blipey
Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,12:54) | | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2011,10:13) | Something else you've never answered:
How did you derive the growth rate in your population equation? Surely you've had enough time to figure that out by now. If not, there are only a couple of conclusions to reach:
1. you have no idea where it came from so are blindly touting an equation that you don't know the meaning of.
2. you do know how it was derived and won't tell us because you think it might destroy your argument, but you think that pretending you're correct is more important than actually being correct.
Which is it? |
I dont pretend to know the exact growth rate at the beginning of time time as do the psuedoemperical evolutionists but I did provide growth rates estimated by these same evolutionists so what is your point? |
My point is that--including this comment--you have never told us how the growth rate was derived. Are you going to actually do that at any time? My point is that you have no idea what the growth rate used in your equation means. You have no idea where it came from. Yet this hasn't stopped you from backing your equation. It hasn't stopped you from saying that your equation (and specifically, the growth rate) is a very fair representation of reality. It's hard to imagine that this assessment can be true when you have no idea where it came from.
So, instead of telling us that you you have no idea what the exact growth rate was at the beginning of time, why don't you actually answer the question that was asked? Are you ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or all three?
I don't care what the growth rate was at the beginning of time. I never asked you what the growth rate was at the beginning of time. I don't believe anyone here has claimed to know what the growth rate at the beginning of time was.
So instead of sidestepping very easy questions that you have no answer for, how about trying to address things as they come?
Again, in the equation that you used, how was the growth rate derived? Why did you use that particular number? It's really a very easy question, almost trivial.
--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG
And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin
|
