Mathematical Formulas In Nature - Absolute Proof Of Creation

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't even academia look forward to being found wrong?

And don't they even have a word for that?

Spoiler

progress

Yeah, but there's a difference to a progression of knowledge to a better understanding of the world and universe, and you just going "Science can take a hike" every chance you get.

The former is admitting that information is incorrect and the latter is just blithely saying everything is wrong no matter what.

And don't drag out your old petty, infantile list of disasters you want to blame on science.

 

[AV1611VET]

A heck of a long time to hold a grudge...

Not so.

I've since been born again.

Old grudges have been forgiven.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not so.

I've since been born again.

Old grudges have been forgiven.

It does not seem like it in the slightest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, but there's a difference to a progression of knowledge to a better understanding of the world and universe, and you just going "Science can take a hike" every chance you get.

Science is welcome to stay.

As long as they keep their "progression of knowledge" out of the Bible.

But they won't.

They'll continue to Arab phone terms and downright deny mainline beliefs -- all in the name of the scientific method.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science is welcome to stay.

As long as they keep their "progression of knowledge" out of the Bible.

But they won't.

They'll continue to Arab phone terms and downright deny mainline beliefs -- all in the name of the scientific method.

Because of people like the OP who try and crowbar science into their own interpretation of the Bible every chance they get without actually doing any critical thinking of either the science or the Bible, and also because of people like yourself who so vehemently feel a need to be persecuted that they'll make up anything (like your embedded age nonsense) to try and get an imaginary one up over science.

It's not a one-way street on this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because of people like the OP who try and crowbar science into their own interpretation of the Bible every chance they get without actually doing any critical thinking of either the science or the Bible,

Science can take a hike -- is that why you're saying?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science can take a hike -- is that why you're saying?

... NO.

 

[Joseph G]

Well, you need to understand that if something is making sense in your head, it does not necessarily mean it makes sense objectively, for others.

And the ability to communicate your ideas clearly and concisely is critical for mutual understanding in a conversation.

Doesn't get any more clear and concise than this:

biblegateway.com

Happy seeking!

Edison didn't claim an academic title. Herr Doktor Professor Einstein completed his doctorate in physics. Hovind bought a "degree" from a diploma mill so he could get the "respect" of suckers.

I'm not gonna go round and round with a guy hung up on pedigrees. I'll not respond further to that tired divergent tack, except to say this...

The man has obviously put in the necessary research work over the years. Methinks the strength of his case is what intimidates. Got to hand it to the 3 heavyweights who took him on - they had enough confidence in their data to do so.

So...

There are two presentations up for debate on this thread: The Fibonacci Sequence addressed in the OP - and - AV's vid featuring a broader debate on the theory vs. Intelligent Design.

No one ever claimed the vid had anything to do with Fibonacci.

So...

Rebuttal to what?

What you are still dodging - Hovind's side of the debate. You find him irrelevant - great. The fact that you are avoiding his argument remains apparent, notwithstanding. Carry on.

I already gave you some info about the Fibinacci spirals in certain types of plants. We can discuss that more if you like, but it is just a consequence of how the thing grows. It is not evidence for "design".

Unconvincing. Especially considering that I know from prior threads that you are very aware of the astounding prominence of mathematics in all of creation - a creation that did not design itself. A 2 yr. old understands as much.

Really... you have to expend considerable effort to deny the obvious.

Just a curious question. What if you *did* conclude that evidence was sufficient to acknowledge Intelligent Design - how do you think that realization would affect you and others personally?

I am uninterested in your Peter or John or you holy book. They aren't relevant to anything here.

Very relevant to me and to others, including observers - and its my thread. If that aggravates you, perhaps you should consider not participating. G'day!

Job 40:2 NKJV
"Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? He who rebukes God, let him answer it."

Easy enough to interpret, folks?

biblegateway.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not gonna go round and round with a guy hung up on pedigrees. I'll not respond further to that tired divergent tack, except to say this...

I'm not hung up on pedigrees, but Kent Hovind is not any kind of creditialed scientist. (For some reason you also made a false claim about Einstein not having a doctorate in his area of expertise and he certainly did.)

The man has obviously put in the necessary research work over the years. Methinks the strength of his case is what intimidates. Got to hand it to the 3 heavyweights who took him on - they had enough confidence in their data to do so.

Kent Hovind has done no "research work". He cherry picks "scientific claims" to attach to his predetermined religious positions. When he is debunked publicly he maintains his false claims because he is a liar. He is also a convicted of tax fraud, charged with spousal abuse, and is apparently unconcerned that a child died at his "theme park". Hovind is a man of the lowest character and a tells blatant lies about science. I don't know who these 3 heavyweights who took him on, but nearly anyone with even a smidge of knowledge is a relative heavyweight compared to Hovind.

So...

There are two presentations up for debate on this thread: The Fibonacci Sequence addressed in the OP - and - AV's vid featuring a broader debate on the theory vs. Intelligent Design.

I responded to your Fibonacci claims (the subject of the thread) and I've seen nothing in response.

No one ever claimed the vid had anything to do with Fibonacci.

I have seen no video. I do not read the posts of "AV" as he is not interested in debate, only progating his disdain for science and scientists. This paragraph is far more attention than he deserves.

So...



What you are still dodging - Hovind's side of the debate. You find him irrelevant - great. The fact that you are avoiding his argument remains apparent, notwithstanding. Carry on.

I've neither seen nor care to see his video. I'm not going to "debate" a liar like Hovind.

Unconvincing. Especially considering that I know from prior threads that you are very aware of the astounding prominence of mathematics in all of creation - a creation that did not design itself. A 2 yr. old understands as much.

Can you actually discuss the mathematics in nature? I don't know if I've seen you try.

Really... you have to expend considerable effort to deny the obvious.

If it was "obvious" I would accept it. It is not.

Just a curious question. What if you *did* conclude that evidence was sufficient to acknowledge Intelligent Design - how do you think that realization would affect you and others personally?

"Intelligent Design" is one of the most fraudulent "movements" I have ever seen. It is stealth religion trying to evade the law.

Very relevant to me and to others, including observers - and its my thread. If that aggravates you, perhaps you should consider not participating. G'day!

Job 40:2 NKJV
"Shall the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? He who rebukes God, let him answer it."

Easy enough to interpret, folks?

biblegateway.com

It isn't relevant to the claim in the OP or me at all.

 

[trophy33]

Doesn't get any more clear and concise than this:

biblegateway.com

Happy seeking!

I guess you do not realize that you are in the "Physical & life sciences" section. And even if you wanted to create some theological reasoning, you would really need to try more than this.

 

[BCP1928]

Your, or my, respect is irrelevant to his argument. Have you got a rebuttal, or no?

No. There is nothing to rebut, as none of his arguments addressed the issue at hand, that is, whether demonstrating mathematical realism demonstrates the existence of God. Nor did he support the notion that the theory of evolution denies the existence of God. He gave us his religious views--which nobody else really cares about--and that was about it.

 

[dlamberth]

Science is welcome to stay.

As long as they keep their "progression of knowledge" out of the Bible.

But they won't.

They'll continue to Arab phone terms and downright deny mainline beliefs -- all in the name of the scientific method.

My want is that the religious keeps their Bible out of science.

But hey won't.

 

[Joseph G]

I've neither seen nor care to see his video.

Then you really have little to contribute to the discussion, eh?

"Intelligent Design" is one of the most fraudulent "movements" I have ever seen. It is stealth religion trying to evade the law.

A "movement" begun ~ 6000 years ago, when Adam recognized His Creator. And has not diminished to this day, despite man's attempts to pretend God away and suppress His Word, so as to remain himself in the dark. Because he loves his sin so much so as to condemn anything or anyone who disrupts his efforts to rationalize it away. And encourage others to join in. A kind of twisted, humanistic evangelism, it is.

It isn't relevant to the claim in the OP or me at all.

And yet you just... can't... help... responding. Better watch that blood pressure!

Jesus loves you, Hans!

biblegateway.com

 

[Joseph G]

Hey, here's a global message to the usual suspects. Not going round with ya'll anymore on minutiae. Have you ever noticed how quickly you abandon the OP on these threads? Anyone want to address the OP and/or the vid with a reasoned, point-by-point response, I'll hop back in. Ya'll can fight over the bones of distraction amongst yourselves.

God bless ya, buckaroos!

biblegateway.com

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Hey, here's a global message to the usual suspects. Not going round with ya'll anymore on minutiae. Have you ever noticed how quickly you abandon the OP on these threads? Anyone want to address the OP and/or the vid with a reasoned, point-by-point response, I'll hop back in. Ya'll can fight over the bones of distraction amongst yourselves.

God bless ya, buckaroos!

biblegateway.com

You never really said anything substantive to address in the OP anyway. You just made the claim that humans can see patterns in nature thus INTELLIGENCE! And... that's it. You said nothing to support your claim, gave no real examples of it being in the Bible apart from a VERY loosely applied Bible verse, and then went off on using other videos that I don't think you watched to begin with.

Also, if you want to make a point with using the url to biblegateway.com, then it's best that you actually include the link IN the url to the part you want people to read. All you're doing is just putting a URL up.

Not that you really seem to actually care in the slightest since all you do is proselytize, preach and dump out Bible verses that do nothing except show that you can quote Bible verses.

If you want people to actually engage with you meaningfully, create an OP that shows you want to engage with people meaningfully.

 

[BCP1928]

Hey, here's a global message to the usual suspects. Not going round with ya'll anymore on minutiae. Have you ever noticed how quickly you abandon the OP on these threads? Anyone want to address the OP and/or the vid with a reasoned, point-by-point response, I'll hop back in. Ya'll can fight over the bones of distraction amongst yourselves.

God bless ya, buckaroos!

biblegateway.com

No loss. You never responded to any of my points regarding the OP. You might as well have never been here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then you really have little to contribute to the discussion, eh?



A "movement" begun ~ 6000 years ago, when Adam recognized His Creator. And has not diminished to this day, despite man's attempts to pretend God away and suppress His Word, so as to remain himself in the dark. Because he loves his sin so much so as to condemn anything or anyone who disrupts his efforts to rationalize it away. And encourage others to join in. A kind of twisted, humanistic evangelism, it is.

When you capitalize "Intelligent Design" it refers to a movement that started in the 1980s. (Irreducible complexity, specified information, that's their nonsense.) If you want to talk about how you think your god put math into nature, then do so. Don't entangle it in all of this other unnecessary stuff. (like ID, sin, etc.)

And yet you just... can't... help... responding. Better watch that blood pressure!

Jesus loves you, Hans!

biblegateway.com

I don't care about your religion.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'll repeat and expand upon what I said... the ability to interpret His *fundamental* attributes are available, in fact unavoidable, to *all* of us - in His creation. On these we all agree whether we admit such to ourselves and each other, or not. Certainly enough to discern that He is calling us.

God says He makes this clear to all - none of us gets a "oh, I had a different interpretation" get-out-of-jail free card. And jail is a mild word for what I pray will be no one's eventual destination.

Either we believe Him or we don't - it is still our responsibility to respond to Him

The problem with this line of argument (Of necessity I use the term loosely here) is that to refute it I would have to ignore forum rules that prohibit non-believers from attacking the Chrisitan faith. That's often a bit frustrating. The closest I can get is to note that arguing that what you believe is true, because you have come to believe it is true, tends not to carry much weight with people who are not deeply moved by what you believe. And, in my own case, since I don't believe anything it has zero chance of success.

AV, your obsession with Pluto is not healthy.

I'm sure the relationship is purely Platonic.

What you are still dodging - Hovind's side of the debate. You find him irrelevant - great. The fact that you are avoiding his argument remains apparent, notwithstanding. Carry on

You have avoided the straightforward natural explanation of plant growth provided by, I think, @Hans Blaster .
Or, to put it another way, you have ignored the point made by @SelfSim that the formula is simply a way to describe what happens, not the thing that causes what happens. That in itself pretty well undermines Hovind's argument.

And yet you just... can't... help... responding. Better watch that blood pressure!

Jesus loves you, Hans!

I do hope you do not mean that as it sounds, for that comes across as one of the nastiest, cynical statements I have read here for a long time.

Hey, here's a global message to the usual suspects. Not going round with ya'll anymore on minutiae. Have you ever noticed how quickly you abandon the OP on these threads? Anyone want to address the OP and/or the vid with a reasoned, point-by-point response, I'll hop back in.

As I pointed out above, Hovind's argument is contradicted by the fact that it is mistaken and irrelevant. I recommend you join the najority of Christians and the majority of all humans who simply marvel at the intricacies and beauty of nature and stop futile attempts to you use it to proves some thing that matches your beliefs. If faith is important to you, why this desire for proof?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm sure the relationship is purely Platonic.

If only you'd deliberately misspelled it as Plutonic...

 

[Hans Blaster]

If only you'd deliberately misspelled it as Plutonic...

Is that a relationship with a pluton?