Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
[UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya
by Richard Dawkins
In 2006, I was one of tens of thousands of academic scientists all around the world who received, unsolicited and completely free, a huge and lavishly illustrated book called Atlas of Creation by the Turkish Muslim apologist Harun Yahya. The thesis of the book, which was published in eleven languages, is that evolution is false. The main 'evidence' consists of page after page of beautiful photographs of fossil animals, each one accompanied by a modern counterpart that is said to have changed not at all since the time of the fossil. It is a large-format book, a thick coffee-table book with more than 700 high-gloss colour pages. The cost of production of such a book must have been extremely high, and one is bound to wonder where the money came from to produce it and then distribute it gratis in so many copies and so many languages.
Given that the entire message of the book depends upon the alleged resemblance between modern animals and their fossil counterparts, I was amused, when I began flicking through at random, to find page 468 devoted to "eels", one fossil and one modern. The caption says,
The fossil eel shown may well be an eel, I cannot tell. But the modern "eel" that Yahya pictures (see left) is undoubtedly not an eel but a sea snake, probably of the highly venomous genus Laticauda (an eel is, of course, not a snake at all but a teleost fish). I have not scanned the book for other inaccuracies of this kind. But given that this was almost the first page I looked at . . . what price the main thesis of the book that modern animals are unchanged since the time of their fossil counterparts?
Incidentally, in May 2008 Harun Yahya, whose real name is Adnan Oktar, was sentenced in a Turkish court to a three-year prison sentence "for creating an illegal organization for personal gain."
Postscript added 8th July
I have now looked at some more pages of this preposterous book. The double page spreads on page 54-55, 368-369, and 414-415 are all labelled 'Crinoid', and all purport to show how similar ancient fossil crinoids are to modern ones. Crinoids are stalked relatives of starfish, members of the phylum Echinodermata. The three spreads have almost identical captions. Here's the one on page 54:
And all three spreads show a beautiful colour photograph of modern crinoids to illustrate the point. Except that, in all three cases, the modern animal pictured is not a crinoid. It isn't even an echinoderm. It isn't even a deuterostome (the sub-kingdom to which the echinoderms, and we, belong). Zoologist readers will recognize it as a tube-dwelling annelid worm, a sabellid.
On page 402, there are four fossil pictures, correctly labelled Britttlestar. The brittlestars are one of the major classes of echinoderms, others being starfish, sea urchins and crinoids. Once again, we have the standard-issue creationist caption:
Finally, PZ has already called attention to this on Pharyngula, but I include a picture for completeness. On page 244, Yahya wishes to say that caddis flies have not changed since some 25-million-year-old insects preserved in amber. Once again, the caption:
By now, we have come to expect something pretty good when we look at the photograph of the modern animal. What will the modern 'caddis fly' be? A minnow, perhaps? A garden slug? A king prawn? No, in a way is better than any of these: A fishing lure, complete with prominent steel hook!
I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the "breathtaking inanity" of the content . Is it really inanity, or is it just plain laziness — or perhaps cynical awareness of the ignorance and stupidity of the target audience — mostly Muslim creationists. And where does the money come from?
Written especially for RichardDawkins.net
Also see:
'Forbidden Music' post on Yahya
Fishing lure photos taken from Graham Owen Fly Tying
Given that the entire message of the book depends upon the alleged resemblance between modern animals and their fossil counterparts, I was amused, when I began flicking through at random, to find page 468 devoted to "eels", one fossil and one modern. The caption says, There are more than 400 species of eels in the order Anguilliformes. That they have not undergone any change in millions of years once again reveals the invalidity of the theory of evolution.
The fossil eel shown may well be an eel, I cannot tell. But the modern "eel" that Yahya pictures (see left) is undoubtedly not an eel but a sea snake, probably of the highly venomous genus Laticauda (an eel is, of course, not a snake at all but a teleost fish). I have not scanned the book for other inaccuracies of this kind. But given that this was almost the first page I looked at . . . what price the main thesis of the book that modern animals are unchanged since the time of their fossil counterparts?
Incidentally, in May 2008 Harun Yahya, whose real name is Adnan Oktar, was sentenced in a Turkish court to a three-year prison sentence "for creating an illegal organization for personal gain."
Postscript added 8th July
I have now looked at some more pages of this preposterous book. The double page spreads on page 54-55, 368-369, and 414-415 are all labelled 'Crinoid', and all purport to show how similar ancient fossil crinoids are to modern ones. Crinoids are stalked relatives of starfish, members of the phylum Echinodermata. The three spreads have almost identical captions. Here's the one on page 54:
The 345-million-year-old crinoid fossil, identical to its living counterparts, invalidates the theory of evolution. Crinoids that have remained unchanged for 345 million years refute the theory of evolution, manifesting the creation of God as a fact.
And all three spreads show a beautiful colour photograph of modern crinoids to illustrate the point. Except that, in all three cases, the modern animal pictured is not a crinoid. It isn't even an echinoderm. It isn't even a deuterostome (the sub-kingdom to which the echinoderms, and we, belong). Zoologist readers will recognize it as a tube-dwelling annelid worm, a sabellid.
On page 402, there are four fossil pictures, correctly labelled Britttlestar. The brittlestars are one of the major classes of echinoderms, others being starfish, sea urchins and crinoids. Once again, we have the standard-issue creationist caption:
This 180-million—year-old fossil reveals that brittlestars have been the same for 200 million years. These animals, no different to those living today, once again reveal the invalidity of evolution.Here we have not one but two photographs of living animals to illustrate the lack of change since the fossils. One of these modern animals is indeed a brittlestar. The other is a starfish! Member of a completely different class of echinoderms and obviously very different to even the meanest glance.
Finally, PZ has already called attention to this on Pharyngula, but I include a picture for completeness. On page 244, Yahya wishes to say that caddis flies have not changed since some 25-million-year-old insects preserved in amber. Once again, the caption:
These living things have survived for millions of years without the slightest change in their structures. The fact that these insects never changed is a sign that they never evolved.
By now, we have come to expect something pretty good when we look at the photograph of the modern animal. What will the modern 'caddis fly' be? A minnow, perhaps? A garden slug? A king prawn? No, in a way is better than any of these: A fishing lure, complete with prominent steel hook!
I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the "breathtaking inanity" of the content . Is it really inanity, or is it just plain laziness — or perhaps cynical awareness of the ignorance and stupidity of the target audience — mostly Muslim creationists. And where does the money come from?
Written especially for RichardDawkins.net
Also see:
'Forbidden Music' post on Yahya
Fishing lure photos taken from Graham Owen Fly Tying
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, July 7, 2008 | PermalinkComments 551 - 600 of 2828 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers552. Comment #206735 by Brian English on July 8, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Laurie, I did get him to post that we only know something is designed because we've seen the designer at work. When I pointed out the inconsistency he hit the reset button. But maybe, and this is probably just wishful thinking, his dormant reasoning skills might have stirred a fraction. Oh well, tis fun to turn the tables on the trolls and be as persistent as they...
Other Comments by Brian English
553. Comment #206736 by Laurie Fraser on July 8, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I think ertu is Harun Yahya. Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
554. Comment #206738 by Brian English on July 8, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I thought he was in a Turkish prison. I'd imagined him getting all friendly like with an American drug mule called Billy.....EDIT: I typed American mule dealer. The mind boggles. Imagine a rapist/creationist in jail with an American mule dealer. How much for his ass?
Other Comments by Brian English
555. Comment #206739 by Bonzai on July 8, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I honestly believe the person writing all this may very well have been "Mr." Harun Yahya himself
Posting from a Turkish jail...
Other Comments by Bonzai
556. Comment #206740 by Cartomancer on July 8, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Maybe the prison wardens confiscated his scissors and he drank all the paste? Other Comments by Cartomancer
557. Comment #206741 by Dhamma on July 8, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Posting from a Turkish jail...
Not very likely at all I'd have to say :) If it's the case, I redraw my thought... Quite funny Laurie thought the same, but didn't get to see my post before :)
Edit: OR.. Maybe it's Allah that posts under the various aliases in order to help Harun! THAT, however, "could" be the explanation.
Other Comments by Dhamma
558. Comment #206744 by kaph on July 8, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Hate to comment now that we're approaching yet another validation of Godwin's law, but couldn't help it. Read on and find out why. But first:@Richard:
Kudos on finally bringing up this f**tard and his acolytes. Splendid work. I was inexplicably happy when I saw that - not what, but that, as I had an idea of the content - you wrote something about him. That's the kind of s**t we have to put up with back home in Turkey. He (or should I say 'they') send this to schools and even universities where - incredibly - it changes people's minds. Now that you've pointed that out, rest assured you'll get more and more reactions every day. Another blow to the distribution/translation of TGD on the horizon? Who knows? But great work anyway. A huge thank you from a Turk who doesn't have his caps lock key stuck.
@Fellows who have put up with BS by ertu et al.
Are you on tranquillizers or what? At least 300-400 comments after first trolling and excluding them, and you're still up and arguing? What kind of patience is that? Totally unbelievable. I take my hat off to you all. No racism, which Turks suffer heavily from on the web, despite repeated provocative attitude. Seriously. I would not have written anything here had it not been for an extraordinary patience on your part and the need I felt to thank Richard.
@ ertu and his assorted dumbass trolls:
Get a life! But wait: You never will! Just let your brains rot in whatever nonsense you've been reading, and keep those filthy hands to yourselves, and away from any proper discussion. One last appeal to the miniscule bits of what's left of your sad sordid stupid little brain: forget the whatever dozen women you were promised. Forget all that BS. Get a good - and I do mean good - book on biology and read. I know this is in vain, but hey, just so you know, there are other things to read out there. Read. Not copy and paste.
Other Comments by kaph
559. Comment #206756 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Too much copypasta gives you the diabeetus. Other Comments by Dr Benway
560. Comment #206758 by Roland_F on July 8, 2008 at 6:42 pm
What can I say to the copy & paste spamming of kilobytes of Cretinist website crap here from deluded religious persons ?Maybe a quote from Ignatius von Loyla the founder of the Jesuit cult : "I have faith that the white what I see is black when the hierarchy of the church is defining it as such."
["Ich glaube, dass das Weisse, das ich sehe, schwarz ist, wenn die hierarchische Kirche es so bestimmt."]
Other Comments by Roland_F
561. Comment #206763 by qomak on July 8, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Whew, now I can go back and delete all my comments to at least help organize the mess created by these dumbfucks.Edit: I'll never be ungrateful for clearthinker again.
Other Comments by qomak
562. Comment #206764 by Fouad Boussetta on July 8, 2008 at 7:17 pm
A FISHING LURE !?!! I can't believe it. Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta
563. Comment #206765 by Laurie Fraser on July 8, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Well, that was a pleasant experience all round, ladies and gentlemen.
If you'll allow me to divvy up, I think Brian English (aka "Dawkins' Bulldog") takes the biscuit for sheer fortitude. (C'mon, Brian, admit it - you love it!)
Other Comments by Laurie Fraser
564. Comment #206767 by Brian English on July 8, 2008 at 7:24 pm
It is fun. It's sort of a challenge to see if you can get them to see the inconsistency of their position. But the fun is to return the favor of being an a bothersome prick. :)I hope this hasn't become a situation where others feel they can't post, or it's my 'thing' to harangue the dogmatists. Everybody do what they feel is appropriate I say!
Other Comments by Brian English
565. Comment #206792 by Roland_F on July 8, 2008 at 8:16 pm
564. Comment #206764 by Fouad Boussetta : A FISHING LURE !?!! I can't believe it
You should beliefe in Allah the almighty not in the fishing lure !
And the almighty creator is so wise to create insects including steel hook to make it easier for humans to fish : this is really intelligent design ! And it hasn't changed or evolved over millions of years and all fossils are with steelhook !
Other Comments by Roland_F
566. Comment #206802 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2008 at 8:32 pm
You can catch more creationists with flies than with vinegar. Other Comments by Dr Benway
567. Comment #206803 by Brian English on July 8, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Classic Dr. B! :) Other Comments by Brian English
568. Comment #206903 by epeeist on July 9, 2008 at 12:48 am
Comment #206767 by Brian EnglishI hope this hasn't become a situation where others feel they can't post, or it's my 'thing' to harangue the dogmatists. Everybody do what they feel is appropriate I say!It is blatantly obvious that these people are only capable of cutting and pasting criticisms from creationist sites.
Ask them to frame a positive argument for creationism or their god and they fall apart.
I am all for Brian or whoever else is up first pressing them on their alternative hypothesis and anyone else who is about supporting them in this.
Other Comments by epeeist
569. Comment #206907 by epeeist on July 9, 2008 at 12:58 am
Comment #206744 by kaph@Fellows who have put up with BS by ertu et al.Welcome to the site. You do realise that now you have de-lurked we shall be expecting more posts from you?
Are you on tranquillizers or what? At least 300-400 comments after first trolling and excluding them, and you're still up and arguing? What kind of patience is that? Totally unbelievable. I take my hat off to you all.
What you have to realise is that this is a high profile site. There is slim to no chance of educating the likes of ertu. However, there are large numbers of people reading who can be educated. These are the people we are writing for.
The creationists do their cause no good when they do not understand that a problem with evolution is only a problem with evolution. It does not validate their position. They have to raise positive arguments for their alternative hypothesis.
Since there are few if any positive arguments that do not involve miracles then it doesn't take too long before they look ridiculous (yes txpiper, I am looking at you. Ice shell indeed) in that they are in a position that they cannot defend.
Other Comments by epeeist
570. Comment #206908 by GordonYKWong on July 9, 2008 at 12:59 am
Holy FSM, I just finished reading all of that X_X
EDIT: epeeist - I have PM-ed you.
Other Comments by GordonYKWong
571. Comment #206948 by mixmastergaz on July 9, 2008 at 2:25 am
Wow, this thread could almost remind me of 'fleabytes' (oh, remember those heady days) except of course that clearthinker did at least respond to other posts instead of bombing us with plagiarised horse shit. Plagiarised posts defending a plagiarised book; at least these people are consistent!
Great to see the copyright owner of the plagiarised photos wading in (sorry, couldn't resist!) Hello and welcome sir.
Paula: You floated the idea that Yahya isn't necessarily being deliberately deceitful; that he (and others I suppose) may "see and not see". I've often wondered about that myself. I dare say you've read Hitchens' 'God is not Great'. In the chapter regarding the origins of Mormonism Hitchens declares this to be a fascinating and still open question. I'm sure, as you suggest, this would be a good topic for a student of the psychology of religion but I'm wondering if anyone out there knows of any research that has already been undertaken along similar lines. My guess would be that this trait, although not restricted to matters of faith, would be most pronounced in a religious context. Anecdotally, one non-religious example that springs to mind is the unwavering loyalty of passionate football fans, who will continue to insist, for example, that no foul has been committed even when confronted with irrefutable evidence close-up and in slow-motion. I used to think that only certain types of people would indulge themselves in this sort of behaviour but now I'm beginning to wonder whether we might all be capable of it given the right circumstances (e.g. "My wife/husband/daughter/son would never do such a thing.") Are there any lurking psychologists out there who could throw some light on my layperson's speculation?
Other Comments by mixmastergaz
572. Comment #206956 by Brian English on July 9, 2008 at 2:53 am
Clearmind, you know that people design houses because you see designers. You know that people design machines because you see machine designers. You claim the universe was designed. When did you see the designer of the universe?I'll stop asking the same question when you answer it. That's how debate works. You have to answer a reasonable question. You brought design into the argument, I'm asking how you know there was design.
Other Comments by Brian English
573. Comment #206957 by Thor'Ungal on July 9, 2008 at 2:58 am
I give you:
a crocosquirrel
yea I know it's hard to tell, well that's evolution for you.
Other Comments by Thor'Ungal
574. Comment #206965 by alovrin on July 9, 2008 at 3:08 am
clearmindHis first wife at the age of 25, in 695. passed away in 620.
There seems to be a (shall we say) discrepancy here.
So is Dawkins pedophile?
Your treading dangerous ground here MMM
(That stands for Masturbatory Mental Midget)
REAL PROFESSOR at one of the state universities, he is an expert in the field of theology, especially Islam.
Ohh I shaking in my shoes a REAL PROFESSOR does he have a name. Luckily its only in theology, so I I'll raise him a couple of PhD's in fairyology, and three in hobgloblinism.
Brian English who is stuck, he keeps asking the same questions though he got the answers.
OH reelly, well let me ask you in a plainer way, when the f**K did you meet god?
Other Comments by alovrin
575. Comment #206966 by mordacious1 on July 9, 2008 at 3:08 am
ClearmindWhy do you post here, no one listens to your drivel, you won't answer direct questions about proving your imaginary god, and you just make a fool of yourself. Is it that you like it when people tell you to fuck off? Is it like self-flagilation? OK, this is what you want, fine.
clearmind: Fuck off.
I hope that makes your day.
Other Comments by mordacious1
576. Comment #206992 by GordonYKWong on July 9, 2008 at 4:38 am
Comment #206953 by clearmind on July 9, 2008 at 2:49 amThe comments on holy books and any believers are self-description of evolution and evolins.
Don't play the words to save his books' image more popping up the sick guys' ugly things that are deleted from evolution tree to you? Clear? {By Clearmind/banned wooter) He is apparently trying to belittle his ideas
Comment #206135 by clearmind on July 8, 2008 at 6:09 am
This is really so nasty. Why don't ask Gordon some Chinese tea to think?If It were true then, we can define nasty. Example: Define nasty here: (Why does your ass split into two buttocks?
It must have been waiting almost for 14.6 billion years.
Give it up in swearing, slandering, and smearing which fits in NO INTELLIGENCE allowed so humour went in.
Nobody messes with Logic.
Other Comments by GordonYKWong
577. Comment #207007 by Dhamma on July 9, 2008 at 5:00 am
Hahaha... Guys, don't you see what we're up to? He knows a REAL professor! He just ran over all of us, including a semi-professor like Dawkins.So, it seems Islam was correct. I actually had my bet on scientology. Maybe they're right when we live in hell instead.
IDiots.
Other Comments by Dhamma
578. Comment #207010 by Bonzai on July 9, 2008 at 5:02 am
GordonWhy does your ass split into two buttocks?
It must have been waiting almost for 14.6 billion years.
Hey, That was my question to wooter!
All great minds think the same. I am also a Wong.
Other Comments by Bonzai
579. Comment #207015 by Dhamma on July 9, 2008 at 5:10 am
Clearmind: So Aisha wasn't nine when they had sex?That must mean that if all muslims are wrong about her age, they still want to defend what every normal person considers horrible? They are defending paedophilia and, according to you, they don't even have to? Then don't you see how delusional they are?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1fjCmPTSsbA
Fortunately you're wrong, and he was a paedophile, which gives us heaps of reasons to mock you IDiots!
Other Comments by Dhamma
580. Comment #207018 by Tyler Durden on July 9, 2008 at 5:14 am
Why is "clearmind" not on the Alternate Comment Thread? Other Comments by Tyler Durden
581. Comment #207026 by kaph on July 9, 2008 at 5:21 am
Prove that you haven't got a 240 V stick buzzing up somewhere inside your body every 5 minutes; that the white bearded wise old man in your dreams actually does not exist; and that there is not a china pot hovering in orbit somewhere between Earth and Mars, clearmind, and I'll prove that Prof. Dawkins isn't a paedophile.Very sad to see so many neurons wasted in your brain.
Have you still not realized that the burden of proof is yours, and not ours?
Other Comments by kaph
582. Comment #207030 by BillySands on July 9, 2008 at 5:29 am
His first wife at the age of 25, in 695. passed away in 620.
There seems to be a (shall we say) discrepancy here.
Ha Ha! Well done in managing to find the patience to read his drivel. I normally just ignore his posts and read the ones kicking his ass. So, if he thinks he has something worth saying, he has clearly failed - all he does is bore me with his stupidity and ignorance. Again, I call for him to read a proper book on evolution and stop attacking strawmen (he's not even good at that)
Other Comments by BillySands
583. Comment #207034 by epeeist on July 9, 2008 at 5:37 am
Comment #207026 by kaphHave you still not realized that the burden of proof is yours, and not ours?He has been posting rubbish on the site for what seems like decades.
While he claims to be a Romanian primary school teacher with a BA and MA the consensus of opinion is that he is a sock puppet.
Hence the reason that most people ignore him or alternatively why people like GordonYKWong make a joke of what he posts.
Other Comments by epeeist
584. Comment #207044 by Quetzalcoatl on July 9, 2008 at 5:47 am
Speaking of trolls, one has appeared on my blog. Does anyone have a spray of some kind that will deal with this problem? Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
585. Comment #207047 by BillySands on July 9, 2008 at 5:53 am
Speaking of trolls, one has appeared on my blog. Does anyone have a spray of some kind that will deal with this problem?
I'm wondering if you might actually have 2
Other Comments by BillySands
586. Comment #207053 by Calilasseia on July 9, 2008 at 6:01 am
First of all, allow me to extend a hearty welcome to Kaph. Who provides welcome evidence that individuals capable of distinguishing reality from fantasy are present everywhere, even if local circumstances might make life difficult for them at times. :)In reply to this:
@Fellows who have put up with BS by ertu et al.
Are you on tranquillizers or what? At least 300-400 comments after first trolling and excluding them, and you're still up and arguing? What kind of patience is that? Totally unbelievable. I take my hat off to you all. No racism, which Turks suffer heavily from on the web, despite repeated provocative attitude. Seriously. I would not have written anything here had it not been for an extraordinary patience on your part and the need I felt to thank Richard.
Well, I can only speak for myself, but my personal policy is that mendacious propaganda for a doctrine, the assorted lies and other instances of discoursive malfeasance that inevitably accompany it, and rampant scientific illiteracy should be confronted head on. The lies of propagandists for reality-denial doctrines should be exposed to the fullest extent whenever possible so that their lies can be seen by even the most causal of observers to be demonstrably and manifestly lies, the rampant stupidity and scientific illiteracy of such doctrines should be brought out into the open and exposed as such, and when patient explanation of the fallacies and errors inherent therein fails to dissuade the ideological warrior for doctrine from continuing along the same path of mindless proselytising, ridicule should inevitably follow, because ridicule is what such individuals plainly deserve. At times, the exercise of this process does take an inordinate amount of patience, but it requires less patience if one possesses a taste for debunking canards.
The simple fact is, that once we encounter an individual such as ertu, with the all too familiar aetiology of the doctrine addled mind, our purpose is not that of trying to educate the propagandist for doctrine, because such an individual is beyond education. Once a doctrine such as creationism takes hold in the mind, it distorts not only thought but perception itself, to the point where the adherent's very sensing of the real world is subject to doctrinal censorship. Such an individual is impervious to reason, to evidence, to any of the usual processes of discourse that you and I understand to be proper conduct with regard to the discussion of the validity of various postulates about the world. The critical thinkers here are not interested in any attempt at educating the hardcore ideological warriors for doctrine, because we know in advance that this is utterly futile. Our labours here can be thought of as a vaccination process - by exposing the fallacies, the errors, the mendacity and duplicity of the ideological warriors for doctrine, by making them manifest, we inoculate lurkers (such as you yourself were before your post above) against intellect-rotting doctrinal mind viruses. Reason, rational discourse, along with a healthy dose of ridicule of absurdities thus deserving of it, constitutes the vaccine that helps to reduce the incidence of infection by ideological pathogens, as you are doubtless aware. There are occasions when our labours take on the mantle of a thoroughly thankless task, but when an individual such as yourself emerges from the shadows to thank us for our efforts, we know that it has all been worthwhile. :)
Other Comments by Calilasseia
587. Comment #207055 by al-rawandi on July 9, 2008 at 6:02 am
clearmind,
You idiot, you have really shamed yourself now.
The prophet Mohammed got married with His first wife at the age of 25, in 695. And his wife passed away in 620. He emigrated to Medina and in 622 and after almost one year in 623 got married with Aisa since he was 53 three years old and single parent with kids.
Is this what the professor told you? Would this be the professor from Gilligan's Island? Look at the years you posted and tell me how you think that works out. Alvorin made the obvious point that Muhammad was moving backwards in time. He did not marry his "first wife" in 620, as he died in 632. If he was 53 as you say when he married A'isha, yet married his first wife at agre 25 in 620... how did he die in 632?
Aisha had a sister, Esma, who was ten years older than Aisha and passed away in 695 at the age of 100.
695-100= 595
595 10(older)= 605 is the birth date of Aisa
We can dismiss this little bit. As it doesn't even fit your original timeline.
Aisa was 27 years old when the prophet passed away in 632 and Aisa was 27 years old at that time. So again simple mathematics;
632- 623(marriage DATE)= 9 YEARS MARRIAGE WITH THE PROPHET.
SO 27-9= Aisa was 18 YEARS OLD when she got married.
Not only is this false, scholars at Al-Azhar (the center of Islamic scholarship) have said denying A'isha was 9 at marriage is blasphemous.
Now all rawandi will scream and post a bunch of hadiths. I asked it before to the professor. This is what he said, some priests from other religion under the name of Islam, they produced some hadiths to discredit ISLAM, SO THEY ACHIVED IN SOME WAYS. THEY ARE CALLED ORIENTALISTS.
Actually the hadiths that recount A'isha's age at marriage are known as Sahih, which means they were rigorously verified and have a reliable and solid Isnad (chain of narration) there is no higher authority than such a Hadith except for the Qur'an itself.
So everything is clear? You still continue to play mudslinger? (I CHANGE IT UPON THE PROFESSOR'S CORRECTION, BUT STILL I LIKE MUDMAN; IT SOUNDS LIKE MADMAN.
You really are a fucktard.
And your professor friend is welcome to email me any corrections he feels I need to make, instead of cowardly hiding behind an unlettered fool such as yourself...
al.rawandi@gmail.com
I await his stunning vituperation.
*EDIT* Better yet, give me this professor's name, I will look him up and see what he has published on Islam, and I will email him myself. Do you have his name and email for me?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
588. Comment #207057 by Steve Zara on July 9, 2008 at 6:07 am
In dealing with someone who is insistent that the Earth is flat, posting in great detail about geology and physics serves no purpose. There may be some purpose if that person is prepared to engage in discussion, but we have seen not the slightest indication of that here.
I think Brian's approach is the best (although it has taken me a while to realise it) - force them to make a case for their views in their own terms.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
589. Comment #207060 by Ygern on July 9, 2008 at 6:11 am
Comment #206645 by CalilasseiaI for one appreciated your long response. I learned something from it, even though I suspect that the intended will make sure he does not.
Other Comments by Ygern
590. Comment #207063 by al-rawandi on July 9, 2008 at 6:12 am
clearmind,
1. So is Dawkins pedophile?
Unlikely, but anything is possible. But Dawkins isn't advocating people fondle virgins as Muhammad did. Dawkins doesn't have a billion strong band of followers saying screwing 9 year olds is acceptable because Richard Dawkins did it. Do you see the difference.
Steve,
I am convinced that clearmind is actually a retarded boy, a left over accident of Soviet experiments. I noticed his poor English first, which can be explained away on account of nationality, but the fact that he cannot manage even simple math leads me to believe that in the race of life, he is competing in the challenger division.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
591. Comment #207069 by Roland_F on July 9, 2008 at 6:26 am
Wooterism Mathematics : by 574. Comment #206953 by DeludedmindThe prophet Mohammed got married with His first wife at the age of 25, in 695. And his wife passed away in 620.
Interesting : passing away 75 years before marriage. So Mohammed married an undead Zombie ?
More Wooter Math: 580. Comment #207004 by Deludedmind
Oh Lovely IQ
570 birth date of prophet 25= 695
= ???? 570 whether plus nor minus 25 is coming anywhere near 695.
Even a 6 year old kid can do better ! So even this is not fitting though the reason sieve of the self declared 'master' of logic !
Other Comments by Roland_F
592. Comment #207071 by al-rawandi on July 9, 2008 at 6:32 am
Calilasseia,
I had a shorter, analagous, description.
It is like showing up to a golf game, with clubs and appropriately attired. And your golf partner arrives wearing knee high leather boots, a miniskirt, chain mail and an astronaut helmet whilst carrying an axe.
How does that afternoon proceed?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
593. Comment #207077 by AllanW on July 9, 2008 at 6:51 am
al-rawandi;
'How does that afternoon proceed?'
Depends how quickly you can get the golf attire off behind the bunker.
I'll get me coat ...
Other Comments by AllanW
594. Comment #207080 by al-rawandi on July 9, 2008 at 6:54 am
AllanW,
Actually I meant a man wearing all of those things... but maybe that is your idea of a good afternoon.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
595. Comment #207083 by GordonYKWong on July 9, 2008 at 6:55 am
Comment #207010 by Bonzai on July 9, 2008 at 5:02 amHey, That was my question to wooter!Hello cousin Bonzai.
All great minds think the same. I am also a Wong.
I wish I can claim I thought of that hilarious question. No it is not me, it is WooterBot! (a program that regurgitate from Wooter's previous post in a random fashion) He must have copied your question in his post somewhere and that is why it is regurgitated here.
Comment #207053 by Calilasseia on July 9, 2008 at 6:01 am
but when an individual such as yourself emerges from the shadows to thank us for our efforts, we know that it has all been worthwhile. :)You are always appreciated here Cal, I have never commented on anything you said on RD.Net before but I have always read your posts. I am just one of the multitude of lurkers that do pay attention to your straight no-nonsense teachings.
Comment #207034 by epeeist on July 9, 2008 at 5:37 am
Hence the reason that most people ignore him or alternatively why people like GordonYKWong make a joke of what he posts.I think I pay Wooter more respect than most people here, at least I used to.
I craft long posts asking him about his beliefs about evolution. I embedded nice pictures of skeletons. I carefully craft the English so that a non-native speaker can understand easier. The questions I asked were simple and unambiguous.
But he dismiss my inquiries with disdain and a some-what: "You can't understand coz you are an atheist/evolin" (what is an evolin??? an electric violin??)
That's when I think it is not I who don't or don't want to understand. It is he who don't or don't want to understand. And no amount of beautiful explanation from Calilasseia or Steve Zara or epeeiest is likely to penetrate the language (or theological) barrier.
So I wrote WooterBot to respond to Wooter rather than engage my own time to talk to him. I have communicated with him for about a month like this now.
I mean we all have our strategy to deal with him. Brian English is steadfast and unwavering, Steve Zara is using shame, Diacanu using ridicule, Calilasseia using his immense knowledge, Cartomancer and Rev Dark using lucid and beautifully written put-downs.
Ultimately, all these strategies are flawed, in that he does not understand English well enough. He doesn't. No idea. I wrote him a hearty and polite post welcoming him to a new thread and he accuse me of using "bad words" against him... So I just kept WooterBot churning out wooterism for him to misinterpret on his own.
I have tried to explain to him and have given him some clues that he has been talking to WooterBot for a while now and he still kept on talking to it. I just let him blather on. It ought to keep him off the streets or something.
sigh... I feel sorry for him.
EDIT: sorry for the long whiny story.
Other Comments by GordonYKWong
596. Comment #207100 by Verylee on July 9, 2008 at 7:35 am
Comment #207010 by Bonzai
Comment #207083 by GordonYKWong
All great minds think the same. I am also a Wong.
Do 2 Wongs make a Wooter?
Other Comments by Verylee
597. Comment #207104 by decius on July 9, 2008 at 7:40 am
The thread has been partially de-trolled, with clearmind still struggling to join his fellow cretinists in the dark side. I would worry if I were him, islamists aren't too friendly with fundamentalists belonging to a different brand of the global lie. Other Comments by decius
598. Comment #207107 by GordonYKWong on July 9, 2008 at 7:43 am
Comment #207100 by Verylee on July 9, 2008 at 7:35 amDo 2 Wongs make a Wooter?I certainly hope not.
I think two wongs make a white...
Other Comments by GordonYKWong
599. Comment #207109 by Tyler Durden on July 9, 2008 at 7:46 am
Joe,
Your caps lock is stuck.
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
600. Comment #207110 by GordonYKWong on July 9, 2008 at 7:50 am
Comment #207102 by Joe Morreale on July 9, 2008 at 7:36 amTHIS IS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED THE TRUTH AND CAUSED GREAT DISCOMFORTHemorrhoids causes great discomfort, and they present as much truths as you and Ertu do.
As they say in NY, "Fuck you, motherfucker".
Other Comments by GordonYKWong
More Comments: First | Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next | Last
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
551. Comment #206734 by Dhamma on July 8, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Wouldn't be surprised in the least if it were the case. These guys can be quite narcissistic and the various aliases really seemed to put Harun Yahya on a pedestal.
Can't they see if the aliases had the same IP at least?
Btw: I admire your persistence Brian, haha!
Other Comments by Dhamma