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

[Esquilax]

It appears that you can't grasp the concept of the word "sequence". A sequence is never random...hence the word.

Funny you should mention that, since the implication of design is not present in the definition you gave, nor within the word. A sequence implies a timeline of events, but there's no necessity that it be designed: 1, 5, 8, 49, 65, 79. There. That's a sequence of ascending numbers that I made by pushing random keys on my keyboard.

So to be clear, you've tried to define an attribute into the term "sequence" using a definition that doesn't include that attribute, and into this patently false mix you've thrown an unearned sense of intellectual superiority. Good stuff, but even if I were to accept it all, all you've done is toyed with definitions: you would simply be asserting that the presence of these things in nature is a sequence, but you can't change reality by fiat demand. You'd have to actually demonstrate that what you're attempting to define into reality is true, because it's equally possible that these Fibonacci Sequences you're seeing in nature are just disparate, unconnected coincidences; you are asserting a connection, without ever demonstrating one, and then pretending that we somehow have to prove you wrong.

randomly banging on the keys of a piano = noise, but in sequence = music

Oh, really?





Which actually just goes to show something else that's rather important: sequences can also be identified and given significance via the observer, despite the random source. Those random notes in that video become "music" because of their pleasing sound to the ear, not just because they are in a sequence. If I draw a hand of cards shuffled at random and end up getting all the same suit in ascending numerical order, that doesn't necessitate a designer, in fact that random card order has exactly the same probability of any other hand; the thing lending that specific hand significance, what makes it a "sequence" is the human mind reading it and imposing an order upon it when the cards themselves do not care.

In this case, you're employing a sharpshooter fallacy, and picking out only the disparate data points that agree with the conclusion you want to reach while ignoring those that don't. All that shows is you've been able to find things in common in something as large as all of reality.

No matter the handwaving woo peddling you're doing here, that's no great feat.

I remember seeing a video where Dawkins used computers to simulate the adage of monkeys typing randomly could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

Actually, no: that video was an attempt to illustrate how natural selection acts upon evolution. I know the one you're talking about, it's really old with some positively ancient technology in it, no? If so, it doesn't demonstrate what you think it does, given that it... you know, isn't talking about what you think it is.

Hey, I found it!





Starts at 4:40, or thereabouts.