Golden ratio in guitar solos?

_{News
December 2, 2014

Intelligent Design, Mathematics, News

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Mathematics
News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Golden rectangle/Ahrecht (Original), Pbroks13, Joo

Further to Does the golden ratio, 1.618, unify science?

A reader kindly writes to say that his high school guitar teacher told him that one can find the golden ratio in guitar solos that sneak into songs:

Golden section and golden rectangles, the harmonic series and the model of its ideal behavior simplified, equal temperament and just intonation and a description of the beat frequency conflict produced by the deviations between simultaneous sounding of harmonic partials and prime frequencies and how it affects the tone and timbre of the guitar. Read to the end for some cool videos demonstrating the properties detailed here.

Design? Chance? Chance only if there are a zillion universes that don’t have anything like this. So the evidence for their existence is… ? Uh, right.

Chances are, today’s art establishment won’t take the golden ratio seriously unless it helps chimps fling poop at each other. That’s art too, didn’t you know? Well, it will be if some project gets funded.

See also: The multiverse: Where everything turns out to be true, except philosophy and religion

and

Human origins: The war of trivial explanations

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

ba77 #115
You refer to ‘genome recording’ as supporting your position, yet Genetic evidence is far more problematic than you realize. And I can cite many references more than backing that claim up. ,,, Thus, the question becomes why do you not do science properly and give ‘hard science’ its proper due? I hold that it is because you find the implications of Design, for whatever severely misguided reason, philosophically untenable.
Too bad most of your references are not from peer-reviewed academic papers which have been checked and rechecked for accuracy and properly drawn conclusions. I give time to all kinds of science. They all have their truths to expose. And they can cross-support each other. Physics and chemistry and biology and mathematics and archaeology and anthropology are not mutely exclusive or contradictory.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman #112
My worldview holds that you will follow the data right up to the point that doing so becomes suffecitenly uncomfortable for you. Then you ignore it or you will find excuses and rationalizations to go your own way.
But, you don't really know me at all.
I know that is what you believe but I disagree and the evidence from the study of human behavior would tend to support my conclusion
But, you don't really know me at all or how I got to the place where I am now. You don't know what my 'journey' was.
I would argue that what you mean by “realistic” is actually something more like “comfortable”.
But, you don't really know the hurts I've suffered or the pain I rise above.
I mean no offense by this and it is nothing personal. I honestly believe this could be said for anyone including me. I just believe we would all be better served if we were at least honest with our motivations and ourselves.
I am very honest with myself and others. I'll not take it personally but you are just projecting your worldview and biases onto me.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: All historical science is a soft science because you cannot do a lab experiment on what happened in the past. fifthmonarchyman: Dinosaurs still roam the earth it’s just that we like to call them birds. Sure. It should have been clear we were referring to non-avian dinosaurs, but we'll be more specific. Are you saying we don’t have hard evidence that Tyrannosaurus Rex once roamed the Earth?Zachriel_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Jerad, anyone who elevates what he imagines historical science to be telling him over what our present observational evidence is telling us is 'not doing science properly'. And when our present, repeatable, observational science is given its proper priority over soft historical science (i.e. presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question, which is the method of science that Darwin himself used), then the inference to Intelligent Design is, by far, the best inference to explain what we can make out of the past. (Cambrian Explosion, etc..). You refer to 'genome recording' as supporting your position, yet Genetic evidence is far more problematic than you realize. And I can cite many references more than backing that claim up. ,,, Thus, the question becomes why do you not do science properly and give 'hard science' its proper due? I hold that it is because you find the implications of Design, for whatever severely misguided reason, philosophically untenable. The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/bornagain77_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Zach #111 I'd like to know why the designer(s) bothered making all those dinosaurs if the finely tuned universe was just going to wipe them all out? Maybe the designer(s) decided to go with the soft and cuddly mammals instead of the scaly scary dinos in the end. Oh wait, the weren't scaly,they had feathers . . . or did they? There was no one around then to see it so it's just just so stories really I guess. But I do hope the designer(s) don't get tired of us. There's lots of ways the universe can kill us and most of them are pretty nasty. Since we have free will maybe we should just do it ourselves and get it over with. Except that 'suicide' is bad or wrong. Is perpetrating global warming suicidal? It's all so confusing.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Zac said, Are you saying we don't have hard evidence that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth? I say, Have you missed the latest? Dinosaurs still roam the earth it's just that we like to call them birds. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Jared said, I have not yet completely made up my mind. Except to do my best to follow all the data as the path becomes clear. I say, My worldview holds that you will follow the data right up to the point that doing so becomes suffecitenly uncomfortable for you. Then you ignore it or you will find excuses and rationalizations to go your own way. You say, I am open to new destinations as long as they really do exist. I say, I know that is what you believe but I disagree and the evidence from the study of human behavior would tend to support my conclusion You say, Life may be the journey and not the conclusion but I prefer to be realistic about where I’m going. I say, I would argue that what you mean by "realistic" is actually something more like "comfortable". I mean no offense by this and it is nothing personal. I honestly believe this could be said for anyone including me. I just believe we would all be better served if we were at least honest with our motivations and ourselves. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: All historical science is a soft science because you cannot do a lab experiment on what happened in the past. Are you saying we don't have hard evidence that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth? http://www.dinosaurfact.net/backgrounds/n4-1920-1080.jpgZachriel_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

ba77 #107 As your statement is easily spotted above I shan't reproduce it here. Your view of historical sciences is not shared by a majority of scientists.. Certainly some methods of historical sciences differ from non-historic sciences but even physics sometimes has to look for traces from the past. Or are you saying The Big Bang is just idle speculation? I think you'll find that the methods of evolution, archaeology, anthropology, etc are fairly rigorous when used properly. Or are you casting aspersions on everything that happened before . . . what time exactly? How or why you conclude I have not one drop of hard science is curious. And your inference in that matter is incorrect. And I (and a lot of others) think your interpretation of the 'hard' science data is incorrect regarding its support of evolutionary theory. In fact many 'hard' science results, such as genome recording, have made the case for evolution even stronger. Remember to that when the theory was first proposed Darwin and Wallace had no idea the mechanisms of inheritance. And yet the theory is now stronger because of the new 'hard' science techniques and insights. The gaps are getting smaller and smaller. And the biologists have only 'been at it' for 150 years. I've been hearing people say that evolution is on its last legs for years now. And yet it still hasn't crumbled or gone away.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Again, a chance process usually produces predictably dull results. "Chance process" is a misnomer. Chaos, order, complexity are the norm for natural processes.Zachriel_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

fifthmonarchyman #106
The wishful thinking comes in the leap from that tentative conclusion (a) to inference …. (b)Therefore decent with modification can produce a mind that can fathom the Fibonacci sequence. The point is you can’t get from point (a)to point(b) with out something added to the mix.
Well, I fail to see any compelling evidence that any other thing or one was involved. Or was necessary.
Mathematicians do use the term transcendental but not in this way. I don’t know what you mean by it.
I mean pretty much what Mathematicians do. Mathematicians did not event the term by the way they borrowed it from philosophers
In mathematics a transcendental number is "a real or complex number that is not algebraic—that is, it is not a root of a non-zero polynomial equation with rational coefficients." (from Wikipedia) It was coined by Liebniz. sqrt(2) is irrational but algebraic (it's the root of x^2 - 2 = 0) so not transcendental. Pi is transcendental. I don't think you use it in the same way as mathematicians do.
I’m a Calvinist. I believe we have both already pitched our tents a long time ago and it will take something beyond us to change our minds now. I enjoy these conversations for one main reason I like thinking about this stuff. It almost feels like worship to contemplate and try and explain the wonder of existence to someone who seems to have forgotten that there is more going on than can be “measured and replicated”.
I have not yet completely made up my mind. Except to do my best to follow all the data as the path becomes clear. I am open to new destinations as long as they really do exist. Life may be the journey and not the conclusion but I prefer to be realistic about where I'm going.Jerad_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

The Cambrian Explosion by itself turns Darwin’s tree of life upside-down. The fossil record after the Cambrian Explosion is also infamous for being a record of ‘top down’ sudden appearance and stasis. ,,, And besides Neo-Darwinists having a grossly inadequate mechanism with random variation and selection, the genetic evidence is far more problematic than you seem to realize. Cladistics is joke of a ‘science’ that assumes into its premises the very conclusion of common descent that it is trying to prove. Darwinists are also infamous for massaging the data in genetics to try to force the evidence into a tree like pattern. All historical science is a soft science because you cannot do a lab experiment on what happened in the past. i.e. You are forced to 'infer' what might have happened in the past. Hard science on the other hand, which you have not one drop of, is observational, repeatable, testing in the present. (In fact Quantum mechanics is infamous for making of mockery of the space-time reference frame),,,, ALL observational, repeatable, testing tells us that unguided neo-Darwinian processes are grossly inadequate for the creation of even trivial levels of the extremely integrated levels of functional complexity/information we find in life. Yet, as fifth points out, mind can easily grasp the world of information. For you to give prejudicial favor to the 'soft historical evidence', which is far more problematic than you seem to realize, over what our present laboratory experiments is telling us is possible, is 'not even wrong' as far as doing science properly is concerned.bornagain77_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

Jerad said, I don’t think the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic lines of evidence which establish that humans arose through a process of universal common descent with modification is silly wishful thinking. I say, The wishful thinking comes in the leap from that tentative conclusion (a) to inference .... (b)Therefore decent with modification can produce a mind that can fathom the Fibonacci sequence. The point is you can't get from point (a)to point(b) with out something added to the mix. You say Mathematicians do use the term transcendental but not in this way. I don’t know what you mean by it. I say, I mean pretty much what Mathematicians do. Mathematicians did not event the term by the way they borrowed it from philosophers you say, Well, if you’ve already made up your mind why are we having this conversation? You said you were glad to see that I was willing to consider some things yet you’ve already pitched your tent. I say, I'm a Calvinist. I believe we have both already pitched our tents a long time ago and it will take something beyond us to change our minds now. I enjoy these conversations for one main reason I like thinking about this stuff. It almost feels like worship to contemplate and try and explain the wonder of existence to someone who seems to have forgotten that there is more going on than can be "measured and replicated". Peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 6, 2014
December
12
Dec
6
06
2014
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

ba77 #104 "soft 'historical' evidence" How are fossils soft historical evidence? How is genomic analysis soft historical evidence? And the clear morphological data? What about the non-uniform geographic distribution of various clades? Most importantly, what do you get when you combine all the data together? Do you have an explanation that is consistent with ALL the data? Not just the parts you want to focus on. Most of the links you post are from people who are committed to Biblical world view. Do you think, maybe, that affects their analysis? Anyway, over 150 years of research and data and the case for evolution is getting stronger and more detailed every day. I'm not dodging anything. I'm accepting the evidence.Jerad_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

No, you dodged the hard observational evidence I presented and tried to hide in your soft 'historical' evidence. as to your claimed evidence,,, let's just say that you have been suckered big time shall we? The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve – Robert Carter – 2014 – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1_nMuq_lH4 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/slate-makes-fun-of-americans-who-doubt-darwin/#comment-534978 podcast: On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-12-05T17_06_16-08_00 Casey Luskin speaking at a recent Science and Human Origins conference. Casey discusses why the fossil evidence doesn’t support the claim that humans evolved from ape-like precursors.bornagain77_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

ba77 #96 I don't think I dodged. I think I disagreed with your view. 5thmonarchyman #102
No offense but this sounds a lot like a small child reasoning that because given a short running start a cow can sometimes jump a fence then there no contradiction in assuming that given a large running start the cow can jump the moon. It’s just silly wishful thinking.
I don't think the fossil, genomic, morphological and bio-geographic lines of evidence which establish that humans arose through a process of universal common descent with modification is silly wishful thinking.
The reality is evolution is just an algorithm. Because the Fibonacci sequence is transcendental it can not be arrived at comprehensibly by algorithmic means. Evolution might get close but will always fall short of the Ideal.
Mathematicians do use the term transcendental but not in this way. I don't know what you mean by it.
Yet the Ideal sequence exists in it’s fullness both in our minds and objectively outside the cave.
So, you're a Platonist?
There is no “well examined, non-contradictory line of evidence” that will ever be able to bridge the gulf between those two facts. Just like there is no well examined, non-contradictory lines of evidence that point to a cow being able to jump the moon
Well, if you've already made up your mind why are we having this conversation? You said you were glad to see that I was willing to consider some things yet you've already pitched your tent.
Just a moment of honest reflection should reveal this to you.
What can I say? I see things differently.
There is nothing special about my “game/experiment” but what it does is help to demonstrate in case we have forgotten just how big the gulf between the shadows and the reality is.
Okay.
It would be cool to hear you say you will think about these things.
I'm trying but I'm not really sure what you are saying. There's a 'reality' that isn't what we see, feel, taste, measure, share, document and share? Where does this reality exist?
However I don’t think that this sort of thing is something you will discover on your own even with deep thought. I think it’s something that needs to be revealed to you and that is above my pay grade.
Whatever that means. Until/if that happens I'll just stick with good old fashioned measurable, replicable data.Jerad_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

Jerad said, Well there are several well examined, non-contradictory lines of evidence that all point to that having happened. I say, No offense but this sounds a lot like a small child reasoning that because given a short running start a cow can sometimes jump a fence then there no contradiction in assuming that given a large running start the cow can jump the moon. It's just silly wishful thinking. The reality is evolution is just an algorithm. Because the Fibonacci sequence is transcendental it can not be arrived at comprehensibly by algorithmic means. Evolution might get close but will always fall short of the Ideal. Yet the Ideal sequence exists in it's fullness both in our minds and objectively outside the cave. There is no "well examined, non-contradictory line of evidence" that will ever be able to bridge the gulf between those two facts. Just like there is no well examined, non-contradictory lines of evidence that point to a cow being able to jump the moon Just a moment of honest reflection should reveal this to you. There is nothing special about my "game/experiment" but what it does is help to demonstrate in case we have forgotten just how big the gulf between the shadows and the reality is. You say. What do you want me to say? I say It would be cool to hear you say you will think about these things. However I don't think that this sort of thing is something you will discover on your own even with deep thought. I think it's something that needs to be revealed to you and that is above my pay grade. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Quote of note from your linked article ppolish: Golden ratio discovered in quantum world: Hidden symmetry observed for the first time in solid state matter - January 7, 2010 Excerpt: For these interactions we found a series (scale) of resonant notes: The first two notes show a perfect relationship with each other. Their frequencies (pitch) are in the ratio of 1.618…, which is the golden ratio famous from art and architecture." Radu Coldea is convinced that this is no coincidence. "It reflects a beautiful property of the quantum system -- a hidden symmetry. Actually quite a special one called E8 by mathematicians, and this is its first observation in a material," he explains. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107143909.htmbornagain77_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

And going up from the micro scale of the quantum world to the macro scale of galaxies we find an 'Invisible Hand" Milky Way - image http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/milky_way.jpg As to what is sculpting the Milky Way into its spiral shape??? Scientific American refers to the 'Invisible Hand' of Dark Energy (which is fine tuned to within 1 part to 10^120). The Universe's Invisible Hand - Christopher J. Conselice - 4 August 2014 Dark energy does more than hurry along the expansion of the universe. It also has a stranglehold on the shape and spacing of galaxies Excerpt: it now appears that dark energy may be the key link among several aspects of galaxy and cluster formation that not long ago appeared unrelated. The reason is that the formation and evolution of these systems is partially driven by interactions and mergers between galaxies, which in turn may have been driven strongly by dark energy. http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v23/n3s/full/scientificamericanuniverse0814-60.html And the other 'invisible hand' of dark matter is also involved in the scuplting of the Milkiy Way: Galaxies Excerpt: Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is typical: it has hundreds of billions of stars, enough gas and dust to make billions more stars, and at least ten times as much dark matter as all the stars and gas put together. http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-are-galaxies/ Table 2.1 – Hugh Ross – Why The Universe Is The Way It Is Inventory of All the Stuff That Makes Up the Universe (Visible vs. Invisible) Dark Energy - 72.1% Exotic Dark Matter - 23.3% Ordinary Dark Matter - 4.35% Ordinary Bright Matter (Stars) - 0.27% Planets - 0.0001% Invisible portion - Universe - 99.73% Visible portion - Universe - .27%bornagain77_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

C'mon Wd400, you can find this stuff yourself. It's a mountain for crying out loud. Waaaaa - that is me crying out loud btw. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107143909.htmppolish_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

This "Scientific Mountain of Evidence", would you mind pointing it out?wd400_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

If parts of Nature followed the Golden Ratio exactly to 5 decimal places - that would NOT be guided, it would be a Law like Gravity. A lemmings trajectory off a cliff is NOT guided evolution. But the Scientific Mountain of Evidence shows parts of Nature being pulled, guided, pushed towards the Golden Ratio. It it were one example, one could argue luck. Many examples = Guided. Unguided Purposeless Random = Fail.ppolish_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Jerad, dodge noted and ignored!bornagain77_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic #86
Let’s put it this way, you don’t have an answer for the origin of those mathematical rules, so why not consider that there might be a source for those “underlying structures or principles” which is as beautiful (or moreso) as what we observe?
I'll consider anything for which there is credible evidence. I'm sorry to say but I don't see there being a source or an intelligence behind it all. bornagain77 #87
Perhaps by pointing out those ‘non-contradictory lines of evidence’ that show us, with no ‘just so story telling’, exactly how mathematical reasoning came about by unguided Darwinian processes.
I was speaking of the fossil, genomic, morphologica and bio-geographic records. AND no independent evidence of some kind of intelligence or designer. Sorry folks, that's the way I see it. I think this is actually off-topic for this thread so I won't dwell on it. I know that I will be vilified because I can not produce highly specific explanations for how this or that came to be. BUT can anyone else do better? Can the ID community be that specific themselves? I have yet to hear such an explanation. So, please, do not shove a double standard in my face. If your standard is to elucidate every single detail then don't claim to have a better explanation unless you can explain all the evidence. bornagain77 #94 What wd400 is saying is that almost all of the 'examples' of the golden ration in nature are not really true. This is not denying 'the evidence', this is examining claims of evidence to see if they are valid. BA77 do you accept every claim by every Tom, Dick and Harry that they have spoken to God and that God told them to do this or that? I should hope not. You have to critically examine the claims and decide to reject or accept them. Sadly most of the Golden Ratio claims are not up to scrutiny.Jerad_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

wd400, in your rush to deny any and all evidence for any design and/or beauty in the universe, you are failing to see the bigger picture. Much like the people in the following video who were too busy to take notice of the exceptional beauty in their midst:
Stop and Hear the Music – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhw an apt verse? Psalm 46:10 He says, “Be still, and know that I am God;
wd400, perhaps you have been brainwashed by Darwinian apologetics so much, and are so concerned with 'winning the argument', that you do not realize what you are actually doing.,,,
The Artists - The Artists is a short film about two rival painters who fail to see the bigger picture. http://vimeo.com/33670490
,,,But what you are doing wd400 is not presenting any actual scientific evidence that unguided random processes can produce so many uncanny, and beautiful, instances of the golden ratio in the universe. No you have not done that in the least save for vague allusions,,,, despite the fact that you insist unguided processes produce the 'appearance of golden ratios'. What you have done instead wd400 is argue that since the golden ratios are not 'perfect' instances of the golden ratio then 'God would not have done it that way'! Yet, that is a Theistic argument wd400! A Theistic argument built upon your atheistic presuppositions as to what God should and should not do!,,, Darwin used this Theological argument from imperfection/evil in "Origin of Species", and Darwinists to this day still use this argument, (instead of ever presenting any real world evidence that unguided processes can build the unfathomed functional complexity we see in life).
Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
Moreover wd400, as fifth pointed out, your whole argument depends on the fact that perfection exists somewhere in your mind. But the question arises, 'From whence do you get this idea of perfection so as to argue that the world is imperfect?'
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
wd400, your whole argument depends on some transcendent idea you have about perfection being true. But materialists deny the reality of the transcedent realm to the point of denying they even have a mind! Moreover, where we do find a very close approximation to 'perfection of form' in the universe (which apparently is your gold standard for allowing you to infer whether God or not God was in this instance of the golden ratio), we find that that 'perfection of form' leads us to infer that God designed the universe for life. As mentioned in post 11, the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) is found to be exceptionally round. And as I also pointed out in post 12, atheists have failed miserably as to explaining why the CBR is exceptionally round. Moreover, whereas materialism had failed, not only to predict the beginning for the universe, but also that it might be 'round', Theism had predicted not only a beginning for the universe but also predicted that the universe is 'round':
Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, Job 26:10 He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.
Yet, besides the Cosmic Background Radiation, there are two other surprising places in the universe where 'exceptional roundness' is found:
Sun's Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists - (Aug. 16, 2012) — Excerpt: The sun is nearly the roundest object ever measured. If scaled to the size of a beach ball, it would be so round that the difference between the widest and narrow diameters would be much less than the width of a human hair.,,, They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120816150801.htm
and also this 'exceptional roundness':
Bucky Balls - Andy Gion Excerpt: Buckyballs (C60; Carbon 60) are the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man. Buckministerfullerine continues to astonish with one amazing property after another. C60 is the third major form of pure carbon; graphite and diamond are the other two. Buckyballs were discovered in 1985,,, http://www.3rd1000.com/bucky/bucky.htm
Thus wd400, if 'perfection of form' is what it takes for you to concede that God is real then do those examples of 'exceptional form' suffice for you? If not, why not? What would it take for you to admit that God is real? Fred Hoyle himself, (1915-2001), converted from staunch atheism into being a Theist/Deist after discovering the precise balance at which carbon is synthesized in stars. Years after Sir Fred discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated this:
"I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars." Sir Fred Hoyle - "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12
Hoyle also stated
From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? ... I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. - Sir Fred Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.
Verse and Music:
Psalm 115:2-3 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. Steven Curtis Chapman - God is God (Original Version) - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz94NQ5HRyk
bornagain77_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

I'm saying the golden ratio doesn't appear very often in nature, and the best real example (the laves/seeds) can be explained simply without any external guidance.wd400_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

WD, the main thing I'm having trouble grasping is your opinion. You're saying Nature is guided sometimes? Or 100% unguided purposeless? It is one or the other. You seem to be waffling.ppolish_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Why do you have such a difficult time in grasping this. There are few examples of Fibbonacci sequences and golden ratios in nature. The best one is the packing of leaves or seeds, but as the Vi Hart video explains, that requires no magic (just that plants take on an adaptive trait, that isn't too hard to find given the way plants develop leaf-buds). On the other hand, there are loons who see the golden ratio everywhere. But there are millions of lengths and rectangles and spirals in nature. Of course some of them will aproximate the golden ratio, just like some will have a ratio that's close to the numerical value of e, sqrt(2), pi, Eulers constant or an other point of the number line. If someone wants to make something of the appearance of the golden ratio in nature it's really up to them to prove the number comes up frequently and consistently. The most frequently cited cases don't fit the bill, so we are left with the people trying to claim cosmic significance for the occurrence of phi unable to show any interesting examples of the number's occurrence in nature. Is that clear enough?wd400_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

It would be a very dull artist who painted all his paintings to the same exact mathematical standards to which he constructed his easel(s) with. It would be worse art critic who expected him to do as such. Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (Expansion Of The Universe) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218/ Here are the verses in the Bible Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe by 'Dark Energy', that speak of God 'Stretching out the Heavens'; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is my favorite out of the group of verses: Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. The Truman Show – Truman walking on water – screenshot picture http://gaowsh.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/screen-shot-2011-03-29-at-5-09-50-pm-2.jpg Here is the paper from the atheistic astrophysicists, that Dr. Ross referenced in the preceding video, that speaks of the ‘disturbing implications’ of the finely tuned expanding universe (1 in 10^120 cosmological constant): Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant - Dyson, Kleban, Susskind (each are self proclaimed atheists) - 2002 Excerpt: "Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,," "A external agent [external to time and space] intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own.,,," Page 21 "The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't live in a universe with a true cosmological constant". http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them? Roger Penrose Excerpt: "The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the "source" of the Second Law (Entropy)." http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS%2702/texts/Penrose.pdf "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially." Nobel Prize winning Physicist Charles Townesbornagain77_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

wd400, are you arguing that the Golden Ratio appears in nature more as a Brownish Ratio? Or are you arguing any appearance of Ratio is just an imaginary appearance?ppolish_{December 5, 2014
December
12
Dec
5
05
2014
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply