Intelligent Design vs Evolution

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

Ken Seto

On 20 Feb 2006 06:21:15 -0800, "kenseto" enriched
this group when s/he 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

Ken Seto

When you have had that peer reviewed please let us know.

--
Bob.

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

Ken Seto

bull****

who say he needs ta be intelligent?

Richard Smol wrote:
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?

from his parents etc etc then back to us

it goes in circles

If you can't answer
that scientifically, you're still left out in the cold.

RS

nessuno wrote:
Richard Smol wrote:
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?

from his parents etc etc then back to us

it goes in circles

Right. Thank you for this "scientific" insight. Please inform us when
you're about to win the Nobel Prize.

RS

kenseto wrote:

... It shows that there is an overwhelming need for a Designer

Clearly YOU have an overwhelming need for a Designer. To a drowning
person, everything looks like a raft.

CT

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.

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

Richard Smol wrote:
nessuno wrote:
Richard Smol wrote:
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?

from his parents etc etc then back to us

it goes in circles

Right. Thank you for this "scientific" insight. Please inform us when
you're about to win the Nobel Prize.

RS

thx for tha nobel price

i expect an universal nobel price,
even ufo and people from other
planets are coming here giving
nobel prices ta me

everything goes in circles and is
selfconsistent, big bangs goes in circles,
relativity, and so

thanks again

Tom Roberts wrote:
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

exacltuy what i just said, thanks again tom

he dont need ta be intelligent

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.

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

Tom Roberts wrote:
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

exactly what i just said, thanks again tom

he dont need ta be intelligent

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.

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