say that we are not eating food naturally anymore. I disagree however, people can still get natural sources of food for instance I get my fruits and my vegetables and other groceries from the farmer's market or the farm. The farms I know that are related to the products I obtain do not use pesticides or any unnatural growth hormones and even make raw unpasteurized milk. And the majority of people who are allergic to fish tend to eat farmed fish that are fed on a unnatural diet of fish pellets or some other stuff that are rarely part of their diet since it is cheaper for farmers. However, people that "allergic" to fish that eat wild fish which tend to be stronger and healthier in their life do not report any allergic reactions as least that's what I know due to experience. Also you have no proof that he is a con man or a liar you're just assuming. Show me an article about chemicals that are applied to ovum cannot persist in amounts that can be harmful since I've shown you so many of my articles and you're trying to disprove me why don't you give me something I can read instead of just saying it's a fact or making your own assumptions. In my view as god made it=natural foods that are not processed or have not had pesticides used on them or any unnatural substances such as wild fish, free range chickens and cows that feed on grass, eggs that are from free range chickens and fruits and vegetables that have not had pesticides used on them. Which is possible and is a better alternative to eating GMO's, I know this through experience since fruits and vegetables from the store which tend to genetically modified have made me feel weak and unhealthy but organically grown fruits and vegetables have given me more energy and strength.

I don't think you understand the point he was making. Regardless of whether or not you purchase food which is 'organic' (no pesticides or growth hormones) those foods are vastly different to the 'natural' form which they were hundreds or thousands of years ago before mass cultivation. If you take wheat for an example which started out in the Fertile Crescent as a wild grass and over thousands of years has been selectively cultivated to produce crops of higher nutritional value and which are simpler to harvest. If you compared them to those which were present thousands of years ago they would hardly be recognisable as the same plant.

[Sweeney]

So, to summarise, it's still God's food if it's not chemically altered, even though it's physiologically lightyears from the organism it was six thousand years ago?

I can't provide you with a paper on chemical persistence from ovum, because it's not studied, because it's not possible. The amount of chemical involved is miniscule.

Equally, though, I can find no documentation to support your assertion that fish allergies differ between farmed and wild fish. Particularly because fish allergies are typically caused by proteins in the muscle tissue (Codfish Allergy in Adults: IgE Cross-Reactivity Among Fish Species, Hansen et al, 1997)

[emerkeng]

So, to summarise, it's still God's food if it's not chemically altered, even though it's physiologically lightyears from the organism it was six thousand years ago?

I can't provide you with a paper on chemical persistence from ovum, because it's not studied, because it's not possible. The amount of chemical involved is miniscule.

Equally, though, I can find no documentation to support your assertion that fish allergies differ between farmed and wild fish. Particularly because fish allergies are typically caused by proteins in the muscle tissue (Codfish Allergy in Adults: IgE Cross-Reactivity Among Fish Species, Hansen et al, 1997)

Earlier you said that my source was not valid since it was 10-20 years old. I don't agree with you on your source now either it may be a bit old you know? Also I know through personal experience people that have had allergies to farmed fish can actually eat wild fish.

[Sweeney]

Earlier you said that my source was not valid since it was 10-20 years old. I don't agree with you on your source now either it may be a bit old you know? Also I know through personal experience people that have had allergies to farmed fish can actually eat wild fish.

I knew you were going to say that.
Thing is, the reliability of genetic modification is going to change in ten years. The source of an allergic reaction isn't.
A poor play.

And that's great for you. I know from personal experience that the queen of England is actually a reptillian alien in disguise.
Personal experience counts for jack shit without corroborating evidence.

[emerkeng]

I knew you were going to say that.
Thing is, the reliability of genetic modification is going to change in ten years. The source of an allergic reaction isn't.
A poor play.

And that's great for you. I know from personal experience that the queen of England is actually a reptillian alien in disguise.
Personal experience counts for jack shit without corroborating evidence.

The majority of your posts have no proof. Yet you say my personal experience counts for jack shit? I'm just wondering are you a little child that's just trying to troll me? I mean 15000 posts is a bit much . . . no sane adult would have that much O.O. Either way until you can give me viable proof for this thread and the other threads I'm done with General Debate just realize that you should go out a bit more and socialize with people since 15000 posts ? ? ? Anyways I'm a go out see you (=

Edited by pathentic, 18 July 2010 - 03:18 PM.

[Lychee]

Earlier you said that my source was not valid since it was 10-20 years old. I don't agree with you on your source now either it may be a bit old you know? Also I know through personal experience people that have had allergies to farmed fish can actually eat wild fish.

Okay, here is a newer source, which explains whilst farmed fish may contain DLCs now, but it can be avoided in the future: "The feed of farmed salmon appears to be the source of DLCs and many other organic contaminants to these fish (Hites et al 2004a). Changes in the composi? tion of feed that result in reduction of organic contaminant concentrations should result in commensurate contaminant reductions in the edible tissues of farmed salmon."

Therefore, there is a solution and after it has been fully implemented farmed fish will be as safe as wild fish.

From Jeffery A. Foran, David O. Carpenter, M. Coreen Hamilton, Barbara A. Knuth, Steven J. Schwager, "Risk-Based Consumption Advice for Farmed Atlantic and Wild Pacific Salmon Contaminated with Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds" Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, No. 5 (May, 2005), pp. 552-556

Edited by Cellophane, 18 July 2010 - 03:19 PM.

[Sweeney]

The majority of your posts have no proof. Yet you say my personal experience counts for jack shit? I'm just wondering are you a little child that's just trying to troll me? I mean 15000 posts is a bit much . . . no sane adult would have that much O.O. Either way until you can give me viable proof for this thread and the other threads I'm done with General Debate just realize that you should go out a bit more and socialize with people since 15000 posts ? ? ? Anyways I'm a go out see you (=

No, I'm saying -everyones- personal experience counts for jack shit, in the context of a debate.
Hearsay does not count as evidence.

Also, trying to undermine my point with a personal attack is a cheap shot that no one will buy

[emerkeng]

Okay, here is a newer source, which explains whilst farmed fish may contain DLCs now, but it can be avoided in the future: "The feed of farmed salmon appears to be the source of DLCs and many other organic contaminants to these fish (Hites et al 2004a). Changes in the composi? tion of feed that result in reduction of organic contaminant concentrations should result in commensurate contaminant reductions in the edible tissues of farmed salmon."

Therefore, there is a solution and after it has been fully implemented farmed fish will be as safe as wild fish.

From Jeffery A. Foran, David O. Carpenter, M. Coreen Hamilton, Barbara A. Knuth, Steven J. Schwager, "Risk-Based Consumption Advice for Farmed Atlantic and Wild Pacific Salmon Contaminated with Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds" Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, No. 5 (May, 2005), pp. 552-556

Before I leave since the movie's in 20-30 minutes. How does this disprove my personal experience? I knew there was a difference between farmed fish and wild fish that allowed people with allergies to eat wild fish instead of farmed fish. /end thread bye ciao!

[Sweeney]

Before I leave since the movie's in 20-30 minutes. How does this disprove my personal experience? I knew there was a difference between farmed fish and wild fish that allowed people with allergies to eat wild fish instead of farmed fish. /end thread bye ciao!

Your. Personal. Experience. Is. Not. Evidence.

It can't be. If I said my personal experience was that fish lived up trees (not actually entirely untrue, but still), and we accept personal experience as de facto evidence... where does the conversation go from such an absurd turn?

[Lychee]

Before I leave since the movie's in 20-30 minutes. How does this disprove my personal experience? I knew there was a difference between farmed fish and wild fish that allowed people with allergies to eat wild fish instead of farmed fish. /end thread bye ciao!

Because it proves that, once implemented, which it is being now, there will be no differences between the farmed fish and wild fish. Also, that was to disprove your point about farmed fish being less healthy. Scientists still agree that if someone is allergic to farmed fish, they are allegeric to wild fish and vice versa.

[emerkeng]

Because it proves that, once implemented, which it is being now, there will be no differences between the farmed fish and wild fish. Also, that was to disprove your point about farmed fish being less healthy. Scientists still agree that if someone is allergic to farmed fish, they are allegeric to wild fish and vice versa.

err all the article says it's that once it has been implemented it never says it has been implemented show me some proof that it has. By the way my personal experience was in 02' so my argument still stands (=

[Sweeney]

err all the article says it's that once it has been implemented it never says it has been implemented show me some proof that it has. By the way my personal experience was in 02' so my argument still stands (=

I can repeat this all day
Your personal experience is not evidence of anything.

[Lychee]

err all the article says it's that once it has been implemented it never says it has been implemented show me some proof that it has. By the way my personal experience was in 02' so my argument still stands (=

...because you think people pay for this kind of research and then not use it? Besides, you just admitted that your hearsay is outdated.

[emerkeng]

...because you think people pay for this kind of research and then not use it? Besides, you just admitted that your hearsay is outdated.

Boy you don't have common sense? You say my hearsay is outdated? No this case happened to my brother who was allergic to farmed fish but when he ate wild fish he had no adverse effects. My "hearsay" (fact) is not outdated (=

[Sweeney]

Boy you don't have common sense? You say my hearsay is outdated? No this case happened to my brother who was allergic to farmed fish but when he ate wild fish he had no adverse effects. My "hearsay" (fact) is not outdated (=

It still isn't evidence

[emerkeng]

It still isn't evidence

Just cause you don't believe me doesn't mean its evidence. I don't believe in theories such as the Big Bang but apparently you probably think that's how we were created LOL (when no man was around to experience it)?

Edited by pathentic, 18 July 2010 - 04:10 PM.

[Waser Lave]

Just cause you don't believe me doesn't mean its evidence. I don't believe in theories such as the Big Bang but apparently you probably think that's how we were created LOL (when no man was around to experience it)?

He doesn't proclaim the Big Bang to be fact though. It's called The Big Bang Theory for a reason you know.

[Lychee]

Just cause you don't believe me doesn't mean its evidence.

QFT. Glad to see you admit it!

[Sweeney]

Just cause you don't believe me doesn't mean its evidence. I don't believe in theories such as the Big Bang but apparently you probably think that's how we were created LOL?

No, it isn't evidence because it's unverifiable.
It's irrelevant whether I believe it's true, or whether you believe it's true.
It is not evidence.

(Also, the big bang isn't necessarily a creation theory, but off topic).

[emerkeng]

I'm done if you guys want to eat GMO's that can potentially be hazardous to your health eat them (=. While I'll be here eating organic fruits and vegetables and meat. However, don't come complaining to me on this thread 50 years down the line when you realize that you have cancer due to GMO's (=.

[Sweeney]

I'm done if you guys want to eat GMO's that can potentially be hazardous to your health eat them (=. While I'll be here eating organic fruits and vegetables and meat. However, don't come complaining to me on this thread 50 years down the line when you realize that you have cancer due to GMO's (=.

What if my GMOs decrease my risk of heart disease, and liver disease, and vitamin deficiencies, ultimately prolonging my life by 15-20 years?

What if my GMOs are used to feed starving countries due to their increased fertility and growth rate?

What if my GMOs are used to treat sytemic disease in a cost-effective and humane way?

Who do I go crying to then?

[emerkeng]

What if my GMOs decrease my risk of heart disease, and liver disease, and vitamin deficiencies, ultimately prolonging my life by 15-20 years?

What if my GMOs are used to feed starving countries due to their increased fertility and growth rate?

What if my GMOs are used to treat sytemic disease in a cost-effective and humane way?

Who do I go crying to then?

Well since the article I gave you earlier said that GMOs are actually detrimental to your health I'm pretty sure your problems would be the polar opposite of these questions. So like I said don't come crying to me (=.

[Sweeney]

Well since the article I gave you earlier said that GMOs are actually detrimental to your health I'm pretty sure your problems would be the polar opposite of these questions. So like I said don't come crying to me (=.

The article written by a holistic practitioner whose entire livelihood rests on people buying into naturalistic, spiritual bullshit?
Yeah, that's a great source.

[Lychee]

Well since the article I gave you earlier said that GMOs are actually detrimental to your health I'm pretty sure your problems would be the polar opposite of these questions. So like I said don't come crying to me (=.

Oh hey, there's more than one person disagreeing with you, you know. I believe you're referring to the one I quoted, which was about how farmed fish (which are not GM) may be slightly more dangerous than wild fish but there was a solution. Which is important because if we don't farm fish, we're going to run short of food. But if you'd rather let people starve than look into alternatives, well, that's not very Christian, is it?

Edit: whoops, I misread -thought he said "you gave", not "gave you". Didn't think he'd be stupid enough to try and bring up that crappy article of his again.

Edited by Cellophane, 18 July 2010 - 04:39 PM.