Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Angrboda]

Choosing sources from people who are touting the claim of fibonacci numbers instead of independent sources. Cherry picking number two. Do you think it's a coincidence that these people tout the numbers that fit and ignore the numbers that don't? If so, then you're naive.

First of all, the sources I referenced are not making any creationist claims, so they have no motive to fudge the numbers, they are simply stating cases in where the fibonacci sequence could be found, DNA is just one of many.
If my source was a christian website you'd have a point.

And this is where I call you a hypocrite for posting sources with a vested interest in debunking the fibonacci sequence.

I called you a cherry picker because despite being shown that the width of DNA varies considerably between 20 and 26 Å, you continue to proclaim only those sources which agree with your previously drawn conclusion of 21. In addition, that bias exists in the field of people claiming to find fibonacci everywhere was pointed out to you early on. Bias comes from other than religious sources. That you continue to only accept figures from people whom it was pointed out to you make false claims in favor of the fibonacci nonsense makes you either stupid or intellectually dishonest, take your pick.

not only that, the claim that the golden ratio created beauty has been around since ancient times.

So what? It's also been claimed since ancient times that the Hindu Vedas were uncreated. A claim doesn't make it true. Facts do. Or in this case, they don't.

The problem is not only your sources, it's your choosing to rely upon them and ignoring other data; that's where the error comes in. Arbitrarily picking one source and ignoring another doesn't ever prove anything, unless you have some valid reason for ignoring the other sources, and you don't.

Ok, lets examine his data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

The structure of DNA of all species comprises two helical chains each coiled round the same axis, and each with a pitch of 34 ångströms (3.4 nanometres) and a radius of 10 ångströms (1.0 nanometres).[6] According to another study, when measured in a particular solution, the DNA chain measured 22 to 26 ångströms wide (2.2 to 2.6 nanometres), and one nucleotide unit measured 3.3 Å (0.33 nm) long.[7]

Your 34 vs 21 is a measurement done from 1953. When you look at it more closely, things aren't that simple.

. . . . .

How am I being unreasonable?

By clinging to measurements from biased sources that confirm your previously drawn conclusion despite being shown independent data that the figure you've chosen is arbitrarily drawn from a range of values that the measurement can take. Depending on which measurement you choose to champion, the ratio of helix width to length of a single spiral can vary between 0.588 and 0.764; picking the one value that makes it 0.618 and calling it meaningful is unreasonable. (On top of that, I've just learned that the length of the minor groove varies depending upon its contents; again, showing your 21/34 ratio to be an arbitrary idealization.)