| Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD |
In conclusion:
"Men (and women) can't win arguments... The truth **wins** arguments."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Thorsten whom I love, in Lord
Christ's holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2 which
is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments, the 2
arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign of the
Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan], and the
2PD-OMER Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not make
His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is what
"omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach, which can "cure" metabolic syndrome (MetS)
thereby bringing this thread back on topic in these NGs :-)
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2A821CEA
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
> > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>Not so. I said thay don't have many predators and I stay with that
> >>statement. Of course we could discuss wether we would like to call a
> >>certain number of predators "many".
> >
> >
> > You seem to be backpedalling here.
>
> Quite the contrary. I stay with what I said. Slugs have a lot less
> enemies than would be expected regarding their slowness. So the bad
> taste is quite effective as a means of protection.
>
> By the way, when threatend, slugs contract, partly in order to make it
> harder for an enemy to swallow them and partly to protect their delicate
> parts, there eyes and there tentacles. A slug can't do both: contract
> and run away from an enemy. They don't even try to run away. So a little
> more speed would be of no advantage.
>
> >
> >>Btw., bees are a lot faster than slugs. They can even fly and they have
> >>a sting to defend themselves.
> >>
> >>And yet, they have a number of predators. For example the bee-eater, the
> >>bee wolf and the bee beetle. And this are only those who specialise in
> >>eating bees. Other animals like hornets are also known to eat bees.
> >>
> >>So you see, there is no evidence that slugs would be any better of, if
> >>they were a bit faster.
> >
> >
> > You are going to have to make up your mind whether you believe the
> > theory of evolution explains why there are traits like speed and
> > stingers.
>
> Of course speed and stings can be an advantage if they fit into the
> animals strategy of survival.
>
> But even the great speed of the bee is no perfect protection against
> predators. So if you can name animals that hunt slugs that is no proof
> against the effectiveness of their bad taste.
>
> >
> >>>>so
> >>>>there is no theory to be invalidated by these counterexamples.
> >>>
> >>>...except for the theory of evolution.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Hardly.
> >
> >
> > Then why are you objecting?
>
> Could you frame this answer in the context of the discussion? I'm not
> sure what is your point here.
>
> >
> >>>>As you have nothing to say to rest of my post, I assume that you agree
> >>>>with what I wrote.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You assume incorrectly.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Then you should have objected to what I wrote.
> >
> >
> > There is no need to object when you've not made your case.
>
> Closed eyes? Selective perception? Still in denial?
>
> Regards,
>
> Thorsten
|
|
|
| Bob (this one) |
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda,
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah,
blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda,
yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah,
blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda,
yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah
> Andrew
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>>
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
>
>>>> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> Not so. I said thay don't have many predators and I stay
>>>>>> with that statement. Of course we could discuss wether we
>>>>>> would like to call a certain number of predators "many".
>>
>>>> You seem to be backpedalling here.
>>
>> Quite the contrary. I stay with what I said. Slugs have a lot less
>> enemies than would be expected regarding their slowness. So the bad
>> taste is quite effective as a means of protection.
>>
>> By the way, when threatend, slugs contract, partly in order to make
>> it harder for an enemy to swallow them and partly to protect their
>> delicate parts, there eyes and there tentacles. A slug can't do
>> both: contract and run away from an enemy. They don't even try to
>> run away. So a little more speed would be of no advantage.
>>
>
>>>>>> Btw., bees are a lot faster than slugs. They can even fly
>>>>>> and they have a sting to defend themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet, they have a number of predators. For example the
>>>>>> bee-eater, the bee wolf and the bee beetle. And this are
>>>>>> only those who specialise in eating bees. Other animals
>>>>>> like hornets are also known to eat bees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you see, there is no evidence that slugs would be any
>>>>>> better of, if they were a bit faster.
>>>>
>>>> You are going to have to make up your mind whether you believe
>>>> the theory of evolution explains why there are traits like
>>>> speed and stingers.
>
>>
>> Of course speed and stings can be an advantage if they fit into the
>> animals strategy of survival.
>>
>> But even the great speed of the bee is no perfect protection
>> against predators. So if you can name animals that hunt slugs that
>> is no proof against the effectiveness of their bad taste.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> so there is no theory to be invalidated by these
>>>>>>>>>> counterexamples.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...except for the theory of evolution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hardly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why are you objecting?
>>
>> Could you frame this answer in the context of the discussion? I'm
>> not sure what is your point here.
>>
>
>>>>>>>>>> As you have nothing to say to rest of my post, I
>>>>>>>>>> assume that you agree with what I wrote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You assume incorrectly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you should have objected to what I wrote.
>>
>>>> There is no need to object when you've not made your case.
>
>> Closed eyes? Selective perception? Still in denial?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Thorsten
|
|
|
| Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD |
Truth has this effect on the untruthful:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Bob whom I love, in Lord Christ's
holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2 which
is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments, the 2
arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign of the
Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan], and the
2PD-OMER Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not make
His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is what
"omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach, which can "cure" metabolic syndrome (MetS)
thereby bringing this thread back on topic in these NGs :-)
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2A821CEA
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
> yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda,
> blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah,
> blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda,
> yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah,
> blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah,
> blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda,
> yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah
> > Andrew
>
> > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
> >
> >>>> Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Not so. I said thay don't have many predators and I stay
> >>>>>> with that statement. Of course we could discuss wether we
> >>>>>> would like to call a certain number of predators "many".
> >>
> >>>> You seem to be backpedalling here.
> >>
> >> Quite the contrary. I stay with what I said. Slugs have a lot less
> >> enemies than would be expected regarding their slowness. So the bad
> >> taste is quite effective as a means of protection.
> >>
> >> By the way, when threatend, slugs contract, partly in order to make
> >> it harder for an enemy to swallow them and partly to protect their
> >> delicate parts, there eyes and there tentacles. A slug can't do
> >> both: contract and run away from an enemy. They don't even try to
> >> run away. So a little more speed would be of no advantage.
> >>
> >
> >>>>>> Btw., bees are a lot faster than slugs. They can even fly
> >>>>>> and they have a sting to defend themselves.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And yet, they have a number of predators. For example the
> >>>>>> bee-eater, the bee wolf and the bee beetle. And this are
> >>>>>> only those who specialise in eating bees. Other animals
> >>>>>> like hornets are also known to eat bees.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So you see, there is no evidence that slugs would be any
> >>>>>> better of, if they were a bit faster.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are going to have to make up your mind whether you believe
> >>>> the theory of evolution explains why there are traits like
> >>>> speed and stingers.
> >
> >>
> >> Of course speed and stings can be an advantage if they fit into the
> >> animals strategy of survival.
> >>
> >> But even the great speed of the bee is no perfect protection
> >> against predators. So if you can name animals that hunt slugs that
> >> is no proof against the effectiveness of their bad taste.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>> so there is no theory to be invalidated by these
> >>>>>>>>>> counterexamples.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...except for the theory of evolution.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hardly.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Then why are you objecting?
> >>
> >> Could you frame this answer in the context of the discussion? I'm
> >> not sure what is your point here.
> >>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> As you have nothing to say to rest of my post, I
> >>>>>>>>>> assume that you agree with what I wrote.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You assume incorrectly.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then you should have objected to what I wrote.
> >>
> >>>> There is no need to object when you've not made your case.
> >
> >> Closed eyes? Selective perception? Still in denial?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Thorsten
|
|
|
| Thorsten Schier |
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
> In conclusion:
>
> "Men (and women) can't win arguments... The truth **wins** arguments."
>
Which is doubtless why you didn't look too well in this discussion. Does
not look like you have the truth on your side in this case.
[...]
Regards,
Thorsten
|
|
|
| Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD |
The truth does not take sides. One chooses to be on the side of the
truth. You would have known this had you been able to discern the
truth.
Please now consider yourself absolutely and utterly vanquished by the
truth.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Thorsten whom I love, in Lord
Christ's holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2 which
is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments, the 2
arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign of the
Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan], and the
2PD-OMER Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not make
His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is what
"omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach, which can "cure" metabolic syndrome (MetS)
thereby bringing this thread back on topic in these NGs :-)
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2A821CEA
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
> > In conclusion:
> >
> > "Men (and women) can't win arguments... The truth **wins** arguments."
> >
>
> Which is doubtless why you didn't look too well in this discussion. Does
> not look like you have the truth on your side in this case.
>
> [...]
>
> Regards,
>
> Thorsten
|
|
|
| Thorsten Schier |
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
> The truth does not take sides. One chooses to be on the side of the
> truth. You would have known this had you been able to discern the
> truth.
>
> Please now consider yourself absolutely and utterly vanquished by the
> truth.
>
What happened is that you ran out of arguments. But by all means, feel
free to think it happened the other way round. As long as your religious
fanatism shrouds your mind you won't be able to admit otherwise anyway.
Regards,
Thorsten
|
|
|
| Jeff |
"Thorsten Schier" <Finrod_Felagund@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:d4vljg$vsk$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
>> The truth does not take sides. One chooses to be on the side of the
>> truth. You would have known this had you been able to discern the
>> truth.
>>
>> Please now consider yourself absolutely and utterly vanquished by the
>> truth.
>>
>
> What happened is that you ran out of arguments. But by all means, feel
> free to think it happened the other way round. As long as your religious
> fanatism shrouds your mind you won't be able to admit otherwise anyway.
This is incorrect. Chung never had a good arguement to start off with.
Jeff
> Regards,
>
> Thorsten
|
|
|
| Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD |
Jeff wrote:
>
> "Thorsten Schier" <Finrod_Felagund@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:d4vljg$vsk$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
> >> The truth does not take sides. One chooses to be on the side of the
> >> truth. You would have known this had you been able to discern the
> >> truth.
> >>
> >> Please now consider yourself absolutely and utterly vanquished by the
> >> truth.
> >>
> >
> > What happened is that you ran out of arguments. But by all means, feel
> > free to think it happened the other way round. As long as your religious
> > fanatism shrouds your mind you won't be able to admit otherwise anyway.
>
> This is incorrect.
Glad you agree :-)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
You will remain in my prayers, dear Jeff whom I love, in Lord Christ's
holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2 which
is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments, the 2
arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign of the
Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan], and the
2PD-OMER Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not make
His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is what
"omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach, which can "cure" metabolic syndrome (MetS)
thereby bringing this thread back on topic in these NGs :-)
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?B5CE25FFA
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
|
|
|
| rmg |
"Bob (this one)" <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1175s0qam2kvr61@corp.supernews.com...
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,
> yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda,
> blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah,
> blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda,
> yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah,
> blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah,
> blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda,
> yadda, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda, blah, blah
> > Andrew
>
> > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
> >
> >>>> Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Not so. I said thay don't have many predators and I stay
> >>>>>> with that statement. Of course we could discuss wether we
> >>>>>> would like to call a certain number of predators "many".
> >>
> >>>> You seem to be backpedalling here.
> >>
> >> Quite the contrary. I stay with what I said. Slugs have a lot less
> >> enemies than would be expected regarding their slowness. So the bad
> >> taste is quite effective as a means of protection.
> >>
> >> By the way, when threatend, slugs contract, partly in order to make
> >> it harder for an enemy to swallow them and partly to protect their
> >> delicate parts, there eyes and there tentacles. A slug can't do
> >> both: contract and run away from an enemy. They don't even try to
> >> run away. So a little more speed would be of no advantage.
> >>
> >
> >>>>>> Btw., bees are a lot faster than slugs. They can even fly
> >>>>>> and they have a sting to defend themselves.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And yet, they have a number of predators. For example the
> >>>>>> bee-eater, the bee wolf and the bee beetle. And this are
> >>>>>> only those who specialise in eating bees. Other animals
> >>>>>> like hornets are also known to eat bees.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So you see, there is no evidence that slugs would be any
> >>>>>> better of, if they were a bit faster.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are going to have to make up your mind whether you believe
> >>>> the theory of evolution explains why there are traits like
> >>>> speed and stingers.
> >
> >>
> >> Of course speed and stings can be an advantage if they fit into the
> >> animals strategy of survival.
> >>
> >> But even the great speed of the bee is no perfect protection
> >> against predators. So if you can name animals that hunt slugs that
> >> is no proof against the effectiveness of their bad taste.
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>> so there is no theory to be invalidated by these
> >>>>>>>>>> counterexamples.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...except for the theory of evolution.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hardly.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Then why are you objecting?
> >>
> >> Could you frame this answer in the context of the discussion? I'm
> >> not sure what is your point here.
> >>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> As you have nothing to say to rest of my post, I
> >>>>>>>>>> assume that you agree with what I wrote.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You assume incorrectly.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then you should have objected to what I wrote.
> >>
> >>>> There is no need to object when you've not made your case.
> >
> >> Closed eyes? Selective perception? Still in denial?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Thorsten
I thought I killfiled andrew@heartmdphd.com. Why are references to his posts
still in my newsreader?
Oh...... because people are RESPONDING to them.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Eew, now *I* just responded! AAAAAAAAAAA
|
|
|
|
