Changes
/* Diminishing intelligence, etc. */ The rate of decline need not be constant, and nothing in the counterexample implies that it would be. But it's continuous and differentiable -- surely not a step
::::Andy, if neither of the above arguments are enough to convince you of the central flaw of this line of reasoning, then may I ask that you or another contributor supply this article with a graph illustrating how this backward extrapolation gives an age of 6000 years using actual quantifiable means of measuring human intelligence (i.e. IQ scores). Or, if someone has posted such a graph on the internet, please provide a link to this graph in the article as a reference. I only ask that the math actually be conducted and not assumed to fit a given theory. And I again feel like I should add that removal of this argument as proof of young Earth does not in effect support an old Earth, it supports neither.--[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:41, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps we've become so unintelligent as to ignore the lack of evidence for the underlying assumption that the rate of decline is constant? Andy, if it were the case that people were becoming more intelligent, would that be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:57, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::The rate of decline need not be constant, and nothing in the counterexample implies that it would be. But it's continuous and differentiable -- surely not a step function.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
