Pharyngula

Oh, dear. Earlier, I wrote about Ken Ham’s visit to the Pentagon, a soul-shuddering thought if ever there was one, and it seems Ken has read it. He has replied with a blog entry titled Biology Professor Calls Me “Wackaloon”. Ken, Ken, Ken. You act shocked at the thought that one guy publicly stated that you were Mr Flaming Nutbar, but you shouldn’t be. Millions of people, including some of the most knowledgeable biologists in the world, think just about every day that you are an airhead, an ass, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a charlatan, a cheat, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a con artist, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-ass, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fake, a fathead, a fraud, a fruitcake, a gonif, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a jackass, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a mountebank, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a numbnuts, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a racketeer, a sap, a scam artist, a screwball, a sham, a simpleton, a snake oil salesman, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead, and much, much worse.

You’re a clueless schmuck who knows nothing about science and has arrogantly built a big fat fake museum to promote medieval bullshit — you should not be surprised to learn that you are held in very low esteem by the community of scholars and scientists, and by the even larger community of lay people who have made the effort to learn more about science than you have (admittedly, though, you have set the bar very, very low on that, and there are 5 year old children who have a better grasp of the principles of science as well as more mastery of details of evolution than you do.)

Maybe you should write a blog entry calling attention to each insult given to you. I think that’s your calling, and it’s probably god’s intended mission for you in life, to inspire contempt.

(I encourage each and every one of my readers to express their true feelings about Ken Ham in the comment thread here. Then I want Mr Ham to write an indignant post complaining that “So-and-so called me a “disgrace to brain-damaged clowns””, or whatever — that’ll keep him occupied for years, and will distract him from his campaign of abusing the minds of young children. Be creative.)

Comments

  1. #1 andrew
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham= Brain Damage

  2. #2 speedwell
    June 21, 2008

    Look, I’m just a layman (laywoman?) and even I know he’s nothing but an addled creep too damn stupid to figure out how brainwashed he is, and a miserable bigot who loves company.

  3. #3 Derek James
    June 21, 2008

    Your link to Ham’s blog entry is broken.

    Oh, and Ken Ham has the cognitive prowess of a bag of Cheetos. Okay, maybe not that much. Maybe a single Cheeto. A deranged one.

  4. #4 llewelly
    June 21, 2008

    Sigh. When will neurochemistry give us a cure for Ken Ham?

  5. #5 lettucequeen
    June 21, 2008

    Someone once told me he looked like an evil Abraham Lincoln. I agree with them (it’s really rather creepy).

  6. #6 David Lee
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham exists to fleece those less thoughtful than himself. But he’s not worth much thought, just derision.

  7. #7 Dennis
    June 21, 2008

    Ham’s an Asshat.

  8. #8 Steve C
    June 21, 2008

    What a vain, self-absorbed pudding-brain Ken Ham is. He is probably the stupidest, delusional jerknob I’ve ever heard of.

  9. #9 MarshallDog
    June 21, 2008

    I’m trying not to gush, to actually think out my thoughts clearly… but it’s hard. Every day I think about that $27 million dollar abomination sitting in Kentucky, and all the children being indoctrinated into Ken Ham’s kooky vision of the world, and it twists my insides into knots. Science, and education in general, is seriously hurting for funding, and all the textbooks that could have been bought with that money, all the real research that could have been done… To think it all went to that loon so he could build a few robot dinosaurs and sucker in children that are curious about real science… I can’t do it. I can’t post a clear thought without giving myself a headache. And now he’s infiltrating the Pentagon. Those people are supposed to defend us against the worst kind of terror, and they’re welcoming it into their house. I need to post before my ears start bleeding…

  10. #10 fcaccin
    June 21, 2008

    As a non-native English speaker, allow me to express my personal gratitude for Your list of nouns. Chances are that I’ll find it useful.

  11. #11 Hal in Howell MI
    June 21, 2008

    PZ, it seems that Bright Blue drinks imbibed in the wee hours has taken the edge off your criticism of Mr. Ham. Perhaps you could revisit your posting once the effect of the Azure Ambrosia has worn off and tell us what you really think. Cheers and beware of astronomers. We need you. :-)

  12. #12 DLC
    June 21, 2008

    Oh very well. . .
    Show me a blithering idiot.
    Now show me Ken Ham. But I repeat myself.
    (excuse me for paraphrasing Mark Twain, but I think he would understand)

  13. #13 Nick Gotts
    June 21, 2008

    Hm, this is where being a Brit may come in handy – descriptive terms for the truly stupid may differ considerably across the pond. So:-

    Ken Ham is a buffoon, a cloth-headed guffin, a dim bulb, a donkey, a gormless imbecile, a knuckle-dragger, a pillock, a pratt, a vegetable, and a wet smack.

    He is also two planks short of a load, two sandwiches short of a picnic, completely Finchley, out to lunch, off his trolley, and as daft as a brush wi’out any bristles.

  14. #14 Pratik Patel
    June 21, 2008

    Did you include wanker? He’s definitely a wanker.

  15. #15 Akheloios
    June 21, 2008

    He goes on to comment positively on a preacher who wants his flock to think about the recent US floods in ‘biblical terms’. So god is punishing all those Midwesterners for their sins?

    Death and disaster is definitely caused by the bible.

  16. #16 Jason
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham’s style of religion is far more than just a delusion; its a full blown pasasitic infection, sucking the life force out of scientific progress.

  17. #17 uberd00b
    June 21, 2008

    “an airhead, an ass, a birdbrain, a blockhead, a bonehead, a boob, a bozo, a chowderhead, a chump, a clod, a crackpot, a crank, a crazy, a cretin, a dimwit, a dingbat, a dingleberry, a dipstick, a ditz, a dolt, a doofus, a dork, a dum-dum, a dumb-ass, a dumbo, a dummy, a dunce, a dunderhead, a fathead, a fruitcake, a halfwit, an idiot, an ignoramus, an imbecile, a jackass, a jerk, a jughead, a knucklehead, a kook, a lamebrain, a loon, a loony, a lummox, a meatball, a meathead, a moron, a nincompoop, a ninny, a nitwit, a numbnuts, a numbskull, a nut, a nutcase, a peabrain, a pinhead, a sap, a screwball, a simpleton, a thickhead, a turkey, a twerp, a twit, a twit, a wacko, a woodenhead…”

    You’re far too polite. I’m definitely in the “and much much worse” camp.

  18. #18 Nick Gotts
    June 21, 2008

    Pratik Patel@14 I doubt it. He probably couldn’t find his genitals with both hands.

  19. #19 Yoo
    June 21, 2008

    Ironically enough, Ken Ham’s blog post seems to prove your point …

  20. #20 Senecasam
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a snake-oil pedaling charlatan. That he is allowed to do anything in the Pentagon other than clean toilets is another example of the current administration’s march to theocracy.

  21. #21 Davis
    June 21, 2008

    OK, here’s three choices: Insane, Stupid, or Cynical. It’s got to be one of the three. No other options. In his answer to you, he says we are arrogant and intolerant, but it’s hard not to be in his presence.

  22. #22 dorid
    June 21, 2008

    Here’s Ken Ham’s blog entry about this.

    Apparently someone has also challenged the credentials of the “scientists” involved with ID. Is anyone surprised?

  23. #23 Reginald
    June 21, 2008

    I’d say Ken Ham is a wanktruffle

  24. #24 Ian T
    June 21, 2008

    You missed ‘Twonk’.

  25. #25 Mike O'Risal
    June 21, 2008

    Your opinion of Ham is much higher than mine. I can tell because you never used the word “codswallop.”

  26. #26 dsmccoy
    June 21, 2008

    PZ is forcing creativity by hogging so many of the appropriate epithets.

    But you missed Ham-head, which seems appropriate.

    If anyone needs help insulting Ham, you can get some from
    that master insulter of the english language: The Bard:

    http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/index.html

    Ken Ham is a droning half-faced hedge-pig!
    a Lack-Brain!
    a qualling brazen-faced canker-blossom!
    a loggerheaded weather-bitten measle!
    a mammering tardy-gaited bugbear!

    His sole name blisters our tongues.

  27. #27 szqc
    June 21, 2008

    He`s a coistrel, a culliton, a moldwarp

    (mmm. Shakespearian insults..)

  28. #28 amz
    June 21, 2008

    Put simply, and because I can think of no worse insult, Ken Ham is a VenomFangX-class idiot.

  29. #29 Chris Hughes
    June 21, 2008

    Hey PZ — don’t bottle it up — let it all out!

    You’ll feel better (though probably not that much better, seeing as this twonk still lives and breathes).

  30. #30 bigkongfan
    June 21, 2008

    Nobody brings the dumb like The Hamster. I live about half an hour from his Temple Of Dumb and The Cincinnati Enquirer seems to run full color features on that place every other month. My fingers are calloused from writing letters to the editor objecting to their constant gushing over it. Dumb is thick in the air around here and ol’ Ken is manning his industrial size fan, blowing it across the Ohio River into our faces. (Can your brain get radiation burns from overexposure to toxic ignorance? My cerebral cortex has been throbbing like a mother ever since they opened that place.)

  31. #31 JonD
    June 21, 2008

    Well, I think PZ’s impeccably alphabetized string of descriptors painted a more accurate picture than most can.

    If Ken is going to continue barefacedly spreading ignorance, he should expect to have fingers pointed at him.

  32. #32 deerjackal
    June 21, 2008

    “Ken Ham is… a donkey…”

    Let’s not be harsh here.

    Donkeys are rather sharp beasties. I’d rather hang out with an ass than a guy whose “museum” features a plaque justifying incest in the Bible. Or a bunch of plaques that highlight the very worst of theistic “blame the victim” “logic.”

  33. #33 David
    June 21, 2008

    Reverend Spooner says Ken is a mucking foron.

    I never understand Rev. Spooner.

  34. #34 Pakostan
    June 21, 2008

    I have been watching from the sidelines for too long Mr. Myerz, now i feel obliged to step in to douse the hate. I find it truly unthoughtful from your part to call ken ham a jackass. Sir, a jackass has a practical purpose, ken ham does not. This proud member of the equidae familly does laborious work in farming nations such as mine, Peru. I find it repulsive that you have equated a jackass with the waste of matter which ken ham is.

    So please, lets be al little more thoughtful for the animals.

  35. #35 Dutch Delight
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham eh, well, what can you say about someone who lies to children for a living. It’s the communities that will pay for it when those kids meet the real world and find out all the people they trusted have been lying to them.

  36. #36 heliobates
    June 21, 2008

    I had decided to call him a brainless prat, but I’ve changed my mind.

    You’re a jerk, Ken. A complete asshole.

  37. #37 Iason Ouabache
    June 21, 2008

    You forgot “shit for brains”. That’s always my favorite one.

  38. #38 Julius
    June 21, 2008

    After skim-reading Knob Ham’s blog entry, I’d also like to draw everyone’s attention to his second bullet point: “Of course, if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast, I’m sure PZ Myers would not have ranted against that–it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems.”

    Care to prove him wrong on that, PZ?

  39. #39 S. Rivlin
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is like a stress hormone – it increases your blood pressure to a dangerous level upon binding to the glucocorticoid receptor in the brains of normal, logical people. Science is still to find an antagonist to Ken Ham.

  40. #40 Xxldave
    June 21, 2008

    Canned Ham? Yuck!

  41. #41 sdg
    June 21, 2008

    cotton headed ninny muggins

  42. #42 Jackal
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham gives a bad name to cured pig flesh.

  43. #43 afterthought
    June 21, 2008

    I used to collect these type expressions on a 3×5 card:

    He is also two planks short of a load, two sandwiches short of a picnic,… –Nick Gotts


    I don’t have it handy, but let’s see:
    * One brick short of a load
    * Butter slipped off his noodles
    * One wheel in the sand
    * Running on seven (Maybe running on three as a nod to Al Gore)
    * Traveling w/o any luggage
    * Roof isn’t nailed down in one corner
    * Elevator [Lift to you Nick] doesn’t meet the top floor
    * Doesn’t have both oars in the water

  44. #44 Dave Godfrey
    June 21, 2008

    Derek, I find your comments deeply insulting to cheetos.

    Ham is nauseating little toerag, who knows nothing of science, despite being repeatedly informed about it, in words of one syllable, words eminently too complex for him to understand. I loathe the man and the anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-enlightenment fetid pile of dingoes kidneys he’s wasted 27 million on.

  45. #45 Pierre
    June 21, 2008

    I’m not usually into name calling, but just this once:

    Ken Ham, you’re a ridiculous buffoon.

    - Pierre R, bioinformatician.

    I think we should all include some of our credentials
    along with our insults. How does it feel to be called
    names by such a whole bunch of respected intellectuals,
    Ken? People who are all known to be very intelligent?
    But I bet your twisted brain doesn’t get the true
    meaning of such an honor… eh?

  46. #46 Scienceman123
    June 21, 2008

    A festering boil on the ass of humanity.

  47. #47 Shaden Freud
    June 21, 2008

    I can’t do better than Lewis Black:

    “There are people who believe that dinosaurs and men lived together. That they roamed the Earth at the same time. There are museums that children go to, in which they build dioramas to show them this. And what this is, purely and simply, is a clinical psychotic reaction. They are crazy. They are stone cold f*** nuts. I can’t be kind about this, because these people are watching The Flintstones as if it were a documentary.”

  48. #48 Paul Burnett
    June 21, 2008

    How can you all have forgotten the piglet incident? Google

    “Ken Ham” piglet

    and get 4,790 hits describing this sordid incident.

  49. #49 Hal in Howell MI
    June 21, 2008

    Did anyone mention dickweed, pudknocker, and the more genteel, wastrel? Mr. Ham is all of the above and more. What about the Pentagon dudes who invited him to breakfast and those unfortunates who provide him with financial support?

  50. #50 shyster
    June 21, 2008

    Let’s keep it simple: I’ve grown brighter vegetables. Asparagus comes to mind.

  51. #51 Neil B.
    June 21, 2008

    PZ and your fans, why do you want to come across like adolescent-minded, right-wing blow-hards, Freeper and Little Green Football posters and commenters, etc? Sure Ken Ham is a pseudoscientist and his work is destructive, but a booger flicking fest just looks silly. A few threads ago, someone was quite rightly complaining about the Freepers. But their threads often look just like this, or not as bad. Where’s the maturity?

    Go ahead and whine, kids. Yes, I’m a stodgy old scolding goat and a haughty anthropic “philosophical theist” to boot who thinks people like you are too unsophisticated in sophistic abstract reasoning to explore such issues competently. But you can’t pick on that unless you know your way around modal realism, comparative statistics of possible model worlds, etc., talk of dinosaurs and bones won’t cut it. Have fun.

    PS: If you want to put snark to good political use, remind readers of various blogs that John McSame’s wife Cindy stole drugs from her own non-profit, and their affair broke up his marriage. Most of us can at least agree we prefer Obama (but remember, he is a Christian by his own admission!)

  52. #52 Aquaria
    June 21, 2008

    Methinks Mr. Ham is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

    My grandfather would have called him Ignat. Or Ignut. I don’t know where he got those terms, but I always liked ‘em.

    I’m leaning toward Ignut. To go with nutbar.

  53. #53 Reginald
    June 21, 2008

    Looks like the blog post has disappeared.

  54. #54 Mathematician
    June 21, 2008

    there are 5 year old children who have a better grasp of the principles of science as well as more mastery of details of evolution than you do.)
    There’s also at least one 4 year old ditto; mine is a witness.

  55. #55 aporeticus
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham’s a slubberdegullion!

  56. #56 Henry Birdseye
    June 21, 2008

    Looks like Hamtard took his posting down in anticipation of our onslaught.

    He couldn’t get a clue if he were standing in the middle of a field of naked, horny clues, wearing a clue costume doing the clue mating dance.

    I still can’t wait to visit the Museum of Idiots so I can point and laugh.

  57. #57 chris
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is…

    as dumb as a bag of hammers

    as sharp as a sack of dead rats

    as hopeless as a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest

    dumber than two rocks stacked on top of each other

    as coherent as a frog in a blender

    as welcome as a herpes sore at an orgy

    as credible as a senator with a “wide stance”

  58. #58 Zeno
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham: Of course, if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast, I’m sure PZ Myers would not have ranted against that–it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems.

    Funny, Ken Ham seems to think that Christians are being picked upon preferentially. That’s only true to the extent that it is Christians who keep trying to hijack the public sector (government, military, schools) to promote their sectarian views. Most of the people who frequent Pharyngula are secularists who strenuously oppose efforts to entangle church and state. We’d be similarly antagonistic toward the idea that we should have Sharia law in this country, but except for wacky organizations like Blackwater, no one is seriously suggesting that the U.S. should be under Islamic law.

    It’s like this, Mr. Ham: I am diligently opposed to the propagation of mosquitoes, which spread various diseases throughout California. I spend, however, almost no time or effort struggling against infestations of tsetse flies. It’s all a matter of what’s causing all the trouble. In most of this country, it’s cads and bounders like you.

  59. #59 Emmet Caulfield
    June 21, 2008

    Perhaps we should refer to his ilk as “Hamlets”, since “they have a plentiful lack of wit, together with most weak hams“.

  60. #60 Joe
    June 21, 2008

    “(but remember, he is a Christian by his own admission!)”
    Ya but they all say that, after all they ARE politicians.
    He’d tell you he “eats babies for breakfast” if he thought that you’d vote for him because of it. Now Hillary on the other hand IS the spawn of satan!;)

    Oh ya Ken Ham is a douche bag!

  61. #61 scooter
    June 21, 2008

    Here is where I found Ham’s wack-a-loon link

    Don’t forget to Scroll down past wack-a-loon and read about Ham’s new Ass!!

  62. #62 Rich Stage
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is an obnoxious twit
    who’s brain don’t work even a bit.
    My hypothesis is
    that religion has
    replaced all of his gray matter with shit.

    I could say that you can see how he’s
    proof that we’re descended from monkeys,
    but that’s not how it works
    and that mind-addled jerk
    is too stupid to come down from the trees.

    If there is a god who controls weather,
    and knows every bird and their feathers,
    you’d think there had been
    a better use for Ken’s skin
    than to hold his sorry ass together.

  63. #63 chris
    June 21, 2008

    …and just because I haven’t seen it used yet..

    Ken Ham is a fuckwit.

  64. #64 Sili
    June 21, 2008

    Silly silly pigletfucker.

    It’s hardly our fault the pigletstoinker is a plangent* wackaloon. We just calls ‘em as we sees ‘em.

    Now, though, I do have to wonder if PZed is related to captain Haddock. There is a certain superficial similarity and they do seem to share a certain verbal tick.

    *Thank you, professor Pullum.

  65. #65 Nick Gotts
    June 21, 2008

    Yes, I’m a stodgy old scolding goat and a haughty anthropic “philosophical theist” to boot – Neil B.

    Neil, I thought I should point out that you’ve accidentally included something sensible and accurate in your comment.

  66. #66 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    Like Ken Ham, I’m not a biologist. So, obviously, I am uncertain as to whether or not worms actually shit. However, I think I can be reasonably certain that should those worms, in fact, shit, it’s quite clear that worm shit would be considerably more intelligent and valuable than Mr. Ham and his opinions.

    Ken Ham is nothing more than a scum-sucking rapist desperately trying to exploit the questioning minds of America’s children as he continually strives to become America’s #1 source of toxic waste.

    Locking the asshole in a bunker half a mile under ground for ten thousand years would be a good freakin’ start in protecting America from him and the worthless sludge of his confused mythology.

  67. #67 Jason
    June 21, 2008

    Lol @ 28, 47

    To 51:
    True, name-calling is a little immature, but on behalf of all scientists and science students, we’re a little pissed off that a mentally deficient crackpot (damn, was that said already?) gets to tell the people with the power to destroy the world about how true his book of magic is, and how important it is to adhere to fantasy, and we (science minded people) need to vent.

  68. #68 PatrickHenry
    June 21, 2008

    This is a deeply satisfying thread. But it occurs to me that I’ve never blogged about Ken Ham. (Or Hovind, but he went to the slammer before I started blogging.)

    Why have I been so neglectful? It’s probably because I’ve never considered his creationist “museum” — which appeals to mountain folk who are the products of seventh-generation incest — to be worth the effort.

    But perhaps I’ll reconsider. There’s something to be said for a successful entrepreneur of un-reason.

  69. #69 BobC
    June 21, 2008

    “I encourage each and every one of my readers to express their true feelings about Ken Ham in the comment thread here.”

    Ken Ham is an asshole who abuses children with his breathtaking stupidity. He belongs in prison.

  70. #70 Mike O'Risal
    June 21, 2008

    Said Neil B.:

    Go ahead and whine, kids. Yes, I’m a stodgy old scolding goat and a haughty anthropic “philosophical theist” to boot who thinks people like you are too unsophisticated in sophistic abstract reasoning to explore such issues competently. But you can’t pick on that unless you know your way around modal realism, comparative statistics of possible model worlds, etc.

    You’re absolutely right, Neil. Your codswallop is far more impenetrable than Ham’s. Congratulations.

  71. #71 Seth
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a living transitional form. He’s halfway between a flaming assclown (not to say he’s gay, its just that the few functioning neurons he does have are vibrating madly with cognitive dissonance) and a gyrating whale penis-eater.

    My consolation is that these ridiculous nutballs are inevitably brought down when their private misdeeds come to light and the hate-mongering they have so carefully cultivated is brought to bear on their own odious misdeeds.

  72. #72 Carlie
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a wingnut. His presence in this country has lowered the average IQ by at least 20 points.

  73. #73 Logicel
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is a git and for some Shakespearean spice:

    a puking idle-headed clack-dish.

  74. #74 MattEdd
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a giant doodie head. That is all.

  75. #75 Seamyst
    June 21, 2008

    Taken from the Shakespearean Insulter:

    Ken Ham is a trunk of humours, a bolting-hutch of beastliness, a swollen parcel of dropsies, a huge bombard of sack, a stuffed cloak-bag of guts, a roasted Manningtree ox with pudding in his belly, a reverend vice, a grey Iniquity, a father ruffian, a vanity in years.

    He is also a mewling boil-brained scut.

    He hath not so much brain as ear wax.

  76. #76 BobC
    June 21, 2008

    I used PZ’s link to the article in Answers-in-Stupidity and got this:

    Page Not Found
    Sorry, the page your looking for cannot be found.
    Error 404

    Did Mr. Ken Shithead Ham delete his own blog entry?

  77. #77 Richard Harris
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, gonzo god-goober, Christian, nut job, & lying creep.

  78. #78 Dan Phelps
    June 21, 2008

    No insult or collection of insults can suffice in describing Ken Ham. Therefore, I propose we use the term “Ken Ham” as the most abysmal insult and expletive that can be hurled at another human being. Imagine saying “Ken Ham you!” to the next jerk that cuts you off in traffic.

  79. #79 Andrés
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is a hateful, hard headed, ham-handed hack.

  80. #80 Aquaria
    June 21, 2008

    I think we should all include some of our credentials
    along with our insults. How does it feel to be called
    names by such a whole bunch of respected intellectuals

    Yikes, I’m only a postal worker. Then again, we do have a certain reputation that might inspire…well, fear.

  81. #81 THNP
    June 21, 2008

    Hear Hear! A proper nitwit!

  82. #82 DVMKurmes
    June 21, 2008

    Ken’s Beard and sideburns makes me think he is a sorry imitation of Captain Ahab, and creationism is his own white whale that will hopefully drag him under someday.
    (my apologies to white whales).

  83. #83 Traffic Demon
    June 21, 2008

    My biggest problem with Ken Ham is that he’s so selfish. Imagine being gifted with all that ugly and keeping it to himself. He could perform great acts of kindness with ugliness like that. Farmers could use him to scare caterpillars off of their crops. Parents of naughty children could have him walk past their rooms at night. He could allow blind people to feel his face so they wouldn’t feel so bad about being blind; they would understand that having sight carries risks. Newlywed men could have him stand behind the headboard of their marital bed so that when they felt their climax approaching, they could look up and earn themselves a few more minutes of playtime.

    Not that Kenny’s ugliness hasn’t had consequences already. Young girls frequently go running to the convents after seeing that mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging hermaphroditic troglodyte for the first time, and pregnant women frequently throw themselves down flights of stairs after the same. Even the rabbits of his hometown are notorious for their celibacy!

    Now, please understand that when I call Ken Ham ugly, I don’t mean your ordinary kind of ugly, I mean that he is biblically ugly. And not the New Testament either. He is Old Testament Bible ugly. We’re talking leprosy in the well, wrath of God, plagues in Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jacob’s loins, Lot screwing his daughters, Goliath scratching his sack with a hook, couldn’t get on the ark because what would condescend to mate with him kind of ugly. I’m sure that there is no record of this sort of ugliness anywhere in human history, if only because anyone telling the tale would surely have their works burned for being even more absurd than the Flintstones-as-documentary crapfest he molests the world with on a daily basis.

  84. #84 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    By the way, can someone tell me why it is that these god-soaked, gurgling halfwits never allow comments on the irrational dreck they slap up on their blogs?

    Seriously, if Ham opened up comments on his blog, it would be so much easier (and better) to question the potatohead there than here. I’d like to have the opportunity of telling the fucktard that he’s a fucktard to his poorly shaven, fucktard face.

  85. #85 Grammar RWA
    June 21, 2008

    The military is now one of the most “politically correct” places in the USA. Not only do Christians have the freedom to meet–but so do Muslims, Hindus, and almost any other group you could name. Of course, if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast, I’m sure PZ Myers would not have ranted against that–it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems.

    I like how he puts political correctness into scare quotes, because it’s a “bad thing.” Now, it is a bad thing that there are prayer breakfasts at all in the military, respecting an establishment of religion. But that’s not what bothers Ken. He’s obviously fine with prayer breakfasts led by wackaloon fundamentalist Christians.

    If we’re going to have to put up with government-sponsored religion, then it’s some consolation that all sorts of wackos are welcome. That way they can waste time fighting it out amongst one another, a situation preferable to hegemony by one sect.

    But Ken is pissed that Muslim infidels are allowed to walk on the holy land of the Pentagon. “It is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems.”

    “Boo hoo! I want to be intolerant of Muslims, but when I am, people call me a hypocrite! It’s not faaaair!”

    Any time you see a right winger bitching about how “only Christians can be targeted these days,” you can know two things about that winger. First, they’re lying, because anyone surveying the cultural landscape can see that Muslims are considered more than fair targets. Second, they’re longing for the bad old days when non-Christians were expected to shut the fuck up, and if we didn’t, we were fair targets for physical violence and/or murder.

  86. #86 Walt
    June 21, 2008

    Actually, I think Ken Ham has hurt your feelings! And with politelness and accuracy, too.

    Don’t bother to think and read what is actually said; lazy, lazy, lazy!

  87. #87 Davey
    June 21, 2008

    For Ken Ham, the Christian Alphabet:

    Archaic Arcane Apostles
    Bigoted Baptist Bull
    Crazy Christian Crap
    Demonic Defecating Deacons
    Egocentric Ecclesiastic Excrement
    Foolish Fractious Followers
    Gentile Genteel Goons
    Halloween-Hating Heteroclites
    Indefatigably Indignant Imbeciles
    Joyless Jesus Jockeys
    Ku Klux Klan
    Lobotomized Lucifer Libelists
    Mendacious Mercenary Missionaries
    Nescient Nature Narration
    Offensive Occidental Oligarchy
    Pathetic Parasitical Preachers
    Quaint Queer Quakers
    Religious Refuse Retailers
    Sectarian Snakeoil Salesmen
    Totalitarian Thought Tyrants
    Unmitigated Upbringing Usurpation
    Vituperative Visigoth Victims
    Weird Walleyed Wrath
    Xenophobic Xanthochroic Xavierians
    Yahweh Yapping Yardbirds
    Zealous Zionist Zeros

  88. #88 chigurh
    June 21, 2008

    @51 “people like you are too unsophisticated in sophistic abstract reasoning to explore such issues competently. But you can’t pick on that unless you know your way around modal realism, comparative statistics of possible model worlds, etc., talk of dinosaurs and bones won’t cut it.”

    what are these super important issues? Any issue that is sufficiently abstract that it cannot be settled with evidence is irrelevant and useless. Just like “philosophical theism”.

  89. #89 Sailor
    June 21, 2008

    Actually I think Ken had a point. From PZs column I gathered the impression (and this must have been my delusion) that Ken was had an opfficial Pentagon invitation to some high power prayer meeting with bigwig guys at the Pentagon. This would have been bad. As he mentioned only a hundred were there, and it is possible they were cleaners without the ability to blast people to smitherines. So it may not have been as bad as all that.
    As to this post, I am not sure there is much benefit to name calling, but clearly at th very least Ken Ham is ignorant.

  90. #90 Logicel
    June 21, 2008

    Hilarious comment, Traffic Demon #83!

    Ham is so disgusting that when people who have overdosed need to vomit just one brief flash of a photo of Ham will do the job.

  91. #91 scooter
    June 21, 2008

    if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast,

    I’ll bet that Muslim Chapel has more bugs in it than Windows Vista

  92. #92 Neil B.
    June 21, 2008

    Mike, you should look up “modal realism” instead of just blowing it off like a yahoo because you don’t know about it. Ironically, many top physicists like Max Tegmark believe that same idea, that the universe simply “is” the math that describes it (so they can have every possible model world and not have to explain why *this* one is the one that exists. BTW, can you?)

    But Max and the others aren’t aware of the grotesque implications for Bayesian expectation, since it requires literally every description to exist (including worlds similar to every movie and cartoon you ever saw and then some) as well as full of every imaginable variation. We’d have no expectation of being in a world with the regularity of law and particle consistency there is here. If you guys want to beg off thinking about “metaphysics” (that doesn’t mean “no” it means “who knows or should care”) or just not believe in something you can’t find that’s OK with me. You could at least know what you’re talking about when you actually try to argue the point.

    BTW, you should see that I’ve been indulging in snark anyway, no point in literalizing and analyzing it all to death. Really, PZ and fans’ pubescent splatterings are in fact not the same sort of harmful trash as the dextronuts’ smearings about patriotism, like Bill O’Reilly saying “We know where you live” about his critics or etc, Ann Coulter denigrating an entire political faction as treasonous, etc.; Mike Savage, Boortz, et al. They are truly repulsive, childish snot is just annoying and useless.

  93. #93 BobC
    June 21, 2008

    Re #76, I found it, and I noticed at least one other person found it.

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/06/20/biology-professor-calls-me-“wackaloon”/

    In a previous thread somebody pointed out that wackaloon is not a real word because it’s not found in the Eleventh Edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

    However I found wackaloon in an internet dictionary and I think it describes world-class asshole Ken Ham perfectly.

    wackaloon: Someone whose behavior bypasses moron idiot and dumbfuck. Characterized by saying or doing the same stupid thing over and over even though others have pointed out your ridiculous behavior.

    I would also call Ham’s gullible followers wackaloons.

    It’s impossible to be more stupid than a person who believes the entire universe was magically created 6,000 years ago, but a recent poll showed that 60% of Republicans believe this. The same poll showed that only 4% of Republicans accept evolution without invoking a sky fairy to guide it.

  94. #94 Tom
    June 21, 2008

    Ken ham is an intellect vacuum. He has the mental capacity of comatose kelp, and the dignity of an incontinent clown.

  95. #95 Gareth
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham’s a top bloke. Highly intelligent, dedicated to his career and is really good at his job.

    He did a great job on STS-124.

    Oh wait, you don’t mean Ken Ham the NASA astronaut then?

    Ah, Ken Ham the creationist.

    Yeah, he’s a prick.

  96. #96 Gareth
    June 21, 2008

    Actually, I just realised. Ham will probably quote-mine my last post to make it look as if I’m saying he’s a top bloke…

  97. #97 kryptonic
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a pilonidal cyst!

    Ken Ham is nucking futs!

  98. #98 decrepitoldfool
    June 21, 2008

    It’s tempting to say Ken Ham is a regular rocket scientologist, a gross ignoramus (144 times worse than an ordinary ignoramus). That his IQ is a false positive. If dumb were dirt, he’d be an acre.

    But that’s being kind, giving him the benefit of the doubt, attributing honest error. I strongly suspect the reality is much worse, that he knows perfectly well what he is doing. He is a deliberate despoiler of children’s educations, lying for Jesus.

  99. #99 Tom
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, you are a first-class fucktard. Or, to quote Terence and Philip, a donkey-raping cockmaster.

  100. #100 Schmeer
    June 21, 2008

    Neil B. you are a navel-gazer. Don’t bother with your concern-trolling. We who enjoy a bit of low-brow indulgence at times don’t give a flying fuck about your “sophistic abstract reasoning.” Sophistry is nothing to be proud of.
    It just so happens that many of us are also very capable abstract thinkers. I love Relativity, higher level mathematics, electrical engineering and quantum mechanics. All of those would be impossible without abstraction.

    The difference is that I can enjoy Lord of the Rings without confusing it with reality.

    Oh, and Ken Ham is a douche bag, embarrassment to creationists(ouch), pig-fucking ape, and a shit-eating fecophiliac.

  101. #101 black wolf
    June 21, 2008

    Yesterday my cat puked phenomenally along eight meters of my floor. I named the puke Ken Ham, wiped it up and threw it away.

  102. #102 C. L. Hanson
    June 21, 2008

    there are 5 year old children who have a better grasp of the principles of science as well as more mastery of details of evolution than you do.

    Echoing #54, if you need some evidence to back this up, look here.

  103. #103 Grammar RWA
    June 21, 2008

    Go ahead and whine, kids. Yes, I’m a stodgy old scolding goat and a haughty anthropic “philosophical theist” to boot who thinks people like you are too unsophisticated in sophistic abstract reasoning to explore such issues competently. But you can’t pick on that unless you know your way around modal realism, comparative statistics of possible model worlds, etc., talk of dinosaurs and bones won’t cut it. Have fun.

    It isn’t much fun, because it’s too easy. If multiple possible worlds exist (and I’m not strongly opposed to this hypothesis, to the extent that the many worlds interpretation of QM has explanatory power), then there’s even less need for deity as an explanation of our existence than if only this world exists.

    In short, you’d have to be a total fucking idiot to believe in both modal realism and a creator god for this universe.

    By the way, Neil, please don’t link to Juan Cole’s website when you wander around saying stupid shit. Juan Cole is a good man, and deserves better than smear-by-association with you.

  104. #104 Neil B.
    June 21, 2008

    chigurh:

    Any issue that is sufficiently abstract that it cannot be settled with evidence is irrelevant and useless. Just like “philosophical theism”.

    I guess you didn’t realize that the very claim that ideas ought to have to be settled with evidence in order to be meaningful (positivism) is itself not something that can be settled with evidence – it is a metastatement about meaning and other deep issues and must be explored with the same “mind’s eye” as the metaphysical issues it purports to disdain. OK, so what is the experimental/operational definition of the following:
    1.) Things exists even while not being observed.
    2.) The universe’s entire past actually happened, it isn’t just an inference from the present state of affairs.
    3.) Take e.g. an unrecorded conversation you had with a bunch of people yesterday, the physical trace is lost in principle (because of the uncertainty principle, no Laplacean back-track can recover it.) You wouldn’t be willing to affirm at least some of the words said then?
    4.) Some direct proof of e.g. Cantor’s diagonal argument and other issues regarding infinite sets, or indeed mathematics in general (which is not shown us in the same way as “experimental” results.
    5.) That you are not a “brain in a vat” getting simulated sensory input (and this could be any system that thinks it’s in a real external world. It might be a system run by computer programs so the neurological and biophysical support issues are not at issue.)
    Try to think of some more for yourself.

    Hey, this is no thread for philosophically inastute men (or women!)

  105. #105 slang
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is nothing but a saucyspleened bag of tepid buzzard gizzards.
    Ken Ham is nothing but a pribbling half-mouthful of half-faced armadillo snouts.
    Ken Ham is nothing but a sheep-biting pile of antique red dye number-9.
    Ken Ham is nothing but an impertinent coagulation of mangled snake bait.
    Ken Ham is nothing but a despicable thimbleful of reeky entrails.

    (insultd, it’s even available as a Perl module now)

  106. #106 Rick
    June 21, 2008

    PZ,

    you forgot “meathead” and “boil on the ass of society”.

    Rick

  107. #107 Magpie
    June 21, 2008

    How do you insult the Ken-doll? It’s like making fun of a clown. You can’t, because he’s already done it for you.

    He does smell funny, though.

  108. #108 jase
    June 21, 2008

    Where, oh where is Cuttlefish? I’m sure few, if any, can match his poetic take on Ham’s asshattery.

  109. #109 JT
    June 21, 2008

    Hey, how about this Neil B #92, I’m perfectly familiar with “modal realism,” since David Lewis was my friend; he was my advisor at the time he was writing On the Plurality of Worlds. David put it best as he always did: There are an infinity of gods, but none of them are our worldmates.”

    So, as you say, “You could at least know what you’re talking about when you actually try to argue the point,” rather than just name-checking concepts clearly beyond your grasp.

  110. #110 Draconiz
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, I fondly remember one of his slides where he shows the picture of an ape and asked the crowd whether their grandparents look like that.

    Had I been there I would say to his face “If you are my Granddad then yes!”

  111. #111 SiMPel MYnd
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a waste of carbon.

  112. #112 Mike O'Risal
    June 21, 2008

    Mike, you should look up “modal realism” instead of just blowing it off like a yahoo because you don’t know about it. Ironically, many top physicists like Max Tegmark believe that same idea, that the universe simply “is” the math that describes it (so they can have every possible model world and not have to explain why *this* one is the one that exists. BTW, can you?)

    Well Neil, I’m not particularly worried about why this universe exists instead of some other one. I’m more interested in explaining what does exist than about that which doesn’t. It simply isn’t my field.

    But it was your presentation of it initially was what leads me to believe it’s codswallop, really. Your remark essentially consisted of a complaint about other people’s actions followed by an assertion of your own superiority as embodied in a string of obscure terms for which you offered no definition and no link to any particular discipline, scientific or philosophical. Let me do the same and see what impression it creates.

    You have no right to scold the people who post comments here unless you first understand the reconstructive importance of pygmidia. You can call them names all you want, but I know all about sterigmata and have been investigating gasteromycetization as well. Until you can attack me on those fronts, what right do you have to criticize others?

    As you did in your comment, I’ve further linked my name below to a blog that is not mine and has nothing apparent to do with anything we’re talking about.

    You know, people who peddle woo for a living also use obscurist terminology, and phrases like “modal realism” fit very well into such frameworks. As you didn’t bother to provide any context for your terms other than your self-labeling as a “stodgy philosophical theist,” on what basis would I desire to take the time to investigate the phrase further? Your expectation that others should be that interested in what you post as a comment on an open blog merely because you’ve written it speaks to your own unreasonable expectations of others and, perhaps, a certain flaw in your ability to communicate your ideas effectively. As your comment further links to someone else’s blog that apparently focuses on Middle Eastern affairs and I don’t know you from a fig tree, on what basis should I put significant effort into following up on your statements? Or lending them any credence at all, for that matter? You’ve said nothing about yourself except that you disapprove of everyone else in the room.

    Big deal.

  113. #113 BobC
    June 21, 2008

    Ken shit-for-brains Ham said “People like PZ Myers are those who call for tolerance–but their intolerance for Christians illustrates clearly the spiritual nature of this battle–otherwise, why would they care?”

    I don’t remember PZ saying anything about tolerating assholes who lie to children.

    I wondering, does Ken Ham know he’s a compulsive liar, or is he just insane?

  114. #114 Mike G
    June 21, 2008

    I can’t believe that no one has jumped on Ken Ham being an Australian and called him a sheep-shagger. And he’s a sheep-shagger in more ways than one. He screws not only the actual animal, but also those that are collectively known as his “flock”.

    And for something a bit more tame: he’s a hypocrite. He has nothing but contempt for the whole endeavour of science, yet he is so willing to utilize it further his delusional agenda. And considering his anti-science tirades and how he looks, one would think on first impression that he’s Amish.

    The man is a delusional schizo whose only place is as the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz. But even then his complete absence of anything resembling a brain makes him overly-qualified for the role. Perhaps his true purpose is as a door-stop, or possibly a paper-weight, or anything that never ever gains even the minutest level of consideration.

  115. #115 Elles
    June 21, 2008

    Methinks he’s an ignunt fool.

    One compliment for him, though. When I realized how (depressingly) huge the number of people who thought he was correct was, I decided to learn more about evolution so that I could better refute him. So, he’s the man who inspired me to learn about how wonderful a theory it is.

  116. #116 Shaun
    June 21, 2008

    I wish I had a blueprint of his brain, I’m trying to build an idiot.

  117. #117 Alcari
    June 21, 2008

    I think you missed:

    crazy, deranged, dumb, a fool, insane, a madman, thick, pea-brained, a twat and several others.

    Now, bring on the come-back ;)

  118. #118 God=Santa
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is batshit crazy.

  119. #119 Traffic Demon
    June 21, 2008

    Kenny’s stoopid can beat up your stoopid.

  120. #120 Notkieran
    June 21, 2008

    *speechless applause at #83*

  121. #121 Nick Gotts
    June 21, 2008

    Neil B@92 If you have some actual argument you want to make, make it. Otherwise, go and swap sophistries with Ken Ham. If there is an answer to why we live in the kind of universe we do, other than “That’s just how it happens to be”, it is science and mathematics that are likely to lead us to it. The concept of a creator God has no explanatory power whatever, since a sufficiently powerful creator could create any logically consistent universe.

    BTW, yes, I do know what modal realism is.

  122. #122 Neil B.
    June 21, 2008

    Grammar RWA, you didn’t even bother to see in my second posting where I explained why I *don’t* believe in MR – it’s careless to assume that when someone mentions something as being critical, they must believe in it (or in its orthodox form.) Here it is again:

    But Max and the others aren’t aware of the grotesque implications for Bayesian expectation, since it requires literally every description to exist (including worlds similar to every movie and cartoon you ever saw and then some) as well as full of every imaginable variation. We’d have no expectation of being in a world with the regularity of law and particle consistency there is here.
    That’s why I think there *is* a need for some ordering principle, so we don’t end up in messy rubbish like that. You could at least be a more careful reader.

    Also, spare me the ridiculous “concern insider-troll” nattering about Juan Cole. You think he or his fans (including me) would be more bothered by
    1. Linking to a commenter who brought up very important issues that lots of quality scientists and philosophers consider cutting edge and debate (Paul Davies, Roger Penrose, etc., and Tegmark got a grant to study it) unlike “the Flintstones”? Especially, considering that I was bringing up a contradiction between MR and our “real” world to seek other explanation, not (as you superficially and wrongly surmised) being just a believer in MR. (Well, even then, if all possible worlds exist then so should heavens and hells and presumably something like “God”, whether “needed” or not.), or
    2. A thread filled with flying fecal boli? Hey, I don’t really care enough about that to be a genuine “concern troll” anyway, I’m just ragging on you guys and gals in like measure to yank your chains! (Maybe it’s spoiled now.) Much of this stuff actually is funny and creative, I must admit. Don’t be so damn serious and huffy about it, since you like low-brow indulgence so much!

  123. #123 Liz
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham was really one of those sperm that was meant to be swallowed.

  124. #124 Alex
    June 21, 2008

    He does sort of have a point if he only spoke to about 100 people. If they were just some lackeys, I don’t see it as that big of an issue.

    For clarification, I still think he’s a dipstick.

  125. #125 SC
    June 21, 2008

    Found it through the AiG homepage:

    PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris, ranted in a blog item (which is apparently quite popular among anti-creationists) about my speaking at a prayer breakfast at the Pentagon. The arrogance and intolerance of some of these people is remarkable. Considering this person is supposed to be an academic teaching good research skills to students at a university, I would not want to trust any of his lectures considering the logic he used in his recent blog. He stated:

    Ken Ham, chief wackaloon at Answers in Genesis, was invited to speak…at a Pentagon prayer breakfast.

    Just let that sink in.There are people at the Pentagon who are in charge of planning where your sons and daughter and nephews and nieces and other beloved family members and friends will be sent to put their lives at risk. There are military personnel there who can send missiles and bombers anywhere in the world. There are people there who control nuclear weapons.

    And they think Ken Ham is a fine-and-dandy, clever feller.

    It’s almost enough to make me wish I could pray. It’s not just Ham, either–it’s that the people with the big guns have prayer breakfasts.

    Now consider this:

    Over 23,000 people work at the Pentagon. I spoke to 100 Christians at a prayer breakfast–less than 0.5% of the Pentagon workforce (good response from those present by the way).

    The military is now one of the most “politically correct” places in the USA. Not only do Christians have the freedom to meet–but so do Muslims, Hindus, and almost any other group you could name. Of course, if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast, I’m sure PZ Myers would not have ranted against that–it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems.

    What’s he so worked up about anyway? If he’s right, God doesn’t exist–so prayer can’t do anything and, therefore, can’t harm anything. But, then, who cares about harm in a world without moral absolutes? It’s the survival of the fittest; so, evolution will inexorably eliminate these weak-minded “idiots” at the Pentagon. If they nuke some people along the way, so what? That’s just the death of the weakest in this purposeless accidental existence of ours; sooner or later the more fit will triumph, and the world will be more evolved. So, what’s Myers concerned about? This is all just time and chance and the laws of nature at work. What is, is. There are and can be no “oughts.”

    Notice how these evolutionists use such emotive language and name calling (e.g., “wackaloon”)–very academic, scientific arguments!

    People like PZ Myers are those who call for tolerance–but their intolerance for Christians illustrates clearly the spiritual nature of this battle–otherwise, why would they care?

    You can read his rant at this link [note: the comments below the post, however, are not appropriate for everyone]:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/now_im_going_to_have_nightmare.php

  126. #126 Crazyharp81602
    June 21, 2008

    What a vile man Ham is. He would have been a better man if he had never chosen the path he’s walking on now.

  127. #127 Mike Haubrich, FCD
    June 21, 2008

    In Neil’s comment #51 I find a bit of irony from a person who, in the same comment refers to a politician with the same sort of name-calling.

    PZ and your fans, why do you want to come across like adolescent-minded, right-wing blow-hards, Freeper and Little Green Football posters and commenters, etc? Sure Ken Ham is a pseudoscientist and his work is destructive, but a booger flicking fest just looks silly. A few threads ago, someone was quite rightly complaining about the Freepers. But their threads often look just like this, or not as bad. Where’s the maturity?

    Using the name “McSame” is popular among liberals, but hardly places you above reproach. Neil B, you are symptomatic of the reason that people get annoyed with concern trolls.

    Back to PZ’s request:

    “Ken Ham has Bible where his brain should be.”

  128. #128 clinteas
    June 21, 2008

    Ah well,since all the insults seem to have been used up,I will only say this :
    That man should be locked up for lying to vulnerable children.

  129. #129 Mike Haubrich, FCD
    June 21, 2008

    In Neil’s comment #51 I find a bit of irony from a person who, in the same comment refers to a politician with the same sort of name-calling.

    PZ and your fans, why do you want to come across like adolescent-minded, right-wing blow-hards, Freeper and Little Green Football posters and commenters, etc? Sure Ken Ham is a pseudoscientist and his work is destructive, but a booger flicking fest just looks silly. A few threads ago, someone was quite rightly complaining about the Freepers. But their threads often look just like this, or not as bad. Where’s the maturity?

    Using the name “McSame” is popular among liberals, but hardly places you above reproach. Neil B, you are symptomatic of the reason that people get annoyed with concern trolls.

    Back to PZ’s request:

    “Ken Ham has a Bible where his brain should be.”

    (If this ends up looking like a double-posting, I apologize. I tried to stop it so that I could edit a tad.)

  130. #130 kcanadensis
    June 21, 2008

    I like how he sneers about it being “so scientific”, yet he will only link and respond to posts of this type- the scientific ones- no way!

  131. #131 Spinoza
    June 21, 2008

    Considering this person is supposed to be an academic teaching good research skills to students at a university, I would not want to trust any of his lectures considering the logic he used in his recent blog.

    Ken, this is called an “Ad Hominem” fallacy. It belongs to a set of fallacies called “red herrings”.

    It is a fallacy because Prof. Myers’ ability to teach science in his lectures is not AT ALL causally related in any way to his use of logic in blog posts.

    In fact, we can by reductio ad absurdum show that yours is the logic in need of serious revision:

    1. Assume poor use of ‘logic’ with regard to religion, etc. affects ability to teach science.
    2. Premise: If a person makes fallacious judgments with regard to their own personal belief or lack of belief in a religion or deity, then their ability to teach science must be affected.
    3. Francis Collins/Ken Miller/Richard Dawkins/PZ Myers all make (or rather, have at at least one time made) fallacious judgments (this is probably true, nobody reasons perfectly all the time) about belief/lack of belief.
    4. Therefore their ability to teach science must be affected.
    5. Premise: Their ability to teach science has not been and is not affected. They are all great science teachers.
    6. Therefore by reductio (4 & 5), 1 is false.
    Q.E.D.

  132. #132 Keith Newton
    June 21, 2008

    Don’t know the man. I have seen some rather not so nice posts about him though. Let us all make it a point to speak freely about the truth so as not to create a class of people that we may have to take care of when they get left so far behind. Science is rather just getting started now that the e generation is at hand. Take them by the hand and show them how to fish and not just tell them they are wrong. They have a lot of catching up to do to get to reality. Let us convert them for a change. Even one head at a time will due if we work at them. Start with your parents and own family. Make them aware of the latest and best science all of the time. Talk about it everywhere. The religious people in my view are just home schooled and need to be reeducated from a history of lies handed down from family members and people that had positions of authority. We must embarrass them for the fools they are in public in private and in the their churches. We must infiltrate their most productive centers and speak the truth during each opportunity that presents itself. Teach bible study yourself and at the end of each story remember to say, “remember now kids this is just make believe”. This is our message. Truth.

  133. #133 Graham Chapman
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, you are a snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type makes me puke, you vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!!!
    Stupid git…

  134. #134 Neil B.
    June 21, 2008

    JT, the hyper-agitated terrier “Truth Machine” around here also said he/she studied with David Lewis, so did you run into TM? BTW, I still don’t get there being complaints since any astute person would see the wink-wink silly and parodic nature of how I talked about others and myself (the dead giveaway.)

    I do wonder, why would “gods” have to be distinct from any “worlds” – ? Wouldn’t all possible worlds include all possible ways for a world to have some sort of involvement with something like God/Gods? What’s to stop that, or to stop anything at all in such a mess? If anyone wants to finally get over ragging over put-on trash I’m trying to leave behind and discuss philosophy for fun, I’m game albeit short on time. The “haught” is for fun and to needle the susceptible. Really, I am actually aware of how unsure we should be of any results of such reasoning, as I suppose you are.

  135. #135 Reed Braden
    June 21, 2008

    The best part of Ken Ham ran down his dad’s leg.

  136. #136 Cat of many faces
    June 21, 2008

    Cripes Niel, you are a great example of why I stopped wanting to be a philosopher the year before I would have graduated.

    There is no useful bearing on reality for philosophy. I know all that crap you are discussing and it’s all pointless to actually understand the real world.

    When philosophy thinks it’s science it has failed. nothing in philosophy can be proven, as soon as it can it has become science, thus philosophy is unbelievably useless.

    The only good it has is it makes for some interesting logical exercises. (no I consider logic to not belong to philosophy properly, as it is always applicable)

    As for Ken the ugly Ham?

    “For he so hated his parents for not changing his last name, he brought forth a great edifice.

    And lo, the many who together are but half a brain did flock to the abomination.

    And many were lessened. And many children were broken until they to were of the many.

    And Ham smiled to see the ignorance his works had caused.”
    -The book of Ham chapter: 2, verse: dumb

    Seriously, what a failure at life.

  137. #137 Scrabcake
    June 21, 2008

    Wow. Most people I know from Queensland would have been able to take a little payout and then turned around and taken you down a notch, too. Maybe that’s why he left for the country of people who take themselves way too seriously even when they have no right to do it. :P
    Dickhead.

  138. #138 Grammar RWA
    June 21, 2008

    Grammar RWA, you didn’t even bother to see in my second posting where I explained why I *don’t* believe in MR

    Because you hadn’t posted it yet. Ten minute difference in timestamps, Neil. The check was in the mail.

    Asshole. You don’t even believe this shit and you want others to waste their time reading bullshit that by definition has no impact upon our lives? Do you think everyone exists for your amusement? Fuck right off.

    You think he or his fans (including me) would be more bothered by

    I doubt he has time for you. As for me, I’m one of his fans, and you’re a self-important asshole, and it does bother me to see you associating yourself with him. QED. Also FOAD.

    But it was your presentation of it initially was what leads me to believe it’s codswallop, really. Your remark essentially consisted of a complaint about other people’s actions followed by an assertion of your own superiority as embodied in a string of obscure terms for which you offered no definition and no link to any particular discipline, scientific or philosophical.

    Cute, wasn’t it? “I’m so smart, because I can talk about shit that definitionally doesn’t matter, while you poor chumps have to dig around in the dirt to get paid! Ha!”

  139. #139 W. the I. P.
    June 21, 2008

    You’re a jerk, Ken Ham. A complete kneebiter.

  140. #140 Rob
    June 21, 2008

    So, do you think Ken goes by Kenny? It would explain a lot, wouldn’t it?

  141. #141 Mercurious
    June 21, 2008

    SHIT!!!!! Good ole piglet is here in the Phoenix area this weekend.

    Events Link

    Ugh here is one of the events..
    6:15 PM to 7:15 PM Ken Ham: Service – Dinosaurs, Genesis and the Gospel (Ages 11 & Up)

    Damn it. 1st FISA now this. My weekend is totally screwed. Guess its time to put on my big A T-shirt and walk around town, see if I can stir up the natives.

  142. #142 Grammar RWA
    June 21, 2008

    (Well, even then, if all possible worlds exist then so should heavens and hells and presumably something like “God”, whether “needed” or not.)

    I anticipated this, motherfucker. Hence the distinction I made of “a creator god for this universe.” Congratulations on your much celebrated reading comprehension.

  143. #143 Citizen Z
    June 21, 2008

    After skim-reading Knob Ham’s blog entry, I’d also like to draw everyone’s attention to his second bullet point: “Of course, if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast, I’m sure PZ Myers would not have ranted against that–it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems.”

    Care to prove him wrong on that, PZ?

    A Muslim Ken Ham would still be a Ken Ham.

    But if you would like more direct evidence, you can take a look at PZ’s reaction to a Muslim creationist. Not much of a difference.

  144. #144 Nick Gotts
    June 21, 2008

    Neil B.@104 As it happens I don’t agree with chigurh, but it seems you don’t understand the difference between “meaningful” and “relevant”.

  145. #145 toomanytribbles
    June 21, 2008

    my opinion is that ken ham is contemptible.

  146. #146 Dutch Delight
    June 21, 2008

    So, i actually went over to AiG, why are they calling Ken Hams column a blog? I thought some small issue like readers opinions were kind of required to call something a blog.

  147. #147 bipolar2
    June 21, 2008

    ** no self-respecting ape is religious **

    The falsity of ‘intelligent design’ is proved by the existence of those who believe in it.

    bipolar2
    © 2008

  148. #148 Citizen Z
    June 21, 2008

    Hey, I wonder how that lawsuit against Ken Ham brought by his fellow Christians is going? You know, the one where Brisbane-based Creation Ministries International accused him of deceptive conduct.

  149. #149 negentropyeater
    June 21, 2008

    1. Ken Ham writes :

    What’s he so worked up about anyway? If he’s right, God doesn’t exist–so prayer can’t do anything and, therefore, can’t harm anything. But, then, who cares about harm in a world without moral absolutes? It’s the survival of the fittest; so, evolution will inexorably eliminate these weak-minded “idiots” at the Pentagon. If they nuke some people along the way, so what? That’s just the death of the weakest in this purposeless accidental existence of ours; sooner or later the more fit will triumph, and the world will be more evolved. So, what’s Myers concerned about? This is all just time and chance and the laws of nature at work. What is, is. There are and can be no “oughts.”

    So, let’s go one step at a time for Mr Ham or my grandmother, and let’s make an absolutely rock solid, didactic, simple but not simpler, explanation that even my grandmother or Ken Ham can understand, of why this argument doesn’t make any sense at all.

    This is such a common misunderstanding, that I really feel the need to get it “out of the way”, but to say it quite frankly, I don’t think I am the best person to do this on this blog, I think many other commenters are far more capable than me to clear this in a much more competent manner.
    Any candidates ?

    2. w.r.t my true feelings about Ken Ham, I noticed the following on his blog :

    It was at an OAC program for children in Innisfail, North Queensland (when we lived in a town called Mundoo), where at around 10 years of age, I went forward at a meeting in response to the challenge from the OAC worker to be a missionary for the Lord. At that time, I committed to the Lord that I would go wherever He wanted me to and be a missionary for Him. Little did I know that meant being called as a missionary to the USA to call the church and culture back to the authority of the Word of God, be a founder of Answers in Genesis, and see the vision of the Creation Museum become a reality.

    So, what to expect from someone who has been so very convinced that he is on such an important mission from the age of 10, that this has brought him to the USA from a little town in Australia, and that he feels he accomplished something, and that he needs to accomplish even more, to follow his mission ?

    I think these are all the signs of a man who has been severely deluded since a very young age, and who searches reinforcements for his delusions through material successes.

    It doesn’t appear to me that he is particularly stupid, which would seem to indicate that he is potentially dangerous, as his pride and his severe delusions completely blind him from reality.

  150. #150 Holbach
    June 21, 2008

    Ken “Shithead” Hambone And I’m being as mild as I can!

  151. #151 Steve Sutton
    June 21, 2008

    Mister Ham is an unfortunate victim of dogma, opting for willful ignorance of reality, rather than embracing it for the awe-inspiring thing that it is. He sees this unbelievably expansive Universe as an artificial, sterile construct which was created just for humanity by a loving, caring entity who once killed, save a few, all of his children, even innocent babies and small children, by drowning them for the sole purpose of getting rid of a few nasty undesirables.

    Mister Ham has mistaken stories in a storybook for reality for no other reason than he simply wants them to be true and he will ignore any verified fact that he sees as a threat to his ability to keep himself in the mindset of fantasy which he has enjoyed his entire life.

    I feel sorry for him. His moral compass has been misdirected by the magnet of religion. He believes he is sailing the straight and narrow course, yet he lost in a tempest on the edge of the world, a thousand miles from home.

  152. #152 AndyD
    June 21, 2008

    Since Ham posted a link to this very article, it’s a shame there’s no rebuttal of his “errors” here (e.g. prayers can do no harm if there’s no God) for his readers to read – if he has any readers (it’s hard to tell since he apparently has no comments).

  153. #153 jj wally
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a Kent Hovind

  154. #154 Negi
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham can eat a big fat diiiiiiiiiiiiick!

  155. #155 Pteropterus
    June 21, 2008

    You’re a jerk, Ken Ham. A complete kneebiter.

    The correct, unbowdlerised form of this is:

    You’re a jerk, Ken Ham. A complete asshole.

  156. #156 Orac
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham = A hunk’a hunk’a burnin’ stupid.

  157. #157 MS
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is just out there to poison the minds of kids. No rude word or name can come close to being more cutting than that. I hope his crappy museum burns to ashes… when it’s closed! :)

  158. #158 Traffic Demon
    June 21, 2008

    Ok, so we’ve established that Ken Ham is unpopular, but how many of you really know just how unpopular he is? To compare, if I were to walk into Mecca with a troupe of strippers, eating a hot dog, wearing a I Heart Salman Rushdie T-shirt, and dragging a farting pig on a leash – if my strippers fondled the imams and the pig crapped on prayer mats – if I were to climb to the highest minaret in the land and shout Allah, Allah, oxen free, I would still be welcome in more Muslim homes than if I had committed the social faux pas of introducing Ken Ham around town.

    If I were to crash a wedding reception in the old country of Sicily, piss in the punch bowl, smack the wafer out of the priest’s mouth, jack off on the figurines atop the wedding cake, and write “whore” across the bride’s gown with a dung-covered stick, my reception would still be a hero’s welcome compared to the diarrhea-like expulsion that Ham would receive in the same setting.

  159. #159 Dave Wisker
    June 21, 2008

    A mutton-chopped jackanape.

  160. #160 Stanton
    June 21, 2008

    Ever since Ken Ham inferred that Steve Irwin is burning in hell for not having renounced the twin sins of accepting Evolutionary Biology, and, more importantly, believing in God in the exact same way Ken Ham believes in God, I have felt that it is beneath my dignity to waste my time in order to dignify Mr Ham (or his blog) with an insult, whether acrid and witty, or simply obscene, in the exact same manner one does not deign to use a Howitzer to kill a housefly.

  161. #161 The Man With Someones Plan
    June 21, 2008

    KEN HAM BAD MAN! NO GOOD! HE VERY BAD MAN! BOOO KEN HAM!

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  162. #162 Swiftsure
    June 21, 2008

    Like everyone else, I am pig sick of Ham. He is obviously some kind of throw-back – a living hominid who should be on display in a natural history museum (a real museum, that is).

  163. #163 Andrew
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is negative 42.

  164. #164 baley
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a mountain of Smelly Bloody Horseshit

  165. #165 Tom
    June 21, 2008

    Wow. Insults from around the world. Here’s some very Northern Irish insults. He’s an eejit, a dunderhead, “his head’s a marlie and his bum’s a buller”, a dirty big hallion and a gobshite. He should “catch himself on”.

    From north-east england: he’s a winnit, a dangleberry, a tag-nut, a shit-for-brains.

    From my australian wife: he’s a dag and a sticky-beak.

    Ooh, this is fun!

  166. #166 Bubba Sixpack
    June 21, 2008

    Ham has a fruit fly festering excuse for a brain, plagued by Alice In Wonderland delusions of mental gymnastic grandeur, and coupled with a closeted-from-modernity in-bred excuse for a worldview, worshipped amongst the uni-brow, knuckle-dragging, hydro-cephalic denizens of the close-kin-married, television-saturated, trailor-trash half-wits of the back woods.

    And that counts among his more positive attributes.

  167. #167 balzar
    June 21, 2008

    Can he be a skank? I think he is a skank.

  168. #168 Nan
    June 21, 2008

    Fucking nuts and an oxygen thief.

  169. #169 SamD
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a crawling worm of a man. His rational capacity appears to barely rival that of a turnip.

    In seriousness, the sort of absolute bollocks he spreads is a proverbial plague to the advancement of all mankind. The fact he seems to be surprised that the scientific community carries sentiments in accordance with all of the above towards him is a testament to his abject ‘wackaloonery’.

    Done and dusted, time for some coffee and work!

  170. #170 Holbach
    June 21, 2008

    Traffic Demon: Hah, that was a real ugly description of ugly at # 83! Here’s an idea: Have him stand in a display case at his Dementia Museum, and mark the display as “Real Live Ugly”. The fun part comes when he twitches that ugly shit face, and the people looking at “it”, scream and bolt for the door! Yeah, now you’re talking life-like ugly!

  171. #171 Jazzie
    June 21, 2008

    Mr Ham,

    I shall borrow Shakespeare’s words and aim them at you:

    Thou art a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality.

  172. #172 Norman Doering
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham the creationist is Satan’s anal dildo, and, well, isn’t that special? He’s a douche bag full of santorum. He’s the king of microcephalic trolls hiding under the bridge called religion on the road of science ready to pounce and eat children’s brains.

    And worse than that, he’s a man of faith. He believes in the “buy bull.”

  173. #173 Neil B.
    June 21, 2008

    Nick, “relevant” is something we pick for ourselves, it isn’t an objective fact. It can be whatever you want. I think why we are here matters, and practical difference be damned. BTW, try your hand at my positivism dilemmas.

    Grammar, my relevant post was on the board 10 minutes before yours posted. So maybe you were still working on yours, but I figure you still could have seen mine. It doesn’t really matter much anyway. And I didn’t say I didn’t believe in any such “shit” as metaphysics in general, I said I didn’t believe the doctrine of modal realism. It has become important lately in arguments about cosmology, you can look it up in Wikipedia, etc. Just because you haven’t heard of it doesn’t make it unimportant. And BTW, if a biologist arguing with creationists said it was important to know this or that about molecular genetics in order to carry on a sensible argument about evolution, they’d be right, not “arrogant” etc. Also, my remark about God/s was not based on your statement of implications of MR (irrelevant to me since I don’t believe MR), but rather on JT’s quote from David Lewis (a founder of MR): “There are an infinity of gods, but none of them are our worldmates.” I challenged that idea of no “worldmates” which does not obviously mean “creator.”

    How can some booger-flicking tweens in a garish, foul-mouthed gang-bang on some poor fruitcake; led by a “distinguished professor” of all things, be so serious and touchy about other people’s “arrogance” and their own “dignity”? Too self-important? Heh.

    I am so tired of concern-troll concern trolls. ;-O

  174. #174 Tom
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is jealous. His pathetic excuse for a beard is nothing in comparison to the one on PZ.

  175. #175 foxfire
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham gives new meaning to the word delusional as does that stupid creationism museum.

  176. #176 Jared
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, well, it is present in his name, he’s a ham, and it would be funny if it weren’t so sad and scary. I can’t help but wonder what kind of university QIT is…

  177. #177 Christopher Petroni
    June 21, 2008

    Simply listing Mr. Ham’s various egregious statements works far better than insult. He really is a fountain of horidity.

    I wasn’t aware of the one Stanton mentioned above. Where do these people get off saying who’s in hell and who isn’t? Have they been there?

  178. #178 steve8282
    June 21, 2008

    Fucktard.

    Just Fucktard.

  179. #179 Wiggy
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham went to university in my home city. It makes me feel so dirty… urgh

  180. #180 Holbach
    June 21, 2008

    Jazzie @ 171 Here’s one I particularly like by Will to describe the Hambone

    “You are not worth the dust which the rude wind blows in your face.”

  181. #181 NigelGomm
    June 21, 2008

    Alas most of the epithets used here would normally apply to a harmless twit spouting charming nonsense…. and i find nothing harmless or charming in this idiot’s ‘accomplishments’. It bodes ill for the U.S.A. that such wilfull ignorance has a following.

    Count me in the “far worse’ camp.

  182. #182 Fentwin
    June 21, 2008

    A rectocraniated twat waffle with delusions of adequacy.

  183. #183 fentwin
    June 21, 2008

    Oh yeah…..

    I can’t remember where I read this insult , but I think it may fit here;

    Mr. ham’s hypotheses are so full of holes you could drive a steam boat through them and never scrape against a fact.

  184. #184 Sam L.
    June 21, 2008

    Say it loud!

    Ken Ham is a contemptible douchebag!

    Say it loud!

  185. #185 Dutch Delight
    June 21, 2008

    It always cracks me up when religious people exclaim that rationalists only pick on their specific religion. I suppose it can look that way, if all you read is your church magazine and you have never been outside your village of birth.

  186. #186 Ryan
    June 21, 2008

    404 error! Page not found! It looks like he took it down.
    Good thing we have GOOGLE CACHE!
    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:sPFylXX59PgJ:blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/06/20/biology-professor-calls-me-“wackaloon”/+http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/06/20/biology-professor-calls-me-&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari

  187. #187 Logicel
    June 21, 2008

    Traffic Demon #158 wrote: …,jack off on the figurines atop the wedding cake,…
    _____

    I can’t stop laughing! You know the Italian threshold for insults, all right.

    For those that did not catch The World’s Nine Most Devastating Insults at Cracked, here they are:

    http://www.cracked.com/article_16275_9-most-devastating-insults-from-around-world.html

  188. #188 Ex Partiate
    June 21, 2008

    ken ham is some where lower than all the feces of the animals on the ark which he believes in. The man is a comp?ete bat-shit insane idiot

  189. #189 David Lewis
    June 21, 2008

    Based on Mr Ham’s writing, he is (as far as I, a Welshman, am concerned) more toop than a sledge, more dumb than a box-full of hammers, a complete twonk, a first-degree plonker, a charmless nurk, a muppet, a space-cadet speeding on the express to Barmyville with a one-way ticket. He has bats in his belfry. Somebody is seriously eating his dinner in the local mental hospital.

  190. #190 Tony P
    June 21, 2008

    Over my lifetime I’ve come to be able to look at a person and be able to tell if they’re deranged. Ham clearly fits into the deranged category.

    I’ve seen video of him talking about evolution and while watching my head nearly exploded at the sheer ignorance of Ham.

    That’s one thing I’ve noticed about the religious wingnuts. They seems to totally abdicate their own personal responsibility in submission to something they’ll never see, hear, or feel in real life. Oh they might do so in their hallucinatory state, but it’s definitely an error in coding somewhere along the line that causes them to be more susceptible to those things.

  191. #191 Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a child abuser, replacing facts with lies.

    I can’t think of any worse characteristic than the likes of that. As Shakespeare wrote: “[W]ith what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.”

  192. #192 Kerovon
    June 21, 2008

    An open letter to Ken Ham:

    Dear Ken,

    You swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don’t you know that you are pathetic? You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I’ll bet you couldn’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won’t go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you.

    You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you. You are a bloody nardless newbie twit protohominid chromosomally aberrant caricature of a coprophagic cloacal parasitic pond scum and I wish you would go away.

    You’re a putrescence mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

    You are a bleating fool, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.

    I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell?

    If you aren’t an idiot, you made a world-class effort at simulating one. Try to edit your writing of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it more rapidly.

    You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs.

    You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You’re a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won’t have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot.

    And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?

    You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.

    On a good day you’re a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.

    I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I’m sorry. I can’t go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don’t have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.

    The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well… it didn’t really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective… Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us “normal” people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are “challenged” persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn’t have been “right”. Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

    P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, Byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim, crazy, weird, dystopic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, abrasive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, clueless, and generally Not Good.

    Sincerely, Kerovon

    Happily an accurately plagarized from http://www.ultimateflame.com/

  193. #193 Helioprogenus
    June 21, 2008

    OK, why not, I’ll join the fray here and insult that assclown Ken Ham. Ken Ham, you represent the worst and vilest dregs of society. You belong in prison with pedophiles, rapists, and murderers (ok, I know, overstating it a bit, but he’s not averse to hyperbole, why should we be?). You attempt to destroy the very nature of science, by subverting and twisting it to make sense to your insignificant mind. Your supposed deity of power is nothing more then an imaginary creature you have created to provide you with comfort and supervision. Who knows what you’d be capable of without it (perhaps some thought, perhaps some contribution to mankind?) In closing, you are the slimiest and most airheaded of fucktards to ever grace these pages (and believe me, there have been plenty.) Ken Ham, you deserve your own museum, called the museum of human ignorance, and don’t worry, you can take the central exhibit showing just how far and to what extend an idiot who would fail a 3rd grade science exam is willing to go to confuse and confound developing minds and reinforce bullshit in the feeble minded individuals who are too weak in the face of fact and evidence to ever think clearly and substantially. In essence, fuck you and your kind Ken Ham.

  194. #194 mr-zero
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, you are a pointless small twit.
    z

  195. #195 Muffin
    June 21, 2008

    Allow me to express what *I* think of Mr. Ham:

    Q: What do you get when you cross Ken Ham with a baboon?
    A: A retarded baboon.

  196. #196 Rick R
    June 21, 2008

    #96- “Actually, I just realised. Ham will probably quote-mine my last post to make it look as if I’m saying he’s a top bloke…”

    I’ve heard he’s actually a bottom. Which explains his trip to the Pentagon.

  197. #197 The MadPanda
    June 21, 2008

    It seems that Dr. Myers has listed ‘twit’ twice in his list of applicable terms for Ham. Rather than an error, I suspect that this was done because it’s such an important and appropriate term that it was worth the double-entry.

    As for Ham, I can only state that he is among the leading arguments in favor of the non-existance of god with which I am familiar (the celebrated Mr. Adams’s babel-fish being a more amusing and better presented case in point).

    As for the apologists of Ham, you lot are only worth an average of 845 experience points apiece, divided by the size of the attacking party. Hardly worth the effort to slay trolls…

    The MadPanda, FCD

  198. #198 genesgalore
    June 21, 2008

    hey ken!!! you my man are a wiener.

  199. #199 Ex Partiate
    June 21, 2008

    I would also like to add that I would like to see ham fall into a pool full of those pretty little blue ringed friends of yours and see him pray his way out of that

  200. #200 dubiquiabs
    June 21, 2008

    Hey, Ken!
    Guess what – “absolute truth” is NEITHER!

  201. #201 AndrewC
    June 21, 2008

    Twice the twit!

  202. #202 MPG
    June 21, 2008

    Damn you, Logicel, and your nine most devastating insults – I laughed for a full minute at “A thousand dicks in your religion”!

  203. #203 Sonja
    June 21, 2008

    He’s as dumb as Ken Ham… oh, wait

  204. #204 Longtime Lurker
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is an evil mofo, but I followed one of his links and I am even more disgusted by this evil Eric Schumacher dimbulb:

    http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28308

    “Our source of hope is not FEMA. It’s not the power of a community to pull together. It’s not flood walls,” he said. “Our hope is that we have a King in Jesus who can subdue the earth and have dominion over it and will raise us from the dead to live in His Kingdom forever.

    “I reminded people too that our hometown is not Cedar Rapids. Our hometown is the New Jerusalem, and we’re waiting for that King and that city.”

    Makes me wanna HOLLER!

  205. #205 gatoscuro
    June 21, 2008

    Mr. Ham has yet to express his worthiness to receive any insults from me, pedestrian or otherwise. A good insult is a thing of beauty and I’m not going to waste one on him.

  206. #206 Grammar RWA
    June 21, 2008

    Just because you haven’t heard of it doesn’t make it unimportant.

    Oh, I’ve heard of it, dumbfuck. That’s how I know it’s unimportant. In fact one of Lewis’s doctrines is that “possible worlds are causally isolated from each other.” Definitionally unimportant.

    How can some booger-flicking tweens in a garish, foul-mouthed gang-bang on some poor fruitcake; led by a “distinguished professor” of all things, be so serious and touchy about other people’s “arrogance” and their own “dignity”? Too self-important? Heh.

    It’s obvious that you think you’re better than me, better than PZ, and better than most or all of the posters here. Honestly, it’s not your arrogance that bothers me so much. Maybe you really are better than me. As far removed from my life as you are, your triumphalism is not going to impact my life any more than the aforementioned sophistry.

    No, you piece of shit, what bothers me is that people like you, who disdain those who actually have to touch data, base your feelings of superiority upon your possession of spare time and money to spend on the definitionally irrelevant. It’s not just that you think you’re better than us. Maybe you are. But you think you’re better than us because you’re privileged enough to subsist parasitically upon the actual hard work of others.

    In more enlightened times, people like you were dragged into the streets and shot.

  207. #207 Steve in MI
    June 21, 2008

    I strongly object to the premise of this thread, and insist on sticking up for wankers, clowns, buzzard gizzards, and cod… no matter what a particular cod may choose to swallop.

  208. #208 SLC
    June 21, 2008

    Mr. Ken Ham is a pimple on the asshole of humanity.

  209. #209 Adam
    June 21, 2008

    I prefer to think of Ken Ham as a bicoid mutant.

  210. #210 The MadPanda
    June 21, 2008

    Gatoscuro @#205

    Bravo! Well played. Well played indeed, and an excellent point you made into the bargain. Let us not waste our good and well-crafted art on this refuse, this pitiable wretch, this waste of potential in human guise…

    Let us instead merely say:

    “Ken Ham? Who the hell is Ken Ham?”

    The MadPanda, FCD

  211. #211 mandrake
    June 21, 2008

    I would like to give Mr. Ham the benefit of the doubt and say that he’s *not* a cynical, manipulative, amoral bastard who understands how to make money in this world.
    I prefer to believe, instead, that he actually believes what he is saying and is one taco short of a combination plate. Maybe two.

  212. #212 mandrake
    June 21, 2008

    AND he has no Elvis in him.

  213. #213 Longtime Lurker
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is a stye in the eye of a scrofulous fly.

    Still, I think I currently hate that Schumacher guy more than Ham.

  214. #214 Jason
    June 21, 2008

    To Ken Ham:
    Your religion and beliefs aren’t supported by evidence, your statements have no bearing or implication on reality, and you have devoted your entire worthless life to a meaningless facade, causing the spread of ignorance to those around you.

    The best part about that insult is that it’s not an opinion, it’s a fact.

  215. #215 gatoscuro
    June 21, 2008

    The MadPanda #210

    Why, thank you! I do hold a certain crumb of affection for those I insult, so I daren’t cheapen those vacuous nitwits by dumping an unworthy specimen in the chamber pot with them.

  216. #216 Forrest Prince
    June 21, 2008

    I’ll go with only the alphabetical letters PZ left out (apologies to all other commenters for any repeats here), with bonus adjectives:

    Egregious Egomaniac

    Gargantuan Goober

    Oily Ookie

    Quintessential Quimby

    Rambling Ratfink

    Unctuous Ulcer

    Vituperous Villain

    xxx-xxx (so filthy even I can’t say it)

    and…

    Zygodactly Zombie

  217. #217 BMcP
    June 21, 2008

    The page is still there, just the original link posted at the top is truncated Here it is..

  218. #218 Kagehi
    June 21, 2008

    I am reminded of on of the recently loony toons remakes/shows/?? don’t remember which, where Bugs hinges open the head of Elmer Fudd and declares, “Villains have tapioca for brains.” I can easily imagine Ken Ham in place of Elmer Fudd.

  219. #219 thegomezsymbol
    June 21, 2008

    Paraphrasing the immortal words of Dorothy Parker:

    Creationism alone is plain terrible. Putting Creationism in a “museum” is fancy terrible. It is terrible with raisins on it.

    Or Earl Long:

    A four-hundred-dollar suit on that wackaloon looks like socks on a rooster.

  220. #220 Richbank
    June 21, 2008

    Is it possible that the slug who went by kenny was none other than Mr. Ham?

  221. #221 thegomezsymbol
    June 21, 2008

    Paraphrasing the immortal words of Dorothy Parker:

    Creationism alone is plain terrible. Putting Creationism in a “museum” is fancy terrible. It is terrible with raisins on it.

    Or Earl Long:

    A four-hundred-dollar suit on that wackaloon looks like socks on a rooster.

  222. #222 Kagehi
    June 21, 2008

    I am reminded of on of the recently loony toons remakes/shows/?? don’t remember which, where Bugs hinges open the head of Elmer Fudd and declares, “Villains have tapioca for brains.” I can easily imagine Ken Ham in place of Elmer Fudd.

    If this double posts… Well, the fracking page didn’t reload at all, so..

  223. #223 danley
    June 21, 2008

    Ken is a goddamn freakazoid with a nasty, mutated beard. A fucking chirpbrained fucktard of quantum proportions.

  224. #224 BMcP
    June 21, 2008

    The page is still there, just the original link posted at the top is truncated Here it is..

  225. #225 Michelle
    June 21, 2008

    A loon AND a loony?

    You might hurt his feelings there.

    PS: I think you forgot “retard.”

  226. #226 AndrewC
    June 21, 2008

    He says nothing would’ve been said if there was a Muslim breakfast and only Christians get the intolerance. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    They must always bring up the other religions (at least we weren’t muslims!), being intolerant in doing so, and then blame another group for it.

  227. #227 John Flemming
    June 21, 2008

    There must be two of Ken Ham. After all, no-one person could be so incredibly stupid on their own, too stupid, in fact, to live.

  228. Well, all the ones I could think of have been taken, so I’ll just have to repeat what’s already been said:

    “Ken Ham, you’re an asshat.”

  229. #229 The MadPanda
    June 21, 2008

    Gatoscuro @ #218

    You’re quite welcome! Some of the excellent wordsmithery this subject has brought to life is definitely worth keeping for future use on more worthy (if not necessarily more deserving) targets.

    I still haven’t figured out the XP value of a virtual and verbal Ham-icide, though. Would he be classified as a Green Slime or a Yellow Mold?

    The MadPanda, FCD

  230. #230 CalGeorge
    June 21, 2008

    Someone who obsesses over a book of fantasies written long ago by fallible, misguided humans, to the point that it warps his judgment and control his entire life is….

    just plain DUMB.

  231. #231 JM Inc.
    June 21, 2008

    [obligatory Kem Ham abuse here]

    Actually, I’m not even going to try that hard. Any intellectually or ethically appropriate epithet I can think of puts him on a relative pedestal. I’d pray for his immortal soul, but due to the fact that he’s descended from lifeless chemical shit somewhere in the depths of the primitive ocean, he hasn’t actually got one.

    Unlike the rest of us, though, he’s eagerly and earnestly setting the precedent for our return to that foregone state of affairs.

    Were he not long worm-food by then, I’m sure he’d be so proud to see his great, great descendants reproducing asexually at the bottom of a hypersaline puddle somewhere in the distant future. Ah, the sinless glory before the Fall.

    I’m sure Ken will forgive me if I see him as something of a cad. His imaginary superbeing demands it, after all, although it also demands torture, rape, and mass slaughter as well, but I’ll leave him to figure that out. After all, it’s not what’s true that counts, it’s what he makes of it!

  232. #232 Bing McGhandi
    June 21, 2008

    Ironically, he looks just like Dr. Cornelius. I already did my riffing on Kenny last night:

    http://hjhop.blogspot.com/2008/06/ken-ham-surprised-to-hear-hes-wackaloon.html

    But any compound combination of the words pig, colostomy, and licker will describe him adequately.

    HJ

  233. #233 Chris
    June 21, 2008

    So, PZ, tell us how you really feel.

  234. #234 thaf
    June 21, 2008

    whore of babylon

  235. #235 MikeIDR
    June 21, 2008

    Four Score and Six Thousand Years Ago….

    http://www4.ncsu.edu/~mdrowan/HAM.jpg

  236. #236 genotypical
    June 21, 2008

    Canned Ham = spam. And as Monty Python said, “I don’t like spam!

  237. #237 ERV
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a cottage cheese dripping… wait, Ive already used that one on someone else. Gimme a sec.

  238. #238 writzer
    June 21, 2008

    There once was a nitwit named Ham,
    Who flunked his first science exam.
    So with Biblical babble
    He dazzled the rabble
    Who never got wise to his scam.

  239. #239 Chuck
    June 21, 2008

    PZ, you forgot “fuckhead”. It should go somewhere in the F’s.

    Allow me to add the following:
    fucknut
    jamoke
    jamokan almond fucknut
    dingwad
    Dildous americanus
    jabroni
    buttwink
    staggeringly dense
    mental dwarf
    guanophrenic stooge
    lower form of plant life

    and of course

    not worthy of serious consideration

  240. #240 Vic
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a piece of shit.

  241. #241 Adam
    June 21, 2008

    Mr. Ham, I don’t doubt your good faith. But to the extent your position is credited and your efforts persuasive, you are a sea anchor on the ship of progress.

  242. #242 khan
    June 21, 2008

    Crazier than an outhouse rat

    Terra-cotta-toothed imbecile

    Coprophagous Caprinophile

  243. #243 uray
    June 21, 2008

    It’s a good thing we invented negative numbers or we would be unable to document Ken’s intelligence.

  244. #244 oaksterdam
    June 21, 2008

    mandrake(212)

    thank you for bringing the immortal wisdom of mojo into play. is he still around? could we convince him to immortalize ken ham in song? mojo’s overuse of the word “doo’doo” would be appropriate here. as would skid’s alternative uses for a washboard.

  245. #245 Richbank
    June 21, 2008

    @ Chuck, 239: shouldn’t that be “Dildous australis”?

  246. #246 Tom
    June 21, 2008

    “Ken Ham is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”

  247. #247 Bing McGhandi
    June 21, 2008

    Kenny is a depressed colostomy fetishist, by which I mean he is a sad sack of shit who is in love with himself.

    You can still prank Answers in Genesis’ “peer-reviewed” journal and win a valueless prize, glory to last a lunchtime and bragging rights:

    http://hjhop.blogspot.com/2008/01/happy-fatwah-on-answers-in-genesis.html

  248. #248 Neil B.
    June 21, 2008

    (In which I have hurt some touchy hambones’ feelings. Oh, they like to dish it out but sure can’t take it!)

    “But you think you’re better than us because you’re privileged enough to subsist parasitically upon the actual hard work of others.”

    Hah! Now that’s some real Freeper, Libertoon-type bile! That could of course be a quote from Mike Savage, Ann Coulter, etc. Of course you have no idea what I do apart from philosophy. Are you saying that philosophers in general don’t accomplish anything? I can actually relate to that. What the hell has for example Daniel Dennett and the atheist philosophers actually accomplished other than make people like *you* feel superior to everyone else? Did Dennett invent something useful? I haven’t heard … but many of you clowns think he’s fabulous. Such an ideological crank he doesn’t even believe in the reality of own phenomenal experience, the ground for believing in anything else!

    “In more enlightened times, people like you were dragged into the streets and shot.”

    You know that’s disgusting, especially coming from a member of a minority belief that is disdained as pointy-headed pseudointellectuals by, irony of ironies, religious folk. Yes, “people like me”, like Hypatia of Alexandria, dragged into the streets by a mob of Christians who felt offended by her high-falutin’ Neoplatonism and scraped her skin off with sharpened shells. I may even be an asshole or a troll, but you are being truly repugnant.

    *Worst of all, you have the absolute shameless temerity to bitch at me for linking to a fine, ethical scholar like Juan Cole who despises torture, violence, and intolerance, and then count yourself as a so-superior and more worthy fan than I could be. For SHAME.* And it’s for things like that, that I or any decent human being would understandably feel superior, not whether you knew about modal realism etc. or not (as if I could really give a shit, as anyone but a stuff asshat would have gathered from my sarcastic tone about it.)

  249. #249 Nentuaby
    June 21, 2008

    P.Z., that was entirely unfair of you.

    You didn’t leave any thesaurus entrys for the REST of us to throw at him. For shame.

  250. #250 Holbach
    June 21, 2008

    Helioprogenus: Are you still here? Go back to “He’ll Fit Right In” and read my comments. Start with # 198 to get the gist of the following comments

  251. #251 khan
    June 21, 2008

    Ten pounds of shit in five pound sack.

  252. #252 Ed
    June 21, 2008

    A sexually perverted person could use candy to entice children to rape them. Ken Ham and his mentally perverted group are using the same tactic. They are using dinosaurs instead of candy and raping their minds. Instead of “Would you like a piece of candy little girl?” they are saying “You like dinosaurs, don’t you little boy?”

  253. #253 Tom
    June 21, 2008

    Uh, Neil, maybe you’d better just stick that butt plug back in, grab a cold one and chill out.

  254. #254 Brian X
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is the trees’ revenge from The Happening.

  255. #255 DaveG
    June 21, 2008

    All this scatology is a guilty pleasure.

    Is there a name for the phenomenon wherein ignorance and non-facts spread like a virus and the victims are allergic to the antidotes?

  256. #256 OctoberMermaid
    June 21, 2008

    I love how Ken Ham has those pictures of monkeys and asks kids if they look like their grandparents, and yet Ham himself looks like a dirty, semi-retarded ape.

    I mean, does he not own a mirror? I know it’s a low blow to go after peoples’ looks, but come on. He’s throwing up pictures of monkeys to imply that they don’t look like people and then he… I mean, is that REALLY lost on him? It can’t be.

    It CAN’T be!

  257. #257 mayhempix
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is up to his ankles head first in dinosaur excrement.

  258. #258 Carl
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham blows donkeys for a nickel and makes change.

  259. #259 Zach D
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham = Twatwaffle

  260. #260 sirfab
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is an inerrant Bible-believing Evangelical. I can’t think of a worse insult than that.

  261. #261 Rodibidably
    June 21, 2008

    To quote Bob Dylan:

    Ken Ham,

    “Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
    Blowing down the backroads headin’ south.
    Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
    You’re an idiot, babe.
    It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe.”

  262. #262 Captpetro
    June 21, 2008

    Smart as a pile of eurypterid feces…my apologies to the eurypterid…

  263. #263 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    A fucking chirpbrained fucktard of quantum proportions.

    Posted by: danley

    I’m not sure why, Danley. But, this is my favorite, so far. I think it just rolls off the tongue very well.

    Aside from that, Ken Ham is a cunt with a bad wax-job.

  264. #264 mayhempix
    June 21, 2008

    “Ken Ham is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
    Posted by: Tom | June 21, 2008 3:11 PM

    The same thing was said about Jim Jones.

  265. #265 AJ
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is the missing link; the monkeyman – living evidence of our evolutionary past.

  266. #266 rowmyboat
    June 21, 2008

    What’ a gonif? Never heard that one before.

  267. #267 Remy-Grace
    June 21, 2008

    I think that someone who makes their living out of lying to children is getting away pretty nicely with “wackaloon.”

  268. #268 Holbach
    June 21, 2008

    ALLRIGHT! That’s enough garbage about the Hambone! Now let’s bury him in shit up to his neck and let loose a pack of Tasmanian Devils, and I don’t mean the Looney Tunes one!

  269. #269 Jason
    June 21, 2008

    If evilution is true how come there is still Ken Ham?

  270. #270 d simpson
    June 21, 2008

    I consider what Ken Ham does to be verbal child abuse with an Aussie accent.

  271. #271 bob
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is twenty gallons of gorilla santorum in a ten gallon hat.

  272. #272 Dagger
    June 21, 2008

    Ken, you said the following in quotes;

    “Over 23,000 people work at the Pentagon. I spoke to 100 Christians at a prayer breakfast–less than 0.5% of the Pentagon workforce.”

    Irrelevant. That you spoke there at all is the issue.

    “Of course, if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast, I’m sure PZ Myers would not have ranted against that–it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems.”

    Bullshit. The article would have been the same.

    “What’s he so worked up about anyway? If he’s right, God doesn’t exist–so prayer can’t do anything and, therefore, can’t harm anything.”

    So why do it then? Are you admitting your delusional? As for not doing harm, well, that’s bullshit too.

    Notice how these evolutionists use such emotive language and name calling (e.g., “wackaloon”)–very academic, scientific arguments!

    Hey Ken, if it looks like bullshit and smells like bullshit, it’s bullshit. That would be the academic term…

  273. #273 pough
    June 21, 2008

    Funny name, funny beard, funny ideas.

  274. #274 Ken Shabby
    June 21, 2008

    PZ, your flowery language only gilds the turd.

  275. #275 ed
    June 21, 2008

    Don’t forget my fav o rite.Ken Ham you are a ferret faced fuck.

  276. #276 Fernando Magyar
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a mobius strip, umm, maybe more like a torus with appendages.

  277. #277 westcoast
    June 21, 2008

    When I went to college, many people in our youth group went to a nearby church, which had a table set out with all sorts of fliers and propaganda, including Ken Ham’s buffoonery. When I brought this up with them, and no one seemed to care, it was the first real crack in my faith.

    I would say that the only people who are benefiting from Ham’s work are Christians, but that is too charitable.

  278. #278 Holbach
    June 21, 2008

    rowmyboat @ 266 checked the online dictionary. Jewish variant of gonef: thief, swindler, crook, rascal.

    I like your moniker, funny!

  279. #279 MathMike
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a living legend. He is one of the few humans to survive having his mouth replaced with a fecal spewing sphincter. How his head became so full of fecal matter is anybody’s guess.

  280. #280 S. Scott
    June 21, 2008
  281. #281 Rey Fox
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a Neil B.

    Ken Ham is a Rob Liefield.

    Ken Ham is a Uwe Boll.

    Ken Ham is a Baz Luhrmann.

    Ken Ham is a Michael Bolton.

    Whenever I think of Ken Ham, I think of a load of kids shouting “WERE YOU THERE?” at teachers and museum guides. Really, nothing could be more insulting than describing him.

    “Mr. Ham, I don’t doubt your good faith.”

    Ain’t nothin’ good about it.

    “I think we should all include some of our credentials
    along with our insults.”

    Sounds good. Maybe it would disabuse him and his ilk of that notion that having letters after your name means being an antiseptic academic robot. Then again, they have so few tools in their rhetorical repetoire, they probably wouldn’t give any up lightly. Ham pretty much exhausted his supply in this blog post; we had the “My pappy would wash your mouth out with soap!” and the “Atheists = Nihlists that’ll kill you all”, and the “Why don’t they pick on people I hate too, like Muslims?”. (Answer: Because then we’d be letting you off the hook for being assholes)

    And here I was thinking I’d be the first to quote Iowa floods preacher:
    “Our source of hope is not FEMA. It’s not the power of a community to pull together. It’s not flood walls,” he said. “Our hope is that we have a King in Jesus who can subdue the earth and have dominion over it and will raise us from the dead to live in His Kingdom forever.”

    Yet something tells me that if the waters were lapping up against his backyard, he’d be out there sandbagging, and hoping like hell that some folks from the community would help him (and let’s see him turn away FEMA if they were to show up). Fuckhead. His implication seems to be that sometimes all those above-mentioned sources of hope fail. Well, shitferbrains, nothing fails like faith. Nothing fails like prayer.

  282. #282 Remy-Grace
    June 21, 2008

    Why ever doesn’t Mr. Ham allow for comments on his own blog I wonder?

  283. #283 extatyzoma
    June 21, 2008

    parts of kens answer:

    ‘What’s he so worked up about anyway? If he’s right, God doesn’t exist–so prayer can’t do anything and, therefore, can’t harm anything. But, then, who cares about harm in a world without moral absolutes? It’s the survival of the fittest; so, evolution will inexorably eliminate these weak-minded “idiots” at the Pentagon. If they nuke some people along the way, so what? That’s just the death of the weakest in this purposeless accidental existence of ours; sooner or later the more fit will triumph, and the world will be more evolved. So, what’s Myers concerned about? This is all just time and chance and the laws of nature at work. What is, is. There are and can be no “oughts.”

    of course we all agree that prayer doesnt do anything, to me the notion of praying is rather like passing the buck and when people who have access to firepower start passing the buck then its rather worrying. The fact that prayer doesnt work isnt the issue, its the fact people who pray can do really silly things and still think its ok because they have prayed, bush probably thinks this when he sees pictures of middle eastern kids in pieces. And that business about survival of the fittest, hmm, so i wonder just why ham is in the pentagon?? hmm, rubbing shoulders with those most directly responsible for life/death decisions on this planet right now??? and all that BS about atheists not giving a shit about a purposeless existence, well ken, you rancid ape, we give ourselves purposes, anything is better than prostituting yourself to some unknowable deity and feeling you have a monopoly on truth and morality.

    you arrogant, fetid excuse of an ape.

  284. A mooncalf.

  285. #285 Tz'unun
    June 21, 2008

    1. I second Senecasam’s characterization of Ken Ham (#20). If duplicity were painful, Ken would scream day and night.

    2. Since Pakostan and deerjackal have jumped to the defense of certain much maligned mammals, I feel compelled to do the same for turkeys and kestrels (Shakespeare’s “coistrel”), which are perfectly respectable organisms undeserving of comparison to this contemptible hominid. (“Wackaloon” gets a pass since the pejorative “loon” and the bird name have different roots, plus I like the way it rolls off the tongue.)

    3. Neil B.: Philosophy ? intellectual onanism?

  286. #286 Nick Gotts
    June 21, 2008

    Of course you have no idea what I do apart from philosophy. – Neil B.

    Wrong again, Neil. I know you don’t do philosophy, in any sense worthy of the name. Worthwhile philosophers pride themselves on clarity, have some specific point to argue, and show an interest in the truth. You are just an obscurantist name-dropper here to stroke your own ego. Nor are you in the least original – we get plenty of your sort here. Even in my own few months commenting here, “Salt” and Brenda von Ahsen showed exactly the same mixture of hypertrophy of the ego and absence of anything substantive to say.

  287. #287 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    As my brother is fond of saying, “Ken Ham is what you wind up with if you leave your spent rubbers lying in the sun.”

  288. #288 Hank Fox
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham in one word:

    Creepy.

  289. #289 Rey Fox, Underemployed BS, Wildlife Biology
    June 21, 2008

    “Ken Ham you are a ferret faced fuck.”

    Wait a minute, woah woah. This:
    http://www.discourse.net/archives/pix/ferret.jpg
    …is an insult?

    Forgot my creds last comment.

  290. #290 themadlolscientist
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham has the cognitive prowess of a bag of Cheetos. Okay, maybe not that much. Maybe a single Cheeto. A deranged one.

    Are you referring to this Cheeto, perhaps?

  291. #291 Bill the Cat
    June 21, 2008

    Why not an addlepate?

    Addle, as in addled milk — milk in a pail spoiled by a speck or gob of shit — and pate, the crown of the head.

  292. #292 Number8Dave
    June 21, 2008

    Ken, if you read this, just wanted you to know there are even people in New Zealand who despise you. Actually, if you include all those former buddies of yours in Creation Ministries International that you shafted, as well as those of us who care about science, there are probably quite a lot of people here who despise you.

  293. #293 Mar
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham cut you off in traffic.
    Ken Ham didn’t send you a Christmas card.
    Ken Ham took thirty items into the express lane.
    Ken Ham brainwashed your neighbors.

  294. #294 jufulu, FDC
    June 21, 2008

    My ultimate insult (which I have use for only four other people): Ken Ham is a totally useless person.

    For fun I’d like to add: Ken Ham is a mouth breather.

  295. #295 Ediacaran
    June 21, 2008

    Why isn’t “fidiot” on the list?

  296. #296 Derik
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is a complete piece of shit who prey’s on those that are likewise ignorant.

  297. #297 Jess
    June 21, 2008

    Re: Aquaria: “Methinks Mr. Ham is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.”

    The burger happens to be missing as well. And the toy’s broken. Hey, the napkin’s still good though (albeit pointless without the rest).

  298. #298 Copache
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham,

    You are a sociopathic lying brainwashed moronic piece of shit asshat with the beliefs of someone before the scientific revolution and I wish that you would go jump in a fucking lake, you piece of shit.

    That is all,
    An Angsty 17 Year Old.

  299. #299 Nibien
    June 21, 2008

    Did Neil B just pass a freshman philosophy of religion class and is woefully believing he can impress someone with spattering of such mediocre drivel?

  300. #300 Splatador
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a tool of Satan, spreading the Devil’s lies.

  301. #301 Holbach
    June 21, 2008

    Wouldn’t it be great to E-Mail this humungus shit list to Hambone when (?) everyone has had their bile in print. It would take the retard hours to read, but by then he may have dropped dead from shock or just boiled blood and a burst brain!

  302. #302 Galapagos
    June 21, 2008

    god damn, normally I chuckle a bit and am entertained by your writing style, but “Mr Flaming Nutbar” seriously gave me a good and hardy LOL

  303. #303 Interrobang
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is the Typhoid Mary of ideas. I really can’t do better than that in terms of an apropos insult.

  304. #304 Alienheart
    June 21, 2008

    There’s been a long list of good descriptive words for Ham here, but they are all rather unnecessary. I can think of no more derogatory a remark than to call him (and his followers) simply a Creationist. Seriously folks, what would insult you more, being called a fucktard, or a creationist?

  305. #305 randumbness47
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham – I have pooped smarter things than you.

  306. #306 natural cynic
    June 21, 2008

    The spewings of Ken Ham remind me of Vegemite cycled through a wombat.

    And, re: the next item in your blowhard blog, how did the jenny like it?

  307. #307 Duvelman
    June 21, 2008

    There are Big Brother contestants who are more intelligent than Ken Ham. In fact, that’s wrong, there are Big Brother contestants who are vastly more intelligent than Ken Ham.

  308. #308 Neil B.
    June 21, 2008

    Tom, chilling out sounds fine. I’m game if the rest are.
    Nick, do you really think it matters a lot whether I or anyone puts much in the way of clarity or etc. in a thread like this one? (“Do not throw your pearls before swine.” ;-) I doubt if anyone has time or worthy motive for that here, but can you tell whether I did or not anyway in terms of that particular field of discussion? Really, no one else did any better. We’re all just throwing sound-bites and snark and tap-dancing about it anyway. I can’t scan why anyone still takes some idle remarks about philosophy so seriously here, considering that this turd fest is not such a Serious Scholarly Discussion.

  309. #309 JoJo
    June 21, 2008

    To paraphrase H.L. Mencken: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Ken Ham and his museum are dedicated to pushing a series of lies. I thought that Christians weren’t supposed to lie. Ham shows that my belief is incorrect.

  310. #310 Samantha Vimes
    June 21, 2008

    The alphabet below W has been neglected. Therefore, I pronounce him a Yutz.

  311. #311 Dancaban
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham you have the IQ of a blade of grass. A small blade that is.

  312. #312 Nick Gotts
    June 21, 2008

    Neil B,
    You’re a swollen-headed pseudo-intellectual and moral coward. As you must know, blog threads frequently include multiple ongoing subthreads. If you had any actual arguments to put forward, you could and would have done so.

  313. #313 Roger Scott
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a very nice, sincere man. Sometime around 1980, when Ham was based in Australia, I had the privilege of hearing him speak. In the interests of fairness, he had sought and was granted an opportunity to speak to high school students about this important subject. The entire Year 12 cohort assembled in the largest double room in the school. I was one of two teachers charged with supervision.
    We were told that Mr Ham was a former teacher who had a B.Sc. degree but rejected evolution. Ham’s belief in his version of the Truth was obvious. His enthusiasm for his story was not infectious however. What followed was monotonous and laboured. It was not however predictable, at least not to me way back then. At that stage I actually thought it was impossible for an adult with any scientific training to deny evolution. How naive!
    I spoke only once. Ham said the second law of thermodynamics ruled out evolution. I raised my hand, said that he was wrong, that there were common aspects of our world that would also be ruled out if his interpretation was true. To my surprise and lasting pleasure, my little speech received an ovation from the students. Earlier, one wanted to leave. He was clearly quite pissed off. I asked/told him to stay (I was very bossy in those days) and he complied.
    Since then I have been an occasional observed of Mr Ham’s wacky ways. What a strange person he is. He is obsessed with a literal version of the Bible genesis story but has clearly not read the whole of Genesis. If he saw the glaring contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (the different stories for the creation of Eve, for example) he would see that his position is untenable.
    So what do I really think of Mr Ham? What more can be added to the alphabetical listing produced by PZ? Maybe, Mr Ham, you are a disgrace to Australia and the entire thinking human race would be OK?
    How about this? Mr Ham, if this is all you do with your life, you have been an oxygen thief.

  314. #314 Sir Craig
    June 21, 2008
    “Ken Ham is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
    Posted by: Tom | June 21, 2008 3:11 PM

    The same thing was said about Jim Jones.

    Posted by: mayhempix | June 21, 2008 3:37 PM

    For the same reason…

  315. #315 CJO
    June 21, 2008

    Ken, you ignorant slut.

  316. #316 Michael Heath
    June 21, 2008

    He’s a liar, fraud, and con man.

    His lies prevent children from developing into all they could be to the detriment of human civilization and the health of the globe. People have indirectly died because he justifies propaganda that in turn stymies progress. He also fosters a revisionist version of reality that suppresses our society’s ability to have an honest debate given a common set of assumptions since he propagates false assumptions, eradicating any chance of even having an honest debate.

    America faces two threats – explosion (terrorism, nation-state wars, global warming, lack of access to fossil fuels) and implosion (death of progress). Ham clearly increases our risk of implosion.

  317. #317 Ross Nixon
    June 21, 2008

    Every one of your readers???
    Thanks!

    Ken Ham is one of the most valuable members of the human race. I am privileged to live at the same period in history as him, and watch as the poor science behind goo-to-you evolution is demolished piece by piece. Praise God!

  318. #318 Brian English
    June 21, 2008

    Knobhead, fuckknuckle, wackjob, dickcheese….

  319. #319 tim Rowledge
    June 21, 2008

    “What’s he so worked up about anyway? If he’s right, God doesn’t exist–so prayer can’t do anything and, therefore, can’t harm anything.”

    But having a number of people that *do* believe in the inane, self-contradictory, hate-filled, misogynistic, illogical nonsense the Ham promulgates being in charge (at whatever level) of weapons of mass destruction and armies of huge capability is a matter that should concern anyone with a brain.

  320. #320 Brian English
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is one of the most valuable members of the human race.

    How, does he help us understand the world better or spread ancient superstition? Does he help us feed the starving or direct us towards eschatological wankery?

  321. #321 RT NZ
    June 21, 2008

    UPDATE: Ken Ham has had an arsehole transplant………

    NEWSFLASH: The arsehole has regected him…

  322. #322 oaksterdam
    June 21, 2008

    Ross Nixon treated us to:

    Ken Ham is one of the most valuable members of the human race. I am privileged to live at the same period in history as him, and watch as the poor science behind goo-to-you evolution is demolished piece by piece. Praise God!

    really? fuck it, i call poe.

  323. #323 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    I can’t scan why anyone still takes some idle remarks about philosophy so seriously here, considering that this turd fest is not such a Serious Scholarly Discussion.

    Posted by: Neil B.

    Sounds like you could really use a box of Kleenex and a big hug there, little buddy.

  324. #324 Nick Gotts
    June 21, 2008

    Ross Nixon, you’re a delusional twerp. Creationists have been braying the same ludicrous nonsense about how evolutionary science is about to collapse every since the Origin of Species was published. Over that century and a half, the range and depth of its explanatory power has increased enormously, and continues to do so. Its opponents have no recourse but paranoid accusations of vast conspiracies, and, as we have seen recently, vile attempts to exploit the victims of the Nazi holocaust. You really can’t get much lower than that.

  325. #325 Courtney
    June 21, 2008

    There is nothing I could verbalize to express how idiotic I think Ken Ham and his kind are.

    He has already erected his own monument to his stupidity and you can’t beat that. RAMEN.

  326. #326 Neil B.
    June 21, 2008

    Nick Gotts: I did put in some actual arguments. I was just asking you rhetorically why make a big deal out of it, given that you *thought* I hadn’t, didn’t bother to give any substantive support for that put-down yourself, and almost
    everyone here just wants to create the foulest insults. (No big deal in general, but somewhat tacky on a professor’s blog, maybe?)

    Here is what I said about Modal Realism, and if you really know or care about the subject, you are welcome to come up with serious commentary. I’ll take it seriously if it sounds like real philosophy and not just barf griping. Note that I didn’t even say it proved the existence of a “God”, only that some ordering principle above and beyond MR almost certainly must be at work:


    Mike, you should look up “modal realism” instead of just blowing it off like a yahoo because you don’t know about it. Ironically, many top physicists like Max Tegmark believe that same idea, that the universe simply “is” the math that describes it (so they can have every possible model world and not have to explain why *this* one is the one that exists. BTW, can you?)

    But Max and the others aren’t aware of the grotesque implications for Bayesian expectation, since it requires literally every description to exist (including worlds similar to every movie and cartoon you ever saw and then some) as well as full of every imaginable variation. We’d have no expectation of being in a world with the regularity of law and particle consistency there is here.

  327. #327 Paholaisen Asianajaja
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, that endless source of misguided mental masturbation. The only thing I want to hear from his mouth is; “Oh no, I’m dying, there’s a bright light, but wait a minute, this is wrong, I’m in hell! Hitler, Musollini… Henry M. Morris?”

  328. #328 Grammar RWA, just like Hypatia of Alexfuckingandria
    June 21, 2008

    Yes, “people like me”, like Hypatia of Alexandria,

    Lollerskates. You need to see a therapist for your delusions of grandeur, Neil.

    Juan Cole is a better and more moral man than I. I’ve got no argument there. That doesn’t obscure my point, though, that you’re a fucking idiot and if you toss around his website while you offer your own opinions on anything, you’re doing him a great disservice. Take that or leave it. If you think that my pointing this out amounts to a declaration that I’m superior to you, then you’d better remember to also mention “paranoia” during your first clinic visit.

    “But you think you’re better than us because you’re privileged enough to subsist parasitically upon the actual hard work of others.”

    Hah! Now that’s some real Freeper, Libertoon-type bile! That could of course be a quote from Mike Savage, Ann Coulter, etc. Of course you have no idea what I do apart from philosophy. Are you saying that philosophers in general don’t accomplish anything?

    I rather enjoy studying philosophy when I can. Dennett, since you mention him, helped me understand natural selection better, furthering my understanding of my own history and thus contributing in some small part to my quality of life. I’m sure he’s wrong about a great many things, too, and that’s okay.

    But I’ve made quite clear that the targets of my hatred are those people who spout philosophy (or anything else) for the purpose of feeling superior to others. And that is unequivocally what you did in your first post here in this thread. I only regret that I fed the troll rather than killfiling you immediately.

    How could you miss so obvious a distinction, between “doing philosophy” and “regurgitating sophistry to demonstrate one’s superiority”? You missed it because you cannot even conceive of studying philosophy for any other reason. And so you’ve made my case. The prosecution rests. *plonk*

  329. #329 Zarquon
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham has less brains than a zabriskan fontema!

  330. #330 Brian English
    June 21, 2008

    Neil B. why do you think possible worlds exist? What evidence do you have? Imagining something and imagining it existing are the same thing. None of that makes it exist.

  331. #331 Feynmaniac
    June 21, 2008

    Neil B. said,
    “PZ and your fans, why do you want to come across like adolescent-minded, right-wing blow-hards, Freeper and Little Green Football posters and commenters, etc? Sure Ken Ham is a pseudoscientist and his work is destructive, but a booger flicking fest just looks silly”

    Then went on to say,
    “How can some booger-flicking tweens in a garish, foul-mouthed gang-bang on some poor fruitcake; led by a “distinguished professor” of all things, be so serious and touchy about other people’s “arrogance” and their own “dignity”?”

    “Hah! Now that’s some real Freeper, Libertoon-type bile!”

    Okay we need a term for a concern troll who tell us they are troubled about how vicious commenters’ insults are by themselves using vicious insults? How about a HICT (hypocritcal insult concern troll)? Hopefully someone can come up with something better.

    Neil B. also said,
    “Go ahead and whine, kids. Yes, I’m a stodgy old scolding goat and a haughty anthropic “philosophical theist” to boot who thinks people like you are too unsophisticated in sophistic abstract reasoning to explore such issues competently. But you can’t pick on that unless you know your way around modal realism, comparative statistics of possible model worlds, etc., talk of dinosaurs and bones won’t cut it. Have fun “

    This comment reeks of insecurity. Alot of people here can talk about their favourite esoteric subject and then sneer that only a few can understand it. Biologist can talk about the intricates of phosopholipid bilayers, physicist can talk about the importance of lagrangians, and mathematicians go off about theorems involving groups. Most don’t however because:
    (1) It has nothing to do with the post
    (2) They are secure enough in their own intellect that they don’t have to go around and say “I know about topic X and you don’t.”

  332. #332 RT NZ
    June 21, 2008

    Some posters here have obviously missed the point of this thread ie; ross & neil. People are just venting.
    Unfortunately the creotards will just circle the wagons and point their fingers and say look how intolerant the nonbelievers are.
    Ken Ham and his ilk will never accept the evidence never, you cannot show those who refuse to accept fact over fiction.
    …morons…(sigh)…

  333. #333 Danio
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham: as useful as a fart in a string bag.

  334. #334 Newton78
    June 21, 2008

    Stumbled onto this group of back-slapping know-it-alls. Debate between opposing sides on origins is futile -only reason I would waste time posting here (yes, waste)is that the trough-feeding PZ Myers’ mud-slinging warrants at least an occasional opposing jab. I’m thankful that ~half of Americans don’t buy the evolution/uniformitarian fairy tale. I’m thankful for the freedom to oppose the party line, and the open forum for debate. The reason Myers is so ticked off is that Ham, Snelling, Morris, Wells, ICR, Discovery Institute, etc. have and continue to make a difference, and that real science is discussed, rather than just Biblical literalism, as you contend. The word has been spread for many years, and yes approximately half of us stupid americans will continue to enjoy those freedoms, and give Myers and others more to fret about. Maybe he’ll get another govt. grant, or a government-paid sabbatical, to spread his hubris. We should take about half of all trough-feeding, professors and dump them, their pensions, their sabbaticals, and let them fare for themselves in the free-market world.

  335. #335 Nick Gotts
    June 21, 2008

    Neil B.,
    If you had actually meant to start a substantive argument, you would have said at first mention what modal realism is – after all, it’s not hard to explain. The fact that you didn’t indicates that you were just showing off.

    However, leaving that aside, I have in fact given an answer to the issue you raised @92, at @121. you chose not to respond. Here it is again, for your convenience:

    If there is an answer to why we live in the kind of universe we do, other than “That’s just how it happens to be”, it is science and mathematics that are likely to lead us to it. The concept of a creator God has no explanatory power whatever, since a sufficiently powerful creator could create any logically consistent universe.

    I would add:
    1) I have seen no good argument for why there should be an answer other than “That’s just how it happens to be”.
    2) I don’t see how your point about Bayesian expectation gets off the ground. The choice of a prior for “We live in a law-governed universe” would be arbitrary, assuming it makes sense to assign a prior at all, which itself has not been established, as it’s not even clear that “all possible universes” refers to a set rather than a proper class. Even if it does refer to a set, that set would certainly be uncountable, so you could not assign probabilities to our universe belonging to some subset such as “law-governed universes” without first developing an appropriate measure theory for the set.

  336. #336 Laurent
    June 21, 2008

    I thought Ken Ham was a dish, a pork meat specialty from Kentucky or something like that. That’s stand for a cook, isn’t it?

  337. #337 austin
    June 21, 2008

    Ken,
    go choke on leper’s death puke.

  338. #338 Neil B.
    June 21, 2008

    But Grammar (also per Feynmaniac), calling me a troll suggests that you get I was being sarcastic (because I thought a bile-spewing thread and its denizens deserved it). In that case, there’s no point in treating the supposed “sentiment” literally. Get it? As for Hypatia, I meant the principle of the thing and the defense of “philosphers” as a category – abstraction isn’t that hard, now. And Feynmaniac, didn’t you see Nick’s defense of why it’s OK to have multiple subject threads?

    Brian English: Like I said, I don’t believe in MR anyway, but please Google it and see what its defenders have to say. You’d be surprised how hard it is to refute.

    RT NZ: Good point! They’ll look at the flood of excrement, and be able to say just how infantile and repulsive so many non-believers are! Is that the “point”? Want me to link it out somewhere?

  339. #339 Sir Craig, TSgt, USAF
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham:

    I sincerely doubt you’ll read this as it is well over 300 comments down the line; it is safe to assume (hoping this doesn’t lead to a discussion on logical fallacies) that your reasoning skills mirror your reading/comprehension abilities and that such an effort on your part would be considered heroic were it attributed to anyone other than yourself.

    I come today not to insult you – as stated earlier, insults are wasted on someone as insignificant as yourself as to be considered an ill-advised waste of breath and time. You are your own worst insult: History will regard you as religion’s version of Lysenkoism. Your monument to human ignorance and gullibility, posing as half-Disney ride, half-horror house, is so pathetic that it encompasses less space than a K-Mart. That Homeland Security hasn’t labeled you as an intellectual terrorist speaks not so much of your innocence as it does to the ineptitude and obliviousness of the current federal government, which brings me to my point.

    I reserve my scorn and anger at those who would give you, an uneducated charlatan, a platform on which to spread your idiocy. That those same enablers are also the ones who are presumably capable enough of maintaining the armed forces, of which I have been a proud member for the last 23 years, and its nuclear stockpiles fills me with even greater anger. I have dealt with the military’s lack of respect when it comes to my atheism with stoic silence, but I will be DAMNED if I let this advocacy of your pure unadulterated stupidity go unanswered. I have had enough of watching the armed services cater to the willfully ignorant: The last thing this country needs is another handful of Bush clones running the military.

    I don’t care who went to the damn prayer breakfast – that the Pentagon allowed it at all is a disgrace. This country deserves better from its military leaders, and it is well past time people let the government know this. I encourage everyone to visit http://www.hqda.army.mil/chaplain/default.htm and let them know, as politely as possible, how you (not you, Ham – don’t confuse yourself any further; why don’t you go play quietly with yourself in the corner) feel about their decision to let this fraud use taxpayer money to spread his bullshit.

    Thank you…

  340. #340 Steve P.
    June 21, 2008

    I miss peckerwood.

  341. #341 Don
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is some mixture of loon, liar, and lout. Exactly what mixture of each is hard to say but you can bet there is a little of each.

  342. #342 Dennis N
    June 21, 2008

    #334

    The reason Myers is so ticked off is that Ham, Snelling, Morris, Wells, ICR, Discovery Institute, etc. have and continue to make a difference, and that real science is discussed, rather than just Biblical literalism, as you contend.

    What real science? Seriously, what science have they done? Note that science should be done, not just talked about. What experiments have they done?

  343. #343 Jeff Arnold
    June 21, 2008

    Ok, here goes…

    If you were to leave a saucer of goat semen in the sun for several weeks, the mix it into a sauce with 3 rotten eggs and place it into a closed and extremely humid container after a skunk sprayed into the opening…. LEave said container in the truck of an 84 Buick for a week during summer. The smell exuded upon opening the container would be regarded much more highly by me than the person or the so-called ideas of one Mr. Ham.

  344. #344 phoenixphire24
    June 21, 2008

    I’ll throw in one for good measure.

    Ken Ham: Thou craven tickle-brained bugbear!

  345. #345 Raiko
    June 21, 2008

    I am not sure any normal insult could compare to the utter lunacy that is sprouted by Ken Ham. So, Ken Ham may as well blog about how I called him an empty space. Something like this: “            “

  346. #346 Nick Gotts
    June 21, 2008

    Neil B.@338. “Hard to refute” is not in itself a recommendation. It’s impossible to refute the suggestion that the universe sprang into existence one minute ago; or that it is pervaded by invisible, intangible elephants; or that there is a creator God, who is a ten-thousand meter high pink jellybean. So what? An idea has to be of some potential use (including entertainment), in order to be worth thinking about.

    Also, if you’re going to try to use what I say to put other people down, do not misrepresent me. I said blog threads frequently include multiple subthreads. I expressed no opinion on whether this was good or bad.

  347. #347 dale
    June 21, 2008

    Now the Hamster is trying to bilk his minions into paying for a new museum on the island of Saipan.
    I’ll bet tht will draw the crowds, or just a convenient Island paradise for the high priest of lunacy to retire to.

  348. #348 Lee Brimmicombe-Wood
    June 21, 2008

    Has anyone called Ken Ham a cunt yet?

    If not, consider it covered.

  349. #349 Steve Ulven
    June 21, 2008

    He was Teabagged at Birth and I have pictures of him Snowballed By Grandma and Fucked With a Dildo Bong.

    [These are song titles of a band I used to be in, Sikfuk, and if interested I linked to them, so click on my name.]

  350. #350 Nick Gotts
    June 21, 2008

    Lee Brimmicombe-Wood@348. Fie on you! A cunt is both a useful and a beautiful thing. I can scarcely imagine anything less like Ken Ham.

  351. #351 Luke O'Dell
    June 21, 2008

    The guy should be strung up.

  352. #352 Luke O'Dell
    June 21, 2008

    The guy should be strung up.

  353. #353 Ray C.
    June 21, 2008

    Of course, if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast, I’m sure PZ Myers would not have ranted against that–it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems.

    I can’t speak for PZ, but one expects that the right-wing hate blogs like LGF would go ballistic.

  354. #354 Pat Silver
    June 21, 2008

    The biggest insult I know comes from my old physics teacher; willfully ignorant.

  355. #355 BROWN PELICAN
    June 21, 2008

    KEN HAM PROVES THAT THERE IS A REASON WHY THE BRITISH SEND PEOPLE TO AUSTRALIA WITH THE HOPES THE THAT THEY WOULD NEVER LEAVE. OOPS ALL CAPS SORRY.

  356. #356 Lee Brimmicombe-Wood
    June 21, 2008

    Nick, you make a sound point.

    I rescind my previous insult and instead call him a Cnut.

  357. #357 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    The reason Myers is so ticked off is that Ham, Snelling, Morris, Wells, ICR, Discovery Institute, etc. have and continue to make a difference, and that real science is discussed, rather than just Biblical literalism, as you contend.
    Posted by: Newton78

    Ha! I can believe that real science is being discussed in a sort of “gee guys? How are we going to use god to fit that?” kindof way. But I’ll never believe any of those anti-intellectual hives will ever actually DO any real science or understand what real science is supposed ot be about.

    By the way, thank you for drawing the line between what is real science and what is the ICR, DI, et al’s pseudo-science.

    Unfortunately, the difference those gurgling loons are making is entirely for the negative and detrimental to the advancement of humanity. There is a reason they are called the Dark Ages, you know.

  358. #358 Cultural Anthropologist
    June 21, 2008

    Field Notes: Have observed a large group of subjects flinging poo upon a single non-tribal male. Non-dominant tribe members hastily comply with the alpha-male’s directive to fling the poo. ‘Flinging of the poo’ seems to be an exercise that solidifies the boundaries of the tribe. Though apparently capable of primitive thought, the alpha-male prefers to resort to the base act of flinging poo. Perhaps he understands the psychological effects of communal aggression and its release in primitive acts? (Note: No evidence to support higher thought at this level.)

    (Note to Field Supervisor: These were supposed to be the evolved ones??)

    Oh no – they’ve spotted me. Ending field observation and fleeing the inevitable incoming poo.

  359. #359 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    Has anyone called Ken Ham a cunt yet?

    If not, consider it covered.

    Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood

    I did at comment #263 (wow. This thread is just jumping, isn’t it?).

    I even tossed in the bad wax job just to really drive the point home. I believe it works quite well considering the unkempt chin-wig of his.

    On the other hand, I don’t think the shady bastard, Ken Ham, can be called a cunt enough times.

  360. #360 DiscoveredJoys
    June 21, 2008

    I was working on an insult based on the words “cloaca” and “diarrhoea”, when I realised that insults, although wonderful stress relief, were unlikely to have any impact on Ken Ham.

    I suspect that he is too far gone (the lights are on but nobody is home) to treat insults as anything other than confirmation of his personal ‘persecuted’ worldview.

    In the end I decided to suggest an adjective which descibes the wierdness of his views in religious terms… heretic. Even if Ken Ham is indifferent to this description, his ‘followers’ may think twice about swallowing his guff.

    Actually there are many different Christian heresies, but without wishing to learn any more about Ken Ham I do not want to call him the wrong sort of heretic. Isn’t religion fabulous?

  361. #361 Torstein
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is the cancer that’s killing society.

  362. #362 Barry
    June 21, 2008

    There is nothing that anyone could say or do that would convince Ken Ham that the Bible was written by medieval men. I am absolutely shocked that someone with such a low intelligence and willful ignorance manages to put together full sentences without shitting his pants.

  363. #363 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    Oh no – they’ve spotted me. Ending field observation and fleeing the inevitable incoming poo.

    Posted by: Cultural Anthropologist

    Yes. Run along little troll. Your cries for attention will probably be ignored (I hope).

  364. #364 Bruce Breece FCD
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a mendacious, delusional, arrogant, self righteous, contemptible, willfully ignorant, holy rolling, child abuser.

  365. #365 Alcari
    June 21, 2008

    Hehe, Why did I suddenly get this image in my mind:

    *Cut scene to a mountain range, small lights popping up as fires are being lit on mountain tops. Cut to solitary messenger sitting near a grand hall, he sees the final light in the chain flare up and rushes inside, finding the internet sitting on a throne:

    Messenger:
    “The Beacons of the blogsphere! The Beacons are lit!”
    “PZ Meyers calls for aid”

    *pauze for effect*

    Internet:
    “and the internet will answer!”
    “Muster the posters, assemble the army at Pharyngula, as many men as can be found.”

  366. #366 jase
    June 21, 2008

    Alas and Alack! Cuttlefish is in Europe, so there will probably be no paen to Ken Ham’s odious delusional personage from our beloved resident poet, although a limerick submitted in the thread above was a noteworthy effort.

    Ken and his followers are willfully ignorant, and that’s as sad a commentary as any.

  367. #367 Patricia
    June 21, 2008

    Honestly, how can a man who resembles a baboon so much not believe in evolution.

  368. #368 Betz
    June 21, 2008

    So to summarize, the USA has been inflicted with and continues to suffer from the “Curse of Ham”. But the fundies had it wrong – it wasn’t about colored people, it was dullard people.

    (Sorry about “colored people” but I needed that for parallel construction.)

  369. #369 EnfantTerrible
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is *not* aware of all internet traditions.

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10647

  370. #370 Chiefley
    June 21, 2008

    I think we have been to easy on him.

  371. #371 Duvenoy
    June 21, 2008

    I’m from Appalachia: The man’s an idjit!

    I confess to being a bit envious. I’ve taken this grifting, brain-spavined oaf to task many times on another site, and if he knows I exist, he won’t admit it.

    Well done,PZ,well done!

    doov

  372. #372 Owlmirror
    June 21, 2008

    We should take about half of all trough-feeding, professors and dump them, their pensions, their sabbaticals, and let them fare for themselves…

    Because the policy of expulsion worked out so well for Germany in the 1930s.

    …in the free-market world.

    Oh, the irony… *BOOM*

    You know, I just realized why irony meters explode so often around creationists. Since the cretins are fractally wrong, their utterances are often fractally ironic.

    Obviously, ordinary irony meters are designed for mere linear levels of irony. So irony meters need to be more intelligently (re)designed, such that they can measure the fractal dimensions of irony, and cope with them.

    *WARNING: FRACTAL IRONY DETECTED*
    *AVOIDING DANGEROUS RECURSIVE INFINITE LOOP*
    *CURRENT SAFETY RECURSION CUTOFF: 4294967295 LEVELS*

  373. #373 Levi
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham’s intellectual capacity is comparable to that of a moist washcloth.

  374. #374 Alder Valley Bus
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is a pig.

    Geddit? Do you get it? Ham,…Pig! It’s like, you know, Ham – Pig. Ham comes from a pig. It sort of evolves from a pig, once the pig is killed, of course. Oops. Sorry Mr Ham. you don’t believe in evolution, do you? OK. Ham is intelligently designed from a pig. You know about that. In this case the designer just does some killing (or smiting, if you prefer).

    Yes, that’s it. Mr Ham. You are an intelligently designed pig (now dead, and chopped up into neat bits for people to consume). You know about that, too. Body and blood sacrifices. Did you know that the British use blood to make something called black pudding?

    Pig.

  375. #375 grinch
    June 21, 2008

    tosser

  376. #376 Kevin Johnstone
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham and his fellow bird brained creationists are galahs and drongos

  377. #377 Sirius Knott
    June 21, 2008

    PZ,

    Sticks and stones, brother. Sticks and stones.

    Yet your exasperation suggests that perhaps we are gaining ground. [Though I'd be satisfied with simply getting on your nerves since I've no hope a zealot such as yourself would actually deign to listen to the other guy's argument.] Has one too many Academic Freedom bill been taken too seriously for your dogmatic tastes? Has your naturalistic monopoly on truth [or, more precisely, the ability to indoctrinate others into what you believe is truth] been threatened?

    But certainly you could provide us with evidence that evolution is more reasonable than Creation, right? Surely, you could. Or does the evidence suit each theory equally well? But your rancor seems to betray a weakness, a shuddering doubt, an involuntary admission of fundamentalist fervor.

    I’ve no doubt you will re-affirm your faith in reply to this post. You will protest that it’s all pots and kettles. You’ll patch up the thatch on the old religion versus science Straw Man. And your faithful bleating converts will come running to your defense as always, each hoping to out-do the other in their zeal to defend their favored prophet. Gimme that old time religion, and all that.

    So be it. Give us your rancor, your hate, your bile, your insults, your stereotypical junior high pratcalls. Truth will out. Freedom of Inquiry will have its day. We will follow the evidence where it leads, whether you approve or not, even if, especially if it flies in the faith of today’s scientififc dogma. It was Darwin’s right and privilege to challenge the accepted scientific truth of his day. It was Galileo’s as well. Science is supposed to be self-correcting,after all.

    As for Mr. Ham. God bless you, sir. Ignore the trolls. It’s only sticks and stones. And it has NOTHING to do with truth, scientific or otherwise.

    –Sirius Knott

  378. #378 Sili
    June 21, 2008

    #373 Ken Ham’s intellectual capacity is comparable to that of a moist washcloth.
    Posted by: Levi | June 21, 2008 6:58 PM

    Now now. Let’s not insult moist towelettes.

  379. #379 Zeke Silva
    June 21, 2008

    Ham blows… I’d much rather have a good helping of squid any day!

  380. #380 ExitB
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a big dummy head.

  381. #381 BT Murtagh
    June 21, 2008

    What a xenocranial! What a yammerhead! What a zhlob!

    (My deepest thanks to Schmuel for preventing me from mortally insulting zedonks everywhere!)

  382. #382 Witch Tyler, madlolscientist and leader of the Pedants' Revolt, FCD
    June 21, 2008

    Autofellating smegmavore.

  383. #383 Rick
    June 21, 2008

    OK, so I was wrong. You DID include “meathead”.

    Still, I think “boil on the ass of society” is appropriate.

    Best,

    Rick

  384. #384 Tz'unun
    June 21, 2008

    Okay, the slam against galahs and drongos was totally inappropriate and defamatory, and I should also mention that some of my best friends are zygodactyl. Let’s not drag avians into the ad hominem.

  385. #385 Nobbin
    June 21, 2008

    It’s sad, really genuinely sad, that we as humans can be so… so… irritating. Ham, you are an irritating nittwit that needs to read something other than a bible for once.

    @377: Please do follow the evidence where it leads, and come back with an argument… if you find one. Science doesn’t start with a conclusion like creationism. Evolution is one of the best supported ideas science has ever given us. Get over it.

  386. #386 Angie
    June 21, 2008

    He and his kind are the blue-green algae of the gene pool.

  387. #387 BT Murtagh
    June 21, 2008

    P.S. re: #36

    Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged: “Wait, I’ve done you already, haven’t I?”

  388. #388 Holbach
    June 21, 2008

    Alder Valley Bus @ 374 “Ham… Pig! don’t you get it!? It’s a joke son”! Cleghorn

  389. #389 Remy-Grace
    June 21, 2008

    OK creationists, let’s get this straight: if you or your demi-god Ken Ham actually have any sort of argument that can invalidate evolution and prove all those evil scientists wrong, then publish it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and win the Nobel Prize. OTHERWISE SHUT THE FUCK UP.

  390. #390 Tz'unun, B.S Biology, recovering Southern Baptist
    June 21, 2008

    Methinks we’ve been Poe’d again by “Sirius Knott” (#377).

  391. #391 BobC
    June 21, 2008

    From the blog of Sirius Knott: “Academic Freedom of Inquiry. That’s the primary message of Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed! It’s what ol’ Sirius has been growling about for some time and [finally] somebody is actually doing something about it! Thanks to Ben’s documentary [and the previous groundwork laid by Behe, Dembski and others, most notably the Discovery Institute] folks are standing up against dogma and for scientific/academic freedom of inquiry.”

    So Mr. Knott, you’re a big fan of professional liars and morons. I’m not surprised.

    How do you explain the diversity of life? Was it magically created or what? Who is the designer? Jesus? Mr. God? Who is your favorite Magic Man?

    I bet you believe in the Resurrection (the Jesus zombie flies up to the clouds, etc.).

    Earlier in this thread I said Ken Ham is a shit-for-brains asshole. You’re no better than he is.

  392. #392 shyster
    June 21, 2008

    He is an ignoranus. That makes him both stupid and an asshole.

  393. #393 Dave Herres
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is a horrible little toad. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

  394. #394 Dave Herres
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is a horrible little toad. I could carve a better man out of a banana.

  395. #395 Dagger
    June 21, 2008

    Trouble is Mr Knott, you and those who believe in creation do so because of faith. Not science. You have no capacity to understand science since you blatantly refuse to believe that your biblical fairy tale IS wrong, has been proven wrong and will always be wrong.

    The only regret I have is living in a free society where we can’t forcefully take your children away from you and quietly let your delusional species die out. Shame really.

  396. #396 Mark P.
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham has disgraced homo sapiens for all time.
    He is a shiteating nutbarber.

    @Neil B.,
    One could deny that modal statements quantify over possible worlds. One could be a modal fictionalist. One could be a noncognitivist about modal talk, e.g. I think Blackburn has applied his quasi-realism to modal talk, specifically necessity.

    I, for one, think that after some ‘cost-benefit analysis’ there is no good reason to believe in god, possible worlds, and/or other abstracta.

    Mark

  397. #397 Wild Bob
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, you foul knave! Lousy knave! Beastly knave! Scurvy railing knave! Gorbellied knave! Bacon-fed knave! Wrangling knave! Base notorious knave! Arrant malmsey-nose knave! Poor cuckoldly knave! Stubborn ancient knave! Pestilent complete knave! Counterfeit cowardly knave! Rascally yea-forsooth knave! Foul-mouthed and calumnous knave! The lyingest knave in Christendom! Rascally, scald, beggarly, lousy, pragging knave! Whoreson, beetle-headed, flap-ear’d knave! Base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave; a whoreson, glass-gazing, superserviceable, finacal rogue; one that wouldst be a bawd, in way of good service and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch!

    Pah!

  398. #398 Chris Phillips
    June 21, 2008

    Who cares what this nonentity thinks. As a Brit he has as much impact on me as a fart on the far side of the moon. He is clearly deluded, and serves as a stalking horse, such that one can pick out the stupid, dangerous and delusional as being those that he is seen with. Freedom of speech I suppose goes with a freedom to be ignorant, bigoted and generally abysmal.
    Some more idiomatic insults:
    a chocolate tea-pot
    as much use as a fart in a collender
    as welcome as a fart in a space suit
    fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.
    Use and enjoy!

  399. #399 bassmanpete
    June 21, 2008

    Ken who?

    Science is supposed to be self-correcting,after all.

    It is, and that’s the point. Creationism isn’t even self questioning.

  400. #400 Brian English
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham and his fellow bird brained creationists are galahs and drongos
    I must object. Galahs are cute, intelligent little cockatoos and Drongos never hurt anybody.

  401. #401 Kel
    June 21, 2008

    Mr Ham, you are such a despicable excuse for a human being that your accent fills me with shame that my country could have produced something as horrible as you. You have absolutely no clue about, well, anything at all. Your lack of scientific knowledge should be a sin on it’s own, and your evangelising of biblical scripture as science should worry you as it breaks the 9th commandment.

    But Mr Ham. As you know, you are already saved. So you can lie and lie away for Jesus without a ping of regret. But back in the real world where what we say matters being dishonest is morally wrong, no matter the circumstances. So if I were to state that humans lived with dinosaurs, I’d be a liar. Because it’s not a point of view, it’s fucking science. And in science we go with the evidence. Using a bible as evidence shows
    1) your ignorance of the scientific process
    and
    2) your gullibility

    Sorry Mr Ham, but in all due respect you aren’t due any at all. You make a living out of lying and hoping that others are deceived by your lies. You push bronze aged myth as being more scientifically accurate than the last 400 years of empirical research where the only currency is being truthful; not trying to control others. It’s sad that you think it’s okay to brainwash children, that it’s okay to lie about science in order to fuel your agenda. What you say contradicts EVERY LITTLE THING we know about human history and the history of the world. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

    So the word wackaloon is getting off lightly… if all you can do is claim intolerance, then your position is flawed. Maybe it would have been best to do some scientific research before opening a museum that has as much scientific truth as this months copy of The Watchtower. Maybe all those suckers who paid you to reinforce their delusions deserve a refund, or at least a disclaimer “warning the following is fiction, and any resemblance to anything living or dead is purely coincidental”. That way you can still have your museum, you can still take the money of gullible fools, but at least they won’t walk away with your crackpot idea that it’s science. Wackaloon? 9th commandment-breaking child abuser is a much more accurate way to say it. You got off lightly Mr Ham. Very lightly.

    From an Aussie who is trying his best to undo the damage you have done to this country’s reputation,
    Kel

  402. #402 NRT
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is an oxygen thief!
    An arrogant sleazy snake oil salesman with narcissistic personality disorder problem, gleefully conning the ignorant and gullible out of their money and laughing all the way to the bank!

    Anyone read his take on this article?

    IOWA FLOODS AND THE CURSE

    “Floods are ‘creation groaning,’ pastor says”
    http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28308

  403. #403 Mark P.
    June 21, 2008

    Neil,
    Don’t forget ersatzism.

    Mark

  404. #404 Logicel
    June 21, 2008

    Ham is a shameless hussy sporting a red dress of flaming IDiocy, an suffocating perfume of duplicity, and an cleavage of such depth that any bit of reason that manages to make its way down its precipitous length never again sees the light of day.

  405. #405 waldteufel
    June 21, 2008

    Our gomer Mr. Knott is a perfect example of the poorly educated, credulous dumb fuck that Ken Hamster relies on as a customer for his snake oil.

    Hamster is a steaming bag of shit, not because he’s dumb, but because he’s smart. He knows the rubes like Mr. Knott. He knows how to play to their ignorance and their fears. Hamster knows how to get the gomers’ kids so he can lie to them about the nature and findings of science. That’s what makes him a slimeball.

  406. #406 ae
    June 21, 2008

    I for one wish to write to THANK his wackiness, Mr. Ham.
    Because of him, I make a point to teach my young relatives & my grand children as much about biology, geology, and the physical sciences as possible.

    I give them simple many-millions-of-year-old fossils, and tell them to look up tell me what they can find on the internet about such creatures and their and their descendents evolution.
    They love it.

    Thanks, bonehead!

    AE

  407. #407 Allitnil
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a semen stain on the blue dress of rationality.

  408. #408 Allitnil
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a semen stain on the blue dress of rationality.

  409. #409 windy
    June 21, 2008

    Hey, how about this Neil B #92, I’m perfectly familiar with “modal realism,” since David Lewis was my friend; he was my advisor at the time he was writing On the Plurality of Worlds. David put it best as he always did: There are an infinity of gods, but none of them are our worldmates.”
    So, as you say, “You could at least know what you’re talking about when you actually try to argue the point,” rather than just name-checking concepts clearly beyond your grasp.

    Hah! This made my day. Thanks, JT.

  410. #410 Steven Dunlap
    June 21, 2008

    Let’s see,

    First: gonif. From the Yiddish. A bumbling, hapless, luckless incompetent person. Sometimes spelled with two “f”s.

    At least one person missed a clever reference to both the original and the remake of The Manchurian Candidate. (Frank Sinatra/Denzel Washington saying “He is the kindest…”

    I enjoyed Ham’s whining on his blog. I especially like that I can remember clearly how one of my high school teachers explained the difference between Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection and Social Darwinism so that even the slowest ponies in the room could understand. And believe me, they were really slow.

    Oh, and I did a word search and found that even the Brits on board left out “Barking mad.” An understandable omission, as we have so many terms thrown about in this thread.

  411. #411 bill
    June 21, 2008

    In this case, I prefer the words of others.

  412. #412 EyeROCK
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, The dinosaur man,
    Creationist Museum gettin’ outta hand.
    Read our blog twice, ask us to play nice,
    But you don’t understand evolution ain’t no vice.
    Ken Ham, Dinos never walked with man.
    le fait très simple tu do not understand.
    But I guess its just too easy,
    to be a conman for jeezy.
    Even if it makes you super, super, super sleazy.

  413. #413 mus
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a worthless, despicable, retarded, delusional, lying, demented fuckwit… and much, much more. However, I have better things to do than list all of the negative things Ham is. That would take far too long.

  414. #414 John C. Randolph
    June 21, 2008

    Hey, get off the fence here, PZ! How do you really feel about the guy?’

    Of course when it comes to hurting feelings, it means rather more to a creationist than to a rational person, since feelings are all the creationists have.

    -jcr

  415. #415 Lightnin
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham ate my baby!

  416. #416 Owlmirror
    June 21, 2008

    First: gonif. From the Yiddish. A bumbling, hapless, luckless incompetent person. Sometimes spelled with two “f”s.

    No, you’re probably thinking of “schlimazel”.

    “Gonif”, from the Hebrew “ganav” (???), means “thief” (or more generally, any dishonest person, a swindler, a cheat).

  417. #417 cicely
    June 21, 2008

    Let’s see, my true feelings……

    Completely superfluous to requirements. Delete program.

  418. #418 efrique
    June 21, 2008

    He’s a lackwit, a willing self-deluser, a peddler of bullshit, a liar-for-jesus, a retarder of children.

    I’m feeling generous today, so I held back.

  419. #419 tresmal
    June 21, 2008

    Blatherskite.And not just an idiot but a carrier.

  420. #420 M.
    June 21, 2008

    Shakespeare says it well:

    Ken Ham is a wretched and peevish fellow.
    A most pathetical nit.
    A poisonous bunch backed toad.
    A panderly rascal.

  421. #421 mewton
    June 21, 2008

    Why oh why didn’t I see this thread earlier before all the good insults were already taken! Oh well, Ken, your a sorry ass waste of genome and a sanctimonious fucktard!

  422. #422 LeeLeeOne
    June 21, 2008

    Hey, Kenny – as in ” … they’ve killed Kenny!”

    I’m a South Park fan. No apologies here.

    Ken’ny’

    Desperation calls for desperate measures. Kenny, you’ve killed your comments section on your blog!

    omgs! we’ve killed kenny!

  423. #423 The Barefoot Bum
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a poo-poo head.

  424. #424 mandrellian
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, you are a despicable liar who peddles falsehoods to children and I am ashamed that you are Australian. I would call you ignorant as well, but that would imply you’re not 100% to blame for your own desperate lack of real-world knowledge. Rather, it would seem that you’ve actively avoided any real study, formal or informal, or even a basic layperson’s understanding of the science you claim you can debunk using an ancient book of fables which is no more accurate in describing reality or our origins than Ancient Greek myths or Aboriginal dreamtime legends.

    However, while I am truly ashamed that someone so blatantly dishonest and borderline delusional shares a home country with me, it also speaks volumes that you’ve built your laughable Creation “Museum” in Kentucky. This is actually very heartening to me, because it shows that you know full well that that kind of bullshit would never fly Down Under. It would seem that you can be quite realistic when you have to be.

  425. #425 Sir Jebbington
    June 21, 2008

    I laugh.

  426. #426 RT NZ
    June 21, 2008

    Ken thinks he is Hot Shit but in reality he is only a Cold Fart in a warm jar.

  427. #427 Rey Fox
    June 21, 2008

    “even if, especially if it flies in the faith of today’s scientififc dogma”

    The word “especially” proves to me that you are a biased observer. Not that I’m surprised, of course. What’s the matter, does today’s scientific dogma not make you feel special enough?

  428. #428 Holydust
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is about as brilliant as a shoe full of toothpaste. :(

  429. #429 Bubba Sixpack
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham: an atavistic throwback to a simpler time. Just another low-information simpleton, who never caught on when his parents told him that the television and moving machinery did not have little people inside.

    It is easy for him to imagine a Fred Flinstone reality, where troglodytes rode dinosaurs and had T-rexes as vegetarian pets, and all appliances and vehicles had humans or little animals inside operating them. That sums up his theory of reality in a cartoon synopsis – everything must be “run” by unseen but highly emotional homunculi.

    When I think of Ken Ham, I think that some outback in Australia is missing it’s idiot. Or not missing him. Maybe encouraged him to deport himself.

  430. #430 The Atheist Jew
    June 21, 2008

    I’m not sure if shmuck has a c in it. Other than that, your description of Ham is right on.

  431. #431 John the Skeptic
    June 21, 2008

    The less capable cousin to Homo erectus, the oft-ridiculed Homo flaccidus

  432. #432 Steve_C
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a demon sent from hell to steal the souls of children and deliver them to Satan himself.

  433. #433 Cass
    June 21, 2008

    If I ate Kent Hovind… literally, if I cooked him and ate him, and then had moldy diarrhea two days later…. my moldy diarrhea would have a firmer grasp on science than Ken Ham.

    Thank you.

  434. #435 mark
    June 21, 2008

    …a monkey-faced twit.

    A mental Liliputian.

  435. #436 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    I’m not sure if shmuck has a c in it. Other than that, your description of Ham is right on.

    Posted by: The Atheist Jew

    You’re right. When talking about Kenny Ham, the word “shmuck” is spelled as “cock-sucking, fucktard, ass-hamster whose life has about as much meaning as that of a rat in a tampon factory.”

  436. #437 Nick
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is so pissed at evolution only because it left him behind. He should return to the Planet of the Apes and stop masquerading as a human.

  437. #438 Richard
    June 21, 2008

    I’m going out on a limb here, but WWRDD? i.e. what would Richard Dawkins do? I just don’t think that bombarding this dufus with insults is very productive. I doubt that Dawkins would bombard Ham (who is a moron) with pages of insults. I think we are above this…

  438. #439 raindogzilla
    June 21, 2008

    And has Ken Ham stopped raping piglets yet?

  439. #440 Adam
    June 21, 2008

    Who cares what Richard Dawkins would do? He does his thing, PZ does what he does.

    And while I agree that this isn’t all that productive it ain’t that big of a deal. You don’t have to participate.

  440. #441 Carlie
    June 21, 2008

    (With apologies to Dr. Seuss)

    You’re a mean one, Mr. Ham.
    You really are a heel.
    You’re as cuddly as a cactus,
    You’re as charming as an eel, Mr. Ham.
    You’re a bad banana
    With a greasy black peel.
    You’re a monster, Mr. Ham.
    Your heart’s an empty hole.
    Your brain is full of spiders,
    You’ve got garlic in your soul, Mr. Ham.
    I wouldn’t touch you, with a
    thirty-nine-and-a-half foot pole.
    You’re a vile one, Mr. Ham.
    You have termites in your smile.
    You have all the tender sweetness
    Of a seasick crocodile, Mr. Ham.
    Given the choice between the two of you
    I’d take the seasick crockodile.
    You’re a foul one, Mr. Ham.
    You’re a nasty, wasty skunk.
    Your heart is full of unwashed socks
    Your soul is full of gunk, Mr. Ham.
    The three words that best describe you,
    are, and I quote: “Stink. Stank. Stunk.”
    You’re a rotter, Mr. Ham.
    You’re the king of sinful sots.
    Your heart’s a dead tomato splot
    With moldy purple spots, Mr. Ham.
    Your soul is an apalling dump heap overflowing
    with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable
    rubbish imaginable,
    Mangled up in tangled up knots.
    You nauseate me, Mr. Ham.
    With a nauseaus super-naus.
    You’re a crooked jerky jockey
    And you drive a crooked horse, Mr. Ham.
    You’re a three decker saurkraut and toadstool
    sandwich
    With arsenic sauce.

  441. #442 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    For the concern trolls out there, I think this is the perfect forum in which to blow off the steam and angst of years of having to deal with the destructive nonsense that is creationism.

    If you believe you are above this, then avert your eyes and go read something else.

    Personally, I’m finding this to be a lot of fun.

  442. #443 Big City
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is to Christianity what a head is to a zit.

    Wearing costumes is nothing new for the clergy.
    Ken Ham’s costume is a lab coat.

  443. #444 BetentacledBrad
    June 21, 2008

    W. the I.P. @139:

    You’re a jerk, Ken Ham. A complete kneebiter.

    I’m really somewhat surprised that it took so long for someone to remember that one (although I will admit that Pteropterus is technically correct, we silly yanks grew up with kneebiter, and so to us it shall always remain, author’s intent be damned).

  444. #445 Whit
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a waste of Carbon.

  445. #446 Ken Ham
    June 21, 2008

    My name is Ken ham and I is gonna sue all yo asses back to the stone age ……no wait….back to the pre cambian…no no…back to the genisisis…no no no …back to Noah ..yea ..that`ll learn you ignorant mofo`s …hope you all can swim…hahahaha

  446. #447 eyerock
    June 21, 2008

    Yes, well, im not RD, I do what i want :)

  447. #448 Tom
    June 21, 2008

    There are soooo many hilarious appellations for Big Ken Ham on this thread that I overlooked a serious post that’s worth careful reading: #339, Sir Craig of the US Air Force. That’s strong stuff, Sir Craig. Thanks for adding it.

  448. #449 ThirtyFiveUp
    June 21, 2008

    PZ, please do not hold back; tell us what you really think.

  449. #450 DingoDave
    June 21, 2008

    Seeing as he’s Australian, here are some ‘fair dinkum’ Aussie insults.

    One can short of a sixpack, if he took a shit his head would cave in, he’s got a few kangaroos loose in his top paddock, If brains where dynamite he wouldn’t have enough to blow his hat off, he’s only got one oar in the water, lower than a snake’s arsehole, pillock, he must be the world’s only living brain donor, he’s got a head on him like a sucked mango, he’s too slow to keep worms in a tin, so stupid that he wouldn’t know a tram was up him ’til the bell rang, drongo, ugly as a hatful of arseholes, he couldn’t find his arse with both hands even if his fingers were flashlights, he must have 2 dicks…he couldn’t be that stupid from pulling one, he has an IQ of 2 and it takes 3 to grunt, he’s as useful as shit on a stick, he wouldn’t know if his arse was on fire, he’s dumber than a box of rocks, the lift (elevator) doesn’t go all the way to the top, he’s as useful as tits on a bull/ashtray on a motorbike, fucked in the head, he wouldn’t know shit from clay, he’s enough to give diarrhoea the shits, he’s one snag short of a barbie, he fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, he wouldn’t know if someone was up him sideways with an armful of deck chairs,

    And last but not least, he’s a Demented Fuckwit.

  450. #451 Richbank
    June 21, 2008

    @416, Is there any difference between schlimiel and schlimazel? I’ve often heard the two used in conjunction with one another, is it just a way of saying the same thing twice?

    Oh, and in keeping with the theme of the thread, Ken Ham is a polyp on the colon of humanity.

  451. #452 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    There are soooo many hilarious appellations for Big Ken Ham on this thread that I overlooked a serious post that’s worth careful reading: #339, Sir Craig of the US Air Force. That’s strong stuff, Sir Craig. Thanks for adding it.

    Posted by: Tom

    I agree. It is a great read.

  452. #453 Aaron
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a liar; He intentionally deceives those willing to intentionally self-delude themselves. But worst of all, he is an abuser of children. I don’t mean this in the sense that he abuses children the way Catholic priests have (time and time again), but rather in the sense that innocent children are having their heads filled up with his flashily-packaged deceit and aren’t old enough to know better.

    It is quite likely that those children will grow up with an incorrect view of the world, all so that Ken Ham can make a buck on his propaganda-tour and proselytize his dying religion.

    It’s unfortunate that hell doesn’t exist, because if it did, there would surely be a tiny cramped little corner of it reserved for him, “Dr.” Safarti, and the rest of their ilk.

    Sometimes I wonder if Ken is actually intelligent to know that he’s being deceptive, but thinks that since he’s helping to reaffirm the faiths of others, it’s ok. I would almost prefer the idea that he really is too dumb to know better. Surely *someone* there at AiG understands that they’re preaching lies…. or have they all drank the kool-aid?

  453. #454 Colin M
    June 21, 2008

    ken is to Education and Science as a Chinchilla coat is to a baby Chinchilla.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve9B24mu8KU

  454. #455 d'George
    June 21, 2008

    Dog shit on the path of reason.
    Thats Ham and his ilk, slippery and smelly.

  455. #456 rsg
    June 21, 2008

    I’d call him a psychotic lowlife, but that would be an insult to the psychotic lowlife community.

  456. #457 Nemo
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham embraces willful ignorance as a virtue.

  457. #458 RamblinDude
    June 21, 2008

    Carlie,

    Ken Ham is dumber than a plate of Green Eggs and Ham.

    Ken Ham is an aberrant life form sewn out of lobotomy scraps discarded from pathological liars and deluded schizophrenics who see troglodytes in the mirror. He is a frontal lobe tumor on the brain of civilization.

    He is a pus seeping sore on the posterior of science, ensuring that intelligent people can never rest easy.

    Ken Ham is a vacuum cleaner of stupidity, hovering up ignorance and superstition and blowing it back in the faces of wide eyed children.

  458. #459 PoxyHowzes
    June 21, 2008

    WWGD?

    If there were a god or gods
    And If you were such a being
    And If you, in your infinite wisdom, had to contemplate spending eternity with Ken Ham,

    Well, as I said: WWGD?

  459. #460 RT NZ
    June 21, 2008

    Neil B..#338 do what ever you want ,its a free planet.
    The point was that PZ offered a forum for people to express their opinions of a person called Ken Ham , you offered yours ,I offered mine .If you don`t like free speech, fuck off.
    Like all good christians ,don`t let the facts get in the way of your creation delusions,does not your lord and saviour tell you to turn the other cheek ? no? That only means you get smacked twice.
    As an atheist I don`t troll religobabble blogs , I don`t need to .You know your chosen myth is full of inconsistent rubbish as are all religions.
    If you want to grovel in a church on sundays ,tithe money to your church(what religion is all about), knock yourself out, fool.

  460. #461 Jennie
    June 21, 2008

    334:

    Debate between opposing sides on origins is futile -only reason I would waste time posting here

    . . . gasp . . . he didn’t say waste, did he?

    (yes, waste)

    Oh! I believe I may faint!

  461. #462 Dave
    June 21, 2008

    Thank you Sir Craig, post number #339!

    I’m sure there are hundreds of good comments in this thread, but that one bears repeating!

    The fact that there are starving grad students all across this country while Ken Ham flies around preaching his insanity to people in power absolutely sickens me!

    The Polygamists in Texas had a military contract.

    Certainly, Ken has a ton of cash, I doubt that he designed that website or produced the dvds himself… I wonder who his funding sources are.

  462. #463 Erica Idle
    June 21, 2008

    Oh! I gave him my baby to kiss, and he bit it! On the head!!!

  463. #464 arachnophilia
    June 21, 2008

    i think he’s as much a victim as a victimizer. the structure of fundamentalist brainwashing is cyclical: those who do it have had it done to them.

    but really, i don’t think we should waste our time tossing about personal insults. it’s… unbecoming, and not nearly as persuasive or interesting as an actual argument of facts and evidence. it’s easy to write someone like ken ham off as a “wackaloon.” maybe all he deserves is to be written off, but it sure doesn’t help convince those on his side. so, perhaps, if we’re just going to write him off, we should ignore him as well.

    i say, make up your mind. address kooks publically, or ignore them. ignoring them publically is kind of contradictory. i know there’s no winning here, of course.

  464. #465 Richbank
    June 21, 2008

    Erica, which sketch is that from? I remember that line, but not much else. Was it in the same one as the world’s funniest joke?

  465. #466 Ragutis
    June 21, 2008

    Damn… late again! Well, here’s my humble contribution:

    Ken Ham, you make your living lying to children and keeping them from knowledge that could enrich their minds and benefit their lives. You’re infecting generations with your cancerous credulity and robbing thousands of the best tools to guide their lives and help others. The only good you’ll ever accomplish will be providing nutrients to worms, insects and plants as you decompose.

    Apsi?ik auk?tielninkas, tu kiaulies bybis. Nor??iau tau pikta e?y ? subine ?gr?st, tu rup???. Tu esi per durnas ?inot nemy?t prie? v?j?.

    (translation: Go shit yourself standing on your head, you pig’s dick. I’d like to shove an angry hedgehog up your ass, you toad. You’re too stupid to know not to piss into the wind.)

  466. #467 Spooky
    June 21, 2008

    The man is a knobjockey of the highest caliber.

  467. #468 James F
    June 21, 2008

    #465

    That skit is worth posting in its entirety.

    “You wouldn’t have had much fun in Stalingrad, would you?”

  468. #469 Sam Bowman
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, your just as useless as a dangleberry hanging off my hairy ass.

  469. #470 Janine ID
    June 21, 2008

    Late to the pile driver. I do not yet know if anyone commented on this but I so feel the need.

    The military is now one of the most “politically correct” places in the USA. Not only do Christians have the freedom to meet–but so do Muslims, Hindus, and almost any other group you could name. Of course, if I had been a Muslim and went to the Pentagon to address a Muslim prayer breakfast, I’m sure PZ Myers would not have ranted against that–it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems.

    Ken “Green Eggs And” Ham

    Kennyboy has no idea what he is talking about. If the Kenster actually read this blog, he would have seen PZ take down muslin creationists as well as pointing out examples of the islamic religion causing immoral behavior.

    There goes the Hamster, arguing from ignorance again. But Ken cannot help it, he has no other tool to use. Dumbass!

  470. #471 Paul Sunstone
    June 21, 2008

    Given all this animosity towards the poor man, I feel it’s only a matter of courtesy that someone discuss his good side — for the sake of balance. So here goes:

    Ken, cheer up! You’re really not all that worse than someone who abuses animals. In fact, I’d rank you as high as a wannabe, but impotent, donkey fucker any day of the week. Have a nice day! :)

  471. #472 sillysighbean@aol.com
    June 21, 2008

    Ken,
    It is not about being intolerant towards Christians, it is about ridiculing YOU! Oh the damage you cause by spreading your creationism lies. It is so transparent that all you are interested in is making a buck! Scam Artists deserve ridicule.

  472. #473 Pteropterus
    June 21, 2008

    As he had often done before noon,
    The empty-headed whack-a-loon
    One nice fine summer’s day went out
    To the Pentagon and walk about;
    And as he found it hot, this fellow,
    He went inside and gave a bellow,
    Then PZed, did his finger wag,
    Ran out and laugh’d, and waved his flag,
    And PZed came in jacket trim,
    And visciously he scolded him;
    And PZed, too, he told what’s true
    That what Ham did was bad to do;
    So Kenneth Ham set up a roar,
    And laughed and hooted more and more,
    And kept on singing,–what’you think!–
    “Oh! Myers, you nasty dink”

    Now some scientists lieved close by,–
    So tall they almost touched the sky;
    They had some mighty knowledge too,
    And when Ham spoke their anger grew;
    They call’d out in an angry tune,
    “Ham, you truly are a whack-a-loon!
    For if he tries with all his might,
    He cannot help but speak pure shite.”
    But ah! Ken did not mind a bit
    What some PZed’s readers said of it;
    Still, they went on laughing at this goon,
    And hooting at the whack-a-loon.

    Then look at how he foams with rage:
    Look at him on that web page!
    He realises not the stupidity he said,
    It goes beyond his little head;
    And he may scream, and kick, and call,
    But they, out there, know better, all;
    Still more insults, one, two, three,
    Till they he is red, as red can be;
    Look there now and you shall see.

    See, there he is, and there he cries!
    The whack-a-loon enjoys his own lies.
    He has been made a fool by those,
    He’s quite red all over, face and nose,
    For he has said idiocy.
    To children as young as three,–
    The silly little moron!
    Because he turned many into goons,
    Let’s tease the harmful whack-a-loon.

  473. #474 Janine ID
    June 21, 2008

    Adapted from one of my all time favorite bad movies, Reform School Girls;”Kenny, you’re just a shit stain on the panties of life!”

  474. #475 mikecbraun
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham looks like an escaped Amish convict. Where’s your moustache, man? I always think his picture is a joke, much like the “columnists” in the Onion (a la Jim Anchower, my favorite). It’s not too surprising that a man who looks like a semi-retarded, deranged Abe Lincoln impersonator would not know a smidgeon of science. Stay away from the kids, Ham! Hopefully they’ll get one look at you and your horse-drawn Creationism buggy and stay away of their own volition.

  475. #476 GraceM
    June 21, 2008

    Ahhhhhhhhhh! His little feelings got hurt. Pity! His trouble is that he’s obnoxious and doesn’t know it. And while I thought that we should just ignore him and his like, that’s not a solution either. They must be challenged at every turn and maybe, just maybe, people will start seeing the BS this lot is passing along. One small step at a time, this site and ones like it, will drag the world into the 21st Century.

  476. #477 mikecbraun
    June 21, 2008

    …Or is that a dinosaur-drawn Creationism buggy? Did anyone throw the “fucktard” label at him yet?

  477. #478 Feynmaniac
    June 21, 2008

    @ Neil B, #338
    Are you talking about comment 312 where he calls you a “swollen-headed pseudo-intellectual and moral coward”? Furthermore that comment says nothing about the value of a multi-subject thread. I won’t put words Nick’s mouth like you did and just refer you to comment 346. If that’s not the comment please tell me which specific comment by what Nick you were referring to, like you should have done in the first place.

    Anyway, most multi-subject threads start with subject A, which raises subject B, which….raises subject X. You however brought up the issue of modal realism (i.e, X) out of nowhere. It’s annoying, especially when it’s done in the self-congratulatory manner in which you did it. The point of this thread was to viciously insult Ken Ham. Which reminds me……

  478. #479 Graham
    June 21, 2008

    I posted a response decrying the undergraduate tone here, (it appeared as #12), but it seems to have been deleted. Is this UncommonDescent ?

  479. #480 The Other Dan from Wisconsin
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham is a disgrace to the good name of Wackaloons everywhere.

  480. #481 Aynon
    June 21, 2008

    Your a lieing scumbag, a fool, a dumbass, a piece of shit, a weak minded child, a worthless, mindless jackass, a waste of a person, etc etc

    VOTE MYERS FOR NEXT MAN TO BE PUBLICLY EXECUTED!!!!

  481. #482 Brownian, OM
    June 21, 2008

    Ah, Avnon, another brilliant example of Christian home schooling.

    So many rules in Deuteronomy. Too bad none of them are about spelling and punctuation.

  482. #483 Allytude
    June 21, 2008

    You just became my favorite comic book character- Captain Haddock from Tintin( I am totally unaware of any political incorrectness in this, if ther eis forgive me, I love the guy and his colorful “swearwords”) could you say blistering barnacles also, please.

    Apart from that Ken Ham is not worth the leftovers in the trash after a horde of flies have been at them, breeding maggots and such.

    You rock.

  483. #484 Feynmaniac
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham, you are a failure as a human being. You stymie progress in the world by touting your medieval superstition. Your inability to correctly analyze the insult PZ gave to you and the spew of falsehoods you made in your response shows a weak and feeble mind in that oversized Lincolnesque head of yours. Be glad Lincoln is dead sir, for he said “If I ever met a man uglier than me, I would shoot him on sight.”

    Answers in Genesis? It has as much answers as any other fairy tale book. The ancient Hewbrews had no access the science and the knowledge you do today. Their ignorance is exusable. Yours in a mind boggling stupid. Someone as dumb as yourself must frequently forget which hole is for eating and breathing and which one is for shitting.

    Lastly, KEN HAM IS THE MAN MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RAPING OF PIGLETS! Why else would his last name be ham?

  484. #485 MCullen
    June 21, 2008

    How can you all have forgotten the piglet incident? Google

    “Ken Ham” piglet

    and get 4,790 hits describing this sordid incident.

    Oh my, evolution is racist? The christians are the one’s that came to America and attempted genocide of the “heathen devils” known as Indians. That is one scary book for this lay person.

  485. #486 Capital Dan
    June 21, 2008

    Your a lieing scumbag, a fool, a dumbass, a piece of shit, a weak minded child, a worthless, mindless jackass, a waste of a person, etc etc

    VOTE MYERS FOR NEXT MAN TO BE PUBLICLY EXECUTED!!!!

    Posted by: Aynon

    Hey! Kudos for the correct spelling of “Myers.”

    Aside from that, well… if this isn’t a cry for help from a sad and tortured human being, I don’t know what is.

  486. #487 rrt
    June 21, 2008

    Graham: I kinda doubt it, given the other criticisms allowed in these parts. I’d say there’s a good chance that your comment got eaten in the double posting of this article and/or its reconciliation and/or the glitch that caused it.

  487. #488 Sioux Laris
    June 21, 2008

    487 comments, presumably most insults to the Ham. I’ve tired of rolling through, so pardon any repetition of a classic MP&tFC:

    YOU’RE MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER. AND YOUR FATHER SMELLED OF ELDERBERRIES!

    Perhaps this is the most respectful and serious an insult I can offer to such a horrid, bitter, evil, mean little man.

  488. #489 JasoE
    June 21, 2008

    I read the weirdo’s blog post. Anyone read his point number 3? Can some one who read it please tell me WTF he’s on about? The dude goes on some ramble about Nuking people and survival of the fittest – this dude was allowed to enter the Pentagon?! FUKIN VIRGIN MARYS ASS – ur country is screwed up eh?

    From his blog: “People like PZ Myers are those who call for tolerance–but their intolerance for Christians illustrates clearly the spiritual nature of this battle–otherwise, why would they care?”

    dude, we care coz ur a nut job who was allowed to walk around a place with big red buttons. Pope on a stick! what a crazy MOFO!

  489. #490 Graham
    June 21, 2008

    My prev post seems to have been eaten.

    I was deploring the tone of the comments. Im as big a flaming atheist as PZM, and enjoy his blog, but cmon guys, this undergraduate stuff is not whats expected from us. We should try to set the intellectual bar a bit higher than that. It may feel good, but its far too easy for the wingnuts to quote out of context.

  490. #491 pubcat
    June 21, 2008

    You are nothing

  491. #492 themadlolscientist
    June 21, 2008

    If that was a death threat, it was a pretty piss-poor one.

  492. #493 Neil Schipper
    June 21, 2008

    Ken Ham has demonstrated certain exceptional abilities.

    He has energetically pursued his goals over many years. He persuaded large numbers of people to cheer and support him, and raised tens of millions of dollars. He drove complex projects to completion. He unflinchingly speaks directly to his critics.

    People like that are rare, surely comprising well under 1% of the population. Of course, it’s not hard to name people that have similar talents but along with a greater capacity for assessing truth claims.

    But it’s interesting, and unsettling, how such talents seem to be orthogonal to that capacity.

  493. #494 Hez
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham has a beer belly, he needs to do some exercise (that includes exercising his brain too, for obvious reasons).

  494. #495 Jeff
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is not smart. When he appears on my local christian right radio show (The Bob Dutko Show), I can never decide which one is dumber.

  495. #496 themadlolscientist
    June 22, 2008

    Oops, I should have said I was referring to Aynon @#481.

    Awwwwwww c’mon, Graham. It’s Saturday night, and everyone who can has got a few ounces of EtOH floating around their bloodstream (sad to say, I’m not one of them – can’t drink on account of meds). What do undergrads do on Saturday nights when they don’t have a date and have gotten a little blitzed? Hang out and get rowdy and outrageous, what’s what! Take a load off and grab a beer, OK?

  496. #497 chancelikely
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is an American passport and some creative accounting away from being Kent Hovind.

    Ever notice how you never see the two of them together? (Oh, wait, that’s ’cause “Dr.” Dino is incarcerated. My bad.)

  497. #498 Alex
    June 22, 2008

    @#497, heh, I sometimes mix Kent and Ken. They’re both so stupid, I just can’t help it. :P

  498. #499 Mena
    June 22, 2008

    But the baby donkey is cute, isn’t he?

  499. #500 Geral
    June 22, 2008

    You called him a ‘Wackaloon’ and he got offended? I thought he got off easy.

  500. #501 keith
    June 22, 2008

    I’m still waiting for the good news that PZ has stage 4 cancer of the balls, liver, pancreas, and throat.

    I’ll be throwing a party on that glad and joyous day.

    In the meantime the I wish the 98% of the evopigs who post here good luck with their GH or other animal contracted STD.

  501. #502 Owlmirror
    June 22, 2008

    Is there any difference between schlimiel and schlimazel? I’ve often heard the two used in conjunction with one another, is it just a way of saying the same thing twice?

    The schlemiel is an inept perpetrator; the schlimazel is the unlucky victim (literally, Schlimm=bad, mazel=luck,fortune).

    The canonical example from Leo Rosten is that the schlemiel spills the soup; the schlimazel is the one that the schlemiel spills the soup on.

  502. #503 themadlolscientist
    June 22, 2008

    How can you all have forgotten the piglet incident?
    Google “Ken Ham” piglet

    I just Googled “‘Ken Ham’ piglet rapist” and came up with this as #5:

    Amazon.com: piglet rapist Discussion Forum
    What is the best resource for “piglet rapist” … Jesus the Child by Ken Ham (Paperback) Buy new: $5.9926 used and new from $0.12 …
    m.amazon.com/tag/piglet%20rapist/forum?cdOpenPostBox=1 – 153k

    Google can be such a riot! There’s no “piglet rapist” forum though (yeah, I just had to go and look)….. :-)

    Another Saturday night, no date, no vino, and nothing better to do than ruthlessly bust on a mental defective =sigh=

  503. #504 God
    June 22, 2008

    In the meantime the I wish the 98% of the evopigs who post here good luck with their GH or other animal contracted STD.

    And may you have good luck with yours!

    Although, really, you shouldn’t have done that with your mother. You know that I officially disapprove of such antics.

  504. #505 Scott
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham was recently seen staring very hard at a can of frozen orange juice. Someone asked him what he was doing, and he just pointed to the orange juice label, which said “concentrate.”

  505. #506 Galactus78
    June 22, 2008

    A bible thumping simpleton with cognitive powers no greater than the animatronic dummies that populate his fake museum.

  506. Ken Ham phallically administers thalidomide to the minds of your children and then makes them wait for the Second Coming.

  507. #508 Michael
    June 22, 2008

    Wow, such a display of strong emotion from PZ when he thinks he has arch enemy Ken Ham’s attention. Never seen him rant like this since I have been visiting the blog…

    You’re a clueless schmuck who knows nothing about science and has arrogantly built a big fat fake museum to promote medieval (bleep)

    All this over a prayer? Well I know it’s deeper than that and certainly more people engage in a discussion when someone rants…I’m afraid PZ who himself doesn’t like to engage people in the blogs, you can’t tell him (Ken Ham or anyone else) how to think in a lab…Admit it, PZ he angered you, he stirred your emotions big time, you wanted to stir people up…How dare creationist build a museum, how dare people think of other conclusions in the lab besides naturalism…And no PZ, your not going to get Ken Ham cursing you out…He’s a professional when presenting his viewpoint unlike you!

  508. #509 Notkieran
    June 22, 2008

    By the way, Citizen Z @#148:

    Given the dietary requirements of Muslims which defines pigs as non-halal, a Muslim Ken Ham would have to be even more of a turkey.

  509. #510 Cowcakes
    June 22, 2008

    Are there any other Aussies interested in bringing a class action against Ken Ham for bringing our beloved brown land into disrepute. I’m sure that in the Maquarie dictionary under “Cultural cringe” there’s a picture of him.

  510. #511 Janine ID
    June 22, 2008

    Oh Keith, you were just so accurate about your predictions for Expired. I am sure your prediction of PZ’s cancer is just as on target.

    What dark and murderous fantasies you display. No wonder you seem to think you need such a stern sky daddy to keep your sins in check.

    And Keith, according to the teachings of the little guy(Jeebus), thinking of sin is the same as committing sin. You murderous bastard.

  511. #512 Janine ID
    June 22, 2008

    Micheal, you highlight PZ’s main point and then go off about prayer. Ham is actively working at reducing the knowledge of the general population and you think the complaint is about prayer. It is the fact the a group of people who have the fates of millions in their hands takes seriously the opinion of this deluded person. Methinks you need the mote removed from you eye.

  512. #513 Autumn
    June 22, 2008

    To those who accuse this merry band of being unitellectual, I offer not merely a series of insults used by Shakespere in his works, but a glorious quote from King Lear, Act II, scene II (I’ve changed the characters for relevance):
    Science: Fellow, I know thee.
    Ham: What dost thou knowst me for?
    Sci.: A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, super-serviceable, finical rouge; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggard, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition.

  513. #514 BobC
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham rapes baby pigs? I’m not surprised.

    While recently visiting a small Fort Lauderdale museum I read that Indians (native Americans) lived in that area 10,000 years ago. I was reminded that Ken Ham believes the entire universe was magically created 6,000 years ago. There is no word that can accurately describe the stupidity of Ken Ham.

  514. #515 tim Rowledge
    June 22, 2008

    Wow, Zarquon (#329) I don’t think I’ve *ever* seen nor heard anyone else use the fontema insult before. d00d!

  515. #516 Kseniya
    June 22, 2008

    Ham, you gabbling limpet!

  516. #517 Dana Hunter
    June 22, 2008

    “Dear Ken Ham:

    “You are the boil on the ass of humanity. You’re an infantile fuckwit whose insistence on the truth of fairy tales promotes nothing but ignorance and hate. I’ve known syphillitic penises smarter than you (and this is after the disease has progressed to general paresis). You, sir, suck leper donkey dick, and moreover I believe you swallow…”

    Well, that was fun. Who’s for Chinese?

  517. #518 Kurt
    June 22, 2008

    If science doesn’t work then why do the lights keep coming on every time I flip that switch on the wall?
    Get a grip Ken.

  518. #519 Wild Bob
    June 22, 2008

    @ Autumn #513

    I’m way ahead of you. See #397

    :p

  519. #520 Owlmirror
    June 22, 2008

    how dare people think of other conclusions in the lab besides naturalism

    There are no conclusions in science other than naturalism.

  520. #521 Dagger
    June 22, 2008

    #508

    Yeah, Ham’s a professional alright. A professional liar. A professional scam artist. A professional child mind molester.

    As far as his viewpoint goes, can delusion be called a viewpoint?

    As for PZ, he starts the fire. We fan the flames. And with any luck we’ll burn this bastard right off the face of the planet or at the very least take every single shred of false credibility away from him so he can’t damage anyone else. Like he did to you.

  521. #522 Kseniya
    June 22, 2008

    All this over a prayer?

    No, “all this” over every lie Ham has told, over every effort he has made to promote ignorance, over his ostensible life’s work of pushing back the boundaries of enlightenment to let in the darkness. “All this” is nothing – NOTHING – compared with what he has done and what he intends to do.

  522. #523 Matt
    June 22, 2008

    Poster boy for pretentious prevarication. Must be religious.

  523. #524 Craig Messerman
    June 22, 2008

    He is a noxious weed from Australia. Now where’s my Roundup?

  524. #525 Kseniya
    June 22, 2008

    I see Keith is back, and in good form.

    Keith, get away from the computer before Nurse R. sees you. You’ll lose rumpus-room privs for a week. And stop hiding your meds under your tongue. They don’t do you any good sitting in the flowerpot, covered with your spit.

  525. #526 Fergy
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is a waste of skin.

  526. #527 RT NZ
    June 22, 2008

    Kevin & Avnon…you are supposed to love the sinner.

    Such unchristian sentiments in your posts..straight to HELL for you …..Hahaha….you blew it

  527. #528 Autumn
    June 22, 2008

    @ Wild Bob,
    Forgot to mention that I hadn’t read the whole thread, and glad I’m not the only one to appreciate that passage, but how could you leave out the part about beating “into a clamorous whining” he who would “deny the least syllable of his addition”?
    That’s my favorite part, and the part that Ham is so close to deserving.

  528. #529 WIld Bob
    June 22, 2008

    @ Autumn,

    You caught me. I cheated. You’ll have to ask Melvyn Bragg. He assembled a bunch of Shakespearian insults into a dialog in The Adventure of English and left that bit out.

    Oops.

  529. #530 Brandon P.
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham believes that people were created from dirt and T. rex was a vegetarian. That should be enough cause for ridicule.

  530. #531 Mane
    June 22, 2008

    I imagine that Ken Ham’s Brain is no where as delicious as Francis Bacon’s.

  531. #532 Donovan
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham. That’s what I would call him. It might not be very creative, sorry PZ, nor would Ken be very insulted by it. But I laugh my ass off when I hear the name and if anyone called me a ‘Ken Ham’ I would cry like a baby. He’s made his own name into enough of an insult I laugh at Hormel Ham, Oscar Myer Ham, Petridge Farm Ham… Maybe his family will sue to make him stop using his paternal identity.

  532. #533 Traffic Demon
    June 22, 2008

    Just for lulz…

    Ken Ham – EPIC FAIL

  533. #534 Ray Mills
    June 22, 2008

    ken ham is a mind abusing waste of skin and oxygen who should be locked in the same prison cell as kent hovind and his kneemail. I can not bring myself to capitalise his name because that would be giving the worst aussie since Chopper Reid (at least he is funny) Please take ray comfort and dissapear to some small coral atoll threatened by global warming.

  534. #535 DrClown
    June 22, 2008

    Your comments section is not safe for adult children.

  535. #536 John
    June 22, 2008

    Mr. Ham needs to stop lying to children, needs to stop misleading adults, and needs to fucking GETA CLUE!!

  536. #537 Ray Mills
    June 22, 2008

    ken ham is a mind abusing waste of skin and oxygen who should be locked in the same prison cell as kent hovind and his knee-mail. I can not bring myself to capitalise his name because that would be giving the worst Aussie since Chopper Reid (at least he is funny) Please take ray comfort and disappear to some small coral atoll threatened by rising sea levels.

  537. #538 John
    June 22, 2008

    Mr. Ham needs to stop lying to children, needs to stop misleading adults, and needs to fucking GETA CLUE!!

  538. #539 raiko
    June 22, 2008

    I TOTALLY forgot my favorite description for Ken Ham in my previous comment. Wally Warning – No Monkey. Youtube-search it. I swear it’s about Ken Ham.

  539. #540 Richbank
    June 22, 2008

    @502 Thanks. I know I should learn more Yiddish, but I really dislike people who speak “Yinglish” so i kind of subconsciously avoid the language.

  540. #542 bigwit
    June 22, 2008

    “creationist museum” – I so agree with that:
    Creationists should be all displayed in museums.
    For public interest, representing things and beliefs of the past.
    When people believed the Earth was flat…
    I am amused.

  541. #543 J
    June 22, 2008

    I can actually relate to that. What the hell has for example Daniel Dennett and the atheist philosophers actually accomplished other than make people like *you* feel superior to everyone else? Did Dennett invent something useful? I haven’t heard … but many of you clowns think he’s fabulous.
    You’re not contrasting Dennett with other philosophers, I hope. He is perhaps the only philosopher in history to produce something useful. For starters, you might want to look up the intentional stance and the multiple drafts model of consciousness.

  542. #544 Mytho
    June 22, 2008

    Well, I always new that Mr. Ken Ham was a wacko, we all know that. Some people might just argue that every one of us are alowed to behave on a stupid way, We all can make mistakes, but that guy, Mr Ham, well, he abuses of that right and turns it into a privilege.

    Pathetic =/

  543. #545 clinteas
    June 22, 2008

    Its great to see how the change in attitude by atheists and other defenders of reason,when we stopped hiding in the closet and turned on the believer’s delirious babble and started revealing,exposing,debating and ridiculing it, has made the creationists nervous,and how in their futile efforts to argue the unargueable(is that a word?) they just show the world what close-minded deluded fools they are(and as in a few examples above,dangerous,misogynistic and murderous fools).
    So I say,lets have more 500-comment threads with insults to dangerous deluded dupes that threaten the education of our children !

  544. #546 Alan Kellogg
    June 22, 2008

    Ken ham engages in fecal cognition.

    Ken Ham is a parasitic slime mold with a fungal infection.

    Ken Ham has none of the qualities possessed by a necrophiliac pedophile.

    Ken Ham has a mighty brain
    It’s of this brain we sing
    For unlike any other brain
    It doesn’t do a thing.

    Ken Ham, a new species of feces.

    Ken Ham can kill an erection in a 14 year old boy.

    Ken Ham was refused a circumcision to spare the world the sight of his glans.

    Ken Ham is bilge water on a shit barge.

    When Ken Ham speaks of Satan, Satan gains friends.

    Ken Ham is lower than the boundary layer between Earth’s crust and the mantle.

    Ken Ham makes Baby Jesus homicidal.

    Ken Ham can’t wipe his own ass, because he doesn’t know where to start. Or stop.

    A myxobacterial slime mold is a more advanced life form.

    Smarter too.

    His intestinal flora are in the process of deserting him.

    Ken Ham has the odious habits of a tasmanian devil, without the charm.

    If brains were gunpowder, Ken Ham couldn’t make a flea fart.

  545. #547 Cyberguy
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is a deeply ignorant and foolish person, who seeks to distribute his misinformation to young minds, thereby crippling another generation’s intellect as well as his own.

    Ken Ham – you are dog’s vomit!!!

  546. #548 Ray Mills
    June 22, 2008

    If ken ham was broken down to his component atoms and those atoms were reassembled as pond scum, it would reduce the average iq of pond scum. Globally.

  547. #549 J
    June 22, 2008

    This vile outpouring of hateful savagery will hinder rather than help the cause of secularism. No-one deserves this kind of treatment.

  548. #550 Rey Fox
    June 22, 2008

    Hey, I got a new one. Ken Ham is a J.

  549. #551 greg s
    June 22, 2008

    to say that ken ham is a neanderthal would be an insult to neanderthals… although the resemblance is uncanny

    “This vile outpouring of hateful savagery will hinder rather than help the cause of secularism. No-one deserves this kind of treatment.”

    if anyone deserves it it’s ken ham

  550. #552 Nick Gotts
    June 22, 2008

    J has no problem with the illegal invasion of Iraq and the resulting hundreds of thousands of deaths, other than that it didn’t work (see A smattering of news from the wicked world of religion), but regards this thread as “a vile outpouring of hateful savagery”. So if George Bush and Tony Blair had called Saddam Hussein lots of nasty names, he’d have been the first to condemn them.

  551. #553 Cyberguy
    June 22, 2008

    J wrote: “This vile outpouring of hateful savagery will hinder rather than help the cause of secularism. No-one deserves this kind of treatment.”

    With creationists and other religious dogmatists, rational discourse almost completely fails.

    Hence the importance of ridicule, satire, sarcasm and, yes, even insult. These people, of which Ken Ham is a prominent member, so very richly deserve it!

  552. #554 J
    June 22, 2008

    J has no problem with the illegal invasion of Iraq and the resulting hundreds of thousands of deaths, other than that it didn’t work…
    The “illegal” part is open to debate, as Christopher Hitchens frequently points out. And yes, I’m not ashamed to say I probably would have supported those efforts to remove an evil dictator if I thought it could have been accomplished at sufficiently low cost (which it couldn’t).

    Ken Ham is exceedingly intellectually dishonest, just like many (probably most) human beings. Condone this sort of treatment of a fairly ordinary person (by American standards, at least), and you’re on a very slippery slope.

  553. #555 Nick Gotts
    June 22, 2008

    The “illegal” part is open to debate

    Not to honest debate it isn’t. The UN charter makes quite clear that military force is only legal if either in self-defence, or when specifically authorised by the Security Council. Also, of course, the “removal of an evil dictator” was neither the professed nor the actual motive. That you find calling a professional liar rude names unacceptable while planning and waging aggressive war is “open to debate” us all we need to know about your morality, J.

  554. #556 Ex Partiatett
    June 22, 2008

    It really is to bad that mother wasn’t Pro-Choice
    and used the option

  555. #557 OctoberMermaid
    June 22, 2008

    J, man up and stop being a puss.

    Seriously.

    No, seriously.

  556. #558 jeremy
    June 22, 2008

    Neil – I think PZ makes a pretty valid point here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

    And perhaps I’m out of line, an intellectual lightweight attmepting to distill his thoughts, but…

    Sometimes it doesn’t genius to spot bullshit.

    “…sophistic abstract reasoning, modal realism, comparative statistics of possible model worlds…”

    Gimme a break.

  557. #559 jeremy
    June 22, 2008

    Sometimes it doesn’t *take* genius to spot bullshit.

    Oops, probably emphasises my point if anything ;)

  558. #560 J
    June 22, 2008

    That you find calling a professional liar rude names unacceptable while planning and waging aggressive war is “open to debate” us all we need to know about your morality, J.
    Open to debate if “planning and waging aggressive war” has the goal of removing an evil dictator from power, yes. Pontificate as you like, but there’s no knockdown argument against the notion that oppressive tyrants should be removed if their removal can be effected at little financial and human cost.

  559. #561 Kris Verburgh
    June 22, 2008

    Spreading ignorance and religious narrow-mindedness… How sad.

  560. #562 Logicel
    June 22, 2008

    Poor Ham, he will now realize that after this deluge of derogation, wackaloon was really a compliment.

    And the few religites posting on this thread, are obsessed with a veneer of nicety so much that they have confused inane and insipid ‘polite’ phrasing as being as important as substantial content.

    Though it is fun to do what we have doing, going full creative throttle on making up insults, the real important lesson of this thread, is that there is an persistent underlying substantial basis to the insulting, that Ham is a dangerous individual who is preying on kids and their intellectual potential. Simply, Ham is an anti-intellectual bastard and an emotional coward and his pathetic ‘polite’ bleatings can’t hide that perturbing fact.

  561. #563 clinteas
    June 22, 2008

    @ Logicel,I didnt feel that the hate and murder postings from keith and some of the other creofascists were particularly polite,to be honest.

    @ J above :
    While I defended you in another thread regarding your view on religion recently,your political views are really a mess man.So who gets to decide who the evil dictator is,and who to remove and who to leave in power,what should the criteria be?And if I was an american soldier,why do I have to lose my life because some douchebag decides that evil dictator X has to be removed? And as to “at little financial and human cost”,tell that to the families of the little human cost victims.Thats just naive thinking.

  562. #564 brightmoon
    June 22, 2008

    and thunderf00t called venomfangx the poster
    child for creationist stupidity ….to me THIS *sshole takes the cake

    well, ken ham is simply just a con artist..ive heard that he has a vicious temper as well but that 2nd is hearsay

  563. #565 Nick Gotts
    June 22, 2008

    brightmoon@564

    I’m inclined to agree that Ham is number 1 among active creobots for sheer stupidity, in the face of strong competition from Ben Stein among others; but both Vox Day and Tom Willis surely outrank him with regard to outright Christofascist malevolence.

  564. #566 J
    June 22, 2008

    While I defended you in another thread regarding your view on religion recently,your political views are really a mess man.So who gets to decide who the evil dictator is,and who to remove and who to leave in power,what should the criteria be?
    The same, of course, can be said about opposing tyrants like Hitler. I think the near consensus is that a lot of harm might have been circumvented if military action was threatened before he was able to turn Germany into a military superpower. And even if he wasn’t internationally belligerent, do you think it would be OK to sit back and let him ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands of German Jews?

    Philosophers try to look for nice and neat ethical systems, which they feel gives them the kind of “absolute criteria” you seem to be asking for. But I think they’re wasting their time. There are some slippery slopes that we just have to live with. (And there are some which are entirely gratuitous, such as the one created by treating Ken Ham so brutally.)

  565. #567 Lancelot Gobbo
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham = Me Khan.

    I prefer Ricardo Montalban’s knowledge of science, myself.

  566. #568 Logicel
    June 22, 2008

    Yes, Clinteas, you are correct about those insane commenters who wrote murderous comments, but I suppose I left them out of my synopsis because I regard them neither being Christians or religites, but demented animals (not meaning to cast aspersions on rabid dogs.)

    Regarding ridiculing or ridiculing IDiots, this is PZ Myers’ blog, he wants to ridicule, it is his choice, and it our choice to read his posts, and there are some atheists who do not want to stop reading posts written in a style that causes them discomfit, so they try to meddle and change the style which is just too stupid. Or worse, they try to ‘commandeer’ the atheist ‘movement’, saying that this blog is destroying the movement. Give me a break and some friggin’ evidence first before I can even seriously consider these objections.

  567. #569 Chumbafan
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham:

    You think you’re god’s gift, you’re a liar
    I wouldn’t piss on you, if you were on fire
    (Repeat)

  568. #570 Nick Gotts
    June 22, 2008

    Aggression and treaty-breaking should certainly be opposed, by force if necessary. In Hitler’s case, the first opportunity to do so was in 1935, when he remilitarised the Rhineland – as he admitted to his generals, if France had reacted by sending in troops, as it was entitled to do by the Treaty of Versailles, he would have had to withdraw – and quite possibly his regime would have fallen. In Saddam Hussein’s case, the first opportunity was when he attacked Iran in 1980 – but instead, outside powers (USSR, France, USA, UK) supplied him with arms and diplomatic support. In 1990, an extraordinarily wide coalition was able to be assembled to throw him out of Kuwait – after which he was, in fact, little or no threat to any of his neighbours, and there was no legal or moral justification for the invasion of 2003.

  569. #571 Gustav Nyström
    June 22, 2008

    Ken, you ignorant slut! You are an an ass-faced, shit-for-brains. Your wheel is turning, but the hamster is long dead. Your elevator doesn’t go all the way upp. You’re in good company with the Pharyngula Dungeon trolls. [Insert witty insults here]. May you be eaten last! (Although it will hardly matter for your sanity, such as it is).

  570. #572 Dana
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is a quite simply a salesman, an opportunist. He’s selling the new hot thing that the market is demanding, which happens to be creationism (which says more about the market than anything else). He’s got no integrity, no knowledge and no conscience.
    Hopefully, after a couple of years of peace and growth in this country, he and his ilk will be out of the mainstream.

  571. #573 Paul Flynn
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is so full of shit his eyes are brown

  572. #574 Frederik Rosenkjær
    June 22, 2008

    We have an expression in Danish which I would have loved to share with you all, but I don’t think there’s any way short learning quite a bit of Danish… :o(

    It sums Ham up pretty well. For the rest of the Danish people on here, Ham is “lige til at lukke op og skide i”.

    The bare meaning is something like “ripe for opening up and taking a crap into”, but I think the Danish language was designed with that particular phrase in mind – it is extraordinarily concise in Danish.

  573. #575 Wowbagger
    June 22, 2008

    Bloody hell. This is what I get when I don’t log on for a couple of days.

    Thanks everyone for not leaping to the conclusion that everyone from Queensland (Ham’s home state – and mine – in Australia) is chock-full of similarly-minded creeps.

    Because it isn’t. It is, however, a place where cousins breed with each other, and occasionally bring forth an ugly, deranged mutant like Ken. It would explain the developmental issues, both physical and mental.

    In Australia, fundies are grown (well, crapped out) for the export market.

    We should take some consolation in knowing that when the inevitable happens and creationism has gone the way of the dinosaurs it lies so much about, Ken Ham will be remembered as this: a worthless piece of shit who tried his hardest to make our world a worse place for humanity. His unfortunate descendants will change their names to avoid the stigma of having had such a monstrous, repugnant scumbag contribute his defective genetic material to their gene pool.

    And since i’m not above being puerile: I wouldn’t piss in his mouth if his gums were on fire.

  574. #576 Imperion
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham’s campaign to distort the minds of the youth makes me sick.

  575. #577 Luis
    June 22, 2008

    Let’s put this in the form of a joke:

    “A biologist walks into a bar and loudly proclaims:
    -Ken Ham is an idiot!
    A man sitting at a table replies:
    -That thing you said is very offensive to me.
    -Oh, so you are a Ken Ham supporter?
    -No, I’m an idiot.”

    [drumroll]

  576. #578 J
    June 22, 2008

    In Saddam Hussein’s case, the first opportunity was when he attacked Iran in 1980 – but instead, outside powers (USSR, France, USA, UK) supplied him with arms and diplomatic support.
    I know you’re all desperate to show off you knowledge of history, but take another look at what I said after mentioning Hitler:

    And even if he wasn’t internationally belligerent, do you think it would be OK to sit back and let him ruin the lives of hundreds of thousands of German Jews?
    Intentional belligerence isn’t the sole issue, in my mind, so going on only about how to deal with international belligerents misses the point. I like to see dictators who oppress their own people taken down if and when it’s expedient to do so. This is not a sneer-worthy position. Don’t pretend otherwise.

    Anyway, this thread has nothing to do with my opinion on policy regarding tyrants. You only brought it up in a spiteful attempt to get a witch-hunt against me started.

  577. #579 Iain Walker
    June 22, 2008

    Neil B. (Comment #92):

    But Max and the others aren’t aware of the grotesque implications for Bayesian expectation, since it requires literally every description to exist (including worlds similar to every movie and cartoon you ever saw and then some) as well as full of every imaginable variation. We’d have no expectation of being in a world with the regularity of law and particle consistency there is here.

    Yes we would, since we wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for that regularity and consistency. It’s a necessary prerequisite for our existing in the first place (or to put it another way, the prior probability of our finding ourselves in such a world is 1). If we found ourselves in a world without regularity and consistency, then that would be a fact standing in need of explanation. Of course, in such a world we wouldn’t be able to exist for very long, let alone function, so we wouldn’t be in much of a position to ponder the issue.

    So I’m afraid that there are good reasons for not taking your anthropic “philosophical theism” seriously.

    Back on topic, if anyone runs out of Shakespearean insults for the dismal Mr Ham, try the Captain Haddock Insult Generator, a few clicks of which gives us:

    Miserable blundering barbecued blister!
    Ectoplasm!
    Vermicelli!
    Balkan beetle!
    Slubberdegullion!
    Pickled herring!
    Prize nincompoop!
    Poltroon!
    Thundering son of a sea-gherkin!

    Another handy list of Haddock-isms is here.

  578. #580 alcari
    June 22, 2008

    And, to add the latest internet meme to the insults:

    Kent Ham is NOT aware of all internet tradtions

  579. #581 Nick Gotts
    June 22, 2008

    even if he [Hitler] wasn’t internationally belligerent – J.

    I know you’re eager to show off your ignorance of history, J., but you’re going too far here. International belligerence was the core of Hitler’s policy. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and Rwanda in 1994 would be much clearer examples. There I concede there would be a strong moral case for intervention even against international law – but no-one tried it (the unfortunate Cambodians had to wait until the KR made the mistake of attacking Vietnam). Because contrary to your naive views, J., there are no virtuous great powers. As long as we have a competitive, militarised states-system, there will be strong selection pressure against any emerging, and against politicians within great powers promoting such policies. About the best we can hope for is to limit international aggression by punishing aggressors.

  580. #582 Charlie Foxtrot
    June 22, 2008

    As an Aussie I am so proud that Ham had to go to another country to peddle his malignent Dark Age mind-cancer.
    I’m sure his ancestors will change their name rather than be associated with the embarrasing legacy of his actions.

  581. #583 J
    June 22, 2008

    I know you’re eager to show off your ignorance of history, J., but you’re going too far here. International belligerence was the core of Hitler’s policy.
    Of course it fucking was. Obviously I was using a hypothetical, dumbass.

    Continue deluding yourself into believing that the West is on no morally higher level than the parts of the world which are steep submerged in barbarism. By all means continue spreading your braindead anti-American propaganda as if it’s the Uncontestable Truth. I’m now too bored by it to bother arguing against you any longer.

  582. #584 J
    June 22, 2008

    …steep submerged in barbarism.
    Still submerged in barbarism, even.

  583. #585 Nick Gotts
    June 22, 2008

    J, I know you think I should pretend to be as ignorant of history and politics as you are in order to give you a fair chance in an argument, but I’m afraid I just can’t manage it. Sorry.

  584. #586 J
    June 22, 2008

    Because contrary to your naive views, J., there are no virtuous great powers. As long as we have a competitive, militarised states-system, there will be strong selection pressure against any emerging, and against politicians within great powers promoting such policies.
    Oh yes, and this is all thoroughly uncontroversial stuff, isn’t it? Someone who doesn’t without hesitation accept it as Uncontestable Truth deserves nothing less than scorn and derision, and doesn’t have a right to express his opinion on anything else, e.g. how we should deal with Ken Ham.

  585. #587 J
    June 22, 2008

    J, I know you think I should pretend to be as ignorant of history and politics as you are in order to give you a fair chance in an argument, but I’m afraid I just can’t manage it. Sorry.
    Or alternatively, I’m not prone to reciting barely relevant fact after barely relevant fact in a pathetic endeavour to show off.

    Loose your bag of wind elsewhere.

  586. #588 Nick Gotts
    June 22, 2008

    J,
    Opinions expressed with bumptious certainty, but without the knowledge to argue for them rationally, deserve scorn and derision, whether they are advanced by you, or by Ken Ham.

  587. #589 Ian
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is the reason “Jesus wept” (according to mythology).

    Ken Ham is a boning Fido wackaloon.

    Why not directly challenge him to present some of his positive scientific evidence for a creation, and go one-on-one in presentation and rebuttal with him for a few rounds? Correction – for one round since he doesn’t have any positive science, all he has is a sour grapes whine and it’s a bad year at that.

  588. #590 J
    June 22, 2008

    Opinions expressed with bumptious certainty, but without the knowledge to argue for them rationally, deserve scorn and derision, whether they are advanced by you, or by Ken Ham.
    You keep going on about “knowledge”, I notice. Evidently the actual logic of my arguments isn’t of consequence. What matters to you most is whether I have dressed my posts up in unnecessary facts relating to history and politics.

    It might be difficult for you to get your head around this, but I don’t operate like that. I supply facts only when I feel they’re helpful. And certainly it’s unfair to expect me to go into detail just to defend myself against your spiteful personal attack on me, which had very little to do with this thread in any case.

  589. #591 J
    June 22, 2008

    To return to the original point:

    These attacks on Ken Ham aren’t a good idea, in my opinion. You’re playing right into their hands. If they ever want a good example of how nasty atheists can get, they’ll simply direct people to this thread.

    Note that this has nothing whatever to do with my ideas on foreign policy regarding dictators.

  590. #592 negentropyeater
    June 22, 2008

    Alan Kellogg,
    because of you, I spoilt my coffee all over my shirt ! What a good laugh though ! :-)

  591. #593 Nick Gotts
    June 22, 2008

    Logic that starts from false premises is liable to lead to false conclusions even if sound. Ken Ham starts from the premise that the Bible cannot err – and so, validly, concludes that the evidence for common descent must be flawed. you start from the false premise that “the West”, and in particular the elites of the US and other western powers, are fundamentally more virtuous than the rest of the world; and come to similarly absurd conclusions. Your false premise has been absorbed from news sources largely controlled by those elites, and the information necessary to start analysing what they say critically is largely historical.

  592. #594 Circe
    June 22, 2008

    I’m a welfare mom living in a rotting trailer in Texas and even I can definitely state here publicly that Ken Ham is the axis of all ignorance. (But now I’m scared. Will Ken Ham contact the religious right/government in Texas and have my food stamps taken away?)

  593. #595 David Marjanovi?, OM
    June 22, 2008

    Wow. 591 comments…

    This vile outpouring of hateful savagery will hinder rather than help the cause of secularism. No-one deserves this kind of treatment.

    You are lying. I repeat: what you say is wrong, and you know it.

    These attacks on Ken Ham aren’t a good idea, in my opinion. You’re playing right into their hands. If they ever want a good example of how nasty atheists can get, they’ll simply direct people to this thread.

    Wake me up when an atheist throws a bomb into a church.

    Really. Pointing and laughing is what you call “nasty”? Get a grip.

    try the Captain Haddock Insult Generator

    Bah. Those you have to see in the original French. BACHI-BOUZOUKS ! ORNITHOLOGUES ! CHAUFFARDS ! PHYLACTÈRES !

  594. #596 Elwood Herring
    June 22, 2008

    Why do I always get to these parties too late?

    Anyway, I can’t put it any better than the late Freddie Mercury – this seems appropriate:

    You suck my blood like a leech
    You break the law and you preach
    Screw my brain till it hurts

    Misguided old mule with your pig headed rules
    With your narrow minded cronies
    Who are fools of the first division

    Kill joy
    Bad guy
    Big talking
    Small fry

    Is your conscience all right
    Does it plague you at night?

    You talk like a big business tycoon
    You’re just a hot air balloon
    So no one gives you a damn

    You’re just an overgrown schoolboy
    Let me tan your hide

    A dog with disease
    You’re the king of the sleaze

    Insane
    you should be put inside
    You’re a sewer rat
    Decaying in a cesspool of pride
    Should be made unemployed
    Make yourself null and void

  595. #597 JohnB
    June 22, 2008

    You forgot Mrs. Tilton’s favorite: “gobshite”.

    P.S. Excuse me if someone offered this gem of Irish invective somewhere in the 595+ comments above.

  596. #598 Peter
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham has the brains of a retarded goana.

  597. #599 Nathan Zamprogno
    June 22, 2008

    Look, if atheists say “Ken Ham is an idiot” then that washes off his back. He expects that. This, however, is what should sting:

    “I am a Christian. Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Ken Ham, you’re an idiot. You should be ashamed to sully the good name of my faith with your egomaniacal, scientifically bankrupt, scripturally twisted, unashamedly manipulative swindle, disguised not at all by the lashings of self congratulation and smarmy self righteousness you exude”

  598. #600 Elwood Herring
    June 22, 2008

    Or… to pinch a couple of lines from Monty Python and add Ken’s name to it:

    “Have you heard the news? Ken Ham’s having an arsehole transplant!”

    “Yes, but have you read the Stop Press? Apparently the arsehole rejected him…”

  599. #601 Nick Gotts
    June 22, 2008

    Elwood Herring@600 An alternative punchline:

    So he’s had to cancel his speaking engagements for the next six months!

  600. #602 windy
    June 22, 2008

    If they ever want a good example of how nasty atheists can get, they’ll simply direct people to this thread.

    Does that mean they’ll stop referring to Stalin as an example of “how nasty atheists can get”? Sounds good! Bring them on!

    …a spiteful attempt to get a witch-hunt against me started.

    Someone told me that witch hunts didn’t amount to much. Witch burnings were exceedingly rare so you probably don’t have anything to worry about!

  601. #603 Farb
    June 22, 2008

    He’s a four-flushing, cut-purse, knife-in-the-back, choad, as amply documented by his former colleagues in Australia, whom he casually shoved aside in his maniacal quest for Mammon. But there’s a bright side to it all: he has also become to them the living embodiment of the following passage:

    Matt 7:15-20
    15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
    16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
    17 Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit.
    18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
    19 Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
    20 Therefore by their fruits you shall know them.

    Such sterling examples of godly behavior as Ham’s invariably turn victims to re-examine the message the false prophet delivered, by the very standard contained in the scriptures he flogged them with. If the tree is rotten, its fruit is suspect.

    But I sincerely doubt that would trouble him in the slightest. He’s weeping over his lost soul–all the way to the bank. Gawd almighty, he makes a better atheist than any of the free-thinkers here!!

  602. #604 David Marjanovi?, OM
    June 22, 2008

    The bare meaning is something like “ripe for opening up and taking a crap into”, but I think the Danish language was designed with that particular phrase in mind – it is extraordinarily concise in Danish.

    Hmmm.

    Any similarity to the Viennese question “have they shat into your brain”?

    (Hmm. Phonetically, this question starts with “hamster”. Coincidence???)

  603. #605 negentropyeater
    June 22, 2008

    I am quite convinced that Ken Ham has a very small penis.

  604. #606 BobC
    June 22, 2008

    “If they ever want a good example of how nasty atheists can get, they’ll simply direct people to this thread.”

    Should we respect stupid assholes like Ken Ham who make a living by ruining the lives of children? I don’t think so.

    Religious extremists who are constantly lying about science to defend their idiotic childish Genesis creation myth need to understand they will be ridiculed for the rest of their pathetic lives. They need to know if they don’t learn how to respect the wall of separation between church and state, they will be attacked relentlessly. The breathtaking stupidity of religious beliefs have been respected far too long. Morons who attack science and science education, and who lie to children about science, deserve to be ridiculed. If it was up to me they would be put in prison.

  605. #607 Kseniya
    June 22, 2008

    Oh, but J – what’s a little name-calling in the scope of history? It’s not like 60,00 dead witches or anything.

    *snort*

  606. #608 Greg N.
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is wrong about evolution.

  607. #609 Dylan Dog
    June 22, 2008

    Hi guys,

    My first ever post here as I thought that I would answer PZ Myers plea for my personal comments on Ken Ham.

    Coming from N. Ireland I unfortunately know about Biblical creationists and their efforts to get their shite taught in the educational curriculum so I would like to say to Ken…

    You are an ignorant f*ckwipe.

    And why the hell do you not go to the big oil companies with your stunning news on fossils and scientific predictions and make billions? Because it does make it look like you are an atypical briandead fundamentalist whose plan is to make our kids as stupid, wilfully ignorant, arrogant and dishonest as you.

    Phew glad to get that of my chest!

  608. #610 Rich Charlebois
    June 22, 2008

    Once again, proof positive that, “You can’t fix stupid!”

  609. #611 Kseniya
    June 22, 2008

    Oh, wait, I’ve got a civilized poke:

    Ken Ham is a non-Bright!

  610. #612 Janine ID
    June 22, 2008

    Kseniya, I think you meant 60,000 dead accused witches. But the point remains correct; J cannot tell the difference between name calling and organized murder.

  611. #613 Janine ID
    June 22, 2008

    Let us go further. The Hamster is anti-Bright! The Hamster is a Black Hole. His existence makes all of us just a little bit more stupid.

  612. #614 baz
    June 22, 2008

    PZ, I must complain. Being compared to Ken Ham is an insult to every airhead, ass, birdbrain, blockhead, bonehead, boob, bozo, charlatan, cheat, chowderhead, chump, clod, con artist, crackpot, crank, crazy, cretin, dimwit, dingbat, dingleberry, dipstick, ditz, dolt, doofus, dork, dum-dum, dumb-ass, dumbo, dummy, dunce, dunderhead, fake, fathead, fraud, fruitcake, gonif, halfwit, idiot, ignoramus, imbecile, jackass, jerk, jughead, knucklehead, kook, lamebrain, loon, loony, lummox, meatball, meathead, moron, mountebank, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, numbnuts, numbskull, nut, nutcase, peabrain, pinhead, racketeer, sap, scam artist, screwball, sham, simpleton, snake oil salesman, thickhead, turkey, twerp, twit, wacko, and woodenhead.

  613. #615 Seeker
    June 22, 2008

    Love your list PZ.

    And yes, Ken Ham and his posse of pea-brained pseudo-scientists are what I can only describe as ignoranus (ignoramuses who talk out of their ass). They’re a menace to society and should get a restraining order that forbids them (or any of their works) to come within 100 meters of children under the age of 18.

    Ken Ham is, as we’d say in Dutch “een totaal van de pot gerukte klotzak met het verstand van het achterend van een varken.”

  614. #616 Kseniya
    June 22, 2008

    Kseniya, I think you meant 60,000 dead accused witches.

    Yes, Janine, of course. I figured that goes without saying, given that there’s no such thing as a witch (in the 15th-century sense). ;-)

  615. #617 Chris O
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is an ass upon which everyone has sat, except a man.

  616. #618 Neil Schipper
    June 22, 2008

    As I pointed out in #493, KH has qualities clearly associated with extremely high social intelligence and analytic ability. Extremely high.

    But here we have 500 comments, most of which proclaim him to be stupid & dumb.

    Now, I’m not unaware of the comic nature of the thread, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that Pharyngulytes have a generally poor comprehension of the requirements for the effective promotion of a worldview.

    The fact that no one complimented #313 also speaks volumes.

  617. #619 RamblinDude
    June 22, 2008

    Janine ID

    Let us go further. The Hamster is anti-Bright! The Hamster is a Black Hole.

    Ooo….I like it! Ken Ham is so dense he is a Black Hole of stupidity. He is a mind warping vortex sucking innocent children and naïve adults down to their intellectual doom.

  618. #620 speedwell
    June 22, 2008

    “…treating Ken Ham so brutally…”

    Oh, boo, hoo. This is as mild as it gets. He already knows we hate him for being a liar to children, an anti-scientist, and a brainwashed moron. We aren’t even saying this stuff to his face. It is on ONE website. If he doesn’t like it, all he need do is not read it.

    Honestly. If this sort of thing is “brutality,” then I hate to see what you call real brutality.

  619. #621 Brian
    June 22, 2008

    I have to slightly agree with Ken Ham on this one. Calling him a “wackaloon” is unprofessional and insulting to wackaloons.

  620. #622 CL
    June 22, 2008

    Wow, 0.5% of the people at the Pentagon are fucking morons, I would have thought it to be much higher.

    Oh, and Ken, you’re and idiot of the worst kind.

  621. #623 themadlolscientist
    June 22, 2008

    o hai. in teh bgining Ceiling Cat maded teh ken ham, but he did not eated him bcuz teh ken ham wuz teh pleh x 666. he lefteth teh ken ham in teh sandbockx wher he blongeth. & he cometh bak & watreth teh ken ham sumtiemz, but teh ken ham did not gro.

    & Ceiling Cat sed, bhold he groweth not, nor doth he cliem out form teh sandbockx, and bhold it is teh g00d dat he climeth not out form teh sandbockx, but bhold, a gret stink (iz not so gret akshuly, is teh ick) ariseth out form teh sandbockx & iz ofensiv un2 my almitey nostrulz. & even teh glade sentd oil fan doth not hideth teh stink.

    & Ceiling Cat sed bhold, mai hy00min slaev cometh 2 tek teh ken ham out form teh sandbockx. maded hy00minz wuz teh g00d idea aftr all. & teh hy00min slaev taketh teh ken ham out form teh sandbockx & putteth him in teh great watrz called Toylet & flusheth him.

    & Ceiling Cat sed unto his hy00min slaev, y u pol00teth mai watrz dish? u hath maded it a s00perfund siet. but bhold, i hav lernd hao 2 flushz mai watrz dish mai self. & bhold, i shal flush my watrz dish 4 40 dais & 40 nites, so that it shal b kleen.

    & bhold, Ceiling Cat flushedeth his watrz dish 4 40 dais & 40 nites. & the watrz dish wuz clensd ov all its unkleennes.

    dis is teh wurd ov Ceiling Cat. kthxbai.

    [teh lolcatz bibel. i hearts it.]

  622. #624 Carlie
    June 22, 2008

    To play off of Farb in #603:

    Ken Ham is the False Prophet your mother warned you about.

  623. #625 Sir Jebbington
    June 22, 2008

    #618: Nearly everyone complimented #313. You obviously missed the end of that post, which calls him an “oxygen thief.”

    And you say:
    “As I pointed out in #493, KH has qualities clearly associated with extremely high social intelligence and analytic ability. Extremely high.

    But here we have 500 comments, most of which proclaim him to be stupid & dumb.”
    You are obviously missing the reason for which we are saying what we are. Intelligence is multifaceted.

  624. #626 Sir Jebbington
    June 22, 2008

    Pardon me. We complemented that. And the finest form of flattery is, to some, mimicry.

  625. #627 Gary Bohn
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham? Ken Ham? Who the fuck is Ken Ham?

  626. #628 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    June 22, 2008

    Ken ham is, well, Ken Ham. I can think of no worse of an insult.

  627. #629 Dustin
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is the translucent secretion of an elderly canine’s perianal fistula. Ken Ham is the corn in your polyp. Ken Ham will be found with a manwhore in a bathroom stall. Ken Ham is a little more disingenuous and dishonest than the average Pharyngula concern troll, but does a better job of not wetting himself.

  628. #630 BobC
    June 22, 2008

    “KH has qualities clearly associated with extremely high social intelligence and analytic ability.”

    He believes the entire universe was magically created 2,000 years after people started breeding cows. You call that high intelligence? I call it brain-dead and a disgrace to the human race. He actually built a museum designed to abuse children with his stupidity.

    Ken Ham is scum. He should be deported or put in prison.

  629. #631 The Reverend
    June 22, 2008

    An intellectual disaster of biblical proportions.

  630. #632 Patricia
    June 22, 2008

    #93 – Bobc – I am the guilty party in twitting someone in a theatrical manner for the use of the word ‘wackaloon’. To whom ever that person was, I’m sorry.
    Bobc, you have proven me wrong. ;) Now that I’m covered in thick, sticky, smelly codswollop you may all pelt me with cheetos for the rest of the day.
    Oh, and Ken you’re a hamtard.

  631. #633 Remy-Grace
    June 22, 2008

    So who thinks Hamster is actually stupid enough to believe that the world really was created in 6 days and who thinks he’s deliberately lying to gullible Xians just to make a buck?
    I’m personally going with the second.

  632. #634 jetmags73
    June 22, 2008

    Wow…already 632 comments….this was definetely a biggie!

    Among the pantheon of creationist sub-losers, I think you would need to take a trip to Kent Hovindville to find anyone nearly as much of an intellectual disaster as Ken Ham. His favorite thing : Telling children to ask scientists “Where you there?” when discussing evolution. I wrote something similar on his little blog.

  633. #635 jetmags73
    June 22, 2008

    Wow…already 632 comments….this was definetely a biggie!

    Among the pantheon of creationist sub-losers, I think you would need to take a trip to Kent Hovindville to find anyone nearly as much of an intellectual disaster as Ken Ham. His favorite thing : Telling children to ask scientists “Were you there?” when discussing evolution. I would ask Ken Ham : “Were you there when PZ Myers supposedly wrote about you?” No?!?!?! Then how could you possibly know about it? From “evidence?” LOL…the Bible says to trust in the Lord silly, and not your “human” judgment.

    This person is a liar and a con artist extraordinaire. He isn’t fit to sweep the floors at the Pentagon, let alone lecture to anyone, most especially children.

  634. #636 themadlolscientist
    June 22, 2008

    Who the fuck is Ken Ham?

    Oh, how we wish we didn’t know……….. but to make a long and woeful story short, Ken Ham is a Young-Earth Creationist Fundy Mental Case and founder of Answers in Genesis. He gets way too much publicity for $#!+ like building a creationist museum, which is the biggest waste of $27 million since the last hour and a half of the occupation of Iraq, and just about as destructive.

  635. #637 themadlolscientist
    June 22, 2008

    @ Gary Bohm: I just posted an answer that got hung up because of too many links. But in a nutshell:

    Ken Ham is pretty much what almost everyone here says he is.

  636. #638 Julie Stahlhut
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is almost as ignorant as his followers.

  637. #639 BobC
    June 22, 2008

    “So who thinks Hamster is actually stupid enough to believe that the world really was created in 6 days and who thinks he’s deliberately lying to gullible Xians just to make a buck?”

    Good question. Is Ken Ham the most stupid person in history, or is he the most dishonest person in history? Perhaps he is both.

  638. #640 Benjamin Franklin
    June 22, 2008

    Wow-

    I go away with my youngest son for Cub Scout camp for one day and I come back to a thread with 650+ responses.

    Am I going to spend the rest of my Sunday afternoon reading insults to a bubbbleheaded nitwit with a bad beard? You bet! back up to comment #1.

  639. #641 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    June 22, 2008

    Good question. Is Ken Ham the most stupid person in history, or is he the most dishonest person in history? Perhaps he is both.

    He’s the donkey rapingest.

    Oh sorry, did I type that out loud.

  640. #642 Super Dude
    June 22, 2008

    Q: What do you get if you cross Ken Ham with a pig?

    A: Nothing.

    Why? Because there are some things even pigs won’t do.

  641. #643 Mike O'Risal
    June 22, 2008

    Geral said (in comment #500)::

    You called him a ‘Wackaloon’ and he got offended? I thought he got off easy.

    Now now, calling him names is one thing, but it’s hardly fair to reveal intimate details of his sexual shortcomings in a public forum such as this.

  642. #644 Benjamin Franklin
    June 22, 2008

    Aw Hell-

    I knew I couldn’t make it past a couple of posts before I had to get one in-

    Now, I certainly wouldn’t advocate doing this, because it would be very, very wrong, – but imagine how funny it would be if during the night someone were to rearrange one of the Genesis displays in the Flintstone Museum featuring Adam, Eve, and the T-Rex were re-arranged so that they were animitronically performing a vivid, bestial menage-a-trois with Adam promiscuosly pounding the dino in the derrier and the lisentious lizard performing the old cretacious cunnilingus on an exhilarated Eve?

    Eesh! – back to therapy for me

  643. #645 scotochromogen
    June 22, 2008

    An Ode to Ham :

    This night I shall dream of your bedazzling pink hair and pig-eyes.
    Wrapped in echoes of your mellifluous penis-music,
    I long to sip from your avocadoful lips.
    In my dreams, we fly on the exquisite winged potato of ness — skimming vast continents of hands and bonobos.
    The depths of all the oceans of the universe shall never separate our oranges.
    Brilliant as deep fried fish cakes, the seas greet us from afar.
    In the twilight we feast on chocolate-coated and tender hearts of love
    Adorned in white silk, we pluck our glistening love chimes from our chests.
    I press the chime that you wear around your neck against my hand-muffin so that our avocados melt into one.
    You will always be my little ken ham-cakes face, the pig of my own freaking eye of love.

  644. #646 JM Inc.
    June 22, 2008

    Consider this a follow up to my previous comments on the subject:

    Why is Ken Ham a twit? Only Ken Ham doesn’t understand!
    And few people say it better than Thunderf00t in his excellent and laudable and eminently watchable series.

  645. #647 OrbitalMike
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is not worth the time or trouble to personally insult.

    His “museum” and actions, although, are worthy of all forms of ridicule, disrespect, etc.: They provide evidence enough against any form of intelligent design.

  646. #648 Scott D.
    June 22, 2008

    Found unsuitable for soylent green, he’s to full of shit.

  647. #649 RichC
    June 22, 2008

    Late to the party as usual.

    Ken your scientific credibility is equal to your intellect… zero still equals zero, right? Or do you religious morons not believe in math anymore as well?

  648. #650 Rey Fox
    June 22, 2008

    “Now, I’m not unaware of the comic nature of the thread, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that Pharyngulytes have a generally poor comprehension of the requirements for the effective promotion of a worldview.”

    Wank, wank, wank.

  649. #651 Tz'unun, B.S Biology, recovering Southern Baptist
    June 22, 2008

    I’m with Remy-Grace. I’ve met many people intellectually challenged enough to believe all the ridiculous crap that Ham peddles as “science,” but the evidence strongly suggests that Ham hisself ain’t one of ‘em.

    OTOH, I think Neil Schipper is taking some of the insults in this thread waaaay too literally.

  650. #652 Ragutis
    June 22, 2008

    Benjamin Franklin @ #644 said:

    Now, I certainly wouldn’t advocate doing this, because it would be very, very wrong, – but imagine how funny it would be if during the night someone were to rearrange one of the Genesis displays in the Flintstone Museum featuring Adam, Eve, and the T-Rex were re-arranged so that they were animitronically performing a vivid, bestial menage-a-trois with Adam promiscuosly pounding the dino in the derrier and the lisentious lizard performing the old cretacious cunnilingus on an exhilarated Eve?

    Funny, but a bit sophomoric. (Like this thread’s not ;P)

    I’d just make some costume changes to the neanderthals. They lived like the Flintstones, make ‘em look like the Flintstones… Fred, Wilma, Barney, Betty, Pebbles, Bam Bam. Of course, one of the dinos would have to be painted purple.

  651. #653 Brownian, OM
    June 22, 2008

    I’d just make some costume changes to the neanderthals. They lived like the Flintstones, make ‘em look like the Flintstones… Fred, Wilma, Barney, Betty, Pebbles, Bam Bam. Of course, one of the dinos would have to be painted purple.

    Make sure your display includes the Great Gazoo. I know the creationist establishment refuses to consider the evidence for alien involvement in the Garden of Eden, but we must demand they teach the controversy!

    Forty-three years ago someone from Zatox crashed on Earth. Can’t someone take a stand for him?

  652. #654 J-Dog
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham you ignorant slut. You accuse PZ of bias against Christians, and imply that he would not have the same bias against Muslims.

    BBZZZZZTTT WRONG! PZ – and me – are biased against All IDIOTS THAT BELIVE IN MAGIC SKY FAIRES!

    Kenny – Use some of the money you have conned out of all the old women and kids that have visited your Flintstone’s Museum and buy a clue.

    And BTW – Hammy, why does a fine upstanding idiot like you not allow comments on your own site? Afraid of what your “faithful” might read?

  653. #655 cheeb
    June 22, 2008

    If I can manage to say something novel after 600 posts, I deserve an award.

    Ken, I’m surprised, and of course saddened, that you are somehow not quite so stupid as to be incapable of learning a human language. Perhaps your interest in dinosaurs stems from your discovery that you are not the only being in known existence to have such a staggering brain-to-total body mass ratio. The majority of your brain, by mass, seems best suited to tasks such as body temperature regulation.

    You’re right, Ken, you could not possibly share an ancestor with a chimpanzee, a gorilla, a lemur, a marmoset, a sparrow, a flatworm, or a clubmoss. This would indicate survival of the least fit, rather than the fittest, a concept I am committed to attempting to teach a finch in order to prove once and for all that even an organism with a CNS small enough to fit in a hazelnut is more intelligent than you.

    Ken, you are as witty, brilliant, charming, attractive, and useful as tapeworm vomit fermented in the purulent sebum of a naked molerat coated in Tinea cruris.

  654. #656 Patricia
    June 22, 2008

    This is damned depressing. None of Hamtards followers have shown up to call PZ a wackaloon? They must be all on their knees talking to themselves and hoping bits of PZ get struck off by gawds mighty lightening bolts.

  655. #657 Alex
    June 22, 2008

    I happened to be reading Bertrand Russell’s essay “Has Religion Made Useful Contributios to Civilization?,” which was first published in 1930, when I came across the following statement: “Nobody nowadays believes that the world was created in 4004 B.C….”

    I wonder what Russell would think if he could come back to 21st century America to discover that a significant percentage of people (a.k.a. Young Earth Creationists) now hold this view?

  656. #658 bright
    June 22, 2008

    That is one million + 1…yes Mr. Ham your superstitious beliefs scare the daylights out of me.

  657. #659 Escuerd
    June 22, 2008

    Comically enough, I have found that both Christians and Muslims are fond of insisting that the non-religious are unwilling to attack the beliefs of the other.

    “Sure, criticize me because I’m a Christian, but you wouldn’t dare say the same thing about Muslims.”

    “Sure, criticize me because I’m a Muslim, but you wouldn’t dare say the same thing about Christians.”

    It seems that the people who make these statements rarely pause to consider how presumptuous they’re being.

  658. #660 J
    June 22, 2008

    Kseniya, I think you meant 60,000 dead accused witches. But the point remains correct; J cannot tell the difference between name calling and organized murder.
    See, this is another reason why object to this thread. Many of you people yourself can at times be as intellectually dishonest as creationists.

    Obviously I think persecution of “witches” always was unspeakably horrible. This doesn’t mean I think it was ever one of the main social evils.

    What a shameless, low-stooping misrepresentation.

  659. #661 JeffreyD
    June 22, 2008

    Gads go away for half a week and what happens, who let the pharyngulas out???

    So many fun posts, so many expectedly stupid ones like that from keith at #501 – sad to see the intellectually disarmed try to take a shot.

    I notice Neil B. has apparently vanished, maybe because I quit believing in him. By the way, does Neil B. equate to Neil and Bob, or is that just what you do on the weekends?

    And J. J, I printed out all of your posts, I will take them to read in the smallest room of my house, as is appropriate. Your thoughts will be in front of me, and then, they will be behind me.

    As for Kenny the Hamster, well…how does one top what has gone before.

    Ciao y’all

  660. #662 themadlolscientist
    June 22, 2008

    Alas, I fear Ken the Ham does believe every word he says. There’s no more pathological – or is it patho-illogical? – liar than one who lies to himself and believes his own lies.

  661. #663 Patricia
    June 22, 2008

    Are you an expert on witches J?

  662. #664 Patricia
    June 22, 2008

    Good point JeffreyD. I went to bed for the night one evening and *zoom* Brenda has vanished. The time zones on this blog must be incrediable. :)

  663. #665 themadlolscientist
    June 22, 2008

    There’s a Firefox extension called TrackMeNot that sends random phrases as fake web searches to hide your search trail and confuse data-profilers. It displays the current bogus search phrase in the bottom bar of your browser window, and a couple of minutes ago it threw this gem:

    “world renowned creationist ministry”

    Ahhhhhhhhh, the irony.

  664. #666 Biff the Bartender
    June 22, 2008

    If Ken Ham were any dumber, he’d forget to breathe.

    Thank you, I’ll be here all night, second show is different from the first. Tip your waitresses, and try the veal.

  665. #667 MarshallDog
    June 22, 2008

    I’m just checking to see if 666 comments is the max… that would be funny.

  666. #668 Wowbagger
    June 22, 2008

    This is yet another of those occasions that illustrates just how much better the world would be if Bill Hicks were still in it.

    To be at his show and yell out ‘hey Bill, what do you think of Ken Ham and his museum theme park for fundy morons?’ would no doubt bring forth an expletive-ridden tirade of (forgive the expression) biblical proportions.

    I’ll attempt to paraphrase, using one of his other ‘bits’:

    There’s a lot of debate going on about Ken Ham and his work. My friends and I argue about it all the time. There’s a lot of debate going on. I mean, some of my friends think he’s an annoying idiot; my other friends disagree…they think he’s an evil fuck. I mean, why can’t just agree that he’s an annoying evil idiot fuck?

  667. #669 NRT
    June 22, 2008

    Aussies have seen this?

    NAiG:

    “Dr Carl Wieland should say “sorry!

    Dr Wieland’s article A sorry day-with an unlikely twist, in which he claims that a draft of the “Sorry-Day” speech Prime Minister Rudd delivered to the Australian parliament on 13 February 2008 is in CMI’s possession and contains the following words:

    Prior to 1861, missionaries were prepared to accept according to the principles of their religions, that Aboriginal people were every bit as capable as Europeans. But with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origins [sic] of the Species in 1859, a new theory starts to take hold and the conception that Aboriginal people are a ‘disappearing race’ starts to take hold in Australian public life. This had equally catastrophic consequences for Aboriginal people and communities. [Wieland's emphasis]”

    http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/CMI_sorry_speech.htm

  668. #670 NRT
    June 22, 2008

    Has anyone informed Australia’s indigenous population that Oz is only 4000 yrs old?

  669. #671 Arnaud
    June 22, 2008

    “Man is a clever animal who behaves like an imbecile.” – Albert Schweitzer

  670. #672 Biff the Bartender
    June 22, 2008

    Whoo hoo!!!! I was the triple six! I’m honored!

  671. #673 Patricia
    June 22, 2008

    Biff – 666- As the Grand Poohbah of the Liars & Fornicator’s Union, Local #666, I congratulate you. Well done!

  672. #674 Hammerhead
    June 22, 2008

    Isn’t the number of the beast 616 or something like that?

    Also, Ken Ham is a poopface. Poopface!

  673. #675 ancientTechie
    June 22, 2008

    If Ken Ham had another brain, he’d be a half wit.

  674. #676 Ric
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is a complete and utter moron.

  675. #677 Benjamin Geiger
    June 22, 2008

    Wowbagger@668:

    I think Lewis Black has taken up Bill Hicks’ mantle on this one.

    There are people who believe that dinosaurs and men lived together. That they roamed the earth at the same time. There are museums that children go to in which they build dioramas to show them this. And what this is, purely and simply, is a clinical psychotic reaction. They are crazy. They are stone cold fuck nuts. I can’t be kind about this, because these people are watching The Flintstones as if it were a documentary.

  676. #678 Benjamin Geiger
    June 22, 2008

    Oh, and more from Lewis Black (same clip):

    I would love to have the faith to believe that [creation] happened in 7 days. But… I have thoughts. And that can really fuck up the faith thing… just ask any Catholic priest.

    Didn’t PZ link to this clip at some point?

  677. #679 Gene
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham is a dipshit (it’s the only one I could think of that hasn’t been *taken* already).

  678. #680 Kel
    June 22, 2008

    Aussies have seen this?

    NAiG:

    “Dr Carl Wieland should say “sorry!

    Dr Wieland’s article A sorry day-with an unlikely twist, in which he claims that a draft of the “Sorry-Day” speech Prime Minister Rudd delivered to the Australian parliament on 13 February 2008 is in CMI’s possession and contains the following words:

    Prior to 1861, missionaries were prepared to accept according to the principles of their religions, that Aboriginal people were every bit as capable as Europeans. But with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origins [sic] of the Species in 1859, a new theory starts to take hold and the conception that Aboriginal people are a ‘disappearing race’ starts to take hold in Australian public life. This had equally catastrophic consequences for Aboriginal people and communities. [Wieland's emphasis]”

    http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/CMI_sorry_speech.htm
    I don’t think for one second that it would have been in a single draft or even considered to say that. It’s just absurd, let alone factually incorrect and completely ignorant of history. If Carl Wieland truly believed it, then he is both a threat to others and himself. Though after seeing just who the person was on Wikipedia, I can safely say this is another case of Lying for Jesus.

  679. #681 Nothing Sacred
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham, you are a douchebag: an old, outdated, useless tool that provides nothing but irritation and risk for all kinds of unpleasant damage and harmful growths.

  680. #682 Wowbagger
    June 22, 2008

    Benjamin Geiger, #677, wrote:

    I think Lewis Black has taken up Bill Hicks’ mantle on this one.

    I’m not familiar with Lewis Black (I’ll have a browse around teh internets and see what I can find) but I’ve seen that quote a few times. And it’s exactly what I thought when I first heard about the creationist’s dinosaur theory blatant lie for Jesus – have these people been watching The Flintstones and thinking it’s a documentary?

  681. Cultural Anthropologist nailed it!

    ? ? ?

  682. #684 Kel
    June 22, 2008

    @Wowbagger
    If you watch The Daily Show, Lewis Black has a segment on there where he does rants (usually to do with religion)

  683. #685 Wowbagger
    June 22, 2008

    Eh, I content myself with free-to-air. I occasionally caught the Daily Show ‘Weekly World Edition’ on SBS but don’t remember any Lewis Black bits.

    I read some of his quotes, though, and there’s a definite ‘Hicksiness’ to his work. Good to know there are people fighting the good fight. Had pancreatic cancer not taken Bill when it did I’m sure the state of the world in recent years would have made his head explode. He had enough scorn for the actions of Bush Snr; he’d have blown a gasket ragging on Dubya.

  684. #686 karen marie
    June 22, 2008

    what a thoroughly entertaining thread!

    thank you, pharyngulists!

    ken ham is a worm-infested turd.

  685. #687 themadlolscientist
    June 22, 2008

    Congratulations, Biff the Bartender #666!

    And yes, according to some Bible manuscripts, the Number of the Beast is either 616 or 615.

  686. #688 Tom
    June 22, 2008

    A few more descriptions of Ken Ham, courtesy of classic Beavis and Butt-head:

    a dillhole
    a buttmuch
    a fartknocker
    a turd burglar

  687. #689 Tom
    June 22, 2008

    Sorry, Ken Ham, that should have read:

    a buttmunch

    I apologize if my typographical error offended you.

  688. #690 Geneticmishap
    June 22, 2008

    Piece-a-shit godbag!

  689. #691 John
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham, I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

    FRENCH GUARD

  690. #692 John
    June 22, 2008

    Not to start a Dino Catz flood or anything…

    Image and video hosting by TinyPic

  691. #693 John
    June 22, 2008

    But this is too funny:

    [IMG]http://i28.tinypic.com/2h36dm8.jpg[/IMG]

    or

    http://i28.tinypic.com/2h36dm8.jpg

  692. #694 Jim Shirk
    June 22, 2008

    Did you remember hooplehead?

  693. #695 Marion Delgado
    June 22, 2008

    Ken does a great job representing creationists, and in that role, I have no criticisms of him whatsoever.

  694. #696 Ragutis
    June 22, 2008

    Hammerhead @ #674 said:

    Isn’t the number of the beast 616 or something like that?

    [Bruce Dickinson]

    SIX!… ONE SIX! The Nummmmber of the Beast!

    [/Bruce Dickinson]

    Nah. Just doesn’t sound right, dude.

  695. #697 Patricia
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham, I bounce my boobies in the general direction of your aunties!
    FRENCH TART

  696. #698 Wowbagger
    June 22, 2008

    The ultimate insult, from Waiting for Godot:

    Critic!

  697. #699 Gordy
    June 22, 2008

    Ken Ham – Some of the nearly 700 comments about you above may be less than 100% accurate, and I almost felt sorry for you. Then I remembered hearing you say that Richard Dawkins wants to stop teaching children about religion so that he can indoctrinate them with his atheistic views (on a Guardian Science Weekly podcast). You must know that Professor Dawkins advocates the teaching of comparative religion to children, after all he’s said it consistently for years in many different media. So then i thought that, well, if you live by the sword, you’ll die by the sword. All of which is a rather long winded way of saying that maybe you deserve it because you’re utterly dishonest.

  698. #700 and-u-say
    June 22, 2008

    I didn’t see it, so I will have to go the looney toons route:

    Ken Ham… what a maroon!

    Also, Ken is so dense he bends light.

    Enjoy!

  699. #701 themadlolscientist
    June 22, 2008

    Let’s make it a round 700, wotthehell.

  700. #702 themadlolscientist
    June 22, 2008

    Dammit, and-u-say, you beat me to it!

  701. #703 and-u-say
    June 22, 2008

    Woot! I got post #700!

    I, too, am surprised at the lack of Hamsters coming to defend their shepherd. Odd that.

  702. #704 Alan Kellogg
    June 22, 2008

    Nick Gotts, various

    I set the 2000 election down after we crossed the river, why are you still carrying her?

  703. #705 Wowbagger
    June 22, 2008

    It can be the monster we invent to scare children with: ‘kids, if you’re weak-minded and credulous then the Ken Ham will come and take you away to his lair, where he will suck out your remaining critical thinking skills and replace them with sucky fairy-tales cooked up by a bunch of Bronze Age pastoralists who had yet to travel outside their small corner of the middle-east.’

  704. #706 Kel
    June 22, 2008

    I, too, am surprised at the lack of Hamsters coming to defend their shepherd. Odd that.

    Maybe the barrage of naughty language is keeping them away. Nitwit might be too offensive (I’m sure nits would take offence at the comparison with Ken Ham) for some of the church followers to take. Ken Ham may have grown up in Queensland where the foul language is enough to make God want to kill Egyptian babies, but that’s why he’s in the USA now. Bunch of farken softcocks

  705. #707 Matlatzinca
    June 22, 2008

    Why single out Ken Ham? Anyone who refuses to read through the evidence for evolution and continues to believe in creationism is dumber than tits on a bull.

    And let’s not keep this eloquence confined to the English and, was that czech and hebrew I saw earlier? languages:

    Señores y señoras creyentes en el mito de la Creación: hagan el favor de sacarse la cabeza del culo.

  706. #708 Alan Kellogg
    June 22, 2008

    Rich Charlebois, #610

    You can indeed fix stupid, and since Ken is male it’s an outpatient procedure.

    “Ken Ham?” I hear someone query…

    Long talk, no thought.

  707. #709 Patricia
    June 22, 2008

    Naughty…naughty?!
    …I have a cunning plan -
    Let us all clench a turnip between our buttocks and wave them in the direction of Ken Ham’s aunties.

  708. #710 deang
    June 22, 2008

    Your title for this post cracks me up every time I think about it. It’s like the start of an A. A. Milne chapter. That alone is somehow a withering swipe at Ham, the better for its subtlety.

  709. #711 efp
    June 22, 2008

    For anyone who missed it:

    “The interview was going well. Ham was spouting nonsensical creationist rhetoric, and I was in full-blown retard mode.”

    http://buffalobeast.com/117/let_there_be_retards.htm

  710. #712 Patricia
    June 23, 2008

    Where the hell is wOO+?

  711. #713 Patricia
    June 23, 2008

    G’night you heathen elitist bastards. I gotta round up my Aussies to roost, and head to bed myself.
    9:14 pm Oregon time, PZ is speaking on Free Thought Network. :)
    Homo creotardus fucktardus = Ken Ham/Goddidit

  712. #714 jmsr
    June 23, 2008

    Hey Ken! Here’s a tip: don’t start with the conclusion.
    jmsr
    PS seriously, what is ~wrong~ with you?

  713. #715 Bart Mitchell
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is an affront to pork lovers everywhere. Even most porcine creatures have more cognitive capability.

  714. #716 Don
    June 23, 2008

    Hmm, I’m late to the party. Even so, I am compelled to register my contempt for Mr. Ham’s ass-hattery. He’s a well-funded fraud who seems hell-bent on dragging America back to the days when superstition reigned.

  715. #717 Paul Murray
    June 23, 2008

    Id settle for creationists being people so frightened of their imaginary God, that they have set themselves the task of beliving a bunch of lies that they imagine their imaginary god wants them to belive.

    The central mental problem of the fundamentalist is that they actually know that that they don’t really believe the things they pretend to belive, but as nonbelief will condemn them to an eternity in the lake of fire, they must conceal from themselves the fact that they don’t belive it. And this while living in the real world.

    Thus, despite the clearest injunctions in the bible against it, christians will sue one another, and then invent the craziest and flimsiest excuses why its ok, and go to enormous effort to pretend even to themselves that they belive those excuses – excuses which usually don’t even pass the laugh test. Ditto christians divorcing – you know that fundies divorce at a greater rate than the general population?

  716. #718 MarieTheBookwyrm
    June 23, 2008

    Foul Ol’ Ken.

  717. #719 ShadowWalkyr
    June 23, 2008

    Hmmm. . .Ken Ham? You mean the guy who is probably the best living proof of evolution? I mean, c’mon, look at that face. If there’s any human who looks like he was descended from an ape. . . .

    What a dunderpate.

    I know, I know, evolution doesn’t say we’re descended from apes, just that we share a common ancestor with apes. However, the above should be simple enough for Mr. Ham to at least grasp, should he wade this far through the comments.

  718. #720 me
    June 23, 2008

    As much and as satisfying as all this is, I am reminded of the scene in “Thank You For Smoking” where the lobbyist father is explaining to his son how he sells things so well.

    After a discussion on which ice cream is best the son comments “but you haven’t convinced me at all, I still like chocolate!” to which good ol’dad responds “I’m not trying to convince you, it’s them I’m after” and motions to the crowds in the park.

    We may not convince Ken, but we can get (some) of the people. You got me!

    Oh btw, he really REALLY pisses me off and I let my still-creationist (and much loved) friends know that. There, I almost insulted someone!

  719. #721 themadlolscientist
    June 23, 2008

    The central mental problem of the fundamentalist is that they actually know that they don’t really believe the things they pretend to belive

    Obviously you’ve never met my brother!

    Seriously, he’s had a terminal case of Fundy Dementorism for at least 25 years. He and my SIL didn’t speak to our mom for at least 6 months after she let slip that she prefers “my” kind of sacred music (i.e. Bach, Mozart, et al.) to their kind of whatever-that-is they sing at their church. I don’t know whether they took it personally – my bro actually writes that $#!+, for Basement Cat’s sake! – or it was just the principle of the thing.

    All I know is, he and I don’t talk about anything; we just kind of eye each other warily. Fortunately he’s out on the left coast and I only see him about once every five years. But I’m willing to swear on a stack of LOLcat Bibulz that he absolutely believes every word of it.

  720. #722 Amplexus
    June 23, 2008

    Which is more useful: Ken Ham or an actual ham? No question! A ham could actually feed some hungry people, ham’s ministry is about spreading ignorance not prosperity.

  721. #723 themadlolscientist
    June 23, 2008

    Where the hell is wOO+?

    My Enquiring Mind has been wanting to know too….. In the mean time, here’s a wÒÓ?ism to tide everyone over:

    (.)(.)

    (There. Now you can’t say I never did anything for you.) =8-O

    Cuttlefish is AWOL too! W’zup w’dat? No, waitaminnit – Cuttlefish is out of the country, gallivanting around Europe on a Grand Adventure.

  722. #724 Janine ID
    June 23, 2008

    What a shameless, low-stooping misrepresentation.

    Posted by: J

    Sorry J. I usually ignore what you have to say. I just had to give Kseniya a good nature ribbing. And you so hate name calling because you are such an adult. Sod off you silly little git.

    Back to ignoring you now, you bright ray of sunshine.

  723. #725 Traffic Demon
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is a knobgoblin.

  724. #726 themadlolscientist
    June 23, 2008

    OT but newsworthy: George Carlin passed away about 9 hours ago. I’m stunned.

  725. #727 Robert Byers
    June 23, 2008

    Perhaps a creationist canadian will have the last word on a summer night here.
    Ken Ham is important man. He has achieved already prestige and fame in the English-speaking world not to be equaled by any poster here including this Myers guy I never heard of before.
    Ken ham went to this prestiges breakfast and so won.
    All these posters demonstrate how important they see Ken Ham as a agent of change/influence in the intellectual arena of the public mind.
    Surely the quality and credibility of the anti-Hamiticism expressed here is not the stuff of modern evolutionisms resistence to advancing , exciting modern creationism.
    Just keep rolling that wheel of truth Hamster. God, the true Christians, Creationism everywhere, and the common sense of the public are cheering for you. The good guy.

  726. #728 Janine ID
    June 23, 2008

    Surely the quality and credibility of the anti-Hamiticism expressed here is not the stuff of modern evolutionisms resistence to advancing , exciting modern creationism.
    Just keep rolling that wheel of truth Hamster. God, the true Christians, Creationism everywhere, and the common sense of the public are cheering for you. The good guy.

    Posted by: Robert Byers

    This is a joke? Right? …exciting modern creationism…?
    Sorry dude. You are denied the final word. The words you left have little meaning. But have pleasant dreams of frolicking with dinosaurs under the stern watching eyes of big sky daddy.

  727. #729 Traffic Demon
    June 23, 2008

    Editing post 727 to be more consistent with reality:

    Perhaps [a panty sniffing] canadian will have the last word on a summer night here. [Perhaps not]
    Ken Ham is [a syphilitic] man. He has achieved already prestige and fame in the [child molesting] world not to be equaled by any poster here including this [heroic] Myers guy I never heard of before [to my detriment].
    Ken ham went to this prestiges [or perhaps prestigious] breakfast and so won [the matching luggage but not the BIG MONEY].

    [I sniff my butt sometimes]

    All these [smart and cuddly] posters demonstrate how [fucktardesque] they see Ken Ham as a agent of change/influence in the [un]intellectual arena of the public mind.
    Surely the quality and credibility of the anti-Hamiticism expressed here is… the stuff of modern evolutionisms [I just made that up] resistence [I meant resistance. Really] to advancing , exciting modern creationism. [Tried, but couldn't, write that last bit with a straight face]

    [I masturbate to photos of Fred Phelps]

    Just keep rolling that wheel of truth Hamster [wait, hamster wheels don't go anywhere] [hey, it makes sense then!]. God, the true Christians, Creationism everywhere, and the common sense of the public are [idiots]. The [bat faced, knock kneed, pigeon toed, goat felching, toenail biting, chronically masturbating, scab eating, weak bearded, nose picking, unevolved, pinkeyed, asshatted, half witted, three nippled, skidmarked] guy [so ugly that blind people throw things at him and do not miss].

    This service brought to you by the cast and crew of Traffic Demon Urban Racing.

  728. #730 alex
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is important man. He has achieved already prestige and fame in the English-speaking world not to be equaled by any poster here including this Myers guy I never heard of before.

    robert, “prestige” is not synonymous with “notoriety”.

  729. #731 Nick Gotts
    June 23, 2008

    Isn’t the number of the beast 616 or something like that?

    Nah, I tried calling it, and just got “Number unobtainable”. 666, from the UK, puts you through to the Australian police.

  730. #732 Logicel
    June 23, 2008

    Ham makes the worst childhood nightmare seem cuddly, loving, and delightful.

  731. #733 Nick Gotts
    June 23, 2008

    Alan Kellogg@704 Because people are still dying, being tortured, in prison without trial because of it.

  732. #734 CosmicTeapot
    June 23, 2008

    Anyone had dozy wazzock?

    As in “Ken Ham is a …”

  733. #735 Jim Rational
    June 23, 2008

    You said to get creative, PZ, so I worked on it a bit :)

    http://jimrational.blogspot.com/2008/06/ken-ham-wackaloon.html

    - Jim Rational

  734. #736 BaldySlaphead
    June 23, 2008

    Dear Ken,

    In addition to all the above, I think you’re a twunt.

    Love and kisses,

    Baldy

  735. #737 Rey Fox
    June 23, 2008

    “I set the 2000 election down after we crossed the river, why are you still carrying her?”

    First off, what river? And secondly, oh…maybe because it was an illegal action that led to the most disastrous presidential administration in history. Lay it down, sure. And be condemned to repeat it. Fuck that.

  736. #738 Nick Gotts
    June 23, 2008

    Rey Fox,

    The “river” is a reference to a Zen Buddhist fable of two monks who come to a river where a woman is standing on the bank, unable or unwilling to wade across. One of the monks gives her a piggyback, despite the rule that monks should avoid touching women. Some time after, the other monk, who has been brooding, reproaches him for his action. The second monk replies “Brother, I put that woman down on the riverbank. Why are you still carrying her?” Why Alan Kellogg thinks it relevant here, I’ve no idea. Maybe he’ll tell us.

  737. #739 Matt Heath
    June 23, 2008

    #736: Dammit! I just search the page for thr term “twunt” hoping I could bethe first to use it.

  738. #740 Charlie Foxtrot
    June 23, 2008

    Its been 24 hours since I last checked – but apparently Ken Ham is still a cucking funt.

    I think this comes as no surprise to anyone.

  739. #741 Evolving Squid
    June 23, 2008

    When I read about Ken’s “work”, I can’t help but feel sorry for whatever village lost its idiot.

  740. #742 Nick Gotts
    June 23, 2008

    @741 – Ken’s a far bigger idiot than a village could possibly need – clearly, Australia’s lost its national idiot.

  741. #743 Matt LaBerge
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is an ass hat!

  742. #744 Alan Kellogg
    June 23, 2008

    Nick Gotts, #733

    So September 11th 2001 happened because George W. Bush stole the 2000 Presidential election? You’re the first person to imply the Democrats were behind it.

  743. #745 Alan Kellogg
    June 23, 2008

    Nick Gotts, #738

    I see you’re like a lump of coal, not much into reflection.

  744. #746 Carpworld
    June 23, 2008

    V. late but can i just add:

    stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder.

    tks.

  745. #747 David Marjanovi?, OM
    June 23, 2008

    Nick Gotts, various

    I set the 2000 election down after we crossed the river, why are you still carrying her?

    If I can, I will gladly carry her all the way to…

    JAIL
    TO THE
    THIEF

  746. #748 Nick Gotts
    June 23, 2008

    Alan Kellogg@744. I simply don’t understand what you’re getting at. Would you be kind enough to give a clear explanation, so I can disabuse you of whatever misinterpretation of something I said (I have no idea what) you have acquired?

  747. #749 David Marjanovi?, OM
    June 23, 2008

    So September 11th 2001 happened because George W. Bush stole the 2000 Presidential election?

    Iraq and Guantánamo happened. Hello-o!

    (Obviously, we don’t know if President Gore would have ignored the warnings of 9/11 lying on his desk…)

  748. #750 Vidar
    June 23, 2008

    Awww, Hammy has a boo-boo.
    He is openly hostile to the scientific community, but expects everyone to not be hostile to him, and throws a hissy-fit over being called a “wackaloon”. My, how very mature.

  749. #751 Facehammer
    June 23, 2008

    Ken ham: a foot-long turd in the cider barrel of humanity.

    Ken Ham: a few scorched sinuses short of a firebreathing T-rex.

  750. #752 Nick Gotts
    June 23, 2008

    Alan Kellogg,

    I see you are into the same sort of deliberate obscurity we expect from the likes of Salt and Brenda von Ahsen; invariably a cover for lack of any substantive argument to advance. I’ll know to ignore your stupidities in future.

  751. #753 Hrd2Imagin
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is a disgrace to the meat that shares his surname.

  752. #754 phantomreader42
    June 23, 2008

    Gordy @ #699:

    Ken Ham – Some of the nearly 700 comments about you above may be less than 100% accurate, and I almost felt sorry for you. Then I remembered hearing you say that Richard Dawkins wants to stop teaching children about religion so that he can indoctrinate them with his atheistic views (on a Guardian Science Weekly podcast). You must know that Professor Dawkins advocates the teaching of comparative religion to children, after all he’s said it consistently for years in many different media. So then i thought that, well, if you live by the sword, you’ll die by the sword. All of which is a rather long winded way of saying that maybe you deserve it because you’re utterly dishonest.

    Yep, Ken Ham is a lying sack of crap. Since it’s clear he has no respect for the truth, and no capacity for honesty, there is no reason to limit criticism of him to the facts (though the facts are pretty bad to begin with). He doesn’t have any qualms about making shit up, why should anyone show him any kind of courtesy? One could even call him a piglet rapist, and it would be no less honest than what Ham spews daily, for a living. The man’s entire life is founded on fraud, and he has the gall to whine about the slightest criticism?

    It’s not our fault that Ken Ham’s moral compass points straight to the gutter. If he doesn’t like the taste of his own medicine, he should stop force-feeding it to children.

  753. #755 David
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham, you are an uneducated close minded hypocritical ignoramus who deliberately lies to people by using their faith so you can make some money and gain fame.

    You claim that you are a follower of Christ. So, Instead of wasting almost 30 million dollars on a house of lies, why didn’t you donate that money to combat poverty?

    You are a crackpot fraudulent lunatic that thinks the entire Universe was instantaneously created about 1000 years after glue was invented.

    Simply put Mr. Ham, you are a terrible person that needs to fade into obscurity.

  754. #756 WRMartin
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham: for novelty use only.

  755. #757 Marty
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is a festering sack of pus!

  756. #758 Codswallop
    June 23, 2008

    You got Ham’s character right, but I take issue with the word “gonif” (with one “f” or two). In Yiddish, it means “thief.” Ham has many flaws, but this is a new one on me.

  757. #759 who is your creator
    June 23, 2008

    Thank you all for your incredibly articulate and scientific arguments against Ken Ham’s character and the information from the Answers in Genesis website.

    While it is a little shocking to see the depth of hate, we creationists are encouraged that you see Mr. Ham as such a threat.

    A better approach to discredit him would be attempting to pick apart the site with all your ‘scientific evidence.’ In fact, why don’t you give us just ONE “lie” that is on http://answersingenesis.org/ and then we can actually engage in a scientific discussion.

    No doubt, many of you prefer to indulge in the foul and irrational personal attacks, but you might just try a civilized discussion –

    And you might even learn something factual other than the silliness that you believe to be true!

  758. #760 CosmicTeapot
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is a numpty.

  759. #761 Fergy
    June 23, 2008

    In fact, why don’t you give us just ONE “lie” that is on http://answersingenesis.org/ and then we can actually engage in a scientific discussion.

    Oh, this is TOO easy… lemme see… how about “Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago.” That’s a good one, and there are countless others.

    And you might even learn something factual other than the silliness that you believe to be true!

    Fuckin’ Christards…

  760. #762 B-bot
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is a pathetic poseur, a perveyor of pretentious puffery, and a Pecksniffian pin-head.

    Warning: do not use a personal flotation device.

  761. #763 CosmicTeapot
    June 23, 2008

    Thanks Nick @ 13

    “Gormless”.

    Ken Ham is not only a wazzock, he is a gormless wazzock.

    2 days away from the office, and see what fun I miss.

  762. #764 Logicel
    June 23, 2008

    some IDiot wrote: and then we can actually engage in a scientific discussion.
    _____

    Scientists do not debate with Creationists, you creotard! Astronomers do not debate with astrologists, etc.

    A Bush-appointed conservative Christian deemed ID to be Religion at the Dover trial.

    Educated people who do not embrace ignorance for a living only ridicule your kind–hence the colourful language on this thread.

  763. #765 Dennis N
    June 23, 2008

    We can start with the title: Answers In Genesis. Uhh, there’s no answers in the Genesis. It’s really not the place to look for answers.

  764. #766 Logicel
    June 23, 2008

    Ham is several slices short of a Ham sandwich.

  765. #767 Nick Gotts
    June 23, 2008

    In fact, why don’t you give us just ONE “lie” that is on http://answersingenesis.org/ – wiyc

    So many to choose from…

    Extrasolar planets suggest our solar system is unique and young

    An outright, barefaced, shameless lie. The characteristics of the extrasolar planets detected depend heavily on what planets are easy to detect, so do not even show that our solar system is particularly unusual. Even if it is, this is absolutely no evidence that it is “unique and young”.

  766. #768 Logicel
    June 23, 2008

    Some IDiot wrote: While it is a little shocking to see the depth of hate, we creationists are encouraged that you see Mr. Ham as such a threat.
    _______

    We see Ham as a threat because he is wrong and dangerous as he sucks in gullible folks like you into his vortex of swirling stupidity. We don’t take kindly to people who apply leeches, bloodlet, and drill holes into skulls either.

  767. #769 Flonkbob
    June 23, 2008

    I love that one of his big defenses in his blog post is that he only spoke to 100 out of 23,000 people. While that makes me feel a little better, I’m not sure how it makes the Ham-brained one feel like he’s winning anything.

    What a wackaloon.

  768. #770 Kseniya
    June 23, 2008

    What a shameless, low-stooping misrepresentation.

    J, overlooking for the moment that I was half-joking, the painful fact remains that you obviously JUST DON’T GET THE POINT.

    Talk about dishonest. You elide over counter-points as if they had never been made, by declining to acknowledge that they ever have been made. Talk about shameless.

    Pffft. And you wonder why you get so much shit here. You bring it on yourself, more often than not.

  769. #771 Lycosid
    June 23, 2008

    If AIDS were a person, that person would be Ken Ham. He’s deceptive and his ideas infect the unprotected.

  770. #772 Benjamin Franklin
    June 23, 2008

    Who is your creator-

    How can you “engage in a scientific discussion” with someone who states that “No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”?

    Man and woman living alongside dinosaurs is a lie.

    A worldwide flood only survived by Noah & 7 other humans is a lie.

    Hen Ham isn’t so much a threat as he is a fool.

    Dismissal of reality results only in delusion. Are you prepared to accept evidence if it contradicts your theology? That, in a nutshell, is why engaging in scientific discussion with bible literalists like Ham is a waste of time.

    Next!
    .
    .

  771. #773 Benjamin Franklin
    June 23, 2008

    Kseniya-

    elide – To eliminate or leave out of consideration ?

    Yeah! I love learning new words.

    Thanks

  772. #774 Danny
    June 23, 2008

    Yeah, Ken. Even the Christians I know think you should give it a rest.

  773. #775 Nails67
    June 23, 2008

    After following the link to read the chief wackaloon’s indignation, I was highly amused to find that his previous post was one welcoming a baby donkey as the “newest staff member” of the creation museum. With that kind of quality recruitment program, they’ll soon double the average IQ of their staff…

  774. #776 Fergy
    June 23, 2008

    No doubt, many of you prefer to indulge in the foul and irrational personal attacks, but you might just try a civilized discussion.

    Personal attacks ARE civilized in this context. One of the primary goals of every civilization is to expand and apply knowledge. In promoting ignorance over science, creationists are enemies of civilization, and Ken Ham is at the forefront of this assault.

    Since we can’t literally tar and feather him, we do the next best thing–public ridicule and humiliation. While it may be foul, there’s nothing irrational about it, it is the only reasonable response to the willful ignorance of creationists. Scorn is exactly what he and you deserve (although I would PAY to see a feather covered Ham on YouTube…)

  775. #777 themadlolscientist
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is a Tofu Pup in the great Meat Market of Life.

  776. #778 Tz'unun
    June 23, 2008

    Traffic Demon wrote: wait, hamster wheels don’t go anywhere

    Good catch! It appears that Robert Byers knows the real truth and can’t completely repress that knowledge.

    Codswallop: Ham’s as much a thief as any other con artist.

  777. #779 Aegis
    June 23, 2008

    “No doubt, many of you prefer to indulge in the foul and irrational personal attacks, but you might just try a civilized discussion.”
    No thanks.

    Also, dear Ken:
    I believe that god called you to visit the pentagon. It’s just that you received his message about 6.5 years late or so. Why did you miss your September appointment? After all, god’s OTHER messengers were right on time!

  778. #780 AutoFire
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham: the original steaming pile of bullshit.

  779. #781 themadlolscientist
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham, Robert Byers, and whoisyourcreator: just three more reasons I’d rather hang out with atheists and agnostics any day.

    Vanity of Vanities, saith the Preacher’s Kid: All is Vanity.

  780. #782 thomas robey
    June 23, 2008

    I appreciate the alphabetized list of names. The word that comes most to my mind is not a noun… disingenuous.

  781. #783 Kristin
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham: Moron.

  782. #784 Hap
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham, “who is your creator”, etc, etc…

    I’m curious how your fractal dishonesty fits in with your supposed beliefs, because if what you say is true you will probably be needing NOMEX briefs in the future, and if not, then you all are Jones wannabes, and evil incarnate. Which would it be?

  783. #785 Rey Fox
    June 23, 2008

    To paraphrase that one smart guy: You can’t scientifically discuss beliefs that weren’t arrived at scientifically in the first place.

    I doubt he’ll come back, but I am perversely curious as to how wiyc could nswer this question, regarding that lovely little bit from the AIG mission statement:

    “No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

    *ahem* Why?

  784. #786 ndt
    June 23, 2008

    Re: #38. Christian clergy speak at Pentagon prayer breakfasts all the time, probably weekly, and PZ doesn’t say “boo” about it. It’s the particular kind of Christian Ken Ham is that is worthy of ridicule.

    Ken Ham is a douchechugger.

  785. #787 Susan
    June 23, 2008

    Geez, PZ, stop being so polite – he’s hardly worth the restraint!

  786. #788 Inky
    June 23, 2008

    I find more intelligent, truthful, and noble beings than K.H. in my cat’s litterbox.

  787. #789 Nancy
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is one of the Pharisees, and he doesn’t even know it. But God does.

  788. #790 Amplexus
    June 23, 2008

    Which is more useful: Ken Ham or an actual ham? No question! A ham could actually feed some hungry people, ham’s ministry is about spreading ignorance not prosperity.

  789. #791 Patricia
    June 23, 2008

    Wow! Almost 800 – where the hell did the French soldiers go?
    Ken Ham is a coprolite.

  790. #792 Justin
    June 23, 2008

    Can you believe there are actually Ken Ham supporters in these comments? Wow… my favorite so far, #337

    “Truth will out. Freedom of Inquiry will have its day. We will follow the evidence where it leads, whether you approve or not, even if, especially if it flies in the faith of today’s scientififc dogma.”

    Oh my… on another planet…

  791. #793 Aegis
    June 23, 2008

    “A better approach to discredit him would be attempting to pick apart the site with all your ‘scientific evidence.’ ”
    It’s already been done hundreds of times, WIYC.

    Also, I went to the AIG website. I could find no mention of Phil Collins anywhere.

  792. #794 dahduh
    June 23, 2008

    “Notice how these evolutionists use such emotive language and name calling (e.g., “wackaloon”)–very academic, scientific arguments!”

    If you’re an idiot then someone stands up and call you an idiot. Nothing unscientific about it.

  793. #795 Peter Vaht
    June 23, 2008

    A good argument can be made that Ken Ham is just a good actor who really doesn’t believe in all the bile he vomits daily, after all is said and done, it is a job he gets money for. Lying for a living, sure why not, it wouldn’t be the first time nor profession to do so. In conclusion, FUCK YOU KEN HAM.

  794. #796 hje
    June 23, 2008

    Maybe AiG can try to hire Chris Crocker to make a “LEAVE KEN HAM ALONE!” video ; ) Not that he would do it.

    Ken Ham’s slogan: “Mo’ mammon, mo’ mammon.”

  795. #797 Nick Gotts
    June 23, 2008

    Peter Vaht@795 Good actor? Nah, he’s just a ham!

  796. #798 Alex
    June 23, 2008

    Allow me to say what Ham is in Spanish (as this seems not to have been covered adequately), and I will do so in many different ways…
    Firstly, a completely incomprehensible man-child (I apologize to all men and children they don’t deserve that) who is so blinded by the brilliance of his idiocracy that he wants to spread it like cancer to all small children and innocent animals.

    *ahem* to continue… WARNING: this is NOT nice language and for those of you who are more, polite, I would suggest you do not look up the translation.

    He is (Él es…) asqueroso, un mariposo, un roscón, un voltiado, una marica, un maricón, un animal, un imbécil, un chingao, un bruto, un baboso, una chorra, un mariconazo, un cabron (really bad don’t use!), una conchuda, (fits beautifully) El dumbass más grande en el mundo, un pelotudo, un pendejo, un pringao, un mocoso, y para el finale, un baboso.

    Alright, some of those are pretty bad, others not so much but just wanted to vent, and probably some of that was directed at ben ste…ste…. can’t even type it. You-know-who.
    (by the way that’s not bad syntax I just don’t think That Name deserves to be capitalized.

  797. #799 Patricia
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is a slackjawed, bag titted, crosseyed jackanapes.
    *come on 800!*

  798. #800 Carl Caster
    June 23, 2008

    It is not Ken Ham that is the problem. He is just another weak and thoughtless vessel that allows his monkey brain to submit to an imaginary alpha-male figure, his Jeebus Monkey God. No, the problem is Ken Ham’s despicable worldview. That is the real problem.

  799. #801 Parrotlover77
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is a quack. I blogged once about one of his really silly articles.

    http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/419/god-did-not-make-klingons

  800. #802 themadlolscientist
    June 23, 2008

    @ efp #711

    “The interview was going well. Ham was spouting nonsensical creationist rhetoric, and I was in full-blown retard mode.”

    ROFL =gasp= MAO =coff= Absofucking =wheeze= lutely =snort= fucking brilliant! Gimme some =choke= oxygen! =turns blue, passes out=

    Seriously, that performance deserves an Oscar – or maybe two. Got any more footage?

  801. #803 Chris Crocker
    June 23, 2008

    And how fucking dare ANYONE out there make fun of Ken Ham after all he’s been through! He came here all the way from Australia, he built his own museum, and now he gets invited to speak at a Pentagon prayer breakfast. All you people care about is reason and logic and science. HE’S A HUMAN! *sob* What you don’t realize is that Ken’s giving you all this publicity and all you do is write a bunch of crap about him. He never got a science degree. He founded Answers in Genesis for a reason, because all you people want is ANSWERS ANSWERS ANSWERS ANSWERS ANSWERS! LEAVE HIM ALONE! *sob* You’re lucky he even writes on his blog about you BASTARDS. LEAVE KEN ALONE! Please! Matt Nisbet talked about professional communication – if Ken was a professional he would have pulled off the prayer breakfast no matter what. Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to pubicly bash someone who doesn’t know any better? LEAVE KEN HAM ALONE! Ple-ease! Leave Ken Ham alone right NOW! I mean it! Anyone who has a problem with him, you deal with me, because he’s not well! *sob* Leave him alone….

  802. #804 MrMarkAZ
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is one bat-shit crazy deluded goober, and living proof that evolution != progress. I mean, seriously: guy looks like a Neanderthal, only with less depth perception.

  803. #805 Brownian, OM
    June 23, 2008

    @803: It’s not the same without the wailing and gnashing of teeth video, Chris. ;)

  804. #806 DKrap
    June 23, 2008

    Why waste valuable electrons on Ken Ham? As I see it, every electron, muon and scrape of dark energey has far greater value than Ken Ham. So, I’ll stop here so as no more electrons get hurt.

  805. #807 themadlolscientist
    June 23, 2008

    @Alex #798: Best string of Spanish insults I’ve heard since I left California 35 years ago. But you left out hijo de la chingada.

  806. #808 Andrew
    June 23, 2008

    About as sharp as a sack of wet mice. (My apologies to Foghorn Leghorn.)

  807. #809 Jim
    June 23, 2008

    Ken as a good obedient IDiot, can you go find yourself a nice round room and go and sit in the corner.

  808. #810 CalGeorge
    June 23, 2008

    Oh, no! We forgot Scuzzball!

    1. A person who is deemed to be despicable or contemptible
    – rotter, dirty dog, rat, skunk, stinker, stinkpot, bum [N. Amer], crumb, lowlife, scum bag, so-and-so, git [Brit], bugger, sleazebag, scuzz [N. Amer], sleazeball, scuzzbag [N. Amer], ratbag [Brit], scuzzbucket [N. Amer], slimebag, slimeball, scumbag

  809. #811 Biff the Bartender
    June 23, 2008

    Ken Ham is, as they said back in KY, as useless as tits (or was it teats?) on a boar-hog.

    That being said, it’s always sad when a friend tells you about his trip to the Creation Museum and how much his kids loved it. I’m torn between wanting to help eliminate his ignorance and banging my head against a brick wall. He’s smarter than that, dammit!

  810. #812 tresmal
    June 23, 2008

    Short version: Ken Ham is a chancre on a warthogs anus.
    Long version: Does Ham deserve this abuse? Yes. There are two
    kinds of stupid. One is involuntary stupidity,an unfortunate
    combination of genes and environment leaving one incapable of
    intelligent thought. These people deserve compassion and help.
    Then there is a second kind of stupidity, voluntary stupidity.
    Stupidity as a character defect. Ken Ham is not stupid in the first sense, he clearly can budge the needles on an EEG. His ability to carry out as ambitious a project as his “museum” testifies to that.He is, however, guilty of gross aggravated stupidity of the second type (call it culpable stupidity).He has made a successful career as an enzyme in the fools parting with their money process. He preys on the first kind of stupid and uses the proceeds to spread the second.As such he actively blights our future and contributes to keeping this country from achieving its potential.He is getting off easy.

  811. #813 Gordy
    June 23, 2008

    @ who is your creator #759 >

    If you’d like an example of Ken Ham lying, check my post #699 (also quoted in post #754, just above your own contribution). You can download the podcast from here:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2008/apr/14/science.weekly.podcast
    Go on, listen to Ken Ham knowingly and deliberately grossly misrepresenting someone else’s views. You might even call it a “foul and irrational personal attack”. Ken Ham is dishonest. He’s lying to us and he’s lying to you.

    @ phantomreader42 #754 >

    I understand your anger, but I don’t really wish to stoop to Ken Ham’s level of inaccuracy, however humourously, because it just gives people like “who is your creator” an excuse to ignore the real issues. Sure, it’s no worse than Ken Ham but my ambitions in life stretch considerably higher than being “no worse than Ken Ham” and I hope yours do too. The truth is damning enough without the need for us to make anything up.

    * Finally, in light of PZ’s recent blog post, I would like to point out that I am NOT Gordy Slack ; )

  812. #814 Traffic Demon
    June 23, 2008

    The Traf woke up feeling the poetics…

    ::throatclear::

    Ham’s lover searched all the day-o
    for his loins to come out and play-o
    But it was too small for hope
    even with a telescope
    made by the sage, Galileo!

    Some monkeys looked under Ham’s kilt
    to see if he would rise or wilt
    but he won no ribbons
    from baboons or gibbons
    even squirrel monkeys laughed at his hilt!

  813. #815 Orion77
    June 23, 2008

    The best description of Kenny Boy is that he is a “Knob”!

  814. #816 Lowell
    June 23, 2008

    OMFG! If you didn’t click the link in post #711, I highly recommend it. (As long as you can have a sense of humor about the mentally challenged. Some people can’t.)

  815. #817 MandyDax
    June 23, 2008

    I think George could’ve substituted Ken Ham for Dan Quayle in that “three types” joke. Stupid, full of shit, fucking nuts. KEN HAM IS ALL THREE!!

  816. #818 CanadianChick
    June 23, 2008

    late to the party…but…

    Ken Ham is the poster child for retroactive abortion.

  817. #819 Alan Kellogg
    June 23, 2008

    David, #747

    Thus putting a greater burden upon those of us supporting same sex marriage, recognition of transexual and intersexed rights, reversing and correcting assaults on civil rights, improving education overall, rebuilding the infrastructure, overthrowing the tyranny of the efficiency expert, and other stuff. Thanks for your support, chuckles. Guess we won’t be asking for your help the next time somebody qualifies an anti gay proposition for a ballot somewhere. You’re too busy bitching about old crap.

  818. #820 Alan Kellogg
    June 23, 2008

    David, #749

    Iraq happened because 9/11 happened. Before 9/11 Bush was exploring “options”. After 9/11 Bush was exploring invasion support from Congress.

  819. #821 Alan Kellogg
    June 24, 2008

    Nick Gotts, #752

    It is a rare fellow who recognizes when he is outclassed. Since you are not one of them, your response is to be expected.

    (Don’t worry about puzzling that out, somebody will come along and put it into terms you can comprehend.)

  820. #822 Ichthyic
    June 24, 2008

    alan @744:

    You’re the first person to imply the Democrats were behind it.

    I think you read that wrong, Alan.

    he wasn’t implying anything, it was a direct accusation, and most certainly not leveled at the left.

    the criticism of the left is spinelessness, not criminal behavior.

    let’s keep the two issues separate.

  821. #823 Spud
    June 24, 2008

    (Don’t worry about puzzling that out, somebody will come along and put it into terms you can comprehend.)

    Two monks were traveling, and arrived at a riverbank where a woman was standing, wary of chancing the rapid waters.

    The first monk picked up the woman, and they all forded the river together. On the other side, the first monk put the woman down, struck her in the head with a rock, raped her unconscious body, climaxed, and then tossed her in the river.

    Seeing that the second monk was outraged at this crime, the first monk sneered, “I got rid of the bitch as soon as I was done with her. Why are you still carrying her?”

  822. #824 Autumn
    June 24, 2008

    I’m a little worried about J’s long absence, since every one of his posts explicitly called for George Bush’s violent ouster.
    What?
    He meant which violent tyrannical dictator intent on depriving entire nations of their civil rights?
    You’re joking, right?

  823. Ken Ham – proof that there *is* carbon that would be better off as dioxide…

  824. #826 Nick
    June 24, 2008

    Ken Ham is a deluded, idiotic and twisted shithead fucknut who wasted $27 million on a perverse mockery of a museum in order to brainwash young children into accepting a ridiculous fallacy of the development of the Earth. The building should be torn down and the parts used to beat Ham to death.

  825. #827 Jeremy
    June 24, 2008

    Ken Ham – The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead. (After Googling ‘list of weird insults’ and trawling through many low-quality pages)

  826. #828 Goonerette
    June 24, 2008

    Ken Ham is a wank stain.

  827. #829 BB
    June 24, 2008

    Ken Ham is as welcome as a fart in a spacesuite

  828. #830 NRT
    June 24, 2008

    @efp

    “The interview was going well. Ham was spouting nonsensical creationist rhetoric, and I was in full-blown retard mode.”

    http://buffalobeast.com/117/let_there_be_retards.htm

    Hiiiii! efp
    Just came across that last week. Funniest thing I’d read in ages :)

    THREE-O-NINE! THREE-O-NINE!
    Cheers

  829. #831 phantomreader42
    June 24, 2008

    Gordy @ #813:

    I understand your anger, but I don’t really wish to stoop to Ken Ham’s level of inaccuracy, however humourously, because it just gives people like “who is your creator” an excuse to ignore the real issues. Sure, it’s no worse than Ken Ham but my ambitions in life stretch considerably higher than being “no worse than Ken Ham” and I hope yours do too. The truth is damning enough without the need for us to make anything up.

    Since when have these frauds needed an excuse to ignore the real issues? Making shit up is the entire focus of their existence. They reject the very idea of truth, substituting their own delusions. They have no qualms whatsoever about slandering anyone who dares question them. But oddly enough, if you just blatantly make shit up about THEM, they get all indignant, as if they understood on some level that it’s wrong to lie. But they never seem to connect this to their own behavior, no matter how many times it’s pointed out. Sometimes onlookers do get the hint though.

    There’s this dead guy they claim to be following that supposedly said to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Since they lie about others constantly, it seems either they love being lied about, or they’re pretty shitty “christians”.

  830. #832 Regis Philips
    June 24, 2008

    At least the authors of “Weird Kentucky” saw fit to include the Creation Museum as weirdness.

    What can you say about a man who’s doing more to harm the future of the American scientific educational process than almost any other single individual?

    PZ said it.

  831. #833 Diogenes
    June 24, 2008

    To roundly plagiarize Emo Phelps, Ken Ham wouldn’t know a straight line if you showed him an electroencephelagram chart of his brainwaves.

  832. #834 themadlolscientist
    June 24, 2008

    Weird Kentucky Buy the four-volume set and get free shipping.

  833. #835 Nick Gotts
    June 24, 2008

    Iraq happened because 9/11 happened. – Alan Kellogg

    I know I said I’d ignore your stupidities, but this post has finally enabled me to connect your various silly remarks: you think that Iraq would not have been invaded had it not been for 9/11, hence you think, or more likely pretend to think, that I was implying that the Democrats were behind 9/11, as a response to the stealing of the 2000 election.

    I must say in defence of my failure to understand what you were getting at that I could hardly be expected to allow for this degree of inanity. I’m truly astonished that anyone could believe what you say you do. This wasn’t even the official lie – which was that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction”. The neocons were determined to dominate the Gulf region, as anyone who has glanced at the PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (2000) would see: “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein”. Bush’s former treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, has stated (to CNN on January 11, 2004) that removing Saddam Hussein was “topic A” with the Bush regime right from the start. 9/11 almost certainly delayed the invasion of Iraq, because Afghanistan had to be attacked first. It also made the subsequent occupation much more difficult, because of the USA’s shortage of troops. Manufacturing a causus belli has never been very difficult for US presidents – from the USS Maine in 1898 to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. If you really think it would have taxed the neocons to have found a way to invade Iraq, as they were determined to do, without 9/11, I have to ask whether your parents know you’re accessing a site like this.

  834. #836 Nick Gotts
    June 24, 2008

    Iraq happened because 9/11 happened. – Alan Kellogg

    I know I said I’d ignore your stupidities, but this post has finally enabled me to connect your various silly remarks: you think that Iraq would not have been invaded had it not been for 9/11, hence you think, or more likely pretend to think, that I was implying that the Democrats were behind 9/11, as a response to the stealing of the 2000 election.

    I must say in defence of my failure to understand what you were getting at that I could hardly be expected to allow for this degree of inanity. I’m truly astonished that anyone could believe what you say you do. This wasn’t even the official lie – which was that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction”. The neocons were determined to dominate the Gulf region, as anyone who has glanced at the PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (2000) would see: “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein”. Bush’s former treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, has stated (to CNN on January 11, 2004) that removing Saddam Hussein was “topic A” with the Bush regime right from the start. 9/11 almost certainly delayed the invasion of Iraq, because Afghanistan had to be attacked first. It also made the subsequent occupation much more difficult, because of the USA’s shortage of troops. Manufacturing a causus belli has never been very difficult for US presidents – from the USS Maine in 1898 to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. If you really think it would have taxed the neocons to have found a way to invade Iraq, as they were determined to do, without 9/11, I have to ask whether your parents know you’re accessing a site like this.

  835. #837 themadlolscientist
    June 24, 2008

    I fail to see why Iraq is germane to this thread except possibly that G-Dub-the Shrub and Ken-the Hamster have only one brain cell between them, and the day GDtS decided to bust up a former ally that never did anything to us except send us cheap oil was the Hamster’s day to use it. Maddass Insane was just an excuse for GDtS to:

    [1] vent his frustration at not having eliminated Osama,

    [2] put a mock-righteous spin on his bigotry and paranoia,

    [3] huff and puff and wield his Weapons of Mass Distraction,

    and possibly

    [4] finish the job his daddy started in 1991.

    That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

    Oh, and Ken Ham is the trichinosis in a real ham.

  836. #838 Kseniya
    June 24, 2008

    Well, Saddam did attempt to have Bush Sr. assassinated. That’s a little less benign than simply being an oil supplier…

  837. #839 themadlolscientist
    June 24, 2008

    Was that before or after we kicked him out of Kuwait and spent over a year putting the fires out?

  838. #840 Kseniya
    June 24, 2008

    Oh, definitely after. It was a grudge thing. (Not entirely unlike the current thing.)

  839. #841 Nick Gotts
    June 24, 2008

    Well, Saddam did attempt to have Bush Sr. assassinated. That’s a little less benign than simply being an oil supplier – Kseniya@838

    Oh, I wouldn’t say that ;-)

  840. #842 themadlolscientist
    June 24, 2008

    @ Kseniya: That’s what I thought. “Y’all trahd to keeul mah daddy, ya snake-suckin’ tumbleweed-fuckin’ hornytoad! Weeeullll, ah’ma fixin’ ta keeul yore whole dadburned country an’ see how y’all lahk it.”

    @ Nick: I wasn’t about to say that, but I was thinking it very loudly!

    (p.s. Ken Ham is a snake-suckin’ tumbleweed-fuckin’ hornytoad.)

  841. #843 RyEaton
    June 24, 2008

    Ken Ham hasn’t once been able to open a bag of M&Ms without them exploding all over his lap.

  842. #844 Simon66
    June 24, 2008

    Dear Mr Myers,
    May I humbly suggest that each of those words used to describe Mr Hambone now feels a little dirtier for it.

  843. #845 bigjohn756
    June 25, 2008

    PZ, you can add my favorites to your list. They are balloon brain, blintz brain, and gourd brain.

  844. #846 Peter Henderson
    June 25, 2008

    PZ: I always thought this video on Youtube about Mr Ham, the museum etc. by someone called Cory Evans was really funny:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCxC4gxtOBYP

  845. #847 Reynold Hall
    June 25, 2008

    Wowbagger at #682
    I’m not familiar with Lewis Black (I’ll have a browse around teh internets and see what I can find) but I’ve seen that quote a few times. And it’s exactly what I thought when I first heard about the creationist’s dinosaur theory blatant lie for Jesus – have these people been watching The Flintstones and thinking it’s a documentary?

    That’s pretty much .

  846. #848 Peter Henderson
    June 25, 2008

    The link appears to be wrong. Here’s the correct one. I always laugh at this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCxC4gxtOBY

  847. #849 Reynold Hall
    June 25, 2008

    (Whoops. I messed up a bit in my last comment. Trying again:)

    Wowbagger at #682
    I’m not familiar with Lewis Black (I’ll have a browse around teh internets and see what I can find) but I’ve seen that quote a few times. And it’s exactly what I thought when I first heard about the creationist’s dinosaur theory blatant lie for Jesus – have these people been watching The Flintstones and thinking it’s a documentary?

    That’s pretty much it.

  848. #850 phantomreader42
    June 25, 2008
  849. #851 Kendall
    June 25, 2008

    I’d prefer coining the neologism of “Ken Hamm” to specifically reference all things stupid and non-scientific. That way, in a sense, his very parents are even mocking him.

  850. #852 Traffic Demon
    June 26, 2008

    The words “Ken Ham” and “science” go together about as well as “splash zone” goes with “donkey show.”

    Ken Ham: one turn of the coat hanger too few.

  851. #853 Pterygotus
    June 28, 2008

    Kanned Phlegm’s quote – “it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems.” Hallelujah! It’s about time. If this is what intellectual america is going to be accused of every time we show them how stupid, counterproductive and childish their world agenda is, then let’s just step up and revel in it. Every day we are assaulted with their idiotic dogma: the bible on billboards, churches either every 3 miles or horrific mega-churches blotting out the sun, shrill church bells ruining a quiet afternoon, and there’s not enough space to go into how saturated TV, films and the media are. So this guy picks the one physical thing that we have, museums, last bastians of hope for humanity where science is supreme, and defiles the whole concept with cheap plastic creationist horseshit. How can we not see this as a dirty bomb in the so-called culture war?

    We are here writing like 3-year-olds to blow off the steam that they build into our lives.

    Ken is an all-singing, all-dancing constipation of human knowledge. We can only take solace in the thought of some future generation that has shucked off all religion and superstition (let’s say, year 5037) and finds clips of his animatronic lunacy that immediately become a world joke, then an interplanetary joke and finally an official holiday on Mars with parades and floats celebrating how silly primitve humans were. Ham Day -yeah!

    Where’s our return fire? I’m waiting for scientists to prove that religion is a genetic ailment. Even better, how about a museum dedicated to showing how bizarre and archaic religion is? Someone build it right next to his.

    It’s time to replace all polish jokes with the word “christian.” How many christians does it take to screw up a museum? Etc.

  852. #854 David Marjanovi?, OM
    June 29, 2008

    Thus putting a greater burden upon those of us supporting same sex marriage, recognition of transexual and intersexed rights, reversing and correcting assaults on civil rights, improving education overall, rebuilding the infrastructure, overthrowing the tyranny of the efficiency expert, and other stuff. Thanks for your support, chuckles. Guess we won’t be asking for your help the next time somebody qualifies an anti gay proposition for a ballot somewhere. You’re too busy bitching about old crap.

    Alan Kellogg, are you completely out of your mind? The election theft is the crime that led to all following ones. It is the root of the problem.

    Greater burden? You cannot possibly be serious.

  853. #855 Mac
    July 4, 2008

    Since no one else has come up with it yet, mammy-whammer.

  854. #856 IrateIntellectual
    July 31, 2008

    Dagger (post #521) has it exactly right — creationism is nothing more or less than the intentional abuse of children through targeted misinformation. Kent Hovind is precisely where he deserves to be, albeit for tax evasion rather than endangering the mental welfare of untold numbers of children.

  855. #857 Sebastian
    September 18, 2008

    Ken Ham is the antichrist, he probably got somewhere on him the number 666, and I bet that he grows horns. He is a devil in human form, who came to destroy reason, and make our country look stupid. Mr. Ham you must know that evolution was discovered by Darwin and not invented as you think in your stupid head. You’re a freaken devil and all the evil. Go back to Australia you have polluted our country enough. You have no clue about science, you stupid idiot. I’m going to call you all kinds of names, because to me and to many people in the world you are an idiot who needs not only a good psychiatrist, but also an exorcist who will help you get rid off the devil in you.Do you even know that Christians killed more people through out the history than Hitler and Stalin combined? and you blame science for all the evil in the world, you stupid idiot. I guess you do not know the history well.

  856. #858 Keith Allen
    December 2, 2008

    I don’t think for a nanosecond that this will be posted – but here goes! In the ‘beginning’, there was NOTHING – neither time nor space nor matter. ‘Then’, a point-singularity in the ‘middle’ of this timeless nothingness exploded (no reason), thus CREATING (oh horrors!) space, time, and matter. ‘Later’ (again for no reason), life arose spontaneously (somehow, apparently, bringing death with it!) and even managed to ‘figure out’ a way to produce INTELLIGENCE and REASON. Now tell me – WHO believes in fairy tales, and WHO is doing the brain-washing? EVERYTHING in P Z Myers’ original rant, together with the posts following (from fellow ‘no-hopers’, I presume) more aptly describes YOURSELVES! I assume that you are all ‘happy’ to ‘live with’ a doctrine of pure hopelessness – it’s sad really.

  857. #859 Kel
    December 2, 2008

    You know, if you are going to make a point about the shortfalls of atheism as a worldview, it would really help to understand the basics of what you are talking about. If you are going to reference the Big Bang, read up on cosmology. If you are going to talk about the origin of life, check up on organic chemistry and abiogenesis. And if you are going to talk about how we got here, actually read up on evolution. That way, next time you want to make a point about the “atheist fairy tale”, you won’t look like a misinformed ignoramus.

  858. #860 Luke
    December 3, 2008

    Oh dear. It seems that Ken has gone and upset the established order. He has dared to think for himself and let the evidence speak. What a pity! Ken is truly imprisioning the world by teaching that they have value and that there is a purpose to life. How dare you, Mr. Ham! How dare you compete with the popular beliefs of our time. Its not like anything ever got accomplished by challenging the views of the current world! This is truly a tragedy!

  859. #861 Keith Allen
    December 3, 2008

    People without a REAL answer ALWAYS resort to name-calling. Which part of my posting was inaccurate?

  860. #862 Wowbagger
    December 3, 2008

    Keith Allen, #861, wrote:

    Which part of my posting was inaccurate?

    Did you read Kel’s post? It was quite obvious – the part where you confuse cosmology (big-bang theory) and abiogenesis (the beginning of life) with evolutionary theory. The latter is concerned with neither of the former. It explains the diversity of life on this planet, not how that life originated, nor how the planet was formed.

  861. #863 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    Which part of my posting was inaccurate?

    In the ‘beginning’, there was NOTHING – neither time nor space nor matter.

    The beginning of the universe doesn’t mean that there is nothing before that. It’s just that as far as our universe goes, that’s the beginning of time. Why do you think there’s effort put into theoretical concepts like String Theory?

    ‘Later’ (again for no reason), life arose spontaneously

    The only people who allege spontaneous generation are creationists. No biologist things that life just spontaneously came about, rather it was a series of events over a long period of time. We have already synthesised amino acids, and even a nucleotide base using set processes.

    and even managed to ‘figure out’ a way to produce INTELLIGENCE and REASON

    It was a survival strategy plain and simple. There are plenty of animals out there other than us that can use problem solving, the problem of explaining intelligence is no more so than explaining any other mechanism. Yet the evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming, evolution happened and we descended from apes. The fused chromosome in our DNA that us unfused for chimpanzees is a fantastic piece of evidence.

    So please please please learn what you are trying to mock before you mock it, otherwise you look like a misinformed ignoramus.

    P.S. Misinformed ignoramus is not an insult, it’s a descriptor of your lack of knowledge on the subject.

  862. #864 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    Did you read Kel’s post? It was quite obvious – the part where you confuse cosmology (big-bang theory) and abiogenesis (the beginning of life) with evolutionary theory. The latter is concerned with neither of the former. It explains the diversity of life on this planet, not how that life originated, nor how the planet was formed.

    Actually it was his complete misunderstanding of cosmology and abiogenesis that irked me. Built up two straw men then finished it off with a call to personal incredulity when it came to evolution. Three fallacies in a row.

  863. #865 Keith Allen
    December 3, 2008

    Wowbagger (only the fearful and insecure use name-handles) – NOTHING in my original post was inaccurate. My description of the Big Bang theory (which you obviously recognised) was taken from Stephen Hawking’s “A Briefer History of Time”. The Theory of Evolution (and I am not referring to Natural Selection – a TRUE science) relies on spontaneous generation of life just to ‘switch on its engine’! If you think ‘religion’ to be a myth, you may well be correct – but PLEASE don’t claim either of the above ‘theories’ to be anything more than ‘religions’.

  864. #866 Jeeves
    December 3, 2008

    Keith Allen,

    Only insecure, patronizing fools capitalize random words to give them extra validity in a debate.

  865. #867 Owlmirror
    December 3, 2008

    The Theory of Evolution (and I am not referring to Natural Selection – a TRUE science) relies on spontaneous generation of life just to ‘switch on its engine’!

    No, it doesn’t. See, you keep getting basic science wrong.

    The theory of evolution by natural selection is indeed a TRUE science.

    And while abiogenesis is currently a hypothesis, or rather several hypotheses, they are part of that TRUE science that is called organic chemistry.

    As you would know if you actually studied the science.

  866. #868 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    My description of the Big Bang theory (which you obviously recognised) was taken from Stephen Hawking’s “A Briefer History of Time”.

    Actually in A Brief History Of Time, Hawking talks about a boundless universe with no beginning or end. Don’t lie.

    The Theory of Evolution (and I am not referring to Natural Selection – a TRUE science) relies on spontaneous generation of life

    No it doesn’t, it just relies on life being there. It says nothing about the origin of life, that’s what abiogenesis seeks to explain. How life originated and how life diversified are two very different questions, evolution only seeks to explain the latter. Again, don’t lie.

    but PLEASE don’t claim either of the above ‘theories’ to be anything more than ‘religions’

    Ahh, the evolution is a religion argument. Despite all the evidence, it’s dismissed as a religion because the misinformed ignoramus here doesn’t know better. What of the gradual emergence of life in the fossil record, not to mention the scores of transitional features and the gradual change in morphology through the ages? What about the genetic code, the similarities between species, our almost identical code we share with other apes and our fused chimpanzee chromosome? What about the spread of life, how there were no placental mammals in Australia until some mice came over 5 million years ago? We have in Australia an abundance of marsupials only seen as well in South America – though they were mostly wiped out by the more successful placental mammals invading from the north.

    There’s just so much evidence for evolution, to deny it is like saying the sun and all planets revolve around the earth. There’s more evidence for evolution than there is for the holocaust, it’s one of the most widely supported scientific theories and we know more about the mechanisms behind evolution than we do about gravity. Yet I don’t see you calling gravity a religion…

  867. #869 Keith Allen
    December 3, 2008

    Kel
    Sorry – when I replied the first time, your ‘explanation’ had not come up on my screen. I was NOT mocking, merely making a comparison between two opposing belief-systems. Actually, to receive a ‘complaint’ about such on THIS site is extremely ironic! By the way, on a humorous note, bananas have around fifty percent of our DNA – and monkeys like bananas (as do many humans – maybe THEY are the ones ‘descended from apes’!). On a more serious note, you seem to be suggesting that ‘survival’ generated ‘intelligence’. How is it possible to be aware of ‘survival’ without having ‘intelligence’. Also, if there is neither ‘reason’ nor ‘purpose’, ‘survival’ has no meaning.

  868. #870 Wowbagger
    December 3, 2008

    Ad hominems will get you nowhere. How would my using my ‘real’ name make any difference to the content of my posts?

    You lied, Keith Allen. You are a liar. The phrase ‘The Theory of Evolution… relies on spontaneous generation of life…’ is a lie. Evolution, simply put, is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. It makes no claim regarding the origins of the first organisms.

    Then you lied again, Keith Allen. Where did I write that religion was a myth? You are lying again, liar. You should be careful. If you’re a christian your god has warned you not to bear false witness. Then again, so many of his adherents are liars; why should you be different?

    No, sadly, religion is not a myth. The gods that adherents of religions worship are most definitely myths – but religion itself, in all its ugliness and hatefulness and oppression and limitation of human progress is a sickening, horrifying reality.

  869. #871 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    I was NOT mocking, merely making a comparison between two opposing belief-systems.

    My belief system is built on evidence and will change over time as better explanations come about. This is the difference between science and religion.

    Though you’ve missed my point. If you are going to call atheists irrational, then you better get their beliefs right. How would you like it if I said “God is a 3-toed bunyip who did a happy dance to create the universe out of waffles” and called it Christianity? Your misunderstanding of basic science is what I rallied against, at least get it right. After all, bearing false witness is a thou shalt not by God’s law!

  870. #872 Owlmirror
    December 3, 2008

    SIWOTI!

    On a more serious note, you seem to be suggesting that ‘survival’ generated ‘intelligence’. How is it possible to be aware of ‘survival’ without having ‘intelligence’.

    What does survival have to do with intelligence, per se? There are trillions of organisms that survive and reproduce quite well with no intelligence whatsoever. Are you one of them?

    And there are viruses that reproduce fantastically well as well, regardless of whether they are “alive” or not.

    Also, if there is neither ‘reason’ nor ‘purpose’, ‘survival’ has no meaning.

    And that makes no sense whatsoever. Please reboot your brain; it’s clearly spouting gibberish.

  871. #873 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    On a more serious note, you seem to be suggesting that ‘survival’ generated ‘intelligence’. How is it possible to be aware of ‘survival’ without having ‘intelligence’.

    Who says you have to be aware to survive? Most life on this planet isn’t aware of itself, it’s only a very small subset that is.

    Also, if there is neither ‘reason’ nor ‘purpose’, ‘survival’ has no meaning.

    Who says life has to have meaning? Do you really need judgement in the next life in order for your life to have meaning? But in order to break the perception that without God, it’s nihilism, here’s some wise words for you:

    If life seems jolly rotten
    There’s something you’ve forgotten
    And that’s to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
    When you’re feeling in the dumps
    Don’t be silly chumps
    Just purse your lips and whistle – that’s the thing.

    And…always look on the bright side of life…
    Always look on the light side of life…

  872. #874 RickrOll
    December 3, 2008

    are you saying animals ponder their own existance and ask the why’s and wherefor’s of thier reality. Keith, you are an idiot. Are you sure you shouldn’e be on a differnt thread? We have one specially designed for you.

  873. #875 Keith Allen
    December 3, 2008

    Wonderful – I am accused of the ‘evolution is a religion argument’! Please, please, please look up the FULL (by the way, I use capitals for emphasis – not for validation – don’t be so patronising) dictionary definition of ‘religion’. Have you not considered your own Dawkinsian ‘elephant-hurling’ tactics with your claim: “There’s just so much evidence for evolution …”? Dawkinsians ALWAYS use ‘evolution’ and ‘natural selection’ as one and the same. If there’s really so much evidence for the Theory of Evolution, tell me just ONE proven example of a species changing into a completely different one. Also, ‘manufacturing’ lifeless so-called ‘building blocks of life’ is not synonymous with ‘creating’ life. In closing, I did not lie about the cosmological ‘beginning’ – now you are semantics-hurling. Oh, why would you assume I know nothing about cosmology or abiogenesis – I could equally assume that you know nothing about logic or common-sense – the only ‘background noise’ out there in the Cosmos is God crying out: “How much evidence do you need to realise that the Universe and Life were CREATED?”

  874. #876 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    If there’s really so much evidence for the Theory of Evolution, tell me just ONE proven example of a species changing into a completely different one

    There are several on this page:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

    Even if we didn’t have any observed speciation, that wouldn’t matter. The fossil record, the morphology and distribution of life, and the DNA sequence including our fused chimp chromosome all point to common ancestry. If as you say Goddidit, then why did God go to such great lengths to show a 13.7 billion year old universe, a 4.6 billion year old earth, and 3.5 billion years old life that gradually emerges? I suppose he’s omnipotent and all, but to make all the evidence point to an old universe and old planet? That’s being deceitful. I suppose if you don’t obey the 9th commandment, God doesn’t have to either.

    Oh, why would you assume I know nothing about cosmology or abiogenesis

    Because what you said was wrong.

    I could equally assume that you know nothing about logic or common-sense

    You could, but again you would be wrong.

  875. #877 Owlmirror
    December 3, 2008

    If there’s really so much evidence for the Theory of Evolution, tell me just ONE proven example of a species changing into a completely different one.

    What do you think “a species changing into a completely different one” means? If you think it means magically transforming in one single generation, you’re obviously wrong.

    We have the fossil and genetic evidence that shows that a couple of million years ago, there was a particular species of ape whose descendants, in separate populations, became that species known as Homo sapiens and the genus known as Pan, which itself has split into two species, Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes.

    Also, ‘manufacturing’ lifeless so-called ‘building blocks of life’ is not synonymous with ‘creating’ life.

    No, it’s not. But it will be of it can be shown how those building blocks can combine to metabolize and reproduce.

    the only ‘background noise’ out there in the Cosmos is God crying out: “How much evidence do you need to realise that the Universe and Life were CREATED?

    Bullshit.

    God does not say anything, ever.

    The universe at large is saying nothing more than “I radiate at 3 Kelvin”, and it isn’t saying it in English, it’s saying it in electromagnetic radiation at 3 Kelvin.

  876. #878 Keith Allen
    December 3, 2008

    Wow! I certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons! It would be intensely amusing if it were not, in reality, so sad. It is amazing to hear atheists (I was once ‘one of you’) quote from ‘a book of myths’ (as you call ‘it’). I have lied about NOTHING – the FULL Theory of Evolution DOES rely on spontaneous ‘outbreak’ of life, and you ‘all’ know it – but this ‘reality’ is a thorn in your sides (as it was for Darwin – who turned his back on God upon the death of a daughter). Whether you accept it or not (or even believe it or not), God does exist – without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair. Name-calling is the last, desperate ‘throw of the dice’ for those who fail to see the obvious – there is so much evidence for design/creation that it should be considered as fact (to borrow from your own words – as you did from the ‘book of myths’).

  877. #879 Owlmirror
    December 3, 2008

    the FULL Theory of Evolution DOES rely on spontaneous ‘outbreak’ of life, and you ‘all’ know it

    Nope. The theory of evolution relies only on reproduction, variation in reproduction, heritability of traits, and variation in the ability of an organism to survive.

    Abiogenesis is indeed an important hypothesis for biology in general, but the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

    but this ‘reality’ is a thorn in your sides (as it was for Darwin – who turned his back on God upon the death of a daughter). Whether you accept it or not (or even believe it or not), God does exist – without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair.

    Are you even capable of thinking about what you write a single second after you write it? You’re specifically saying that Darwin, originally a believer, rejected God from out of hopelessness and despair, then you say that without belief, there can only be hopelessness and despair.

    Which is it? Despair leads to lack of belief, or lack of belief leads to despair?

    And have you lost a beloved child to a painful death from disease? I ask only out of curiosity.

    there is so much evidence for design/creation that it should be considered as fact

    Utter bullshit.

    There is zero evidence for design or creation. That’s why it’s not considered to be a fact.

    And if God really existed, he would speak for himself in plain language understandable by all, instead of relying on losers like you to speak for him.

  878. #880 John Morales
    December 3, 2008

    Keith Allen:

    Whether you accept it or not (or even believe it or not), God does exist – without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair.

    You have revealed your deepest fear.

  879. #881 Rey Fox
    December 3, 2008

    “without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair.”

    How does the existence of God (let alone knowledge of his existence) give meaning to life?

  880. #882 RickrOll
    December 3, 2008

    But you know what, Keith-i concede. You win, creationism is absolutely right. Let’s look into the implications of science that are now brought to bear in this new light of reason, this triumph of faith!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_971160

    And here’s another! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

  881. #883 Keith Allen
    December 3, 2008

    Well, what a to do! You’re using the old “I’m right and you’re wrong” tactic – which is even more desperate than name-calling. It’s akin to “Give me back my ball – I’m not playing anymore”. ‘Speciation’ does not equate to ‘change of species’, as in: dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, moths remain moths (there’s a ‘good one’ for Evolutionists), elephants remain elephants (even when hurled), fish remain fish, whales remain whales, apes remain apes, ….. – and humans remain humans (frogs don’t turn into princes!) – some with pent-up hatred for any who believe the obvious. The irony of this exchange of views is that P Z began it by using the couplet ‘soul-shuddering’ in the second sentence (assuming that “Ooh, dear.” constitutes a sentence). You have a SOUL, P Z?
    Only Evolutionists and atheistic scientists (and, unfortunately, Theistic Evolutionists) totally accept those incredibly long time-scales quoted – you NEED such vast time-scales for Evolution (and you know which ‘type’ I’m referring to) to have even the remotest ‘chance’ of working. As for fossils – these can only be formed under rapidly generated pressure (doesn’t that ‘book of myths’ have something in it which might just provide the required conditions?). Finally, try this on for size:
    If you don’t believe in ‘life after death’, you could only possibly know that you were wrong. On the other hand, …. – an ‘interesing’ exercise in logic. I have nothing to fear but fear itself – “Some things are true whether you believe them or not.” (a quote from the film City of Angels – which can ‘work’ for all of us). Oh, how can you possibly know that God never speaks to anyone? Is it because He has never spoken to you? Have you ever tried speaking to Him?

  882. #884 Wowbagger
    December 3, 2008

    Keith the Liar, bleated:

    Wow! I certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons!

    No, Keith. What you did was put a pigeon – yourself – amongst the cats – us. With predictable results.

    You deterioration into not only all-caps (a sign of desperation) but scare quotes (a further sign of desperation) gives away just how much you’re frothing at the mouth right now, ranting and raving and resorting to even more lies as you realise how hollow and empty your pathetic belief in your non-existent god is.

    I have lied about NOTHING – the FULL Theory of Evolution DOES rely on spontaneous ‘outbreak’ of life, and you ‘all’ know it – but this ‘reality’ is a thorn in your sides…

    The lies continue. You’re even lying about lying – lying2 if you will. How life began is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, ‘full’ or otherwise.

    Whether you accept it or not (or even believe it or not), God does exist – without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair

    More lies. I neither believe in nor accept your god’s existence, and I am neither hopeless nor despairing. I’ll leave that to the christians.

    Name-calling is the last, desperate ‘throw of the dice’ for those who fail to see the obvious

    No, it’s the response of people like us to the pitiable attempts at logic made by those with limited intellects – such as yourself – for the sake of amusement. You are a sadly deluded cretin with all the reasoning power of a warmed-over blancmange.

    there is so much evidence for design/creation that it should be considered as fact (to borrow from your own words – as you did from the ‘book of myths’).

    Really? Then present it. Surely if there is evidence, prominent, peer-reviewed scientific journals would by fighting tooth and nail to be the first to reveal it to the world. Why are you, an obvious genius, withholding such an amazing find from the human race?

    No, Keith the Liar, I know why you haven’t presented your so-called evidence: it is as flimsy as your arguments and your intellect. Stick to lying; it’s all you can manage.

  883. #885 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    I have lied about NOTHING – the FULL Theory of Evolution DOES rely on spontaneous ‘outbreak’ of life, and you ‘all’ know it

    Stop lying, it doesn’t and you should know that. Evolution relies on life being there, it doesn’t matter the origins. Whether it’s a series of events, or intervention by aliens, all you need is replicating organic forms and the theory of evolution comes into play.

    ‘Speciation’ does not equate to ‘change of species’, as in: dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, moths remain moths (there’s a ‘good one’ for Evolutionists), elephants remain elephants (even when hurled), fish remain fish, whales remain whales, apes remain apes, ….. – and humans remain humans (frogs don’t turn into princes!)

    Of course humans are only going to give birth to humans, and elephants are only going to give birth to elephants. We are still not only apes, but fish too! Once two populations of the same species are isolated for long enough through a variety of means, eventually interbreeding will be impossible and those two populations are now different species. If this were to happen to humans, which of the two different species would you count as human? They both are. But as time goes on the morphological and genetic structures of the different populations would vary enough that the macroscopic changes would be noticeable. A cat is only ever going to give birth to a cat. Whether in 10 million years time the cats of then will look like the cats of now is another thing entirely.

    Could you please inform yourself on the basics of evolution before you talk about it any more? It’s painful to watch someone so ignorant of it all try and give a lesson to those who aren’t.

  884. #886 John Morales
    December 3, 2008

    Keith Allen, you’re sure messed-up. You deny science out of fear of reality, and ask us to play with your imaginary friend.
    There, there.

  885. #887 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    I wonder if Keith has read the passage by Nietzsche entitled “the Madman”? I can fully understand why he thinks that without God there is despair, we have killed the holiest of holies.

    Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning
    hours,
    ran to the market place, and cried incessantly:
    “I seek God! I seek God!”
    As many of those who did not believe in God
    were standing around just then,
    he provoked much laughter.
    Has he got lost? asked one.
    Did he lose his way like a child? asked another.
    Or is he hiding?
    Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?
    Thus they yelled and laughed.

    The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes.
    “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you.
    We have killed him—you and I.
    All of us are his murderers.
    But how did we do this?
    How could we drink up the sea?
    Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon?
    What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun?
    Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving?
    Away from all suns?
    Are we not plunging continually?
    Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions?
    Is there still any up or down?
    Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?
    Do we not feel the breath of empty space?
    Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?
    Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?
    Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers
    who are burying God?
    Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition?
    Gods, too, decompose.
    God is dead.
    God remains dead.
    And we have killed him.

    “How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?
    What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled
    to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?
    What water is there for us to clean ourselves?
    What festivals of atonement, what sacred gamesshall we have to invent?
    Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us?
    Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
    There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us -
    For the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all
    history hitherto.”

    Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners;
    and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment.
    At last he threw his lantern on the ground,
    and it broke into pieces and went out.
    “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet.
    This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering;
    it has not yet reached the ears of men.
    Lightning and thunder require time;
    the light of the stars requires time;
    deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard.
    This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -
    and yet they have done it themselves.

    It has been related further that on the same day
    the madman forced his way into several churches
    and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo.
    Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing
    but:
    “What after all are these churches now
    if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”

    – Friedrich Nietzsche

    It’s easy to live without God. You just live.

  886. #888 Wowbagger
    December 3, 2008

    Kel,

    Funny you should post about madmen.

    I suspect that, based on the deterioration he’s displayed over the course of posting, Keith the Liar2 has, overcome with impotent rage, lost it completely and smashed up the PC he was using and has since collapsed on the floor to gnaw on the carpet and froth at the mouth.

    Which’ll get the straitjacket put back on him and earn him a trip to the padded cell with his internet privileges revoked for at least a couple of weeks. If he’s lucky they’ll let him keep his tinfoil hat.

    Ah, Loons for Jesus?. Hours of fun.

  887. #889 Keith Allen
    December 3, 2008

    Believe it or not, I have actually been chuckling over some of your responses – I’m truly sorry (please be assured that this is not sarcasm – and I am not lying about it!). I have rarely been so entertained – yet know I should not be feeling this way. Do you all realise that, before I ‘resurrected’ this ‘thread’, it had ‘died’ on September 18? You should all be rejoicing that you can ‘vent your spleens’ all over again. It must be some time since you had such a ‘god-sent’ opportunity (judging by all the ‘foaming at the mouth’ language you all seem so ‘expert’ at). One of my favourite scriptures says: “Fools mock, but they shall mourn”. Again, this can work either way – but be assured (I’m repeating myself!), God does not require ‘fear’ of Himself, but ‘respect’ and ‘reverence’. By the way – what time is it where you are? It’s 9pm on December 3 here in New Zealand.

  888. #890 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    (judging by all the ‘foaming at the mouth’ language you all seem so ‘expert’ at)

    There are always idiots out there peddling snake oil, it just happened to be your turn today.

  889. #891 CJO
    December 3, 2008

    Kel: There are always idiots out there peddling snake oil, it just happened to be your turn today.

    Seriously, could we get the trolls on some kind of schedule? It’s feast or famine out here. We need some consistency from these guys.

  890. #892 Owlmirror
    December 3, 2008

    God does not require ‘fear’ of Himself, but ‘respect’ and ‘reverence’.

    If God requires anything, he can tell us exactly what it is himself, in plain language. Who the hell are you to say what God does or does not require?

  891. #893 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    Seriously, could we get the trolls on some kind of schedule? It’s feast or famine out here. We need some consistency from these guys.

    There’s always a case of SIWOTI somewhere, but like our early ancestors to ensure a regular food supply we must migrate. Can’t always expect the meal to come to us.

  892. #894 Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker
    December 3, 2008

    Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008

    Believe it or not, I have actually been chuckling over some of your responses – I’m truly sorry (please be assured that this is not sarcasm – and I am not lying about it!). I have rarely been so entertained – yet know I should not be feeling this way. Do you all realise that, before I ‘resurrected’ this ‘thread’, it had ‘died’ on September 18? You should all be rejoicing that you can ‘vent your spleens’ all over again. It must be some time since you had such a ‘god-sent’ opportunity (judging by all the ‘foaming at the mouth’ language you all seem so ‘expert’ at).

    Keith, sorry to burst your bubble but you bringing up an old thread is old news. All of the finest trolls do that.

    As for you “disproving” evolution by pointing out that there could not be that much time, I have to point out that dozens of other ignorant posters have also “disproved” evolution in the three months this thread went in active. Take a look. You are nothing special. You are just an other person who, finding that existence and time is far more large then your limited imagination can handle, crawls back to a comfortable myth.

    You are nothing but sport here. And just to point it out, Kel, Wowbagger and (I might be mistaken on this) John Morales are in Australia.

  893. #895 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    (please be assured that this is not sarcasm – and I am not lying about it!)

    You don’t have a good track record so far, you are either a misinformed ignoramus or lying through your teeth.

  894. #896 John Morales
    December 3, 2008

    Keith:

    Do you all realise that, before I ‘resurrected’ this ‘thread’, it had ‘died’ on September 18?

    We realise you’re a common, run of the mill godbot.

    And you find it amusing that we find you ignorant, deluded and infantile? Right.

    By the way, threads aren’t dead until PZ kills them (closes them).

    Janine, I’m at GMT +09:30, and you’re spot on.

  895. #897 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    Yeah, it’s half past seven in the evening where I am. I’m currently preparing dinner and installing Grand Theft Auto IV.

  896. #898 Keith Allen
    December 3, 2008

    Don’t you ‘guys’ have any manners? I politely asked what time is it where you are? Sorry, I just realised that I used the words ‘manners’ and ‘politely’ – I don’t want to fully (maybe that should be fuel-ly) inflame you all! Seriously (a bit of an oxymoron for you all), I laughed out loud at the latest responses – I truly feel ashamed of myself – really. I especially found “Who the hell are YOU to say what God does or does not require?” amusing – are you sure you’re an atheist? I am not in the least bit perturbed by all your ‘rantings and ravings’ – just to inform you all, I do have a degree in science, and I will always respect science (which does not mean that I accept EVERY hypothesis/theory ‘of the day’ – I even respect your beliefs, even though I disagree with some of them – not ALL). Have fun – even if it be at MY expense – I do like to be generous. Seriously – what time is it ‘there’?

  897. #899 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    Don’t you ‘guys’ have any manners?

    I know Jesus said to treat others as you wish to be treated, but if you are just going to lie and misrepresent science so you have a straw man to lay your god down on, then why should we should courtesy to you? Being a misinformed ignoramus without a shred of propensity to correct that ignorance doesn’t make you endearing to us in the least.

    By the way, you haven’t asked about my beliefs yet? You’ve ranted about atheists by misrepresenting science, why haven’t you asked anyone here about what they believe theologically? Oh right, that would be courteous.

  898. #900 Wowbagger
    December 3, 2008

    Keith,

    Why don’t you pray to your god to tell you the time here? Do let us know what her answer is.

  899. #901 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    Yeah, if you pray to your god to turn my bottle of water into a bottle of vodka and it works, I’ll convert right here and now.

  900. #902 John Morales
    December 3, 2008

    Keith:

    @883: [0] The irony of this exchange of views is that P Z began it by using the couplet ‘soul-shuddering’ in the second sentence (assuming that “Ooh, dear.” constitutes a sentence). [1] Only Evolutionists and atheistic scientists (and, unfortunately, Theistic Evolutionists) totally accept those incredibly long time-scales quoted – you NEED such vast time-scales for Evolution (and you know which ‘type’ I’m referring to) to have even the remotest ‘chance’ of working. [2] As for fossils – these can only be formed under rapidly generated pressure (doesn’t that ‘book of myths’ have something in it which might just provide the required conditions?).
    @898: [3] I do have a degree in science, and I will always respect science (which does not mean that I accept EVERY hypothesis/theory ‘of the day’ – I even respect your beliefs, even though I disagree with some of them – not ALL).

    0. It’s not a couplet, it’s a hyphenated idiom; “soul” here refers to the psyche.
    1. You forgot geologists, physicists, cosmologists etc.
    2. Only YECs say this.
    3. You might have a degree in science, but you clearly don’t accept science, as per 1 & 2 – not to mention your clear misunderstanding evidenced by your use of hypothesis/theory as if the terms were anywhere near synonymous.

    Don’t you ‘guys’ have any manners? I politely asked what time is it where you are? [...] Seriously – what time is it ‘there’?

    I already told you – you appear to be innumerate, too.

    As to manners and politeness, you barged in with bombastic and ridiculous assertions, and when questioned on them you retreated into faux-indignation. What did you expect?

  901. #903 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    *sigh* still water.

    In other news, my attempt to turn water into ginger beer is working well.

    Kel 1 – Judeo-Christian deity 0

  902. #904 Wowbagger
    December 3, 2008

    Keith the Liar wrote:

    I do have a degree in science

    Why should we believe someone who has flat-out lied multiple times? I suspect that what you really mean is that, whenever you speak to people about science, they respond by saying ‘BS’; you’ve just assumed that must have meant you had a degree in it.

    Keith Allan (full of) BS – sounds about right to me.

  903. #905 Keith Allen
    December 3, 2008

    Ah, NOW I get it – you all worship the ‘almighty’ P Z! This is a PROFESSOR, no less, who asks his followers to be childish in the way HE is. How infantile is it for a PROFESSOR (!!!! – even as a ‘lowly’ TEACHER, I would be absolutely ashamed) to make such a request? Ah, but his ‘sheep’ are ever obedient and follow unquestioningly. How loudly you all bleat when opposed – if you are truly faithful to your beliefs, there can be no need for name-calling and character assassination. I, too, disagree with SOME of Ken Ham’s beliefs – but he seems to me to be both sincere and caring (I hope I did not use two more words there which might upset you all). I have to confess that my previous post WAS intentionally sarcastic (it’s an unfortunate weakness of mine), but none of the other posts were (it doesn’t matter whether you believe me or not). Enjoy your sport ‘little children’ (no sarcasm here – it’s meant to be a ‘command’ from the ‘omniscient’ P Z) – words (no matter how derogatory) cannot harm me.

  904. #906 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    Ah, NOW I get it – you all worship the ‘almighty’ P Z!

    Are you done trolling?

  905. #907 Walton
    December 3, 2008

    BobC: Ken Ham is an asshole who abuses children with his breathtaking stupidity. He belongs in prison. [emphasis added]

    Please tell me you’re not serious. Don’t get me wrong – I totally agree that Ken Ham talks total nonsense and that his “Creation Museum” is a joke.

    But I also believe in the essential liberty of free speech; and no one should be put in prison for expounding their views, however absurd those views might be. As long as he isn’t using public money to promote religious ideals – which he isn’t; he’s using private donations – then he has a right, both legal and moral, to say whatever he wants without fear of reprisal from the state. Free speech only for views you find palatable is not free speech at all.

    You, of course, have an absolute right to call him an asshole – and I’m not saying you’re wrong. But instituting state persecution of those with a particular viewpoint would, IMO, be far more destructive for our society than any number of creationists.

  906. #908 Feynmaniac
    December 3, 2008

    Ah, NOW I get it – you all worship the ‘almighty’ P Z!

    PLEASE don’t claim either of the above ‘theories’ to be anything more than ‘religions’.

    Stop projecting. It seems like in your little mind that the only way someone can think something true is if it’s a religion to them. This is not the case.

  907. #909 John Morales
    December 3, 2008

    Keith @905, you’re a one-trick pony.

    Enjoy your sport ‘little children’ (no sarcasm here – it’s meant to be a ‘command’ from the ‘omniscient’ P Z) – words (no matter how derogatory) cannot harm me.

    The text says one thing, the subtext another.

    The very concept of independent thought is scary for you, isn’t it? ;)

    There, there. It’ll all be allright.

  908. #910 negentropyeater
    December 3, 2008

    Ah, the usual exchange with an ignorant brain-dead anti-science arrogant creobot !

    Can I play or is he already on his way out ?

  909. #911 Feynmaniac
    December 3, 2008

    Walton,

    BobC is an atheist and yet manages to scare the shit out of all the commenters here. He has on several occasions called for every man,woman and child in Iraq to be killed as retribution for 9/11. I’m surprised he has not yet been sent to the dungeon.

  910. #912 Wowbagger
    December 3, 2008

    Ah, the irony. Keith Allan the Liar dances to Ratface Ken Ham’s tune and yet describes other people as followers. The Liars for Jesus™ are almost as good at projecting as they are at denying facts.

  911. #913 SC
    December 3, 2008

    Walton,

    BobC, on this blog, has advocated the destruction of Iraq and I believe Afghanistan as well. He’s stated that, while he finds abortion disgusting, he supports abortions for religious (or just fundamentalist – I can’t recall) people. He’s repeatedly referred to religious people as “subhumans.” And this isn’t the first time he’s suggested that fundamentalists are “traitors” or should be jailed. BobC is a nutcase. Responding to his rants serves no useful purpose.

  912. #914 clinteas
    December 3, 2008

    *sticks head into thread and looks around*

    Pharyngula’s finest arguing with a braindead creo zombie troll….business as usual…

    *Goes back to playing Cricket2007*

  913. #915 John Morales
    December 3, 2008

    negentropyeater, you can still play – the creobot has provided plenty of material to work with, and claims to be amused by our responses.

  914. #916 Walton
    December 3, 2008

    SC at #913: You’re right, and I won’t respond to him again.

    Returning to the main topic of the thread, a couple of thoughts about Ken Ham and creationism in general.

    I’m about to make a comment which may seem stupid at face value, but think about it: I would assert that creationists are, in fact, atheists’ strongest weapon. Creationists present a straw man version of theism, which can be easily deconstructed by anyone who knows anything about biology, physics, history, geology or philosophy (or, indeed, anyone who can look at the evidence and think straight). I am confident in saying that the God in which Ken Ham believes – a God who created heaven and earth in seven days a few thousand years ago, and who designed every plant and animal step by step – does not exist; and if Ken Ham’s views represented the mainstream of religion, I would be an absolutely convinced atheist.

    As someone else has pointed out above, belief in Biblical literalism, even without any extraneous evidence, is intellectually unsustainable, because the Biblical narrative contradicts itself in places. Ham-style Christianity is, therefore, laughable and must be rejected by all right-thinking people. Which is possibly one of the reasons that there are so many atheists amongst the educated; no bright person wants to be on the same side as the likes of Ham.

    But what it is important to remember is that there is a sustainable middle-ground. I emphatically do not believe that the Genesis narrative is literally true. It probably contains bits of truth; Noah’s flood, for example, is probably a cultural memory of a great flood from the Black Sea basin which did cover much of the Ancient Near East within the relevant timeframe (this is further supported by the existence of similar flood myths in neighbouring Near Eastern cultures, such as Babylon). Similarly, the patriarchs might well have existed as historical figures (we simply don’t know), but it is very doubtful whether many of the Biblical stories about them are true. And when we get to the unpalatable narratives of Numbers and Joshua – detailing, in essence, a genocide – I would suggest that, while it’s highly likely that the Israelites did indeed massacre the surrounding nations, it’s exceedingly unlikely that God genuinely told Moses and Joshua to do it. A God like that would, simply, be evil (as some have pointed out on other threads).

    But I believe that, while the Bible was written by humans for human purposes – and is fallible, having been largely transcribed from oral traditions transmitted over generations – this does not preclude its being inspired by the agency of the Holy Spirit, nor does it prevent God speaking to us through its narrative. We should rarely, if ever, use it as a guide to history, and we should never use it as a textbook of science. But it still contains much that is inspirational and valuable. That’s why I am a liberal Christian and not an atheist – but I despise the likes of Ham as much as you do. The man is a joke.

  915. #917 negentropyeater
    December 3, 2008

    This Keith Troll seems particularly juicy, his comments display an arrogance and an ignorance of basic scientfic concepts which is breathtaking.

    Why does this kind of Troll always end up claiming it has a “Science degree” ?

    Yet he describes the Big Bang as an explosion “in” the “middle” of nothing ?

    Hey Keith Troll, just a question if you have a Science degree, where’s the “middle” of nothing ?

  916. #918 clinteas
    December 3, 2008

    I’m about to make a comment which may seem stupid at face value

    Color me unsurprised.

    I would assert that creationists are, in fact, atheists’ strongest weapon

    I dont need a weapon.Im not out to convince anyone.But I am concerned about the large number of creationists and so called moderates that tolerate them,especially in the USA.

    It doesnt work that way Walton.Its no good pointing at a creationist when talking to a moderate christian and saying,look how braindead stupid that one is,doesnt that convince you that Im right?

    But I believe that, while the Bible was written by humans for human purposes – and is fallible, having been largely transcribed from oral traditions transmitted over generations – this does not preclude its being inspired by the agency of the Holy Spirit, nor does it prevent God speaking to us through its narrative

    Walton,youre a nice guy,but you are also a very confused guy…These positions would,to the neutral observer,seem pretty much incompatible.You just cant have it both ways mate…

  917. #919 Walton
    December 3, 2008

    Clinteas: These positions would,to the neutral observer,seem pretty much incompatible.You just cant have it both ways mate…

    Yes I can. You are expounding the false dichotomy which, oddly enough, is implicitly adopted by both conservative/fundie Christians and hardline atheists: either the Bible is “true”, in the sense of being a literal and accurate exposition of history, or it is “false” and hence worthless. Since we can prove that a literal reading of the Bible is incompatible with empirical facts and observed reality – and is, indeed, inconsistent even with itself – this would, if these were the only two options, make religion an intellectually unsustainable position for anyone remotely educated and open-minded.

    But, as I keep pointing out, there is a third way. I believe that the Holy Spirit can, and does, work through the agency of fallible human beings in inspiring them to do good and to speak truth. Human beings are still imperfect, and so the outcome is imperfect. When I say that the Holy Spirit “inspired” the Bible, this does not mean that it was dictated verbatim by an infallible voice from the clouds. It plainly was not, and so “sola scriptura” is a red herring. Rather, I mean that the authors of the Bible, being ordinary humans, were trying to rationalise and understand their own encounters with the divine – and sometimes, of course, they got it very wrong. But the Bible is still a worthwhile and inspirational text, and still tells us something about the nature of God.

    And I think we can probably accept that the most important part of the Bible – the Gospels, and the teachings of Christ – are historically reliable enough that we can rely on them as a guide to faith and ethics. And even if they’re not a completely accurate historical representation, where’s the harm? Jesus’ teachings are still a good ethic by which to live, if one understands them properly.

    I will say, however, that the Bible – being, as I said, written by fallible humans, and flawed in many parts – should take second place to our own moral consciences in guiding our actions, because I believe our instinctive moral compasses to be guided by the Holy Spirit. So where the Bible appears to be promoting something which seems to us immoral and senseless (which the Old Testament does in many parts), we should go with our own innate sense of decency, rather than an ancient and fallible document which was written for a very different, and more barbaric, cultural and historical setting.

  918. #920 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    Just to play Devil’s Advocate…

    Walton, when you rally against creationism but believe in the holy spirit. How do you rationalise that a belief in a holy spirit is any more rational than believing the universe is hand-crafted by God?

  919. #921 clinteas
    December 3, 2008

    Walton @ 919,

    this would, if these were the only two options, make religion an intellectually unsustainable position for anyone remotely educated and open-minded.

    Indeed.It does.
    I knew you had it in you !

  920. #922 Wowbagger
    December 3, 2008

    Walton, you’ve essentially echoed one of my own personal thought on religion, which is that the best evidence against christianity is christians themselves – particularly idiots like Ken Ham, who, I’m ashamed to say, is from my home state of Queensland in Australia.

    But even the non-literal believers don’t make sense to me. It’s impossible to read the bible and honestly believe that the god in it to be good, kind and loving. I find Numbers (31 in particular) to contain some of the most horrific, monstrous acts ever written as fact or fiction – all ordered by the bloodthirsty, hateful judeo-christian god who watches on with spiteful glee as innocent women and children are butchered.

    Were the worshippers of this god honest about what a malevolent nightmare it is that they revere then I might have some respect for them – but they don’t. They lie to themselves and the lie to others about it when claim they worship a good god, a kind god, a god who cares for them – who cares for every human.

    I find this all beyond ridiculous. It’s saddening and infuriating and depressing all at once.

    Your god, if he existed, would be a monster. To shift the blame and say the evil acts committed in his name were due to ‘fallible humans’ is the worst kind of dodge, the description of a true coward who refuses to take responsibility for his actions.

    If god couldn’t get it right then, why should we expect that he’s changed? He can’t change; he is, by definition, perfect. That you can even contemplate him capable of making mistakes is antithetical to almost every aspect of judeo-christian theology.

    While there are some aspects of the bible that are, as you wrote, ‘inspirational and valuable’, they are hardly unique to the bible, and more a case of pointing out the obvious positives human society has developed over the years.

    So we can take Jesus’ teachings as being the product of the development of human compassion, not the influence of a divine being – it lessens it that it had to come from a god for us to learn it. We should be proud of having achieved it rather than praising a god for coming to us in human form and handing it to us.

    Honestly, I think you’ve only really got lingering shreds of belief there. Your posts seem to be more about you convincing yourself of the need for faith than it is about convincing us. You can live without a belief in god, Walton. It adds nothing and subtracts much.

  921. #923 negentropyeater
    December 3, 2008

    Walton,

    do you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding those people’s instnctve moral consciences who condemn homosexuality or abortion ?
    Whatever your answer, how do you know this, and why would a religious person know better ?

    I used to call myself a cultural Christian. Never believed in any of the myths, the virgin birth, the resurection, the miracles, but seemed to think like you that there were valuable moral lessons in the Bible. But then there were also all these terrible ones, eg on women and abortion, on homosexuality, so it was all about picking and chosing. Then I asked myself, why do we need this, can’t we come up with the valuable stuff without the Bible ? Of course we can, so what’s left of my “cultural” Christianty ? Nothing much really.
    Having said this, I never managed to reject entirely some sort of generic animism. It’s still in the back of my head, I believe it’s based on hope and wishful thinking but that’s what it is, these are strong enough and I can’t get rid of it, it’s just too difficult. “I don’t know, neither do you” is my most honest answer to the question “Is there something after death ?”.
    But then that means that whatever there is or not, we can only use reason and evidence to guide us.

  922. #924 Keith Allen
    December 3, 2008

    Kel
    Do you really believe in trolls? You Evolutionists seem to believe anything (just enjoying a bit of fun myself – this site cracks me up)! Walton, even though I think you don’t share my beliefs, thank you for showing civility – such a breath of fresh air. Creationists really are absolutely no threat to ANYONE or ANYTHING – and do not demand that their beliefs be taught in state schools (because it would be taught ‘badly’ by the likes of yourselves – I do not mean this as an insult; you really WOULD teach it without conviction). Such beliefs belong in Church or in the home. If you feel ‘unsafe’ in your bastions of science, your faith must be extremely weak. Oh, sorry about the ‘couplet’ thing – and hypothesis/theory was meant to be read as hypothesis OR theory (it’s getting late and I am getting lazy)- and I didn’t forget those other ‘-ists’, I ‘lazily’ grouped them all together as ‘scientists’.
    ‘negentropyeater’ – is this a ‘fancy’ way of saying ‘poorreader’? I wrote ‘middle’ to implicate the total illogicality of the Big Bang theory – but ‘little children’ wouldn’t understand that. The real number line (in Mathematics) is usually ‘said’ to have zero in the ‘middle’, negative numbers to the left, and positive numbers to the right. In reality (excuse the unintended pun), it has no ‘beginning’ and no ‘ending’ (like God?) and, therefore, has no ‘middle’ – where would be the middle of infinity? You may now realise that my degree is in Mathematics (with Physics – by the way, that guy Isaac Newton Troll was a devout Creationist, as was Louis Pasteur Troll, as was James Clerk Maxwell Troll – interesting ‘family’!), and the numbers simply do not ‘stack up’ either for the Big Bang Theory or for the Theory of Evolution – go on P Z’s obedient flock, bleat on (oddly enough being an anagram of ‘notable’, as were the three scientists aforementioned).

  923. #925 Kel
    December 3, 2008

    Do you really believe in trolls?

    Internet trolls are not a myth, I’ve seen them.

    You Evolutionists seem to believe anything

    Anything? We aren’t no stinking creationist. Here’s a challenge, show me any peer review document that shows the world to be less than 4 billion years old. The age of the earth is well established through several dating techniques, and the gradual emergence of life is there to see for anyone who isn’t a retard.

    As for believing in anything, show me a bunny in precambrian rocks and I’ll renounce evolution. I won’t convert to Christianity, I’d need to see proof of Christ’s divinity and resurrection.

    So come on, people have shown you peer reviewed research to support their views. What do you have to support yours? I’m betting nothing more than the mythology of middle-eastern herders.

  924. #926 Kenneth Oberlander
    December 3, 2008

    @Wowbagger

    You are a sadly deluded cretin with all the reasoning power of a warmed-over blancmange.

    For this, I thank you sir! Made my day.

    @Keith Allen #924. Where is the logical fallacy bingo when you need it most?

  925. #927 John Morales
    December 3, 2008

    Walton #916 & 919, the only difference between you and a creationist is the creationist has faith despite the evidence, whilst you have faith without evidence.

    To use Daniel Dennett’s phrase, you seem to have belief in belief.

    And I think we can probably accept that the most important part of the Bible – the Gospels, and the teachings of Christ – are historically reliable enough that we can rely on them as a guide to faith and ethics.