It's not name calling if it's true. You're just a nut stuck on your own nuttiness is all. You being YOU! You have been consistent in that regard no matter the subject.
|
It's not name calling if it's true. You're just a nut stuck on your own nuttiness is all. You being YOU! You have been consistent in that regard no matter the subject.
No need to come up with a new statement.Quote:
Like I've said, when people run out of legit answers, they go to name-calling. It is simply the result of that person's aggravation at having no answers. They are wrong and don't want to admit it.
but what if they are right?
This from the man who chooses his words carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes it is. That's why I'm happy to stand behind my words. That's why I wasn't alarmed when you asserted I had my terms wrong. As it turned out, that error was yours. Remember your remark about Tal's fake news? "Your link is for OVULATION not MENSTRUATION." Well, I didn't use the term "menstruation". I used the term "menstrual cycle". Your "bingo" reply to Tal put you in the same wrong camp as him.
AHH! That explains why you have reality and BS all mixed up! You really can't tell the difference can you? Are you familiar with invitro fertilization, or the practice of freezing ones eggs? Those processes would be kind of hard if they only had ONE egg to work with wouldn't it?
You just keep digging your hole deeper. You have really reached a very high level of... Well, I won't say it.
How do they come up with all those eggs? Here's how. Please stop being obstinate and look at the bold text that is underlined.
Step 1: Stimulation, also called super ovulation
- Medicines, called fertility drugs, are given to the woman to boost egg production.
- Normally, a woman produces one egg per month. Fertility drugs tell the ovaries to produce several eggs.
- During this step, the woman will have regular transvaginal ultrasounds to examine the ovaries and blood tests to check hormone levels.
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article...ed%20the%20egg.
So yep, those ole fertility drugs cause the woman to produce several eggs which she normally does not do. And as the text above explains in a pretty straightforward manner that I used to believe you could understand, she NORMALLY PRODUCES ONE EGG PER MONTH!
Anyone with a science background knows the difference between menstruation and the menstrual cycle. They are not the same thing. Menstruation is the conclusion of the menstrual cycle. Ovulation is also a part of the MC and occurs about halfway through. Are you starting to see this now???
I know you don't realize it, but you are really making an utter fool out of yourself. I would suggest you start arguing for the existence of Martians. You stand a better chance of making some sort of a case there.
Hmm. Seems there is a way for science to harvest more than one egg from a female beyond the NORMAL. Fascinating. Surely you can accept the abnormal release of more than one egg without human direction, in the ovulation process, and the loss of potential eggs through menstruation since and wait for it, normally one egg is released, but many are being matured. What happens to the other eggs that are not NORMALLY released?
None of that has been in dispute.Quote:
Hmm. Seems there is a way for science to harvest more than one egg from a female beyond the NORMAL. Fascinating. Surely you can accept the abnormal release of more than one egg without human direction, in the ovulation process, and the loss of potential eggs through menstruation since and wait for it, normally one egg is released, but many are being matured.
Look. Have it your way. As you said, a woman releases a thousand unfertilized eggs at a time and they all simply pass though the uterus. All those dumb docs and med experts are wrong and you are right. I'll be sure to let them know.
Don't do that. They'll just look at you stupid and give you the big DUH...like I do. Like you said none of what I have written is in dispute by the experts and medical professionals I got the facts from and passed the links to you. Now that that's been settled maybe we can get to the viability of a zygote and the casting of Gods image into man.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Get a peanut butter sandwich first and try the mayo with it.
No. Those med experts must know that the great Tal has decided that a thousand eggs a month pass through a woman's uterus. All the med books are wrong. All your own links were wrong. The great Tal has spoken. Now as to what you are great at, I'll let others decide.
Enough of this insanity.
Yeah, that viability zygote and God image has been run over. Time to get back to it. The zygote being viable is a tough one for the anti-abortion crowd. Hoping jl would enlighten us re his question on the image of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Tal! Don't mention God's image to Athos. It terrifies him like a little girl. He absolutely will not answer questions about it. But just in case he forgot... "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God." Maybe he's just thinking about it. It's only been four days.
I suppose I should be happy he's not employing his usual strategy of allowing a few days to go by, and then insisting that he has already answered it. That's progress!
Why do you insist on being such an unmitigated a**hole, a**hole? You twist and turn trying to free yourself from the conundrum you have yourself created.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That is YOUR question a**hole. I never claimed any knowledge here about the image of God in "developing humans" except to cite the Book of Genesis when God created Adam "in his image". You CONSTANTLY misrepresent what I (and others) have written. That is why you have so perfectly earned the nickname of "a**hole" which suits you "to a T".Quote:
But just in case he forgot... "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."
Well, a**hole, you have now earned a second nickname - liar! What's interesting about this latest lie of yours is that it mirrors exactly what already has been charged against YOU! Psychologists call that projection - attributing one's own unacceptable behavior to another. Think terrified little girl.Quote:
I suppose I should be happy he's not employing his usual strategy of allowing a few days to go by, and then insisting that he has already answered it.
We await your answer of your image of God question. Just make sure it's in the Bible.
more argy bargy
Oh but you did. You see how you love to make comments and then kind of change them up a few days later? You said the zygote did not bear the image of God. That's why I asked you when that image was imprinted. Remember now???Quote:
I never claimed any knowledge here about the image of God in "developing humans" except to cite the Book of Genesis when God created Adam "in his image". You CONSTANTLY misrepresent what I (and others) have written. That is why you have so perfectly earned the nickname of "a**hole" which suits you "to a T".
Thank you for bearing out what I said about you. You get asked an uncomfortable question, and you start running your foul mouth. Well, as I was told in the days of my youth, "Just consider the source." You know, if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. If getting asked a question hurts your feelings that much, then this kitchen is no place for you.
And for your convenience, here it is again. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."
Try having an original thought.Quote:
Psychologists call that projection - attributing one's own unacceptable behavior to another. Think terrified little girl.
"For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."
So when you gonna answer the question and stop running YOUR mouth.
Projection!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Here is the source of your confusion. You are assuming without a bit of evidence that I claimed to know when "that image" (of God) was imprinted. I never claimed that. I never even claimed any image of God was imprinted on a zygote. In fact, what I DID write was, "Zygotes are not made in God's image".Quote:
You said the zygote did not bear the image of God. That's why I asked you when that image was imprinted.
Positive proof how you turn things around to your own advantage and why we all find it so difficult to exchange ideas with you.
Do YOU?Quote:
Remember now???
LOL. Said by the one who disappeared because he found the kitchen too hot. If nothing else, A-Man, you provide occasional comic relief.Quote:
You know, if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen. If getting asked a question hurts your feelings that much, then this kitchen is no place for you.
I'll excuse you for this based on my reply above. However, at least two of us are curious about YOUR answer to your question.Quote:
And for your convenience, here it is again. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."
Now, now, A-Man, you're overdoing the comedy.Quote:
Try having an original thought.
I guess I'll have to since no one else seems to be able to drum up the courage.
This is the only scripture on the subject I know of. "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I see no reason why that cannot be the zygote, but it's hard to say one way or the other. In other words, you cannot categorically say it IS or it IS NOT "imprinted" on the zygote. You can say, however, that everything about the zygote is thoroughly unique. It is in no way simply an appendage of the mother. That is an impossible argument to make.
Nope. There is no confusion. You made a claim to know that the zygote does NOT have the image of God. You have no way to know that. Your original argument was that Adam was created in the image of God as a fully grown adult. So I asked if that logic applied to children, toddlers, infants, fetuses. You have declined to answer that. You were caught in a trap of your own making and it has you upset.Quote:
Here is the source of your confusion. You are assuming without a bit of evidence that I claimed to know when "that image" (of God) was imprinted. I never claimed that. I never even claimed any image of God was imprinted on a zygote. In fact, what I DID write was, "Zygotes are not made in God's image".
Wow. You get so upset when you get asked a question. Rather tragic, I think. But don't worry too much. I answered it above.Quote:
LOL. Said by the one who disappeared because he found the kitchen too hot. If nothing else, A-Man, you provide occasional comic relief.
How long did you stand by your pledge of no more name calling? A week? Thought you were a man of your word? Seems not to be the case now, don't you think? Well, I do think we'd be better off if we dropped it and took on a more adult tone.
coming from you that is a surpriseQuote:
Well, I do think we'd be better off if we dropped it and took on a more adult tone.
TRANSLATION: "I'm very sorry for the mistake I made. But I won't admit to it so I'll blame others not being able to "drum up the courage.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
However, I'm the one without courage because down deep I have terrified little girl tendencies."
That is NOT a scripture on a zygote!Quote:
This is the only scripture on the subject I know of.
But it's not in scripture. You have repeatedly stated that's your standard for knowing.Quote:
"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I see no reason why that cannot be the zygote,
If you see no reason why it CANNOT be scriptural, then why is it hard to say it IS scriptural?Quote:
but it's hard to say one way or the other.
Based on your own standard of proof, you should be categorically able to say it is NOT "imprinted".Quote:
In other words, you cannot categorically say it IS or it IS NOT "imprinted" on the zygote.
That's too bad since if it were an appendage, I assume your position would be that it IS imprinted.Quote:
It is in no way simply an appendage of the mother.
No one is making that argument. You are the one who is bringing it up.Quote:
That is an impossible argument to make.
Plenty of confusion, evidenced by your back-and-forth above.Quote:
Nope. There is no confusion.
Of course, I know that. Unless you want to argue that everything in the universe has the imprint of God, then ok. If you are arguing that the zygote has some unique imprint of God because you say it is a human being, then no, I don't agree. But that shouldn't be news to you. That's been my position all along.Quote:
You made a claim to know that the zygote does NOT have the image of God. You have no way to know that.
No, it wasn't. My original argument was about abortion and the beginning of human life. Adam came later.Quote:
Your original argument was that Adam was created in the image of God as a fully grown adult.
I don't know what "logic" you're referring to. If you're asking whether God imprints his image on other people the way the Bible says he did to Adam, then no.Quote:
So I asked if that logic applied to children, toddlers, infants, fetuses. You have declined to answer that.
No, jl, there was no trap. What there WAS was you getting caught in your own word salad as clearly shown in the dialogue above.Quote:
You were caught in a trap of your own making and it has you upset.
No again, Jl. I don't get upset when I'm asked a question. In fact, I like them. Gives me a chance to expound. What DOES get to me however, is some concern and a bit of sadness as I watch you desperately attempting to keep up and embarrassing yourself as you fail miserably. Not totally, every so often you make a good point, but you are far more repetitive than effective. You just don't know when to quit. That is the consensus of the majority here.Quote:
Wow. You get so upset when you get asked a question. Rather tragic, I think.
I'm glad you did. Gave me a chance to expound.Quote:
But don't worry too much. I answered it above.
More confusion from you. I wonder - will it ever end? I suggested an agreement between myself and tomder - NOT YOU - to stop the insults. There is no point in doing that with you since it's obvious you can't resist snarky comments even in otherwise civil exchanges. I think it's the little girl in you.Quote:
How long did you stand by your pledge of no more name calling?
Jl, that's entirely up to you. I hope you will resist the snide remarks and the tendency to cast ad hominems to others.Quote:
I do think we'd be better off if we dropped it and took on a more adult tone.
What IS "the image of God"?
Sure it does. That's why you were so quick to answer this last one?Quote:
No again, Jl. I don't get upset when I'm asked a question. In fact, I like them. Gives me a chance to expound.
Can't say that for certain.Quote:
That is NOT a scripture on a zygote!
Indeed it is. That's why I hedged a bit in saying, "I see no reason why that cannot be the zygote." It does not say one way or the other. Now perhaps there is a reason why it can't be, but I don't see it.Quote:
"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." I see no reason why that cannot be the zygote,
But it's not in scripture. You have repeatedly stated that's your standard for knowing.
That's a great question. It actually does not read as the "image of God". The text reads, "Let us make man in our image." That is significant. The "image of God" does not seem to be a quality of some kind that is given to us at some point in our development. It is more likely stating that God used Himself as a pattern of sorts for us. Thus we are made in (accordance with) His image, and in (accordance to) His likeness. I've also heard it said that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and man is body, soul, and spirit. However we interpret it, it makes man absolutely unique from all other animal life.Quote:
What IS "the image of God"?
Might add that it's the first reference to the Godhead (us) which is, to me, really interesting, though it is somewhat indirect.
The Amplified version reads in this fashion. "Then God said, “Let Us (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) make man in Our image, according to Our likeness [not physical, but a spiritual personality and moral likeness]" The reference is to "man" as in "mankind". It is not a specific reference to Adam. I tell the guys at the rehab that it is the basis of our glory and worth. On their worst day they can still say, "I am made in God's image. What a blessing and honor."
Or just the ability to think and create and articulate above the other species of life on this planet. You don't need a religious book to make that observation even if you're ancient man. As more is revealed, then of course more can be understood and defined so the image of God, and even the image of man will of course be ever changing.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:55 PM. |