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

[FatAndFaithless]

Uh..pretty sure the "particular solution" point was already addressed Huggy. And are you gonna concede the fact that your measurements from howstuffworks are from an absurdly unreliable and unverified source, or are you going to keep pushing the Serbian high school teacher as an authority on the matter?

[Huggy Bear]

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.

Complex Question? LOL
it can't get any simpler, any elementary kid can figure this one out.

"If you find new data that is more accurate, do you continue using the old data?"

the answer is no..

What fool would keep using inaccurate data if he has more accurate data available? Atheists apparently.

Tonus won't answer because he would destroy his own argument.

critical thinkers......smh

[ShaMan]

Where indeed?

[Tonus]

Tonus won't answer because he would destroy his own argument.

As you note, it's not a complicated question. It's just irrelevant, and yet another attempt at going off on a tangent. It's a way for you to avoid the actual issue while trying to pretend that you're making a point.

[FatAndFaithless]

*cough* Serbian high school teacher *cough*

[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.)

[Huggy Bear]

Tonus won't answer because he would destroy his own argument.

As you note, it's not a complicated question. It's just irrelevant, and yet another attempt at going off on a tangent. It's a way for you to avoid the actual issue while trying to pretend that you're making a point.

But it is relevant, your quote:

It means that additional work has yielded additional information that makes the measurements more accurate. Not obsolete.

In what world does newer more accurate data, not make the older less accurate data obsolete?

hence my question.

"If you find new data that is more accurate, do you continue using the old data?"

How is the question irrelevant?

---

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.

My point was, the body types considered beautiful in ancient times differ from now, so using swimsuit models to prove the claim wrong is just absurd.

[Surgenator]

Complex Question? LOL
it can't get any simpler, any elementary kid can figure this one out.

"If you find new data that is more accurate, do you continue using the old data?"

the answer is no..

What fool would keep using inaccurate data if he has more accurate data available? Atheists apparently.

Tonus won't answer because he would destroy his own argument.

critical thinkers......smh

Blockhead, there is no one correct answer because it depends in what environment the DNA is in. The most common environment gives you a pitch/width to be 34/24.7 which does NOT EQUAL to the golden ratio.

http://www.uic.edu/classes/phys/phys461/...0/ANJUM04/

The most common DNA structure in solution is the B-DNA. Under conditions of applied force or twists in the DNA, or under low hydration conditions, it can adopt several helical conformations, referred to as the A-DNA, Z-DNA, S-DNA...

A-DNA B-DNA Z-DNA
Helix Diameter 25.5A 23.7A 18.4A
Helix pitch 25A 34A 47A

If there was one correct answer, then your assertion that the old measurement is obsolete would be correct. However, it is not that simple. I don't know what environment the DNA was in in the 1953 study (that got a ratio of 34/20). So I didn't claim their measurement to be obsolete. If the 1953 study had the DNA under the same conditions, then yes their measurement would become obsolete.

Also, do you actually think that howstuffworks.com is a scientific source? Do you think it has more credibility than a Nature papers or a university class course?

[Huggy Bear]

Complex Question? LOL
it can't get any simpler, any elementary kid can figure this one out.

"If you find new data that is more accurate, do you continue using the old data?"

the answer is no..

What fool would keep using inaccurate data if he has more accurate data available? Atheists apparently.

Tonus won't answer because he would destroy his own argument.

critical thinkers......smh

Blockhead, there is no one correct answer because it depends in what environment the DNA is in. The most common environment gives you a pitch/width to be 34/24.7 which does NOT EQUAL to the golden ratio.

http://www.uic.edu/classes/phys/phys461/...0/ANJUM04/

The most common DNA structure in solution is the B-DNA. Under conditions of applied force or twists in the DNA, or under low hydration conditions, it can adopt several helical conformations, referred to as the A-DNA, Z-DNA, S-DNA...

A-DNA B-DNA Z-DNA
Helix Diameter 25.5A 23.7A 18.4A
Helix pitch 25A 34A 47A

If there was one correct answer, then your assertion that the old measurement is obsolete would be correct. However, it is not that simple. I don't know what environment the DNA was in in the 1953 study (that got a ratio of 34/20). So I didn't claim their measurement to be obsolete. If the 1953 study had the DNA under the same conditions, then yes their measurement would become obsolete.

Also, do you actually think that howstuffworks.com is a scientific source? Do you think it has more credibility than a Nature papers or a university class course?

Nice backpedal

You clearly state that the older measurements are inaccurate

I consider their measurement not as accurate compared to the new ones. Hence, I use the new measurement not the original.

Inaccurate implies wrong..
So which is it? Are the older measurements inaccurate? Or are all the measurements viable based on the environment of the DNA?

[FatAndFaithless]

A huggy straw man? Sounds like a kids toy~