Does the golden ratio prove and or add credibility to creationism?

No, it just means some ways of arranging things are more efficient than others, and they will persist with evolution. I guess many tend to have golden ratio proportions in their bodies and doesn't change anymore because that proportion is the most efficient for survival.

File: download.png (972KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

972KB, 900x900px

>>8759745
Watch the sacred geometry vid by Spirit Science. It's nearly 2 hours long but worth it every fucking second. Though it might not directly answer your question, it does show that we, nature and the universe are in perfect equilibrium with each other. I've studied the bible for 2 years with JW's and didn't find anything in there to back this up on a creationists level though. Don't debate them, they can't provide any new evidence, just rationalisation and misinterpreted "theories" science provides. But this "sacred geometry" stuff came to be more often independently from each other. That means something. If you were to wipe out Christianity from everyones minds, it wouldn't come back. Same does not go for the speed of light. Because it's out there. Go get some crisps and Fanta, and enjoy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FSmdSw9eEIA

>whoa dude look at this quadratic equation
>it's proof of god

You're a fucking idiot if you think this way

>>8759806
This is the same guy who thinks Jews are space aliens

>>8759745

The claim neither confirms nor rejects the notion of intelligent design. When creationists (and those on the other side of the argument) bring up things like the golden ratio, they're attempting to appeal to a fundamental point of origination of rules and order in the universe. This may be as specific as universal constants like the golden ratio or as metaphysical as those things which allow us to define and speak about things like randomness or chaos; both sides reach for the same point, and that point is precisely the limit of what we can understand about this reality from a vantage point within this reality.

The debate between created and uncreated has less to do with the 'what' or 'how' of the universe and everything to do with the 'why.' Every man-made thing which we understand fully is a result of purpose-driven creation; as we may observe what appears to be a result--namely, the reality in which we live--we have a noetic drive to seek purpose and, further, to see the seams of creation.

No conclusion from these observations is correct by nature of itself; notions such as the created state of our universe are entirely unverifiable from a point within our universe, and so to find the truth, you must inherently hope to have and exercise some capacity to reach outside of this reality. Success in doing so would give you what it takes to conclude, for yourself, that the divine exists and that all you see is created, but you must seek in order to find, and you must know in order to know. This means that one may know and another may not but that, to the ordinary observer, neither is convincing.

>>8759806

>Christianity wouldn't come back

This conclusion presupposes that Christianity is false. If Christianity is true, it's completely possible for Jesus to reveal himself once more.

>>8759806
>Spirit Science

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>8760072
>>8759825
Haven't seen any other vids but looking for the space jews one as we speak lol. Give it a try some time.

>>8759849
Wat..? Dude I mean this whole fairy tale which is just an abstraction of more ancient cults. This form would not come back again because it's a human abstraction, it's not "out there" in the universe, like fucking gravity or summat

File: 1486522553401.jpg (50KB, 413x449px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 413x449px

>>8759806
>we, nature and the universe are in perfect equilibrium

if we were in equilibrium we'd be dead dumbass

the nature and every living thing exploits the properties of the increasing entropy. The biochemistry that guides your metabolism and nervous system heavily relies on pushing it's chemical, concentrational, and pressure equilibrium as far as possible in order to favour one side of an reversible reaction

>random logarithmic spirals
>golden ratio
lol try again

>>8760085

>Christianity won't come back because it's a human abstraction

What you can say is that it ~wouldn't~ come back if it ~were~ a human abstraction. It hasn't been proved that Christianity is not more than a human abstraction or a fairy tale; because of this, you have no idea whether it would or would not come back.

You can't just assume the antecedent because you like the conclusion.

>>8760116
What the fuck are you doing on /sci/. And don't give me that "Einstein was religious" screech.

>>8759745
Existence of irrational numbers doesn't prove or disprove a higher power. They are mathematical observed values. As a species, until we have a better understanding of what math is, they with simply be mathematical anomalies.

>>8760087
Way to take a tree of knowledge and debate one little abstract leaf

>>8760121

I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in (theoretical) computer science, and I enjoy the meaningful discourse that crops up from time to time. In particular, I enjoy discussions relating to mathematics and mathematical logic.

As for why I am a person interested in both religion and (my particular area of) science and mathematics, the answer is that my interest in one fuels the desire to know more about the other [this is true in both directions].

As far as the Einstein bit goes, I'm not so sure that Einstein was religious in any conventional terms. It doesn't hurt my self-confidence, however, to know that other people more successful than me in related fields have also held religious convictions. Even some of the contemporary giants in my own field are very religious individuals.

>>8760121
It's possible to be religious and still interested in science you know

>>8760131
Way to disprove your pseudo science bullshit