The Fibonacci Sequence -

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Thread closed as per OP request.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Thread Reopened per OP Request

Please remember the site rules when debating.​

 

[Aryeh]

I think it is remarkable that human mathematics evidently models so well the interaction of natural forces which produce those patterns in nature.

That's humanity in general, no?

 

[Speedwell]

That's humanity in general, no?

I suppose. Many humans were involved in the creation of mathematics, and most make use of its applications.

 

[Radrook]

No, you were the one emphasizing that you were posting for the emotional appeal.

No, I am not forgetting this. The posts here remind me of that, on a regular basis.
Doesn´t change anything about my statement: Emotional appeals aren´t expected in a science forum.

With what?

Nope! The thread is an appeal to reason via the examination of a mathematical pattern found in nature not to emotion. That is a strawman. Also, as I said, you are also committing the fallacy of false dichotomy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope! The thread is an appeal to reason via the examination of a mathematical pattern found in nature not to emotion. That is a strawman. Also, as I said, you are also committing the fallacy of false dichotomy.

What reason indicates that these patterns are evidence for a god of any sort at all?

 

[Radrook]

What reason indicates that these patterns are evidence for a god of any sort at all?

Refusal to reason isn't a rebuttal. It is merely refusal to reason.

 

[KCfromNC]

Refusal to reason isn't a rebuttal. It is merely refusal to reason.

That's nice. What does it have to do with this thread?

 

[Radrook]

That's nice. What does it have to do with this thread?

What does a refusal to reason modus-operandi have to do with any thread? A genuine debate demands an adherence to certain agreed-upon rules. Refusal to reason isn't one of them. In fact, refusal to reason is the antithesis of a debate and the person deploying it is better off sitting in front of a padded wall and chanting a mantra.

 

[KCfromNC]

What does a refusal to reason modus-operandi have to do with any thread?A genuine debate demands an adherence to certain agreed-upon rules. Refusal to reason isn't one of them. In fact, refusal to reason is the antithesis of a debate and the person deploying it is better off sitting in front of a padded wall and chanting a mantra.

That's great and all, but is anyone refusing to reason here? You'll have to be specific is what you think the problem is. Pretending everyone else is irrational might make you feel better, but it isn't all that convincing compared to actually addressing the content of what people are actually saying.

 

[Radrook]

That's nice. What does it have to do with this thread?

It describes the atheistic response to it.

 

[Radrook]

That's great and all, but is anyone refusing to reason here? You'll have to be specific is what you think the problem is. Pretending everyone else is irrational might make you feel better, but it isn't all that convincing compared to actually addressing the content of what people are actually saying.

What people are saying is simply that they can't see what they would normally admit seeing if a creator wasn't involved. Pretending? The only ones pretending here are the atheists via feigning an instantaneous, magically-induced lobotomy and an abysmal IQ reduction whenever evidence of a creator is presented.

 

[quatona]

What people are saying is simply that they can't see what thy would normally admit seeing if a creator wasn't involved.

I haven´t seen anyone denying the Fibonacci-sequence.

Pretending? The only ones pretending here are the atheists via feigning an instantaneous, magically-induced lobotomy and an abysmal IQ reduction whenever evidence of a creator is presente3d.

Fortunately, you recently assured me that your posts aren´t meant to antagonize. Otherwise, I would have taken this paragraph as an example for your will to antagonize.

 

[Speedwell]

What people are saying is simply that they can't see what thy would normally admit seeing if a creator wasn't involved.

What we are saying is that we don't see how you can conclude intentional organization from functional organization and would not necessarily do so even if a creator was not involved.

 

[Radrook]

I haven´t seen anyone denying the Fibonacci-sequence.

Fortunately, you recently assured me that your posts aren´t meant to antagonize. Otherwise, I would have taken this paragraph as an example for your will to antagonize.

How am I antagonizing by describing exactly what I perceive to be going on? A feigning of inability to reason? Such inability to reason can be explained away if the individuals involved were mentally handicapped. But from normally intelligent individuals such as you and other atheists here-the only other explanation for such a demonstration is feigning.

 

[Speedwell]

How am I antagonizing by describing exactly what I perceive to be going on? A feigning of inability to reason?

By accusing us of "feigning."

 

[quatona]

How am I antagonizing by describing exactly what I perceive to be going on?

In that your perception is antagonizing.

 

[Radrook]

In that your perception is antagonizing.

I am simply responding as honestly as I can to your questions.
My apologies if you think that my primary purpose is to elicit hostility or antagonize. I just want you to understand how I am perceiving your feedback.

 

[Speedwell]

antagonise
vb (tr)
1. to make hostile; annoy or irritate
2. to act in opposition to or counteract
[C17: from Greek antagōnizesthai, from anti-
antagonizing

In other words my description annoys, irritates and makes you hostile?
Well, the atheist responses to the thread tend to have the same effect on Christians.
So I guess both groups feel antagonized.

Of course it does--not just the atheists, either. Nobody likes to be accused of "feigning." It is tantamount to calling us liars.

 

[quatona]

antagonise
vb (tr)
1. to make hostile; annoy or irritate
2. to act in opposition to or counteract
[C17: from Greek antagōnizesthai, from anti-
antagonizing

In other words my description annoys, irritates and makes you hostile?
Well, the atheist responses to the thread tend to have the same effect on Christians.
So I guess both groups feel antagonized.

As your last sentence shows, you are thinking and conceptualizing in terms of opposed homogenous groups. That´s what I call an antagonizing perception.
Maybe "polarizing" would have been the better term?