Friday, 6 March 2009

Adnan Oktar follower disrupts Vatican's evolution conference

Dear reader, our blog has moved to a new address.

Do come on over (and change your bookmarks accordingly): rationalist.org.uk

An update on the Vatican's evolution conference, via the excellent Heresy Corner blog. I mentioned the other day that Turkish creationist overlord Adnan Oktar has been sending conspiracy theorist press releases in relation to the conference, but I didn't realise he'd managed to get a representative on the inside. It turns out someone called Oktar Babuna had made it into the opening session, and he stood up and interrupted, calling for evidence of transitional fossils, such as "monstrous animals with no wings for example, single wing, little bit wing that shows incomplete organs".

As the Reuters faith blog reports
, the incident was filmed by another of Adnan Oktar's acolytes,
Dr Cihat Gundogdu (apparently they've both been at the conference, armed with both Italian and English copies of the preposterous Atlas of Creation). I've added the video at the end of this post. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Oktar et al are now presenting this as an example of "Darwinists" silencing the truth, rather than a heckler at a conference being made to shut up.

In related news, Adnan Oktar made what I suspect must be his British TV debut last night in Andrew Marr's documentary Darwin's Dangerous Idea (UK readers can still catch it on iPlayer). It's not clear whether he appears in some of the other installments in the series, but all he got last night was a cameo at the beginning. You see a clip of him in his office, hear a quote from him in which he blames 9/11 on Darwin, and see Marr cruising round the Bosphorous, depicting Istanbul as Creationist HQ International. For a moment I thought Marr was set to interview the man, but it seems his BBC researcher's quite rightly realised the futility of this.

22 comments:

FishNChimps said...

My god what an eejit that heckler is. I finished the Hitch's religion-killing book this morning which ends with a nice Freudian quote "The voice of Reason is soft." What a contrast.
As for Marr's Darwin prog. last night, I thought Oktar's idiocy was going to presage an attempt at putting creationism on equal terms with evolution. Fortunately it didn't.

Anonymous said...

How much 'evidence' does this moron have for his 'God'? That's right, absolutely none... but let me guess, has he got the threat of mindless violence to bully people into accommodating his ludicrous beliefs?

idcsteve said...

I saw Marr's presentation at the Natural History Museum. He did interview Oktar. He said that it was very difficult: apparently he wears tight white trousers and is surrounded by strange looking young men in suits.

When asked whether he had confronted Oktar about the fishook incident, he didn't know what it was.

Anonymous said...

It is very funny to stop someone asking a question in a conference.

Evolution theory is dead. It has been proven by this incident. Futuyma was looking for the exit to run-away because he had no answer for fossil gaps.

Anonymous said...

Really, everyone is saying that there isnot any transitional forms in evolution theory. there are more than million living organisms and double in all the world history. Evolutionist should show at least one tenth of them have this transitional changes between one to another isnot it? although I never heard one! Do not you? If you have could you please send me the folders for them to show my friends?

Anonymous said...

I was there. Dr Cihat Gundogdu (another rep of Harun Yahya) asked Prof Ayala how would he explain the origin of Trilobite eye, but received no answer. Prof Ayala's answer was "I don't know". However, his lecture was about evolution of the eye. Dr Gundogdu explained that there is no descent from primitive to complex life forms as the very first invertebrate like trilobite has very comlex organs and systems some 540 million years ago. And that trilobite has 600 eyes each with a double lens structure.
It was a surprising unfortunate question for Prof Ayala.

FishNChimps said...

I think I see signs of someone sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "La la la! Can't hear you!"

Czechlervitz said...

FishnChimps said:

"As for Marr's Darwin prog. last night, I thought Oktar's idiocy was going to presage an attempt at putting creationism on equal terms with evolution. Fortunately it didn't."

You are right when you say evolution isn't in equal terms with creationism. Creationism explains everything that can't be explained and evolution explains things that are already known. Creationism is way above evolution and evolution isn't even something to be observed anymore. All the top educated scientists of this day scoff at evolution because they have discovered it to be preposterous. But no one has to be extremely educated to see that. No one has to even have a third grade education to believe in God and see the evidence of His existence in creation.

Anonymous said...

"But no one has to be extremely educated to see that. No one has to even have a third grade education to believe in God and see the evidence of His existence in creation."

So, what you are saying Czechlervitz is that you don't need to be educated to believe in creationism? Or rather only the uneducated....

You do realise your post doesn't contain any real discussion of the issues, just circular statements. If evolution describes things that are known, how were they initially discovered and understood? Don't you have a reasoned opinion of your own, without all these top scientists (who are of course nameless) telling you what to think?

Czechlervitz said...

Anonymous said,
"So, what you are saying Czechlervitz is that you don't need to be educated to believe in creationism? Or rather only the uneducated....

You do realise your post doesn't contain any real discussion of the issues, just circular statements. If evolution describes things that are known, how were they initially discovered and understood? Don't you have a reasoned opinion of your own, without all these top scientists (who are of course nameless) telling you what to think?"

I am rather uneducated myself but smart enough to know evolution is not true. I know this. Ask any major scientist and they will tell you that evolution is not legit, if you really want to know, check it out for yourself, don't ask me cuz you'll just search it out anyway. Nobody has to be extremely learned to believe in God. My seven year old sister knows how evolution does not make sense.

That whole circular reason thing is ridiculous, don't bring that up again.

FishNChimps said...

I once again refer to the placement of digits into ears and the singing of "La la la! Can't hear you!"

Re: "Ask any major scientist and they will tell you that evolution is not legit", try asking any of these chaps writing here whether they think evolution is legit: http://scienceblogs.com/

Anonymous said...

Datwinism nonsense is dead. Adnan Oktar detroyed Darwinism worldwide and Oktar Babuna destroyed darwinism in Rome. And what does futuyma do? He flees:).

FishNChimps said...

Anonymous 09 March 2009 22:41, the power and awesomeness of your argument has convinced me. I shall henceforth live a life untainted by anything scientifically proven and instead retire to my cave with my goat, a sharp stick, and an ancient book of fairy stories.

Josh Vulkens said...

Oh my God! Thats really good. A hero man against all darwinist in their home match. And visitors (the hero man) won the match. But the referee gave the points to home.

Do everybody moron who says bad things to this hero? Come on, there is no such evidence of transitional fossils. Are you blind?

FishNChimps said...

A good place to see transitional fossils discussed is on Prof. PZ Myers' blog. Here are a couple of transitional fossils:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/maiacetus.php
And this one's a beauty - a transitional turtle.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/odontochelys_a_transitional_tu.php

There are plenty more, but I don't think New Humanist would appreciate clogging up the Comments with thousands more examples proving the case for evolution.

Josh Vulkens said...

Fidh&Chips :) I look at website for transitional fossil. Exactly i wait a more serious thing. :) There is just draws, i can also draw some fossils. But we are talking about real fossils which one come from under earthen.

Darwinist do this everytime, draw some transitional fossils to fool some pure minds. However we can observe and we can see the truth. :)

There 100 million fossils in world, and non of them is transitional. Do you think why? Darwin said if there we do not find transitinal fossils my theory will destroy. The the theory detroyed.

And also I have to remind that, Mr Harun Yahya declare that; he will give 10 billion USD who brings just one transitional fossil. Why do not you bring and earn 10 billion USD?

FishNChimps said...

I feel as though I'm spiralling into Alice in Wonderland. If you look at the links associated with the blog posts you will find that they lead to the original source fossils.
If you don't believe in transition, then what's the alternative?
That all animals were either created simultaneously or at different times?
If the former, then find fossils of any mammals that you have in your local zoo within the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic or Cretaceous geological record.
If the latter, then the Creator must have found his creatures to be flawed and thus destroyed them in mass extinctions. Those pesky dinosaurs were rather rubbish, weren't they? That then raises questions about the Creator's infallibility and inability to find perfection.
Not much of a god.

FishNChimps said...

"And also I have to remind that, Mr Harun Yahya declare that; he will give 10 billion USD who brings just one transitional fossil. Why do not you bring and earn 10 billion USD?"

Because:
http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2008/09/adnan-oktars-trillion-dollar-challenge.html

and:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/were_all_going_to_be_rich.php

Josh Vulkens said...

Darwins said that if we dont find any transition, my theory will be destroyed. He said this 150 years ago. There would be trillion kind of transition which are lame, faulty as like alien. In 150 years no one find kind of transition. Some darwinist propagands tell that Tiktaalik rosaea ve Archaeopteryx are transition. They are completely perfect animals. However their origin ended.

As you see there is not any transition. If there we they have to find it in 150 years through 100 million fossils.

AT said...

This is infuriating, Josh. Your definition of 'transitional', like Adnan's, is horrendously flawed. A transitional animal is not 'lame' or 'faulty', or horribly disfigured, or in agony because in the space of a generation it grew a tail.
YOU are a transitional animal. Transitional is a terrible word anyway, because it presupposes a line between two points. The line is continuous; there are no points. There is no such thing as a non-transitional organism.

Josh Vulkens said...

Why beings need evolution according to Darwinism? Because of reaching the perfection accordng to Darwinism. At the begining, beings are lame, fault etc.. And they need avolution to be perfect. And that happen in million years with small changes. This is the theory of Darwinism. If you dont know your own theory, why are you support Darwinism?

THUS, today there is not any transitional beings? If there were, show it to the world. We are waiting.

Do you believe genie and angles?

Anonymous said...

Wrong...evolution does not lead to perfection. It is non directional. What it does is via natural selection, select traits suited to the particular environment. The environment may change, and that trait may not be suitable anymore...leading to other traits which may be more advantageous. Point here is...I repeat...evolution is not going towards perfection.