In which I have hurt Ken Ham's feelings

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

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

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

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

More like this

Poor little Ken Ham gets no respect. He sets up this fancy museum, he keeps pushing his silly ideas, and what happens? Smart people like Daniel Phelps, president of the Kentucky Paleontological Society, calls him a moron. Deservedly. I don't need to say much, though. The scathing excoriation of Ham…
This may sound like pro-religion news, but it's really not: Wal-Mart is going to sell Jesus action figures. Maybe it is spreading religious mythology through cheap general stores, but it is also the commodification of a religious hero…so it's devaluing Jesus. The other thing to consider is what…
The excellent Slacktivist notes, once more, that Ken Ham’s biblical exegesis is just as sound as his science. But there's a twist.  He writes, "For decades I’ve been having this argument:" YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONIST: The Bible clearly says that God created the universe in six days, 6,000 years ago. ME…
We have made Ken Ham very sad. Yay, bonus! "We are disappointed with the zoo's decision and its impact on the families and visitors to the region who would have enjoyed taking advantage of this opportunity to make this a truly memorable Christmas," said Answers in Genesis and Creation Museum…

Ken Ham= Brain Damage

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

By speedwell (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Your link to Ham's blog entry is broken.

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

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

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

By lettucequeen (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By MarshallDog (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By Hal in Howell MI (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Pratik Patel (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Death and disaster is definitely caused by the bible.

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

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

You're far too polite. I'm definitely in the "and much much worse" camp.

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

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Senecasam (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

I'd say Ken Ham is a wanktruffle

You missed 'Twonk'.

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

But you missed Ham-head, which seems appropriate.

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

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

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

His sole name blisters our tongues.

He`s a coistrel, a culliton, a moldwarp

(mmm. Shakespearian insults..)

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

Hey PZ -- don't bottle it up -- let it all out!

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

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

By bigkongfan (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

"Ken Ham is... a donkey..."

Let's not be harsh here.

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

By deerjackal (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Reverend Spooner says Ken is a mucking foron.

I never understand Rev. Spooner.

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

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

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

By Dutch Delight (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By heliobates (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

You forgot "shit for brains". That's always my favorite one.

By Iason Ouabache (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Care to prove him wrong on that, PZ?

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

By S. Rivlin (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Canned Ham? Yuck!

cotton headed ninny muggins

I used to collect these type expressions on a 3x5 card:

He is also two planks short of a load, two sandwiches short of a picnic,... --Nick Gotts

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

By afterthought (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Derek, I find your comments deeply insulting to cheetos.

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

By Dave Godfrey (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Ken Ham, you're a ridiculous buffoon.

- Pierre R, bioinformatician.

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

A festering boil on the ass of humanity.

By Scienceman123 (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

I can't do better than Lewis Black:

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

By Shaden Freud (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Hal in Howell MI (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like the blog post has disappeared.

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

By Mathematician (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham's a slubberdegullion!

By aporeticus (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

Ken Ham is...

as dumb as a bag of hammers

as sharp as a sack of dead rats

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

dumber than two rocks stacked on top of each other

as coherent as a frog in a blender

as welcome as a herpes sore at an orgy

as credible as a senator with a "wide stance"

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

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

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

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

Oh ya Ken Ham is a douche bag!

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

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

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

...and just because I haven't seen it used yet..

Ken Ham is a fuckwit.

Silly silly pigletfucker.

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

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

*Thank you, professor Pullum.

Yes, I'm a stodgy old scolding goat and a haughty anthropic "philosophical theist" to boot - Neil B.

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

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

Lol @ 28, 47

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

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

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

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

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

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

Said Neil B.:

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

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

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

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

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

Ham is a git and for some Shakespearean spice:

a puking idle-headed clack-dish.

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

Taken from the Shakespearean Insulter:

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

He is also a mewling boil-brained scut.

He hath not so much brain as ear wax.

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

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

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

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

By Richard Harris (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Dan Phelps (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

Hear Hear! A proper nitwit!

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

By DVMKurmes (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

By Traffic Demon (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

For Ken Ham, the Christian Alphabet:

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

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

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

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

Hilarious comment, Traffic Demon #83!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/06/20/biology-pro…-"wackaloon"/

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

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

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

I would also call Ham's gullible followers wackaloons.

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

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

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

He did a great job on STS-124.

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

Ah, Ken Ham the creationist.

Yeah, he's a prick.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By black wolf (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

chigurh:

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

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

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

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

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

PZ,

you forgot "meathead" and "boil on the ass of society".

Rick

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

He does smell funny, though.

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Ham is a waste of carbon.

By SiMPel MYnd (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big deal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methinks he's an ignunt fool.

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

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

I think you missed:

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

Now, bring on the come-back ;)

Ken Ham is batshit crazy.

By God=Santa (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Kenny's stoopid can beat up your stoopid.

By Traffic Demon (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found it through the AiG homepage:

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

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

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

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

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

Now consider this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/now_im_going_to_have_nightma…

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

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

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

Back to PZ's request:

"Ken Ham has Bible where his brain should be."

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

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

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

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

Back to PZ's request:

"Ken Ham has a Bible where his brain should be."

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

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

By kcanadensis (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Keith Newton (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Graham Chapman (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for Ken the ugly Ham?

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

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

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

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

Seriously, what a failure at life.

By Cat of many faces (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By W. the I. P. (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

Events Link

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

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

By Mercurious (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Care to prove him wrong on that, PZ?

A Muslim Ken Ham would still be a Ken Ham.

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

By Citizen Z (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Dutch Delight (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

** no self-respecting ape is religious **

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

bipolar2
© 2008

1. Ken Ham writes :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By negentropyeater (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken "Shithead" Hambone And I'm being as mild as I can!

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

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

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

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

Ken Ham is a Kent Hovind

Ken Ham can eat a big fat diiiiiiiiiiiiick!

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

The correct, unbowdlerised form of this is:

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

By Pteropterus (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

By Traffic Demon (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

A mutton-chopped jackanape.

By Dave Wisker (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

By The Man With S… (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Swiftsure (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham is negative 42.

Ken Ham is a mountain of Smelly Bloody Horseshit

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

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

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

Ooh, this is fun!

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

And that counts among his more positive attributes.

By Bubba Sixpack (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

Done and dusted, time for some coffee and work!

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

Mr Ham,

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

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

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

And worse than that, he's a man of faith. He believes in the "buy bull."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fucktard.

Just Fucktard.

By steve8282 (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

Count me in the "far worse' camp.

By NigelGomm (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

A rectocraniated twat waffle with delusions of adequacy.

Oh yeah.....

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

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

Say it loud!

Ken Ham is a contemptible douchebag!

Say it loud!

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

By Dutch Delight (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Ex Partiate (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By David Lewis (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

By Torbjörn Larsson, OM (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

An open letter to Ken Ham:

Dear Ken,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Kerovon

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

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

By Helioprogenus (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham, you are a pointless small twit.
z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The MadPanda, FCD

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

By genesgalore (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Ex Partiate (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Hey, Ken!
Guess what - "absolute truth" is NEITHER!

By dubiquiabs (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Twice the twit!

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

He's as dumb as Ken Ham... oh, wait

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

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

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

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

Makes me wanna HOLLER!

By Longtime Lurker (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By gatoscuro (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Grammar RWA (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Steve in MI (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

Gatoscuro @#205

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

Let us instead merely say:

"Ken Ham? Who the hell is Ken Ham?"

The MadPanda, FCD

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

AND he has no Elvis in him.

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

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

By Longtime Lurker (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

The MadPanda #210

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

By gatoscuro (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Egregious Egomaniac

Gargantuan Goober

Oily Ookie

Quintessential Quimby

Rambling Ratfink

Unctuous Ulcer

Vituperous Villain

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

and...

Zygodactly Zombie

By Forrest Prince (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

Paraphrasing the immortal words of Dorothy Parker:

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

Or Earl Long:

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

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

Paraphrasing the immortal words of Dorothy Parker:

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

Or Earl Long:

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

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

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

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

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

A loon AND a loony?

You might hurt his feelings there.

PS: I think you forgot "retard."

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

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

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

By John Flemming (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Gatoscuro @ #218

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

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

The MadPanda, FCD

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

just plain DUMB.

By CalGeorge (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

[obligatory Kem Ham abuse here]

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

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

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

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

So, PZ, tell us how you really feel.

whore of babylon

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

By genotypical (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

PZ, you forgot "fuckhead". It should go somewhere in the F's.

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

and of course

not worthy of serious consideration

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

Crazier than an outhouse rat

Terra-cotta-toothed imbecile

Coprophagous Caprinophile

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

mandrake(212)

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

By oaksterdam (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

@ Chuck, 239: shouldn't that be "Dildous australis"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ten pounds of shit in five pound sack.

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

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

All this scatology is a guilty pleasure.

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

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

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

It CAN'T be!

By OctoberMermaid (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By mayhempix (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham blows donkeys for a nickel and makes change.

Ken Ham = Twatwaffle

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

To quote Bob Dylan:

Ken Ham,

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

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

By Captpetro (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

A fucking chirpbrained fucktard of quantum proportions.

Posted by: danley

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

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

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

The same thing was said about Jim Jones.

By mayhempix (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

What' a gonif? Never heard that one before.

By rowmyboat (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Remy-Grace (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By d simpson (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Ken, you said the following in quotes;

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

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

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

Bullshit. The article would have been the same.

"What's he so worked up about anyway? If he's right, God doesn't exist--so prayer can't do anything and, therefore, can't harm anything."

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

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

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

Funny name, funny beard, funny ideas.

PZ, your flowery language only gilds the turd.

By Ken Shabby (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By Fernando Magyar (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By westcoast (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

I like your moniker, funny!

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

Ken Ham is a Neil B.

Ken Ham is a Rob Liefield.

Ken Ham is a Uwe Boll.

Ken Ham is a Baz Luhrmann.

Ken Ham is a Michael Bolton.

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

"Mr. Ham, I don't doubt your good faith."

Ain't nothin' good about it.

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

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

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

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

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

By Remy-Grace (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

parts of kens answer:

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

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

you arrogant, fetid excuse of an ape.

By extatyzoma (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

3. Neil B.: Philosophy ≅ intellectual onanism?

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

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

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham in one word:

Creepy.

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

Are you referring to this Cheeto, perhaps?

By themadlolscientist (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Why not an addlepate?

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

By Bill the Cat (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Number8Dave (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

By jufulu, FDC (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Why isn't "fidiot" on the list?

By Ediacaran (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

Ken Ham,

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

That is all,
An Angsty 17 Year Old.

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

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

By Splatador (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By Galapagos (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Interrobang (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Alienheart (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham - I have pooped smarter things than you.

By randumbness47 (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By natural cynic (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

By Samantha Vimes (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Roger Scott (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink
"Ken Ham is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."
Posted by: Tom | June 21, 2008 3:11 PM

The same thing was said about Jim Jones.

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

For the same reason...

By Sir Craig (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken, you ignorant slut.

He's a liar, fraud, and con man.

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

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

By Michael Heath (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Every one of your readers???
Thanks!

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

By Ross Nixon (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Knobhead, fuckknuckle, wackjob, dickcheese....

By Brian English (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

"What's he so worked up about anyway? If he's right, God doesn't exist--so prayer can't do anything and, therefore, can't harm anything."

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

By tim Rowledge (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By Brian English (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

NEWSFLASH: The arsehole has regected him...

Ross Nixon treated us to:

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

really? fuck it, i call poe.

By oaksterdam (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Posted by: Neil B.

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

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

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, "people like me", like Hypatia of Alexandria,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Grammar RWA, j… (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham has less brains than a zabriskan fontema!

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

By Brian English (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

"Hah! Now that's some real Freeper, Libertoon-type bile!"

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

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

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

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Ken,
go choke on leper's death puke.

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

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

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

Ken Ham:

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

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

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

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

Thank you...

By Sir Craig, TSg… (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

I miss peckerwood.

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

#334

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

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

Ok, here goes...

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

By Jeff Arnold (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

I'll throw in one for good measure.

Ken Ham: Thou craven tickle-brained bugbear!

By phoenixphire24 (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Has anyone called Ken Ham a cunt yet?

If not, consider it covered.

By Lee Brimmicombe-Wood (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

By Nick Gotts (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

By Pat Silver (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By BROWN PELICAN (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Nick, you make a sound point.

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

By Lee Brimmicombe-Wood (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Cultural Anthr… (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Has anyone called Ken Ham a cunt yet?

If not, consider it covered.

Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By DiscoveredJoys (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ham is the cancer that's killing society.

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

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

Posted by: Cultural Anthropologist

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

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

By Bruce Breece FCD (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

*pauze for effect*

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we have been to easy on him.

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

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

Well done,PZ,well done!

doov

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

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

...in the free-market world.

Oh, the irony... *BOOM*

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

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

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

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Ham is a pig.

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

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

Pig.

By Alder Valley Bus (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

tosser

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

By Kevin Johnstone (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

PZ,

Sticks and stones, brother. Sticks and stones.

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

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

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

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

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

--Sirius Knott

Ham blows... I'd much rather have a good helping of squid any day!

By Zeke Silva (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham is a big dummy head.

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

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

Autofellating smegmavore.

By Witch Tyler, m… (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

OK, so I was wrong. You DID include "meathead".

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

Best,

Rick

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

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

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

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

Alder Valley Bus @ 374 "Ham... Pig! don't you get it!? It's a joke son"! Cleghorn

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

By Remy-Grace (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Methinks we've been Poe'd again by "Sirius Knott" (#377).

By Tz'unun, B.S B… (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Dave Herres (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Dave Herres (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

Mark

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

Pah!

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

By Chris Phillips (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken who?

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

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

By bassmanpete (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Brian English (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone read his take on this article?

IOWA FLOODS AND THE CURSE

"Floods are 'creation groaning,' pastor says"
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=28308

Neil,
Don't forget ersatzism.

Mark

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

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

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

By waldteufel (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

Thanks, bonehead!

AE

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

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

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

Hah! This made my day. Thanks, JT.

Let's see,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-jcr

By John C. Randolph (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham ate my baby!

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

No, you're probably thinking of "schlimazel".

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

By Owlmirror (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Let's see, my true feelings......

Completely superfluous to requirements. Delete program.

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

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

Blatherskite.And not just an idiot but a carrier.

Shakespeare says it well:

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

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

Hey, Kenny - as in " ... they've killed Kenny!"

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

Ken'ny'

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

omgs! we've killed kenny!

By LeeLeeOne (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

I laugh.

By Sir Jebbington (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

"even if, especially if it flies in the faith of today's scientififc dogma"

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

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

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

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

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

By Bubba Sixpack (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

Thank you.

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

Posted by: The Atheist Jew

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

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

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

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

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

(With apologies to Dr. Seuss)

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

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

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

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

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

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

W. the I.P. @139:

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

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

By BetentacledBrad (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

By ThirtyFiveUp (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

By DingoDave (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

Posted by: Tom

I agree. It is a great read.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ken Ham embraces willful ignorance as a virtue.

Carlie,

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

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

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

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

By RamblinDude (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

WWGD?

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

Well, as I said: WWGD?

By PoxyHowzes (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

334:

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

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

(yes, waste)

Oh! I believe I may faint!

Thank you Sir Craig, post number #339!

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

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

The Polygamists in Texas had a military contract.

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

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

By Erica Idle (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

By arachnophilia (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Damn... late again! Well, here's my humble contribution:

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

Apsišik aukštielninkas, tu kiaulies bybis. Norėčiau tau pikta ežy į subine įgrūst, tu rupūžė. Tu esi per durnas žinot nemyšt prieš vėją.

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

The man is a knobjockey of the highest caliber.

#465

That skit is worth posting in its entirety.

"You wouldn't have had much fun in Stalingrad, would you?"

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

By Sam Bowman (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

Ken "Green Eggs And" Ham

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

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

By Janine ID (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

By sillysighbean@… (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

By Pteropterus (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By Janine ID (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

By mikecbraun (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

...Or is that a dinosaur-drawn Creationism buggy? Did anyone throw the "fucktard" label at him yet?

By mikecbraun (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

By The Other Dan … (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

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

By Brownian, OM (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

You rock.

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

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

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

By Feynmaniac (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

How can you all have forgotten the piglet incident? Google

"Ken Ham" piglet

and get 4,790 hits describing this sordid incident.

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

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

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

Posted by: Aynon

Hey! Kudos for the correct spelling of "Myers."

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

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

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

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

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

By Sioux Laris (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

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

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

My prev post seems to have been eaten.

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

You are nothing

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

By themadlolscientist (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham has demonstrated certain exceptional abilities.

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

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

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

By Neil Schipper (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

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

Oops, I should have said I was referring to Aynon @#481.

Awwwwwww c'mon, Graham. It's Saturday night, and everyone who can has got a few ounces of EtOH floating around their bloodstream (sad to say, I'm not one of them - can't drink on account of meds). What do undergrads do on Saturday nights when they don't have a date and have gotten a little blitzed? Hang out and get rowdy and outrageous, what's what! Take a load off and grab a beer, OK?

By themadlolscientist (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

Ken Ham is an American passport and some creative accounting away from being Kent Hovind.

Ever notice how you never see the two of them together? (Oh, wait, that's 'cause "Dr." Dino is incarcerated. My bad.)

By chancelikely (not verified) on 21 Jun 2008 #permalink

But the baby donkey is cute, isn't he?

You called him a 'Wackaloon' and he got offended? I thought he got off easy.