The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

I don't see how adding the supportive audience (who were probably a mix of scientists, students and the lay-public, not just scientists) changes the equation, tbh. Even if they all agreed that some virus should kill 90% of humanity (WHICH THEY DIDN'T!!), what relevance does it have to evolutionary science or creationism? Is it a mass action effect?

I honestly don't see where you're going with this hypothetical example. Spell it out for me, please.

IF a hypothetical group of Evolutionists "agreed that some virus should kill 90% of humanity (WHICH THEY DIDN'T!!)".......then it would of course, be a significant statement!!!

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

IF a hypothetical group of Evolutionists "agreed that some virus should kill 90% of humanity (WHICH THEY DIDN'T!!)".......then it would of course, be a significant statement!!!

Could you be any more vague?! What is the significance of the statement with respect to evolutionary theory and creationism?

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

I am NOT supporting anything!!!

Can I point out that I have ALWAYS and REPEATEDLY emphasised that I DON'T know what Dr Pianka said.........

.......I am merely asking 2Scoops to answer his OWN question:-

what would be wrong anyway, "even if what he (Mims) said about Pianka were true?"

I apologise for that - you are indeed asking a hypothetical, and I shouldn't have taken it up as a defence of Mims' slander.

apologetically,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

I apologise for that - you are indeed asking a hypothetical, and I shouldn't have taken it up as a defence of Mims' slander.

apologetically,
Scofflaw

No need to apologise.......this thread has got so heated that mistakes can easily be made.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Could you be any more vague?! What is the significance of the statement with respect to evolutionary theory and creationism?

It would be very significant.....as the heated debate on this thread proves.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Robin, in the post that I'm referring to nowhere is Mims, nor wolfsbane mentioned. [...]What is one supposed to think? You don't mention the Mims / Pianka situation [...]

I presume you're referring to post 8199 in which Mims is mentioned by name -- please check it by clicking on the link. My post is hardlinked to Scofflaw's post 8197, which is itself hardlinked to wolfsbane's post 8195. I really think it's quite clear from the trail of posts, right next door to each other, exactly who and what I was referring to.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You are only speaking about the situation with the Bruin Alumni and their wish to expose the left leanings of the teaching staff at UCLA.

No, I wasn't only speaking about that. Did you read past the second sentence in post 8199 that you were initially annoyed at? The third sentence reads "I recall various reports over the last year or two that creationists in the USA were also at it, but can't locate the reports at the moment.". Just for clarity's sake, I spelled out exactly what I was implying in the last sentence of my previous post.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The inference is that the Bruin Alumni group are Christians who are paying people to expose the political leanings of UCLA professors.

I have not suggested this, and neither do I think it. What I have said quite clearly is that (a) a republican has offered students money to incriminate teachers and (b) I have seen reports that creationists have offered money to students to incriminate teachers.

At no point have I claimed, suggested or insinuated that "Bruin Alumni group are Christians" and I'm quite surprised at the level of irritation that you've reached in response to something I did not write.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you find any of us advocating we cull 90% of humanity - and that was the basis of Demski's report to the State - then it would be your duty to report it.

And was it you, wolfsbane -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- who said that over 90% of humanity will end up burning in the flames of hell for all eternity because they don't believe the correct version of christianity? Should I report you (or the actual poster, if it wasn't you) to the police for holding this belief?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Don't you think you and Robin are guilty of stark hypocrisy when you accuse me of bearing false witness because I report a public statement [...] I pointed to the report, and the various responses were there for all to assess. The only slander involved was either by Mims or Pianka.

If you pass on a lie yourself, or pass on a slander yourself, then you are "bearing false witness". It's really as simple as that.

And while we're close to the topic of the freedom of speech, it's perhaps worth bearing in mind Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' comments:

Oliver Wendell Homes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

And whether Mims was right to report in the inflammatory manner he did -- regardless of the rights and wrongs -- knowing full well that there have been cases over the last few years of creationists delivering death threats to professors of biology, and of university lecturers being assaulted?

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

It would be very significant.....as the heated debate on this thread proves.

No heat coming from here, I can assure you! But your evasive answers have piqued my interest immensely - in what way would it be very significant to evolutionary science and creationism?

I'm going to have to ask you to be a little more specific, if you'll indulge me, because this answer is equally as vague as the first!

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

It would be very significant.....as the heated debate on this thread proves.

Um, no. The heat is generated by the question of slander and false witness.

What 2Scoops is asking is entirely separate to that - if an evolutionary scientist were to stand up in public and advocate the culling of 90% of humanity, what bearing would that have on the scientific correctness of the Theory of Evolution?

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

I regret speaking to you. I think I will cease to do so until I can do so civilly again.

Be glad to hear from you, when you recover your civility - or even without it. You normally have something sensible to say.

wolfsbane

2Scoops said:

Anyway, even if what he said about Pianka were true, what exactly would have been your point??

I return to this point, having read you in more detail. I wasn't making any point, just indicating to sdep (post 8137) that others were developing ideas on the subject he raised:
Science shows that ours is a still evolving species that shares common ancestry with all others and that has existed for a minute fraction of time since the Big Bang. Our evolution owes much to random mutation and chance extinction, and has been driven by a selective process working largely through competition, often bloodily so.

All of this ought to raise questions over religious claims concerning the unique status of humans, our centrality in a divine plan, and sin, soul and divine compassion. I'm not saying people can't find a way to accommodate science and religion, just that they ought to think it through. [Underling mine].

Others are indeed questioning the Biblical picture of man as unique, above the animals.

So, to answer your query, No, if Pianka said what he was accused of, it would not impact the theory of evolution at all. It would only show how acceptance of the theory opens the door to a very cheapened view of man.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

2Scoops said:

I return to this point, having read you in more detail. I wasn't making any point, just indicating to sdep (post 8137) that others were developing ideas on the subject he raised:
Science shows that ours is a still evolving species that shares common ancestry with all others and that has existed for a minute fraction of time since the Big Bang. Our evolution owes much to random mutation and chance extinction, and has been driven by a selective process working largely through competition, often bloodily so.

All of this ought to raise questions over religious claims concerning the unique status of humans, our centrality in a divine plan, and sin, soul and divine compassion. I'm not saying people can't find a way to accommodate science and religion, just that they ought to think it through. [Underling mine].

Others are indeed questioning the Biblical picture of man as unique, above the animals.

So, to answer your query, No, if Pianka said what he was accused of, it would not impact the theory of evolution at all. It would only show how acceptance of the theory opens the door to a very cheapened view of man.

Man is nothing special.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

And was it you, wolfsbane -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- who said that over 90% of humanity will end up burning in the flames of hell for all eternity because they don't believe the correct version of christianity?

I could quibble about the inclusion of the unborn and infants negating that figure - but if were are speaking about responsible young people and adults, then you are correct.

Should I report you (or the actual poster, if it wasn't you) to the police for holding this belief?

Only if holding such a view of the after-life is a crime. Maybe you think it is?

If you pass on a lie yourself, or pass on a slander yourself, then you are "bearing false witness". It's really as simple as that.

As I pointed out, I did not simply pass on the accusation as fact, but gave everyone access to the controversy. Am I inclined to believe Mims over Pianka? - Yes. But do I know for sure who is telling the truth? - No. And neither do you.

In fact, you will note my exact original post on the matter:
Seems you have company in your deliberations: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_...e1p/index.html

Note that first word - Seems. Then it was over to sdep and anyone interested to check it out for themselves.

And while we're close to the topic of the freedom of speech, it's perhaps worth bearing in mind Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' comments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Wendell Homes
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Indeed, no one has the right to shout 'Fire' in a theatre - unless there really is a fire.

You want to condemn Mims - and me for pointing to his report - for a malicious 'Fire' call. But that is to beg the question. Was he lying, or was he responding to a real fire?

As I have indicated many times previously, you guys seem awfully fond of determining the outcome beforehand and wanting to gag anyone to the contrary.

And whether Mims was right to report in the inflammatory manner he did -- regardless of the rights and wrongs -- knowing full well that there have been cases over the last few years of creationists delivering death threats to professors of biology, and of university lecturers being assaulted?

So if it had been a creationist conference advocating the extermination of, say, 90% of scientists, you would say it should not be publically exposed?

When people make outrageous statements, shine the light on them. Let the Law deal with both their prosecution and protection.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Man is nothing special.

So you would have no problem backing a cull - even up to 90% - if this would be good for the enviroment? Just as we cull other animals, for the wider interests of them and the enviroment.

Seems we are getting somewhere in this debate.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you would have no problem backing a cull - even up to 90% - if this would be good for the enviroment? Just as we cull other animals, for the wider interests of them and the enviroment.

Seems we are getting somewhere in this debate.

Did i say that? I just don't see man as having this 'special' place in the world.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Did i say that? I just don't see man as having this 'special' place in the world.

So what objection can you have to Pianka's (alleged) cull? Why discriminate against the deer, moose, elephants, etc?

It is certainly the view of Painka and many leaders of this world that there are at least 5 Billion too many of us for our own good and that of the enviroment. I'll support that with references if anyone doubts it.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

So what objection can you have to Pianka's (alleged) cull? Why discriminate against the deer, moose, elephants, etc?

It is certainly the view of Pianka and many leaders of this world that there are at least 5 Billion too many of us for our own good and that of the enviroment. I'll support that with references if anyone doubts it.

Sorry, you're confusing yourself here. Is it an allegation or a fact?

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Um, no. The heat is generated by the question of slander and false witness.

What 2Scoops is asking is entirely separate to that - if an evolutionary scientist were to stand up in public and advocate the culling of 90% of humanity, what bearing would that have on the scientific correctness of the Theory of Evolution?

cordially,
Scofflaw

OK, let's take the above hypothetical scenario.

It would have NO effect on the scientific invalidity of Evolution.

However, we could validly speculate that the scientist's belief in Evolution was 'informing' his view that it is morally acceptable to cull most of Humanity.......

Indeed, IF Materialistic Evolution IS true then Makind IS 'nothing special'......and there is therefore no moral imperative to value Human life above any other lifeform.....
.....so if we selectively cull animals .....we could selectively cull Humans
.....if we selectively breed animals .....we could selectively breed Humans
...and if we euthenase sick animals....we could also euthenase Humans

.....so the concept of Human murder becomes severely debased.....and killing a rare Beetle could become Insect 'murder'.....possibly even with life imporisonment or execution being the penalty for any person who killed the insect.
We could even envisage 'shoot to kill' policies being implemented if somebody were to physically threaten a rare organism ....once Human life is deemed to be equivalent to all other life.

......the mass murder of 90% of Humanity also becomes morally possible....if, for example, the future of the biosphere is thought to be at risk from over-population.....just like any other 'pest' would be 'controlled' if it had reached 'unacceptable' levels.

.....so not only is Evolution scientifically untrue.....but it's logical moral outworking COULD open a 'Pandoras Box' of nightmare scenarios.

Scofflaw

Leaving aside those issues and claims that make me unnecessarily hot under the collar, I'll address some of the logical leaps in your argument.

J C wrote: »

Indeed, IF Materialistic Evolution IS true then Makind IS 'nothing special'......and there is therefore no moral imperative to value Human life above any other lifeform.....

Why so? We're human - is that not sufficient reason for us to value human life over other forms?

J C wrote: »

.....so if we selectively cull animals .....we could selectively cull Humans
.....if we selectively breed animals .....we could selectively breed Humans
...and if we euthenase sick animals....we could also euthenase Humans

Well, no, because we cull animals, and selectively breed them, for the benefit of humans. Mind you, we do have a long history of catching, caging, and selectively breeding other "races" of humans - but fortunately, evolutionary theory and genetics make it clear that "other races" are just as human as us.

J C wrote: »

.....so the concept of Human murder becomes severely debased.....and killing a rare Beetle could become Insect 'murder'.....possibly even with life imporisonment or execution being the penalty for any person who killed the insect.
We could even envisage 'shoot to kill' policies being implemented if somebody were to physically threaten a rare organism ....once Human life is deemed to be equivalent to all other life.

What you've actually done there is simply turned things upside down, so you get a situation in which a human life is less valuable than that of the beetle, not equal.

J C wrote: »

......the mass murder of 90% of Humanity also becomes morally possible....if, for example, the future of the biosphere is thought to be at risk from over-population.....just like any other 'pest' would be 'controlled' if it had reached 'unacceptable' levels.

.....so not only is Evolution scientifically untrue.....but it's logical moral outworking COULD open a 'Pandoras Box' of nightmare scenarios.

If you make certain assumptions, as you have done, and have certain built-in biases, as you do...I am generally glad that Creationists believe an omnipotent God judges their actions, for exactly that reason - that removal of that restraint from people who think that way probably would open up a Pandora's Box.

You'd need to work a lot harder to tease out the ramifications of actual human equality with other organisms, rather than just turning the pyramid upside down as you've done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Why so? We're human - is that not sufficient reason for us to value human life over other forms?

2Scoops hypothetical Evolutionary Scientist WAS Human......but he WASN'T valuing Human life over other life-forms when he was advocating the mass murder of 90% of Humanity!!!!
......and IF Humans are 'nothing special'.........then the hypothetical Evolutionary Scientist WOULD have logic on his side in his value judgement.....that Humans are just as expendible as other organisms!!!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, no, because we cull animals, and selectively breed them, for the benefit of humans. Mind you, we do have a long history of catching, caging, and selectively breeding other "races" of humans - but fortunately, evolutionary theory and genetics make it clear that "other races" are just as human as us.

The proposed genocide of 90% of the Human popluation may not be racially motivated in the hypothetical example cited.....but it would still be just as deadly for those affected whatever its motivation.
What ultimately protects Humans from themselves is the widely held belief that Humans are 'special lifeforms'....and this is expressed by society in moral taboos and laws that outlaw the intentional taking of innocent Human life.....whatever the circumstances......and once this principle is set aside.....then almost ANYTHING is possible.
A widely held belief that Humans are NOT 'special lifeforms' greatly increases the risk that the intentional taking of innocent Human life will become a legally allowable reality....once the circumstances are perceived to justify it.

Scofflaw wrote: »

What you've actually done there is simply turned things upside down, so you get a situation in which a human life is less valuable than that of the beetle, not equal.

Human life WOULD be equal to Insect life in my example...
....I said that "killing a rare Beetle could become Insect 'murder'.....possibly even with life imprisonment or execution being the penalty for any person who killed the insect."

......so the person killing the insect would receive exactly the same punishment for killing a rare insect as for killing a Human Being.

....and on the same basis of species EQUALITY I also concluded that...
"We could even envisage 'shoot to kill' policies being implemented if somebody were to physically threaten a rare organism ....once Human life is deemed to be equivalent to all other life."

The principle of equality doesn't rule out that in particular circumstances, Human life might be deemed to be MORE valuable than some other species.....but once Humans are deemed to be 'nothing special'......there is no moral imperative to value Human life significantly above any other lifeform....and in certain circumstances Human life could be deemed to be even be LESS valuable than other species....
......and the mass murder of 90% of Humanity COULD become morally and legally possible....if, for example, the future of the biosphere was perceived to be at serious risk of collapse from over-population.....just like any other 'pest' would be 'controlled' if it had reached 'unacceptable' or 'imbalanced' levels.

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

2Scoops hypothetical Evolutionary Scientist WAS Human......but he WASN'T valuing Human life over other life-forms when he was advocating the mass murder of 90% of Humanity!!!!
......and IF Humans are 'nothing special'.........then the hypothetical Evolutionary Scientist WOULD have logic on his side in his value judgement.....that Humans are just as expendible as other organisms!!!

I'm just going to point out that this discussion must not involve unsupported allegation, which has not been even been tested in court because the 'witness' will not stand over it on oath. Even couched as a "hypothetical evolutionary scientist", this remains a serious allegation which has resulted in death threats, and it is quite obvious who the "hypothetical evolutionary scientist" is.

By repeating the allegation you continue to endanger the lives of a real evolutionary scientist and his family.

Your claim is that you value human life more than an evolutionist? Well, it's hard to see that claim as worth debating with you if you're going to make it obvious that you frankly don't give a sh1t about people. This is not a joke - this is the repetition of life-threatening slander to score debating points, and it is not acceptable.

I have no problem debating what it means if someone calls for the culling of the human race, but I'm not going to do it under when the person under the lightly fictionalised cover of "hypothetical evolutionary scientist" has been genuinely endangered by a Creationist's allegation that he has done such a thing.

completely serious,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

@ J C/Wolfsbane...


Unfortunately for your rather under-developed arguments, humans are not insects or other animals. We have developed to a more advanced degree (though not in every way, of course). We have higher emotional and intellectual capabilities and can experience empathy, sympathy, love, affection and other higher thought processes moreso than other animals.

My opinion would be that humans are superior to other life forms. Just not because we have been specially chosen by a higher being; rather that we have simply developed that way.

Your argument, therefore, is an illogical reductio ad absurdum, if I can go all Tim Robbins for a minute.

However, I echo Scofflaw's relief that people like you do indeed believe we are special because of God, since that is all that appears to be stopping you from going on a mass 'culling' spree.

JustHalf

Over four hundred pages later, and what has been achieved? Perhaps this is distracting you from far more pressing issues?

2Scoops

JustHalf wrote: »

Over four hundred pages later, and what has been achieved? Perhaps this is distracting you from far more pressing issues?

It depends on what you consider an achievement.

I think I speak for more than myself when I say I've taken great enjoyment from this thread at times. Other times, less so, but at least it's never been boring.

I hope that the friction that exists between a small element of Christianity and scientific advances never becomes a more 'pressing issue' than it already is.

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm just going to point out that this discussion must not involve unsupported allegation, which has not been even been tested in court because the 'witness' will not stand over it on oath. Even couched as a "hypothetical evolutionary scientist", this remains a serious allegation which has resulted in death threats, and it is quite obvious who the "hypothetical evolutionary scientist" is.

By repeating the allegation you continue to endanger the lives of a real evolutionary scientist and his family.

Your claim is that you value human life more than an evolutionist? Well, it's hard to see that claim as worth debating with you if you're going to make it obvious that you frankly don't give a sh1t about people. This is not a joke - this is the repetition of life-threatening slander to score debating points, and it is not acceptable.

I have no problem debating what it means if someone calls for the culling of the human race, but I'm not going to do it under when the person under the lightly fictionalised cover of "hypothetical evolutionary scientist" has been genuinely endangered by a Creationist's allegation that he has done such a thing.

completely serious,
Scofflaw

YOU framed the debate around a HYPOTHETICAL Evolutionist.......
YOU asked the following question:_
"What 2Scoops is asking is entirely separate to that - if an evolutionary scientist were to stand up in public and advocate the culling of 90% of humanity, what bearing would that have on the scientific correctness of the Theory of Evolution?"
...and I answered your question.......

......and both you and I agree it is a totally separate issue ......to "who said what" at a science conference!!!

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

@ J C/Wolfsbane...
Unfortunately for your rather under-developed arguments, humans are not insects or other animals. We have developed to a more advanced degree (though not in every way, of course). We have higher emotional and intellectual capabilities and can experience empathy, sympathy, love, affection and other higher thought processes moreso than other animals.

I ALSO believe that Mankind IS very special.....physically, emotionally and spiritually......the only creature physically created by God.

It is Evolutionists, in general, who believe that Man is 'nothing special'.....for example the following quote from daithifleming, couldn't be any clearer:
"Man is nothing special".

...so there is a fundamental conflict within the 'Evolutionist mindset' between what any objective observer would conclude...
......to use your own words that "humans are not insects or other animals. We have developed to a more advanced degree (though not in every way, of course). We have higher emotional and intellectual capabilities and can experience empathy, sympathy, love, affection and other higher thought processes moreso than other animals."....and daithi's stated belief (which is equally held by most Evolutionists) that "Man is nothing special".

2Scoops wrote: »

@ My opinion would be that humans are superior to other life forms. Just not because we have been specially chosen by a higher being; rather that we have simply developed that way.

.....so we ARE 'something special' then......?????

2Scoops wrote: »

@ However, I echo Scofflaw's relief that people like you do indeed believe we are special because of God, since that is all that appears to be stopping you from going on a mass 'culling' spree.

ALL of the resraints on such an outcome which undoubtedly restrain Evolutionists would equally apply to Creationists PLUS their belief that God created Man as a special being and commands that innocent life should never be taken......so when it comes to the possibility of mass culling, the Creationist has a 'belt and braces' preventing him going down that route......while the Materialitic Evolutionist possesses a 'pair of braces'!!!:D

....of course individuals, of all beliefs and none have killed innocent Humans.....and society has dealt swiftly with such lawbreaking.........but IF society itself moves to a position that Humans are 'nothing special' ......and especially if it legally allows the taking of ANY innocent Human life.....then a very important barrier on the taking of innocent Human life will have been breached.......

Ciaran500

J C wrote: »

the only creature physically created by God.

He didn't create animals?

J C

Originally Posted by J C
the only creature physically created by God.

Ciaran500 wrote: »

He didn't create animals?

He formed Adam directly from the dust of the Earth.....and He formed Eve directly from Adam's rib ......
.....and He commanded all other creatures into existence by His word.

......so God was (physically) close up and personal with Mankind......but somewhat distant from the rest of Creation!!:)

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

YOU framed the debate around a HYPOTHETICAL Evolutionist.......and as the conclusions apply to ALL people who believe that Human life is 'nothing special'....and there are millions of them, I think you are over-reacting by claiming that their lives will be threatened by anything......with the possible exception of something devised or supported by themselves that gets out of control!!!!

YOU asked the following question:_
"What 2Scoops is asking is entirely separate to that - if an evolutionary scientist were to stand up in public and advocate the culling of 90% of humanity, what bearing would that have on the scientific correctness of the Theory of Evolution?"
...and I answered your question.......

.....the fact that the answer may be unpalatable to you doesn't mean that you now can retreat into what BOTH you and I agree is a totally separate issue ......of "who said what" at a science conference!!!

It's the "was", in your post rather than anything else:

"2Scoops hypothetical Evolutionary Scientist WAS Human......but he WASN'T valuing Human life over other life-forms when he was advocating the mass murder of 90% of Humanity!!!"

In the context of what has been said about a specific named evolutionary scientist, that's too close to simple repetition of the slander in question. I know I'm being picky, but it's a serious matter.

Keep it in the subjunctive!

perhaps too seriously,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's the "was", in your post rather than anything else:

"2Scoops hypothetical Evolutionary Scientist WAS Human......but he WASN'T valuing Human life over other life-forms when he was advocating the mass murder of 90% of Humanity!!!"

In the context of what has been said about a specific named evolutionary scientist, that's too close to simple repetition of the slander in question. I know I'm being picky, but it's a serious matter.

Keep it in the subjunctive!

It WAS in the subjective.........
My point was that 2Scoops 'hypothetical scientist' was obviously Human ...but this DIDN'T stop him (hypothetically) valuing Human life LOWER than other life-forms when he (hypothetically) advocated the killing of 90% of Humanity......and I gave a reason why that might (hypothetically) be the case.....

.....could I also point out that it was yourself and 2Scoops (and NOT me) who introduced this 'hypothetical Evolutionist Scientist'....in the first place......
.....so you asked a hypothetical question.....and I answered it hypothetically.......

........did you ACTUALLY want an answer ....or was your question rhetorical as well as hypothetical???!!!:D:)