Evolution compatible with Creation?

reply to post by edmc^2

As you are jumping your posts around from thread to thread, I must jump my reply around to suit.


reply to post by edmc^2

You are still trying to weasel out of the fact that the bible clearly states god created the sun on day four.

I'm sorry the bible's inaccuracy is so upsetting to your beliefs you have to try and make out it's saying something different.

I already know your belief, "Einstein".
You are about to claim that:
Day 1 god created the sun but there was this enormous thick fog covering the earth so no light could get through.
Later that day god thinned the mist so the light could get through.
Day 4 he puffed that mist right away so the sun could be seen.
Moses, who was supposed to be inspired by an all-knowing god finally wrote, in the day 4 list, that god created the sun and moon, but he didn't really mean they were created then, he meant they'd been created at the beginning and just became visible day 4.

The lengths creationists will go to, trying to twist the words of the bible to fit science in one area, while closing their eyes and ears to science in another area, are hilarious.
What's wrong? Don't you actually beieve the bible at all? You prefer to believe something else and then try to make out the bible agrees with you?
You are making a pathetic display of hypocritical cowardice.

It's also a dangerous tactic, if the bible is the word of god.

Revelation 22:18-19 -
If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

You are adding to Genesis by making a diminishing fog an integral part of the account, despite no biblical author having mentioned it.

Either trust the bible or don't.

reply to post by edmc^2


First of all, regarding Pi, science is EXACT in many cases because small differences can have a huge effect. To give you an example: The part of your blood that makes sure you don't bleed to death when you cut yourself is only 2% of the total amount of blood you have. 2% that can decide over life and death. So saying "Pi is 3, or 3.149, it doesn't matter" is stupid. It's like saying 6x7=40 and then telling the guy who came up with that "close enough" before giving him a cookie.

Second of all, your goat probability example isn't the same, and you know it. At least you clearly defined the goats, he never defined the 3,628,800 alternative hypotheses. FYI, game theory was one of the courses I took at uni (real estate & finance grad). Anyway, if your analogy were correct, there would have to be 3,628,800 clearly defined alternative hypotheses with creationism (sry, Christian creationism) being one. Nevermind the fact that he doesn't have 3,628,800 scenarios, he also never proves Genesis is correct in a scientific way. In fact, it's really easy to prove it's not correct...you conveniently left out that bit when you quoted the article I posted:

First of all, the above list is a significant rewording of the Genesis account of the creation. See Genesis chapter 1 for a comparison. In particular, the above list says, "sun, moon, and stars discernible in the expanse." Genesis says that God made these lights on the fourth day. Secondly, the Genesis account is clearly not in the order that science would predict, as day and night are created on day one, while the sun is created on day four (after plants were created). And thirdly, the above list is in a fairly logical order; a wild guess by any writer would have to be roughly in the above order. For example, one of the steps is "a beginning." Where would you put that step? I would make it step #1, wouldn't you? And I would probably make my list go from simple to complex, probably ending with man.

He's correct in saying the list doesn't sound completely illogical, but the guy who came up with the study doesn't provide any proof that it is correct, and like he mentions, the whole thing is rephrased in a way that isn't consistant with genesis. So if the original premise is faulty, you can't make any deduction regarding probability.

I give you an example: You're playing a game of heads-up no-limit poker. You have KQ and are obviously super happy. Now the flop comes JT2. You want to figure out what is the probability of hitting either a 9 or A that would allow you to win this hand for sure. Assuming there's 4 9s and 4 As left, the probability of hitting these cards by the river are around 32% (28% if you assume villain has a 9 or A). You can say that, because you know how many cards are left. Now, if I would screw with the deck, and threw in a totally random number of aces and nines, you could not make any predictions regarding the probability of getting those cards.

And that's exactly why the 3,628,800 number is completely random (given that number should reflect alternative hypotheses and he fails to list them) and given that his list is different than genesis too, we can conclude that his probability prediction is nothing but a random guess.

Still doubt the scientific accuracy of the bible?

Yes, and rightfully so. Take that phoney flood for example. We know local floods happened, but there isn't enough water on the earth to submerge the whole planet, not even if all the ice melts!! And before you come up with some "there was more water but it evaporated" crap, that still wouldn't make it disappear out of the atmosphere. Fact is, there just isn't enough water to cause a global flood.

Obviously now you'll come back claiming god "magically" made water appear out of nothing because he can. Sure, you can make up anything if you add "magic"...but that's not how science works.

Want another reason why I doubt its accuracy?

How can you believe a book that claims to know about creation (like pretty much every religious text on earth) when in the same book you have content like this:

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

So now you see the dilema. If you accept the bible as the word of god and believe the genesis account to be correct, you also agree with this Exodus verse. Because after all, it is the word of god. Why would he speak the truth about creation and lie about killing slaves, right? I wonder how you're gonna twist this one to make it "fit"...

Anyway, let me ask you a question: How long do you think humans have been on earth?

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Evolution compatible with Creation?

The problem with the rigid and unyielding Creationist and Evolutionist is that neither have enough to form a full picture to support their beliefs.

Actually, creationism and evolution talk about different things. You could compare abiogenesis with creationism...but evolution only explains biodiversity and NOT how life started. Furthermore, evolution is fully backed up by a MOUNTAIN of evidence...creationism has ZERO evidence apart from a roughly 2000 year old book that also claims it's ok to beat your slaves as long as they live another day before dying.

Originally posted by Kailassa
reply to post by edmc^2

 

As you are jumping your posts around from thread to thread, I must jump my reply around to suit.


reply to post by edmc^2

 

You are still trying to weasel out of the fact that the bible clearly states god created the sun on day four.

I'm sorry the bible's inaccuracy is so upsetting to your beliefs you have to try and make out it's saying something different.

I already know your belief, "Einstein".
You are about to claim that:
Day 1 god created the sun but there was this enormous thick fog covering the earth so no light could get through.
Later that day god thinned the mist so the light could get through.
Day 4 he puffed that mist right away so the sun could be seen.
Moses, who was supposed to be inspired by an all-knowing god finally wrote, in the day 4 list, that god created the sun and moon, but he didn't really mean they were created then, he meant they'd been created at the beginning and just became visible day 4.

The lengths creationists will go to, trying to twist the words of the bible to fit science in one area, while closing their eyes and ears to science in another area, are hilarious.
What's wrong? Don't you actually beieve the bible at all? You prefer to believe something else and then try to make out the bible agrees with you?
You are making a pathetic display of hypocritical cowardice.

It's also a dangerous tactic, if the bible is the word of god.

Revelation 22:18-19 -
If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

You are adding to Genesis by making a diminishing fog an integral part of the account, despite no biblical author having mentioned it.

Either trust the bible or don't.

I was hoping you will answer the simple question on ur own rather than cut and paste someone else - or is the entire posts yours?

Anyway, based on the list given by madness - do you agree that 'owr stands for:

b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) ?

yes / no?

btw,
where did you get this claim that:

You are about to claim that:
Day 1 god created the sun

?

Here, let me give you a hint.

Gen 1:1 "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
Any idea long this 'beginning" is?

ciao,
gotta go - be back later.

edmc2

reply to post by Kailassa


Yes my english is not so good, if i start a thread in Hindi would you like to replys! Or are you being a racist remark?

reply to post by edmc^2


I think it's just an attempt at keeping with the modern world.. Rather than deny that something exist that challenge your believe, rather than fight, overcome and assimilate it..

That's how the catholic church usually does things anyways, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by edmc^2

 

I think it's just an attempt at keeping with the modern world.. Rather than deny that something exist that challenge your believe, rather than fight, overcome and assimilate it..

That's how the catholic church usually does things anyways, doesn't it?

Just look at the pope backtracking when it comes to condoms

Religions that continue to take things literally even if it contradicts science and reality won't survive in the long run. Just look at the decreasing number of believers...and why the Catholic church is loosing members.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Kailassa
You are still trying to weasel out of the fact that the bible clearly states god created the sun on day four.
I'm sorry the bible's inaccuracy is so upsetting to your beliefs you have to try and make out it's saying something different.

I already know your belief, "Einstein".
You are about to claim that:
Day 1 god created the sun but there was this enormous thick fog covering the earth so no light could get through.
Later that day god thinned the mist so the light could get through.
Day 4 he puffed that mist right away so the sun could be seen.
Moses, who was supposed to be inspired by an all-knowing god finally wrote, in the day 4 list, that god created the sun and moon, but he didn't really mean they were created then, he meant they'd been created at the beginning and just became visible day 4.

The lengths creationists will go to, trying to twist the words of the bible to fit science in one area, while closing their eyes and ears to science in another area, are hilarious.
What's wrong? Don't you actually beieve the bible at all? You prefer to believe something else and then try to make out the bible agrees with you?
You are making a pathetic display of hypocritical cowardice.

It's also a dangerous tactic, if the bible is the word of god.

Revelation 22:18-19 -
If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

You are adding to Genesis by making a diminishing fog an integral part of the account, despite no biblical author having mentioned it.

Either trust the bible or don't.

I was hoping you will answer the simple question on ur own rather than cut and paste someone else - or is the entire posts yours?

I am not the author of Revelation, but the rest is all my own words.
If it was a copy/paste you'd be able to find it with Google. You can't because it's not.

Anyway, based on the list given by madness - do you agree that 'owr stands for:
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) ?
yes / no?

How could it be, when the same account states the sun, moon and stars were not created at that stage?
If you are saying the light had to come from those celestial bodies, you are denying the words of the bible, and denying the ability to perform miracles.
Can god perform miracles or not?
yes/no?

btw,
where did you get this claim that:

You are about to claim that:
Day 1 god created the sun

?

I know you. I know your arguments and beliefs.

Here, let me give you a hint.
Gen 1:1 "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
Any idea long this 'beginning" is?

Your contention that the biblical day means some unspecified age is contradicted by the use in the account, for each day, of:

And there was evening and there was morning,

This clearly shows the author's intention of telling a story of miraculous creation, by relating the story to factors we know signify regular 24 hour days.

Your continued attempts and twisting the creation account to fit science just show proof of your own lack of trust in the bible.

reply to post by Kailassa

ok - i'm back.

So it was ur post. Thanks.

Anyway

I said:

"Anyway, based on the list given by madness - do you agree that 'owr stands for:
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) ?

yes / no?

you said:

How could it be, when the same account states the sun, moon and stars were not created at that stage?
If you are saying the light had to come from those celestial bodies, you are denying the words of the bible, and denying the ability to perform miracles.
Can god perform miracles or not?
yes/no?

What a conundrum huh! Since you don't accept that the simple answer to hebrew word 'owr is:

b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars) - you're in a bind because it will make your reasoning faulty. Hey that's ok we make mistakes.

So to cover it up you come with:

you are denying the words of the bible, and denying the ability to perform miracles.

I thought you guys don't believe in miracles?

Interesting reasoning huh, if evolutionist mention miracles it's okay, but if we mention miracles - it's a no no. It's not scientific they say!.

So again - Kailassa, is it possible in a tiny winie possibilty that 'owr can mean:

b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars). After all it was included in the list that madness provided.

Unless you're doubting the site he provided. That somehow you are correct and everyone else is incorrect - even the linguistic experts?

So, what say you?

ciao,
edmc2

later.

Love how creationists now try to prove god's existence and the validity of genesis through semantics

"But a day for god isn't the same as a day for us..."
"What's you're proof for that?"
"It would contradict science otherwise and if we claim a day isn't the same, it'll still fit and god obviously exists."

Seriously??

Talking about the interpretation of a 2000 year old religious scripture is only interesting from a philosophical standpoint. The truth is, given that the book is so old, no one really knows with 100% certainty how to interprete it correctly. Many claim they know though, lol.

Either way, the bible isn't proof of anything...it was written over several hundred years, edited, re-edited, changed, and modified. Also, most people love to exaggerate, and make stuff up to make it seem more "powerful". Nothing wrong with that, if people wouldn't take it for more than it is...random stories without any scientific evidence to support them mixed in with some accurate historical accounts. Nothing in the bible would count as scientific evidence of god's existence as the book itself isn't a credible source.

There's too many things "wrong" with it that make it very clear you can't take it literally. That ridiculous global flood claim is an example...

reply to post by MrXYZ

..back again...too much running...

What, no answer to my qs?

i don't believe it, MrXYZ, I don't mean to put you in spot but ru trolling? -- is that the word?

I was hoping that you help your friend Kaila - she's in a bind.

An I would like to settle the 'owr q first before I jump in to another topic if you don't mind?

k?

Anyway, Blue_Jay or anyone - can you pls help me out here? I'm kinda puzzled

Are my questions too difficult to answer? Can I ask it in any other way?

suggestions?

ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


Look, the entire discussion about the bible is pointless imo. You can't argue about "interpretation" and claim it's evidence for one thing or the other. That's not how science works.

Like I've said before, I dont' accept the bible as scientific proof because there's too many things scientifically wrong with it...such as that ridiculous global flood that has not a single grain of evidence to support it. So for me, interpretation doesn't matter. Even if everything would perfectly fit, the bible on its own would still not be proof of anything other than that some people wrote a book over the course of a few centuries.

If you're seriously trying to prove god's existence through the bible, you might just as well talk about Krishna or any other god-like being...because your "evidence" is just as strong as theirs.

Fact is, light is mentioned before the sun. Scientifically that's complete hogwash...not that it matters, like I said, the bible can't be considered scientific evidence for the existence of a god or creation in the first place, so discussing it in order to "debunk" evolution is beyond laughable.

But I'll ask you again, how long has mankind been on earth according to you?

What the fawk is going on in this thread??

I went off to work and when I came back this thread somehow became about some ridiculous questions about the meaning of "light" in the bible? Seriously - who cares?!

Originally postet by edmc^2
Q: what's your deffinition of Creation?

What?! I dont have a "personal definition" of Creation/-ism. I dont need one... I use the one already existing and so should you!

I thought this thread was about "Evolution compatible with Creation?" not "lets make up some personal definitions until my "facts" fit my point". This is ridiculous!

I precisely addressed some of the claims in previous posts and invalidated them with links to according sources. You cant just ignore that!
You also cant "totally agree" with me in one point and than ignore that point later on.
Thats how kids are allowed to discuss, cuz they cant think straight.
If you want to be taken seriously you HAVE to address specific criticism and deal with it.
If you cant do that, you are proven wrong ... thats how it works - end of story.

Your Case 1 is addressed.
"The-order-of-events-List" and the "Genesis-List" are NOT the same and I still miss a source for your probability of 1 in 3,628,800 chance.

Gen 1:14 “‘Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.’
This event describes here is what geologist call "catatropism"

Nope. This does not describe any geological process exact enough to be segnificant. Its just a vague story.
The Catastrophism-Theory is obsolete anyways, so why do we even bother if old BS equals older BS?
Geologists today consider the concept of Catastrophism as absurd (exept for single catastrophic events of course) and impossible to account for the geological record.

Originally postet by WfknSmth:
The oldest christian Bible is only 1600 years old, called "The Codex Sinaiticus" and you can actually read it online here: ...

Reply by emdc^2:
True and I'm familiar with the The Codex Sinaiticus, but the gage where we measure the age of the Bible is its contents - the writings as it relates to the historicity of the locations, its cultures, climates, lifestyle and others. Which point to the fact that the person who wrote it was actually there, alive witnessing the events. There's no other book that can do that.

Noooo this is absolutelty wrong and totaly insane! Im sorry but this is just horse#.
Who measures the age of a book by its content?!? No one does!
I can study and write a book about WW2 and that proves I was alive back then???

Originally postet by MrXYZ:
Look, the entire discussion about the bible is pointless imo. You can't argue about "interpretation" and claim it's evidence for one thing or the other. That's not how science works.

Exactly.

Originally posted by xiphias
Not only do I think evolution is compatible with Creation, I also think all of the religions could be the direct outcome of evolution. That ~97-98% of "junk" DNA could contain every sacred book, holy vision, work of art, invention, discovery, etc. ever conceived by man.

Beautiful!

reply to post by MrXYZ


I am going to bother doing it.

Here is exactly what MrXYZ is talking about, a whole detailed debunking of the following claim:

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Here’s how the Book of Genesis describe how life came to be. > Planets (earth), sun moon stars already existed (created) billions and billions of years ago.

Certain people around here can't and won't see this, maybe you will be able to reason with them, I couldn't.

The original post can be found here

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

The bible does not say grass was created before the creation of the Sun & Moon, your interpretation is clearly wrong.

1: Saying my 'interpretation' is wrong doesn't make it wrong.
2: I'll quote Genesis from the beginning and point out where it actually says that grass was created before the Sun and Moon.

From Genesis

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Ok, we have a space known as 'heaven' and a space known as Earth/

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Ok, so everything is dark...

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Boom, out of nowhere: light! What a great idea...too bad a light source isn't given yet....it's just...light.

1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

God is awfully pleased with himself, decides to separate light from darkness....but still not a light source in sight.

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Alright...day and night pass without....the sun...

Well, I guess you're saying they're epochs written metaphorically as days.

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

...and there's no such thing as a 'firmament', so let's just toss that passage right out.

1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Again, no 'firmament'.

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

So the sky is Heaven...capital H, not lowercase h.

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Well, this also contradicts what we know about the Earth's formation...

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Alright, now we have dry land and wet sea...but no...nope, nowhere do we have the the Sun or Moon.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

We have vegetation...at least vegetation as it was known to the cultures of the fertile crescent.

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

God seems pretty good at all of this, even if he's getting the order wrong

.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Alright, three days in, no light source but we somehow have a marked passage of time without light sources.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Ok, I guess this means stars. Which are definitely a lot more important than just 'lights in the sky', being pretty much the same as our own Sun...

1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

So where was the light coming from before?

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Well, there are several problems.
1: The Sun isn't a 'great light', it's a close 'light'...and by light it's really a self-sustaining fusion reaction.
2: The Moon isn't a 'light', it's a giant reflector
3: This is the very first mention of the Sun

1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

So they're in the firmament...which is around the Earth...which means this is a geocentric model...which is even more wrong.

1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Pleased with himself again.

1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And there we have it, the Sun came about on the fourth day and it is in the firmament which is around the Earth

The Bible seems to fail awfully hard at science and we aren't even 500 words into it.

Vegetation couldn't grow without the sun anyway, that really does defy science.

Which is why the Bible is wrong on the issue.

The planet would be colder than Pluto, a frozen wasteland unable to support no life whatsoever.

Yes, which is why the Bible is wrong. It seems to not know that the Sun is the source of heat and light in our Solar System.

It refers to the light from the described heavenly bodies that were preexisting.
I have already explained it.

No, you simply stated that the Sun is preexisting, even though I pointed out that the Sun is created along with the Moon on the fourth day.

Light is preexistent, but heavenly bodies which produce light are not brought about until the fourth day.

That whole argument is asinine, and you know it.

Yeah, which is why I'm wondering why you're sticking to it. I mean, I've repeatedly shown you that you're wrong, yet you seem to have some sort of 'anti-evidence' filter on your computer. I even took the quotes from Genesis verse by verse now. There's no way you can deny my claims when I've demonstrated them in detail repeatedly, to the ridiculous point that I took Nearly 500 words of Genesis and broke them down.

 

Now, if you'd like to provide a counter-interpretation, go ahead. But don't simply say mine is wrong. I hope for at least the level of detail I went into in your counter-interpretation before you dismiss mine.

edit on 23/11/10 by madnessinmysoul because: Formatting and a bit of extra text

Then I added the following after being simply accused of trolling. The original can be found here

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by edmc^2

 

The difference between light in those verses? I thought I already differentiated the two...I guess I'll recourse to Hebrew then.

Because, you know, a troll often researches and posts sources when people object to claims.
I started out here then I used the handy-dandy "C" button to get the Hebrew words.

In Genesis verse 3 the word for light is: 'owr
From here

Part of Speech: feminine noun

Biblical Usage:
1) light
a) light of day
b) light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)
c) day-break, dawn, morning light
d) daylight
e) lightning
f) light of lamp
g) light of life
h) light of prosperity
i) light of instruction
j) light of face (fig.)
k) Jehovah as Israel's light

Usage of this word as 'the sun' is restrained to only a single passage in the whole Bible, and it isn't Genesis.

2Sa 23:4 And [he shall be] as the light of the morning, [when] the sun riseth, [even] a morning without clouds; [as] the tender grass [springing] out of the earth by clear shining after rain.

In each case in Genesis when the 'sun' is referenced as a light the word ma'owr is used.
From here

Part of Speech: masculine noun

Biblical usage: 1) light, luminary

So an entirely different word is used between the two, that's what the difference is. Hell, one is a masculine noun and the other is a feminine noun.

But I guess Blue_Jay33 is right, I'm just a troll.

I really didn't want to redo those posts for this thread, but there are some people on here who refuse to see a point after it is repeatedly proven.

Genesis is clear, the Sun and the Moon were made the 'day' after grass and other plant life.

This is entirely intuitive but I think evolution is Creation's tool and applies to non-biodiversity as much as the bio.

This perception was reinforced when I learned about the Golden Ratio and how it is stamped into the blueprint.

The golden ratio has fascinated Western intellectuals of diverse interests for at least 2,400 years. According to Mario Livio:

Some of the greatest mathematical minds of all ages, from Pythagoras and Euclid in ancient Greece, through the medieval Italian mathematician Leonardo of Pisa and the Renaissance astronomer Johannes Kepler, to present-day scientific figures such as Oxford physicist Roger Penrose, have spent endless hours over this simple ratio and its properties. But the fascination with the Golden Ratio is not confined just to mathematicians. Biologists, artists, musicians, historians, architects, psychologists, and even mystics have pondered and debated the basis of its ubiquity and appeal. In fact, it is probably fair to say that the Golden Ratio has inspired thinkers of all disciplines like no other number in the history of mathematics.

Ancient Greek mathematicians first studied what we now call the golden ratio because of its frequent appearance in geometry. The division of a line into "extreme and mean ratio" (the golden section) is important in the geometry of regular pentagrams and pentagons. The Greeks usually attributed discovery of this concept to Pythagoras or his followers. The regular pentagram, which has a regular pentagon inscribed within it, was the Pythagoreans' symbol.

Euclid's Elements (Greek: Στοιχεῖα) provides the first known written definition of what is now called the golden ratio: "A straight line is said to have been cut in extreme and mean ratio when, as the whole line is to the greater segment, so is the greater to the less." Euclid explains a construction for cutting (sectioning) a line "in extreme and mean ratio", i.e. the golden ratio. Throughout the Elements, several propositions (theorems in modern terminology) and their proofs employ the golden ratio. Some of these propositions show that the golden ratio is an irrational number.
from Wiki

An irrational number that is found everywhere, denotes pure aesthetical balance.

Originally posted by teapot
This is entirely intuitive but I think evolution is Creation's tool and applies to non-biodiversity as much as the bio.

This perception was reinforced when I learned about the Golden Ratio and how it is stamped into the blueprint.

The golden ratio has fascinated Western intellectuals of diverse interests for at least 2,400 years. According to Mario Livio:

Some of the greatest mathematical minds of all ages, from Pythagoras and Euclid in ancient Greece, through the medieval Italian mathematician Leonardo of Pisa and the Renaissance astronomer Johannes Kepler, to present-day scientific figures such as Oxford physicist Roger Penrose, have spent endless hours over this simple ratio and its properties. But the fascination with the Golden Ratio is not confined just to mathematicians. Biologists, artists, musicians, historians, architects, psychologists, and even mystics have pondered and debated the basis of its ubiquity and appeal. In fact, it is probably fair to say that the Golden Ratio has inspired thinkers of all disciplines like no other number in the history of mathematics.

Ancient Greek mathematicians first studied what we now call the golden ratio because of its frequent appearance in geometry. The division of a line into "extreme and mean ratio" (the golden section) is important in the geometry of regular pentagrams and pentagons. The Greeks usually attributed discovery of this concept to Pythagoras or his followers. The regular pentagram, which has a regular pentagon inscribed within it, was the Pythagoreans' symbol.

Euclid's Elements (Greek: Στοιχεῖα) provides the first known written definition of what is now called the golden ratio: "A straight line is said to have been cut in extreme and mean ratio when, as the whole line is to the greater segment, so is the greater to the less." Euclid explains a construction for cutting (sectioning) a line "in extreme and mean ratio", i.e. the golden ratio. Throughout the Elements, several propositions (theorems in modern terminology) and their proofs employ the golden ratio. Some of these propositions show that the golden ratio is an irrational number.
from Wiki

An irrational number that is found everywhere, denotes pure aesthetical balance.

There's nothing new about there being a particular ratio which most people find pleasing.
There's no reason to believe this was supernaturally "stamped onto our blue-prints".

And do you know what an irrational number is? Or are you thinking irrational numbers are somehow special?

almost all real numbers are irrational.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

. . . .
I was hoping that you help your friend Kaila - she's in a bind.

I was not in a bind; I was in a bed.

You are the one in a bind, because your "infallible" guide is wrong, and you keep trying to make it right by twisting it, (saying "16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also." really describes what happened on day one, where the bible says it happened on day four,) and by adding to it, (inventing a great fog to make the story work,) despite the biblical warning about adding to the bible.