5/25/09

Atheism, Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Richard Dawkins

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 comments:

  1. Masked MarauderMay 25, 2009 at 1:32 PM

    How this [following the money] relates to science, biology, the Darwinian theory of evolution or creationism is lost upon me. 
    This is funny coming from somebody who does exactly this himself!

    The criticisms of the substance of the book aren't so frivolous as you want people to believe. His "model" of an ancient caddis fly is a fishing lure, complete with hook! (here)

    An honest and more thorough examination of the issue can be found here, in case anyone is actually interested in the substance of the case.

    The basic argument that fossils similar in appearance to contemporary organisms "prove" that evolution never happened are fatuous, especially when you compare a contemporary species with a plastic fishing lure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. KenMay 25, 2009 at 8:45 PM

    MaskedMarauder,
    I will consider your comments to be in jest as the performance of professors of biology Richard Dawkins was no less than pathetic.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  3. KenMay 25, 2009 at 9:08 PM

    Incidentally,
    Anyone reading these comments really should read the post at the link provided above in order to see that MaskedMarauder also does not understand the difference between questioning the funding of the book that Dawkins cannot refute on the one hand and poiting out that books and DVDs are being sold about the finds (fossil or manuscript) on the other.

    aDios,
    Mariano .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Masked MarauderMay 26, 2009 at 9:52 AM

    One mistake in more than 700 pages! No joking! Maybe there is something to this book.  
    This is grossly misleading. The mistakes are legion. And to call the one in question just "a mistake" is like calling WWII just a skirmish. Yahya's opus is a monumental and profound aberration. Confusing an eel with a snake, or a crinoid with an annelid is like taking your broken lawn mower to a gynecologist to be repaired.

    Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) is a buffoon and/or a fraud. That Mariano defends him speaks volumes about the heart and soul of christianity today and slack-brained religion in general.

    The hypocrisy Mariano peddles here is blatant and profound to the point of being openly dishonest. Imagine what Mariano would say if Dawkins had a criminal record and was publishing under an assumed name. Imagine what Mariano would say if Dawkins gave away 10,000 copies of one of his books for free to teachers and schools at a personal expense of hundreds of thousands dollars. Imagine what Mariano would say if Dawkins made such factually absurd statements as that the biblical Jerusalem was in Fiji and Jesus rode a Harley. Oktar's record is just that bad. But still Mariano stands by his man, defending laughable error from truth.

    Mariano could have taken the day off or written a responsible opinion on a substantive issue, but instead chose to write another lengthy snarling diatribe defending the scholarship of a buffoon. Not by arguing that Oktar is correct, because even Mariano knows that is a lost cause, but by trying to make Dawkins look mean or lazy.

    What needs to be kept in mind is that even IF Dawkins were the meanie Mariano wants us to believe he is, Oktar is still a buffoon, his book is still a crock and Dawkins' scathing criticism is still just.

    ... MaskedMarauder also does not understand the difference between questioning the funding of the book that Dawkins cannot refute on the one hand and poiting out that books and DVDs are being sold about the finds (fossil or manuscript) on the other. 
    I am aware of the difference: there is none. The root question, no matter how you try to obfuscate it, is: cui bono? Who benefits?

    In the one case Mariano insinuates, without evidence, that the scholarship on Ida is tainted because some of the people involved in the research might profit from their significant and acknowledged achievement. In the other case murky money is bankrolling a drive to inject fake scholarship of no merit into schools. The directions of monetary flow are opposite in the two cases, but underneath that superficial difference lies the same implication that entanglement with money matters in evaluating their respective claims.

    I have no problem with that. In fact, I agree. Big bucks in science is always a reason for concern. It should be in religion too, but that appears to be asking too much from people who pride themselves on being like sheep.

    But at the end of the day, no matter who makes or loses money in the Ida affair, the fossil is still an authentic and significant contribution to primate paleontology that many people will be eager to read about and pay to see. And Mariano's intellectual mentor Yahya's book is still a steaming heap of baloney he has to give away.

    ReplyDelete
  5. jdhueyMay 26, 2009 at 1:45 PM

    Given the egregiousness and inanity of the errors, just how many errors should Dawkins and Myers have pointed out? If I were to send you a 700 page picture book about how all the Catholic Popes were really space aliens and you look at a page at random and it shows a picture of Alexander Pope opposite a picture of Michael Rennie, you really wouldn't need to look much further, now would you?

    Also, since it is obvious that the book is NOT a real attempt at science, it is reasonable to assume that there is a social, political or financial motivation for sending the book. So, questioning the motives behind the author is quite valid.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJune 1, 2009 at 2:24 PM

    Haven't they put HaHa Yahoo in jail as yet? Maybe while he is in there he could complete his education. After all he failed to complete his course in Interior Design.

    He has no qualifications in science (zilch, zero, nada, none) so perhaps this is something he could rectify as well.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJuly 7, 2009 at 5:17 AM

    Adnan Oktar is indeed in jail, for trying to blackmail a woman into having sex with her.
    Dawkins would wiped the floor with Oktar's naive book. It isn't even Oktar's work, but that of his lackeys. Oktar was trying desperately to become some sort of messiah figure to the Islamic world, but so far has succeeded only in showing;
    1. That he knows nothing about evolution.
    2. that he is too lazy to write the books attributed to him.
    3. That he is a delusional megalomaniac.


    Anyone that thinks Oktar has demolished evolution should really take lessons in molecular biology.


    Eyup Erdogan.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousJuly 7, 2009 at 5:27 AM

    "One mistake in more than 700 pages! No joking! Maybe there is something to this book. By the way, I do not know this book nor much about its contents and am thus not endorsing it but discrediting Richard Dawkins for doing such a Pre-Atheist-Kindergarten level job of critiquing it."


    The only kindergarten here is Oktar's childish conceptions of creationism.
    Since you haven't read it at all Dawkins has the edge over you.
    If you think that Oktar's ignorant book may have something in it after Dawkins has shown the lack of BASIC biological and zoological knowledge in it, I must assume that you are still in kindergarten as far as common sense is concerned.
    By the way your critique of dawkins was a real howler. You suck at criticism.


    Eyup Erdogan.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousJuly 10, 2009 at 7:48 AM

    Harun Yahya Rocks..........

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousAugust 2, 2009 at 11:52 AM

    "JAMSHED MOIDU said...
    Harun Yahya Rocks.........."

    I find it edifying that someone is naive and ignorant enought to side with such a huge loser as Haha Yahoo.
    But then again sad losers need someone to emulate.;)

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)