PZ Meyers Response to News Daily Joseph Farah

Oh these militant atheists who think they are setting the record straight, it’s always the creationist’s fault, attack, humiliate, that will show them according to the behavior of PZ Meyers.

This stems back from the unique fossil discovery of some ancient octopuses which was reported by LiveScience. PZ Meyers makes a weak attempt to refute Joesph Farah here is both sides of the argument…

1Scientists are baffled by the latest fossil find.

2 It’s an octopus they claim is 95 million years old.

3 And, guess what? It looks just like a modern-day octopus — complete with eight legs, rows of suckers and even traces of ink.

4 In all that time, it seems, the octopus hasn’t evolved — not one tiny bit.

Actually those are some excellent points Joseph Farah points out, now the rebuttal by PZ Meyers…

1Scientists aren’t baffled at all by this discovery.

2Superficially, this is true — they do say it is 95 million years old. Farah is trying to spin it, though, by implying it is only a “claim”. It is a conclusion supported by the evidence.

3There are hundreds of octopod species. The level of description Farah provides is about what a four-year-old with a crayon might say, and it’s false. They (there were several species identified) do not look like modern octopods, but have several tell-tale differences.

4Completely false. Farah hasn’t read the paper, which fits these fossils into a long history of evolutionary change in the lineage.

What PZ Meyers fails to tell you is this, primitive octopi were presumed to have fleshy fins along their bodies. The rare fossils with a presumed age of 95 million years old, doesn’t show any fins, not only that, but it’s still one hundred percent an octopus! The new discovery of  rare fossils did not show any evidence of one animal turning into another animal. Sure there are variants within the species as we observe it today which is in agreement with the creationist model, but this doesn’t prove macro-evolution.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “PZ Meyers Response to News Daily Joseph Farah

  1. I stopped reading PZs blog because I felt my maturity dropping to that of a 9 year old. It amazes me that most atheists, evolutionist, Darwinist, brights or whatever they call themselves do nothing but insult the writers of creation information and they avoid the topic of the news, and PZ is one of the leaders of this “insult and run” method.

    This is probably why the current strategy is to avoid debates, ie Dawkins v Comfort, knowing that there personal attacks do nothing to win thinking people to their belief system. Their other favorite strategy I affectionately call “the Tommy maneuver”, for those not familiar with the Who’s rock musical, they like to cover their eyes and ears and say “I can’t hear you so there is no debate on evolution” or “I don’t see evidence of creation so it doesn’t exist anywhere”.

  2. mcoville,

    Make no mistake about it, what appear immaturity is more of a tactical stance with him. He likes to make people who he disagrees with on issues, angry which delights his choir militant group of atheists. The funny part is, PZ celebrates X-mas which I find amusing…lol…Yes, he uses circular reasoning, there are many elements in evolution that cannot be tested, but since we are here, stuff happens by themselves mentality.

  3. PZ is, of course, correct.

    Unfortunately, a science as solid as evolutinary biology is the subject of attacks by those who only have ulterior motives unrelated to vigorous scientific enquiry.

    The derision you get is precisely the derision all denial movements get. Your evolution denial movement is both poltical and religious, and overtly so. Your choice to use a political magazine as the source for rebuttal only underscores the point.

    You won’t win your political battle against solid science. You’ll just keep getting the derision that round-earth deniers, moon-landing deniers, 9/11 Deniers, and Holocaust Deniers get. And you’ll continue to whine incessantly that your motives are pure.

  4. nice strawman bjedwards. The “evolution denial movement” you speak of is being led by members of the scientific community, regardless of what PZ or Dawkins say. You can close your eyes and plug your ears and say “there is no debate about evolution because I do not see or hear any”, but it is not going away.

    Evolutionists are the ones bringing the scientific debate to the political and judiciary arena because they have successfully dumbed down the science education in the government schools. It is the free thinkers and critical thinkers that are debating the merits of the science and it is those scientists, through the view screen of history, that will determine the validity of evolution.

    So I say to you, and other evolutionists, “you won’t win your political battle against solid science”.

  5. Sadly for you, PZ predicted exactly what ended up happening:

    “Accustomed as I am to the workings of the minds of creationists, though, I’m sad to say that I also immediately saw how this find will be abused. I guarantee you that Harun Yahya is grabbing these images and planning to stuff them into his next bloated and repetitive tome, with a caption that announces that there has been no change in octopuses over 95 million years, therefore evolution is false.”

    “Don’t be fooled by the superficial resemblance — there are more subtleties to being an octopus than simply having eight arms. What these fossils reveal is more detail about the evolution of the octopods.”

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/octopods_from_the_cretaceous.php

    Sorry, mccoville, your evolution denial movement neither understands evolutionary biology, science, or the scientific method. Your movement’s goal is fully transparent; you choose voluntarily to misrepresent evolutionary biology and present no positive verifiable evidence for the existence of your God.

    No one needs science to “verify God’s word.” You can choose to believe in whichever God you want. There are over 2,500 recorded deities worldwide at last count and, of course, you cannot presume to know that the God you worship is the “one, true God.” That would be insulting and presumptuous, I’m sure you agree.

    But we do not care what you believe and you should stop caring what science demonstrates. It does not threaten you or your beliefs. Evolutionary biology, as ALL science, is neutral concerning the existence or non-existence of a higher intelligence. There is no verifiable, testable evidence for a deity but science can never rule out the POSSIBILITY of the existence of a higher being and doesn’t attempt to.

    Where you get into trouble is trying to claim your religious beliefs have equal status with evolution. They don’t. You all have created the falsehoods of “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” claiming they are “science.” They aren’t, no matter how much you pretend they are. You need to convince your flock, perhaps, but it doesn’t fool the rest of us, particularly scientists. You have created an overtly political and religious movement – not a scientific one – but you arrogantly proclaim otherwise. Your movement is no different than any other denial movement. The methodology, strategy, and tactics are the same. And the history of denial movements is ugly.

    We are sick and tired of the intellectual dishonesty you all engage in. You are now reaping the consequences as those like PZ and Dawkins push back against those who would defame and try to corrupt science and the scientific method. Keep it up and you will find religion dying at even a faster rate than it already is. You are getting exactly what you ask for.

    Keep your religious beliefs to yourselves. When you start to misrepresent science and evolution – as you do – then it becomes OUR business. And we will stand fast for truth. You have no positive scientific evidence to present proving the existence of a God, you know it, and you cannot force others to believe what you want them to.

  6. bjedwards: Your response is nothing more than a cut and paste from PZ web site. Try thinking for yourself.

    You have not demonstrated a knowledge of the topic or an understanding of biology, only the ability to mimic your heroes, where is the intellectual honesty in that?

    The original post had nothing about God or religion, it was about science. If you have no scientific information to the contrary don’t resort to playground tactics of name calling, I know that is PZs best defense and you have learned well from him.

    No one misrepresents evolution more than an evolutionist.

  7. b. j edwards

    A PZ Meyers fan no doubt, always attacking the person. You state; “Don’t be fooled by the superficial resemblance — there are more subtleties to being an octopus than simply having eight arms. What these fossils reveal is more detail about the evolution of the octopods.”

    That is true, an Octopus is unique as it’s one of the smartest animals around. It functions with “distributed intelligence”, which means that not only does it use it’s brain, but it also uses billions of neurons that go down into it’s tentacles. Another interesting thing about the octopus which defies evolution, the mother dies right after the babies are born. Yet, these little ones are still smart enough to survive on their own. This is what is called; all or none phenomenon. It’s a well designed animal which does as it supposed to do because it was created by God, that way!

    “We are sick and tired of the intellectual dishonesty you all engage in.”

    This is nothing dishonest about being disagreement with your clan, and there are no consequences for not agreeing with PZ or his buddy Dawkins. Religion will never die even with trying to teach evolution for the past 150 years. Your still are a small group, if you are an atheist despite evolution’s popularity and acceptance in the world. There are even explanations from those who use naturalism, claiming evolution is responsible for religious beliefs but it’s not something I agree with nor is it accurate but interesting how some professors are trying to explain everything through evolution.

    I disagree, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, and plenty of evidence that refutes evolution!

  8. Michael wrote…

    – “A PZ Meyers fan no doubt, always attacking the person. You state; …”

    No, that is what PZ wrote. Read more carefully.

    – “It’s a well designed animal which does as it supposed to do because it was created by God, that way!”

    As is perfectly clear, there is no evidence for a God. It is entirely your belief and nothing more. You cannot use your appeal to incredulity and claim that God created an octopus because you find it “well designed.” This fallacious reasoning always gets you in trouble.

    – “Religion will never die even with trying to teach evolution for the past 150 years.”

    And, if you chose to read correctly, I never said religion would die nor do I believe it will. I was quite clear so read it again:

    “But we do not care what you believe and you should stop caring what science demonstrates. It does not threaten you or your beliefs. Evolutionary biology, as ALL science, is neutral concerning the existence or non-existence of a higher intelligence. There is no verifiable, testable evidence for a deity but science can never rule out the POSSIBILITY of the existence of a higher being and doesn’t attempt to.

    “Where you get into trouble is trying to claim your religious beliefs have equal status with evolution. They don’t. You all have created the falsehoods of “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design” claiming they are “science.” They aren’t, no matter how much you pretend they are.”

    – “I disagree, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, and plenty of evidence that refutes evolution!”

    As I said, you can believe what you want, but none have yet demonstrated either of your claims with actual evidence. Instead, you engage in intellectual dishonesty by misrepresenting evolutionary biology and claiming the existence of a “God” while not producing verifiable, testable, and falsifiable evidence for it or any other deity. You can only “believe”, as is your right, but you can’t claim you have evidence.

    Treat yourself to a great education and intellectual honesty rather than diminish your credibility:

    An Index to Creationist Claims:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

  9. b. j. edwards

    “No, that is what PZ wrote. Read more carefully.”

    The statement was an impression I got from your overall writing which includes those who you admirer, PZ and Dawkins! Let me give you some evidence that the evolutionary story denies even with observational evidence which is not located in talk origins. For many years, proponents of evolution argued that the ancient years on Earth was without oxygen or had little oxygen because of a reduced atmosphere. Oxygen by the way, can destroy the delicate molecules which we observe today. So scientists have been researching this hypothesis of a “reduced atmosphere” and have found just the opposite. They have been finding red rocks in areas where they claim shouldn’t be found, in the lowest part of the strata. What’s the significance of red rocks so far down in the earth? The red rocks shows it’s been oxidized like the same color appears when your car get rusted. So the red rocks which we observed and others just recently like Geologists at The Pennsylvania State University who drilled into the deep rocks for pristine samples found not only red but crystallized rocks as a whole unit, meaning those rocks were formed in the presence of oxygen.

    What is very interesting the creation model has predicted this all along meaning there was normal levels of oxygen from the very beginning of earth’s creation. So there are no rocks, not even deep down that have an oxygen-free composition. But that doesn’t mean we should stop drilling way down into the earth and study those rocks because it brings out more evidence for the creation model while the evolution model will eventually go through adjustments again as it takes quite awhile to give up on a long standing story where the evidence is not agreeing with it.

  10. “Treat yourself to a great education and intellectual honesty rather than diminish your credibility:”, I hope you don’t think Talk Origins is an honest intellectual source of education.

    Try reading a Bible, much more intellectual and honest.

  11. Michael wrote…

    “So scientists have been researching this hypothesis of a “reduced atmosphere” and have found just the opposite. They have been finding red rocks in areas where they claim shouldn’t be found, in the lowest part of the strata.”

    If science finds the opposite or something different than initially postulated, what does science do? This just demonstrates that you have no idea what the scientific method is.

    “What is very interesting the creation model has predicted this all along meaning there was normal levels of oxygen from the very beginning of earth’s creation.”

    There is no scientific creation “model”, as you well know. There is only a claim of creation, no testable model, no falsifiable evidence.

    Really, you NEED to stick to religious belies and STOP misrepresenting science of which you have absolutely no knowledge. You’re just embarrassing yourselves.

  12. mcoville wrote…

    “Try reading a Bible, much more intellectual and honest.”

    I will ALWAYS take verifiable, testable, and falsifiable evidence over a book written 2,000 years ago by a bunch of human beings who had not the slightest clue of what knowledge has produced since then.

    Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and stop whining about subjects of which you have no knowledge.

  13. I’m sorry b.j.edwards, it’s hard to take criticism from someone who thinks our government was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

    So far you have not presented anything to support your claims on this post, all you have done is say “your wrong, I’m right” and you think you won the debate. Just because you think something is true does not make it true.

    My “religious beliefs” has nothing to do with the factual nature of the Bible. Even though your evolutionist teachers have indoctrinated you from an early age to believe in their myth I still think there is hope that you could one day understand how wrong they where.

    “I will ALWAYS take verifiable, testable, and falsifiable evidence”, so what single piece of evidence do you find that supports your beliefs so strongly?

  14. mcoville., incapable of understanding the written word, stuck his foot in his mouth by writing insanely…

    “I’m sorry b.j.edwards, it’s hard to take criticism from someone who thinks our government was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”

    I agree that 9/11 Deniers are just as insane as you evolution Deniers, as my blog makes perfectly clear: http://911booger.blogspot.com

    Perhaps your major faux pas explains why you get everything bassackwards.

  15. You can see how the byline “9/11 CONSPIRACY NEWS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MISSED.” can lead someone to thinking your supporting the conspiracy. You also linked to a video that supports the conspiracy.

    I re-read your post and admit I was wrong. I’m sorry I grouped you in with that lot and will not do that again. You may want to rewrite that byline though.

    But back to the main point of my comment:

    “I will ALWAYS take verifiable, testable, and falsifiable evidence”, so what single piece of evidence do you find that supports your beliefs (in evolution) so strongly?

  16. mcoville:

    people like b.j. edwards and myself do not ‘belief’ in evolution. We take it as the most likely (and very likely it is !) theory to explain the observed facts. All of them. And there are a lot of facts demonstrating evolution. Just open your eyes, or read at least one other book besides that 2000 year old one.
    Donald Prothero wrote a really nice one, and so did Michael Schermer. Open your eyes !

  17. Eelco,

    How can one not quite understand the physics part of it, but know how it works? For example, in Science Daily there was an article on creating better solar cells by mimicking diatoms (which are single cell marine animals). , “Nature is the engineer, not high tech tools. This is providing a more efficient, less costly way to produce some of the most advanced materials in the world.”Alright, now here is where they have they have trouble understanding the physics aspect of it, but tells us how it works…“the tiny holes in diatom shells appear to increase the interaction between photons and the dye to promote the conversion of light to electricity, and improve energy production in the process.”

    I love the idea of using nature for improving renewable energy sources, and it’s agreeable with creationism but nothing I see in biomimetics makes any sense except in the light of intelligent design! Perhaps you should be opening your eyes.

  18. Here you go again with randomly quoting someone (is ‘Science Daily’ all you read ?) instead of thinking for yourself, and you want me to open my eyes ?? What do I care what this person you quote says ? Does it make it true if somebody else says something ? Please use your own words to express your thought. Because if you continue to just quote people, it might appear you have no thoughts of your own …

    Of course ‘nature’ has produced interesting ways of doing things like flying (airplane wings were mimicked from birds, after all), but most of these are far from optimal and can be bettered in many ways. No, nature is not designed, it only *appears* designed sometimes, and after close inspection the ‘design’ is not a very good one (the human eye, for example). Which is not surprising, as it evolved through natural seletion etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s