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 said:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:Quoted message said:Thorsten Schier wrote:
<snip>
Quoted message said: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.Quoted message said:
Quoted message said: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.Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:>>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.Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:>>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