Basically: If the first part of the Bible is allegory or just made up, then why can't the entire Bible be taken the same way?

For many young earth creationists admitting any error or allowing for an allegorical interpretation undermines their entire worldview.

Correlation does, in this case, equal causation.

What makes this case different? The fact that you would like it to be true?

the article claims the shadow banking system has more money than actually exists.

It's claiming that the total value of all of its assets are more than the total amount of money that exists. What's wrong with that?

We already produce trillions of genetically modified soybeans.

Well, we produce trillions of descendants from a few dozen soybeans that had their genes modified. We're not exactly tweaking every bean.

The soybean genome is no less complex than the human genome. Since the cost of the mods will be far less...

The complexity of the genome isn't much of an issue when you're just inserting a gene, swapping out a gene is likely to be much harder.

Plus, when you screw up a few soybeans, there's no moral pressure to keep it alive, nobody sues you, and your entire industry doesn't get banned.

They use the claim of limited viability to support the claim that anything over a trace indicates infringement.

We have well-done studies of how quickly gene flow happens in commercial canola operations. Anything about viability would merely be an explanation for more important, already separately quantified, information.

the evolving nature of our knowledge on the subject makes nearly any evidence that doesn't involve video of the defendant in the act a bit questionable for my taste.

Skepticism is good, but using skepticism as a cover for bias isn't.

Here are the statements I quoted that you think this supports, rebutted using only that source:

the new claim is that if the gene is in your crops, you infringed the patent ... they have disputed the possibility of innocent gene transfer

They clearly say "...it has never been Monsanto policy nor will it be to exercise patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means." and that quote also implicitly admits that transfer is possible.

Any claim that pollination cannot carry the gene to another crop should result in a conviction for perjury at this point.

Since they say "The study also found two plants (0.7 percent) had both the Liberty Link and the Roundup Ready gene.", and since as far as I know they've never been sold in the same plant, it seems pretty clear that they understand that crossing happens.

claims based on poor viability of the crop without roundup should be barred from the trial as unfounded

1. Again, I don't believe that this has been an issue in any court case, and your source doesn't even use the word "viability" (in any version) anywhere.

2. As the article you cited points out, government agencies think that crosses are unlikely to be more weedy (i.e. they can still be easily be controlled by other means), not have poor viability.

3. This thread's original article's research on non-commercial rice (not commercial canola) is troubling, but probably has to do with weedy rice having a less effective EPSP synthase gene to start with, and shouldn't be generalized.

At this point I can only conclude that you have a reading comprehension problem, or are trolling.

From the horse's mouth

Did you read it? That article pretty much contradicts everything you've said.

the new claim is that if the gene is in your crops, you infringed the patent ... they have disputed the possibility of innocent gene transfer

Give me a citation, then, of Monsanto saying that innocent gene transfer, in general, doesn't happen, or that the mere presence of genes proves infringement.

Any claim that pollination cannot carry the gene to another crop should result in a conviction for perjury at this point.

Yeah, and it should also trigger a mental health evaluation. It's an undisputed (so far as I know) fact that cross pollination happens in (most) commercial crops.

claims based on poor viability of the crop without roundup should be barred from the trial as unfounded

I don't think it's played any significant role in any case, feel free to correct me. But (and please forgive me if I'm wrong) it appears that your knowledge of farming comes entirely from "Food, Inc." - and I really would like to know where you're getting your information from.

Their contention was that if you sprayed it with roundup and it didn't die, you must have knowingly infringed their patent.

I don't think that's true, testing for the gene (or rather the markers for it) is trivial at this point, and I know it has been used in lawsuits.

There certainly was by then a way for other varieties of canola to end up roundup ready that did not involve further GM techniques. There was also a way for plants to become roundup resistant with no GM techniques at all.

I don't know anyone who disputes that.

We need to shut down the suits while that research happens.

And I think that's a bit premature.

[Monsanto has falsely claimed that] ONLY their GM technique could produce a roundup ready plant

But their statement is pretty much true. With the exception of bizarrely unlikely scenarios, like viral transfer and complete coincidence, genes from bacteria are not going to show up in plants by natural means.

Now you seems to want "crossed with with a GM variety" to mean the same thing as "produced without GM techniques", which is getting absurd.

Some poor schmoe gets sued for patent violations when in reality the patented gene has violated his crop.

Which is why we need more research.

given cross pollination I would say that natural breeding could produce a roundup READY plant or a roundup resistant plant

Except that "cross pollinating with a RR strain" isn't "natural breeding".

Their argument has been that roundup resistance (including roundup ready) is a disadvantage to the plant in the absence of roundup and so the trait wouldn't last under natural selection. However, TFA indicates that we can't be so sure of that.

That is a surprise, and needs to be looked into. But even if it turns out not to be a disadvantage ... OK, so resistance shows up earlier than expected ... and ... ?

produced 'superweeds' that are also roundup resistant (funny considering how many times Monsanto has sworn that ONLY their GM technique could produce a roundup ready plant)

Resistance is almost certain to develop eventually, but getting the exact gene that was transferred is very, very unlikely.