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

[Cyberman]

He did. Please do continue.

[Huggy Bear]

He did. Please do continue.

He did not, I don't see a yes or no answer anywhere in his post

[Angrboda]

Regardless, the width of DNA has been measured to fall on a range of values from 20 to 26 (Surgenator's quote of wikipedia). Picking one value along that range and saying that it is meaningful is classic cherry picking. You could have chosen 20, 21, 22, 26, or an average of several of these. Exactly how is your choosing an arbitrary value from a range of values "finding" the golden ratio in nature? You didn't find the golden ratio in nature, you found it in your head by cherry picking which value to use.

[Huggy Bear]

Regardless, the width of DNA has been measured to fall on a range of values from 20 to 26 (Surgenator's quote of wikipedia). Picking one value along that range and saying that it is meaningful is classic cherry picking. You could have chosen 20, 21, 22, 26, or an average of several of these. Exactly how is your choosing an arbitrary value from a range of values "finding" the golden ratio in nature? You didn't find the golden ratio in nature, you found it in your head by cherry picking which value to use.

LOL@ you guys thinking i'm making this up, I already posted my scource..

http://science.howstuffworks.com/math-co...ature1.htm

I also posted this video...starting at 1:09




that's from two different sources, not my head.

[Jackalope]

Regardless, the width of DNA has been measured to fall on a range of values from 20 to 26 (Surgenator's quote of wikipedia). Picking one value along that range and saying that it is meaningful is classic cherry picking. You could have chosen 20, 21, 22, 26, or an average of several of these. Exactly how is your choosing an arbitrary value from a range of values "finding" the golden ratio in nature? You didn't find the golden ratio in nature, you found it in your head by cherry picking which value to use.

LOL@ you guys thinking i'm making this up, I already posted my scource..

http://science.howstuffworks.com/math-co...ature1.htm

I also posted this video...starting at 1:09




that's from two different sources, not my head.

Finding two sources that commit the same fallacy does not somehow make it not fallacious.

[Whateverist]

I'd still like to know what significance you attach to finding the golden ratio in nature, Huggies. There are good structural reasons for phenomena to display the Fibonacci sequence, the golden ratio and pi. Given how things are produced (naturally) it is to be expected.

So what extra significance do you attach? Are you suggesting that the golden ratio is god's brand, something He copyrighted?

[FatAndFaithless]

I said this like three times already but Huggy doesn't seem to understand what the problem is. His source from howstuffworks is literally one high school teacher in Serbia with an irrelevant bachelor's degree. Its not anything approaching a reliable source. And you're crowing about someone saying newer data is more accurate? This is ludicrous.

[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. 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.

[Cyberman]

He did. Please do continue.

He did not, I don't see a yes or no answer anywhere in his post

You want simple answers to complex, malformed questions, you stick with bible magic.

[Huggy Bear]

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.

your quote

]Navels. We read that you can reveal φ by measuring the height of a person and the height of the person's navel, measured from the floor. The ratio of navel height to total height is supposed to be φ. And with the current interest in navels, the implication is that this is one indicator of attractive bodily proportions. Has anyone checked real people? In the interest of science I checked that assertion for a large sample of the most popular swimsuit models. This should check the claim that bodies judged "beautiful" should have the ideal characteristics of form, including the ideal navel height. [It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.] The results averaged 0.58±0.01, with rather small variation. So much for that myth.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

Must be nice to have access to the most "popular swimsuit models" and when were they considered "real" people?

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

“Like God, the Divine Proportion is always similar to itself.”
–Fra Luca Pacioli (1445–1517), Italian mathematician

What swimsuit models was he checking out?

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.

we see here two sets of measurements, the first is 34/20 (mine was 34/21), the second measurement references another study (no info on the study btw) with DNA in a "particular solution" (where can we find more info on this study)?

Upon being questioned about the measurements, he posts an article from 1953, after taking issue with my numbers from 1953.

How am I being unreasonable?