Harun Yahya Interview [25/07/09]

[-S-]

Problem is we ran out of time for quesitions we had so many and limited time

his coming back inshallah to ummahradio after ramadhan for longer so we can put fwd questions again

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Peace, I meant both. I did not know any of this about him, and I try not to judge himas I dont know, but the books I have bought from Islamic stores of his are far from nonsense. He states hard facts and scientifically prooved data to both show the existence of a creator and the practical impossibility of evolution and life coming from nothing. I can see how it may be easy to rip him to bits on a personal level but Harun Yahya in my veiw is a totally credible and knowledgable writer/researcher.

Would a totally credible writer/researcher make basic errors like these?

And lets not forget, the guy has done his time, the law has decided he is fit for another chance, adding to this I see that Allah is guiding him and that is good enough for me. Peace and respect

He's done time in the past, sure. I'm talking about his sentencing in May 2008.

Do you really want to go against the overwhelming majority view in the scientific community that evolution is the best theory we currently have for explaining the variations in life forms on the basis of the say-so of an ignorant crook like Harun Yahya? Rather you than me.

Peace

 

[Tony]

^^^ I have my own brain to decide whether or not what he says is credible, it is, look even making the odd mistake, so what, the info I have read of his and others elsewhere whether muslim or not that correspond is allthat matters, evolution as a theory was ok wayback but come on its laughable now. There are too many things throughout nature that just have not come about as a result of evolution. I didnt want to get into a debate over the credentials of a man I know nothing of personally the data talks for itself and I can only see good intention in what he is doing, if its what you base your denial of a creator on that someone less than perfect is disputing coherrentley the falsehoods in the evo theory then thats your choice, I will continue to read his books and until I see some sign of skullduggery, so will my kids. Peace

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Let us not cast negative light on someone's work simply because they've spent a great deal of money on it or highlighting other issues in their life which have no relevance here. If there are real errors in their work, that is a different story. However, the greatest error that someone could make is to believe that the concept of God is just a delusion.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Let us not cast negative light on someone's work simply because they've spent a great deal of money on it or highlighting other issues in their life which have no relevance here.

No, let's instead cast negative light on his work because it is filled with errors and distortions and because the man himself is an extremely shady character.

Peace

 

[جوري]

^^ you have read yahya's books?
admittedly, I am accustomed to get my knowledge from a different set of articles than internet shmegegge peddlers.. I don't think he is any different than dawkin only he stands on the opposite end of the spectrum. And amazingly enough your 'rebuttal' to his 'errors' comes from the dawkin site.. I mean how is this for the blind leading the blind..
Surely you can do better than that.. Do you encourage your pupils to read cliff notes and have a discussion thereafter?

 

[Muhammad]

No, let's instead cast negative light on his work because it is filled with errors and distortions and because the man himself is an extremely shady character.

Well, I can't comment on the character of the person nor the accuracy of his works, but my point was only that actually criticising someone's work itself is better than diverting attention to irrelevant facts to support one's claim.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


No, let's instead cast negative light on his work because it is filled with errors and distortions and because the man himself is an extremely shady character.

Peace

Ad hominem?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

^^ you have read yahya's books?

Nope. I can only stomach him in article-length pieces. It's just incredibly depressing that so many people fall for the mind-numbing rubbish he (or rather his organisation) produces.

admittedly, I am accustomed to get my knowledge from a different set of articles than internet shmegegge peddlers.. I don't think he is any different than dawkin only he stands on the opposite end of the spectrum. And amazingly enough your 'rebuttal' to his 'errors' comes from the dawkin site.. I mean how is this for the blind leading the blind..

You don't think Dawkins knows much about biology, then?

For the record, do you find any mistakes in Dawkins' words? Or would you rather believe the guy who illustrates a discussion of an insect with a picture of a fishing fly?

Surely you can do better than that.. Do you encourage your pupils to read cliff notes and have a discussion thereafter?

Now there's an idea. Why didn't I think of that before? +o(

Well, I can't comment on the character of the person nor the accuracy of his works, but my point was only that actually criticising someone's work itself is better than diverting attention to irrelevant facts to support one's claim.

1. I and many others have already done so on many occasions. It doesn't seem to make much difference.

2. Any time any of us get into detailed criticism of Harun Yahya's work the thread ends up getting closed. He seems to be some kind of sacred cow for some around here.

If you want to criticise evolution, that's absolutely fine, but don't bother with propaganda that the average child could see through.

Ad hominem?

First clause, no; second clause, yes. Both are, however, true.

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings,

Hello there,

Nope. I can only stomach him in article-length pieces. It's just incredibly depressing that so many people fall for the mind-numbing rubbish he (or rather his organisation) produces.

So you are reading his articles through third party sources and can't in fact classify them as his or not? Don't you find it a tad puerile to have a man of whom you know positively nothing evoke a physiological response in your person? I hazard think of what you think of your students that rub you the wrong way!

You don't think Dawkins knows much about biology, then?

Poetic biology? I have my B.S and masters in Molecular Biology, I don't reach the same conclusions he does. The problem with Dawkin is that he doesn't stop at biology but extends himself to philosophy. I don't for instance think to myself hmmmmm.. missing N-acetylglucosamine-1-phosphotransferase conclusion no God!

For the record, do you find any mistakes in Dawkins' words? Or would you rather believe the guy who illustrates a discussion of an insect with a picture of a fishing fly?

I don't read Dawkin anymore than I read Harun Yahya's work.. I think they both target a specific class of people, and both have quite the following... A scientist is usually an independent thinker and isn't constrained by the tentatative insight of agenda driven 'illuminati'.. neither of their work is actually pertinent to the pursuit of science. I have gone through under grad/ masters and graduate school without having to read anything written by either party and managed to survive and go on to write my own research with fellow colleagues.
Appealing to personal considerations will not make Harun any less appealing or Dawkin anymore appealing.. it is rather a poor reflection on you as a person to react with such exasperated emotions in an effort to sway folks one way or the other especially considering your previous posts where such an outburst warranted an all too excited public lashing from your end.

all the best

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Hello there,

So you are reading his articles through third party sources and can't in fact classify them as his or not?

If you believe he alone has produced all the material he claims to have done, you'll believe anything.

Everything I've read by him is on his own website, where his texts are available.

Don't you find it a tad puerile to have a man of whom you know positively nothing evoke a physiological response in your person?

Positively nothing? Good one!

I hazard think of what you think of your students that rub you the wrong way!

Eh?

Poetic biology? I have my B.S and masters in Molecular Biology, I don't reach the same conclusions he does.

But you can tell a fishing fly from a real fly, right?

The problem with Dawkin is that he doesn't stop at biology but extends himself to philosophy.

Not in the text I gave the link for. Read it yet?

I don't for instance think to myself hmmmmm.. missing N-acetylglucosamine-1-phosphotransferase conclusion no God!

Right - and it would be a strawman if anyone said you did.

I don't read Dawkin anymore than I read Harun Yahya's work.. I think they both target a specific class of people, and both have quite the following... A scientist is usually an independent thinker and isn't constrained by the tentatative insight of agenda driven 'illuminati'.. neither of their work is actually pertinent to the pursuit of science. I have gone through under grad/ masters and graduate school without having to read anything written by either party and managed to survive and go on to write my own research with fellow colleagues.

Good for you - it's the people who are less educated than you that we should be concerned about.

Appealing to personal considerations will not make Harun any less appealing or Dawkin anymore appealing.. it is rather a poor reflection on you as a person to react with such exasperated emotions in an effort to sway folks one way or the other especially considering your previous posts where such an outburst warranted an all too excited public lashing from your end.

Sorry, I can't make out what you're on about here.

Peace

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

1. I and many others have already done so on many occasions. It doesn't seem to make much difference.

2. Any time any of us get into detailed criticism of Harun Yahya's work the thread ends up getting closed. He seems to be some kind of sacred cow for some around here.

If you want to criticise evolution, that's absolutely fine, but don't bother with propaganda that the average child could see through.

Yes, the topic has been discussed countless times, hence we close the threads to stop going round in circles, not because we believe the man is infallible. I do find it a little odd, however, that you say "detailed criticism", when most of what I've seen from people like yourself is only words like "nonsense", "rubbish", and now mocking the amount of money spent, highlighting a prison sentence and pointing out a mistake in an illustration. I personally haven't found much detailed criticism in all of this - perhaps ridicule is a better word for it.

And that's probably the biggest reason why such threads deserve closure. They are doing little by way of clarification, but instead are mere outlets for personal attacks. Perhaps it is true that some of his work lacks accuracy. But what I will not stand for is blatant insults and backbiting. Surely there is a way to criticise (if necessary at all) without the need for all these derogatory remarks.

Anyway, I suggest we drop this discussion as the intent of this thread was concerning a radio interview. Perhaps anyone who wishes to pursue this discussion can take it up live with the man himself when he next appears. I'm sure it will yield far more benefit.

Peace.

 

[جوري]

Greetings,


If you believe he alone has produced all the material he claims to have done, you'll believe anything.

I don't see the relevance of this to anything I have personally written.. On one end you can barely stomach the man because he is an ignoramus a 'scared cow' per you who knows nill of science-- and the next he is just a mere pseudonym for others to spread 'all that faulty material' through him...
so Which is it? I don't like all the circumstantiality!

Everything I've read by him is on his own website, where his texts are available.

That is not what you have alleged earlier, further compounded by your need to Quote an atheist' website to debunk his claims (which obviously aren't his) again per you, is that you are unwilling or unable to take him on so you'd rather part with all that flatulence?

Positively nothing? Good one!

So you and him go back? You are great pals now turned mortal foes?

Eh?

You are a teacher? Do your less than stellar students make you equally nauseous or just the ones you perceive to be slightly threatening?

But you can tell a fishing fly from a real fly, right?

What is the relevance of this to the matter at hand?

Not in the text I gave the link for. Read it yet?

No, I haven't and have no interest to..
this pretty much sums it up for me:

The hilarity of being guilty of doing exactly what you despise in others standing polar opposite of you!

Right - and it would be a strawman if anyone said you did.

science is concerned with science.. what are your concerns? you seem to be unable to vocalize your grievances!

Good for you - it's the people who are less educated than you that we should be concerned about.

You speak of being concerned of those 'ignorant' as if you don't suffer their plight --I love it!.... what makes you more educated than those you deem less educated? Is it that you've read dawkin and agreed with him and he shares your views and agenda? You are now a scientist by proxy?

Sorry, I can't make out what you're on about here.

Peace

It pays to read something twice if you don't get it the first time around!

all the best

 

[Tony]

if i could just get a word in edgeways lol. So am i some sort if idiot for reading this guys stuff, coz when the arguments finish the stuff i have seen of his makes good sense, i have not seen any lies or fishing flies.It appears to be well researched and correct. What is it that makes the two of you disapprove of him so vehemently, maybe i just got guided to works that Allah felt would benefit me, i dont consider myself to be stupid and know a bulls*****r when i see one. All this thread has done is confuse me as too what you are both getting upset about and it makes me want to read more Harun Yayha stuff when i would probably not have done.

 

[جوري]

Actually, everyone who needs to further any agenda likes to create a jaded cloud of miasma around it and then spread it on daily basis..

Islam.. haven't you heard islam is bad, they are cave dwellers and terrorists, then hammer that in daily..so that it isn't even topic of question..

You don't believe you evolved from monkeys, you are full of 'rubbish' it is accepted by just about all the cool free thinkers and scientists out there.

You don't accept homosexuality as normal.. you are a homophobe when will you get out of your ridiculous backwards thinking.

test today's 'values' against the standards of the ages and you'll see it exactly for what it is..

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Yes, the topic has been discussed countless times, hence we close the threads to stop going round in circles, not because we believe the man is infallible. I do find it a little odd, however, that you say "detailed criticism", when most of what I've seen from people like yourself is only words like "nonsense", "rubbish", and now mocking the amount of money spent, highlighting a prison sentence and pointing out a mistake in an illustration. I personally haven't found much detailed criticism in all of this - perhaps ridicule is a better word for it.

Ridicule is nothing less than he deserves, but as you say, it's not what you want to see, so that's fair enough.

I would be willing to go through an article and point out all the mistakes if you like, on condition that the thread be allowed to remain open and avoid deletion.

EDIT: In fact, here is a thread where I already have, a thread that has remarkably stayed open.

Gossamer Skye, just read the article and then get back to me unless you really want to carry on trying to discuss something you haven't read.

Peace

 

[Tony]

ok my friend you dont like the guy or believe his reseaqrch. its getting weary now. peace and respect

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

ok my friend you dont like the guy or believe his reseaqrch. its getting weary now. peace and respect

I don't like the guy because he's spreading demonstrably false information that people like you are lapping up and believing uncritically.

Peace

 

[GuestFellow]

Greetings,


I don't like the guy because he's spreading demonstrably false information that people like you are lapping up and believing uncritically.

Peace

Hi

No one is telling you to like the guy. Just present the false information. I would personally like to see it.

Peace.

 

[جوري]

Gossamer Skye, just read the article and then get back to me unless you really want to carry on trying to discuss something you haven't read.

Peace

I wasn't under the impression that I am carrying out a discussions, and as far as I am concerned haven't seen you engage in one either.. surely even you can tell the difference between referencing others to a website and engaging in an actual debate?

your approach here is a bit too pedantic for my personal taste.. I really do have better things to do with my life than humor your strong aversion to another fellow.. in fact I'd go so far as ask you to seek medical help for it.. it doesn't come across as normal!

all the best