Kualinar wrote:
> Just two out of THOUSANDS :
>
> Did Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem or did they already
> resided in Bethlehem ? Both are found in the Nativity story.
>
> Did they had to flee to Egypt when Jesus was still a baby, or when
> Jesus was 5 years old ? Also from Nativity.
>
> Those are two mutually exclusive versions of the exact same story.
>

Buy two newspapers. They will have 'mutually exclusive versions of
the exact same story', or call them contradictions. Human brains
are often presented with incomplete and conflicting perceptions
but required to act as if in full knowledge. We don't break down
like Mudd's androids.

The coping skills we have evolved are why all these Lists of Doom
of unresolved contradictions don't bother anyone but you.

Real humans grow up in complicated families where we hear
different parts of, say, your sister's birth, and stitch them
together well enough to not deny she's sitting at your dinner table.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

"Whisper" <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:65f44162$1@news.ausics.net...
> On 15/03/2024 7:13 am, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Whisper" <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:65f2d76f$1@news.ausics.net...
>>> On 14/03/2024 12:47 am, Kualinar wrote:
>>>> Le 2024-03-12 à 17:50, Skeeter a écrit :
>>>>> In article <usqf5b$g9dd$1@dont-email.me>, kuakinar@videotron.ca
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come from?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> just saying 'god' is not the answer. Where did god come from?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where did human intelligence come from?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> An emerging property if a complex brain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did the brain come from.
>>>> Evolution.
>>>
>>>
>>> Something must have created evolution?
>>
>> Survival of the fittest, also known as natural selection.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, but what created natural selection?

Reality. Something you apparently know very little about.

"Whisper" <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:65f5654f$1@news.ausics.net...
> On 16/03/2024 2:29 am, Kualinar wrote:
>> Le 2024-03-15 à 08:38, Whisper a écrit :
>>> On 15/03/2024 7:13 am, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Something must have created evolution?
>>>>
>>>> Survival of the fittest, also known as natural selection.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but what created natural selection?
>> Some say that there are no stupid questions. With your past two posts,
>> you have proven that to be wrong.
>>
>> Evolution is a natural process. Natural selection is another natural
>> process. NOTHING created any natural process. Natural processes just
>> happen.
>
>
> Huh? No disrespect but that's not a very smart answer. What do you mean
> by 'natural'? If that was a genuine answer then we can just say 'it's
> natural' about everything, the same way some say 'god' is the answer to
> every question. Both are as far from convincing as you can possibly get.
>
> I'll stick to my idea, which is the most logical by far - universe/life
> etc is simply beyond the scope of human intelligence.

So you don't know what you claim to know because it's beyond your
intelligence... got it.

Leave it to Whisper to cut himself off at the ankles.

"Whisper" <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:65f6c89b$1@news.ausics.net...
> On 17/03/2024 1:19 pm, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> Kualinar wrote:
>>> Adding a god does nothing but add complexity to the problem and don't
>>> solve anything.
>>
>> Truth doesn't depend on what you deem necessary. Truth is.
>>
>
>
> Who gets to decide what the truth is?

Don't worry about it.. you've already admitted the truth is beyond your
understanding..

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <junk@nogood.com> wrote in
> news:2JednWdiGsks62r4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> On 3/17/24 12:31, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <junk@nogood.com> wrote in
>>> news:ynWdncb1J6WduWr4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 3/17/24 10:50, Kualinar wrote:
>>>>> Le 2024-03-16 Г  21:32, Mitchell Holman a Г©critВ :
>>>>>> Max Boot <max.boot@lathymes.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:B9mJN.578041$xHn7.27465@fx14.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 5:50 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 20:58, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <junk@nogood.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:UySdnTsgoMGt8Gn4nZ2dnZfqnPsAAAAA@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 10:29, Kualinar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 2024-03-15 Г  08:38, Whisper a Г©critВ :
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2024 7:13 am, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:65f2d76f$1@news.ausics.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/03/2024 12:47 am, Kualinar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 2024-03-12 Г  17:50, Skeeter a Г©crit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <usqf5b$g9dd$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kuakinar@videotron.ca says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just saying 'god' is not the answer.В  Where did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> god come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did human intelligence come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An emerging property if a complex brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did the brain come from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Something must have created evolution?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Survival of the fittest, also known as natural selection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but what created natural selection?
>>>>>>>>>>> Some say that there are no stupid questions. With your past
>>>>>>>>>>> two posts, you have proven that to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution is a natural process. Natural selection is another
>>>>>>>>>>> natural process. NOTHING created any natural process. Natural
>>>>>>>>>>> processes just happen.
>>>>>>>>>> Just happen?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> В В В В В  Yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is you evidence for that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> В В В В В  Geology, botany, paleontology,
>>>>>>>>> microbiology, astronomy, climatology,
>>>>>>>>> archeology, cosmology.............
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://opengeology.org/historicalgeology/a-brief-history-of-ear
>>>>>>>>> th /
>>>>>>>> This is the only link which discusses the origin of life and
>>>>>>>> possible evolution. Here is the first paragraph in that section:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Early life in the Archean and earlier is poorly documented in
>>>>>>>> the fossil record. Based on chemical evidence and evolutionary
>>>>>>>> theory, scientists propose this life would have been
>>>>>>>> single-celled photosynthetic organisms, such as the
>>>>>>>> cyanobacteria that created stromatolites. Cyanobacteria produced
>>>>>>>> free oxygen in the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
>>>>>>>> Cyanobacteria, archaea, and bacteria are
>>>>>>>> prokaryotes—primitive organisms made of single cells that
>>>>>>>> lack cell nuclei and other organelles.
>>>>>>> A whole bunch of words Hartung has never heard nor read before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Scientists propose". In other words, we don't yet know.
>>>>>>> And so you propose your "god of the gaps" fallacy to supply an
>>>>>>> answer that you find comforting, but not necessarily right...and
>>>>>>> probably wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> В В В В В  Hartung doesn't care if an answer is
>>>>>> right or wrong, only that it is biblical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> В В В В В  Because the Bible has never been
>>>>>> disproved, you know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Had anything in the Bible been disproved,
>>>>>> you might have a point."
>>>>>> David Hartung, Jan 10, 2012
>>>>> Well... There ARE so many things from the bible that HAVE been
>>>>> disproved. Just one, but, a pretty big one :
>>>>> When the Israelite came upon Jericho, it was NOT a big city
>>>>> surrounded by stone walls. It was a small village, barely more than
>>>>> a hamlet, surrounded by a wooden palisade to keep wild animals and
>>>>> wandering raiders at bay.
>>>> Your source for this?
>>>
>>> Like most "cities" in the area
>>> Jericho was destroyed and rebuilt
>>> over and over again. There is nothing
>>> special about any "Joshus" attacking it.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Then, there are the 1000's of internal contradictions...
>>>> Such as?
>>>
>>> You really should read the
>>> Bible sometime, Hartung.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (2 Sam. 21:12);
>>> When David was told what Aiah’s daughter Rizpah,
>>> Saul’s concubine, had done,he went and took the
>>> bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from the citizens
>>> of Jabesh Gilead. They had stolen their bodies from
>>> the public square at Beth Shan, where the Philistines
>>> had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa.
>>>
>>>
>>> = Saul was killed by the Phillistines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (1 Sam.1:10)
>>> "I happened to be on Mount Gilboa," the young
>>> man said, "and there was Saul, leaning on his
>>> spear, with the chariots and their drivers in
>>> hot pursuit."He asked me, "Who are you?"
>>> An Amalekite," I answered.
>>> Then he said to me, "Stand here by me
>>> and kill me! I’m in the throes of death,
>>> but I’m still alive." So I stood beside
>>> him and killed him, because I knew that
>>> after he had fallen he could not survive.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> = Saul was killed by a young Amalekite
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (1 Sam. 31:4)
>>> "Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword
>>> and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows
>>> will come and run me through and abuse me." But his
>>> armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so
>>> Saul took his own sword and fell on it.
>>>
>>>
>>> = Saul killed himself.
>> It would be a good idea for you to actually read the Bible instead of
>> finding out of context, and incorrect quotes.
>>
>> Here is the text of 1 Sam.1:10
>> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Sam.1%3A10&version=NIV
>> [...]
>> 10 In her deep anguish Hannah prayed to the Lord, weeping bitterly.
>> [...]
>>
>> You were likely referring to this:
>> [...]
>> 6 And the young man who told him said, “By chance I happened to be
>> on Mount Gilboa, and there was Saul leaning on his spear, and behold,
>> the chariots and the horsemen were close upon him. 7 And when he
>> looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. And I answered,
>> ‘Here I am.’ 8 And he said to me, ‘Who are you?’ I answered
>> him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’ 9 And he said to me, ‘Stand beside me
>> and kill me, for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still
>> lingers.’ 10 So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was
>> sure that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown
>> that was on his head and the armlet that was on his arm, and I have
>> brought them here to my lord.” [...]
>>
>> Which is part of a narrative in 2 Samuel 1 in which a young man lies
>> thinking that he will gain favor with David.
>
> vs......
>
>
> Philistines killed Saul
>
> David went and took the bones of
> Saul and the bones of his son
> Jonathan from the men of Jabesh-
> gilead, who had stolen them from
> the public square of Beth-shan,
> where the Philistines had hanged
> them, on the day the Philistines
> killed Saul on Gilboa.
> 2 Samuel 21:12
> https://biblehub.com/2_samuel/21-12.htm
>
>
> vs.........
>
>
> Saul kills himself.
>
> Saul said to his armor-bearer,
> "Draw your sword and run me through,
> or these uncircumcised fellows will
> come and run me through and abuse me."
> But his armor-bearer was terrified and
> would not do it; so Saul took his own
> sword and fell on it.
> 1 Samuel 31:4
> https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/31-4.htm
>
>
>
> No contradictions, Hartung?

Ron Dean wrote:
> Dawn Flood wrote:
>> On 3/16/2024 6:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> YOU are the one making a positive claim, so, YOU are the one with
>>>> the burden of proof.
>>>> I just don't accept your claim. I just don't believe in a god, any
>>>> god.
>>>
>>> Once you know deMorgan, 'positive claim' is verbal diarrhea.
>>>
>>> The usual rule is proof of an assertion is on the person. The actual
>>> rule is the burden of proof on whoever wants to change your mind.
>>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
>>
>> Or, for those who do not wish to read the entire article:
>>
>> Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of
>> proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies.
> >
> Proof is a non- existent commodity. One can believe God exist, or may
> believe God does not exist. But it's all a matter of belief not proof.
> It's belief Vs belief. So, it's a stale-mate!

Poof is how truth is determined, but proof is not always available, so
the likelihood of truth is left to the balance of possibilities and
probabilities.

--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23

"Christian beliefs cannot withstand reason, fact, and knowledge"

"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"

"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."

"Religion is an evil who's goal is mind control"

Siri Cruise wrote:
> Gronk wrote:
>> "It is a central dogma of all fundamental
>> Christians that the Bible is without error.
>
> Are all christians fundamental?

it didn't say or suggest that

>
> Seriousd-mental?
>
> 'without error' is a poor choice of words. Deliberately chosen no
> doubt to denigrate that 'fundamental' strawman.
>

--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23

"Christian beliefs cannot withstand reason, fact, and knowledge"

"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"

"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."

"Religion is an evil who's goal is mind control"

Siri Cruise wrote:
> Kualinar wrote:
>> Just two out of THOUSANDS :
>>
>> Did Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem or did they already
>> resided in Bethlehem ? Both are found in the Nativity story.
>>
>> Did they had to flee to Egypt when Jesus was still a baby, or when
>> Jesus was 5 years old ? Also from Nativity.
>>
>> Those are two mutually exclusive versions of the exact same story.
>>
>
> Buy two newspapers. They will have 'mutually exclusive versions of the
> exact same story', or call them contradictions. Human brains are often
> presented with incomplete and conflicting perceptions but required to
> act as if in full knowledge. We don't break down like Mudd's androids.
>
> The coping skills we have evolved are why all these Lists of Doom of
> unresolved contradictions don't bother anyone but you.
>
> Real humans grow up in complicated families where we hear different
> parts of, say, your sister's birth, and stitch them together well
> enough to not deny she's sitting at your dinner table.
>

except for the claimed inerrancy of the scriptures. the bible cannot be
the inerrant 'word of God' if there are ANY contradictions. that's just
plain logic.

--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23

"Christian beliefs cannot withstand reason, fact, and knowledge"

"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"

"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."

"Religion is an evil who's goal is mind control"

Kualinar wrote:
> Le 2024-03-18 à 03:47, Whisper a écrit :
>> On 18/03/2024 2:40 am, Kualinar wrote:
>>> Le 2024-03-17 à 06:37, Whisper a écrit :
>>>> On 17/03/2024 11:18 am, Maximus wrote:
>>>>> Whisper wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/03/2024 9:27 am, Kualinar wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 2024-03-15 à 13:57, David Hartung a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe in god without evidence.  I do believe in natural
>>>>>> selection, but that doesn't answer my other question 'how did
>>>>>> natural selection start?'.
>>>>>
>>>>> so your question then is, how did life begin. science has
>>>>> progressively been trying to answer that. natural selection
>>>>> however is simply organism's response to their environment.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But why is the organism responding to the environment?  What caused
>>>> that ability/function?
>>>>
>>> You really sound like a tiddler asking Why ?
>>
>>
>> Well maybe if you provided some sensible answers I wouldn't have to.
> Why would I even try to provide a sensible answer when I know that you
> won't accept it as a sensible answer ?
> You have been provided with several factual answers. You rejected them
> all.
>
> Once again, you sound like a toddler endlessly asking «Why ?» after
> every answer.

"God did it"

Why?

"Because he wanted to"

Why?

"Be quiet, and eat your dinner"

--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23

"Christian beliefs cannot withstand reason, fact, and knowledge"

"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"

"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."

"Religion is an evil who's goal is mind control"

Dawn Flood wrote:
> On 3/16/2024 6:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>
>>> YOU are the one making a positive claim, so, YOU are the one with
>>> the burden of proof.
>>> I just don't accept your claim. I just don't believe in a god, any god.
>>
>> Once you know deMorgan, 'positive claim' is verbal diarrhea.
>>
>> The usual rule is proof of an assertion is on the person. The actual
>> rule is the burden of proof on whoever wants to change your mind.
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
>
> Or, for those who do not wish to read the entire article:
>
> Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of
> proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies.

as it always does

--
“Atheism is the birth right of all human, remember that!”- hhyapster 7.4.23

"Christian beliefs cannot withstand reason, fact, and knowledge"

"Religion is not about truth, it's about lifestyle"

"God is a convenient explanation for what man does not understand.
The less that's inexplicable, the less need for a 'God' explanation."

"Religion is an evil who's goal is mind control"

Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uta9hm$cf5i$1@dont-
email.me:

> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:ut8l0l$1cbs$1
@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>> Gronk wrote:
>>>> "It is a central dogma of all fundamental
>>>> Christians that the Bible is without error.
>>>
>>> Are all christians fundamental?
>>>
>>> Seriousd-mental?
>>>
>>> 'without error' is a poor choice of words. Deliberately chosen no
>>> doubt to denigrate that 'fundamental' strawman.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Christians themselves claim
>> the "inerrancy" of the Bible.
>
> How do they define 'inerrant' and how do you?

The Three �I�s of Scripture: Inspired,
Inerrant, Infallible
MAY 30, 2019

When we say the Bible is inerrant,
we mean God used these human authors
to pen exactly what God wanted,
without any mixture of error.

When we say the Bible is infallible,
we mean that God�s Word is incapable
of error. Because God is perfect, so
is His revelation of himself.

What we believe about God and what
we believe about the Bible are
intertwined and cannot be separated.
What we know about God comes from the
Bible. Scripture says God cannot lie
(Heb. 6:18). If the Bible is God�s
Word to us, and if He cannot lie,
then His Word also must be incapable
of error.
https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/the-three-i-s-of-scripture-
inspired-interrant-infallible/

> There's a
> significant phrase you're avoiding for what I have to assume is
> using it defeats your message of doom.
>
> Hint: Are Aesop fables true stories or do they have nothing to do
> with human behaviour?

Aesops fables are not being peddled
as inerrant truth

On 3/18/2024 12:33 PM, Kualinar wrote:
> Le 2024-03-17 à 23:21, Ron Dean a écrit :
>> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2024 6:11 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> Kualinar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU are the one making a positive claim, so, YOU are the one with
>>>>> the burden of proof.
>>>>> I just don't accept your claim. I just don't believe in a god, any
>>>>> god.
>>>>
>>>> Once you know deMorgan, 'positive claim' is verbal diarrhea.
>>>>
>>>> The usual rule is proof of an assertion is on the person. The actual
>>>> rule is the burden of proof on whoever wants to change your mind.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
>>>
>>> Or, for those who do not wish to read the entire article:
>>>
>>> Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of
>>> proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies.
>>  >
>> Proof is a non- existent commodity. One can believe God exist, or may
>> believe God does not exist. But it's all a matter of belief not proof.
>> It's belief Vs belief. So, it's a stale-mate!
>
> You got that wrong.
>
> Theism is the POSITIVE claim that there is a god.
> Atheism is the LACK of belief in a god. Atheism DO NOT claim that there
> is no god. Contrary to the claims of apologists and many preachers, only
> the gnostic atheists, a very small minority of atheists, do claim the
> non-existence of a god.
>
> The positive claim imply the burden of proof.
> The lack of belief is NOT a claim, no, there is nothing to prove, hence,
> NO burden of proof.

Well stated.

As for the gnostic atheists, they (such as Dr. James A. Lindsay in his
book, "Dot, Dot, Dot...") compare God to The Force and decide that both
ideas are in the '6.9999'-repeating category on Professor Richard
Dawkins' "Spectrum of theistic probability":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

Maybe the Omnipotence paradoxes are a positive reason for disbelief:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Dawn

On 3/17/2024 6:41 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <junk@nogood.com> wrote in
> news:2JednWdiGsks62r4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> On 3/17/24 12:31, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> David Hartung <junk@nogood.com> wrote in
>>> news:ynWdncb1J6WduWr4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On 3/17/24 10:50, Kualinar wrote:
>>>>> Le 2024-03-16 Г  21:32, Mitchell Holman a Г©critВ :
>>>>>> Max Boot <max.boot@lathymes.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:B9mJN.578041$xHn7.27465@fx14.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/16/2024 5:50 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 20:58, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <junk@nogood.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:UySdnTsgoMGt8Gn4nZ2dnZfqnPsAAAAA@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/15/24 10:29, Kualinar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 2024-03-15 Г  08:38, Whisper a Г©critВ :
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15/03/2024 7:13 am, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Whisper" <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:65f2d76f$1@news.ausics.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14/03/2024 12:47 am, Kualinar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 2024-03-12 Г  17:50, Skeeter a Г©crit :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <usqf5b$g9dd$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kuakinar@videotron.ca says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just saying 'god' is not the answer.В  Where did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> god come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did human intelligence come from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An emerging property if a complex brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did the brain come from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Something must have created evolution?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Survival of the fittest, also known as natural selection.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but what created natural selection?
>>>>>>>>>>> Some say that there are no stupid questions. With your past
>>>>>>>>>>> two posts, you have proven that to be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Evolution is a natural process. Natural selection is another
>>>>>>>>>>> natural process. NOTHING created any natural process. Natural
>>>>>>>>>>> processes just happen.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just happen?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> В В В В В  Yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is you evidence for that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> В В В В В  Geology, botany, paleontology,
>>>>>>>>> microbiology, astronomy, climatology,
>>>>>>>>> archeology, cosmology.............
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://opengeology.org/historicalgeology/a-brief-history-of-ear
>>>>>>>>> th /
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the only link which discusses the origin of life and
>>>>>>>> possible evolution. Here is the first paragraph in that section:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Early life in the Archean and earlier is poorly documented in
>>>>>>>> the fossil record. Based on chemical evidence and evolutionary
>>>>>>>> theory, scientists propose this life would have been
>>>>>>>> single-celled photosynthetic organisms, such as the
>>>>>>>> cyanobacteria that created stromatolites. Cyanobacteria produced
>>>>>>>> free oxygen in the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
>>>>>>>> Cyanobacteria, archaea, and bacteria are
>>>>>>>> prokaryotes—primitive organisms made of single cells that
>>>>>>>> lack cell nuclei and other organelles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A whole bunch of words Hartung has never heard nor read before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Scientists propose". In other words, we don't yet know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And so you propose your "god of the gaps" fallacy to supply an
>>>>>>> answer that you find comforting, but not necessarily right...and
>>>>>>> probably wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> В В В В В  Hartung doesn't care if an answer is
>>>>>> right or wrong, only that it is biblical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> В В В В В  Because the Bible has never been
>>>>>> disproved, you know.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Had anything in the Bible been disproved,
>>>>>> you might have a point."
>>>>>> David Hartung, Jan 10, 2012
>>>>>
>>>>> Well... There ARE so many things from the bible that HAVE been
>>>>> disproved. Just one, but, a pretty big one :
>>>>> When the Israelite came upon Jericho, it was NOT a big city
>>>>> surrounded by stone walls. It was a small village, barely more than
>>>>> a hamlet, surrounded by a wooden palisade to keep wild animals and
>>>>> wandering raiders at bay.
>>>>
>>>> Your source for this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Like most "cities" in the area
>>> Jericho was destroyed and rebuilt
>>> over and over again. There is nothing
>>> special about any "Joshus" attacking it.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Then, there are the 1000's of internal contradictions...
>>>>
>>>> Such as?
>>>
>>>
>>> You really should read the
>>> Bible sometime, Hartung.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (2 Sam. 21:12);
>>> When David was told what Aiah’s daughter Rizpah,
>>> Saul’s concubine, had done,he went and took the
>>> bones of Saul and his son Jonathan from the citizens
>>> of Jabesh Gilead. They had stolen their bodies from
>>> the public square at Beth Shan, where the Philistines
>>> had hung them after they struck Saul down on Gilboa.
>>>
>>>
>>> = Saul was killed by the Phillistines.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (1 Sam.1:10)
>>> "I happened to be on Mount Gilboa," the young
>>> man said, "and there was Saul, leaning on his
>>> spear, with the chariots and their drivers in
>>> hot pursuit."He asked me, "Who are you?"
>>> An Amalekite," I answered.
>>> Then he said to me, "Stand here by me
>>> and kill me! I’m in the throes of death,
>>> but I’m still alive." So I stood beside
>>> him and killed him, because I knew that
>>> after he had fallen he could not survive.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> = Saul was killed by a young Amalekite
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (1 Sam. 31:4)
>>> "Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword
>>> and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows
>>> will come and run me through and abuse me." But his
>>> armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so
>>> Saul took his own sword and fell on it.
>>>
>>>
>>> = Saul killed himself.
>>
>> It would be a good idea for you to actually read the Bible instead of
>> finding out of context, and incorrect quotes.
>>
>> Here is the text of 1 Sam.1:10
>> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Sam.1%3A10&version=NIV
>> [...]
>> 10 In her deep anguish Hannah prayed to the Lord, weeping bitterly.
>> [...]
>>
>> You were likely referring to this:
>> [...]
>> 6 And the young man who told him said, “By chance I happened to be
>> on Mount Gilboa, and there was Saul leaning on his spear, and behold,
>> the chariots and the horsemen were close upon him. 7 And when he
>> looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. And I answered,
>> ‘Here I am.’ 8 And he said to me, ‘Who are you?’ I answered
>> him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’ 9 And he said to me, ‘Stand beside me
>> and kill me, for anguish has seized me, and yet my life still
>> lingers.’ 10 So I stood beside him and killed him, because I was
>> sure that he could not live after he had fallen. And I took the crown
>> that was on his head and the armlet that was on his arm, and I have
>> brought them here to my lord.” [...]
>>
>> Which is part of a narrative in 2 Samuel 1 in which a young man lies
>> thinking that he will gain favor with David.
>
>
> vs......
>
>
> Philistines killed Saul
>
> David went and took the bones of
> Saul and the bones of his son
> Jonathan from the men of Jabesh-
> gilead, who had stolen them from
> the public square of Beth-shan,
> where the Philistines had hanged
> them, on the day the Philistines
> killed Saul on Gilboa.
> 2 Samuel 21:12
> https://biblehub.com/2_samuel/21-12.htm
>
>
> vs.........
>
>
> Saul kills himself.
>
> Saul said to his armor-bearer,
> "Draw your sword and run me through,
> or these uncircumcised fellows will
> come and run me through and abuse me."
> But his armor-bearer was terrified and
> would not do it; so Saul took his own
> sword and fell on it.
> 1 Samuel 31:4
> https://biblehub.com/1_samuel/31-4.htm
>
>
>
> No contradictions, Hartung?

On 3/17/2024 10:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Gronk wrote:
>> "It is a central dogma of all fundamental
>> Christians that the Bible is without error.
>
> Are all christians fundamental?
>
> Seriousd-mental?
>
> 'without error' is a poor choice of words.

No, it's fine.

> Deliberately chosen no doubt to denigrate that 'fundamental' strawman [sic].

It's not a straw man (two words, dumb ass).

Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible "is without error or fault in
all its teaching";[1] or, at least, that "Scripture in the original
manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".[2]

[1] Geisler, NL. and Roach, B., Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of
Scripture for a New Generation, Baker Books, 2012

[2] Grudem, Wayne A. (1994). Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical
doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

Fundamentalism vs evangelicalism

In the 2008 campaign for president, the candidate who publicly acknowledged
Jesus Christ as lord and savior was Barack Obama, not John McCain.

And yet in 2008 and again in 2012, those described by media as “evangelical
Christians” voted overwhelmingly for the Republican nominees for president,
McCain and Mitt Romney (a Mormon), unwilling to accept Mr. Obama’s witness to
his Christian faith.

In 2012, Hillary Clinton, a Methodist and confessing Christian, was also
rejected by “evangelical Christians,” 81 percent of whom voted for Donald Trump
despite his lifestyle, seen by many as a denial of basic Christian teachings and
values.

That said, the media’s political coverage continues to demonstrate critical
ignorance of American Christianity, repeatedly identifying supporters of
Republican candidates as “evangelicals” when they are overwhelmingly
fundamentalists.

The morphing of Christian fundamentalists into evangelical Christians began with
9/11, when leaders and clergy of fundamentalist denominations, like the Southern
Baptists, Protestantism’s largest, understood that any confusion between radical
Muslim fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists was a problem.

Fundamentalism was dropped and “evangelical,” which is culturally less
threatening and socially more acceptable, became the watch word — and the media
bought into it.

The fundamentalist/evangelical controversy is not new. It has a history.

Harry Emerson Fosdick was one of the titans of the 20th-century American pulpit.
Initially pastor at New York City’s First Presbyterian and later at Riverside
Church (built for him by John D. Rockefeller), Fosdick often railed against
Christian “fundamentalism,” and yet considered himself and others of comparable
views as “evangelical.”

Fosdick and William Jennings Bryan were at the center of the great
fundamentalist-modernist debate, which has long disappeared from the front pages
of our newspapers, but it is still with us, as the number of fundamentalists is
greater now than ever before.

What then is Christian fundamentalism? At its core, it argues the Bible is
inerrant, without error; that every word and every verse of every chapter in
every book of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation, is
literally true.

This interpretation of Scripture, called “verbal inspiration” by theologians,
means the books of the Bible, in both Testaments, were written by men who became
God’s stenographers, writing as He spoke. Hence, by that act of composition, the
Bible is, they contend, without error.

However, there is another body of Christian believers, who hold to a different
view, who believe in scripture’s plenary inspiration; that the effect of
inspiration moved biblical writers to produce the words God wanted but takes
into account their “individual backgrounds, personal traits and literary styles.”

And yet many who hold this view, such as Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Mike
Slaughter, Ron Sider, Adam Hamilton, Timothy Keller and many other church
leaders, also consider themselves evangelicals.

To a non-Christian, a nonfaith, nonreligious person, why should it matter?
Verbal inspiration, plenary inspiration, fundamentalist, evangelical, modernist,
orthodox, who cares?

There is no requirement to care, unless you’re a journalist, then there’s a
requirement to get it right — if accuracy in media is prized. And “getting it
right” means explaining that while all fundamentalists may be evangelicals in
asserting that Jesus Christ is Lord, not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists are pro-life, many evangelicals, pro-choice. Fundamentalists
oppose gay marriages, not all evangelicals do. Fundamentalists believe in
creationism, most evangelicals accept Darwin and keep an open mind. Because
fundamentalists oppose abortion and gay rights, the two issues that dominate
their political agenda, they consistently vote Republican; not all Christians do.

Nonfundamentalist evangelicals have broader concerns — the war in Afghanistan,
global warming, health care, racism, the economy, Wall Street, women’s rights,
the plight of the poor, etc.

The conundrum of fundamentalist/evangelical is heightened by media neither
understanding it nor willing to make the distinction, unwilling to do the hard
work necessary to separate one from the other, instead choosing to identify them
as one — “evangelicals.” And by that failure, confusion is rampant on what
issues divide these two differing bodies of Christian believers — politically
and theologically.

Fundamentalists and evangelicals share a common faith in the person of Jesus
Christ, but it isn’t that which separates them — it’s everything else.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-utbg-fundamentalists-evangelicals-politics-20170929-story.html

Hartung is emblematic of a fundamentalist who has tried, unsuccessfully, to
rebrand himself as an evangelical. And fundamentalists *should* be denigrated.
They are bad people.

--
Canoza's law: AlleyPussyBitch (the narcissistic toddler) is *always* wrong.

Kualinar <kuakinar@videotron.ca> wrote:

> Le 2024-03-16 à 15:36, Rod Flanders a écrit :
> > Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> On 16/03/2024 2:45 am, David Hartung wrote:
> >>> On 3/15/24 10:29, Kualinar wrote:
> >>>> Le 2024-03-15 à 08:38, Whisper a écrit :
> >>>>> On 15/03/2024 7:13 am, Scout wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Whisper" <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:65f2d76f$1@news.ausics.net...
> >>>>>>> On 14/03/2024 12:47 am, Kualinar wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Le 2024-03-12 à 17:50, Skeeter a écrit :
> >>>>>>>>> In article <usqf5b$g9dd$1@dont-email.me>, kuakinar@videotron.ca
> >>>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you can't prove anything else. So where did it all come
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> just saying 'god' is not the answer.  Where did god come from?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Where did human intelligence come from?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> An emerging property if a complex brain.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Where did the brain come from.
> >>>>>>>> Evolution.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Something must have created evolution?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Survival of the fittest, also known as natural selection.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, but what created natural selection?
> >>>> Some say that there are no stupid questions. With your past two posts,
> >>>> you have proven that to be wrong.
> >>>>
> >>>> Evolution is a natural process. Natural selection is another natural
> >>>> process. NOTHING created any natural process. Natural processes just
> >>>> happen.
> >>>
> >>> Just happen?
> >>> What is you evidence for that?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Let's hope he can explain what he really means by 'just happen' : )
> >
> >
> > Processes don't just happen, only a mind is can invent one.
> Yes they do. ALL natural processes just happen, and they don't need a
> mind to «invent» them. The mind is just there to discover, identify,
> describe and explain them. The mind is required to NAME the process, but
> not to «invent» them, as they are not invented.
> >
> > Natural selection is seen so we know God invented it.
> >
> Plugging your god of the gaps again.

Natural Selection had to be imagined before it could be created.

God created Natural Selection. God created logic.
God created the internet too.

--
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and
thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 16:31

Siri Cruise wrote:

> Information is not some nebulous cloudiness. It is studied in
> information theory, thermodynamics, math of analysis.

What are the dimensions of information in thermodynamics?

Is it measured in bits per joule per kelvin, or what?

Thanks.

Dawn Flood wrote:
>>
>> The positive claim imply the burden of proof.
>> The lack of belief is NOT a claim, no, there is nothing to
>> prove, hence, NO burden of proof.
>
> Well stated.

Since DeMorgan allows a so-called positive statement to be
converted to negative, it's nonsense.

> As for the gnostic atheists, they (such as Dr. James A. Lindsay in

Gnostic atheist? Is that like a Hindu Aztec? Gnosticism believes
in a godhead. That it ascribes different attributes to Yahweh than
the bible doesn't make it atheist.

> his book, "Dot, Dot, Dot...") compare God to The Force and decide

'He is a proponent of the right-wing LGBT grooming conspiracy theory '

> that both ideas are in the '6.9999'-repeating category on
> Professor Richard Dawkins' "Spectrum of theistic probability":

Bullshit. Probability is specifically defined and is not the same
as 'waffling'.

> Maybe the Omnipotence paradoxes are a positive reason for disbelief:

The paradox is simply (1) No objective definition of 'omnipotence'
that slips in presuppositions, and (2) No proof whatever
definition used applies to some subject. The usually attempted
definitions by atheists are easily shown not applicable to the god
in the bible.

So much for your 'positive'.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/the-three-i-s-of-scripture-
> inspired-interrant-infallible/
>

Now you claim all christians are Baptists.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 3/18/2024 10:24 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Dawn Flood wrote:
>>>
>>> The positive claim imply the burden of proof.
>>> The lack of belief is NOT a claim, no, there is nothing to prove, hence, NO
>>> burden of proof.
>>
>> Well stated.
>
> Since DeMorgan allows a so-called positive statement to be converted to
> negative, it's nonsense.

You don't know what you pretend to know. You pretend to be a polymath. In fact,
you're a dilettante and a poseur.

On 3/18/2024 10:34 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/the-three-i-s-of-scripture-
>> inspired-interrant-infallible/
>>
>
> Now you claim all christians are Baptists.

No, he didn't.

Maximus wrote:
> except for the claimed inerrancy of the scriptures. the bible
> cannot be the inerrant 'word of God' if there are ANY
> contradictions. that's just plain logic.

Beat that strawman to death! The continued refusal to use a
specific word shows your intellectual dihonesty.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

Whisper wrote:
> On 17/03/2024 1:19 pm, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> Kualinar wrote:
>>> Adding a god does nothing but add complexity to the problem and
>>> don't solve anything.
>>
>> Truth doesn't depend on what you deem necessary. Truth is.
>>
>
>
> Who gets to decide what the truth is?

No human. A god perhaps can.

When we need a truth we have methods to collectively decide what
we call the truth. Smart ones acknowledge that has sent innocents
to the gallows.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 19/03/2024 5:53 am, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <7KXJN.121780$GX69.40629@fx46.iad>, NoBody@nowhere.corn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Had anything in the Bible been disproved,
>>>>>>> you might have a point."
>>>>>>> David Hartung, Jan 10, 2012
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well... There ARE so many things from the bible that HAVE been disproved.
>>>>>> Just one, but, a pretty big one :
>>>>>> When the Israelite came upon Jericho, it was NOT a big city surrounded by
>>>>>> stone walls. It was a small village, barely more than a hamlet, surrounded
>>>>>> by a wooden palisade to keep wild animals and wandering raiders at bay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your source for this?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then, there are the 1000's of internal contradictions...
>>>>>
>>>>> Such as?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblicalcontrudictions/
>>>
>>> Doesn't work.
>>
>> It works fine.
>
> Nope, bad link.

404 error

On 19/03/2024 7:30 am, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Whisper" <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:65f44162$1@news.ausics.net...
>> On 15/03/2024 7:13 am, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but what created natural selection?
>
> Reality. Something you apparently know very little about.
>
>

Who's reality?

Natural selection obviously exists, but how did it get a foothold?
'it's natural' type answers are not very helpful.

On 19/03/2024 7:33 am, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Whisper" <whisper@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:65f5654f$1@news.ausics.net...
>> On 16/03/2024 2:29 am, Kualinar wrote:
>>> Le 2024-03-15 à 08:38, Whisper a écrit :
>>>> On 15/03/2024 7:13 am, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something must have created evolution?
>>>>>
>>>>> Survival of the fittest, also known as natural selection.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but what created natural selection?
>>> Some say that there are no stupid questions. With your past two
>>> posts, you have proven that to be wrong.
>>>
>>> Evolution is a natural process. Natural selection is another natural
>>> process. NOTHING created any natural process. Natural processes just
>>> happen.
>>
>>
>> Huh?  No disrespect but that's not a very smart answer.  What do you
>> mean by 'natural'?  If that was a genuine answer then we can just say
>> 'it's natural' about everything, the same way some say 'god' is the
>> answer to every question.  Both are as far from convincing as you can
>> possibly get.
>>
>> I'll stick to my idea, which is the most logical by far -
>> universe/life etc is simply beyond the scope of human intelligence.
>
> So you don't know what you claim to know because it's beyond your
> intelligence... got it.
>
> Leave it to Whisper to cut himself off at the ankles.
>
>
>

I don't pretend to have the answers. It's not my style to make
grandiose claims with zero evidence. I'm trying to ascertain if anyone
here has the answers, radio silence so far.