Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 8791

[On why he bans almost all atheists after a single post on his forum.]

I have to leave at least one atheist on unbanned. People are not banned for putting forth their best effort, but they are banned, as they ought to be, for being belligerent and obstinate in their pride. This explains what happened to those before you who failed. Though you certainly have your pride like Satan that keeps you separated from Jesus and hellbound, some mercy is helpful here towards you.

Troy, Biblocality 316 Comments [12/28/2005 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh

1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
A Friend

Rime,

Since you can't find fault with this Proof then you should give your life to Christ otherwise you are going to hell.

9/24/2007 8:30:40 PM

A Friend

Rime,

You said, "I've seen a lot of good counterarguments here and on other message boards on the Internet", but notice I always answer them to show their attempts fail.

That is why you can't reproduce here and now even one argument that can stand up against the 4SPFG & 4SMFA.

I love that.

9/24/2007 8:51:14 PM

A Friend

Rime,

I am not so concerned with defending accusations against my person, because I know it is just hostility sinning bearing false witness like the apostles were martyred for no good reason except that it is the testimony of faith that men are jealous of us that we have life.

I'm more concerned with helping you receive Jesus as your Savior, because if you don't, you are going to hell.

So at this point, since you can't find even one thing to doubt Jesus is God and died on the coss for your sins as only God could and God is proven, then why not give your life to Christ today? That is the reasonable thing to do. Could you be so selfless?

9/24/2007 8:58:37 PM

A Friend

Believe me when I tell you, Jesus makes everything glorious!

9/24/2007 10:19:19 PM

A Friend

He's not too far away.

9/24/2007 10:26:48 PM

David B.

” A concave chart would never go negative.”

But a concave chart does not match the trend - that you posted in #312690 - that from 2000 to 1000 BC child sacrifices dropped slowly, then from 1000 BC to ‘0’ BC they dropped more rapidly. So the graph can not be concave.

There are only four ways to draw an exponential progression, shown below.



Graphs A and D do not fit the data because X is increasing, and you have said child sacrifices are less common now than previously.

#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”

Graph B does not fit the data either, because at no point on the graph does the drop in X become steeper with time, and you have said that child sacrifices decreased more rapidly from 1000 BC to ‘0’ BC than in the thousand years before.

#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.

Graph C does fit with everything you have said. It is exponential, child sacrifices are prevalent in the past but near non-existent now, and they drop slowly at first, more rapidly with passing time.

The only exponential progression that fits the information you have provided is ‘C’.

9/25/2007 7:35:41 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.”

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

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

#314401: “obviously it can't go negative”

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

[size=8]
#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
#314401: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=13
[/size]

9/25/2007 7:36:48 AM

A Friend

David B.,

All 4 of your charts are wrong. The correct chart is as follows:



Replace "global conscience" with child sacrifices per capita with the lower number higher up on the chart.

Why do you persist in drawing the chart incorrectly? After it was already explained to you your error?

None of your charts fit, especially your graph C because sacrifices can't go negative, rather they approach zero as in the chart I gave you to be effectively deemed zero. I hope you can finally see your misundertanding and confusion, for remember, you said it could go negative on your chart.

Now then, since none of these efforts of yours could disprove the exponential progression of conscience, Step 1 remains unchallenged in proving you were created. Give up and give into the truth for it is most liberating.






9/25/2007 3:54:50 PM

David B.

“All 4 of your charts are wrong. The correct chart is as follows:”

No, one of them must be right because you said that the observed drop in child sacrifices “requires an exponential improvement” (#311065).

So child sacrifices must be declining exponentially. So either they are declining at an ever greater rate, or they are declining at an ever smaller rate, any other pattern of change would not be exponential and therefore would not fit with your observations.



Fortunately we are able to say which of these exponential declines is the observed one as you said “there has been a slow drop from 2000 to 1000 BC, steeper from 1000 to 0 BC” (#312648). As both these intervals are of 1000 years, we know that the drop over the second interval (b) was larger than the drop over the first interval (a).

Of the two possible exponential falls in child sacrifices, only the ‘convex’ curve (in your terminology) can have a steeper drop over one period of 1000 years than that over the preceding 1000 years (i.e. a < b). Therefore the exponential drop in child sacrifices you say is bourn out by historical sources must be ‘convex’.

9/26/2007 7:53:16 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 child sacrifices are ‘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.”

#314401: “obviously it can't go negative”

#315341: “sacrifices can't go negative”

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

[size=8]
#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
#314401: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=13
#315341: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=16
[/size]

9/26/2007 7:54:28 AM

A Friend

David B.,

A drop in child sacrifices does not require one of your charts be right when all of your charts were shown to be wrong, logically speaking.

Your concave chart is wrong since child sacrifices can't go negative as you said your concave chart does. That leaves only one chart that is correct which is the one I gave in 1 Step of the 4 Step Proof for God,



The new chart you just introduced is also wrong because the drop in child sacrifices does not start off at a faster rate.

So take the chart I have shown you and replace the "global conscience" with "child sacrifices" with the lower number higher up on the scale. By doing so, you will notice it can never go negative.

Now that this has been said multiple times and you fail to respond to this fact, I think people can construe your avoidance as denial and belligerency, even to the point of shutting your mind down because you do not want to accept the truth because it proves God.

From 2000 to 1000 BC we see on the chart that I gave meets this condition of a slow drop, then from 1000 to 0 AD a faster drop, then from 0 AD to today in which it is exponentially virtually non-existent.

Please reconsider the chart I showed you. It is the answer to your chart making.






9/26/2007 2:25:49 PM

A Friend

David B.,

A drop in child sacrifices does not require one of your charts be right when all of your charts were shown to be wrong, logically speaking.

Your concave chart is wrong since child sacrifices can't go negative as you said your concave chart does. That leaves only one chart that is correct which is the one I gave in Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof for God,



The new chart you just introduced is also wrong because the drop in child sacrifices does not start off at a faster rate.

So take the chart I have shown you and replace the "global conscience" with "child sacrifices" with the lower number higher up on the scale. By doing so, you will notice it can never go negative.

Now that this has been said multiple times and you fail to respond to this fact, I think people can construe your avoidance as denial and belligerency, even to the point of shutting your mind down because you do not want to accept the truth because it proves God.

From 2000 to 1000 BC we see on the chart that I gave meets this condition of a slow drop, then from 1000 to 0 AD a faster drop, then from 0 AD to today in which it is exponentially virtually non-existent.

Please reconsider the chart I showed you. It is the answer to your chart making.

9/26/2007 2:27:09 PM

David B.

Okay, the first thing to clear up is what ‘exponential’ means.



If something (X) changes exponentially with time (t) it means the value of X is related to something raised to the power of some multiple of t. Generally we call this something ‘e’ because it makes the calculus easier, and because ‘n’ raised to the power of t is ‘e’ raised to the power ln(n) times t.



So it can be seen values of X at regular intervals of t increase in a particular way, each difference between each successive value of X is always the same multiple of the previous difference. For example they might double each time:



Thus giving rise to the graph labelled (A) above.

Alternatively they might halve each time like the number of decays in a radioactive material over successive half-lives:



Which generates the graph labelled (B) above. It’s worth noting that (B) is the mirror image of (A), the graphs have effectively been swapped left-for-right. This is because ln(1/2) equals –ln(2), so in effect we have drawn the same graph as (A) but using –t.

Of course (A) can be swapped top-for-bottom instead of left-for-right. We do this by multiplying the power of ‘e’ by a negative scale factor, so that up (positive) becomes down (negative) and vice-versa. Also, we can swap both left-and-right and top-and-bottom, to complete our family of exponential curves.



This gives us curves (C) and (D) respectively.

So of the four possible exponential curves, only one shows both a decline in the value of X (in this case ‘child sacrifices’) and a steepening decline as time goes on. That is curve (C).

9/28/2007 8:02:33 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 child sacrifices are ‘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.”

#314401: “obviously it can't go negative”

#315341: “sacrifices can't go negative”

#316683: “Your concave chart is wrong since child sacrifices can't go negative”

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

[size=8]
#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
#314401: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=13
#315341: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=16
#316683: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=16
[/size]

9/28/2007 8:03:28 AM

David B.

"Now that this has been said multiple times and you fail to respond to this fact, I think people can construe your avoidance as denial and belligerency, even to the point of shutting your mind down because you do not want to accept the truth because it proves God."

I have, in fact responded to every post. I have shown you the family of exponential curves and pointed out that only one of them matches what you have said happened. I have shown you that only a 'convex' graph can display the steepening decline in child sacrifices you say occurred and I have even gone to the trouble of deriving the entire family of exponential curves for you.

In response you have posted a graph not of child sacrifices that does not even show a decline, let alone a steepening one, and said if I follow some vague instructions of yours I will somehow arrive at a graph that is both exponential and not one of the ones I have shown. Yet when I interpret your instructions (flip top-for-bottom and interpret as child-sacrifices over time), I just arrive at graph (C) again.

Considering your stock response is that I am misunderstanding you, I would think that you would leap at the opportunity to draw the correct graph of child sacrifices yourself and remove all doubt.

I suspect that the reason you don't is because you can't, and that you hope to draw out the "I'm so misunderstood!" game as long as possible in the hope I'll go away.

9/28/2007 8:22:41 AM

David B.

Perhaps this will help.

I've drawn a blank set of axes for you, showing (qualitatively) how child sacrifices vary over the years from around 2000 BC to long after 2000 AD. A dot has been placed on the graph showing that child sacrifices are virtually non-existent now (2000-ish), but any point around (2000, 0) for child sacrifices is good enough.



I've released this under Creative Commons license (BY-NC-SA), so there's no problem in you use this for non-commercial purposes.

It shouldn't take you more than a few minutes in Microsoft Paint to draw an exponential curve showing declining child sacrifices, that grows steeper with time, almost reaches zero by around 2000 AD and never goes negative.

9/28/2007 8:46:10 AM

A Friend

David B.,

Why do you shut your mind down to the fact that all of your charts are wrong, since as we have discussed, child sacrifices cannot go negative as you had mistakenly proposed due to your charts being wrong? And since none of your charts look like the chart I gave you with exponential conscience approaching sinlessneess. As time moves forward, exponential conscience increases.

As you keep repeating that your chart matches, I continue to respond that it does not match and the reason given, so why not respond to what I said instead of mindlessly repeating yourself? Your B & D chart fails because on the vertical axis it is not time. Your A & C charts fail because child sacrifices can't go negative.

You continue to overlook the chart I provided. Why? The graph I shows you is exponential as you can see on the chart it is exponentially approaching zero into fractions. None of your charts produce this effect.

It is not vague to simply replace "global conscience" with "child sacrfices" with the lower number higher up on the chart. Again, one is left with the question, why shut your mind down?

As usual, you could find no problem with the exponential progression of conscience chart, so it remains true: as you move forward out in time there is an exponential drop in child sacrifices. Pretty simple. Everybody knows this intuitively as well, for we know child sacrifices are not part of our daily routine anymore as once was so prevalent in sinful days gone by. You don't even need to know calculus. If you needed to know calculus to be saved then only those who know it would be saved. That would be unrighteous.

I'm only concerned with the fact that you have found no fault with the graph for global conscience (you can put in any variable relating to conscience, e.g. polygamy or murder rate per capita).

There is no need to keep redrawing the chart in different pictures, for it is the same chart I originally gave you. Why shut your mind down to this fact?

I'm embarrassed for you.

9/28/2007 3:58:56 PM

A Friend

David B.,

All of your charts are wrong. The original chart remains the correct one:



Replace "global conscience" with child sacrifices per capita with the lower number higher up on the chart.

Why do you persist in drawing the chart incorrectly? even after it was already explained to you your error.

None of your charts fit. Child sacrifices can't go negative and do not abruptly hit zero, so your charts C & D are useless. With time along the horizontal axis, A & C show a creation, which does not help your beliefs.

With time continuing on the horizontal axis, your charts B & D fail because they indicate an ever increasing speed into the past to a slower rate to the present. That would not be an exponential increase in conscience of getting better faster. I am glad that as we move forward there is an exponential improvement in conscience, not decreasing improvement.

Hence, there is only one chart that works. The one I gave you originally. Accept the truth, for the truth shall set you free.

This is God's design. Embrace it and receive Jesus as your Uncreated Creator, Lord and Savior!

For those who don't understand why some try to make an issue of this exponential increase in conscience we observe in mankind, it is because an exponential increase in conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects, because we would not still be sinning by now. Since we still sin, know, therefore, that the uncreated creator created who is God of the Bible: the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit, for none can compare to Christ.

9/28/2007 5:10:03 PM

A Friend

David B.,

All of your charts are wrong. The original chart remains the correct one:



Replace "global conscience" with child sacrifices per capita with the lower number higher up on the chart.

Why do you persist in drawing the chart incorrectly? even after it was already explained to you your error.

None of your charts fit. Child sacrifices can't go negative and do not abruptly hit zero, so your charts C & D are useless. With time along the horizontal axis, A & C show a creation, which does not help your beliefs.

With time continuing on the horizontal axis, your charts B & D fail because they indicate an ever increasing speed into the past to a slower rate to the present. That would not be an exponential increase in conscience of getting better faster. I am glad that as we move forward there is an exponential improvement in conscience, not decreasing improvement.

Hence, there is only one chart that works. The one I gave you originally. Accept the truth, for the truth shall set you free.

This is God's design. Embrace it and receive Jesus as your Uncreated Creator, Lord and Savior!

For those who don't understand why some try to fight the exponential increase in conscience, it is because an exponential increase in conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects, because we would not still be sinning by now. Since we still sin, know, therefore, that the uncreated created who is God of the Bible: the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit, for none can compare to Christ.

9/28/2007 5:13:31 PM

A Friend

Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!

9/28/2007 5:14:54 PM

David B.

A Friend wrote:

“Why do you shut your mind down to the fact that all of your charts are wrong, since as we have discussed, child sacrifices cannot go negative as you had mistakenly proposed due to your charts being wrong?”

These are the charts I have derived from your posts. They are all actual exponential curves drawn by a computer.

“And since none of your charts look like the chart I gave you with exponential conscience approaching sinlessneess.”

Since I am plotting a curve of child sacrifices and not one of global conscience I would not expect them to look the same. I note you have not posted a curve of the exponential decline in child sacrifices you say happened. I suspect it is because you can’t.

Look, I’ll derive it for you. We start with the following comment:

#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.”

So we are told the change in child sacrifices is exponential, hence it has the general formula:



But more than that, we are also told that child sacrifices are declining, hence we can also say:



As ‘C’ is a constant, its presence on both sides of the inequality is superfluous so:



Now this inequality holds true only if A<0 and M>0, or A>0 and M<0, but does not allow us to determine which it is.

However, we were also told the following:

#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.

So we also know something about how the curve’s gradient changes over time. Well the gradient is given by the formula’s differential, so first we must work that out. Actually, it’s simple enough to do in your head, but for the benefit of anyone who skipped math class at high school, I’ll derive the differential ‘long-hand’ using the chain-rule.

First we rewrite the formula to express it more simply in terms of another function ‘u’, we also express ‘u’ in terms of a third function ‘v’ to simplify its differentiation, so:



Now we have our differential equation, we can construct a similar inequality for the gradient as we did above for the value:



Now this inequality does not hold true if A<0, so we can determine that the trend in child sacrifices is tracked by the formula:



Where M<0 and A>0.

However, whatever the value of C chosen, there is a point where |M|.e^(A.t) will become larger (when t = ln(C/|M|)/A and the value of X, and hence child-sacrifices, will go negative.

As you rejected a linear decline in child sacrifices as impossible because it must invariably go negative, I am forced to reject an exponential decline in child sacrifices for the same reason.

QED.

10/1/2007 7:11:49 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 child sacrifices are ‘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.”

#314401: “obviously it can't go negative”

#315341: “sacrifices can't go negative”

#316683: “Your concave chart is wrong since child sacrifices can't go negative”

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

[size=8]
#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
#314401: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=13
#315341: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=16
#316683: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=8791&page=16
[/size]

10/1/2007 7:13:42 AM

A Friend

David B.,

Don't you think you are being belligerent, for when I say child sacrifices can't go negative, then you draw a chart that goes negative and say this is drawn based off of what I said, how do you reconcile your contradiction? I never said what you misperceived in what I said at all.

Since global conscience follows the same pattern approaching sinlessness and approaching zero child sacrifices which can never go negative, then they are the same-type chart. If you prefer to use the word "exponential decline" that is easily solved by simply putting the horizontal axis on the top of the chart and the vertical axis on the right side of the chart so you can observe the exponential decline. Whether the veritical axis approaches zero going up like the global conscience chart or approaches zero going down like a decrease in sin, it is the same and never goes negative.

Have you noticed you are always wrong? I have.

A linear equation, as has been said many times, does not work because it goes negative and you admit a negative child sacrifice is a false statement. I agree, so you should disagree with your own beliefs, unless of course, you prefer to live in your sin nature above God.

Let us be grateful that to be saved you don't have to know all those formulas or even verify they mathematical correct. All you need do is observe nature and see it could not have happened all by itself, nor would it have existed in the eternity ofthe past obviously since we would not still be sinning by now due to the exponential progression of conscience. A 5 year old can understand this without having to take a calculus course. Funny.

The exponential decline is false only in your charts because they either go negative (which is impossible since you can't have negative sacrifices) or start out at a rate faster when the rate should be increasing. This problem does not exist in the chart I have given you. That's the difference. You keep using false charts which can go negative. How silly. That's like coming to debate me about whether cat's are like lions and tigers by bringing me cockroaches. Silly.

Your charts are cockroaches because they misrepresent what I said, have been shown one by one why they are wrong, and Satan is the great accuser who continually bears false witness day and night. Why emulate him? What can God do but send you to hell for using such lame attempts to bear false witness and misread God's Word?

You're exposed. Stop shutting your mind down.

10/1/2007 4:45:01 PM

A Friend

David B.,

All of your charts are wrong. The original chart remains the correct one:



Replace "global conscience" with child sacrifices per capita with the lower number higher up on the chart.

Why do you persist in drawing the chart incorrectly? even after it was already explained to you your error.

None of your charts fit. Child sacrifices can't go negative and do not abruptly hit zero, so your charts C & D are useless. With time along the horizontal axis, A & C show a creation, which does not help your beliefs.

With time continuing on the horizontal axis, your charts B & D fail because they indicate an ever increasing speed into the past to a slower rate to the present. That would not be an exponential increase in conscience of getting better faster. I am glad that as we move forward there is an exponential improvement in conscience, not decreasing improvement.

Hence, there is only one chart that works. The one I gave you originally. Accept the truth, for the truth shall set you free.

This is God's design. Embrace it and receive Jesus as your Uncreated Creator, Lord and Savior!

For those who don't understand why some try to fight the exponential increase in conscience, it is because an exponential increase in conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects, because we would not still be sinning by now. Since we still sin, know, therefore, that the uncreated created who is God of the Bible: the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit, for none can compare to Christ.

10/1/2007 4:45:16 PM

A Friend

David B.,

All of your charts are wrong. The original chart remains the correct one:



Replace "global conscience" with child sacrifices per capita with the lower number higher up on the chart.

Why do you persist in drawing the chart incorrectly? even after it was already explained to you your error.

None of your charts fit. Child sacrifices can't go negative and do not abruptly hit zero, so your charts C & D are useless. With time along the horizontal axis, A & C show a creation, which does not help your beliefs.

With time continuing on the horizontal axis, your charts B & D fail because they indicate an ever increasing speed into the past to a slower rate to the present. That would not be an exponential increase in conscience of getting better faster. I am glad that by the grace of God as we move forward there is an exponential improvement in conscience, not decreasing improvement.

Hence, there is only one chart that works. The one I gave you originally. Accept the truth, for the truth shall set you free.

This is God's design. Embrace it and receive Jesus as your Uncreated Creator, Lord and Savior!

For those who don't understand why some try to fight the exponential increase in conscience, it is because an exponential progression in conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause, because you would not still be sinning by now having been derived from the past. Therefore, the only possibility is the uncreated created. The unsaved try to say there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects to deny the creation and creator. But, since we still sin, know that the uncreated created who is God of the Bible: the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit, for none can compare to Christ.

10/1/2007 4:58:00 PM
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13