Automoderated users, edit
140
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 64:
Line 64: + +
Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law (view source)
Revision as of 00:27, March 25, 2011
, 00:27, March 25, 2011→Putting Conservapedia's Law in perspective
::::::::::Very well put, Mike. Note that extrapolating 100 generations into the future is implausible view that may be the result of a belief in an Old Earth. In fact, there's no logical reason to expect more than a few generations into the future. See, e.g., [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Very well put, Mike. Note that extrapolating 100 generations into the future is implausible view that may be the result of a belief in an Old Earth. In fact, there's no logical reason to expect more than a few generations into the future. See, e.g., [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 24 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::I guess I don't accept the premise that conservatism is infinite. Can you get any more sinless than not sinning? How can you get any more conservative than conservative? In terms of the graphs, a graph of conservatism would have an asymptote representing conservatism before the Fall - a level we can approach (maybe even meet), but not exceed. Conserapedia's Law does not predict such an asymptote for the growth of conservatism.
:::::::::::What is the argument that conservatism is infinite? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:27, 24 March 2011 (EDT)