The Fibonacci Sequence -

[quatona]

All you are asked is: "Give us the reasoning that´s required to get from the Fibonacci sequence (or any other patterns you keep posting) to the conclusion 'the universe is designed by a designer'".
All you apparently can offer is the response: If that´s not obvious to you, you are intellectually dishonest.

Btw. the most basic problem I see with "The universe is designed by a designer": It means that everything is designed, which again means that there´s nothing undesigned. Which would declare whatever evidential criteria of distinguishing design from non-design invalid.

 

[Radrook]

As your last sentence shows, you are thinking and conceptualizing in terms of opposed homogenous groups. That´s what I call an antagonizing perception.
Maybe "polarizing" would have been the better term?

I am simply responding as honestly as I can to your questions.
My apologies if you think that my primary purpose is to elicit hostility or antagonize. I just want you to understand how I am perceiving your feedback.

BTW
But we are dealing primarily with two diametrically opposed groups, atheist vs theists-right? So the subject itself posits the polarization of viewpoints and leads to a polarization of opinions. No, I am not proposing that all atheists are conceptual clones and that all theists are conceptual clones of one another. I understand that there are shades of beliefs and that everything isn't black and white. However, what I a pointing out is a glaring inconsistency of policy involving a shifting of criteria when a shift is deemed convenient and that is not science. Science demands that criteria be consistently applied. If a criteria is suddenly and unjustifiably dismissed as irrelevant then one is justified in considering such a policy unscientific. If the ones suddenly dismissing a criteria as irrelevant claim to be sincere and honest-then their claims tend to be justifiably viewed as bogus.

For example, at SETI we have scientists dedicated to evaluate any signal from space as either from an intelligent sources or not. If a signal demonstrates a certain mathematical pattern it will be deemed a code, and codes transmitting info are deemed from an intelligent source. However, when confronted with the DNA, these are the same scientists who then vehemently claim inability to see, and deny that it was programed by an intelligence. Yet they have the gumption to claim that a simple math sequence coming from space would definitely indicate an intelligent source? Sorry but that kind of glaring hypocrisy just doesn't fly.

 

[Radrook]

All you are asked is: "Give us the reasoning that´s required to get from the Fibonacci sequence (or any other patterns you keep posting) to the conclusion 'the universe is designed by a designer'".
All you apparently can offer is the response: If that´s not obvious to you, you are intellectually dishonest.

Btw. the most basic problem I see with "The universe is designed by a designer": It means that everything is designed, which again means that there´s nothing undesigned. Which would declare whatever evidential criteria of distinguishing design from non-design invalid.

For example, at SETI we have scientists dedicated to evaluate any signal from space as either from an intelligent sources or not. If a signal demonstrates a certain mathematical pattern it will be suspected of being a code, and codes transmitting info are deemed from an intelligent source. However, when confronted with the DNA code, these are the same scientists who then vehemently claim inability to see, and deny that it was programed by an intelligence. Yet they have the gumption to claim that a simple math sequence coming from space would definitely indicate an intelligent source because it transmits information? Sorry but that kind of glaring inconsistency of policy indicates hypocrisy which just doesn't fly. So if indeed they are suspected of putting their brains on hold when they deem it convenient there is a good reason for it.

 

[Speedwell]

However, what I a pointing out is a glaring inconsistency of policy involving a shifting of criteria when a shift is deemed convenient and that is not science.

That "shifting of criteria" is a figment of your imagination.

For example, at SETI we have scientists dedicated to evaluate any signal from space as either from an intelligent sources or not. If a signal demonstrates a certain mathematical pattern it will be deemed a code, and codes transmitting info are deemed from an intelligent source. However, when confronted with the DNA, these are the same scientists who then vehemently claim inability to see, and deny that it was programed by an intelligence. Yet they have the gumption to claim that a simple math sequence coming from space would definitely indicate an intelligent source? Sorry but that kind of glaring hypocrisy just doesn't fly.

Another fantasy. The detection of such a signal would not in itself be regarded as conclusive. The possibility of natural causes would have to be carefully studied and ruled out, and even then the conclusion of intelligent life would have to remain provisional.

 

[durangodawood]

Does anyone here know WHY sunflower florets grow in the additive pattern of the Fibonacci sequence?

If there's no good natural reason for it, then yeah, the coincidence would be pretty startling.

(I suspect there IS a good natural reason. Most things turn out that way. But I'm open minded...).

 

[Radrook]

That "shifting of criteria" is a figment of your imagination.


Another fantasy. The detection of such a signal would not in itself be regarded as conclusive. The possibility of natural causes would have to be carefully studied and ruled out, and even then the conclusion of intelligent life would have to remain provisional.

I did NOT say that a detection of a signal alone would or should lead to the conclusion of an intelligent source. I clearly said in plain simple English that if the signal is determined to convey information it will be deemed a code and a code would be then deemed as originating from a mind. I did not claim that the scientist are so gullible as to be fooled by natural causes. That is your idea not mine. Please desist from misrepresenting what I write.

BTW
Yes they are being inconsistent in their application and adherence to criteria.
Also, the code carrying information criteria remains valid and is not rendered invalid simply because it is detected in nature. That is where your unjustifiable inconsistency comes in.

 

[Speedwell]

I did NOT say that a detection of a signal alone would or should lead to the conclusion of an intelligent source. I clearly said in plain simple English that if the signal is determined to convey information it will be deemed a code and a code would be then deemed as originating from a mind.

Even that is wrong. All signals contain information. They can also contain encoded messages--which also contain information.

Please desist from misrepresenting what I write.

I did not. If you look back at what I wrote, you will see that I said such a signal, clearly referring to your description.

Yes they are being inconsistent in their application and adherence to criteria.

In your dreams.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does anyone here know WHY sunflower florets grow in the additive pattern of the Fibonacci sequence?

If there's no good natural reason for it, then yeah, the coincidence would be pretty startling.

(I suspect there IS a good natural reason. Most things turn out that way. But I'm open minded...).

It appears to be merely a byproduct of how the plant branches as it grows. This article explains in a very basic manner:

Fibonacci Numbers in Nature

The image shows branching stems, but the concept is the same. After each split a new branch needs to wait two iterations before it splits again. An existing branch will form a new shoot at every iteration, once it is at least two iterations old.

 

[Radrook]

Does anyone here know WHY sunflower florets grow in the additive pattern of the Fibonacci sequence?

If there's no good natural reason for it, then yeah, the coincidence would be pretty startling.

(I suspect there IS a good natural reason. Most things turn out that way. But I'm open minded...).

Really?

The problem is far more complex. You see, it isn’t found just in that particular flower:

[The Golden Ratio a/b=a+b/a= Phi or 1.61803 or what is known as the Fibonacci sequence is found in everything. 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,33,54 ... Phi is the name it has been given and is a mathematical number whose formula appears in the structures of nature, it is found in planets and galaxies, it is found in humans and in our DNA makeup.

The Bible Truth: The Fibonacci Sequence- PROOF of GOD and that the World was Created/ Intelligently Designed

The sequence1.618 is also called the Divine Proportion or Golden Ration as mentioned earlier. It sets our standard for beauty as well. From your toes to your belly button it is 1.618 times longer than your belly button to the top of your head. Even our teeth and phalanges show evidence of the golden ratio. In your baby finger each in length is multiplied by 1.618 right up to the fingernail for exact measurements and symmetry. Its also found in the measurements of the human arm. The tail of a seahorse has the mathematical formula of 1.1618, as do seashells, all kinds of flowers, sunflowers and plants, pineapples and pinecorns, snails, as well as spirals in a hurricane or a tornado.

So your proposed natural he explanation would have to be extended to many other totally unrelated areas of nature where it keeps cropping up as well. Why would mindless nature have a PREFERENCE for this mathematical sequence in so many UNRELATED areas where it could have been totally mathematically otherwise with no conveyed preferences at all?

 

[Radrook]

It appears to be merely a byproduct of how the plant branches as it grows. This article explains in a very basic manner:

Fibonacci Numbers in Nature

The image shows branching stems, but the concept is the same. After each split a new branch needs to wait two iterations before it splits again. An existing branch will form a new shoot at every iteration, once it is at least two iterations old.

That glib answer is tantamount to saying: "Well that's just the way nature is." or better yet : the "Mother Nature did it!" excuse.

 

[Radrook]

All you are asked is: "Give us the reasoning that´s required to get from the Fibonacci sequence (or any other patterns you keep posting) to the conclusion 'the universe is designed by a designer'".
All you apparently can offer is the response: If that´s not obvious to you, you are intellectually dishonest.

Btw. the most basic problem I see with "The universe is designed by a designer": It means that everything is designed, which again means that there´s nothing undesigned. Which would declare whatever evidential criteria of distinguishing design from non-design invalid.

How would identification of design in nature invalidate your conclusion that a building is designed? That is a preposterous conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That glib answer is tantamount to saying: "Well that's just the way nature is." or better yet : the "Mother Nature did it!" excuse.

Wrong, that is an explanation. I am sorry that this high school level explanation is beyond you. At this point I do not think it could be made any simpler.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would identification of design in nature invalidate your conclusion that a building is designed? That is a preposterous conclusion.

Now this is a strawman on your part. Try to figure out what you did wrong.

 

[quatona]

How would identification of design in nature invalidate your conclusion that a building is designed?

It´s designed - just as everything else is designed.
Usually, the conclusion "designed" is based on the distinction from all the stuff that´s undesigned. If there´s nothing undesigned, the statement "this building is designed" is pretty much empty information.

 

[Radrook]

It´s designed - just as everything else is designed.
Usually, the conclusion "designed" is based on the distinction from all the stuff that´s undesigned. If there´s nothing undesigned, the statement "this building is designed" is pretty much empty information.

It would be identified as designed by humans as opposed to being designed by God. Please keep in mind that a vast host of famous scientists have been theists. It did not interfere with their contributions to science.

 

[durangodawood]

Why would mindless nature have a PREFERENCE for this mathematical sequence in so many UNRELATED areas where it could have been totally mathematically otherwise with no conveyed preferences at all?

Thats exactly what we should ask! (minus the assuming-the-conclusion part in pink)

What are the natural causes of this pattern showing up over and over???

IF none can be found, then yes, its sure is a remarkable coincidence for it to show up here and there.

But, before we jump to conclusions we really should ask the most basic of questions, dont you think? So, thats what I'm asking regarding the sunflower florets.

 

[quatona]

It would be identified as designed by humans as opposed to being designed by God.

And that´s the keypoint: We detect human design because we know
a. that humans exist and
b. how and why humans design things.
We have no such criteria for divine design.
In fact, the design argument is brought up as an argument for God´s existence.

 

[Speedwell]

Please keep in mind that a vast host of famous scientists have been theists. It did not interfere with their contributions to science.

Nor did it require their acceptance of ID. Even today large numbers of theistic scientists reject ID.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would be identified as designed by humans as opposed to being designed by God.

You have yet to show any evidence for an item designed by God. You need a testable hypothesis first.

Please keep in mind that a vast host of famous scientists have been theists. It did not interfere with their contributions to science.

Correct, and they did not invoke their God in their work. Theist scientists have only appealed to God when they had a problem that they could not answer.

 

[Radrook]

Thats exactly what we should ask!

What are the natural causes of this pattern showing up over and over???

IF none can be found, then yes, its sure is a remarkable coincidence for it to show up.

But, before we jump to conclusions we really should ask the most basic of questions, dont you think?

Please note that atheist would reach a different conclusion than a theist would reach based on the observation of a cause in nature for the pattern. You see, no one is denying an underling cause in nature producing the pattern as you seem to be indicating or assuming. What is being said is that the underlying causes in nature for the pattern to continually emerge have been programed into nature by a creator who preferred to have that mathematical pattern be produced by the laws of nature that he put into action. So finding causes in nature for the pattern means absolutely NOTHING in reference to the significance of this pattern emerging all over the place in unrelated scenarios.

If a hundred different computers continuously display this mathematical sequence under discussion and we find that the cause is their programming, we would not dismiss it as simply their programming-we would attribute the display to a programmer.