Comments on: Richard Dawkins rips into Harun Yahya and Muslim creationism

By: Hazirahkatrina

Hazirahkatrina — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:41:57 +0000

The claims made by Dawkins in the piece are not a scientific response, but merely childish and ludicrous claims that merely discredit himself. In particular, it is evident that he expressed his claims regarding the caddisfly in a spirit of terrible panic, out of the pitiful situation resulting from the collapse of Darwinism. Dawkins highlighted the photograph of caddisfly in Mr. Adnan Oktar’s opus, Atlas of Creation as a great discovery. However this is the photograph of a model particularly put in the book. Whether the photograph is of a model or not does not change the fact that this living being is still alive in our day. Desperate, speechless and bored in the face of the extraordinary evidences of Creation in the Atlas of Creation that invalidate evolution, Dawkins takes every opportunity to express this photograph of a model particularly put in the book as a great discovery. By this attitude Dawkins, in fact, reveals the pathetic situation in which Darwinism finds itself. Caddisfly lives in our time with the same appearance its millions of years old fossil has. That is, it has not undergone any change. That is why Dawkins feels offended. You can read detailed information:

http://tr1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRF V/productId/17945/DAWKINS_HAS_TAKEN_THE_ BAIT

By: OneGodDown

OneGodDown — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:09:07 +0000

I didn’t know evil started with a capital letter: maybe it’s a pronoun like ‘Allah’ and share something in common.

By: Rahmat

Rahmat — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:38:35 +0000

May Allah bless Harun Yahya, he is the only person at present time being a shield against Evil and insane Darwinists, actually they are naming themselves apes… what can we say more.. lol

By: richard

richard — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:56:13 +0000

Darwinism is a pagan religion and Harun Yahya destroyed this pagan religion worldwide..

By: ata

ata — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:33:06 +0000

Harun Yahya made Islam look like a religion for an idiot, we. the moslems not that dumb

By: David O

David O — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:11:27 +0000

The distinction between “theology” and “natural theology” is a tenuous one to maintain. Scripture based theology makes up a deity ‘a priori’ whilst natural theology is supposed to offer an ‘a posteriori’ (after the fact) argument for the attributes of God. The reason the distinction is tenuous is because the constant remains: a deity.
On the opinion that a deity is a fictitious entity, we can comfortably discard the charlatans charade claiming ‘reasonableness’ and ‘objectivity’ which all the while disseminates misinformation through bad science sneaking falsehoods by the droves under its tattered showman’s cloak.
It follows, this view maintains that, anyone who is impressed by a rebranding of an ancient superstition and attributing to it a veneer of renewed respectability is really no more intelligent, and perhaps even less so, than the millions of unquestioning devotees that follow scripture based theology.
The very simple reasoning for this being, at least with revealed religion, one is accepting a premise however haphazardly created and building an argument on it, whereas with natural theology, acting after the fact, they fail to examine the veracity of their very own premise and thus cannot build an argument that will ever amount to anything.
Notwithstanding, neither of these flaws really matter in the end, because both accept a premise that is fictitious.
Watch this spot carefully now, a fair wager will assure that there will be vitriolic outrage in the form of ‘corrections’ which are equally contradictory and confusing. So without saying anything further on the matter: if there is anything to be gained here is: examine the premise! If it involves a God of any kind: where is the evidence? If evidence is given: how does it prove the existence of God? Is the nexus of causation sufficient to maintain the claim? Do the sources contain bias? What are the controls? Are you required to accept an assumption ab initio?
Finally, one should ask, is the stance theistic or is it deistic? If it is theistic, it will inevitably suffer from flaws in the test phase of the hypothesis. If it is deistic: it is NOT a religious argument and its claim on ‘god’ is more Einstein-ian than anything.

By: OneGodDown

OneGodDown — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:44:59 +0000

The comment below looks a bit defamatory. However, in these circumstances it would look like the person in question’s reputation is being raised as opposed to lowered: much to the detriment of the very narrow minded would be defamer

The theological and ideological fascists (now this is defamatory) would choose to silence any expression of reasonable thought. This demonstrates exactly why Atheists choose not to enter into these sorts of ‘important discussions’.

To cite an ignorance of science on the logic demonstrated by the tale of the pink unicorn, celestial tea cup or if you prefer the flying spaghetti monster would be to overlook one of the most important downfalls of all religion: their inherent and obvious lack of reason and logic.

What these tales importantly illustrate, as is correctly desrcibed in the comments below, is the foundational and structural problems of not only deity-based theology but the whole discourse of religious scripture.

These are problems common to the Old and New Testament, and let’s not even begin with the Koran: It’s flagrant misrepresentation of science is appalling.

Hang the supposed poster child up for all to see say I, a job well done for raising the issue…

By: Mariano

Mariano — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:48:47 +0000

David Osz’s comment is the poster child for why such discussions are important and ongoing.
David demonstrates utter ignorance of natural theology: science and philosophy imply a creator and even some of the creator’s characteristics.
Employing Atheism Sunday School atheology only succeeds in discrediting the atheist whilst leaving theism unscathed.

By: David Osz

David Osz — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:13:40 +0000

Yes, perhaps I should write a book about an invisible pink unicorn named Toby. Can you disprove that Toby – ‘the invisible pink unicorn’ – exists?

Or maybe perhaps there is a logical fallacy in here somewhere: to which I am demanding you to commit to?

Oh I know, it’s just Atheists being ‘sarcastic’…

Reason and logic quite clearly does not prevail when it comes to religion, MM?

By: MM

MM — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:02:49 +0000

Dawkins and other evolutionists just use sarcasm. When they are asked something about evolution instead of answer the question they attack a religion and dodge the question. The book is 800 page but Dawkin only picked a few page is to “prove” that the book is false.

I suggest that instead of following dawkins blindly you should see the book for yourself.