Shoe, you are swimming in the depths of absurdity. Carefully read your original quote again: If Christian global growth is projected to be 2% in 2005, 2006, 2007 and onward, we can assume that it was close to 2% in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and so on." So in other words you are saying: 1) Projected Growth in 2005, 2006, 2007+ is expected to be 2% 2) We can THEREFORE assume that it was close to 2% in the PAST This is such an absurd, ridiculous, and blatantly FALSE assumption. Now please explain by what logic/math you can ASSUME something about the past WHICH HAS ALREADY occurred based on a future projection? You cant. Your continuous function nonsense, is just that. Could you please provide us with the continuous function for global christian percentage growth/decline? Give me a break. This makes no sense at all. The FACTS are, your assumption has already been proved false because growth HAS NOT BEEN 2% per year in 2001 to 2004. Your simply WRONG, and your math/logic skills completely off base. It is illogical to make ASSUMPTIONS on the chaotic past of population growth based on future predictions. Its even silly to try, because its easier and obviously far more accurate to SIMPLY CHECK what already happened. Find me a single mathematician that agrees you can predict the past based on future projections. Look at ASKJ.... its up 4100% recently. So can we ASSUME that in the past it has been growing at these kinds of rates? Oooops.... it lost 99% of its value in around 2000. Your logic is horribly flawed. Its not even debatable. peace axeman
I already posted the numbers shoe. And the burden of proof is on you not me. Logically, the numbers show there WAS a decline elsewhere. There is no requirement for me to pinpoint exactly where since YOU are making the assertion. Your numbers are a mere subset, and I have already explained why they are irrelevant. Take the horse blinders off and deal with the big picture. There is NOT current explosive growth in christianity on a global scale, PERIOD. You have not come close to refuting that. peace axeman
I dont see the point of moving on to Myth #2, when Myth #1 was so crystal clear and supported by such strong OBJECTIVE numbers. Shoe didnt provide a single counter set of data, and STILL wont concede the point. The debate was not even close. It is therefore WORTHLESS debating with someone THAT biased and closeminded on a SECOND issue that may not be as clear as the first issue. Shoe went through some simply AMAZING twisting, turning and spinning on the first OBVIOUS issue. Issue #2 will be an even more torturous and drawn out silly mess of a debate. I could debate that the sky is blue with shoe and it would take 500 pages for him to finally admit it. And more than likely, he wouldn't even admit that, he would just continually change the subject instead. CONCLUSION: The data clearly does NOT support a current global explosive growth of Christianity. End of story. Really. peace axeman
A stock is not a good analogy. World population has little to no volatility. But I told you: I can accept your point if Christianity lost 300 million in the last thirty years. The ironic thing is that it doesn't matter. My original post to damir is still valid regardless...As usual, you guys are nitpicking my arguments... Here's a sobering thought: there can be little more decline in growth becasue there is nowhere for Christianity to decline! Western Europe and America has already bottomed out. Christianity has nowhere to go but up at this point and will be carried by the high growth in the South. So again my point to damir is still valid...
Yeah, right! And when there's 2.6 billion Christians on planet earth in 20 years we'll just attribute that to what? Low growth? Declining membership? Call it what you want but there is going to be a drastically higher number of Christians down here shortly. And that was my point to damir!
You miss the point again. Simply put.... future projections are not capable of altering the past. In fact... your future projects are blatantly wrong and do not match up with history, which already proves that your assumption and therefore assertion is FALSE. Also... what you call "nitpicking" is what I call sticking to the issue which you apparently DONT WANT TO DO. Your original assertion was the there is currently explosive growth in christianity. This has been proven completely false, and beaten to death with statistics from several sources. Your position is lost. You can make excuses and spin what happened any way you like, but it doesnt change the reality of the matter. CONCLUSION: The data does not support a current christian growth explosion. peace axeman
I already explained why absolute numbers are a useless measurement. I even gave you a simple frog/turtle analogy. But you are only proving you dont wish to learn. After I shred your argument to pieces, you simply repeat it a short time later. What is the point? You simply just dont get it. peace axeman
If their numbers as a percentage of world population dropped, then yes, that would absolutely be a decline. If we use your faulty absolute numbers, then I can claim ALL GROUPS are experiencing explosive growth, because all groups numbers increase as the general population increases. But this would just be yet another worthless truism. It seems you simply dont understand why percentages are the correct measurement. peace axeman
technically, this requirement eliminates every single person who refers to themselves as "christian". in practical terms it eliminates a mere majority.