News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

I do not take any pleasure in this, but the point has been reached where CTD needs to deal with the reality that he was wrong. Continued denial and avoidance will not make this issue go away.

In Post 39563 on the "How old was that again?" thread CTD made a mistake:

This is a falsehood, and he was corrected by LinearAQ as well as myself. The half life is variously defined as the time it takes for 1/2 of the original to decay, or as the time where only 1/2 of the original material is left, however that calculation is based on the rate of decay.

One could calculate the time for any fractional amount to remain from the same decay rate, and when graphed you would have the same curve.

CTD compounds his error by insisting that he is correct in Post 39635 on the same thread

The problem with this approach is that the time period is not a scalar value, and a "quarterlives" is not half of a "halflife" ...

LinearAQ in Post 39667 on the same thread shreds this argument:

Now one could calculate from the decay formula how much would be left after 2 x 0.415 x t(half) ... and one can predict that the amount will be 9/16 ...

But CTD is still in denial that his math is wrong. On Post 40010 on the same thread he offers this response:

As you can see he still doesn't own up to being mathematically proven to be wrong, instead going off on some paranoid rant and hiding behind smilies. It's not "spam" CTD, it's reality.

When challenged again on it, he was still in denial (Post 41757 on the "Evolution: The Big Joke" thread

This too is a false statement, but more to the point, it demonstrates that either:

(a) CTD does not understand the math (does not understand that he is wrong), or

(b) CTD is incapable of admitting that he is wrong.

Let's use CTD's example of interest rates and see if this helps. When you calculate the ratio of interest to principal for one week (and anyone can take this problem to their local bank to have them verify it) you don't calculate it at 1/52 x the annual rate (what CTD did on the decay curve) but at the annual rate ^(1/52). Curiously when you do this you will also get the same curve as using an annual rate to graph interest versus time.

For simplicity let's calculate the interest due at 21% annual interest compounded annually and compounded semiannually on $100:

(1) compounded annually:

At the beginning of one year you have $100.00

At the end of the first year you have 1.21 x $100.00 = $121.00

(2) compounded semi-annually:

Calculating the interest rate to compound at 1/2 year (Nt/No)^1/2 = (121/100)^1/2 = 1.10

At the beginning of one year you have $100.00

At the end of 1/2 year you have 1.10 x $100.00 = $110.00

At the end of one year (two half years) you have 1.10 x $110.00 = $121.00

You can do the same for 1/3 years, 1/4 years, or 1/277 years, however no matter what interval you pick the annual interest rate will be the same, and the results will be the same curves.

Certainly this fact of interest calculations should be a part of high-school education that everyone should learn, as it directly affects your everyday life, so there is no rational excuse for not knowing this.

Using CTD's bank example we can look back at the original decay formula and calculate the %decay that has occurred in half of a halflife and then "compound" that %decay over two half halflives:

(a) N(t) = N(0)e^-?t and N(t)/N(0) = e^-?t

for t = h (= 1 halflife)

(b) N(h)/N(0) = 1/2 = e^-?h = e^-?h = 1/e^?h

for t = h/2 (= 1/2 halflife)

(c) N(h/2)/N(0) = e^-?(h/2) = 1/e^{(?h)(1/2)} = {1/e^?h}^1/2

From equation (b), substituting N(h)/N(0) for 1/e^?h

(c) N(h/2)/N(0) = {N(h)/N(0))}^1/2 = (1/2)^1/2 = 0.70710678118654752440084436210485...

Seeing as this is the square root of 1/2, it is obvious that compounding two such periods will always - no matter how you try to hide the pea - be the same as the amount of decay that occurs in one halflife.

As noted on another thread, anyone that does not understand the truth can be classified as either ignorant, stupid, deluded, insane, or wicked (feel free to add any other possibilities that you can think of).

We can eliminate ignorant and delusions due to being mislead by noting that sufficient information has been provided to properly calculate the amounts of decay at any time, calculations that can be made with a scientific calculator.

We are left with these possibilities:

(a) CTD admits that he was wrong about the math.

(b) CTD does not understand that he is wrong about the math (stupid, insane, or wicked).

(c) CTD is incapable of admitting that he is wrong about the math.

Time for CTD to belly up. Continued denial and avoidance of the issue make it difficult to give his posts any credence at all.

Being wrong is no big deal, being unable to recognize when you are wrong and admitting it IS a problem.

So CTD isn't the scientist you are. So what? You're still wrong when it comes to the big picture.

I began the CTD's FAQs thread last March. It got too tedious to continue to add to it LOL. Careful, that's two threads dedicated solely to one person, we'll have to be careful not to massage egos.

Hello LindaLou,

Yes, it is hard to keep up with the continual refusal to deal with issues.

Here's a shortcut to posts that don't answer issues

Only if one glorifies petty behavior coupled with the pretension to present oneself an authority on any topic.

Enjoy.

Hello Jeanie,

Actually the point is that he isn't honest enough to admit to being wrong, it has nothing to do with who knows what.

What would you say to a student that got every question on a test wrong, and then complained about the F saying that he was right?

Enjoy.

I'd say some humility is called for, but its hard with male pride. And I suspect stubborness. I believe he is basing things on believing you have been the deceiver. I just don't know why you even go there at this point.... You are a patient teacher of what you know, but he doesn't want to accept it and is trying to prove you wrong from a creationist viewpoint. He just doesn't have the expertise for this particular stuff...

If on the other hand you have been playing games, you should also own up to that, though.

It may be that you take no pleasure in lies, but simply cannot stop serving your master. There is One who can deliver you from this bondage and set you free.

I shall not buck the odds, but rather I'll proceed as if you do not desire freedom.

I have rated this thread 5 stars, and I do hope folks will be curious enough to read it. It goes a long ways toward demonstrating who's who.



There certainly used to be few who didn't know what compound interest is, but I see you've found one. Congratulations.

But there's hope, even for those who don't know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_interest_rate

or for the lazy folks who can't be bothered to read those,
http://pixelspotlight.com/money.php
is an online compound interest calculator. All they have to do is enter an amount, a timeframe, and then check what happens when they switch the compounding period. So nobody has any excuse for believing RAZD - not even the most gullible and ignorant among us.

I'll add one:

And I'll clarify. I believe you understand to some extent what the truth is, but you do not understand the power of truth, and have absolutely no appreciation whatsoever for its beauty.
As I noted, help is available.

Well Jeanie, I expect a pathological inability to admit being wrong.

I could be mistaken, however in the 1.5+ years that I have known CTD, on two different boards, I have never seen him admit to being wrong, in spite of being spectacularly wrong on several occasions. His pattern of behavior on the other board was also to avoid providing substantiation for his various fantasy claims.

Being wrong is not a sin. Pretending that you are not wrong is just plain dishonesty.

I'll leave you with a couple little examples:

Note that there are NO university definitions that state this is the definition of evolution, nor any museums of Natural History, nor does Darwin state this. It is in fact a falsehood, and a misrepresentation of how evolution is used in biological science.

It confuses facts of objective reality with theory: the natural history of life in the fossil record shows that early life was simple single cells. That is a fact. It also shows many intermediate forms of life between those single cells and the life we know today. That too is a fact.

Evolution explains how that can happen, but it does not require that it have happened. Life could have (and may have - we don't know for sure) have started with several lifeforms, and evolution would still explain how it gets from time {A} to time {B} with the diversity of life evident in those times. You could start with the universe being created 100 years ago and evolution would still be the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and it would still explain the diversity of life from 100 years ago until today.

CTD's strawman misrepresentation doesn't do that. It's a falsehood, a hoax.

Again, this is a rather obvious falsehood to those that know the facts, and the fact that this is false is already pretty evident on the transitions thread (where we already have several thousand "transitionals" documented, transitionals that meet Darwin's original criteria of intermediate variations), and the only way anyone can claim this is statement is true is by using a definition (a "standard" if you will) that is not used in the science of biological evolution, nor the definition originally given by Darwin, but another falsehood, another misrepresentation, another hoax.

The funny thing is that these two statements are contradictory, so on their own merit one or the other (or both) must necessarily be a lie.

Finally:
Sadly, CTD has amply demonstrated in these two small quotes above, that, yes indeed, he does misunderstand evolution (... or they demonstrate that he intentionally misrepresents evolution if he does understand it: that he lies about it, but I prefer the less wicked alternative).

What is gained by using false definitions of words? If the science is wrong, then all you have to do is show that it is wrong, with the meaning used in science, and anything else is just fraud.

What is gained by misrepresenting what science says? If the science is wrong, then all you have to do is show that it is wrong, with the meaning used in science, and anything else is just fraud.

Enjoy.

Very apt CTD. This is one such example of what the bible foretells would happen and how people would deny the source of this beauty. It's quite something when you see it being played out time and time again in many different ways. Again, this is not necessarily a personal jab at anybody in particular, but a reminder to those of us who believe and would do well to recall these things when confronted by those who deny Him, whether in their indirectly or directly and also to remind ourselves to stand strong and have faith.

2 Timothy

Quote

1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Quote

2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Quote

2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Quote

2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Quote

2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Quote

3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Quote

4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Quote

4:7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Still trying to fake it CTD.

What you need to look at is converting ONE compounding period to another while keeping the actual annual interest rate the same:

From your very own first reference:

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



Now let's do it for monthly compounding for the same actual annual rate:

{1+.04}^(1/12)-1 = 0.003273739782198863859294320415879

$100*(1+ 0.00327374)*(1+ 0.00327374)*(1+ 0.00327374)*(1+ 0.00327374)*(1+ 0.00327374)*(1+ 0.00327374)*(1+ 0.00327374)*(1+ 0.00327374)*(1+ 0.00327374)*(1+ 0.00327374)*(1+ 0.00327374)*(1+ 0.00327374) = ...

(the envelope please) ... $104.00

This is how you honestly compare interest rates to decay rates.

Still in denial?

Enjoy.

Added by edit:

You would also do well to look down the page to where it solves for "continuous compounding" - which would represent actual physical constant decay rates ...

Thanks Bex.

Yes, it IS time for CTD to fess up that he is wrong. Math does not lie, only people that misuse math can lie.

Enjoy.

I'm enjoying it, a little. It's a little sad, but very instructional to anyone who'll go look at the page & see what you snipped out & how you try to alter the context of what wiki is saying.

Tell me, how did you manage to find the "B" without first reading the "A"? Or did the "A" soar over your head?

This is an all-time classic! I'll say one thing for you: you are the most brazen evolutionist I've ever encountered.

Thanks for making it clear that you're religion is fit only to target the uneducated, and unwilling-to-be-educated. Any one of those links will suffice to set the record straight, so anyone you fool must not want to know the truth. Do you think it bothers me that you'll succeed in fooling such? They don't need you; they can manage just fine on their own.

Thus, your only remaining purpose for posting this is to become their leader. What good would an army of a million such fools be to you? Have you ever asked yourself that, or can you plan so far ahead? Might as well buy (or build) an army of dolls. (Or is that what the Straw Legion project is about?)

See Jeanie?

Pathologically incapable of admitting he is wrong. The math on decay rates is ignored while he tries to hide behind smoke-screens, using formulas that are not the same as the decay rates.

Converting half life to quarter life is like converting from an interest rate compounded semi-annually to one compounded quarterly, and thus the ONLY formulas that apply from interest rates, are those of conversion.

Using formulas that do not apply to decay rates would be using a misrepresentation of decay, and just like using a false definition, it would be a lie.

Sad isn't it?

Tell me something. If I attack straw men, why do you defend them?

When you defend that which I attack, you demonstrate that you care about it. I really don't care how much you protest otherwise.

Can you agree that random forces did not (over whatever period of time) turn non-living minerals into men?

Can you agree that all life does not share a common ancestor?

Can you agree that offspring have always been observed to differ from their parents, so defining 'evolution' as normal, everyday change is utterly meaningless and deceptive?
Like when you argued that there can't be two of anything?

It's amazing how the evolutionists here create straw men and then accuse others of doing the same.

The definition of evolution has been the same for decades. Only now are they retreating because it is now becoming so blatantly apparent how ridiculous the myth is.

Here is a video explaining how this is happening in more detail:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M000Z

Hey Russ. Trying another distraction from the topic?

Curiously it still doesn't make CTD's math any better.

Don't you think that people who make mistakes should admit it when it is demonstrated?

Enjoy.

Just to recap, Jeanie.

That would just be another in a long line of misunderstandings or misrepresentations.

I predicted that he would not admit to being wrong, and so far I've been correct. His latest attempt involve some "slight-of-hand" falsehoods, ones that are clearly false because we are dealing with math.

In this post he is trying to pretend that this formula (from his first link, and the one used in the on-line calculator he linked to):

Is the same as the decay formula:

Now we can put the decay formula in terms of the symbols used in CTD's substituted formula:

A = P*e^(rt)

As anyone can see, these are different formulas. You've done math, Jeanie: would you say this is an honest substitution?

It is also easy to show that CTD's chosen formula produces false results by using his on-line calculator:

So far so good eh?

Now change the compound period to monthly:

Notice that the actual annual interest rate (the APR) has changed.

We can do this again with daily periods:

And the actual annual interest rate has changed again!

Obviously this does not model something with one fixed rate (like the decay formula uses). This would be like changing ? every time you made a calculation: of course you would get different results because you use a different formula.

Instead of simply admitting that he made a mistake, that he was wrong to calculate his "quarter-life" the way he did, he tries to substitute a different formula.

When that doesn't work, he tries again to distract the thread from the FACT that he was wrong by trying another "bait and switch" tactic:

Curiously, the "A" doesn't help him either:

The actual annual rate is 8.24%, and this just shows that the result of using the actual annual rate gives you the same result if you compound quarterly or annually.

Of course, when that distraction doesn't work, then CTD tries another: going to a different topic (where he is also wrong).

Any guesses what the next avoidance move will be?

Enjoy.

Ironic that you call CTD's logic faulty.

He's the one that does not believe that random chance causes highly-complex, symmetrical, self-reproducing machines to form.

How is it that he reaches the correct logical conclusion through faulty logic and you reach myth through sound logic?

Evolution is an affront to science.


"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."

—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

What does this have to do with CTD's faulty math skills and inability to admit it when he is shown to be wrong?

You have done next to nothing to support your assertions about evolution so I find it rather humorous that you can use those assertions as a basis for categorizing anyones ability to use sound logic.

Astoundingly this is not a conclusion of almost all scientists and especially not to scientists that work in the field of biology


Strangely, you quote from a biologist who also concluded that the myriad life forms we have today came from a common ancestor. This quote is about his disagreement with the Darwinian method by which this took place. De Grasse followed the teachings of Lamarck in that he believed an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring and thats how life evolved. Are you saying that you also believe as he did or are you just grasping at any old quote that appears to demean the theory of evolution?

Thank you, LinearAQ, for weighing in on this most obviously untrue and insulting lie.

Did you even notice where RAZD openly proved himself wrong in his last post, and brazenly posted the results in red? You'd think Bugs Bunny was one of the all-time most successful liars, the way RAZD emulates him.

But the results are as transparent as can be. Anyone fooled by such gets exactly what they deserve.

I looked at the whole series of posts all the way back to where I showed you that your surmise concerning 1/2 lives and 1/4 lives was in error. I could find no post in which you admitted nor any post that showed you actually understand the equations concerning radioactive decay or interest calculations. From my point of view the statement I made is true. If you don't like it then stand up and disprove it. Show us where we misrepresented your posts concerning radioactive decay or interest calculations.

From what I saw in RAZD's post, his calculations and his statements about your mistaken representation of the interest rate formulas are all accurate. So either you are in error or you are purposely misrepresenting the application of the mathematics and skewing it to generate doubt about radionuclide decay dating methods.


And a thinly veiled insult at the end...at least I wasn't surprised. What did Jesus say about calling your brother a fool?

Hi Linear,

CTD is using a broad term here for anybody that maybe "fooled" by believing something or "someone" that maybe wrong....this is not a sin. How many of us have been fooled by buying into something that was false or not completely true? He hasn't used any name calling here at all. Why turn it around to mean something he didn't say? Even if it's a veiled insult, he still hasn't called you a fool.

I honestly believe that falsey accusing people is probably much closer to being sinful than a broad term for people buying into deception as being fooled. In fact, the bible itself uses the term when it says "professing to be wise, they become fools"....so we have to understand the context in which it is used and that the comment here was not a single personal name calling insult.

You have decided to read into what he has said, turn it into a personal insult that he called you a fool, and then take offense. Why resort to this? It's unnecessary and looks like you're trying to find something in CTD's posts to accuse him of doing to you personally....

There's much worse around to take offense at than a comment like this.

I'll clarify a little more: you cannot be fooled by this scam unless you want to be. You can pretend to be taken in, if that's your thing.

I said changing how frequently the interest compounds changes the result. RAZD argued that this isn't so, and then turned right around and clearly demonstrated that it is - not that anyone needed such demonstrations.

Now anyone who can follow the arguments cannot help but see this. Without exception, people are not naturally that stupid, and any who presently are that stupid have put a whole lot of effort into becoming so. Even with effort, I don't believe anyone could pull it off.

The only possible excuse is getting lost trying to follow RAZD as he reverses directions, but one must forget what I originally said in order to fail to see the results in red which confirm for all the world to see that I have always been correct. Now someone try & tell me anyone can be that stupid without trying.

I can understand (a little) that some may not get the fact that calculating quarter-lives or 1/60-lives is directly analogous to compounding interest more often. If I thought that part was abundantly clear, I would've just posted it in the other thread.

But now, now everyone can see that RAZD's original argument against compound interest acknowledges this, so when he reverses his argument the next time, you know what to expect. As Linear has lent his support to this argument, it is fair to conclude he also understands that the analogy is appropriate. Don't expect him to admit it either, any more than he already has. Neither of them are that confident they can pull off the compound interest deception. I am amazed they ever took that gamble to begin with. Anyone who's ever taken out a loan or purchased a CD (the financial kind) knows better.

However, the capacity to determine whether an analogy is accurate or not depends on possessing knowledge about the topic under discussion. Anyone knowledgeable about decay could see the merit of my position, and would be immune to the scam of backtracking along the same exponential curve & pretending it would match the results of an entirely different exponential curve. No point in discussing it for their benefit.

Others, who choose to believe evolutionists are better at science, would simply take their word when they disputed the analogy. One needn't have a degree in psychology to understand simple, utterly predictable human behaviour.

I'm also curious to see if any more will jump on this "I hate creationists and I'm willing to openly lie about math to prove it" bandwagon.

I would like to suggest that this topic be pinned. Had I the capacity, I'd pin it on every evoultionism debate forum there is.

I'd further suggest that it be locked after an appropriate interval, say three or four days. I think it'd be beneficial for everyone who comes here to see just exactly what this crew is all about.

The only downside would be that it might initially raise suspicions that creationists employ moles. But these are genuine dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists, and it wouldn't take long to figure that out.

Thanks, Bex.

So you openly condemn CTD's frequent ad hominem comments to anyone that disagrees with him. Good to see, and I'm sure that others, LindaLou, Russel2, LinearAq, and especially Pwwca will appreciate this even-handed condemnation.

We are, however, talking about math, the "perfect science" according to some, and which has nothing to do with belief. It is relatively easy to show that you are either right or not when doing math.

The math we are talking about here, of course, is a simple exponential equation:

Nt = No*e^(-?t)

Where
Nt = The amount of material at a particular time
No = The initial amount of material.
t = The time expended
? = the decay rate, which is differs between materials

... and where ? does not change depending on what time of year you use it in a formula, but stays constant.

As pointed out, CTD made a mistake when he calculated his "quarter-life" as half of a "half-life" and then compounded his error when he claimed that the value of the curve at his half of a half-life was a linear interpolation between the value at time "o" to the value at time "t" ... a claim that is obviously false because the curve is ... curved, not a straight line.

The inescapable truth is that CTD is either wrong about how long a "quarter-life" is OR he is wrong about the value of the curve at his mis-defined point. The inescapable truth is that he is wrong, period. There is no gray in math calculations.

Now, instead of simply admitting that he was wrong, CTD tries to hide the fact by first substituting a different formula for the decay curve. As we have seen this new formula is for interest calculations based on a nominal (read approximate) initial rate:

A = P(1 + (r/n)}^{nt}

Where
* P = principal amount (initial investment)
* r = annual nominal interest rate (as a decimal)
* n = number of times the interest is compounded per year
* t = number of years
* A = amount after time t

Now to compare these two formulas we can restate the decay formula with the symbols used in the interest rate formula:

A = P*e^(rt)

* P = Initial amount (No)
* r = annual rate (positive for growth, negative for decay)
* t = number of years
* A = amount after time t (Nt)

Now when we compare these two formulas we notice

(1) that there is no "n" factor in the actual decay curve
(2) that (1 + (r/n)} does not equal e
(3) that (1 + (r/n)} varies with n while e is constant
(4) that (nt) does not equal (rt)

If that does not convince anyone that CTD is lying about the curves being equivalent (which is what he is claiming when he says you can substitute on for the other when making your calculations) then consider this:

(a) When you ask your banker what the real rate of interest is, he will tell you (if he is an honest banker) that it is the APR rate, not the nominal rate. This means that any calculation for interest to compare with decay you would have to use the same APR rate (and as noted previously, that when you do that you get the same results, ones that are still not CTD's results.

(b) The formula used for compound calculations is a relatively easy to use approximation of a constant growth curve.

When you look at your bank statements for an account compounded annually with an APR of 8.24% and a $100 initial investment you will see:

Starting Deposit: $100.00
End of month 1: $100.00
End of month 2: $100.00
End of month 3: $100.00
End of month 4: $100.00
End of month 5: $100.00
End of month 6: $100.00
End of month 7: $100.00
End of month 8: $100.00
End of month 9: $100.00
End of month 10: $100.00
End of month 11: $100.00
End of month 12: $108.24
(end of year = 1 compound period)
End of month 13: $108.24
End of month 14: $108.24
End of month 15: $108.24
etc etc etc

One does not even need to graph this to show that it is not a curve function but a step function.

When you look at your bank statements for an account compounded quarterly with an APR of 8.24% (and the quarterly rate 2.00% - see the wiki "A" conversion example) and a $100 initial investment you will see:

Starting Deposit: $100.00
End of month 1: $100.00
End of month 2: $100.00
End of month 3: $102.00
(end of 1st 1/4 = 1 compound period)
End of month 4: $102.00
End of month 5: $102.00
End of month 6: $104.04
(end of 2nd 1/4 = 2 compound periods)
End of month 7: $104.04
End of month 8: $104.04
End of month 9: $106.12
(end of 3rd 1/4 = 3 compound periods)
End of month 10: $106.12
End of month 11: $106.12
End of month 12: $108.24
(end of year = 4 compound periods)
End of month 13: $108.24
End of month 14: $108.24
End of month 15: $110.41
etc etc etc

Even when you correctly use the same APR rate for the comparison to decay curves, it is still a step function and not a smooth curve as is given by the decay formula.

The decay formula is actually easier to use (fewer inputs, fewer calculation steps), and thus the whole substitution of one formula for another does not accomplish a correct calculation nor does it make it easier to calculate. For instance you can use one of these on-line calculators:

http://www.bioscience.org/urllists/decay.htm (three fields to enter data: half-life, amount, time).

enter 1000 (years), 100 (percent), 1000 (years) and it calculates the amount remaining at 50 (percent)

enter 1000 (years), 100 (percent), 500 (years) and it calculates the amount remaining at 70.71067811865476(percent)

Which, curiously, is the square root of 1/2 as a percent value. This is the true amount for any decay curve at half of a half-life. So once again CTD cannot be right when he claims the value is 75%. Wrong is wrong.

Can we refer you to this statement whenever a creationist decides that they have been insulted? Fair is fair eh?

Enjoy.

RAZD, I'm not a math minded person. Or at least not higher math....so I can't really judge on your questions that way (above). I'm actually getting a good review of things I never really learned back when I was in High School. (Wasn't real into school at the time so missed some steps). I've been subbing so haven't been on much and just caught all this. I know overall you ARE a scientific person and I'm talking just generally...not in the sense of being an evolutionist. I can see what you are saying about evolution overall....if not claiming with assurance that you KNOW how things happened. Obviously evolution happens...but the how's have to be left open. PERSONALLY....I think Russ looks at things through rather narrow glasses with a negative bend. I can see what you're saying, RAZD. There is a stubborness on here with a couple of folks on here who tend to look at things without an open mind. I'm not saying any of us should fence sit or contradict the Bible or creation in saying that. But your pure argument doesn't do that.....

Well RAZD, you can take my statements how you please. I know what I meant by them and whether you think I'm openly condeming CTD or anybody else is neither here nor there. CTD or anybody else is probably capable of reading them for what they are.



Absolutely. But I do hope it wont be used/abused as a way using my statement against me unfairly . I have reacted on here mostly to false accusations and asking for clarification. E.g. a broad generalisation of all Christians doing this or Christians doing that and saying this etc, which have often been proven untrue, seems to me something to enquire about and ask "who in fact on here has stated this?"....I hardly see that as being unreasonable do you?

I have indeed been insulted a few times on here, when someone uses false accusations and puts word in mouths. I don't find that an acceptable or honest practise to show someone up either. Perhaps you do?

Hi Jeanie,

Like yourself, I struggle with the type of math that CTD and RAZD discuss on here and in all serious, it's over my head. However, because of this, I cannot in all honesty state who in this area is correct and who isn't.....

RAZD indeed sounds a very scientific and mathematical person, but is it absolute and how do we, as laypeople know? Since I'm not so clued up about this kind of stuff, nor am I very keen on studying it all. However scientific somebody may sound, how do we know if they are discussing true science or not? If we ourselves do not have enough knowledge about it? There are plenty of eloquent and well-read people out there that can convince anybody they are speaking the truth, but it's very hard to tell unless we are able to speak their language.

Does being open minded mean discussing all the incredible adaptive and variation abilities of creation and attributing it to chance random events (a miraculous unseen/unobserved event) and then denying a creator? I can't quite understand Jeanie how it makes Russ close-minded if he's attributing all this to a designer,rather than a chance beginning.....and RAZD open minded for doing the opposite? Don't get me wrong, everybody has a right to dicuss what they believe, but why should it make one open or close minded for doing so? RAZD has one moment acknowledged his limitations. The next he's almost doing the opposite and contemptuous of an idea of a god and made light (or fun) of it....is that open minded?

Personally I think we ALL have our bias and limitations. The use of the words "open-minded" is sometimes abused as well. E.g. some assume if you have any morals regarding sexuality, that you're "close minded".....sorry but ideas of limitations vary from person to person and in the end, probably don't mean much except one chooses which bias to be bias with. There are people who claim open-mindedness and will accept anything BUT God

Yes, the math may be beyond some readers. But one only needs to take my original claim to someone who knows a little math. Now RAZD disputed this, and in his own insulting manner, turned right around and verified it several times above in an unprecedented display of arrogance.

Now to see how compounding works, without Greek letters and such, you can just take $1000 and a rate of, say 20%. Compounding it annually, you just take $1000 x .20 = $200. Added to the original $1000, you get 1200.

Compounding Quarterly, you take the same $1000, and the same 20%, but you don't have to wait a whole year to start earning interest. The first payment comes at 3 months. Since 20% is the annual rate, the quarterly rate is 1/4 x .20 = .05. $1000 x.05 = $50. The balance after one quarter is $50.

Now as soon as the next quarter rolls around, you don't just make money on the $1000, because your balance is $1050. That's what compounding means. The interest rates don't change. 5% x $1050 = $52.50. $1050 + $52.50 = $1102.50. That extra $2.50 is the result of quarterly compounding! It isn't much, but it's more than what you'd get if the quarterly compounding had not taken place.

Compounding is simply earning interest on your interest. The more frequently this interest goes into the account, the more little payments you get, and all these little payments themselves earn interest too.

It doesn't sound like much at all, but it's very sneaky because it grows exponentially. Ever hear the story about putting a grain of rice on the first square of a chessboard, and doubling it for each of the following squares?

There's a well known Einstein quote where he calls compound interest the most powerful force in the universe or some such. I'm confident someone will "show me up" by providing it.

Anyhow, given enough time, exponential curves make huge differences. Believe it or not, compounding a 20% interest rate can cause the money to double easily in under 4 years, compared to 5 years for simple interest. Think of how much difference that makes in only 20 years. Compounded interest will result in more than double the balance one would have with simple interest in just 20 years!

Another way to investigate: go to the interest calculator I linked to. Type in some numbers you like, and see the result with annual compounding. As soon as you switch it to monthly compounding, the result will increase. That's exactly what I said it would do, and RAZD said wouldn't happen.

He has now taken to arguing that since it happens, it doesn't count - that we should call the net result the interest rate. But which net result? The one obtained by annual compounding, or the one obtained by monthly compounding? Which one of these two obviously different numbers which he claimed must be equal?

In our analogy, annual compounding = calculating decay by means of half-lives. Compounding every 1/2 year = calculating by means of quarter-lives. It's easy to see why half-lives are preferred: it takes longer for things to decay. The little amounts that don't look like much add up over time to huge differences.

Likewise, compounding monthly will result in higher interest than compounding quarterly. The more frequently the compounding takes place, the more little bits come into play, and the faster & harder they play.

As long as I'm posting, I might as well point out a couple more things.

As usual, putting words in someone else's mouth. Anyone surprised? Anyone at all?

Sure is!

A claim I never made. Anyone surprised? Anyone at all?

Not so. I never suggested substituting one for the other. Anyone surprised? Anyone at all?

Yet he wastes your time pretending I have done so. I skipped over that part myself. I hope not too many fell victim to this ruse.

Changing arguments. Anyone surprised? Anyone at all?

Notice that he first calls it a curve, then says it isn't a curve? All exponential growth results in a curve when plotted on a graph. He now portrays a curve as a linear function - just exactly what he & Linear falsely accused me of doing. Educated visitors will see this for what it is right off the bat.

The half-life paradigm means they've already factored in the compounding period of their choice (a slow one), so they don't allow for any other variables. Of course it's simpler!

"Life is just simpler if you assume evolutionists are right" might convince some, but it's hardly meaningful to me.
Again, not a claim I made. Anyone surprised? Anyone at all?

The entertainment value is mixed. But it's not hard for those who can do a little math to see you've totally given up hope. I look forward to seeing more follow suit. Shoot, even those who bother to read what you yourself have written, without doing any math at all can see how you've pathetically attempted to reverse your argument. You hide this behind many unsavoury words, but it's there plain as day.

Those who care to can scroll up to his Post #42008 for this false accusation against Russ
It was RAZD's own post #41902 that started the "distraction"One thing you have to grant RAZD: he is comprehensive. He doesn't produce quality inaccuracies, but he does spread a lot of them around in a lot of directions.

And had nobody responded, rest assured there'd be complaints about that too... It is still possible to enjoy some aspects of participating here.

Maybe my posts are off-topic here as well? I'm not slinging false accusations at myself, after all.

Hey Bex and Jeanie,

I don't really want to put anyone on a spot, and I appreciate both of your fair mindedness.

The issue is really simple:

Is CTD's formula the same as the decay rate formula?

Does A = P(1 + (r/n))^(nt)
Give the same results as A = P*e^(rt)?

If they do, then A should always be the same from both, as as we have seen from many examples this just isn't so, thus it would be wrong to use CTD's formula to calculate decay.

Could there be any cases where they are equal? Sure, just like a broken watch is correct twice a day ... but that doesn't mean you can use the watch to tell time, does it?

If they don't give the same results then they are not the same formulas. If they are not the same formulas then why use one in place of the other unless you want wrong results?

One also has to wonder why one would go through the effort of using a different formula when the regular formula is easier to calculate.

Enjoy.

Ha! My formula, eh? From whence comes my formula? Not from any post of mine, but RAZD is happy to put one in my mouth all the same.
Ooh! Can I play? Is R to the A to the Z to the D > Z - E - R - 0?

What this means is that if I had supplied a quarter-life formula, it would be wrong because it gives different results from the halflife formula! Earlier, RAZD & Linear both argued that calculating a quarterlife formula would simply give the same results. Is anyone getting dizzy watching RAZD turn around and around and around?

Supplied just in case I actually do post a formula, no doubt.

Does not even make sense in this context. If one can obtain different results using 1/4-life, 1/2-life, and 1/20483-life, who's to say which results are "right" or "wrong"? So long as they're all based upon observed decay rates, they're all valid abstractions of those decay rates.

Even easier to just believe everything RAZD says, right? Will all mush-headed, God-hating drones please flock to RAZD at this time? When he sees what he's getting, maybe he'll stop.

After all this time my legs still get to remain unshaven. I've always had this fear that sooner or later you'd make a polite, non-demeaning post. As always, thanks for absenting my legs from the razor!



Well, no, actually. At least, I'm not. That isn't to say I understand all of the mathematical forumlae -- I don't -- but I'm not getting turned "around and around and around" because I'm not spinning around in my chair when I read it.




Since RAZD, himself, has both indicated in his posts and in his signature that he is a deist I fail to see why "god-hating drones" would flock to him. Why is it that you and Russ have the insistent need to paint evolutionists as atheists, and then paint atheists as evil? I understand that you have differences with LinearAq, for example, but do you claim he does not believe in the Christian god? I accept evolution based on the evidence, do you think I am a god-hater, do you think I do not have faith in my own gods? It'd be interesting to hear how you've concluded that the people who are saying they are not atheists are atheists.

And there you have it....CTD claims that you obtain different results using the radioactive decay formula.
I will admit that he didn't claim that the formula resulted in a linear graph, but the method he used to show 1/4-life to be different than 1/2-life REQUIRED the decay to be linear in order to be valid.

Since the formula partially resulted from OBSERVATION and TRACKING of radioactive decay, we know the decay curve is ACTUALLY CURVED and not a straight line.

So, if CTD is so gifted in math he SHOULD know that his method of showing 1/4-life and 1/2-life calculations required the radioactive decay to be a straight line function.

If we take CTD at his word that he DOES understand the mathematics involved, we have no choice but to conclude that he is trying to DECEIVE people that don't understand the math.

Conclusion, CTD is trying to deceive Jeanie and Bex among others.

If you want to see if CTD is wrong and you don't trust RAZD or me, take CTD's post about 1/2-lives and 1/4-lives to any mathematician that you do trust.

You can find his post in the "How old was that again?" thread on page 3. It is the third post down on that page. It's post number 39635. I have quoted the relevant portion below, but you can look at the whole thing and determine for yourself is I am quoting out of context.


Note that CTD is saying that two 1/4-lives SHOULD result in the same amount of radioactive decay as one 1/2-life in order for the radioactive decay dating methods to be valid. However a simple look at the formula by any mathematician will assure you that this is not true.

The formula for radioactive decay (as if you couldn't easily find it) is:

N(t) = N(0)e^-?t

Where N(t) = The amount of material at a particular time
N(0) = The initial amount of material.
t = The time expended
? = the decay rate, which is differs between materials

Let me know what you find out.

I forgot to add that CTD's math comments were correct in that two 1/4 lives would leave more material than one 1/2 life. However in post #39563 on page 2 of the same thread:


This is the statement that he is trying to support with his tricky math in an attempt to discredit the calculations involved in radioactive decay.
Again, CTD is trying to get you to believe that for the math to be valid, two 1/4-lives should result in the same amount of decay as one 1/2-life.

When shown it doesn't work that way, he waited a while then claimed he had shown us to be wrong...in another thread of course.

What does CTD stand for....Creationism's Talented Deceiver?

I have not done this. Do you think atheists are the only people who hate God?

Do you see me claim it?

I doubt it / most probably / it's a toss-up.

Do you value my opinions on these matters? Provide more evidence & I can firm things up.
I think you're a lot more interested in trying to put words in my mouth. Just for the sake of variety, do any of you evolutionists have some friends who don't practice such who might be interested in participating here? You're beginning to scew my perspective. As an evolutionologist, I keep needing to remind myself that I'm dealing with a small sample size, and these are cases of the evosickness in its advanced stages.

That doesn't answer my question. You seemed to indicate that RAZD was a god-hating atheist, which is contradicted in his statements and his signature. I was asking why you refer to him as an atheist and/or a god-hater.



No, that's why I asked if you did. You seem to have done as much with RAZD, so I thought I'd use LinearAq as another example. Note the word order in my question. "Do you" not "you do". Of course I don't see you claim it. I'm still asking it.



...



If you're trying to come across as an angry and imbittered person you're doing one hell of a good job at it.

How does one answer a question like "Why is the earth cube shaped?"

I have no control over what you choose to see, or claim to have seen in my posts. I only control the actual content.

Oh. In that case, do you believe the earth is cube-shaped? I haven't seen you claim it, so I thought I better ask.

And it makes just as much sense this time as last time.

If you're trying to come across as a contributor to meaningful discussion, you're not doing so well. Then again, we have to take into account your demonstrated potential, just to be fair. I'd say you're treading water.

I'm wondering who out there down-rated this thread. Plenty of likely suspects. Anyone care to drop a hint or two?

I love you too, dude.

Here's the short version.

Atheism is based on lies, and lies hurt people in various ways. I don't like seeing people get hurt, so I counter the lies with the truth.

The evil in us (evil is corruption and/or illogic is sin) is what make us come to false conclusions (blinds us).

So, atheism is a corrupt (evil) belief system based on lies that hurts people.

All evolutionists are not atheists, but those who are have compromised (corrupted) logic simply by the act of believing something so illogical (corrupt) as evolution, and are on the road to further corruption if not corrected.

These posts are an attempt to correct the corruption, if not for the people being posted to, then for the onlookers who are honestly searching for truth.



The evidence you believe is false evidence.

The evidence you believe (have faith in) is based on lies. This "evidence" has been created for the very reason of deceiving you into not discovering the God of the Bible, and therefore harming you (although you don't realize it).

This false evidence is used as a social control to accomplish many things, most of which have to do with centralizing power and money into the hands of a small group of powerful merchants/bankers.

This group of merchants/bankers are evil to the core in their deeds, yet their actions are justified by their faith in evolution.

If they can get you to believe in the faith of evolution, they will escape both your judgement and the judgement of Biblical law.

This is why I often say:

Evolution is a social control. If you believe it, you are controlled.

If you want to know more about how these kinds of lies are made acceptable to the masses, look at the methods used to promote the social status of cigarette smoking, the safety of mercury in vaccines, the inertness of mercury in amalgam fillings, the safety of aspartame (NutraSweet), etc., etc.

These same methods have been employed to cause you to have faith in something you've never seen before.

Those who do their homework without bias all come to the same conclusion that I have. Unfortunately, people tend to be so biased that they are unable to see past it.



The Bible speaks plainly about "other gods", but these gods are the creation of Yahweh who have disobediently "left their first estate" (read estate as body as in "robe") and will "die like men".

See this video for details:
Sons of God, Daughters of Men and the Nephilim, Dr. Michael Heiser

Mankind is replacing these gods (inheriting the kingdom and receiving eternal life) if they truly believe Yahweh and enter into a covenant with Him.

In short, don't put your faith into the wrong gods.


"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .

"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."

—G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.

Bex, like I said - I'm not contradicting creation....RAZD has at least on this occasion allowed for the possibility that evolution can be consistent with creation in some respects. I am not personally a YEC, so do keep it more open and do not see that as a problem. I do NOT believe we evolved, though, from lower beings so do not accept that aspect, but that part of evolution is not what you could call proven. However, the post I commented on I agreed with because he left those questions more open ended. On the other hand, the reason I say that about Russ is because I believe that about him. He sees things pretty black and white.....and mostly black. I do not think he presents a balanced viewpoint and do not agree with him on a lot of things. I don't like his constant negative posts about the U.S., or policeman or churches. There is some truth, but its a slanted viewpoint with a predominantly skeptical, negative viewpoint. He is dead wrong about Mormonism as well and I AM a Mormon. His sources for creationism even preach against my beliefs so why would I accept those sources as absolute truth?

The Bible says that the world would denegrade into a horrible time when evil rules the world (paraphrase). We now live in that time.

I am not negative. In fact, those who know me will tell you that I am an extremely positive person.

I think you're judging my character through the glasses of your emotion.

What I mean is this: Because my posts make you feel negative, so you simply make an association between what you feel and me. You do this without discerning whether or not what I am saying is true.

I love this country and I love people and this is exactly why I post negative things: To make people aware of the problems so they don't continue to ignore them.

Why don't I want people to ignore them?

Because, like cancer, ignoring these types of problems only enables them to get worse. I want to see them get better, so we have to work together to solve them. Of course, we can't solve them if we don't first know about them.

Again, the Bible was correct about the time we live in. It is abhorrently evil, and evil does in fact rule the world today. Why? Because God let us decide whether we would be:

(1) diligent in preventing evil from spreading or

(2) lazy and let it spread all it wants to.

And we have chosen to do what mankind has usually chosen to do. We ignored the problem and let it grow.

The video and information I post are intended to make people aware of the problems they've been ignoring so we can stop the denial and begin working on changing them.

About my views on mormonism...

I studied mormonism for a good while and have read most of the primary books and studied other mormon literature. I attended conference, seen "apostles" live (in person) speak, etc., etc.

I learned about kolob, the book of Abraham, the relationship between Christ and lucifer, the "errors" in the Bible (claimed by Joseph Smith), and a whole lot more that made me come to the conclusions that I did about mormonism. This is why I'm not a mormon today.

The battle within ourselves is between our head and our heart. The Bible says the heart of man is corrupt (illogical/sinful), this is why we should not follow it.

God wants us to live smart and wisely. He wants us to live by using our head and following his commands. Of course, if the Bible contains the commands of God, but some man comes around and tries to change it, how should be respond?

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

(Revelation 22:18-19)

The Bible warned us that there would be great deception in the end times—the times we now live in, and indeed, there is great deception today. The Bible says that the saints of God were found to be fighting against the "beast" of revelation. Why? Because of the lies and corruption of the beast.

I hope this makes sense.


"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

(Revelation 13:16-18)

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

(Revelation 14:9-11)

Hello LinearAq,

Yes, he keeps compounding his initial mistake - or keeps repeating his original deception/misunderstanding.

Yes this is the initial lie. The fact is that he never ended up with different exponential decay curves, just false results by NOT using the decay curve. All he demonstrates is that he is playing tricks on people that can't see his mistake because they don't fully understand the math.

Yes, and any mathematician\scientist\engineer\etc. would also tell you that if you get different results from the original input data, the data that was used to derive the formula, that the math is wrong, not the data. But let's look at where he defines his methodology:

In post 41757 on the "Evolution: The Big Joke" thread

This is where he first claims that the exponential decay curve is "just like" compound interest.

Then after I showed that converting compound interest from one period to another could produce results similar to the decay curve, he clarified which compound interest formula he meant. In post 41901 he said:

Because he references the "Effective Interest" article on wikipedia (the second link) and links to a site that calculates compound interest from a nominal interest rate, there is no question that the equation he means is "just like" the exponential decay curve is:

A = P(1 + (r/n))^(nt)

Where
* P = principal amount (initial investment)
* r = annual nominal interest rate (as a decimal)
* n = number of times the interest is compounded per year
* t = number of years
* A = amount after time t

Let's check this against his original post to confirm it:

We'll start with the half life to set the constant values in the formula with the original input data:

* P = inital amount = 100%
* r = annual nominal growth/decay rate (as a decimal)
* n = number of times the interest is compounded per half-life = 1
* t = number of half-lives = 1
* A = amount after 1 half-life = 50% (by definition)

Solve for r:

50 = 100(1+(r/1))^(1*1) = 100(1+r)
(1+r) = 50/100 = 0.50
r = 0.50-1.00 = -0.50 (negative 50%, right on cue, matches the original input dats)

Now we solve for his value (not the decay curve value) at half of a half-life, where n = 2:

A = 100(1+(-0.50/2))^(2*1) = 100(1-0.25)^2 = 100(0.75)^2 = 56.25% == 9/16

Yep, it matches the CTD calculation above. This does not, however, match the original input data used to develop the rate, so it is wrong, but where does the error come from?

It comes from using the wrong formula to calculate the value at time t = 1/2 half-life.

Rather than show that the decay rate changes, all CTD has done is confirm that the interest formula is the wrong formula to use. This means that he has not shown that the

Nt = No*e^(-?t)

Where
Nt = The amount of material at a particular time
No = The initial amount of material.
t = The time expended
? = the decay rate
(where ? differs between materials, but constant for each material)

changes with different "compounding" periods, as was his original, falsified, claim.

Not surprisingly the real exponential decay curve matches the original input data every time. No matter where you start on the curve, when you add 1 half-life you will have half the radioactive isotope than at the start of that half-life. CTD's formula does not do this either.

If you ask a mathematician to explain it he will tell you that in the formula

Nt = No*e^(-?t)

Nt is a function of one variable, t, usually expressed as Nt = f(t)

And he will tell you that in the formula

A = P(1 + (r/n))^(nt)

A is a function of two variables, n and t, usually expressed as A = f(n,t)

When you look at it this way it should be obvious that if you have different results when you change n but keep t the same, that the change in A is not due to the change in t or any of the constants, but to the change in n, a factor absent in the exponential decay curve.

Is there a value for n that results in the correct value? Yes, and you could solve for it, but we know that one value where it works is n = 1 (see above). Like a broken watch that shows the correct time twice a day, having only 1 value of n that gives correct decay amounts for the original input data means that n is not a variable but a constant == 1 in order to compare with the exponential decay curve.

A = P(1+r)^(t)

Where
* P = inital amount = 100%
* r = -0.50 (from above)
* t = number of half-lives
* A = amount after 1 half-life = 50% (by definition)

A = P(1-0.5)^t = P(1/2)^t

or if we want to measure t in years, compared to half-lives

A = P(1/2)^(t/Th)

Where
* P = inital amount
* r = -0.50 (from above)
* t = number of years
* Th = half-life in years
* A = amount after time t

Not surprisingly this is a valid formula for calculating decay at time t, and it matches the original input data every time. No matter where you start on the curve, when you add 1 half-life you will have half the radioactive isotope than at the start of that half-life. Can we show this is so?

From his wiki link

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

Of course in our comparison to the exponential decay curve we would no longer use r as the ratio after 1 half-life (-0.5), but i as the ratio after 1 half-life, as it is the "effective interest rate" for that period, so i=-0.5, and we have the same formula as above (shock!).

The other time when the broken watch is correct is when n = infinity.

REALITY CHECK

Just for fun, lets assume that CTD by some quirk of fate actually is right, and there is some n in nature that needs to be accounted for in the formula.

Let's also pretend we are CTD and insist that we use r = -0.5 even though we KNOW the actual rate generated will be different, what will be the difference?

A = P*e^rt

Where
* P = inital amount = 100%
* r = -0.50 (from above)
* t = number of half-lives = 1
* A = amount after 1 half-life

A = 100*e^(-0.5) = 100/e^0.5 = 60.65%

You can run a lot of calculations from n = 1 to n = infinity and you will see that A goes from 0.50 to 0.6065 along another exponential curve, thus the value will always be between 0.50 and 0.6065 with this formula.

What does that mean for radioactive decay rates and dating by radioactive decay? It would mean that the time necessary to reduce the original amount to 50% increases:

* P = inital amount = 100%
* r = -0.50 (from above)
* t = number of half-lives
* A = 50% after time t

50 = 100*e^-0.5t

Solve for t

50/100 = 0.5 = e^-0.5t
ln(0.5) = -0.5t
-0.693 = -0.5t
0.693/0.5 = t = 1.19 half-lives ...

Thus it take 20% longer for the amounts to decay to the levels used to calculate the age of the earth, and the age of the earth is increased by 20%. Thus CTD's manipulation of formulas does not make the earth younger.

Curious, then, that he is so adamant that he is correct eh? Maybe he is an evolutionist mole?

Enjoy.

You are rambling a bit here so I'd like to clear something up. Are you saying that being a Latter-Day Saint is the same as voluntarily taking on the mark of the beast?
I don't think that the two are congruent at all.
Sure, you believe that following Joseph Smith's teachings leads a person away from the true religion. However, they can always come back into the fold, so to speak.
Once someone takes the mark of the Beast, they cannot turn back. At least that's Tim LaHaye's interpretation of Revelations. I guess that's one of those things that Christ won't sacrifice Himself to forgive.

Personally Linear, I think everybody will know about the mark of the beast when it happens and I do not believe anybody will accept it in ignorance. It will be a decision that is made that one either stands for Christ, or they accept the Antichrist in place of Him. However, will there be exceptions and mitigating circumstances for some? Perhaps. I don't know that, only Christ knows this. However, will a person even be "able" to turn to Christ after they accept the mark? Again, I don't know. However, I also believe that Christ will not abandon those whose intentions are good and I believe those who make an inward decision for him but are afraid and intimidated will be given special graces and courage from the Holy Spirit. One only has to remember the fear of the apostles and how they abandoned him (all but one), because they were scared of being killed if they were found out. Yet let us not forget what happened to them in the upper room with the Holy Spirit. Tongues of fire came down upon each one of them. Not only were they relieved of their fears, but they ran out and began to preach from the roof tops (literally). Saint Peter's self digust at his own cowardice at running from Christ in the hour of need to 'save his own skin" were completely turned around - literally, by the Holy Spirit within him when he was threatened with death. He asked to be crucified upside down, as he did not feel worthy to be crucified in the same manner as Christ. The prospect of such a death, let alone the style of his crucifixion were a testament to that also. As well as the effects of their preaching, which was due to the workings of the Holy Spirit through them.

So we must remember God's hand in all these things. As Satan intensifies and reaches the climax of the tribulation, so too will the Holy Spirit! And to be honest, I have no doubts God will be there for all of us who reach out to him in that hour of need.

Russ: I hope this makes sense.

Jeanie: No, it doesn't.

Russ: He wants us to live by using our head and following his commands.

Jeanie: In my opinion YOU do not use your head. I think you are dictated by fear. And who are you to say I do not follow his commands? Who gives you the authority to stand as the leader of the church of Jesus Christ?

Russ: What I mean is this: Because my posts make you feel negative, so you simply make an association between what you feel and me. You do this without discerning whether or not what I am saying is true.

Jeanie: While I cannot deny that your posts have made me feel negative at times (like to the point of shaking and my heart pounding into my throat), I have thought this way about you from the start as far as my perception of you. Or that is to say, it was my first impression, but I held off my own judgment till I had more "evidence." I don't agree with you because I don't agree with you. Right now I feel no emotion about it.

BTW, John wrote other books in the Bible AFTER he wrote Revelations. So how he ended Revelations had nothing to do with the Bible itself, only that book... The books in the Bible were not even yet cannonized when he wrote that. You are coming off like some kind of expert, but you really are not.

THE SECOND BOOK OF NEPHI
CHAPTER 29
Many gentiles shall reject the Book of Mormon—They shall say: We need no more Bible—The Lord speaks to many nations—He will judge the world out of the books thus written. Between 559 and 545 B.C.
1 But behold, there shall be many—at that day when I shall proceed to do a marvelous work among them, that I may remember my covenants which I have made unto the children of men, that I may set my hand again the second time to recover my people, which are of the house of Israel;
2 And also, that I may remember the promises which I have made unto thee, Nephi, and also unto thy father, that I would remember your seed; and that the words of your seed should proceed forth out of my mouth unto your seed; and my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel;
3 And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.
4 But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, they shall have a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Do they remember the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?
5 O ye Gentiles, have ye remembered the Jews, mine ancient covenant people? Nay; but ye have cursed them, and have hated them, and have not sought to recover them. But behold, I will return all these things upon your own heads; for I the Lord have not forgotten my people.
6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?
7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also.
9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.
11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall bwrite the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.
12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.
13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews.
14 And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever.

I just read a site (skimmed, actually, but got the point) about deism. I hadn't understood what it was before. (When I looked it up before I stopped at wikipedia which isn't a very good source...). While I DO believe in revealed religion and holy scripture and revelation, I don't think RAZD is quite the "Godless" (not said but insinuated) person he is being made out to be. I was just about to give up on religion myself before I found The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I can understand the skepticism with organized religions..... and the frustration of being made out to be something you aren't!

Yes LinearAq, that is the jist of the issue.

Your local high school math teacher should be able to walk you through it.

Enjoy.

Good for you, Jeanie! I'm glad to see someone stick up for themselves against such remarks.

Get a load of this, said in direct reference to my religion.



First of all, dude, I don't believe in Yahweh or even know who it is. I wasn't raised under your belief system and I won't buy into it. You tell me your god speaks to you, can I not say that my gods have spoken to me, or I to Them? Basically what you've done through the above statement is invalidated Hinusim, Buddhism, Islam... and that's just to name the major religions of the world. Your posts are rank with supremacy and there is no finer example than your above post where you to sit there and invalidate my beliefs by brushing them aside saying I worship fallen angels and the like (I don't believe in any aspect of your religion, so how can I be worshipping some part of that faith? It's like calling Wiccans Satan-worshippers when they don't even believe in the Christian god or Satan in the first place.) I could very easily argue back by saying according to my religion you aren't worshipping the all father and the all mother but rather a mere branch of the two, and that your religion is all hogwash. The difference is a) I don't believe that and b) I wouldn't say such a thing. You want to argue whose religion is more validated? I could post you lists of documents indicating that Jesus Christ never existed and that much of the Christian mythos and stories are stolen from far far earlier religions (including suchs facets of Christianity as the three wise men, virgin birth, resurection and the cross). But I'm above telling other people not to have faith in their gods and that's where you and I so very clearly differ.

One would think that after noticing how many posters here get offended at your asinine remarks something would trigger in your head not to post in that manner and to change your writing habits. But as you like to say to others: maybe it's the mercury poisoning.

Unfrickingbelievable.

Pwcca, I think he's referring to the nephilim with that reference. That is a new concept to me! I tried watching the video on it and still intend to, but the guy on there is honestly kind of boring.

Obviously you are trashing something I also believe in when you refer to his beliefs in God and Christ and all that go with it in a Biblical sense, but he is actually claiming I WHO DO BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE and IN GOD AND JESUS THE CHRIST, am not a follower and I would have to say the same back to him in that case. His sheep know the sound of His voice..... Russ is standing in judgment of me quite literally cause he thinks he's ringing the warning bell of what HE thinks is true. Perhaps in some respects he is putting some things out for consideration.... I do not know what I believe about chemtrails - wouldn't rule much out these days. And I do concede that the police are crossing serious lines of power - I have personally witnessed it and just saw it happen to someone to a degree yesterday - but don't think ALL police are bad. My dad was a fireman as was my brother in law. They put their lives on the line for us, but so do police. But I think he takes some of those issues too far (and makes them black or white) and that he takes it too far with what he says to all of us. He crosses some serious lines with those who don't see things precisely as he does, prefacing or following his remarks "with all due respect" yet at the same time, you know he respects nothing so thinks we are not due ANY respect.

But I would have to agree, I think it is probably the mercury.... and a bit of fanaticism. And arrogance to be honest. He would make it sound otherwise and I think, in his heart, thinks he's doing it with the right intentions. It just seems he has some serious walls up. When you look at the whole picture there....that is all besides the rudeness. But he seems to think he can just say anything he likes about anyone...and that we should listen and "grow" from it. But I do not believe he has arrived in perfection and, perhaps, he himself has some growing and listening to do. I do agree in general on a lot of things he advocates..... I AM Christian, I know about mercury (don't think I can say I believe cause its just factual...but have known about it for some time), have studied natural health since I was in my early 20s, I homeschooled my kids, believe in the creation, believe in "secret combinations" or what he calls conspiracies, know vaccinations are overdone, etc. I thought this was such a great combined bunch of forums when I first came on here, but, sadly, there is a lot of head butting. In a way, though, that is partly what makes it so intriguing. I get bored with nothing but fake niceties to be honest. SoSock is a hoot (although not nice or wholly logical), Bex is a sweetheart with spunk, LL is our skeptic, and then there are the truly pure ToE, folk and the mixed up Christians like Linear..... And, ah, RAZD : ) CTD who keeps kicking.... Its actually the characters on here which make it interesting, including Russ : ) I've likely offended someone on here, but no more than they've offended me. In saying that my intent is not to offend, but that is how I view things. I just see you, Pwcca, as being raised to be what you are. I do not normally just tell everyone where I think they are wrong, either. This forum is a unique experience that way. I think you are at heart a pretty sweet, gentle person. I don't agree with you on how you believe, but you know would fight for your right to believe it or at least your rights period. Are you more of a Diest like RAZD? I think I have more of a concept of that, now.

If you're referring to where I said the following:



Then please consider the bolded addition to my quote. I am not discrediting Christ or saying Russ's or your religion is "wrong", I'm only saying I could use the same line as Russ and it'd be no more valid an argument. So, for the record, no, I am not saying your religion is wrong or that Christ did not exist -- just that I could if I wished to use that as an argument. If fact, I understand precisely how you feel as a Mormon, Jeanie, in that (non-Mormon) Christians chastize you your beliefs. They too chastize me mine -- and now, quite visibly, claim that my gods are mere extentions of theirs. Ironic since I don't believe in their god, so how on Earth can I be believing in some aspect of their god?



Well, now, to be fair I wasn't saying that it actually is the mercury. I'm just pointing out the injustice in his using that line on others, and making it apparent that such a comment works both ways.



I applaud the fact that you fight for people to have their personal beliefs even if they are not your beliefs. I am the furthest thing from an atheist yet still feel outraged when I see atheism badmouthed time and time again here. As to your question about me being a deist, Jeanie, no, I do not classify myself as a Deist. I am don't like the term neo-pagan because, to me, it invokes all sorts of cheezy new age images and trendy teenager trappings but we could say I fall into the neo-pagan category (roughly). I don't paint my fingernails black and wear pentagrams and listen to gothic music -- and I like to separate myself from that sort of imagery. Moreover, I am a polytheist (which means I believe in numerous gods, not just one single entity). We could say I practice something of a nature religion. I don't view the world as separate from the hereafter, I think they're one in the same. However, I also view a large part of religion -- any religion -- as tradition too. For me the most integral part of one's faith is not just what god(s) you believe in but also the traditions which accompany it. It is my belief that the predominant Christian fold and Christian supremacy snuffed out (and in some cases absorbed) the more ancient religions of the world, religions which I feel are closer to understanding the natural world and closer to being a part of it. I am a creature of the earth (comprised of the earth) and whatever remnant of me exists when I am gone will be a part of this world, not some other dimension -- that's how I view things, at least.

Pwcca: Then please consider the bolded addition to my quote. I am not discrediting Christ or saying Russ's or your religion is "wrong", I'm only saying I could use the same line as Russ and it'd be no more valid an argument. So, for the record, no, I am not saying your religion is wrong or that Christ did not exist -- just that I could if I wished to use that as an argument. If fact, I understand precisely how you feel as a Mormon, Jeanie, in that (non-Mormon) Christians chastize you your beliefs. They too chastize me mine -- and now, quite visibly, claim that my gods are mere extentions of theirs. Ironic since I don't believe in their god, so how on Earth can I be believing in some aspect of their god?

Jeanie: I appreciate that Pwcca. It sounds, too, like your faith is more about what I originally sensed when I first came on. (Kind of similar to how Native Americans are more one with earth and all that). I can see value in that. Its actually pretty spiritual. Can you explain your version of God(s)? I honestly just want to understand, but if uncomfortable posting online, you're welcome to pm me.

Hey Pwwca,

Glad to see your legs are still unshaved ...

Have you considered pantheism?

I have several friends who pantheists.

... meanwhile we see that CTD's math is still wrong, and that CTD is still unflinchingly obdurate in his denial of reality. He even linked here so that other people could find the evidence of his errors.

Looks like your legs will be warm this winter.

Enjoy.

Enjoy.

Enjoy.

RAZD: Glad to see your legs are still unshaved ...

Jeanie: With you and Pwcca's references to this...uh, what? Is this kind of the Alaskan what I call granola type thing? (Some women up there didn't shave under their arms let alone legs). Luckily, that way I don't have much hair anyway, but never heard of guys shaving their legs. (Except swimmers maybe???) Just curious. ?

Hey Jeanie,

No, it's a bet that Pwcca made with CTD. I don't know the exact terms, but I do believe that if CTD acknowledged the numerous transitional fossils and living forms, or admitted to being wrong on the math, or actually substantiated one of his arguments (like providing math for probability calculations), that Pwcca would shave his legs.

It's another part of the whole credibility thing. One single instance is all it takes.

Now me, I'd like to see before and after pictures, but I'm not holding my breath.

Enjoy.

Hi Jeanie,

As far as I recall, it started as a kind of bet from Pwcca that when CTD starts to respond in a mature and respectful fashion, Pwcca will then shave his legs and take a picture. We all know this will never happen. Not because of CTD's apparent ongoing "rudeness", but given the types of posts he's responding to, I'd say it would be near impossible. Plus the fact pwcca, is not really looking at the behaviours of his own team, he's only focussed on CTD's faults. And I dare say, he won't be too keen on going through with the shaving feat in the first place. So excuses will continue either way.

But there's more. Since Pwcca's asking for respect for his beliefs, one wonders why he hasn't shown the same towards Christians/Christianity? If Pwcca can pick a time where I joked about his personal beliefs and used an insulting analogy, I'd be interested to hear it. Since he compared our sacred book as a jabberwocky joke and did a mocking impression of a Christian in a state of rage (accusing others of blasphemy) (he also used foul language to do so and wasn't warned or banned). Yet no Christian on this forum has warranted such a ridiculous "imitation" and Pwcca obviously decided that a distasteful demonstration was in order.

So, when he decides to type up a thoughtful and respectful post asking others to please respect everybody's beliefs and religion (including his). It is pretty hard to swallow. Though I agree and feel that a person's personal religion should not be a subject for mockery or sarcastic imitation, it has only been demonstrated by Pwcca so far.

The very person asking for such respect, has been the only one who has used such mockery. Linda, RAZD, Linear, Russell2, Mordred, etc, as far as I'm aware, haven't even resorted to that.

We've all taken pot shots at oneanother, gotten sarcastic, etc (which is not unexpected in a debate forum), bristled and had our egos dented or threatened, gotten things wrong, been correct etc etc - but I don't know of anybody who has gone as far as Pwcca.....

So jeanie, if you're convinced by the guy's pleas for respect, just be aware there is history on this forum that he relies upon people forgetting!

Since when did following truth accurately become harmful?

This is a statement of our inability to see truth today. It is so colored by our own desires and wishes that it has become noble in the eyes of some to defend themselves against logic.

Have we really regressed this far?

Yes, unfortunately.

The Bible speaks volumes about the time we live in.

"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
(2 Timothy 4:2-4)


"Rebuke them sharply that they may be in sound doctrine."
[Titus 1:13]

"Titus was instructed to go to Crete and "set in order the things wanting, holding fast that he by sound Doctrine might be able to convince the gainsays."
[Titus 1: 5-9]

We're talking about the decision to have or not have eternal life here. It is not something to be taken lightly.



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

—Albert Einstein

I have borne testimony to you that I have investigated the Bible and found it to be true and accurate, and that it speaks on subjects that are of vital import. I would strongly suggest that you take this subject seriously and investigate these things for yourself because the consequences of negligence are not good.



It is no great feat that a god or God speaks to a man or woman.

It is a great thing to know the god or God that speaks to a man or woman.




When speaking truth, is it possible to not invalidate those things which contradict it?

How can a person claim to be logical when they hold that multiple, contradicting beliefs are all true?



The statements I make have nothing to do with pride. Pride is nothing more than a waste of time.

I make these statements because I care for those who are willing to explore whether what I'm saying is true.

I've done my homework and I know the God I worship.

I strongly suggest you examine yours more closely, for your own good.

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
(2 Corinthians 11:13-14)

His fallen comrades can perform the same tricks as well.



Truth does not care what you or I believe. Truth is truth. It is up to us to seek it (or not).

If you happen to worship (or we can just say "follow") a fallen angel, you are following someone who follows satan, therefore you are following satan as well.

(That's exactly what "the fall" was: Angels "following" satan in his own "fall". That's why they are called "fallen".)

It is very dangerous and is not a game. Deception is very strong in this time. Make sure you study the Bible to determine if what I have told you is true or not.

Know that even your very emotions against God and the Bible can be "stirred up" by demons and fallen angels. This is why emotions can be very deceptive. Don't follow them. Follow logic and reason.

God left plenty of evidence for you to find Him if you care enough to.



You could argue that, but if you did your homework, you would find that all "gnostic" data is divided into two ultimate camps. One is pure and very accurate and the other has been carefully altered and changed to deceive.

Be careful and study searching for evidence, not following emotion.



There is nothing noble about withholding truth from another.

"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
(Proverbs 27:17)

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."
(Proverbs 27:6)

How does a friend wound but by telling the truth.



I have studied those beliefs and found that they are wrought with gross error. They are a deception.

Had I found them to have integrity, I would not be a Christian because I have no desire to be walking a belief that has error or is simply not true.

Study deeper.



If what I say is true—that your god is a demon or fallen angel—then I do you a favor by telling you the truth.

Again, there is nothing noble about telling the truth about what your research has revealed about another's folly. It is the duty of us to take care of each other, not tickle each other's emotions.

A word to the wise is sufficient.



The same small group of people continue to get offended, none more than you.


I hope you eventually decide to honestly investigate the things I say. Time is short and the God of the Bible has given you sufficient time to decide if you will follow Him or follow your own desires.

"And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

(Revelation 13:15-18)

"And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."

(Revelation 14:9-12)

When you give evidence rather than the same old Kent Hovind links and know thyself teachings I'll happily take a look at this so-called truth.



Blah blah blah. The same old bible thumping. Interesting that the "prophecies" and "truths" of your holy book are somehow more valid than those of other holy books. Oh but let me guess, you've read them extensively and found them to be untrue and just shut up Pwcca, take Russ's word for it. Right. I'm pretty clear on that part.



And who the hell are you to tell me I don't know the difference and you, oh wise man, do?




Yet the fact remains, you have no clue what I follow or worship. Thus you draw conclusions based off assumptions, thus your numerous claims that you do your homework and always know what you're talking about is now in question.



Is that why you deny the evidence supporting carbon dating and evolution itself?



Again, more claims without any evidence to back them up. I'm sure the religions of the world appreciate your insight and take your word for it. Russ has done his home work, let us all pay homage to that.



Sounds like a lot of hot air to me. Words are cheap and you post pages worth of them, yet you rarely yield evidence and even less often refute the evidence which is posted here by others.



Again, you don't know squat about my beliefs since I mention little about them here so all you're doing is making yourself look uneducated when you label something you're unlearned about. Maybe I've "done my homework", Russ. The fact of the matter is you don't know my beliefs so you have no room to claim more knowledge about it than me.



I can see you're not reading a great deal of the posts here.



Blah blah blah. Yawn.

Nothing like censoring your own exposure to information.

Kent Hovind does an excellent job of exposing the lies in the textbooks as well as the conspiracy to shove the evolution myth down the throats of children.

For those who are willing to examine the entire body of evidence...

http://urlbam.com/ha/K



Humility is the hinge on the gate of knowledge.

For those who have an ear.



If you don't know the difference, you really need to.

I know you're insulted and your pride is hurt, but I certainly hope you can lay those things aside and look into the content of the information I'm providing.

You already rejected some important information in the form of a video that a provided for you. You said it was "boring".

For your sake, I hope to God that you don't censor your exposure to information based in how "exciting" it is.

Truth is truth; There is only one truth. It's up to us to find it, and we can if we truly want to.

If we only want to be "excited", truth probably won't be found by us.

Please look at content based on logic and reason, not emotion, for your own sake.



You already told me that your god is not the God of the Bible. This means you are either:

(1) following a fallen angel, or

(2) following an idol.

For your own sake, you don't want to make this grave mistake.



Evolution is just like amalgam fillings, vaccines, the federal reserve bank, and any other of the myriad of lies that we current live with:

"False"

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"
(2 Thessalonians 2:10-13)



The evidence is readily available for those who want it.



I provide tons of evidence, but you find it "boring" (your own words).

Don't make this mistake. This subject is too important.



Again, you've openly indicated that your "god" is not the God of the Bible. Since there is only one God and only one truth, then there is indeed something wrong with your belief system.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to insult you. It's just that this subject is much too important to neglect.

When I say "I've done my homework", I mean it. I can only hope that you do yours.



It's always the same small group of people.

Hundreds of people read these posts and say nothing.


"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."

—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.


"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
(Revelation 22:13-21)

This is how religious wars have started, Russ. Both sides are utterly convinced that they see the truth and everyone who believes differently is an infidel.

You might one day consider the possibility that there is more than one way to the truth and that people are on different paths. Just a thought.

Another thought is that you are unlikely to convert people to your cause by telling them they worship Satan. Nor will they take kindly to further elaboration that you're only telling them this to be kind because you know better than they do. Though I suspect you will only decide that they are sinners who are not ready to see the light. I find it unfortunate that you would cast the vast majority of the people in the world in this mould. It's quite arrogant, to be frank.



This is simply an absurd claim, as is plain to see for anyone who reads this forum, and this post itself provides zero evidence for any of its assertions. All it does it link for the upteenth time to a Hovind video full of scientific inaccuracies, which is about as far from "the entire body of evidence" as it is possible to get.

This is a very dangerous belief.

Many people like to say that Christ was a great Teacher. They also like to say that He was nothing more than that: A teacher.

We have to ask ourselves: How good of a Teacher could He have been if these statements that He made were untrue:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
(John 14:6)

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep."
(John 10:1-2)

"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."
(John 10:9)


I'll be honest with you.

When I first read and began studying the Bible, I thought Christ was arrogant. Who was He to be making these statements about Himself?

Well, I continued studying (against my emotional bend) and eventually became so overwhelmed with the evidence that I found. I could no longer be insulted by Christ. I simply had to accept the truth no matter how I initially felt about it.

So, I humbled myself and tried praying, and when I did, God answered and directed me to a church. Do you remember my testimony?

Here's a link:
My Testimony: An Answered Prayer



The links I provide have tons of evidence. Just because you don't like the evidence does not mean it's not there.

As adults, we all need to learn to put our emotionalism aside and view the evidence as objectively as possible. This is an attribute of maturity.


"I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts."

—Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945), as quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148.

Really? So people who are convinced that their religion is the one true religion, and everyone else is wrong, pose no danger at all do they? Tell me how many wars tolerance has led to, versus intolerance.

What's more, by so offhandedly brushing off a few billion people in the world as being mistaken in their beliefs, despite the fact that you know very little about those beliefs and are not open to considering for one moment that they might actually contain a grain of truth or wisdom . . . well, I'll leave it at that. It says a lot.



If you choose to believe the teachings of someone who claims to understand physics yet who thinks the sun burns by combustion, that's fine, but it is inaccurate to claim that this person possesses "tons of evidence." What's more, you are very conveniently brushing off all the threads here which have been discussing science, the vast majority of which you have not engaged in. Unfortunately for you, your own assertions carry no weight until you decide to address something specific -- radiometric dating, for example. This would of course entail explaining why it is wrong, rather than brushing it aside as lies, which presumably is why you are staying away from that discussion.

Has there been any more consistent advocate of intolerance hereabouts than LindaLou?

Yes. That would be you.

Russ, I'd just like to inform you that after immersing myself in "homework" I've just found out that, as fate would have it, my religion is the one true one. I can show you why all the other religions of the world are wrong and blasphemous via a youtube video if you like. I ask that you have an open mind by ignoring that the person making these claims is a prison convict, a wife beater, an income tax evader and touts a bogus PhD. Through this thorough and detailed research I have found out that the Christian god is a actually Mephistopheles in disguise and you are actually worshipping Satan while you don't realize it. Please, Russ, I am trying to save you from this damnation. Just take my word for it. I've done my homework©, I've done my homework©, I've done my homework©.

Russ: That's exactly what "the fall" was: Angels "following" satan in his own "fall". That's why they are called "fallen".)

Jeanie: Not quite exact....Adam and Eve were not angels. They were man and woman. At the time in the garden they were immortal beings so I guess by that you mean angel? But they became mortal upon their fall and it was not in any way equal to lucifer's fall. Lucifer was cast out of heaven for open rebellion against God with no chance of redemption and he was denied the chance to receive a body. Adam and Eve were our first parents which is, actually, a very noble calling! All part of the plan. They ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil against God's warning because God did want them to CHOOSE and KNOW what they were accepting for their lives in partaking. It opened their eyes and caused them to become human at which time blood started coursing through their veins. God warned them what would happen but it WAS part of the plan and intended to happen so that we could all, then, come to earth and prove ourselves. There was a purpose behind it and knowing that adds perspective to understanding the Plan of Salvation. Its not quite as bleak as you make it sound. I agree with most of how you interpret things....and believe you are led of God overall or in some things. I know you do mean well, Russ. I'm not "tickling" Pwcca's ears, either. He is a good, sweet man. We are not his judges. And you certainly are not mine. I would suggest you stick to truth, though, and lay aside the arrogant attitude you have of telling everyone else where they are wrong and the manner in which you do it.

I just watched The Guardian. Great story. I understand that you feel you have a mission here. (The movie reminded me of you a little). You may mean well and I'm sure you do. But you are not always right... nor are you in any kind of position of authority other than owning this forum.