I just got a nice letter from the Science Research Foundation of Turkey, an organization founded by Adnan Oktar and with a name so duplicitous that our American Republicans are writhing with envy. Here's their request and my answer.
Dear Dr. Paul Zachary Myers,
I am more or less aware of your writings and ideology. Anyhow I would like
to suggest you an email debate with Mr. Adnan Oktar. If you are interested
to participate in such a debate or just ask questions that you wish answers
for, I might be able to arrange such a correspondence.We are full defenders of freedom of speech, democracy and secularism. We
believe that even an atheist, a communist etc. should be able to promote his
ideas and should be treated as 1st class citizens in our country. So this
might show how we are open to discussion and civilized dialogue with mutual
respect even if we do not agree with someone's beliefs or ideas.Please let me know your comments and feel free to ask any of your questions
Best regards,Ms. Seda Aral (Science Research Foundation)
NO.
Oktar is a crook, a fraud, a liar, and a man completely ignorant of the most basic concepts of science. There is no more point to my engaging him than already have, so why should I grant him the privilege of treating him as an equal? He hasn't earned it.
- Log in to post comments
Even that didn't convince you?
I'd like to ask why he's such a pigheaded idiot and egregious liar. The trouble is, all I'd get is another string of lies.
A little more seriously, it would be fun to hear the "reason" for including fishing flies in his pictures of designed organisms. At least they're actually designed, but I'd like to know how he understands them to be life.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Does Oktar translate to Ham in English?
Good answer.
Make sure you don't GO to Turkey for any reason. It is one of the countries that can convict you (in absentia) of crimes against their nation that are not crimes in yours - even when you weren't in their country.
It is also a country that would extradite you to another country who had convicted you similarly.
They also banned Dawkins website, as you know. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1431422.php/Turk…
See that there is the difference between a gentleman and a scholar and me. I would have added a "fuck off" after the "no".
i.e. NUTS.
Well, at least I know what PZ stands for now. That advances human knowledge a tiny step.
i visualise Ms. Adal stopped typing here to do a shaky-headed "whatever" and a big high five with Otkar.
I would've liked to have seen that, though. It would've been a knife at a gun fight
Actaully, I think
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
would've been better.
Now, Zach, he said that even a dirty, stinking atheist or a filthy, pinko commie should be able to promote their ideas.
What's not to agree to?
EVEN atheists deserve the right to be treated as equal human beings. WTF! Are they kidding us!?
It sounds like "EVEN dogs deserve humane treatment". Good grief what amazing arrogance! As if the whole world revolves around their religious little asses! As if people that renounce superstition are somehow not really deserve any respect, but yet nonetheless and despite everything can be granted it any, because these religious morons are soooo democratic!
Just wait what happens if they would get real power. Then that democratic, tolerant hypocrisy suddenly disappears and turns into the same old repression.
Wow. What a condescending, arrogant missive. Typical of Creationists, Islamic or Christian.
If you are able to use the rel="nofollow" attribute on the link to the SRF, it would not look like a vote of support to Google. ;-)
Some questions I'd like to see him ask: how do fishing lures disprove evolution, why is anal sex not sex.
Doesn't this imply that the country has at least some citizens that are not "treated as 1st class"? Atheists and communists do not seem to fall into this group of citizens - I wonder who does?
Oh, come on - you wouldn't be wasting any more time than Pim has recently at PT ( http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/luskin-and-the-2.html ) - the troll-fest is approaching 1100 comments and shows no signs of letting up.
Tell him you'd be happy to debate him in the UMM campus, however...anytime in the next three years.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/XX/172_harun_yahya_sentenced…
Fucking good answer if you ask me. It smells like a trap anyway.
Screw em, he deserves no respect.
OT, but Drudge has a poll about who won the debate. It needs crashing, hard.
A'LITTLE creepy how there is only two things that came to their mind when addressing an atheist. Oh so atheist is synonymous to communist now because nothing else comes to mind?!
WOW etc.
And with that, my estimation of the esteemed Mr. Meyers/Mayers/Meers/Myers goes up one more notch.
That letter simply oozes insincerity. Even before I'd scrolled down to PZ's big fat NO, alarms were flashing in my head. "It's a trap! Get out of there!"
Of course I needn't have worried. As Stan Laurel said, "You think I'm no fool but I am". Or something like that...
I agree with others here. This sounds like a trap.
Kurds and Armenians, mostly.
That said, Turkey really is a nice country to visit. There are a lot of great people there trying to drag the country into the 21st Century. Too bad a bunch of nationalists wackos are in charge.
Dear lazyweb. Could someone please write a web application that crossed a simple Eliza / AI with the Talk Origins "index to creationist claims", and open it up to debate any creationist?
Other than that all the self-identified Communists I've ever met have been total flakes, I fail to see exactly what's so wrong about being a Communist that ought to even putatively deprive one of first-class citizenship.
Last I checked, being a flake wasn't a crime, and might even get you the #2 Head of Government/State nod in some countries I could name...
And this comes from the same organisation which got RDnet banned in Turkey? Perhaps it should read like this:
Until people with actual guns showed up. Given the recent and long-term history of Turkey, only an idiot would place himself within their jurisdiction after becoming known like this.
Hmm...
"Your search - site:www.srf-tr.org labs - did not match any documents."
Can't be right? I mean, look at that name: 'Science research foundation'... What could be more sciencey and researchy? Wow!
"Your search - site:www.srf-tr.org laboratories - did not match any documents."
Strange. Must be missing somethin'...
"Your search - site:www.srf-tr.org procedures - did not match any documents."
Huh.
"Your search - site:www.srf-tr.org results - did not match any documents."
Indeed.
Yet another case of "Evolutionary biologist is afraid to debate me" I'm sure. But saying NO is the right thing to do.
Winning lottery numbers! But that's just me!
DSB @ #19:
I did my part. Too busy/lazy to manually delete cookies just so I can live up to my birthplace and "vote early, vote often". I'm sure some other posters will make up for my failings, right?
Wasn't it amazing to learn that Palin wowed 'em? /snark
Even an atheist? My, what a fine example of tolerance. Nobel Peace Prize nomination for these guys!
With a cheery "Meep meep" the PZ Roadrunner leaves the Adnam Coyote at the centre of the shadow of a falling anvil.
Does he also have a "financial opportunity" he would like you to assist him with...something like moving a cool mill out of Nigeria or something?
I'll tell you what needs crashing: The mainstream media, for making such a big stink out of how Palin didn't drool on herself or pull a total Stockdale.
'Harun Yayha!" sounds like someone vomiting in a shop doorway after a dodgy takeaway.
Buford: Turkey's lovely. Hugely hospitable people, more ancient archaeology than your eyes can take in, triffic kebabs, great sailing. Wouldn't want to stereotype countrieson the basis of some bad laws, religious kooks and shit leaders, now would we?
Harun Yahya is Arabic for Aaron John. Pretty boring, right?
"Aaron John?" I knew it! He's one of the Red Lectroids!
The great Admiral Ackbar had some relevant advice for situations like this:
Ackbar
I wouldn't say it's a trap. I think all this Oktar person wants is to use PZ to peddle his gibberish. He wants the publicity and not an actual debate. After all, Oktar would clearly be going in with his mind already made up. People have addressed his nonsense. It's been handled and shot down. And yet, for whatever reason, he decides to come pleading to PZ that he debate the same bullshit that so many others have thrown in his face.
It's like the all star game. PZ's the second string QB who is equally good, if not better than, the starter.
I may have carried that metaphor a little too far.
Anyway, no. I would not go to Turkey unless you have the urge to be a martyr for free thinkers.
He'd probably pull out his fishing lures as proof of creation.
"Your search - site:www.srf-tr.org labs - did not match any documents." - AJ Milne, #28
Oh, come now - Google this line:
"Science Research Foundation" Turkey
You get all sorts of stuff, starting with the very long NCSE article PZ referenced first above - and another item including this delightful tidbit: "Duane Gish and Henry Morris visited Turkey in 1992, just after the establishment of (the Science Research Foundation), and participated in a creationist conference in Istanbul." - http://whoisharunyahya.wordpress.com/bav-science-research-foundation-an…
Seem like they are ICR and DI and CRS all roled up into one entity.
Oh boy, you get all the whackos, don't you PZ?
"We are full defenders of freedom of speech, democracy and secularism."
WHAT??? Aren't these the guys who want to ban internet sites they don't like?!!!
I like the opening: "I am more or less aware..." It somehow encapsulates exactly how this sort of self-deceiving, yet consciously crooked, human turd "thinks."
The comparison to true Newt & Shrub "Republicans" is right on target, too.
OT, but interesting:
Full defenders of freedom of speech - as exemplarised by successfully banning the Richard Dawkins website from Turkey?
I don't think that I agree with Buford (comment #3): "Make sure you don't GO to Turkey for any reason. It is one of the countries that can convict you (in absentia) of crimes against their nation that are not crimes in yours - even when you weren't in their country.
It is also a country that would extradite you to another country who had convicted you similarly". Turkey is a beautiful fascinating country, and I'd go back tomorrow, if there weren't so many other places in the world. There are mad religious fanatics in all countries, including America.
Which reminds me, next year I'm doing a Darwin "pilgrimage". First the Galapagos Islands, then the Grand Canyon on the National Centre for Science Education rafting trip, followed by London for Darwin's Down House and at the end the total solar eclipse in Shanghai on the 22nd of July (yes, I know it doesn't have anything to do with Darwin).
My problem is that I have a number of days free in Lost Wages, sorry Las Vegas, from the 11th to the 13th of July, and since the rocks of the Grand Canyon are so boring (just Cambrian to Permian), I was hoping to do a camping trip to Bryce Canyon, to see more interesting rocks (Jurassic and Cretaceous). And also Zion Canyon.
Has anyone been able to do a similar trip? I'm looking for a tour operator. I don't want to rent a 4-wheel vehicle to drive myself, nor do I want to just do day trips from Lost Wages. Actually, I just don't want to spend more than the minimum time there.
Nice response.
Re #42: Umm, yeah. I got that.
Note the search terms again a little more thoughtfully, maybe?
Alex @ 9
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA would have been better
the legendery Battle of the Bulge response is excellent for cross cultural mis communication. "Nuts"
_______________________________________________
Scooter and Rick's live interview with Sarah Palin, post debate
You mean like the US?
OT: Pat Condell's video "Welcome to Saudi Britain" is back up on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox2-Wun2dIg
Any idea as to why YouTube reinstated it? (not that I'm complaining).
Luger @ #48
I spend a lot of time in that part of Utah, although I come from north of there, so I might be wrong on times, but I think it's ~ 2 hrs to Zion and ~3-4 hrs to Bryce. You don't need 4WD to get to either of those parks. A regular passenger car will get you there and in both parks. In fact, there is a shuttle service in both parks, so you will be taking a bus to most of the trailheads.
Zion NP does not allow commercial guiding inside the park. There are several outfits in Sprindale (the town right at the mouth of the main park entrance) that do rock climbing/canyoneering/hiking trips, but not inside the park. I can recommend Zion Adventure Company (435-772-0990).
I don't know if Bryce allows guiding, and there is no town right next to the park, but Ruby's Inn, which is close, might have information ((435) 834-5301).
Red Rock Canyon is right outside Las Vegas, but it's Mojave desert, and although it is part of the Colorado Plateau, it's probably more like the Grand Canyon than Zion.
There are also plenty of people who go to the Colorado Plateau to play, and many of them are delighted to take new people around (sometimes I am one of them). There is a forum where you can talk to some of these guys, at www.bogely.com.
I think I would have responded something like this:
"Is piss the fucking Hell off before I really exercise my vocabulary a concept your damaged cretinist brain can process?"
Yeah right, Oktar. That's why you *tried* to have Dawkin's website banned (I say tried because alternate pathways can be found). The exclusive use of "his", as opposed to "his/her" gives me a clue that you belong with the barefoot-pregnant-inthekitchen contingent. I'm running with the "fuck you" pack.
PZ, I applaud your polite reply.
Make him bring the beer.
Tell him: "Malt does more than Milton can/To justify God's ways to man." It's never had that effect on me but it's more fun than a Godlecture or a hatful of heroic couplets.
Add to the above that Yes I've noticed that the "debate" was posed as an email exercise. If we could send beer via electrons we'd all be having even more fun here.
WHY SO AFRAID? Why do all atheists or evolutionists fear to death to debate? Are they sure that they would be losers? Here is what happens, thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking but no answer comes: http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/dawkins_challenge.php
Luger Otter Robinson #48 wrote:
I'm not sure, but I think those are the dates for next year's James Randi annual skeptic convention in Vegas. If so, you should seriously consider going. It fits into the general theme of your 'pilgrimage,' and you could probably hook up with some people who want to do Bryce Canyon afterwards (there is usually a geologist or stray scientist with a sign-up sheet.)
Frederick K #59 wrote:
Why are creationists so interested in convincing the general public? Are they AFRAID that scientists with genuine expertise in the area will not be impressed?
Hone your theory, come up with a testable model and a research plan, get some real experiments and studies published in reputable journals without cheating or relying on "reviews" of pre-existing work -- and you won't be interested in public debates any more. They don't really count, you know.
The "information in the genome" question has been explained and answered to death. But I'm afraid it's all science-y.
Fear isn't quite the right word. Basically, you asshats are so lacking in credibility that we have to lend you some just to debate. That lent credibility is never returned, neither is the wasted time. There hasn't been a creationist yet who can support their claims when challenged, or who will withdraw them when it's obvious they're unsupported. Someone who could live by those rules couldn't be a creationist in the first place.
By the way, capslock is not the cruise-control for awesome.
Did anyone else see in the NYTimes the ad taken out by thousands of physicians including world-class professors of Dermatology asking McCain to release his medical records to the public?
The reason they won't release Sarah Palin's is, they include an involuntary hospitalization with a diagnosis of suicidal/danger-to-self.
For future reference:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=christopher+hitchens+debate
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=richard+dawkins+debate
What fear? Why should there be a legitimate debate between someone who does know science and someone completely ignorant of science? What purpose does it serve other than legitimising their position? Biologists don't fear creationists, but the place to discuss science is in the academic arena. It's the creationists who can't hack around academic arena so they use the public arena where there are untrained minds in order to get their message across.
In other words, if this "scientist" has something to say, he should be saying it around scientists instead of around gullible morons who don't know the difference between a theory and mythology.
Kel, #64
You want scientific debate, Google on "seymouria" and "synapsid seymouria". Oy do findings range. "Seymouria is transitional." "Seymouria is not transitional." "Seymouria is a reptile." "Seymouria is a synapsid." "Seymouria is a tetrapod." "Seymouria is an amniote." "Seymouria is two, two, two clades in one!" I have this request for everybody who studies the genus Seymouria (sp), could you rampant egos consolidate all currently available information on the beast and reach a damn conclusion? I swear, you're almost as bad as theoretical physicists.
FrederickK:
WHY SO SERIOUS?
I think the guy is just drooling for the infamous Ilk to over run his website (?) with suggestions of sexual techniques and practices that he hasn't thought of.
Bride of Shrek's fuck off, is good and slutty. My, get a ticket to Enumclaw buddy is OK - but once he gets to Naked Bunny With A Whip, Scooter and Quiet Desperation's suggestions it's pure gold for the guy.
Having PZ show up to answer sciency questions about giant penis's and squidy sex would probably be worth years more of donations from the faithful. NO. is just what he deserves.
By the way, capslock is not the cruise-control for awesome.
LOL
that just went into my collection of quotes.
#59 - Afraid to debate? Ha! Ha ha ha ha!
Bring it on sonny.
Or are you afraid that I might seduce you or make you unclean?
I am a scarlet woman, wearing pearls and gold, with braided hair, and silk and leather garments.
Come into my web, I will debate you.
I'd say about half of Turkey's citizens are firmly second class. That is, for all that Turkey is a nominally secular country (Hah!), the overwhelming majority of Turks are Muslims - and nothing is clearer within the structure and practice of Islam than the subordinate status of women.
@ Ichthyic (#68): Fine, as long as you don't attribute that quote to me. I'm just sharing, I saw it on a video from youtube user VivoVitamBonam. That video was somehow determined by YT to be related to the whole thunderf00t/VenomFangX flap.
Fear to debate?
When you have real evidence, when you have a real theory, then I'd consider it.
But on neutral ground.
We believe that even an atheist, a communist etc. should be able to promote his ideas and should be treated as 1st class citizens in our country.
The sad thing is they probably sincerely believe this sentence is very liberal and open-minded of them.
Fear debate: William F. Buckley refused to debate Jane Fonda and told his son "Never debate an amateur; they'll mop the floor with you every time". I gotta say, I like P.Z's "he hasn't earned it" answer better.
@# 59 FredericK:
Perhaps it's because they become so bored with the same old arguments, that completely ignore new and relevant evidence, that they choose to devote their intelligence and energy to new discoveries?
Think about it...the keyword being think.
Just a suggestion. Have a delightful day.
Fear of Debate; why a professional should never debate an amatuer:
"Welcome to tonight's debate on the subject 'Do whales have scales?' Arguing against we have Professor Paul Wales of the Cetacean Institute and arguing for we have Sam Pallid of the 'Fishful Thinking and Hot Wax Emporium'. We'll start with Professor Wales. Professor Wales, Do whales have scales?"
=====
Wales: "No, Stan. No, they don't. I could point out that no observed whale and no sample of whale tissue ever has had scales; they simply just don't-- but I'd also point out that whales are mammals. They are warm-blooded. They bear their young live. The have vestigle hair folicles. They simply are not a species of animals that don't have scales."
Pallid: "There you go again! Say it ain't so, Pro! People want a straight answer they can understand and darned right they deserve it! But you always drag at the same argument and expect us to swallow it. Don't you have anything fresh or is that all you got?
Wales: "Well, I gave evidence and invite you to look at reality and I can't make it simpler than that. If you have an issue with any of these arguments, well, they aren't really arguments but more simple facts of reality, I'd like to hear what it is you can not accept. The onus of refutation is on you."
Pallid: "In other words, you don't have anything else, do you?"
Wales: "I need to know your objections. If you are refuting my basic argument you have to tell me what you don't accept."
Pallid: "And now you are resorting to brow-beating. And are you denying that in Moby Dick the narrator declares that the whale is a fish? That in Scandavian Sagas refer to scaled monsters of the deep spewing mist and modern analysis determines these scaled monsters most be whales? That in The Bible Jonah was eaten by a giant fish but as there are no fish that could be that size it must have been a whale, yet how could anyone mistake a whale for a fish unless it had scales?"
Wales: "Are you serious? Um, I don't know the passage of Moby Dick to which you are refering. As a biology professor I confess to never having read it. But Melville was a fictional writer. He may have stated so for literary reasons. Or perhaps his knowledge of biology was limited. As the sagas, they are sketchy accounts at best, by anonymous obvservers passed orally for centuries. We can hardly consider them accurate. And the bible ... well, um ... It really seems you have converted you argument fit you conclussion."
Pallid: "So you are saying you are smarter then Herman Melville, perhaps the greatest American Author. You are so much smarter than you don't even need to read him to refute him outright."
Wales: ...stares at camera for thirty seconds... "Look! Whales are mammals! They don't have scales! You go down to sea, or the lab, or museum or ... where-ever. You look at the stupid whale! And, see! No scales! They just *don't*!"
Pallid: "Ah! so it's all a matter of faith, isn't it?"
======
"Well, that was the debate. Susan, do you think it's fair to say Professor Whales is the winner, or would you say Mr. Pallid got a few likes in."
"Well, Stan, there's no denying Mr. Pallid's performance got Professor Wales nervous and he did lose his composure at times, but in the end he did have his facts straight and the Professor is the winner."
"But Sam Pallid is definitely a contender and a force biologists will always have to consider, wouldn't you say."
"Oh, definately. I think this debate will give Sam Pallid the status of being a peer in the same circles as biologists like Professor Paul Wales."
I live in Turkey, and I have a creeping suspicion that soon, Adnan Oktar will use this post in conjunction with Turkey's absurd "internet laws" to ban local access to Pharyngula, or even Scienceblogs as a whole.
Basically, a recently-founded "telecommunications department" can suspend access to a website instantly if someone complains of indecent content, personal insults, etc. Stupid.
Adnan Oktar has abused this legal loophole numerous times. The most recognizable instance is the Turkish ban on Richard Dawkins' website.
Besides this site, Oktar had the Turkish Teachers' Association's website blocked because they warned about creationism in school. Access to websites or forums by prominent Turkish atheists (yes, such people exist,) were also blocked. Even a famous youth forum (eksisozluk) was blocked, albeit only for three hours.
On another point, all those warnings about "...not going to Turkey unless you have the urge to be a martyr for free thinkers..." sound utterly juvenile and xenophobic to me. A lot of freethinkers live in Turkey. Hell, I like to think of myself as a freethinker and I've lived here for the past 24 years of my life. This approach only helps people like Adnan Oktar-Harun Yahya by diluting us even more in a sea of stupid.
So, PZ, do visit Turkey if you ever have the time or means. Besides sorry-ass lunatics like Adnan Oktar, we also have cold Efes beer, delicious calamari, and many, many people who think and live rationally.
Actually, trout flies may be a pretty good analogy for artificial or natural selection. They're attempts to copy insects which, if they work, procreate; if they don't work, they don't (or aren't) reproduced. Subtle variations in particular flies often work better than their predecessors; some of those variations are experiments but a good many are accidents. Once a variation proves out, the previous iteration is often left unused (and uncopied) in the box. Most flies compete for an obvious niche--best imitator of a particular mayfly. But often wild variations that seem to imitate nothing--called 'attractors'--become successful. This is often the result of an accidental application of one trait--the ability of a fly to look like a grasshopper--which suddenly begins to fool trout in a situation where no grasshoppers are around and the angler would not normally have tried a big shaggy fly. (two weeks ago on the Missouri River I caught trout on a big hopper when they were feeding on tricos--very small mayflies. Don't know why.) Flies also advance and change according to the inclusion of new materials, techniques and technologies, usually beginning with a single innovative attempt that then spreads because that change is more effective than the previous technique. In the 80's tiers began using a soft underfeather called cul de canard--sheds water, looks and behaves differently--and now there's a whole class of flies that are built around that look and behavior. But they've largely been superseded for certain patterns by flies that use synthetic materials now.
And by the way, perfect imitation is rarely valuable for a fly tier. There are a small group of people who make stunningly realistic imitations of insects, but they are for presentation purposes, cost hundreds of dollars apiece, and don't cast or float properly (and, of course, can't stand up to the stresses of fishing). They make great gifts but don't participate in the process.
Oktar is beguiled by the image of a person sitting at a bench, creating flies; he fails to consider the forces that guide that maker's decisions. When I tie flies I'm not a godlike being. If I do a good job I'm ruthlessly culling out the flies that don't work and adding incremental survivability to the flies that do. If it catches more fish I'm perfectly happy to cast a whole genus of flies on the scrap heap, allowing the existing individuals to live their lives out on the bench while the newer, better players get on the court. In an emergency, or when the fish are being especially stupid, I'll tie on an old version and catch some fish with it for sentimental purposes, but if I break it off in a willow I just shrug. These are the flies I give to children, or send to gullible amateurs in Turkey as a gift.
(Turkey has some great trout fishing.)
ice
I assume PZ has plenty of experience in engaging crackpots like this in 'debate'. I guess the criterion for engaging is what forum gives the best public platform.
I'd be in favour of engaging with him (I mean PZ!) if the forum for the debate was a lot wider than him and his trolls, and, frankly, us! The committed sceptics and atheists. We'd have a few laughs but it would be a waste of ours, and PZ's time.
But I guess it would be a different matter if it were on Turkish TV or in the papers, etc
PZ you will probably get banned in Turkey with this. Maybe that crackpot did this on purpose. (I don't say your response was wrong.)
Prepare your "banned in turkey" banner!
I wonder how many of these "invitations" are going to be used as fuel for the fire to get into the EU? Their application is pending, with NO entry date due to their questionable record on freedom. Perhaps they're writing these abrasive invitations in the hopes that everyone will say no so they can "prove" that they're open, just that nobody in the playground wants to be in the sandbox with them.
Rach
Turkey is a nice place to go for a holiday, depending on your location of course. There are tourist traps as there are everywhere else. Most small towns on the mediterranean coast are likely to be a great place for a break.
The only annoying thing there, was the way how young turkish males would bluntly try to hit on every western woman they spot. They weren't subtle with the implications they drew from the fact they are dealing with a western woman either. Due to the language barrier those assertions would often get laughed over, as if a joke was being made. Pretty offensive all in all.
Last time I was there is over a decade ago though, and I wasn't in any of the current tourist hotspots. Can't say how it is now.
[QUOTE]I'd say about half of Turkey's citizens are firmly second class. That is, for all that Turkey is a nominally secular country (Hah!), the overwhelming majority of Turks are Muslims - and nothing is clearer within the structure and practice of Islam than the subordinate status of women.[/QUOTE]
You should know that Turkish women are treated better in Turkey than in an other Islamic nation (both legally and culturally). No required head covering (very few women cover their heads), they hold the same amount of respect as anyone men in the family in all but the most rural of areas.
As I say in all my posts, the Turkish political situation now is what the US will be like if neocons win the presidency and the house for the next decade or so. One of the most dangerous things you can do in a relationship there is speak out against Turkey or Ataturk. When I went there this summer, I got worse reactions for criticizing "insulting Turkishness" laws than I did for saying I was an atheist.
It wouldn't be dangerous to go there, as it takes a published work for you to be subject to those ridiculous laws. I would, however, be careful of my speech in a public debate because those words will get published and they might prosecute you for that.
Remember that these laws cover insulting the country. You can say all you want about religion and few people would care. They teach evolution more thoroughly in school there than they do here in the US (the kids there know details of the theories of abiogenesis too). But, if in your speaking, there are implications of Turkey's faults, then you could get yourself into trouble.
If you ever decide to go there, remember that it's half-way to neo-con paradise; and choose your actions accordingly.
PZ should go there. I doubt it would help too much
to the support of the teaching of evolution and to
fight against creationism. But its worth the effort, at
the very least it would be a frontal confrontation with
ignorancy and faith.
# 65
> "Seymouria is a reptile."
No (if you treat reptile as a synonyme for diapsid or eureptilian, wich is the only definition that makes sense, and not even if you use reptile as a wastebasket for basal amniotes, wich btw doesn't make sense). It is a reptiliomorph, that much is true.
> "Seymouria is a synapsid."
No. It is not even an amniote - fossil larvae of seymouriamorphs have been found.
> "Seymouria is a tetrapod."
Yes, probably even a crown group tetrapod.
"Seymouria is an amniote."
No, see above.
"Seymouria is two, two, two clades in one!"
I am a tetrapod, an amniote, a synapsid, a therapsid, a cynodont, a mammal and a primate. Those clades are not mutually exclusive.
THE GLOBAL DARWINIST DICTATORSHIP MUST APOLOGIZE TO THE ENTIRE WORLD;
- For CONCEALING FOSSILS unearthed from below the ground,
- For keeping 100 MILLION FOSSILS, that have remained unchanged for millions of years, hidden away from the public eye,
- For never admitting they have NOT EVEN A SINGLE INTERMEDIATE FORM FOSSIL,
- For concealing for years the fact that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR PROTEINS TO FORM BY CHANCE,
For FABRICATING FAKE SKULLS and producing them as evidence of the imaginary evolution of man,
- For portraying the Piltdown Man hoax, MADE BY ADDING AN ORANGUTAN JAW TO A HUMAN CRANIUM and filing down its teeth, as an intermediate form and for deceiving people by exhibiting it in a museum as alleged evidence of evolution for the next 40 years,
- For inventing the hoax intermediate Nebraska Man FROM A SINGLE WILD PIG TOOTH, producing false reconstructions to give people the impression that such a being had ever existed, and deceiving them still further BY PRODUCING PICTURES OF THIS NON-EXISTENT ENTITY'S WHOLE FAMILY,
- For the way they for years depicted Haeckel's FORGED EMBRYO DRAWINGS, produced with the aim of proving the lie that human embryos possess gills, as evidence for evolution,
- For the way they are still displaying THE SEQUENCE FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE HORSE, WHICH EVEN THEY ADMIT TO BE FALSE, in museums,
- For dishonestly depicting moths THEY GLUED ONTO TREE TRUNKS as "industrial revolution moths that had evolved by way of natural selection,"
- For depicting the Coelacanth, WHICH STILL LIVES IN DEEP SEA WATERS TODAY, as an intermediate form,
- For CONCEALING fossils of complex life forms dating back to the Cambrian Period FOR NO LESS THAN 70 YEARS, out of concern these would totally discredit evolution,
- For ADDING FEATHERS TO FOSSIL DINOSAURS and trying to pass this off as an intermediate form when they were unable to find any genuine intermediate form fossils to prove Darwinism,
- For persisting in the FRAUD THAT LIFE FORMS GRADUALLY EVOLVED FROM THE PRIMITIVE TO THE MORE ADVANCED, even though they know perfectly well that the first organisms with characteristics of a similar complexity to those of present-day life forms appeared suddenly and simultaneously in the Cambrian Period, some 530 million years ago,
- For portraying mutation experiments as evidence for evolution, despite knowing full well that mutations do nothing but harm organisms, and for years reiterating THE LIE THAT MUTATIONS LEAD TO EVOLUTION,
- And for so long teaching students in all schools and universities the deception that "chance causes evolution" AS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Who thinks 85 is a Poe?
#85 must be one of the miserable members of adnan hoca cult.
It reads like a combination of a conspiracy and paranoid delusion...
I hope #85 is a poe, given the last two points show a clear misunderstanding of evolutionary process. Why don't they pick up a Stephen Jay Gould book before opening their mouths and make a fool of themselves?
All I gotta say to #85 is...
Where are your facts?
Oh wait! I forgot!!! Your kind does not believe in facts!
Regarding #85, I don't think it really matters whether an intermediate organism is extinct or not. It's actually better for scientists, for various types of research not possible or difficult on fossils, is it not?
Piltdown Man is not a hoax. He is a gi-normus Dungfish hooked by Nick Gotts, that was battled for DAYS in one of the stinkiest duels ever seen. Who knows, the fool may still be out there fouling the waters. Ewwwww! *turns up delicate femmy nose*
#59 Posted by: FrederickK
"WHY SO AFRAID? Why do all atheists or evolutionists fear to death to debate? Are they sure that they would be losers? Here is what happens, thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking but no answer comes:"
Yes and on the link provided there is the infamous "Dawkins 11 second pause video".
Repeatedly proven an edited, manipulative, fraud.
This is the standard of debate your Hanum Yia Yia proposes?
YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED BY AN ISLAMIC CULT!!!
GET HELP AS SOON AS YOU CAN!!!
(Caps added deliberately).
Johannes, #84
You need to catch up on your English, and read up on your seymouria.
Google -- ur doin it rong.
I just searched scholar.google.com for "Seymouria synapsid". Lots of papers that happen to contain both words, not one that says Seymouria is a synapsid.
And then, of course, you should go here and here. There is consensus. You're just using way too old sources.
----------------------
Where "larvae" means "with external gills" -- and these were first described in 1945.
Probably not -- but that depends on the lissamphibians (frogs, salamanders, caecilians), not on the seymouriamorphs; their position is clear.
----------------------
Agreed on the former. On the latter you are the one who needs to catch up with the last 30 years.
And now for a little evening sport.
Dictatorship? Oh my.
Liar.
Uh...
Is that an allusion to the "Atlas of Creation", which only consists of photos that were copied off the Internet (Internet, not "hidden away from the public eye")? Where, for example, Oktar took a photo of the oldest known salamander -- salamander, tail and all --, said it was a frog, added a photo of a living frog, and said nothing had changed? That was very entertaining. Furthermore, he got the age of Karaurus (the salamander in question) drastically wrong -- it's about 150 million years old, but Oktar said 280 million. LOL.
We have whole trees of them. Show me I'm wrong.
Natural selection isn't chance. It's determined by the environment.
Liar.
You know who discovered that this was a hoax? Evolutionary biologists.
You know why they became suspicious? Because it didn't fit into what had become the prevailing hypotheses on what the human family tree looks like.
You know what "Piltdown Man" had previously been used for? Not as evidence for evolution as a whole -- that simply wasn't necessary. It was used as evidence that England was the cradle of mankind.
And finally, do you know why the forgery was created in the first place? Probably to embarrass a particular professor. (Didn't work.)
Come on. That was a misinterpretation of a peccary (not pig in the strict sense) tooth that survived for one whole year before the same evolutionary biologist who had made that misinterpretation, Henry F. Osborn, corrected it.
I have never seen a textbook that portrayed "Piltdown Man" as real, and I've never seen any that mentioned "Nebraska Man" at all.
Yes, some of the drawings were fake, but it turns out this didn't matter -- Haeckel had correctly predicted what such embryos really look like.
You have misunderstood the part about the gills. Humans, and amniotes in general, never grow gills. All the surrounding apparatus is there -- gill pouches, gill arches, everything --, just the gills themselves never grow, and not even Haeckel ever said they do.
It's false in the other direction, my friend. It's a drastic simplification of what we now know to be a bushy tree. Look it up. Google is your friend.
Liar.
That was a completely different mistake: the lungfish are more closely related to us than the coelacanths are, but this only became clear about 20 years ago.
"Intermediate" does not need to mean "ancestor". Of course the living Latimeria is not an ancestor of ours, duh.
Liar. You're making shit up.
You parrot bullshit. No such thing has ever happened. What you are thinking of is Chinese peasants gluing the -- feathered -- tail of Microraptor to the body of the bird Yanornis in order to have a complete and unusual fossil (that's capitalism for you), and National Geographic falling for it. One scientist also fell for it and tried to get it published in an actual scientific journal (Nature); the manuscript was rejected.
"Suddenly" means "during a period of 50 or 60 million years"...
This, you see, is wrong. Whether a mutation is harmful depends on the environment.
Evolution is defined as descent with heritable modification. There's a word for "heritable modification". Guess what it is.
Are you beginning to understand?
Can you read? Mutation and selection are necessary. Mutation is random -- selection isn't.
You know, as pertaining #85 and the ilk like it. Assuming a debate between peers is possible and a good thing, I don't think a debate between evolutionists and ... er, folks how don't believe in evolution... can be possible any more than a debate between round an flat earthers because a faulty scientific doctrine simply *can't* yield valid and consistant science for 200 years. Basically any debate as to whether evolution exists has *already been won*. Without evolution all biological discoveries and advancements of the last few centuries simple wouldn't work.
Unless, scientists have been lying and in a conspiratorial cahoots. Thus any debate between my hypothetical, and increasingly mythical, anti-evolutionist peer really shouldn't be about evolution at all, but rather about whether there exists an "evolution conspiracy". This would be a debate I'd be ... curious ... to see. To debate that such a conspiracy exists would put the onus of evidence of any such conspiracy on the anti-evolutionists. This is a much *harder* and fairer task then simply poking a few holes based on misinformation and then not being able to follow the science as to why it is wrong.
Um, if there *is* such a global conspiracy it must be *huge*. Where are its detractors? For instance, PZ *must* be a member as would just about every biologist on the planet. So at one point PZ and ever other biologist on the planet must have been taken aside and been told "You know, there is no evolution. We're just making it up. You in?" Surely there'd be at least *one* person how went through this debriefing and later had second thoughts. Where are the detractors of the cabal?
It's amazing the number of conspiracy theorists who are around these days; all not realising just how many people would have to be in on it. That's the very definition of a paranoid delusion is it not?
woozy #97 wrote:
Hey, do you want to hear about a debate that combined evolution and flat earth? Well, it sort of did.
In 1870 Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolution, got pissed off at a strangely popular Flat-Earth movement and one noisy little flat-earth crank named John Hampden, who ran a "challenge" in a newspaper promising 500 British pounds to anyone who could "prove the rotundity and revolution of the world from Scripture, from reason, or from fact." Gee, sounds familiar.
Wallace the respected scientist took it up. He would prove the earth was round, squash all the nonsense and fuss coming from a bunch of ignorant know-nothings, and make some easy cash.
Big mistake. As Robert Schadewald puts it in his book Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas; Creationism, Flat Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair
"The naive and idealistic Wallace assumed his opponent was rational and a gentleman, so he began losing points immediately."
They went to a long canal, placed markers along the way at the same height above the water, and surveyed it. The experiment demonstrated exactly what it was supposed to demonstrate, but the flat earthers either couldn't or wouldn't understand the results. Wallace received the money from the judges -- who did understand the results -- but Hampden went into a rage, the flat earthers were convinced they'd been hoaxed, and suddenly everybody was suing everyone else for harassment and libel and what all and it went on for years.
Poor Wallace was very sorry he ever agreed to accept the bet. In addition to all the other headaches, it only fueled the sense of persecution in the Flat Earth movement which, as you might guess, was pretty darn high to begin with, and they used it for publicity.
David, #95
See, your Google-fu is mightier than mine.
It's amazing the number of conspiracy theorists who are around these days; all not realising just how many people would have to be in on it. That's the very definition of a paranoid delusion is it not?
Assuming evolution is false, a conspiracy would be the only explaination as to how biology scientists can function in the deluded dark for 200 years and never realize they are deluded. Scientists would have to all know evolution is false and would be actively participating in a cover up. Thus every good upper-clas biological science major would approach the point of discovery for him or herself that evolution is false and at that point be either indocturnated into the conspiracy, silenced, or railroaded into a dead end highly supervised career and both kept in the dark *and* given enough control to never realize s/he's being kept in the dark. Any conspiracy *this* organized can surely infiltrate whatever organization #85 belongs to (or is poeing) and silence them. I mean, the stakes must be *really* high if the conspiracy goes to this trouble.
Anyway, anyone who as ever even seen a *peek* of inter discipline politics and in-fighting should know trying to get *two* scientists to act an a single motive is damned near impossible, much less several million. These aren't the military or politicians or a cadre of spies, after all; these are *academicians*!
Agreed.
Though the principle of parsimony would have to eliminate the conspiracy theory option because it's too damn improbable. Just as you said in your last paragraph.
No, they're worse than academicians: they're science nerds.
Phillip Klass was a skeptic who debunked UFO conspiracy theories, and he once explained that he knew that there could be no conspiracy, because he had talked extensively to the people at NASA and other science labs who would have had to be in on any UFO cover-up operation. He laughed and said that these people couldn't keep a secret if their life depended on it. They just loved to talk about what they did. A lot.
In 1870 Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolution, got pissed off at a strangely popular Flat-Earth movement and one noisy little flat-earth crank named John Hampden...
I really do need to finish reading Crhristine Garwood's "Flat Earth: The history of an infomous Idea". Her first two chapters were excellent and ... I have no idea why I put the book down. Chapter 3 is all about the wager.
Quote at start of chapter 3:
Shall we, then, any longer submit to be fooled by an infidel science, which has for centuries forced us to acquiesce in the impious hallucinations of a few crazy enthusiasts, whose proper asylum would have been a madhouse had not their dupes been as insane as themselves? Let this groundless fraud be at length resisted, and let our children no longer be taught that we are spun through the air like cockchafers, at the rate of thousands of miles an hour.
John Hampden, The Popularity of Error, and the Unpopularity of Truth (1869)
Honestly. Attempting to argue with this is definately a sucker punch.
Anyway the challenge had *all* the earmarks of modern such "debates": Wallace believing hard facts can convince this poor man "willing to pay to be enlightened", Hampden's claims that the seasons have nothing to do with the shape of the earth, weird reports of supernatural phenomena that science can't explain (and which have *nothing* to do with the subject of debate), the accusations of cowardness to the astronomer Airy who refused to debate.
Wow. I really need to re-pick up this book and finish it. Anyone here read it?
They just loved to talk about what they did. A lot.
I wonder how much PZ is paid to keep this blog up where he pretends he's working on squid and pretending to rant about how stupid these guys are just to throw us all off the scent that the Science Research Foundation of Turkey knows the whole truth.
Man, if I were involved in such a cover-up, you *know* I'd be dropping hints to you left and right. PZ, it's so cool! What was your first secret initiation like? Were you in college or high school when you were first pulled aside? Had you discovered a feather in a squid and uttered "Oh my god! This changes everything!"? What did your professor offer you to supress it?
# 94,
Alan Kellog,
English might not be my first language, but at least I can tell a state-of-the-art paper from one from the fifties.
If memory serves, #85 is a straight copy-paste from Yahya's site. The lying moron can't even be bothered to make up his own moronic lies.
Posted this on another thread, but it may have some value here:
http://www.postyourimage.com/view_image.php?img_id=2rrbLj2DjyFplh122322…