Amazing Fibonacci Numbers

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If 1+1 does not equal 2 then I have to ask...."what world do you live in?"

Jesus' world - the world of faith and make-believe:

• “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

 

[Deeje]

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

I am not Pastor Peter laRuffa. But, if the Bible said that 2 + 2 = 5, I would be looking for the symbolism, not the literal application. We don't take everything at face value without question, because that is not the way the Bible is written.
Sometimes the truth is not lying around on the surface, it is buried and requires effort to bring the more valuable parts to the surface. It is always worth the effort in my experience.

We do need some intelligence to be students of any subject.....I have been a student of God's word for 45 years and it never ceases to amaze me that people like yourself, (often disillusioned with Christendom) so easily "throw the baby out with the bathwater". It isn't God who is wrong....it isn't his word that is in error....false religion, like pseudo-science, goes where angels fear to tread.

If Bible believers go down the path of faith, they are ridiculed as believing in unsubstantiated fairy stories, but if science goes down the same path, relying just as much on faith and belief in what their teachers are saying, then what are we to conclude?....except to say that we all must choose who and what to believe...because we are all accepting things on faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Vaccinations are linked to an epidemic of autism.

Why do you believe this?

 

[Polymath257]

That is an interesting explanation Polymath257 but when I learn a language, all I am doing is learning to describe what already is.

No, when you learn a language, you learn how to express your ideas. Those ideas may or may not correspond to reality.

Creation needs describing too and we have language that interprets human emotions, describes medical conditions, explains psychological issues, and delves into human relationships....without language, we would never be able to convey information at all.

Not completely true, but I would agree that *most* knowledge would not be conveyed.

In nature, programming (instinct) is what drives creatures to do what they do to survive and to perpetuate their species.......any program has to have a programmer.

And *that* is the assumption you make that is invalid. Just because there is a pattern doesn;t mean there is a designer of that pattern. The point is that patterns can occur naturally and without any intelligence driving them. The 'program' you talk about for plovers is a pattern of behavior that is encoded in their genetics because of evolution.

That is simple logic. What is completely illogical is to suggest that every complex system in nature is just a fortunate accident....that no intelligence was behind it to bring it into existence, to drive it or to direct it. You are free to believe that of course...but I cannot.

Well, there *are* complex systems that can come into being without an intelligence driving them. So the question becomes how to distinguish those that have an intelligence behind them and those that do not. What evidence do you have that there *is* an intelligence behind your patterns as opposed to the simple operation of natural laws?

The Fibonacci sequence tells me that an amazing mathematician was at work in designing the natural world with incredible precision. This is no fluke.

No, it is more numerology: meaningless drivel passed on as intellectual mysticism.

 

[Polymath257]

You cannot make the Fibonacci numbers into something ordinary just by sweeping them under the rug as unimportant. We all see what you are trying to do. They are just as amazing as they appear. Their occurrence in nature is not something you can downgrade as inconsequential.....they are proof of a designer....a mathematical genius.

Simply wrong. They are easily produced by natural processes that optimize important things like light transmission. That doesn't require an intelligence.

So science gets to tell us what is important in the big scheme of things, whilst ignoring the elephant in the room. He will not be ignored....and you cannot make him disappear.

And yet, no matter how many times we ask, you cannot point to the elephant.

Riveting.....

I showed that 1+1=2 is NOT an absolute truth in the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not Pastor Peter laRuffa. But, if the Bible said that 2 + 2 = 5, I would be looking for the symbolism, not the literal application. We don't take everything at face value without question, because that is not the way the Bible is written.

And somehow this says it all. You are willing to take an obvious falsehood and twist it until you can believe it simply because it was written in a book 2000 years ago.

Sometimes the truth is not lying around on the surface, it is buried and requires effort to bring the more valuable parts to the surface. It is always worth the effort in my experience.

Self-delusion can feel good, but it is ultimately destructive of intelligence.

We do need some intelligence to be students of any subject.....I have been a student of God's word for 45 years and it never ceases to amaze me that people like yourself, (often disillusioned with Christendom) so easily "throw the baby out with the bathwater". It isn't God who is wrong....it isn't his word that is in error....false religion, like pseudo-science, goes where angels fear to tread.

If Bible believers go down the path of faith, they are ridiculed as believing in unsubstantiated fairy stories, but if science goes down the same path, relying just as much on faith and belief in what their teachers are saying, then what are we to conclude?....except to say that we all must choose who and what to believe...because we are all accepting things on faith.

Above you just showed *why* you are ridiculed: for believing in spite of all evidence against a thing. If you are willing to 'look for an interpretation of 2+2=5', that is valid, then you can delude yourself into believing anything.

And those who can get us to believe absurdities can make us commit atrocities. (Voltaire).

 

[SkepticThinker]

At best, humans had enough intelligence to comprehend mathematics.....they did not invent it.

Oh? Maybe you could point out all the mathematical equations your god laid out for us in the Bible so that we could know them for all time.

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 scientific method itself is designed to remove any personal bias. It's also self-correcting. This has been explained to you umpteen times. I implore you again to learn something about science.

We have the scientific method, and we have a bunch of individual opinions and faith about some words in an old book. For some bizarre reason you think the latter is more reasonable despite the fact that it is the former that has given us all knowledge about the universe that we currently have.

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.

It's been done. You should have paid better attention.

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.

Tons. Your dismissal of said evidence doesn't mean said evidence doesn't exist.

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?

Don't know what you're face palming about, it's not that complicated. And I know you've been given examples before. No use pretending like this is something new that you've just brought up.

Evolution could easily be falsified by discovery of a rabbit fossil in Precambrian layers of the earth, for just one example.

What have you got apart from what science suggests? Not much......certainly not enough to even fulfill your own criteria.

Science has a fantastic track record.

What have you got other than faith and wishful thinking?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if the Bible said that 2 + 2 = 5, I would be looking for the symbolism, not the literal application. We don't take everything at face value without question, because that is not the way the Bible is written.

If you take that attitude, you invite others to do the same.

I consider it pretty much all symbolism. God is a symbol representing man's potential. Satan represents the more bestial aspects of human nature.

It isn't God who is wrong....it isn't his word that is in error

The authors of the Bible made many errors.

we are all accepting things on faith.

Spoiler: off-topic digression on faith

That is incorrect.

That is only true for those willing to believe by faith. As the name implies, the reason and evidence based thinker has a completely different way of deciding what is true. Believing in the validity of scientific method is not faith based. It is evidence based. The evidence is the stunning success of the sciences over the centuries. It has made our lives longer, safer, healthier, more comfortable, and more interesting. It has enabled this conversation occurring across hemispheres. That's evidence that the method is valid. No faith is necessary to come to such a conclusion.

Likewise with the theory of evolution, a chapter from that book - a tapestry from that loom. Like science itself, it has proved its validity by successfully predicting some things that can and cannot be found in nature, and through its practical and beneficial application in technology.

Faith based ideas are generally sterile. They are guesses supported by nothing more substantial than the will to believe. And like most guesses, faith based beliefs are usually incorrect.

Just look at the modern Intelligent Design movement. It's based on the guess that the universe was designed and created by an intelligent designer, and it has generated nothing of value, which is pretty much the sine qua non of any incorrect idea.

And if they ever bring reason and evidence to the larger problem, they'll realize that they are barking up the wrong tree

Moreover, if one happens to guess correctly and has true belief supported only by faith, he can never know that it is correct until reason and evidence demonstrates that the guess was correct.

Believing by faith is not a virtue. It is a logical error. Faith is not a path to truth and obviously can never be given that any idea and its polar opposite, at least one of which is definitely incorrect, can be held and asserted by faith.

The inability or refusal of the faith based thinker to recognize the distinction between these two radically different epistemologies is just another unfortunate result of faith based thinking.

The worst decision I ever made was faith based. I believed that I was receiving a message from God, and acted on it. Big mistake. I eventually left Christianity, and tried again, this time using reason and evidence. Much better outcome the second time around, naturally.

I have been re-examining my beliefs since that time, asking myself why I believe what I believe, revising or discarding unjustifed beliefs that has crept in before reaching the age of discernment developing critical thinking skills. I can now give good reasons for all of my beliefs, none of which is stronger than the quantity and quality of available evidence supports, and all of which are considered tentative, that is amenable to revision pending new evidence.

That is the antithesis of faith.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science has its place, and it's a very important one, but I think we all know that it has attained the status of a 'religion' for many who think that what it teaches must of necessity be true......because they say so. But that is not so with regard to macro-evolution. Any thorough examination of the "evidence" will show that what they deem as "overwhelming" support for the validity of their theory is in reality, no such thing. They are selling you a bill of goods. It is based on the premise that 'if a little is good, a lot must be better'. That has never been proven in this case.

According to Wiki...."Nobel's will specified that annual prizes are to be awarded for service to humanity in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace.....No Nobel Prize was established for mathematics and many other scientific and cultural fields.

No Nobel prizes are therefore awarded to scientist for a theory.....especially one with no real evidence to back it up.

Since it would be scientists who recognize other scientists for their achievements, (or taking the word of other scientists that it even was an achievement) that doesn't necessarily say much for the achievement itself. That would be like Hitler awarding Joseph Mengele a Nobel prize for his accomplishments in medicine.

The beauty of science is, that if you think you can falsify something you can go right ahead and do it - with science. If you think there's some flaw with the ToE, by all means go practice some science and point it out. You'd no doubt become world famous and receive a Nobel Prize. You're quite certain that it's wrong so it should be easy for you.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well, I guess we will just have to wait and see who is doing the drowning then, won't we? Lets see what use the "scientific method" will be to you evolutionists when the Creator demands an accounting from his intelligent creatures for what they have done to his earth.



You think my air con makes up for deadly air pollution?....(definitely created by science).....or the quality of my food grown with artificial fertilizers and laced with pesticides? (with the help of science) Supermarkets make sure that food has such a long shelf life with cold storage, and processing that there is little in the way of actual nutrition left in any of it. That is why so many people today get sick through vitamin and mineral deficiency.....and all thanks to science.

Inoculations or vaccinations? What is the difference? I do not believe that these shots do what they are claimed to do. The flu shots promoted by medical science seem to make people sicker whilst not preventing the very thing they are supposed to prevent. We have just had one of the worst flu seasons on record. The shots were useless.

Vaccinations are linked to an epidemic of autism. Germicides are linked to asthma and many allergies in children as science provides 'protection' from the beneficial germs we need to stay healthy.

And it is true that humans are living longer than their ancestors, but if all they become are useless old bodies taking up space in a nursing home...what is the point? Living longer doesn't mean living better. Its just a cash cow for the pharmaceutical companies.

Saying that you know what "real evidence" is, and then claiming that evolutionary science can produce it, is just ridiculous.

Your view of science and its achievements is highly overrated IMO.

My this is getting tiresome. But there's just a few truly pathetic claims you've made that I'll quickly address.

"Inoculations or vaccinations? What is the difference? I do not believe that these shots do what they are claimed to do. The flu shots promoted by medical science seem to make people sicker whilst not preventing the very thing they are supposed to prevent. We have just had one of the worst flu seasons on record. The shots were useless."

This was OBVIOUSLY written by someone who is completely clueless about smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, or whooping cough, to name just a few. Such diseases used to effect tens of millions of people each and every year. Chances are that you've never met anyone who suffers from any of the above ailments. Know why? It's because of the wonders of VACCINATION! Of course,. being completely ignorant on the subject (a recurring theme with you it appears) YOU decided to use the flu vaccine as your example. Let me educate you about the differences between the flu virus and say the whooping cough virus. Unlike whooping cough, there are NUMEROUS strains of the flu virus each and every year. It's not currently possible for us to device a vaccine that will eradicate ALL flu viruses, like we can with whooping cough. So each year the experts try and determine which of the numerous flu viruses will be the most prevalent over the coming winter and develop a vaccine to battle THAT particular strain. Of course, people can STILL contract OTHER strains of the flu virus. And in fact (hold your hat now) there are times when the most prevalent strain that year ends up EVOLVING into a NEW strain by the end of the season, making the original vaccine useless.

"Supermarkets make sure that food has such a long shelf life with cold storage, and processing that there is little in the way of actual nutrition left in any of it. That is why so many people today get sick through vitamin and mineral deficiency.....and all thanks to science."

Oh my, the HORRORS that science has wrought with the invention of refrigeration! YOU claim that having the ability to keep food fresh longer is a BAD thing. Let's take a look at the facts. In developed counties such as the USA where people have access to evil 'refrigeration' food is so plentiful that American's tend to throw away approximately 25% of the food they buy. Now compare that to third world nations where refrigeration is rare. Here we have millions of people starving, all because without evil refrigeration the food grown on the farms tends to rot and become uneatable by the time it reaches large population centers. Does food fresh off the far tend to be more nutritious than refrigerated foods? Yes, it does. But if you tried to feed the world without refrigeration, close to half the 7 1/2 BILLION people on this planet would go hungry. So yeah, we could have MORE nutritious foods for about half the population, as long as we allow the other half to starve to death. What a WONDERFUL solution you've come up with.

"And it is true that humans are living longer than their ancestors, but if all they become are useless old bodies taking up space in a nursing home...what is the point? Living longer doesn't mean living better. Its just a cash cow for the pharmaceutical companies."

What a sad and pessimistic view you have of life you have. Perhaps YOU living longer would be a waste of space, but I suspect that the VAST majority of people are thrilled to be given every single extra year that scientific developments can provide.

One final question for you. As you disparage and vilify the scientific method, I've yet to hear you tell us what you believe is a more successful means for people to determine how the physical world works. So please share, if the scientific method is a fraud, as you claim, what's the BETTER method we should use for advancing our knowledge of how the universe works?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Inoculations or vaccinations? What is the difference? I do not believe that these shots do what they are claimed to do. The flu shots promoted by medical science seem to make people sicker whilst not preventing the very thing they are supposed to prevent. We have just had one of the worst flu seasons on record. The shots were useless.

 

[Deeje]

Why do you believe this?

Google the evidence for this. It is rather obvious. Not all kids have the propensity to develop autism, but many do and this vaccination apparently brings it out.

There is an Australian doctor who formed an opinion from his own practice that certain children who had autism were often wheat and dairy intolerant. He experimented with a wheat and dairy free diet with these children and saw a vast improvement in their behavior.
He copped a lot of flack from the orthodox medical profession because of it. They cannot be seen to attribute any adverse reactions or outcomes to vaccinations because the pharma companies would be sued and so would the doctors who administered them.

 

[Deeje]

You are willing to take an obvious falsehood and twist it until you can believe it simply because it was written in a book 2000 years ago.

Yes, and you believe the musings of men who wrote about evolution, like five minutes ago, as if that somehow cancels out the awesome information in that ancient book....some of it written over 3,500 years ago. In those ancient writings were laws given to the nation of Israel. Perhaps you can tell me how the writer of Genesis who recorded God's law knew about bacterial contamination and quarantining. How did they know that washing hands before eating a meal or after handling dead bodies would be best practice when it took modern medicine thousands of years to catch up? You think what science knows now was not known then by the one who inspired scripture?

Self-delusion can feel good, but it is ultimately destructive of intelligence.

Yes, I believe we have seen the results of this in man's completely destructive mismanagement of the earth....mostly thanks to men of science who flaunted their intelligence.

Above you just showed *why* you are ridiculed: for believing in spite of all evidence against a thing. If you are willing to 'look for an interpretation of 2+2=5', that is valid, then you can delude yourself into believing anything.

Why I am ridiculed??? You crack me up. It is your ilk who cannot stand ridicule. It's water off a duck's back to me because I could not care less about what humans think of me. I care more about what my Creator thinks of me. I don't have to answer to you, but we will all ultimately answer to God. You don't have to believe me, but you can never say you didn't know.

And those who can get us to believe absurdities can make us commit atrocities. (Voltaire).

And has science contributed to those atrocities more than most?
Who developed weapons of mass destruction? Hint....it wasn't the followers of Jesus Christ. Why? Because he told us to love our enemies....you can't do that with nuclear weapons....or weapons of any sort.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and you believe the musings of men who wrote about evolution, like five minutes ago, as if that somehow cancels out the awesome information in that ancient book....some of it written over 3,500 years ago. In those ancient writings were laws given to the nation of Israel. Perhaps you can tell me how the writer of Genesis who recorded God's law knew about bacterial contamination and quarantining. How did they know that washing hands before eating a meal or after handling dead bodies would be best practice when it took modern medicine thousands of years to catch up? You think what science knows now was not known then by the one who inspired scripture?

I believe the evidence from reality as opposed to the musing of ancient shepherds about things they had no knowledge of.

The ancient Egyptian priests had a tradition of cleanliness when approaching their deities. The ancient Israelites picked up on that. They had NO idea about bacteria or other contamination. It was pure tradition.

Yes, I believe we have seen the results of this in man's completely destructive mismanagement of the earth....mostly thanks to men of science who flaunted their intelligence.

Actually, it was more those who flaunted their power and believed they were better than others because they believed in the 'right god'.

Why I am ridiculed??? You crack me up. It is your ilk who cannot stand ridicule. It's water off a duck's back to me because I could not care less about what humans think of me. I care more about what my Creator thinks of me. I don't have to answer to you, but we will all ultimately answer to God. You don't have to believe me, but you can never say you didn't know.

Yes, yours is one of the many mythologies I have some knowledge concerning. I am no more fearful of your myths than I am of the ancient Greeks.

And has science contributed to those atrocities more than most?
Who developed weapons of mass destruction? Hint....it wasn't the followers of Jesus Christ. Why? Because he told us to love our enemies....you can't do that with nuclear weapons....or weapons of any sort.

Actaully, it is those who claim to follow Jesus that have done a good deal of the destruction. the scientists warn of the dangers of the knowledge they uncover and caution about the consequences. Those with 'faith' that god will clean up any messes are the ones that ignore the warnings and destroy so much that is otherwise good.