…and this is a 
Uh-oh, get the muzzle: Ken Ham is practically foaming at the mouth. He's upset that I pointed out that one of his displays is a relic of a racist theory of human origins. And it is! He does a bit of yelling about credentials, too.
And this professor seems to have a fixation on me--yet, our own full-time PhD scientists and many other scientists who work in the secular world provided the research for the museum scripts. But, then again, he wouldn't want to acknowledge that people with better qualifications than he holds (qualifications obtained from secular universities, including PhDs from Ivy League schools like Harvard and Brown) were behind the Creation Museum teaching. This man is obviously very angry at God and relishes in mocking Christianity--spending a lot of his time fighting against Someone he doesn't believe exists!
These highly qualified PhD "scientists" believe in talking snakes, global floods, an earth that poofed into existence more than 10,000 years after the domestication of the dog, and that they can make a case against evolution by ignoring almost all of the evidence. They can wave their diplomas all they want, but against that palpable nonsense, I reject them bemusedly.
By the way, I'm not fighting against any of the gods, since they don't exist. I do oppose the charlatans who claim they speak for the gods, because those frauds do exist. See "Ham, Ken" in the Kentucky phone book.
His anger stems from the fact that I showed this image from the museum.
I then wrote this:
With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put, they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham.
He demands that I document my claims…but I already did.
Look at the pretty picture (you can click on it to get a larger, readable version). Several times, it states that all races stemmed from the children of Noah. The picture specifically shows that Africans are descendants of Ham. Now go read the book of Genesis, which as we all know, AiG insists we must take absolutely literally.
20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
So Ham, the father of all African peoples by this account, sees Noah drunk and naked, and Noah curses his child Canaan to be a servant of servants (what a nice Grandpa!). This is the doctrine that led apologists for slavery to declare that the children of Ham, that is Africans, were ordained to be servants. That's the Hamite theory. It's a completely bogus theory, wrong in all of its facts, and if Ken Ham is trying to defang its implications, good for him…but he's still promoting a racist Biblical explanation that is false in all of its particulars.
We actually know quite a bit more about human ancestry than a gang of bronze age goatherds did. This is my genetic history, a map of the migrations of various genetic groups over tens of thousands of years. Note that we all came out of Africa. Note also that this map does not correspond at all to Ken Ham's map of the magical diaspora of 2348 BC.
It's very nice of Ken Ham to now clearly deny the racism implicit in any literal interpretation of the Bible, and I urge him to continue in his progress towards recognizing the metaphorical aspect of these fables. Maybe soon we'll even get him to realize that you can't use the Bible to argue against "millions of years", either!
However, I do recommend that he avoid the "some of my best friends are black" excuse. It's very condescending and hokey.
Ironically, as this atheist was falsely accusing us of racism, I was in Seattle speaking in the church led by a black pastor--and a good friend of our ministry. See the photo of me and Pastor Hutchinson a former NFL football player. And I spoke Sunday evening against racism!
Keep speaking against racism, Mr Ham. But I think your words would be more meaningful if they were accompanied by commendable actions…such as ceasing the promotion of ignorance.
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 11, 2009 1:52 PM
Sorry, Ham, we actually don't care about that almost not at all. Just whether your museum is a crock of shit. Which it is.
Science is about evidence, not how great the credentials a particular charlatan has.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 11, 2009 1:54 PM
Boy, a whole museum dedicated to the evil implications of evolution through the most tenuous of links, and this fucking clown can't even cop to the fact that his beloved Genesis (where all the answers are, right Ham?) directly supports slavery. Must be a metaphor, eh, you cowardly piece of filth?
What a repugnant little troll.
Posted by: Lilith | August 11, 2009 1:57 PM
Hey, don't show Kenny-boy that map, PZ, he'll think the Adam & Eve tags mean that is the location of the Garden of Eden and he'll be trying to con the rubes out of more cash to mount an expedition :-)
Posted by: Michael | August 11, 2009 1:57 PM
Ken Ham may not be racists but visitors to his "museum" will take this chart as justification of their treatment of the descendents of Ham.
Also isn't the Bible story of the nakedness of Noah just a bizarre story? How petty can this God be?
Posted by: sharky | August 11, 2009 1:57 PM
The map even has Ham's descendants MISSING the land of Canaan to spread past that front arrow and head into Africa.
It's good that Ken Ham tries not to be racist; it's something for all of us to strive for. But first it helps to notice subconscious racism.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 11, 2009 1:58 PM
hehe! Not only does Hammie interpret real science wrong. He gets his OWN "science" wrong.
Didn't Hammie's mommy ever tell him that when you lie too much you'll eventually get them all mixed up and forget which lie is which?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 1:59 PM
Which makes their egregious errors or deliberate lies that much more disturbing and says that much more about their integrity and competence.
Posted by: Benny the Icepick | August 11, 2009 2:01 PM
Nice, Dr. Myers. I can think of only one word to describe this post:
PZWNED!
Posted by: Sara | August 11, 2009 2:05 PM
He's not trying very hard, though, is he? There's this racist bingo game, somewhere on the internets. It starts with "I don't want to be racist, but" and "but I have black frieeeends!1!!11" is featured prominently.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 2:05 PM
Get ready! Here come Hamster's trolls!
Posted by: dinkum | August 11, 2009 2:10 PM
He doesn't give a name or a link. Are his Hamsters, or Hamlets, or whatever, bright enough to find their way here on their own? In general, I mean?
Posted by: senecasam | August 11, 2009 2:11 PM
Canned Ham can't even get the pastor's name right!
It was ex-NFL player and religious diploma mill graduate Kenneth L. Hutcherson, not Hutchinson, of Antioch Bible Church.
Hutcherson is a noted anti-gay crusader as well.
http://www.abchurch.org/our-staff/the-senior-pastor.html
Yeah, Canned, you really know your shit.
Posted by: alopiasmag | August 11, 2009 2:11 PM
There is only one word to describe Ken Ham: M*RON!
If he is mad at our criticsism, then he should not put nonsense in his Sh*tty "museum"!
And the scientists* that work there should be ashamed of themselves. They basically sold out on the true Ideal of the Scientific purpose.
Posted by: scarn | August 11, 2009 2:12 PM
2348 BC? Now that is some delicious madness!
To be fair, I don't think that a literal reading of the bible demands that a person accept any kind of racism, and Ham probably does not either. The racialist theories were formulated by Europeans to justify their racisms centuries after goatherders penned the original documents.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | August 11, 2009 2:13 PM
As Chef taught us, if someone serves you and then you serve them back, then it's on. While PZ has twice served Ham today, does anything from Ham count for the technical definition of serving?
Posted by: Dave X | August 11, 2009 2:13 PM
So who wrote the scripts?
Was it their "own full-time PhD scientists and many other scientists who work in the secular world provided the research for the museum scripts..."?
Or did they have some political officer re-interpret the provided research?
Posted by: IBY | August 11, 2009 2:16 PM
Oh man, he has been PZOWNED again. Hhmm... Hamite theory of race. Nope, don't remember it. Surprised I never heard of it, considering I was into creationism a few years ago, reading the freely available Creationist magazine (retrospectively, I see that it was a bad magazine, don't read it ^_^).
Posted by: sharky | August 11, 2009 2:16 PM
Sara: documented black friends, no less, in case we didn't believe their existence. I admit I'm kind of sympathetic towards what looks like a part of a subculture he unconsciously accepted, and I'm giving him the benefit of some doubt, here. Let us examine an actual race card!
http://bootshatesthat.blogspot.com/2009/01/racism-bingo.html
Hm. He's got "black friends." Counting "just a coincidence" and a "didn't mean it that way," we're still not in a line. "Only saying what people really think" counts if we consider the whole story of justification. Throw in "looking to be offended" on behalf of what he seems to think of Myers' statement, and yeah, you could win bingo on a reshuffled card.
Posted by: Cosmas | August 11, 2009 2:17 PM
IMHO the use of mock Arabic script in the above chart highlight the illustrator(s) racist orientalism . The Arabic "word" depicted says nothing, for it's made up of latin letters in some arabesquish font. I can make out alijm which I suppose it could be the name of the signer of Ham's "scientists'" diplomas.
Posted by: PixelFish | August 11, 2009 2:17 PM
Typical. Instead of considering that the information provided hews to racist propaganda, Ham denies any racism on his part.
Mr. Ham, your actions wherein you promote a false understanding of human diaspora contribute to racism. See, when you put up a plaque explaining that Babel explains our differences, and link it directly to the story of Ham, in Genesis, you are reinforcing a popular racist theory. It doesn't matter if you were ignorant of the theory before--although, I doubt you could fail to be ignorant of the implications of the bible verses PZed cited. The fact remains: you promoted a racist theory that has been used to justify the enslavement of a race.
Also, I think there's a word for people who preach against the thing they practise: Hypocrite.
Posted by: co | August 11, 2009 2:17 PM
Maybe we only see their very best and brightest here. Doesn't that thought give you warm-fuzzies?
Posted by: daveau | August 11, 2009 2:22 PM
dinkum@11
As has been observed before, he never gives a name or a link; just calls him "Prof" if anything. I can't decide if he's playing an agenda (doesn't want to give PZ's blog any more hits), or he has some sociopathic tendency where he can't humanize his perceived opponent. Or maybe he doesn't want his readers to see what a real blog looks like.
Posted by: IBY | August 11, 2009 2:22 PM
@sharky
Ken Ham: "BINGO!"
Posted by: Erp | August 11, 2009 2:25 PM
Strictly speaking the initial Biblical story was not aimed at making blacks slaves but rather Canaanites (aka the people in Israel before the Jews showed up [although archaeological evidence seems to indicate the Jews were among the residents and not from outside]). It was much more recent when the recipients of the curse were perceived to be blacks and thereby justified their enslavement.
Knowing that this Biblical justification for slavery has been used, I would expect the museum to have least pointed it out and refuted it on Biblical grounds (even if it wouldn't do so on grounds of physical evidence).
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | August 11, 2009 2:26 PM
If PZ keeps this up he'll have K.Ham posting directly on Pharyngula.
Posted by: Bostonian | August 11, 2009 2:29 PM
I almost laughed coffee all over my monitor when I saw the "some of my best friends are black" pleading on Ken's blog post. There is even a photo of Ken standing next to Pastor Hutchinson from Washington ("Look! He's black! And next to me!"). I do believe the poor deluded guy when he says he didn't intentionally present a racist ideology - I think it's clear from his defenses that this has taken him somewhat by surprise.
Personally, I'd never heard of the Hamite theory (and I should add that I'm very amused by the coincidence of the name). One of the funny things about Biblical literalists is that they universally fail to grasp that reading the Bible necessarily involves interpretation. It's not the same book for everyone, which is why it's so easy for skeptics to see that it can't possibly be the infallible book Ken claims it to be. The reader interprets the Bible in his or her own way, and that's true whether you believe it wholeheartedly, think it's all trash or fall somewhere in between. It clearly hasn't occurred to Ken that other literalists, who would agree with him that the Bible is inerrant, might nevertheless have reached drastically different conclusions from it.
Posted by: sharky | August 11, 2009 2:30 PM
@ERP: That was why I pointed out the region of Israel is shot right over by Ham's descendants. Some stories that claim the Ham thing isn't racist point out that not all African peoples are dark-skinned, but they've missed most of Egypt, too (in fact, the map shows them as flying right by Egypt,) and headed way further south to go be Canaanites there. Why would that be?
It's harder to brush this off as Ham's descendants being someone other than dark-skinned African peoples when the whole story is so tightly linked to a justification of slavery.
Posted by: Carl | August 11, 2009 2:30 PM
Sheesh! I don't think Ken Ham will understand your post; the inferences are too subtle.
For Ken Ham's benefit:
1. There's a racist theory which says that the descendants of Ham were cursed and black.
2. Point 1 was used to justify the enslavement of Africans.
3. The creation "museum's" map shows the descendants of Ham migrating into Africa.
4. There is no claim in Genesis AFAIK that says that Ham's descendants populated Africa.
5. Since point 3 has no biblical validity (*), your silly map would appear to be based on a piece of racist propaganda not on a reading of Genesis.
(*) And is, naturally, without scientific validity either but since the whole "museum" is scientifically vacuous this is a minor observation.
Posted by: kiki | August 11, 2009 2:33 PM
God even gets a cpa 'S' on 'Someone'? What an Egomaniac.
Posted by: Bad Albert | August 11, 2009 2:34 PM
senecasam @ 12:
Wow, interesting link. An African-American anti-gay pastor. "Don't discriminate against me because I'm black, but those gays..." But then maybe Pastor Hutcherson knows of what he speaks. After all, God helped his team score touchdowns.
Posted by: Geb | August 11, 2009 2:34 PM
The map might have been a mistake. You can pretty much guarantee that Ham and co. are going to interpret this post as "blahblahblah... blahblah... blah ADAM! EVE! They existed and science has proved it! blahblah....blahblahblah..."
Posted by: Paul | August 11, 2009 2:35 PM
It just adds more evidence that religious "morals" are cribbed from contemporary societal ethics at large. For example, note that Ham is more than happy to say "incest was ok, God approved it". While incest squicks people out and varies in legality, the most you get on that end are redneck jokes. But they realize just how disgusted people would be if they tried that justification with slavery (it was just fine because God approved it), so they need to bow to current ethics or become irrelevant.
Posted by: 386sx | August 11, 2009 2:35 PM
So when is Mr. Ham going to correct the spelling of the name of his "friend" Hutch? Lol, Mr. Ham "pulled another Ham".
Posted by: AdamK | August 11, 2009 2:37 PM
The Argument from Rumored Authority, with extra credentialz! How can anyone hope to top that, I ask you.
Ham should no longer be allowed to name himself after tasty meat.
Posted by: Fez | August 11, 2009 2:37 PM
Why is Ham too much of a coward to allow comments on his blog?
Posted by: dinkum | August 11, 2009 2:40 PM
Fez, check out Paster Estes's blog ( http://hardtruth.squarespace.com/ ) for one answer to that question.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | August 11, 2009 2:41 PM
You know, it wasn't ALL bad for the Hamster. I mean, he is certainly pissed about:
1. "The Prof" is making fun of me
2. There was a member of the group with a "There probably is
no god" T-shirt.
3. Not only did "The Prof's" group make baby Jebus cry, but a
nice family from Virgina cried also.
4. There is a ton of stupid that I am being called on.
But, like I said, it wasn't ALL bad:
1. Wow, our take from the heathen came close to $5,000!
Sucks to be you, eh, Ken? (Well, maybe not...)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 2:41 PM
Now that we've brought out the sharp poking stick, when do we use the smashing rock?
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 11, 2009 2:42 PM
Ham: But its got displays...really neat ones too. They proclaim the truth of the bible plain as day for everyone to see!
Posted by: Thomas | August 11, 2009 2:43 PM
Speaking as a mathematician, what I find so hard to grasp with the creationist claims is the fact that they don't have to maintain internal consistency.
It's easy to do a Sunday Sermon about Topic X when you can pick and choose smaller passages from a book to support your claim. But in 6 months you can use other passages to support the exact opposite of the original sermon. I'm thinking of the "I believe in the right to life/I support the death penalty" paradox(that seems like the incorrect word here) when I bring it up here.
How is this better than a horoscope?
If we point out these instances of inconsistency, they gloss over that or say that we don't understand the "Truth".
I don't understand how you can have any reasonable discussion with these people.
Posted by: Cut and Paste | August 11, 2009 2:44 PM
#24
Yes, the map of the human migrations after Tower of Babel of Ham has on display is very damning.
It isn't very scientific, but we expected that.
It probably isn't Biblical either.
It is a wink to his followers, who are likely to believe the Curse of Ham crap.
His museum isn't about teaching the Bible in it's entirety, or any semblance of science.
It's about being a shrine to confirm the beliefs of the "elect".
But I think PZ already covered tat.
Posted by: Erin | August 11, 2009 2:46 PM
I fail to see how just because somebody went to an Ivy League school gives him or her better credentials than PZ. Some of the smartest people I know were produced by St. Olaf College in Northfield, Luther College in Iowa, Grinnell College in Iowa, the University of Idaho in (surprise, surprise) Idaho, The University of Wisconsin at Madison, and the University of Wyoming. As far as I can tell, the only big difference between these colleges and the Ivy League schools out on the East Coast is cost (80 grand or so a year at Harvard, anyone?) Also, not everyone is interested in LIVING on the East Coast!
Posted by: Anonym | August 11, 2009 2:47 PM
Fundies don't actually 'read' (critically interpret) the Bible, they merely 'piously recite' it to themselves -- the interpretations are left to the more accomplished fleecers of the flock.
Posted by: Mark Hausam | August 11, 2009 2:49 PM
I don't have time to read all the previous comments, so I hope I'm not repeating something that's already been said. PZ is of course right that Ken Ham believes in the literal biblical account of the cursing of Ham, and, I presume, that Ham believes that Africans are descendants of Ham. However, in the Bible, the curse went to Canaan, not to all of Ham's descendants. Within the context of the Bible, I believe that this leads to the Canaanites being subject to the Israelites (descendants of Shem) later in history. It has nothing to do with Africans. Ken Ham (and creationists in general) do not accept the idea that Africans are supposed to be slaves based on this verse, because they (quite rightly) believe that no such thing is taught there. (Even with the Canaanites, the curse did not necessarily give license to the Israelites to subjugate the Canaanites. A curse says what is going to happen, but it doesn't necessarily give moral permission to others to carry out the curse. The destruction of the Canaanites later in biblical history was based on a new command and never linked to any permission given to Shem back in Noah's day.) So Ham is not denying biblical literalism in denying that Africans can be made slaves, etc. This is simply not taught in a literal reading of the Bible (despite some people's false impressions a couple of centuries ago).
Mark Hausam
Posted by: JustinB | August 11, 2009 2:50 PM
http://www.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/05/jordancolbert.jpeg
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/jem_2041_080909.jpg
That is all...
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 11, 2009 2:50 PM
Yeah, but when are we going to attack him with fruit?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: HumanisticJones | August 11, 2009 2:51 PM
Is it just me or does this picture
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/ham-sun-antioch-aug-2009-016.jpg
remind anyone else of the picture of Stephen Colbert's Black Friend
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/05/jordancolbert.jpeg
The facial expressions seem a bit reversed though.
Posted by: Fez | August 11, 2009 2:52 PM
dinkum: Thanks for the link - tl;dr, just skimmed, didn't see anything immediately relevant except perhaps that Tom is egotistical enough to think that atheists "hate" him. He, however, does appear to allow dissent and attempt to directly engage. What is my cursory observation missing?
Posted by: JustinB | August 11, 2009 2:52 PM
I like the cut of your jib, sir.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 11, 2009 2:53 PM
Well spoken, PZ. Too bad he's too dense to understand such a simple explanation though.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 2:54 PM
Did anyone bring up the accusations regarding Ken Ham and piglets while they were at the Museum?
Posted by: MikeyM | August 11, 2009 2:55 PM
At least the Tower of Babel poster shows the kanji right-side-up.
Posted by: Warren | August 11, 2009 2:55 PM
Dinkum @11:
They'll just drift over on floating mats of vegetation.
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 11, 2009 2:56 PM
Ken Ham, even someone as hopelessly stupid as yourself should know that thousands of Christians have used the Bible to justify slavery.
Posted by: Thomas | August 11, 2009 2:56 PM
@51
No, they would have been escorted out for conspiring to start a riot.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 11, 2009 2:57 PM
How is this better than a horoscope?
In a horoscope, you can make completely contradictory claims in the same sentence--that's exactly how the grift works. "Because Neptune, Pluto and Goofy moved into your last house, leaving no room for you; that means you are strong, yet weak. Shy, yet outgoing, while not as educated as you would like to have been, you are very wise."
But way back then, when I used to do horoscopes for food, along with the standard-issue patter, clients at least got a map of the planets places as they'd have been in the sky, relative to the place and time they were born, handsomely rendered with fine calligraphy and suitable for framing, so clearly, not better than a horoscope.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 2:57 PM
#47:
*winks* *big thumb's up sign*
Posted by: dinkum | August 11, 2009 2:59 PM
Fez: when you have time, skim a little deeper. I think you may reconsider the "directly engage" part.
Warren: I'm stuck inland. If some Hamsters wash up, save one for me; I'll send postage.
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
August 11, 2009 3:00 PM
AiG, and Creationist nutjob Ken Ham,
for truth and reason, did not give a damn.
Tricking rubes with biblical lies was easy,
until the visit by Professor PZ,
exposed the Creation “Museum” as a sham.
Posted by: E.V. | August 11, 2009 3:01 PM
Pellets. A hamster leaves pellets. Hamster =K.M., Pellets= his followers.Posted by: spondee | August 11, 2009 3:04 PM
The best part is, he could have defended the theme park attractions. His absence and the lack of anyone willing to speak to the group, left the attractions utterly defenseless. Now he cries foul.
Kudos to everyone who behaved themselves. I would have been compelled to stand in the lobby shrieking "Shananagins!" until carried from the building. Best I didn't attend.
Posted by: Chris Caprette | August 11, 2009 3:06 PM
REAL PhD's from IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS.... hmmmm. I wonder who those scientists are? Perhaps KH doesn't remember or he would have dropped their names would he not? I wonder if maybe those PhD's are in engineering, chemistry, mathematics, and philosophy rather than biology? I also noticed that he said "...and many other scientists who work in the secular world provided the research..." I bet he is counting quote-mining and using pictures of fossils with his non-scientific interpretations as research 'provided' by scientists working in the secular world.
Posted by: James F | August 11, 2009 3:07 PM
You can be cuckoo in this country, but racism is a much, much harder sell. Kudos for spreading the word.
I want to know who these people are and in which discipline they were granted PhDs. Specifically the Harvard PhDs, although the way it's written I suspect it's one from each university. I'm busy doing some actual science (shock!) at the moment - anyone know offhand?
Posted by: tsg | August 11, 2009 3:10 PM
I'm going to go off the board and choose "because it's easier to misrepresent your opponent's arguments if you don't give your readers a link where they can read them for themselves." Not that any of them would bother following it, but why take the chance?
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 11, 2009 3:12 PM
From Wikipedia, some interesting facts about the child abuser and stupid piece of shit, Mr. Ken Ham:
As a young Earth creationist, Ham believes that the entire universe was created about 6,000 years ago and that Noah's flood occurred about 4,500 years ago.
Ham also believes that dinosaurs co-existed with modern humans.
There should be some law against letting idiots like Ken Ham go anywhere near children. How many thousands of innocent lives has this asshole been allowed to ruin? If it was up to me Ken Ham would be in prison right now. He's no better than a Muslim terrorist.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 11, 2009 3:13 PM
Indeed, I noticed the Colbert tie-in as well. Facepalm!
Posted by: Geds | August 11, 2009 3:14 PM
Bostonian @26: Personally, I'd never heard of the Hamite theory (and I should add that I'm very amused by the coincidence of the name).
I've been for a while. I got a lot of mileage out of that at some point a couple years ago.
Meanwhile, in the interests of expanding the list of areas of scholarship that are absolutely ruined by adhering to a literal interpretation of the Bible, um, I'm going to do something that's not at all blog whoring. Because, y'know, I say it's not and I'm an internet authority...
Anyway, for the last several months I've been going over a book called After the Flood in my exceedingly tiny corner of the internet. The author doesn't so much talk about the Hamites, so it's slightly OT. But he does attempt to trace the history of Europe through the descendants of Japheth. It's hilariously, idiotically wrongheaded.
The reason I think it's still somewhat on topic is because a few months to a year ago I was reading something here (forget what) and it suddenly occurred to me that the fight isn't just between science and creationism as I'd kind of always thought of it. If Ham and his ilk get their way the resulting changes will have massive repercussions across all boundaries of scholarship. I can't effectively argue from science, but I do know history. So when I found After the Flood I figured I'd be able to open my own front in the culture war.
So, erm, sorry for the blogwhoring. But I figured it might be of some interest to someone out there.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 11, 2009 3:15 PM
Indeed. I am pretty sure my masters degree in Computer Engineering qualifies me to play in the NFL.
Posted by: Erp | August 11, 2009 3:16 PM
What the Bible says about the descendants of Ham:
6 The sons of Ham:
Cush, Mizraim, [c] Put and Canaan.
Cush or Kush - southern modern day Egypt and northern Sudan
Mizraim - Egypt
Put - Libya
Canaan - Modern day Israel and Palestine (more or less)
7 The sons of Cush:
Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteca.
The sons of Raamah:
Sheba and Dedan.
Most of these are in the Arabian peninsula or across the Red Sea in
Ethiopia/Egypt
Seba
Havilah
Sabtah
Raamah
Sheba - (as in Queen of Sheba), modern day Yemen (or across the
straits in Ethiopia)
Dedan
Sabteca
(Sheba and Dedan as also said elsewhere in the Bible (Genesis 25) to
be the children of Jokshan, son of Abraham and Keturah [his wife after
Sarah died])
8 Cush was the father [d] of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior
on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why
it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD." 10 The
first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh,
in [e] Shinar. [f] 11 From that land he went to Assyria, where he
built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, [g] Calah 12 and Resen, which is between
Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.
These verses seem to be phrased differently and might be from a
different source. Note that these cities are in modern day Iraq and Syria.
Nimrod - built Babylon, Erech, Akkad, Calneh, Shinar, Nineveh, Rehoboth, Ir, Calah, Resen
13 Mizraim was the father of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites,
Naphtuhites, 14 Pathrusites, Casluhites (from whom the Philistines
came) and Caphtorites.
Ludites - Lydia (western Turkey)?
Anamites
Lehabites - Libya again?
Naphtuhites
Pathrusites - Upper Egypt?
Casluhites - From whom the Philistines came ??
Caphtorites - Crete?
15 Canaan was the father of Sidon his firstborn, [h] and of the
Hittites, 16 Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, 17 Hivites, Arkites,
Sinites, 18 Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites. Later the Canaanite
clans scattered 19 and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon toward
Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and
Zeboiim, as far as Lasha.
Sidon is a city in Phoenicia, Hittites originated in modern day Turkey
though their empire (which predates Israel) spread into Lebanon and
Syria.
20 These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their
territories and nations.
The museum obviously forgot the arrows pointing into Arabia and Anatolia for Ham's descendants as well.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 3:16 PM
Don't forget piglet rapist.
Posted by: Cut and Paste | August 11, 2009 3:17 PM
I wonder how many of Ham's black friend pastor's and their churches help raise money for this museum.
Do you think they know about that display and it's implications?
Maybe someone should tell them.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 11, 2009 3:22 PM
So they've begun attacking credibility. . . They are losing and they know it.
But that's not a surprise since the entire museum seems to rely entirely one single source and rule out. (And let's not forget that Southern Baptist use that same "source" to justify slavery in America.)
PhD from Ivy Leagues, huh? In what field exactly?
Say is that map (the second one) based on mitochondria distribution?
Oh by the way, I did some research and found that the Jomon culture in Japan began around the a few hundred years before the flood. Base on the accounts of Genesis, they should have been wiped-out, but they continue to last and expand. Did God somehow miss the Japanese? Or were they so oblivious that they were unware that they were surrounded by flood water? lol
Posted by: raven | August 11, 2009 3:23 PM
It's hard making sense of these primitive superstitions sometimes.
The guy who got cursed for Ham's sin was the son, Canaan. Which makes no sense by our modern standards. When someone breaks a law, we don't enslave their kids.
So how come the kid has the same name as the country the Jews allegedly took over? Canaan. Could this be something Ben Stein would write. Wildly wrong factually but meant as propaganda anyway. And then they genocided the inhabitants, the Canaanites. Seen any Canaanites lately?
Actually you probably have. Old Canaanite is very closely related to Hebrew and a lot of scholars think the Canaanites were just another tribe of Jews. Oddly enough, the Phoenicians were closely related as well.
Posted by: dinkum | August 11, 2009 3:28 PM
Last Friday's Visitation is already in the Creation Museum's Wikipedia entry, as are these blog posts. Somebody's watchin'...
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 11, 2009 3:30 PM
Erp #69:
Thanks for exposing those tedious details to us... It takes some courage.
So if I understand, the whole thing is a fantasy version of the origins of a bunch of ancient Near-Eastern people? Basically, all the neighbors of the Hebrews?
Posted by: Aaron | August 11, 2009 3:31 PM
...then the Mormons picked it up and said that the more in sin a person is the darker their skin... but they never have explained what happened with Michael Jackson and how the more trouble he got into the whiter he became... hmmm...
Posted by: Calladus | August 11, 2009 3:35 PM
Hey, I'm an Atheist and I'm not "angry at God". I am, however, really pissed at werewolves. Arrogant gits.
Posted by: Jay | August 11, 2009 3:37 PM
What an epic checkmate! Well done, PZ.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 11, 2009 3:37 PM
@Dinkum: It's wikipedia. Wiki dudes are EVERYWHERE.
In fact, they probably are AMONG US!! *dundun dun duuun*
Posted by: Trug | August 11, 2009 3:39 PM
Not only did his PhD holders put in bogus Arabic on his sign, the Chinese translates as "rain, moon, night". Makes perfect sense... right?
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 11, 2009 3:42 PM
@#77
I'm more so pissed off at gnomes. Apparently, they've been stealing my sandals.
Posted by: marcia | August 11, 2009 3:44 PM
Ham:
"Someone sent me a copy of what he put on his recent blog..."
Yes, he wants to have PZ believe he's really not that important. But, we know the truth:
He lied out da box. He has you on his quicklaunch, faves, links bar, bookmarks, desktop, RSS.
Heck, maybe God texted him your thoughts before you posted.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 11, 2009 3:45 PM
Hee hee... Lessee... allegations of a (presumably unhealthy) 'fixation'... and 'anger' at a certain ole' fraud's way totally amazing invisible friend... unnamed alleged Ivy League advisors... a nice 'I had no idea, honest' bit... and oh my, is that an actual photo of him and a black guy on his blog?
Okaaaaaaay, Hammy. See, there's this axiom you mighta heard about holes and when to stop digging... But I'm not sure why I'd want to help you right now, exactly, so mebbe I'll just let you look it up yourself...
(/See also: 'And that, son, is what we refer to as a 'well-cooked Ham''...)
Posted by: detrius | August 11, 2009 3:46 PM
The Hebrew word next to it isn't much better:
The first two letters are reversed, the second letter belongs at the end of the word, the fourth letter is upside-down and the last one isn't a Hebrew letter at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VZw79B_oRA
Posted by: Hepworth (weekwaster) | August 11, 2009 3:49 PM
Sounds like the "museum" was a colossal waste of time... which I am in favor of, for the record. (wasting time, not the "museum")
Posted by: sharky | August 11, 2009 3:50 PM
Somehow I suspect this whole exhibit is going to be closed for repairs, and quietly replaced with a poster showing the irreducible complexity of a daisy or something.
("Without the STEM, the BLOSSOM would be on the GROUND. Stems don't evolve! This was designed!")
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 11, 2009 3:52 PM
Ken Ham is practically foaming at the mouth.
Mission Accomplished.
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 11, 2009 3:53 PM
Shorter Ken Ham.
Posted by: Trug | August 11, 2009 3:56 PM
Fake Arabic: Check.
Fake Chinese: Check.
Fake Hebrew: Check.
Now all we need is someone to trash his Greek "word" and we have 4 of a kind! Beat that, Hammy!
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 11, 2009 3:58 PM
Woops, should have search the comments for Colbert before being making that joke for the 10th time!
Posted by: AnnaMay | August 11, 2009 4:00 PM
*cough*TED HAGGARD*ahem*
The man doth protest too much, methinks.
Posted by: felixthecat
|
August 11, 2009 4:00 PM
Wait a minute, please! If Ham's sin against his father did not turn Ham's seed forever black, how then do you explain the existence of black people?!!? It pays to think these things through rather than just assume that the Holy Bible is wrong. There really is no other explanation than the Hamite Theory.
Posted by: dorcheat | August 11, 2009 4:02 PM
senecasam #12 said: "It was ex-NFL player and religious diploma mill graduate Kenneth L. Hutcherson, not Hutchinson, of Antioch Bible Church.
Hutcherson is a noted anti-gay crusader as well.
http://www.abchurch.org/our-staff/the-senior-pastor.html"
In case anybody is interested, below is the hyperlink to Ken
Hutchinson's, Hutcherson's pro football record:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HutcKe20.htm
I noted in the church website that he mentioned just playing for the 1974 Dallas Cowboys. According to the pro football reference hyperlink above, he also played for the 1975 San Diego Chargers, a crummy team that posted a won-lost record of 2-12 and lost their first 11 games.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 11, 2009 4:03 PM
The ever reliable and authoritative wikipedia has an article on the curse of Ham.
Posted by: Mandelbrot | August 11, 2009 4:06 PM
@#89
I'm Greek and yeah, it's gibberish. You can't even pronounce it.
Posted by: Steven Carr | August 11, 2009 4:07 PM
I'm studying for a degree, but am goofing off today.
If anybody asks, can you all say I wrote a 2000 word post refuting all of you?
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Posted by: Brian Jordan | August 11, 2009 4:08 PM
Ham is just being consistent about qualifications. His creationist mate Prof. Andy McIntosh (who has built up the longest string of them I've ever seen) is adamant that no matter what qualifications a scientist has, they're as nothing if he contradicts the Bible.
Well, not all that consistent or he'd be demeaning PZ's qualifications not because of where he got them but because he's not a biblical literalist. At least McIntosh has the courage to say what he means.
Posted by: Akiko | August 11, 2009 4:11 PM
SO now they say we are all Iraqis? I guess tha texplains why this is a Holy War to those jugheads.
Posted by: MrFire | August 11, 2009 4:12 PM
James F @63:
...We have a winner! Sort of.
"Evolution: Bankrupt Science, Creationism: Science You Can Bank On"
The blurb:
This freak show plays for one night only, on August 16, in Boston. Anyone else in the area? If you do and you'd like a little chaser for the Creation Museum trip, I'll see you there.
BTW, this was advertised in the Boston Metro. The fucking Boston Metro!
Posted by: SenBoxerFan
|
August 11, 2009 4:15 PM
The area where "Adam and Eve" came from looks somewhere Kenya.
So I guess, this means that we are all from Kenya as the birther claims and none of us are American citizens and are therefore prevented from ever serving as President of the United States of America.
This also means that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon was never really our presidents because their ancestors were born in Kenya and then migrated to different parts of the world.
Posted by: Joffan | August 11, 2009 4:17 PM
What does the languages sign even mean, in its final sentence?
What? what patterns are those? The variation in written languages is astounding - the only commonailty is that people were trying to capture language visually.
Oh yeah, the Greek is all consonants; I wouldn't like to try to pronounce it for fear of swallowing my tongue. The cuneiform isn't saying anything interesting either, with all the wedges the same way up (very tidy). And isn't that supposed to be Cyrillic bottom right... and we definitely know who invented that.
Posted by: Erp | August 11, 2009 4:20 PM
Christophe Thill @#75
More or less yes (it also included the Hebrews themselves under the descendants of Shem son of Noah). It is useful in giving us an idea of how those neighbors were perceived at the time that bit was written. For instance Sheba and Dedan (both in Arabia) are quite distant relatives in this recounting but quite near when they are listed as having Abraham as an ancestor later on in Genesis so probably written by different people with different biases and maybe at different times.
It would be interesting to have a few contemporary equivalent listings/stories from Moab or Edom or Damascus who seem to have been fairly close culturally to Israel and Judah.
Posted by: Veritas | August 11, 2009 4:20 PM
PZ - keep poking. You make a difference every time you do.
A tiny little difference, but it's there.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 11, 2009 4:22 PM
As a gay male, I shudder when I hear the phrase "some of my best friends are gay."
Posted by: daveau | August 11, 2009 4:23 PM
I guess a Harvard PhD doesn't mean what it used to. Holy crap!
Posted by: GMacs | August 11, 2009 4:24 PM
I'm more so pissed off at gnomes. Apparently, they've been stealing my sandals.
Omigash, the nuisance gnomes are everywhere. Does anyone know how to get rid of them? They like to take my socks and alan wrenches and replace them with art projects I made when I was eleven.
Posted by: Mena | August 11, 2009 4:25 PM
Actually the cuneiform is saying "1, 2, 3, 5, 6" so yeah, nothing interesting and not very good in the counting department. There is no such thing as "4", teach the controversy!
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 11, 2009 4:30 PM
I second, third, whatever:
The Arabic is fake. It is not only a fake word it is fake letters. The three rightmost ones are meaningless scribbles the leftmost one could be an "H",... So the thing (wont call it a word) transcribes to: #%¤H
Posted by: SenBoxerFan
|
August 11, 2009 4:30 PM
Thomas Jefferson father children with his black slave, Sally Hemming and free his biracial children after his death, but that doesn't mean that Jefferson was an abolitionist.
Strom Thurmond father a biracial child with his black maid, who was 16 at that time while Strom was 22, but didn't stop him from failibustering the civil acts in the 60's.
Just because all your friends are black doesn't mean that your not a bigot. It is like saying that Jefferson was an abolitionist because he free his biracial children but kept the majority of his slave for his white daughters.
Posted by: Bueller_007
|
August 11, 2009 4:32 PM
The title of Ham's post is: "Can University of Minnesota Professors’ Research Be Trusted?"
Now if I'm not mistaken, University of Minnesota is where creationist granddaddy Henry Morris matriculated.
Oops.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 4:35 PM
Just be glad they haven't gone after your underpants.Posted by: MrFire | August 11, 2009 4:36 PM
Don't worry Daveau, an MIT one still does: my wife will tear him a new asshole.
Posted by: Bob L | August 11, 2009 4:37 PM
Gnomes are the real menace. These creationists are just getting in the way of getting rid of the gnomes once and for all.
Posted by: sharky | August 11, 2009 4:38 PM
Qwerty: I have before pointed out to someone that just because a gay person is your best friend, you cannot claim to be that person's best friend.
A literal reading of the Bible really does change all of science. I'm wondering why the Aborigines were singled out to have such a family-oriented language.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/43873/Australian-Aboriginal-languages/235214/Vocabulary-and-speech-registers
But think how this simplies the science of Creationist Anthropology! The Aboriginal family structure evolved because the Aborigines, post-Babel, had so many words for specific family members. So, of course, they had to be a kin-oriented culture so they could use all those words. Creationist Anthropology solves another cultural riddle!
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 11, 2009 4:38 PM
Mena@#107
Of course there is no such thing as "4." "4" is just really 2 "2s."
Posted by: footiepajamas | August 11, 2009 4:40 PM
Wow, I'm so impressed! Not 1 but 2 pictures of Ham standing next to the preacher whose name he doesn't really know.
As they try to back away from this "Hamite" story, I'd like to point out that my southern baptist mother taught me 40 years ago the "fact" that Africans were descended from Ham. It may not be biblical - but it is part of their folklore.
Next time stay on the Ohio side of the border and spend your money at the Underground Railroad Museum in Cincinnati.
And - is it really that difficult to get the languages right?
Posted by: Joffan | August 11, 2009 4:40 PM
@Mena 107... I thought the cuneiform first row was probably 1,2,3 but never considered skipping 4. Not broad-minded enough I guess. :-)
@PeterKarim 108, would that be a gutteral H on #%¤H ?... easily mistaken for an English K...
Posted by: Richard Smith | August 11, 2009 4:43 PM
@Bob L (#113):
I support the efforts to eradicate the gnomes, but research needs to be done on safer, less violent methods of gnome extermination. I propose the establishment of The Humane Gnome (Eradication) Project.
Posted by: zzames | August 11, 2009 4:44 PM
MrFire @99
Sorry can't do html, bit of a divvy. Can't be, can it? Stem cells? wot?
group members tab. PhD student
http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/research/researchlab.aspx?id=1126
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | August 11, 2009 4:45 PM
So jealous of Ken. I'm a big Samuel L. Jackson fan.
http://i32.tinypic.com/2ir3pk8.jpg
Posted by: Geds | August 11, 2009 4:52 PM
footiepajamas@116: As they try to back away from this "Hamite" story, I'd like to point out that my southern baptist mother taught me 40 years ago the "fact" that Africans were descended from Ham.
I got that line of bunkum in high school. In case you're wondering, I graduated in 1999. From a high school thirty miles west of Chicago. I lived in Wheaton, Illinois, aka The Holy Land West, but still...
Of course I didn't learn that in high school. I was told it was the case by my boss, who was a good, evangelical churchgoing man who, um, really, really liked the ladies. Including at least one of his daughter's friends. Not that that really has anything to do with anything. I just thought it would be fun to share.
Posted by: Canuck | August 11, 2009 4:53 PM
Late to the party as I've been very busy today. Haven't read the comments either, so apologies if I repeat. But this is such crap.
First, what's the big deal if you sleep naked, the sheets come off and your kid happens to see your dick? I mean seriously? I have two daughters and two sons and we have tried to inculcate in them the idea that nakedness is natural (and not always to do with sex) and we all wander around the house naked at times (after a shower, etc.) and nobody gets bent out of shape. It's all very ho hum. Nobody closed the bathroom door unless we have company in the house. La la. Normal bodily functions.
Our youngest - age 5 - still jumps into bed between my wife and I when we are naked and nobody has turned to a pillar of salt yet. We just hug and laugh and tickle and it's all good.
Now, let's go to the next step. Say my kid were to cover me up if my wang was visible on a hot July night. I might say, "what the hell are you doing? It's hot in here!", but I would never think to curse him or his offspring. What a crazy notion.
This all sounds like something that springs from the same well of prudery and sexual obsession that makes muslims want their women invisible, save for the eyes. (For those of you who might find it funny, my daughter, who has a wicked sense of humour, calls these women who are totally covered except for the slit over their eyes "letterbox ladies". I nearly cracked up the first time she said that.)
It's one thing to believe in the literal interpretation of the bible - that's delusional all on its own. But it's quite another thing to think that belief in such BS as is quoted above is in any way reasonable. That's just fucking insane. Seriously. Is the sight of a sleeping man's dick worth all the misery that alleged curse brought to black people? I think not. Dawkins nailed it with the title "god delusion". It really is completely delusional. Ken Ham and his ilk really are crazy, in the clinical sense. But then the entire mythos of the west is insane: they are just the more extreme end of it.
Posted by: Nfpendleton | August 11, 2009 4:53 PM
In Ham's defense, I too would be frantic in his position if I was buried under such an overwhelming pile of reality in the face of my delusions and lies, for all the world to see.
Plus, the ENTIRE PLANET EARTH got an indepth tour of the CreoPalace for FREE. That's really gotta hurt...
/end FundieCapsTM
Posted by: bcoppola | August 11, 2009 4:54 PM
Slightly OT, but let me express my thanks to Jen (Blag Hag) for her great recap on her blog of her visit to the Creation "museum".
Posted by: James F | August 11, 2009 4:56 PM
#99 MrFire
WHAT... WHAT... WHAT?!?!?!??!!? *reads it again* WHAT?!?!?!?!?
I don't believe this! Another freaking Kurt Wise, pretending to believe the science the whole time.
Some background: Jeanson was a grad student in David Scadden's lab at Mass General. He might have been in the Department of Medical Sciences grad program of Harvard Med (thankfully, I got my PhD across the river at the main university). He was fifth author on a recent Nature paper. I know somebody in that lab, I think I'll email him and see what he knows about this. And for that matter, Prof. Scadden ought to know what his alumnus is up to.
MrFire, if you and your wife are going, I might just join you. I would need someone to keep me from hitting the ceiling like a Roman candle. Boston zerg rush, anyone?
Posted by: Greg | August 11, 2009 4:56 PM
Does anyone know where in the name of pasta they got the year 2348 BC?
It's quite a specific number, (added to the current (completely arbitrary) Gregorian date of 2009 gives us 4357 well of course a zero should only be used on a full moon falling on a third Tuesday every odd numbered month thrice a millenium, or something)
To cut a long question short, is there a reason for this particular number? Ken's luck lotto numbers?
Posted by: daveau | August 11, 2009 4:56 PM
MrFire@112
Go, MrsMrFire! Sic 'em!
Posted by: Xenithrys | August 11, 2009 4:59 PM
So to sum up, whereas real museums are founded on and supported by scholarship, the "Creation Museum" can't even get its displays right according to the only text it respects, and that's a (translation of a translation of a translation of a) collection of bronze age myths.
Posted by: SEF | August 11, 2009 5:00 PM
There's every likelihood that Ken Ham's alleged scientific experts/consultants were every bit as bad as his language ones (apart from any genuine scientists whom he merely deliberately misquoted and misinterpreted etc of course). Religious people do tend to be so well-rounded in their ignorance - there's such a lot of reality to deny. And they have approximately zero regard for the truth. It wouldn't exactly have been difficult to get the various languages right (at least in their modern form, if not in imaginary pseudo-historical Tower Of Babel form).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 11, 2009 5:00 PM
MAJeff is going to be soooo pissed.
Posted by: Happy | August 11, 2009 5:02 PM
There are two different types of these liars. IDiots like Dembski and Ruse try to make their bullshit sound sciency and remove all mention of religion (i.e. Crintelligent Designists). Ham doesn't even bother; he proclaims the truth of something by its being mentioned in the bible. He also plays the morality card. But assholes like Ham have to completely ignore 3/4 of what the bible actually says...cause its horrible. Absolutely horrible. Someone mentioned it and I second it: next time the horde visits some bible bullshit place, they should wear T-shirts with some truly horrific bible quotes. Might I recommend Numbers 31:1-18?
Posted by: Greg | August 11, 2009 5:06 PM
Richard Smith @#118
"I support the efforts to eradicate the gnomes, but research needs to be done on safer, less violent methods of gnome extermination. I propose the establishment of The Humane Gnome (Eradication) Project."
That's fucking brilliant!! the worst, and funniest line I've heard in a long time. Hats off buddy.
Posted by: spondee | August 11, 2009 5:10 PM
The-Ham-that-keeps-giving also says that since we came from only two people of the same race, there is no such thing as race. He urges people to use the term "people groups" instead.
Posted by: Lynna | August 11, 2009 5:12 PM
James Sweet @66: nice sound file of "Militant Atheist" on your blog. Enjoyed that.
Posted by: MichelP | August 11, 2009 5:15 PM
So Noah was really our ancestor, what's the name of his wife again?
And all his children were each of a different race? Or is there another biblical or creationist explanation that I missed?
Posted by: MadScientist | August 11, 2009 5:21 PM
I can't believe anyone still believes the Hamite nonsense. Everyone knows that many of the Africans turned black because Apollo was being an ass and rode his chariot too close to the ground. Then there's the catholic story; apparently they don't read their bibles and don't know of the Ham story, so black people are satan's most successful attempt at creating humans (with monkeys and apes being other less successful attempts). While not official doctrine, that story was extremely popular in the not too distant past; I've met numerous catholics over the years who believed that.
Posted by: Lsuoma | August 11, 2009 5:23 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak@#115
No. Everyone knows that 2 + 2 = 5. And Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia...
Posted by: Dahan | August 11, 2009 5:25 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 130,
LoL! I hadn't even thought of that. That should fun.
Posted by: gruebait | August 11, 2009 5:25 PM
@ Greg:
See the Wikipedia entry on James Ussher. (He calculated from all the 'begats' in Genesis.)
Posted by: RandomData | August 11, 2009 5:27 PM
I thought from the comments that the Greek might actually be Phoenician (they used no vowels), but the letters as written are modern. Didn't notice any reference to Mayan writing on there either...
By the way, #85, keep wasting!
Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | August 11, 2009 5:28 PM
Ken Ham's Arabic is a complete fabrication, like everything else in his "museum". Here's the closest it comes to real-world Arabic:
First letter: This character does not exist. It looks sort of like an upside down sin (س), but with two dots! No one uses an upside-down sin, and there is no adopted variant with two dots—not in Persian, Kurdish, Urdu, Pashto, or any others.
Second letter: A very funny squashed medial nun (ـنـ).
Third letter: This character does not exist. It looks like a weird medial za'-like character (ـﻅ) without its bottom.
Fourth and final letter: This character does not exist. It looks sort of like a medial mim (ـمـ), but that can't be correct because it's in the final position, and a final mim looks like this: "ـم", with a little tail. It also looks a little like a final ha' (ـه), but the loop is raised, so that can't be correct.
What's it spell? Ṥṅżƕ (سنﻅـه), or Ṥṅżɯ (سنﻅـمـ).
This must be how Ken Ham spells bullshit in Arabic!
Posted by: JohnW | August 11, 2009 5:29 PM
Happy, #131:
No, there's just one type of these liars. The ID people only removed all mention of religion when they were trying to attract a non-religious audience and get creationism into the schools. Since Dover, they've given up. Take a look at anything from the last year or so at Uncommon Descent. It's all Jesus, all the time.
Posted by: Ali | August 11, 2009 5:32 PM
I am an emissary of the Gnome-Lord and I demand you desist from your persecution of our peoples.
Posted by: October Mermaid | August 11, 2009 5:34 PM
So, because Ken Ham knows a black guy, he's instantly free of any racist tendencies or beliefs, no matter how subconscious?
Eh. Makes about as much sense as anything in the Creation Museum, I guess. At least he's consistent in being shallow and simple.
Also, every cornered theist will nearly always turn to the "You're arguing against god and you don't even believe in him!" trick. It's pretty last ditch and lame and I think they know it, but when you're up against the ropes to that extent, you'll toss anything out.
Posted by: CRShelton | August 11, 2009 5:34 PM
If Ham keeps digging himself into a hole at his current rate, maybe he'll finally find all that water from the flood.
Posted by: Mena | August 11, 2009 5:37 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak @115:
Of course there is no such thing as "4." "4" is just really 2 "2s."
It's not only 2+2, it is also 2*2 and 22. It's gotta be up to no good.
Posted by: wrpd4 | August 11, 2009 5:38 PM
#135: Joan of Ark?
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 11, 2009 5:38 PM
I am an emissary of the Gnome-Lord and I demand you desist from your persecution of our peoples. - Ali
Let my people gno!!
Posted by: October Mermaid | August 11, 2009 5:43 PM
I think PZ and others should push Ham on this question again and again: if the Bible is literally true and he believes all of it, should Ham himself not fully support and strive for the return of slavery? After all, the descendants of Ham are meant by God himself to be slaves, right? And don't let him get off saying "We are all slaves to sin" because that's a cop-out and if we are all slaves to sin, does that mean that people WEREN'T before Ham was cursed by Noah? Where in the Bible does it literally say this?
He'll either have to squirm uncomfortably and twist around it, looking like a bigger asshole than he already does or he'll have to finally proudly admit to racism (although I guess it's not really racism when God approves it, just like how it's not genocide when God does it, right?) and then, well, look like an even bigger asshole than he already does.
So, Ken Ham, if you or your little twerp trolls are reading this: why aren't you fighting to reinstate slavery as God's will? If you think Jesus on the cross and the new covenant did away with that, how do you explain the Hamite justification for slavery in recent human history? And do you admit that before Jesus' death, it was perfectly ok for blacks to be slaves? Tell the god's truth and shame the devil.
Posted by: Geds | August 11, 2009 5:44 PM
October Mermaid @144: So, because Ken Ham knows a black guy, he's instantly free of any racist tendencies or beliefs, no matter how subconscious?
You ought to see the reverse of that one. I had a pastor who I knew IRL attempt to "engage in conversation" with me on my blog, oh, about a year ago. The guy was (and, I'd assume, is) a complete and total git. I also happened to know from those RL interactions that he's controlling, creepy, and misogynistic to a fault.
In the course of things I called him a misogynistic jackass. At the same time his wife was posting on my blog as Anonymous and backing him up. I didn't know it was his wife. I didn't know whether it was a woman or a friggin' unicorn. I said some deeply unpleasant things to Anonymous about the things Anonymous was saying. Jackass pastor came back and said, "Hey, you just called my wife an asshole.* Who's the misogynistic one now?"
So I guess if having one friend who's black means you're not racist, saying one thing that's not nice to someone who ends up being a woman that means you're misogynistic.
It's a slippery, slippery slope...
*And, literally, that was it. I used "asshole," not any gender specific language. I also never declared my inherent superiority due to gender, nor Anonymous's inherent inferiority. The guy was a jackass on every level.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 11, 2009 6:02 PM
Gruebait @139
See the Wikipedia entry on James Ussher. (He calculated from all the 'begats' in Genesis.)
He used the most advanced dating technique available at the time, Begat-14 - based on patriarch decay rate.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 11, 2009 6:09 PM
Actually a few months ago comments were showing up on a thread that was long dead. It turned out Ham had linked to it on his "blog". The comments went past 1300+, PZ had to close it and open a new thread for Ham's followers (see details here). Readers of Ham's "blog" couldn't vent their outrage of PZ at Ham's site because he doesn't allow comments there, even though AiG itself says that a comment section is one of the most frequent requests by their readers. Ironically, in order to voice their opinions these creationists had to go to an atheist blog.
I think when Ham found out that not only that his followers had an outlet for expression but that it was at a place where he would regularly be challenged he decided to stop linking.
Posted by: DethB4DCaf
|
August 11, 2009 6:12 PM
In case someone ELSE did not mention it and I have not found it in the comments, methinks I've found a typ-o-o-o:
"The picture specifically shows that Africans are descendants of Ham"
....something.... seems.... wrong.... here....
.......Deth
Posted by: Jason | August 11, 2009 6:14 PM
Here's proof of the creation museum's racist world view... posted again for those that might have missed it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/evolution-races.jpg
Just the thought that anyone would have the nerve to host this crap on their website... shows how racist these ignorant fools really are.
Posted by: GeralCorasjo
|
August 11, 2009 6:15 PM
I wonder if Ken shares Colbert's black friend..
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2008/05/jordancolbert.jpeg
Posted by: DethB4DCaf
|
August 11, 2009 6:16 PM
Sorry ==> my bad.. "Ken Ham" versus "Ham"... just didn't think that one through |-:
My apologies (-; again.... Deth....
Posted by: Newfie | August 11, 2009 6:17 PM
Booo! on Nick
Posted by: DominEditrix | August 11, 2009 6:24 PM
Gee! Gnomes!
Posted by: IST | August 11, 2009 6:29 PM
I personally would love to see the piglet rapist post here... the ensuing verbal beatdown would have me laughing for days.
Posted by: thalarctos | August 11, 2009 6:35 PM
Oh, FFS.
Don't they study Classical Hebrew and Biblical Greek at their seminaries? I mean, I can see getting the Arabic and Chinese wrong just because they're so stupid and determinedly ignorant, but wouldn't you think they'd bother to get their own supposedly holy language at least semi-right?
Posted by: Coragyps | August 11, 2009 6:36 PM
"Someone mentioned it and I second it: next time the horde visits some bible bullshit place, they should wear T-shirts with some truly horrific bible quotes."
Franklin, North Carolina, where a son and grandson of mine live, is infested with signs, mostly about three meters off the ground, that each consist of a buck-nekkid Bible citation. I haven't looked any of them up, but I'm going to bet none of them refer to raping virgins after you kill their entire families, or to golden replicas of "emerods," or to Lot screwin' his daughters.
I'm going to visit in six weeks. We should be fair and balanced in our versification, too, no?
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 11, 2009 6:41 PM
What is this fixation with qualifications? That suddenly if you go so far in education talking shit that it becomes okay to talk shit? The authority of the position is not sufficient to argue a case. Science is about what fits with the evidence, it should always be that way. It doesn't matter what qualifications one has if they get that fundamental aspect wrong...
By the way, what did this museum say about other galaxies?
Posted by: Samantha | August 11, 2009 6:46 PM
Jason @ 154
Unfortunately, that is their attempt to show the "Darwinian" evolutionary view of races. While we know full well that the only evolutionary aspect of race is evolution to suit the conditions people lived in (just like with animals), AiG is trying to say that evolution postulates that some races are less "human" and thus closer to their ape ancestors than others.
Of course, they believe that being even remotely related to apes is a massive insult. Ignoring, of course, the fact that there is no "better" or "worse" evolution... just evolution to suit what's around you. If we're operating under their presumption that evolution means also believing the Negroid genome is "less evolved" and not "differently" evolved, I still don't think being a minute genetic change further away from our original ancestor would be worth what being Caucasoid in the African climes would entail.
Posted by: MrFire | August 11, 2009 6:47 PM
James F @125
Be good to see you there. I think I'm going to the 7pm
talksermon.Posted by: Itspiningforthefjords
|
August 11, 2009 6:47 PM
A small wager says any second coming of this sort will be forbidden by Ham & Co. I'd even wager they wouldclose the mooseeum rather than allow this to happen again.
At least they don't have Xian Brownshirts to "handle" the situation. Yet.
Posted by: rimpal | August 11, 2009 6:48 PM
Hammie will learn not to walk into debate with a glass jaw. Pseudoscientific cranks and frauds like him should be ridiculed at every occasion. Likewise for BillD.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 11, 2009 6:52 PM
...but wouldn't you think they'd bother to get their own supposedly holy language at least semi-right?
It's like the TRUTH v. the truth.
You could have 5000 people gather in a field and asked to consider the color of the sky. You could have perfect consensus by all that the sky is in fact blue. You could then have somebody come along and make a scriptural argument for why the sky is pink. About 20% would change their answer to pink.
truth = sky is blue
TRUTH = sky is pink
The truly faithful exhibiting a proper Biblical world view aren't in need of letters being arranged in a particular secular order as long as the message conveys the TRUTH. I had this explained to me once by a Christian.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 11, 2009 6:52 PM
E.V. #60
I like that, that's very good !
Posted by: Snarla | August 11, 2009 6:53 PM
IMHO the use of mock Arabic script in the above chart highlight the illustrator(s) racist orientalism . The Arabic "word" depicted says nothing, for it's made up of latin letters in some arabesquish font. I can make out alijm which I suppose it could be the name of the signer of Ham's "scientists'" diplomas.
Aw man, I didn't even notice.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 11, 2009 6:56 PM
At least they don't have Xian Brownshirts to "handle" the situation. Yet.
They are currently tied up at town hall meetings.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 11, 2009 7:05 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak #81
Better be careful, word is the Verucca Gnome is subcontracting.
Posted by: Coragyps | August 11, 2009 7:22 PM
"Don't they study Classical Hebrew and Biblical Greek at their seminaries?"
Dream on. Late Elizabethan English, maybe, if they went to the top-drawer fundy seminaries.
Posted by: Tim Fuller | August 11, 2009 7:23 PM
I was raised midwestern Presbyterian and had never heard of the Ham theory of black inferiority until I moved to Mississippi in my early twenties. Definitely a vestigial carryover from slavery, no doubt used by the church as a salve to the soul of the slaveholders. Great men of otherwise extremely high moral character must have been HONESTLY convinced that the evil they were perpetrating on other humans was part of God's plan. Either that, or they were all the kin of the current crop of torture loving warmongering birther party constituents. Some folks just loves them some torture.
I predict that Mr. Ham will alter the graphic on the display that incited this topic. The new graphic will be less offensive to the many Black friends he's so fond of. It will have the accursed moving away from the area in a more nebulous direction.
There's lots of weird crap in the Bible that I never learned. It's only recently that I found out how pissed God can get at kids for mocking bald headed men. Maybe that's a lesson I missed whilst trying to sneak a peek up Sally's dress during Bible School or maybe my church just chose to skip over all the icky parts of the Bible so they wouldn't give us kids nightmares?
I'm sure that Ham is still glad for the atheist business. IMHO, he exploited the incredibly popular dinosaur fad during it's heyday and is probably suffering a bit these days. There's another Dino theme park somewhere that just went on the block for bankruptcy. Not sure if that one had insane Jesus freaks as supporters or if it was even biblically themed, but it shows the dimunition of interest in plastic dinosaurs as effective attractants of business. Note how prominent a position the saddled triceratops held in BOTH the SSA/PZ camp as well as the Dominionist Creos. Dinosaur marketing really jumped the shark almost immediately after the second Jurassic Park. From a business standpoint I'd suggest Mr. Ham move away from the Genesis theme and focus on the more highly marketable (and apocalyptic) Revelations. A permanent theme park to scare the hell out of people.
Thanks to all of you for the multimedia extravaganza. Your content was quite delectable.
The clandestine pics of the traveling triceratops is one of my personal favorites, though it's hard to top PZ on a stationary fiberglass dinosaur mimicking Roy Rogers on Trigger, in what I view as a more contemporary rendition of a Frederic Remington bronze. How can you look at PZ on the triceratops and not be moved in a manner befitting the miracles of Fatima? Yea of little faith.
Personal note to Ham: I'm not a militant atheist. I'm a militant agnostic. I don't know and you don't either.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Jessica | August 11, 2009 7:23 PM
One thing of interest that I did learn from being made to go to a Catholic school (my parents thought I would get a better education than in a private school, which I don't think I did): "to uncover [someone's] nakedness" is a Biblical euphemism for sexual relations. For example, the Biblical list of levels of consanguinity that prohibit someone from marrying another person, Leviticus 18:7 through 18:18, consists on variations of, "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, nor the nakedness of your mother: she is your mother. You shall not uncover her nakedness." Some more modern translations replace this phrase with "You shall not have intercourse with" because it means exactly that. I think it puts the whole story in a completely different, lulzy perspective.
Posted by: Tim Fuller | August 11, 2009 7:29 PM
So the kid buggered his old man while he was drunk asleep and got caught by his brothers? Sweet.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 11, 2009 7:30 PM
Itspiningforthefjords #165
Xe
Posted by: Zach Miller | August 11, 2009 7:38 PM
Oh shit, look! PZ's figure has the names "Adam" and "Eve" in it! The right will take this to mean that SCIENCE agrees that there was an Adam and Eve! Now we just have to find that invisible Eden...
Posted by: Brian Jordan | August 11, 2009 7:43 PM
It's not just the Ham thing, there's other slavery in the bible and not just the OT:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/topics/slavery.html
Although it's not clear, in the NT quotes, whether "servant" is a biblical euphemism for slave or the argument's being hammed up a bit and perhaps they really meant servants.
Posted by: Sardine | August 11, 2009 7:48 PM
"And this professor seems to have a fixation on me—.."
Perhaps he should take a missionary position. Just sayin'.
Posted by: dave souza | August 11, 2009 7:52 PM
Now, you're being terribly nasty to that nice Mr. Ham when his website has a whole page sayin' that races are really all descended from Adam & Eve..
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i3/human_race.asp
An' different coloured skin came about after the dispersal of Babel because of environmental pressures and natural selection.... tho' of course it wasn't evolution, nosiree, cos there were no new mutations...
"It is interesting to note that if a pure white European is married to a pure black Negro, the offspring are an intermediate brown called mulatto."
Eh, mulatto was originally neutral, but in 19th century U.S.A. it meant that the offspring of two races were sterile, proving that the races were separate species... classic polygenist racism.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8Ioi_ZLYjysC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=mulatto+sterile&source=bl&ots=cEG6I8H1qX&sig=V0MtOj4djFCMPUvW7vCKnW61tlw&hl=en&ei=aOKBSoCCA926jAfJv9z5CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=mulatto%20sterile&f=false
But then these polygenists like Agassiz were good Creationists.... just sayin'
Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 11, 2009 7:58 PM
If you're familiar with the Mappa Mundi (reputedly the oldest world map in existence and located in Hereford, England), Eden is situated right about where Iraq is now. It's marked on the map, clear as day. It's the little circle at the top if you follow that link and click on the image. (Early maps had East at the top - "Oriented" towards the Orient, of course.)
Posted by: cargo cult | August 11, 2009 8:13 PM
That was a very nice exposition of racist theories based on religious authoritarian rule, and as noted, it was widely promoted during the Renaissance, which also initiated a huge explosion in the global slave trade (largely from Africa to the Caribbean).
However, this is where those who worship at Darwin's feet run into some uncomfortable facts, namely, that Darwin espoused a similar theory of scientific racism based on a complete misunderstanding of genetic inheritance mechanisms.
Darwin and his cousin Sir Francis Galton believed in the gemmule theory of inheritance:
"In 1868, Darwin put forward the theory of Pangenesis to account for the inheritance of acquired characters. He suggested that all cells of an organism shed minute particles, or gemmules, which circulate throughout the body and are passed on to the nest generation through the germ cells, thereby transmitting the characteristics of the parents to their offspring."
This laid the basis for Darwin's belief that interracial breeding of humans of European and African or Asian descent would give rise to abhorrent monstrosities - the "hybrid incompatibility of gemmules" theory.
According to this notion, the African gemmules were compatible with one another, and the European gemmules also, bu a mixture would produce a 'clash'. Thus, Darwin quoted the "famous remark" by the explorer Livingston that "God made the white man, and God made the black man, but the devil made the half-caste."
Thus, Darwin played a starring role in the rapid growth of scientifically-inspired theories of racism, which were expounded on by his cousin Dalton and which rapidly spread across Europe, eventually forming the 'scientific basis' for the Nazi Holocaust.
However, it was all based on a false theory of inheritance - and this is why, for the sake of historical clarity as well as the public's understanding of science in general, Darwin must be toppled from his pedestal.
It was wearing pretty thin, anyway.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
August 11, 2009 8:15 PM
Ken Ham, the human punching bag. Down on the canvas yet again.
Posted by: Skemono | August 11, 2009 8:18 PM
@174:
There are a lot of ways people try justifying that particular curse, and a lot of them involve sex. Some I'm sure claim Ham had sex with his father. Others involve Ham having sex with his mother, or watching his parents going at it. And there was at least one who said that sex was prohibited while on the Ark, but Ham snuck out and "knew" his wife one night.
I also recall one claim that negroes were on the Ark (because they were animals, and Noah had to get two of every animal on there), and Ham slept with one of them, so he was cursed. And another that he was already married to a black woman, so he was cursed.
Posted by: dave souza | August 11, 2009 8:32 PM
#182, nice bit of quote mining, but the remark you're quoting is of that well known vicious racist David Livingstone...
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F877.2&pageseq=60
So why should that knock Darwin "off his pedestal"? That he gave credence to a statement by one of the most revered missionaries of the time? Scientific racism had already been established in the US by polygenists such as Nott and Agassiz, and Darwin stongly argued against their racism and against the slavery they supported. As for the Nazis, you fail per Godwin's law, and of course they got their ideas from de Gobineau, not from Darwin.
Posted by: MrFire | August 11, 2009 8:33 PM
Strawmania. FYI, PZ addressed this very issue in an earlier thread:
Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | August 11, 2009 8:39 PM
Ham not a racist? I don't think so..
http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.com/2008/12/hate-mongering-ken-ham-racial-hypocrisy.html
Posted by: Beaker | August 11, 2009 8:52 PM
I'm curious, do Ham's minions actually have better qualifications than PZ? At least in Britain, being a Professor is generally a step or two above being a Doctor and requires more time and effort. What qualifications does PZ hold?
I know that qualifications don't matter when it's the facts that decide who's right but I suspect Ham's been telling porkies again.
Posted by: Mary Lynne | August 11, 2009 9:12 PM
Este's blog is called "Hard Truth - Renaissance of Rational Thinking" - Seriously? really? I couldn't stop giggling. I guess he doesn't know what any of those words mean?
Posted by: Anton Mates | August 11, 2009 9:22 PM
cargo cult @ #182,
Um, this is almost entirely wrong. Galton did not support Darwin's gemmule theory (pangenesis), and in fact performed a series of experiments on rabbits which he believed to have refuted it. And Darwin said nothing whatsoever about whites and blacks having "incompatible gemmules," nor did he say that interracial breeding would lead to "abhorrent monstrosities." He did believe that interracial people were on average more likely to be "savage" and "degraded." But he explained this as mostly due to poor upbringing, and secondarily due to hybridization producing reversions to an ancestral state, just as crossbreeding within domestic animal species tended to produce "wild-type" offspring. It had nothing to do with gemmules.
Nor, of course, was Nazi racism based on evolutionary principles. Hitler was a creationist, and the Nazis banned "Darwinist" and "Haeckelist" literature.
And while I'm at it, Darwin didn't quote Livingstone as making that remark; he quoted that remark as being made to Livingstone.
Here's the relevant chunk of "The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication:
Posted by: raven | August 11, 2009 9:30 PM
Darwin hated slavery and wanted it abolished. For his time he was quite the liberal. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slaveholders. Abraham Lincoln said he didn't think blacks were equal to whites but they should be free anyway.
Speaking of uncomfortable facts. At the same time the fundies were slave holders. They fought a war to keep their slaves and lost. They opposed civil rights and integration up to this day. Many of them are still racist pigs.
But fundies are never uncomfortable with facts. They just ignore them all and lie a lot. And of course no one worships Darwin. Any more than they worship Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Watson and Crick, Bohr or any other ultra world class scientist. Darwin is on the 10 pound UK banknote for a reason.
With a Wedgwood wife and mother, Darwin saw abolition as a "sacred cause" too, and in his culminating work, the Descent of Man (1871), he placed Clarkson at the moral apex of humanity and called slavery a "great sin".
Such family feelings explain why, as a 16-year-old at Edinburgh University in 1826 (in a period often dismissed by historians), Darwin could spend 40 extra-curricular hours with a freed slave from Guyana studying taxidermy and become his "intimate" friend.
And this when many visiting Americans saw any black/white friendship as "revolting".
Torture accounts
Darwin witnessed slavery everywhere in South America. The Beagle's own supply ship on her previous trip had originally been a slaver, and, once sold, it reverted to slaving. While Darwin was on the continent, it was again disgorging chained Africans.
Darwin's journal of the voyage (1845) gives a damning account of the tortures he saw or heard of; but of all the "heart-sickening atrocities", the worst for him were the stories of masters threatening to sell the children of disobedient slaves..
Posted by: GMacs | August 11, 2009 9:30 PM
I am an emissary of the Gnome-Lord and I demand you desist from your persecution of our peoples.
Once you give me back my socks, tools, gameboy, various supplies that disappeared before running out, and my old journal, we'll talk.
Posted by: Billy C | August 11, 2009 9:38 PM
To be fair to Ham, his ideas about race are a bit more complicated and even wackier than the old Ham myth. Here's the explanation he links to from AiG:
http://www.onehumanrace.com/docs/skin_color.asp
You see, Adam and Eve were a "mid-brown," and all their descendants were darker or lighter brown until the Tower of Babel Event. (Funny-- Adam and Eve looked pretty peachy in the Creation Museum pics.)
Then at the Tower of Babel the African languages all picked the darker folks and the Romance languages picked the paler ones, and everyone knew where they had to go.
There's some stuff about Vitamin D and skin cancer, and a story with echoes of peppered moths, but my favorite part is when he shows that his explanation means that it's the _scientists_ who are racists.
You see, Neanderthals had bendy bones, which implies a Vitamin D deficiency, which means they were dark-skinned so those racist scientists called them ape-men.
You know, at least with the Ham myth you have some idea where to start ...
Posted by: Zar | August 11, 2009 9:43 PM
If you are curious, the faux-Greek lettering spells "SGPHPPS". Classical Greek had some confounding consonant clusters ("ktaomai"? "pter"?), but it was never that bad.
I'm sure it was provided by the same PhD.s who did the science.
Posted by: raven | August 11, 2009 9:43 PM
I'll add that the bible is basically soaked in racism. The entire old testament is the story of god's chosen people fighting with the tribes around them, massacring them, genociding them, and stealing their land and women.
The original ethnic cleansing was the genocide of the Canaanites and Amelakites.
And of course, they all had slaves. In Exodus, if you need some extra cash you can always sell your kids as sex slaves.
Since god is behind all this, to fundies slavery and genocide must seem normal.
Posted by: raven | August 11, 2009 9:55 PM
Ham is wrong and lying as usual. Guy is just Making It Up.
Never heard that about bendy bones.
Neanderthals were light skinned. We know this because DNA sequencing shows they had a mutation in the melanocortin receptor gene, one major controller of skin color and the same gene mutated in native Europeans.
If anyone ever called Neanderthals ape men, it must have been centuries ago. The prevailing view is that they were another way of being human. They survived in the ice age north for hundreds of thousands of years while our line never managed to gain a foothold until 40 kyrs ago. Contrary to common belief, they did produce some art.
Posted by: bunny | August 11, 2009 10:07 PM
My personal favorite part of the article was this (emphasis mine):
------------
On Sunday evening, I met a few skeptics who turned up to hear me speak. During the break I had an interesting conversation with a number of them—including one man who was an ardent evolutionist and told me I didn’t know what I was talking about. I asked him to defend his belief in evolution and give me his best arguments—but the best he could do was to say he could get a book for me to read. Typical of so many people, he didn’t know why he believed what he did—couldn’t defend what he believed—but he knew evolution was right, as he read it in a book and heard secular scientists teach it!! ~Ken Ham
------------
Yes, his understanding of evolution was fatally flawed because the only proof he had was written in a book! Fortunately no Christian must ever endure such a lack of evidence.
Posted by: shishinden | August 11, 2009 10:13 PM
A little tangential, but the fact that Ham's "best black friend" was a former NFL player brought Dave Zirin to mind. You can read the reports of the best sports writer working today at http://www.edgeofsports.com/.
Even nerds will appreciate his PZ-esque polemics.
As for the jaunt around the creation funfair, thanks to Dr Myers and the rest of the gang for going into the belly of the beast.
This "culture war" - of the right's own making - is not waged by the moderates, but by the extremists who lap up Ham's drivel like so much mother's milk. Look at the town hall debates on health care for an indication of the conversation that some would wish us to tiptoe around.
Posted by: dinkum | August 11, 2009 10:16 PM
SGPHPPS.
Clearly, an etymological root of spaghetti (variants sgaphetti and skapetti), and PS surely indicates Pirate Ships. I think Hambone has a saboteur amongst his pellets.
Posted by: MrFire | August 11, 2009 10:27 PM
raven (191) and Anton Mates (190):
Great answers and info - thanks.
Posted by: John | August 11, 2009 10:31 PM
Ken Ham's presentation of Dinosaurs in the biblical text was great.
Thanks
Posted by: Desert Son | August 11, 2009 10:33 PM
The ancient Greeks had Bloom County, too? Sounds like something Bill the Cat would say. I didn't realize Berke Breathed was that old.
Ack! Thpptptptfftptp!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: hje | August 11, 2009 10:47 PM
People like Ham love publicity (strokes his ego, helps fill his coffers), but only if they can micromanage it. PZ won't play his game his way and so Ham is pissed. Cry baby, cry.
I guess he could have been there to confront all those naughty unbelievers, but Ken's schedule is *so* very busy, since he has to constantly be on the road peddling his wares to home-schooler-types. Someone has to keep his eye on number one and the bottom line (no matter what that socialist Jesus guy said).
Even if Ham was right in everything he says about racism, he would still has to explain why he worships the ultimate in genocidal misanthropic deities. And it's not enough that he believes his god did this once, but that he also believes god will do it again, at the end of time, but on a larger scale. So why isn't he angry at his god? His god hates peoples!
Posted by: John | August 11, 2009 10:57 PM
People like P love publicity (strokes his ego, helps fill his coffers), but only if they can micromanage it. Ken won't play his game his way and so P is pissed. Cry racism, cry.
Posted by: Jason | August 11, 2009 10:57 PM
@163 - Agreed.
I should have clarified that in my post - thanks! What the AiG is trying to show is that believing in evolution = racism. My point is that the mere image of a black man being equated with a pseudo ape-man ignorant concoction of a creature is in itself racist and ignorant beyong any doubt. Regardless of the point they are trying to make - they've alreay made themselves look a bunch of ignorant racists. How foolish - but what would you expect from a bunch of fools.
Where's the PR people to clean this crap up before it gets published on the web?? that's what I'm wondering... Even creationists should recognize the value of a little public relations. I guess not the Hamster is the PR.
Posted by: Geds | August 11, 2009 10:58 PM
Oh, I see what you did there, John. Clever. Really fucking clever. Tell us some more.
Posted by: onein6billion | August 11, 2009 11:00 PM
There's a Mark Hausam sighting @ 44!
He seems to be desperately trying to say something sensible, but I'm not sure what. He is infamous for a 3 week "dialog" in 2007 where he expressed interest in "evidence" and then ignored it all in favor of his self-confirming holy book.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/is-creationism.html
Posted by: Jason | August 11, 2009 11:00 PM
Doesn't the ape-man kind of look like the Ken Ham-ster?
Posted by: CanadianChick | August 11, 2009 11:05 PM
that "hebrew" is hilarious. Random characters that appear to be completely reversed and/or upside down. Yikes. I can see the conversation now
"hebrew is read right to left or left to right?"
"um...are you sure it isn't read upside down?"
"well, let's just cut-and-paste random letters in different rotations - no one will know. Jews won't visit here"
*rolls eyes*
Posted by: john | August 11, 2009 11:08 PM
Thanks, Geds!
"he worships the ultimate in genocidal misanthropic deities"
What diety??
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
August 11, 2009 11:29 PM
Wow. Even the creationists wandering in here to defend the failure of humanity that is Ken Ham are few and have nothing more than the same regurgitated ball-wash that's been debunked more times than anyone can count.
And then there's John --sad, confused, cotton-brained, little whelp that he is and his mad-libs and bizarre antics.
Call me odd, but I truly expected much more of a turnout of the delusional with something more engaging than "I know you are, but what am I" nonsense.
Posted by: Dan W | August 11, 2009 11:30 PM
"This man is obviously very angry at God and relishes in mocking Christianity--spending a lot of his time fighting against Someone he doesn't believe exists!" -Ken Ham
Wow, I guess Ken Ham wasn't smart enough to notice the stupidity of the above statement. I didn't know you could hate something you don't believe exists.
By the way, I love how Ham claims to have gotten his Creation "Museum" teachings from scientists with PhDs... care to point out any examples, Ham? Or are you too afraid some of us will bother to google these "PhD scientists" you claim as your sources of information and swiftly mock them? Somehow I suspect the latter is more likely.
Posted by: MrFire | August 11, 2009 11:33 PM
John - 58 words so far. Just 1,942 to go. You can do it!
By the way, get in the sack.
Posted by: hje | August 11, 2009 11:39 PM
Re: John
"What diety??"
The South Beach diety, jackass.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 11, 2009 11:47 PM
So far we've got:
Greek: SGPHPPS
Arabic: Snzw (if those are in fact real Arabic letters)
Chinese: Rain Moon Night (Still can't quite determine the last character)
Cuneiform: 1 2 3 5 6
Cyrillic: ABVG
Hebrew: (more fake letters)
I think one of the pics were Mayan. Can't be too sure, could be just random pseudo-representation that the Hamsters, who could care less about accurately portraying a different culture, made up.
Gee. With so much PhDs, you'd think they'd create more reasonable (and real) sets of character. So far all it seems to read as sgphpp 1,2,3,5,6 rain moon night snzw abvg
@#192
I must concur. If the Gnome people wish to achieve peace with us they need to return all that they've stolen from us.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
August 11, 2009 11:53 PM
Return the map!
Posted by: Levi in NY | August 11, 2009 11:58 PM
Look, historical linguistics is a subject I have a geek-tacular passion for. And Ken Ham has it all wrong. If all human languages came from languages that God forcefully split apart a couple millennia ago somewhere in Mesopotamia, and branched out from there, we would expect more linguistic diversity in Mesopotamia and less diversity the farther away we get from Mesopotamia. However, by far the place with the most linguistic diversity on the planet is Papua New Guinea. A surprisingly large percentage of known human languages (about a sixth) are found on that one island, but that can largely be attributed to the mountainous terrain that geographically separates small tribes from one another. After that, Sub-Saharan Africa is where we find the most linguistic diversity, and the most genetic diversity as well. Go figure. It's almost as if humans originated in Sub-Saharan Africa and spread out from there, not Mesopotamia.
In fact, ancient and modern Mesopotamia has been dominated by a closely-related group of languages known as the Semitic languages. The Semitic languages have been proven to be related to a number of other languages in northern and western Africa. And we find much more diversity within this language family in Africa than in southwest Asia, so it is pretty much universally accepted that the Afro-Asiatic language family, as it is known, originated somewhere in northern or western Africa and spread from there into southwest Asia.
Furthermore, Ham is just plain lying when he says "modern languages still follow patterns of the original languages at Babel." This is simply false. We can arrange modern languages into dozens and dozens of different language families, but we can only trace back these language families about 5,000 years by examining their similarities (and that's for language families where we have ancient written data). Any further back than that, and linguists simply have no idea how different language families may or may not be related. Whatever similarities might have told us what language groups are related to what other groups have been lost in the mists of time.
And his "examples" of languages are just plain laughable. Please explain, Mr. Ham, the similarities you see between Chinese 雨月夜 (yǔ-yuè-yè, "rain-moon-night") and Greek ΣΓΦΠΨ (sgphpps, which is just gibberish). It looks like he picked up a book on languages and just randomly put in some characters for each language.
If anything, the history of human languages is a powerful demonstration of evolution. We can examine by looking at the historical record how languages spread out and split up into mutually incomprehensible daughter languages, usually because of geographic barriers to communication, in a manner very much analogous to how species spread out and split into daughter species which can't interbreed, usually because of geographic barriers to procreation. I find many misconceptions about evolution and speciation can be answered by pointing to analogies in historical linguistics.
Posted by: Tom Estes | August 12, 2009 12:10 AM
I respond to this nonsense on my blog. You all need to stop following this guy, he's losing it.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
August 12, 2009 12:13 AM
Sure thing Tom. If there's anything you've shown us, it's that you are a sound, logical and rational mind.
::pat, pat::
Posted by: John | August 12, 2009 12:16 AM
I haven't heard this much foul language since gangsta-rap. Wild dogs in a kennel make more sense, bow wow wow.
Are you really college educated? come on, this sounds like a blog for foul mouth drug addicted punks, especially you hje.
Remember hje there is no god, this whole blog is dedicated to it; your arguing with a guy (Ken Ham) who believes in basically Santa Claus, how stupid are you. Your supposed to be the college educated, intellectual geniuses.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 12, 2009 12:19 AM
Tom Estes,
I
respond to this nonsenselie my delusional ass off on my blog because I'm desperate for attention. You all need tostop following this guy, he's losing itignore me, because I'm a woo-soaked, clueless idiot.Posted by: Caine | August 12, 2009 12:22 AM
@ 218:
Aaaand Pastor T.Estes raises his head from under his rock of dishonesty. If you actually responded to dissent (or allowed it) at your blog, Tom, you might not need to come here to attention whore so often.
Wait...you'd attention whore anyway. Never mind.
Posted by: hje | August 12, 2009 12:24 AM
Here's the HardTruth:
Tom wants you to read his blog. He *needs* you to read his blog, because someday he would like to pull down a big salary from a non-profit ministry, just like his hero, Ken Ham.
BTW, Tom, I'm guessing you are a "real man," right?
Posted by: Levi in NY | August 12, 2009 12:29 AM
@John, #220.
There is actually a big difference between God and Santa Claus, even though both are non-existent. People actually believe in God as a source of morals and try to push those morals on everybody else. Large numbers of people think those who don't believe in God are inherently evil and immoral, and sometimes even deserving of death. If you can't tell the difference between a fairy tale that no sane adult believes in, and a fairy tale that people do believe in and act on, sometimes in very extreme and deadly ways, then you must be pretty dim.
Posted by: F | August 12, 2009 12:29 AM
Blasphemous says Ham?
I think not.
Sacrilicious is more like it.
Mmmmm. Sacrilicious.
Posted by: Sanction | August 12, 2009 12:30 AM
Levi in NY@217:
Your "geek-tacular passion" ain't geeky, as far as I'm concerned. I took an intro linguistics class in college, and it was easily one of the top five classes that I ever took. I didn't think it was wise to continue in the field, however, considering that my professor had to write the phonetics out for me on the exams.
Thanks for yet another debunk of the Ham Fallacy.
Posted by: hje | August 12, 2009 12:31 AM
Re: "Are you really college educated? come on, this sounds like a blog for foul mouth drug addicted punks, especially you hje."
John tattles: "Mmm, I'm telling Mom you said 'jackass'."
Apparently you don't hear much profanity. Here's some more dirty words for you: "poopy, boogar, butthead."
Posted by: Caine | August 12, 2009 12:32 AM
Oh, and Pastor T.Estes, you should go read about the creation "museum" visit at http://thomas2026.wordpress.com/ The man's a Christian minister. He was with the SSA group. That's right, they had an undercover minister with them! Fire up your paranoia, Tom, because he thinks you're a liar.
Posted by: Mena | August 12, 2009 12:34 AM
Yeah, blogs that don't allow comments are a bore, no matter if you agree or not. I, for example, like Neil Gaiman but I stopped reading his blog years ago. Those posts were at least interesting, I suspect that Tom Estes' aren't but since I kill filtered his posts here there's no way that I'm going to bother going over there. There's only so much whining and bitter recrimination that I want to waste my time on.
Posted by: Sanction | August 12, 2009 12:37 AM
No, Jonathon is not a True Scotsman. According to Tom, no person is a True Scotsman unless that person agrees with him. Convenient, huh?
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
August 12, 2009 12:45 AM
MrFire @ 99 notes event
Join Calvary Chapel In The City for a special presentation from Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a June 2009 Harvard Ph.D. in biology, as he demonstrates how scientific data from multiple disciplines-including molecular biology- seriously undermines the theory of evolution and supports the Bible's teaching on origins.
JESUS HAPLOID CHRIST! At the Longwood Galleria? Isn't that like deep in the hospital district, you know, medicine, research, science, and stuff?
Posted by: Caine | August 12, 2009 12:50 AM
Sanction @ 230
Oh, I know. Everyone knows that, it's more than obvious. It will simply give T.Estes one more thing to twist unmercifully until he manages to wring out the very last fine whine.
Posted by: KevinC | August 12, 2009 12:56 AM
I love the whole PZ = Voldemort schtick. PZ is such a towering force that Hamster trembles before the very mention of his name! lol.
Posted by: raven | August 12, 2009 1:00 AM
Pretty stupid even for a fundie Death Cultist. John, we don't give one rat's ass what you believe. It's the constant attempts of fundie xians to jam their beliefs down everyone elses throats that has the majority of Americans sick and tired of them according to the polls. Openly hating the USA and trying to destroy the country and head on back to the Dark Ages hasn't been too popular either. Xian Terrorism. Sneaking mythology into our kids science classes , And on and on.
The Amish reject modern technology. No one cares. They aren't out blowing up power plants and cutting telephone lines.
If John and his co trolls would just stay under their rocks and tell their lies to each other, no one would care. In fact, by this time, everyone would be getting them more rocks
We all think the Rapture is a great idea. Tens of millions of Americans would be cheering and waving good bye and hoping the fundies are gone for good. The world would be a better place.
be the college educated, intellectual geniuses.
Posted by: Sanction | August 12, 2009 1:02 AM
I ventured over there, and I started to laugh hysterically at the post header: "Has PZ Lost His Mind?" In all caps, naturally.
I'm still laughing.
Posted by: Kseniya | August 12, 2009 1:19 AM
Estes is just another mild-mannered fool armed only with the kind of arrogance that is so often born of ignorance. Sorry, Tom, you're just the latest in a long, long series of deluded creationists who, in trying to look "rational" or in trying to appear knowledgeable about the science at issue, succeed only in making themselves into World Wide Laughingstocks. I'll spare you the "hard truth" tag this time, though God knows it applies.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 12, 2009 1:24 AM
You should get out more.
Interesting that you compare Kennel Ham to a wild dog in a kennel.
Regardless of education, we are collectively and individually far smarter than you.
Your libelous and fallacious accusation is noted.
"You're", not "your". A contraction rather than a possessive.
HTH!
I agree that Ken Ham is stupid. The problem is not just that Ken Ham is stupid; the problem is that Ken Ham is pandering to a whole bunch of people who believe in Santa Claus and who wish to propagandize belief in Santa Claus and make that belief mandatory.
Once again: "You're", not "your".
HTH!
And indeed we are! Thank you for the compliment -- not that it entirely balances out your accusation above.
Posted by: Levi in NY | August 12, 2009 1:29 AM
Plus, we're all just a bunch of people who think Santa Claus naturally evolved from a proto-Santa Claus by natural selection, so what are you getting all worked up about?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 2:24 AM
See the Wikipedia entry on James Ussher. (He calculated from all the 'begats' in Genesis.)
Have you read that entry yourself?
no, he didn't. In fact, there simply isn't enough information in the bible to do so. The KJV conveniently ignores this, even while placing relevant "footnotes" about it.
Moreover, all scholars that attempted this recognized that the task itself was impossible as there never were enough recorded texts to even try.
It was an effort in demonstrating "interpolation". Inductive scholarship as more of an exercise in intellectual (for the time) prowess.
nothing more.
If taken at face value (which even they didn't do), it of course would mean the world should have ended a few years back.
It's absolute insanity for ANYONE in the modern age to consider Ussher's treatise (and Newton's and several others who tried this as well) as if it were a real attempt at anything other than mental masturbation.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 12, 2009 2:25 AM
Being a Buffy-nerd, I could not help but think of a Maggie Walsh line.
Makes me want to turn Ham into a Fyarl demon. It would be cool, he would have paralyzing mucus.
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 12, 2009 3:00 AM
I did not want to go to upside down letters and missing dots, but here goes:
* First letter can be an upside down ش (shin) with a missing dot.
* Second letter can be a middle of the word ن (nun) although I have never seen in asymetrical like that.
* Third letter. Ignoring the extra dots and the stange wiggle could be a ط (ta)
* Fourth letter. I still think it could be a terminal ه (ha’)
The end result being
شنطه which could mean bag or suitcase (at least in some Arabic dialects like Egyptian)!
So them PhD’s from the “Museum” might be trying to tell us:
“If your going on a long trip: Don’t forget your Süi┴kas3”... or it might just be fake Arabic.
Caveat: IANALinguist just a native speaker ;)
Posted by: Gorogh | August 12, 2009 3:07 AM
@Michael #4,
highly bizarre, yes. Even IF Ham did something disrespectful, a damnation of "innocent bystanders" just by virtue of being related to the perpetrator firmly rests on the dubious values regarding punishment which permeate that rotten old book.
No modern enlightened society could actually be founded on such "god-promoted" concepts.
Posted by: strangebrew | August 12, 2009 3:38 AM
Point of order!...
Do not 'museums' have to be licensed as a public thoroughfare?...or at least display to a recognized global standard?
Surely to actually charge entry fees to the visitors there are some licenses that are required...health ...safety...working conditions...financial...etc etc...
The blatant lies and distortions of reality are an affront to American society...and I refer to the majority...what there is...
The 'exhibits' are palpably false...and can be proved in some cases to be outright lies...
Other exhibits are speculative bunkum...even down to the abject failure to actually correctly write other languages in the diabolicalarama that actually make sense or are relevant!
The Geological record they present is rejected by every sane geologist on the planet...
The History of human occupation of the planet is a sick joke redolent in racism... whether Ham admits that or not...it is!
The inference that Dinosaur and Humans co-existed is spurious and ridiculous in the extreme...it is also a lie perpetrated by Creationist desperation to twist their fairy tale into a form that at least roughly emulates chronological logic...but not completely...and certainly not historically accurate in a natural sense.
And they trade on the premise of some sort of dubious education...
Is this bollocks not an affront to ICOM...
International Council of Museums
http://icom.museum/ethics.html
The CM(sic) might indeed not be affiliated to this august global organisation but are they actually allowed to call themselves a museum...?
A theme park ...fine
A con definitely...
But a 'Museum'...they neither teach the truth or display bona fide artefacts...this is NOT a museum...as such it is a fraudulent claim....
By what twisted use of by-laws or state law are they allowed to pollute the intelligence quotient of a society.
Ham is making money out of lying for jeebus and calling his tawdry shack a 'museum'...how very Christian...
Are other moderate Christian organisations happy about this abuse of Christianity?
Quite a few Scientists are xian...and they also are well aware of the real truth of the age and evolutionary development of the Earth...yet they allow this abomination...without complaint or murmur...that is rather cowardly and irresponsibility sanguine....they are protecting a blatant lie...is not the baby jeebus bawling his lungs out at this affront to human dignity?
Where is the integrity of Miller and Collins...and a dozen other high profile muckers of jeebus?
This stuff is being pedalled as truth...It is not...and nobody is calling it...accept the likes of PZ...what is and where is the decency in American intellectualism?
This is not about the right of free speech...because opinion is fine...but presenting that as fact and a done deal is premature...false...misleading...and very very dishonest!
Posted by: MPG | August 12, 2009 4:01 AM
raven @196:
This is one I have heard. They try to explain away H. Neanderthalensis by pretending that they were ordinary humans with rickets. They even back this up by citing a 1957 paper by Drs W.L. Straus and A.J.E. Cave. What they ignore, or deliberately cover up, is that that paper is correcting popular misconceptions about Neanderthals all having a stooping gait and posture by showing how the bones of The Old Man of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, one of the most complete and best-known set of remains throughout the early 20th century, were those of an individual who had suffered from rickets at an early age and arthritis in old age. They showed that other examples of Neanderthals, ones not suffering from rickets, indicated a fully upright posture, like modern man. The creationists seized upon this and like to pretend that The Old Man is the only set of Neanderthal remains we have.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 4:23 AM
Tom sez:
I respond to this nonsense on my blog. You all need to stop following this guy, he's losing it.
what he meant wuz:
I create a lot of nonsense in response to this on my blog. You all need to come and pat me on the head, or I'll cry, I really will!
projecting fool is projecting, again. chalk up another entry in the database of creationists who communicate via projection and deal with conflict via denial.
Posted by: strangebrew | August 12, 2009 4:52 AM
#245
"I respond to this nonsense on my blog."
I make up blatant lies and promote misconceptions to excuse the rubish....but will never adress the outstanding questions coherently if at all!
"You all need to stop following this guy"
Because I cannot deal with real science...and this guy can point out the logical fallacies and deny me the space to make up further lies and distortions.
"he's losing it"
His nuts... his mad... his completely gaga... he is losing ...he has lost it...science is bollocks... science is evil...listen to me I am sane and completely trustworthy...he is a scientist and in the sway of Satan...he is crazy... he is not nice... he makes fun of my delusion...he laughs at me...he is mean to me...I am sad...jeebus is sad...etc etc!
And besides I cannot lie to you...threaten you....control you and cheat you if you keep hearing the truth which is far more believable and logical from elsewhere!
I am a Pastor...as such you must believe every word I utter!...or go to hell!
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 6:51 AM
However, this is where those who worship at Darwin's feet run into some uncomfortable facts - cargocult
Good thing no-one does, then, isn't it? Look, fuckwit, do you really think any modern evolutionary biologist does not know that Darwin was wrong about the mechanism of heredity? If they "worshipped at Darwin's feet", then they would either go along with his proposed mechanism, or they would pretend he got it right. They don't.
Do you think anyone posting here does not know that Darwin's views, although comparatively liberal for his time, were racist? Pseudo-scientific racism preceded Darwin - the creationist Agassiz believed that blacks and whites were separate species, as did many others - and would have followed much the same course without him, as its function was to justify European imperialism and American slavery and subsequent segregation. Darwin is admired for his extraordinary scientific achievements; and appears to have been an honest, amiable and well-intentioned man. That's all.
Conclusion: you are either a liar or an idiot.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 7:06 AM
you are either a liar or an idiot.
are these mutually exclusive?
one can be an idiot and a poor liar. Just look at the subject of the thread!
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 12, 2009 7:19 AM
I'm surprised that Estes would show up here at this late date. He has done a poor job of answering any questions put to him on his blog. Not much Hard Truth on his part, just Soft Thinking by Tom Estes.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 12, 2009 7:25 AM
Soft thinking by a soft mind. That is what happens when you believe in imaginary deities, and fictional babbles. The mind softens to insipidity. Sad case.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 12, 2009 7:33 AM
No Tom, you've lost it a long time ago. Your delusion is so ingrained you can't see how far from reality the things you say actually are.
Creationism is a myth. There is no, let me repeat that, NO evidence that backs it. Period.
And you're a liar. You said you weren't going to post here again.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 12, 2009 7:43 AM
Icthyic@248,
It's my training in formal logic - when I use "or", it's usually an inclusive "or"! I'll try and retrain myself to use "and/or". Come to think of it, "andor" should be a word in English, leaving "or" to mean, exclusively, xor; I'll start using it and see if it catches on.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 12, 2009 7:52 AM
"The creationists seized upon this and like to pretend that The Old Man is the only set of Neanderthal remains we have."
Which would be a very stupid thing to say, because La Chapelle aux Saints is in France (look at the name) whereas the first Neanderthal skeletons were found... in Neanderthal (=neander valley), a quite obviously German name. So from the name only, it's clear that there are several sets of Neanderthal bones.
Posted by: bsk | August 12, 2009 7:59 AM
Estes is just trolling for hits again. He's had a taste of Pharyngulation and is now addicted to the attention.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 12, 2009 8:08 AM
CargoCult@ 182;
"However, this is where those who worship at Darwin's feet run into some uncomfortable facts, namely, that Darwin espoused a similar theory of scientific racism based on a complete misunderstanding of genetic inheritance mechanisms."
I know this has been stated before by other posters, but it bears repetition. Atheists do not "worship at the feat of" anyone. Not Darwin, not Professor Dawkins, not even our beloved Prophet of Cthulhu, PZ. The whole point of atheism is not to worship anything, but instead to pursue a rational, scientific understanding of the universe.
Darwin expounded a number of socially unpleasant and even repugnant viewpoints. This, however, says nothing about comtemporary atheists who are the first to admit that Darwin was in no way infallible and most certainly was not any kind of 'secular saint' Such a concept is in itself an oxymoron. The important difference in this case is that Ken Ham is using a literalist interpretation of scripture, including the grossly rascist Hamite Origin of Species material, in a bid to prop up his woefully unscientific creation museum today. You can hardly be a biblical literalist and then complain when people point out the innumerable prejudiced, bigoted, violent and sadistic statements and pronouncements that litter the biblical text.
Saying, as Ken Ham has, that some of your best friends are black is hardly a defence. Neither is throwing a tantrum when people call you on the true implications of the mythology you peddle to the more credulous members of the public.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 12, 2009 8:11 AM
Sorry, that should be "Hamite Origin of Races", not "Hamite Origin of Species". Bit of a brainstorm there, I'm afraid.
Posted by: aratina cage | August 12, 2009 8:54 AM
That should read: And could you quit blog-whoring, T.Estes? Your nonsensical ramblings aren't worth a grain of salt.Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 9:34 AM
Evidently you didn't poke hard enough - he's still moving.Posted by: Yaque | August 12, 2009 9:50 AM
I'll try to parse the Hebrew:
From right to left (naturally)
backward Aleph א
upside down Resh ר
correct Vav ו
backward end-of-word Pay ף
backward Pay פ
AROPP
meaning nothing
Posted by: Naughtius MAximus | August 12, 2009 10:12 AM
Can anyone recommend a good book on genetics and tracing ancestry of various areas back to specific populations?
Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 10:17 AM
The Seven Daughters of Eve.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 12, 2009 10:25 AM
This is off topic I know, but I am beginning to wonder if the religious right in America is actually allergic to the truth. I have been following, with increasing bewilderment, the coverage of the Right's demonisation of the NHS as part of their campaign against President Obama's health care reforms.
I would be the first to admit that the UK health care system has problems. These problems are not small. They are big, honking, fill-the-horizon problems. For example, our cancer care leaves a lot to be desired and the situation with MRSA and Clostridium Deficile in our hospitals is a travesty. However, describing the NHS as "Orwellian" seems a bit strong.
Claiming that if Edward Kennedy lived in the UK he would be allowed die untreated from a brain tumour is, at best, wrong and at worst an outright lie. There are no automatic age limits at which you no longer receive health care in the UK. Further claims that anyone in the UK over the age of 59 is ineligible for treatment for heart disease is another calumny. My mother is a sufferer of heart disease and she is 65. Last time I checked she was still receiving a full regimen of medication.
The misrepresentation of the role of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is equally gross. NICE examins the cost effectiveness of certain drugs, along with a wide variety of other roles, but it does not exist to put a monetary value on peoples' lives.
The fact is that the UK spends less per head on healthcare but has a higher life expectancy than the US. The World Health Organisation ranks Britain's healthcare 18th in the world, while the US comes in 37th place.
I respect the fact that health care, and its potential socialisation, are contentious and emotive issues in the USA, but it would be appreciated if Republicans could refrain from innaccurate and prejorative characterisations of the NHS in pursuit of their domestic political goals.
I'm just waiting for one of them to claim that the NHS and its problems are a judgement from god on a sinful (and predominantly secular) people . . .
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 12, 2009 10:53 AM
Ichthyic@239,
I guess what you're saying is that dating methods relying on patriarchal decay rates need some refinement?
:)
Posted by: Scrabcake | August 12, 2009 11:00 AM
Wow. A passage with an cute little fairytale to explain why exactly the ancient Hebrews were completely justified and also obliged to try to smack down the other ancient Canaanite people gets misused to subjugate africa for thousands of years.
That's what this is.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 12, 2009 11:00 AM
Sure, he's wiggling a bit. But then the roaches usually twitch for a while after ya squoosh 'em too...
(/See also 'That's because he's got my axe buried in his nervous system...')
Posted by: Scrabcake | August 12, 2009 11:04 AM
Wow. A passage with an cute little fairytale to explain why exactly the ancient Hebrews were completely justified and also obliged to try to smack down the other ancient Canaanite people gets misused to subjugate Africa for thousands of years.
That's what this is. It HAS NO DEEPER MEANING OR METAPHOR. It's just "Yes, kids, this is why we rape and pillage the villages of the other canaanite tribes. They're cursed by Noah!"
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 12, 2009 11:18 AM
Naughtius MAximus@260
The July'08 SciAm edition had a front cover story on the subject, which I found good.
I'll list you the books recommended at the end of the article. I have not read any of them myself but it is maybe somewhere for you to start:
"Before the Dawn" - Nicholas Wade - The Penguin Press,2006
"Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project"- Spencer Wells - National Geographic, 2006
"Human Origins: What Bones and Genomes Tell Us about Ourselves"- Rob DeSalle and Ian Tattersall. - Texas A&M University Press,2008
Posted by: Naughtius MAximus | August 12, 2009 11:55 AM
Thanks for the suggestions, Spencer Wells The Journey of Man looks good. There is a show coming on NAtional Geographic at the end of the month that looks good.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 12, 2009 1:07 PM
At the Longwood Galleria? Isn't that like deep in the hospital district, you know, medicine, research, science, and stuff?
It certainly is! Surrounded on all sides by the Beth Israel Hospital, the Deaconess, the Joslin Center and Children's Hospital.
I live nearby. If you want to put together a contingent of Pharyngulites, count me in.
Posted by: Heleva Pryce | August 12, 2009 2:18 PM
Hey Yaque on Post 259:
maybe they meant to spell out Aleph, Aleph, Resh, finial Pey?
How much money was sunk into this nonsense much less the errors?
Posted by: thalarctos | August 12, 2009 3:05 PM
in recognition of how many of their visitors are members of the American Association of Retired Persons?
makes as much sense as any other explanation.
With a 40% adult illiteracy rate in Kentucky, there are, I am sure, a lot better uses there for the $27 million that the "Museum" allegedly cost than blowing money on extravagant half-assed graphics.
Posted by: Heleva Pryce | August 12, 2009 3:25 PM
"Posted by: thalarctos | August 12, 2009 3:05 PM Post # 271 With a 40% adult illiteracy rate in Kentucky, there are, I am sure, a lot better uses there for the $27 million that the "Museum" allegedly cost than blowing money on extravagant half-assed graphics."
Ham must not really be a xtian then, wasting the money in such a needless and vain fashion when so many real chairities could have been helped per what I understand to be the primary tenets of xtianity. When did the xtians eliminate the commandments of Tikkun Olam and Tzedakah?
Posted by: thalarctos | August 12, 2009 3:30 PM
when they decided that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, because good works is, well, work...
Posted by: E.V. | August 12, 2009 3:39 PM
...and a figurehead like Jeebus saying "only through me..." makes it easier to differentiate ideology from the old Hebrew guard.Isn't it amazing that Jeebus didn't really fit the scriptures about the Messiah in the OT...
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | August 12, 2009 3:49 PM
#94
Tis'Himself should organize Catholic and Calvinist pharyngulites into an ecumenical crusade to write the Vatican demanding the immediate canonization of Blessed Sister Anne Emmerich, for her miraculously astute observation that the :
" Idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham... the dark source whence those degraded races sprang"
So transcendent is its truth that her antebellum racial views may be passed over in charitable silence.
Director Ken is clearly one very preterite dude. At the very least, the Mark Of The Beast should be tattooed on his forehead, before more unwary museum goers are lured onto his triceratops hide casting couch to beget more hamsters & hamlettes, and some iconoclasts called in-- what will innocent schoolchildren make of all those graven images of leviathans and squid?
Posted by: Sengkelat | August 12, 2009 4:26 PM
You oughtn't say you reject their claims bemusedly. Bemused means bewildered, or perplexed. Now you're going to have crazy creationists saying you're perplexed and unable to understand their arguments.
Also, nice Pwning if Ham.
Posted by: Heleva Pryce | August 12, 2009 4:53 PM
Posted by: thalarctos | August 12, 2009 3:30 PM Post #273 "when they decided that faith alone is sufficient for salvation, because good works is, well, work..."
I keep forgetting about that "Get-out-of-Jail (responsibility) Free-because-I-believe-in-the-xtain-demideity" card
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 5:14 PM
I guess what you're saying is that dating methods relying on patriarchal decay rates need some refinement?
indeed!
see all we need do is assume that patriarchal decay rates have varied over the millenia, and poof, everything falls into place!
/snark
:P
hmm, now that I think on that, this must be where the godbothering tubthumpers got the idea that radioactive decay rates must have varied too.
fucking, fucking, morons.
Posted by: cargocult | August 12, 2009 6:03 PM
Atheism is a belief system, no different than that of Catholics or anyone else. The gods and heros are simply historical figures (like Darwin) blown out of all proportion. Dedicated atheists are just as uncomfortable with open-ended science based on experiment and observation, not because they are worried that the religious theories of the day might be proved right, but because their position of authority is based on the scientific theories being right.
Noone should doubt that atheists can be just as hidebound and irrational as the most dedicated Catholic - just look at the record of Lysenko, certainly an atheist, who promoted his own "politically correct" version of genetics, in direct contrast to the Social Darwinian version promoted by the Nazis.
You guys really should be aware of this history, because it forms a major talking point for your erstwhile opponents, as the following excerpt from a right-wing evangelist's article points out:
"As a warning to our audience, we talked about what happened in Germany when -- in the 1930s -- and fascist theories about the mentally ill, physically deficient, etc., led to "mercy killings." We drew comparisons with the Supreme Court ruling and said the door was now open, with "the loss of the sanctity of life, in the United States" to the same fate as awaited Germany. Then my dad took it to the next step and wrote a book called "A Christian Manifesto." He discussed the possibility of Christians using force to change the United States government if all else failed to reverse Roe. He made the comparison of America to Hitler's Germany."
http://www.alternet.org/politics/141925/the_threat_is_real%3A_why_right-wing_rage_at_townhall_meetings_could_quickly_turn_deadly_/
Pointing out that much of what Darwin wrote and said is simply wrong apparently earns you insults - but that's typical of true believers -they hate to see their gods brought down to human size.
Physicists seem to have less of a problem with this than do biologists - no one hero-worships Einstein or Newton the way they do with Darwin. No one minds pointing out that Newton was a vindictive bastard, even if he was a genius, but for some reason, the fact that Darwin was an aristocratic racist whose views would fit right in with those of the KKK is deemed unacceptable for polite discussion.
Why is that?
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 12, 2009 6:12 PM
Erm.... no.
Pointing out the things that Darwin wrote and said which were simply wrong--where we can demonstrate they were--is something any number of us have, in fact, cheerfully done.
Lying about the evidence and attempting to claim general principles in evolutionary biology which have broad and thorough empirical support do not--and attempting to magnify disputes about such finer details as the relative significance of drift versus selection into insinutations the whole of the field is somehow 'in crisis', or that there is really any legitimate question about such broad questions in natural history as common descendance, and generally mining quotes like the pathetic, transparent little frauds all creationists are--will earn you insults. Deserved ones...
(/Asshat.)
Posted by: Samantha | August 12, 2009 6:26 PM
Darn, really? Guess I better get out the old padded cushion to go kneel and worship Darwin!
Atheism is most certainly not a belief system like the Catholic belief system (or any other religion). Atheism is simply a LACK of belief. Sure there are some atheists who worship past scientists. Sure there are some atheists who don't like open-ended science. And yes, many atheists base their position of authority of scientific theories being right. Doesn't mean that all do.
I personally respect Darwin's work, but that's it. I didn't know him and don't particularly care for his style of writing. However, I am well aware that many of his suppositions and propositions were wrong and have been tweaked, changed and even thrown out completely due to research, experimentation and observations since he wrote his original thoughts.
I don't particularly care for open-ended science because it is often inefficient and overlooks potential issues within the experiment and the observations taken. A hypothesis is generally the best start to formatting an experiment to determine a single causal relationship. However, when a well-formatted open-ended experiment is performed, I see no reason to reject the conclusions.
I actually don't know most science or scientists. I am an English student through-and-through. My exposure to science comes entirely through looking things up when I have a question about the world. And yet, for some reason, in order to be an atheist, I (according to you) must worship science and scientists as god and prophets and must cling wildly to any thought even floated around by a scientist as though it were absolute truth. Trust me, as a language student, I know all too well that any "truth" is a matter of perception. I know that all our science may be proven wrong one day. However, I also know that all we DO have is our reason and senses to sort out what we can, and if we're going to start denying those in preference to what we want to believe, we might as well think that we are the proverbial "brain in a vat". It's as, if not more, believable than an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God who nonetheless allows even the horrors we see today, never mind those described in the Bible.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 12, 2009 6:31 PM
Noone should doubt that atheists can be just as hidebound and irrational as the most dedicated Catholic - just look at the record of Lysenko, certainly an atheist, who promoted his own "politically correct" version of genetics, in direct contrast to the Social Darwinian version promoted by the Nazis.
Wow, that's decades of confusion rolled into a single paragraph!
I have to give you timecube points for that.
now, can you cobble all that into a theory of life, the universe, and everything?
that way, we can give you a final timecube score.
Posted by: Anton Mates | August 12, 2009 7:21 PM
cargocult,
...that is, if the KKK was staunchly anti-slavery, hoped for Brazil to be taken over by its black population, and was good friends with Thomas Wentworth Higginson, the abolitionist Unitarian minister who commanded the Union's first regiment of freed slaves.
Oh, and if the KKK wasn't a major force against teaching evolution in the first half of the 20th century, and if most modern Klan organizations weren't still creationist.
We're not arguing with you because you're being mean to Charles Darwin. We're arguing with you because you're very, very wrong.
(Incidentally, here's one point where Darwin would agree with the Klan--they both disapproved of public sex education programs.)
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | August 12, 2009 7:22 PM
With a 40% adult illiteracy rate in Kentucky, there are, I am sure, a lot better uses there for the $27 million that the "Museum" allegedly cost than blowing money on extravagant half-assed graphics.
Thelarctos, it doesn't matter. They won't need to know how to read in heaven, and, if they don't get them saved by exposing them to the truth about evilution, they certainly won't need to know how to read in hell!
Posted by: MrPhil | August 12, 2009 9:32 PM
Who has time to read all this? Whew!!
Anyway, why would you call presenting all the views "promoting ignorance"? The Creation Museum merely says, "The evolution view is . . ." and 'The Biblical view is . . ." Nobody is accosted or pressured in any way. Each person is free to view and make up his or her own mind. Very 1st Amendment, don't you think?
Thanks--MrPhil
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 12, 2009 9:41 PM
Spoken like a delusional fool, who has no contact with reality. Atheism is simply the disbelief in your imaginary deity. End of story. But then CC, you are an atheist toward 1000+ gods invented by man. We just remove the very last man invented deity. Lies, lies, and more lies. The delusional fools think they tell the truth, but they can't with their god-besoaked brains. Seek professional help, you need it.Posted by: Samantha | August 13, 2009 12:28 AM
Mr Phil:
Only they blatantly lie about some of the evolutionary arguments, misrepresent more and try to make scientific claims for Biblical beliefs that simply are not congruent with the scientific knowledge and evidence that we currently have. To lie under the guise of a "scientific" and "educational" institute is outright promotion of ignorance. Additionally, not only will the people employed by the museum not give credence to possible alternatives even to discuss and disprove them but questioning things too loudly will get you "talked to".
It's one thing to set up a museum to teach an alternate theory, it's another to build one based entirely on lies and half-truths (at very most). Sure the First Amendment may protect their right to free speech but that doesn't mean that we can't:
A) Point out their incredibly poor reasoning and arguments
B) Prove that what they have posted is false
C) Discourage people from going (or at least forewarn them that everything they are about to see has barely even a nodding acquaintance with truth)
This museum "presents all the views" about as accurately as a Jackson Pollock painting pictures a pleasant seascape. I think it's a rather apt comparison; both a Pollock painting and the Creation Museum are a visually amusing spectacle but they're nowhere near capable of portraying reality. To not only call themselves a museum but try to pretend that the facts they present aren't horribly twisted and biased, Ham and his elk are breaking a moral law, even if they're not breaking a legal one.
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 13, 2009 2:11 AM
@ cargocult #279
You are right! Atheism is my religion, in the same way that, not-collecting stamps is my hobby and every week-end, if the weather allows, I do not play golf. I am chronically healthy and I am looking forward to the lifestyle I will have when I die. I have a 9 to 5 job of not being a plumber, after which I spend a couple of hours not doing voluntary work. Black is my favorite color, utter silence my favorite music and sitting on a bench in a park my favorite dance…
Yes indeed atheism is indeed a belief system like catholicism, in the same measure that your post is original and insightful.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 13, 2009 2:55 AM
Because their presentation of science is completely, 100% false.
And they lie and distort what the scientific understanding is and why it exists. Come to think of it, they lie about the bible, too. The bible does not say that there were dinosaurs, or that the continents shifted during the flood, or after the flood. They just lie and put that all in.
Granted. But showing someone lies and distortions means that people make up their own minds with false information.
I agree that the 1st Amendment permits religious misrepresentation, fraud and deception. But we have the 1st Amendment rights to call that religious misrepresentation, fraud and deception what it really is.
Posted by: pierocketofdoooooom99
|
August 13, 2009 4:05 PM
ya pz.i agree. also i dont see how those creationists can ignore everything! all that evidence. it makes me mad. that museum shouldent be called a museum. it is all bogus.
Posted by: pierocketofdoooooom99
|
August 13, 2009 4:09 PM
i agree. i can be pretty forcefull when people are ridiculus like that,cause it mmakes me mad. that museum is complete BOGUS!
Posted by: pierocketofdoooooom99
|
August 13, 2009 4:14 PM
i agree. i can get pretty forceful when people are willfully ignorant like that. it makes me mad!!! that 'museum' is complete bogus.
Posted by: Craig | August 13, 2009 5:33 PM
No surprise that Ken Ham is a friend of that awful ignorant bigot Hutcherson.
Posted by: Heather Kuhn | August 13, 2009 6:31 PM
Getting back to the language discussion: The Russian is the only thing that makes any kind of sense that I can see. That's because they apparently just slapped the first four letters of the Cyrillic alphabet up there. I'm not sure where they got that "A" though. It looks vaguely like uncial (a lettering style, not a character set). Either that or it can't make up its mind if it's upper case or lower case. Given that the rest of the letters are all upper case, that seems a bit odd.
Posted by: Harry | August 15, 2009 4:40 PM
pharyngula = fhartnculo
Posted by: John | August 15, 2009 5:18 PM
@ 234
Dear Raven,
I am sorry evolution has somehow dictated through religion a mechanism of survival of the fittest, but you must not let your childlike feelings of paranoia and hatred interfere with your daily life. I wake up every morning go to work and interface with people of all races and faith and none of them force their religion or atheism down my throat!
If you are having real problems see a shrink.
Lots of love, Fundie Troll
Posted by: eddie | August 16, 2009 2:55 AM
Not angry at god? Maybe you'll be angry at The Leprechaun of Gentrification.
Posted by: Daniel S | August 16, 2009 5:26 PM
I am a Kentucky atheist (not a contradiction of terms, I assure you), a new reader, and I am in agreement with you on most items. I am also an AT&T employee. You do yourself a disservice in this article with your direction to "See "Ham, Ken" in the Kentucky phone book." What "Kentucky" phone book? That statements makes as little sense as saying the "Minnesota" phonebook for you or whatever the local state is for someone else who might be reading this. I sense a bit of resentment at Kentucky and all Kentuckians with this little bit of "throw away" fluff. Please state which directory you are referring to in the future. It will strengthen your case and eliminate some of the anti-Kentucky bias that I am reading into your writings. There is no reason to throw such easily disputed nuggets into a reasoned article such as this, making it easy for someone to refute a piece of it and therefore seem to discredit the whole thing.
Thank you.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 16, 2009 5:37 PM
Daniel. That's a little silly. I think you're being a bit to literal.
Posted by: Daniel S | August 16, 2009 10:29 PM
Steve_C-
True about the "too literal" part, but there is a bit of hurt pride involved here. I am truly sorry that my state is the home of this sorry excuse of a biblical fantasy, but it also is a state that tends to get a bum rap way too many times on too many other subjects. So, yeah, I was and will continue to be defensive and a little silly about this.
-Daniel S
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 16, 2009 10:37 PM
I am sorry evolution has somehow dictated through religion a mechanism of survival of the fittest
I am sorry you sense not make strawman with.
Posted by: Craig | August 18, 2009 3:38 PM
Hang on a moment-
Angrily lobbing the word "racist" at the creationists because there have been some people who have used the bible to justify slavery seems to be equivalent to dismissing Darwin as a racist, just because there have been some people who have used evolution to support the idea of superior/inferior races and genocide. Both arguments are motivated by hatred over logic, designed to be incendiary, and are equally ineffective for proving anything.
Calling names does nothing to win converts – you may be able to humiliate someone into silence, but you lose your own credibility in the process (for illustration of this point, reread all of the posts, and notice the hatred that pours out of them).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 18, 2009 3:42 PM
Don't worry Craig, you concern is noted and rejected. We aren't looking for converts. They find us. Now, if the religious were just as enlightened...
Posted by: craig | August 18, 2009 3:47 PM
So you are content to just hate, and leave it at that?
Posted by: craig | August 18, 2009 3:52 PM
If you don't think people should agree with you, why all the mocking and arguments?
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 5:04 PM
When is Sleazy Meyers going to admit he lied about the poster at the Creation Museum? He stated Ham was promoting the Hamite Theory, but doesn't have any evidence to support it... other than... he says so. The Bible doesn't support it. AiG has nothing in their literature supporting it. The museum makes no mention of it. So, what evidence does he have?
The man is a liar, period.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 29, 2009 5:08 PM
Trinity.
You are lying to yourself if you think your bible doesn't support it. It does and has been use to justify genocide slavery etc. Hey the poster from the creation "museum" clearly show Ham's kin going to Africa.
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 8:16 PM
Gyeong Hwa Pak,
I agree the Bible does indeed teach that Ham's descendents migrated to Africa. That is not what Sleazy Meyers lied about though. He lied about the Hamite theory being supported by this poster.
If you believe the Bible supports this theory, please feel free to cite chapter and verse at any time... My contention is that it does not and Sleazy is lying by trying to associate the two.
Hope this clarification helps,
Trinity
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2009 8:20 PM
Sleazy Trinity, what part of picture evidence don't you understand? Ham is a racist. Your babble is racist, besides being fiction, along with your deity. Loser all around...
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 8:25 PM
why all the mocking and arguments?
mocking:
for the creationists.
why?
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
-Thomas Jefferson
arguments:
for those who are simply ignorant of the actual facts and evidences. It is often the case that a previous lurker will pop their head up and express appreciation for knowledge provided, even if creationists have their hands on their eyes and fingers in their ears.
if that isn't clear to you at this point, I can explain with diagrams, like in the creation museum.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 8:31 PM
No, he didn't. So you're lying about him lying.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, Christians in the past who supported and profited from slavery said it did. They are the liars, if you like.
Take it up with your fellow Christians.
But he's not "trying to associate the two". He's pointing out that Christians did associate the two, long ago.
No matter how you try and twist it, it was and is Christians who justified slavery based on what the bible said. Blame them -- not the atheist who points out what Christians have said about their own bible.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 29, 2009 8:37 PM
Trinity, it isn't us saying the Bible justifies enslaving blacks. It was Christians like you that did that about 160 years ago. In fact, the Christian Identity Movement folks are still doing it.
Posted by: strange gods before me | August 29, 2009 8:54 PM
What is the difference between "teaching that Ham's descendants migrated to Africa" and "supporting the Hamite theory"?
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 8:58 PM
Assuming that Trinity is neither pro-slavery nor racist, I don't think that the "like you" is entirely fair -- No True Scotsman notwithstanding.
And, actually, 160 years ago is when a large number of Christians stopped saying it. Ahem.
Referring to an earlier bit of research:
The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 9:12 PM
Strange Gods before me asked:
What is the difference between "teaching that Ham's descendants migrated to Africa" and "supporting the Hamite theory"?
The Hamite theory teaches that the descendents of Ham were to become servants (slaves)... which is not Biblical. The Bible teaches that Noah cursed Ham's son Canaan to become a servant of his uncles. Nothing more. It does not teach that all of Canaan's offspring (those who migrated to Africa) were doomed to slavery as the Hamite theory states. Sleazy makes this association without any Biblical justification for it, any implicit or direct teachings from the Creation Museum, or any writings or books from AiG.
He is lying... pure and simple.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 29, 2009 9:20 PM
Sorry, Trinity, but that's not what all those pre-Civil War Christians were saying when they were justifying enslaving blacks. Noah's curse of Ham and his descendants was a big deal for them.
You know, I've never understood why Canaan got cursed if his daddy was the one doing the dirty. But hey, nobody ever said the Bible was in any way logical or rational.
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 9:22 PM
Owlmirror, just because 160 years ago Christians used it to justify slavery does not mean that AiG is using it now. This is what Sleazy is asserting.
If I were to say that 100 years ago people used evolution as a justification to put Ota Benga on display as a 'transitional' part of human evolution or scientific evolution... and that anyone who now supports evolution is racist.. would be absurd and you would accuse me of lying.
There is no difference... Sleazy Meyers is lying through his teeth on this... period. He is trying to make this display in the Creation Museum out to be something that it obviously not. He ought to be ashamed of himself and people should stand up and call it like it is.
A lie.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 29, 2009 9:23 PM
Anyway, Trinity, how do you justify all the lies your hero, Ken "I have several black friends so I'm not racist" Ham makes? You know, lies like the Earth being 6,000 years old and Noah taking all the animals on the Ark and carnivorous beasts being planteaters before Adam and Eve ate the wrong plant. Silly lies like those. You got a good excuse for Ham lying?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2009 9:25 PM
Yawn Sleazy Trinity, your babble is fiction and your dog doesn't exist. Why bore us with your lies and distortions? Nothing but mental masturbation on your part. Be sure to use mental floss and wash your hands before doing anything...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 29, 2009 9:29 PM
And your evidence for this is what? Just because Ken Ham says he's not a racist doesn't mean anything. We already know that Ham is a liar. In my post #318 I list several of his lies. So the chances that he's lying about not being a racist are pretty good.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 9:39 PM
No, he's not. Did you read the original wording?
PZ Myers: With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put
He's not saying that AiG is using it now to justify slavery, but rather that AiG is unaware of Hamitic descent having been used to justify slavery.
And yet AiG, and other creationist groups, do in fact lie in a similar way when they claim that Darwin inspired Hitler, and/or Marx, and therefore evolution leads to Nazism and communism. Or how about their lie that believing that the Earth is "millions of years" old leads to increased drug use? Really, AiG is full of completely unashamed liars.
No, he's not.
Kenny the Ham-raper, though, is lying loud and long with his entire fake museum.
Period.
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 9:40 PM
Tis Himself...
So, since you are despertly trying to derail here, does this mean that you agree it is alright for Sleazy to lie about this? Or, are you going to continue with the attacks on the messenger?
This is pretty pathetic behavior Sir...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2009 9:43 PM
No Sleazy, you are the liar and bullshitter. Show us physical evidence for your imaginary deity, and that your fictional babble is not fiction, or STFU. Welcome to reality, not the delusions of godbotting and religion....Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 9:49 PM
Owlmirror wrote:
“He's not saying that AiG is using it now to justify slavery, but rather that AiG is unaware of Hamitic descent having been used to justify slavery.”
No... that is not what he wrote. He wrote:
"they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins,"
This is a lie. They were not promoting this... at all. So, Sleazy is lying. Period. I can not understand how you can sit there and try to argue against what is plainly written. It is truly pitiful.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 9:53 PM
No, you're trying to derail, since it has been demonstrated that PZ is not and was not lying.
You're trying to derail from the simple fact that Kenny Ham-raper is a liar, and so are you.
If the messenger lies, those lies should be made clear for all to see. Are you going to stop lying now?
It is true that your behavior is pretty pathetic.
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 9:56 PM
Nerd Red Herd... head... whatever wrote:
"No Sleazy, you are the liar and bullshitter. Show us physical evidence for your imaginary deity, and that your fictional babble is not fiction, or STFU. Welcome to reality, not the delusions of godbotting and religion...."
Another attempt to try to derail to avoid the truth... hmmm... I see a pattern developing here... Does this mean you support Sleazy's lies? Apparently they are justified in your eyes... no?
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 10:03 PM
Yes, it is what he wrote. Liar.
They are indeed promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins. Read the damn poster. What does it say?
"Descendents of Ham" -- and the arrow goes through Egypt and points south to the rest of Africa.
Indeed, the Hamite theory is plainly written on the poster. It is pitiful that you continue to try and argue against it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 10:04 PM
This is what Sleazy is asserting.
If PZ is Sleazy, are you then Dopey?
and where are the other dwarfs?
I bet your philosophy doesn't even explain dwarfs, or pygmies!!
*yawn*
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 10:04 PM
Owlmirror wrote:
"No, you're trying to derail, since it has been demonstrated that PZ is not and was not lying."
Excuse me? I'm staying on topic here. Did Sleazy not write that the poster at the museum 'promoted the Hamite theory'? Did he or did he not write that?
We know he did. So, since the poster has nothing to do with this Hamite theory (unless you are going to demonstrate how), Sleazy is indeed lying.
I'm not sure which part of this you don't understand? Is it the part of the museum not promoting the Hamite theory, or is it the part where sleazy didn't write that they were promoting the Hamite theory?
You sir are delusional.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 29, 2009 10:05 PM
actually
Your quote mining and omission is telling. The underlined part is very important to the meaning of what he said.
The only one being sleazy is you.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 10:09 PM
You're repeating your lies, in other words.
Done and done! @#327 -- and also the original post.
No, you're delusional AND a liar.Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 10:10 PM
Did Sleazy not write that the poster at the museum 'promoted the Hamite theory'?
why no Godwin this inane discussion, Dopey?
If I put up a speech of Hitler's decrying Jews as the root of all evil, and put no context around it, nor provide any indication contrary to that message, then defacto I promote the theory promulgated by Hitler.
Ham does the exact same thing with that poster in the "museum".
that you cannot see this is irrelevant to the fact of it.
so, no, PZ did NOT lie. you are simply an idiot.
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 10:12 PM
Owlmirror wrote:
"They are indeed promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins. Read the damn poster. What does it say?"
It says that the descendents of Ham migrated to Africa after the Tower of Babel dispersion.
Where in this is the Hamite theory? Please be sure to include some form of detail in your response... other than you-said-so.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 29, 2009 10:16 PM
Funny thing, Trinity, a neo-Confederate creationist would not find anything objectionable about Ham's poster. In fact, that person would complain that it does not go far enough.
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 10:19 PM
Icthic wrote:
"Ham does the exact same thing with that poster in the "museum".
that you cannot see this is irrelevant to the fact of it.
so, no, PZ did NOT lie. you are simply an idiot."
Sorry, if you say Ham does the thing... does this make it OK for Sleazy to lie?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 10:26 PM
Sorry, if you say Ham does the thing... does this make it OK for Sleazy to lie?
Dopey, he's NOT lying.
YOU are.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2009 10:29 PM
Trinity, still the liar and bullshitter. No evidence for you imaginary deity and fictional babble. What a wuss. All good godbots have physical evidence in their back pockets. Or don't they, which makes them delusional fools? What is your problem?
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 10:30 PM
Janine, OMnivore wrote:
"Funny thing, Trinity, a neo-Confederate creationist would not find anything objectionable about Ham's poster. In fact, that person would complain that it does not go far enough."
It is indeed truly amazing how deficient in the lack depth or scope some of these responses are. Is there anything, in your opinion, that Sleazy could write that would offend your sensibilities?
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 10:42 PM
Icthic wrote:
"Dopey, he's NOT lying.
YOU are."
Right... this is a sophomoric debating tactic, avoid the subject and accuse your opponent.
Perhaps you will explain how?
Now, I'm not expecting a cogent answer, but am presumably asking a simple question of someone who is prolly posting messages to this board from his parent's basement... and hasn't the intellectual capacity to know the difference between the truth and the "ejaculations" someone leaves on his face.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 29, 2009 10:43 PM
Trinity, I am just so ashamed that I cannot see with the crystal clarity that your god blinders give you.
So what does you clear vision see here?
Or are you going to ignore it yet again. Or does it hurt your self esteem to admit that you are wrong?
Posted by: John Morales | August 29, 2009 10:44 PM
Trinity,
A naked assertion, inasmuch as you don't justify it.
Care to elucidate what depth is lacking, and what scope has been ignored?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2009 10:46 PM
Trinity, proof for your deity, zero, proof for your babble, zero, proof your accusation of PZ is correct, zero. Not a good batting average. Start at the beginning and show the evidence you are right on all counts. Your word is meaningless otherwise...
Posted by: John Morales | August 29, 2009 10:48 PM
PS, Trinity, I've been charitable and interpreted you as I think you intended, rather than what you actually wrote. :)
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 10:49 PM
That is indeed exactly the Hamite theory of racial origins: that the descendants of Ham migrated to Africa after the Tower of Babel dispersion. What more do you want?
It was Christians who then took this, and then reinterpreted Noah's curse (as written in the bible) as the Curse of Ham that turned the skin black on Ham's descendants and justified racial slavery.
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 10:51 PM
Nerd Head of Red wrote:
"Trinity, still the liar and bullshitter. No evidence for you imaginary deity and fictional babble. What a wuss. All good godbots have physical evidence in their back pockets. Or don't they, which makes them delusional fools? What is your problem?"
Sleazy Meyers lying.
Do you have anytihng substantsive to this discussion Sir? Does this mean it is OK for Sleazy to lie?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2009 10:53 PM
Sleazy Trinity, you are lying until show evidence for your veracity. We are waiting, just like we always do with idjit godbots...
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 29, 2009 10:57 PM
Trinity!
What! Does! This! Mean?
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 11:01 PM
John Morales wrote:
"A naked assertion, inasmuch as you don't justify it.
Care to elucidate what depth is lacking, and what scope has been ignored?"
Sure... no one is addressing the subject at hand (sleazy Meyers asserting that the AiG museum board 'promotes the Hamite theory') and have resorted to name calling as a means of argumentation.
No depth of argument in that they refuse to address the poster or Hamite theory with a justifiable connection.
No scope of argument in that they refuse to address even the basics of the subject and resort to name calling.
Is this the justification you sought?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2009 11:03 PM
Sleazy Trinity, still nothing from you. Show your evidence for your god and you babble being inerrant. Then, and only then, will we talk about PZ.
Your avoidance of this speaks volumes to your veracity and integrity. id est, none.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 29, 2009 11:04 PM
Do you have anytihng substantsive to this discussion Sir? Does this mean it is OK for Sleazy to lie?
Good grief woman read the article and thread again. We've made it clear that we know what we're talking about. If anyone is lyin' its Ham for thinking that we would believe that his half as evidence doesn't support a racist ideal.
I'm not even sure what on earth you are trying to say in this sentence.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 29, 2009 11:08 PM
Trinity:
Sure... no one is addressing the subject at hand (sleazy Meyers asserting that the AiG museum board 'promotes the Hamite theory') and have resorted to name calling as a means of argumentation.
PZ Myers: With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put, they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins,
You can teach a person to read but you cannot make them comprehend.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 29, 2009 11:18 PM
Trinity, I have yet to call a name. Quit whining and answer the question.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2009 11:20 PM
Trinity, golden rule, you call PZ sleazy, we call you sleazy. What part of that is hard for a godbot to understand?
Posted by: Trinity | August 29, 2009 11:21 PM
Janine, OMnivore wrote:
"What! Does! This! Mean?"
It means that sleazy believes the creation museum is trying to support/promote the idea that Africans are meant to be servants according to Biblical teachings...
This is not true... a lie.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 11:24 PM
You are absolutely right: It's a sleazy lie that you are trying to tell about PZ Myers.
Liar.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 29, 2009 11:25 PM
Sleazy Trinity, still nothing but allegations. Show some hard evidence for your veracity, starting with evidence for your imaginary deity. Without that, you have no argument. We are still waiting. Your word is nothing...
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 29, 2009 11:28 PM
And Trinity moans about the how deficient in the lack depth or scope some of these responses are. It is official, a bag of hammers has greater comprehension.
Thank you, Trinity. You are shining example of the kind of mental editing one must do to be a creationist
Posted by: John Morales | August 29, 2009 11:29 PM
Trinity @348,
I would suggest they're resorting to it in addition to (rather than instead of) argumentation.
Further, as it was you who introduced the tactic ("sleazy Meyers"), it seems rather hypocritical to complain about it, regardless of its applicability.
No.
The subject at hand is your comments, to which the responses are addressed; this has nothing to do with 'depth', with relates to the degree of detail of such responses.
They're also directly addressing your comments; you haven't stated what aspect of your comments has been ignored, which is that to which 'scope' relates.
Accordingly, your assertion @338 remains unjustified, and seems to be no more than a rhetorical tactic.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 29, 2009 11:39 PM
@Trinity,
You never followed through on the Creation "Museum" thread in answering my question so I will repeat it here:
There is a singular reason that Ham's descendants would be shown as populating Africa, and that reason is the racist Hamite theory, isn't that right?
There is no other known reason for such a depiction (unless you are willing to offer one up, which you so far have not done), and the Hamite theory is known well enough that any non-White-supremacist Biblical scholar ought to have avoided alluding to it so directly as Ken Ham did in his fantasyland. You cannot escape the fact that the Dispersion of Babel as depicted by Ken Ham promotes the racist Hamite theory of racial origins whether it was knowingly or unknowingly done by Ken Ham in the first place.
Posted by: SJB | September 12, 2009 9:42 AM
Professor Myers above argument is severely flawed. Maybe he should reread the Genesis account more carefully before making the same ignorant assertions as some have in the past.
"25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."
Who is being cursed? Canaan...not Ham. Canaan is subservient to Shem...not Ham. Accoring to Genesis, Ham had several other sons which would have migrated to Africa whereas Shem settled in Palestine. The Egyptians were not black and there is no suggestion Canaan was. These racist implications are shallow at best.
"So Ham, the father of all African peoples by this account, sees Noah drunk and naked, and Noah curses his child Canaan to be a servant of servants (what a nice Grandpa!). This is the doctrine that led apologists for slavery to declare that the children of Ham, that is Africans, were ordained to be servants."
Those who attempted to justify slavery warped these passages in Genesis, just as professor did in this article. The assumption is that Canaan was African which is false.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 12, 2009 9:50 AM
SJB, you missed the point. The whole babble is fiction. People who read the babble, paricularly one of the myriad of translations, don't have a clue as to what was in the original documents, and they read into whatever version they are using whatever interpretation that they desire. Your personal reading is only one of many.
Posted by: SJB | September 14, 2009 2:46 AM
Redhead, if you consider the Bible to be fiction then, according to your own words, "your personal reading is only one of many".
Was Myers quoting from the "original documents" when regurgitating an absurd Bibilcal interpretation from the era of slave trading? Of course not...he sourced a very standard translation of that text. His logic is in error and if he considers these ideas to be ridiculous then perhaps he should put forward a rational argument. If he is merely poking fun at the beliefs of some Christians, then perhaps he should reconsider tactics for he is only making a fool of himself with such methods.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 14, 2009 3:05 AM
No, he sourced a pre-scientific Christian interpretation of the text that was the standard for centuries.
I agree that the pre-scientific Christian interpretation of Genesis is in error, and that pre-scientific Christian ideas about race are ridiculous.
The rational argument is in fact science itself. Perhaps you could try learning some?
Oh, not at all. He makes pre-scientific racist Christians look like fools too.
Posted by: Kevin | January 2, 2010 7:42 PM
Only commenting to say: Thank you for not making a joke at the expense of Ken Ham's unfortunate surname, especially considering the topic at hand. Your discretion truly shows you to be the utmost gentleman.