what truly baffled me was the use of the existence A to show that without the existence of B, there would not be A. this is a fundamental fallacy in itself.
the reasoning goes as such, there is the existence of a golden ratio. if there was no existence of god, how can there be a golden ratio. hence since there is golden ratio therefore god exist.
this is a very fundamental logic error that we humans are very prone to fall into. one must first establish that because of the existence of god therefore there is a golden ratio first for the above logic to stand, if not we can simply substitute the logic above with anything and it will still stand.
for e.g. there is the existence of a golden ratio. if there was no existence of Santa Claus, how can there be a golden ratio. hence since there is golden ratio therefore Santa Claus exist.
or even less subtly, there are poisonous apples in this world. if there was no Cinderella, how can there be poisonous apples. hence since there are poisonous, there are Cinderellas
And the weirdest thing is that this poster was obviously out for a verbal sparring without even wanting to listen to anything posited, hence i said to the rest of them, there's no need to give any scientific evidence at all, since nothing will be believed.
Their research method seems to be:
1. Hypothesis - Evolution is wrong (or [insert random event] is wrong)
2. Methods - Check the Bible
3. Conclusion - Evolution is wrong / right depending which denomination and country you come from / [insert whatever the Bible says]
Critical thinking?