Comments on: Anti-Darwin speaker gagged at Vatican evolution conference

By: blackbrow

blackbrow — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 15:17:09 +0000

Oktar Babuna is a member of the leading creationist cult in Turkey led by the infamous Adnan Oktar. Google them to see what kinds of people we are talking about here. Babuna is also the perpetrator of a huge fraudulent scam where approx. 150,000 samples of blood DNA were collected from the Turkish population under fraudulent excuses. When the scam was uncovered and the Turkish government banned their export to the US 120,000 samples magically “disappeared”. As far as his participation in this meeting it is akin to a conference of world geologists where a heckler takes the microphone to declare that the world is actually flat. He should never have been allowed in to the meeting in the first place. These people had the Richard Dawkins web site banned in Turkey for several years under the charge of defamation against the infamous Adnan Oktar. And now they claim that they were censored during this conference. In short, a very well funded cult of creationists who would otherwise be dismissed from any circle of intelligent human beings under any circumstances.

By: cnocspeireag

cnocspeireag — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:26:24 +0000

I feel that few of your contributors can have attended a genuine scientific conference.
The delegates here were serious scientists, who came to hear presentations given by advertised speakers. They gave up considerable time and money to be there.
There was time for discussion at the end of the presentations, where delegates could pose questions to the speakers. This is usual at such conferences and Babuna tried to hijack this process, which was rude and unprofessional of him.
After a short time, Babuna was clearly and politely asked to pose his question and he simply continued with his ridiculous rant. The organizers were completely correct to remove him and I’m sure that the serious delegates were relieved when he went.

By: GalapagosPete

GalapagosPete — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:19:05 +0000

Roger, Darwinian evolutionary theory neither depends upon chance or regards it as a creator, and is not only *not* dead, but is becoming stronger every day. On the other hand, you have demonstrated that you don’t understand evolutionary theory, paganism, or religion.

By: Roger wilson

Roger wilson — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:26:05 +0000

Darwinism is a pagan religion which regards chance as a creator. Darwinism is dead.

By: GalapagosPete

GalapagosPete — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:31:40 +0000

“If mainstreal [sic] geology disagrees all it has to do is to produce a single experiment that proves the contrary…Please provide the experiments and drop the polemic.”Hey, I don’t need to do anything. I’m not trying to disprove anything, you and your friend Berthault are. And so far you’re failing miserably.Until Berthault submits his research for legitimate peer review in a major publication – not some conferences or publications in Russia, China and France – he’ll continue to be ignored.

By: Michael Korn

Michael Korn — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:38:38 +0000

the vatican was very wrong to yank the microphone.they should have just had the security guards shoot him dead on the spot!imagine the temerity of asking questions about the gospel of nihilism according to charles darwin!

By: Peter Wilders

Peter Wilders — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:13:49 +0000

Gpete writes:”So, you agree that mainstream geology doesn’t accept his conclusions that all or most layers were laid down by moving water. That being the case, obviously it is you that is practicing polemics, since what I say represents the mainstream view.”Laboratory experiments backed by field analyses demonstrate strata form by sorting of sedimentary particles in moving water. The only exceptions are those formed in currentless water: a very rare phenomenon. So the mechanism for the vast majority of strata is sediemts sorted by turbulant water. If mainstreal geology disagrees all it has to do is to produce a single experiment that proves the contrary. This it has not done. Arguments to the contrary are therefore pure polemic by those who see this new knowledge brings an end to evolution theory.Please provide the experiments and drop the polemic.Peter

By: El Cid

El Cid — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:57:22 +0000

I suspect, some people have planned to stop Mr. Babuna to speak before. This might be considered as a ‘countermeasure’ for what Harun Yahya did to them. This ‘evil action’ is purely inability to respond what next ‘bomb’ that would Mr. Babuna deliver to them… This is the stereotype of a liar!

By: GalapagosPete

GalapagosPete — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:09:34 +0000

So, you agree that mainstream geology doesn’t accept his conclusions that all or most layers were laid down by moving water. That being the case, obviously it is you that is practicing polemics, since what I say represents the mainstream view.No one is denying that some strata were laid down by moving water; however, virtually no professional geologists accept that this was a significant factor in the laying down of strata.www.evolutionpages.com/berthault_ critique.htm

By: peter wilders

peter wilders — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:33:47 +0000

“Polemics is the practice of disputing or controverting significant, broad reaching topics of magnitude such as scientific matters” This definition based on one from Wikipedia seems to fit. In GPete’s case the words “A controversy unsupported by empirical proof” should be added.Berthault’s scientific experimental results having passed the peer review process makes them part of the official scientific data. The fact that they are given a low profile by most scientists does not change the fact they represent current sedimentological/geological knowledge and a refutation of basic geological principles. Principles are defined as general law with no exceptions. They cannot be taken as valid in a limited context and not in others. The fact that his work is ignored by most scientist illustrates the latter’s unwillingness to recognise the experiment’s far reaching implications for evolution theory and the fossil record.Seen in this light GPete’s latest post is a continuing polemic.Peter