I was defending my earlier logic (we don't know what's in Q, therefore we don't know what's not in it). Have you identified a flaw there?

I would prefer to earnestly cite Price, Carrier, Fitzgerald etc, but those citations are less convenient, especially for casual readers (clicking a link rather than obtaining books).

Disliking the style of rationalwiki seems insufficient reason to discount the clear assertions made, explained, and with original sources cited on that page.

Can you identify matters of factual error in that graphic I pointed at, or other material on that link?

I note this is the only comment you've made on the entire thread. I don't believe it moves us forward.