Intelligent Design vs Evolution

"kenseto" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think that the current fight between ID proponents and Evolution
proponents is not grounded on valid reasons. Why? Because fundamentally
Evolution is part of ID.

Nonsense. Learn some science.

At the fundament level God is the Designer of
the universe.

According to your beliefs, yes. Unfortunately for you, you can't show that
scientifically.

The paper in the following link presents a scientific
theory called Model Mechanics on the origin of the universe.

I see nothing scientific here. I see self-important pseudointellectual
tripe. Think of all you could have read about science (you clearly need to
learn some) in the time it took you to write this.

It shows that there is an overwhelming need for a Designer to initiate the
Big
Bang Universe.

For many people there's a psychological need to believe in a creator, but
there is NOT a scientific one.

Title: "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics"
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe.pdf

Ken Seto

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
I think that the current fight between ID proponents and Evolution
proponents is not grounded on valid reasons. [...]

What "intelligent" designer would put rear legs a few inches long into
an enormous blue whale, that are not visible externally?

There are lots of similar examples of UNintelligent design, that are
easily understood once one realizes that the morphology of a given
species is highly constrained by the morphologies of its predecessor
species.

Blue whales evolved from land-dwelling species that had four legs (the
front legs became its flippers, the rear legs degenerated into
uselessness).

That is a _fact_. Evolution is a _fact_. Even though some of the details
of how it works are not completely known.

You missed the point of my post entirely. Model Mechanics is a scientific
theory based on the existence of two intelligent designed entities: the
E-Matrix and the S-Particle. The E-Matrix is composed of E-Strings and these
E-Strings are repulsive to each other. That means that there is a compacting
force that compacts these E-Strings together to form the E-Matrix. The
S-Particles are repulsive to the E-Strings and this enables them to move
freely in the E-Matrix and maintain their motion in the E-Matrix. The
different motions of the S-Particles in the E-Matrix gives rise to all the
Matter Particles (the Electrons and quarks). Evolution is the consequence of
interactions of the Matter Particles in the E-Matrix.

It is clear that the E-Matrix and the S-Particles as described above cannot
occur naturally. They are Intelligent Designed entities. That's why I said
fundamentally evolution is based on Intelligent Design.

Ken Seto


Yes, there is a common PUN on the word "evolution". On
one hand it means the observed _fact_ that the species on
earth have evolved from other species. On the other hand,
it refers to the theory of how the fact of evolution
happened, most notably Darwin's "descent with modification"
and "survival of the fittest". Creationists that claim
"evolution is merely a theory" ignore the first meaning and
the accompanying enormous number of observations; they are
not doing science.

[This is off topic, and I probably won't respond. As always
silence does _not_ mean agreement or consent.]


Tom ROberts

kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
I think that the current fight between ID proponents and Evolution
proponents is not grounded on valid reasons. [...]

What "intelligent" designer would put rear legs a few inches long into
an enormous blue whale, that are not visible externally?

There are lots of similar examples of UNintelligent design, that are
easily understood once one realizes that the morphology of a given
species is highly constrained by the morphologies of its predecessor
species.

Blue whales evolved from land-dwelling species that had four legs (the
front legs became its flippers, the rear legs degenerated into
uselessness).

That is a _fact_. Evolution is a _fact_. Even though some of the details
of how it works are not completely known.

You missed the point of my post entirely. Model Mechanics is a scientific
theory based on the existence of two intelligent designed entities: the
E-Matrix and the S-Particle. The E-Matrix is composed of E-Strings and these
E-Strings are repulsive to each other. That means that there is a compacting
force that compacts these E-Strings together to form the E-Matrix. The
S-Particles are repulsive to the E-Strings and this enables them to move
freely in the E-Matrix and maintain their motion in the E-Matrix. The
different motions of the S-Particles in the E-Matrix gives rise to all the
Matter Particles (the Electrons and quarks). Evolution is the consequence of
interactions of the Matter Particles in the E-Matrix.

It is clear that the E-Matrix and the S-Particles as described above cannot
occur naturally. They are Intelligent Designed entities. That's why I said
fundamentally evolution is based on Intelligent Design.

Ken Seto


Yes, there is a common PUN on the word "evolution". On
one hand it means the observed _fact_ that the species on
earth have evolved from other species. On the other hand,
it refers to the theory of how the fact of evolution
happened, most notably Darwin's "descent with modification"
and "survival of the fittest". Creationists that claim
"evolution is merely a theory" ignore the first meaning and
the accompanying enormous number of observations; they are
not doing science.

[This is off topic, and I probably won't respond. As always
silence does _not_ mean agreement or consent.]


Tom ROberts


If you claim you are doing science then use scientific definitions.
Your "theory" is not a theory at all, it isn't even much of a
conjecture. At best it would be a WAG. A theory in science has facts,
evidence etc and the theory wraps all that into an attempt to explain
those facts. You stating that 'X exists" does not constitute a theory.

Harry K

"CWatters" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think that the current fight between ID proponents and Evolution
proponents is not grounded on valid reasons. Why? Because fundamentally
Evolution is part of ID. At the fundament level God is the Designer of
the universe. The paper in the following link presents a scientific
theory called Model Mechanics on the origin of the universe. It shows
that there is an overwhelming need for a Designer to initiate the Big
Bang Universe.
Title: "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics"
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe.pdf

Does it make any predictions that are testable either now or possibly in
the
future?

Yes I proposed experiments in the following link that will test the
validiity of Model Mechanics:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf

Ken Seto

"Richard Smol" wrote in message
ps.com...

kenseto wrote:
I think that the current fight between ID proponents and Evolution
proponents is not grounded on valid reasons. Why? Because fundamentally
Evolution is part of ID. At the fundament level God is the Designer of
the universe. The paper in the following link presents a scientific
theory called Model Mechanics on the origin of the universe. It shows
that there is an overwhelming need for a Designer to initiate the Big
Bang Universe.
Title: "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics"
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe.pdf

It's the usual self-important kookery that is common to people who
claim to have invented a "better cosmology" and I will only address
this pragaraph:

"Obviously, with this line of questioning, there would be an infinite
number of questions to each fundamental assumption of the theory. What
this mean is that we are not capable of arriving at the final answer to
any fundamental question of nature. The only way to end the endless
questioning would be to invoke the answer that 'God made it that
way.'"

Great. And where does this "god"come from then? If you can't answer
that scientifically, you're still left out in the cold.

This shows me that you don't understand what the word GOD means. shrug.

Ken Seto

"SeppoP" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
I think that the current fight between ID proponents and Evolution
proponents is not grounded on valid reasons. [...]
What "intelligent" designer would put rear legs a few inches long into
an enormous blue whale, that are not visible externally?

There are lots of similar examples of UNintelligent design, that are
easily understood once one realizes that the morphology of a given
species is highly constrained by the morphologies of its predecessor
species.

Blue whales evolved from land-dwelling species that had four legs (the
front legs became its flippers, the rear legs degenerated into
uselessness).
That is a _fact_. Evolution is a _fact_. Even though some of the
details
of how it works are not completely known.

You missed the point of my post entirely. Model Mechanics is a
scientific
theory based on the existence of two intelligent designed entities: the
E-Matrix and the S-Particle.


A suggestion, if you don't mind.

What about providing evidence that entities such as E-matrix and
S-particle exist and are intelligently designed?

Model Mechanics is a scientific
theory based on the existence of two intelligent designed entities: the
E-Matrix and the S-Particle. The E-Matrix is composed of E-Strings and these
E-Strings are repulsive to each other. That means that there is a compacting
force that compacts these E-Strings together to form the E-Matrix. The
S-Particles are repulsive to the E-Strings and this enables them to move
freely in the E-Matrix and maintain their motion in the E-Matrix. The
different motions of the S-Particles in the E-Matrix gives rise to all the
Matter Particles (the Electrons and quarks). Evolution is the consequence of
interactions of the Matter Particles in the E-Matrix.

It is clear that the E-Matrix and the S-Particles as described above cannot
occur naturally. They are Intelligent Designed entities. That's why I said
fundamentally evolution is based on Intelligent Design.

Ken Seto

"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
I think that the current fight between ID proponents and Evolution
proponents is not grounded on valid reasons. [...]

What "intelligent" designer would put rear legs a few inches long into
an enormous blue whale, that are not visible externally?

There are lots of similar examples of UNintelligent design, that are
easily understood once one realizes that the morphology of a given
species is highly constrained by the morphologies of its predecessor
species.

Blue whales evolved from land-dwelling species that had four legs (the
front legs became its flippers, the rear legs degenerated into
uselessness).

That is a _fact_. Evolution is a _fact_. Even though some of the
details
of how it works are not completely known.

You missed the point of my post entirely. Model Mechanics is a
scientific
theory based on the existence of two intelligent designed entities: the
E-Matrix and the S-Particle. The E-Matrix is composed of E-Strings and
these
E-Strings are repulsive to each other. That means that there is a
compacting
force that compacts these E-Strings together to form the E-Matrix. The
S-Particles are repulsive to the E-Strings and this enables them to move
freely in the E-Matrix and maintain their motion in the E-Matrix. The
different motions of the S-Particles in the E-Matrix gives rise to all
the
Matter Particles (the Electrons and quarks). Evolution is the
consequence of
interactions of the Matter Particles in the E-Matrix.

It is clear that the E-Matrix and the S-Particles as described above
cannot
occur naturally. They are Intelligent Designed entities. That's why I
said
fundamentally evolution is based on Intelligent Design.

Ken Seto


Yes, there is a common PUN on the word "evolution". On
one hand it means the observed _fact_ that the species on
earth have evolved from other species. On the other hand,
it refers to the theory of how the fact of evolution
happened, most notably Darwin's "descent with modification"
and "survival of the fittest". Creationists that claim
"evolution is merely a theory" ignore the first meaning and
the accompanying enormous number of observations; they are
not doing science.

[This is off topic, and I probably won't respond. As always
silence does _not_ mean agreement or consent.]


Tom ROberts


If you claim you are doing science then use scientific definitions.

Why do I have to use scientific definitions to define a new theory?

Your "theory" is not a theory at all, it isn't even much of a
conjecture. At best it would be a WAG. A theory in science has facts,
evidence etc and the theory wraps all that into an attempt to explain
those facts. You stating that 'X exists" does not constitute a theory.

My theory has equations and makes specfic predictions. Also I proposed
experiments to test for the predictions of my theory in the following link.
So why is my theory is not a theory?
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf

Ken Seto

Ken Seto

["Followup-To:" header set to talk.origins.]
On 2006-02-20, kenseto wrote:

"Richard Smol" wrote in message
ps.com...

kenseto wrote:
I think that the current fight between ID proponents and Evolution
proponents is not grounded on valid reasons. Why? Because fundamentally
Evolution is part of ID. At the fundament level God is the Designer of
the universe. The paper in the following link presents a scientific
theory called Model Mechanics on the origin of the universe. It shows
that there is an overwhelming need for a Designer to initiate the Big
Bang Universe.
Title: "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics"
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe.pdf

It's the usual self-important kookery that is common to people who
claim to have invented a "better cosmology" and I will only address
this pragaraph:

"Obviously, with this line of questioning, there would be an infinite
number of questions to each fundamental assumption of the theory. What
this mean is that we are not capable of arriving at the final answer to
any fundamental question of nature. The only way to end the endless
questioning would be to invoke the answer that 'God made it that
way.'"

Great. And where does this "god"come from then? If you can't answer
that scientifically, you're still left out in the cold.

This shows me that you don't understand what the word GOD means. shrug.

Ken Seto

Of course, it's pretty clear that you don't understand what it means either.
It's just a word to hang your hat on.

Mark

"kenseto" wrote in message
. ..

"Harry K" wrote in message
oups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:
I think that the current fight between ID proponents and Evolution
proponents is not grounded on valid reasons. [...]

What "intelligent" designer would put rear legs a few inches long
into
an enormous blue whale, that are not visible externally?

There are lots of similar examples of UNintelligent design, that are
easily understood once one realizes that the morphology of a given
species is highly constrained by the morphologies of its predecessor
species.

Blue whales evolved from land-dwelling species that had four legs
(the
front legs became its flippers, the rear legs degenerated into
uselessness).

That is a _fact_. Evolution is a _fact_. Even though some of the
details
of how it works are not completely known.

You missed the point of my post entirely. Model Mechanics is a
scientific
theory based on the existence of two intelligent designed entities: the
E-Matrix and the S-Particle. The E-Matrix is composed of E-Strings and
these
E-Strings are repulsive to each other. That means that there is a
compacting
force that compacts these E-Strings together to form the E-Matrix. The
S-Particles are repulsive to the E-Strings and this enables them to
move
freely in the E-Matrix and maintain their motion in the E-Matrix. The
different motions of the S-Particles in the E-Matrix gives rise to all
the
Matter Particles (the Electrons and quarks). Evolution is the
consequence of
interactions of the Matter Particles in the E-Matrix.

It is clear that the E-Matrix and the S-Particles as described above
cannot
occur naturally. They are Intelligent Designed entities. That's why I
said
fundamentally evolution is based on Intelligent Design.

Ken Seto


Yes, there is a common PUN on the word "evolution". On
one hand it means the observed _fact_ that the species on
earth have evolved from other species. On the other hand,
it refers to the theory of how the fact of evolution
happened, most notably Darwin's "descent with modification"
and "survival of the fittest". Creationists that claim
"evolution is merely a theory" ignore the first meaning and
the accompanying enormous number of observations; they are
not doing science.

[This is off topic, and I probably won't respond. As always
silence does _not_ mean agreement or consent.]


Tom ROberts


If you claim you are doing science then use scientific definitions.

Why do I have to use scientific definitions to define a new theory?

Well, because you claim you're doing science. You might also want to look up
the _scientific_ definition of the word "theory."

You cannot just "define" a new theory. There has to be a considerable amount
of evidence for something before it can be called a theory.

Your "theory" is not a theory at all, it isn't even much of a
conjecture. At best it would be a WAG. A theory in science has facts,
evidence etc and the theory wraps all that into an attempt to explain
those facts. You stating that 'X exists" does not constitute a theory.

My theory has equations and makes specfic predictions. Also I proposed
experiments to test for the predictions of my theory in the following
link.
So why is my theory is not a theory?
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf

Ken Seto

Ken Seto

"kenseto" wrote in message
. ..

"Richard Smol" wrote in message
ps.com...

kenseto wrote:
I think that the current fight between ID proponents and Evolution
proponents is not grounded on valid reasons. Why? Because fundamentally
Evolution is part of ID. At the fundament level God is the Designer of
the universe. The paper in the following link presents a scientific
theory called Model Mechanics on the origin of the universe. It shows
that there is an overwhelming need for a Designer to initiate the Big
Bang Universe.
Title: "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics"
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe.pdf

It's the usual self-important kookery that is common to people who
claim to have invented a "better cosmology" and I will only address
this pragaraph:

"Obviously, with this line of questioning, there would be an infinite
number of questions to each fundamental assumption of the theory. What
this mean is that we are not capable of arriving at the final answer to
any fundamental question of nature. The only way to end the endless
questioning would be to invoke the answer that 'God made it that
way.'"

Great. And where does this "god"come from then? If you can't answer
that scientifically, you're still left out in the cold.

This shows me that you don't understand what the word GOD means. shrug.

And you've made it crystal clear that you don't understand that God cannot
be studied scientifically. Science deals with natural phenomena only; the
supernatural is beyond the realm of science.

Ken Seto