We Challenge Dawkins To A Discussion Before The Public

[sirajstc]

Richard Dawkins, a most ardent supporter of Darwinism, has long accounted for the perfect creation of the universe in terms of the theory of evolution, which has lately suffered a global collapse. In his recent writings and interviews, however, Dawkins has started to express that "life cannot form by chance." It is an absence of sense and reason to support evolution on one hand and to state that life cannot come about by chance on the other. That is due to the fact that according to the theory of evolution, which Dawkins supports, the existence of life is based on entirely random coincidences.

Dawkins has realized that he can get nowhere with the scenario of chance. But, he is now in the logical impasse as he basically claims that "evolution cannot be a result of coincidences, but has occurred by means of coincidences." What he should realize is that demagogy no longer works.

If Dawkins sincerely believes in this theory, we'd like to invite him to Turkey, or else we could come to UK to have a discussion. Dawkins should clarify hundreds of questions, only a few of which are listed below, before the cameras. So we, as well as the public, will be able to hear what he has to say. Obviously, it's no good to engage in unilateral programs. Moreover, with such an attitude Dawkins only deceives himself. Let us send the first 4 volumes of Atlas of Creation to Mr. Dawkins, and let him examine the photographs of the fossils therein which have not changed at all over the hundreds of millions of years. And let him account for them in evolutionary terms according to his much-publicized logic—if he can!

1. Archeological researches unearthed over a hundred million fossils, proving that life forms were created out of nothing. Still, there is not a single transitional fossil supporting the theory of evolution. If Dawkins is sincere in his claim, he should bring a transitional fossil and announce it to the public as "a transitional form!"
2. The odds against a functional protein emerging randomly is 10950 to 1—a practical impossibility. (In mathematics, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are accepted as "zero probability.") If Dawkins is honest, he should point at a mass of proteins that formed by chance or by means of the methods he espouses. Let Dawkins explain us how he can account for the origin of life in evolutionary terms, when even a single protein—the building block of life—cannot form by chance!
3. Let Dawkins explain us how all colorful, lively, three-dimensional and perfectly clear images, shortly life itself, can form in the pitch dark human brain and who sees this image in the brain!
4. Let Dawkins explain us in evolutionary terms how conversations, music and all other sounds form in the sound-isolated brain; who listens to and enjoys these sounds, who knows their meaning, who reflects on them consciously and who answers back these sounds!

Let Dawkins ask the same questions to us, and let us give our answers. Let us supply our evidence, and let him bring his—if he has any. Then let the public decide who is right. We want the public to know on a larger scale how Darwinism is a false theory and how it is the greatest deception of the world's history. We are confident that the days are soon to come when people will laugh, asking themselves "How could we ever believe this theory?" In near future, people will be wondering with amazement how they could ever have been taken in by it. In fact, this is already occurring, at an ever-increasing momentum. World-wide polls reveal statistical data proving this state of affairs.
Darwinism, tried to be kept alive by engaging in demagogy and propaganda, has been refuted in all spheres and it is now widely recognized that it's no longer possible to defend Darwinism by demagogy. Dawkins' recent statement along the logic that "evolution cannot be a result of coincidences, but has occurred by means of coincidences" is nothing but a laughable misery of reason.
As you can see in the above movie, unable to provide a reasonable answer, Richard Dawkins paused a long time when asked to "give an example of a beneficial mutation."
If he answers (!) our above questions in the same way as he did in this interview, then our questions will remain unanswered. Therefore, we expect him to give reasonable, clear answers based on evidence, and hope he will accept our invitation.

1 Charles Darwin, Letter to William Graham, 1881. Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, No. 1, p. 285 (New York: Basic Books, 1959)​

 

[sirajstc]

http://www.replytodawkins.com/discusion.php

 

[hafizsaad]

DAWKINS IS DESPERATELY TRYING TO DECEIVE YOUNG CHILDREN


Following the revelation of 100 million fossils all proving the fact of Creation, the atheist Richard Dawkins retreated into a profound silence. He saw and was alarmed how these fossils that Darwinists had tried to conceal for so many years had totally demolished Darwinism. He then watched, in a state of terrible panic, as the Atlas of Creation, in which many of these fossils were pictured, spread across the world. He exhibited the same panic in the face of how people began to abandon Darwinism en masse. So much so that he had no compunction about calling his own countrymen “ignorant” when it emerged that 75% of people in Britain, his home country, say that “Allah (God) created living things.”[1] He commenced crude attacks on the Atlas of Creation and Adnan Oktar. He imagined that this technique, rather than science, would work to his advantage, but he was wrong.

In the face of all these developments, Adnan Oktar invited Richard Dawkins, who had no response to give to all the scientific evidence, to a face-to-face meeting. Dawkins was told that his own evidence, if he had any, would be compared with that in the Atlas of Creation, and that the meeting could take place anywhere of his choosing. In addition, Adnan Oktar’s challenge to the whole world was also to apply to Richard Dawkins; a prize of 10 trillion new Turkish Lira was to be given to anyone coming up with a single transitional fossil.

BUT DAWKINS REJECTED ALL THESE CALLS. “I have vowed not to debate with Creationists,” he said.

While it is unclear just what Dawkins, who does not believe in Allah, actually swore by, his words in effect meant “I admit defeat.”

In despair, Dawkins is now reduced to DEBATING WITH CHILDREN on the documentary film he produced for Darwin called The Genius of Charles Darwin. Fearful of and having rejected Adnan Oktar’s calls for a debate, he is now attempting to deceive middle school children. But students are much more aware than Dawkins imagines. Despite all Dawkins’ atheist propaganda, they still strongly defend the fact that Allah created them and all living things and adopt a highly rational position.

The method Dawkins uses to try and win over these highly aware students is interesting: Dawkins takes them to a coastal fossil bed and tries to convince them with the fossils there. And, what is more, with fossils belonging to perfect life forms and dating back many millions of years... One fossil is a perfectly formed AMMONITE, also dating back millions of years. In the documentary, Dawkins tries to mislead the students with this fossil into believing that living things descended from one another by stages. In the same way that nobody else in the world can be taken in any longer, however, neither are the students fooled by Dawkins’ deception.

Since he is unable to confront the true scientific evidence, Dawkins is now trying to deceive children. But he has failed here, too. Because Darwinism is such an illogical, groundless and ignorant theory that even children find it ridiculous. If Dawkins really had any confidence in himself and his false theory, he should oppose the scientific evidence proving the fact of Creation with scientific evidence of his own. The invitation is still open. But he can never do that, of course. Because Darwinism is the worst disgrace to science, the worst lie and the worst nonsense of the century. And the whole world is aware of that. Dawkins’ efforts are all in vain. Not even children believe in the discredited theory of evolution any more.


[1] Guardian, 2 February 2009, Riazat Butt, "Only 25% of Britons believe on Darwin’s theory of evolution”

 

[hafizsaad]

DAWKINS IS AWARE THAT HE WAS DEFEATED, HE IS PRESENTING EXCUSES NOT TO MEET WITH MR. ADNAN OKTAR


On March 17, 2009 issue of Wall Street Journal website, an article by Andrew Higgins titled “An Islamic Creationist Stirs a New Kind of Darwinian Struggle” in which he featured Mr. Adnan Oktar is posted. In the article in question, it is noteworthy that Dawkins’s supposed reason for not meeting with the author 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. So, what we have to ask is this:

Are the children that Dawkins meets with for discussions experts on zoology and biology? Is the priest he discussed the subject with 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.

Another question mark comes to mind. Dawkins uses his claim that Mr. Adnan Oktar does not know about zoology as an excuse not to debate with him, but at the same time, he never seems to put down Adnan Oktar’s Atlas of Creation, a book that shook the world. At every available opportunity, he organizes meetings, attends meetings organized by others, deliberately puts the Atlas of Creation on the agenda, collects people around him and makes comments on the book. He does his best to criticize (in his own eyes) the author’s works, although he absolutely declines to meet with him. The way Dawkins is so reluctant to enter into a debate with Mr. Adnan Oktar, despite all the latter’s calls, but still tries to respond (in his own eyes) to the author’s views, and produces analyses on this matter, shows just how alarmed he is by the author’s works. The only reason that Dawkins refuses to meet with Mr. Adnan Oktar is that HE HAS BEEN TOTALLY DEFEATED AND HAS NO ANSWER TO GIVE.

 

[hafizsaad]

Dawkins! You Can't Reach A Point By Debating Priests


You've turned down Mr. Adnan Oktar's face to face debate offer by bringing along scientific evidence. Now you only debate secondary school children and priests. If you're after victory, you'll be ashamed. Would it be a victory to defeat a priest, who has no information about Darwinism? Sooner or later, you will confront Mr. Adnan Oktar. What are you going to do then?

Your works feel show intended, you keep claiming you're an African ape. Whereas you know your grandmaster's explanation on this matter.

"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, ARE OF ANY VALUE or AT ALL TRUSTWORTHY. Would any one TRUST IN THE CONVICTIONS OF A MONKEY'S MIND, IF THERE ARE ANY CONVICTIONS IN SUCH A MIND?"1​

As you see, your grandmaster Darwin says opinion of a monkey cannot be trusted. How do you take this?

The fact that you choose secondary school children for a debate shows your desperation. But this is a fact that even the secondary school children do not believe what you're saying. They're just laughing at what you're saying and they all say that they believe in Allah (God). Both the children and the priests you're arguing, love Allah and the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). They believe in Hereafter and the importance of good morality. They see that the universe has been created by a magnificent art. THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN DECEIVE THEM!

Rather than arguing with children and priests, COME DEBATE MR. ADNAN OKTAR if you can trust your power, knowledge and scientific proofs, if you have any.

YET YOU CANNOT COME. BECAUSE YOU ARE VERY WELL AWARE THAT THIS DEBATE WILL BE OVER BEFORE IT STARTS AND YOU ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO BE DEFEATED.

WHEN:

Only 5 of 100 million fossils are laid before you

You're asked if a single protein can emerge by chance

The existence of 100 million fossils are mentioned

The emergence of irreducibly complex systems of living things are asked

You apprehend you have no answer about the emergence of life

You have no answer for the Cambrian animals

You have no explanation for Darwinist forgeries

You would LOOK UP IN THE AIR AND THINK FOR HOURS again as you did when you were asked if there was a "transitional form fossil"...


But with the rotten logic you're defending, YOU CANNOT COME UP WITH AN ANSWER EVEN IF YOU'VE THOUGHT UP UNTIL THE MORNING.

You cannot bring out scientific evidence, but only display ludicrous manners and try to entertain people. You cannot reach a point, trying to entertain children by jokes and comedy. By this way, you wouldn't be recognized as a scientist, YOU WOULD BE A COMEDY ARTIST.

There is nothing you can do. You cannot come to a conclusion with joke and comedy. You need to respond with scientific evidence, REAL EVIDENCE. If you cannot, YOU NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR BIG FAILURE. Remember, even Darwin, accepted that his theory would be demolished unless a transitional-fossil is found. WE ARE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL and DARWIN'S THEORY IS DEMOLISHED! Be honest and come and confront Mr. Adnan Oktar with scientific evidence, if there is any! If there is not – which is in fact impossible – then acknowledge the failure the entire world is aware of.


ref
1 Charles Darwin, Letter to William Graham, 1881. Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, No. 1, p. 285 (New York: Basic Books, 1959)

 

[sirajstc]

JAZAKALLA KAHAIR BROTHER HAFIZ

 

[Wal Bada]

Oka Dawkins ta pena thanaka daapanko, meka dawkins kiyawanawayi?

 

[sirajstc]

api ema site ekatama oka daanawa oooge yaaluwek meka uuge site ekata ghilla dannath ida ne

 

[Mononoke]

"Let Dawkins explain us how all colorful, lively, three-dimensional and perfectly clear images, shortly life itself, can form in the pitch dark human brain and who sees this image in the brain!" and you expect yourself to be taken seriously!