Why oxford prof-Dawkins wont debate with interior designer -Harun Yahiya

[Zahina Rishad]

the learned should debate with same calibre people! otherwise it is comedy!!
probably thats why dawkin refuse to argue with a man who doesnt have evena basic scinece degree!!

 

[3.5G]

the learned should debate with same calibre people! otherwise it is comedy!!
probably thats why dawkin refuse to argue with a man who doesnt have evena basic scinece degree!!

bayawelaa duwandaa maaraa excuse ekaak !!??


I don't know why Mr.Dawkins is spending his valuable time on refuting a non scientist book Atlas of creation

ohhh Come on!! Mr.OKtar isn't a scientist !! ?

 

[Mononoke]

Actually can someone who is muslim clarify the bit about Apostasy. Is mr ex-muslim punishable by death.

 

[hafizsaad]

the learned should debate with same calibre people! otherwise it is comedy!!probably thats why dawkin refuse to argue with a man who doesnt have evena basic scinece degree!!

Dawkins’s supposed reason for not meeting with the Adnan okhtar is that “he is not knowledgeable about zoology and biology.”
This is obviously an excuse because Dawkins often meets with middle school children and evangelical priests to discuss his claim.
Are the children that Dawkins meets with for discussions experts on zoology and biology? Is the priest he discussed and debate the subject is a professor of zoology and biology? Of course not.
These examples alone are enough to expose Dawkins’ insincerity. Dawkins usually meets and debates with people such as these because he is only able to cope with them.

zahina yous says well, the learned should debates with same calibre people! otherwise it is comedy!!
so therefore Now dawkin only debate secondary school children and priests.

 

[Zahina Rishad]

answer for MONONOKE

 

[3.5G]

so therefore Now dawkin only debate secondary school children and priests.

looks like Mr.dawkins only know secondary school biology and zoology

 

[Mononoke]

Dawkins’s supposed reason for not meeting with the Adnan okhtar is that “he is not knowledgeable about zoology and biology.”
This is obviously an excuse because Dawkins often meets with middle school children and evangelical priests to discuss his claim.
Are the children that Dawkins meets with for discussions experts on zoology and biology? Is the priest he discussed and debate the subject is a professor of zoology and biology? Of course not.
These examples alone are enough to expose Dawkins’ insincerity. Dawkins usually meets and debates with people such as these because he is only able to cope with them.

zahina yous says well, the learned should debates with same calibre people! otherwise it is comedy!!
so therefore Now dawkin only debate secondary school children and priests.

I think you are wrong about two things. Mr. Oktar is a failed architect, not a scholar. And Mr. Dawkins has had many debates with theologians, there was a famous debate between him and John Lennox. Then there is also the one between him and Edgar Andrews. Get your facts right.

Someone of dawkins caliber debating with a silly fraud like Oktar would be giving mr. Oktar respect and recognition he does not deserve.

You still haven't answered my question about apostasy in Islam.

 

[hafizsaad]

Mr. Oktar is a failed architect, not a scholar.

Why oxford prof-Dawkins wont debate with interior designer -Harun Yahiya

Someone of dawkins caliber debating with a silly fraud like Oktar would be giving mr. Oktar respect and recognition he does not deserve.

wow. First you both decide about the passion of adnan okhtar than excuse for dawkin.
i Think there is no need to answer to your such silly blaming or we can say ascusing for debate as i have mentioned in my last reply dawkin can only make debate with secondary school students and ignorant priest and mathematical professors.Adnan okhtar has challenged him openly in many place. he has no answer to okhtar famous book" Atlas of creation"

Someone of dawkins caliber debating with a silly fraud like Oktar would be giving mr. Oktar respect and recognition he does not deserve.

friendz become realistic. People now the reality why dawkin refusing to debate.
you say
"You still haven't answered my question about apostasy in Islam."

i have answer you in detail many time but you are idealistic in nature as our reader can imagine this it, from you above reply.

 

[Mononoke]

Wow, are you possibly saying that one of the top Imams in England and a Mathematics professor at Oxford are ignorant, and not upto your standards. Get a grip on objective reality!

Then again I am happy that you have actually typed something. U usually just give into your fetishism for linking, and copy paste fallacious and ill contrived arguments, by disingenuous and unintelligent buffoons. pathologically denying everything I say is a new trick for you. Hoorah!

 

[hafizsaad]

Wow, are you possibly saying that one of the top Imams in England and a Mathematics professor at Oxford are ignorant, . Get a grip on objective reality!

the learned should debate with same calibre people! otherwise it is comedy!!

OHHHH. mathematical professor and imaam are same calibre but ADNAN OKTAR ABOUT WHICH BOOK WIKIPEDIA SAYS.....

The Atlas of Creation

adnan oktar latest publication, The Atlas of Creation, was published by Global Publishing, Istanbul, Turkey in October 2006.[42] The book contains over 800 glossy pages and weighs 12 pounds (5.4 kg). Tens of thousands of copies of the book have been delivered, on an unsolicited basis, to schools, prominent researchers and research institutes throughout Europe and the United States.[3][43] Some of the schools that received copies were in France as well as prominent researchers at Utrecht University, University of Tilburg, University of California, Brown University, University of Colorado, University of Chicago, Brigham Young University, the University of Connecticut, the University of Georgia, Imperial College London, Abertay University and several others.[3][44] When the book was sent to French schools and universities, controversy resulted and the book sparked further concern about Islamic radicalism in France.[3] In 2007, Harper's Magazine contributor Scott Horton reported that 35th U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez had Oktar's Atlas of Creation on a stand at the entrance to his US government office.[45]

.no comments required. no more excuse for dawkin...

.

 

[Mononoke]

erm the rest of the wiki article

The arguments used by the book to undermine evolution have been criticized as not logical while evolutionary biologist Kevin Padian has stated that Oktar has no understanding of the basic evidence for evolution.[2][3] Biologist PZ Myers wrote: "The general pattern of the book is repetitious and predictable: the book shows a picture of a fossil and a photo of a living animal, and declares that they haven't changed a bit, therefore evolution is false. Over and over. It gets old fast, and it's usually wrong (they have changed!) and the photography, while lovely, is entirely stolen."[46]

Now go jump into the ocean.

 

[Mononoke]

You asked for it this is hilarious, how can you possibly take mr. Oktar seriously. He is just an utter and complete ignoramus

 

[Mononoke]

Pick the fake: Harun Yahya Edition

poor harun,

if you haven't watched the video's from my earlier post please do. Here is the text version of what conspired. And if you are lazy just read highlighted bit.

[UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

by Richard Dawkins

In 2006, I was one of tens of thousands of academic scientists all around the world who received, unsolicited and completely free, a huge and lavishly illustrated book called Atlas of Creation by the Turkish Muslim apologist Harun Yahya. The thesis of the book, which was published in eleven languages, is that evolution is false. The main 'evidence' consists of page after page of beautiful photographs of fossil animals, each one accompanied by a modern counterpart that is said to have changed not at all since the time of the fossil. It is a large-format book, a thick coffee-table book with more than 700 high-gloss colour pages. The cost of production of such a book must have been extremely high, and one is bound to wonder where the money came from to produce it and then distribute it gratis in so many copies and so many languages.

Given that the entire message of the book depends upon the alleged resemblance between modern animals and their fossil counterparts, I was amused, when I began flicking through at random, to find page 468 devoted to "eels", one fossil and one modern. The caption says,

There are more than 400 species of eels in the order Anguilliformes. That they have not undergone any change in millions of years once again reveals the invalidity of the theory of evolution.​

The fossil eel shown may well be an eel, I cannot tell. But the modern "eel" that Yahya pictures (see left) is undoubtedly not an eel but a sea snake, probably of the highly venomous genus Laticauda (an eel is, of course, not a snake at all but a teleost fish). I have not scanned the book for other inaccuracies of this kind. But given that this was almost the first page I looked at . . . what price the main thesis of the book that modern animals are unchanged since the time of their fossil counterparts?

Incidentally, in May 2008 Harun Yahya, whose real name is Adnan Oktar, was sentenced in a Turkish court to a three-year prison sentence "for creating an illegal organization for personal gain."


Postscript added 8th July

I have now looked at some more pages of this preposterous book. The double page spreads on page 54-55, 368-369, and 414-415 are all labelled 'Crinoid', and all purport to show how similar ancient fossil crinoids are to modern ones. Crinoids are stalked relatives of starfish, members of the phylum Echinodermata. The three spreads have almost identical captions. Here's the one on page 54:

The 345-million-year-old crinoid fossil, identical to its living counterparts, invalidates the theory of evolution. Crinoids that have remained unchanged for 345 million years refute the theory of evolution, manifesting the creation of God as a fact.​

And all three spreads show a beautiful colour photograph of modern crinoids to illustrate the point. Except that, in all three cases, the modern animal pictured is not a crinoid. It isn't even an echinoderm. It isn't even a deuterostome (the sub-kingdom to which the echinoderms, and we, belong). Zoologist readers will recognize it as a tube-dwelling annelid worm, a sabellid.

On page 402, there are four fossil pictures, correctly labelled Britttlestar. The brittlestars are one of the major classes of echinoderms, others being starfish, sea urchins and crinoids. Once again, we have the standard-issue creationist caption:

This 180-million—year-old fossil reveals that brittlestars have been the same for 200 million years. These animals, no different to those living today, once again reveal the invalidity of evolution.​

Here we have not one but two photographs of living animals to illustrate the lack of change since the fossils. One of these modern animals is indeed a brittlestar. The other is a starfish! Member of a completely different class of echinoderms and obviously very different to even the meanest glance.

Finally, PZ has already called attention to this on Pharyngula, but I include a picture for completeness. On page 244, Yahya wishes to say that caddis flies have not changed since some 25-million-year-old insects preserved in amber. Once again, the caption:

These living things have survived for millions of years without the slightest change in their structures. The fact that these insects never changed is a sign that they never evolved.​

By now, we have come to expect something pretty good when we look at the photograph of the modern animal. What will the modern 'caddis fly' be? A minnow, perhaps? A garden slug? A king prawn? No, in a way is better than any of these: A fishing lure, complete with prominent steel hook!

I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the "breathtaking inanity" of the content . Is it really inanity, or is it just plain laziness — or perhaps cynical awareness of the ignorance and stupidity of the target audience — mostly Muslim creationists. And where does the money come from?


Written especially for RichardDawkins.net

Of course you may not beleive Mr. Dawkins words. So here is an actual photo Mr Oktar's ignorance.

Of course after the utter and absolute ignominy mt. oktar, very unethically, corrects his mistakes without acknowledging it. Talk about disengenous.

Mr. Hafizsaad Penapan Linde!

 

[ex-muslim Ahmed]

Double blow to idiots

You asked for it this is hilarious, how can you possibly take mr. Oktar seriously. He is just an utter and complete ignoramus

Thanks Mononoke , for sharing this with us,

This is a double blow , as Dawkins destroyed Harun Yahiya at EX_MUSLIM COUNCIL AT GREAT BRITAIN...

debating with secodary high school children eh??

ඔච්චර නාන්න එපා බං..සිහානා කිව්ව වගෙ .. උඹල දැනටමත් නිකන් තෙමිච්ච කුකුලු වගෙ කට උත්තර නැතුව ඉන්නෙ ඇයි බං??

 

[hafizsaad]

Friendz i agian invite you to come to the reality, you only see and read your favourite, Now read also the detail on the objection on the Atlas of creation.


Dawkins proposes the claim that Mr. Oktar does not have any knowledge of zoology as an excuse for not meeting with him. Yet at the same time he never lets go of the Atlas of Creation, Mr. Oktar’s work that has rocked the entire world. At every available opportunity he personally arranges conferences on the very subject, participates in conferences held by others, makes a special issue out of the book, and collects people around him as he comments upon it. He does all in his power to criticize, at least in his own eyes, the author’s works, yet he absolutely refuses a face-to-face meeting with him. Dawkins’s huge reluctance to enter into a debate with Adnan Oktar, despite all the latter’s calls, and his electing instead to respond, again in his own eyes, to the authors‘ ideas and his analyses on the subject all go to show how disturbing he finds the author’s activities. The only reason why Dawkins refuses a face-to-face encounter with Mr. Oktar IS THAT HE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY ROUTED AND HAS NO ANSWER TO GIVE.

Adnan Oktar’s statement on the subject during one interview runs as follows:
Adnan Oktar: Dawkins says he refuses to debate with me because I have received no biological training. My friend, what can I say? What about your forefather Darwin? Did he receive any training, any training in zoology or biology? He was kicked out of all his schools. But he was certainly an expert when it came to drinking wine. He could tell you what vintage a wine was and where it came from and all that, but nothing about the matter at hand. Do you still believe in his nonsense? You do, even though you know how ignorant he was. Do you believe in the unscientific claims he made in the light of the backward science and deficient scientific understanding of the time? Yes, you do. That is one point. The second is, do you not debate with high school and middle school students wherever you go? Yes, you do. Have they received any training in biology? No, they have not. Do you debate with clergymen? Yes, you do. Have they had any training? No. That means you debate with people you calculate cannot beat you. With people you believe cannot defeat you. You would be devastated in a debate with me—in minutes, and even in seconds. Let me challenge you again. But your forefather [Darwin] lies dead, while you weep at his graveside. (From Adnan Oktar’s interview with Tempo TV and Kral Karadeniz TV broadcast on 28 September, 2009.)

Dawkins Has Taken the Bait and Hooked by a Picture of an Insect on the Hook

The picture of an insect on the hook in the Atlas of Creation, which Dawkins imagines to represent a major discovery, is one of an insect showing that a life form whose fossil remains date back millions of years is still alive today. Whether or not it is a model makes absolutely no difference. What matters is that this insect that lived millions of years ago is still in existence in the same form and living today.
Dawkins entered into a state of huge stress and panic following the manifest revelation in the Atlas of Creation of hundreds of pieces of evidence that obliterate evolution. For some reason, he says not a word about the thousands of different fossils in the various volumes of the Atlas of Creation, but displays his own ignorance in talking about a picture of a model everywhere he goes, as if this was some major discovery of genius. It is easy to see that Dawkins has nothing to say in the face of the fact that this life form, as well as all the others, is still alive today and has never changed over the course of millions of years.

Dawkins’s futile efforts just go to show how true and influential the Atlas of Creation is. It is also an indication of the terrible collapse suffered by evolution all around the world in which the Atlas has been instrumental.

In addition to all this, although Dawkins regards a single picture of a model as some kind of trump card, he himself uses nothing but models, drawings and reconstructions in all his own articles and conferences. AND THAT IS BECAUSE HE CANNOT PRODUCE ONE SINGLE FOSSIL THAT REPRESENTS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. While he deceives people with models, he attempts to use a picture of a model in the Atlas of Creation, that consists entirely of scientific evidence, one that scientifically documents how a life form that existed millions of years ago is still alive today, against the Atlas. This shows that, like all other Darwinists, Dawkins has nothing to do with being scientific and lives in a state of profound ignorance.

It is impossible for Dawkins, and for all other Darwinists, to have anything to do with being scientific, because SCIENCE FURTHER DEMOLISHES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WITH EVERY PASSING DAY.

Statements by Adnan Oktar on the subject read:

Adnan Oktar: I used a plastic model of an animal in one place in the Atlas of Creation. This person then made a huge fuss, as if he had discovered something. Daily Vatan then took it up, wondering why we had used a plastic model instead of an original animal. Yet he has no qualms about using drawings and pictures that are totally irrelevant, but we do not hold them against you. Since the plastic model is identical to a picture of the living life form in question of course I can use whatever I wish.

Presenter: That is a bit of very fine detail. There is the question of declining a debate but closely following your every move. He must have read the whole thing in order to pick it up.

Adnan Oktar: He will say, how could he debate with the author of this book? Because he will be unable to respond even to 10 pages of it. Not even 5 pages. I am now in the course of preparing the 4th and 5th volumes of the work, and I have used plastic models of frogs, for instance. They look different and nice, and there is also a bit of a jest in them. I have led that person to take the bait. This is the only subject he criticizes. I deliberately put the hook. There was a hook there, clearly visible. I put the insect on the hook and he went for it. He is now talking about it everywhere, showing people the insect on the hook.

It is an honor for us that this person should so avoid us. In the ring a wrestler comes out and waits for his opponent. If that opponent fails to show, then he is declared as the winner to great applause. This is something far greater than a technical knockout, as he was too afraid even to turn up. But I would have liked to inflict a knockout as well. Let him show up, but he cannot because I would crush him in a single moment. (From Adnan Oktar’s interview with Tempo TV and Kral Karadeniz TV on 28 September, 2009.)

There Are No Transitional Fossils between the Crocodile and the Squirrel, because “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS”
Darwinists make the nonsensical claim that the whole current diversity of life sprang from a single cell. The transition from squirrel to bird or from chimpanzee to human being so fanatically espoused by Dawkins is just as nonsensical as the transition from crocodile to squirrel that Dawkins criticizes in his own eyes. The claim made by Dawkins’s intellectual father Darwin, who was a total ignoramus devoid of any understanding of biology, zoology or paleontology, that whales evolved from bears is the product of the same perverted logic. It is therefore utterly ludicrous for Dawkins to say “we never claimed there was any transition from crocodile to squirrel,” AS IF EVOLUTION HAD ANY LOGICAL CLAIM.

Someone witnessing Dawkins’s claim on this subject might well form the impression that transitional fossils from such an imaginary transition of the kind maintained by Dawkins actually exist. And that is just what Dawkins is aiming for. He aims to deceive people with no knowledge about transitional fossils by means of these words of demagoguery. It will therefore be of use to reiterate here some important information, the scientific evidence for which we have already provided hundreds of times before. In summary, that information is as follows:

Contrary to what Dawkins and all other Darwinists maintain,

- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL SHOWING A PASSAGE FROM A SINGLE-CELLED ORGANISM TO A MULTI-CELLED ONE.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A PASSAGE FROM WATER TO DRY LAND.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO REPTILES TURNING INTO MAMMALS.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A PASSAGE FROM LAND TO THE AIR.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A TRANSITION FROM TERRESTRIAL TO MARINE MAMMALS.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO THE IMAGINARY EVOLUTION OF FLYING MAMMALS.
- THERE IS NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL POINTING TO A PASSAGE FROM CHIMPANZEES TO HUMAN BEINGS.
No matter what Dawkins may maintain and no matter what kind of a transition he may espouse, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL EXISTS that might confirm it.

LIVING THINGS NEVER CHANGED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS.

And therein lies Dawkins’s difficulty. That fact has now been announced to the whole world for the very first time since Darwin’s “Origin of Species” deception 150 years ago. The Atlas of Creation, a significant work of reference revealing this, has therefore become Dawkins’s number one target. Dawkins HAS TAKEN THE BAIT when he least expected it. It is because he knows there is nothing to be done, because he refuses a face-to-face debate with Mr. Oktar in the knowledge that he will be utterly routed, that he instead resorts to such pitiful, pathetic and childish methods. And this is a declaration of the Darwinist defeat.

.

 

[Idi Amin]

the learned should debate with same calibre people! otherwise it is comedy!!
probably thats why dawkin refuse to argue with a man who doesnt have evena basic scinece degree!!

hi Zahina how are you?

 

[Mononoke]

"There Are No Transitional Fossils between the Crocodile and the Squirrel"

we are dealing with a rank 'A' moron.

 

[Zahina Rishad]

we are dealing with a rank 'A' moron.

yes, I agree . it is not just one all of them who favour creation over evolution are brilliantly ignorant dumbos. otherwise why would any one justify using a FISHING HOOK for a biological specimen in a book against Evolution?

 

[Mononoke]

Not only that Mr. Oktar clearly has questionable political aspirations

 

[Mononoke]

yes, I agree . it is not just one all of them who favour creation over evolution are brilliantly ignorant dumbos. otherwise why would any one justify using a FISHING HOOK for a biological specimen in a book against Evolution?

Maybe he doesn't understand that fish bait are actually synthetic replicas. I don't claim to be a biologist, but the fish hooks are there in more than one instant.





And that is on my copy of his book.

He also thinks that this is a fossil, which is an insult to intelligence. It's a skull with clay stuffed inside it.


The worse part about this is that he knows that the majority of the muslims will never catch on to these forgeries.