[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

No need to come up with a new statement.

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.

[paraclete]

but what if they are right?

[Wondergirl]

I said I'm happy to have MY thoughts pubic...

This from the man who chooses his words carefully.

[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.

[talaniman]

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?

[jlisenbe]

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.

[talaniman]

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?

[jlisenbe]

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.

None of that has been in dispute.

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.

[talaniman]

None of that has been in dispute.

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.

Get a peanut butter sandwich first and try the mayo with it.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Athos]

Now that that's been settled maybe we can get to the viability of a zygote and the casting of Gods image into man.

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.

[jlisenbe]

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!

[Athos]

Tal! Don't mention God's image to Athos. It terrifies him like a little girl. He absolutely will not answer questions about it.

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.

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."

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".

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.

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.

We await your answer of your image of God question. Just make sure it's in the Bible.

[paraclete]

more argy bargy

[jlisenbe]

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".

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???

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."

Psychologists call that projection - attributing one's own unacceptable behavior to another. Think terrified little girl.

Try having an original thought.

[talaniman]

"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.

[Athos]

Oh but you did. You see how you love to make comments and then kind of change them up a few days later?

Projection!

You said the zygote did not bear the image of God. That's why I asked you when that image was imprinted.

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".

Positive proof how you turn things around to your own advantage and why we all find it so difficult to exchange ideas with you.

Remember now???

Do YOU?

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.

LOL. Said by the one who disappeared because he found the kitchen too hot. If nothing else, A-Man, you provide occasional comic relief.

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."

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.

Try having an original thought.

Now, now, A-Man, you're overdoing the comedy.

[jlisenbe]

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.

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".

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.

LOL. Said by the one who disappeared because he found the kitchen too hot. If nothing else, A-Man, you provide occasional comic relief.

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.

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.

[paraclete]

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 surprise