Mohsen
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Me neither. Lol
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Amazing Fibonacci Numbers
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." - Kings 7:23
π is much closer to 22/7.
We expect to see regular patterns in a godless universe. No intelligent pattern maker is required for patterns. A hurricane is also a spiral. No intelligent patterner required.
Only if by Creator you mean the laws of physics. Their stamp is on everything.
And the multiverse hypothesis can account for them without having to invoke a conscious, intelligent, creative agent.
Until we either encounter such a creature, or a problem that cannot be explained with a naturalistic hypothesis, scientists have reason to throw gods into their formulations. Until such a time, gods remain neither evident nor necessary.
This reminds me of an old joke:
Sociologists think they're psychologists,
Psychologists think they're biologists,
Biologists think they're chemists,
Chemists think they're physicists,
Physicists think they're God.
And God thinks He's a mathematician.
Mohsen
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
I can't believe you went to theory in order to claim evidence! That's not scientific!
Peace
MUCH better is 355/113. This can be remembered as taking 113355, splitting it in two and dividing the second piece by the first.
The value 22/7 comes from Archimedes (around 200 BC), who used two 96 sided polygons to approximate a circle (one inside, one outside). This gave that pi is between 223/71 and 22/7.
On the contrary, the estimate of pi=3 was common in the area, but easily shown to be a poor approximation. The inaccuracy in a 'infallible' book shows it to be fallible.
Mohsen
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
You can't do science !
Good grief man! Where do you think you are? You are an anonymous poster on an Internet forum! 
Who are these "others elsewhere"? What "academic and professional standards" do you expect in a place like this? Seriously....is this all you atheists know how to do?......elevate yourselves by discrediting the character of your opposition? "Don't you know who I am" carries no weight here. (Just in case you might not have noticed.)
Be patient....I'm sure you will.
The law of probability will catch up sooner or later. The occasional thing might be a coincidence.....but the majority of unrelated things fitting into a predictable mathematical formula is nothing short of a miracle. Efforts to explain it away without a powerful Creator are becoming comical....
The "scientific method" is looking less "scientific" by the day.
"Don't you know who I am" carries no weight here. (Just in case you might not have noticed.)
From the Forum Rules:
7. Quotations and Citations/References
Plagiarism is illegal. All quotations, whether to posts of other members or to material external to RF, should be properly referenced or cited. When quoting other members, use the forum's quote feature so the person and material you are responding to are easily referenced (see Rules 1 and 3 for additional guidelines regarding quoting other members' posts). When quoting material external to RF, even if it is your own, always provide a citation and limit your quotation to a paragraph or two rather than quoting the entire content (see Rule 4 for additional guidelines).
Another one! Are you serious? I am not in the habit of plagerizing anyone....let alone my own brotherhood. If I quote something I try to make sure that I post the link or the source.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Be patient....I'm sure you will.
The law of probability will catch up sooner or later. The occasional thing might be a coincidence.....but the majority of unrelated things fitting into a predictable mathematical formula is nothing short of a miracle. Efforts to explain it away without a powerful Creator are becoming comical....
The "scientific method" is looking less "scientific" by the day.
"The "scientific method" is looking less "scientific" by the day."
That statement would be hilarious, if it wasn't so pathetically sad. Claiming that the scientific method is flawed as you express your views on a device that only exists because the scientific method helped us figure out how to manipulate electrons is truly absurd.
Oh, and that 'predictable mathematical formula' is a device that humans invented to help us explain the physical world. The fact that mathematics does what it is designed to do doesn't suggest a supernatural beings is involved in any way shape or form.
Humans invented mathematics?
Mathematics does indeed do what it is "DESIGNED" to do......it suggests a superior intelligence is the mastermind behind all of it.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
HAVE you ever noticed that many plants grow in spiral formations? A pineapple, for example, may have 8 spirals of scales going around one way and 5 or 13 going in the opposite direction.
If you look at the seeds in a sunflower, you may be able to see 55 and 89 spirals crossing over each other or perhaps even more. You may even find spirals on a cauliflower.
Once you start noticing spirals, visits to your fruit and vegetable store may take on new interest. Why do plants grow in this way? Does the number of spirals have any significance?
How Do Plants Grow?
Most plants form new organs such as stems, leaves, and flowers from a tiny central growing point called a meristem. Each new structure, called a primordium, develops and grows out from the center in a new direction, forming an angle with the previous growth. (Curiously, the sunflower is unusual in that the florets that become seeds begin to form spirals from the rim of the head rather than the center.) Most plants arrange new growths at a unique angle that produces spirals. What angle is it?
Consider this challenge: Imagine trying to engineer a plant so that new growths are compactly arranged around the growing point with no wasted space. Suppose you chose to make each new primordium grow out at an angle of two fifths of a revolution from the previous growth. You would have the problem of every fifth primordium growing from the same spot and in the same direction. They would form rows with wasted space between the rows. The truth is, any simple fraction of a revolution results in rows rather than optimal packing. Only what has been termed the “golden angle” of approximately 137.5 degrees results in an ideally compact arrangement of growths.
What makes this angle so special?
The golden angle is ideal because it cannot be expressed as a simple fraction of a revolution. The fraction 5/8 is close to it, 8/13 is closer, and 13/21 is closer still, but no fraction exactly expresses the golden proportion of a revolution. Thus, when a new growth on the meristem develops at this fixed angle with respect to the preceding growth, no two growths will ever develop in exactly the same direction. Consequently, instead of forming radial arms, the primordia form spirals.
Remarkably, a computer simulation of primordia growing from a central point produces recognizable spirals only if the angle between new growths is correct to a high degree of accuracy. Straying from the golden angle by even one tenth of a degree causes the effect to be lost.
How Many Petals on a Flower?
Interestingly, the number of spirals that result from growth based on the golden angle is usually a number from a series called the Fibonacci sequence. This series was first described by the 13th-century Italian mathematician known as Leonardo Fibonacci. In this progression, each number after 1 is equal to the sum of the previous two numbers—1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, and so on.
The flowers of many plants that exhibit a spiral growth pattern often have a Fibonacci number of petals. According to some observers, there is a tendency for buttercups to have 5 petals, bloodroots 8, fireweeds 13, asters 21, common field daisies 34, and Michaelmas daisies 55 or 89. Fruit and vegetables often have features that correspond to Fibonacci numbers.
Information from Intriguing Patterns in Plants — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
What else features Fibonacci spirals?
And even in the design of the human body........
Can this all possibly be accidental?
No one is claiming that the patterns of nature are entirely accidental. There may well be a reason why these patterns show up, most likely it relates to some law of physics. Certainly does not disprove the fact of evolution.
It does nothing to support it either....because, as many of the evolutionists here will tell you...there are no "facts" in this branch of science. So, I would say it goes a long way to proving the existence of a very Intelligent Mathematician.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Humans invented mathematics?Sure they did.
Mathematics does indeed do what it is "DESIGNED" to do......it suggests a superior intelligence is the mastermind behind all of it.
Yes, humans did invent mathematics.
And the invention of the scientific method is what has enabled people to harness electrons so we can communicate via this sight. You know, that method that YOU claim isn't very scientific. Funny how you failed to address THAT part of my post.
At best, humans had enough intelligence to comprehend mathematics.....they did not invent it.
Let me reiterate what I said on another thread about the "scientific method".
We often hear about......"objective verifiable evidence"
What does "objective" mean in this context?
"(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
Who of any of the readers here believes that evolutionists are not influenced by personal feelings or opinions? That is the first thing we see....an emotional response....usually anger. How dare we question their educated guesswork! How dare we expose the fact that they have no facts!
The other term is "verifiable" which means "able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified."
So I am waiting for verification on the whole theory. None has been forthcoming, despite the protests that they have been provided. Nothing remotely convincing has ever been presented. Just more of the same ambiguous guesswork about what "might have" happened.
What are "scientific methods"?
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."
What "empirical or measurable evidence" does science have for macro-evolution? NONE.
What "reasoning" is used to verify their findings, other than the word of other biased scientists trying to support the same agenda?
What does it mean to "falsify" evolution?
"prove (a statement or theory) to be false."
How on earth can you prove a theory is false, if you can't even prove that it is true?
What have you got apart from what science suggests? Not much......certainly not enough to even fulfill your own criteria.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
At best, humans had enough intelligence to comprehend mathematics.....they did not invent it.
Let me reiterate what I said on another thread about the "scientific method".
We often hear about......"objective verifiable evidence"
What does "objective" mean in this context?
"(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
Who of any of the readers here believes that evolutionists are not influenced by personal feelings or opinions? That is the first thing we see....an emotional response....usually anger. How dare we question their educated guesswork! How dare we expose the fact that they have no facts!
The other term is "verifiable" which means "able to be checked or demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified."
So I am waiting for verification on the whole theory. None has been forthcoming, despite the protests that they have been provided. Nothing remotely convincing has ever been presented. Just more of the same ambiguous guesswork about what "might have" happened.
What are "scientific methods"?
"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."
What "empirical or measurable evidence" does science have for macro-evolution? NONE.
What "reasoning" is used to verify their findings, other than the word of other biased scientists trying to support the same agenda?
What does it mean to "falsify" evolution?
"prove (a statement or theory) to be false."
How on earth can you prove a theory is false, if you can't even prove that it is true?
What have you got apart from what science suggests? Not much......certainly not enough to even fulfill your own criteria.
All of the questions you sarcastically asked could be answered if you'd pick up a basic high school science text. So sad that you don't even comprehend what the scientific method is, even as you disparage it. The exact same scientific method that supports the theory that the Earth orbits around the sun is the exact same scientific method that supports the ToE. The exact same scientific method that supports the atomic theories upon which your computing device works is the exact same scientific method that supports the ToE.
If all of the people who actually do understand how the scientific method works were to suddenly die off, folks like you would be back in the stone age within a generation or two.