The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Burden of proof on Pro.
Don't be stupid with the definitions. Use common sense.
The burden of proof is on Pro. I await his opening arguments.
The Fibonacci sequence is found nearly everywhere in nature. For those that haven't heard of the Fibonacci sequence, it is a mathematical phenomenon that suggests perfect, intelligent design. Leonardo Davinci knew about it, and was very fond of it, being very prevalent in his artwork.
The Fibonacci sequence is a series of numbers where a number is found by adding up the two numbers before it. Starting with 0 and 1, the sequence goes 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, and so forth. Written as a rule, the expression is xn = xn-1 + xn-2.
The sequence was first noted when the expounded pointed it out in a mathematical problem about rabbit breeding. Beginning with a male and female rabbit, how many pairs of rabbits could be born in a year? The problem assumes the following conditions:
- Begin with one male rabbit and female rabbit that have just been born.
- Rabbits reach sexual maturity after one month.
- The gestation period of a rabbit is one month.
- After reaching sexual maturity, female rabbits give birth every month.
- A female rabbit gives birth to one male rabbit and one female rabbit.
- Rabbits do not die.
This is best understood in this diagram:
After one month, the first pair is not yet at sexual maturity and can't mate. At two months, the rabbits have mated but not yet given birth, resulting in only one pair of rabbits. After three months, the first pair will give birth to another pair, resulting in two pairs. At the fourth month mark, the original pair gives birth again, and the second pair mates but does not yet give birth, leaving the total at three pair. This continues until a year has passed, in which there will be 233 pairs of rabbits.
While this mathematical problem does not stem from realistic conditions, the sequence appears in nature in abundance. Everything from sunflower seeds to hurricanes to insects to even the human body, this sequence amazes me every time I look into it. The fact that we see this everywhere is undeniable evidence for intelligent design.
A Fibonacci spiral is a series of connected quarter-circles drawn inside an array of squares with Fibonacci numbers for dimensions. The squares fit perfectly together because of the nature of the sequence, where the next number is equal to the sum of the two before it. Any two successive Fibonacci numbers have a ratio very close to the Golden Ratio, which is roughly 1.618034. The larger the pair of Fibonacci numbers, the closer the approximation. The spiral and resulting rectangle are known as the Golden Rectangle.
Such a perfect and beautiful mathematical design could not possibly come from random cosmic luck as atheists would have us believe.
Pro's argument fails because his only link to the resolution is entirely unwarranted. He asserts that "such a perfect and beautiful mathematical design could not possibly come from random cosmic luck as atheists would have us believe." But he never bothers to explain why this is the case.
There is a rational, scientific explanation behind each of Pro's examples -- in each case, its structure is determined entirely by natural processes operating in accordance with the laws of physics. The fact that its structure happens to correspond loosely with some artificial mathematical construct (i.e. the Fibonacci sequence) means absolutely nothing. Many elements of nature take aesthetically-pleasing geometric forms: snowflakes, clouds, trees, stars, flames, rainbows, butterflies, etc... and each of those phenomena can be explained via natural processes as well. It defies reason to assume the involvement of some undefined higher power.
Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. The resolution is negated.
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con (arguments), 2 points to Pro (sources)
>Reason for Decision: Pro used better sources than Con, you can't deny this. Con needs to source better and never claim things without referencing how he knows them. I get that this was very philosophical but why not quote reliable sources that counter aspects of God and let them speak for you? Well anyway, Pro used iffy blog-like sources, the third being a YouTube video but it's indisputably better than nothing.
Con does the correct scapegoat for the atheist and wins the debate in my eyes. The whole "but what if it just happened and no one or no thing made it happen in any consciously controlled manner?" angle is the classic cowardly atheist angle and works perfect here. Pro knew that he had met a good hider of God and forfeits the debate.
PS: God is a female and I firmly believe in her.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not explain how Con's arguments impacted the debate. Merely restating Con's argument and claiming that it "works perfect here" is insufficient. Why did it work perfectly there? Furthermore, the voter does not explain how the use of sources impacted the debate. Per the voting policy: "this requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, directly assessing the strength of at least one source, and explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for."
I wasn't aware that images weren't allowed in this debate. For my original argument, which almost depends on these images, see here.https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/27699/#Comment_27699
I think the colors are supposed to indicate it... would be better if it just said "PRO" and "CON"
But anyways, I'm CON, and whoever accepts the debate would be PRO.
Who are Pro and Con in this debate?
Common sense would lead one to be atheist, it takes sense far superior to common sense to conclude that God exists so saying 'common sense' is rigging it for you. The way to prove god requires very abnormal definitions and understating of what God is.