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.