Joined: Jan. 2009
|Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:16)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00)|
|Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,16:22)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,13:55)|
|You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005.|
It was Wesley in a TalkOrigins article.
Here's the muppet's comment, in all its magnificence:
|Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html|
Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate
I can't claim credit for the original, which is due to Mark Isaak. 'Forastero' incorrectly attributed it to me while taking exception to a perfectly well-formed mathematical equation.
The point had to do with the deceptive tone of the whole article, which btw was easily proved wrong.
Nonsense. The point had to do with your idiotic assertion that P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N represented a "much larger growth rate" than P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N. (If I wanted to demonstrate that a whole article was deceptive, I like to think I'd choose an illustration that was, you know, actually deceptive.)
You seem to think that a simple admission that you were wrong would damage your credibility. Trust me, in this case it would be the only way to salvage even a shred of it.
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes. I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it. Okay? So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L