Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahyas Atlas of Creation

Richard Dawkins on Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation Oxford professor and biologist Richard Dawkins discusses Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation, at the first international conference on political Islam, Sharia law and civil society, organised by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. Buy an ad on DigitalJournal.com The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain is an organization that brings toegether ex-believers in Islam and that, among other things, defends freedom for all. They organized the first international conference on political Islam, Sharia law and civil society which was held on October 10th, 2008. Professor Dawkins discussed Harun Yahya's (whose real name is Adnan Oktar) book 'Atlas of Creation'. In this book, Harun Yahya claims to show the truth of creation and the falsehood of evolution theory. However incredible it may sound, Harun Yahya is believed by countless people around the planet, and Richard Dawkins has taken it upon himself to show how obviously flawed Harun Yahya is, and how gullible and undiscerning the people who believe him are. Adnan Oktar is not a typical young earth creationist, but an old earth creationist. That indicates that he at least understands what fossils are and how old they are. His claim is that, in spite of the age of the fossils, ancient animals have always been the same and have never changed. In his book, he shows examples of fossils next to modern animals or plants and claims that they are still identical. Prof. Dawkins discusses several examples of this in order to show what he calls the "depth of his zoological erudition." Yahya doesn't seem to know the difference between an eel and a snake, a fossil insect and a well-tied fishing lure complete with hook. Harun Yahya has since changed his book to counter some, but not all, such criticisms. It shows the naive reasoning of the man and of creationists like him. In defense of creationism, Harun Yahya has offered a prize of ten trillion Turkish lira (4.4 trillion British pounds) to anyone who can produce an intermediate fossil between two species, something creationists like Harun Yahya claim cannot exist. Unfortunately for those who'd like to claim the prize, Harun Yahya has very strange ideas about the nature of such an intermediate fossil. Although Harun Yahya is an old earth creationist, and hence, quite different from the American Christian fundamentalist movement, he clearly has not a beginning of clue of the nature of the theory of evolution. Caught in the idea that species never change, he wants evolutionists to show him hybrid forms between two modern-day species. A good example of this is the crocoduck which creationists claim does not exist. Well, evolutionists won't disagree with him there, since this is not how evolution works. Species do not evolve from one modern-day species into another by some magical morphing process, rather, they evolve over time. After his short talk, Richard Dawkins answers questions form the public. This is really a must-see video for people who wonder why so few evolutionists want to have a debate with creationists: creationists are so utterly clueless about science that a debate is not possible. Indeed, should they have any scientific knowledge, they would simply not be creationists. A notable exception to this is Kurt Wise, a potentially brilliant scientist who was so indoctrinated by religion as a child, that he was unable to free himself from it, and chose to believe scripture in spite of the evidence. Please leave a comment if you want, this is just to show what is out there... And before you go and spam, dl it watch it and make up your own mind... cheers the_phyrexian Are you a British citizen? Click here! (Petition to stop Sharia Law) http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/shariastop/

udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80
udp://open.demonii.com:1337
udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969
udp://exodus.desync.com:6969

sistromo (2008-10-29)

Commenter: Since you clearly know nothing about science (as your bigoted, ignorant comments have so far consistently shown) your criticism of a scientist, in particular one with Dawkins's stature, is very laughable. Please keep it coming, so everybody can see what a semi-literate, theocratic wannabee you are.

Tamarind777 (2008-11-24)

You know what really gets me? MOST of you Dawkins followers are actually blindly following him straight to hell not knowing that Dawkins has both an agenda and FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS to promote atheism and evolution. He was given a huge endowment to completely give his life to atheism and evolution and to "prove" promote these religions, so even if he changes his mind and believes that there is a God, he still would not tell you, his loyal disciples. He is a liar, deceiver, and has zero logical skills. If you haven't notice, he uses the same old stupid lines when debating very learned creationists and he NEVER answers the questions posed to him. He is also a very academically dishonest person for someone who calls himself an academician. I wonder what your conversation with him will be when you are both burning in hell fire, right next to each other? Will you ask him why he mislead you and deceived you? Will you all hold hands and try and console each other for being so stupid? For believing a religion (evolution) that has NO basis in science, a religion that's called science although it CONTRADICTS the very definition of science?

Tamarind777 (2008-11-24)

keysersuze at 2008-10-28 22:36 CET:
" leave us intellectuals alone..." LOL...Intellectuals? Should I tell you what you believe?
You believe:
- Life and cells comes from non-life...contradicts the cell theory!
- Fossils prove evolution...How do you prove bones had descendants who carried on their genes? Illogical nonsense.
- Matter was created (naturally)...Contraction to the Law of Conservation of Mass.
- A grape and an elephant had a common ancestor...Real science is testable, observable, and repeatable.
- Dead trees stood straight up for hundred of millions of years...Polystrate fossils show fossilized trees extending through multiple rock layers you believe to be hundred of millions of years old.
- That each animal is evolving to give rise to another kind of animal...Stupidity and lies. First of all, what happened to the Coelacanth, dragon flies, ants, crocs, a cockroaches? Fossils of ALL these animals were found next to dinosaur fossils and today they are the EXACT SAME animal, completely unchanged. What happened, they forgot to evolve?
I can go on with tons of more illogical nonsense you believe and call it science. Voo-doo science, maybe. The only sense you make is NONSENSE. What's intellectual about your folly? Aren't you even smart enough to realize that VIRTUALLY ALL the branches of science were started by Christians or Theists? God was so right when He said in the Bible, "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God."

kahveisteyen (2008-12-13)

Dawkins has not asked anyone to believe him. There is knowing and believing and it is quite moronic to confuse these two to each other.

Tamarind777 (2009-07-26)

bodthedog
Well, well, you sure have a lot to say, but your argument lack real substance. Just read what I've written and what you've said in defense. You didn't answer even ONE of my questions. First of all, if you don't know that Richard Dawkins has committed 100% of his time now to promote the lies and religious belief of evolution, then YOU don't read much nor are you informed. Secondly, evolution IS a religious belief, and I'll go into that further. Even Dawkins has admitted to this on the Bill O'riley show. It's clearly a faith-based worldview that even he, as lying and deceptive as he is, admitted to. He is perhaps the most misinformed person there is. In fact, I know a 10-year-old who can out debate him any day.
Now, you say you don't want to pick to pieces what I've written? Please, do the world a favor and debunk what I've said. ALL the evidences that I've referenced debunk evolution. NONE of the branches of science bears it out. Evolution never happened. You cannot name one iota of evidence that demonstrates that reptiles gave rise to birds. Where did the information to produce feathers come from? Outer space like you claim the first cell came from? Why can't you just say you just don't know and be honest? It's just nonsense. Yes, evolution is a religion because it is NOT a part of any SCIENTIFIC theory. That is what I mean when I say it's not science. Yes, it's a theory, but it has no basis in science. You say when a theory is not borne out it's discarded? Well, should I name all the hoaxes and lies used to promote evolution that still exist today? And MOST of them are still in the textbooks. There are literally hundreds of lies used to promote evolution and when the verdict returns and says that there is no evidence for it, it's still NOT discarded. Here are just a few of the lies: do you still believe that a human embryo has gill slits? My teacher at Wayne State University still does. She is a biologist and does not know this to be false. Do you also believe that the appendix is vestigial? Then you don't know squat about human anatomy; do you still believe that Ernst Haeckel drawings of embryonic development are true? Then you're just plain deceitful or need to read more. Haeckel deliberately misrepresented his drawings to promote evolution and was even kicked out of his university for it. But those drawings are STILL in textbooks today promoting evolution! Nebraska man was a hoax, but still in textbooks; Piltdown man is another the same thing; and the latest, Ida, the lemur that?s supposed to be a missing link is pretty much a dead issue now. Many scientists now conclude that she was simply a lemur. Where is the retraction for this? You will NEVER hear one, and I am willing to bet anything that you will see it in textbooks as being a missing link between humans and apes.
I can go on and on about the lies and propaganda that this religion uses to push forward its agenda. Yes, there is a clear agenda. That agenda is to get rid of God and promote this lie that says you can live any way you want. You can have sex with whomever and whatever you want and there is no judgment. Yes, I am using sex as an example because that's the evolution agenda. It's simply a pro-gay, immorality-promoting propaganda tool. Are you familiar with what Julian Huxley says about what God does to their sexual mores? He said that?s the reason folks gravitate toward evolution simply on faith. And he never said this, you need to read more.
I can ask you question after question about evolution, things that directly contradicts this religion and you would NEVER be able to give a rational, scientific explanation for. Evolution is an irrational and dangerous religion. It's a religion because: time is the god that creates (using mutations); it's also a miracle because no one has ever seen it in action, you simply believe it on faith alone. By the way, the priest of your religion, Dawkins, is such daft person; he uses the idiotic image of Christians believing in his beloved "Spaghetti monster." He uses this to ridi

Tamarind777 (2009-07-26)

Dawkins is such a dullard. Just listen to what he once said. When asked what he would tell God on judgment day IF there is a God, he responded by saying this: that he would look God in the eyes and say, "Sir, why did you take such great pains to hide yourself?" Then he looked all smug as though he had just said something so profound, something that would sure have God stumped. Little does he realize is that all God would have to say to him is:
"Greater than you and lesser than you have found me; richer than you and poorer than you have found me; less educated than you and more educated than you have found me. How come you couldn't?" You see, God says in the Bible, "If you seek me with ALL your heart, you will find me." It?s not that God is hiding, but that he just refuses to humble himself and seek God. He is his own god.

Tamarind777 (2009-07-26)

BTW, bodthedog, regarding your comment about Monday? Well, I don't go to church on Sunday. I keep the Sabbath (Saturday) according to the Ten Commandments. Even the Sabbath commandment is common sense. Just look at it: God says six days you should work and rest on the 7th (Saturday). Sunday is the first day of the week, the first work day, Monday is NOT the first day of the week. Folks actually rest first then work. Huh? That is backwards. Isn't it more common sense to rest AFTER you work when you?re tired? Do people take a break first when they go to work, or do they work first then take a break?
The Bible is just replete with common sense for our health and folks just continue to stumble in darkness. If folks would only listen to God, then they would be healthier and happier. Try looking up the healthiest people on the planet and see who they are, the healthiest and longest living people as a population. Look up National Geographic magazine from Nov. 2005. They happen to be Seventh-day Adventists.

Tamarind777 (2010-09-11)

bodthedog,
No, I won't see you on the other side, not unless you repent and humble yourself before a loving God who died to save you. May God have mercy on you and those you lead astray.

g-apple (2011-06-20)

It really seems a great stuff but I am waiting for any seeder to help me have this video.
Please seed & thanks a lot.