Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 821:
Line 821: − :::::::::So, would I be right in saying that in 200 years mankind's intelligence will disintegrate into nothing more than walking apes or are we headed toward [[liberal stupidity]] against [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]? Striking. [[User:Paulhernandez|Paulhernandez]] 00:37, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)
Revision as of 04:49, June 17, 2011
, 04:49, June 17, 2011Reverted edits by Paulhernandez (talk) to last revision by BradB
::::::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)
::::::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)
:::::::You have provided no evidence that the rate has always been negative. Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You have provided no evidence that the rate has always been negative. Would an increase in intelligence be evidence for or against a young earth? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)