God's bees truly demonstrate they were designed. Newton's math exceeded!

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by kendemyer, Aug 16, 2004.

  1. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    In regarding to answering the creation/evolution question each person must ask themselves if they want to do their due diligence regarding God's amazing bees.

    In short:

    To bee or not to bee, that is the question!

    (this was a pun for those comedically impaired)

    There is some very interesting information that is widely and not widely known about bees.


    1) hexagon/honeybee beehive info

    First, here is the fairly well known information regarding the hexagon shape of the beehive cells:

    "Hexagon shaped cells in the hive are strong enough to hold five gallons of honey. The hexagon shape has less wasted space than a circle shape, is stronger, and is less work since the sides of one cell form the sides of the next cell."

    taken from: http://www.palmbeach.k12.fl.us/PantherRunES/pantherrun/bees.htm

    Here is more information regarding the hexagon/hive issue:

    "Bees use the hexagonal shape to provide the maximum space with the least amount of building material. Snowflakes also exhibit this hexagonal pattern. Again, these patterns, in which things fit together with the least waste of space, is most efficient and what makes nature most comfortable. Most school children would be hard-pressed to tell you this."

    taken from: http://www.earth360.com/math-naturesnumbers.html


    2) rhombic dodecahedrons and honeybee beehives

    Here is some info from a website:

    "The module involves a study of the geometry of the rhombic dodecahedron. It has twelve surfaces, like the regular dodecahedron, with each face a rhombus (a square that has been sheared) but its vertices are made up of clusters of three surfaces at some vertices and four at others, in a particular pattern. By investigating the model we will discover it has two elevations, one square and one hexagonal, both of which tessellate in a three dimensional space.

    Indeed, the honeycomb in the beehive looks exactly like the packing together of the rhombic dodecahedra with their hexagonal sections. What is even more surprising is that the bees seal the ends of their hexagonal cells or prisms with the three faces of the rhombic dodecahedron. The honeycomb has attracted attention since the early days of mathematics. Pappus of Alexandria left an account of its hexagonal plan and attributed to the bees a 'certain geometrical forethought!'. However, as late as 1739, the Secretary of the Royal Academy in Paris denied intelligence to the bees but nevertheless found them blindly using the highest mathematics by 'divine guidance and command'!

    The geometry of the model is quite fascinating, especially in the study of the particular rhombus which forms the face of the rhombic dodecahedron. The key to its shape is in the ratio of the diagonals which defines its face. We shall investigate this ratio in a very simple way, once we have studied the model.

    In addition, by making a family of small rhombic dodecahedra, we will investigate the capacity of this shape to fill space in the three dimensional space. There are only five shapes altogether that we can find that are 'space fillers' i.e. the packing together of identical polyhedra in the same orientation to fill space. We shall list the five space-filling solids which includes the rhombic dodecahedron - the shape of the Garnet crystal."

    taken from: http://www.devon.gov.uk/dcs/maths/shapes/module17.htm


    3) The total mathematic package of the honeybee beehive explained:

    (awesome link! Click this link! Yes that means you! )

    http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/root1891c.htm

    (Did you click the link? What are you waiting for? )


    4) The almost UN-BEE-LIEVABLE mathematics behind a honeybee beehive excerpts taken from this website: http://fccl.ksu.ru/papers/gp008.pdf )


    "Kepler's discovery "passed unnoticed, so that the astronomer Miraldi was later creditedwith determining the rhombic dodecahedral shape of the bee cells as well as the angles of therhombic surfaces. Then Euler developed his ideas of maxima and minima mentioned earlier.So Reaumur hypothesized that perhaps Miraldi's rhombic dodecahedron was a "minimalconfiguration" and might be that which "employs the minimum of surface for a givencontent: or which, in other words, should hold the most honey for the least wax" (Thompson,1992:529). Reaumur put the problem to Johann Samuel Konig, who later ignited the famousquarrel over priority to the principle of least action between Maupertuis and Voltaire. Konig calculated the predicted angles and was "agreeably surprised" to find that his calculationsagreed to within 2 minutes with Miraldi's measurements. He was actually so surprised that he "asserted that the bees had solved a problem beyond the reach of the old geometry andrequiring the methods of Newton and Leibniz." Fontenelle, the secretary of the FrenchAcademy, "denied intelligence to the bees but nevertheless found them blindly using the highest mathematics by divine guidance and command." ....

    My commentary: Actually bees have non-mammalian brains and cannot solve such a problem. Plus bees work in the darkness of the hive! God is in a much better position to solve the problem! I reject the "genius bees" hypothesis!

    ....Colin Maclaurin also took up the study of the honeycomb. He had participated in thedevelopment of the calculus after Newton and Leibniz, as every calculus student who hashad to calculate the Maclaurin series may have suspected (Marsden & Weinstein, 1985). But for whatever reason, he decided to solve for the honeycomb angles without using "anyhigher Geometry than was known to the Antients [sic]."[6] He calculated the angles to be109=9A 28' 16'', and its supplement, 70=9A 31' 44". It turned out that Konig had made amistake in determining the square root of 2 and that the angles calculated by Maclaurinagreed precisely with Miraldi's measurement.This led to the dictum that the bees "had been proved right and the mathematicians wrong,an error spread by Lord Brougham. However, it was eventually realized that this was anoverstatement since, in reality, the bee cells "are far from identical, and do no more thanapproximate to an average or ideal angle." The consensus was that Miraldi's"measurements" were actually idealizations that he had made and that he "had really donewell and scientifically when he eked out a rough observation by finer theory, and deemedhimself entitled thereby to discuss the cell and itsangles in the same precise terms that he would use as a mathematician in speaking of itsgeometrical prototype."Darwin devotes a whole section in The Origin of Species to the "Cell-making instinctof the Hive-Bee" and even performs a series of experiments with bee-hives himself. Heseems to favor Reamur's theory discussed above:We hear from mathematicians that bees have practically solved a recondite problem, and have made their cells of the proper shape to hold the greatest possible amount of honey,with the least possible consumption of precious wax in their construction. (Darwin,1958:242) ....

    My commnentary: Darwin was wrong again!

    Here is the actual truth it appears:

    "We can say with certainty that Darwin was wrong in saying that the honeycomb is "absolutely perfect" in economyterms. It was proven by the Hungarian mathematician Fejes T=F3th in his paper "What theBees Know and What They Don't Know" that the bee cell is not perfectly optimal. There isa slight imperfection. He formulated the "isoperimetric problem for honeycombs" and was able to come up with at least one better result (Hildebrandt & Tromba, 1996:227). As werecall, Kepler had found that the "keel" or base of the cell consisted of three equal rhombi.T=F3th found a slightly better cell base consisting of two rhombi and two and two hexagons...."

    My commentary:

    I am guessing the three rhombic dodecahedrons at the base of bee behive (if memory serves) cells are more easily to organize bees behavior in the hive. If anyone else wants to offer some information it would be (or should I say bee!) most welcome. Also, perhaps the brain on non-mammalian bees was not conduscive to having this more complex arrangement.


    5) More UN-BEE-LIEVABLE FINDINGS (PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL SCIENCE)

    http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/design/bcs079.html


    6) Bees and flowers

    http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/godevol2.html


    7) Lastly, I think the information in this thread is so compelling I take a Ripley's attitude towards it!

    Bee-lieve it or not!

    In short, the creationists once again fly like a butterfly and sting like a bee!



    Sincerely,

    Ken
     
  2. kendemyer

    kendemyer
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    TO: ALL

    I predict this string will create a lot of buzz!

    Sincerely,

    Ken
     
  3. delly

    delly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    0
    I Beelieve it will. :rolleyes:
     
  4. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,502
    Likes Received:
    40
    BEE-utiful!!!!
     
  5. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Evolutionists will only be able to bumble through whatever response they could come up with. This one really stings them.
     
  6. danrusdad

    danrusdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    What? Didn't you guys know the ev's have already solved this?

    All we have to do is imagine the evolution of the hexagonal shape along with the bees.

    You see, at first, the unevolved bees could only come up with a point to make their combs into. But, after millions of years of starving to death, they realized that they needed more that one dimension. (After all, points don't hold much honey!) And they discovered, by chance, that they could evolve into 2 dimensions and create a line!

    Well, for millions of years, they worked on this. But, sadly, the lines didn't hold much more honey than the point did! Fortunately, random gene shifts took pity on their poor, starving colonies and gave them the insight to build in 3 dimensions.

    However, the evolution to the honeycomb we know still took a while. You see, first they tried teh 3-sided triangle. But nature wasn't happy so chance led them to the square. But for some unknown reason (oh, wait, I forgot, random gene shifts!), they left the square and went to the pentagon. Finally, the genes got together and decided the hexagon would be best!

    There you have it!

    Oh, by the way, the reason we don't see any fossilized honeycombs of a point, line, triangle, square, or pentagon in geology is
    because evolution happens soooo fast that we would EXPECT for the record to be incomplete, right? The fact that there is NO evidence to support our idea is actually PROOF of how rapid it occurs!
     
  7. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmph. More likely, they made tubes and then started fitting the tubes together and then started making the tubes share common walls, and the pattern fell into place by trial and error.
     
  8. danrusdad

    danrusdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh right, I forgot that gene shifts can suddenly cause a creature that NEVER created tubes before to create them. Imagine, knowing nothing of geometry, being able to reason that they need a circular shape to store the honey that, for some reason, the gene shifts (again), made them make!

    And on top of that, the bees were able to work out by TRIAL and ERROR (?!?) that if they put the tubes together it would SOMEDAY evolve into a hexagon. I didn't know bees were capable of such rational thinking! Bees are able to reason out which shapes are better than others? That's what trial and error implies.

    (Bee talking) "Hmmm...You know guys, we've been working on this honey storage thing for millions of years with no success. By the way, how did we survive with no way to store honey all that time? Nevermind that, I think, finally by trial and error, I've, by chance (or my superior, mixed up genes), stumbled on to the right shape! Now, all I have to do is somehow convince you you guys, with your inferior genes, to stop what your doing, and build the way I have discovered. Hopefully, everyone elses genes will catch up to mine in the next generation. That is, unless that rotten natural selection keeps the gene pool pure and weeds out my abnormal genes. Drat that!
     
  9. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    We could pass conjectures around all day about how they MIGHT have evolved but the usual SCIENTIFIC method would be to evaluate the evidence.

    Your parody, while entertaining, is not evidence for or against evolution.
     
  10. delly

    delly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    0
    dan, it sounded good to me. :D
    Besides, it makes as much sense as what the scientists are asking us to believe.
     
  11. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Noooo not really! But bear in mind, scientists don't look for people to "believe" like Christians ask people to believe in Jesus. They just try to explain the evidence the best they can, and keep looking for better explanations, only with one rule: explanations must come from the natural realm; other explanations, true though they may be, are simply ignored for the purpose of doing science.
     
  12. danrusdad

    danrusdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem PoE is that you have NO evidence to show that bees EVER built single tubes, which then SOMEHOW got pushed together, which then SOMEHOW morphed into hexagons. Yet, we are asked to accept that evolution of this kind has occured.

    As usual, the "fact" of evolution is never questioned. All we have to do is "imagine" how it "might" or "probably" happened and that is all evolutionists need to "prove" their case.

    Regardless of either of our conjectures, you are going to believe that the structure of beehives did evolve over time even with no evidence. That's my point. Evolution is never questioned.
     
  13. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look at this shifting of goalposts. First it's "Its impossible to imagine a way bees could evolve a way to make honeycombs" to "there you go again using your imagination."

    Well, wasn't that the challenge?

    Now as for the lack of evidence, lets bear in mind it is unfair to ask for evidence that can't exist. How could we get fossil evidence of . . . honeycombs?
     
  14. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,502
    Likes Received:
    40
    Bingo! If it ain't "measurable", then we don't consider it!

    Kind of an emphatic rejection of God's word!
     
  15. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I accept God's word I simply don't consider myself to be doing "science". I'm practicing my RELIGION. Scientists are able to get together and learn new facts whether atheist, muslim, christian, or animist.

    Now those who have religions contrary to the facts suffer accordingly. We all know the onus Mormons must bear, having scriptures that assert false things such as the existance of walled cities in the new world before columbus . . . yet they continue to believe! What is it about human nature that even makes such a dichotomy between faith and reality possible?

    I dunno, but it works for people who deny the true age of the universe and the common descent of life, as well.
     
  16. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    In that case, it's also unfair to ask us to believe that what others make up without an iota of fossil evidence is truth.
    In fact, in the face of lack of fossil evidence, doesn't it make MUCH more sense to simply believe God created bees as they are? [​IMG]
    Gina
     
  17. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,502
    Likes Received:
    40
    Careful Gina, common sense is a scarce commodity these days; don't expect much positive response from the evolutionists on this! :rolleyes:
     
  18. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, having established that common descent of all life has happened based on widespread morphological and genetic studies, we are reluctant to jump in and postively assert a single exception just because honeycombs don't fossilize.
     

Share This Page

Loading...