The Fibonacci Sequence -

[Radrook]

Undoubtedly.

Especially when we know that he was the source of all the languages that emerged at Babel and that he enabled his servants at Pentecost to both speak and understand many languages via his holy spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Especially when we know that he was the source of all the languages that emerged at Babel and that he enabled his servants at Pentecost to both speak and understand many languages via his holy spirit.

How languages evolved is well understood. No magical tower that was ever built and could never have achieved its supposed purpose need apply. Once again by trying to treat the obviously fictitious parts of the Bible as if they were literal you hurt your argument.

 

[Radrook]

How languages evolved is well understood. No magical tower that was ever built and could never have achieved its supposed purpose need apply. Once again by trying to treat the obviously fictitious parts of the Bible as if they were literal you hurt your argument.

I'm not using the tower argument to support the enigmatic, thought-provoking presence of the Fibonacci sequence in nature as you are claiming. My comment was merely a response to a certain observation made by another poster. The linguistics in relation to the historical event of the Tower incident as faithfully and accurately recorded in Genesis is an entirely different subject. the real focus of the thread is why should a sequence of numbers be present in nature in so many different totally unrelated areas unless a mind used it in order to create. To you of course it is merely a coincidence. But to others it strongly indicates a creative mind at work who chose to use it due to its functionality and its aesthetics..

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not using the tower argument to support the enigmatic, thought-provoking presence of the Fibonacci sequence in nature as you are claiming. My comment was merely a response to a certain observation made by another poster. The linguistics in relation to the historical event of the Tower incident as fruitfully and accurately recorded in Genesis is an entirely different subject.

Then why did you even bring up that myth?

We know that it did not happen and once again only makes your version of God look incompetent and petty.

 

[Radrook]

Then why did you even bring up that myth?

We know that it did not happen and once again only makes your version of God look incompetent and petty.

Why? As I previously pointed out, this is a Christian website where Christians will often speak to one another in such ways without having to feel a need to feel out of place or offer apologies to atheists who disagree. My comment was a very relevant illustration to a fellow believer in support of what he said.

This paper has applied the findings of historical and comparative linguistics to the Genesis account, and found that the facts to our disposal are affirmative indeed.

The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics - creation.com



The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).

http://www.godandscience.org/apol

 

[Strathos]

Let's talk about other interesting integer sequences, such as the Busy Beaver sequence. It starts with 1, 4, 6, 13, 4098, then a number in excess of 10^18267.

It is defined as the maximum amount of 1s that can be outputted t a 2-color, n-state Turing machine before halting. What makes it interesting is that it eventually dominates any computable function, meaning that any program that can be run by a theoretical computer, even with infinite memory and storage space, cannot calculate any function f(n) where BB(n) will not eventually exceed f(n) for sufficiently large n.

 

[Radrook]

Let's talk about other interesting integer sequences, such as the Busy Beaver sequence. It starts with 1, 4, 6, 13, 4098, then a number in excess of 10^18267.

It is defined as the maximum amount of 1s that can be outputted t a 2-color, n-state Turing machine before halting. What makes it interesting is that it eventually dominates any computable function, meaning that any program that can be run by a theoretical computer, even with infinite memory and storage space, cannot calculate any function f(n) where BB(n) will not eventually exceed f(n) for sufficiently large n.

Is it manifested in nature in any relevant way as the Fibonacci is?

 

[Strathos]

Is it manifested in nature in any relevant way as the Fibonacci is?

Well it is a good illustration of computability theory, which puts a limit on what can be calculated using any device that could possibly exist under natural limits. To solve things such as the Halting Problem you would need what are called Oracles, which I suppose could be compared to the omniscience of God. Yet there are Oracles for Oracles, to an infinite hierarchy. Georg Cantor, a monk who studied the concept of transfinite numbers, equated God with 'Absolute Infinity', the highest infinite Cardinal, which is logically impossible to conceive of.

 

[Radrook]

You're soooo correct.

Here is a cartoon drawing which conveys the paradox of being surrounded by compelling evidence and yet proceeding to argue vehemently that it just doesn't exist.

 

[Nithavela]

Here is a cartoon drawing which conveys the paradox of being surrounded by compelling evidence and yet proceeding to argue vehemently that it just doesn't exist.

That's a funny picture, but it doesn't solve the problem that the fibonacci spiral doesn't fit the nautilus shell curve.

 

[Radrook]

That's a funny picture, but it doesn't solve the problem that the fibonacci spiral doesn't fit the nautilus shell curve.

I had absolutely no idea that you were making that claim.

 

[Radrook]

That's a funny picture, but it doesn't solve the problem that the fibonacci spiral doesn't fit the nautilus shell curve.

Fibonacci numbers in a sea shell

The spiral curve of the Nautilus sea shell follows the pattern of a spiral drawn in a Fibonacci rectangle, a collection of squares with sides that have the length of Fibonacci numbers


The Fibonacci numbers can be discovered in nature, such as the spiral of the Nautilus sea shell, the petals of the flowers, the seed head of a sunflower, and many other parts. The seeds at the head of the sunflower, for instance, are arranged so that one can find a collection of spirals in both clockwise and counterclockwise ways. Different patterns of spirals are formed depending on whether one is looking at a clockwise or counterclockwise way; thus, the number of spirals also differ depending on the counting direction, as shown by Image 1. The two numbers of spirals are always consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci sequence.
Image:NAUTILUS.jpg - Math Images

 

[Nithavela]

Fibonacci numbers in a sea shell

The spiral curve of the Nautilus sea shell follows the pattern of a spiral drawn in a Fibonacci rectangle, a collection of squares with sides that have the length of Fibonacci numbers


The Fibonacci numbers can be discovered in nature, such as the spiral of the Nautilus sea shell, the petals of the flowers, the seed head of a sunflower, and many other parts. The seeds at the head of the sunflower, for instance, are arranged so that one can find a collection of spirals in both clockwise and counterclockwise ways. Different patterns of spirals are formed depending on whether one is looking at a clockwise or counterclockwise way; thus, the number of spirals also differ depending on the counting direction, as shown by Image 1. The two numbers of spirals are always consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci sequence.
Image:NAUTILUS.jpg - Math Images

I have to ask, did you see an ophthalmologist lately?

 

[Radrook]

I have to ask, did you see an ophthalmologist lately?

Have you?

 

[Nithavela]

Have you?

Got an appointment at the end of the month, but that doesn't answer my question.

That spiral doesn't even closely follow the spiral of the nautilus. It's just a superimposed image. Anyone can take some picture and superimpose a fibbonacci spiral on top of it, this is neither a miracle nor a proof of god. Look!

 

[dickyh995]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Some will agree others will not.

There's a quote I love, seems source unknown but basically states, "You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts." That's why we must rely on evidence and the scientific method. Facts and observation help build theories to align our beliefs with reality rather than wishful thinking.

 

[Strathos]

There's a quote I love, seems source unknown but basically states, "You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts." That's why we must rely on evidence and the scientific method. Facts and observation help build theories to align our beliefs with reality rather than wishful thinking.

How do you explain the Busy Beaver sequence then?

 

[Jimmy D]

Got an appointment at the end of the month, but that doesn't answer my question.

That spiral doesn't even closely follow the spiral of the nautilus. It's just a superimposed image. Anyone can take some picture and superimpose a fibbonacci spiral on top of it, this is neither a miracle nor a proof of god. Look!

You should have stopped with the cat, that's a thread winner!

Well played sir.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's a funny picture, but it doesn't solve the problem that the fibonacci spiral doesn't fit the nautilus shell curve.

Your facts don't matter since he has a cartoon. Obviously.

 

[Radrook]

Don't celebrate too soon.


First, you are committing the overgeneralization based on scanty evidence fallacy. Focusing on one example while ignoring the preponderance of evidence everywhere else is a favorite atheist ploy. Similar to card-stacking actually. In short, the exception doesn't prove the rule. Neither will mutual backslapping ever manage to change the fact that the Fibonacci sequence is evident in nature.

Second, the arbitrary superimposition on images is totally worthless as evidence . Why? Because it is similar to pointing out perceived patterns in a cloud such as like faces, horses, flowers, and the like. It is merely a well-known demonstration of how minds work via striving to bring order to chaos. That's why so many people believe that they see artifacts and architectural remnants of an ancient civilization on Mars when all that there really is are rocks.

Third, the display of the Fibonacci pattern in living things is induced via coded information that leads to the mathematical sequence being repeated. In very stark contrast, the superimpositions you offer are determined by whimsical factors such as assumption of a body position, the making of a certain facial expression or some other such whimsical factor completely unrelated to a predetermined genetic code. In short, you are committing the fallacy of false analogy.

In conclusion, your arguments fall flat on their faces despite all the irrational hoopla which surrounds them because they are fallaciously flawed.