A belated reply to your #639 (been off-line for a few days).
I'm trying to stay with your train of thought, but you're losin' me.
What does the fact that a computer-generated fern never actually existed in nature have to do with the debate occurring on this thread?
Allow me to venture a guess as to the reason you saw fit to introduce the 'Barnsley Fern Theory to Debunk the Existence of God' :) (ISF fractals are beautiful, but, by bringing Barnsley into the argument, you have illustrated precisely the difficult tightrope that must be walked when delving into chaos theory mathematics. I'm afraid that too many high school and college students (and, apparently, FReerepublic posters) become enamored of the images (in a superficial ‘video game’ way) and miss out completely on the universal beauty of the mathematics behind them. Chaos theory has to be presented in just the right way, or its real and lasting significance will be lost.)
Are you suggesting that, because a (human-programmed) computer generated the non-existent (in nature) fern, that God's footprints, therefore, are not to be found in everything that exists in the universe? (i.e., man can 'create' outside of His influence?)
If the above guess is wrong, the remainder of this post is pretty much irrelevant (and, even if my guess is pretty much on the mark, my hunch is that you may even find it irrelevant anyway. Ah well....)
Let's say an acorn falls to the ground and then takes root, or is purposefully planted by a human hand, and a large oak tree results a hundred years (four human generations) later. That oak tree is then felled, and its wood used to make a group of beautiful oak tables. Because, a hundred years after the acorn took root, there is no visible sign of a 'connection' between that acorn and the beautiful tables, does that mean that the acorn either (1) never existed, or (2) had nothing to do with the creation of the beautiful furniture?
Because man's hand made the furniture (just as man's mind designed your fern), does that mean that God had nothing to do with either genesis? Both the oak tables and your 'virtual' fern were fashioned from earthly tools with which man has been provided.
The question is: who/what provided them? A chance/coincidental combination of random events occurring over an indeterminate amount of time, which just 'happened' to result in a universe which exhibits a degree of order and design which boggles the human mind, and only a pitiful fraction of which the human mind has yet to discover, let alone comprehend?
Also, your 1776 analogy falls short of the mark. Of course the odds of one being assigned a telephone number of 555-1776 are exactly the same as the odds of being assigned any other number (and I, like you, find it silly that some people attach significance to such random occurrences). BUT, when, in 'nature', the exact same entities (mathematical constants, geometric forms, behaviors predictable by algebraic/trigonometric functions, etc., etc.) seem to occur, time and time again, in such seemingly unrelated objects/occurrences (from the substance and motion of sub-atomic particles, to the substance and motion of the largest known bodies in the universe), these amazing 'connections' cannot possibly be explained by use of the term 'coincidence.' When one finds a figurative 1776 in innumerable (otherwise seemingly unrelated) places, the words significance/design/order/intelligence are far more compelling than chance.
In all of those discoveries or inventions which have most 'changed' man's existence over the past, say, century (among them the telephone, the computer, the assembly line, the atomic bomb, aircraft, plastic, guided rocketry and television), if one looks into the 'seed' which began the development of each, one would be hard pressed not to find dozens (hundreds?) of similarities (mathematical, physics-related, chemical....) in their development -- innumerable similar 'natural' phenomena/properties which, when harnessed or used by man, resulted in something either aesthetically or practically beneficial to him. But man neither 'created' the raw materials, nor did he 'invent' the theories behind them. He simply discovered already existing phenomena/matter, and then used the mental/physical tools at his disposal to fashion a product of his choosing (your fern being a good example of such).
p.s. I like this one better than Barnsley's. Man did not serve as the 'intermediary' in its creation :)
Placemarker.
A belated reply to your #639 (been off-line for a few days). That's okay - everyone's been offline for the last day or so around here ;)
I'm afraid that too many high school and college students (and, apparently, FReerepublic posters) become enamored of the images (in a superficial ?video game? way) and miss out completely on the universal beauty of the mathematics behind them.
Appearances can be deceiving.
Are you suggesting that, because a (human-programmed) computer generated the non-existent (in nature) fern, that God's footprints, therefore, are not to be found in everything that exists in the universe? (i.e., man can 'create' outside of His influence?)
Not really, no. Good guess, but wrong.
What I am suggesting is that, for many, many years now, the complexity and diversity of life on earth, and the structure of the universe in general has been promoted as evidence of the existence of God. But here we have what is, to our eyes, a very complex structure, which is the result of some rather simple algorithms. The product is complex, but the process is not.
The assumption all along is that complexity and diversity require some sort of superbeing, some awesome intelligence capable of designing such things. But when one has a look at the mathematical blueprint for a fern, the blueprint is simple enough that we can reproduce it on a $100 programmable pocket calculator. This hardly smacks of omniscience and omnipotence.
Let's say an acorn falls to the ground and then takes root, or is purposefully planted by a human hand, and a large oak tree results a hundred years (four human generations) later. That oak tree is then felled, and its wood used to make a group of beautiful oak tables. Because, a hundred years after the acorn took root, there is no visible sign of a 'connection' between that acorn and the beautiful tables, does that mean that the acorn either (1) never existed, or (2) had nothing to do with the creation of the beautiful furniture?
No. On the other hand, if someone asks me to show them an acorn, I can show them an acorn. I can even show them an acorn sprouting, and a oak sapling, and a mature oak tree. I can show them lumberjacks and sawmills. I can show them furniture makers and delivery trucks and showrooms. I'm not reduced to trying to argue the existence of some mysterious and all-powerful invisible acorn, or "Acorn," which is the source of all things table-ish. What would your reaction be, I wonder, were I to posit such a thing to you?
The difference between the two is clear, and an example of why argument-by-analogy is generally not a good idea. I can show people acorns, as many as they want. The argument for the connection between acorns and furniture is strong, because we can see every step in the process, including the starting acorn. Any attempt to make an analogous argument about the connection between all life on earth and the existence of God is bound to fail, because such an argument cannot help but beg the question, and assume to be true the very thing it is supposed to be proving to be true - that God exists. IOW, a clever form of petitio principii.
The question is: who/what provided them? A chance/coincidental combination of random events occurring over an indeterminate amount of time, which just 'happened' to result in a universe which exhibits a degree of order and design which boggles the human mind, and only a pitiful fraction of which the human mind has yet to discover, let alone comprehend?
Come now - you wish to argue both ways here. The "order" is evidence of design, but oddly, so is the incomprehensibility of it. When it's neat and orderly, that's evidence of design. And when it's messy and incomprehensible, why that's evidence of design, too. That is, needless to say, a rather convenient proposition for you. Everything is evidence of design - end of debate. The value of such self-contained and self-reinforcing arguments is rather doubtful, I think.
For you, the question of the existence of God is not an open one, I would imagine. Be careful not to let that color your views and affect your ability to view evidence as though the question were open. IOW, you don't have to give up on believing in God, but the ability to look at things objectively is a useful one.
But let's try this one. What generated that fern - a simple process consisting of a few simple rules, or a vast and omnipotent deity who personally reached down to arrange the very atoms into that particular pattern. Occam's Razor works both ways, I think ;)
BUT, when, in 'nature', the exact same entities (mathematical constants, geometric forms, behaviors predictable by algebraic/trigonometric functions, etc., etc.) seem to occur, time and time again, in such seemingly unrelated objects/occurrences (from the substance and motion of sub-atomic particles, to the substance and motion of the largest known bodies in the universe), these amazing 'connections' cannot possibly be explained by use of the term 'coincidence.' When one finds a figurative 1776 in innumerable (otherwise seemingly unrelated) places, the words significance/design/order/intelligence are far more compelling than chance.
Even though I don't find it particularly persuasive myself, I dragged out the old "why is pi everywhere?" argument myself, to see how well it fit. It didn't, at least not very well. If you'd like, though, longshadow was my foil, and might be willing to discuss this particular aspect of the thread with you further. You can refer to posts 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 505, 508 for how that discussion developed.
And I must point out that the fact that something has significance to us is not itself evidence of intelligence behind that thing, or operating in the creation of such a thing. I find it significant that my senators are senators Schumer and Clinton, but I defy you to discover any rational intelligence that could produce such a perverse outcome ;)