@BigBangNeverHappend still pretending to be an atheist? lol, ya retarded picture and the truth will be on my blog for ever and ever so people can see your religious agenda. What are ya, a catholic? protestant? jew?
PZ - well done! That was just awesome. I really think this type of forthright calling out of non sense is appropriate and we skeptics should be doing far more of it.
He wasn't nearly mean enough. Unfortunately, to have been capable of being mean enough, PZ would've had to be able to instantly recall trivia such as the year of death of De Biers and the fact that HOX genes were discovered afterwards, which would immediately invalidate the IDiot's question the way a baseball bat to the face invalidates consciousness. Perfect memory of the sort is rare.
Creationists love to use this cheap tactic. They have no sense of decency or honesty.
Wow. I'm not an embryologist by profession, but I could see through this kids BS right off :P I've encountered this type before and he's been lampooned by someone on YouTube as the pigeon who, while playing chess against a skeptic, knocks over the table, craps all over it and flies away claiming victory. You can't win against those deliberately being facetious (or, should that be FECETIOUS. givern the nature of what he was spewing?).
Oh my, that was painful to watch. Stupid empathy makes you feel embarrassed for him, at moments like this one can envy those Christian deadened nerves.
Johnathan M needs to study some systems in detail instead of trying to push his religious agenda. I find the entire evolution/creation argument distracting. Scientifically, the matter is settled. We have ample evidence for evolution and absolutely none for creation/ID.If Jonathan M wants to make an argument for creation, he needs to produce some actual evidence. If he can't he should be ignored and shunned.
Dear Mr. P.Z Myers,I think what Jonathan M. was trying to explain is that some species try to talk out of their ass.All humans have assholes.When that part of a human's anatomy becomes the dominant feature of their personality,it's time to make some changes.Have a great day. (Hi Mr.C,I hope your health is good).
Jonathan McLatchie is an embarrassment to Scotland. He does not seem to understand how one is supposed to think scientifically. He is cherry picking anomalies to fit his predetermined and favoured outcome against mountains of evidence AND the cherries he picks are rotten fruit. What a plonker.
@uriituw This is the key problem, they are only interested in a few confirmatory anomalous facts that they got misunderstand or misrepresent to support their position and ignore the enormous body of work in support of evolution.
Usualy I don't have any trouble, at all, following a scientist's chain of thought while they state their series of phrases and partial sentences and eventually arrive at a complete question. In fact, normaly I see where they are going with their question and can "guestimate" it.
The speach skills of that creationist was so bad, and he was so uncertain that it was almost impossible for me to understand him. Im impressed that Myers did it so quickly.
how embarrassing. and i like his approach to just call him out and belittle him and call it bullshit and not sugar coat it. people are too nice sometimes, there is no reason not to act that way. what he is trying to do is sound like he knows what he's talking about but just blabbing bullshit science that doesnt mean shit.
Typical. Reading from a script, he barely understands his own objection.
The video's brass tacks are as follows;
PZ: 'Could you boil it down to one question?' J.M.'Ok, I'll just reread what I said word for word without elucidating on anything even though my question doesn't even make sense'.
"The neural tube is homologous throughout the chordates yet in some it's permeation? is dependent on induction in the underlying notochorst. In others, it doesnt."-- Jonathan M 3:26
Beware of PZ! Even if you just want to thank him for standing up to creationists, he might make you regret it and then wish to never be in the same room with him again. Try it for yourself when there are no cameras around.
@XodusFTW, Jonathan Wells (IDiot) has a freaking Ph.D in Cell Biology from UC Berkeley. All Jonathan M has to do is hold off his cognitive dissonance to get his MSc.
Johathan is a clear closet-homo - can you imagine how messed up his mind is right now?...dealing with both pseudo-science plus his own sexuality within his religion...
I actually feel sorry for him. He's been robbed of any common sense and a proper education
Hm I don't know...this guy's just ignorant, not sure if telling him to be ashamed will change his mind. He might just come out of it thinking he's being prosecuted for his creationism.
@GallusSapien There are theories to metamorphosis evolution, just google them. Planets can spins in different directions due to being knocked on a certain path by an object during the early formation of our solar system... how do you know exactly what happened during then? There is also evidence that Haeckel didn't lie given the material/technologies that were available at that time... still doesn't prove a god exists, let alone a certain god...
Jonathon M is a creatard... why do these people try to become scientists when they can't back up anything they believe? Leave science to the real scientists, please!
Jonathan M is a dipshit. He sat there with this little smug argument he was going to present and in just a couple of questions broke down and realized he didn't understand his own argument. He just started babbling "Ive got papers". Yeah, we've all got papers Jonathan. I really suggest people watch the whole thing by GlasgowSkeptics. In the preceding question, PZ really does cover exactly what Jonathan thinks he was trying to say.
The most puzzling aspect of Jonathan M, is that If his understanding of evolution is SO BAD, how comes he managed to pass his BSc to move onto his MSc?
Is the standards at the University of Glasgow THAT bad? or is he trying to make his name asan ID proponent early on in his life to reap the huge amounts of money like Ray Comfort?
My response to these arseholes is always the same.
"Hush. Stop babbling. I know what you're doing. You think if you fling enough shit at me, some will stick. No, I don't play that game. You ask me one question, then you shut the fuck up while I pull it apart. Then, if you're still not embarrassed, you ask me your next, single question. Then you shut the fuck up again. And we repeat this game until you get embarrassed or I get bored, whichever happens first."
@jjdecani But you cant explain the evolution of butterfly metamorphosis and cosmic evolution says that saturn should be spinning the other way and darwin recounted on his death bed, and the second law of thermodynamics and ontogeny recapitulates biology, and haeckel lied, and archeoraptor, and piltdown man and lucy was a fake!
I don't understand what Jonathan M. was up to there. Either he must've known that he'd be ridiculed and came there just so he could say that "he stood up to PZ myers" or something, or he genuinely believes what he's saying and expected his arguments to be taken seriously. If that's the case, I kinda feel bad for the guy for the public shaming, by an entire room full of people, that he was exposed to there. :(
@MrCattlehunter These people have over-inflatedopinionsof themselves. When you couple that with their belief that they are doing god's work, you get this sort of performance. Apparently he has a degree but he will make a terrible scientist. He will mangle the scientific method and if he ever manges to get published it won't be in a peer reviewed journal. I've seen his type before. He is a "google galileo" and is inevitably drawn only to information that supports his warped view.
This isn't anything special. 99 times out of 100 a discussion with a creationists starts with them saying something made-up and then asking you how that could be the case. The more ridiculous their misconception the less they care about the real explanation.
The late, great Dwayne McDuffie said it best on his forum, a few years ago: Jonathan’s question boiled down to, “If we assume for the sake of argument that the world doesn’t work the way it actually does in reality, will you admit that I’m right?”
pz should have boxed him in with his own question, like''when i answer your question and it will be correct as far as all scientific analysis supports my answer,will you give up your faith and stop asking stupid questions?'that would have put an end to further embarressment for the creationist and those that were cringing in the near vicinity. still i always enjoy pz , he never looks or sounds rattled when facing such frustrating stupidity.
This is *exactly* how creationists should be dealt with.
It's a great mistake to avoid debating them for fear of gifting them the illusion of legitimacy; rather, one should confront them publicly and -this is crucial as a pragmatic matter of applied rhetoric- ridicule them mercilessly and in the frankest terms.
There need be no fear of looking like an elitist know-it-all; indeed mockery is not only appropriate but indispensable to rhetorical efficacy and even basic intellectual honesty.
it would be a lot better if all those rude people in the audience would shut up and let him speak, and if pz would refute what the guy says, and thén insult him.
@TheWintermule i did, and it seemed to me like the audience was yelling at him and pz had to actually get them to quiet down, and he started of by stating that he should be ashamed of himself instead of addressing the argument.
@apocalypseap kinda does, if you dont justify an insult its just being an asshole, this way he sounds like an asshole and then makes up for it, but he still sounded like an ass. i do agree with him though, what that guy does is pretty pathetic, you have to show why though before you can actually call him that.
@apocalypseap I agree with @lepthymo to an extent. All Jonathan M is going to take away from this is how he felt humiliated and bullied. The purpose of these discussions is to learn, not ridicule, no matter how ridiculous Jonathan M's statement was (which it was).
@apocalypseap@Synthmilk I never said he was bullied. I said that's all he'll take away from it. It should be PZ's job to teach and inform. The very people who need convincing are the creationists and the ignorant. That isn't the way to convince them in my opinion. I could be wrong, but that's what I think.
I personally don't think anything Myers could say would have convinced Jon M either way. Have you been to Jon M's blog? There's been plenty of very well informed people trying to correct his mistakes, but Jon just continues anyway. He never concedes a mistake, or a point and just flows onto the next apparant flaw instead.
Jon wasn't there to test his ideas and put forward new ones. He was there to try and stump Myers to make him look bad. Instead, he looked bad himself
@iamraynbow True, but when there's an audience watching, you're probably going to have a greater impact on them by humiliating your opponents than you would by being gentle.
@lepthymo To the crowed gathered, the "why?" behind PZ's statements was self evident, just as obvious as if I were to ask a Mathematician "Can you explain to me why you say 2+2=4 when I have a dozen papers which show me that 2+2=5?" No explanation is necessary, if us laypeople on YouTube don't get it, that's our problem, the talk was not for us, it was for people who are knowledgeable on the topic, and the crowd obviously understood.
This is why creationism is prevalent on the internet and not in the real world. When you get real scientists confronted by real creationists on evolutinary issues in real life the creationists get shut down quick. Unable to use internet tactics to change the subject or run away they get pinned down every time. Creationism isn't forbidden in universities, it's weeded out by rationalism because creationism is full of it.
He probably spend days and days preparing what he thought would be super scientifically embarrasing questions, went to the talk all giddy with exitement and were told: Bullshit!
Eh. I think his question, if it could be picked out of the Gish gallop, was an interesting one I'd have liked to see answered (not because I think it can't be answer, but because I know the answer and it's interesting), rather than PZ just sticking him with ad hominems. If I was a creationist, I would think PZ just ducked the question rather than dealing with it properly.
Neither of them come off well in this video to me.
I've added a little annotation to the description. PZ couldn't make sense of the question at the time. He's since responded with more detail.
I think you have to read the "10+1 questions for PZ" that JM wrote prior to PZ's appearance to understand why the level of animosity was high. The answer was presented in the presentation that preceded the question... Jonathan M was one of those people that thinks they can crush a speaker by asking tough questions, but he flubbed it.
@goliathprime "educated enough" me too. and thats the problem. one would have to be an expert in biology, astronomy, physics and what not. creationist have a bunch of claims in relation to every aspects of science. and claims are easy to make. debunking is what takes effort and knowledge. if one isnt educated in a specific area the creationists arguments may sound convincing, although its bullshit for the most parts.
PZ does go to easy on him IMO, this Jonathan chap is just sprinting out bullshit. It's cargo cult creationism, he's churning out terms that he clear hasn't the faintest understanding of.
When being cornered by a creationist nut job some time ago I simply replied something like 'How could Jesus have existed when there are no flying space donkeys?' I walked off to his baffled silence, this is all this creationists are doing when they try to talk science.
It may suck that there are still creationists out there, it may suck even more that a creationist can be a young person like that. At LEAST creationist contests against science appear to be attempting to come from within the scientific arena now, whereas before they might have been taken somewhat seriously by peers. I grew up in a time when creationism didn't need to be anywhere near as well articulated and was responded to with applause.
This is a bit unfair (note: I'm a RADICAL atheist, I have a PhD in molecular and cell biology, and my specific PhD interest was early development). The questioner IS raising a somewhat reasonable point of contention: There ARE some puzzling "discordances" in early development which aren't exceptionally EASY to explain superficially. They don't AT ALL "disprove" evolutionary theory, but they do cry out for a fuller understanding so they wouldn't provide (nominal) fodder for creationists.
@GetMeThere1 But that is the case with most scientific subject matter. The fact that a subject has more complex workings than most people have the capacity to understand doesn't mean that it is the fault of the expert of said field in not being able to educate someone (especially someone like Jonathan who doesn't actually WANT to learn) on the complexities of the subject.
tl;dr I don't see the problem with it, the guy should get on PZ's level before stepping up.
@inademv : I agree that the guy should have come ready with a very SPECIFIC point that he could provide some detail on. He looked rather silly clutching a handful of papers--as though he needn't actually have READ them, or be prepared to argue them. But I think PZ would have better served the cause if he HIMSELF cited an example on this issue (I'm SURE he knows what the issue is), and gave a counter-perspective. The question, fundamentally is NOT really pure bullshit.
@GetMeThere1 The question really is pure bullshit because it's asking how homologous development is different with different species. Any development that is homologous is the same. The reason it's present in numerous different species is because of common descent and ancestry. To imply that it's anything else at present without as much evidence as evolution has is just dishonest.
@SenariXarn : No, that's not quite right. There are puzzling, seemingly MAJOR differences in EARLY development between species that are otherwise quite alike. That is NOT what is expected in the "typical" understanding of evolution and development (in which there (wrongly) remain remnants of the "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" perspective). There are some quirky differences in early development that cause some puzzlement from (at least) a "simple-minded" view of evolution.
@GetMeThere1 And what differences exist? I don't know of any (doesn't mean they don't exist, obviously), but I'm sure that a careful look at them can reveal the reasons why they are different. So please, pick one of those differences and share with the class.
@SenariXarn : PZ discusses the issue elsewhere. I'm surprised he doesn't bring it up here. Search for "developmental hourglass," or "hourglass model of embryologic development" if you want to learn more. It's that which forms the basis for the question in the video.
I think you nailed it there. I'd recommend watching the full presentation and Q&A session. He's just spent over an hour addressing the failure of recapitulation theory to explain the actual evolutionary histories, differentiating the strawman of evolution of development that creationists like Jon Wells have created from the actual science. What annoyed PZ about Jonathan's question, I think, is that it had already been addressed in the preceding hour-long talk.
@C0nc0rdance : "What annoyed PZ about Jonathan's question, I think, is that it had already been addressed in the preceding hour-long talk."
Ah, OK. That I didn't know. I DO agree--and it should be emphasized--that PZ was dead-on in calling this guy out to give PARTICULARS. SO MANY creationists have apparently learned they can create more havoc by blowing some smoke than they can with actual facts and detailed arguments (which inevitably fail to support their point).
@BigBangNeverHappend still pretending to be an atheist? lol, ya retarded picture and the truth will be on my blog for ever and ever so people can see your religious agenda. What are ya, a catholic? protestant? jew?
ZZzzzzzWhat 6 days ago
What's his accent? It's pretty strange...
IndividualParties 1 week ago
I may agree with pz, but this was a clear attempt of refutation thru denigration... Thankfully he dud then address the substance a little bit....
vsenderov 2 weeks ago
What is neural tube induction?
Sorry to ask a noob question, but I really don't know. Should I wikipedia it?
mphello 2 weeks ago
I couldn't figure how WHAT this Jonathan M's question was.
Did anyone else?
mphello 2 weeks ago
Ashamed for doing what? For all we know, that paper could be legitimate. PZ's attempt at humiliating that man was incredibly uncalled for.
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
GISH. GALLOP.
nemirn 1 month ago
PZ can spot a creationist a mile away! Lol
TheZachary86 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Do creationists themselves actually realize how much time they are wasting?
dummychaos 1 month ago
Comment removed
dummychaos 1 month ago
If you can defend your position rationally, why resort to argument from personal intimidation?
maganz 1 month ago
PZ is a joy to listen to in speaking, even more so than in writing.
nosensetoitatall 1 month ago
PZ - well done! That was just awesome. I really think this type of forthright calling out of non sense is appropriate and we skeptics should be doing far more of it.
UnkleSi 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
He wasn't nearly mean enough. Unfortunately, to have been capable of being mean enough, PZ would've had to be able to instantly recall trivia such as the year of death of De Biers and the fact that HOX genes were discovered afterwards, which would immediately invalidate the IDiot's question the way a baseball bat to the face invalidates consciousness. Perfect memory of the sort is rare.
Creationists love to use this cheap tactic. They have no sense of decency or honesty.
EdwardHowton 2 months ago 3
@EdwardHowton
= He wasn't nearly mean enough.=
FINALLY, somebody who says what I've said for decades.
nahaymath 2 weeks ago
Poor Jonathan, he can barely speak English.
Rarae192 2 months ago
Not a fan of PZ myers after elevatorgate, his meanness was called for though. This guy doesn't understand how to answer a question.
unassumption 3 months ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
@unassumption Yeah, I don't agree with PZ's sympathy for R. Watson and her conceitedness, but it hasn't dampened my high opinion of him.
Rarae192 2 months ago
@Rarae192 Rebecca watson is a tool...
ronocko 1 month ago
Creationists really earned to be called creatards
emancoy 3 months ago
ouch
Zentz29 3 months ago
PZ is my new hero. This was awesome.
Creationism is the pinnacle of human stupidity, and religions are pure poison.
bary1234 3 months ago 5
i admire PZ Myers so much, and after seeing this video i admire him even more.
ZZzzzzzWhat 3 months ago
Wow. I'm not an embryologist by profession, but I could see through this kids BS right off :P I've encountered this type before and he's been lampooned by someone on YouTube as the pigeon who, while playing chess against a skeptic, knocks over the table, craps all over it and flies away claiming victory. You can't win against those deliberately being facetious (or, should that be FECETIOUS. givern the nature of what he was spewing?).
RyuDarragh 3 months ago
Oh my, that was painful to watch. Stupid empathy makes you feel embarrassed for him, at moments like this one can envy those Christian deadened nerves.
27182818284590452354 3 months ago
Johnathan M needs to study some systems in detail instead of trying to push his religious agenda. I find the entire evolution/creation argument distracting. Scientifically, the matter is settled. We have ample evidence for evolution and absolutely none for creation/ID.If Jonathan M wants to make an argument for creation, he needs to produce some actual evidence. If he can't he should be ignored and shunned.
dlhitch2007 3 months ago 2
Dear Mr. P.Z Myers,I think what Jonathan M. was trying to explain is that some species try to talk out of their ass.All humans have assholes.When that part of a human's anatomy becomes the dominant feature of their personality,it's time to make some changes.Have a great day. (Hi Mr.C,I hope your health is good).
rickuj 3 months ago
Jonathan McLatchie is an embarrassment to Scotland. He does not seem to understand how one is supposed to think scientifically. He is cherry picking anomalies to fit his predetermined and favoured outcome against mountains of evidence AND the cherries he picks are rotten fruit. What a plonker.
dorbie 3 months ago
There's no convincing these IDiots with facts.
uriituw 3 months ago
@uriituw This is the key problem, they are only interested in a few confirmatory anomalous facts that they got misunderstand or misrepresent to support their position and ignore the enormous body of work in support of evolution.
dorbie 3 months ago
Usualy I don't have any trouble, at all, following a scientist's chain of thought while they state their series of phrases and partial sentences and eventually arrive at a complete question. In fact, normaly I see where they are going with their question and can "guestimate" it.
The speach skills of that creationist was so bad, and he was so uncertain that it was almost impossible for me to understand him. Im impressed that Myers did it so quickly.
N3CR1S 3 months ago 2
I almost feel bad for him... :-(
Mankepanke 3 months ago
how embarrassing. and i like his approach to just call him out and belittle him and call it bullshit and not sugar coat it. people are too nice sometimes, there is no reason not to act that way. what he is trying to do is sound like he knows what he's talking about but just blabbing bullshit science that doesnt mean shit.
kiddhitta 3 months ago
Typical. Reading from a script, he barely understands his own objection.
The video's brass tacks are as follows;
PZ: 'Could you boil it down to one question?' J.M.'Ok, I'll just reread what I said word for word without elucidating on anything even though my question doesn't even make sense'.
dookiecheez 3 months ago
I have nothing against Scots, but it's nice once in awhile to see an American as the guy with some sense.
tctheunbeliever 3 months ago
Whenever I see someone smile, all I really see is a primate begging for its life.
wearealltubes 3 months ago 4
"The neural tube is homologous throughout the chordates yet in some it's permeation? is dependent on induction in the underlying notochorst. In others, it doesnt."-- Jonathan M 3:26
uhmm.. wtf are you talking about?
bla34112 3 months ago
@bla34112 Hahaha, that looks like the format of a bible quote.
TheAsymmetrical 3 months ago
Hey! Let's just throw a bunch of of disparate crap that we don't even understand and pray that any of it sticks!
It *is* shameful.
bowlsallbroken 3 months ago 3
Wow, Jonathan M truly is a proper douchemonkey.
TheRedneckAtheist 3 months ago
"well I have got dozens of papers"
zellfalcon31 3 months ago
Beware of PZ! Even if you just want to thank him for standing up to creationists, he might make you regret it and then wish to never be in the same room with him again. Try it for yourself when there are no cameras around.
a11m0n 3 months ago
@a11m0n What do you mean? Do you have an anecdote to share?
polymath7 3 months ago
@polymath7 Sorry, no anecdote to share. I like every video of him on you tube.
a11m0n 3 months ago
*ahem*
I LOVE YOU PZ MYERS
somtwo 3 months ago
@XodusFTW, Jonathan Wells (IDiot) has a freaking Ph.D in Cell Biology from UC Berkeley. All Jonathan M has to do is hold off his cognitive dissonance to get his MSc.
HybridD91 3 months ago
Leave his sexuality out of it, just focus on his bullshit questions.
HybridD91 3 months ago 22
Johathan is a clear closet-homo - can you imagine how messed up his mind is right now?...dealing with both pseudo-science plus his own sexuality within his religion...
I actually feel sorry for him. He's been robbed of any common sense and a proper education
mythinktube 3 months ago
Hm I don't know...this guy's just ignorant, not sure if telling him to be ashamed will change his mind. He might just come out of it thinking he's being prosecuted for his creationism.
Mithcoriel 3 months ago
This guy makes me think of a mouse within a circle of hungry cats.
Hereticbooks 3 months ago
woah, i've never seen PZ Myers speak before, he's more pwnful that Dawkins, god damn
JamesEzSecretChannel 3 months ago
magic did it
waycam77 3 months ago
what a faggot
JeefCakes 3 months ago
@GallusSapien There are theories to metamorphosis evolution, just google them. Planets can spins in different directions due to being knocked on a certain path by an object during the early formation of our solar system... how do you know exactly what happened during then? There is also evidence that Haeckel didn't lie given the material/technologies that were available at that time... still doesn't prove a god exists, let alone a certain god...
shadesters 3 months ago
@shadesters Yeah when someone's that blatant invoke Poe's Law (look it up).
Check their channel to see if they're sincere or they're trolling.
Gallus was trolling.
gimmethegepgun 3 months ago
Jonathon M is a creatard... why do these people try to become scientists when they can't back up anything they believe? Leave science to the real scientists, please!
shadesters 3 months ago
I think PZ displayed the correct amount of meanness (imho).
WarmWeatherGuy 3 months ago 20
Jonathan M is a dipshit. He sat there with this little smug argument he was going to present and in just a couple of questions broke down and realized he didn't understand his own argument. He just started babbling "Ive got papers". Yeah, we've all got papers Jonathan. I really suggest people watch the whole thing by GlasgowSkeptics. In the preceding question, PZ really does cover exactly what Jonathan thinks he was trying to say.
htomerif 3 months ago 2
The most puzzling aspect of Jonathan M, is that If his understanding of evolution is SO BAD, how comes he managed to pass his BSc to move onto his MSc?
Is the standards at the University of Glasgow THAT bad? or is he trying to make his name asan ID proponent early on in his life to reap the huge amounts of money like Ray Comfort?
XodusFTW 3 months ago
My response to these arseholes is always the same.
"Hush. Stop babbling. I know what you're doing. You think if you fling enough shit at me, some will stick. No, I don't play that game. You ask me one question, then you shut the fuck up while I pull it apart. Then, if you're still not embarrassed, you ask me your next, single question. Then you shut the fuck up again. And we repeat this game until you get embarrassed or I get bored, whichever happens first."
jjdecani 3 months ago 4
@jjdecani But you cant explain the evolution of butterfly metamorphosis and cosmic evolution says that saturn should be spinning the other way and darwin recounted on his death bed, and the second law of thermodynamics and ontogeny recapitulates biology, and haeckel lied, and archeoraptor, and piltdown man and lucy was a fake!
GallusSapien 3 months ago
I DEMAND MORE OF THIS VIDEO
zapo147 3 months ago
I don't understand what Jonathan M. was up to there. Either he must've known that he'd be ridiculed and came there just so he could say that "he stood up to PZ myers" or something, or he genuinely believes what he's saying and expected his arguments to be taken seriously. If that's the case, I kinda feel bad for the guy for the public shaming, by an entire room full of people, that he was exposed to there. :(
MrCattlehunter 3 months ago
@MrCattlehunter These people have over-inflatedopinionsof themselves. When you couple that with their belief that they are doing god's work, you get this sort of performance. Apparently he has a degree but he will make a terrible scientist. He will mangle the scientific method and if he ever manges to get published it won't be in a peer reviewed journal. I've seen his type before. He is a "google galileo" and is inevitably drawn only to information that supports his warped view.
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
Much of Jonathan's "questions" were assertions made under the pretense of "asking questions." No wonder P.Zed. said Jonathan should be ashamed.
Desertphile 3 months ago
pwnt
superfisto 3 months ago
I hate the little smirk on that kid's face, PZ Myers should have smacked him around the head a bit.
blade004 3 months ago
Of course, we've been wrong all this time - GOD DID IT!
dutchinforres 3 months ago
WOW. That was fucking awesome. PZ Myers sure knows how to handle his bullshit.
Grysham 3 months ago
It's moments like this we need Karl Pilkington to fly in as "Bullshit Man!" (look it up on YouTube)
Saying that PZ did an excellent job himself calling bullshit. If only he could fly also...?
paulski1080 3 months ago
Does anyone know where is the blog reply is that PZ said he would post?
truckcompany 3 months ago
Subtitles on the babbling weirdo, and I still couldn't understand WTF he was saying.
DSAhmed 3 months ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
Errr... I can't really tell, is he asking about the inversion of the dorso-ventral axis in the ancestry of chordates?
RexFordVII 3 months ago
creationists keep losing on every front.
viicISrotcib 3 months ago
Excuse me sir, but I believe this is your can of whoop-ass.
DarwinsChihuahua 3 months ago
great vid
Headoffury 3 months ago
What a champ!
Jakster840 3 months ago
Shame on you, stupid creatard!
nononsenseinrational 3 months ago 2
PZ Myers is a badass.
apocalypseap 3 months ago 2
Well our little creatard has proved at least one thing, that apparently you can't be cute AND smart at the same time. :( Too bad. He's hot!
talkingprimate 3 months ago
Quoting a man born in 1899 - now that is cutting edge technology!
iviewthetube 3 months ago
This isn't anything special. 99 times out of 100 a discussion with a creationists starts with them saying something made-up and then asking you how that could be the case. The more ridiculous their misconception the less they care about the real explanation.
no2religions 3 months ago 6
The late, great Dwayne McDuffie said it best on his forum, a few years ago: Jonathan’s question boiled down to, “If we assume for the sake of argument that the world doesn’t work the way it actually does in reality, will you admit that I’m right?”
COMALiteJ 3 months ago 29
Trying to find holes in science does not prove your particular belief true by default.
JJPHILLYLG 3 months ago 61
@JJPHILLYLG But then again, people who employ such tactics don't care about logic to begin with.
HealingBlight 3 months ago
@HealingBlight I think it's a case of using and or appreciating science, logic and reason when it's convenient.
JJPHILLYLG 3 months ago
@JJPHILLYLG Which is not really using them properly or appreciating them at all. Funny that. :P
HealingBlight 3 months ago
What on Earth was the point of Jonathan's question?
TheTubeTimeMaster1 3 months ago
pz should have boxed him in with his own question, like''when i answer your question and it will be correct as far as all scientific analysis supports my answer,will you give up your faith and stop asking stupid questions?'that would have put an end to further embarressment for the creationist and those that were cringing in the near vicinity. still i always enjoy pz , he never looks or sounds rattled when facing such frustrating stupidity.
kram83au 3 months ago 4
Comment removed
polymath7 3 months ago
Comment removed
polymath7 3 months ago
Comment removed
polymath7 3 months ago
This is *exactly* how creationists should be dealt with.
It's a great mistake to avoid debating them for fear of gifting them the illusion of legitimacy; rather, one should confront them publicly and -this is crucial as a pragmatic matter of applied rhetoric- ridicule them mercilessly and in the frankest terms.
There need be no fear of looking like an elitist know-it-all; indeed mockery is not only appropriate but indispensable to rhetorical efficacy and even basic intellectual honesty.
polymath7 3 months ago 6
And, of course, the schooling Johnathan got went in one ear and out the other, I would guess.
419Films 3 months ago
The smile on Jonathan just looks incredibly crazy... or just retarded.
dummychaos 3 months ago
Pharygulated.
roont 3 months ago
PZinga!
transtlantic 3 months ago in playlist Liked videos 3
it would be a lot better if all those rude people in the audience would shut up and let him speak, and if pz would refute what the guy says, and thén insult him.
lepthymo 3 months ago
@lepthymo He did, and they did. Did you even watch the video?
TheWintermule 3 months ago
@TheWintermule i did, and it seemed to me like the audience was yelling at him and pz had to actually get them to quiet down, and he started of by stating that he should be ashamed of himself instead of addressing the argument.
lepthymo 3 months ago
@lepthymo They clearly let him say what he wanted to say - and so what if he said he should be ashamed of himself first? The order doesn't matter.
apocalypseap 3 months ago
@apocalypseap kinda does, if you dont justify an insult its just being an asshole, this way he sounds like an asshole and then makes up for it, but he still sounded like an ass. i do agree with him though, what that guy does is pretty pathetic, you have to show why though before you can actually call him that.
lepthymo 3 months ago
@lepthymo It should've been fairly obvious to most of the people there just from the the question itself. He gave the audience credit.
apocalypseap 3 months ago
@apocalypseap I agree with @lepthymo to an extent. All Jonathan M is going to take away from this is how he felt humiliated and bullied. The purpose of these discussions is to learn, not ridicule, no matter how ridiculous Jonathan M's statement was (which it was).
iamraynbow 3 months ago
@iamraynbow Justified ridicule is justified. There is a valid reason backing up the ridicule. Nothing wrong with justified ridicule.
apocalypseap 3 months ago
@apocalypseap @Synthmilk I never said he was bullied. I said that's all he'll take away from it. It should be PZ's job to teach and inform. The very people who need convincing are the creationists and the ignorant. That isn't the way to convince them in my opinion. I could be wrong, but that's what I think.
iamraynbow 3 months ago
@iamraynbow
I personally don't think anything Myers could say would have convinced Jon M either way. Have you been to Jon M's blog? There's been plenty of very well informed people trying to correct his mistakes, but Jon just continues anyway. He never concedes a mistake, or a point and just flows onto the next apparant flaw instead.
Jon wasn't there to test his ideas and put forward new ones. He was there to try and stump Myers to make him look bad. Instead, he looked bad himself
Grysham 3 months ago
@iamraynbow Calling bullshit what it is, is not bullying, Jonathan M was not there to learn, he was there to try and make PZ Myers look bad.
Synthmilk 3 months ago
@iamraynbow True, but when there's an audience watching, you're probably going to have a greater impact on them by humiliating your opponents than you would by being gentle.
TheFartoholic 3 months ago
@lepthymo To the crowed gathered, the "why?" behind PZ's statements was self evident, just as obvious as if I were to ask a Mathematician "Can you explain to me why you say 2+2=4 when I have a dozen papers which show me that 2+2=5?" No explanation is necessary, if us laypeople on YouTube don't get it, that's our problem, the talk was not for us, it was for people who are knowledgeable on the topic, and the crowd obviously understood.
Synthmilk 3 months ago
He really should have written his question down. Sounds terrible umming and ahhing like that.
Jagjamin 3 months ago
That guy was PZwned.
DeviantCare 3 months ago
Epic public pwnage :D
SwissTopper 3 months ago
I don't understand a single word he says
DukeDonut 3 months ago
This is why creationism is prevalent on the internet and not in the real world. When you get real scientists confronted by real creationists on evolutinary issues in real life the creationists get shut down quick. Unable to use internet tactics to change the subject or run away they get pinned down every time. Creationism isn't forbidden in universities, it's weeded out by rationalism because creationism is full of it.
TheAnimeAtheist 3 months ago 54
@TheAnimeAtheist
thank you for fully explain the problem of internet arguments
i couldn't have done it better.
gretschbriansetzer 3 months ago
I wouldn't be able to understand his question with all those "ums"?
HentaiFundamentalist 3 months ago
He probably spend days and days preparing what he thought would be super scientifically embarrasing questions, went to the talk all giddy with exitement and were told: Bullshit!
That is the essence of being Pwned.
trefod 3 months ago 2
@trefod hahaha, pure essence.
chicarbiomed 3 months ago
PWNED
Greywolf831 3 months ago
When someone can't look you in the eyes while speaking to you, chances are they are being dishonest.
bradjbourgeois73 3 months ago
Question creationist English
Can you comment on the sheer lack of congruence between homology in developmental pathways?
Question in normal English
Why is it that organism that are closely related do not share any features except features that developed separately?
Answer
Your question is BS. This is not a real question. It's a factually incorrect claim.
Tamizushi 3 months ago 2
(Hitch + PZ) >> god i.e. MUCH greater
dubaipete 3 months ago
I am Scottish, and I have never heard an accent quite like McLatchie's. Bizarre.
I needed to read the fucking subtitles.
revjimbob 3 months ago
Eh. I think his question, if it could be picked out of the Gish gallop, was an interesting one I'd have liked to see answered (not because I think it can't be answer, but because I know the answer and it's interesting), rather than PZ just sticking him with ad hominems. If I was a creationist, I would think PZ just ducked the question rather than dealing with it properly.
Neither of them come off well in this video to me.
Confuseddave 3 months ago
@Confuseddave
I've added a little annotation to the description. PZ couldn't make sense of the question at the time. He's since responded with more detail.
I think you have to read the "10+1 questions for PZ" that JM wrote prior to PZ's appearance to understand why the level of animosity was high. The answer was presented in the presentation that preceded the question... Jonathan M was one of those people that thinks they can crush a speaker by asking tough questions, but he flubbed it.
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 5
JM is what an otherwise intelligent mind looks like with religiously crippled critical thinking skills...
mrsanity 3 months ago
So that's what Johnathon M looks like. lol what a loser.
Drgamedood 3 months ago
OWNED!
talkingprimate 3 months ago
He lost the argument because he went full creatonist. Never go full creatonist.
byteresistor 3 months ago 3
PZ is so awesome :o wish I could take a lecture with him
Bobwickz 3 months ago
Awesome. I'm going to be seeing PZ this weekend at Skepticon!!
jonwillis 3 months ago
I wish I was educated enough to understand what they are talking about.
goliathprime 3 months ago
@goliathprime "educated enough" me too. and thats the problem. one would have to be an expert in biology, astronomy, physics and what not. creationist have a bunch of claims in relation to every aspects of science. and claims are easy to make. debunking is what takes effort and knowledge. if one isnt educated in a specific area the creationists arguments may sound convincing, although its bullshit for the most parts.
theheinzification 3 months ago
I said "Skewering my ass..." And then realized how funny that sounded.
sabertooth1980 3 months ago 2
Favorited by Thunderf00t and TheLivingDinosaur
That is a hell* of a recommendation !
^Non theist meaning i.e grand, extreme or in the vernacular da shit
torrid426 3 months ago
if he says 'um' one more fucking time....
loumorrison72 3 months ago
Ultimate ownage!
Chwuzy 3 months ago 3
It's amazing how creotards still try to debunk the "how" of evolution when the fossil sequence has given us the "what" and the "what" is end of.
pilgrimpater 3 months ago
if i had a $1 for every um he said id be a billionaire by the time i finish watching this video...
Spinobreaker 3 months ago
That is what I call Johnathan: Owned!
alirezasepehrara 3 months ago
What a twit!
WanderingTaoist101 3 months ago
I have dozens of papers that contain similes of your argument, oh wait, I flushed them down the toilet where they belong.
TheRepublicOfUngeria 3 months ago
Epic fucking epic
mysteriousmrgrayarea 3 months ago
PZ can really fuck you up. Bravo, Sir, bravo.
TheSH1N1GAM1 3 months ago 37
Edward Current poe'd PZ Myers? :-)
TheRationalizer 3 months ago
is he drunk?
Alpinex105 3 months ago
"You're citing Gavin de Beer on HOX genes? How old is your paper?"
"I'm... I'm going to deflect the question like I just accused you of doing. I have different papers, the most recent of which is from 2005."
"Right, so just take that Gavin de Beer thing you printed, and rip it up for me. Now what's your 2005 paper?"
"Uh, it's by Kent Hovind."
"Right, rip that up too. Next question."
rkyeun 3 months ago 3
And suddenly I'm ashamed for not following pz myers more closely.
ForYeensSake 3 months ago 31
Thanks for uploading this very important debate, more people need to see the stupidity of these Christians !
k9a2g6 3 months ago
Creationist > "Intelligence design"= Lipstick on a pig
angrywhenroused 3 months ago
@angrywhenroused
More like a dipstick lodged up the arse-end of one.
smaakjeks 3 months ago
PZ does go to easy on him IMO, this Jonathan chap is just sprinting out bullshit. It's cargo cult creationism, he's churning out terms that he clear hasn't the faintest understanding of.
When being cornered by a creationist nut job some time ago I simply replied something like 'How could Jesus have existed when there are no flying space donkeys?' I walked off to his baffled silence, this is all this creationists are doing when they try to talk science.
Rambleale 3 months ago
@Rambleale "there are no flying space donkeys" what proof and evidence to you have that there are no flying space donkeys? gotcha!
theheinzification 3 months ago
Easy PZ.
WildcardHatesYou 3 months ago 3
WTF !
rafaelwaa 3 months ago
I laughed my ass off :)))
Fisher663 3 months ago
It may suck that there are still creationists out there, it may suck even more that a creationist can be a young person like that. At LEAST creationist contests against science appear to be attempting to come from within the scientific arena now, whereas before they might have been taken somewhat seriously by peers. I grew up in a time when creationism didn't need to be anywhere near as well articulated and was responded to with applause.
Nolgthorn 3 months ago
I am trying to find the comment john made on PZ Meyers' blog, can you tell me the # of the post?
TheStalin69 3 months ago
Rattle off a bunch of big words in a long series, and then ridicule the scientist for not responding correctly. Nice.
squirreljester2 3 months ago 4
This is a bit unfair (note: I'm a RADICAL atheist, I have a PhD in molecular and cell biology, and my specific PhD interest was early development). The questioner IS raising a somewhat reasonable point of contention: There ARE some puzzling "discordances" in early development which aren't exceptionally EASY to explain superficially. They don't AT ALL "disprove" evolutionary theory, but they do cry out for a fuller understanding so they wouldn't provide (nominal) fodder for creationists.
GetMeThere1 3 months ago
@GetMeThere1 But that is the case with most scientific subject matter. The fact that a subject has more complex workings than most people have the capacity to understand doesn't mean that it is the fault of the expert of said field in not being able to educate someone (especially someone like Jonathan who doesn't actually WANT to learn) on the complexities of the subject.
tl;dr I don't see the problem with it, the guy should get on PZ's level before stepping up.
inademv 3 months ago
@inademv : I agree that the guy should have come ready with a very SPECIFIC point that he could provide some detail on. He looked rather silly clutching a handful of papers--as though he needn't actually have READ them, or be prepared to argue them. But I think PZ would have better served the cause if he HIMSELF cited an example on this issue (I'm SURE he knows what the issue is), and gave a counter-perspective. The question, fundamentally is NOT really pure bullshit.
GetMeThere1 3 months ago
@GetMeThere1 The question really is pure bullshit because it's asking how homologous development is different with different species. Any development that is homologous is the same. The reason it's present in numerous different species is because of common descent and ancestry. To imply that it's anything else at present without as much evidence as evolution has is just dishonest.
SenariXarn 3 months ago
@SenariXarn : No, that's not quite right. There are puzzling, seemingly MAJOR differences in EARLY development between species that are otherwise quite alike. That is NOT what is expected in the "typical" understanding of evolution and development (in which there (wrongly) remain remnants of the "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" perspective). There are some quirky differences in early development that cause some puzzlement from (at least) a "simple-minded" view of evolution.
GetMeThere1 3 months ago
@GetMeThere1 And what differences exist? I don't know of any (doesn't mean they don't exist, obviously), but I'm sure that a careful look at them can reveal the reasons why they are different. So please, pick one of those differences and share with the class.
SenariXarn 3 months ago
@SenariXarn : PZ discusses the issue elsewhere. I'm surprised he doesn't bring it up here. Search for "developmental hourglass," or "hourglass model of embryologic development" if you want to learn more. It's that which forms the basis for the question in the video.
GetMeThere1 3 months ago
@GetMeThere1
I think you nailed it there. I'd recommend watching the full presentation and Q&A session. He's just spent over an hour addressing the failure of recapitulation theory to explain the actual evolutionary histories, differentiating the strawman of evolution of development that creationists like Jon Wells have created from the actual science. What annoyed PZ about Jonathan's question, I think, is that it had already been addressed in the preceding hour-long talk.
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance : "What annoyed PZ about Jonathan's question, I think, is that it had already been addressed in the preceding hour-long talk."
Ah, OK. That I didn't know. I DO agree--and it should be emphasized--that PZ was dead-on in calling this guy out to give PARTICULARS. SO MANY creationists have apparently learned they can create more havoc by blowing some smoke than they can with actual facts and detailed arguments (which inevitably fail to support their point).
GetMeThere1 3 months ago