…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.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | June 22, 2008 8:26 PM
Oh, and more from Lewis Black (same clip):
Didn't PZ link to this clip at some point?
Posted by: Gene | June 22, 2008 8:29 PM
Ken Ham is a dipshit (it's the only one I could think of that hasn't been *taken* already).
Posted by: Kel | June 22, 2008 8:30 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
I don't think for one second that it would have been in a single draft or even considered to say that. It's just absurd, let alone factually incorrect and completely ignorant of history. If Carl Wieland truly believed it, then he is both a threat to others and himself. Though after seeing just who the person was on Wikipedia, I can safely say this is another case of Lying for Jesus.
Posted by: Nothing Sacred | June 22, 2008 8:35 PM
Ken Ham, you are a douchebag: an old, outdated, useless tool that provides nothing but irritation and risk for all kinds of unpleasant damage and harmful growths.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 22, 2008 8:38 PM
Benjamin Geiger, #677, wrote:
I'm not familiar with Lewis Black (I'll have a browse around teh internets and see what I can find) but I've seen that quote a few times. And it's exactly what I thought when I first heard about the creationist's dinosaur
theoryblatant lie for Jesus - have these people been watching The Flintstones and thinking it's a documentary?Posted by: Neil and Bob, doing it whenever we damn well please | June 22, 2008 8:43 PM
Cultural Anthropologist nailed it!
♪ ♪ ♪
Posted by: Kel | June 22, 2008 8:53 PM
@Wowbagger
If you watch The Daily Show, Lewis Black has a segment on there where he does rants (usually to do with religion)
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 22, 2008 9:11 PM
Eh, I content myself with free-to-air. I occasionally caught the Daily Show 'Weekly World Edition' on SBS but don't remember any Lewis Black bits.
I read some of his quotes, though, and there's a definite 'Hicksiness' to his work. Good to know there are people fighting the good fight. Had pancreatic cancer not taken Bill when it did I'm sure the state of the world in recent years would have made his head explode. He had enough scorn for the actions of Bush Snr; he'd have blown a gasket ragging on Dubya.
Posted by: karen marie | June 22, 2008 9:15 PM
what a thoroughly entertaining thread!
thank you, pharyngulists!
ken ham is a worm-infested turd.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 22, 2008 9:23 PM
Congratulations, Biff the Bartender #666!
And yes, according to some Bible manuscripts, the Number of the Beast is either 616 or 615.
Posted by: Tom | June 22, 2008 9:40 PM
A few more descriptions of Ken Ham, courtesy of classic Beavis and Butt-head:
a dillhole
a buttmuch
a fartknocker
a turd burglar
Posted by: Tom | June 22, 2008 9:42 PM
Sorry, Ken Ham, that should have read:
a buttmunch
I apologize if my typographical error offended you.
Posted by: Geneticmishap | June 22, 2008 9:49 PM
Piece-a-shit godbag!
Posted by: John | June 22, 2008 9:51 PM
Ken Ham, I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
FRENCH GUARD
Posted by: John | June 22, 2008 10:03 PM
Not to start a Dino Catz flood or anything...
Posted by: John | June 22, 2008 10:06 PM
But this is too funny:
[IMG]http://i28.tinypic.com/2h36dm8.jpg[/IMG]
or
http://i28.tinypic.com/2h36dm8.jpg
Posted by: Jim Shirk | June 22, 2008 10:10 PM
Did you remember hooplehead?
Posted by: Marion Delgado | June 22, 2008 10:13 PM
Ken does a great job representing creationists, and in that role, I have no criticisms of him whatsoever.
Posted by: Ragutis | June 22, 2008 10:23 PM
Hammerhead @ #674 said:
[Bruce Dickinson]
SIX!... ONE SIX! The Nummmmber of the Beast!
[/Bruce Dickinson]
Nah. Just doesn't sound right, dude.
Posted by: Patricia | June 22, 2008 10:46 PM
Ken Ham, I bounce my boobies in the general direction of your aunties!
FRENCH TART
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 22, 2008 10:53 PM
The ultimate insult, from Waiting for Godot:
Critic!
Posted by: Gordy | June 22, 2008 10:58 PM
Ken Ham - Some of the nearly 700 comments about you above may be less than 100% accurate, and I almost felt sorry for you. Then I remembered hearing you say that Richard Dawkins wants to stop teaching children about religion so that he can indoctrinate them with his atheistic views (on a Guardian Science Weekly podcast). You must know that Professor Dawkins advocates the teaching of comparative religion to children, after all he's said it consistently for years in many different media. So then i thought that, well, if you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword. All of which is a rather long winded way of saying that maybe you deserve it because you're utterly dishonest.
Posted by: and-u-say | June 22, 2008 11:15 PM
I didn't see it, so I will have to go the looney toons route:
Ken Ham... what a maroon!
Also, Ken is so dense he bends light.
Enjoy!
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 22, 2008 11:15 PM
Let's make it a round 700, wotthehell.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 22, 2008 11:17 PM
Dammit, and-u-say, you beat me to it!
Posted by: and-u-say | June 22, 2008 11:17 PM
Woot! I got post #700!
I, too, am surprised at the lack of Hamsters coming to defend their shepherd. Odd that.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 22, 2008 11:29 PM
Nick Gotts, various
I set the 2000 election down after we crossed the river, why are you still carrying her?
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 22, 2008 11:31 PM
It can be the monster we invent to scare children with: 'kids, if you're weak-minded and credulous then the Ken Ham will come and take you away to his lair, where he will suck out your remaining critical thinking skills and replace them with sucky fairy-tales cooked up by a bunch of Bronze Age pastoralists who had yet to travel outside their small corner of the middle-east.'
Posted by: Kel | June 22, 2008 11:34 PM
Maybe the barrage of naughty language is keeping them away. Nitwit might be too offensive (I'm sure nits would take offence at the comparison with Ken Ham) for some of the church followers to take. Ken Ham may have grown up in Queensland where the foul language is enough to make God want to kill Egyptian babies, but that's why he's in the USA now. Bunch of farken softcocksPosted by: Matlatzinca | June 22, 2008 11:35 PM
Why single out Ken Ham? Anyone who refuses to read through the evidence for evolution and continues to believe in creationism is dumber than tits on a bull.
And let's not keep this eloquence confined to the English and, was that czech and hebrew I saw earlier? languages:
Señores y señoras creyentes en el mito de la Creación: hagan el favor de sacarse la cabeza del culo.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 22, 2008 11:37 PM
Rich Charlebois, #610
You can indeed fix stupid, and since Ken is male it's an outpatient procedure.
"Ken Ham?" I hear someone query...
Long talk, no thought.
Posted by: Patricia | June 22, 2008 11:49 PM
Naughty...naughty?!
...I have a cunning plan -
Let us all clench a turnip between our buttocks and wave them in the direction of Ken Ham's aunties.
Posted by: deang | June 22, 2008 11:52 PM
Your title for this post cracks me up every time I think about it. It's like the start of an A. A. Milne chapter. That alone is somehow a withering swipe at Ham, the better for its subtlety.
Posted by: efp | June 22, 2008 11:59 PM
For anyone who missed it:
"The interview was going well. Ham was spouting nonsensical creationist rhetoric, and I was in full-blown retard mode."
http://buffalobeast.com/117/let_there_be_retards.htm
Posted by: Patricia | June 23, 2008 12:07 AM
Where the hell is wOO+?
Posted by: Patricia | June 23, 2008 12:19 AM
G'night you heathen elitist bastards. I gotta round up my Aussies to roost, and head to bed myself.
9:14 pm Oregon time, PZ is speaking on Free Thought Network. :)
Homo creotardus fucktardus = Ken Ham/Goddidit
Posted by: jmsr | June 23, 2008 12:57 AM
Hey Ken! Here's a tip: don't start with the conclusion.
jmsr
PS seriously, what is ~wrong~ with you?
Posted by: Bart Mitchell | June 23, 2008 1:02 AM
Ken Ham is an affront to pork lovers everywhere. Even most porcine creatures have more cognitive capability.
Posted by: Don | June 23, 2008 1:13 AM
Hmm, I'm late to the party. Even so, I am compelled to register my contempt for Mr. Ham's ass-hattery. He's a well-funded fraud who seems hell-bent on dragging America back to the days when superstition reigned.
Posted by: Paul Murray | June 23, 2008 1:13 AM
Id settle for creationists being people so frightened of their imaginary God, that they have set themselves the task of beliving a bunch of lies that they imagine their imaginary god wants them to belive.
The central mental problem of the fundamentalist is that they actually know that that they don't really believe the things they pretend to belive, but as nonbelief will condemn them to an eternity in the lake of fire, they must conceal from themselves the fact that they don't belive it. And this while living in the real world.
Thus, despite the clearest injunctions in the bible against it, christians will sue one another, and then invent the craziest and flimsiest excuses why its ok, and go to enormous effort to pretend even to themselves that they belive those excuses - excuses which usually don't even pass the laugh test. Ditto christians divorcing - you know that fundies divorce at a greater rate than the general population?
Posted by: MarieTheBookwyrm | June 23, 2008 1:43 AM
Foul Ol' Ken.
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | June 23, 2008 1:51 AM
Hmmm. . .Ken Ham? You mean the guy who is probably the best living proof of evolution? I mean, c'mon, look at that face. If there's any human who looks like he was descended from an ape. . . .
What a dunderpate.
I know, I know, evolution doesn't say we're descended from apes, just that we share a common ancestor with apes. However, the above should be simple enough for Mr. Ham to at least grasp, should he wade this far through the comments.
Posted by: me | June 23, 2008 2:03 AM
As much and as satisfying as all this is, I am reminded of the scene in "Thank You For Smoking" where the lobbyist father is explaining to his son how he sells things so well.
After a discussion on which ice cream is best the son comments "but you haven't convinced me at all, I still like chocolate!" to which good ol'dad responds "I'm not trying to convince you, it's them I'm after" and motions to the crowds in the park.
We may not convince Ken, but we can get (some) of the people. You got me!
Oh btw, he really REALLY pisses me off and I let my still-creationist (and much loved) friends know that. There, I almost insulted someone!
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 23, 2008 2:08 AM
Obviously you've never met my brother!
Seriously, he's had a terminal case of Fundy Dementorism for at least 25 years. He and my SIL didn't speak to our mom for at least 6 months after she let slip that she prefers "my" kind of sacred music (i.e. Bach, Mozart, et al.) to their kind of whatever-that-is they sing at their church. I don't know whether they took it personally - my bro actually writes that $#!+, for Basement Cat's sake! - or it was just the principle of the thing.
All I know is, he and I don't talk about anything; we just kind of eye each other warily. Fortunately he's out on the left coast and I only see him about once every five years. But I'm willing to swear on a stack of LOLcat Bibulz that he absolutely believes every word of it.
Posted by: Amplexus | June 23, 2008 2:10 AM
Which is more useful: Ken Ham or an actual ham? No question! A ham could actually feed some hungry people, ham's ministry is about spreading ignorance not prosperity.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 23, 2008 2:39 AM
My Enquiring Mind has been wanting to know too..... In the mean time, here's a wÒÓ†ism to tide everyone over:
(.)(.)
(There. Now you can't say I never did anything for you.) =8-O
Cuttlefish is AWOL too! W'zup w'dat? No, waitaminnit - Cuttlefish is out of the country, gallivanting around Europe on a Grand Adventure.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 23, 2008 2:49 AM
What a shameless, low-stooping misrepresentation.
Posted by: J
Sorry J. I usually ignore what you have to say. I just had to give Kseniya a good nature ribbing. And you so hate name calling because you are such an adult. Sod off you silly little git.
Back to ignoring you now, you bright ray of sunshine.
Posted by: Traffic Demon | June 23, 2008 2:57 AM
Ken Ham is a knobgoblin.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 23, 2008 3:02 AM
OT but newsworthy: George Carlin passed away about 9 hours ago. I'm stunned.
Posted by: Robert Byers | June 23, 2008 3:30 AM
Perhaps a creationist canadian will have the last word on a summer night here.
Ken Ham is important man. He has achieved already prestige and fame in the English-speaking world not to be equaled by any poster here including this Myers guy I never heard of before.
Ken ham went to this prestiges breakfast and so won.
All these posters demonstrate how important they see Ken Ham as a agent of change/influence in the intellectual arena of the public mind.
Surely the quality and credibility of the anti-Hamiticism expressed here is not the stuff of modern evolutionisms resistence to advancing , exciting modern creationism.
Just keep rolling that wheel of truth Hamster. God, the true Christians, Creationism everywhere, and the common sense of the public are cheering for you. The good guy.
Posted by: Janine ID | June 23, 2008 3:45 AM
Surely the quality and credibility of the anti-Hamiticism expressed here is not the stuff of modern evolutionisms resistence to advancing , exciting modern creationism.
Just keep rolling that wheel of truth Hamster. God, the true Christians, Creationism everywhere, and the common sense of the public are cheering for you. The good guy.
Posted by: Robert Byers
This is a joke? Right? ...exciting modern creationism...?
Sorry dude. You are denied the final word. The words you left have little meaning. But have pleasant dreams of frolicking with dinosaurs under the stern watching eyes of big sky daddy.
Posted by: Traffic Demon | June 23, 2008 3:59 AM
Editing post 727 to be more consistent with reality:
Perhaps [a panty sniffing] canadian will have the last word on a summer night here. [Perhaps not]
Ken Ham is [a syphilitic] man. He has achieved already prestige and fame in the [child molesting] world not to be equaled by any poster here including this [heroic] Myers guy I never heard of before [to my detriment].
Ken ham went to this prestiges [or perhaps prestigious] breakfast and so won [the matching luggage but not the BIG MONEY].
[I sniff my butt sometimes]
All these [smart and cuddly] posters demonstrate how [fucktardesque] they see Ken Ham as a agent of change/influence in the [un]intellectual arena of the public mind.
Surely the quality and credibility of the anti-Hamiticism expressed here is... the stuff of modern evolutionisms [I just made that up] resistence [I meant resistance. Really] to advancing , exciting modern creationism. [Tried, but couldn't, write that last bit with a straight face]
[I masturbate to photos of Fred Phelps]
Just keep rolling that wheel of truth Hamster [wait, hamster wheels don't go anywhere] [hey, it makes sense then!]. God, the true Christians, Creationism everywhere, and the common sense of the public are [idiots]. The [bat faced, knock kneed, pigeon toed, goat felching, toenail biting, chronically masturbating, scab eating, weak bearded, nose picking, unevolved, pinkeyed, asshatted, half witted, three nippled, skidmarked] guy [so ugly that blind people throw things at him and do not miss].
This service brought to you by the cast and crew of Traffic Demon Urban Racing.
Posted by: alex | June 23, 2008 4:07 AM
robert, "prestige" is not synonymous with "notoriety".Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 23, 2008 4:09 AM
Isn't the number of the beast 616 or something like that?
Nah, I tried calling it, and just got "Number unobtainable". 666, from the UK, puts you through to the Australian police.
Posted by: Logicel | June 23, 2008 4:14 AM
Ham makes the worst childhood nightmare seem cuddly, loving, and delightful.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 23, 2008 4:15 AM
Alan Kellogg@704 Because people are still dying, being tortured, in prison without trial because of it.
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | June 23, 2008 4:55 AM
Anyone had dozy wazzock?
As in "Ken Ham is a ..."
Posted by: Jim Rational | June 23, 2008 5:08 AM
You said to get creative, PZ, so I worked on it a bit :)
http://jimrational.blogspot.com/2008/06/ken-ham-wackaloon.html
- Jim Rational
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | June 23, 2008 5:48 AM
Dear Ken,
In addition to all the above, I think you're a twunt.
Love and kisses,
Baldy
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 23, 2008 5:51 AM
"I set the 2000 election down after we crossed the river, why are you still carrying her?"
First off, what river? And secondly, oh...maybe because it was an illegal action that led to the most disastrous presidential administration in history. Lay it down, sure. And be condemned to repeat it. Fuck that.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 23, 2008 5:56 AM
Rey Fox,
The "river" is a reference to a Zen Buddhist fable of two monks who come to a river where a woman is standing on the bank, unable or unwilling to wade across. One of the monks gives her a piggyback, despite the rule that monks should avoid touching women. Some time after, the other monk, who has been brooding, reproaches him for his action. The second monk replies "Brother, I put that woman down on the riverbank. Why are you still carrying her?" Why Alan Kellogg thinks it relevant here, I've no idea. Maybe he'll tell us.
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 23, 2008 6:51 AM
#736: Dammit! I just search the page for thr term "twunt" hoping I could bethe first to use it.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | June 23, 2008 7:03 AM
Its been 24 hours since I last checked - but apparently Ken Ham is still a cucking funt.
I think this comes as no surprise to anyone.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 23, 2008 7:12 AM
When I read about Ken's "work", I can't help but feel sorry for whatever village lost its idiot.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 23, 2008 7:41 AM
@741 - Ken's a far bigger idiot than a village could possibly need - clearly, Australia's lost its national idiot.
Posted by: Matt LaBerge | June 23, 2008 7:47 AM
Ken Ham is an ass hat!
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 23, 2008 8:07 AM
Nick Gotts, #733
So September 11th 2001 happened because George W. Bush stole the 2000 Presidential election? You're the first person to imply the Democrats were behind it.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 23, 2008 8:13 AM
Nick Gotts, #738
I see you're like a lump of coal, not much into reflection.
Posted by: Carpworld | June 23, 2008 8:13 AM
V. late but can i just add:
stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder.
tks.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 23, 2008 8:15 AM
If I can, I will gladly carry her all the way to...
JAIL
TO THE
THIEF
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 23, 2008 8:16 AM
Alan Kellogg@744. I simply don't understand what you're getting at. Would you be kind enough to give a clear explanation, so I can disabuse you of whatever misinterpretation of something I said (I have no idea what) you have acquired?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 23, 2008 8:18 AM
Iraq and Guantánamo happened. Hello-o!
(Obviously, we don't know if President Gore would have ignored the warnings of 9/11 lying on his desk...)
Posted by: Vidar | June 23, 2008 8:26 AM
Awww, Hammy has a boo-boo.
He is openly hostile to the scientific community, but expects everyone to not be hostile to him, and throws a hissy-fit over being called a "wackaloon". My, how very mature.
Posted by: Facehammer | June 23, 2008 8:48 AM
Ken ham: a foot-long turd in the cider barrel of humanity.
Ken Ham: a few scorched sinuses short of a firebreathing T-rex.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 23, 2008 9:02 AM
Alan Kellogg,
I see you are into the same sort of deliberate obscurity we expect from the likes of Salt and Brenda von Ahsen; invariably a cover for lack of any substantive argument to advance. I'll know to ignore your stupidities in future.
Posted by: Hrd2Imagin | June 23, 2008 9:03 AM
Ken Ham is a disgrace to the meat that shares his surname.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 23, 2008 9:14 AM
Gordy @ #699:
Yep, Ken Ham is a lying sack of crap. Since it's clear he has no respect for the truth, and no capacity for honesty, there is no reason to limit criticism of him to the facts (though the facts are pretty bad to begin with). He doesn't have any qualms about making shit up, why should anyone show him any kind of courtesy? One could even call him a piglet rapist, and it would be no less honest than what Ham spews daily, for a living. The man's entire life is founded on fraud, and he has the gall to whine about the slightest criticism?
It's not our fault that Ken Ham's moral compass points straight to the gutter. If he doesn't like the taste of his own medicine, he should stop force-feeding it to children.
Posted by: David | June 23, 2008 9:31 AM
Ken Ham, you are an uneducated close minded hypocritical ignoramus who deliberately lies to people by using their faith so you can make some money and gain fame.
You claim that you are a follower of Christ. So, Instead of wasting almost 30 million dollars on a house of lies, why didn't you donate that money to combat poverty?
You are a crackpot fraudulent lunatic that thinks the entire Universe was instantaneously created about 1000 years after glue was invented.
Simply put Mr. Ham, you are a terrible person that needs to fade into obscurity.
Posted by: WRMartin | June 23, 2008 10:16 AM
Ken Ham: for novelty use only.
Posted by: Marty | June 23, 2008 10:19 AM
Ken Ham is a festering sack of pus!
Posted by: Codswallop | June 23, 2008 10:33 AM
You got Ham's character right, but I take issue with the word "gonif" (with one "f" or two). In Yiddish, it means "thief." Ham has many flaws, but this is a new one on me.
Posted by: who is your creator | June 23, 2008 10:44 AM
Thank you all for your incredibly articulate and scientific arguments against Ken Ham's character and the information from the Answers in Genesis website.
While it is a little shocking to see the depth of hate, we creationists are encouraged that you see Mr. Ham as such a threat.
A better approach to discredit him would be attempting to pick apart the site with all your 'scientific evidence.' In fact, why don't you give us just ONE "lie" that is on http://answersingenesis.org/ and then we can actually engage in a scientific discussion.
No doubt, many of you prefer to indulge in the foul and irrational personal attacks, but you might just try a civilized discussion -
And you might even learn something factual other than the silliness that you believe to be true!
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | June 23, 2008 10:48 AM
Ken Ham is a numpty.
Posted by: Fergy | June 23, 2008 10:50 AM
Oh, this is TOO easy... lemme see... how about "Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago." That's a good one, and there are countless others.
Fuckin' Christards...
Posted by: B-bot | June 23, 2008 10:55 AM
Ken Ham is a pathetic poseur, a perveyor of pretentious puffery, and a Pecksniffian pin-head.
Warning: do not use a personal flotation device.
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | June 23, 2008 10:58 AM
Thanks Nick @ 13
"Gormless".
Ken Ham is not only a wazzock, he is a gormless wazzock.
2 days away from the office, and see what fun I miss.
Posted by: Logicel | June 23, 2008 10:59 AM
some IDiot wrote: and then we can actually engage in a scientific discussion.
_____
Scientists do not debate with Creationists, you creotard! Astronomers do not debate with astrologists, etc.
A Bush-appointed conservative Christian deemed ID to be Religion at the Dover trial.
Educated people who do not embrace ignorance for a living only ridicule your kind--hence the colourful language on this thread.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 23, 2008 11:00 AM
We can start with the title: Answers In Genesis. Uhh, there's no answers in the Genesis. It's really not the place to look for answers.
Posted by: Logicel | June 23, 2008 11:01 AM
Ham is several slices short of a Ham sandwich.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 23, 2008 11:08 AM
In fact, why don't you give us just ONE "lie" that is on http://answersingenesis.org/ - wiyc
So many to choose from...
Extrasolar planets suggest our solar system is unique and young
An outright, barefaced, shameless lie. The characteristics of the extrasolar planets detected depend heavily on what planets are easy to detect, so do not even show that our solar system is particularly unusual. Even if it is, this is absolutely no evidence that it is "unique and young".
Posted by: Logicel | June 23, 2008 11:09 AM
Some IDiot wrote: While it is a little shocking to see the depth of hate, we creationists are encouraged that you see Mr. Ham as such a threat.
_______
We see Ham as a threat because he is wrong and dangerous as he sucks in gullible folks like you into his vortex of swirling stupidity. We don't take kindly to people who apply leeches, bloodlet, and drill holes into skulls either.
Posted by: Flonkbob | June 23, 2008 11:17 AM
I love that one of his big defenses in his blog post is that he only spoke to 100 out of 23,000 people. While that makes me feel a little better, I'm not sure how it makes the Ham-brained one feel like he's winning anything.
What a wackaloon.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 23, 2008 11:20 AM
J, overlooking for the moment that I was half-joking, the painful fact remains that you obviously JUST DON'T GET THE POINT.
Talk about dishonest. You elide over counter-points as if they had never been made, by declining to acknowledge that they ever have been made. Talk about shameless.
Pffft. And you wonder why you get so much shit here. You bring it on yourself, more often than not.
Posted by: Lycosid | June 23, 2008 11:22 AM
If AIDS were a person, that person would be Ken Ham. He's deceptive and his ideas infect the unprotected.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 23, 2008 11:26 AM
Who is your creator-
How can you "engage in a scientific discussion" with someone who states that "No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."?
Man and woman living alongside dinosaurs is a lie.
A worldwide flood only survived by Noah & 7 other humans is a lie.
Hen Ham isn't so much a threat as he is a fool.
Dismissal of reality results only in delusion. Are you prepared to accept evidence if it contradicts your theology? That, in a nutshell, is why engaging in scientific discussion with bible literalists like Ham is a waste of time.
Next!
.
.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 23, 2008 11:39 AM
Kseniya-
elide - To eliminate or leave out of consideration ?
Yeah! I love learning new words.
Thanks
Posted by: Danny | June 23, 2008 11:41 AM
Yeah, Ken. Even the Christians I know think you should give it a rest.
Posted by: Nails67 | June 23, 2008 12:04 PM
After following the link to read the chief wackaloon's indignation, I was highly amused to find that his previous post was one welcoming a baby donkey as the "newest staff member" of the creation museum. With that kind of quality recruitment program, they'll soon double the average IQ of their staff...
Posted by: Fergy | June 23, 2008 12:08 PM
Personal attacks ARE civilized in this context. One of the primary goals of every civilization is to expand and apply knowledge. In promoting ignorance over science, creationists are enemies of civilization, and Ken Ham is at the forefront of this assault.
Since we can't literally tar and feather him, we do the next best thing--public ridicule and humiliation. While it may be foul, there's nothing irrational about it, it is the only reasonable response to the willful ignorance of creationists. Scorn is exactly what he and you deserve (although I would PAY to see a feather covered Ham on YouTube...)
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 23, 2008 12:38 PM
Ken Ham is a Tofu Pup in the great Meat Market of Life.
Posted by: Tz'unun | June 23, 2008 12:39 PM
Traffic Demon wrote: wait, hamster wheels don't go anywhere
Good catch! It appears that Robert Byers knows the real truth and can't completely repress that knowledge.
Codswallop: Ham's as much a thief as any other con artist.
Posted by: Aegis | June 23, 2008 12:44 PM
"No doubt, many of you prefer to indulge in the foul and irrational personal attacks, but you might just try a civilized discussion."
No thanks.
Also, dear Ken:
I believe that god called you to visit the pentagon. It's just that you received his message about 6.5 years late or so. Why did you miss your September appointment? After all, god's OTHER messengers were right on time!
Posted by: AutoFire | June 23, 2008 12:51 PM
Ken Ham: the original steaming pile of bullshit.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 23, 2008 1:16 PM
Ken Ham, Robert Byers, and whoisyourcreator: just three more reasons I'd rather hang out with atheists and agnostics any day.
Vanity of Vanities, saith the Preacher's Kid: All is Vanity.
Posted by: thomas robey | June 23, 2008 1:17 PM
I appreciate the alphabetized list of names. The word that comes most to my mind is not a noun... disingenuous.
Posted by: Kristin | June 23, 2008 1:25 PM
Ken Ham: Moron.
Posted by: Hap | June 23, 2008 1:35 PM
Ken Ham, "who is your creator", etc, etc...
I'm curious how your fractal dishonesty fits in with your supposed beliefs, because if what you say is true you will probably be needing NOMEX briefs in the future, and if not, then you all are Jones wannabes, and evil incarnate. Which would it be?
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 23, 2008 2:30 PM
To paraphrase that one smart guy: You can't scientifically discuss beliefs that weren't arrived at scientifically in the first place.
I doubt he'll come back, but I am perversely curious as to how wiyc could nswer this question, regarding that lovely little bit from the AIG mission statement:
"No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
*ahem* Why?
Posted by: ndt | June 23, 2008 2:35 PM
Re: #38. Christian clergy speak at Pentagon prayer breakfasts all the time, probably weekly, and PZ doesn't say "boo" about it. It's the particular kind of Christian Ken Ham is that is worthy of ridicule.
Ken Ham is a douchechugger.
Posted by: Susan | June 23, 2008 2:39 PM
Geez, PZ, stop being so polite - he's hardly worth the restraint!
Posted by: Inky | June 23, 2008 2:45 PM
I find more intelligent, truthful, and noble beings than K.H. in my cat's litterbox.
Posted by: Nancy | June 23, 2008 3:12 PM
Ken Ham is one of the Pharisees, and he doesn't even know it. But God does.
Posted by: Amplexus | June 23, 2008 3:14 PM
Which is more useful: Ken Ham or an actual ham? No question! A ham could actually feed some hungry people, ham's ministry is about spreading ignorance not prosperity.
Posted by: Patricia | June 23, 2008 3:40 PM
Wow! Almost 800 - where the hell did the French soldiers go?
Ken Ham is a coprolite.
Posted by: Justin | June 23, 2008 3:49 PM
Can you believe there are actually Ken Ham supporters in these comments? Wow... my favorite so far, #337
"Truth will out. Freedom of Inquiry will have its day. We will follow the evidence where it leads, whether you approve or not, even if, especially if it flies in the faith of today's scientififc dogma."
Oh my... on another planet...
Posted by: Aegis | June 23, 2008 3:56 PM
"A better approach to discredit him would be attempting to pick apart the site with all your 'scientific evidence.' "
It's already been done hundreds of times, WIYC.
Also, I went to the AIG website. I could find no mention of Phil Collins anywhere.
Posted by: dahduh | June 23, 2008 4:24 PM
If you're an idiot then someone stands up and call you an idiot. Nothing unscientific about it.Posted by: Peter Vaht | June 23, 2008 4:39 PM
A good argument can be made that Ken Ham is just a good actor who really doesn't believe in all the bile he vomits daily, after all is said and done, it is a job he gets money for. Lying for a living, sure why not, it wouldn't be the first time nor profession to do so. In conclusion, FUCK YOU KEN HAM.
Posted by: hje | June 23, 2008 4:47 PM
Maybe AiG can try to hire Chris Crocker to make a "LEAVE KEN HAM ALONE!" video ; ) Not that he would do it.
Ken Ham's slogan: "Mo' mammon, mo' mammon."
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 23, 2008 4:48 PM
Peter Vaht@795 Good actor? Nah, he's just a ham!
Posted by: Alex | June 23, 2008 4:50 PM
Allow me to say what Ham is in Spanish (as this seems not to have been covered adequately), and I will do so in many different ways...
Firstly, a completely incomprehensible man-child (I apologize to all men and children they don't deserve that) who is so blinded by the brilliance of his idiocracy that he wants to spread it like cancer to all small children and innocent animals.
*ahem* to continue... WARNING: this is NOT nice language and for those of you who are more, polite, I would suggest you do not look up the translation.
He is (Él es...) asqueroso, un mariposo, un roscón, un voltiado, una marica, un maricón, un animal, un imbécil, un chingao, un bruto, un baboso, una chorra, un mariconazo, un cabron (really bad don't use!), una conchuda, (fits beautifully) El dumbass más grande en el mundo, un pelotudo, un pendejo, un pringao, un mocoso, y para el finale, un baboso.
Alright, some of those are pretty bad, others not so much but just wanted to vent, and probably some of that was directed at ben ste...ste.... can't even type it. You-know-who.
(by the way that's not bad syntax I just don't think That Name deserves to be capitalized.
Posted by: Patricia | June 23, 2008 5:49 PM
Ken Ham is a slackjawed, bag titted, crosseyed jackanapes.
*come on 800!*
Posted by: Carl Caster | June 23, 2008 5:50 PM
It is not Ken Ham that is the problem. He is just another weak and thoughtless vessel that allows his monkey brain to submit to an imaginary alpha-male figure, his Jeebus Monkey God. No, the problem is Ken Ham's despicable worldview. That is the real problem.
Posted by: Parrotlover77 | June 23, 2008 6:01 PM
Ken Ham is a quack. I blogged once about one of his really silly articles.
http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/419/god-did-not-make-klingons
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 23, 2008 6:29 PM
@ efp #711
ROFL =gasp= MAO =coff= Absofucking =wheeze= lutely =snort= fucking brilliant! Gimme some =choke= oxygen! =turns blue, passes out=
Seriously, that performance deserves an Oscar - or maybe two. Got any more footage?
Posted by: Chris Crocker | June 23, 2008 6:30 PM
And how fucking dare ANYONE out there make fun of Ken Ham after all he's been through! He came here all the way from Australia, he built his own museum, and now he gets invited to speak at a Pentagon prayer breakfast. All you people care about is reason and logic and science. HE'S A HUMAN! *sob* What you don't realize is that Ken's giving you all this publicity and all you do is write a bunch of crap about him. He never got a science degree. He founded Answers in Genesis for a reason, because all you people want is ANSWERS ANSWERS ANSWERS ANSWERS ANSWERS! LEAVE HIM ALONE! *sob* You're lucky he even writes on his blog about you BASTARDS. LEAVE KEN ALONE! Please! Matt Nisbet talked about professional communication - if Ken was a professional he would have pulled off the prayer breakfast no matter what. Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to pubicly bash someone who doesn't know any better? LEAVE KEN HAM ALONE! Ple-ease! Leave Ken Ham alone right NOW! I mean it! Anyone who has a problem with him, you deal with me, because he's not well! *sob* Leave him alone....
Posted by: MrMarkAZ | June 23, 2008 6:34 PM
Ken Ham is one bat-shit crazy deluded goober, and living proof that evolution != progress. I mean, seriously: guy looks like a Neanderthal, only with less depth perception.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 23, 2008 6:42 PM
@803: It's not the same without the wailing and gnashing of teeth video, Chris. ;)
Posted by: DKrap | June 23, 2008 6:58 PM
Why waste valuable electrons on Ken Ham? As I see it, every electron, muon and scrape of dark energey has far greater value than Ken Ham. So, I'll stop here so as no more electrons get hurt.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 23, 2008 7:02 PM
@Alex #798: Best string of Spanish insults I've heard since I left California 35 years ago. But you left out hijo de la chingada.
Posted by: Andrew | June 23, 2008 7:17 PM
About as sharp as a sack of wet mice. (My apologies to Foghorn Leghorn.)
Posted by: Jim | June 23, 2008 7:25 PM
Ken as a good obedient IDiot, can you go find yourself a nice round room and go and sit in the corner.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 23, 2008 8:21 PM
Oh, no! We forgot Scuzzball!
1. A person who is deemed to be despicable or contemptible
- rotter, dirty dog, rat, skunk, stinker, stinkpot, bum [N. Amer], crumb, lowlife, scum bag, so-and-so, git [Brit], bugger, sleazebag, scuzz [N. Amer], sleazeball, scuzzbag [N. Amer], ratbag [Brit], scuzzbucket [N. Amer], slimebag, slimeball, scumbag
Posted by: Biff the Bartender | June 23, 2008 8:32 PM
Ken Ham is, as they said back in KY, as useless as tits (or was it teats?) on a boar-hog.
That being said, it's always sad when a friend tells you about his trip to the Creation Museum and how much his kids loved it. I'm torn between wanting to help eliminate his ignorance and banging my head against a brick wall. He's smarter than that, dammit!
Posted by: tresmal | June 23, 2008 8:45 PM
Short version: Ken Ham is a chancre on a warthogs anus.
Long version: Does Ham deserve this abuse? Yes. There are two
kinds of stupid. One is involuntary stupidity,an unfortunate
combination of genes and environment leaving one incapable of
intelligent thought. These people deserve compassion and help.
Then there is a second kind of stupidity, voluntary stupidity.
Stupidity as a character defect. Ken Ham is not stupid in the first sense, he clearly can budge the needles on an EEG. His ability to carry out as ambitious a project as his "museum" testifies to that.He is, however, guilty of gross aggravated stupidity of the second type (call it culpable stupidity).He has made a successful career as an enzyme in the fools parting with their money process. He preys on the first kind of stupid and uses the proceeds to spread the second.As such he actively blights our future and contributes to keeping this country from achieving its potential.He is getting off easy.
Posted by: Gordy | June 23, 2008 8:48 PM
@ who is your creator #759 >
If you'd like an example of Ken Ham lying, check my post #699 (also quoted in post #754, just above your own contribution). You can download the podcast from here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2008/apr/14/science.weekly.podcast
Go on, listen to Ken Ham knowingly and deliberately grossly misrepresenting someone else's views. You might even call it a "foul and irrational personal attack". Ken Ham is dishonest. He's lying to us and he's lying to you.
@ phantomreader42 #754 >
I understand your anger, but I don't really wish to stoop to Ken Ham's level of inaccuracy, however humourously, because it just gives people like "who is your creator" an excuse to ignore the real issues. Sure, it's no worse than Ken Ham but my ambitions in life stretch considerably higher than being "no worse than Ken Ham" and I hope yours do too. The truth is damning enough without the need for us to make anything up.
* Finally, in light of PZ's recent blog post, I would like to point out that I am NOT Gordy Slack ; )
Posted by: Traffic Demon | June 23, 2008 8:58 PM
The Traf woke up feeling the poetics...
::throatclear::
Ham's lover searched all the day-o
for his loins to come out and play-o
But it was too small for hope
even with a telescope
made by the sage, Galileo!
Some monkeys looked under Ham's kilt
to see if he would rise or wilt
but he won no ribbons
from baboons or gibbons
even squirrel monkeys laughed at his hilt!
Posted by: Orion77 | June 23, 2008 9:16 PM
The best description of Kenny Boy is that he is a "Knob"!
Posted by: Lowell | June 23, 2008 10:39 PM
OMFG! If you didn't click the link in post #711, I highly recommend it. (As long as you can have a sense of humor about the mentally challenged. Some people can't.)
Posted by: MandyDax | June 23, 2008 10:49 PM
I think George could've substituted Ken Ham for Dan Quayle in that "three types" joke. Stupid, full of shit, fucking nuts. KEN HAM IS ALL THREE!!
Posted by: CanadianChick | June 23, 2008 11:02 PM
late to the party...but...
Ken Ham is the poster child for retroactive abortion.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 23, 2008 11:49 PM
David, #747
Thus putting a greater burden upon those of us supporting same sex marriage, recognition of transexual and intersexed rights, reversing and correcting assaults on civil rights, improving education overall, rebuilding the infrastructure, overthrowing the tyranny of the efficiency expert, and other stuff. Thanks for your support, chuckles. Guess we won't be asking for your help the next time somebody qualifies an anti gay proposition for a ballot somewhere. You're too busy bitching about old crap.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 23, 2008 11:57 PM
David, #749
Iraq happened because 9/11 happened. Before 9/11 Bush was exploring "options". After 9/11 Bush was exploring invasion support from Congress.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 24, 2008 12:04 AM
Nick Gotts, #752
It is a rare fellow who recognizes when he is outclassed. Since you are not one of them, your response is to be expected.
(Don't worry about puzzling that out, somebody will come along and put it into terms you can comprehend.)
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 24, 2008 12:11 AM
alan @744:
You're the first person to imply the Democrats were behind it.
I think you read that wrong, Alan.
he wasn't implying anything, it was a direct accusation, and most certainly not leveled at the left.
the criticism of the left is spinelessness, not criminal behavior.
let's keep the two issues separate.
Posted by: Spud | June 24, 2008 12:51 AM
Two monks were traveling, and arrived at a riverbank where a woman was standing, wary of chancing the rapid waters.
The first monk picked up the woman, and they all forded the river together. On the other side, the first monk put the woman down, struck her in the head with a rock, raped her unconscious body, climaxed, and then tossed her in the river.
Seeing that the second monk was outraged at this crime, the first monk sneered, "I got rid of the bitch as soon as I was done with her. Why are you still carrying her?"
Posted by: Autumn | June 24, 2008 1:13 AM
I'm a little worried about J's long absence, since every one of his posts explicitly called for George Bush's violent ouster.
What?
He meant which violent tyrannical dictator intent on depriving entire nations of their civil rights?
You're joking, right?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | June 24, 2008 4:31 AM
Ken Ham - proof that there *is* carbon that would be better off as dioxide...
Posted by: Nick | June 24, 2008 5:13 AM
Ken Ham is a deluded, idiotic and twisted shithead fucknut who wasted $27 million on a perverse mockery of a museum in order to brainwash young children into accepting a ridiculous fallacy of the development of the Earth. The building should be torn down and the parts used to beat Ham to death.
Posted by: Jeremy | June 24, 2008 5:55 AM
Ken Ham - The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead. (After Googling 'list of weird insults' and trawling through many low-quality pages)
Posted by: Goonerette | June 24, 2008 7:49 AM
Ken Ham is a wank stain.
Posted by: BB | June 24, 2008 8:37 AM
Ken Ham is as welcome as a fart in a spacesuite
Posted by: NRT | June 24, 2008 8:43 AM
@efp
"The interview was going well. Ham was spouting nonsensical creationist rhetoric, and I was in full-blown retard mode."
http://buffalobeast.com/117/let_there_be_retards.htm
Hiiiii! efp
Just came across that last week. Funniest thing I'd read in ages :)
THREE-O-NINE! THREE-O-NINE!
Cheers
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 24, 2008 9:08 AM
Gordy @ #813:
Since when have these frauds needed an excuse to ignore the real issues? Making shit up is the entire focus of their existence. They reject the very idea of truth, substituting their own delusions. They have no qualms whatsoever about slandering anyone who dares question them. But oddly enough, if you just blatantly make shit up about THEM, they get all indignant, as if they understood on some level that it's wrong to lie. But they never seem to connect this to their own behavior, no matter how many times it's pointed out. Sometimes onlookers do get the hint though.
There's this dead guy they claim to be following that supposedly said to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Since they lie about others constantly, it seems either they love being lied about, or they're pretty shitty "christians".
Posted by: Regis Philips | June 24, 2008 9:31 AM
At least the authors of "Weird Kentucky" saw fit to include the Creation Museum as weirdness.
What can you say about a man who's doing more to harm the future of the American scientific educational process than almost any other single individual?
PZ said it.
Posted by: Diogenes | June 24, 2008 2:18 PM
To roundly plagiarize Emo Phelps, Ken Ham wouldn't know a straight line if you showed him an electroencephelagram chart of his brainwaves.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 24, 2008 2:22 PM
Weird Kentucky Buy the four-volume set and get free shipping.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 24, 2008 3:03 PM
Iraq happened because 9/11 happened. - Alan Kellogg
I know I said I'd ignore your stupidities, but this post has finally enabled me to connect your various silly remarks: you think that Iraq would not have been invaded had it not been for 9/11, hence you think, or more likely pretend to think, that I was implying that the Democrats were behind 9/11, as a response to the stealing of the 2000 election.
I must say in defence of my failure to understand what you were getting at that I could hardly be expected to allow for this degree of inanity. I'm truly astonished that anyone could believe what you say you do. This wasn't even the official lie - which was that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction". The neocons were determined to dominate the Gulf region, as anyone who has glanced at the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (2000) would see: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein". Bush's former treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, has stated (to CNN on January 11, 2004) that removing Saddam Hussein was "topic A" with the Bush regime right from the start. 9/11 almost certainly delayed the invasion of Iraq, because Afghanistan had to be attacked first. It also made the subsequent occupation much more difficult, because of the USA's shortage of troops. Manufacturing a causus belli has never been very difficult for US presidents - from the USS Maine in 1898 to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. If you really think it would have taxed the neocons to have found a way to invade Iraq, as they were determined to do, without 9/11, I have to ask whether your parents know you're accessing a site like this.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 24, 2008 3:59 PM
Iraq happened because 9/11 happened. - Alan Kellogg
I know I said I'd ignore your stupidities, but this post has finally enabled me to connect your various silly remarks: you think that Iraq would not have been invaded had it not been for 9/11, hence you think, or more likely pretend to think, that I was implying that the Democrats were behind 9/11, as a response to the stealing of the 2000 election.
I must say in defence of my failure to understand what you were getting at that I could hardly be expected to allow for this degree of inanity. I'm truly astonished that anyone could believe what you say you do. This wasn't even the official lie - which was that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction". The neocons were determined to dominate the Gulf region, as anyone who has glanced at the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (2000) would see: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein". Bush's former treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, has stated (to CNN on January 11, 2004) that removing Saddam Hussein was "topic A" with the Bush regime right from the start. 9/11 almost certainly delayed the invasion of Iraq, because Afghanistan had to be attacked first. It also made the subsequent occupation much more difficult, because of the USA's shortage of troops. Manufacturing a causus belli has never been very difficult for US presidents - from the USS Maine in 1898 to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. If you really think it would have taxed the neocons to have found a way to invade Iraq, as they were determined to do, without 9/11, I have to ask whether your parents know you're accessing a site like this.
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 24, 2008 4:54 PM
I fail to see why Iraq is germane to this thread except possibly that G-Dub-the Shrub and Ken-the Hamster have only one brain cell between them, and the day GDtS decided to bust up a former ally that never did anything to us except send us cheap oil was the Hamster's day to use it. Maddass Insane was just an excuse for GDtS to:
[1] vent his frustration at not having eliminated Osama,
[2] put a mock-righteous spin on his bigotry and paranoia,
[3] huff and puff and wield his Weapons of Mass Distraction,
and possibly
[4] finish the job his daddy started in 1991.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Oh, and Ken Ham is the trichinosis in a real ham.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 24, 2008 5:04 PM
Well, Saddam did attempt to have Bush Sr. assassinated. That's a little less benign than simply being an oil supplier...
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 24, 2008 5:28 PM
Was that before or after we kicked him out of Kuwait and spent over a year putting the fires out?
Posted by: Kseniya | June 24, 2008 5:52 PM
Oh, definitely after. It was a grudge thing. (Not entirely unlike the current thing.)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 24, 2008 6:03 PM
Well, Saddam did attempt to have Bush Sr. assassinated. That's a little less benign than simply being an oil supplier - Kseniya@838
Oh, I wouldn't say that ;-)
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 24, 2008 6:48 PM
@ Kseniya: That's what I thought. "Y'all trahd to keeul mah daddy, ya snake-suckin' tumbleweed-fuckin' hornytoad! Weeeullll, ah'ma fixin' ta keeul yore whole dadburned country an' see how y'all lahk it."
@ Nick: I wasn't about to say that, but I was thinking it very loudly!
(p.s. Ken Ham is a snake-suckin' tumbleweed-fuckin' hornytoad.)
Posted by: RyEaton | June 24, 2008 8:08 PM
Ken Ham hasn't once been able to open a bag of M&Ms without them exploding all over his lap.
Posted by: Simon66 | June 24, 2008 8:31 PM
Dear Mr Myers,
May I humbly suggest that each of those words used to describe Mr Hambone now feels a little dirtier for it.
Posted by: bigjohn756 | June 25, 2008 12:11 PM
PZ, you can add my favorites to your list. They are balloon brain, blintz brain, and gourd brain.
Posted by: Peter Henderson | June 25, 2008 12:51 PM
PZ: I always thought this video on Youtube about Mr Ham, the museum etc. by someone called Cory Evans was really funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCxC4gxtOBYP
Posted by: Reynold Hall | June 25, 2008 1:11 PM
Wowbagger at #682
I'm not familiar with Lewis Black (I'll have a browse around teh internets and see what I can find) but I've seen that quote a few times. And it's exactly what I thought when I first heard about the creationist's dinosaur theory blatant lie for Jesus - have these people been watching The Flintstones and thinking it's a documentary?
That's pretty much .
Posted by: Peter Henderson | June 25, 2008 1:15 PM
The link appears to be wrong. Here's the correct one. I always laugh at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCxC4gxtOBY
Posted by: Reynold Hall | June 25, 2008 1:18 PM
(Whoops. I messed up a bit in my last comment. Trying again:)
Wowbagger at #682
I'm not familiar with Lewis Black (I'll have a browse around teh internets and see what I can find) but I've seen that quote a few times. And it's exactly what I thought when I first heard about the creationist's dinosaur theory blatant lie for Jesus - have these people been watching The Flintstones and thinking it's a documentary?
That's pretty much it.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 25, 2008 2:03 PM
Found this in a quick YouTube search
Posted by: Kendall | June 25, 2008 3:09 PM
I'd prefer coining the neologism of "Ken Hamm" to specifically reference all things stupid and non-scientific. That way, in a sense, his very parents are even mocking him.
Posted by: Traffic Demon | June 26, 2008 7:17 AM
The words "Ken Ham" and "science" go together about as well as "splash zone" goes with "donkey show."
Ken Ham: one turn of the coat hanger too few.
Posted by: Pterygotus | June 28, 2008 4:07 AM
Kanned Phlegm's quote - "it is only Christians one is allowed to be intolerant of nowadays, it seems." Hallelujah! It's about time. If this is what intellectual america is going to be accused of every time we show them how stupid, counterproductive and childish their world agenda is, then let's just step up and revel in it. Every day we are assaulted with their idiotic dogma: the bible on billboards, churches either every 3 miles or horrific mega-churches blotting out the sun, shrill church bells ruining a quiet afternoon, and there's not enough space to go into how saturated TV, films and the media are. So this guy picks the one physical thing that we have, museums, last bastians of hope for humanity where science is supreme, and defiles the whole concept with cheap plastic creationist horseshit. How can we not see this as a dirty bomb in the so-called culture war?
We are here writing like 3-year-olds to blow off the steam that they build into our lives.
Ken is an all-singing, all-dancing constipation of human knowledge. We can only take solace in the thought of some future generation that has shucked off all religion and superstition (let's say, year 5037) and finds clips of his animatronic lunacy that immediately become a world joke, then an interplanetary joke and finally an official holiday on Mars with parades and floats celebrating how silly primitve humans were. Ham Day -yeah!
Where's our return fire? I'm waiting for scientists to prove that religion is a genetic ailment. Even better, how about a museum dedicated to showing how bizarre and archaic religion is? Someone build it right next to his.
It's time to replace all polish jokes with the word "christian." How many christians does it take to screw up a museum? Etc.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 29, 2008 5:14 PM
Alan Kellogg, are you completely out of your mind? The election theft is the crime that led to all following ones. It is the root of the problem.
Greater burden? You cannot possibly be serious.
Posted by: Mac | July 4, 2008 4:26 PM
Since no one else has come up with it yet, mammy-whammer.
Posted by: IrateIntellectual | July 31, 2008 1:57 AM
Dagger (post #521) has it exactly right -- creationism is nothing more or less than the intentional abuse of children through targeted misinformation. Kent Hovind is precisely where he deserves to be, albeit for tax evasion rather than endangering the mental welfare of untold numbers of children.
Posted by: Sebastian | September 18, 2008 2:50 PM
Ken Ham is the antichrist, he probably got somewhere on him the number 666, and I bet that he grows horns. He is a devil in human form, who came to destroy reason, and make our country look stupid. Mr. Ham you must know that evolution was discovered by Darwin and not invented as you think in your stupid head. You're a freaken devil and all the evil. Go back to Australia you have polluted our country enough. You have no clue about science, you stupid idiot. I'm going to call you all kinds of names, because to me and to many people in the world you are an idiot who needs not only a good psychiatrist, but also an exorcist who will help you get rid off the devil in you.Do you even know that Christians killed more people through out the history than Hitler and Stalin combined? and you blame science for all the evil in the world, you stupid idiot. I guess you do not know the history well.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 2, 2008 10:47 PM
I don't think for a nanosecond that this will be posted - but here goes! In the 'beginning', there was NOTHING - neither time nor space nor matter. 'Then', a point-singularity in the 'middle' of this timeless nothingness exploded (no reason), thus CREATING (oh horrors!) space, time, and matter. 'Later' (again for no reason), life arose spontaneously (somehow, apparently, bringing death with it!) and even managed to 'figure out' a way to produce INTELLIGENCE and REASON. Now tell me - WHO believes in fairy tales, and WHO is doing the brain-washing? EVERYTHING in P Z Myers' original rant, together with the posts following (from fellow 'no-hopers', I presume) more aptly describes YOURSELVES! I assume that you are all 'happy' to 'live with' a doctrine of pure hopelessness - it's sad really.
Posted by: Kel | December 2, 2008 10:53 PM
You know, if you are going to make a point about the shortfalls of atheism as a worldview, it would really help to understand the basics of what you are talking about. If you are going to reference the Big Bang, read up on cosmology. If you are going to talk about the origin of life, check up on organic chemistry and abiogenesis. And if you are going to talk about how we got here, actually read up on evolution. That way, next time you want to make a point about the "atheist fairy tale", you won't look like a misinformed ignoramus.
Posted by: Luke | December 3, 2008 12:18 AM
Oh dear. It seems that Ken has gone and upset the established order. He has dared to think for himself and let the evidence speak. What a pity! Ken is truly imprisioning the world by teaching that they have value and that there is a purpose to life. How dare you, Mr. Ham! How dare you compete with the popular beliefs of our time. Its not like anything ever got accomplished by challenging the views of the current world! This is truly a tragedy!
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 12:19 AM
People without a REAL answer ALWAYS resort to name-calling. Which part of my posting was inaccurate?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 12:35 AM
Keith Allen, #861, wrote:
Did you read Kel's post? It was quite obvious - the part where you confuse cosmology (big-bang theory) and abiogenesis (the beginning of life) with evolutionary theory. The latter is concerned with neither of the former. It explains the diversity of life on this planet, not how that life originated, nor how the planet was formed.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 12:43 AM
The beginning of the universe doesn't mean that there is nothing before that. It's just that as far as our universe goes, that's the beginning of time. Why do you think there's effort put into theoretical concepts like String Theory? The only people who allege spontaneous generation are creationists. No biologist things that life just spontaneously came about, rather it was a series of events over a long period of time. We have already synthesised amino acids, and even a nucleotide base using set processes. It was a survival strategy plain and simple. There are plenty of animals out there other than us that can use problem solving, the problem of explaining intelligence is no more so than explaining any other mechanism. Yet the evidence for evolution and common descent is overwhelming, evolution happened and we descended from apes. The fused chromosome in our DNA that us unfused for chimpanzees is a fantastic piece of evidence.So please please please learn what you are trying to mock before you mock it, otherwise you look like a misinformed ignoramus.
P.S. Misinformed ignoramus is not an insult, it's a descriptor of your lack of knowledge on the subject.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 12:49 AM
Actually it was his complete misunderstanding of cosmology and abiogenesis that irked me. Built up two straw men then finished it off with a call to personal incredulity when it came to evolution. Three fallacies in a row.Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 12:50 AM
Wowbagger (only the fearful and insecure use name-handles) - NOTHING in my original post was inaccurate. My description of the Big Bang theory (which you obviously recognised) was taken from Stephen Hawking's "A Briefer History of Time". The Theory of Evolution (and I am not referring to Natural Selection - a TRUE science) relies on spontaneous generation of life just to 'switch on its engine'! If you think 'religion' to be a myth, you may well be correct - but PLEASE don't claim either of the above 'theories' to be anything more than 'religions'.
Posted by: Jeeves | December 3, 2008 12:58 AM
Keith Allen,
Only insecure, patronizing fools capitalize random words to give them extra validity in a debate.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 1:03 AM
No, it doesn't. See, you keep getting basic science wrong.
The theory of evolution by natural selection is indeed a TRUE science.
And while abiogenesis is currently a hypothesis, or rather several hypotheses, they are part of that TRUE science that is called organic chemistry.
As you would know if you actually studied the science.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 1:04 AM
Actually in A Brief History Of Time, Hawking talks about a boundless universe with no beginning or end. Don't lie. No it doesn't, it just relies on life being there. It says nothing about the origin of life, that's what abiogenesis seeks to explain. How life originated and how life diversified are two very different questions, evolution only seeks to explain the latter. Again, don't lie. Ahh, the evolution is a religion argument. Despite all the evidence, it's dismissed as a religion because the misinformed ignoramus here doesn't know better. What of the gradual emergence of life in the fossil record, not to mention the scores of transitional features and the gradual change in morphology through the ages? What about the genetic code, the similarities between species, our almost identical code we share with other apes and our fused chimpanzee chromosome? What about the spread of life, how there were no placental mammals in Australia until some mice came over 5 million years ago? We have in Australia an abundance of marsupials only seen as well in South America - though they were mostly wiped out by the more successful placental mammals invading from the north.There's just so much evidence for evolution, to deny it is like saying the sun and all planets revolve around the earth. There's more evidence for evolution than there is for the holocaust, it's one of the most widely supported scientific theories and we know more about the mechanisms behind evolution than we do about gravity. Yet I don't see you calling gravity a religion...
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 1:06 AM
Kel
Sorry - when I replied the first time, your 'explanation' had not come up on my screen. I was NOT mocking, merely making a comparison between two opposing belief-systems. Actually, to receive a 'complaint' about such on THIS site is extremely ironic! By the way, on a humorous note, bananas have around fifty percent of our DNA - and monkeys like bananas (as do many humans - maybe THEY are the ones 'descended from apes'!). On a more serious note, you seem to be suggesting that 'survival' generated 'intelligence'. How is it possible to be aware of 'survival' without having 'intelligence'. Also, if there is neither 'reason' nor 'purpose', 'survival' has no meaning.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 1:07 AM
Ad hominems will get you nowhere. How would my using my 'real' name make any difference to the content of my posts?
You lied, Keith Allen. You are a liar. The phrase 'The Theory of Evolution... relies on spontaneous generation of life...' is a lie. Evolution, simply put, is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. It makes no claim regarding the origins of the first organisms.
Then you lied again, Keith Allen. Where did I write that religion was a myth? You are lying again, liar. You should be careful. If you're a christian your god has warned you not to bear false witness. Then again, so many of his adherents are liars; why should you be different?
No, sadly, religion is not a myth. The gods that adherents of religions worship are most definitely myths - but religion itself, in all its ugliness and hatefulness and oppression and limitation of human progress is a sickening, horrifying reality.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 1:11 AM
My belief system is built on evidence and will change over time as better explanations come about. This is the difference between science and religion.Though you've missed my point. If you are going to call atheists irrational, then you better get their beliefs right. How would you like it if I said "God is a 3-toed bunyip who did a happy dance to create the universe out of waffles" and called it Christianity? Your misunderstanding of basic science is what I rallied against, at least get it right. After all, bearing false witness is a thou shalt not by God's law!
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 1:13 AM
SIWOTI!
What does survival have to do with intelligence, per se? There are trillions of organisms that survive and reproduce quite well with no intelligence whatsoever. Are you one of them?
And there are viruses that reproduce fantastically well as well, regardless of whether they are "alive" or not.
And that makes no sense whatsoever. Please reboot your brain; it's clearly spouting gibberish.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 1:19 AM
Who says you have to be aware to survive? Most life on this planet isn't aware of itself, it's only a very small subset that is. Who says life has to have meaning? Do you really need judgement in the next life in order for your life to have meaning? But in order to break the perception that without God, it's nihilism, here's some wise words for you:If life seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps
Don't be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle - that's the thing.
And...always look on the bright side of life... Always look on the light side of life...
Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 1:25 AM
are you saying animals ponder their own existance and ask the why's and wherefor's of thier reality. Keith, you are an idiot. Are you sure you shouldn'e be on a differnt thread? We have one specially designed for you.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 1:34 AM
Wonderful - I am accused of the 'evolution is a religion argument'! Please, please, please look up the FULL (by the way, I use capitals for emphasis - not for validation - don't be so patronising) dictionary definition of 'religion'. Have you not considered your own Dawkinsian 'elephant-hurling' tactics with your claim: "There's just so much evidence for evolution ..."? Dawkinsians ALWAYS use 'evolution' and 'natural selection' as one and the same. If there's really so much evidence for the Theory of Evolution, tell me just ONE proven example of a species changing into a completely different one. Also, 'manufacturing' lifeless so-called 'building blocks of life' is not synonymous with 'creating' life. In closing, I did not lie about the cosmological 'beginning' - now you are semantics-hurling. Oh, why would you assume I know nothing about cosmology or abiogenesis - I could equally assume that you know nothing about logic or common-sense - the only 'background noise' out there in the Cosmos is God crying out: "How much evidence do you need to realise that the Universe and Life were CREATED?"
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 1:43 AM
There are several on this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlEven if we didn't have any observed speciation, that wouldn't matter. The fossil record, the morphology and distribution of life, and the DNA sequence including our fused chimp chromosome all point to common ancestry. If as you say Goddidit, then why did God go to such great lengths to show a 13.7 billion year old universe, a 4.6 billion year old earth, and 3.5 billion years old life that gradually emerges? I suppose he's omnipotent and all, but to make all the evidence point to an old universe and old planet? That's being deceitful. I suppose if you don't obey the 9th commandment, God doesn't have to either.
Because what you said was wrong. You could, but again you would be wrong.Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 1:47 AM
What do you think "a species changing into a completely different one" means? If you think it means magically transforming in one single generation, you're obviously wrong.
We have the fossil and genetic evidence that shows that a couple of million years ago, there was a particular species of ape whose descendants, in separate populations, became that species known as Homo sapiens and the genus known as Pan, which itself has split into two species, Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes.
No, it's not. But it will be of it can be shown how those building blocks can combine to metabolize and reproduce.
Bullshit.
God does not say anything, ever.
The universe at large is saying nothing more than "I radiate at 3 Kelvin", and it isn't saying it in English, it's saying it in electromagnetic radiation at 3 Kelvin.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 1:56 AM
Wow! I certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons! It would be intensely amusing if it were not, in reality, so sad. It is amazing to hear atheists (I was once 'one of you') quote from 'a book of myths' (as you call 'it'). I have lied about NOTHING - the FULL Theory of Evolution DOES rely on spontaneous 'outbreak' of life, and you 'all' know it - but this 'reality' is a thorn in your sides (as it was for Darwin - who turned his back on God upon the death of a daughter). Whether you accept it or not (or even believe it or not), God does exist - without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair. Name-calling is the last, desperate 'throw of the dice' for those who fail to see the obvious - there is so much evidence for design/creation that it should be considered as fact (to borrow from your own words - as you did from the 'book of myths').
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 2:10 AM
Nope. The theory of evolution relies only on reproduction, variation in reproduction, heritability of traits, and variation in the ability of an organism to survive.
Abiogenesis is indeed an important hypothesis for biology in general, but the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.
Are you even capable of thinking about what you write a single second after you write it? You're specifically saying that Darwin, originally a believer, rejected God from out of hopelessness and despair, then you say that without belief, there can only be hopelessness and despair.
Which is it? Despair leads to lack of belief, or lack of belief leads to despair?
And have you lost a beloved child to a painful death from disease? I ask only out of curiosity.
Utter bullshit.
There is zero evidence for design or creation. That's why it's not considered to be a fact.
And if God really existed, he would speak for himself in plain language understandable by all, instead of relying on losers like you to speak for him.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 2:14 AM
Keith Allen:
You have revealed your deepest fear.Posted by: Rey Fox | December 3, 2008 2:16 AM
"without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair."
How does the existence of God (let alone knowledge of his existence) give meaning to life?
Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 2:19 AM
But you know what, Keith-i concede. You win, creationism is absolutely right. Let's look into the implications of science that are now brought to bear in this new light of reason, this triumph of faith!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_971160
And here's another! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 2:38 AM
Well, what a to do! You're using the old "I'm right and you're wrong" tactic - which is even more desperate than name-calling. It's akin to "Give me back my ball - I'm not playing anymore". 'Speciation' does not equate to 'change of species', as in: dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, moths remain moths (there's a 'good one' for Evolutionists), elephants remain elephants (even when hurled), fish remain fish, whales remain whales, apes remain apes, ..... - and humans remain humans (frogs don't turn into princes!) - some with pent-up hatred for any who believe the obvious. The irony of this exchange of views is that P Z began it by using the couplet 'soul-shuddering' in the second sentence (assuming that "Ooh, dear." constitutes a sentence). You have a SOUL, P Z?
Only Evolutionists and atheistic scientists (and, unfortunately, Theistic Evolutionists) totally accept those incredibly long time-scales quoted - you NEED such vast time-scales for Evolution (and you know which 'type' I'm referring to) to have even the remotest 'chance' of working. As for fossils - these can only be formed under rapidly generated pressure (doesn't that 'book of myths' have something in it which might just provide the required conditions?). Finally, try this on for size:
If you don't believe in 'life after death', you could only possibly know that you were wrong. On the other hand, .... - an 'interesing' exercise in logic. I have nothing to fear but fear itself - "Some things are true whether you believe them or not." (a quote from the film City of Angels - which can 'work' for all of us). Oh, how can you possibly know that God never speaks to anyone? Is it because He has never spoken to you? Have you ever tried speaking to Him?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 2:46 AM
Keith the Liar, bleated:
No, Keith. What you did was put a pigeon - yourself - amongst the cats - us. With predictable results.
You deterioration into not only all-caps (a sign of desperation) but scare quotes (a further sign of desperation) gives away just how much you're frothing at the mouth right now, ranting and raving and resorting to even more lies as you realise how hollow and empty your pathetic belief in your non-existent god is.
The lies continue. You're even lying about lying - lying2 if you will. How life began is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, 'full' or otherwise.
More lies. I neither believe in nor accept your god's existence, and I am neither hopeless nor despairing. I'll leave that to the christians.
No, it's the response of people like us to the pitiable attempts at logic made by those with limited intellects - such as yourself - for the sake of amusement. You are a sadly deluded cretin with all the reasoning power of a warmed-over blancmange.
Really? Then present it. Surely if there is evidence, prominent, peer-reviewed scientific journals would by fighting tooth and nail to be the first to reveal it to the world. Why are you, an obvious genius, withholding such an amazing find from the human race?
No, Keith the Liar, I know why you haven't presented your so-called evidence: it is as flimsy as your arguments and your intellect. Stick to lying; it's all you can manage.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 2:52 AM
Stop lying, it doesn't and you should know that. Evolution relies on life being there, it doesn't matter the origins. Whether it's a series of events, or intervention by aliens, all you need is replicating organic forms and the theory of evolution comes into play. Of course humans are only going to give birth to humans, and elephants are only going to give birth to elephants. We are still not only apes, but fish too! Once two populations of the same species are isolated for long enough through a variety of means, eventually interbreeding will be impossible and those two populations are now different species. If this were to happen to humans, which of the two different species would you count as human? They both are. But as time goes on the morphological and genetic structures of the different populations would vary enough that the macroscopic changes would be noticeable. A cat is only ever going to give birth to a cat. Whether in 10 million years time the cats of then will look like the cats of now is another thing entirely.Could you please inform yourself on the basics of evolution before you talk about it any more? It's painful to watch someone so ignorant of it all try and give a lesson to those who aren't.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 2:55 AM
Keith Allen, you're sure messed-up. You deny science out of fear of reality, and ask us to play with your imaginary friend.
There, there.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 2:57 AM
I wonder if Keith has read the passage by Nietzsche entitled "the Madman"? I can fully understand why he thinks that without God there is despair, we have killed the holiest of holies.
It's easy to live without God. You just live.Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 3:06 AM
Kel,
Funny you should post about madmen.
I suspect that, based on the deterioration he's displayed over the course of posting, Keith the Liar2 has, overcome with impotent rage, lost it completely and smashed up the PC he was using and has since collapsed on the floor to gnaw on the carpet and froth at the mouth.
Which'll get the straitjacket put back on him and earn him a trip to the padded cell with his internet privileges revoked for at least a couple of weeks. If he's lucky they'll let him keep his tinfoil hat.
Ah, Loons for Jesus™. Hours of fun.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 3:07 AM
Believe it or not, I have actually been chuckling over some of your responses - I'm truly sorry (please be assured that this is not sarcasm - and I am not lying about it!). I have rarely been so entertained - yet know I should not be feeling this way. Do you all realise that, before I 'resurrected' this 'thread', it had 'died' on September 18? You should all be rejoicing that you can 'vent your spleens' all over again. It must be some time since you had such a 'god-sent' opportunity (judging by all the 'foaming at the mouth' language you all seem so 'expert' at). One of my favourite scriptures says: "Fools mock, but they shall mourn". Again, this can work either way - but be assured (I'm repeating myself!), God does not require 'fear' of Himself, but 'respect' and 'reverence'. By the way - what time is it where you are? It's 9pm on December 3 here in New Zealand.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 3:10 AM
There are always idiots out there peddling snake oil, it just happened to be your turn today.Posted by: CJO | December 3, 2008 3:16 AM
Kel: There are always idiots out there peddling snake oil, it just happened to be your turn today.
Seriously, could we get the trolls on some kind of schedule? It's feast or famine out here. We need some consistency from these guys.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 3:16 AM
If God requires anything, he can tell us exactly what it is himself, in plain language. Who the hell are you to say what God does or does not require?
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 3:21 AM
There's always a case of SIWOTI somewhere, but like our early ancestors to ensure a regular food supply we must migrate. Can't always expect the meal to come to us.Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 3, 2008 3:27 AM
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008
Believe it or not, I have actually been chuckling over some of your responses - I'm truly sorry (please be assured that this is not sarcasm - and I am not lying about it!). I have rarely been so entertained - yet know I should not be feeling this way. Do you all realise that, before I 'resurrected' this 'thread', it had 'died' on September 18? You should all be rejoicing that you can 'vent your spleens' all over again. It must be some time since you had such a 'god-sent' opportunity (judging by all the 'foaming at the mouth' language you all seem so 'expert' at).
Keith, sorry to burst your bubble but you bringing up an old thread is old news. All of the finest trolls do that.
As for you "disproving" evolution by pointing out that there could not be that much time, I have to point out that dozens of other ignorant posters have also "disproved" evolution in the three months this thread went in active. Take a look. You are nothing special. You are just an other person who, finding that existence and time is far more large then your limited imagination can handle, crawls back to a comfortable myth.
You are nothing but sport here. And just to point it out, Kel, Wowbagger and (I might be mistaken on this) John Morales are in Australia.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 3:29 AM
You don't have a good track record so far, you are either a misinformed ignoramus or lying through your teeth.Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 3:39 AM
Keith:
We realise you're a common, run of the mill godbot.And you find it amusing that we find you ignorant, deluded and infantile? Right.
By the way, threads aren't dead until PZ kills them (closes them).
---
Janine, I'm at GMT +09:30, and you're spot on.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 3:40 AM
Yeah, it's half past seven in the evening where I am. I'm currently preparing dinner and installing Grand Theft Auto IV.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 3:42 AM
Don't you 'guys' have any manners? I politely asked what time is it where you are? Sorry, I just realised that I used the words 'manners' and 'politely' - I don't want to fully (maybe that should be fuel-ly) inflame you all! Seriously (a bit of an oxymoron for you all), I laughed out loud at the latest responses - I truly feel ashamed of myself - really. I especially found "Who the hell are YOU to say what God does or does not require?" amusing - are you sure you're an atheist? I am not in the least bit perturbed by all your 'rantings and ravings' - just to inform you all, I do have a degree in science, and I will always respect science (which does not mean that I accept EVERY hypothesis/theory 'of the day' - I even respect your beliefs, even though I disagree with some of them - not ALL). Have fun - even if it be at MY expense - I do like to be generous. Seriously - what time is it 'there'?
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 3:51 AM
I know Jesus said to treat others as you wish to be treated, but if you are just going to lie and misrepresent science so you have a straw man to lay your god down on, then why should we should courtesy to you? Being a misinformed ignoramus without a shred of propensity to correct that ignorance doesn't make you endearing to us in the least.By the way, you haven't asked about my beliefs yet? You've ranted about atheists by misrepresenting science, why haven't you asked anyone here about what they believe theologically? Oh right, that would be courteous.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 3:52 AM
Keith,
Why don't you pray to your god to tell you the time here? Do let us know what her answer is.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 3:57 AM
Yeah, if you pray to your god to turn my bottle of water into a bottle of vodka and it works, I'll convert right here and now.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 4:04 AM
Keith:
0. It's not a couplet, it's a hyphenated idiom; "soul" here refers to the psyche.
1. You forgot geologists, physicists, cosmologists etc.
2. Only YECs say this.
3. You might have a degree in science, but you clearly don't accept science, as per 1 & 2 - not to mention your clear misunderstanding evidenced by your use of hypothesis/theory as if the terms were anywhere near synonymous. I already told you - you appear to be innumerate, too.
As to manners and politeness, you barged in with bombastic and ridiculous assertions, and when questioned on them you retreated into faux-indignation. What did you expect?
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 4:05 AM
*sigh* still water.
In other news, my attempt to turn water into ginger beer is working well.
Kel 1 - Judeo-Christian deity 0
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 4:14 AM
Keith the Liar wrote:
Why should we believe someone who has flat-out lied multiple times? I suspect that what you really mean is that, whenever you speak to people about science, they respond by saying 'BS'; you've just assumed that must have meant you had a degree in it.
Keith Allan (full of) BS - sounds about right to me.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 4:15 AM
Ah, NOW I get it - you all worship the 'almighty' P Z! This is a PROFESSOR, no less, who asks his followers to be childish in the way HE is. How infantile is it for a PROFESSOR (!!!! - even as a 'lowly' TEACHER, I would be absolutely ashamed) to make such a request? Ah, but his 'sheep' are ever obedient and follow unquestioningly. How loudly you all bleat when opposed - if you are truly faithful to your beliefs, there can be no need for name-calling and character assassination. I, too, disagree with SOME of Ken Ham's beliefs - but he seems to me to be both sincere and caring (I hope I did not use two more words there which might upset you all). I have to confess that my previous post WAS intentionally sarcastic (it's an unfortunate weakness of mine), but none of the other posts were (it doesn't matter whether you believe me or not). Enjoy your sport 'little children' (no sarcasm here - it's meant to be a 'command' from the 'omniscient' P Z) - words (no matter how derogatory) cannot harm me.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 4:22 AM
Are you done trolling?Posted by: Walton | December 3, 2008 4:24 AM
BobC: Ken Ham is an asshole who abuses children with his breathtaking stupidity. He belongs in prison. [emphasis added]
Please tell me you're not serious. Don't get me wrong - I totally agree that Ken Ham talks total nonsense and that his "Creation Museum" is a joke.
But I also believe in the essential liberty of free speech; and no one should be put in prison for expounding their views, however absurd those views might be. As long as he isn't using public money to promote religious ideals - which he isn't; he's using private donations - then he has a right, both legal and moral, to say whatever he wants without fear of reprisal from the state. Free speech only for views you find palatable is not free speech at all.
You, of course, have an absolute right to call him an asshole - and I'm not saying you're wrong. But instituting state persecution of those with a particular viewpoint would, IMO, be far more destructive for our society than any number of creationists.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 3, 2008 4:27 AM
Stop projecting. It seems like in your little mind that the only way someone can think something true is if it's a religion to them. This is not the case.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 4:27 AM
Keith @905, you're a one-trick pony.
The text says one thing, the subtext another.The very concept of independent thought is scary for you, isn't it? ;)
There, there. It'll all be allright.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 3, 2008 4:30 AM
Ah, the usual exchange with an ignorant brain-dead anti-science arrogant creobot !
Can I play or is he already on his way out ?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 3, 2008 4:31 AM
Walton,
BobC is an atheist and yet manages to scare the shit out of all the commenters here. He has on several occasions called for every man,woman and child in Iraq to be killed as retribution for 9/11. I'm surprised he has not yet been sent to the dungeon.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 4:38 AM
Ah, the irony. Keith Allan the Liar dances to Ratface Ken Ham's tune and yet describes other people as followers. The Liars for Jesus™ are almost as good at projecting as they are at denying facts.
Posted by: SC | December 3, 2008 4:39 AM
Walton,
BobC, on this blog, has advocated the destruction of Iraq and I believe Afghanistan as well. He's stated that, while he finds abortion disgusting, he supports abortions for religious (or just fundamentalist - I can't recall) people. He's repeatedly referred to religious people as "subhumans." And this isn't the first time he's suggested that fundamentalists are "traitors" or should be jailed. BobC is a nutcase. Responding to his rants serves no useful purpose.
Posted by: clinteas | December 3, 2008 4:40 AM
*sticks head into thread and looks around*
Pharyngula's finest arguing with a braindead creo zombie troll....business as usual...
*Goes back to playing Cricket2007*
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 4:42 AM
negentropyeater, you can still play - the creobot has provided plenty of material to work with, and claims to be amused by our responses.
Posted by: Walton | December 3, 2008 4:57 AM
SC at #913: You're right, and I won't respond to him again.
Returning to the main topic of the thread, a couple of thoughts about Ken Ham and creationism in general.
I'm about to make a comment which may seem stupid at face value, but think about it: I would assert that creationists are, in fact, atheists' strongest weapon. Creationists present a straw man version of theism, which can be easily deconstructed by anyone who knows anything about biology, physics, history, geology or philosophy (or, indeed, anyone who can look at the evidence and think straight). I am confident in saying that the God in which Ken Ham believes - a God who created heaven and earth in seven days a few thousand years ago, and who designed every plant and animal step by step - does not exist; and if Ken Ham's views represented the mainstream of religion, I would be an absolutely convinced atheist.
As someone else has pointed out above, belief in Biblical literalism, even without any extraneous evidence, is intellectually unsustainable, because the Biblical narrative contradicts itself in places. Ham-style Christianity is, therefore, laughable and must be rejected by all right-thinking people. Which is possibly one of the reasons that there are so many atheists amongst the educated; no bright person wants to be on the same side as the likes of Ham.
But what it is important to remember is that there is a sustainable middle-ground. I emphatically do not believe that the Genesis narrative is literally true. It probably contains bits of truth; Noah's flood, for example, is probably a cultural memory of a great flood from the Black Sea basin which did cover much of the Ancient Near East within the relevant timeframe (this is further supported by the existence of similar flood myths in neighbouring Near Eastern cultures, such as Babylon). Similarly, the patriarchs might well have existed as historical figures (we simply don't know), but it is very doubtful whether many of the Biblical stories about them are true. And when we get to the unpalatable narratives of Numbers and Joshua - detailing, in essence, a genocide - I would suggest that, while it's highly likely that the Israelites did indeed massacre the surrounding nations, it's exceedingly unlikely that God genuinely told Moses and Joshua to do it. A God like that would, simply, be evil (as some have pointed out on other threads).
But I believe that, while the Bible was written by humans for human purposes - and is fallible, having been largely transcribed from oral traditions transmitted over generations - this does not preclude its being inspired by the agency of the Holy Spirit, nor does it prevent God speaking to us through its narrative. We should rarely, if ever, use it as a guide to history, and we should never use it as a textbook of science. But it still contains much that is inspirational and valuable. That's why I am a liberal Christian and not an atheist - but I despise the likes of Ham as much as you do. The man is a joke.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 3, 2008 5:04 AM
This Keith Troll seems particularly juicy, his comments display an arrogance and an ignorance of basic scientfic concepts which is breathtaking.
Why does this kind of Troll always end up claiming it has a "Science degree" ?
Yet he describes the Big Bang as an explosion "in" the "middle" of nothing ?
Hey Keith Troll, just a question if you have a Science degree, where's the "middle" of nothing ?
Posted by: clinteas | December 3, 2008 5:07 AM
Color me unsurprised.
I dont need a weapon.Im not out to convince anyone.But I am concerned about the large number of creationists and so called moderates that tolerate them,especially in the USA.
It doesnt work that way Walton.Its no good pointing at a creationist when talking to a moderate christian and saying,look how braindead stupid that one is,doesnt that convince you that Im right?
Walton,youre a nice guy,but you are also a very confused guy...These positions would,to the neutral observer,seem pretty much incompatible.You just cant have it both ways mate...
Posted by: Walton | December 3, 2008 5:30 AM
Clinteas: These positions would,to the neutral observer,seem pretty much incompatible.You just cant have it both ways mate...
Yes I can. You are expounding the false dichotomy which, oddly enough, is implicitly adopted by both conservative/fundie Christians and hardline atheists: either the Bible is "true", in the sense of being a literal and accurate exposition of history, or it is "false" and hence worthless. Since we can prove that a literal reading of the Bible is incompatible with empirical facts and observed reality - and is, indeed, inconsistent even with itself - this would, if these were the only two options, make religion an intellectually unsustainable position for anyone remotely educated and open-minded.
But, as I keep pointing out, there is a third way. I believe that the Holy Spirit can, and does, work through the agency of fallible human beings in inspiring them to do good and to speak truth. Human beings are still imperfect, and so the outcome is imperfect. When I say that the Holy Spirit "inspired" the Bible, this does not mean that it was dictated verbatim by an infallible voice from the clouds. It plainly was not, and so "sola scriptura" is a red herring. Rather, I mean that the authors of the Bible, being ordinary humans, were trying to rationalise and understand their own encounters with the divine - and sometimes, of course, they got it very wrong. But the Bible is still a worthwhile and inspirational text, and still tells us something about the nature of God.
And I think we can probably accept that the most important part of the Bible - the Gospels, and the teachings of Christ - are historically reliable enough that we can rely on them as a guide to faith and ethics. And even if they're not a completely accurate historical representation, where's the harm? Jesus' teachings are still a good ethic by which to live, if one understands them properly.
I will say, however, that the Bible - being, as I said, written by fallible humans, and flawed in many parts - should take second place to our own moral consciences in guiding our actions, because I believe our instinctive moral compasses to be guided by the Holy Spirit. So where the Bible appears to be promoting something which seems to us immoral and senseless (which the Old Testament does in many parts), we should go with our own innate sense of decency, rather than an ancient and fallible document which was written for a very different, and more barbaric, cultural and historical setting.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 5:43 AM
Just to play Devil's Advocate...
Walton, when you rally against creationism but believe in the holy spirit. How do you rationalise that a belief in a holy spirit is any more rational than believing the universe is hand-crafted by God?
Posted by: clinteas | December 3, 2008 5:55 AM
Walton @ 919,
Indeed.It does.
I knew you had it in you !
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 6:04 AM
Walton, you've essentially echoed one of my own personal thought on religion, which is that the best evidence against christianity is christians themselves - particularly idiots like Ken Ham, who, I'm ashamed to say, is from my home state of Queensland in Australia.
But even the non-literal believers don't make sense to me. It's impossible to read the bible and honestly believe that the god in it to be good, kind and loving. I find Numbers (31 in particular) to contain some of the most horrific, monstrous acts ever written as fact or fiction - all ordered by the bloodthirsty, hateful judeo-christian god who watches on with spiteful glee as innocent women and children are butchered.
Were the worshippers of this god honest about what a malevolent nightmare it is that they revere then I might have some respect for them - but they don't. They lie to themselves and the lie to others about it when claim they worship a good god, a kind god, a god who cares for them - who cares for every human.
I find this all beyond ridiculous. It's saddening and infuriating and depressing all at once.
Your god, if he existed, would be a monster. To shift the blame and say the evil acts committed in his name were due to 'fallible humans' is the worst kind of dodge, the description of a true coward who refuses to take responsibility for his actions.
If god couldn't get it right then, why should we expect that he's changed? He can't change; he is, by definition, perfect. That you can even contemplate him capable of making mistakes is antithetical to almost every aspect of judeo-christian theology.
While there are some aspects of the bible that are, as you wrote, 'inspirational and valuable', they are hardly unique to the bible, and more a case of pointing out the obvious positives human society has developed over the years.
So we can take Jesus' teachings as being the product of the development of human compassion, not the influence of a divine being - it lessens it that it had to come from a god for us to learn it. We should be proud of having achieved it rather than praising a god for coming to us in human form and handing it to us.
Honestly, I think you've only really got lingering shreds of belief there. Your posts seem to be more about you convincing yourself of the need for faith than it is about convincing us. You can live without a belief in god, Walton. It adds nothing and subtracts much.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 3, 2008 6:10 AM
Walton,
do you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding those people's instnctve moral consciences who condemn homosexuality or abortion ?
Whatever your answer, how do you know this, and why would a religious person know better ?
I used to call myself a cultural Christian. Never believed in any of the myths, the virgin birth, the resurection, the miracles, but seemed to think like you that there were valuable moral lessons in the Bible. But then there were also all these terrible ones, eg on women and abortion, on homosexuality, so it was all about picking and chosing. Then I asked myself, why do we need this, can't we come up with the valuable stuff without the Bible ? Of course we can, so what's left of my "cultural" Christianty ? Nothing much really.
Having said this, I never managed to reject entirely some sort of generic animism. It's still in the back of my head, I believe it's based on hope and wishful thinking but that's what it is, these are strong enough and I can't get rid of it, it's just too difficult. "I don't know, neither do you" is my most honest answer to the question "Is there something after death ?".
But then that means that whatever there is or not, we can only use reason and evidence to guide us.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 6:21 AM
Kel
Do you really believe in trolls? You Evolutionists seem to believe anything (just enjoying a bit of fun myself - this site cracks me up)! Walton, even though I think you don't share my beliefs, thank you for showing civility - such a breath of fresh air. Creationists really are absolutely no threat to ANYONE or ANYTHING - and do not demand that their beliefs be taught in state schools (because it would be taught 'badly' by the likes of yourselves - I do not mean this as an insult; you really WOULD teach it without conviction). Such beliefs belong in Church or in the home. If you feel 'unsafe' in your bastions of science, your faith must be extremely weak. Oh, sorry about the 'couplet' thing - and hypothesis/theory was meant to be read as hypothesis OR theory (it's getting late and I am getting lazy)- and I didn't forget those other '-ists', I 'lazily' grouped them all together as 'scientists'.
'negentropyeater' - is this a 'fancy' way of saying 'poorreader'? I wrote 'middle' to implicate the total illogicality of the Big Bang theory - but 'little children' wouldn't understand that. The real number line (in Mathematics) is usually 'said' to have zero in the 'middle', negative numbers to the left, and positive numbers to the right. In reality (excuse the unintended pun), it has no 'beginning' and no 'ending' (like God?) and, therefore, has no 'middle' - where would be the middle of infinity? You may now realise that my degree is in Mathematics (with Physics - by the way, that guy Isaac Newton Troll was a devout Creationist, as was Louis Pasteur Troll, as was James Clerk Maxwell Troll - interesting 'family'!), and the numbers simply do not 'stack up' either for the Big Bang Theory or for the Theory of Evolution - go on P Z's obedient flock, bleat on (oddly enough being an anagram of 'notable', as were the three scientists aforementioned).
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 6:35 AM
Internet trolls are not a myth, I've seen them. Anything? We aren't no stinking creationist. Here's a challenge, show me any peer review document that shows the world to be less than 4 billion years old. The age of the earth is well established through several dating techniques, and the gradual emergence of life is there to see for anyone who isn't a retard.As for believing in anything, show me a bunny in precambrian rocks and I'll renounce evolution. I won't convert to Christianity, I'd need to see proof of Christ's divinity and resurrection.
So come on, people have shown you peer reviewed research to support their views. What do you have to support yours? I'm betting nothing more than the mythology of middle-eastern herders.
Posted by: Kenneth Oberlander | December 3, 2008 6:35 AM
@Wowbagger
For this, I thank you sir! Made my day.
@Keith Allen #924. Where is the logical fallacy bingo when you need it most?
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 6:38 AM
Walton #916 & 919, the only difference between you and a creationist is the creationist has faith despite the evidence, whilst you have faith without evidence.
To use Daniel Dennett's phrase, you seem to have belief in belief.
You've got to be kidding - your antinomianism notwithstanding, Jesus was a demagogue and his ethics are an insane and contradictory mixture of self-abnegation and intolerance.Compare Matthew 5:44 with Matthew 11:20, for example.
Not that he wasn't prophetic: Matthew 10:34-38.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 6:38 AM
Keith Allen, can you even show one source that states that evolution demands spontaneous generation? Come on, back up at least one of your basic assertions... otherwise you are nothing more than a liar. Bearer of false witness, breaker of the 9th commandment.
Posted by: clinteas | December 3, 2008 6:39 AM
Keith Allen,
you seem to have decent intellectual capabilities.
It saddens me everytime I see a person that could have contributed something useful to mankind,when that person has been the victim of religious indoctrination and brainwashing,to see their desperate efforts of keeping their sanity by creating this huge cognitive dissonance....
I hope for you that your doctor doesnt believe that next time you come down with a multi-resistant bug,aquired from exposure to multiple antibiotics,and evolved into a killer.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 6:43 AM
Newton died almost 150 years before there even was a theory of evolution. There wasn't even Lamarkian evolution at that stage.As for troll
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
Isn't it nice you can lie for Jesus?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 6:54 AM
Keith Allan, #924
Congratulations - you got something half-right. Now if you can only make it the rest of the way there might be hope for you. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Tell me Keith, do you believe aeroplanes fly or are carried by invisible pixies? Do you believe it is the rotation of the earth that causes gravity, or is it that everything is held in place by leprechauns? Do doctors heal using medicine, or is it prayer that banishes germs and stitches skin together?
I'm going to assume it's the former - the result of science and our understanding of it - in each example. Possibly a great leap on my part considering your demonstrated poor grasp of reality, but I'm feeling a little optimistic.
Why is it that you accept that science has the answers for flight, gravity and medicine and yet is at a total loss to explain how life on this planet is so diverse? How can humans have managed to get thousands of tonnes of metal into the air and around the world and yet be so wrong about the plants and animals having been created?
How can we have worked out that it is the rotation of the earth that keeps everything from flying off into space and yet are so clueless about the real reasons DNA exists and adaptation occurs - i.e. your god testing our faith?
Why is it that we've realised that tiny, microscopic organisms cause harm to human bodies but can be banished by careful use of other microscopic organisms and/or chemicals and yet have missed the obvious truth that it's all the result of sin stemming from the fall?
Simple version, Keith - why wouldn't science, which is about finding the truth and benefiting humanity, want to come up with the answers you already have? How does it benefit them to choose not to believe that 'goddidit' is the answer to everything?
Oh, and you probably didn't realise it, but all three examples I used of science in action have something in common: they're all theories. Just like evolution.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 3, 2008 6:55 AM
False, False, False
He also believed in the Occult and Alchemy.
"Newton was not the first of the age of reason: he was the last of the magicians." - John Maynard Keynes
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 6:58 AM
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 3, 2008 7:04 AM
Keith Allen,
Are you denying that there's microwave background radiation?
For that matter, do you believe that all visible stars are within 6,000 lights years of Earth? Or do you believe that the speed of light in a vacuum is not indeed a constant?
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 3, 2008 7:11 AM
Keith Troll,
No, you wrote this because you don't understand it.
Want one more example of your phenomenal ignorance :
Which numbers ?
And neither Pasteur nor Maxwell were "devout creationists".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 7:28 AM
Lets see.
Posts on very old thread, check.
Confuses abiogenesis with evolution, check.
Trot out ID without referencing any scientific literature, check.
Allege god/creator without demonstrating physical proof, check.
Us capitals inappropriately, check.
Get defensive and personal when errors demonstrated, check.
Yep, looks like we got ourselves a live creobot. This one looks about a 3 on a 1-10 scale. Just too ignorant to be fun.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 3, 2008 7:36 AM
Pasteur seems to have been a very bad creationist:
Pasteur was also a devout Catholic. If he were alive nowadays he would have to accept evolution since the Church does.
As for Maxwell I'm too busy/lazy to look it up. Even if it's true, so what? Science doesn't have inerrant prophets like religion does. Many physicist admire Einstein greatly, but think he was dead wrong in regards to quantum mechanics. Darwin turned out to be dead wrong when it came to the mechanism of inheritance. Despite what you keep repeating, science does not operate like religion.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 3, 2008 8:03 AM
Feynmaniac,
Completely false.
Pasteur Vallery-Radot, his grandson, wrote in 1939 :
Quick translation :
"Both my parents have always maintaned that Pasteur didn't practice his religion. My father spoke of his spritualism, and certainly not of his Catholicism. Both my parents would get very irritated when a priest would falsely attribute him affirmatons about his faith. Everything that has been written about Pasteur's supposedely Catholic faith is absolutely false".
Even Maurice Pasteur Vallery-Radot, a militant Catholic and a distant relative admitted in 1994 that Pasteur never went to mass.
Usual lies and misinformation from Catholics, you find that surprising ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 3, 2008 8:04 AM
No he is lying. No bones about it. Dead on lying. And if corrupting the minds of children with his lies, distortions and flat out wrongness is caring, then yes he's very very caring.
Posted by: Walton | December 3, 2008 8:12 AM
Kel: Walton, when you rally against creationism but believe in the holy spirit. How do you rationalise that a belief in a holy spirit is any more rational than believing the universe is hand-crafted by God?
It isn't any more rational, but it's non-rational rather than irrational.
As I understand it, it's irrational to believe something, on a basis of faith alone, where the evidence militates against it - so it's irrational to be a creationist. Treating personal feelings and ingrained beliefs as epistemically superior to empirical observation is an irrational outlook. Therefore, believing, through faith alone, that the Earth was created in seven days in 4004 BC is a fundamentally irrational outlook, considering that all the available evidence suggests that the universe is far older than that.
However, there are many aspects of human experience which are non-rational without being irrational. The uplifting sensation created by a great piece of music, for example, is a non-rational reaction. But it isn't an irrational reaction, because we're not using it to draw an inference of fact which contradicts empirical evidence.
Likewise, a feeling of the presence of God, and of the Holy Spirit, in one's life is a non-rational feeling; I can't justify it by reference either to direct empirical evidence, or to logical inference from such evidence. But it isn't irrational, because it's a personal feeling, and I'm not elevating it over empirical observation and established facts.
Posted by: Walton | December 3, 2008 8:15 AM
Correction:
Me: ...considering that all the available evidence suggests that the universe is far older than that. - Apologies, "universe" should have read "Earth".
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 3, 2008 8:25 AM
Pasteur was so not a devout Catholic that he was a staunch defender of compasional euthanasia. He even practiced it on a few of the 19 russians who he couldn't save from rabies, we're talking 1880s !
Pasteur as a "devout catholic" is a complete historical manipulation of the truth from Catholic apologetics. A pack of lies.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 3, 2008 8:41 AM
negentropyeater,
Damn it! I just remember hearing somewhere he was Catholic and had said the phrase in your quote: "J'ai la foi du charbonnier breton". I should have fact-checked it.
Thanks for the correction and the translation, I haven't taken French since high school.
Posted by: m | December 3, 2008 10:10 AM
Wow. Name calling. This is a good thing for both anti-theists and Christians to engage in. Look at us, world! We can shame someone's beliefs.
No one can prove that this is a good thing to do. It might be fun but it is not good.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 10:26 AM
The latest comments were fairly mild.
A person's right to hold beliefs should be respected. However, the beliefs themselves, when published here, are fair game for criticism. Pointing out beliefs are stupid and why they are stupid is part of debate.
If you don't want your beliefs refuted don't post here.
Posted by: m | December 3, 2008 10:37 AM
Agreed. But name-calling, condescension, and mocking cannot be substituted as criticisms and refutations.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 10:40 AM
M, you are not a regular poster here. Who appointed you to be our politeness officer? The internet is a rowdy place and we are a rowdy bunch. Your concern is noted, but rejected.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 10:53 AM
We have good reason to believe that it did not happen:
http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html
It was probably all war pr0n and political propaganda. Although some of it might have been created so as to justify then-current military atrocities.
Posted by: M | December 3, 2008 11:11 AM
Redhead-
Thank you. I was just making an observation, not trying to be a politeness officer. I'm just confused as to why the concern is rejected...because rowdiness is the best way to discuss ideas/objections? Please don't be defensive, I am only asking. Thanks.
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 11:18 AM
Walton #940 wrote:
Examine this more closely, though -- you're skipping God from one category into another.
Feeling as if one is in the presence of God or the Holy Spirit is indeed a non-rational, personal feeling. It is like getting "the chills" when listening to Beethoven, or feeling a deep sense of love and longing for the girl next door. You don't have to rationalize or justify a feeling as a feeling. It is what it is. If you have it, then you have it, and know you have it.
But you're not claiming that God is, literally, a kind of feeling.
God is supposed to be a person or being -- and you're inferring its existence from the feeling. God is in the same category as Beethoven's music, or the girl next door. They are real things outside of your self which evoke emotions within you. And now you can make all sorts of errors in reasoning once you step out of your emotions and begin to make inferences on what the emotions are about.
You must be the reincarnation of Beethoven, or you wouldn't love his music so much. The girl next door must love you back, or else you wouldn't feel what you feel. You're drawing conclusions on facts, and now you can be wrong or irrational. Pointing out that the feelings themselves are non-rational won't help.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 11:30 AM
If you weren't trying to be a politeness officer, then why sound like one. Around here, if you aren't willing to defend your position, don't post.
Not all ideas are equal. Some ideas, like creationism/ID, are so stupid that they don't rise to the level of polite debate. Creationism is pure religion, and if someone posted here claiming that we would be much politer than the usual poster who wrongly thinks his belief in creationism negates 150 years of published science. Only science, published in scientific journals, will refute science. So if creationists try to proclaim evolution is wrong without being able to cite any scientific literature we will set their lies straight with vigor. We are teaching them science if they are willing to listen. If not, no loss.
Posted by: M | December 3, 2008 12:07 PM
Red-
Well stated response. I guess frustration would be my main reason for sounding like one. I agree and I hate it when one side or other makes a defense/statement that is ill or uninformed and then does not back it up in any way.
Ignorance on both sides of the aisle is the worst threat and the hardest one to argue with/against.
Thanks for your time and clarification.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 3, 2008 12:43 PM
I find that kind of pandering equanimous platitude nauseating and insulting. Truth is, there's precious little ignorance on this side of the aisle and great towering slag-heaps of it on the other. If creationists spent one hour trying to understand what evolution actually is, rather than constructing an absurd pastiche that can be attacked from a condition of abject ignorance and stupidity, there'd be many fewer creationists. I'd hazard a guess that the average atheist even knows the Bible better than the average creationist. Invincible pride in mind-numbing ignorance is worn like a badge of honour, it is the hallmark of creationism. To equate ignorance "on both sides of the aisle" is just bullshit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 12:59 PM
M, evolution has probably over a million scientific papers backing it one way or another. The creationist side, has, at best, a handful of refuted papers.
Now, how is it an even debate on the facts? There are not always two sides to an argument.
Posted by: M | December 3, 2008 2:01 PM
Red,
But isn't the idea of "understanding what your enemy (or opponent, or whatever) believes/thinks in order to defeat/engage them" valid?
I'm not arguing in favor of ID, but more generally about how to argue effectively.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 2:09 PM
M, how we argue is up to us. We tend to be blunt and use facts. You want everyone to play nice. Sometimes when dealing with people you need to get their attention before they listen. We have dealt with too many creobots who require the equivalent of a glass of water in the face to get their attention. So we don't always play nice.
If you really want to discuss better argument methods, get off this old thread and go to one on the front page.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 2:23 PM
Because all the people that claim that God speaks to them contradict themselves, or contradict each other, or contradict reality.
And that as well. If God were real, he could and would speak to everyone in plain language.
Of course. How do you think I became an atheist?
If God were real, it would be his responsibility to answer when spoken to, or when people claim to speak for him.
Posted by: M | December 3, 2008 2:23 PM
Thanks, Red!
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 3:48 PM
The difference as I see it is that believing in the holy spirit is a type 1 error in thinking: believing a falsehood, while creationism is a type 2 error in thinking: rejecting a truth. To me a type two error is far worse than a type one. (errors defined by Dr Shermer)Posted by: Walton | December 3, 2008 5:02 PM
Sastra at #950:
God is supposed to be a person or being -- and you're inferring its existence from the feeling. God is in the same category as Beethoven's music, or the girl next door. They are real things outside of your self which evoke emotions within you. And now you can make all sorts of errors in reasoning once you step out of your emotions and begin to make inferences on what the emotions are about.
You must be the reincarnation of Beethoven, or you wouldn't love his music so much. The girl next door must love you back, or else you wouldn't feel what you feel. You're drawing conclusions on facts, and now you can be wrong or irrational. Pointing out that the feelings themselves are non-rational won't help.
I see your point. And yes, I would be the first to admit that I could be wrong, and that I could be as deluded as the man who believes himself the reincarnation of Beethoven because he loves Beethoven's music.
However, the distinction I was really trying to draw is that the idea of the existence of a Holy Spirit is compatible with - though not a necessary inference from - the empirical evidence. In other words, taking into account observed reality, a Holy Spirit might exist, but need not exist.
In contrast, creationism stands in direct contradiction to observed reality. Thus, believing in creationism entails a rejection of one of our basic epistemic assumptions: that observation, and logical inference therefrom, is a reliable guide to reality. In other words, it requires a rejection of empiricism - which, in turn, entails a rejection of modern science and virtually all of useful human knowledge.
A belief in the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, only requires the rejection of the principle of Occam's razor (that the best explanation is the simplest one). And there is no necessary reason why a person should subscribe to the principle of Occam's razor.
Posted by: Walton | December 3, 2008 5:05 PM
By the way, [shameless self-promotion coming up] I now have my own blog, which can be found at http://nevercallretreat.blogspot.com if anyone is interested.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 7:04 PM
Only if you ascribe no testable attributes whatsoever to the "Holy Spirit".
You can only believe in a God that does nothing, and/or cares about nothing, and/or knows nothing — about anything to do with humans, anyway.
I think this is arguable as well, if only on the grounds of basic sanity.
If you reject parsimony, why believe in just one "Holy Spirit"? Why not two, or three, or seventeen, or 101, or 9 billion, or 1057?
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 7:05 PM
Good afternoon 'little children' - Ive had a good sleep, and am refreshed, renewed, and 'ready to rumble'! I really tried my best yesterday to 'debate' in a serious way, but then realised that none of you are capable of reciprocating. So, whilst I cannot join in with all the name-calling and hateful remarks, I can (and will) be condescending. My goodness, you little chappies have been very busy while I slept - did you miss me? Did poor Walton have to endure your noxious animosity all by himself? Maybe not - I see that 'M' provided some hate-frenzy feast for P Z's obedient flock. You 'people' are actually WAAAY funnier than that 'religulous' Bill Maher - and he's a professional comedian! I guess that YOUR 'godhead', or 'unholy trinity', would be P Z Myers, Dick Dawkins, and Bill Maher - two professors and a comedian (oh, let's be honest - three comedians). I am definitely not surprised by your dismissal of Isaac Newton, but even Stephen Hawking (who now occupies the Chair Newton once did) poses the question "What breathes life into our equations?" - and he is not noticeably religious. Albert Einstein (not known to be religious) once said "God does not play dice with the Universe". Louis Pasteur actually claimed to have devised a scientific experiment to prove that abiogenisis is impossible - personally, I think that anyone with common sense already KNOWS that! To repeat myself (teachers often do!), it is glaringly obvious that the Theory of Evolution cannot 'get started' without abiogenesis (just a pompously constructed word for 'spontaneous occurrence of life'). As for peer reviews - you all KNOW that 'scientific' journals allow no dissention to Darwinism. I nearly fell off my seat when I read that science is about finding truth! Did you deliberately omit the words 'but we cannot allow God to get a foot into the door'? What exactly do you mean by 'truth'? Jesus Christ was asked this question by Pontious Pilate - He didn't waste His time by answering such an obviously self-centred person (please note, Owlmirror). However, He did tell His followers :"I am the way, the truth, and the life"; He also referred to Himself as "the light". Are scientists searching for THIS truth? Well, maybe a very small minority of them, but most are "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7, but reading verses 1 through 8 provides a remarkably prophetic vision of TODAY. I was reluctant to quote scripture, but 'the flock' have done so). So, 'rowdy little children', enjoy your fun - although SOMEONE 'out there' deems me too ignorant to be 'fun'. Before I forget, 'why do scientists go to such lengths ...'? I think it might well be due to an anagram of 'spider' - without the 's'. Scientists of the 'ignorant' past sometimes believed that their inspiration came from God - even today, some do.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 3, 2008 7:08 PM
yawn
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 7:09 PM
Amen Rev. YYaawwnn.
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 7:12 PM
No, we didn't miss you.
Fuck off.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 7:12 PM
Chimp & Nerd,
I see your yawns and I raise you a zzzzzzz.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 7:14 PM
Wowbagger wins the thread. KA loses.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 7:17 PM
You're nothing but rumble.
No, he didn't.
You're once again exposing your enormous ignorance by confusing "spontaneous generation", which was the theory that complex life could arise from simpler chemicals within the span of a few days, with abiogenesis, which seeks to understand the organic chemistry which resulted in the origin of life.
Pasteur, and others before him, showed that the air is full of spores that will gladly grow on culture of simpler chemicals. He did not prove that abiogenesis could not happen, and neither has anyone else.
They require evidence and don't allow lies, in other words.
You mean Jesus couldn't give a true answer.
So? If Jesus still exists and is real, he can tell us exactly the same thing, himself.
I'm sitting here listening, and he isn't talking.
Scripture proves nothing at all.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 7:18 PM
Really. You've never heard of theistic evolution? Bwahahaha!Posted by: Ompompanoosuc | December 3, 2008 7:20 PM
Keith,
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
-Ralph Wiggum
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 7:21 PM
Supertroll, writes in one huge text block so no-one could be bothered to read it. I suppose that's better on citing any source for those original assertions.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 7:21 PM
KA, for the scripture to mean something, first you have to prove god exists. After that is proven, then you must show the scripture is the word of your imaginary god. Until that is proven, all you have is a work of fiction.
So, tell us where to find the physical proof for god so it can be examined by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers to confirm that it is divine.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 3, 2008 7:24 PM
Let's bring back Tenocious G. At least his arguments were hilariously bad. Keith's are just boringly bad. Plus, Teno didn't come in, complained about insults instead of real conversation and then preceded to make insult everyone.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 3, 2008 7:27 PM
Keith Allen, how long did that fester in your large intestine before you finally presented us with you "greatest gift". This is an old and abandoned thread, feel free to decrarate as you please and make yourself at home.
All I can say is that you really love the smell of your own shit. Now roll in it like a good little naked mole-rat.
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 7:28 PM
I wish PZ would quit buying cheap trolls. There are much better ones on the market, I saw them on Hell Boy II.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 7:32 PM
On werd to that, he could have made it interesting by bringing up actual problems in science. Talk about where the known meets the unknown and discuss the processes of information gathering. Instead he just sent out a series of insults, misrepresentations of science and did some general godbotting. Meagre troll, at least he's fuelling PZ's retirement fund. :PPosted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 7:33 PM
I suspect that even the half-decent trolls are on holidays already and have sent out some sort of religulous equivalent of the bat-signal* to the members of the third- and fourth-string teams to come try their hands. KA is so insipid he makes me long for Kenny - at least the latter knew how and when to use paragraph breaks and single-quotation marks.
*The silhouette of a human head with the brain removed and a bible in it place, perhaps.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 7:36 PM
You're just claiming to miss TG and Kenny because they aren't actually here to crap all over the place.
You would all change your tune tout suite if they actually showed up.
*shudder*.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 7:37 PM
Patricia, looks like you are feeling better. Definitely a bit of twirling sashay in your posts today.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 3, 2008 7:38 PM
HIs comments are like the adult voices in Charlie Brown.
"Whahwah wahhh whahwahwawawahhh whuwawahhh."
Chappies? What are you a fuckin' Lord of the upper house?
Here's a question Keith. How old is the earth my good chap?
Can you answer that question ol'boy?
This guy is more interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPiGJBHVadA
Posted by: llewelly | December 3, 2008 7:39 PM
Walton:
Best of all, the rejection of Occam's razor comes with all sorts of bonus benefits. For example:
(a) Astrology not working for you? Blame it on a government conspiracy! NASA, the same organization that faked the moon landings, tried to cover up aliens and the face on mars, and deceived innocent American children with the round earth myth, is now feeding astrologers bad astronomical data in order to ruin the predictive abilities of astrology, and thus drive people away from it. All it takes is the rejection of Occam's razor.
(b) Want a pet invisible unicorn? All it takes is the rejection of Occam's razor.
(c) Don't want to accept global warming? You too can believe the IPCC is part of a world-controlling conspiracy of climate scientists living high on the public dollar, faking data to terrify people and get big government grants, and eco-terrorists faking ecological disasters. All it takes is the rejection of Occam's razor.
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 7:41 PM
Walton #160 wrote:
As Owlmirror already pointed out, you already do subscribe to the principle of Occam's razor. What you're talking about here is making an exception -- but only if the belief is so vague and innocuous that there are no real testable consequences. Anything and everything can fit. You don't derive it from starting from scratch and forming it as one hypothesis among others. You start out with it, and see if it can be twisted into a shape where it doesn't actually conflict with anything.
No, it won't fit in coherently with the reality science has revealed to us. We no longer accept mind/body dualism, and vitalism as a theory is dead. "The Holy Spirit" is very like those claims for "healing energy" or "mind power" -- intuitive, but mistaken.
But you're not trying to be consistent and coherent. You want to make an exception just in one small area, and approach the concept of the Holy Ghost not like a science theory, but more like it's a matter of taste. Belief in the Holy Spirit "works" for you, and doesn't harm anyone, so what's the problem?
Depends on whether you're asking the question socially, to other people -- or whether you're asking the question to yourself, as part of the process of truth seeking and forming a consistent philosophy. In the first case, I'd say that, as long as we're just talking about getting along with each other, then what the heck. Sure, it's okay. You seem to have your head on straight -- in other respects. Okay.
Only you can answer the second question.
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 7:47 PM
Keith Allen #963 wrote:
Not necessarily -- is God a testable hypothesis? How would it be falsified, theoretically?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 3, 2008 7:53 PM
Good afternoon 'little children' - Ive had a good sleep, and am refreshed, renewed, and 'ready to rumble'! I really tried my best yesterday to 'debate' in a serious way, but then realised that none of you are capable of reciprocating. - Keith Allen
Only a complete moron suffering from the delusion that he's clever and sophisticated scatters scare-quotes as thickly as this.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 7:57 PM
In the 'beginning', there was NOTHING - neither time nor space nor matter. 'Then', a point-singularity in the 'middle' of this timeless nothingness exploded (no reason), thus CREATING (oh horrors!) space, time, and matter. 'Later' (again for no reason), life arose spontaneously (somehow, apparently, bringing death with it!) and even managed to 'figure out' a way to produce INTELLIGENCE and REASON. Now tell me - WHO believes in fairy talesAgain, stop lying.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 7:58 PM
Owlmirror wrote,
No, I wouldn't. Honestly. It's KA's irritating, dimwitted, cut'n'paste writing style that bothers me, not his baseless non-arguments, which belong in the Not Even Wrong category. Those other two idiots were annoying but in a more tolerable way.
Even Pete Rooke's a couple of steps up on this assclown - at least when he's not analogising.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 8:00 PM
Salutations to the bleating 'flock' - my, you are really quick with your responses - especially Patricia (how very feminine and SOOOO well-reasoned!). I wrote a 'long' response because your 'flock' is so large. Why don't you all nominate a 'champion' (as the Philistines goaded the Israelites to do) to engage in 'single combat'? By the way, in response to the 'zzzzzz' remark, I have three 'Z's' of my own regarding the Theory of Evolution - there is no evidence of 'amoeba to man' evolution - NOTHING, as in Zero, Zip, and Zilch. There, 'little children', you really have something to get rowdy about!
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 8:05 PM
You think man evolved from amoeba?Evidence we evolved from apes? Staggering. Evidence that Mammals all share a common ancestor? Again, staggering. Evidence that mammals evolved from reptiles? Again, staggering. Evidence reptiles evolved from amphibians? Again, staggering. Evidence that amphibians evolved from fish? Again, staggering. Evidence that humans evolved from fish? Well it's all in our body.
http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 8:05 PM
Keith Allen #988 wrote:
If you became convinced that the evidence supported the Theory of Evolution, would you no longer believe that God exists? Or, would you retool your understanding of God, and now believe that God worked through evolution?
How much is riding on this, for you?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 3, 2008 8:08 PM
KA@988,
No, baseless assertions without even the appearance of any attempt to support them with evidence and argument are really not worth getting rowdy about, you silly little troll.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 8:08 PM
KA @988 is in full troll mode, without disimulation.
The most notable feature of this troll is the apostrophephilia.
Insipid.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 8:09 PM
Fixed.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 3, 2008 8:11 PM
Keith tell us what you reject.
Please get specific and show your work.
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 8:11 PM
KA - You are a second rate troll. I don't even have to loosen my corset strings to deal with the likes of you. Is that the best you've got?
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 8:11 PM
apostrophephilia.
'I' 'like' 'this' 'word' '!''1''1''one''!'
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 8:12 PM
Keith, you came up zero with no proof for your imaginary god. Poor delusion boy. Get with the program, you are the one who must prove yourself, not us. Show us the physical proof for your imaginary god.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 8:12 PM
Keith Allan bleated:
So, Keith's a woman-hater. Colour me unsurprised. It's in the bible after all.
Posted by: Loki | December 3, 2008 8:16 PM
Fuck ewe, you old goat.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 3, 2008 8:17 PM
Keith please cite the specific research you refute and provide us why you find this science to be wrong.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 3, 2008 8:17 PM
Keith,
How old is the earth?
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 8:18 PM
So... you admit that you're a Philistine?
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 8:21 PM
This old blog entry from June has now gone over 1000 comments. Egads.
Look, I'm just here because everyone else is here. What I want to know -- is why is everyone else here?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 8:21 PM
I think Keith's got a long way to go before he qualifies as something as high-up the ladder as a Philistine. Right now he's barely pond-scum.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 8:23 PM
SIWOTIPosted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 8:26 PM
Poking squishy things with a stick is fun?Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 8:27 PM
I'm here because I still have troll shit on my ruby slippers from kicking the crap out of Colleen & Paliban Mom this morning. Might as well end the evening stomping on this troll too, but he doesn't show much fight. Damned flaccid trolls.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 8:28 PM
SIWOTI!
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 8:35 PM
Stop it 'little ones' - my sides are aching - on the verge of splitting! From coelacanth to coelacanth - mind-blowing! You ask ME to provide proof, yet offer none of your own - just quoting the current evolutionistic paradigm is not proof - or it could EQUALLY be a 'proof' of common DESIGN. I freely admit that my beliefs are my faith - tighten your corsets and admit to your own 'faith'. How old is the Earth? I don't know - I've never found a 'best before' or 'use by' date anywhere on/in/above it. Do you KNOW how old it is? If you claim that you do, then allow me to claim that I KNOW that God exists.
TTFN!
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 8:36 PM
SIWOTI
But of course...
It is our version of "Peace be with you."
"SIWOTI, my friend."
"And SIWOTI for you too, my friend."
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 8:36 PM
Patricia,
I thought Paliban Mom was a Poe - did she prove otherwise?
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 8:38 PM
KA troll:
Earth.
Your turn.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 8:39 PM
Keith, the word of a liar and bullshitter is worthless. Either show some physical proof for your imaginary god or go away. The burden of proof is on you. You show the proof, not tell it.
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 8:40 PM
Yeah run you sissy.
Turn in your troll card on the way out, you're a disgrace to the breed.
Posted by: Sastra | December 3, 2008 8:41 PM
Keith Allen #1009 wrote:
If this admission is in answer to my question at #990, I'm afraid I don't understand how to apply it. I wrote:
If you became convinced that the evidence supported the Theory of Evolution, would you no longer believe that God exists? Or, would you retool your understanding of God, and now believe that God worked through evolution?
Was your response an "I don't know?" I'm not sure.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 8:43 PM
The date stamp written in the rocks by radioactive elements is a bit smudged, but it definitely reads something like "4.5 billion years", plus or minus a bit.
Only if God is a rock with radioactive elements in.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 8:44 PM
Keith Allan wrote:
Yes, run away like the pathetic lying coward you are. Go cry to jebus about how the mean atheists hurt your feelings.
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 8:47 PM
Wowbagger, I went and looked at her website, and the stuff she had for sale on cafe press (?) it looked to me like she is a genuinely deluded christian. Because I see these people everyday in my gawd soaked town I'm not amazed that they can be so incredibly stupid.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 8:49 PM
Keith, if you want me to believe in god, show me the physical proof for god. Oh yes, there is none, so god is a delusion, which makes you delusional.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 9:01 PM
Several dating techniques all come up with the same answer. Are you saying that radiometric decay rates are off by a factor of a million?Posted by: Owlmirror | December 3, 2008 9:10 PM
*snort*
Correct you merry, gentle friends
Let nothing you dismay
For trolls so dull and ignorant
Infest the 'Net this day
So we must all out-pedant them
For they have gone astray
O postings of rightness and joy,
rightness and joy
O postings of rightness and joy.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 9:15 PM
If there was a designer, he did a pretty piss-poor job of things. He's made it look like he's just built process on top of process, even a 1st year engineering student could build a better and more functional eye than the proposed designer of life.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 9:16 PM
Owlmirror, Clap, clap, clap.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 9:24 PM
"In which I have hurt the feelings of P Z's flock"
I thought we might get back to basics by giving this one a title! It's amazing that you could possibly believe that obedient sheep could ever hurt my feelings - like it or not, this is funnier than watching Seinfeld (yes, I prefer comedy without expletives). I still don't see why the burden of proof is on ME - if any of you had even a quantum of humility, you could 'find out' for YOURSELVES! Then again, I guess not - isn't there something about 'casting your pearls'? I was an atheist for sixteen years (until age 32) - why do you think I 'changed'? It was because atheism is a cul-de-sac in the journey of life - you are all 'going nowhere' and are content to do so. Fair enough, you have the freedom to make such a choice - so why do you ridicule those who have a 'different' view of life? You definitely will not accept this, but you are all so insecure that you need EVRYONE to agree with you! Ironically, you all accuse ME of being unable to think independently - give my regards to your 'shepherd' (from whom I borrowed the title).
Posted by: tresmal | December 3, 2008 9:25 PM
Do we know how old the Earth is? We have a hell of a lot of evidence that it is about 4.5 Billion years old. It's a lot more evidence, in fact, than you have.
You claim to have tried to debate in a serious way. Is making endless lists of unsupported assertions coupled with deranged speculations about the beliefs and motives of your opponents serious debate?
On the subject of evidence, here's a question your baramin never answers: What, hypothetically, would you accept as evidence for evolution?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 3, 2008 9:29 PM
Well, you know, except where it's uncommon design. Of course the bird has wings which have a common design with dinosaur legs--because of a common designer. And the bat wing has common design with a bird wing because of common design? Don't be ridiculous, the bird and dinosaur have a common designer, not the bat and the bird (except way back), so the bat wing has common design with mammalian insectivores.
So see, there's common design, then there's uncommon design. And don't ask why birds and bats have distant common design, but no common design in their wing modifications.
But idiots like Keith know, it's because god wanted it just so. Don't ask for a reason, not a design (rational and purposeful) reason, or any other one. God wanted bats and birds to share common the common design of a tetrapod, but not of bird or bat, and the fact that it's exactly as evolution predicts is pure coincidence. The mere fact that an unobserved "cause" which is claimed to be able to do anything at all means that scientific prediction is void in biology and nowhere else (unless the creationist claims design of the universe, or of the Theia collision, etc., which are then included in their theocratic exceptionalism).
True, I'm extrapolating, filling in the blanks for these vapid morons. They haven't thought beyond "it's because god wants it that way," for they both have intellectual deficits and they completely lack open-mindedness. I had to do their thinking for them, and the only reason it sounds so stupid is because creationism happens to be mind-numbingly stupid.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 9:29 PM
KA
Because you're ridiculous.Because rigorous thinking is not your forte, and you're a coward who doesn't want to face reality without his security blankie.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 9:35 PM
KA, still no physical evidence for your imaginary god. TSK, TSK.
Your paranoia is interesting, since nobody is out to get you. Believe what you want, but we don't have to believe as you do. Why else would you post here unless you felt we had to believe as you do?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 3, 2008 9:35 PM
You KNOW what's CONVINCING, Keith? Writing IMPORTANT WORDS in all CAPS.
Your mindless blather wouldn't convince anyone if you didn't capitalize without any reason to do so, but we're secretly convinced by your inability to write English properly.
Or, if you're a Poe, well done. For you've done really well in convincing us that you have nothing but errors to use to try (quite ineptly) to manipulate others in the same way that you've been manipulated.
If you're for real, you're simply wondering what the hell I'm talking about, naturally.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 9:35 PM
KA
You do know the etymology of the word 'pastor", and thus pastoral care, right? ;)Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 9:37 PM
Quick question: What 'age' did radiometric dating give for the strata laid down by the eruption of mount St Helen?
Quick response: Kel - are you SERIOUS???!!!!
Quick answer: A dog changing into a cat - or vice-versa.
Quick rebuttal: Nerd of Redhead - claptrap, claptrap, claptrap.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 9:39 PM
I did try. I prayed to God to turn my water into Vodka, he didn't obliged. I also prayed to the laws of nature to turn my water into ginger beer, and with a little help from methodological naturalism, I now have a keg full of fermenting ginger beer. Nature works, God doesn't.Here's a challenge, can you back up a single thing you've said about the process of evolution with any science literature? Can you find a single source that says that evolution demands spontaneous generation?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 9:39 PM
Quick Keith, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 3, 2008 9:41 PM
hehe. He thinks he hurt my feelings. That's kinda funny. Sad but funny.
Evolution isn't a different view of life. It's how life came to be.
Creationism/ID isn't a different view of life. It's a fairy tale based on a theist need for a creator. It's not based on evidence or science. It's based on an irrational need to ignore the evidence and value faith over all things.
The reason we ask "how old is the earth?" is because we like to see how much of science a creationist troll like yourself is denying. People like yourself who dodge the answer usually are ashamed of their answer because it opens them up to a whole new line of ridicule. Which is deserved, especially when they try to date the earth based on a book written by superstitious tribesmen.
I'm an atheist because I've never encountered any evidence that any gods exist.
Life isn't a cul-de-sac. It's a dead end. That you have to believe it's a endless highway that stretches into eternity is just a pathetic delusion.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 9:41 PM
Keith Allan, pustule and liar, whimpered:
Then you don't even comprehend the basics of a debate - no wonder you refer to it as a 'debate', because in your world it's obviously something very different from what it is in the real world.
Hmm, based on your powers of reasoning and your writing skills I'm going to with...lobotomy?
If you morons were content to keep your
viewslies to yourselves then we wouldn't care. But you attempt to pass those lies of as truth and, in doing so, make the world a far worse place for everyone, including those who don't choose to wallow in delusion and superstition.And don't even get me started on how you and your miserable, hateful flock of deluded morons lie in order to prevent people's freedom to choose things like contraception and abortion, or perform stem-cell research, or be treated equally while in same-sex relationships.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 3, 2008 9:42 PM
You have us at the disadvantage that our thought is constrained by reality. That gives what we say a certain sameness... called "knowledge".
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 9:45 PM
Deadly. Are you going to actually attempt to show any evidence to back up any of your assertions on science, or just keep showing you know how to use the shift key?Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 9:50 PM
In evolution, a dog will never change into a cat, or vice versa. They both have a common ancestor, but have both continued on their own evolutionary path. How is it you have no understanding of evolution yet reject it so vehemently?Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 9:55 PM
I'll hazard a guess that Keith Allan, liar, has never heard of a fish turning into a tetrapod.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 9:55 PM
KA troll:
Whatever the age is of the erupted magma, of course, should the attempt be made.You do know that that stratum was not created ex-nihilo, right? It's existing material.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 10:01 PM
John - of course I know the meaning of 'pastor' - why else do you think I used the word 'shepherd' to describe your mentor!
Glen - do YOU even know what you are talking about?
Nerd ... - I just had to see for myself how 'small-minded' P Z's sheep are.
John again - so you're a Linus fan; me too, so at least we have ONE thing in common!
Glen again - Do you seriously believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds? You've obviously been watching your Dumbo dvd too much!
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 10:04 PM
Typical, the troll turns.
Come on Keith whip out your gawd. Let's see the old nasty bastard. Looks to me like he's lost all his magical powers.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 10:05 PM
Considering Keith's level of intellectual competence I'm not going to be surprised if he reveals that he believes magma from volcanoes comes fresh from his god's ass.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 10:05 PM
In terms of dating the earth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
as for Mt St. Helens
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html
"Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable."
"Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless. "
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 10:08 PM
Keith, the only Baaaaaing is coming from your posts. PZ does not tell me what to do or say, so just another Lie for JebusTM from you. Time for you to either prove your imaginary god or just go. At the moment, you are just flailing around but nothing of substance is being said, nor will be said, until you are willing to start quoting the scientific literature to back up your allegations. Since that is beyond your capabilities, leaving is your only choice.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 10:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurshttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/flaunting_ignorance.php
Posted by: tresmal | December 3, 2008 10:12 PM
The main impression I am getting of Keith is fear. This impression is reinforced by his constant claims - incantations really- of being amused. I also note his inept attempts at affecting a nonchalant attitude.
He clearly desperately needs his religious beliefs to be true. But he knows that a large number of very smart knowledgeable people (scientists) have come to conclusions that threaten those beliefs. This nags at him. I notice a major part of his agenda here is to try to establish the idea that people don't really believe in evolution, but that they have some other ulterior motive for claiming to. This is consistent with his insane claims about the nonexistence of evidence for evolution. He clearly cannot tolerate the thought that hundreds of thousands of knowledgeable people have come to accept evolution because they sincerely and seriously believe that it is by far the best fit with the evidence.
And then there's this:
Notice that he came here, a notorious "evolutionist" site to argue with us, not that we all descended at whatever God-bothering sites he prefers to argue with him. Who needs everyone to agree with him?
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 10:24 PM
So, to summarise KA: Geology, cosmology, physics, palaeontology and biology are utterly wrong, due to their contradiction of a particular bronze-age mythos.
Oh yeah, freethinkers are sheep, and subscribe to "doctrine of pure hopelessness".
Yet to come: slavery is freedom, death is life, and 2+2=5.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 3, 2008 10:27 PM
Dumbfuck Keith, deal with the "common design" and "uncommon design" issue, instead of trying to dishonestly shift the issue.
I know you are unable to think coherently, but it is required if you are going to convince anybody here of anything. So try for once to explain the patterns of "common descent" and of "uncommon descent" in a design-entailed manner (which will take up the rest of your futile life if you really do try to make "design" into science).
I am not interested in trying to deal with every lurch of your mind, as it is clear that you lack any meaningful comprehension of these matters. You do what all of your cohorts do, deal piecemeal with every issue in evolution, while our thoughts encompass the sweep of life in its related complexity. You cannot comprehend what we know from within your abysm of ignorance, and I am not willing to engage in your discombobulated way of "dealing" with the issues of life.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 10:29 PM
Keith, the scientific literature contains hundreds of thousands of papers, if not millions these days, that support the theory of evolution. There is not even a competing theory in the scientific literature. There are minor points of evolution, like gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium, that are being discussed. That is the way science works, and both points back up the theory of evolution.
Intelligent design is just biblical creationism in cheesy, ill fitting lab coat. The only documentation for ID comes from a group that has been declared by a US court to be promoting a religious theory. And ID has not been published in the scientific literature to any extent. And the few papers that were published have been refuted.
A vast majority of scientists will believe that evolution occurred due to the overwhelming evidence, but if they are believers, see the guiding hand of god behind evolution. God cannot be used in science, so they keep such beliefs private, meaning outside of their published scientific works. Believing in evolution does not require one to be an atheist.
Posted by: tresmal | December 3, 2008 10:36 PM
I asked Keith what he would consider evidence for evolution and he came up with this:
Now Keith you're just being stupid. Let's see how many ways that is wrong:
1) Evolution does not predict or claim that speciation happens in single organisms, but that it is a multigenerational process.
2) A dog giving birth to a cat or vice versa (the usual creationist formation of this particular strawman) would be a disaster for the Theory of Evolution.
3) It would, in fact, be evidence of supernatural intervention in the natural world; a miracle.
4) Your example exhibits none of the features and processes underlying the Theory.
Your attempt at an answer was very revealing. Specifically it revealed that:
1) All your "knowledge" of evolution comes from creationist sources.
2) Despite your claims of proficiency in science, you really don't know a whole hell of a lot about it.
3) If you really were an atheist for 16 years, you weren't very good at it.
4) You are afraid to learn about evolution from the scientific perspective.
Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 10:39 PM
Nicely done Kel!
A few years back I went to the big dinosaur display at OMSI in Portland, Oregon, I remember standing by a T Rex model and thinking that with a few modifications you could have a giant chicken.
(OMSI - Oregon Museum of Science and Industry)
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 10:47 PM
Kel - maybe you should ask Steve C; he says that Evolution is how life came to be - and he's one of you!
Nerd ... - excellent, at last some clever humour - but you did miss a comma between the last two 'blah's'.
Wowbugger - just to return the constant mis-spelling of my surname! Also, 'we morons' are not the ones trying to silence 'the opposition' by making ridiculous claims of child-abuse. I notice that you also seem to have a fixation about 'lying' - is it because your parents finally told you that Father Christmas wasn't real? Oh, and don't even get me started on the murder that you call 'abortion'!
Emmet - but do you have knowledge of 'truth'?
Kel - I haven't made ANY assertions about science - just about untestable theories. Also if they both had a common ancestor, why would that mean that they cannot 'change back'?
John - the attempt has been made, and the result was definitely not in the same ball-park as that which has actually been observed. I cannot recall the actual figure - just that it was hundreds (maybe even thousands) of years.
All of you - it's quite time-consuming to respond to so many opponents. You don't seem willing to nominate a 'champion', and the 'novelty' of your noxious rantings is wearing thin - it was highly amusing, but hearing the same jokes over and over again dulls their impact. So, one final comment: It is the worst kind of fraud to claim that biology cannot function without the Theory of Evolution - which theory makes no predictions whatsoever! So, TTFG! Hurray, do I hear?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 10:49 PM
My first experience seeing a T-Rex was at the Field Museum in Chicago thirty some years ago. I was taking the afternoon off from a scientific meeting and wandering around the Museum. Turn a corner in the dinosaur area and there staring at me is a gaping T-Rex head. Quite the fright coming face to face with something that in its day could bite me in two. Took a few minuted for the ticker to get back to normal. This was long before the museum acquired Sue.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 10:52 PM
KA:
Antibiotic resistance.Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 10:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_971160
And here's another! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
KA, i don't believe you EVER ONCE responded to me. interesting since also you never took a look at the video demonstrations that show how wrong you are! You are an ignorant prat with no brain, and a mouth full of horse shit. Until you can prove that you aren't.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 3, 2008 10:54 PM
Keith, evolutionary theory predicts the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Which has happened. Another nail in your wrong concepts of evolution.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 11:03 PM
KA:
See here, in particular #14 of "Common Misconceptions Regarding Radiometric Dating Methods" in this Science in Christian Perspective article.Posted by: Patricia | December 3, 2008 11:07 PM
Ta, Ta yourself Keith. What a moron. D- in trolling.
I've read knitting patterns that gave me more excitement than your stupid ass remarks.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 11:08 PM
You said: The Theory of Evolution (and I am not referring to Natural Selection - a TRUE science) relies on spontaneous generation of life Well before Steve C came on the scene. Stop weaselling away from your own words. You've made assertions about the big bang theory, about abiogenesis and evolution all of which are false. You've completely misrepresented science because you have some old book of mythology that tells you we are God's golems.Are you going to show anywhere in scientific literature that states:
Evolution is very testable, it makes predictions on a variety of fronts and it has been confirmed countless times. How do you think we knew where to look to find Tiktaalik? You need rocks of the right age and the right type, we look in those rocks and BAM! intermediate between lobed-finned fish and tetrapods. We have two less chromosomes than our chimpanzee cousins, so we look in the genome and BAM! there's a pair of fused chimpanzee chromosomes, complete with their old telomeres and centromeres. Banana trees are introduced to Hawaii and within the last 1000 years a species of butterfly has emerged with a mouth that can feed on it. Nylon is synthesised and within 50 years there is bacteria feeding on the nylon.
How much more evidence do you need? Evolution has been observed countless times, and the evidence for common descent is overwhelming. Why is it our kidneys have two layers, one to take the salt out (a fish kidney) and another to put it back in? Why is it we have such a similar morphological structure to the other primates, and there is a gradual transition in the fossil record towards human life? Why are there Neanderthals, who speciated from us around 700,000 years ago?
If you don't want to believe any of that, fine. It's your life. But don't pretend to us that because you see it as untestable that it is untestable. Evolution makes many many many falsifiable predictions, it's how we have confirmed so much. We've found the fossils, we've looked at the building blocks, we've seen morphology, evolution is the only explanation that ties it all together because it makes predictions that match what we've found.
Posted by: llewelly | December 3, 2008 11:10 PM
Keith Allen:
From the Tiktaalik article:
Clearly you failed to read the Tiktaalik link Wowbagger generously found for you. The existence of a fossil like Tiktaalik, including a rough indication of what strata it would most likely be found in, was predicted by the theory of evolution, before it was found. Evolution has made many other similarly successful predictions, involving fossils of the lineages of horses, elephants, pigs, humans, whales, and hundreds of other animals.
Nor is that all. The theory of evolution predicted DDT would gradually become ineffective due to the evolution of resistance - and it did. After bedbugs became highly resistant to DDT in the 1930s, it was predicted other insects would also evolve resistance - which they did. Over the course of a few decades, the amount of DDT farmers required to control pests exploded by a factor of over 100 - and then they gave up and moved on. Similarly, malaria-bearing mosquitoes also evolved resistance to DDT, eventually making it useless. Pyrethoid pesticides have (so far!) been much longer-lasting, but nonetheless every so often new pyrethoid-family pesticides are required due to the evolution of resistance.
Much the same for antibiotics - the emergence of bacteria resistant to ethyromycin, vanomycin, and several other antibiotics was predicted before it occurred.
Posted by: Keith Allen | December 3, 2008 11:13 PM
"I try to get out and they pull me back in!" Seriously, I just realised how ill-mannered it was of me not to say 'thank you all' for a really fun time. However, I do 'have a life' - so I'll just wish you all a Merry Myersmas and a Happy New Billionsofyears!
Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 11:15 PM
"So, one final comment (we fucking Wish!): It is the worst kind of fraud to claim that biology cannot function without the Theory of Evolution - which theory makes no predictions whatsoever!"- look up interlocking complexity.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html
The actual papers:
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/gca?allch=&SEARCHID=1&VOLUME=3&ISSUE=5&FIRSTINDEX=0&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&gca=genetics%3B3%2F5%2F397&gca=genetics%3B3%2F5%2F422#3/5/397
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 11:16 PM
Again, liar! Liar liar with pants on fire! There's predictions about the fossil record, about the genetic code, about the morphology of animals, about the mechanisms of speciation, about the nature of mutations and how natural selection acts, about the spread of life on this planet, about hybridisation, and so much more. And this all has to fit in with the predictions made in earth science. It has to fit in with the laws of chemistry, and the laws of physics.There are so many ways of falsify evolution, the fact that it hasn't been falsified by now with millions of scientists working on it as our knowledge base has increased exponentially shows the strength of the theory. Why else would Neil Schubin go fossil-hunting in the Arctic circle in order to find a transitional form between fish and tetrapods?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 3, 2008 11:18 PM
Keith Allan, liar, wrote:
For the same reason an adult human cannot 'change back' into a baby - you imbecile.
I have a 'fixation' on lying? Well, most honest people - though, being a christian, I doubt you know many - have a distaste for lies and those who lie. I call you what you are - a liar.
Why? because you've lied - frequently and repetitively. You lied about what posters wrote, you've lied about the theory of evolution claiming to explain the origins of life and you've lied about the theory of evolution making no predictions. Heck, you've even lied about lying. I will continue to describe you as a liar as it is the correct term for one who lies.
Then there are the lies you tell yourself - the god of the bible is real, jesus existed and died on the cross, science gets it all wrong (except for the things it provides like technology and medicine) and that there's a big cover-up to pretend creationism doesn't have any basis in fact.
You are dependent on lies because - as Col. Nathan Jessup (a character as fictitious as your jesus, yet far more believable) said - you can't handle the truth. So you lie.
TTFG? Oh, I doubt it. You've done nothing but lie; you'll be back.
Posted by: John Morales | December 3, 2008 11:30 PM
RickrOll @1063, nice references.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 11:47 PM
you know, the bigger the addresses, i think the less those morons can ignore them. Thanks John, but i don't think i'll be learning the proper way to post links. This way is Much less subtle.
I just wish the wiki article were up to scratch.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 3, 2008 11:48 PM
Keith, please cite the research you disagree with and then explain why it is wrong.
Posted by: Kel | December 3, 2008 11:50 PM
Well that one is easily fixable. :PPosted by: RickrOll | December 3, 2008 11:52 PM
Hopefully Keith will pull a Nance and dissapear from the nets. God willing! ;) Sphere Coupler dissaperated from this place as well. I think we must be getting better at this. I just wish someone would take the time to knock John Shore down a couple of pegs... Ah well,
Posted by: minimalist | December 4, 2008 12:00 AM
Or maybe he'll pull a Kelly Tripplehorn.
(You may remember him from this)
I say this not because I genuinely wish Keith would decorate his squalid bedsit with his brains, but as a (rather obvious) reminder: pompous, grandiose behavior is usually a big red flag for deep-seated insecurities.
Posted by: Jack | December 4, 2008 12:00 AM
How uneducated about this controversy can you become?
How much of a religious bigot can you become?
Oh wait, I thought we were talking about Meyers, not Ham. Sorry.
Posted by: minimalist | December 4, 2008 12:07 AM
Who is "Meyers" and what does he have to do with anything?
Posted by: tresmal | December 4, 2008 12:10 AM
Just as we are waving goodbye to one troll...
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 12:13 AM
"Reminder: pompous, grandiose behavior is usually a big red flag for deep-seated insecurities."-Mini
- that's exactly what i said to A. Davidson on Aardvarcheology (he's still there, by the way-sockpuppeting of course!); what a neato coincidence! Although, i guess since i have read Jung, this may not be the strangest thing to consider in his case.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 12:15 AM
Jack was most likely being fascescious. RIGHT?! (nod and wimper)
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2008 12:32 AM
From the obit:
Well.
I have to admit, KA's relentlessly mocking and insipidly grandiose comments that skip all around common creationist talking points do kind of seem... rather manic.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 4, 2008 1:01 AM
Yikes, the apostrphe key on Keith Allen's keyboard must be worn out.
His CONSTANT use of CAPS and 'apostrphes' is MOST 'annoying'. Few people talk like they write and I hope for Keith's sakes he is one of those people. I couldn't stand to listen to someone who was either yelling or using his fingers as quotation marks for every other word.
Shoo, Keith. This blog deserves a better class of troll.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 1:08 AM
hey hey, Feynmaniac, you know one of the most potent troll baits is overuse of verbal inecticide! They love their crucifiction complex- don't feed that.
That being said...right on!
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 4, 2008 2:46 AM
Go away for a few hours and that brain damaged troll, Keith, takes up my offer and smears the walls with his own shit.
BLEAH!
Posted by: clinteas | December 4, 2008 5:02 AM
SIWOTI
http://xkcd.com/386/
This thread is now closed again.Amen.
Posted by: McDonogh | December 4, 2008 5:12 AM
Ken Ham = A master at exposing hypocrisy of the intolerant evolutionist! The truth brings pain and pain brings nasty comments to a man who brings the truth. The Bible proves right every time, repent and be saved from your sin which is taking you to hell. That is the heart behind Ken Ham. What is your heart other than chasing after that which you never saw happen and belive it.
Posted by: Romber | December 4, 2008 6:46 AM
Thanks for this Blog. Not only have you got much more publicity for the museum, you have made yourself look like a religious radical, who really cannot control their temper. I know he doesn't believe what YOU believe, doesn't mean you need to sink to a low. Maturity is something I expect from people who are "scientists" and you definitely fail to keep that image.
Posted by: John Morales | December 4, 2008 7:02 AM
#1082-3, you're pathetic. Go post on the current open thread where the derision of your ham is ongoing.
Bah.
Posted by: Kel | December 4, 2008 7:22 AM
empirical evidence please.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 4, 2008 7:27 AM
Lets see, the bible was written by men and predicts nothing except through exaggerated interpretation. Your god doesn't exist. The immaturity is shown by those unable to face these truths. Go to the front page where some Hamykens threads are running and face the full force of the blog if you have any cojones. Otherwise, go away.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 7:39 AM
Ken Ham is a fraud and a liar.
Please tell me one thing that Ken Ham has exposed.
Posted by: clinteas | December 4, 2008 7:40 AM
Ahem,
zombies,this thread is closed.
And resident evil zombie killers,this thread is closed.Your efforts are pointless,for the zombies are braindead drones,that can not compute the most simple intellectual concept,as for example,"i might be wrong".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 7:42 AM
Situational comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours is it?
Posted by: Steve_C | December 4, 2008 10:28 AM
What happened to Keith wanting to debate??? He never did answer my question. He really does like to project though.
Posted by: person22 | December 4, 2008 12:02 PM
Praise God He sent His Son to die for sinners like us! There will be a day when many will have to stand before Him and make account for their sins. Ken Ham will be one who God will say to, "Well done, my good and faithful servant".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 12:05 PM
Does "My good and faithful servant" translate to "lying dirtbag who corrupts the minds of children" in creospeak?
Posted by: Patricia | December 4, 2008 12:14 PM
Good and faithful servant = slave. Dumbass.
Posted by: person22 | December 4, 2008 12:20 PM
in your mind, yes. apparently. but what it really means? it means we will be held accountable for our actions. God has made it possible for our sins to be forgiven through His Son, Jesus Christ. are yours?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 12:25 PM
Why should I want the memory of a long dead probably mostly fiction character in book written decades after his alleged death to forgive me for things that I need no forgiveness for?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 4, 2008 12:30 PM
Uh, yeah, can you point to anybody who even learned for the 1st time about the creation museum from this kerfuffle? Let alone, can you demonstrate that any more are likely to go now than if the dual promotion had continued?
Thought not. Evidence and thinking are not the strong suits of creationists.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: phantomreader42 | December 4, 2008 2:14 PM
person22 @ #1091:
What sickening idiocy!
The concept of "sin" is meanningless, as it refers to transgression against abitrary and outdated laws enforced by an imaginary being.
Even if the above were not the case, the torture and death of an innocent person does nothing at all to eliminate the sins of others.
Even if it were possible to be forgiven by blood sacrifice, I have done nothing remotely evil enough to need such forgiveness.
And even if I had, I would not want it at the expense of an innocent human life.
I guess this just goes to show, yet again, how much more moral atheists are than christians. You lust for the blood of the innocent, while I do not. And yet you will fantasize about me being tortured without end, merely for daring to think for myself.
person22's continued idiocy:
No, there will not, for your imaginary friend does not exist. But if he did, I would tell him that nothing I did in my life was as vile as the countless acts of torture, opression, murder, and genocide his followers committed in his name. If he continued defending this madness, I would spit in his vile face. Your god is an imaginary monster. That is what you worship, a delusion that would be unworthy of your devotion even if it were real.
the mindless godbot yet again:
Such a senseless waste of human life, to take pride in being a slave to an imaginary tyrant who celebrates deceit. Ken Ham is a despicable fraud. You are just a pathetic hollow shell of a man. You have cast aside your humanity, traded your freedom, your conscience, and your intellect for a handful of nothing.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 4, 2008 2:21 PM
So what? Survival still happens. Why does it need a metaphysical meaning???
Not even. The (almost-)marsupial carnivores of South America died out shortly before the Great American Interchange, apparently at the same time as an impact off Argentina.
Till some 20 years ago, people liked to blame competition for everything without testing it. That wasn't science.
Fail.
The theory of evolution predicts that species change into similar ones, not into completely different ones. See comment 1051: a dog giving birth to a cat (without being a foster mother or something) would be evidence against the theory of evolution.
(BTW, on the Internet, using all-caps is considered shouting. Use HTML instead: <i> or <b>.)
Just wait for it.
You put the clown among the audience.
How does "God does exist" follow from "without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair"?
Logic -- ur doin it rong.
And besides, "without this belief/knowledge, there can be only hopelessness/despair" is not even correct. Two grave failures at logic in just one sentence. Bravo.
Wrong.
There are lots of fossils that haven't experienced any pressure at all. Look at the 115-million-year-old pterosaur skeletons from Brazil: they're still three-dimensional, with the hollow bones still circular in cross-section.
Stop talking about things you don't know anything about.
What did you imagine? Almost all of us, PZ included, grew up as believers and then deconverted.
"Eternal Rest to God", that is.
See comment 948. Apparently it's all just a story invented to teach lessons, such as "if you have Yahwe on your side, you win -- bigtime --, if not, you lose -- bigtime --, so always make sure you do what the priests tell you -- bigtime".
Have you ever been to the Internet, sir?
A troll is someone who comes into a discussion, says something he knows the other participants will find outrageous, and then sits back and laughs at their outraged reactions. Of course we believe in that sort of troll; we've seen such trolls with our own eyes several times -- some of them even admitted to being trolls.
I use "irrational" as the cover term for both; if you find the distinction necessary, what about "antirational" for what you call "irrational" and "irrational" what you call "non-rational"? After all, in- doesn't necessarily mean "against", often it just means "not".
We don't substitute them. We add them.
LOL! I'm stealing this. :-D
Dumbest argument I've ever seen. Look, Philistine, you're welcome to bring all your fellow ignorants over here to help you.
Wrong!
Evolution is not development. It does not have an inbuilt direction. Directional selection goes into whatever direction the environment determines. Reversals -- convergence on one's ancestors -- happen all the time.
However, reversals in all characters that have changed since a certain time are extremely improbable. Evolution can only work with what is there.
So, you're right for the wrong reasons.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 4, 2008 2:24 PM
I see we're still being tag teamed by IgnoranceRUsTM, makers of highly religious god/creobots.
Person22, if you have ever worn clothes with a polyester/cotton blend, when can we arrange for your stoning? Or is it now "go, and sin no more by keeping your mouth shut."
Posted by: Nick Gotts | December 4, 2008 2:35 PM
The (almost-)marsupial carnivores of South America died out shortly before the Great American Interchange, apparently at the same time as an impact off Argentina. David Marjanović, OM@1098
Do you have a reference, David? I hadn't heard that.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 4, 2008 2:41 PM
Hehe.
God creates us. Creates sin. Punishes us for his creation. Creates Son. Son dies horribly. Forgives us for the sin he created for us to commit. Judges us for sin which he created. Sends us to eternal torture if we don't love him and commit sin.
person22. your god is a dick. nonexistent but still a dick.
Posted by: Kel | December 4, 2008 3:34 PM
Wow, cool. Got that information from Life On Earth, so it's 30 years old and 20 years out of date :PPosted by: DT | December 5, 2008 5:03 AM
Myers,
If I met you in a bar, debating anyone, on any topic where I agreed with you 100%, and you spoke to our opponent in the same manner as you have in this blog entry, I assure you sir that I would end up grabbing you by the back of the head and bashing your face into the bar with enough force to break your teeth and nose.
Adults (and I use the term in the biological sense as emotionally you're 3) who behave as you do over a simple disagreement need their asses beat repeatedly until they learn to debate the topic but treat the human being with respect. This is the problem with debates over the Internet. You can say anything hurtful from the safety and comfort of your little hole. I guarantee you that in a public situation you would show more respect. Whether created or evolved, your survival instinct would tell you to watch your fucking mouth.
I sincerely hope that some day, some where, you disrespect the wrong person at the wrong time and receive a crash course lesson in what happens to arrogant asses like yourself when they fail to show civility and respect towards fellow human beings. You deserve it, and it would certainly do wonders for your personality.
P.S. If you are going to speak as you have in a public forum, please stop speaking about scientific matters. Your behavior is a disservice and an embarrassment to the scientific community. Rational adults do not behave like you do. If you want to be respected among adults, act like one.
Posted by: clinteas | December 5, 2008 5:12 AM
Ah,the hate-filled raging 5am drive-by troll is here....Time to make dinner then.
Posted by: John Morales | December 5, 2008 5:15 AM
DT @1103, you sound just like a Christian, with your hatred and threats. Despicable.
Oh yeah, you've just responded to a post written half a year ago. You're a bit slow, eh?
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 5, 2008 6:58 AM
Ah, yes. I am going to take advice about how to act like an adult from someone who thinks breaking someone's face is a rational, mature response.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 7:22 AM
If violence is required, call on the good christians. Forget about us atheists, we're a mild mannered bunch. So who is the real, mature adult?
Posted by: Kel | December 5, 2008 7:30 AM
The only thing not forgiven in Christianity is blasphemy, violence is okay because you are already a sinner anyway and jesus forgives all ;)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 5, 2008 7:49 AM
Oooooooooooooh. Mr Internet tough guy!
I love Mr. Internet tough guy.
Can your dad beat up his dad too?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 5, 2008 7:59 AM
DT,
You're a fucking hypocrite. You take a pseudonym so that no one knows who you are and try to intimidate by describing how you would violently beat them. Would you really do this in a public forum? Prove it. Tells us your real name and where you live to show how brave you really are. Otherwise shut the fuck up.
Posted by: clinteas | December 5, 2008 8:05 AM
Oh nooooooooooooooooozzzz !!!!!
Someone is wrong on the Internet !!!!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 5, 2008 12:58 PM
I'll look for one if I don't forget...
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 5, 2008 1:08 PM
Posted by: DT | December 5, 2008
Myers,
If I met you in a bar, debating anyone, on any topic where I agreed with you 100%, and you spoke to our opponent in the same manner as you have in this blog entry, I assure you sir that I would end up grabbing you by the back of the head and bashing your face...
Turning the other cheek, I see.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 5, 2008 1:13 PM
Janine, also a perfect follower of the Golden Rule. I guess DT wants somebody to beat him up of they disagree with DT in a bar.
Posted by: Don | December 5, 2008 1:18 PM
DT,
If I met you in a bar I would make you cry like a girl, using only a waxy Q-tip and mild sarcasm.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 5, 2008 1:31 PM
His dishonesty? His ignorance? His dedication to spending time and money on opposing science? His contempt for reason and rational argument? His delusion that he knows anything?
OK, that's 5 things. I could go on...
Ken Ham:
Posted by: Erik Loza | December 6, 2008 1:29 PM
I love you, P.Z., and you're wrong about evolution and God.
Posted by: Nes Will | December 6, 2008 1:32 PM
So sorry for all of your closed minded thinking and lack of simple intelligence. Creation is evidenced in the creation itself. I'm sure you recognize that a watchmaker made a watch and a watch would not just happen even if you had all the parts and they were tossed about in a box for millions of years. If someone created a watch, it is SIMPLE to deduce that the perfectly ordered universe is created. Even small children can see through the outdated fairy tale of evolution. You have rationalized yourselves out of the very intelligence you were born with. May the God of the universe enlighten your darkened minds. God Bless You.
Love you in Christ.
Posted by: Sastra | December 6, 2008 1:41 PM
Eric and Nes:
If you continue to make evolution a test for God to pass or fail, don't be surprised when God fails. In any test, there is a right and wrong answer. That's what makes it a test.
Yes, I know you "know" that God cannot fail. But that's only because you're not supposed to test God. You're testing God. Problem for you.
You're also coming in to a tremendously long thread that began in June, and has been 'dead' for a while. But suddenly Christian creationists are popping over. I'm curious as to how you found out about it. Is there some new link on a creationist site?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 6, 2008 1:45 PM
So sorry for all of your closed-minded thinking and lack of simple knowledge.
"Perfectly ordered"? Look again.
How do you explain Stupid Design, for example the fact that all known life uses DNA as the material of heredity, when DNA falls apart when stored in water and has to be repaired constantly?
Evidently.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 1:46 PM
Nes, circular reasoning shows both a lack of intelligence, and a lack of understanding on how science works. By the way, your god doesn't exist, Jesus is a myth, and the bible was written by men to subjugate other men.
Posted by: lili | December 6, 2008 2:11 PM
Very interesting stir of emotion!
I'm just jumping into this discussion, and I can plainly see that this creationist has generated much emotion from the group. I don't know the history behind this discussion, so what I'm wondering is, WHY so much vehemence? Has this Ken Ham person done anything besides stating a belief in a different theory of the origin of life?
There are weirdo, psycho-paranormal exhibits and museums that exist without as much commotion over their being.
What's the dialogue timeline?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 2:25 PM
Lili, there is no scientific evidence to back up Ken Ham's theory. In fact, there is an awful lot of scientific evidence for it being total wrong. For example, dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago, and man did not arise as homo sapiens until about 200,000 years ago. So Ham is off by quite a bit.
Ham tells a big lie when he states his theory it is about origins. He theory is about showing the bible is correct, which is a theological statement. Hence it is a religious theory. Scientists hate liars, since the worst professional offense is to deliberately lie to your colleagues.
Science can only be refuted by science. Religion cannot refute science, nor can science refute religion. By science can make religion look out of date by its findings.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 6, 2008 2:36 PM
Other museums the support views that are in fact pseudoscientific are in a substantial minority. Their very lack of influence means that they are relatively harmless.
In the United States of America, a large portion of the populace adheres to creationism, and rejects actual evidence-based science, and seeks to lower the standards for teaching biology so as to accommodate creationism.
Ken Ham panders to this large majority, and heads an organization that directly supports the rejection of evidence-based science and the lowering of educational standards. His actions are far more harmful than those of a more generic kook.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 2:36 PM
Ham lies, distorts and denies evidence and then pushes to have these ideas taught as fact. The end result being that children are not just being taught bad science when it comes to evolution, geology and other subject but also in how science and critical thinking works.
Posted by: Sastra | December 6, 2008 2:49 PM
lilli #1122 wrote:
No, that's mistaken. There's just as much commotion over "weirdo, psycho-paranormal exhibits and museums" which deal with other forms of pseudoscience. Skeptic groups attack all of them, out of a concern for the truth. The more public acceptance, the more attention they get. Depending on what's being promoted, scientists from the related field do indeed get involved. Witness the huge battle over "alternative medicine" being waged by rational scientists vs. the "let all views have equal credibility" promoters of quackery.
Pharyngula and other science blogs have also gone after folks like Deepok Chopra, 9-11 Truthers, or anti-vaccination loons, among others. It's not limited.
The reason Ken Ham and the Creation Museum is coming in for so much particular attention is that this blog focuses specifically on biological evolution, and Ken Ham has been getting far too much "official" recognition as simply having "a different theory of the origin of life." No he doesn't. 'Theory' is a scientific term.
Creationism is trying to ride to credibility on the coat-tails of Relative Ethics. "We all have our own views, and everybody's truth is just as good as everyone else's." Do I really have to tell you why that's a bad idea?
Posted by: CY | December 6, 2008 2:59 PM
Is it really worth all the time and effort spent criticizing one mere mortal? Surely we can put our energy and time towards a more useful endeavor. Just a thought...
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 6, 2008 3:01 PM
Well, Nes gets points for correctly spelling "closeD minded", but not for being educated.
"So sorry for all of your closed minded thinking and lack of simple intelligence. "
Not that I believe that you'll come back and answer, but what exactly is a "simple intelligence"? Is it anything like a simple mind? Does it have to do with how we have to accept God like a child? Well, we've put away our childish things, like that other Bible verse says.
Or is "simple intelligence" like "common sense", which is typically a code word for "thinking like I do". The trouble with common sense is that it tells us that the earth is flat, among other things. Common sense really is highly overrated.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 3:08 PM
If you go up and click on the Archives button you'll see plenty of criticism of others.
Or is it that you are not familiar with how blogs work? See each post has a topic. This post's topic is what a giant lying asshat Ken Ham is. If you'd prefer to read about other people or topics there are plenty of others out there and on this blog.
Perhaps a blog on Kittens?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 3:15 PM
This thread was essentially dead after 854 posts at the end of June. There have been over 260 posts since the zoo ticket controversy came out earlier this week. All because the creobots posting in this old thread instead of posting with the current stuff on the first page or two, which include a couple of Ken Ham threads. Someone must have done a cut/paste of the link to this old thread to give to his buddies.
Posted by: ozzy | December 6, 2008 3:28 PM
The real problem is the theory of evolution. And the proponents of it in these comments are certainly not leaving much doubt as to their utter lack of common decency. The absence of integrity that is required in a person to allow them to post such radically slanderous insults is shameful. How can a society operate in a meaningful, tolerant, and morally responsible manner when varied opinions, perhaps even heinous ones, are not responded to in a respectful and logical manner.
And the reason I say the theory of evolution is problematic comes from years of research in science and plenty of debate and discussion with both evolutionary and creationist scientists, all of whom are intelligent and thinking individuals, worthy of respect, though some of their theories, particularly evolution, I have eventually found to be generally lacking in sound logic.
You may disagree with Ken Ham, but his ideas absolutely do not warrant such disregard as they are being given above.
As for the idea of there being a God who created... it doesn't seem to me to be such a bad theory. It certainly has greater explanatory power than any other theory... and I mean ANY other theory. Therefore I would suggest it is at least worthy of consideration, and I'm not altogether convinced that anyone on this page has given it the time of day other than to needlessly bash it.
Perhaps consider the implications of how you live your life if a God exists and there is indeed a supernatural existence outside the natural.
The humanistic religious extremism flouted in the comments on this blog and in the blog itself strike me as a far greater danger to the stability and morality of our society than everything other than the deepest of Christian fundamental extremism, which I see as rare at best.
I plead with every one of you to peruse the necessary virtue of integrity as you openly examine the opinions you hold - are they based on truth or logic of any sort, or as the brazen vilification in the above comments suggests, are your opinions constructed by a mind bent on destroying truth regardless of the tactics it must resort to.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 3:35 PM
Ozzy, as a professional scientist of 30+ years I can say you don't show much understanding for scientific thought. There is no problem with evolution in science. There are over 100,000 papers supporting evolution, and no unrefuted papers backing any other theory, which is not even present in the literature. It doesn't get any better than that for scientific proof. Science has a lot of problems with idiots like Ken Ham who pretend to be scientific, but are just toadying the religious line for their own gain.
If you want to play, be prepared not to make vague accusations, but to cite the scientific literature.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 3:40 PM
What you fail to understand is that Ken Ham is a liar. A liar who pushes his lies as actual good science. He is corrupting the children that he pushes this on. When called on these lies, he lies even more. He deserves no respect for any he previously deserved he has pissed away.
Yes and the entire sceintific community is wrong because of your singular research. Um no thanks. I'll take the tens or hundreds of thousands of publshed papers dealing with the various disciplines that are invovled with evolution that continue to support and build upon the theory.
If you are taking Ken Ham's word on anything as fact, youa re a fool.
Yes, if you insert "god did it" into anything you then don't actually have to do the work finding out what really is going on. You can explain anything with God, you'd just be lazy and wrong.
And you have no idea what you are talking about.
A meaningless phrase
Yes it is dangerous to hold people's feet to the fire to be honest and to continue to ask that those who want to educate our children do so with the best tools available. Creationism not only not being a good educational tool but not being an educational tool at all. If you don't see religious extremism but rarely, you aren't looking. Ken Ham is a good example.
Projection defined.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 6, 2008 3:43 PM
Legal FAIL. Slander is spoken; it is libel that is written.
More to the point, though, is that it isn't libel if it is true.
For example, if I were to call you a LIAR for writing the above, it would not be libel, because you have obviously not studied science or evolution at all; else you would not be writing that it was "lacking in sound logic".
I'm afraid they do. Did you see the picture from the Creation Museum posted at #1116?
Ken Ham deserves far more disrespect and disregard than he currently receives.
And again, you're pathetically wrong. A "scientific theory" must be in accord with the evidence. There is no evidence for a God or Gods.
Again, a lie. I do no such thing.
Indeed, I could partially reverse the claim: It is you, and all your fellow believers, that live your lives as if God is imaginary.
Your concern is so noted.
Right back at you.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 3:44 PM
for should be and
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 6, 2008 3:56 PM
"And the proponents of it in these comments are certainly not leaving much doubt as to their utter lack of common decency."
So you're a completely shallow thinker with no actual reasoning behind your position and thus you would rather attack our tone than our substance. Thanks for clearing that up from the outset. It sure explains why you think a god is actually a compelling explanation for anything.
"Perhaps consider the implications of how you live your life if a God exists and there is indeed a supernatural existence outside the natural."
You mean how the universe would look different if there was a god? Or how it would look if there wasn't? Frankly, I doubt you've really given any thought as to what the difference would be.
Or is this just another version of the Big Daddy threat? If we have a god watching over us, we should be watching our backs. Well once again, I must ask: What is it that you think we're doing that is so horrible that we don't want to be held accountable for it?
"The humanistic
Do you have a problem with humans?
" religious extremism flouted in the comments on this blog and in the blog itself strike me as a far greater danger to the stability and morality of our society than everything other than the deepest of Christian fundamental extremism, which I see as rare at best."
How? Again, what is it that we do that is so bad? Is it really that we're just not showing enough deference to some mellifluous being that hasn't given us reason to believe in it? You speak of integrity; well, we have the integrity not to fall in worship of a god that has not given us reason to believe he/she/it exists, let alone that he/she/it requires worship or deference.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 6, 2008 4:09 PM
ozzy,
Unfortunately science isn't about "explanatory power", it's about predictability power. Of course saying "God did it" can "explain" everything, but what does it predict? If people pray for someone to get better and they do it's because God wanted it. If they don't God didn't want it. You can always twist things to say "God did it". The problem is there's not way to falsify the idea.
There's nothing particularly special about saying God. You can easily say that Yahweh, Allah, the Greek gods, Santa, the Easter bunny, etc. are responsible. Saying invisible being X did it isn't right, it isn't even wrong. It's unfalsifiable. Therefore it's not science.
As for creationism, it is falsifiable and is dead wrong.
Posted by: Creationist by design | December 6, 2008 5:14 PM
After reading the comments on this blog I wondered why their seems to be so much anger and hate in the responses and then it came to me : "The things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man". Matthew 15:18
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 5:18 PM
Quoting scripture proves nothing more than your ability to read and type... and maybe turn on a computer.
yawn
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 5:20 PM
Creationist by design, you are essentially repeating our last few clients. By the way quote the unholy man made scripture on an atheist blog is sure to garner you points--but in the negative direction.
Please cite the proper scientific literature to show that creationism is even mentioned in the scientific literature. Otherwise, there is a scientific theory with a huge volume of physical evidence behind it, versus a bad idea trying to force fit facts to fit a myth. Why do you believe the latter?
Posted by: Kel | December 6, 2008 5:30 PM
No, it's entirely to do with the fact that creationists commit the scientific equivalent of holocaust denial and do so without evidence.
Posted by: Cathie | December 6, 2008 7:48 PM
"Theory" of evolution is exactly what it says: A THEORY!That means it is a guess. IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC!! Science is when you can duplicate something in a controlled setting, and the result will be the same each time. If we evolved why has no one found even one piece of evidence of transitions when their should be millions? You know why people don't want to believe the truth? Because they are afraid they would have to give up the sinful lives they live. You can call me (a Bible Believing Baptist) a nut if you like but If I'm wrong no big deal, if you're wrong......
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 7:54 PM
Cathie, a scientific theory is an idea backed by a substantial amount of facts. First lie. For example, do you wish to try to go against the theory of gravity? The theory of evolution is scientific, and this is shown by hundreds of thousands of scientific papers backing it up. Lie two. Transitions are found all the time. Lie three. You are a baptist and believe in an imaginary god. Lie four. You're out as just another Liar for JebusTM.
The IgnoranceRUsTM christian schools is definitely tag teaming us. PZ, it may be time to close this thread.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 8:03 PM
Thanks for dropping by Cathie. you's displayed an incredible amount of ignorance and poor logic in that little rant of yours.
you don't have even a shred of a clue about what a scientific theory is.
Again, not a clue.
What is "the trurth"? and What is "sin"?
of course she's going to have Pascal's Wager
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 6, 2008 8:04 PM
Awww. I think Cathie's kind of cute. Just a theory, no transitionals and a bonus Pascal's wager to boot. It's a winning combo!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 8:05 PM
you's = you've
trurth = truth
man typos are flying tonight
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 6, 2008 8:07 PM
I'd also like to go on record as calling Cathie (a Bible Believing Baptist) a nut.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 8:08 PM
man typos are flying tonight
I know the feeling. At least the Mac at home does an on-the-fly spellcheck.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 8:13 PM
The bad part is, firefox does it for me as well. I just chose to ignore it I guess.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 8:15 PM
Oh, i just got a firefox mozilla, so maybe if i post through that, i wouldn't look like a person who is angrily poasting during electroshock thereapy (funny on multiple levels)?
Posted by: Kel | December 6, 2008 8:17 PM
Poe?Just to play devils advocate. Gravity is a theory, therefore gravity is not scientific. It's just a guess. Germ theory is just a theory, it's not scientific to say germs cause illness, it's just a guess. Electromagnetism is a theory. It's not scientific to say electrical devices work, it's just a guess. I mean, electron flow? What are scientists smoking?
Theories are the processes under which science works, they are not "guesses", they are hypothesises that have undergone rigorous testing and falsification. They have made predictions that have turned out to be true. Facts in science are the observations. For gravity: the apple falls to the ground is an observation. The attraction between the apple and the earth is the explanation for that observation - it's the theory of gravity.
Likewise evolution has observed facts: fossil record, genetic variation, observed mutation, observed selection, observed speciation. These are the facts that are there to work with. The theory is what explains those facts together. Tiktaalik in the fossil record 375 million years ago is a fact. The emergence of life on land from lobed finned fish to amphibians then reptiles is the theory.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 6, 2008 8:20 PM
Not to mention they predicted where they would find a creature like Tiktaalik, and sure as shit they did.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 8:21 PM
let's test this thing out! success. Huzzah, i have reclaimed my scattered IQ points from the internets!
And yes, definitely poe.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 6, 2008 8:31 PM
I did some research and figured it out. On Ken Ham's blog,
Strange. He complains about "censorship" but doesn't allow comments on his blog. Then he links to a blog that does allow comments so that his followers can be heard.
Posted by: Kel | December 6, 2008 8:38 PM
Yeah, the discovery of Tiktaalik is a triumph of the predictive nature of the scientific method across disciplines. Just think that nuclear physics, geology and palaeontology all combined to give the data of where to look, and the discovery fits not only with with the timeframe of the fossil record but the morphology of such a creature as predicted by evolutionary theory. This is the kind of form that Darwin predicted 150 years ago and it was exactly where it should be on a geological scale. Talk about the triumph of an idea!Then there are the intermediate forms that link terrestrial mammals to whales. Again just as Darwin had predicted. There are transitional forms between reptiles and mammals that there is disagreement over they are mammalian-like reptiles or reptilian-like mammals. There's transitional forms between apes and humans that some scientists wanted to put in the Australopithecus category and others wanted to put in the homo erectus category. There is a transition from small fox-like creatures to modern day horses, there's are transitional forms from dinosaurs to birds.
All of these exist at the right time in the fossil record, yet none of them should even exist if creationism were true.
Posted by: Kel | December 6, 2008 8:44 PM
http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2007/fstdt-evolution-fossils.jpg
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 8:45 PM
Why is it strange that Ken Ham is a hypocritical fucktard? Sorry, the sarcasm is lost on me since it is quite past now how much Stupid is present within the brains of losers such as Ham.
He isn't the only one that censors dissent, but the man i have in mind is far worse; he behaves as if he has done nothing and operates under a false reputation of intellectual honesty and openness. Lying by omission is lying, no two ways about it. Funny because he takes offense at precisely that he Does behave this way, apparently: http://johnshoreland.com/2008/12/02/from-a-john-tesh-nod-to-me-being-gnawed/#comments
Posted by: clinteas | December 6, 2008 8:59 PM
Oh nooooz children,are you playing in the basement again???
@ 1154,
I fail to see the surprise with that.
Cathie is one of the nicest,purest examples of a braindead christo-zombie Ive seen for a while,we should archive a few posts like this somewhere,and play them to new readers who come to Pharyngula never knowing what sort of Resident Evil-like place the USA really is.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 9:06 PM
Feynmaniac, thanks for finding the link to this thread. That explains all the drive-bys on this old thread.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 6, 2008 9:16 PM
Well, i know one super-christo person who won't be coming back (despite having said she would): Nance! You guys remember her, don't ya!
She was so 'appalled' by our behavior that she says her kids will never accept being atheists because, and this is a quote:
"I was going to respond to the thread when I had a free moment last week, but my kids read the thread and were so disgusted with the intolerance and hate they displayed toward someone, for nothing more than holding an opposing view. I decided it was fruitless anyway. Dawkins has convinced them all that we are delusional anyway, right? Ultimately, it is not cleverly crafted arguments or "evidence" that convinces, it is the character of the man, or woman. Their character convinced my kids that they do NOT want to be Atheists."
"I try to remember that we all are naturally hateful murders at heart as Scripture says. Without the saving grace of Christ creating us anew you and I could very easily react in turn. If we really think about it, they cannot be faulted for behaving out of their nature. It is easy to be arogant, rude and intolerant."
------
Sad, then hilarious. Do feel free to spend some time there and spread some solstice cheer! http://womenintheword.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/cultivating-faithfulness/
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 6, 2008 9:22 PM
RickrOll, interesting news about Nance. I think she just can't see herself as intolerant as she claims us to be. Of course, the imaginary deity is on her side. The pot calling the kettle black.
Posted by: clinteas | December 6, 2008 9:24 PM
Hm,a gem from that blog:
Talk about brain fail.
Posted by: Creationist by design | December 7, 2008 1:21 AM
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousnes, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.Romans 1:18-22
That passage explains why so many reply with such anger and bitterness towards men like Ken Ham. It is because you have suppressed the truth and you're hearts are hard.
Science is the discovery of Gods handiwork which God has foretold even before man discovered it.
Examples: #1 "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7),(written over 3000 years ago.)Science didn't discover that until 1650. #2 "Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3 (written about 2000 years ago) Science only recently discovered the invisible atoms. #3 "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). written around 700 B.C. Up until the late 1400s science believed the world was flat. The Bible is not a book of fairytales and myths. In case you're thinking "yes it is", the Bible also talks about: The science of oceanography = Psalm 8:8, Radio waves = Job 38:35, Entropy = Isaiah 51:6, Psalm 102:25,26 and Hebrews 1:11, The water cycle = Ecclesiastes 1:7, The first law of thermodynamics = Genesis 2:1, The "Cycle" of air currents = Ecclesiastes 1:6, Air mass = Job 28:25.
These are just a few of the things the Bible mentions, written thousands of years before "science" discovered them.
We also have the issues of morality and personality and the Bible explains all of that logically, in a verifiable, historical context that coincides with reality.
That brings us back to what I mentioned at the beginning. Those who reject God do so because they do not want to be held accountable to their Creator,so they say "I don't believe in God" That is like saying "I don't believe in gravity and then jumping out of an airplane from 10,000 feet. Believe it or not, but the TRUTH is if you are reading this, you are "created in the image of God" Genesis 1:27 and you can be reconciled to Him through Repentance and Faith. to find out more about that go to www.repentanceandfaith.org In the end It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is what is true!
Jesus said:"I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6
May God open your heart.
A little added information: Newton,Faraday,Maxwell,Kelvin,Boyle,Dalton,Ramsay,Ray,Linnaeus,Mendel,Pasteur,Steno,
Woodward,Brewster,Agassiz,Kepler,Galileo,Herschel and Maunder,just to name a few of the great scientists of the past were creationists, not evolutionists.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 7, 2008 1:24 AM
creotard by design, argument from authority= fail.
*SNORE*
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 7, 2008 1:36 AM
No it does nothing of the sort. We reply to Ken Ham with outrage because he is a professional liar for Christ who distorts, denies and lies about the actual science being done that supports evolution.
you are but another fool in his flock.
Meaning exactly zero when discussing Evolution.
Show the work of those men in "creation science" denying evolution.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 7, 2008 1:38 AM
It's getting late but that is one of the DUMBEST things I've read all day.
We know gravity exists. We can demonstrate it working.
Show me god exists.
What is the TRUTH? Is it different than the Truth or the truth?
Posted by: Kel | December 7, 2008 1:46 AM
Nope, it's purely because Ken Ham deliberately lies and misleads about science to people who don't know there, then we get a barrage of ignorant fools who think that "have you ever seen a cat turn into a dog?" or "were you there?" are adequate arguments to destroy 150 years of science.Posted by: Wowbagger | December 7, 2008 2:00 AM
I stumbled across a page in the SAB that deals explicitly with how science is presented in the bible. Paints a far better picture about how much (or, more accurately, how little) the judeo-christian god seemed to know about how the universe works.
Go here and be ready to laugh.
Posted by: Jeremy | December 7, 2008 5:56 AM
Hahahaha,
This site reads like it was written by a bunch of six year olds.
Far out.
I wish I could have the balls to bag some guy out for thinking something. (Which was just how Darwin thought, something different to many of other people)
'I hate you because I don't understand you'- the summary of all insults.
The religion of Evolution doesn't understand Creation because of they're foundations.
The religion of Creationist's doesn't agree with Evolution as it has different foundations.
Neither will wilt to the other unless something truly endangers them, and sometimes not even after this, i.e Martyrs. (But I've never heard of Evolutionist martyrs)
The movements will not change because of the other. Only the individuals experiences change their movements.
Science is Greek for 'knowledge'. So don't say science disagrees with either, only individual interpretations.
Laters
Posted by: RickrOll | December 7, 2008 6:06 AM
well at least jeremy is just a drive-by fucktard. As long as he doesn't stay, i don't think we even have to consider the fact that he even said anything at all.
Posted by: clinteas | December 7, 2008 6:13 AM
braindead troll @ 1169,
So idiot is Spanish for dimwit?
I see.
Posted by: John Morales | December 7, 2008 6:19 AM
Jeremy @1169, your comment is a paradigm of incoherent ignorance.
I take it you consider this uninformed, semi-literate claim to be profound.BTW, "Science" comes from Latin, not Greek.
The rest of your post you got egregiously wrong.
Posted by: Steve | December 7, 2008 9:21 PM
I imagine you all sound just like the people many years ago, who felt nothing was wrong with slavery either. You say Ken Ham and "all the other brainwashed people" have no clue, yet it's all of you who are brainwashed and so closed minded that you are too scared to actually think outside of the box and to look at any other facts - even when they're staring you in the face. If our country was filled with people like all of you (pessimistic, and closed minded) hundreds of years ago, you would not have the freedoms you so flagrantly flaunt around today as one sided intelligence (which is really just arrogance, and blatant fear of your own limitations).
May God have mercy on all of you.
Posted by: Kel | December 7, 2008 9:25 PM
Again with the closed-minded insult? Can you people please learn the meanings of the words you type?
If you have facts against evolution, bring them to the table. For it's with facts that this battle is won or lost. It's nothing about belief, it's nothing about preconceived notions, the idea of evolution will be determined by empirical evidence to support it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 7, 2008 9:26 PM
Heh. Projection, once again.
Have you ever even opened a biology book?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 7, 2008 9:27 PM
Steve, fuck you too for your last sentence. That is all it says to atheists.
Now, what is your point? We aren't open minded? As a scientist I have to be open minded. Keep in mind though, the mind can't be so open it falls out, and I have a good BS meter. Ken Ham sets off my BS meter big time. I, also like the CSI shows, have to follow the evidence. There is a vast amount of physical evidence for evolution, but none for creationism. Not even proof for god. So, if you ever get physical proof for god or creationism, stop back as your second stop with the info. The first is to send it to a scientific journal for publication.
Posted by: llewelly | December 7, 2008 9:38 PM
Obvious nonsense. It is the Christians who are always prating on and on about how clean and pure their thoughts are. Obviously it is their brains which have been washed. Ever meet an atheist who didn't have a dirty mind? No of course not.Posted by: Wowbagger | December 7, 2008 9:48 PM
Steve the dangerously woo-addled wrote:
People who felt there was nothing wrong with slavery? Do you mean christians? Have you even read the bible? Or a history book?
Why don't you have a quick read of this Wikipedia section, helpfully titled Christian advocacy of slavery and get your ignorant self a little up-to-date with what your brothers-in-faith were about.
Unless you're a Quaker, 'cause those guys - hated by many mainstream christian sects, and persecuted by them in pilgirm times - actually did something about it.
Posted by: tresmal | December 7, 2008 9:49 PM
FWIW I checked Creationist by Design's Bible science facts. I'm sure you will all be surprised to learn its one big ass FAIL. Example:
"The first law of thermodynamics = Genesis 2:1"
leads to:
"2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." SAB
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 7, 2008 10:00 PM
Tresmal, Needless to say that scripture quote wasn't on the syllabus when I taught general chemistry many moons ago. Nor would the student find that as an answer on our multiple choice tests. You have to work hard to be that stupid.
Posted by: Jay | December 8, 2008 2:47 AM
I am sure you do not have the guts to put this out as you are so tolerant. I am astonished with what kind of words you come up. As I always say, people who talk and act like this are usually in defense mode because they know they are wrong. If you have the right arguments you do not need to act like this.
I feel petty for you, Sir, but one day, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that he is Lord. Your bow will be hard but you will bow. Then you can talk about the scientific proof of your theory that does not uphold what you think it is.
I will pray for you and believe me, you need lots of prayers!
Posted by: scooter | December 8, 2008 3:00 AM
Nice sentence, dude.
Damn straight.
I'll pray to that.
ominie bominie bibbidie bobbibie....
hold on
who are praying for again?
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 8, 2008 3:01 AM
Jay, funny how you seem to think that all comments have to be approved by PZ. You come here condemning us yet you know nothing about us.
Oh! Wait! You have THE TRUTH to back up your babble. No need to know what we think. Boring and dull little praying troll. But I think this typo says everything we need to know about you.
I am sure you feel very petty.
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2008 3:05 AM
Jay @1181:
Lemme guess, you're accustomed to blogs that censor comments, right?This is PZ's blog. Free speech. Not like where you come from.
Truer words were never written.Posted by: Travis | December 8, 2008 3:06 AM
Jay: I'm not sure what you mean by the first line. PZ doesn't screen the posts on here as far as I know and does not ban people very often (he keeps a list, for the number of readers and posters on here it is quite short). Compare that to most well known creationist/ID blogs and I think you will find the numbers very different and altogether less reasonable. So unless you start doing the behavior he lists in the dungeon I think you will find PZ to be quite open to allowing your posts.
That said, I am sure some people are going to be quite rough on this one. Statements about people being in defense mode, in being unfair and mean rarely are a good way of going about making a point. In your post you don't really give any reasoning as to why he was so wrong. Also, you don't give any information about why scientific evidence (I would use evidence not proof, proof in the sense of absolute proof does not really exist in science) does not uphold his theory, by which I assume you mean evolution. What evidence contradicts evolution? Thousands of scientists have been working in this area for a very long time, if such breakthrough research has been done they would love to know. I very much doubt anything you have heard as to why it is wrong holds up. People here and elsewhere have dealt with most arguments many, many times already and so far none have passed. A new argument could be fun at least.
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2008 3:07 AM
Janine, :)
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 8, 2008 3:10 AM
AUTOFAIL
Yes, you are WRONG.
Typo? Or inadvertent honesty?
Who is "he"? Ken Ham?
You FAIL at either grammar or theology or both.
You are WRONG.
Typo? Or Freudian slip?
Grammar FAIL.
I will taunt you because you are so very tauntable, and believe me, you need lots of taunting.
Prayer is useless.
Posted by: Travis | December 8, 2008 3:11 AM
Also, I think your issue with the strong language PZ uses in describing Ken Ham does not take into account that he has now earned those names. Nothing new and interesting has ever come out of him, he has had his chance and still decides to spread lies he either knows are lies or should know they are. If this was a first discussion of Ken Ham I think it would be unreasonable but this is far from the case.
Posted by: llewelly | December 8, 2008 3:18 AM
Indeed. You should pray for every post in this thread. For at least 10 minutes each. Don't be afraid. That's only about 8.25 days. You have tough knees. Your faith is strong.Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 8, 2008 7:11 AM
Okay, I am not a great writer but at least I can construct a coherent sentence. That puts me ahead of all of Ham's followers who have come here. Honestly, I've seen better grammar and sentence structure on YouTube comments.
I thought Ken Ham didn't allow comments on his blog because he didn't want to hear dissenting opinions. Now I'm beginning to believe, in addition to that, Ken Ham just didn't want to be reminded that his followers were a bunch of semi-literate cretins.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 8, 2008 7:27 AM
And I'll be yo-yoing for you. Essentially getting the same result, except I'll know how to yo-yo.
Posted by: Janet | December 8, 2008 9:53 AM
PZ Meyers, for you to think that Ken Ham fits this discription rather than yourself when you write "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" for believing the propaganda promoted by the Elitests of the Religion of Evolution is amazing. Evolutionary Religion already owns the main stream media, promotes science fiction as science on the televison stations, and owns the Publc School Educators. The only reason I can think of is that for you to behave in such a manner is your Evolutionary priests are running scared.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 8, 2008 9:59 AM
Meaningless phrase concocted by projecting ignoramuses.
How does a scientific theory own anything?
Fixed
Again explain how a scientific theory "owns" anything.
What is an evolutionary priest? Or is it just more of your projection?
Janet. Please provide some research disproving evolution.
Posted by: clinteas | December 8, 2008 10:01 AM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 8, 2008 10:18 AM
The evolution religion comment is hoot. Sheer ignorance. Lets see, a religion needs a god, a holy book, some theology, a place to worship, and a way of collecting tithes.
Evolution is science, which means it ignores god, if god exists. Strike one. There is no holy book, not even the scientific literature. It can't be a holy book because the contents are constantly changing. Strike two. Since there is no holy book, there can't be a theology. Strike three, your out. Also no place to worship and no tithes. Time to trot back to the dugout as you fanned on three pitches.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 8, 2008 10:33 AM
Well, one might metaphorically say that a scientific theory owns the evidence, and the truth, as best we know it.
Fransisco Ayala?
(*badum-tish!*)
I also want to point out that using the term "religion" as an insult implies that the speaker has no respect for religion in general.
Nice foot-shooting going on there...
Since I named the overflow thread title last time, I just want to propose "Ken Ham whines in my general direction" this time around.
Or "Ken Ham obeys my every whim". Note the last paragraph of the original post. Heh.
Posted by: catgrrly | December 8, 2008 11:10 AM
Myers must be in collusion with Ken Ham of the Creation Museum -- why else would PZM have gone to such lengths to generate such a massive amount of free publicity and sympathy for him and his cause?
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 8, 2008 11:18 AM
Catgrrly, are you saying that if no one said anything about the Creation riding bareback on the Cincinnati Zoo's good name, that nothing would have come of it?
And, sorry, the only people who have sympathy for Ham are those deluded or dumb enough to already be his followers.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 8, 2008 11:18 AM
the only sympathy being created is by the same people who were sympathetic before.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 8, 2008 11:29 AM
Boy, these creobots will say anything to try to appear the aggrieved party. It is very amusing watching them lie.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 8, 2008 11:32 AM
Actually, every time creationists come here and post about how PZ Myers is a bad, naughty, wicked man... A cash register goes "*ching-ching*", and PZ gets some money. A small amount of money, true, but that's web ad revenue for you.
So creationists are generating money for PZ!
Heh.
Posted by: Jay | December 9, 2008 2:59 AM
Well, I hear your screaming and yelling. I see your way of talking to opponents. What if you are right? Well, you would return to be mush again, right, because, hey at the end of this life there is nothing. So live every day as if it would be your last.
What if I am right? Well I would go to heaven. Maybe we can talk then? Oh no, we can't!!! Sorry, you will be confined to another place where there is not much fun to enjoy! Sorry, about that bro. Well we will both find out! If you are right, you had a good life and I "wasted" mine with praying and worshipping the creator God.
If I am right, you will have ample lot of time to think about the trash you believe in. So create your own mud and then create life for me. When you are done, let me know but until then, use your brain to think about the crap you believe in.
Cheers!
Posted by: RickrOll | December 9, 2008 3:04 AM
There are OTHER RELIGIONS Jay. You are just as likely to be wrong as the rest of us! You GOING TO HELL BOY! And that is MUSLIM HELL, to be sure! you better be in this for the long haul.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 9, 2008 3:21 AM
Damn, there's nothing more hilarious than spotting a recent re-booting of a mostly-dead thread and then going there to find that it's a couple of woo-addled nitwits who have crawled out from under one of Jesus's sandals to spew barely-coherent drivel at us.
This is gold! Please, Jay, continue; you're a comic genius. And Janet - let's not forget Janet, she who called us the 'Elitests of the Religion of Evolution', demonstrating that she doesn't know the meaning of either 'religion' or evolution, or how to spell 'elitists'. But I guess only an elitist would know how to spell the word. That's how we can tell one of our own...
Posted by: Kel | December 9, 2008 3:28 AM
Ahh, pascal's wager. Because there are an infinite combinations of what the afterlife could be, chances are you've picked the wrong religion to begin with.
Religion is like lotto in that respect, but instead of a 1 in 423543120 of being right, you have a 1 in infinity shot. When you pick a religion, all you are doing is looking at what other people guessed and going along with them. You or anyone else doesn't really know, it's just hoping that someone else has the answer. So when that answer contradicts everything we know about reality, it's pretty much certain you've picked the wrong religion. Sorry Jay, the correct answer was Baal.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 9, 2008 3:40 AM
It was Baal? FUCK!!!! I had Juno!
Posted by: Kel | December 9, 2008 4:01 AM
I hear you aren't the only one to have Juno, but the girl decided not to abort.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 9, 2008 4:41 AM
The HELL you would, Mr. Smug.
Read your damn bible.
You only get into heaven if God says you get into heaven.
If God decides, on a whim, to damn you to HELL, then to HELL with you.
What we believe in is based on the evidence of the universe itself. So what you're actually saying is that God created the universe as one big giant lie.
You might want to think real carefully about how much sense it makes to pray to and worship a God that you are absolutely certain is a liar.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 9, 2008 4:59 AM
"I hear you aren't the only one to have Juno, but the girl decided not to abort."
That's why i wanted to say Krishna instead. But i thought it too obvious.
As an atheist, why wouldn't i say Kali? Now, There's an interesting choice!
Posted by: CosmicTeapot | December 9, 2008 5:59 AM
Frankenstein used electricity to breathe life into his creation, but the creotards used stupidity to bring this thread back to life.
Look out creotards, this monster you created is going to stomp on you.
Run Janet, run.
Run Jay, run.
Posted by: Creationist by design | December 9, 2008 9:07 AM
In response to "Tresmal" post# 1179. As for your comment that Genesis 2:1 is a fail. You should do a little bit more research before you conclude that the Bible is wrong, please let me clarify this for you.
The Scriptures say, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them"(Gen. 2:1) The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished"-once and for all. That is what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. This law which often times referred to as the Law of the conservation of Energy and/or Mass states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. It was because of this law that Sir Fred Hoyle's "Steady-State"(or "Continuous Creation") Theory was discarded. Hoyle stated that at points in the universe called "irtrons," matter(or energy) was constantly being created. But, the First Law states just the opposite. Indeed, there is no "creation" ongoing today. It is "finished" and that is exactly what the Bible says.
God Bless.
Posted by: Stanton | December 9, 2008 9:13 AM
Last I heard, the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics had nothing to do with the Book of Genesis (or any other book of the Bible), and the Book of Genesis had nothing to say about Thermodynamics, either, contrary to what Creationists have been babbling about for decades.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 9, 2008 9:23 AM
Gee whiz, more illogic from someone who believes the bible has something to say about science. And of course, gets it all wrong. Then he quotes Fred Hoyle and the disproved steady state theory. What a way to be taken seriously. Just pile on the stupid. Works every time--not.
CBD, time to crawl back under your rock and let the big boys play. Maybe if you study for five years and finally learn some real science, they, including me, will listen to you.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2008 9:25 AM
You could interpret that to mean many things. The bible says a lot of nonsense that can be interpreted to say anything you want it to. Quoting scripture is a waste of time. Show empirical evidence.
How long ago was creation?
yawn
Posted by: AV | December 9, 2008 9:30 AM
I will pray for you and believe me, you need lots of prayers!
Appeal to consequences fail. If you actually had anything i the way of substantial evidence to offer in support of the claims of your religion, you wouldn't need to issue threats in a vain effort to convince us.
Oh . . . that's right. "Our hearts are hard." (FYI: that's an appeal to emotion fail.)
Posted by: AV | December 9, 2008 9:34 AM
@1212
Last I heard, the 3 Laws of Thermodynamics had nothing to do with the Book of Genesis (or any other book of the Bible), and the Book of Genesis had nothing to say about Thermodynamics, either, contrary to what Creationists have been babbling about for decades.
But it does! If you tilt your head to the right angle and squint your eyes.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 9, 2008 10:17 AM
After repeatedly being shown the whole "the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution" argument is wrong "Creationist by
designstupidity" has now moved on to the first law. I can't wait until I hear how the third law proves God. My guess, entropy approaches a minimum as temperature approach zero because hell is real hot and a place of disorder.Creationist by
designstupidity, YOU should do some read the bible. Leviticus 11:13-19 call bats birds. Leviticus 11:6 says "...and the hare, because he cheweth the cud." even though hares don't chew cud. Matthew 13:31-32: "The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed... is the smallest of all seeds but when it is grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree." Mustard seeds aren't the smallest seeds, mustard plants aren't a shrub and mustard plants aren't a tree.1 Kings 7:23 implies pi is exactly 3. Ahmes ca. 1650 BC got the estimate of pi to 3.16, The bible is behind 17th century BC mathematics! Hardly a source of modern science, the bible seems to be even behind the science of its day.
God could have easily stated explicitly the laws of thermodynamics. The people of the time wouldn't understand it you say? How can a god who's omnipotent not explain simple science?
You can play this game where you twist the meaning of the story to mean something it quite clearly doesn't with any old text. The Poetic Edda predicts global warming. The Iliad shows the Theory of Relativity. The The Upanishads is a text on quantum mechanics. Using the twisted reasoning you showed I could easily "prove" all those statements.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 9, 2008 10:49 AM
But the bible verse implies a static and unchanging universe, while we in fact know that space itself is expanding, and continues to expand.
Your interpretation also ignores the very real finding in particle physics of virtual particles.
Finally, I note that the very next two verses in Genesis describe God resting and blessing the seventh day as the sabbath.
Do you honor the sabbath on the seventh day, as commanded by God? If not, then why do you hate God?
Posted by: Janine, Insulting Sinner | December 9, 2008 12:46 PM
Posted by: Creationist by design | December 9, 2008
In response...
Bored now.
Posted by: S Becker | December 9, 2008 3:19 PM
I can not believe that people could be so ignorant that they believe in evolution, they are so closed minded and bigoted that it shows in the way they attack other people. Calling names I think that is a little childish and very unprofessional. If you want to believe you came from goo then do so. But I for one know the real truth and don't believe in the evolution fairy tales.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 9, 2008 3:22 PM
Since you know, what is the real truth®?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 9, 2008 3:27 PM
What a load of tripe S Becker. You called us names. You called us closed minded. You called us childish. Boy, that makes you look mature.
As a professional scientist, my mind is open. But it is only open to evidence. Show me the evidence for your creationism by citing articles in the scientific literature supporting creationism. You won't be able to do so, because creationism is not scientific. Only science can be used to refute science. Religion is not refuted by science, nor science by religion. But your religious myths look silly if they don't represent the real world. And since the myths aren't changing, and science is advancing its knowldge daily, religious myths will be even sillier tomorrow.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 9, 2008 3:44 PM
Creationism is a fairy tale about how you came from goo. Do you morons not even read your own bible?
And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth:
(That's the Douay-Rheims translation, and the original Hebrew word (עפר) translates to "earth, dirt ; (literary) dust ; (biblical) ashes". But what's a little accuracy to a creationist?)
Posted by: Kel | December 9, 2008 4:07 PM
Do you even know what the theory of evolution is?By the way, evolution doesn't state we came from goo, but the bible does. We are hand-crafted and animated goo. There's a word for that: a golem. In the biblical story of creation we are nothing but a golem, animated by a conjurer.
The theory of evolution doesn't state anything about us being formed from goo. It states that over a long period of time, natural selection working on advantageous mutations change life. This view happens to fit perfectly with the fossil record, the distribution of life on this planet, the morphology of species, with genetics, but also fits in with geology, and astronomy.
We see galaxies that are 13 billion light years away, we've seen a star in our own galaxy that is 13 billion years old. We've dated the earth through several techniques and on several samples to be around 4.55 billion years. We see the first life in the fossil record around 3.5 billion years ago, and we see a gradual progression of life from there.
The facts support evolution, and contradict a literal genesis interpretation. So either your God is a deceptive one who made the universe look contradictory to Genesis, or that old book of mythology was not meant to be taken literally. Just think, the creationist accounts of the age of the earth are off by a factor of close to a million. So really anyone who believes in a young earth is relying on all geologists to be wrong by a factor of 1,000,000 and they are relying on cosmologists to be wrong by a factor of 2,500,000. All these scientists, all these people who have studied and worked for decades, some religious and some not, they all agree on the same age of the earth. And you know better than them how?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 9, 2008 4:08 PM
Sheesh, this thread is still alive? If you drive-by trolls are so desperate to be heard ask Ken Ham to add a comment section to his blog.
However, don't hold your breath. Answers in Genesis cares so much about you that even though the idea of a forum "is probably one of the most requested features from our supporters" they won't add it. Their excuse?
Really? PZ manages to it. Hell, even Ray Comfort allows comments (albeit with silly moderation rules like 'Jesus' has to be capitalized).
Please appreciate the irony that in order to be heard about your outrage you had to go come here to comment.
Posted by: Creationist by design | December 9, 2008 6:32 PM
Can any of you evolutionists explain how life began(without saying: "on the backs of crystals" as in the documentary "Expelled") and provide an explanation that coincides with reality. I mean really give some details as to how life began, what the purpose of life is, where did personalities come from, why can humans build skyscrapers and airplanes and animals cannot. How about morality, how do we know right from wrong? give some scientific evidence to these questions that we experience in day to day life instead of hiding behind profane remarks that don't serve any purpose.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 9, 2008 6:47 PM
CBD, try googling abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution. By the way, you haven't shown any physical evidence for your imaginary god, so presuming that there is a god is not allowed until this is done.
Posted by: Kel | December 9, 2008 6:51 PM
Check out CDK007's video on abiogenesis. It explains just how it could come about with hydrothermal events - which has been verified by experiment. How life began doesn't invalidate evolution any more than not knowing how the planet formed invalidates plate tectonics. Evolution happened regardless of the origin of life, evolution is a theory of the diversity of life, not how life came about.As for the rest of your questions, all you are doing is arguing from personal incredulity. i.e. "I don't see how could evolve, therefore God made the world 6,000 years ago". Quite quickly, morality exists in other animals, we see moral behaviour in most social animals. It can be explained through natural selection, I suggest you read Dr Michael Shermer's "The Science Of Good And Evil" if you want a more complete epxlanation. Personalities again exist in nature, just ask anyone who studies our simian cousins. Hell, even a pet owner will talk about the personalities of their animals. As for language, there's always Stephen Pinker's "The Language Instinct".
Why is it we can design when other animals can't? Again other animals can design and problem solve. It's just that we do it better. Look at the tool-making of chimpanzees, the problem solving abilities of not only our ape cousins but of other animals too. Once we tried to hide a tennis ball from our dog by putting it in a drawer. He got under the desk, and pushed the drawer from behind and was able to get the tennis ball. We see crows that can solve complex puzzles by design in order to get food, we've seen the same thing with orang-utans. Indeed we see animal behaviour that ours is merely an extension of.
Yet none of this changes the facts of the world - that the earth is almost 4.6 billion years old, that life began sometime in the first billion years and we are one branch on the evolutionary tree of life. The evidence is overwhelming, and looking for gaps in what we don't know is not going to change what we do. You won't find a precambrian bunny, all you do is show yoruself to be oblivious to the nature of science by arguing about what we don't know.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 9, 2008 7:06 PM
I see you're avoiding our questions and asking new ones...
All of life is made of cells; all cells are made of organic chemicals; the only explanation that coincides with reality is that life arose as a reaction of organic chemicals.
That chemical reaction may have involved crystals as a catalyst; it may have involved RNA-like chemicals in lipid bubbles; it may have involved RNA reactions in ice-water chambers.
All working hypotheses about the origins of life involve testable, falsifiable organic chemical reactions.
Where is your falsifiable hypothesis about the origins of life?
No. First of all, the details of the hypotheses involve extremely complex organic chemistry; far too much information for one blog comment. Second of all, not all of the steps are known, which is why they are still hypothetical.
Where are your details as to how life began? And I mean the details of organic chemistry, not the stupid stories in the bible that contradict themselves and reality.
What does that even mean?
According to Christianity, the whole point of living is to die and get into heaven. IS that what you think the "purpose of life" is?
Intelligence and personality and the sense of morality are the emergent properties of a large and complex brain. Those things are beings studied by neuroscientists and psychologists right now.
Where is your falsifiable hypothesis about where personality and intelligence and morality come from?
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 9, 2008 7:19 PM
Creationist by design,
I'm not a scientist; I have only the most basic understanding of the concepts underlying evolutionary theory - so, while others can (and have), I can't answer your questions.
But even before I reached the low level of understanding I have now (mostly thanks to coming here and reading a lot) I did not consider my ignorance to be a justification for the existence of god/s.
My point is this: even if we didn't know as much as we know, and can admit that we don't know exactly how life began (which, as has been pointed out, is distinct from evolutionary theory), it doesn't mean that the answer to any of your questions must, by default, be god/s.
My own atheism is far more dependant on the weakness of religion than the strengths of science. I realised I didn't believe in the judeo-christian god well before I'd ever heard the word 'evolution'. Further contemplation of the topic, and research into the judeo-christian belief system, confirmed the unworthiness of even entertaining the notion that the being known as Yahweh has ever existed.
Could there be another kind of god? Maybe. But until I see a good reason (i.e. evidence) to believe in that hypothetical god I'll remain an atheist - and support the scientists.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 9, 2008 7:20 PM
Creationist by design,
First of all that movie was extremely dishonest. It misled PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins as to the purpose of their interview. Secondly, you believe that man was literally made from dust. You have no right to mock. Thirdly, the origin of life happened over a billion years ago. It's doubtful any evidence of how it arose survived. Now there are many conjectures of how this happened, but we don't know for sure. There are always going to be things in science we don't know. You creationist would rather just say "God did it" than investigate.
There is no inherent purpose to life. The only purpose is that which you create.
Personalities come from a complex mixture of environmental upbringing and genetic predisposition.
Humans were able to evolve big brains. This served well in enabling us to hunt and reproduce. This big brain enabled us to create many tools. Eventually these tools got more and more sophisticated.
Why can't animals do this? I'm not a biologist. I would guess that because big brains are very costly calorie wise so intelligence can't simply grow exponentially. There's also physiological constraints. Child birth is really painful for woman because our heads are so damn big. Also, humans beings ability to use tools were very dependent on many factors, such as the dexterity of the hand. So even if an animal was real smart they wouldn't necessarily be able to use tools. Finally, once one animal has the ability to use tools as effectively as we have they can a HUGE advantage over all other creature. If any animal had the potential to build skyscrapers we effectively ended by making them extinct, making them livestock, or putting them in a position where this is impossible. Our greatest potential rival, the Neanderthals, were driven to extinction by us (either through direct or indirect means).
Posted by: Sastra | December 9, 2008 7:24 PM
Owlmirror #1229 wrote:
Mr. Creationist by design would no doubt like us to answer his questions using the same level of scientific detail which he uses:
Life began because of a Life-Creating Force.
The Purpose of life is to recognize the Life Purpose Being.
Personalities come from a Source for Personalities.
Humans can build skyscrapers and airplanes because they got their skyscraper-and-airplane building skills from a Skyscraper and Airplane Building Intelligence Donator.
Morals come from a Moral Essence, where rightness is Right, and wrongness is Wrong.
There. You've got some common sense answers to the sort of questions we ask in our daily lives, and anyone can understand these explanations. You don't have to study or anything.
How can science possibility match the breadth, clarity, completeness, and simplicity of these answers?
It can't. We've lost, guys (which won't matter, because the Seagulls coming into this thread do nothing but squawk once, mess, and leave. I give credit to Creationist-by-design because it looks as if he bothered to stick around long enough to at least note that there was a response to him.)
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 9, 2008 7:27 PM
We are not alone in this. Several other creatures show an ability for morality. There was an experiment where an ape was able to either take food or give it to the ape in the next cell. Couldn't do both. The first ape would take food and then let his neighbor have it. When both apes were deprived of food the ape still gave food to the other ape, even though it cost him.
It makes sense that social creatures would have some innate faculties in how to behave in social interactions. The everyone-for-themselves approach wouldn't lead to a very successful society.
Much research has been done into whether humans have an innate moral faculty, similar to an innate faculty for language. Surveys done in several different locations (including Western nations, Eastern nations, remote tribes) show people tend to share some moral convictions. Of course environment plays a huge role, much like in language. However, the similarities are just too great to attribute environment alone.
I wait your response, a response that Ken Ham wouldn't allow on his website. Again, I ask you to appreciate the irony that in order for your outrage to be heard you had to go come here.
Posted by: John Morales | December 9, 2008 7:30 PM
Feynmaniac @1231,
True, but extremely conservative. From Wikipedia:"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. Scientific research theorizes that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 and 3.5 billion years ago."
That life on Earth originated not long after the planet cooled and "stabilised" suggests that the genesis of life is not implausible elsewhere in the Cosmos, by the principle of mediocrity.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 9, 2008 7:47 PM
Hey! When did you guys go pro, and why didn't anyone tell me? Is it because you fear that with my rad new moniker I'll start raking in all the youthy endorsement deals?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 9, 2008 7:47 PM
Thus spake Creationist by design #1226
Kel has already answered this.
This question, vapid cliché that it is, is ambiguous, since "life" has many meanings. As a collective noun for "all living things" or as an attribute of certain objects (mice have it, rocks don't), it is an abstraction for which the notion of "purpose" is meaningless. Individual life forms have a purpose only as vehicles for the replication of their genes.
A "personality" is the label used for a vast collection of external manifestations of electrical and chemical activity in the brain that we consider characteristic of an individual. The abstract notion of a "personality" is itself built on layers of abstract concepts like "behaviour", "memory", "emotion", etc. A personality can be altered dramatically by any change to the underlying supporting substrate -- the brain -- be that change chemical (via drugs), electrical (via site stimulation, ECT), or mechanical (e.g. due to injury).
Because humans incrementally developed large brains as a result of generations of environmental survival pressures (natural selection) and simultaneously bodies with appendages suitable for manipulating objects in their environment.
Ultimately, this culminated in the development by humans of a method to overcome certain evolved tendencies in thought, and create a method for reliably generating new knowledge -- the scientific method -- the successive application of this method over about 300 years, building steadily on knowledge generated by the same method, eventually led to a level of knowledge that enabled the construction of advanced technology such as skyscrapers and aircraft.
Basic morality appears to arise as a result of empathy. Empathy is well-attested to exist in humans and other ape species and has a neurological foundation in mirror neurons. It most likely evolved because it reduced competition between individuals in kin-related groups sharing the characteristic (who, out of empathy, helped or did not kill each other so much) over other groups who did not (and would not help each other or would kill each other in competition). We observe empathy, rudimentary morality and social order in humans and other ape species. Naturalist moral philosophers derive cross-cultural moral tenets from empathy and its axiomatic expression in "The Golden Rule".
If you want to understand things, it's your own responsibility to learn about them, not anyone else's to spoon-feed their hard-earned knowledge to you.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 9, 2008 7:49 PM
We don't need god to determine right or wrong. In fact, god isn't needed for anything.If you look at chimpanzees, they share food and have a nice sense of fair play. We, as their close cousins, inherited this sense, and have taken it a bit further. Groups of humans work together for common causes, and have a good sense of fair play. Game theory indicates that this is the best strategy for the long run. Other rights and wrongs, are purely derived by men. Usually men with a stick up their butt, but still fallible men. Most of the early laws were designed to keep the tribe from falling apart, but more recent laws use a different tack due to having to bridge various groups. Keep in mind that in the old days, the "political" leaders were mafia like thugs who received and gave tribute depending on various threats. Religion was the sociology of the day to keep society running. Nowadays, the state has taken over those functions, so religion is superfluous.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 9, 2008 7:52 PM
We are animals. I repeat: We are animals. And once you accept that, you can start to learn amazing things about the unity of life.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 9, 2008 7:55 PM
I'll give you the youth endorsements if I the old fart endorsements. Ever since I started eating OatsRUs every day......Posted by: Kel | December 9, 2008 8:08 PM
Now that you have an OM, I read your name as scom. Which in my head sounds like a Scottish person saying scum.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 9, 2008 8:15 PM
John Morales,
My remarks usually don't get called conservative! I was too lazy to look it up the exact figure so I was trying to give a lower bounds rather than an estimate. Creationist by design believes life occurred within about 6000 years so I didn't think the exact figure mattered. Thanks though. I didn't want to misled anyone into thinking the billion year figure was an estimate.
_ _ _ _ _
Also, I know realize my description of the ape experiment was sloppy. I blame it on lack of sleep. When I said "The first ape would take food and then let his neighbor have it." I meant that the first few times around that food was given the ape would take it. After seeing that his neighbor was suffering from hunger he would then abstain and let his neighbor have the food. Anyone interested in the idea of innate morality this Harvard professor guy explains it a hell of a lot better than I can.
I'm going to put this down as a case of 'be careful what you ask for'. Ask pharyngulites to talk about science and you'll get back pages worth of material, lol!
Posted by: SC, OM | December 9, 2008 8:16 PM
See what I mean? It's edgy and cool!
...Nah. Going pro would cheapen it and take too much of the spontaneity, joy, and meaning out of the sport, not to mention making me prey to the individualistic, win-at-all-costs mindset. I'll stay amateur. (Lessons learned from North Shore.)
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 9, 2008 8:18 PM
Sastra @#1232:
Tautological teleology is teleologically tautological!
(Heh. Seagulls, indeed.)
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 9, 2008 8:19 PM
Not to mention that - albeit a simplied explanation - if god was responsible for 'showing' humans right and wrong, it would follow that those who accepted god's teachings would always do right, and those who didn't would always do wrong.
We know this doesn't happen - and, in certain places, is the exact opposite of what happens.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 9, 2008 8:23 PM
Sastra @1232 has it spot on. When you think about it, the list of questions asked by CBD covers a rather wide range of human thought, and many of the answers are highly technical and under much debate as evidence comes in. Yet he/she expects us to answer them all at once.
Any organization that claims to have all the answers to all those questions is quite obviously selling bullshit, and this should be patently obvious to anyone with even a glimmer of awareness of how complex the universe is. Of course, religion feeds on this intellectual laziness, and thus real knowledge is anathema to it.
Posted by: Kel | December 9, 2008 8:35 PM
Creationist by Design's tactic is to try and brand evolution a theory of everything then upon finding a gap in knowledge concluding that it all must be wrong. Never mind that observations in astronomy and cosmology show an old universe, nevermind that geology and nuclear physics point to an old earth. Never mind the progressive fossil record, never mind the genetic similarities, if evolution can't explain then the world must be 6000 years old and Jesus is God.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 9, 2008 8:45 PM
Looking back over the thread, I note that CBD has 4 comments:
#1138: The bible says bad people say bad things!
#1163: Bible verse says you're bad. Bible verses are also science!
#1211: Longer (WRONG) explanation of why bible verse is science!
#1226: Oh yeah? Well, what do you know, evolutionists?
I count 3.5 seagull craps in there.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 9, 2008 8:50 PM
Kel, what we need to do is to keep hitting him to show physical evidence for god (positive evidence for his theory). Since there isn't any, he has no argument. The whole "if you aren't right, then I am" argument is for losers. Which does describe creobots. They have no positive evidence for their sheepish bleatings, or cawing by Owlmirror's description.
Posted by: John Morales | December 9, 2008 8:59 PM
Nerd @1248,
Thing is, believers have heaps of evidence. That it's all vacuous or inapplicable or subjective is no impediment to their trotting it forth.Crappy (or even imaginary) evidence is still evidence.
Not that I disapprove of your approach :)
Posted by: Creationist by design | December 9, 2008 9:01 PM
I am impressed, since my last post there were a lot of responses and no profanity. That goes to show we can discuss our presuppositions without calling each other names. We all have a worldview and I was trying to show that we can discuss those without resorting to profane attacks on each other. Time to move on. Be sure to check out www.repentanceandfaith.org The Bible tells us to share the truth in love.
Posted by: SC, OM | December 9, 2008 9:08 PM
These people are utterly terrified. Sigh.
Posted by: John Morales | December 9, 2008 9:08 PM
Creationist by design:
You mean, your claims are being addressed and you want to bug out?Care to actually address the various retorts?
Care to show any evidence for your contentions?
C'mon, it's not everyday you get a forum which doesn't censor posters - take advantage :)
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 9, 2008 9:17 PM
This is why we fucking swear at you, chicken shit. You were never really interested in a discussion. You were just angry that we didn't respect your sacred cow. Otherwise you'd provide evidence for your claims. Otherwise you would answer our points. You just came here and regurgitated the talking points they fed you.
Go back to AiG where different points of view are never considered, assertions never need to be proven and discussion never happens.
Posted by: Kel | December 9, 2008 9:18 PM
So when finally something that requires knowledge comes up, you scamper off? Quite simply you are allegding that almost all geologists, nuclear physicists, astronomers and cosmologists, geneticists, palaeontologists, biochemists, and biologists are completely and utterly wrong. And your complaint is the name calling? You are calling almost every scientist who has ever worked in the last century either a fraud, a liar or incompetent by taking the stance of creationism. Where's your ethic?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 9, 2008 9:18 PM
No physical evidence for god. Sigh, they just don't make trolls like they used to. A waste of effort for nothing.
Posted by: John Morales | December 9, 2008 9:29 PM
Nerd,
Nah, there's the satisfaction factor - sort of a SIWOTI balm.I wonder if any bots who've come from Ham's site* even read comments here before posting. I'm pretty sure most (maybe none) haven't.
* since the time of zombification of this thread, that is.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 9, 2008 9:32 PM
If you want to know what stress of exams, lack of sleep, Red Bull withdrawal and a cowardly troll does to a person read comment #1253.
Posted by: Kel | December 9, 2008 9:38 PM
CbD was a perfect example of why we call people like Ken Ham a wackaloon. He's not interested in engaging in science, but he's more than ready to dismiss any of it that doesn't conform with the biblical stories. He's acting like a spoilt child then demanding he be respected. Where's his respect for the scientific process? Where's his respect for the scientists who have dedicated their lives towards finding evidence? Where's his respect for us? You don't get to act like a baby and be treated like an adult.
If you want respect, be willing to engage in debate. Scampering off when your questions are answered then ignoring what people say is the opposite of respect. It's intellectual and personal cowardice.
Posted by: Patricia | December 9, 2008 9:47 PM
We can also discuss your total lack of any evidence for gawd with completely profane and blasphemous attacks.
Where is your dickless gawd? Why doesn't he ever show up and stop a disaster? Why do little children die in agony with cancer? Because gawd is love?
Don't give me your mystery bullshit. The true mystery is: why are you so STUPID that you give a fraud your time and money? Fool. I deny the holy spirt, gawd, jezus and the virgin birth.
Posted by: John Morales | December 9, 2008 9:49 PM
Feynmaniac @1257, that was a great comment @1253. Bullseye.
I might have to start drinking _Red Bull_, just to withdraw...