…and this is a 
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.)
Politics
Comments
Posted by: andrew | June 21, 2008 11:29 AM
Ken Ham= Brain Damage
Posted by: speedwell | June 21, 2008 11:31 AM
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.
Posted by: Derek James | June 21, 2008 11:32 AM
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.
Posted by: llewelly | June 21, 2008 11:33 AM
Sigh. When will neurochemistry give us a cure for Ken Ham?
Posted by: lettucequeen | June 21, 2008 11:33 AM
Someone once told me he looked like an evil Abraham Lincoln. I agree with them (it's really rather creepy).
Posted by: David Lee | June 21, 2008 11:33 AM
Ken Ham exists to fleece those less thoughtful than himself. But he's not worth much thought, just derision.
Posted by: Dennis | June 21, 2008 11:33 AM
Ham's an Asshat.
Posted by: Steve C | June 21, 2008 11:35 AM
What a vain, self-absorbed pudding-brain Ken Ham is. He is probably the stupidest, delusional jerknob I've ever heard of.
Posted by: MarshallDog | June 21, 2008 11:36 AM
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...
Posted by: fcaccin | June 21, 2008 11:36 AM
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.
Posted by: Hal in Howell MI | June 21, 2008 11:43 AM
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. :-)
Posted by: DLC | June 21, 2008 11:43 AM
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)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 11:45 AM
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.
Posted by: Pratik Patel | June 21, 2008 11:45 AM
Did you include wanker? He's definitely a wanker.
Posted by: Akheloios | June 21, 2008 11:45 AM
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.
Posted by: Jason | June 21, 2008 11:47 AM
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.
Posted by: uberd00b | June 21, 2008 11:48 AM
"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.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 11:48 AM
Pratik Patel@14 I doubt it. He probably couldn't find his genitals with both hands.
Posted by: Yoo | June 21, 2008 11:49 AM
Ironically enough, Ken Ham's blog post seems to prove your point ...
Posted by: Senecasam | June 21, 2008 11:49 AM
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.
Posted by: Davis | June 21, 2008 11:49 AM
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.
Posted by: dorid | June 21, 2008 11:51 AM
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?
Posted by: Reginald | June 21, 2008 11:51 AM
I'd say Ken Ham is a wanktruffle
Posted by: Ian T | June 21, 2008 11:52 AM
You missed 'Twonk'.
Posted by: dsmccoy | June 21, 2008 11:52 AM
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.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | June 21, 2008 11:52 AM
Your opinion of Ham is much higher than mine. I can tell because you never used the word "codswallop."
Posted by: szqc | June 21, 2008 11:52 AM
He`s a coistrel, a culliton, a moldwarp
(mmm. Shakespearian insults..)
Posted by: amz | June 21, 2008 11:53 AM
Put simply, and because I can think of no worse insult, Ken Ham is a VenomFangX-class idiot.
Posted by: Chris Hughes | June 21, 2008 11:53 AM
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).
Posted by: bigkongfan | June 21, 2008 11:54 AM
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.)
Posted by: JonD | June 21, 2008 11:54 AM
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.
Posted by: deerjackal | June 21, 2008 11:55 AM
"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."
Posted by: David | June 21, 2008 11:55 AM
Reverend Spooner says Ken is a mucking foron.
I never understand Rev. Spooner.
Posted by: Pakostan | June 21, 2008 11:56 AM
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.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | June 21, 2008 11:56 AM
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.
Posted by: heliobates | June 21, 2008 11:58 AM
I had decided to call him a brainless prat, but I've changed my mind.
You're a jerk, Ken. A complete asshole.
Posted by: Iason Ouabache | June 21, 2008 11:58 AM
You forgot "shit for brains". That's always my favorite one.
Posted by: Julius | June 21, 2008 11:58 AM
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?
Posted by: S. Rivlin | June 21, 2008 11:58 AM
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.
Posted by: Xxldave | June 21, 2008 11:58 AM
Canned Ham? Yuck!
Posted by: sdg | June 21, 2008 11:58 AM
cotton headed ninny muggins
Posted by: Jackal | June 21, 2008 11:59 AM
Ken Ham gives a bad name to cured pig flesh.
Posted by: afterthought | June 21, 2008 12:00 PM
I used to collect these type expressions on a 3x5 card:
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
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | June 21, 2008 12:01 PM
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.
Posted by: Pierre | June 21, 2008 12:01 PM
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?
Posted by: Scienceman123 | June 21, 2008 12:02 PM
A festering boil on the ass of humanity.
Posted by: Shaden Freud | June 21, 2008 12:02 PM
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."
Posted by: Paul Burnett | June 21, 2008 12:03 PM
How can you all have forgotten the piglet incident? Google
"Ken Ham" piglet
and get 4,790 hits describing this sordid incident.
Posted by: Hal in Howell MI | June 21, 2008 12:03 PM
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?
Posted by: shyster | June 21, 2008 12:04 PM
Let's keep it simple: I've grown brighter vegetables. Asparagus comes to mind.
Posted by: Neil B. | June 21, 2008 12:04 PM
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!)
Posted by: Aquaria | June 21, 2008 12:07 PM
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.
Posted by: Reginald | June 21, 2008 12:07 PM
Looks like the blog post has disappeared.
Posted by: Mathematician | June 21, 2008 12:08 PM
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.
Posted by: aporeticus | June 21, 2008 12:08 PM
Ken Ham's a slubberdegullion!
Posted by: Henry Birdseye | June 21, 2008 12:09 PM
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.
Posted by: chris | June 21, 2008 12:10 PM
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"
Posted by: Zeno | June 21, 2008 12:10 PM
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.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | June 21, 2008 12:11 PM
Perhaps we should refer to his ilk as "Hamlets", since "they have a plentiful lack of wit, together with most weak hams".
Posted by: Joe | June 21, 2008 12:12 PM
"(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!
Posted by: scooter | June 21, 2008 12:12 PM
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!!
Posted by: Rich Stage | June 21, 2008 12:13 PM
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.
Posted by: chris | June 21, 2008 12:13 PM
...and just because I haven't seen it used yet..
Ken Ham is a fuckwit.
Posted by: Sili | June 21, 2008 12:14 PM
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.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 12:15 PM
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.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 12:15 PM
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.
Posted by: Jason | June 21, 2008 12:16 PM
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.
Posted by: PatrickHenry | June 21, 2008 12:16 PM
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.
Posted by: BobC | June 21, 2008 12:17 PM
"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.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | June 21, 2008 12:18 PM
You're absolutely right, Neil. Your codswallop is far more impenetrable than Ham's. Congratulations.
Posted by: Seth | June 21, 2008 12:18 PM
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.
Posted by: Carlie | June 21, 2008 12:18 PM
Ken Ham is a wingnut. His presence in this country has lowered the average IQ by at least 20 points.
Posted by: Logicel | June 21, 2008 12:20 PM
Ham is a git and for some Shakespearean spice:
a puking idle-headed clack-dish.
Posted by: MattEdd | June 21, 2008 12:20 PM
Ken Ham is a giant doodie head. That is all.
Posted by: Seamyst | June 21, 2008 12:20 PM
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.
Posted by: BobC | June 21, 2008 12:25 PM
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?
Posted by: Richard Harris | June 21, 2008 12:25 PM
Ken Ham, gonzo god-goober, Christian, nut job, & lying creep.
Posted by: Dan Phelps | June 21, 2008 12:26 PM
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.
Posted by: Andrés | June 21, 2008 12:27 PM
Ham is a hateful, hard headed, ham-handed hack.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 21, 2008 12:28 PM
Yikes, I'm only a postal worker. Then again, we do have a certain reputation that might inspire...well, fear.
Posted by: THNP | June 21, 2008 12:29 PM
Hear Hear! A proper nitwit!
Posted by: DVMKurmes | June 21, 2008 12:30 PM
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).
Posted by: Traffic Demon | June 21, 2008 12:30 PM
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.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 12:30 PM
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.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | June 21, 2008 12:34 PM
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.
Posted by: Walt | June 21, 2008 12:34 PM
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!
Posted by: Davey | June 21, 2008 12:35 PM
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
Posted by: chigurh | June 21, 2008 12:35 PM
@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".
Posted by: Sailor | June 21, 2008 12:35 PM
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.
Posted by: Logicel | June 21, 2008 12:35 PM
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.
Posted by: scooter | June 21, 2008 12:36 PM
Posted by: Neil B. | June 21, 2008 12:37 PM
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.
Posted by: BobC | June 21, 2008 12:38 PM
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.
Posted by: Tom | June 21, 2008 12:38 PM
Ken ham is an intellect vacuum. He has the mental capacity of comatose kelp, and the dignity of an incontinent clown.
Posted by: Gareth | June 21, 2008 12:40 PM
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.
Posted by: Gareth | June 21, 2008 12:41 PM
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...
Posted by: kryptonic | June 21, 2008 12:42 PM
Ken Ham is a pilonidal cyst!
Ken Ham is nucking futs!
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | June 21, 2008 12:44 PM
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.
Posted by: Tom | June 21, 2008 12:44 PM
Ken Ham, you are a first-class fucktard. Or, to quote Terence and Philip, a donkey-raping cockmaster.
Posted by: Schmeer | June 21, 2008 12:45 PM
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.
Posted by: black wolf | June 21, 2008 12:45 PM
Yesterday my cat puked phenomenally along eight meters of my floor. I named the puke Ken Ham, wiped it up and threw it away.
Posted by: C. L. Hanson | June 21, 2008 12:45 PM
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.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | June 21, 2008 12:47 PM
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.
Posted by: Neil B. | June 21, 2008 12:48 PM
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!)
Posted by: slang | June 21, 2008 12:50 PM
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)
Posted by: Rick | June 21, 2008 12:50 PM
PZ,
you forgot "meathead" and "boil on the ass of society".
Rick
Posted by: Magpie | June 21, 2008 12:50 PM
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.
Posted by: jase | June 21, 2008 12:50 PM
Where, oh where is Cuttlefish? I'm sure few, if any, can match his poetic take on Ham's asshattery.
Posted by: JT | June 21, 2008 12:52 PM
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.
Posted by: Draconiz | June 21, 2008 12:54 PM
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!"
Posted by: SiMPel MYnd | June 21, 2008 12:57 PM
Ken Ham is a waste of carbon.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | June 21, 2008 12:58 PM
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.
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.
Posted by: BobC | June 21, 2008 12:58 PM
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?
Posted by: Mike G | June 21, 2008 12:58 PM
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.
Posted by: Elles | June 21, 2008 12:59 PM
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.
Posted by: Shaun | June 21, 2008 1:01 PM
I wish I had a blueprint of his brain, I'm trying to build an idiot.
Posted by: Alcari | June 21, 2008 1:01 PM
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 ;)
Posted by: God=Santa | June 21, 2008 1:02 PM
Ken Ham is batshit crazy.
Posted by: Traffic Demon | June 21, 2008 1:04 PM
Kenny's stoopid can beat up your stoopid.
Posted by: Notkieran | June 21, 2008 1:05 PM
*speechless applause at #83*
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 1:05 PM
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.
Posted by: Neil B. | June 21, 2008 1:05 PM
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!
Posted by: Liz | June 21, 2008 1:05 PM
Ken Ham was really one of those sperm that was meant to be swallowed.
Posted by: Alex | June 21, 2008 1:08 PM
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.
Posted by: SC | June 21, 2008 1:10 PM
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:
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
Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | June 21, 2008 1:12 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | June 21, 2008 1:13 PM
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.
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."
Posted by: clinteas | June 21, 2008 1:13 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | June 21, 2008 1:14 PM
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.
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.)
Posted by: kcanadensis | June 21, 2008 1:14 PM
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!
Posted by: Spinoza | June 21, 2008 1:15 PM
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.
Posted by: Keith Newton | June 21, 2008 1:15 PM
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.
Posted by: Graham Chapman | June 21, 2008 1:16 PM
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...
Posted by: Neil B. | June 21, 2008 1:16 PM
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.
Posted by: Reed Braden | June 21, 2008 1:16 PM
The best part of Ken Ham ran down his dad's leg.
Posted by: Cat of many faces | June 21, 2008 1:16 PM
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.
Posted by: Scrabcake | June 21, 2008 1:17 PM
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.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | June 21, 2008 1:18 PM
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.
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.
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!"
Posted by: W. the I. P. | June 21, 2008 1:18 PM
You're a jerk, Ken Ham. A complete kneebiter.
Posted by: Rob | June 21, 2008 1:19 PM
So, do you think Ken goes by Kenny? It would explain a lot, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Mercurious | June 21, 2008 1:19 PM
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.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | June 21, 2008 1:21 PM
I anticipated this, motherfucker. Hence the distinction I made of "a creator god for this universe." Congratulations on your much celebrated reading comprehension.
Posted by: Citizen Z | June 21, 2008 1:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 1:23 PM
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".
Posted by: toomanytribbles | June 21, 2008 1:24 PM
my opinion is that ken ham is contemptible.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | June 21, 2008 1:24 PM
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.
Posted by: bipolar2 | June 21, 2008 1:26 PM
** no self-respecting ape is religious **
The falsity of 'intelligent design' is proved by the existence of those who believe in it.
bipolar2
© 2008
Posted by: Citizen Z | June 21, 2008 1:27 PM
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.
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 21, 2008 1:28 PM
1. Ken Ham writes :
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 :
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.
Posted by: Holbach | June 21, 2008 1:29 PM
Ken "Shithead" Hambone And I'm being as mild as I can!
Posted by: Steve Sutton | June 21, 2008 1:29 PM
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.
Posted by: AndyD | June 21, 2008 1:30 PM
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).
Posted by: jj wally | June 21, 2008 1:30 PM
Ken Ham is a Kent Hovind
Posted by: Negi | June 21, 2008 1:31 PM
Ken Ham can eat a big fat diiiiiiiiiiiiick!
Posted by: Pteropterus | June 21, 2008 1:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Orac | June 21, 2008 1:33 PM
Ken Ham = A hunk'a hunk'a burnin' stupid.
Posted by: MS | June 21, 2008 1:34 PM
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! :)
Posted by: Traffic Demon | June 21, 2008 1:35 PM
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.
Posted by: Dave Wisker | June 21, 2008 1:36 PM
A mutton-chopped jackanape.
Posted by: Stanton | June 21, 2008 1:38 PM
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.
Posted by: The Man With Someones Plan | June 21, 2008 1:40 PM
KEN HAM BAD MAN! NO GOOD! HE VERY BAD MAN! BOOO KEN HAM!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Posted by: Swiftsure | June 21, 2008 1:41 PM
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).
Posted by: Andrew | June 21, 2008 1:43 PM
Ken Ham is negative 42.
Posted by: baley | June 21, 2008 1:43 PM
Ken Ham is a mountain of Smelly Bloody Horseshit
Posted by: Tom | June 21, 2008 1:46 PM
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!
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | June 21, 2008 1:46 PM
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.
Posted by: balzar | June 21, 2008 1:47 PM
Can he be a skank? I think he is a skank.
Posted by: Nan | June 21, 2008 1:48 PM
Fucking nuts and an oxygen thief.
Posted by: SamD | June 21, 2008 1:49 PM
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!
Posted by: Holbach | June 21, 2008 1:50 PM
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!
Posted by: Jazzie | June 21, 2008 1:50 PM
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.
Posted by: Norman Doering | June 21, 2008 1:52 PM
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."
Posted by: Neil B. | June 21, 2008 1:53 PM
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
Posted by: Tom | June 21, 2008 1:55 PM
Ken Ham is jealous. His pathetic excuse for a beard is nothing in comparison to the one on PZ.
Posted by: foxfire | June 21, 2008 1:55 PM
Ken Ham gives new meaning to the word delusional as does that stupid creationism museum.
Posted by: Jared | June 21, 2008 1:56 PM
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...
Posted by: Christopher Petroni | June 21, 2008 1:56 PM
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?
Posted by: steve8282 | June 21, 2008 1:56 PM
Fucktard.
Just Fucktard.
Posted by: Wiggy | June 21, 2008 1:56 PM
Ken Ham went to university in my home city. It makes me feel so dirty... urgh
Posted by: Holbach | June 21, 2008 1:58 PM
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."
Posted by: NigelGomm | June 21, 2008 2:00 PM
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.
Posted by: Fentwin | June 21, 2008 2:01 PM
A rectocraniated twat waffle with delusions of adequacy.
Posted by: fentwin | June 21, 2008 2:04 PM
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.
Posted by: Sam L. | June 21, 2008 2:04 PM
Say it loud!
Ken Ham is a contemptible douchebag!
Say it loud!
Posted by: Dutch Delight | June 21, 2008 2:04 PM
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.
Posted by: Ryan | June 21, 2008 2:10 PM
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
Posted by: Logicel | June 21, 2008 2:10 PM
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
Posted by: Ex Partiate | June 21, 2008 2:11 PM
ken ham is some where lower than all the feces of the animals on the ark which he believes in. The man is a compčete bat-shit insane idiot
Posted by: David Lewis | June 21, 2008 2:11 PM
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.
Posted by: Tony P | June 21, 2008 2:12 PM
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.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | June 21, 2008 2:15 PM
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."
Posted by: Kerovon | June 21, 2008 2:15 PM
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/
Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 21, 2008 2:15 PM
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.
Posted by: mr-zero | June 21, 2008 2:17 PM
Ken Ham, you are a pointless small twit.
z
Posted by: Muffin | June 21, 2008 2:17 PM
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.
Posted by: Rick R | June 21, 2008 2:17 PM
#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.
Posted by: The MadPanda | June 21, 2008 2:19 PM
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
Posted by: genesgalore | June 21, 2008 2:19 PM
hey ken!!! you my man are a wiener.
Posted by: Ex Partiate | June 21, 2008 2:19 PM
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
Posted by: dubiquiabs | June 21, 2008 2:20 PM
Hey, Ken!
Guess what - "absolute truth" is NEITHER!
Posted by: AndrewC | June 21, 2008 2:20 PM
Twice the twit!
Posted by: MPG | June 21, 2008 2:21 PM
Damn you, Logicel, and your nine most devastating insults - I laughed for a full minute at "A thousand dicks in your religion"!
Posted by: Sonja | June 21, 2008 2:21 PM
He's as dumb as Ken Ham... oh, wait
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 21, 2008 2:21 PM
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!
Posted by: gatoscuro | June 21, 2008 2:23 PM
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.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | June 21, 2008 2:23 PM
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.
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.
Posted by: Steve in MI | June 21, 2008 2:24 PM
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.
Posted by: SLC | June 21, 2008 2:25 PM
Mr. Ken Ham is a pimple on the asshole of humanity.
Posted by: Adam | June 21, 2008 2:28 PM
I prefer to think of Ken Ham as a bicoid mutant.
Posted by: The MadPanda | June 21, 2008 2:29 PM
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
Posted by: mandrake | June 21, 2008 2:31 PM
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.
Posted by: mandrake | June 21, 2008 2:33 PM
AND he has no Elvis in him.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 21, 2008 2:34 PM
Ham is a stye in the eye of a scrofulous fly.
Still, I think I currently hate that Schumacher guy more than Ham.
Posted by: Jason | June 21, 2008 2:37 PM
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.
Posted by: gatoscuro | June 21, 2008 2:37 PM
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.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | June 21, 2008 2:37 PM
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
Posted by: BMcP | June 21, 2008 2:37 PM
The page is still there, just the original link posted at the top is truncated Here it is..
Posted by: Kagehi | June 21, 2008 2:37 PM
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.
Posted by: thegomezsymbol | June 21, 2008 2:38 PM
Paraphrasing the immortal words of Dorothy Parker:
Or Earl Long:
Posted by: Richbank | June 21, 2008 2:39 PM
Is it possible that the slug who went by kenny was none other than Mr. Ham?
Posted by: thegomezsymbol | June 21, 2008 2:40 PM
Paraphrasing the immortal words of Dorothy Parker:
Or Earl Long:
Posted by: Kagehi | June 21, 2008 2:41 PM
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..
Posted by: danley | June 21, 2008 2:41 PM
Ken is a goddamn freakazoid with a nasty, mutated beard. A fucking chirpbrained fucktard of quantum proportions.
Posted by: BMcP | June 21, 2008 2:42 PM
The page is still there, just the original link posted at the top is truncated Here it is..
Posted by: Michelle | June 21, 2008 2:42 PM
A loon AND a loony?
You might hurt his feelings there.
PS: I think you forgot "retard."
Posted by: AndrewC | June 21, 2008 2:46 PM
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.
Posted by: John Flemming | June 21, 2008 2:46 PM
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.
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD, BMWCCA | June 21, 2008 2:46 PM
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."
Posted by: The MadPanda | June 21, 2008 2:48 PM
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
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 21, 2008 2:50 PM
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.
Posted by: JM Inc. | June 21, 2008 2:51 PM
[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!
Posted by: Bing McGhandi | June 21, 2008 2:53 PM
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
Posted by: Chris | June 21, 2008 2:54 PM
So, PZ, tell us how you really feel.
Posted by: thaf | June 21, 2008 2:56 PM
whore of babylon
Posted by: MikeIDR | June 21, 2008 2:59 PM
Four Score and Six Thousand Years Ago....
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~mdrowan/HAM.jpg
Posted by: genotypical | June 21, 2008 2:59 PM
Canned Ham = spam. And as Monty Python said, "I don't like spam!
Posted by: ERV | June 21, 2008 2:59 PM
Ken Ham is a cottage cheese dripping... wait, Ive already used that one on someone else. Gimme a sec.
Posted by: writzer | June 21, 2008 3:01 PM
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.
Posted by: Chuck | June 21, 2008 3:02 PM
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
Posted by: Vic | June 21, 2008 3:02 PM
Ken Ham is a piece of shit.
Posted by: Adam | June 21, 2008 3:03 PM
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.
Posted by: khan | June 21, 2008 3:05 PM
Crazier than an outhouse rat
Terra-cotta-toothed imbecile
Coprophagous Caprinophile
Posted by: uray | June 21, 2008 3:07 PM
It's a good thing we invented negative numbers or we would be unable to document Ken's intelligence.
Posted by: oaksterdam | June 21, 2008 3:08 PM
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.
Posted by: Richbank | June 21, 2008 3:09 PM
@ Chuck, 239: shouldn't that be "Dildous australis"?
Posted by: Tom | June 21, 2008 3:11 PM
"Ken Ham is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."
Posted by: Bing McGhandi | June 21, 2008 3:13 PM
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
Posted by: Neil B. | June 21, 2008 3:13 PM
(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.)
Posted by: Nentuaby | June 21, 2008 3:13 PM
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.
Posted by: Holbach | June 21, 2008 3:15 PM
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
Posted by: khan | June 21, 2008 3:17 PM
Ten pounds of shit in five pound sack.
Posted by: Ed | June 21, 2008 3:19 PM
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?"
Posted by: Tom | June 21, 2008 3:22 PM
Uh, Neil, maybe you'd better just stick that butt plug back in, grab a cold one and chill out.
Posted by: Brian X | June 21, 2008 3:23 PM
Ken Ham is the trees' revenge from The Happening.
Posted by: DaveG | June 21, 2008 3:29 PM
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?
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | June 21, 2008 3:29 PM
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!
Posted by: mayhempix | June 21, 2008 3:30 PM
Ham is up to his ankles head first in dinosaur excrement.
Posted by: Carl | June 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Ken Ham blows donkeys for a nickel and makes change.
Posted by: Zach D | June 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Ken Ham = Twatwaffle
Posted by: sirfab | June 21, 2008 3:34 PM
Ken Ham is an inerrant Bible-believing Evangelical. I can't think of a worse insult than that.
Posted by: Rodibidably | June 21, 2008 3:36 PM
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."
Posted by: Captpetro | June 21, 2008 3:37 PM
Smart as a pile of eurypterid feces...my apologies to the eurypterid...
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 3:37 PM
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.
Posted by: AJ | June 21, 2008 3:37 PM
Ken Ham is the missing link; the monkeyman - living evidence of our evolutionary past.
Posted by: mayhempix | June 21, 2008 3:37 PM
"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: rowmyboat | June 21, 2008 3:42 PM
What' a gonif? Never heard that one before.
Posted by: Remy-Grace | June 21, 2008 3:42 PM
I think that someone who makes their living out of lying to children is getting away pretty nicely with "wackaloon."
Posted by: Holbach | June 21, 2008 3:45 PM
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!
Posted by: Jason | June 21, 2008 3:46 PM
If evilution is true how come there is still Ken Ham?
Posted by: d simpson | June 21, 2008 3:48 PM
I consider what Ken Ham does to be verbal child abuse with an Aussie accent.
Posted by: bob | June 21, 2008 3:48 PM
Ken Ham is twenty gallons of gorilla santorum in a ten gallon hat.
Posted by: Dagger | June 21, 2008 3:50 PM
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...
Posted by: pough | June 21, 2008 3:52 PM
Funny name, funny beard, funny ideas.
Posted by: Ken Shabby | June 21, 2008 3:53 PM
PZ, your flowery language only gilds the turd.
Posted by: ed | June 21, 2008 3:53 PM
Don't forget my fav o rite.Ken Ham you are a ferret faced fuck.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | June 21, 2008 3:53 PM
Ken Ham is a mobius strip, umm, maybe more like a torus with appendages.
Posted by: westcoast | June 21, 2008 3:54 PM
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.
Posted by: Holbach | June 21, 2008 3:54 PM
rowmyboat @ 266 checked the online dictionary. Jewish variant of gonef: thief, swindler, crook, rascal.
I like your moniker, funny!
Posted by: MathMike | June 21, 2008 3:54 PM
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.
Posted by: S. Scott | June 21, 2008 3:55 PM
Bat Shit Crazy!
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 21, 2008 3:55 PM
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.
Posted by: Remy-Grace | June 21, 2008 3:56 PM
Why ever doesn't Mr. Ham allow for comments on his own blog I wonder?
Posted by: extatyzoma | June 21, 2008 4:00 PM
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.
Posted by: Steven N. Severinghaus | June 21, 2008 4:02 PM
A mooncalf.
Posted by: Tz'unun | June 21, 2008 4:03 PM
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?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 4:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 4:07 PM
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."
Posted by: Hank Fox | June 21, 2008 4:08 PM
Ken Ham in one word:
Creepy.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Underemployed BS, Wildlife Biology | June 21, 2008 4:09 PM
"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.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 21, 2008 4:09 PM
Are you referring to this Cheeto, perhaps?
Posted by: Bill the Cat | June 21, 2008 4:10 PM
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.
Posted by: Number8Dave | June 21, 2008 4:10 PM
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.
Posted by: Mar | June 21, 2008 4:13 PM
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.
Posted by: jufulu, FDC | June 21, 2008 4:13 PM
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.
Posted by: Ediacaran | June 21, 2008 4:17 PM
Why isn't "fidiot" on the list?
Posted by: Derik | June 21, 2008 4:17 PM
Ham is a complete piece of shit who prey's on those that are likewise ignorant.
Posted by: Jess | June 21, 2008 4:18 PM
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).
Posted by: Copache | June 21, 2008 4:20 PM
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.
Posted by: Nibien | June 21, 2008 4:21 PM
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?
Posted by: Splatador | June 21, 2008 4:23 PM
Ken Ham is a tool of Satan, spreading the Devil's lies.
Posted by: Holbach | June 21, 2008 4:24 PM
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!
Posted by: Galapagos | June 21, 2008 4:25 PM
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
Posted by: Interrobang | June 21, 2008 4:29 PM
Ken Ham is the Typhoid Mary of ideas. I really can't do better than that in terms of an apropos insult.
Posted by: Alienheart | June 21, 2008 4:29 PM
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?
Posted by: randumbness47 | June 21, 2008 4:30 PM
Ken Ham - I have pooped smarter things than you.
Posted by: natural cynic | June 21, 2008 4:36 PM
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?
Posted by: Duvelman | June 21, 2008 4:38 PM
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.
Posted by: Neil B. | June 21, 2008 4:43 PM
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.
Posted by: JoJo | June 21, 2008 4:45 PM
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.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | June 21, 2008 4:49 PM
The alphabet below W has been neglected. Therefore, I pronounce him a Yutz.
Posted by: Dancaban | June 21, 2008 4:52 PM
Ken Ham you have the IQ of a blade of grass. A small blade that is.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 4:54 PM
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.
Posted by: Roger Scott | June 21, 2008 5:01 PM
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.
Posted by: Sir Craig | June 21, 2008 5:06 PM
For the same reason...
Posted by: CJO | June 21, 2008 5:07 PM
Ken, you ignorant slut.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 21, 2008 5:09 PM
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.
Posted by: Ross Nixon | June 21, 2008 5:10 PM
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!
Posted by: Brian English | June 21, 2008 5:11 PM
Knobhead, fuckknuckle, wackjob, dickcheese....
Posted by: tim Rowledge | June 21, 2008 5:13 PM
"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.
Posted by: Brian English | June 21, 2008 5:14 PM
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?
Posted by: RT NZ | June 21, 2008 5:15 PM
UPDATE: Ken Ham has had an arsehole transplant.........
NEWSFLASH: The arsehole has regected him...
Posted by: oaksterdam | June 21, 2008 5:16 PM
Ross Nixon treated us to:
really? fuck it, i call poe.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 5:16 PM
Sounds like you could really use a box of Kleenex and a big hug there, little buddy.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 5:18 PM
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.
Posted by: Courtney | June 21, 2008 5:28 PM
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.
Posted by: Neil B. | June 21, 2008 5:28 PM
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.
Posted by: Paholaisen Asianajaja | June 21, 2008 5:37 PM
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?"
Posted by: Grammar RWA, just like Hypatia of Alexfuckingandria | June 21, 2008 5:37 PM
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.
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*
Posted by: Zarquon | June 21, 2008 5:38 PM
Ken Ham has less brains than a zabriskan fontema!
Posted by: Brian English | June 21, 2008 5:42 PM
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.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 21, 2008 5:45 PM
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."
Posted by: RT NZ | June 21, 2008 5:48 PM
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)...
Posted by: Danio | June 21, 2008 5:52 PM
Ken Ham: as useful as a fart in a string bag.
Posted by: Newton78 | June 21, 2008 5:53 PM
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.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 5:53 PM
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.
Posted by: Laurent | June 21, 2008 5:54 PM
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?
Posted by: austin | June 21, 2008 5:56 PM
Ken,
go choke on leper's death puke.
Posted by: Neil B. | June 21, 2008 5:58 PM
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?
Posted by: Sir Craig, TSgt, USAF | June 21, 2008 5:59 PM
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...
Posted by: Steve P. | June 21, 2008 6:04 PM
I miss peckerwood.
Posted by: Don | June 21, 2008 6:05 PM
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.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 21, 2008 6:07 PM
#334
What real science? Seriously, what science have they done? Note that science should be done, not just talked about. What experiments have they done?
Posted by: Jeff Arnold | June 21, 2008 6:09 PM
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.
Posted by: phoenixphire24 | June 21, 2008 6:11 PM
I'll throw in one for good measure.
Ken Ham: Thou craven tickle-brained bugbear!
Posted by: Raiko | June 21, 2008 6:12 PM
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: " "
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 6:13 PM
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.
Posted by: dale | June 21, 2008 6:14 PM
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.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | June 21, 2008 6:15 PM
Has anyone called Ken Ham a cunt yet?
If not, consider it covered.
Posted by: Steve Ulven | June 21, 2008 6:16 PM
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.]
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 21, 2008 6:19 PM
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.
Posted by: Luke O'Dell | June 21, 2008 6:19 PM
The guy should be strung up.
Posted by: Luke O'Dell | June 21, 2008 6:19 PM
The guy should be strung up.
Posted by: Ray C. | June 21, 2008 6:21 PM
I can't speak for PZ, but one expects that the right-wing hate blogs like LGF would go ballistic.
Posted by: Pat Silver | June 21, 2008 6:22 PM
The biggest insult I know comes from my old physics teacher; willfully ignorant.
Posted by: BROWN PELICAN | June 21, 2008 6:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | June 21, 2008 6:23 PM
Nick, you make a sound point.
I rescind my previous insult and instead call him a Cnut.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 6:23 PM
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.
Posted by: Cultural Anthropologist | June 21, 2008 6:24 PM
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.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 6:27 PM
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.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | June 21, 2008 6:28 PM
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?
Posted by: Torstein | June 21, 2008 6:30 PM
Ham is the cancer that's killing society.
Posted by: Barry | June 21, 2008 6:30 PM
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.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 6:30 PM
Yes. Run along little troll. Your cries for attention will probably be ignored (I hope).
Posted by: Bruce Breece FCD | June 21, 2008 6:31 PM
Ken Ham is a mendacious, delusional, arrogant, self righteous, contemptible, willfully ignorant, holy rolling, child abuser.
Posted by: Alcari | June 21, 2008 6:39 PM
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."
Posted by: jase | June 21, 2008 6:41 PM
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.
Posted by: Patricia | June 21, 2008 6:41 PM
Honestly, how can a man who resembles a baboon so much not believe in evolution.
Posted by: Betz | June 21, 2008 6:42 PM
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.)
Posted by: EnfantTerrible | June 21, 2008 6:46 PM
Ken Ham is *not* aware of all internet traditions.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10647
Posted by: Chiefley | June 21, 2008 6:49 PM
I think we have been to easy on him.
Posted by: Duvenoy | June 21, 2008 6:52 PM
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
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 21, 2008 6:53 PM
Because the policy of expulsion worked out so well for Germany in the 1930s.
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*
Posted by: Levi | June 21, 2008 6:58 PM
Ken Ham's intellectual capacity is comparable to that of a moist washcloth.
Posted by: Alder Valley Bus | June 21, 2008 7:06 PM
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.
Posted by: grinch | June 21, 2008 7:08 PM
tosser
Posted by: Kevin Johnstone | June 21, 2008 7:08 PM
Ken Ham and his fellow bird brained creationists are galahs and drongos
Posted by: Sirius Knott | June 21, 2008 7:17 PM
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
Posted by: Sili | June 21, 2008 7:17 PM
Now now. Let's not insult moist towelettes.Posted by: Zeke Silva | June 21, 2008 7:25 PM
Ham blows... I'd much rather have a good helping of squid any day!
Posted by: ExitB | June 21, 2008 7:25 PM
Ken Ham is a big dummy head.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | June 21, 2008 7:25 PM
What a xenocranial! What a yammerhead! What a zhlob!
(My deepest thanks to Schmuel for preventing me from mortally insulting zedonks everywhere!)
Posted by: Witch Tyler, madlolscientist and leader of the Pedants' Revolt, FCD | June 21, 2008 7:27 PM
Autofellating smegmavore.
Posted by: Rick | June 21, 2008 7:28 PM
OK, so I was wrong. You DID include "meathead".
Still, I think "boil on the ass of society" is appropriate.
Best,
Rick
Posted by: Nobbin | June 21, 2008 7:28 PM
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.
Posted by: Tz'unun | June 21, 2008 7:28 PM
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.
Posted by: Angie | June 21, 2008 7:29 PM
He and his kind are the blue-green algae of the gene pool.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | June 21, 2008 7:31 PM
P.S. re: #36
Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged: "Wait, I've done you already, haven't I?"
Posted by: Holbach | June 21, 2008 7:32 PM
Alder Valley Bus @ 374 "Ham... Pig! don't you get it!? It's a joke son"! Cleghorn
Posted by: Remy-Grace | June 21, 2008 7:34 PM
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.
Posted by: Tz'unun, B.S Biology, recovering Southern Baptist | June 21, 2008 7:34 PM
Methinks we've been Poe'd again by "Sirius Knott" (#377).
Posted by: BobC | June 21, 2008 7:34 PM
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.
Posted by: shyster | June 21, 2008 7:36 PM
He is an ignoranus. That makes him both stupid and an asshole.
Posted by: Dave Herres | June 21, 2008 7:37 PM
Ham is a horrible little toad. I could carve a better man out of a banana.
Posted by: Dave Herres | June 21, 2008 7:39 PM
Ham is a horrible little toad. I could carve a better man out of a banana.
Posted by: Dagger | June 21, 2008 7:39 PM
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.
Posted by: Mark P. | June 21, 2008 7:40 PM
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
Posted by: Wild Bob | June 21, 2008 7:41 PM
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!
Posted by: Chris Phillips | June 21, 2008 7:46 PM
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!
Posted by: bassmanpete | June 21, 2008 7:46 PM
Ken who?
It is, and that's the point. Creationism isn't even self questioning.
Posted by: Brian English | June 21, 2008 7:47 PM
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.
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2008 7:50 PM
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
Posted by: NRT | June 21, 2008 7:59 PM
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
Posted by: Mark P. | June 21, 2008 8:02 PM
Neil,
Don't forget ersatzism.
Mark
Posted by: Logicel | June 21, 2008 8:02 PM
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.
Posted by: waldteufel | June 21, 2008 8:05 PM
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.
Posted by: ae | June 21, 2008 8:05 PM
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
Posted by: Allitnil | June 21, 2008 8:08 PM
Ken Ham is a semen stain on the blue dress of rationality.
Posted by: Allitnil | June 21, 2008 8:08 PM
Ken Ham is a semen stain on the blue dress of rationality.
Posted by: windy | June 21, 2008 8:12 PM
Hah! This made my day. Thanks, JT.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 21, 2008 8:18 PM
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.
Posted by: bill | June 21, 2008 8:26 PM
In this case, I prefer the words of others.
Posted by: EyeROCK | June 21, 2008 8:26 PM
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.
Posted by: mus | June 21, 2008 8:44 PM
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.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | June 21, 2008 8:45 PM
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
Posted by: Lightnin | June 21, 2008 8:46 PM
Ken Ham ate my baby!
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 21, 2008 8:48 PM
No, you're probably thinking of "schlimazel".
"Gonif", from the Hebrew "ganav" (גנב), means "thief" (or more generally, any dishonest person, a swindler, a cheat).
Posted by: cicely | June 21, 2008 8:49 PM
Let's see, my true feelings......
Completely superfluous to requirements. Delete program.
Posted by: efrique | June 21, 2008 8:49 PM
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.
Posted by: tresmal | June 21, 2008 8:49 PM
Blatherskite.And not just an idiot but a carrier.
Posted by: M. | June 21, 2008 8:50 PM
Shakespeare says it well:
Ken Ham is a wretched and peevish fellow.
A most pathetical nit.
A poisonous bunch backed toad.
A panderly rascal.
Posted by: mewton | June 21, 2008 8:52 PM
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!
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | June 21, 2008 8:53 PM
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!
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | June 21, 2008 8:58 PM
Ken Ham is a poo-poo head.
Posted by: mandrellian | June 21, 2008 9:01 PM
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.
Posted by: Sir Jebbington | June 21, 2008 9:05 PM
I laugh.
Posted by: RT NZ | June 21, 2008 9:05 PM
Ken thinks he is Hot Shit but in reality he is only a Cold Fart in a warm jar.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 21, 2008 9:11 PM
"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?
Posted by: Holydust | June 21, 2008 9:13 PM
Ken Ham is about as brilliant as a shoe full of toothpaste. :(
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | June 21, 2008 9:19 PM
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.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | June 21, 2008 9:20 PM
I'm not sure if shmuck has a c in it. Other than that, your description of Ham is right on.
Posted by: John the Skeptic | June 21, 2008 9:20 PM
The less capable cousin to Homo erectus, the oft-ridiculed Homo flaccidus
Posted by: Steve_C | June 21, 2008 9:21 PM
Ken Ham is a demon sent from hell to steal the souls of children and deliver them to Satan himself.
Posted by: Cass | June 21, 2008 9:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Kel | June 21, 2008 9:23 PM
Shameless blog plug
http://kelosophy.blogspot.com/2008/06/open-letter-to-ken-ham.html
Posted by: mark | June 21, 2008 9:29 PM
...a monkey-faced twit.
A mental Liliputian.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 9:32 PM
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."
Posted by: Nick | June 21, 2008 9:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Richard | June 21, 2008 9:35 PM
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...
Posted by: raindogzilla | June 21, 2008 9:36 PM
And has Ken Ham stopped raping piglets yet?
Posted by: Adam | June 21, 2008 9:37 PM
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.
Posted by: Carlie | June 21, 2008 9:39 PM
(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.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 9:40 PM
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.
Posted by: Big City | June 21, 2008 9:47 PM
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.
Posted by: BetentacledBrad | June 21, 2008 9:48 PM
W. the I.P. @139:
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).
Posted by: Whit | June 21, 2008 9:49 PM
Ken Ham is a waste of Carbon.
Posted by: Ken Ham | June 21, 2008 9:50 PM
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
Posted by: eyerock | June 21, 2008 9:50 PM
Yes, well, im not RD, I do what i want :)
Posted by: Tom | June 21, 2008 9:53 PM
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: ThirtyFiveUp | June 21, 2008 9:57 PM
PZ, please do not hold back; tell us what you really think.
Posted by: DingoDave | June 21, 2008 10:02 PM
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.
Posted by: Richbank | June 21, 2008 10:02 PM
@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.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 10:03 PM
I agree. It is a great read.
Posted by: Aaron | June 21, 2008 10:03 PM
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?
Posted by: Colin M | June 21, 2008 10:07 PM
ken is to Education and Science as a Chinchilla coat is to a baby Chinchilla.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve9B24mu8KU
Posted by: d'George | June 21, 2008 10:09 PM
Dog shit on the path of reason.
Thats Ham and his ilk, slippery and smelly.
Posted by: rsg | June 21, 2008 10:11 PM
I'd call him a psychotic lowlife, but that would be an insult to the psychotic lowlife community.
Posted by: Nemo | June 21, 2008 10:13 PM
Ken Ham embraces willful ignorance as a virtue.
Posted by: RamblinDude | June 21, 2008 10:15 PM
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.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | June 21, 2008 10:16 PM
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?
Posted by: RT NZ | June 21, 2008 10:20 PM
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.
Posted by: Jennie | June 21, 2008 10:28 PM
334:
. . . gasp . . . he didn't say waste, did he?
Oh! I believe I may faint!
Posted by: Dave | June 21, 2008 10:32 PM
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.
Posted by: Erica Idle | June 21, 2008 10:34 PM
Oh! I gave him my baby to kiss, and he bit it! On the head!!!
Posted by: arachnophilia | June 21, 2008 10:36 PM
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.
Posted by: Richbank | June 21, 2008 10:37 PM
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?
Posted by: Ragutis | June 21, 2008 10:43 PM
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.
Apsišik aukštielninkas, tu kiaulies bybis. Norėčiau tau pikta ežy į subine įgrūst, tu rupūžė. Tu esi per durnas žinot nemyšt prieš vėją.
(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.)
Posted by: Spooky | June 21, 2008 10:51 PM
The man is a knobjockey of the highest caliber.
Posted by: James F | June 21, 2008 10:51 PM
#465
That skit is worth posting in its entirety.
"You wouldn't have had much fun in Stalingrad, would you?"
Posted by: Sam Bowman | June 21, 2008 10:56 PM
Ken Ham, your just as useless as a dangleberry hanging off my hairy ass.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 21, 2008 11:00 PM
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!
Posted by: Paul Sunstone | June 21, 2008 11:00 PM
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! :)
Posted by: sillysighbean@aol.com | June 21, 2008 11:00 PM
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.
Posted by: Pteropterus | June 21, 2008 11:02 PM
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.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 21, 2008 11:04 PM
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!"
Posted by: mikecbraun | June 21, 2008 11:05 PM
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.
Posted by: GraceM | June 21, 2008 11:07 PM
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.
Posted by: mikecbraun | June 21, 2008 11:11 PM
...Or is that a dinosaur-drawn Creationism buggy? Did anyone throw the "fucktard" label at him yet?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 21, 2008 11:11 PM
@ 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......
Posted by: Graham | June 21, 2008 11:18 PM
I posted a response decrying the undergraduate tone here, (it appeared as #12), but it seems to have been deleted. Is this UncommonDescent ?
Posted by: The Other Dan from Wisconsin | June 21, 2008 11:22 PM
Ken Ham is a disgrace to the good name of Wackaloons everywhere.
Posted by: Aynon | June 21, 2008 11:30 PM
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: Brownian, OM | June 21, 2008 11:34 PM
Ah, Avnon, another brilliant example of Christian home schooling.
So many rules in Deuteronomy. Too bad none of them are about spelling and punctuation.
Posted by: Allytude | June 21, 2008 11:34 PM
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.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 21, 2008 11:35 PM
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?
Posted by: MCullen | June 21, 2008 11:35 PM
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.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 21, 2008 11:37 PM
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.
Posted by: rrt | June 21, 2008 11:44 PM
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.
Posted by: Sioux Laris | June 21, 2008 11:49 PM
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.
Posted by: JasoE | June 21, 2008 11:51 PM
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!
Posted by: Graham | June 21, 2008 11:53 PM
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.
Posted by: pubcat | June 21, 2008 11:54 PM
You are nothing
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 21, 2008 11:57 PM
If that was a death threat, it was a pretty piss-poor one.
Posted by: Neil Schipper | June 21, 2008 11:58 PM
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.
Posted by: Hez | June 22, 2008 12:01 AM
Ken Ham has a beer belly, he needs to do some exercise (that includes exercising his brain too, for obvious reasons).
Posted by: Jeff | June 22, 2008 12:02 AM
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.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 22, 2008 12:08 AM
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?
Posted by: chancelikely | June 22, 2008 12:11 AM
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.)
Posted by: Alex | June 22, 2008 12:13 AM
@#497, heh, I sometimes mix Kent and Ken. They're both so stupid, I just can't help it. :P
Posted by: Mena | June 22, 2008 12:19 AM
But the baby donkey is cute, isn't he?
Posted by: Geral | June 22, 2008 12:20 AM
You called him a 'Wackaloon' and he got offended? I thought he got off easy.
Posted by: keith | June 22, 2008 12:26 AM
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.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 22, 2008 12:27 AM
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.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 22, 2008 12:30 AM
I just Googled "'Ken Ham' piglet rapist" and came up with this as #5:
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=
Posted by: God | June 22, 2008 12:40 AM
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.
Posted by: Scott | June 22, 2008 12:43 AM
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."
Posted by: Galactus78 | June 22, 2008 12:46 AM
A bible thumping simpleton with cognitive powers no greater than the animatronic dummies that populate his fake museum.
Posted by: Notkieran, BSc Hons Physics, Dip. Ed. | June 22, 2008 12:50 AM
Ken Ham phallically administers thalidomide to the minds of your children and then makes them wait for the Second Coming.
Posted by: Michael | June 22, 2008 12:52 AM
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!
Posted by: Notkieran | June 22, 2008 12:53 AM
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.
Posted by: Cowcakes | June 22, 2008 12:58 AM
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.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 22, 2008 1:01 AM
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.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 22, 2008 1:08 AM
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.
Posted by: Autumn | June 22, 2008 1:08 AM
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.
Posted by: BobC | June 22, 2008 1:12 AM
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.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | June 22, 2008 1:14 AM
Wow, Zarquon (#329) I don't think I've *ever* seen nor heard anyone else use the fontema insult before. d00d!
Posted by: Kseniya | June 22, 2008 1:18 AM
Ham, you gabbling limpet!
Posted by: Dana Hunter | June 22, 2008 1:20 AM
"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?
Posted by: Kurt | June 22, 2008 1:24 AM
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.
Posted by: Wild Bob | June 22, 2008 1:27 AM
@ Autumn #513
I'm way ahead of you. See #397
:p
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 22, 2008 1:28 AM
There are no conclusions in science other than naturalism.
Posted by: Dagger | June 22, 2008 1:28 AM
#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.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 22, 2008 1:36 AM
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.
Posted by: Matt | June 22, 2008 1:39 AM
Poster boy for pretentious prevarication. Must be religious.
Posted by: Craig Messerman | June 22, 2008 1:40 AM
He is a noxious weed from Australia. Now where's my Roundup?
Posted by: Kseniya | June 22, 2008 1:42 AM
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.
Posted by: Fergy | June 22, 2008 1:42 AM
Ken Ham is a waste of skin.
Posted by: RT NZ | June 22, 2008 1:47 AM
Kevin & Avnon...you are supposed to love the sinner.
Such unchristian sentiments in your posts..straight to HELL for you .....Hahaha....you blew it
Posted by: Autumn | June 22, 2008 1:48 AM
@ 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.
Posted by: WIld Bob | June 22, 2008 2:01 AM
@ 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.
Posted by: Brandon P. | June 22, 2008 2:11 AM
Ken Ham believes that people were created from dirt and T. rex was a vegetarian. That should be enough cause for ridicule.
Posted by: Mane | June 22, 2008 2:14 AM
I imagine that Ken Ham's Brain is no where as delicious as Francis Bacon's.
Posted by: Donovan | June 22, 2008 2:22 AM
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.
Posted by: Traffic Demon | June 22, 2008 2:27 AM
Just for lulz...
Ken Ham - EPIC FAIL
Posted by: Ray Mills | June 22, 2008 2:27 AM
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.
Posted by: DrClown | June 22, 2008 2:28 AM
Your comments section is not safe for adult children.
Posted by: John | June 22, 2008 2:35 AM
Mr. Ham needs to stop lying to children, needs to stop misleading adults, and needs to fucking GETA CLUE!!
Posted by: Ray Mills | June 22, 2008 2:35 AM
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.
Posted by: John | June 22, 2008 2:36 AM
Mr. Ham needs to stop lying to children, needs to stop misleading adults, and needs to fucking GETA CLUE!!
Posted by: raiko | June 22, 2008 2:44 AM
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.
Posted by: Richbank | June 22, 2008 2:45 AM
@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.
Posted by: JStein | June 22, 2008 2:49 AM
What a phenomenally stupid man.
Posted by: bigwit | June 22, 2008 2:56 AM
"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.
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 3:12 AM
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.
Posted by: Mytho | June 22, 2008 3:32 AM
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 =/
Posted by: clinteas | June 22, 2008 3:35 AM
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 !
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 22, 2008 3:36 AM
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.
Posted by: Cyberguy | June 22, 2008 3:40 AM
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!!!
Posted by: Ray Mills | June 22, 2008 3:55 AM
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.
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 3:56 AM
This vile outpouring of hateful savagery will hinder rather than help the cause of secularism. No-one deserves this kind of treatment.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 22, 2008 4:18 AM
Hey, I got a new one. Ken Ham is a J.
Posted by: greg s | June 22, 2008 4:18 AM
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
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 22, 2008 4:33 AM
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.
Posted by: Cyberguy | June 22, 2008 4:40 AM
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!
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 4:42 AM
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.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 22, 2008 4:54 AM
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.
Posted by: Ex Partiatett | June 22, 2008 4:54 AM
It really is to bad that mother wasn't Pro-Choice
and used the option
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | June 22, 2008 4:54 AM
J, man up and stop being a puss.
Seriously.
No, seriously.
Posted by: jeremy | June 22, 2008 5:08 AM
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.
Posted by: jeremy | June 22, 2008 5:11 AM
Sometimes it doesn't *take* genius to spot bullshit.
Oops, probably emphasises my point if anything ;)
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 5:13 AM
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.
Posted by: Kris Verburgh | June 22, 2008 5:14 AM
Spreading ignorance and religious narrow-mindedness... How sad.
Posted by: Logicel | June 22, 2008 5:21 AM
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.
Posted by: clinteas | June 22, 2008 5:46 AM
@ 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.
Posted by: brightmoon | June 22, 2008 5:51 AM
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
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 22, 2008 6:06 AM
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.
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 6:37 AM
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.)
Posted by: Lancelot Gobbo | June 22, 2008 7:03 AM
Ken Ham = Me Khan.
I prefer Ricardo Montalban's knowledge of science, myself.
Posted by: Logicel | June 22, 2008 7:04 AM
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.
Posted by: Chumbafan | June 22, 2008 7:07 AM
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)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 22, 2008 7:08 AM
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.
Posted by: Gustav Nyström | June 22, 2008 7:08 AM
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).
Posted by: Dana | June 22, 2008 7:12 AM
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.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | June 22, 2008 7:14 AM
Ken Ham is so full of shit his eyes are brown
Posted by: Frederik Rosenkjær | June 22, 2008 7:33 AM
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.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 22, 2008 7:42 AM
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.
Posted by: Imperion | June 22, 2008 8:00 AM
Ken Ham's campaign to distort the minds of the youth makes me sick.
Posted by: Luis | June 22, 2008 8:06 AM
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]
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 8:18 AM
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.
Posted by: Iain Walker | June 22, 2008 8:18 AM
Neil B. (Comment #92):
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.
Posted by: alcari | June 22, 2008 8:25 AM
And, to add the latest internet meme to the insults:
Kent Ham is NOT aware of all internet tradtions
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 22, 2008 8:40 AM
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.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | June 22, 2008 8:52 AM
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.
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 9:02 AM
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.
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 9:04 AM
...steep submerged in barbarism.
Still submerged in barbarism, even.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 22, 2008 9:05 AM
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.
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 9:09 AM
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.
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 9:13 AM
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.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 22, 2008 9:18 AM
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.
Posted by: Ian | June 22, 2008 9:25 AM
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.
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 9:34 AM
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.
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 9:39 AM
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.
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 22, 2008 9:44 AM
Alan Kellogg,
because of you, I spoilt my coffee all over my shirt ! What a good laugh though ! :-)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 22, 2008 9:46 AM
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.
Posted by: Circe | June 22, 2008 9:57 AM
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?)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 22, 2008 10:01 AM
Wow. 591 comments...
You are lying. I repeat: what you say is wrong, and you know it.
Wake me up when an atheist throws a bomb into a church.
Really. Pointing and laughing is what you call "nasty"? Get a grip.
Bah. Those you have to see in the original French. BACHI-BOUZOUKS ! ORNITHOLOGUES ! CHAUFFARDS ! PHYLACTÈRES !
Posted by: Elwood Herring | June 22, 2008 10:10 AM
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
Posted by: JohnB | June 22, 2008 10:12 AM
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.
Posted by: Peter | June 22, 2008 10:13 AM
Ken Ham has the brains of a retarded goana.
Posted by: Nathan Zamprogno | June 22, 2008 10:14 AM
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"
Posted by: Elwood Herring | June 22, 2008 10:16 AM
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..."
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 22, 2008 10:25 AM
Elwood Herring@600 An alternative punchline:
So he's had to cancel his speaking engagements for the next six months!
Posted by: windy | June 22, 2008 10:28 AM
Does that mean they'll stop referring to Stalin as an example of "how nasty atheists can get"? Sounds good! Bring them on!
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!
Posted by: Farb | June 22, 2008 10:37 AM
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!!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 22, 2008 10:41 AM
Hmmm.
Any similarity to the Viennese question "have they shat into your brain"?
(Hmm. Phonetically, this question starts with "hamster". Coincidence???)
Posted by: negentropyeater | June 22, 2008 10:49 AM
I am quite convinced that Ken Ham has a very small penis.
Posted by: BobC | June 22, 2008 11:01 AM
"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.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 22, 2008 11:04 AM
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*
Posted by: Greg N. | June 22, 2008 11:11 AM
Ken Ham is wrong about evolution.
Posted by: Dylan Dog | June 22, 2008 11:12 AM
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!
Posted by: Rich Charlebois | June 22, 2008 11:14 AM
Once again, proof positive that, "You can't fix stupid!"
Posted by: Kseniya | June 22, 2008 11:18 AM
Oh, wait, I've got a civilized poke:
Ken Ham is a non-Bright!
Posted by: Janine ID | June 22, 2008 11:19 AM
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.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 22, 2008 11:22 AM
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.
Posted by: baz | June 22, 2008 11:28 AM
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.
Posted by: Seeker | June 22, 2008 11:31 AM
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."
Posted by: Kseniya | June 22, 2008 11:37 AM
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). ;-)
Posted by: Chris O | June 22, 2008 11:38 AM
Ken Ham is an ass upon which everyone has sat, except a man.
Posted by: Neil Schipper | June 22, 2008 12:03 PM
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.
Posted by: RamblinDude | June 22, 2008 12:08 PM
Janine ID
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.
Posted by: speedwell | June 22, 2008 12:13 PM
"...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.
Posted by: Brian | June 22, 2008 12:17 PM
I have to slightly agree with Ken Ham on this one. Calling him a "wackaloon" is unprofessional and insulting to wackaloons.
Posted by: CL | June 22, 2008 12:31 PM
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.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 22, 2008 12:40 PM
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.]
Posted by: Carlie | June 22, 2008 12:46 PM
To play off of Farb in #603:
Ken Ham is the False Prophet your mother warned you about.
Posted by: Sir Jebbington | June 22, 2008 12:46 PM
#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.
Posted by: Sir Jebbington | June 22, 2008 12:49 PM
Pardon me. We complemented that. And the finest form of flattery is, to some, mimicry.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | June 22, 2008 12:52 PM
Ken Ham? Ken Ham? Who the fuck is Ken Ham?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 22, 2008 1:01 PM
Ken ham is, well, Ken Ham. I can think of no worse of an insult.
Posted by: Dustin | June 22, 2008 1:04 PM
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.
Posted by: BobC | June 22, 2008 1:06 PM
"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.
Posted by: The Reverend | June 22, 2008 1:07 PM
An intellectual disaster of biblical proportions.
Posted by: Patricia | June 22, 2008 1:13 PM
#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.
Posted by: Remy-Grace | June 22, 2008 1:17 PM
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.
Posted by: jetmags73 | June 22, 2008 1:18 PM
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.
Posted by: jetmags73 | June 22, 2008 1:23 PM
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.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 22, 2008 1:29 PM
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.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 22, 2008 1:32 PM
@ 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.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | June 22, 2008 1:42 PM
Ken Ham is almost as ignorant as his followers.
Posted by: BobC | June 22, 2008 1:57 PM
"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.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 22, 2008 2:13 PM
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.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 22, 2008 2:13 PM
He's the donkey rapingest.
Oh sorry, did I type that out loud.
Posted by: Super Dude | June 22, 2008 2:19 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | June 22, 2008 2:30 PM
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.Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 22, 2008 2:32 PM
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
Posted by: scotochromogen | June 22, 2008 2:39 PM
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.
Posted by: JM Inc. | June 22, 2008 3:08 PM
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.
Posted by: OrbitalMike | June 22, 2008 3:13 PM
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.
Posted by: Scott D. | June 22, 2008 3:14 PM
Found unsuitable for soylent green, he's to full of shit.
Posted by: RichC | June 22, 2008 3:16 PM
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?
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 22, 2008 3:21 PM
"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.
Posted by: Tz'unun, B.S Biology, recovering Southern Baptist | June 22, 2008 3:27 PM
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.
Posted by: Ragutis | June 22, 2008 3:45 PM
Benjamin Franklin @ #644 said:
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.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 22, 2008 4:02 PM
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?
Posted by: J-Dog | June 22, 2008 4:16 PM
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?
Posted by: cheeb | June 22, 2008 4:49 PM
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.
Posted by: Patricia | June 22, 2008 5:00 PM
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.
Posted by: Alex | June 22, 2008 5:01 PM
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?
Posted by: bright | June 22, 2008 5:25 PM
That is one million + 1...yes Mr. Ham your superstitious beliefs scare the daylights out of me.
Posted by: Escuerd | June 22, 2008 5:30 PM
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.
Posted by: J | June 22, 2008 5:52 PM
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.
Posted by: JeffreyD | June 22, 2008 6:08 PM
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
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 22, 2008 6:10 PM
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.
Posted by: Patricia | June 22, 2008 6:11 PM
Are you an expert on witches J?
Posted by: Patricia | June 22, 2008 6:18 PM
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. :)
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 22, 2008 6:44 PM
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.
Posted by: Biff the Bartender | June 22, 2008 6:44 PM
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.
Posted by: MarshallDog | June 22, 2008 7:12 PM
I'm just checking to see if 666 comments is the max... that would be funny.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 22, 2008 7:13 PM
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
museumtheme 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':
Posted by: NRT | June 22, 2008 7:31 PM
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
Posted by: NRT | June 22, 2008 7:39 PM
Has anyone informed Australia's indigenous population that Oz is only 4000 yrs old?
Posted by: Arnaud | June 22, 2008 7:39 PM
"Man is a clever animal who behaves like an imbecile." - Albert Schweitzer
Posted by: Biff the Bartender | June 22, 2008 7:41 PM
Whoo hoo!!!! I was the triple six! I'm honored!
Posted by: Patricia | June 22, 2008 7:52 PM
Biff - 666- As the Grand Poohbah of the Liars & Fornicator's Union, Local #666, I congratulate you. Well done!
Posted by: Hammerhead | June 22, 2008 8:15 PM
Isn't the number of the beast 616 or something like that?
Also, Ken Ham is a poopface. Poopface!
Posted by: ancientTechie | June 22, 2008 8:18 PM
If Ken Ham had another brain, he'd be a half wit.
Posted by: Ric | June 22, 2008 8:21 PM
Ken Ham is a complete and utter moron.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | June 22, 2008 8:24 PM
Wowbagger@668:
I think Lewis Black has taken up Bill Hicks' mantle on this one.