A Friend

That is an amazing choice you have made to spend an eternity consciously aware of your wrong choice in hell. It's not the choice I would have made.

9/24/2007 2:04:42 AM

David B.

A Friend wrote:

#310208: “Many tims has it already been said one example of an exponential pogression in conscience is today child sacrifices are not so prevalent in society as they once were”

#310999: ”You don't need to publish numbers, except know in historical documents it was significant then and is not the case now. […]If the drop of child sacrifices was linear and not exponential, then there would still be quite a significant number of child sacrifices now, but you don't find that to be the case.”

#311065: “You don't need numbers listened; all you need know is it was prevalent before, and today virtually non-existent. Such non-existence can not be arrived at by a linear equation but requires an exponential improvement.”

#312648: “In the exponential progression of conscience and drop in child sacrifices it is not just two points you assumed, but there has been a slow drop from 2000 to 1000 BC, steeper from 1000 to 0 BC and for the last 2000 years virtually straight up.”


#312690:Yes, it is true, from 2000 to 1000 BC child sacrifices dropped slowly. Then from 1000 BC to 0 BC they dropped more rapidly. Then from 0 BC to today it is vertually a curve straight up or straight down depending on which end of the line you are looking from.”[/i]

It is now possible to reconstruct ‘A Friend’s graph. The graph starts at some point in the past (called ‘then’) where child sacrifices where ‘prevalent’ (i.e. some large number). Between 2000 BC and 1000 BC there is a slow drop, between 1000 BC and ‘0’ BC there is a steeper drop, until at ‘now’ the figure is virtually non-existent (i.e. close to zero), the curve is also known to be exponential.



The exponential progression in this case is from a slow drop, to a steeper drop (-2000 to -1000), to a still steeper drop (-1000 to 0), to a still even steeper drop (0 to 1000), to a still even more steeper drop (1000 to 2000), at which point the number of child sacrifices is ‘virtually non-existent’. Clearly such a trend much soon cross into negative numbers of child sacrifices.

A Friend wrote:

#311319: “If the linear drop is too steep it will go negative which is impossible, hence it is not linear considering the virtually zero child sacrifices today, yet there is still some remnant of it.”

#312648: “And any fractional child that never over time becomes one child can be deemed as no more child sacrifices unlike your linear theory where you have negative child sacrifices. That's impossible.”

The exponential trend described by AF is, in his own words, impossible.


#310208: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=3
#310999: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=4
#311065: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=4
#311319: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=5
#312648: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=9
#312690: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=9

9/24/2007 6:41:18 AM

David B.

A Friend wrote:

"In antiquity they did not count the year zero, but we do today. Which just have to take this into account. For obviously, 1 minus -1 equals 2."

Irrelevant, as today we use the Gregorian calendar, which has no year zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zero

Year zero is used in astronomical dates (it corresponds to 1 B.C), but such dates are not designated A.D. or B.C. as yours were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_year_numbering

9/24/2007 6:53:24 AM

A Friend

David B.,

Your chart is wrong. It should be concave not convex, obviously, since you can't have negative child sacrifices. Try again. Step 1 remains unchallenged.

In our side discussion about no year zero, this is already taken into account. As far as straight math goes 1 minus -1 is always equal to 2 even though the calenders don't follow that math. That's how people think today in terms of math.

9/24/2007 8:20:14 AM

A Friend

David B.,

Your straight line though goes straight down into negative child sacrifices. That's impossible. Plus, if you want it to stop at zero, you can't hold the doublestandard in your chart, even though your chart is wrong, so you will have to deal with your doublemindedness here.

9/24/2007 8:25:01 AM

David B.

"Your chart is wrong. It should be concave not convex, obviously, since you can't have negative child sacrifices."

No, it can't be concave because you said

#312648: "In the exponential progression of conscience and drop in child sacrifices it is not just two points you assumed, but there has been a slow drop from 2000 to 1000 BC, steeper from 1000 to 0 BC."

On a concave graph at no point could graph get steeper as you says it does from 1000 BC to '0' BC. So a 'concave' graph is incorrect because it does not match the decline in child sacrifices you posted. Only a my 'convex' graph is both exponential and steeper from 1000 BC to 0 than from 2000 BC to 1000 BC.

9/24/2007 8:36:41 AM

David B.

A Friend wrote:

#310208: “Many tims has it already been said one example of an exponential pogression in conscience is today child sacrifices are not so prevalent in society as they once were”

#310999: ”You don't need to publish numbers, except know in historical documents it was significant then and is not the case now. […]If the drop of child sacrifices was linear and not exponential, then there would still be quite a significant number of child sacrifices now, but you don't find that to be the case.”

#311065: “You don't need numbers listened; all you need know is it was prevalent before, and today virtually non-existent. Such non-existence can not be arrived at by a linear equation but requires an exponential improvement.”

#312648: “In the exponential progression of conscience and drop in child sacrifices it is not just two points you assumed, but there has been a slow drop from 2000 to 1000 BC, steeper from 1000 to 0 BC and for the last 2000 years virtually straight up.”

#312690:Yes, it is true, from 2000 to 1000 BC child sacrifices dropped slowly. Then from 1000 BC to 0 BC they dropped more rapidly. Then from 0 BC to today it is vertually a curve straight up or straight down depending on which end of the line you are looking from.”[/i]

It is now possible to reconstruct ‘A Friend’s graph. The graph starts at some point in the past (called ‘then’) where child sacrifices where ‘prevalent’ (i.e. some large number). Between 2000 BC and 1000 BC there is a slow drop, between 1000 BC and ‘0’ BC there is a steeper drop, until at ‘now’ the figure is virtually non-existent (i.e. close to zero), the curve is also known to be exponential.



The exponential progression in this case is from a slow drop, to a steeper drop (-2000 to -1000), to a still steeper drop (-1000 to 0), to a still even steeper drop (0 to 1000), to a still even more steeper drop (1000 to 2000), at which point the number of child sacrifices is ‘virtually non-existent’. Clearly such a trend must soon cross into negative numbers of child sacrifices.

A Friend wrote:

#311319: “If the linear drop is too steep it will go negative which is impossible, hence it is not linear considering the virtually zero child sacrifices today, yet there is still some remnant of it.”

#312648: “And any fractional child that never over time becomes one child can be deemed as no more child sacrifices unlike your linear theory where you have negative child sacrifices. That's impossible.”

The exponential trend described by AF is, in his own words, impossible.


#310208: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=3
#310999: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=4
#311065: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=4
#311319: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=5
#312648: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=9
#312690: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=9

9/24/2007 8:37:07 AM

David B.

"Your straight line though goes straight down into negative child sacrifices. That's impossible."

This is the chart you described. exponential (#311065) with a slow drop from 2000 to 1000 BC, steeper from 1000 to 0 BC (#312648).

Post #314059 will be added to the list of your comments where you confirm the exponential progression you described is impossible.

9/24/2007 8:57:00 AM

A Friend

David B.,

You drew the chart wrong. On the vertical axis is the rate of child sacrifices per capita, not a total number. And the chart should be concave not convex.

You are always misreading.

9/24/2007 9:19:29 AM

David B.

"You drew the chart wrong. On the vertical axis is the rate of child sacrifices per capita, not a total number. And the chart should be concave not convex."

No, because you said in #310999 "If the drop of child sacrifices was linear and not exponential, then there would still be quite a significant number of child sacrifices now, but you don't find that to be the case." so it is the drop in the number of child sacrifices that you said is exponential.

Also in #312690 you said "from 2000 to 1000 BC child sacrifices dropped slowly. Then from 1000 BC to 0 BC they dropped more rapidly". So it is the drop in the number of child sacrifices that steepened.

9/24/2007 9:33:38 AM

David B.

A Friend wrote:

#310208: “Many tims has it already been said one example of an exponential pogression in conscience is today child sacrifices are not so prevalent in society as they once were”

#310999: ”You don't need to publish numbers, except know in historical documents it was significant then and is not the case now. […]If the drop of child sacrifices was linear and not exponential, then there would still be quite a significant number of child sacrifices now, but you don't find that to be the case.”

#311065: “You don't need numbers listened; all you need know is it was prevalent before, and today virtually non-existent. Such non-existence can not be arrived at by a linear equation but requires an exponential improvement.”

#312648: “In the exponential progression of conscience and drop in child sacrifices it is not just two points you assumed, but there has been a slow drop from 2000 to 1000 BC, steeper from 1000 to 0 BC and for the last 2000 years virtually straight up.”

#312690:Yes, it is true, from 2000 to 1000 BC child sacrifices dropped slowly. Then from 1000 BC to 0 BC they dropped more rapidly. Then from 0 BC to today it is vertually a curve straight up or straight down depending on which end of the line you are looking from.”[/i]

It is now possible to reconstruct ‘A Friend’s graph. The graph starts at some point in the past (called ‘then’) where child sacrifices where ‘prevalent’ (i.e. some large number). Between 2000 BC and 1000 BC there is a slow drop, between 1000 BC and ‘0’ BC there is a steeper drop, until at ‘now’ the figure is virtually non-existent (i.e. close to zero), the curve is also known to be exponential.



The exponential progression in this case is from a slow drop, to a steeper drop (-2000 to -1000), to a still steeper drop (-1000 to 0), to a still even steeper drop (0 to 1000), to a still even more steeper drop (1000 to 2000), at which point the number of child sacrifices is ‘virtually non-existent’. Clearly such a trend must soon cross into negative numbers of child sacrifices.

A Friend wrote:

#311319: “If the linear drop is too steep it will go negative which is impossible, hence it is not linear considering the virtually zero child sacrifices today, yet there is still some remnant of it.”

#312648: “And any fractional child that never over time becomes one child can be deemed as no more child sacrifices unlike your linear theory where you have negative child sacrifices. That's impossible.”

#314057: ”you can't have negative child sacrifices”

#314059: ”Your straight line though goes straight down into negative child sacrifices. That's impossible.”

The exponential trend described by AF is, in his own words, impossible.


#310208: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=3
#310999: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=4
#311065: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=4
#311319: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=5
#312648: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=9
#312690: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=9
#314057: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=13
#314059: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=13

9/24/2007 9:34:06 AM

David B.

In fact a per-capita graph would make no difference, the requirements (that it be exponential and steeper between 1000BC and 0 than between 2000BC and 1000BC) would still lead to a negative per-capita rate in the near future.

A negative per-capita rate multiplied by any population size greater than zero would equal a negative number of child sacrifices and 'A Friend's exponential progression would be according to him impossible.

9/24/2007 9:43:32 AM

A Friend

David B.,

The drop in the number of child sacrifices is exponential, but not as you depicted on the chart, for obviously it can't go negative, and your linear assumption denies the data we have for antinquity compared to what has happened in the past 2000 years. As well, linearity requires it go negative, which is impossible too.

Let me help you reason this out with this chart:



As you continue to reproduce a faulty chart I am happy to continue to point out to you why it is wrong.

A concave chart would never go negative. You are witnessing right before your eyes a concave chart. Praise the Lord!

On your chart, it would be true if it was concave, so it would never go negative, and on the vertical access if it was the rate of change of decrease in child births, not absolute numbers as you have erroneously displayed, but the rate of change on a concave chart (not convex).

Alas, I am repeating myself and you are not responding to this. My prayer is you not continue to shut your mind down.

As you can see it is always wrong to base your argument on misreading and misrepresenting. That will not do.

9/24/2007 4:10:21 PM

A Friend

That first chart is here:

9/24/2007 4:11:06 PM

A Friend

That looks like a cross that cut right through on the chart of an eternity of the past of cause and effects, because the exponentially progression of conscience disallows it which reflects the cross, God said He would not always allow sin to continue. You would not still be sinning by now if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects.

The non-Chistian lives in a world where there will be murder and strife in a million years from now and this is without hope, but according to God's design this is impossible as we observe in real-time the exponential progression of conscience and the fact that nothing in nature is without a cause.

9/24/2007 4:32:28 PM

A Friend

Don't blame the Christian who knows you are going to hell. That's not taking responsibility for yourself. Nobody is to blame but you for calling Jesus a liar.

9/24/2007 6:30:26 PM

A Friend

Just know it is not too late for you to be saved. Until you breath your last breath, you can still be born-again.

9/24/2007 6:42:54 PM

A Friend

Hallelujah!

9/24/2007 6:45:24 PM

A Friend

Praise the Lord! Thankyou Jesus!

9/24/2007 6:49:13 PM

Rime



SUMMARY


Discussion of Troy Brooks' Four Step Perfect Proof between Troy "A Friend" Brooks and myself.



Page 3 #310726
Rime

* Conceded that we aren't as barbaric as we used to be.
* Quipped that we fornicate more because of premarital sex, same sex couples and common law relationships, which are on the rise.
* Effemanism is also rampant because to him, posing as a member of the opposite sex, common on Unreal Tournament servers and World of Warcraft is also sinning.
* Mentioned that since abortion is murder to him, that we often hear from fundies about making a "sacrifice to the god of selfishness."
* Stated that it is the new child sacrifice, according to his worldview.
* Demonstrated that with these sins, global conscience isn't on an exponential rise and thus, step 1 fails. Step 2 depends on Step 1 and isn't necessary. Step 3 doesn't apply. Made the mistake of mentioning Gary Habermas proving Jesus existed.
* Quipped also that ignorance would give greater fear of God in the past, so the saved then would likely be just as close to being sinless then as they are now.

Page 3 #310766
Troy

* Troy tried to quip that the saved approach sinlessness faster, mainly because Christians have the most charities.
* Said that "effeminites" argument is debunked because we would have needed to have WoW back then to compare it to.
* Compared fornication to polygamy and says that it's not acceptable anymore.
* Said abortion point is invalid because we would need to have abortion back then to compare it.
* Said that technology has helped prove God exists with the usual "intelligent design" argument.
* Stated the other three steps are intact.
* Took my analogy for Step 3 literally and told me I was wandering off topic.
* Gave background on Gary Habermas.


Page 4 #310802
Rime

* Said his argument against effemanism fails because sin is sin.
* Stated that the apples and oranges analogy fails because according to the Bible, sin is sin and therefore doesn't matter. Added that false Christians abound, so every sex act is an act of sin.
* Stated also that abortion is a sacrifice to the "god of lifestyle."
* Added that Gary Habermas sounded like he had a pretty emo experience in his conversion.

Page 4 #310811
Rime

* Said I forgot some points in the last comment, so I added them.
* Stated that because there was an obesity epidemic, gluttony is on the rise.
* Asked for additional proof aside from Gary Habermas for the supernatural.

Page 4 #310835
Troy

* Repeated that "modern sins" would need to have identical counterparts. Tries to use a "per capita" argument.
* States that it only seems like it's more common because we have more people.
* Stated that homosexuality rates are down.
* States also that In the bible, whole cities were destroyed because of gay people.
* Said child sacrifice cannot be compared to abortion because the technology wasn't available.
* Said that I didn't address Step 3 and I failed my refutation because of it. (Look at it closely folks, it's a condition I did not need to address)
* Argued that Gary didn't have an emo conversion with the usual evangelical buzzwords.


Page 4 #310839
Troy

* Stated that gluttony is an American problem, not a global one, and it's because of the farming methods, and cannot be factored into global conscience.
* Claimed that one cannot compare abortion to child sacrifice because the tools for abortion were developed only recently.
* Failed to provide any additional proof of the supernatural.


Page 4 #310907
Rime

* Said that my counterpoint is valid and likely clear to everybody but him.
* Stated that while wartime casualties and murder are on a decline, obesity is epidemic, fornication is on the rise.
* Stated that pre-Christendom homosexuality was more common, had a drop while Christianity flourished. (My bad, though. I said I was going to let it drop)
* Quipped that my point about abortion and child sacrifice was likely quite clear to the audience.
* Stated that people can be convinced of the supernatural be emotional means.
* Stated that obesity is empidemic. Obesity is a sign of gluttony.
* Mentioned that his definition of unchallenged may be inappropriate.


Page 4 #310928
Troy

* Made a wordy and irrelevant evangelical statement.
* Claimed that one must use commonalities across all time periods for global conscience.
* Said that because birth rates are down, fornication must also be down.
* Stated that obesity isn't a valid argument because of modern production levels.
* Stated homosexuality is decreasing per capita.
* Jumped to the conclusion that no one agrees with me.
* Gives an "accept Christ now speech"
* Gave a confusing reason for using unchallenged instead of undefeated.


Page 5#311169
Rime

* Mentioned that he is capable of better understanding better because of the articles on his forums.
* Asked him to provide proof of where I didn't find fault with the "Proof."
* Mentioned that the Christian worldview looks generally looks down on contraception. And that fornication doesn't have to coincide with birth rates.
* Pointed out again that there was no excuse for obesity.
* Quipped that homosexuality rates were lower before the 50's. (Okay maybe not sinusoid, but more of a "U" shape)
* Said that he was capable of understanding that there's no excuse for obesity and abortion being the new child sacrifice.
* Gave a dictionary definition for challenge.


Page 5 #311344Troy

* Condescended about my inability to convince him about the faults of his proof.
* Stated world is overpopulated. Birth control wasn't available in previous centuries.
* Went on about how much more successful Christian marriages are than secular relationships.
* Admitted there is no excuse for obesity, but cannot be compared because food is mass produced now.
* Said that the rise in homosexuality is an illusion.
* Stated that Hawker Hurricane and myself agree that his proof is true because it could not be disproven.
* Gave another evangelism speech.
* Redefined the word "challenge"
* Ended his post with Two paragraphs of inflammatory remarks.
* Dropped the point about abortion
* Did not provide any proof that I admitted his perfect proof was valid.



Page 5 #311356
Rime

* Stated that I do find fault. Made the argument that Christians think overpopulation is a scam.
* Stated that birth control has been used throught history, check it out.
* Thanked him for understanding that gluttony is on the rise.
* Said that I read data that stated homosexuality is increasing.

Page 5 #311391
Troy

* Claims that I never show any refutation of his proof.
* Says that Christians believe the world to be overpopulated. States that birth control is too effective to be factored into the curve of global conscience.
* Makes irrelevant statement about fornication and marriage.
* Tries to say that it's a US thing. Says that mass production of food invalidates the sin of gluttony for global conscience.
* Says that because God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were so sexually deviant, so homosexuality can't be on the rise.
* Says I should only be satisfied if I deal with the evidence he presents.
* Ends his post with a string of imflammatory remarks.


Page 9 #312629
Rime

* Stated that I do stick to the topic.
* Stated that it's the generally liberal athesists who claim overpopulation. Provided links
* Stated that I have shown that birth control was used in the past, and more methods of the historical contraception can be found if he does some research.
* Claimed that extramarital sex has been on the rise since the 1950s, and that it hauls down global conscience according to his worldview. Mention the Judeo-Christian institution had culled the amount of fornication since its inception and rapid growth.
* Mentioned that gluttony is a sin.
* Stated that it is a worldwide problem, with a link to a Google search.
* Mentioned that a sin is a sin, obesity is a sin and its circumstances do not matter.
* Stated I will apply the same to abortion.
* Claimed that Homosexuality could be considered on the rise. Proof provided with China's "one child rule" and "male heir" mentality. Provided link. State that Statistics Canada had a survey showing rates of same sex couples and common-law relationships are on the rise.
* Stated I have indeed responded to his evidence.

Page 9 #312640
Troy

* Stated I can't find fault.
* Asked me if I'm upset that Christians feel the world is overpopulated.
* Claimed that birth control can't be factored into global conscience because it's too effective.
* Claimed that fornication is no worse now than before. Claims that polygamy rationalizes fornication, but is now frowned on today.
* Stated that because mass production of food wasn't available, so it can't be a factor in global conscience.
* Said that I claim I have disproven but never present the information and I should be considered a liar.
* Gave several irrelevant evangelical comments aimed at denigrating the discussion.


Page 10 #313050
Rime

* Asked him to stop declaring victory before the discussion is over.
* Stated that his comment says they believe it to be overpopulated. (Which should have been not overpopulated)
* Mentioned that sin is sin, extramarital sex is fornication, Europe and North America are declining in marriages and marrying older. State that I have provided proof in comment #312629
* Stated that sin is sin and its circumstances don't matter. Asked him if he agrees with that
* Provided list of comments.

Page 10 #313250
Troy

* Claimed he's won before the discussion was over. Again.
* Took advantage of my mistake. Continued to assert in spite of links in comment 310629
* Said that the USA is just a small sample size for "nations falling throught the millenia" Claims I need to take polygamy and use that as the reference for fornication, and that it is frowned on today.
* Told me I am missing the point because we need to have the same circumstances back then, not the new ways to sin.
* Claimed I'm being irrational.
* Asked me to respond to his responses for the list of comments I made.
* Claimed that he did respond to my last statement on abortion (#312629) and to "see following responses given.
* Asked me to respond to what he said rather than repeat myself.
* Claimed that he responds directly to what I said and I'm the one going off on tangents. Claims I'm trying to be couth.


Page 10 #313497
Rime

I won't bother elaborating on this one, but you can see in his next response that he hijacked the conversation and has almost completely left the topic.


I conclude that Troy Brooks, serious Christian or not, is a troll who uses his four step proof and initial courteousy to lure people into pointless arguments. He is not stupid. In fact, he can be quite articulate (even if he can't use paragraphs) and capable of great leaps of imagination.
There really isn't any point to thinking that he's going to be reasoned with, but all of us, myself included (maybe even especially), should be ashamed of how much we've fed this troll. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of good counterarguments here and on other message boards on the Internet, this [http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1433007&postcount=38]one[/url] being the most concise refutation I've ever seen.

See you next year, Mr. Brooks. And if you behave, I might just decide to speak to you again. Or maybe I might finally accept Christ and sign up on your board. Who knows?

9/24/2007 8:07:50 PM

Rime

Holy shit that's a long post. And a few mistakes, damn!

Hope you don't mind.

9/24/2007 8:10:07 PM

A Friend

Rime,

Yes, some of the things you said about me are true and some of the things you said about me are not true due to your misunderstanding what I said.

Now let's get back to the fact that you can't find anything wrong with the 4SPF & 4SMFA yet still reject Christ which is why you are going to hell.

9/24/2007 8:16:00 PM

A Friend

Now let's get back on track, for Christians such as myself say we can prove God and unless you can show otherwise, then you should give your life to Christ.

Here again is the Proof,

9/24/2007 8:17:47 PM

A Friend

I only gave you the 4SPFG. Here is the 4SMFA as well...

9/24/2007 8:26:15 PM

A Friend

Let's get back on track!

9/24/2007 8:29:34 PM