Creationist Sentenced to 8,658 Years

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unrelated?
People like him don't have the excuse of being deceived or being too stupid to know. He is a professional liar as all professional creationists are. And when your business is deception, other crimes come naturally.

Evidence. You know the drill. Burden of proof.

 

[SomeRandom]

Adnan Oktar: TV cult preacher jailed for 8,658 years in Turkey

A court in Turkey has sentenced a televangelist, who surrounded himself with young women he referred to as his "kittens", to 8,658 years in prison.

Adnan Oktar, who has been described as a cult leader, was convicted of sexual assault and abuse of minors.

Oktar, 66, fronted his own television channel, through which he delivered religious sermons.

He is a fierce opponent of the theory of evolution, and wrote a widely mocked book on creationism.

He was originally given a jail sentence of 1,075 years but an appeal court ordered a retrial involving 215 defendants.

Ten of them were also given 8,658 years in prison by the court in Istanbul. Many of the other defendants were given shorter terms.​

In EvC circles he was known as "Harun Yahya", author of the "Atlas of Creation" and often referred to as the Islamic Kent Hovind. I guess the two now have something else in common....prison time.

Looks at the prison sentence

Boy, are they strict!!

 

[Heyo]

Evidence. You know the drill. Burden of proof.

I'm not too familiar with his case but I can't imagine that he didn't receive a bunch of detailed lectures (like Ham, Hovind, Comfort, Meyer etc. have). They (and he) non-the-less keep misrepresenting the ToE. Which makes them professional liars.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not too familiar with his case but I can't imagine that he didn't receive a bunch of detailed lectures (like Ham, Hovind, Comfort, Meyer etc. have). They (and he) non-the-less keep misrepresenting the ToE. Which makes them professional liars.

How do other crimes! Evidence please for that being the general case?

 

[Heyo]

How do other crimes!

There seems to be a subject missing in that sentence. Can you rephrase?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There seems to be a subject missing in that sentence. Can you rephrase?

How often do a professional liar lead to crimes? And what is the % connection to religion?

 

[Quintessence]

Why is the whole focus of this thread on the word choice of the title instead of "Wow this guy is a piece of ****, glad he was brought to justice"?

Because someone decided to add superfluous information to the story, a practice that is routinely done by those who attempt to smear particular groups for other agendas.

"[Insert racial minority here] robs gas station on 5th Street."

What did their race have to do with their crimes? Probably nothing, but let's draw attention to it anyway because racism.

"[insert (ir)religious group here] found guilty of tax evasion."

What did their (ir)religion have to do with it? Probably nothing, but let's draw attention to it anyway because prejudice.

Not saying the OP did this on purpose or to push an agenda, but this is done and it is done often. I don't blame anyone for calling them out for it on the suspicion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting that his defining characteristic
in the thread's title is "creationist".

Spouting anti evolution rhetoric was his original claim to fame and that is what made it possible for him to commit those other crimes. Some crimes take a certain amount of wealth to pull off. In the US we have Kent Hovind. He could have been wealthy, but what wealth he had was not enough. He got involved in massive tax fraud. Now the stories coming out on him since his release are far darker. If a pro baseball player was caught running a series of brothels he would still be referred to as a pro baseball player since that was the source of his wealth that made his crimes possible. It is the same here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How often do a professional liar lead to crimes? And what is the % connection to religion?

It would be an interesting study. How would one do it? How would you decide who qualifies as a liar and who would not?

 

[Revoltingest]

Spouting anti evolution rhetoric was his original claim to fame and that is what made it possible for him to commit those other crimes. Some crimes take a certain amount of wealth to pull off. In the US we have Kent Hovind. He could have been wealthy, but what wealth he had was not enough. He got involved in massive tax fraud. Now the stories coming out on him since his release are far darker. If a pro baseball player was caught running a series of brothels he would still be referred to as a pro baseball player since that was the source of his wealth that made his crimes possible. It is the same here.

I've nothing to add.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It would be an interesting study. How would one do it? How would you decide who qualifies as a liar and who would not?

Yeah, I doubt it can be done. But if I even were to start thinking about it then the standard woo-woo is not always criminal and some of them are properly honest cons.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because someone decided to add superfluous information to the story, a practice that is routinely done by those who attempt to smear particular groups for other agendas.

"[Insert racial minority here] robs gas station on 5th Street."

What did their race have to do with their crimes? Probably nothing, but let's draw attention to it anyway because racism.

"[insert (ir)religious group here] found guilty of tax evasion."

What did their (ir)religion have to do with it? Probably nothing, but let's draw attention to it anyway because prejudice.

Not saying the OP did this on purpose or to push an agenda, but this is done and it is done often. I don't blame anyone for calling them out for it on the suspicion.

To repeat....

Is he a creationist? Yes.
Is he a prominent creationist? Yes.
Is this sub-forum about creationism? Yes.
Has his creationist material been posted here? Yes.

Therefore it seems entirely reasonable that when this person is convicted of multiple crimes, describing him as a "creationist" is accurate, and given the last two facts above, relevant to this specific sub-forum. Plus, there's the irony of him being sentenced to a longer term than he believes the earth has been in existence. Also, there's always the hope that his conviction and sentence will deter someone from buying and/or copying his material in the future.

So describing him as a creationist is, 1) accurate, 2) relevant to this sub-forum, and 3) a potential deterrent against future proliferation of his nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, I doubt it can be done. But if I even were to start thinking about it then the standard woo-woo is not always criminal and some of them are properly honest cons.

Yes, some may believe their nonsense. I sometimes wonder if Ray Comfort is a scam artist and liar or just an idiot. I think that he is the former. He does lie in ways that demonstrate that he is lying on purpose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To repeat....

Is he a creationist? Yes.
Is he a prominent creationist? Yes.
Is this sub-forum about creationism? Yes.
Has his creationist material been posted here? Yes.

Therefore it seems entirely reasonable that when this person is convicted of multiple crimes, describing him as a "creationist" is accurate, and given the last two facts above, relevant to this specific sub-forum. Plus, there's the irony of him being sentenced to a longer term than he believes the earth has been in existence. Also, there's always the hope that his conviction and sentence will deter someone from buying and/or copying his material in the future.

So describing him as a creationist is, 1) accurate, 2) relevant to this sub-forum, and 3) a potential deterrent against future proliferation of his nonsense.

From the article I did find one very good reason to become a creationist:

 

[Jose Fly]

If a pro baseball player was caught running a series of brothels he would still be referred to as a pro baseball player since that was the source of his wealth that made his crimes possible. It is the same here.

And it wouldn't be out of line to post an article about his conviction in a baseball forum

Apparently that simple concept is a bit too much for some folks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

So describing him as a creationist is, 1) accurate, 2) relevant to this sub-forum, and 3) a potential deterrent against future proliferation of his nonsense.

So a scientist commiting murder shows that the science done by him/her is wrong, because his/she is murder. So science is nonsense.

 

[Jose Fly]

So a scientist commiting murder shows that the science done by him/her is wrong, because his/she is murder. So science is nonsense.

LOL....if you truly took that from this thread, I'm not sure what to say. Seems to me like you're likely just bored and are spoiling for a debate, so you just throw around things like that to try and get a reaction.

Maybe go outside for a while?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Adnan Oktar: TV cult preacher jailed for 8,658 years in Turkey

A court in Turkey has sentenced a televangelist, who surrounded himself with young women he referred to as his "kittens", to 8,658 years in prison.

Adnan Oktar, who has been described as a cult leader, was convicted of sexual assault and abuse of minors.

Oktar, 66, fronted his own television channel, through which he delivered religious sermons.

He is a fierce opponent of the theory of evolution, and wrote a widely mocked book on creationism.

He was originally given a jail sentence of 1,075 years but an appeal court ordered a retrial involving 215 defendants.

Ten of them were also given 8,658 years in prison by the court in Istanbul. Many of the other defendants were given shorter terms.​

In EvC circles he was known as "Harun Yahya", author of the "Atlas of Creation" and often referred to as the Islamic Kent Hovind. I guess the two now have something else in common....prison time.

Reminds me of the song "A More Humane Mikado" from The Mikado.

"My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time —
To let the punishment fit the crime —
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!"
---text from: https://www.gsarchive.net/mikado/webopera/mk206.html is originally from W. S. Gilbert and Sullivan

Here's a video clip from the play:

Spoiler: A More Humane Mikado

 

[Subduction Zone]

An older video about Oktar:

 

[Quintessence]

So describing him as a creationist is, 1) accurate, 2) relevant to this sub-forum, and 3) a potential deterrent against future proliferation of his nonsense.

In other words, you are drawing attention to a criminal conviction who happens to be a Turkish creationist for the expressed purpose of undermining creationism in the eyes of others, even though their "nonsense" doesn't actually have much to do with the crimes or convictions.

Yup, classic smear agenda... thanks for making that transparent for everyone.