The Fibonacci Sequence -

[Speedwell]

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.

Which is Theistic Evolution, not ID.

 

[quatona]

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.

Most people don´t reach any conclusion (designed vs. not designed) from this observation. I certainly don´t.
I´m just not following your conclusion.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

Right.
The article didnt seem to go in depth as to exactly why it should be so. More a re-iteration of the what.

I've read elsewhere that the Fib. arrangement optimizes dense-packing in some useful way. But I havent explored it deeply.

But exploring it deeply is exactly what we need to do before leaping the chasm to conclude its actual purpose is to serve as the deity's signature. I mean, thats a huge leap to make.

 

[Radrook]

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.

The application of logic does not exclude nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, that is not necessarily the case. As you pointed out earlier there are many successful Christian scientists. They did not make false assumptions about God and their work.

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.

You need more than just pointing and saying "look a pattern, therefore God did it." Without a testable hypothesis all you have is an ad hoc explanation and i the world of science, and in reality those are worthless.

Once again, to have scientific evidence the first think that you need is a testable hypothesis. Those are not my rules. They are the rules of those that understand science the best.

 

[Radrook]

Most people don´t reach any conclusion (designed vs. not designed) from this observation. I certainly don´t.
I´m just not following your conclusion.

Do you have statistical evidence for that claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The application of logic does not exclude nature.

Nor does it exclude God. But no need for a God has been found yet, nor any evidence found for such, in nature.

 

[Radrook]

Right.
The article didnt seem to go in depth as to exactly why it should be so. More a re-iteration of the what.

I've read elsewhere that the Fib. arrangement optimizes dense-packing in some useful way. But I havent explored it deeply.

But exploring it deeply is exactly what we need to do before leaping the chasm to conclude its actual purpose is to serve as the deity's signature. I mean, thats a huge leap to make.

Finding causes in nature to me simply means that nature was programmed to display that pattern by a creator as opposed to the atheist view that Nature did it. So I find denial of a creator or programmer a far more unjustifiable leap than the recognition of a creator in this matter. I guess we just disagree on that point.

 

[quatona]

The application of logic does not exclude nature.

No doubt.
Not sure how this is a response to an explanation of the difference (and the suggestion that a logical conclusion in one case can not simply be transferred to the other case).
IOW - would you like to address what I said?

 

[quatona]

Do you have statistical evidence for that claim?

Well, there´s hardly anyone in these discussions claiming "this is evidence for non-design". Actually, I can´t even think of one person who said such.
And yet, you talk as though this were the position that needs to be addressed (and as though refuting this position would leave your conclusion as the only one possible).

 

[Radrook]

No doubt.
Not sure how this is a response to an explanation of the difference (and the suggestion that a logical conclusion in one case can not simply be transferred to the other case).
IOW - would you like to address what I said?

I provided the example of SETI where the criteria for recognizing an intelligent source should be the same when examining DNA which is a code of information.

 

[Speedwell]

Finding causes in nature to me simply means that nature was programmed to display that pattern by a creator as opposed to the atheist view that Nature did it. So I find denial of a creator or programmer a far more unjustifiable leap than the recognition of a creator in this matter. I guess we just disagree on that point.

The theistic evolutionist would also conclude that "nature did it" in terms of Efficient causality.

 

[Radrook]

Well, there´s hardly anyone in these discussions claiming "this is evidence for non-design". Actually, I can´t even think of one person who said such.

You said that most people observing the fib sequence would not conclude anything as far as a creator is concerned. I assumed that you had a statistical source to support that claim. Basing the statement or conclusion on the reactions of atheists who have commented on this thread can hardly be justified as a source for making such a generalization.

BTW
About refutintatins and expectations:

I posted this thread as a way to provide support to fellow Christians on the forum.
The responses I received from them were appreciative. However, the responses from atheists have been to challenge the conclusions reached in the video. I chose to ignore them initially but after being constantly prodded for a response I decided to respond. Now I am being accused of wanting to have my viewpoint be accepted? LOL!

No, not at all. Everyone is welcomed to reach their own conclusions.
Thanks for the feedback and interesting discussion.

 

[Speedwell]

I provided the example of SETI where the criteria for recognizing an intelligent source should be the same when examining DNA which is a code of information.

No, SETI is looking for an encoded message.

 

[quatona]

You said that most people observing the fib sequence would not conclude anything as far as a creator is concerned. I assumed that you had a statistical source to support that claim.

As long as you can´t point to even only one person who concludes "Fibonacci sequence - hence the universe is undesigned" there´s little reason to ask for statistical evidence that such a conclusion is rarely made.

Btw. you just changed the operational term from "designer" to "creator". Was that intentional?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I provided the example of SETI where the criteria for recognizing an intelligent source should be the same when examining DNA which is a code of information.

No, you simply handwaved in an argument involving SETI. You did not show in any way what their criteria were. And then you did not even try to show that the sort of info in dna would be anything like the criteria that SETI used.

 

[Speedwell]

You said that most people observing the fib sequence would not conclude anything as far as a creator is concerned. I assumed that you had a statistical source to support that claim. Basing the statement or conclusion on the reactions of atheists who have commented on this thread can hardly be justified as a source for making such a generalization.

In fact, we do not observe the Fibonacci sequence in nature. We observe that certain aspects of the natural world can be modeled by a mathematical sequence invented by a smart Italian guy.

 

[durangodawood]

Finding causes in nature to me simply means that nature was programmed to display that pattern by a creator as opposed to the atheist view that Nature did it. So I find denial of a creator or programmer a far more unjustifiable leap than the recognition of a creator in this matter. I guess we just disagree on that point.

If just a "display" is the only apparent reason, then you might have a point.

But there are lots of other possible reasons why the pattern might show up naturally. I mentioned dense-packing, which could conserve the organisms resources, promote reproductive success, etc.

You cannot reasonably jump to the God's-fingerprint conclusion before you've done some basic work on the natural conditions involved.

 

[Radrook]

If just a "display" is the only apparent reason, then you might have a point.

But there are lots of other possible reasons why the pattern might show up naturally. I mentioned dense-packing, which might conserve the organisms resources, promote reproductive success, etc.

You cannot reasonably jump to the God's-fingerprint conclusion before you've done some basic work on the natural conditions involved.

Well in order to reach such a conclusion one must assuming abiogenesis and atheistic evolution. I find abiogenesis unacceptable as an explanation for the origin of life and atheistic evolution very unconvincing. So lacking those preconceptions I cannot reach the conclusion you just described. Also, the DNA coding or information codes needed for that sequence to emerge in nature indicates a programming mind. So I guess we disagree.

BTW
I never claimed that display is the only reason for the sequence.
Functionality in nature does not disprove a creator.

 

[OcifferPls]

After reading through this thread, I'm not convinced OP is even being serious, at all.