I asked you not to make Christians look stupid, yet you persist in that endeavor.
Why have you deflected from the original topic and launched instead into a general, shotgun defense of literal scripture instead? As I said in an earlier post, I have the utmost respect for those who believe the literal word of the Bible. Just don’t try to strengthen your weak faith by parading a farcical scientific rationalization.
The Bible is not a science text.
One more point: in your population growth example, do you realize that you used a formula for calculating annuity value? Your “mathematics” does not consider that people die, or that events like famines, plagues, etc. have a significant long term population effect.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, but you’re not alone. There are more than a few doubters like yourself who do their damnedest to make other Christians look stupid.
>>I asked you not to make Christians look stupid, yet you persist in that endeavor.
*********************************************
If you don’t want Christians to look stupid, then quit writing stupid things, or quit pretending to be a Christian.
>>Why have you deflected from the original topic and launched instead into a general, shotgun defense of literal scripture instead?
*********************************************
I have remained on topic. You have not.
David Gelernter (the ‘topic’) rejected Darwinism because there is no scientific evidence to support it; and he emphasized the fact that diehard Darwinists, like you, will resort to any argument, including ad hominems to, in his own words, “keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever . . . Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory, but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement for religion for the many troubled souls who need one.”
That is precisely my argument against your worldview.
>>As I said in an earlier post, I have the utmost respect for those who believe the literal word of the Bible.
*********************************************
You lack candor. You have shown no respect for those who do not bow down to your world view.
>>Just don’t try to strengthen your weak faith by parading a farcical scientific rationalization.”
*********************************************
Undecipherable gibberish.
>>The Bible is not a science text.
*********************************************
You are unlearned. The Bible is loaded with scientific facts.
>>One more point: in your population growth example, do you realize that you used a formula for calculating annuity value? Your “mathematics” does not consider that people die, or that events like famines, plagues, etc. have a significant long term population effect.
*********************************************
This is getting tedious. The solution for ‘rate of growth’ over a period of time is a simple mathmatical calculation that is well established. It goes like this:
GR = P(t) - P(t0)/(P(t0) * (t - t0))
>>You have no idea what you’re talking about, but you’re not alone. There are more than a few doubters like yourself who do their damnedest to make other Christians look stupid.
*********************************************
If you don’t want Christians to look stupid, then quit writing stupid things, or quit pretending to be a Christian. Either will work.
Mr. Kalamata
Before you pull your hair out trying to solve the formula I gave you in the previous post, you would do well to try this one first, using these variables:
k = growth rate
P = population
t = time
Population growth rate formula:
P1 = P0 * e^k(t1-t0)
Solve for k:
P1 /P0 = e^k*(t1-t0)
ln(P1/P0) = k * (t1-t0)
ln(P1/P0) / (t1-t0) = k
Famines, plagues, wars, etc., are irrelevant to the calculation. The growth rate is what it is.
Mr. Kalamata