News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

The Kent Hovind of Turkey

Started by Squid, September 29, 2008, 10:42:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Squid

Adnan Oktar aka Harun Yahya has promised approximately $8 trillion (10 trillion Turkish Lira) - yes "trillion" dollars to anyone who provides an intermediate fossil and "proves evolution":

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/creationist-offers-prize-for-fossil-proof-of-evolution-945289.html

But, just like Hovind's "$250,000 challenge" and a similar offer by Ray Comfort - these guys have a very different idea of what constitutes "intermediate fossils" and what "proves evolution".  Their demands are a consequence of their distorted idea of what evolution is - they want a chimera - because they cannot distinguish between the concepts of development and evolution - why?  Because they do not have the requisite education in biology and have no want to learn.

I've read a couple of Oktars books - one did not ever cite even ONE peer reviewed journal - NOT ONE.  His support? News stories and creationist websites and even citing himself.  I just wish I had as much free time as this douchebag does.

Recusant

An example of Adnan Oktar/Harun Yahya's take on evolution:

Quote from: ""Harun Yahya""THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE TO EVOLUTION: SOUL

There are many species in the world that resemble one another. For instance, there may be many living beings resembling a horse or a cat and many insects may look like one another. These similarities do not surprise anyone.

The superficial similarities between man and ape somehow attract too much attention. This interest sometimes goes so far as to make some people believe the false thesis of evolution. As a matter of fact, the superficial similarities between men and apes do signify nothing. The rhinoceros beetle and the rhinoceros also share certain superficial resemblances but it would be ludicrous to seek to establish some kind of an evolutionary link between these two creatures, one being an insect and the other a mammal, on the grounds of that resemblance.

Other than superficial similarity, apes cannot be said to be closer to man than to other animals. Actually, if level of intelligence is considered, then the honeybee producing the geometrically miraculous structure of the honeycomb or the spider building up the engineering miracle of the spider web can be said to be closer to man. They are even superior in some aspects.

There is a very big difference between man and ape regardless of a mere outward resemblance. An ape is an animal and is no different from a horse or a dog considering its level of consciousness. Yet man is a conscious, strong-willed being that can think, talk, understand, decide, and judge. All of these features are the functions of the soul that man possesses. The soul is the most important difference that interposes a huge gap between man and other creatures. No physical similarity can close this gap between man and any other living being. In nature, the only living thing that has a soul is man.


GOD CREATES ACCORDING TO HIS WILL

Would it matter if the scenario proposed by evolutionists really had taken place? Not a bit. The reason is that each stage advanced by evolutionary theory and based on coincidence could only have occurred as a result of a miracle. Even if life did come about gradually through such a succession of stages, each progressive stage could only have been brought about by a conscious will. It is not just implausible that those stages could have occurred by chance, it is impossible.

If is said that a protein molecule had been formed under the primordial atmospheric conditions, it has to be remembered that it has been already demonstrated by the laws of probability, biology, and chemistry that this could not have been by chance. But if it must be posited that it was produced, then there is no alternative but to admit that it owed its existence to the will of a Creator. The same logic applies to the entire hypothesis put forward by evolutionists. For instance, there is neither paleontological evidence nor a physical, chemical, biological, or logical justification proving that fish passed from water to land and formed the land animals. But if one must have it that fish clambered onto the land and turned into reptiles, the maker of that claim should also accept the existence of a Creator capable of making whatever He wills come into being with the mere word "be". Any other explanation for such a miracle is inherently self-contradictory and a violation of the principles of reason.

The reality is clear and evident. All life is the product of a perfect design and a superior creation. This in turn provides concrete evidence for the existence of a Creator, the Possessor of infinite power, knowledge, and intelligence.

That Creator is God, the Lord of the heavens and of the earth, and of all that is between them.

From "Harun Yahya's" site.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


LegendarySandwich

"I'm offering 6 gazillion billion dollars to anyone who can prove to me with absolute certainty that I'm not living in a virtual simulation! Anyone? Anyone?"

Stevil

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich""I'm offering 6 gazillion billion dollars to anyone who can prove to me with absolute certainty that I'm not living in a virtual simulation! Anyone? Anyone?"
I am sure that it is most likely that we do exist within a simulation. The end of days will be when the creator turns the simulation off.

hackenslash

Ah, yes. The numpty who cited a fishing lure as evidence that evolution doesn't happen. Very credible.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

DJAkuma

I'd like to see some proof that he has that much money in the first place, it kinda sounds like he can't afford a trip to a museum. Maybe someone should mail him a library card.

karadan

Isn't every fossil an intermediate fossil simply because almost all life forms past and present are in a permanent state of evolution?

Man, that guy sounds like a right tool.
QuoteI find it mistifying that in this age of information, some people still deny the scientific history of our existence.

hackenslash

The idiots who erect the 'no transitional forms' nonsense don't actually understand what a transitional form is. A transitional form is simply any form that shows a progression of complexity of features. It should be noted that it could be the case that not one single fossil in the fossil record is actually ancestral to any living organism. What progresses is features, from the very simple to the complex. This is what we see in the fossil record. Every single fossil in the record could have died without issue, and the record would still constitute evidence of transition.

This is symptomatic of digital thinking. The simple fact is that, if every single organism that had ever died on Earth were represented in the fossil record, any temporal conception of species would be entirely meaningless.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

DJAkuma

Quote from: "hackenslash"The idiots who erect the 'no transitional forms' nonsense don't actually understand what a transitional form is. A transitional form is simply any form that shows a progression of complexity of features. It should be noted that it could be the case that not one single fossil in the fossil record is actually ancestral to any living organism. What progresses is features, from the very simple to the complex. This is what we see in the fossil record. Every single fossil in the record could have died without issue, and the record would still constitute evidence of transition.

This is symptomatic of digital thinking. The simple fact is that, if every single organism that had ever died on Earth were represented in the fossil record, any temporal conception of species would be entirely meaningless.

I'm not sure if complexity is quite right, things often become less complex as well through evolution. For example, animals that lose organs like eyes after long periods in an environment where they're not needed or complex toes that evolve into a more simple hoof.

I guess that's another major misconception a lot of creationists have is that evolution has to make things more complex and not less.

hackenslash

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I'm not sure if complexity is quite right, things often become less complex as well through evolution. For example, animals that lose organs like eyes after long periods in an environment where they're not needed or complex toes that evolve into a more simple hoof.

Yes, but you're talking about individual cases. The trend overall is from simpler to more complex. In that context, the point stands. Your point is well taken, however.

QuoteI guess that's another major misconception a lot of creationists have is that evolution has to make things more complex and not less.

Indeed. There is, of course, no requirement for increased complexity, but if you take the biosphere as a whole, that is generally what is reflected, as it shows a trend from simple single-celled organisms, through minor agglomerations of cells, to complex many-celled organisms with advanced function. In the case of individual species, things can certainly become more simplified, not least because one of the overriding principles behind evolution in general is economy. That's precisely why we see the loss of eye function in cave fish, as you quite correctly point out in your example.

Incidentally, if you're interested, there is a brilliant article on the PAX6 gene and blind cave fish by the inimitable Calilasseia at Ratskep HERE. Well worth a read, with lots of refs and everything. Easily my favourite poster anywhere on the interwebz.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

DJAkuma

Quote from: "hackenslash"
Quote from: "DJAkuma"I'm not sure if complexity is quite right, things often become less complex as well through evolution. For example, animals that lose organs like eyes after long periods in an environment where they're not needed or complex toes that evolve into a more simple hoof.

Yes, but you're talking about individual cases. The trend overall is from simpler to more complex. In that context, the point stands. Your point is well taken, however.

QuoteI guess that's another major misconception a lot of creationists have is that evolution has to make things more complex and not less.

Indeed. There is, of course, no requirement for increased complexity, but if you take the biosphere as a whole, that is generally what is reflected, as it shows a trend from simple single-celled organisms, through minor agglomerations of cells, to complex many-celled organisms with advanced function. In the case of individual species, things can certainly become more simplified, not least because one of the overriding principles behind evolution in general is economy. That's precisely why we see the loss of eye function in cave fish, as you quite correctly point out in your example.

Incidentally, if you're interested, there is a brilliant article on the PAX6 gene and blind cave fish by the inimitable Calilasseia at Ratskep HERE. Well worth a read, with lots of refs and everything. Easily my favourite poster anywhere on the interwebz.

Awesome article, thanks.

wildfire_emissary

Well, I guess we just have to wait for Oktar to fossilize. With a mind like that, he doesn't know he is the 'intermediate.'
"All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." -Voltaire

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: "hackenslash"Yes, but you're talking about individual cases. The trend overall is from simpler to more complex. In that context, the point stands. Your point is well taken, however.

Trend?  There are a lot of bacteria that have shunned this complexity fad, maybe next century there will be no forum posters to contend or defend their point.  :)

DJAkuma

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"
Quote from: "hackenslash"Yes, but you're talking about individual cases. The trend overall is from simpler to more complex. In that context, the point stands. Your point is well taken, however.

Trend?  There are a lot of bacteria that have shunned this complexity fad, maybe next century there will be no forum posters to contend or defend their point.  :)

Since bacteria represent the largest number of species wouldn't that be an indication that more complex life forms are more the exception than the rule? Perhaps they've got it all wrong and god really created bacteria in his image and we're simply misguided vessels created for the bacteria. After all, we are obviously designed to be the perfect habitat for them.

xSilverPhinx

These prizes that the numbskulls put out is getting quite annoying, especially when what they want is prove of evolution that disproves evolution. Kent Hovind is looking for a crocoduck, well if one is found then the current theory of evolution is false! Hmm...

Not to mention people who defend evolution don't even put as much importance on fossils and the fossil record as creationists do, who base their ideas just on what animals look like and their taxonomies.

DNA alone has a really strong case going for it, the fusion of one of our chromosomes (which remain separated in other apes) fossils found in accordance with their complexity in the geological strata, their distribution in accordance with the theory (easily seen in areas that have been isolated for so long such as Australia with marsupials)
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey