fauxlaw

You can [be wealthy & humble], but so far no one was.

I've said before it appears you don't get out much, or avoid meeting people, but your conclusion is not the way it is. Yes, many wealthy people are misers, but I know several people of great wealth who are humble, generous, and active in their support [by more than money] in changing the poor, so the claim that this is not so is an empty claim.

there is actually no way to get rich in a moral way.

Nonsense. Unless you feel that somehow there is evil in investing in gold, silver, and real property, which I have been doing continuously since the late 70s. If there is, I've not experienced it. I've done it entirely above-board, in the open, and pay my due in taxes on my increases, but take all deductions offered by law. Tell me how that is immoral.

There are two questions I've asked you to which you have not offered response. There are likely more two, but these two are really essential to your rebuttal, and you refuse to give service to them more than lip.

1 Why did the natural process of petroleum crude end, as you allege, and is, therefore, non-renewable?

2 Why is development of alternative sources of energy [including any of the "green energy" provisions] lagging behind its ability to increase production above 20% of the US energy grid, or 30% of the European energy grid to come close to being the equal of petroleum crude at 65% of the energy grid, when "green" has been around since only 30 years after petroleum production?

You have no argument if those two questions cannot be answered with more than accusation that I don't know what I'm talking out. Personal attack does not cut the cake, my friend..

Any new deposits found below existing ones or at similar levels, will obviously be more of the same, rather than new deposits.

Seriously? You really believe that? Where did you acquire that gem? The Tooth Fairy? No, earth-bound materials, regardless of substance, do not occur in singular, large deposits. They exist in separate layers, isolated, and separately accessed. This is true of mineral deposits, including precious metals, water, and even petroleum crude.

And who said our dependence on petroleum crude should be 100% of our energy resources? I never did. Appears you just did. I've even acknowledged that green energy has its place, but not 100%, either. I have a 39-solar-panel array on my roof, for example, and have for nine years. Yeah; in a forest clearing that I did not clear, at 7500 feet elevation. Not one tree was lost in the construction of my mountain home. And my natural 3-season stream continues to flow through my property, most of it of benefit to those downstream of me.

Sergeant, you have me completely misunderstood.

Merry Christmas

Kammie, even trying to be serious, just doesn't. cannot, and will not ever, as long as she holds this attitude, get it right. This is a core attitude, not one of those ethereal "someday I'll achieve" attitudes, learned from childhood, if parents are, themselves, able to teach it.

Humility is a vital attitude. It must be learned and practiced. But, one of the difficulties of humility, and the one factor that makes it so difficult to achieve, and maintain, [I have not, but at least I've learned the principle] is that as soon as one claims humility, they are no longer. It cannot be a matter off personal pride of achievement, whether stated, or even felt, for the claim is assurance that humility has fled. We are either humble, or we are not. Not a variable attitude. Consistency is the assurance that it is personally embraced.

So where are all the new deposits Faux...Simple question.

When is the clock to match your "where?" Want to start with the 50's announce by geologist M. King Hubbard who said petroleum reserves would deplete in the 70s? Here's the EIA track of new discoveries just in the US. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RCRR08NUS_1&f=A

Worldwide? Look it up yourself. New knowledge is never bad.

Any new deposits would obviously form above the fossil fuel deposits that we currently utilise.

Why? Our techniques have improved significantly in discovery of deposits further below than once thought possible.

Many of our scientific discoveries are due to blasting original limited thought as obtuse. Hell, we once thought Earth centered the universe. Now, we don't identify either an edge nor center of the size of the universe. That's as dumb a claim as you claim my intelligence is. Why limit the range of oil deposits in area or depth? Or of knowledge capable of being learned?

In fact, if as you say this is an ongoing renewable process, then where is the surface evidence for this.

More limited thinking. The evidence of an ongoing petroleum-producing natural process does not occur merely on the surface of Earth, my friend, and never did, except in areas where the stuff is actually at the surface, such as La Brea in Los Angeles [not nearly the only deposit in the LA basin]. L.A. still produces millions of barrels per year from thousands of wells in spite of the LA City Council attempts to cancel it for reasons you want it cancelled; that it is aclaimed limited resource. Cancellation w2ould, indeed, limit its availability, but the not a scientific approach, is it?

You have both apparently been taught that petroleum crude [that which is erroneously called “fossil fuel,” because it is composed of just about everything else than the “fossil” material of dead organisms, while all other organic soft tissue is decomposed over unknown years of natural processing to become petroleum crude. We don’t know how many years that process requires. It has never been measured. But what your eager greenie teachers have taught you is that the decomposition process of organic soft tissue to petroleum crude somehow stopped at the demise of dinosaurs. Why? No one will answer that question. Doesn’t mean there is no answer, but, in the meantime, why should it have stopped? Tell me another natural Earth process that has stopped. We do know the process endured for hundreds of millions of years. Maybe more than one billion years. How many years does it take to deplete that supply, even if [not a certainty, being an organic process] it is finite? We do not know. As I’ve said, it is a convenient claim that natural petroleum production was a finite process. Easy to claim, therefore, that green is urgently needed, isn’t it? Not proven, however, in spite of mere convenience.

You keep insisting fossil fuel is a finite resource. I've given you the science of why it is not, but is available for as long as life continues to exit on Earth. Got a reasonable explanation for your opinion other than that you embrace it? That's not good enough. As I said, you've purchased a myth. You claim fossil fuel's existence depends on a "fragile ecosystem for sustenance." That claim requires evidence. We have produced fossil fuels under every ecosystem in existence since the 1890s, and it continues production in spite of the variables. Got to have a better explanation. No, I'm not saying fossil fuels are our ideal energy source. I'm certain we can do better, but until we do, eliminating fossil fuel before we have a proven alternative to plug in at a minimum 65% capability of replacement, it's elimination is the destruction of any ecosystem anywhere, just like insisting on a vegan diet that cannot produce all the basic proteins needed for ideal human health only available from other animals [there are four proteins essential to us that veggie matter does not provide].

After beginning with two bold sentences in your #13, with such concern for resources, you immediately cave by your penchant for occupying and wasting empty space which is empty by wasted cyber space. Why must you separate sentences by usele3ss carriage returns? Kind of blows your whole argument, because that resource is, indeed, finite. Tell me, however, why organic resources are finite unless life ends on Earth. Thus the until-then infinity of organic resources, i.e., "fossil fuel." You've been sold, and you bought, a false assumption. Congrats. You're in a big crowd, which, in this instance, is not helpful. What's so organic [therefore of renewability] about windmills? Current progressive thinking is... what? So what, exactly, has faux stagnated, since my favored energy resource has been produced, and will be produced, if needed, for the entire future existence of man on Earth. I am not saying it is a necessary resource for infinity, but that all depends on our innovative continuation, doesn't it? In the meantime, you tell me how a 20% provider to the energy grid in all its forms replaces, today, a 65% provisional resource. Go.

To me, AI is as gutless, and brainless, as green right now. It has a future, but today, it cannot compete with man's free-thinking genius. Let it program itself, just as we had to learn that for ourselves, and it may have a future, but that, for AI, is yet to have it's day Besides, I am nearing end-of-life, I'm already beating the odds, passing the average modern, western male life expectancy at least a year ago, so I don't expect much for AI in my lifetime. I do not expect to see either technology truly come into focus in my lifetime.

Your five AI excuses may hold some water, but the bucket does have badly leaking holes.

I wasn't around when petroleum became a viable energy source, but considering it exceeds the length of time it has been around compared to green, they are mostly that; excuses. When petroleum began to be a viable energy source [1890s], the infrastructure already had electrical power available in big cities for ten years, and the two grew in availability together. What's green's excuse? Well, one that isn't mentioned, because it tries to be a major selling point, is renewability. Being intermittent, it isn't that, at all, is it? It should be very naturally compatible with current infrastructure. But, currently, it's really not all that naturally renewable, is it?

Virtually every technology has high up-front costs; it certainly is not exclusive to green. Television, for example, and who does not have one, even if "poor?" Cell and smartphones, personal computing...

Energy storage is another misfit excuse. Maybe green should not have been politically selling the eradication of fossil fuel, as Biden promised, when green is no where near to replacing petroluem, and not maybe for another 50 years, minimum, according to its progress to date.

As I said, ya'll need AlGoreGooeyJuice, but that is as vacant an idea as a current typical Democrat head.

Political/Regulatory Barriers: oh, boo-hoo. If green was technically capable now, and truly competitive with petrol, there would be no political strife suffered by green, ergo, no regulation issues, either. Yes, you are fighting an image issue, but that's not petroleum's fault. See above relative to tech/know-how issues.

Economy-of-scale/public awareness: What scale and what awareness? Green lags petrol by a mere 30 years, and petrol really did not get its infusion of strength as a big-league energy source until after WWII in the late 1940s; almost 50 yeas after inception. Awareness is hurt by green's own salesmanship. It has been so badly sold, as a miracle energy, it's a total flop. Green is washed up. and may not survive it's own sales pitch.

Green has managed, in 100 years [it has been around that long], without providing more than 20-odd percent of the energy grid in the U.S. What are they waiting for? AlGoreGooeyJuice? No one has bothered inventing that, yet, and is probably not even on the drawing board, mostly because of the invalid excuse that crude oil it is not renewable, but it is, and always has been. We keep finding new reserves because the Earth just keeps making the stuff. Always has, always will. Who shut-off the process? We've had use of petro crude for about 132 years when Edward Doheney started producing it in L.A., starting with where Dodger Stadium now stands. The L.A.basin is full of the stuff. Being a child of L.A., I know that history very well. All fossil fuels now comprise about 65% of the energy grid. So, why does green lag behind in production? No innovation? No will, or just admission that it is a failed enterprise, along with the previous two excuses. No A.I. was used in the production of this post.

I replied to your #9 by my #11, doubting that yours was anything but A.I. rather than you.

Your #12 replied by repetition.

I repeated my #11 doubt, expecting a reasonable response.

Instead, you repeated your #12 with your #14.

How many times must you repeat yourself without admission that you insist on demonstrating AI's intel rather than your own, which, so far,demonstrates AI's lack of detail, but verbosity, anyway. I'm sure you can do better, but avoid doing so.

When John wrote Revelation back in the day, was there yet any Bible assembled? No! There were individual scrolls of texts, but no flippin' Bible. Get it? Even A.I. will admit that. John had to have been writing about Revelation, only, and he had no idea there would eventually be an assembled, printed full Bible, and that his book would be its last item, did he? However would he know that? His "curse" is for addition/subtraction to Revelation only. Nor did Moses know any better forDuetereonomy, and whatever other author may have made such warnings of altercation. Come on! I knew this in grade school. John tells us in Ch. 1, verse 4 to whom he is writing: "To the seven churches in the province of Asia..." That we can take advantage of his writing is near miraculous, as with any other ancient texts. Who knows what has bee lost?

What! I add nothing to the Bible. What do you think I have added, pray, tell?

Venezuela holds the world's largest proven oil reserves, 

And Venezuela has other natural features of interest to legal commerce [mineral deposits of iron, bauxite, gold] but what has that to do with this string? This is military/political connected to illicit commerce on which the US has, for decades, declared "war," only we have, until now not fought the good fight.

The key reason I believe you do not originate this flood of analysis, but that it is AI is because of lack of detail. Of the thousands of orchid varieties [there are about 26K natural species, and another 100K man-made, but those that produce vanilla beans are severel reduced; about 3.

Adding knowledge, yes

bla, bla

I repeat my #11

The smart elderly senior citizens stay at home for their safety.

Nope, not me. I live in and make use of a state allowing conceal/carry for my safety. And I'm 6'3", 210 lbs. Not many will compete with that for my "wallet," which is inaccessible in any event, and locked and must be destroyed to open without a digital key, thus destroying anything of value, and I carry little cash. I do get out, frequently, and have never been rolled or threatened.

Deduction is taking part from whole. What you do adds to something.

Need a dictionary? You're confusing "derive" with both "deduce," and "deduction." When one derives something, it is something obtained from a specified source. That is additive, not deductive. Just as "deduce" something is obtaining a fact or conclusion by reasoning, which is also additive, not defective. Please!

Deduction is taking part from whole. What you do adds to something.

Two disconnected comments. What if what you do is deductive? What is added, then?

Americans oppose a military intervention in Venezuela.

But the drug delivery boats are not in Venezuela, and there are Americans who declare they oppose any war, but are at war with Trump. They just cannot ignore the guy, which ought to be easy to do, but not even Repos running against him in the 24 primary, who vowed to ignore him, couldn't do it even though he was not even in the room. Hilarious. Why are so many people so fixated, their hate overrules common sense?

"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the skies, we shall never surrender."

This is a single sentence, not three. What you observe are three clauses, separated by two commas. And it is not an issue of "repetition;" it is using a poetic form in prose, a matter of meter and rhyme for emphasis.

You want to have some sentences talking of same topic, and some others talking about something different.

This is the primary purpose of paragraphing, or stanzas in poety

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/hu/show-me-where-bible-mentions-the-word-christianity?page=2&comment_number=31

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/hu/show-me-where-bible-mentions-the-word-christianity?page=2&comment_number=31

My friend, Satan Lucy, claims words do not have root words from which they derive. I present the Oxford English Dictionary with evidence of root words from which other words derive due to the OED's long standing tradition of providing the etymology of virtually every word in the lexicon of the English language. These are otherwise known as root words: according to the OED, "...etymology is a feature of the [OED} dictionary and historical tracing of a word's root words and their evolution."

Most dictionaries do not include this exhaustive study; thus, the OED, in. print, is 20 volumes using a 6-point font -- occupying about 2 linear feet on my library shelf -- not a single volume as is virtually every other English dictionary in existence. As a result, a word as simple as "salt" occupies 18 column inches to fully define and apply etymology.

Says who? You? Your credentials, pls. I have them and have cited them. You?

then everything is same and nothing is different.

Then you lack better understanding of linguistics. All languages have words derived from root words; this is not unique to Christ, Christian, and Christianity. But all languages do not have identical lexicons [word lists; i.e. dictionaries], and therefore, must make accommodations, often creating errors, when translating from one to another language, such as the seven words in Greek that separate the various details of the word in English, "love," which, in that latter language, requires additional adjectives and adverbs to describe what in Greek is given in seven separate, singular words, and that just addresses one word needing accurate translation, and didn't get it. Consider all the rest of the various lexicons crashing together.

At least Latin -- likely the first language into which Hebrew and Greek biblical texts were translated -- has three words, amor, caritas, cupido, to describe the lone English word, love, so that translation was more exacting. But by the time translation came in English, likely translated from Latin, first, and not Hebrew -- which has three words of its own for "love," "ahava," "hesed," "racham" -- or Greek, as noted above, the limitation is a single word which entirely misses intent in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Latin.

Then, beyond the language issues in translation, there is probable lack of full understanding of the cultural differences between the Hebrews, Romans, and modern Europeans, which hindered translation accuracy. from the fourth century, onward...

Point is, dictionary-to-dictionary translation is is a pathetic effort, even now, unless language and culture of all translation effort is accurately known by each translator; a monumental accomplishment. Even though I am as fluent in French [and I have lived in France for a few years] as in English, I would not call myself a translator even to that language. I have reading capability in Italian, Greek, and Egyptian Hieroglyphs, but, again, do not call myself a translator.

typically interwoven with mythical fantasy.

What you insist is mythical fantasy may just be a different perspective than we might expect from God, today. You call the creation story, or perhaps Noah and the flood and ark, or the Tower of Babel, let alone Jesus Christ as Son of God, and rightful King of Israel, and resurrected being in flesh and bone, as he was witnessed to be by many individuals.

As for creation, perhaps its description sounds like fantasy, but was God teaching physics or a perspective of creating order out of chaos, as organizing matter and not magic. Same for Noah, and Babel, and even the ministry of Christ, and a more valid understanding of an event, the atonement, that absolves Adam and Eve, so there is no "original sin," as well as us, who can be likewise absolved, but only by repentance which must be a change of heart to avoid repetitious sinning of the same sin, over and over, and that we must forgive others if we ever expect to be forgiven ourselves. That is a valid understanding of atonement, and that feature was not merely accomplished in Gethsemane and on the cross, but was likely an ongoing act by Christ over his entire mortality.

Linguistically, it is solid. Sorry, my Linguistics BA, one of five, earned in fall of 2024, says it is so.

Your justification? Personal opinion? You're allowed, but its worth is pffft.

per your #22:

Χριστός [Greek, “Christ”] is מָשִׁיחַ [Hebrew, “Mashiach” or "Mashiyach"], or English, “Messiah” is “Anointed one” in all three languages, from the verb, in all three languages, “anoint,” I.e., a ritual of consecration, as for a king. It is known that Mary, mother of Jesus, was a direct descendant of 13 generations from David, and was, by that lineage, in her generation, apparently, the only carrier of David's royal blood. Make of that what you will. Therefore, neither Χριστός, ,מָשִׁיחַ nor Messiah are corrupted titles as you allege. And, that annointing, is noted on several occasions during his life by several people, but one that is not mentioned as such early in his life is likely significant: shortrly after his birth by the three visting magi who came from the East with holy gifts meant for a king, including annointing oil

Further, In John, Chapter 4, Jesus leaves Judea and travels, apparently alone, to Galilee, and must go through Samaria, and entered a town called Sychar. There, he approaches Jacob's Well, to which a Samarian woman comes to draw water. They begin to discuss matters, and his words prompt her to call him a prophet. He laments that she knows not to whom she speaks. Further discussion [ >20 verses] prompts her to to say "I know that Messiah [מָשִׁיחַ or Χριστός] cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things." v25: "Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he." This is not only not later in Christianity, as you allege, but barely at the beginning of Christ's ministry.

That you discount the Bible as historic record is on you.