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

[Huggy Bear]

I think the number 1 and the sequence of natural numbers is even greater evidence for design.
Look at the starsin the sky. How do you count them? 1,2,3,4...and so on.
Look at atoms in any material. How do you count them? 1,2,3,4,...and so on.

And how do you get from one quantity to next? You add 1. Always 1.
Even FSM's noodly appendages must be counted this way.
He based the counting mechanism on himself.

Spoken like someone in denial...

Next you'll experience anger, but hold on, only two more stages till acceptance.

[pocaracas]

I think the number 1 and the sequence of natural numbers is even greater evidence for design.
Look at the starsin the sky. How do you count them? 1,2,3,4...and so on.
Look at atoms in any material. How do you count them? 1,2,3,4,...and so on.

And how do you get from one quantity to next? You add 1. Always 1.
Even FSM's noodly appendages must be counted this way.
He based the counting mechanism on himself.

Spoken like someone in denial...

Next you'll experience anger, but hold on, only two more stages till acceptance.

Are you for real?!

Anger? me?! LOL!

Numbers mean numbers. Patterns are just patterns. Many things share specific patterns.... many more don't share the same patterns, but may share others.

Do your thing from bees with ants.
Do it with horses.
Do it with poultry.
Do it with plants.

How many share your pattern?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's shows evidence of intelligent design. If pretty much everything in nature follows the same number sequence take honeybees for example

LOL........would you be interested in any other explanation?

The Fibonacci numbers are very well represented in honeybees.

And vegetables, and seed cones, and the leaves of some trees, even our own bodies. Of course....there are more examples in nature of creatures that -do not- express this pattern.....but that doesn't diminish how amazing it is when we find animals or structures and arrangements that do.

what else is there to conclude?

Oh, I don't know....perhaps that it's just one of any number of logarithmic patterns that can express themselves as structures? In the case of bees, any pattern that maximizes the number of cells in a given space will yield a rough spiral if viewed from a certain point in the structure...though it's unlikely that any beehive has ever been a perfect "fibonacci sequence" - you'd have to measure that down to the nth - rather than fudge the numbers as being "close enough" (this applies to just about anything you're likely to point at). In the case of trees, it maximizes exposure (seed cones are a similar issue to beehives, maximizing the number of seeds). Neither "god" nor "coincidence". These were not the only choices...though it seems to me that this is all you'd considered.

Care to guess as to whether or not a mundane mechanic as per the above will also explain it's presence in our bodies? I'll wait.

[Tonus]

Your logical fallacy is the Texas Sharpshooter.

Pull a bunch of random data points that happen to have a common factor and marvel at the coincidence. Particularly funny when used with data points that are more of a rough approximation than an exact match. Even moreso when we extrapolate from it to determine that some poorly-defined group of random data points is what a supreme intellect chose as the method for "revealing" himself to his creation.

[Natachan]

I've always been unable to understand the people who use things like this for proof of the existence of God. Let's take pi. I had someone use this. Someone said look how often pi show up! Look how well it orders nature!

Well, so what? Pi is a ratio. It's a nice ratio, and a very useful ratio, but still just a ratio. It shows up a lot because it is easy for people to conceive of circular things. Circular motion, circular coordinates, etc. it doesn't mean anything. It's is something we have made up.

"Well look at math! Look how well it works! Look at our base ten number system and how logical it is!" It is logical to us because we have ten fingers. Perhaps other sentient species work in base eight, base six, or whatever and it's perfectly logical to them. Maybe they all use binary and are laughing at our ridiculous base ten system. The point is that mathematics is a tool used and created by people. It provides no proof of any supernatural entity.

Nor do certain physical properties. One I hear often is the gravitational constant G (not to be confused with g, acceleration due to gravity). They say look how well tuned it is! G is a relationship that describes the interaction of particles with mass. No more. It is an expression of the interaction of masses. Why should this prove God? Why should the physical interaction of masses indicate a God? It's similar to the idea of pi proving God. It simply proves that we have the ability to set up ways of understanding fixed phenomena.

[Alex K]

THAT'S NUMBERWANG!!!

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps other sentient species work in base eight, base six, or whatever and it's perfectly logical to them. Maybe they all use binary and are laughing at our ridiculous base ten system.

A couple of north american tribes used base 8 (which allowed them to predict quite a stunning array of solar and lunar events using their knuckles - the likely reason that they adopted base 8 to begin with, their knuckles, that is..not the prediction of events) - we don't even have to leave this planet or our own species.

[Angrboda]

The "golden spiral" is a fascinating curve. But it is just one member of a larger family of curves/spirals collectively known as "logarithmic spirals", and there are still other spirals found in nature, such as the "Archimedian spiral." It's not difficult to find one of these curves that fits a particular pattern found in nature, even if that pattern is only in the eye of the beholder. But the dirty little secret of all of this is that when such a fit is found, it is seldom exact. The examples from nature that you find in books often have considerable variations from the "golden ideal". Sometimes curves claimed to fit the golden spiral actually are better fit by some other spiral. The fact that a curve "fits" physical data gives no clue to the underlying physical processes that produce such a curve in nature. We must dig deeper to find those processes.

Fibonacci Flim-Flam, by Donald E. Simanek

[Huggy Bear]

what else is there to conclude?

Oh, I don't know....perhaps that it's just one of any number of logarithmic patterns that can express themselves as structures? In the case of bees, any pattern that maximizes the number of cells in a given space will yield a rough spiral if viewed from a certain point in the structure...though it's unlikely that any beehive has ever been a perfect "fibonacci sequence" - you'd have to measure that down to the nth - rather than fudge the numbers as being "close enough" (this applies to just about anything you're likely to point at). In the case of trees, it maximizes exposure (seed cones are a similar issue to beehives, maximizing the number of seeds). Neither "god" nor "coincidence". These were not the only choices...though it seems to me that this is all you'd considered.

Care to guess as to whether or not a mundane mechanic as per the above will also explain it's presence in our bodies? I'll wait.

Except that the example I gave of Bees involved how they reproduced, not the shape of their hive.

For instance, a male be will have
1 parent
2 grand parents
3 g grand parents
5 gg grand parents
8 ggg grand parents

and females tree would start at 2,3,5,8,13.
by dividing the number of females by the number of males you get 1.618, Phi.

Bees have no concept of mathematics, so why do they reproduce according to the same sequence? what determines it? Isn't reproduction supposed to be random? coincidence?

---

The "golden spiral" is a fascinating curve. But it is just one member of a larger family of curves/spirals collectively known as "logarithmic spirals", and there are still other spirals found in nature, such as the "Archimedian spiral." It's not difficult to find one of these curves that fits a particular pattern found in nature, even if that pattern is only in the eye of the beholder. But the dirty little secret of all of this is that when such a fit is found, it is seldom exact. The examples from nature that you find in books often have considerable variations from the "golden ideal". Sometimes curves claimed to fit the golden spiral actually are better fit by some other spiral. The fact that a curve "fits" physical data gives no clue to the underlying physical processes that produce such a curve in nature. We must dig deeper to find those processes.

Fibonacci Flim-Flam, by Donald E. Simanek

your link fails to mention the above example.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not going to go through line by line and tell you why each and every example is ignorance when any example will explain why -any other- is ignorance.

Wait...wait..you think that the only way a pattern can emerge is if the bees are ticking out numbers in their heads...doing reproductive math? You don't think that it has anything to do with the manner in which bees produce, and the way we might be able to express that mathematically?

Bees, btw...all have 2 parents. They reproduce sexually.........