Hook Line and Sinker - Creationist fraud

Hook Line and Sinker - Creationist fraud

by A Person | Published on January 10th, 2008, 12:14 am | Religion

Wealthy Creationist Harun Yahya published an impressive, thick and glossy book The Atlas of Creation and sent it to prominent scientists to pursuade them of the error of their ways.

The Atlas includes a chapter on hoaxes - yes Piltdown man can take a bow again.

Now take a look at these two pictures from the book:

Notice anything unusual? How about the big hook?
With usual Creationist ethics he stole the pictures from Graham Owen a photographer and very realistic fly tyer. But at least we can be sure those creatures were created and didn't evolve.

I heard about the glossy book, but I hadn't heard about its content. What a sad waste of money.I constantly amazes me how these fanatics are willing to spend millions on the propaganda of ignorance, but I've never heard of any of them putting clothes on a stranger's back or helping out at soup kitchens.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:I heard about the glossy book, but I hadn't heard about its content. What a sad waste of money.I constantly amazes me how these fanatics are willing to spend millions on the propaganda of ignorance, but I've never heard of any of them putting clothes on a stranger's back or helping out at soup kitchens.

Well, DUH! That's because they're saved by grace, not by good works- so why do good works? Appararently somebody here hasn't been paying attention.

That third cell looks like the bug is taking a crap.

-I'm so.o.o high brow, aren't I?

Liv wrote:That third cell looks like the bug is taking a crap.

-I'm so.o.o high brow, aren't I?

Didn't notice that :lol:

but did wonder why the spider looked bloody. Ewww. Was it a prop on CSI?

A Person wrote:Wealthy Creationist Harun Yahya published an impressive, thick and glossy book The Atlas of Creation and sent it to prominent scientists to pursuade them of the error of their ways.

The Atlas includes a chapter on hoaxes - yes Piltdown man can take a bow again.

Now take a look at these two pictures from the book:

realistic-red-spider.jpg

yahya_lure.jpg

Notice anything unusual? How about the big hook?
With usual Creationist ethics he stole the pictures from Graham Owen a photographer and very realistic fly tyer. But at least we can be sure those creatures were created and didn't evolve.

That's hardly FRAUD. It would be just like you to attack the man instead of the message.

"Hey, lets call him a fruad right away so it will discount anything he has to say in his book" mentality.

Get a life.

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:I heard about the glossy book, but I hadn't heard about its content. What a sad waste of money.I constantly amazes me how these fanatics are willing to spend millions on the propaganda of ignorance, but I've never heard of any of them putting clothes on a stranger's back or helping out at soup kitchens.

Different ministries.

That's hardly FRAUD. It would be just like you to attack the man instead of the message.

Well, no, it isn't fraud. Fraud requires reasonable reliance, and only an imbecile would rely on anything that this Yahya yahoo says. But A Person never said it was fraud. He suggested it was unethical to use a photo of a fishing fly, without permission or attribution, to illustrate a fallacious argument about real insects. Such chicanery casts doubt on the speaker's claims, not just his character, and there's nothing ad hominem about pointing this out.

debris wrote:
That's hardly FRAUD. It would be just like you to attack the man instead of the message.

Well, no, it isn't fraud. Fraud requires reasonable reliance, and only an imbecile would rely on anything that this Yahya yahoo says. But A Person never said it was fraud. He suggested it was unethical to use a photo of a fishing fly, without permission or attribution, to illustrate a fallacious argument about real insects. Such chicanery casts doubt on the speaker's claims, not just his character, and there's nothing ad hominem about pointing this out.

Sorry but you are wrong. When you claim the author is a fraud, prrof or not, (which he provided no proof) it is indeed ad hominem.

AP's title: Hook Line and Sinker - Creationist fraud

BecauseHeLives wrote:

That's hardly FRAUD. It would be just like you to attack the man instead of the message.

No need to attack him. All you have to do is look at some of the articles he's written.
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_articles.php

Some Miracles of the Qur’an Relating the Universe - NEW -
Our Lord's Name is Allah
The Scientific World is Turning to God
The Fall of Atheism
The Obvious Existence of God
Scientists Confirm the Signs of God
Only Qur'anic Morality Can Put Right the Chaos Caused by Postmodernism
Islam Is Not the Source of Terrorism, But Its Solution

This is just a small sample of his work.

RebelSnake wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:

That's hardly FRAUD. It would be just like you to attack the man instead of the message.

No need to attack him. All you have to do is look at some of the articles he's written.
http://www.harunyahya.com/m_articles.php
Some Miracles of the Qur’an Relating the Universe - NEW -
Our Lord's Name is Allah
The Scientific World is Turning to God
The Fall of Atheism
The Obvious Existence of God
Scientists Confirm the Signs of God
Only Qur'anic Morality Can Put Right the Chaos Caused by Postmodernism
Islam Is Not the Source of Terrorism, But Its Solution

This is just a small sample of his work.

You're not making any sense.

AP's title: Hook Line and Sinker - Creationist fraud

OK, fair enough, I overlooked the post title. So AP used the word "fraud" to describe the book (not Yahya himself). There is nothing ad hominem about the use of the term here -- the point is precisely that the claims in the book and the use of this photo to support those claims are fraudulent, i.e. false and misleading. It would have been ad hominem if AP had pointed out some example of Yahya's bad character unrelated to his argument as a basis for discrediting the book (e.g. "This author is a drunkard and an adulterer; therefore his book about evolution is fraudulent."). He didn't. He pointed out something that is part and parcel of the argument.

Liv wrote:That third cell looks like the bug is taking a crap.

-I'm so.o.o high brow, aren't I?

Ya think? I thought it looked like a male organ out of a sado-masochistic magazine.

OK, fair enough, I overlooked the post title. So AP used the word "fraud" to describe the book (not Yahya himself).

That's something that AP will have to clarify

There is nothing ad hominem about the use of the term here -- the point is precisely that the claims in the book and the use of this photo to support those claims are fraudulent, i.e. false and misleading.

The "claims in the book" being misleading appears to simply be your opinion. I'm sure that MANY others with education and intelligence would disagree with your claim. Besides, have you actually read the book to make such a claim?

It would have been ad hominem if AP had pointed out some example of Yahya's bad character unrelated to his argument as a basis for discrediting the book (e.g. "This author is a drunkard and an adulterer; therefore his book about evolution is fraudulent."). He didn't. He pointed out something that is part and parcel of the argument.

I would suppose that calling someone a fraud would be attempting to imply bad character to a person. For a person to discount the entire book because ONE picture was used without permission (and that there was no other apparent trend of doing this anywhere else in the book) it would seem like the person is stretching for something with which to bash the author. I believe that anu inbiased person could quite easily see that this is a slam on the author and not the content of the book. I stick by my ad hominem claim.

I used the terms FRAUD and UNETHICAL advisedly. It is entirely appropriate.
Plagiarism is unethical, it becomes fraudulent to use plagiarized images for gain.

Look at the hissy fit creationists (here, here) threw over using staged pictures of peppered moths to demonstrate their camouflage - real moths, real trees - just that the photographer decided not to wait for a light and dark moth to conveniently land on light and dark trees to be photographed.

This means that every time those staged photographs have been knowingly re-published since the 1980's constitutes a case of deliberate scientific fraud. Michael Majerus is being dishonest, and textbook-writers are lying to biology students. The behavior of these people is downright scandalous.
Fraud is fraud. It's time to tell it like it is.
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199903/0348.html
Yahya's argument is that creatures like caddisflies and spiders haven't evolved - he uses plagiarized pictures of fishing lures as evidence. Hm let me see - caddisflies seem to have evolved a large steel hook in their asses. Case disproved.

He lambastes science for being fooled by Piltdwn man

"The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?"

It's only reasonable to ask how it escaped his expert eye that his examples have bloody great hooks in them.

I won't touch the bad science, he misidentifies species, genus and family, his scholarship is appalling - not surprising as he has not examined any of the specimens, just trawled the Internet looking for cool photos - stealing other people's work and publishing it for gain.

I do believe this weakens his case somewhat (that's polite speech for "He has no credibility at all"). Superficial resemblance is not 'has not evolved'.

A Person wrote:I won't touch the bad science, he misidentifies species, genus and family, his scholarship is appalling

Well maybe I will, 'cause it's fun. Take a look at this illustration:

: Sally-frog.jpg (27.79 KiB) Viewed 816 times

You don't have to be an expert* in vertebrate paleontology to notice that the fossil 'frog' has - a tail. A closer examination will show that the legs are considerably different to those of the modern frog and not capable of leaping. For comparison, here is a fossil of an actual frog

Yes folks this frog that has not evolved in 280 million years is in fact a Salamander. A different Order.

It is not an ad-hominen fallacy to point out the obvious incompetence and lack of scholarship of Harun Yahya. This fossil may indeed be understood by all, even the most illiterate

* An expert in vertebrate paleontology could identify it as Karaurus

BecauseHeLives wrote:
You're not making any sense.

Yahya a crackpot. He's the one not making any sense.

Interesting comment on the book....

"As the author makes clear, materialist and Darwinist scientific circles are extremely uneasy at the falsehoods underlying the theory of evolution being exposed, for the clear and easily comprehensible unmasking by Atlas of Creation of these lies related in the name of science has torn away Darwinism’s supposed scientific mask. The number of people believing in Darwinism today is falling rapidly, and what certain circles feared – the inevitable collapse of Darwinism – is actually happening."

BecauseHeLives wrote:Interesting comment on the book....

"As the author makes clear, materialist and Darwinist scientific circles are extremely uneasy at the falsehoods underlying the theory of evolution being exposed, for the clear and easily comprehensible unmasking by Atlas of Creation of these lies related in the name of science has torn away Darwinism’s supposed scientific mask. The number of people believing in Darwinism today is falling rapidly, and what certain circles feared – the inevitable collapse of Darwinism – is actually happening."

Creationists really are getting desperate aren't they?

A strange post given the clear and easily comprehensible unmasking of falsehoods underlying the 'Atlas of Creation' provided above.

Does that comment represent your views?

Can you see the difference between a frog and salamander fossil?

Would you expect a book purporting to be about fossils to be able to make the distinction?

BecauseHeLives wrote:Interesting comment on the book....

"As the author makes clear, materialist and Darwinist scientific circles are extremely uneasy at the falsehoods underlying the theory of evolution being exposed, for the clear and easily comprehensible unmasking by Atlas of Creation of these lies related in the name of science has torn away Darwinism’s supposed scientific mask. The number of people believing in Darwinism today is falling rapidly, and what certain circles feared – the inevitable collapse of Darwinism – is actually happening." (emphasis added)

Hmmm, this (unidentified) commenter (i.e. the one BHL quotes, not BHL himself) is calling Darwinists "liars". So I guess we can safely dismiss the comment as an ad hominen attack.

Hmmm, this (unidentified) commenter (i.e. the one BHL quotes, not BHL himself) is calling Darwinists "liars". So I guess we can safely dismiss the comment as an ad hominen attack.

Me thinks you should take off your atheist glasses and re-read the quote. I don't see where he is calling Darwinist "liars" at all. I'm sure that he, along with myself, believes that many Darwinists truly believe in evolution with all of their mind. I think he is simply saying that what they believe is false, not true. Lying implies that you know what the truth is yet purposely profess the opposite. And that may be the case with SOME but I'm sure that group is a great minority.

I can say this though... for you to profess that he is calling darwinists liars, and knowing that to be a far stretch from the truth, it would be quite easy to target YOU as a liar. Or at the least very disingenuous.

BecauseHeLives wrote:I don't see where he is calling Darwinist "liars" at all.

You don't? How about where he accuses Darwinists of "lies related in the name of Science"?

Let's get back on topic.

BHL:
Does that comment represent your views? (I would also be interested to know the source of that comment)

Can you see the difference between a frog and salamander fossil?

Would you expect a book purporting to be about fossils to be able to make the distinction?

A Person wrote:Let's get back on topic.

BHL:
Does that comment represent your views? (I would also be interested to know the source of that comment)

Can you see the difference between a frog and salamander fossil?

Would you expect a book purporting to be about fossils to be able to make the distinction?

No. The comment doesn't represent my views. In fact, the writer doesn't come close to my theology either. I just thought it was interesting. Perhaps if you have real issues with his book maybe you should contact the author and ask him for an explanation, or a debate.