But from what I can understand from it he believes in Evolution and Creationism, or some mix of the two. I thought this would be good to separate from religious discussion since this is more like a science debate rather then a religious debate ( he even states he's not saying that there is a God).
Anyone willing to sign up? I would like to hear some critique before going in, and I know you guys are good at that.
Well a combination of evolution and creationism isn't anything new. I know a few people who sort of belief that something gave the first push and then let it be.
From what I can skim from the website he has this belief more or less with a strong bias against atheism, implying atheists are stupid and cannot solve things a child can (i.e. the atheists riddle, to which the answer in his view will most likely be that GOD did it.)
So new and radical framework? No not really. Also I'm not sure how a person who works in communication (however intelligent) can fully have the same strenght of word as actual biologicians. Do you have any of those things he says he talks about? Would like to read them first before make a final decision.
First impression is - moderate creationist, albeit with a like to attack atheists (not a problem, since some of us like to make fun of the religious in the same way)
7th December 2003
That site has too much bias and hate for me. If he doesn't manage to post his "research" in an objective manner he probably doesn't manage to come up with a revolutionary new theory that proves God exists either.
His argument seems to be just a variation of the well known "life is too complex to have evolved on its own"-argument.
i would like there to be a god but man has twisted the idea into his own hate filled image religion is fine but man screwed it up again !
I can't be assed to read it all, but I don't think there's anything on this site that is in any way "new".
"Random Mutations cause birth defects, tumors, cancer, death and extinction; NOT helpful adaptations. The current dogma which says random mutations drive evolution is 100% false."
I suppose the cases where random mutation causes bones and muscles to be abnormally strong is in no way helpful? It seems our confident author needs to figure out what "100%" means.
The guy isn't necessarily anyone making much sense either. What a load of crap. If I've got this right, this guy is saying that because some forms of science can't be proven, this must mean that there is a God. Right, because God can be proven, can't he / it / she / whatever. Makes a whole load of shit sense to me.
I think the guy is full of shit. But the doctrine itself certainly isn't anything new. It's called intelligent design - God caused the big bang, created the first single celled organisms, and then allowed them to evolve on their own. I'm agnostic, but the theory is plausible.
I concur that this man needs to do some actual research before he spews his "intelligent design leftovers" over the face of real scientists. I suspect one of the major reasons atheism is not accepted to supporters of the intelligent design proposal is that those supporters cannot truly begin to understand the true nature and concept of what is time.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
"hey guys, we do not have a scientific explanation for this (usually there is). Therefor god, or "intelligent agent" did it" Is no theory.
Nobody has been able to create life from nonliving material (Europeans call it "geber", muslims, "takwin"). Nobody. Scientists have been trying since the middle ages. Saying an intelligent being created the first living organisms is definitely a reasonable proposal.