Evolutionry/religious nonsense

A Dawkins said,
"I alwys hve wondered about the need for philoosopher, and then I listen to Dan Dennett"

Hes engaged in some of religions "Deepities" that, I think, went right over your head.

Quit using those $10,000 words, and I'll be fine!

To repeat myself:

Give me an example of a deepetie you think went over my head

I think you are correct I should've said 180° instead of 90° I get caught up in describing the picture instead of describing the vectors. I need to re-write it correctly but I do want to give you the math I can do.

It is the fact that electrons couple at approximately 60 degrees with the virtual particles of the higgs field that the Fine structure contant and Planck's constant are what they are. If you construct space and matter in the Higgs field way I did that 60° coupling angles always exist at zero energy. That is the only way chemistry can be consistent enough for DNA to replicate perfectly every time. Otherwise there would not be enough order for bio chemistry work.

There would not be enough order for gravity to work.

Living organisms depend on gravity.

But if my structure is correct can the structure come into existence through a big bang?

no, molecules and atoms couple at all angles . like I said, water H and the O's form a molecule with at 105 degrees, not 60 or 90. You seem to only b interested in sub atomic particles (perhaps for the sake of sounding profound)
A deepitie is a statement that seems to be profound mostly because its ill formed.

If he quit using them, the emptiness of his logic and his denial of well established biological facts would be apparent to all. He has to cover that up with jargon and irrelevant discussion. Even though some of it is true, it's real function is to obscure, not enlighten.

Farmer claims that all the functions of a cell are governed by simple chemical interactions and that coded information flow (upon which all of genetics is based) is not a factor. As long as he maintains that farcical stance, discussion of ID or even biology itself is not possible.

If you want to know the truth about information flow in biology, just type that into your search engine and read the thousands of pages of mainstream science sources that result. Just the sources and the few words included with the links should convince anyone of the importance of encoded information in biology.

Life is far more that a soup of chemicals.

I always try to talk at or up to people, (Ive been teaching too long to make **** up). When I mix vernacular with technical, those really interested will "look em up". Guys like you, Im certain will ignore, or deny em . SO nothing really lost. Its not like youre a colleague sport. (Maybe you cqn be useful in learning about engine maintenance, but not biology or geochem or paleo).

I like it when you try to use insults and then turn about and blame me for insulting you. At least I dont deny it that I like getting under yer religious skin.

You should really learn what "coded flow" ctully signifies, its nothing more than energy transfers based on molecules coupling an uncoupling nd respiratory rections.

Theyve understood that for years, even Mike Behe doesnt deny it.
As I said, you should red some of the more recent stuff by Bob Hqaen (he writes about the "Evolution of minerals from 4.5 billion yars tills the "Prolocene"

May I lso suggest reding about the "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" There are scads of data and papers about the one -way assembly of chemical bonds in proteins and genetic material.


I always look at the union labels to see whether what Im being fed isnt by the Discovery Institute because I find we rarely get real science from them.
Just remember that our understandings in science come later in the research process, not before any research begins.

Yes, at zero energy the sub atomic particles couple at about 180 degrees in the nucleus and about 60 degrees where electrons transfer energy between atoms or, radiate energy to the higgs field. This is always true regardless of the angular relationship between the atoms as a whole (like the 105 degree relationship in water). That fairly constant angle of coupling gives us the constants we observe and measure. But, this structure with these consistent angles, now makes the constants predictable. I think that is fairly easy to visualize and understand.

I am interested in this because the constants reveals the structure and the structure gives a reason for gravity and the other forces. That is a major step forward in scientific knowledge if it is correct. (and once again I think that it is easy to see that it is correct)

This is important because of the next question that must be asked which is, "If the structure is necessary for gravity how, did the big bang create the structure before gravity existed?"

You are very good at communicating, but it appears to me, you don't like to communicate about something you don't understand completely, (or maybe you do and you just don't like communicating with someone who sucks at communicating sometimes, like me) but, understanding the underlying structure that makes DNA work is important to understanding the ontology of DNA and the biological organism.

After watching Daniel Dennet's discussion on ontology (in the second link below)i think he might call the sub atomic structure "unnecessary noise" because like the zeros and and ones of computer code it is almost impossible and probably unnecessary to understand when all you want to understand is the purpose of the program. I think the guy that invented the computer chip and how it operates would disagree though. Especially, if you say he is unnecessary to understanding how computers operate and their ontology.

Dennet said ,"the engineer of an elevator is the one that endows the ontology of the elevator," Dennet goes on to say that there are complex systems that have ontologyies that aren't endowed by engineers because they are created by a non intelligent evolution of biological systems by natural selection.

I don't know how he can jump to that conclusion for the following reasons. 1. We have never seen a complex thing come into existence without an engineer deciding the ontology.
2. We have seen computers and biology organize things that have a new ontology without any additional intelligent involvement and, the neither the computer nor the evolution of biological systems have intelligent persons currently entering new information.
3. But the programmer and designer of the computer,(say Allan Turing with his claim that he invented the computer and Jesus Christ with his claim that he created the universe and the first biological systems) might beg to differ.
4. I don't understand how Dennet so easily and rationally gives the engineer of an elevator, (and I would assume) Turing the engineer of the first computer, credit for the ontology of each of those without even considering giving Jesus Christ the credit for the ontology of the universe and the biological systems that live in it.
5. Richard Swinburne Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford, gives a very logical argument (in the link below) on how the Ontology of the universe should be given to God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=177&v=6JrG8qWzMQo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx5OZ1AZ5Vk

Why is Dennet's argument better than Swinburnes's?
Is Swinburne's logical?

That one gave me a good laugh. Where and how did you arrive at the conclusion?

I will explain that to you using an analogy. The constants of physics our ratios. The fine structure constant is the strong force week force rztio. It is a dimensionless constant. Basically it is telling us it takes a lot more force to hold a proton in a nucleus of an Atom then it takes to hold an electron in and Atom.

Why that is can be hard to picture because we've never seen the inside of an Atom.

Let's compare it to something else that's not hard to see the transmission on a car. You Can you measure how many revolutions the input shaft makes compared to the output shaft on the transmission and come up with the ratio. You could move the shift lever and come up with another ratio. If you want to assume that there are gears inside the transmission You can guess what the gears look like inside the transmission even though you can't see them from the dimension less ratio you get by counting the revolutions of the input and output shaft.

In the end there are only four real particles and for anti-particles in a hydrogen Atom. And they are interacting with a few higgs bozons of the Higgs field through the Higgs mechanism. They can only be arranged so many ways to end up with the fine structure constant. It's not that hard to figure out.

bj, Thanks for your detailed explanation, but physics and gravity are subjects that are foreign to me. My knowledge principally accrues around world travel and investments. Have done pretty well with both.

http://www.physics.umu.se/english/research/statistical-physics-and-networks/flow-of-information-in-biological-systems/

Dr Irwin Corey could not hve said it better

Well maybe it's not easy for you to visualize. Just because you're struggling with it doesn't make it wrong.

How about commenting on my post about the two philosophers and ontology

Ive never had anything good to say about philosophy. Its a language in search of a craft. Id like to say that Dennet makes sense but he sometimes gets a comic streak and plays with his audiences. (and readers).John Brockman edited a work that surrounds ID with scientists and philosophers like Susskind,Dennett,Nicholas Humphrey,Dawkins and Daniel Sulloway, and lets them make public their thoughts about ID. The philosophers make the point about the history of the movement that defined much of its substance .

Sitting there earlier, doing my watch, while breakfast was being cooked up , Iwant to say that the ist Amendment of the Constitution has an establishment clause (Thats the one weve always taken to court to fight against "creeping Creationism"). Also, in the same Amendment is alsoearlier clause about the "Free Expression" of religion. This clause protects the practitioners of any religion against governmental interference so they teach what they will and noone can prevail to try to upend it. This, of course is meant that the religious schools are protected against cience if they wish
A funny thought was 'WEVE NEVER TAKEN ANY PAROCHIAL SCHOOL TO COURT TO REQUIRE THEM TO TEACH EVOLUTION. They may, under the free expression clause, teach anything they wish whether for or against evolution.
Why cant the IDers just be happy with all of that and keep the heck out of Public SChool Biology. Most of IDers hve denied science because of religious beliefs and this has led to the many vituperative discussions that are purely based on the IDers wanting to add more ground to their often Fundamentalist worldviews and to, I guess, bring the public school science curricula under their belief system.

"Public schools" fought since the early 1900's to be able to teach objective evidence based science on a number of topics (like anthroplogy , agronomy, early medicine and cosmology) but laws like "Butler Laws" would NOT allow evolution to even be taught until the 1950's. To this day, the Creationists and IDer s act like thyeve been unfairly treated when its rally the other way around.
I for one do not want to return to the days when science was a sub-discipline of religion. Places like the Discovery Intitute and parochial schools can teach whatever they wish, I dont think one case was ever brought where science teachers have tried to infiltrate a parochial school system. In actuality though, most parochial schools have , by themselves, decided to accept what science has discovered and , like the Catholic schools in PA, they probably offer some of the best segments on genetics and evolution and earth sciences.

Better late than never:

After 350 years Vatican says Galileo was right. (1992) At that rate the fundamentalists should accept Darwin by the year 2200.

After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

Inteligent Design is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion new age Paganism Hindu, Buddhaism, Catholicism, Lutheraninsm, Islam, etc. . . they are philosophical views. Intelligent Design would fit under the philosophy of "naiive realism" (though I prefer the name "common sense realism")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophies

They become a religion when you adapt them into your life and religiously practice what they teach. There are some religious acts that most philosophies adopt like, hygiene, property rights, and basic liberties like the right to life itself. The government can't force you to practice certain religion but they must allow free discussion of all reasonable philosophical view points at all levels of academia. After that discussion it is up to society to develop ethics and laws from these discussions.