-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Amazing Fibonacci Numbers
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
You're anthropomorphising Nature.
You're mistaking order for design, and self-organization for intention.
Nature's organization is a result of the natural laws and resultant algorithms that existed from the beginning. Complex organization should not be conflated with your everyday experience of human organization. Humans are intentional manipulators. Not all organization requires intentionality .
Neither can the heliocentric or germ theories, but they're facts. Science doesn't prove things.
There will always be subjects we don't understand well, but most of our current knowledge was once as baffling as your examples -- several of which are non-questions.
Science investigates and follows the facts. If these don't support the current 'narrative' the narrative is modified or discarded.
Q: Why do you say "atheist" scientist, and why do you call science dishonest? Don't scientists of all religions operate the same way? -- and you admitted yourself that it's not the job of science to question why.
Pascal's wager isn't a theological argument, it's a game theory strategy. It's not the atheist whose reason is flawed.
Science is objective, not subjective. Science follows the facts.
What is it with you and atheists? What 'bias' do atheists have? You speak as if those lacking belief in God have formed some sort of cabal, with some sort of agenda.
Atheists have no bias, and they don't, as a category, "ardently oppose" anything, or have any particular connection with science. They're just ordinary people who don't believe in God.
You are trying to deny intentional design by implying that it is all just a series of fortunate accidents of nature.
Laws do not make themselves.....laws demonstrate intent and purpose, and intent shows that the design was created for a specific purpose. That shows planning. Only intelligence can plan.
If you watched the video in the OP, you will see more than enough evidence to convince any intelligent person that coincidence has its limits. Design is what we see and it shows us how precise that designer is in his work.
Why do you say laws don't make themselves? Why do you say they demonstrate intent and purpose?
Little is known about the origin of the universe. Perhaps other universes happened with different laws, which produced different kinds of people claiming the universe was fine-tuned for them. Perhaps most universes popped into being with laws that didn't allow organization, which would never figure in our 'theories' of intentional design.
Any claim of a unique, fine tuned universe is without support, and attributing our universe to an invisible, magical personage because of personal incredulity or an argument from ignorance is illogical.
Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. Organization is automatic and does not require any intentional manipulation.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Guys, stop using "math" to dismiss what's clearly wizardry.
Being a Jehovah's Witness is not a factor. Plagiarism is any unattributed reproduction of the work of another. One should also generally use quotation marks, especially if the source isn't named until the end. One should know where the posters words end and another's begin right where the latter begins.
In some settings, such as journalism or a university term paper, it is always deemed unethical and unacceptable. It can get you fired or expelled.
I doubt that Deeje's intent was dishonest. I suspect that she is not familiar with the standards exercised by others elsewhere, and didn't think it mattered who wrote the words or who her readers thought wrote them. I wouldn't hold her to the academic and professional standards.
I'd say that the hubris comes from those attacking a wildly successful program of thought and discovery, presumably hoping that rational people might throw out that which works and replace it with the useless - supernaturalism. Good luck with that.
Incidentally, rational bias is a good thing. It's called learning.
It is faith that is intellectually dishonesty, not atheism. Faith is not a virtueor a path to knowledge given that any idea and its polar opposite can be equally well believed by faith.
Atheism is the only rational position available given the lack of evidence for gods. Belief is a leap of faith, which is not rational. Atheists have no use for supernaturalism. It has added nothing to our understanding.
Pascal'sWager is a logical fallacy (excluded middle). I'm guessing that it was atheists that developed the refutation.
It will if the actual genetics are of a donkey.
Yes, every age is dominated by the superstitious and poverty. That doesn't make superstition and poverty goals to strive for.
You forgot the key word: YET. In all of these, science has made great progress learning the parameters of the problems. A couple (objective morality, for example) are assumptions and not even in the realm of science.
Wrong. Science can, and does, study consciousness and knows it exists. The specific mechanisms are not detailed, but we know that it is a process in the brain.
Whether the universe *had* an origin is possibly a matter of definition, but science is the *only* way of reliably determining the answer or determining the evidence required to give an answer.
Fine tuning is often exaggerated, but once again, any *explanation* of such will have to come from the scientific route to be justified and reliable (as opposed to religious claims, which are neither).
Science actually asks both, depending on the situation. The problem is that the question of 'why' ultimately comes down to fundamental laws which cannot be explained (because any explanation would have to involve even more fundamental laws). So, science can, and does, ask why cancers have the properties they do, why planets form at the distances from stars that we see, why the sky is blue, etc.
Again, simply wrong. We can, and do know the answers to many 'why' questions. We can answer them because we know the more fundamental laws that provide such answers.
Funny, I find that theists are the ones more generally opposed to anything that doesn't appeal to their biases. Any desire for a real proof of their claims is met with hostility and derision. Which shows that the goal of theists is ultimately subjectivity and not objectivity. Otheriwse, why do they so often rely on the subjectivity of faith?
Pascal's Wager has no many logical assumptions and flaws it isn't even worth looking at. But if you really think it is a valid point, consider what you would do if there is a God that would be angry if you 'faked' faith because of Pascal's Wager.
And of the three, the golden ration is probably the *least* interesting. It satisfies a simple quadratic equation (x^2=x+1), while neither pi nor Euler's constant (e)
do so. All three are irrational, but pi and e are transcendental, which is a different level entirely.
More fun Fibonacci facts:
1. If you let phi be the golden ratio, F_n and L_n the Fibonacci and Lucas sequences, then phi^n =(L_n +F_n \sqrt(5) )/2 =F_n \phi + F_{n-1}.
2. The ratio L_n /F_n is a very good approximation to sqrt(5).
3. The golden ratio was one of the first numbers to be proven to be irrational (sqrt(2) was possibly earlier). It shows up as a ratio in the five-pointed star and is thereby often associated with *pagan* or *demonic* mythology through the pentagram.
Why are these prophecies and proclamations always so useless, such as that it is the female bee that produces the honey? How about telling man about the penicillium mold, or how to harness electricity. Or even a complete description of apian parthenogenesis.
It's the paucity of useful information that reveals that the authors of the holy books had no access to a prescient, non-human source.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Coincidences actually happen. Improbable circumstances do arise. However, I've yet to see any evidence for this invisible all-powerful creator of yours. The fact that you might find something to be coincidental or improbable is certainly no justification for inserting some ridiculous fantastical God into the equation. That's unreasonable and contradicts the scientific method.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
HAVE you ever noticed that many plants grow in spiral formations? A pineapple, for example, may have 8 spirals of scales going around one way and 5 or 13 going in the opposite direction.
If you look at the seeds in a sunflower, you may be able to see 55 and 89 spirals crossing over each other or perhaps even more. You may even find spirals on a cauliflower.
Once you start noticing spirals, visits to your fruit and vegetable store may take on new interest. Why do plants grow in this way? Does the number of spirals have any significance?
How Do Plants Grow?
Most plants form new organs such as stems, leaves, and flowers from a tiny central growing point called a meristem. Each new structure, called a primordium, develops and grows out from the center in a new direction, forming an angle with the previous growth. (Curiously, the sunflower is unusual in that the florets that become seeds begin to form spirals from the rim of the head rather than the center.) Most plants arrange new growths at a unique angle that produces spirals. What angle is it?
Consider this challenge: Imagine trying to engineer a plant so that new growths are compactly arranged around the growing point with no wasted space. Suppose you chose to make each new primordium grow out at an angle of two fifths of a revolution from the previous growth. You would have the problem of every fifth primordium growing from the same spot and in the same direction. They would form rows with wasted space between the rows. The truth is, any simple fraction of a revolution results in rows rather than optimal packing. Only what has been termed the “golden angle” of approximately 137.5 degrees results in an ideally compact arrangement of growths.
What makes this angle so special?
The golden angle is ideal because it cannot be expressed as a simple fraction of a revolution. The fraction 5/8 is close to it, 8/13 is closer, and 13/21 is closer still, but no fraction exactly expresses the golden proportion of a revolution. Thus, when a new growth on the meristem develops at this fixed angle with respect to the preceding growth, no two growths will ever develop in exactly the same direction. Consequently, instead of forming radial arms, the primordia form spirals.
Remarkably, a computer simulation of primordia growing from a central point produces recognizable spirals only if the angle between new growths is correct to a high degree of accuracy. Straying from the golden angle by even one tenth of a degree causes the effect to be lost.
How Many Petals on a Flower?
Interestingly, the number of spirals that result from growth based on the golden angle is usually a number from a series called the Fibonacci sequence. This series was first described by the 13th-century Italian mathematician known as Leonardo Fibonacci. In this progression, each number after 1 is equal to the sum of the previous two numbers—1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, and so on.
The flowers of many plants that exhibit a spiral growth pattern often have a Fibonacci number of petals. According to some observers, there is a tendency for buttercups to have 5 petals, bloodroots 8, fireweeds 13, asters 21, common field daisies 34, and Michaelmas daisies 55 or 89. Fruit and vegetables often have features that correspond to Fibonacci numbers.
Information from Intriguing Patterns in Plants — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
What else features Fibonacci spirals?
And even in the design of the human body........
Can this all possibly be accidental?
"Can this all possibly be accidental?"
Absolutely. There's no evidence for it being anything but accidental. In fact, it being accidental seems FAR more probable than claiming an all powerful being that can't be detected did it.
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
What I always find interesting is people who intentionally seek patterns to fit a preconceived notion of what they already believe. That's certainly some fascinating woo magic right there.
Mohsen
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
Did you just ignore the elephant in the room?
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
What do you mean by "accidental"?
Do you mean "by chance"? In which case, there was a chance things would turn out this way and a chance that they would not?
Do you mean "unintentionally"? In which, the plants didn't intend to grow this way?
Do you mean "unexpectedly"? In which case, we didn't expect to see these patterns?
Or do you simply mean "incidentally"? In which case, it's something that just happens to be so?
I'd say that the opposite was true.
Physical laws would not be required in a universe in which an omniscient, omnipotent god ruled. No gravitational constant would be required if God could just will objects to move.
Physical laws are absolutely required in a godless, unconscious universe to maintain order.
Such laws argue strongly against the existence of a ruler god like the gods in in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but are consistent with deistic and atheistic worldviews as well as others.
McBell
Unbound
you answered the first question with the second setence
McBell
Unbound
She means "without god"
McBell
Unbound
Um...
Don't you mean "creatorish"?
