The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOUEVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!

Religions > Atheism > The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOUEVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Buddy III"
Date:	10 Oct 2007 04:45:43 PM
Object:	The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOUEVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions
Question #1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?
THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the
result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions. This
theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact. Underneath its
scientific façade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are
trying to impose on society. The bases of this theory, which has been
disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda
methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating,
and sleight of hand.
The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in
the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth
century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific
discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to
confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity. (MORE)
http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php
.

User: "Denis Loubet"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	10 Oct 2007 05:05:37 PM

"Buddy III" <buddy_al_irani@tehran.com> wrote in message
news:fejh6a$lus$1@aioe.org...

And that's just the first in a long string of creationist lies.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.

User: "Geoff"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 01:02:13 PM

Denis Loubet wrote:

"Buddy III" <buddy_al_irani@tehran.com> wrote in message
news:fejh6a$lus$1@aioe.org...

And that's just the first in a long string of creationist lies.

Fucking ignorance. I'm so sick of these idiots conflating abiogenesis with
evolution.
.

User: "Andy W"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	10 Oct 2007 06:01:25 PM

On 10 Oct, 23:05, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:

"Buddy III" <buddy_al_ir...@tehran.com> wrote in message

news:fejh6a$lus$1@aioe.org...

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

Question #1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?

THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the
result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions.

And that's just the first in a long string of creationist lies.

--
Denis Loubet
dlou...@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet

In fact, looking through the whole post, I couldn't find one sentence
that was NOT a creationist lie. I don't think Yahya can take a breath
without lying in the middle of it. And this "Buddy III" character
isn't even smart enough to do his own lying.
Andy
.

User: "skyeyes"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 01:31:10 PM

On Oct 10, 3:05 pm, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote:

"Buddy III" <buddy_al_ir...@tehran.com> wrote in message

news:fejh6a$lus$1@aioe.org...

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

Question #1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?

THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the
result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions.

Actually, it doesn't address the question of how life came about -
that's abiogenesis. Evolution merely states that populations of
organisms exhibit genetic changes over time.
A minor but important nitpick.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.

User: "The Chief Instigator"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 11:02:09 PM

Buddy III <buddy_al_irani@tehran.com> writes:

Since you can't get even the basics right, why should anyone believe your
idiocy?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Chicago 4, Houston 2 (October 6)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 12 at Iowa, 7:05
.

User: "Tokay Pino Gris"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONEYOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	10 Oct 2007 06:59:19 PM

Buddy III wrote:

Wrong. No other way to say it. Read it in any encyclopedia you like.
This

theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact.

Well, that much is true. But do you understand the difference between
"scientific fact" and "scientific theory"? Obviously not.
Underneath its

scientific façade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are
trying to impose on society.

It is a scientific theory. It does not "try to impose" anything.
The bases of this theory, which has been

disproved by science in every field,

Wrong. Wikipedia for example. Or any encyclopedia you like,
are suggestions and propaganda

methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating,
and sleight of hand.

Wrong. See above.

Wrong. See above....
On the contrary, all the methods employed to

confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity. (MORE)

Yaddayaddayadda
Tokay
--
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it."
Chinese Proverb
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 01:52:39 PM

In article <fejh6a$lus$1@aioe.org> Buddy III <buddy_al_irani@tehran.com> writes:

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

{...}

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php

Just browsing and looking at all the pretty pictures,
I notice:
INTERESTING SPINES: Hallucigenia: One of the creatures that
suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. This and many other Cambrian
fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from attack. One
thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these creatures
should have such an effective defense system when there were no
predators around. The lack of predators makes it impossible to explain
these spines in terms of natural selection.

<SNORKLE!!>
The boy has obviously never seen a fossil or reconstruction
of an Anomolacaris.
For example:
http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/anomolacaris.jpg

-- cary
.

User: "skyeyes"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 05:04:03 PM

On Oct 11, 11:52 am,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <fejh6a$lu...@aioe.org> Buddy III <buddy_al_ir...@tehran.com> writes:

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

{...}

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php

Just browsing and looking at all the pretty pictures,
I notice:

INTERESTING SPINES: Hallucigenia: One of the creatures that
suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. This and many other Cambrian
fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from attack. One
thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these creatures
should have such an effective defense system when there were no
predators around. The lack of predators makes it impossible to explain
these spines in terms of natural selection.

The Cambrian Age. Isn't that the period when God was using drugs?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONEYOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	16 Oct 2007 02:11:05 PM

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:52:39 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <fejh6a$lus$1@aioe.org> Buddy III <buddy_al_irani@tehran.com> writes:

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

{...}

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php

Just browsing and looking at all the pretty pictures,
I notice:

INTERESTING SPINES: Hallucigenia: One of the creatures that
suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. This and many other Cambrian
fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from attack. One
thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these creatures
should have such an effective defense system when there were no
predators around. The lack of predators makes it impossible to explain
these spines in terms of natural selection.

<SNORKLE!!>

The boy has obviously never seen a fossil or reconstruction
of an Anomolacaris.

For example:

http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/anomolacaris.jpg

That really lacks something, insofar as it fails to show the size of
anomalocaris compared to the rest. Remember, its name - "anomalous
shrimp" - was given not to the animal as a whole, but to the feeding
appendages, which are themselves about the size of most of the rest of the
critters.
Still, for my money, it's hallucigenia and wiwaxia all the way for
weirdness. Anomalocaris is mostly just big.
--
No cause is so right that one cannot find a fool following it.
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	16 Oct 2007 02:58:50 PM

In article <9vefu4-74e.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:52:39 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article <fejh6a$lus$1@aioe.org> Buddy III <buddy_al_irani@tehran.com> writes:

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

{...}

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php

Just browsing and looking at all the pretty pictures,
I notice:

INTERESTING SPINES: Hallucigenia: One of the creatures that
suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. This and many other Cambrian
fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from attack. One
thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these creatures
should have such an effective defense system when there were no
predators around. The lack of predators makes it impossible to explain
these spines in terms of natural selection.

<SNORKLE!!>

The boy has obviously never seen a fossil or reconstruction
of an Anomolacaris.

For example:

http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/anomolacaris.jpg

That really lacks something, insofar as it fails to show the size of
anomalocaris compared to the rest. Remember, its name - "anomalous
shrimp" - was given not to the animal as a whole, but to the feeding
appendages, which are themselves about the size of most of the rest of the
critters.

Still, for my money, it's hallucigenia and wiwaxia all the way for
weirdness. Anomalocaris is mostly just big.

Yeah. My girlfriend called me from a museum in Tronna "guess what
I'm looking at right now?" Right there in its original Burgess
Shale packaging.
It weren't tiny by any means...
-- cary
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	16 Oct 2007 11:03:50 PM

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:58:50 +0000 (UTC),

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <9vefu4-74e.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:52:39 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:
That really lacks something, insofar as it fails to show the size of
anomalocaris compared to the rest. Remember, its name - "anomalous
shrimp" - was given not to the animal as a whole, but to the feeding
appendages, which are themselves about the size of most of the rest of the
critters.

Still, for my money, it's hallucigenia and wiwaxia all the way for
weirdness. Anomalocaris is mostly just big.

Yeah. My girlfriend called me from a museum in Tronna "guess what
I'm looking at right now?" Right there in its original Burgess
Shale packaging.

It weren't tiny by any means...

I don't have my books available at the moment, but I think Gould had
some pictures with scales, so you could see the relative sizes. And
hallucigenia had good reason to have spines - although we're just
speculating that those things on its back were protective.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths;
if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance."
- A. J. Mims
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 01:46:20 PM

In article <fejh6a$lus$1@aioe.org> Buddy III <buddy_al_irani@tehran.com> writes:

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

Buddy III and Codebreaker: separated at birth?
-- cary
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 04:30:27 PM

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:46:20 +0000 (UTC),

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <fejh6a$lus$1@aioe.org> Buddy III <buddy_al_irani@tehran.com> writes:

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

Buddy III and Codebreaker: separated at birth?

From their brains.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president."
- George W. Bush, quoted in George Magazine, September, 2000
"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith,
deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by
God to save Germany."
- Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler
.

User: "JohnN"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 01:43:30 PM

On Oct 10, 5:45 pm, Buddy III <buddy_al_ir...@tehran.com> wrote:

Every field of science, really? How is evolution disproved by
meteorology?
JohnN
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 04:30:09 PM

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:43:30 -0000, JohnN <jnorris53@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Oct 10, 5:45 pm, Buddy III <buddy_al_ir...@tehran.com> wrote:

Every field of science, really? How is evolution disproved by
meteorology?

Weather only shows microchange, not macrochange.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
.

User: "JohnN"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 01:38:40 PM

On Oct 10, 5:45 pm, Buddy III <buddy_al_ir...@tehran.com> wrote:

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

Question #1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?

THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the
result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions. This
theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact. Underneath its
scientific fa=E7ade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are
trying to impose on society. The bases of this theory, which has been
disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda
methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating,
and sleight of hand.

The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in
the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth
century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific
discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to
confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity. (MORE)

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php

Just so you know, you have to use a knife with a silver blade to kill
EVILution. Also there has to be a full moon.
JohnN
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	10 Oct 2007 08:33:01 PM

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:45:43 -0400, Buddy III
<buddy_al_irani@tehran.com> wrote:

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

Question #1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Which of the many THEORIES of evolution are you talking about?

THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about

That's the concept of abiogenesis, it has nothing to do with evolution
or any of the theories of evolution.

as the result of chance

Chemistry doesn't occur by chance.

This theory is not a scientific law

Scientific theory *IS* "scientific law". They're two terms for the
same thing.

or a proven fact.

Facts aren't "proven", they just are, and science doesn't prove.

The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis

ALL theories are first put forward as hypotheses.
Now that you've made a total fool of yourself, do you *really* want to
do it 19 more times?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
- Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
.

User: "raven1"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	10 Oct 2007 05:47:52 PM

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:45:43 -0400, Buddy III
<buddy_al_irani@tehran.com> wrote:

No, it doesn't. The TOE does not even address the origin of life, it
deals with how it developed and diversified once it was here.
Next stupid question?
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONEYOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 06:11:13 AM

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:45:43 -0400, Buddy III wrote:

Question #1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?

Because it is.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"How come God gets credit whenever something good happens? Where was he
when her heart stopped?"
- Dr. House
.

User: "MarkA"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 06:42:17 AM

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:45:43 -0400, Buddy III wrote:

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

Question #1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?

THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the
result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions. This
theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact. Underneath its
scientific façade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are
trying to impose on society. The bases of this theory, which has been
disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda
methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating,
and sleight of hand.

The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in
the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth
century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific
discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to
confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity. (MORE)

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php

Impressive. In the very first question, you demonstrate that you don't
even understand the scope of the TOE. Any point in even looking at
questions 2-20?
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.

User: "Kelsey Bjarnason"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONEYOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	14 Oct 2007 06:41:34 PM

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:45:43 -0400, Buddy III wrote:

The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution
in 20 Questions

Question #1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?

Which theory - there are several.

THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the
result of chance

Since neither the process nor the theories of evolution discuss the
origins of life, one must consider that you're simply too ignorant of even
the simplest introductory material on the matter to say anything
intelligent on the subject.
Not that there was much doubt about that.
--
Picking my favorite Christian is like picking my
favorite debilitating disease -- David Worrell
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	10 Oct 2007 06:26:24 PM

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:45:43 -0400, in alt.atheism , Buddy III
<buddy_al_irani@tehran.com> in <fejh6a$lus$1@aioe.org> wrote:

Not just chance, though.

and emerged by itself from natural conditions. This
theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact.

Right, it is bigger than a law and different than a fact: it is a
rigorous tested scientific model, a theory.

Underneath its
scientific façade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are
trying to impose on society.

Nope, it is a methodological materialist system scientists use to
understand and predict the world.

The bases of this theory, which has been
disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda
methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating,
and sleight of hand.

Oh, that, sure.

The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in
the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth
century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific
discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to
confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity. (MORE)

http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php

--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	10 Oct 2007 09:33:22 PM

Yahya?
Et tu Brute?
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.

User: "Buddy III"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONEYOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	11 Oct 2007 08:50:31 PM

Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian wrote:

Yahya?

Et tu Brute?

Pas du tout!
Je suis un papa avec deux petit mignons. Je crois en Dieu, mon Createur.
Est-ce qu'il y a du mal a ca?
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Re: The 20 Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!	25 Oct 2007 06:33:02 PM

On Oct 11, 8:50 pm, Buddy Turd
<Professional_Liar's_Asswipe@NuclearTarget.com> wrote:
Hey Chickenshit - ready for 20 answers and 20 more lies told by that
professional LIAR Adnan Oktar, aka Harun Yahya, aka The Yahoo?
They're on their way.
They're going to make you look like a complete idiot (not that that's
hard to do, you pretty much turn yourself into one every time you sit
at your keyboard). But here's your last chance to withdraw your LIES
before I knock you flat. Don't say you weren't warned.
Budikka
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: The 20 Answers That Stabbed Harun Yahya In The Heart - Part 1 of 2	27 Oct 2007 08:11:28 AM

The Collapse of Harun Yahya in 20 Answers
Buddy Turd made the huge mistake of starting a thread called "The 20
Questions That Stabbed EVILution In The Heart: BEGONE YOU EVIL
SPIRITED DOCTRINE!!!" (October 10th, alt.atheism)
Turd's mistake is that he's a mindless robot of creationism, thinking
that quoting a professional LIAR somehow makes those lies come true.
It doesn't. It merely makes an idiot out of whoever is quoting the
lies. Harun Yahya, aka Adnan Oktar is a LIAR and so is Buddy Turd.
At
http://www.harunyahya.com/20questions02.php
professional LIAR Harun Yahya (whose real name is Adnan Oktar) has a
piece titled "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution in 20
Questions". Yeah right! Here are the answers that the Yahoo and his
idiot followers are too fundamentally stupid to grasp.
#1 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #1: "Underneath its scientific fa=E7ade it is a
materialist worldview that Darwinists are trying to impose on
society."
Evolutionists are scientists who are trying to find the truth about
origins. Not one single theist ought to be standing in their way if
they have any faith at all, Why? Because if the theists are right,
then they would know that science would lead everyone inevitably to a
god eventually - unless, of course, that god is a deceptive god.
The fact that so very many theists are trying to stand in the way of
science is proof positive that they know, in their very soul, that
science will disprove their Biblical god in the long run.
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #2: "The bases of this theory, which has been
disproved by science in every field"
Quite the contrary. The Theory of Evolution has been supported by
every relevant science, including sciences which did not even exist
when Darwin and Wallace wrote down their views. How powerful is that?
- that you come up with a theory and offer what science you have to
support it, and then for the next ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS, every
shred of relevant science to be uncovered supports your theory!
Yahoo blathers on: "...even today many people think that the theory is
a proven fact,"
Those who do are idiots. Science is not about absolute truths. It's
about what the weight of the evidence supports. Evolution itself *is*
a fact. This has been proven. The *Theory of Evolution* is the only
scientific explanation for the *fact* of evolution. This, also, is a
fact. And every item of scientific discovery in the relevant fields
has supported the Theory of Evolution. *That's* a fact.
Listen to this inexplicable blather: "For this reason, some people do
not know what rotten foundations this theory has, how it is disproved
by science at every turn, and how evolutionists are trying to keep it
alive in its death throes."
Why? Creationists cannot offer a sensible answer to that question.
And how? How is it that someone like Einstein is able to shake the
very foundations of physics with an unorthodox perspective half a
century after Darwin? Where were the science police then? There were
none. There still are none today.
Scientists don't care what your theory states. What they care about
is if the evidence supports it. It would be the easiest thing in th
world to overturn the Theory of Evolution even today if you had the
science to support your position.
So why, in ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS has no one ever done it? The
fact that prevailing views can be overturned or moved in a different
direction is proven by Einstein, who came long after Darwin.
So whence this pathetic and transparent LIE from the creationists
about the Theory of Evolution?
I'll tell you where it came from. It came from their desperation and
stupidity. That's where.
The Yahoo then tells more lies about how the complexity of the cell
disproves evolution. Not at all!
Chemistry can form "boundary structures" similar to cell walls:
"Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.html
http://www.hms.harvard.edu/dms/bbs/fac/szostak.html
Molecules can mimic life:
"German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves.
Although several labs around the world have done the same, these
molecules can evolve as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
How complex would the first cell need to be?
"When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-
living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for
proteins. The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to
contain some 30,000...."
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.html
The smallest genome so far?
"Researchers now say that a symbiotic bacterium called Carsonella
ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, has taken the record for
smallest genome with just 159,662 'letters' (or base pairs) of DNA and
182 protein-coding genes."
http://tinyurl.com/ybca4u
J=2E Craig Venter aims to find out just how small the genome can go:
"In 2003 the team made significant advances toward the goal of a
synthetic genome. Using new methods the group improved the speed and
accuracy of genomic synthesis by assembling the 5,386 base pair
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/
In short, Adnan Oktar is a pathetic little LIAR.
#2 HOW DOES THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEMONSTRATE THE
TRUTH OF CREATION?
It doesn't. To begin with, we've already shown that Adnan Oktar is a
LIAR when it comes to claiming that the Theory of Evolution has
collapsed or is collapsing.
Secondly, even if it were true that the Theory of Evolution had
collapsed, this would *not* in any way, shape or form prove any
alternate "theory". A theory has to stand on its own merit, not on
the failure of an alternative.
And there is no scientific alternative to the Theory of Evolution!
That's a fact.
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #3: "One is that living things emerged by
evolution."
The Theory of Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with how life
first emerged. It has to do only with the distribution, diversity and
history of life once it did emerge. Adnan Oktar is too stupid to
understand that what he's talking about here is not evolution but
abiogenesis.
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #4: "According to the theory of evolution,
which makes this claim, life began with the first cell, which itself
emerged by chance or by some hypothetical natural laws of "self-
organization."
Again, that's not evolution but abiogenesis.
Here's how fundamentally stupid Adnan Oktar truly is: "The second
answer is "Creation." All living things came into existence by being
created by an intelligent Creator.
So after hypocritically claiming that science disproves evolution and
offering not a shred of support for his LIE, he now pronounces that
creation is true - and offers not a shred of support for his LIE.
Does Adnan Oktar blasphemously think he is a god which can make
reality simply by saying "Let it be so"?
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #5: "...if one answer to a question with two
alternative possible answers is proved to be false, then the other
must be true."
This would apply if there were two equal but competing theories. But
there aren't. There is no alternative to the Theory of Evolution
which has any foundation in anything other than blind faith.
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #6: "This rule, one of the most fundamental
in logic, is called disjunctive inference (modus tollendo ponens)."
Clearly Adnan Oktar is as ignorant of logic as he is about pretty much
everything else upon which he feels himself qualified to pontificate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollendo_ponens
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #7: "The science of fossils (paleontology)
shows that all living groups emerged on Earth at different times, all
at once, and perfectly formed."
Not even close to being true. The fossil record shows that the very
first things to arise were single-celled organisms. Then there was
nothing. Nothing at all. FOR THREE BILLION YEARS. Nothing but lone
cells. Then about 600 million years ago we see the first
multicellular organisms. But these weren't remotely like anything we
see today.
Then we start seeing things that become, the closer we get to modern
times, more and more like modern organisms. We see fish-like
organisms, then simple fish, then more complex fish, then fish-like
amphibians, then amphibians, then reptile-like amphibians, then
reptiles, then mammal-like reptiles and bird-like reptiles, then birds
and mammals. We never see humans or anything approaching human in any
of the fossil record until about four million years ago. From that
point to this, we see organisms that are increasingly like modern
humans. You can read the summary here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html#mille
In short, the fossil record follows precisely what the Theory of
Evolution claims. It *has* to. The Theory of Evolution had its
foundation in the fossil record, not the other way around. That's
what professional LIARS like Adnan Oktar simply don't grasp. The
Theory of Evolution starts with the science and follows it wherever it
leads regardless of personal predilection or blind faith. That's
something that creationism can never claim.
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #8: "...living things came into existence
suddenly, in perfect and flawless form"
Yeah, like the snake with vestigial legs was perfectly designed:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/najash-rionegri.html
Like this fish to amphibian transitional that was predicted by the
Theory of Evolution and found exactly where it was predicted it should
be:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #9: "There are no fossils that show any so-
called "transition" between them."
The transitionals are there for all to see and are all-too-briefly
summarised here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Look at how stupid Adnan Oktar truly is: "Hallucigenia: One of the
creatures that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. This and many
other Cambrian fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from
attack. One thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these
creatures should have such an effective defense system when there were
no predators around."
So why did the "creator" give them spines, Adnan? Did he like the
punk look?
#3 HOW FAR BACK DO TRACES OF MAN GO? WHY DO THESE NOT SUPPORT
EVOLUTION?
Adnan The Yahoo screws up again: "Make no mistake about it,... They
are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a
California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he
would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be
able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would
you."
Where does the Theory of Evolution say that fossil hominid footprints
cannot look like modern human prints? Nowhere! Oktar pretends that
if the prints are the same, then the being was the same, but can he
point to a three million year old modern human skeleton from the
fossil record? Not even close.
You know why he can't? Because he's a pathetic little LIAR. Yes, the
footprints were similar, but they were smaller than modern humans,
curiously matching the fossils we have from the period which were non-
human hominids who were...smaller than modern humans (such as "Lucy",
for example).
Oktar stupidly repeats all the washed-out creationist claims such as
"If B descended from A how can A still be alive? Let's ask him the
same question: "If a child is descended from it parents, how can its
parents still be alive?
Yes, it *is* a stupid question - but no more stupid than the idiot one
Oktar asks about fossils. Let's look at one more LIE he tells"The
reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 million
years old, it has a more 'human-like' structure (according to the
criteria evolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-old
Australopithecus ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldest
ancestor."
If he'd said 700,000 years instead of 7,000,000 he'd have been a lot
closer. And the fossil is incomplete, and what we do have of it
doesn't look like a modern human but like a mix as the section on Homo
antecessor shows here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
#4 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT THE "BASIS OF BIOLOGY"?
Another LIE. The Theory fo Evolution is what makes biology maker
sense. That's not the same thing as saying it was the very first
thing to be discovered in biology. So either Oktar is addicted to
blindly parroting creationist claims or he's a complete idiot.
Look at this idiotic blather: "In our day, there is no reason why
science should remain tied to the theory of evolution.
Science isn't tied to the Theory of Evolution. Biology *is*.
Inextricably.
#5 WHY IS THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT RACES NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?
Look at this claim he makes: "SOME evolutionists try to put the
existence of different races forward as evidence for evolution."
Yet he cannot quote a single reference for this. In other words, he's
so lacking of material with which to attack the Theory of Evolution he
has to make up his own lies for no other reason that to puff himself
up by knocking them down! How pathetic is that?
Here's how he starts with this LIE: "Another way of putting it is:
'Since Adam and Eve's height, colour, and other features were those of
only two people, how could races with entirely different features have
emerged?'"
According to Biblical mythology, they were not two people: Eve was a
clone of Adam, which begs the question as to the creator's skill and
ability. The creator is so lacking in imagination (and magic,
evidently) that after creating the whole universe out of nothing, he
cannot create humans the same way. Why? We don't know and not a
single creationist can even begin to pretend they can tell you. Why?
Because creationism is based not on knowledge but on willful blind
ignorance.
So instead, this god has to abusively make a man from dirt and then is
so lacking in ability after that, he cannot even make a woman the same
way and instead has to clone her from Adam (or was it Saddam?).
Next, Oktar, after chiding what he calls "amateur evolutionists"
pretends he can lecture us about genetics! Look at this blather as he
tries to explain how these two clones could have given rise to all the
human races: "The source of this variation is the genetic information
possessed by the individuals within that species. As a result of
breeding between those individuals, that genetic information comes
together in later generations in different combinations. There is an
exchange of genetic material between the mother's and father's
chromosomes. Genes thus get mixed up with one another. The result of
this is a wide variety of individual features."
But this doesn't explain how this variety came to be in Adam and Eve
or why. The Biblical explanation differs from Oktar's. Is Oktar
claiming to be greater than god now, that he can explain it where this
god's word fails? The Bible says nothing of genetics, nothing of
genes, nothing of gene pools, nothing of variation or heredity. In
fact, the only place where the Bible even dips into the topic, it gets
it hopelessly wrong.
Oktar cannot even begin to explain what it is which makes one race
like this, the other like that, let alone how or why this variation
came to be in our genome. Yet he claims his non-existent explanation
explains it!
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #10 : "There are two genes that rule every
physical feature. One may dominate the other, or they may both
influence matters to an equal extent. For instance, two genes
determine the colour of a person's eyes. One comes from the mother,
the other from the father. Whichever gene is the dominant one, the
individual's eye colour will be determined by that gene."
Here's how it really is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color
and this is just for eyes - a relatively simple system. Oktar's
stupidity lies in the fact that he thinks he can take something like
this, simplify it until it's meaningless, then apply it willy-nilly to
everything.
#6 WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT HUMAN AND APE GENOMES ARE 99 PERCENT SIMILAR
AND THAT THIS CONFIRMS EVOLUTION NOT TRUE?
The fact is that depending upon where in the genome you look, you can
be more closely related to a chimpanzee than to a human:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2006/05/phylogeny_friday_5_may_2006.php
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #11 : "Humans and chimps are not '99%
similar' as the evolutionist fairy tale went on. Genetic similarity
turns out to be less than 95 %."
Harun Yahya's lie here is that he's using two different numbers
describing two different things and not having the honesty (or the
smarts - maybe he's just too stupid) to differentiate between them.
The truth is that it depends on whether you compare the whole genome,
in which case the 96% value is correct:
Here's what national Geographic said after a chimpanzee named "Clint"
had his genome sequenced and compared with the human sequence:
"A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human
genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our
DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is
ten times smaller than that between mice and rats."
http://tinyurl.com/b8j3h
or the functionally coding part of the genome, in which case the
genome is closer yet:
"The human and chimpanzee genomes differ by just 1.2% between the
coding genes."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3594937.stm
and this is because:
"Most of the big differences between human and chimpanzee DNA lie in
regions that do not code for genes, according to a new study. Instead,
they may contain DNA sequences that control how gene-coding regions
are activated and read.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061013104633.htm
This is why:
"Chimps are human, gene study implies"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3744.html
Adnan Oktar's puerile ignorance shows glaringly through: "Human DNA is
also similar to that of the worm, mosquito, and chicken!"
Yes it is, if you compare specific areas. The reason for this is, and
can only be, evolution. There's no reason whatsoever for a god who
can create everything out of nothing to put even one similarity in the
genomes of things as diverse as humans, plants, fish and birds, and
especially not to make them out of exactly the same basic chemicals.
#7 WHY IS THE CLAIM THAT DINOSAURS EVOLVED INTO BIRDS AN UNSCIENTIFIC
MYTH?
Short answer: it isn't. We know for a fact that many dinosaurs had
traits of birds, such as egg-laying:
http://tinyurl.com/2m8kc8
hollow bones:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/profiles/wedel_0609.php
feathers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
Here's another clueless claim from Harun Yahya: "Evolutionists who
claim that dinosaurs turned into birds need to be able to find
evidence for it in the fossil record. If dinosaurs did turn into
birds, then half-dinosaur, half-bird creatures must have lived in the
past and left some trace behind them in the fossil record."
Yep. Here they are:
National geographic four-winged dinosaurs:
http://tinyurl.com/36odsv
Dinosaur to bird transitional examples:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/fd.htm
More such transitions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #12 : "Studies of Archaeopteryx's anatomy
revealed that it possessed complete powers of flight, just like a
modern bird has. The efforts to liken it to a reptile are totally
unfounded."
Yes there is evidence it might have been able to fly:
http://tinyurl.com/34v5xu
But the fact is that it was not a modern bird or even close. It was,
roughly, fifty-fifty bird reptile mix:
"it preserves a number of avian features, such as a wishbone, flight
feathers, wings and a partially reversed first toe, and a number of
dinosaur and theropod features. For instance, it has a long ascending
process of the ankle bone, interdental plates, an obturator process of
the ischium, and long chevrons in the tail. In particular, Ostrom
found that Archaeopteryx was remarkably similar to the theropod family
Dromaeosauridae."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #13 : "Drs. Alan Feduccia and Julie Nowicki
of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill... opened a series
of live ostrich eggs at various stages of development and found what
they believe is proof that birds could not have descended from
dinosaurs..."
Notice the ellipsis (the three dots) at the end of the "quote"?
That's a sure sign a creationist is lying. It's a sure sign they left
something out which will prove that what they just got through saying
was dishonest, distorted, or an outright lie.
Alan Feduccia is an evolutionist. Just because he believes the
evidence doesn't support a particular line of descent doesn't mean
there's no line of descent that he supports.
Here's an example of a quote where Feduccia appears to be denying
evolution - and an explanation for it:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quote_feduccia.html
Here's an article that contains the quote that Harun Yahya distorts:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020815072053.htm
At the end of that article, it says this: "Far more likely is that
birds and dinosaurs had a much older common ancestor, he said. Many
superficial similarities between birds and dinosaurs arose because
both groups developed body designs for walking upright on two hind
legs and began to resemble each other over millions of years. 'It is
now clear that the origin of birds is a much more complicated question
than has been previously thought,' Feduccia said."
See? He's not disproving evolution, he's arguing about one particular
aspect of the Theory of Evolution - a theory which, in general, he
unreservedly supports
The fact is that the jury is still out. The claim is not that
archaeopteryx is undeniably *the* "missing link" between birds and
reptiles, but that there are links and transitionals. In time,
scientists will determine how and when this occurred. Right now it's
too early to call definitively. This is something Harun Yahya will
never have the honesty to convey to you.
And how sad is it that Oktar calls up *one* scientist (and even then
has to lie about what his position is) in the ridiculous pretence that
he can overturn the scientifically established position of quite
literally thousands of scientists? Creationists do this again and
again. It's a sure sign of their lack of intellectual wherewithal and
their impossibly weak position that this is what they call science.
#8 WHAT SCIENTIFIC FORGERY IS THE MYTH THAT "HUMAN EMBRYOS HAVE GILLS"
BASED ON?
There is no such forgery. That's Adnan Oktar's lie #14. The fact is
that no competent scientist has ever said that humans develop gills.
Here's a reliable account:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB704.html
and another
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
How sad is it that creationists have to make up a story and then
declare the story that they made up a lie in order to "prove" their
case for creation?!
First of all, they cannot make a case for creation by disproving
something else. They haven't disproved the Theory of Evolution - they
haven't even begun to do that - but even if they *had* done that, they
*still* would not have proven creation. A case for creation requires
positive scientific evidence and not one single creationist, not one
single so-called intelligent so-called design advocate has *ever*
published one shred of positive science for creation.
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #15 ~Ernst Haeckel, one of the foremost
charlatans in the history of science."
Haeckel traveled the world. He was a professor of comparative anatomy
for almost fifty years at a German university. He named countless new
species. Here's the truth about Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haeckel#.22Infamous.22_embryo_drawings
Here's a quote for you:
"On the other hand, Michael K. Richardson, Professor of Evolutionary
Developmental Zoology, Leiden University, while recognizing that some
criticisms of the drawings are legitimate (indeed, it was he and his
co-workers who began the modern criticisms in 1998), has supported the
drawings as teaching aids,[3] and has said that "on a fundamental
level, Haeckel was correct""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawings
#9 WHY IS IT DECEPTIVE TO PORTRAY CLONING AS "EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION"?
The Professional LIAR Adnan Oktar offers not a shred of support for
this LIE. He offers no references and mentions no one who has claimed
this.
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #16 "The theory of evolution is built on the
claim that inanimate matter turned into living matter by chance."
The Theory of Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with how life
arose. It has to do with how life came to have the diversity it has,
the history it has, and how it came to be distributed as it is.
The science of how life arose is called abiogenesis:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Even if abiogenesis were completely disproven (which it most certainly
has not been), this would leave the well-established Theory of
Evolution completely untouched.
As it happens, there's a wealth of evidence for abiogenesis and that
evidence is increasing. The basis of abiogenesis is organic
chemistry. Is this found naturally or not? Well, yes it is.
Experiments have shown that such chemistry occurs right here on Earth
- or it did in prebiotic atmospheric conditions that geologists have
shown existed on Earth several billion years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey
Could "locally grown chemistry" have started life?
"A laboratory model of a deep ocean vent has convinced Japanese
scientists that life on Earth began at the bottom of the ocean more
than three and a half billion years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
Could these chemicals congregate in sufficient undisturbed volume to
actually make a start on life?
"Scientists understand several probable steps in the origin of life,
notably how the first organic molecules could have formed. In fact,
prebiotic synthesis processes are now thought to have been so
productive that the ancient Earth must have had far more different
kinds of molecules than could have been used by early life."
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=3Da&id=3D4670
Where could these molecules collect together?
"The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
of tubes on the surface of rocks. In these natural test tubes, the
complex molecules needed for life could have evolved in safety, taking
its building blocks from the water washing over the rock and from the
minerals within. New research argues that the pores provide the
perfect sheltered environment for the chain of chemical reactions
necessary to evolve the first bacteria."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
Can they form "boundary structures" similar to cell walls?
"Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.html
Can molecules mimic life?
"German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves.
Although several labs around the world have done the same, these
molecules can evolve as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
How complex would the first cell need to be?
"When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-
living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for
proteins. The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to
contain some 30,000...."
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.html
The smallest genome so far?
"Researchers now say that a symbiotic bacterium called Carsonella
ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, has taken the record for
smallest genome with just 159,662 'letters' (or base pairs) of DNA and
182 protein-coding genes."
http://tinyurl.com/ybca4u
J=2E Craig Venter aims to find out just how small the genome can go:
"In 2003 the team made significant advances toward the goal of a
synthetic genome. Using new methods the group improved the speed and
accuracy of genomic synthesis by assembling the 5,386 base pair
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/
In short, there's nothing known to science which would prevent
abiogenesis. I'm sorry but your personal incredulity and ignorance is
*not* an argument against either abiogenesis or the separate science
of evolution. And please note that the Theory of Evolution only
addresses life *after* it arose, so it is still valid even if
abiogenesis were disproven.
Now if you have rationale or material, not only will that be a unique
experience for me, but we can discuss it right here. Please post
it. (Note: chanting a creationist mantra of "No it isn't" or
"Godidit" does *not* constitute either a rationale or scientific
evidence).
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #17 "The cloning process is no evidence for
evolution whatsoever. It is, however, clear evidence of a biological
law that totally undermines evolution. That is the famous principle
that "Life can only come from life," put forward by the famous
scientist Louis Pasteur towards the end of the nineteenth century."
There is no such "law". Read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
#10 COULD LIFE HAVE COME FROM OUTER SPACE?
The basic building blocks of life are "grown" in space:
"A team of NASA exobiology researchers revealed today organic
chemicals that play a crucial role in the chemistry of life are common
in space."
http://tinyurl.com/9bfah
In other words, not only do these precursors to life exist naturally,
they are common.
But can this actually work in practice?
"Scientists have managed to create 'primitive cells' in an experiment
which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Could they come to Earth on meteors and comets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite
"A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well which was similar
to that found in the Miller-Urey experiment."
Could they survive the impact?
"By simulating a high-velocity comet collision with the Earth, a team
of scientists has shown that organic molecules hitch-hiking aboard a
comet could have survived an impact and seeded life on Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stm
In short, Adnan Oktar is proven to be a LIAR again. Yes, the
precursors of life are found in space. Yes they can reach Earth, yes,
they can congregate. Yes we do understand many of the steps
necessary. No we do not have all the answers yet. But we have many
more answers than we had one hundred years ago. If we had taken
Oktar's negative position, we would not have any of these answers and
we would all be believing Oktar's pathetic LIES.
Well, we have 17 documented lies already and we're only halfway
through Oktar's mindless trash. How sad is *that*? In part two,
we'll provide answers to the remaining ten Yahoo ***** questions
and see how many more lies we can count.
Budikka
.

User: "Budikka666"
Title: Another 35 Lies From Harun Yahya	03 Nov 2007 09:53:42 AM

This is the second and final part two of "The 20 Answers That Stabbed
Harun Yahya In The Heart"
#11 WHY DOES THE FACT THAT THE EARTH IS FOUR BILLION YEARS OLD NOT
SUPPORT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #18 "...the fact that life cannot emerge from
inanimate matter has been demonstrated by experiment and
observation,,,Modern scientists...have carried out controlled
experiments in the most advanced laboratories, reproducing the
conditions at the time when life first emerged, but these have all
been in vain."
First of all, no "modern scientist" has ever "carried out controlled
experiments in the most advanced laboratories, reproducing the
conditions at the time when life first emerged" with the intent of
*producing* life. They did it, effectively, with the intent of
proving wrong the creationist lies that not even the basic requisites
for the start of life could arise naturally. And the creationists, as
usual, were proven wrong. The basic necessities for starting life can
be found existing in space. They come to Earth on meteorites. They
can survive the impact.
The basic necessities for starting life can also be produced in
conditions found on a primitive Earth. Molecules can congregate.
Molecules themselves can reproduce. They can form boundary structures
similar to cell walls.
In short, Adnan Oktar is a pathetic LIAR.
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #19 "However, it is perfectly clear that even
if all the conditions evolutionists insist on are realised, and even
if millions of years are allowed to pass, such an experiment will be
doomed to failure."
So after relentlessly demanding that scientists produce the goods for
every tiny step in the development and subsequent evolution of living
things, he thinks he can dismiss one hundred and fifty years of
science with a single sentence for which he offers no support? Only
an idiot would believe that.
Where's Oktar's evidence that in the conditions on a primitive Earth
and given half a billion years, this could never happen? What does he
have to support his assertion when the best available scientific
evidence we have shows that it can happen, and when the evidence for
abiogenesis is growing?
What he's actually saying here that because he, Sad Man Oktar is too
fundamentally ignorant to understand the evidence and follow its
implications, then he's taking his ball and going home - and he
doesn't want anyone else to play any more, either!
What a little child he truly is. This is the sad state of
creationism. Creationists are LIARS to their very core. They create
nothing. They do no science. The construct no theories. They test
no hypotheses. They do no research.
All that creationists can do is whine that science hasn't done enough
to satisfy *them* - and they use the very things that science has made
possible - computers - to selfishly demand that scientists give up
what they're doing and instead, run around after the creationists
cleaning up after them. What a bunch of whining babies!
Look at how stupid Yahya is:
"It is not possible for a car left all alone in natural conditions
to turn into a more developed model with the passage of time. On the
contrary, the bodywork will rust, the paint will fall off, the windows
will break, and it will soon turn into a heap of scrap. The same
inevitable process occurs even faster in organic molecules and living
things.
"Then let us imagine that the boat is left abandoned. This time,
the effects of the sun, rain, wind, sand, and storms will cause the
boat to decay, age, and eventually become unusable."
And why is that Yahoo? A car? A boat? Since when are cars and boats
living things? How is chanting the obvious about the inevitable decay
of a thing built by humans even remotely applicable to prebiotic
chemistry? It isn't. Harun Yahya is so devoid of any hope of
presenting a scientific refutation of abiogenesis and evolution that
he's willing to make a complete, world-wide idiot of himself by
writing down any inane idea that comes into his head.
Then, as if he hasn't demonstrated enough ignorance already, in a
section which the title talks about geological time, he careers from
abiogenesis back into evolution. He's hardly said a word about time.
Does he even *know* what he's writing about? Evidently not!
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #20 & #21 "When the proponents of evolution
relate the fairy tale of the transformation of one species into
another, they take refuge in the idea of it happening "over a long
period of time."
Scientists do not insist that speciation take place over a long period
of time. That's one lie. Speciation has been observed, both in the
wild and in the laboratory. That's the second lie:
A fossil primate species Pelycodus ralstoni changed into two separate
species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus in an unbroken
fossil transition. The two later became even more distinct, and the
descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead
of genus Notharctus.
In short, not only was there speciation, there was generation - a new
genus arose and it's all traceable in the fossil record.
In the nineteenth century Spartina alternifolia was found in Townsend
harbor in southern England, it is a native of the Americas and
presumably seeds were transferred in a boat's bilge. There already
existed a European species S. maritima. Early in the 20th century a
sterile hybrid of these two was found and was called Spartina
townsendii. This went through a process of diploidization (duplicate
pairs of chromosomes) and became a new sexually reproducing species
known as Spartina anglica
"Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as
hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species)
has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early
20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed
that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize
and S. malheurensis)."
and
"Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of
speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have
been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and
chromosomal fusions."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations
Four examples of speciation right there prove Adnan Oktar is either a
LIAR or is ignorant about a subject he's pretending he can disprove.
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #22 "Repetitions that occur over time, and
the fact that they take place often, change nothing. Even if trillions
of years are allowed to go by, a bird will never hatch out of a
lizard's egg."
No evolutionist has *ever* said a lizard laid an egg and a bird flew
out of it. That's pure creationist invention. How desperate does a
creationist have to be to make up lies for no other purpose than to
have something to refute? Obviously Oktar has to do this since he
can't actually refute the science!
Here's another example of what a hypocrite Adnan Oktar is: " A long
lizard may [hatch from an egg], or a short one-a stronger one or a
weaker one-but it will always be a lizard. A different species will
never emerge."
After he's demanded proof of every little step from evolutionists he
makes asinine and unsupported statements like this? Is Adnan Oktar
blasphemously claiming to be god almighty that he can categorically
declare that starting with the Earth four billion years ago, no matter
how much time passes, a reptile will never ever evolve into a bird
when this is clearly shown in the fossil record of that four billion
years?
No, one species does not give direct birth to another species. But it
is a proven fact that speciation occurs over time - sometimes a
remarkably short time.
#12 WHY ARE WISDOM TEETH NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION?
Here's another unsupported claim: "Evolutionist publications at the
start of the twentieth century announced that the human body contained
up to a hundred organs that no longer served any purpose, including
the appendix, the coccyx, the tonsils, the pineal gland, the external
ear, the thymus, and wisdom teeth."
Where's his support for this? Nowhere. He offers not a single
reference to back up this claim. I happen to know where he got this
from and have to say that because one German scientist in 1893 made
the same mistake that Oktar makes (thinking he was god), doesn't mean
that all scientists shared that view.
The advantage that scientists have that Oktar and his ilk will never
have is that they're not hide-bound by dogma. Scientists do not ever
think a subject is closed, regardless of what a few scientists may say
(or what may get misreported in the media).
But let's look at one or two of these claims of Oktar's.
The appendix.
"The human appendix has lost a major and previously essential
function, namely cellulose digestion. Though during primate evolution
it has decreased in size to a mere rudiment, the appendix retains a
structure that was originally specifically adapted for housing
bacteria and extending the time course of digestion. For these reasons
the human vermiform appendix is vestigial, regardless of whether or
not the human appendix functions in the development of the immune
system."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
The coccyx.
"The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
As Theobald says in a link to the above URL, "At between four and five
weeks of age, the normal human embryo has 10-12 developing tail
vertebrae which extend beyond the ***** and legs, accounting for more
than 10% of the length of the embryo" - but this tail is reabsorbed.
Is this evidence of intelligent design? A tail wannabe?
The tonsils.
Tonsils and adenoids are considered part of a secondary immune system,
so their removal is not a disaster and is often necessitated because
of the chronic disposition of these organs to become inflamed and
infected. A quarter million or so children in 1994 had an
adenotonsillectomy. Is that supposed to demonstrate intelligent
design - the organ that's supposed to offer aid to the immune system
is so poor at fighting infection that it gets inflamed to the point
where the best course of action is to remove it?!
As this URL suggests:
http://www.utmb.edu/otoref/grnds/Pedi-TA-020619/Pedi-TA-020619.htm
"The effect of adenotonsillectomy on immune function is not well
understood. There is some evidence that in children previously
immunized orally for polio, titers dropped after adenotonsillectomy.
Also, children who had previously undergone adenotonsillectomy had
delayed and lowered immune response to polio vaccination based on IgA
antibodies to polio virus."
That's worth noting, but it's hardly the critical disaster that
creationists would have you believe.
The pineal gland.
This gland seems to be largely of use in children - and then its prime
purpose seems to be in preventing puberty! The human body is
apparently so badly designed that it needs a bunch of patches tacked
on to address problems in the design - rather like Microsoft software!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland#In_lower_vertebrates
Note the comment at wikipedia: "Calcification of the pineal gland is
typical in adults." (This 'critical organ' evidently "fossilises" as
we grow older!)
The Thymus.
This actually *is* a critical organ without which your immune system
would suffer a crippling blow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymus
The Wisdom Teeth.
Adnan Oktar talks the same unsupported ***** about wisdom teeth
that he did about the other organs. This site effectively sets him
and his ilk straight:
http://www.uihealthcare.com/reports/dentistry/030317wisdomteeth.html
"'If the teeth aren't removed some patients can develop a serious,
life-threatening infection,' Synan said. 'We have a number of cases
each year that have to be admitted to the hospital because the
infection may compromise the airway'"
This is intelligent design? Having a tooth erupt (quite literally)
into a jaw which isn't capable of containing it? Yes, some jaws can
fit in four more teeth and many people get these teeth with no
problems. That doesn't mean they're not problematical or that no one
has problems. It doesn't mean a healthy diet will prevent such
problems.
#13 HOW DO THE COMPLEX STRUCTURES OF THE MOST ANCIENT CREATURES
DEMOLISH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
Here's another example of Oktar Ignorance: "Development from the
primitive to the complex is an imaginary concept"! Yes it is -
imaginary on the part of the creationists. Nothing in the Theory of
Evolution demands that organisms necessarily become more complex or
follow a specific pattern. Evolution applies just as well to
organisms developing into less complex forms as it does to organisms
going the other way. It's still evolution.
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #23 "The fact that almost all known animal
phyla suddenly emerged in the Cambrian period is strong evidence
against evolutionist claims in this regard. Furthermore, those
creatures which suddenly emerged possessed complex bodily structures,
not simple ones-the exact opposite of the evolutionist assumption."
Oktar is either a moron when it comes to working knowledge of
evolution, or he's a pathetic LIAR. I wonder which it is? maybe it's
both. Once again, Oktar is completely blind to the fact that every
organism humans tend to be most familiar with - the vertebrates - are
the minority. We're an exception to the rule, an offshoot of the main
play area of evolution. Everything from a Blue whale to a fruit fly
comprises just 13 phyla. If we look at the same kind of divisions in
the bacterial world, there are at least 80 such divisions. Eighty.
Compared with 13:
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/2007/11/the-undiscovered-planet.html
So no, the vast majority of phyla, or groups, or "kinds" or whatever
you want to label these divisions did not arise "overnight" in the
Cambrian. The bacterial/single-celled world ruled for some three-and-
a-half billion years - six times longer than the organisms you know
best. Moreover, the differences between the Cambrian fossils
themselves are not as great as the differences between organisms which
are today in the same phyla as the Cambrian fossils have been placed.
The evolutionary steps to transform from a single ancestor of any two
Cambrian phyla are minuscule compared with the steps needed to get
from that ancestor to any two representatives of those same phyla
alive today.
Look at this blather: "Trilobites belonged to the Arthropoda phylum,
and were very complicated creatures with hard shells, articulated
bodies, and complex organs....The trilobite eye is made up of hundreds
of tiny facets, and each one of these contains two lens layers. This
eye structure is a real wonder of design."
So how come they're all gone? There have been no trilobites since the
massive extinction at the end of the Permian. If they were so
superbly designed, why are there none now? Why is it that 99% of
**ALL** species are gone if they were intelligently designed? Notice
how neither Oktar nor any other creationist on the entire planet wants
to address the extinctions? I wonder why?!
Here's Adnan Oktar's lie #24 "In Darwin's time, the Cambrian Age was
included in the Silurian Age, and Darwin remained silent in the face
of the complex structures of the living things that suddenly emerged
at that time."
No. Adam Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison presented a paper in 1835, a
quarter century before Darwin published "On the Origin..." which
distinguished between the Silurian and the Cambrian. Darwin was
actually a "student" of Sedgwick's for a summer in 1831. The two men
remained friends until Sedgwick's death.
For Oktar to suggest that Darwin was hiding from the Cambrian, or
failed to address it, or that it somehow overturns the Theory of
Evolution is nothing but a lie.
The fact is that Darwin did not have a fraction of the fossils at his
disposal that we do today and the fossil record of pre-Cambrian times
was virtually non-existent.
The fact remains that there is no sudden or abrupt appearance of life
in the Cambrian. There is evidence of life going back to about four
billion years ago - long before we see the abundant Cambrian fossils.
So what *appears* in the Cambrian is not the reality, merely the
appearance - the fossil record of the reality, which represents the
tiniest fraction of living things.
The Cambrian "explosion" - which took many millions of years to
"explode" coincides with an increase in the abundance of atmospheric
oxygen on Earth - an abundance which is necessary to both support
living things as we best know them, and to provide for the creation of
the hard parts, such as skeletons, which are what fossilization best
preserves.
#14 WHY IS DENYING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION PORTRAYED AS REJECTING
DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS?
Adnan Oktar the sexist continues (without a reference in sight): "THE
word "evolution" has been used in several senses in recent times. A
social aspect has been added to it, for instance, and the word has
come to mean human progress and technological development....There is
no doubt that man will use his intelligence, knowledge, and strength
to develop over time."
And what's woman supposed to do whilst "man" is achieving everything
purportedly without her?
But that's only one issue with this quote. the other is that Adnan
Oktar, so devoid of any evidence whatsoever that would cast doubt on
the Theory of Evolution, is forced, once again, to make up stuff.
Here he's pretending that the Theory of Evolution has something to do
with how politicians run our society or how commentators view the
human race. The Theory of Evolution has no comment whatsoever to make
on politics or what people do with their lives. It applies only to
the distribution, diversity and history of life on Earth. That's it.
Everything else is the invention of desperate creationists who are so
lacking in material to support their claims and so poverty-stricken in
scientific material they can use against evolution that they're
willing to toss every ludicrous claim they can think of into the ring.
Look at what the hypocrite Adnan Oktar says: "Yet evolutionists engage
in a facile word game here, and confuse a true concept with a false
one." This is another tried-and-tested tactic of the creationists -
accuse your opponent of all your worst failings in the hope that
people won't notice that the failings are yours and not those of the
Theory of Evolution!
Look at this LIE: "The greatest names in the advancement of science
were all creationists". He then goes on to list these names:
Copernicus
Cuvier
Edwin Hubble
Leonardo da Vinci
Galileo
Kepler
Linnaeus
Isaac Newton
da Vinci died 340 years and Copernicus ov