Organic Food: Nature's Way of Stealing Your Money

[JustBusiness17]

A) http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/87-040.htm
B) Well established property of Glyphosate
C) Again: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/87-040.htm
D) Sourced in the same thread that these points were presented.

A+B+C+D= Contamination of water systems with Roundup (Glyphosate)

Also, I forgot to add:
E) Based on 2001 numbers, Glyphosate is the most used active ingredient in US Agriculture (between 85 million and 90 million pounds).

No; you've merely shown that based on known factors, an outcome is probable. This isn't enough for proof. You need to show evidence that the outcome has actually occurred.

Runoff from farmland? :lol: You really do try hard to maintain your established beliefs... Don't worry though - It's psychologically normal... Just not among rationalists :geek:

And just so you don't try to divert the conversation into something completely unrelated (AGAIN), here's proof: http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/661

Now STOP BEING SO GOD DAMNED LAZY!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

No; you've merely shown that based on known factors, an outcome is probable. This isn't enough for proof. You need to show evidence that the outcome has actually occurred.

Runoff from farmland? :lol: You really do try hard to maintain your established beliefs... Don't worry though - It's psychologically normal... Just not among rationalists :geek:

And just so you don't try to divert the conversation into something completely unrelated (AGAIN), here's proof: http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/661

Now STOP BEING SO GOD DAMNED LAZY![/quote]
You're starting to see that some folks are econo-theists, and their trinity is the "free" market, the Corporation, and the Almighty Dollar. They are as immune to facts as any creationist, and twice as nasty.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

That's not fact; that's inference. You made the claim, it's your duty to prove it. Go ahead; if it's as common as you say, it should be easy to find some direct evidence to back you up.

 

[JustBusiness17]

That's not fact; that's inference. You made the claim, it's your duty to prove it. Go ahead; if it's as common as you say, it should be easy to find some direct evidence to back you up.

Can you be a little less vague with your comments? "That's", "the claim", "prove it", "its"... At this point I have no idea what you're arguing against. I'm not a bloody mind-reader. What don't you believe?

It seems like your entire purpose in ANY debate on these forums is to create some kind of runaround. I don't know about you, but I'm here to seek truth, not play fucking games.

You're starting to see that some folks are econo-theists, and their trinity is the "free" market, the Corporation, and the Almighty Dollar. They are as immune to facts as any creationist, and twice as nasty.

Indeed :facepalm:

 

[ArthurWilborn]

And your purpose seems to be that you deliberately misunderstand and evade everything, then make claims about how crazy and unreasonable people opposing you are.

At the moment, I'm asking you to find me some frogs killed by glyphosate that can be traced to farm run-off. So far you've proven its deadly when applied directly too them, and that it's likely, given known factors, the it would go into water supplies via runoff. Ok, if it's common, it should be easy to find those dead frogs.