@ #20 Tom Evans:
“Nice try, but a fundamental misconception. DNA damage is bad (for the organism) when it’s alive, but once you kill and eat it its DNA is destroyed in your stomach, or by cooking. You don’t somehow inherit that damaged DNA.”

Apparently not true, as this guy is living evidence. He has the brain of a carrot, presumably in herited from its DNA.

        KLA said:

Apparently not true, as this guy is living evidence. He has inherited the brain of a carrot. Presumably from its DNA.

A carrot is more intelligent: it doesn’t spout such stupidity about scientific things.

Apparently not true, as this guy is living evidence. He has inherited the brain of a carrot. Presumably from its DNA.

Nice try, but a fundamental misconception. DNA damage is bad (for the organism) when it’s alive, but once you kill and eat it its DNA is destroyed in your stomach, or by cooking. You don’t somehow inherit that damaged DNA.

        Andrew said:

I personally feel that “Old earth creationists” and others who chose not to apply the scientific method in certain areas have done a lot less damage and most of them are a lot less dangerous than those who try to shape our industrial, educational and scientific policies based upon fear mongering and extreme environmentalism.

The Christian right has accomplished some worrying, but relatively minor changes to educational curriculum at lower levels of the educational establishment. But they’re not crusading against nuclear power (giving us coal), railing against advanced research or trying to cut funding for GM crops. Let me put it this way. I think the damage of a “Greenpeace’s policies realized” would be a lot greater than “Focus on the Family’s policies realized.”

That said, extremists of any political persuasion can be dangerous (pro-lifers who bomb abortion clinics, eco-terrorists that are willing to kill people to get their point across). But if I HAVE to ally myself to someone to win elections, then I’d rather stand with the Christian right than the environmental left.

The thought patterns of the christian right and the environmental left (which I both despise) are very similar. The christian right is against the advanced research of stem cells and of other biological stuff – at least if it uses “evilution” (evolution), so they would be a clear danger for science.
It is also a little bit disingenuous to compare the policies of Greenpeace – which center themselves on economical issues – with “focus on the family” policies, which focus on social issues. It’s their stance on evolution and such that has to be scrutinized in the first place when comparing them with Greenpeace’s scientific stances. The christian right is less dangerous in the short termin than Greenpeace, but give it a little more time (and assuming that they don’t get brains) and they’ll be as disastrous.

The choice between the christian right and the environmental left is, in fact, equivalent to having a choice between being poisoned by lead and being poisoned by mercury.

If people really are so concerned then food providers can put “This food is not irradiated” on their stuff and make a killing. Let people decide for themselves. And also, why have these activists alwasy trying to make the decisions when clearly they’re not experts.

        Andrew said:

I personally prefer 100% organic non-rradiated, naturally-grown, fairtrade decaffinated coffee. I don’t like to put chemicals in my body, and caffein is a chemical.

Oh ok. You make sure to keep the dihydrogen monoxide out of it too, right?

        drbuzz0 said:

Was it 100% organic non-irradiated, naturally-grown, fairtrade, positive-energy-filled coffee?

I personally prefer 100% organic non-rradiated, naturally-grown, fairtrade decaffinated coffee. I don’t like to put chemicals in my body, and caffein is a chemical.

        Rob Farrington said:

Did you HAVE to inbed that video? I’ve just spent the last five minutes cleaning coffee from my monitor screen.

Was it 100% organic non-irradiated, naturally-grown, fairtrade, positive-energy-filled coffee?

        DV82XL said:

Which is worse? Unfortunately that’s easy to answer: which ever one is in a state of political ascendancy and power. While both can be annoying, their yammering doesn’t make much of a real difference. However the instant ether gains power they become a threat.

We suspect government is really run by big money interests, pulling the strings from behind: often I find myself thinking that this is probably not such a bad thing – I’d hate to see what would happen if the idiots we elect were running things by themselves.

I personally feel that “Old earth creationists” and others who chose not to apply the scientific method in certain areas have done a lot less damage and most of them are a lot less dangerous than those who try to shape our industrial, educational and scientific policies based upon fear mongering and extreme environmentalism.

The Christian right has accomplished some worrying, but relatively minor changes to educational curriculum at lower levels of the educational establishment. But they’re not crusading against nuclear power (giving us coal), railing against advanced research or trying to cut funding for GM crops. Let me put it this way. I think the damage of a “Greenpeace’s policies realized” would be a lot greater than “Focus on the Family’s policies realized.”

That said, extremists of any political persuasion can be dangerous (pro-lifers who bomb abortion clinics, eco-terrorists that are willing to kill people to get their point across). But if I HAVE to ally myself to someone to win elections, then I’d rather stand with the Christian right than the environmental left.