The Fibonacci Sequence -

[Subduction Zone]

Well in order to reach such a conclusion one must assuming abiogenesis and atheistic evolution.

Wrong. In more ways than one. First you should not use the word "assuming" since scientists are not doing that. Abiogenesis appears to be the most reasonable answer since there is at least some evidence for that. Second, evolution has been shown to be essentially correct. There are some fine points that are still being worker out, but the theory itself has been confirmed by hundreds of thousands of tests. And you should not call it "atheistic evolution" It is no more atheistic than the theory of gravity. There are many Christians that accept the theory of evolution. It does not disprove God, it only disproves mistaken interprtations of God.

I find abiogenesis unacceptable as an explanation for the origin of life and atheistic evolution very unconvincing. So lacking those preconceptions I cannot reach the conclusion you just described.

But that is only an argument from incredulity. You offer no good reason for rejecting it and do not seem to pay any attention to the evidence that supports it. You are committing the sin that you are accusing others of committing.

Also, the DNA coding or information codes needed for that sequence to emerge in nature indicates a programming mind. So I guess we disagree.

How so? A blanket unsupported claim is not evidence. Once again if you do not understand the nature of evidence it makes it very hard for you to post any.

BTW
Functionality in nature does not disprove a creator.

No one has made that claim. Once again you are trying to create a strawman. Functionality in nature does not disprove pixies either. You might not like the use of pixies, but you should try to insert that word into your arguments for the word "God". You might begin to see your errors if you do so.

 

[durangodawood]

Well in order to reach such a conclusion one must assuming abiogenesis and atheistic evolution. I find abiogenesis unacceptable as an explanation for the origin of life and atheistic evolution very unconvincing. So lacking those preconceptions I cannot reach the conclusion you just described. Also, the DNA coding or information codes needed for that sequence to emerge in nature indicates a programming mind. So I guess we disagree.

BTW
I never claimed that display is the only reason for the sequence.
Functionality in nature does not disprove a creator.

You do NOT need to assume abiogenesis nor atheistic evolution.

But unless you do investigate possible natural reasons you are simply jumping to a preferred conclusion rather than reasoning to a necessity.

 

[OcifferPls]

The Fibunachi Sequence indicates intelligent design.

But of course you fail to point out exactly what part of the video is pseudo-science because it isn't pseudo-science but hard scientific fact that is being graphically displayed. So the only recourse is to tag it as pseudo science without providing any basis for the accusation because no legitimate basis for that accusation exists. LOL!

Such an attitude is like Mr, Magoo cartoon character who opens his eyes only when wants to. The evidence can be staring it in the face far more glaringly than it is right now and it would still claim that it doesn't exist because acknowledging that it does exist is simply too bitter a pill to swallow. The hilarious thing about this posturing is its attempt to appear scientific when its whole totally-biased, mind-numbed approach is as anti-scientific as it can get without actually declaring itself legal insanity..

That's some nice mad science you've got there.

 

[faroukfarouk]

The Holy Spirit works on the hearts of those who want to know the Truth.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.​

Slander is the most commonly used tool of Satan.

I like the hymn which speaks of the working of the Holy Spirit:

"I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing men of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word,
Creating faith in Him

But I know Whom I have believed..."

 

[Strathos]

Here are some other interesting integer sequences: The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences® (OEIS®)

 

[Radrook]

That's some nice mad science you've got there.

Mad science is claiming that life suddenly pops up from dead matter without having any observational cause to make that assertion, nor being able to prove it in a lab and that it then turns into plants and people by means of billions of happy improbable accidents.

 

[KCfromNC]

It describes the atheistic response to it.

Which response is that, specifically?

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Which people? Post #s?

evidence of a creator is presented.

Which evidence is that, again?

 

[KCfromNC]

BTW
But we are dealing primarily with two diametrically opposed groups, atheist vs theists-right?

Not in this case. Notice that there are Christians who also think your claims are nonsense.

 

[KCfromNC]

Finding causes in nature to me simply means that nature was programmed to display that pattern by a creator

It may mean it to you, but your being able to guess isn't evidence or an argument for the guess being correct.

 

[Radrook]

Which people? Post #s?



Which evidence is that, again?

I'm not into eternally repeating myself only to have the response of "I still cain't see!" constantly and unceremoniously deployed. If you can't see-then I guess you can't see. No problem here.

 

[Radrook]

Wrong. In more ways than one. First you should not use the word "assuming" since scientists are not doing that. Abiogenesis appears to be the most reasonable answer since there is at least some evidence for that. Second, evolution has been shown to be essentially correct. There are some fine points that are still being worker out, but the theory itself has been confirmed by hundreds of thousands of tests. And you should not call it "atheistic evolution" It is no more atheistic than the theory of gravity. There are many Christians that accept the theory of evolution. It does not disprove God, it only disproves mistaken interprtations of God.



But that is only an argument from incredulity. You offer no good reason for rejecting it and do not seem to pay any attention to the evidence that supports it. You are committing the sin that you are accusing others of committing.




How so? A blanket unsupported claim is not evidence. Once again if you do not understand the nature of evidence it makes it very hard for you to post any.



No one has made that claim. Once again you are trying to create a strawman. Functionality in nature does not disprove pixies either. You might not like the use of pixies, but you should try to insert that word into your arguments for the word "God". You might begin to see your errors if you do so.

No good reason? I see no good reason to reject nano-intracellular machines as being design by an ID and yet the concept is rejected as ridiculous for absolutely no good reason. That's not an argument from incredulity? Of course it is because you offer no good reason for the rejection except that you believe in your magical abiogenesis.


You also demand that the criteria for determining a intelligent design should be automatically ignored whenever biological-nano machines are involved without offering no other reason than a biased preference for mindless assembly. That is called inconsistency of policy-a notoriously infamous fallacy which is constantly deployed whenever evidence od design in nature is encountered.

As for your unsolicited suggestion of pixies, I suggest you substitute abracadabra-and open-says me or some other meaningless mumbo-jumbo for the word abiogeneisis in your shpiels and you would soon see the ridiculous errors in your reasoning.

BTW
I never claimed that I oppose theistic evolution. Stop misrepresenting what I say! It gives the impression of dishonesty.

 

[Speedwell]

You also demand that the criteria for determining a designed thing should be placed on hold when it comes to biological-nano machines without offering no other reason than that you prefer top believe that the were assembled mindlessly. That is called inconsistency of policy-a well-known fallacy which is constantly deployed whenever evidence od design in nature is encountered..

You keep repeating that accusation, but it is still false. The presence of functional organization is never by itself regarded as conclusive evidence of intelligent design.

 

[Radrook]

You keep repeating that accusation, but it is still false. The presence of functional organization is never by itself regarded as conclusive evidence of intelligent design.

What do YOU regard as conclusive evidence of intelligent design?

 

[Speedwell]

What do YOU regard as conclusive evidence of intelligent design?

Functional organization plus evidence of human manufacture (or use of similar manufacturing techniques) for products of human(oid) intelligence; otherwise there isn't anything that would be conclusive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No good reason? I see no good reason to reject nano-intracellular machines as being design by an ID and yet the concept is rejected as ridiculous for absolutely no good reason. That's not an argument from incredulity? Of course it is because you offer no good reason for the rejection except that you believe in your magical abiogenesis.

The good reason is that you are assuming something without any evidence. In science assumptions of that kind are not allowed. You are using the word "reject" improperly. Your claim is simply not accepted because you did not support it with any evidence at all. I offered to help you with the concept of evidence. It is abundantly clear that you do not understand the concept.

As to abiogenesis, that is supported by evidence. The evidence is not strong enough yet to answer all of the important questions of abiogenesis, but we still have evidence. You have none. Your inability to understand the evidence that has been given to you more than once does not mean that it is not evidence.

I am going to repeat this again, in science if you do not have at least a testable hypothesis all that you have is an ad hoc explanation and you do not have any proper evidence at all.

You also demand that the criteria for determining a intelligent design should be automatically ignored whenever biological-nano machines are involved without offering no other reason than a biased preference for mindless assembly. That is called inconsistency of policy-a notoriously infamous fallacy which is constantly deployed whenever evidence od design in nature is encountered.

That is because you are using a poor analogy. We know how those are designed. You have no evidence for your designer. Until you do that there is no point in your making false analogies.

As for your unsolicited suggestion of pixies, I suggest you substitute abracadabra-and open-says me or some other meaningless mumbo-jumbo for the word abiogeneisis in your shpiels and you would soon see the ridiculous errors in your reasoning.

Wrong again. We do have evidence for abiogenesis. Those scientists are not afraid like your creationist "scientists" are. You keep making the same mistakes. You should try to learn from your mistakes so that you do not keep making them.

BTW
I never claimed that I oppose theistic evolution. Stop misrepresenting what I say! It gives the impression of dishonesty.

You are not clear on what you believe. And where did I say that you did not believe in theistic evolution? By the way, unless you carefully define what you mean by theistic evolution it is a garbage term. Theistic evolution ranges from "God set it up fro the Big Bang" to God tinkering with every species that evolved. And it still accepts the fact that you and I are apes. If one does not accept that then the word "evolution" does not belong in that belief.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Mad science is claiming that life suddenly pops up from dead matter without having any observational cause to make that assertion, nor being able to prove it in a lab and that it then turns into plants and people by means of billions of happy improbable accidents.

But no-one is saying that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But no-one is saying that.

Except for Radrook. And he is ironically complaining about a strawman of mine that I can't find.

 

[Speedwell]

You are not clear on what you believe. And where did I say that you did not believe in theistic evolution? By the way, unless you carefully define what you mean by theistic evolution it is a garbage term. Theistic evolution ranges from "God set it up fro the Big Bang" to God tinkering with every species that evolved. And it still accepts the fact that you and I are apes. If one does not accept that then the word "evolution" does not belong in that belief.

In a general way you are correct about theistic evolution--it does cover a variety of views. However, in the main theistic evolutionists believe in the competence of the evolutionary mechanism to produce the diversity of life which we see without periodic divine intervention. ID, on the other hand, is a much more specific proposal which does indeed require "tinkering." It has been rejected on that score by a number of prominent theistic evolutionists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In a general way you are correct about theistic evolution--it does cover a variety of views. However, in the main theistic evolutionists believe in the competence of the evolutionary mechanism to produce the diversity of life which we see without periodic divine intervention. ID, on the other hand, is a much more specific proposal which does indeed require "tinkering." It has been rejected on that score by a number of prominent theistic evolutionists.

If you look into the history of ID at first it was creationism in a cheap lab suit. It was invented due to the legal losses that made it illegal to teach creationism in U.S. schools. Since that time it has acquired a life of its own and there are several versions of it out there. None of them are justified by the scientific method.