(September 28, 2014 at 5:34 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(September 28, 2014 at 4:15 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Your numbers may be in ascending order but they are not in sequential order. The Fibonacci sequence adds the last two numbers to get the next number, eg. 1,1,2,3,5,8,13, that's the sequence.

in your "sequence" of 1, 5, 8, 49, 65, 79, how do you get from 1 to 5? From 5 to 8?

So what? My numbers are in an order: "ascending" is an order, even if it's too general for your tastes. Please try to remember what we're talking about here: your claim is that all sequences require design, so in answer I offered a sequence that required no design at all. The obvious conclusion is that not all sequences require designers, which prompts us to move ahead and ask how one determines the design of a sequence.

You were the one who offered the definition here. I'm playing by your rules.

Fine, if that's how you want to play this, since you admit placing your numbers in ascending ORDER, means it was deliberate and by design.

The numbers may be random, but placing them in ascending order was not.

or·der
verb \ˈȯr-dər\
or·deredor·der·ing
Definition of ORDER
transitive verb
1: to put in order : arrange
2 a : to give an order to : command
b : destine, ordain <so ordered by the gods>
c : to command to go or come to a specified place <ordered back to the base>
d : to give an order for <order a meal>

so by definition order cannot be random, it is deliberate.

(September 28, 2014 at 1:36 pm)rasetsu Wrote: If the fibonacci sequence occurred in "everything" as you've claimed, it would indeed beg an explanation.

But the Fibonacci sequence does occur in every living organism, It may not be readily apparent but the Fibonacci sequence is found in DNA.

(September 30, 2014 at 12:18 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Fine, if that's how you want to play this, since you admit placing your numbers in ascending ORDER, means it was deliberate and by design.

So now you're just going to demand by fiat that recognizeable patterns require design again? We've already shown that they don't.

Either that or you're just quibbling over word choices, which is a bit pathetic.

Quote:The numbers may be random, but placing them in ascending order was not.

Sure, but you don't need to place the numbers in that order for those numbers to appear in that order. A random number generator can produce those numbers- or another sequence of ascending numbers- just as easily as it can any other set of numbers. In fact, I didn't place those numbers in an order myself, I just tapped random keys on my number pad until I happened to arrive at an ascending order sequence. Only took me two tries.

Yes, if the numbers were placed in an order, then there's design there. But the numbers don't need to be placed in that order deliberately to reach it; the order can arise purely randomly, which is the point you were disagreeing with, and the one I sought to demonstrate. Hence, not all sequences require design, meaning you need to demonstrate design by doing more than merely pointing at a sequence.

(September 30, 2014 at 12:32 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 12:23 am)Surgenator Wrote:

prove me wrong...
or is that all you got?

Maybe after I stop laughing.


Ok, your example is pathetic at best. First, DNA is a 3D object not a 2D. Second, you picked the starting end ending point very conviently to superimpose the curve. It is a perfect example of the sharpshooter fallacy. You see only what you want to see.

Also it doesn't even properly fit the curve: the inward curve of the helix presents a gap in the Fibonacci spiral. So it's hardly a perfect one to one representation anyway; this just says more about your willingness to see the pattern than it does the pattern actually existing.

Pretty sure I could imply the presence of any shape in that DNA picture if I got to pick and choose which lines have to line up and which ones don't.

(September 30, 2014 at 12:48 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Now what?

Now you've found some numerical commonalities- but only if you're allowed to pick which numbers are significant and which aren't, and to pick the level of magnification at which one looks at them- without demonstrating that those require design, or are connected in any way to the other measurements you've taken elsewhere.

Now, apparently, is the time for you to continue ignoring you blatant sharpshooter fallacy, nor the unjustified intimation of design you keep making.

(September 30, 2014 at 12:57 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(September 30, 2014 at 12:48 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Now what?

Now you've found some numerical commonalities- but only if you're allowed to pick which numbers are significant and which aren't, and to pick the level of magnification at which one looks at them- without demonstrating that those require design, or are connected in any way to the other measurements you've taken elsewhere.

Now, apparently, is the time for you to continue ignoring you blatant sharpshooter fallacy, nor the unjustified intimation of design you keep making.

You can scream "sharpshooter fallacy" all you want, can't argue with math.