Is The End Coming for Ken Ham?

Look what we just found at the website of Fox News Radio — of all places. They have a story headlined Kentucky ‘Creation Museum’ Out Of Money?

Whether the headline’s implication is true or not, the mere fact that Fox would carry such a story is shocking. Is it possible that the creationist empire run by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, is actually facing financial ruin? This will sadden millions who are fans of ol’ Hambo, his on-line ministry Answers in Genesis (AIG), and the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

How could such a holy, God-favored enterprise be in trouble? Let’s find out what’s going on. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

According to blogger Phyranula, it looks that way.

M’god. A news organization — Fox! — is giving credit to PZ Myers. This may be a first! The Fox story continues:

We’ve been getting rumblings about this for some time now: Ken Ham’s Creation “Museum” is struggling. This is not surprising. It’s initial success was due to novelty and capitalizing on controversy, but all of that is fading. … You have to spend money to make money, but they’re in the position now of having to pour more wealth into their enterprise than they can get out of it. It’s doomed to the fate of Holy Land USA and Heritage USA.

Doomed? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! One more excerpt:

Interestingly, the reason for the slowing traffic seems to be creationism itself, since the main exhibit has literally not changed in 5 years. Most museums’ exhibits change as new discoveries are made, as artifacts travel from other museums to visit, or as adjustments in scientific thinking are made.

Huh? That’s supposed to be one of the great strengths of creationism — it never changes. But even Fox is saying that’s a problem for Hambo’s enterprise. It’s quite understandable, really. How many times does even a creationist want to keep going back to (and paying admission for) the same museum to see the same exhibit of the same Adam & Eve? We should think that even once is more than enough.

Ah, but Hambo isn’t one to stand still and let his empire sink into the ooze from which it came. He’s fighting back! We found this at Cincinnati.com, a website shared by several Gannett newspapers. We can’t tell which one carries this story — maybe it’s all of them: Creation Museum’s new zip line course stretches over 2 miles. They say:

The new zip line course at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, claimed to be the biggest in the Midwest, opens Thursday. Ken Ham, founder and president of Answers in Genesis, the Apologetics Ministry that built the Creation Museum, said the goal is to attract people who otherwise might not visit the facility.

Does anyone here know what a “zip line course” is? We never heard of such things, but they’re probably very popular among the dumbest, least educated, and most inbred people in the world, because Hambo thinks that’s what will bring visitors back to his creationist theme park.

Perhaps some of you are wondering: If Hambo’s operation fades away, what will your Curmudgeon write about? Have no fear, dear reader — we shall never run out of material. [*Start preacher mode*] As the moth is drawn to the flame, the bee to the blossom, the electron to the proton, so too does the sucker seek the charlatan. Verily, ’tis a law of nature. Creationists will always be with us. [*End preacher mode*]

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

119 responses to “Is The End Coming for Ken Ham?

  1. Preachers always reinvent themselves. All he needs to do is go to church, make a fuss about the lord’s museum and he will have dimwits back in droves

  2. Pete Moulton

    Here you go, SC. It’s only Wikipedia, but you’ll get the idea.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip-line

    I honestly don’t know what this would have to do with the infamous Creation “Museum,” per se, unless Hambo’s turning it into an amusement park. Evidently prayer isn’t bringing in the requisite funding.

  3. Zip Line or no, I predict Ham won’t be able to keep it zipped.

    An article like this on Fox is probably a desperate prod to stir up more donations. That, or maybe someone at Fox suffered a lapse of temporary sanity?

  4. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams

    SC, you quoted We’ve been getting rumblings about this for some time now: Ken Ham’s Creation “Museum” is struggling. from FOX News.

    It’s stunning that they used “Museum” rather than Museum!

  5. This is ziplining:

    http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s16e06-i-should-have-never-gone-ziplining

    It’s one of those things that look like more fun to do from the ground than actually doing it. Plus, ziplines are usually set up over some kind of terrain. It looks like there’s only farmland around the roadside attraction. Zip by tractors, wheee….

  6. Has anyone ever remarked that a “museum” is, by its etymology, something dedicated to the Muses, Greek goddesses?

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    Most likely business move is to kibosh the ark project and make an excuse to roll that money into the museum, maybe to build a much smaller ark as a wing. God could shrink the animals into the ark, so who cares what size it is anyway, Ham will be quoted as saying in the press release.

  8. Good ol’ Faux News. Can’t even spell the name of its source right.

  9. John Pieret says: “Good ol’ Faux News.”

    Give ’em a break! They’re trying to tell it like it is.

  10. I hear Ham also planning a Midway with a number of other carnival attractions:

    “Dunk the Darwinist”
    “Biblically-Approved Fun House”
    “Test Your Strength in the Belief of Creationism”
    “Guess Your Religion”

  11. Vulcanthunder

    Actually most of the people I know who like this zip-lining are young college educated people with a sense of adventure. I did it myself in the military and in the jungles of Central America and I’m certainly no creationist!

  12. Zip-lining is cheap thrills. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it’s a sign of increasing desperation. Maybe Ham can add some tofu-eating pterodactyls along the route to jazz it up a little.

  13. Boy, I bet the fine people at the Smithsonian Institution wish they had thought of the zip-line to increase their dwindling numbers. I mean, c’mon, Smithsonian! Only 3.6 million visitors at the National Museum of Natural History in the first five months of 2013? For shame.

  14. retiredsciguy

    I wonder — does the Americans with Disabilities Act require zip-lines to be handicapped-accessible?

  15. Speaking of Heritage USA, I wonder how long it will take before the IRS takes a good look at the Creation Museum’s books. I’m going to make the bold prediction that Ham will be in prison within 10 years for swindling the public. Kent Hovind should be out by then so Ham can just use his old cell.

  16. Oh I so hope that someone buys the property and turns the building into a legit museum, and that it makes more money every year than the creation museum did in its first.

  17. Apologies as this is off-topic for this thread, except that it is bad news for Creatonists Cdesing Proponentsists generally (and specifically, good news for those us in the UK): Creationist free school applications plummet

  18. So Ham is betting on his zipper working? Should be interesting.

  19. David ponders:

    So Ham is betting on his zipper working?

    Well, he can count on David McConaghie to monitor the situation very closely.

  20. Kent Hovind’s defunct “Dinosaur Adventure Land” was advertised as a theme park, but it was really an elaborate playground, with “attractions” such as swings that the workers would wind up and then a kid would sit on the swing and spin around until he puked. Then the worker would relate this somehow to the Bible, e.g. the laws of physics are only uniform because God makes them so…

    So it looks like Ken Ham will follow Hovind’s successful business plan.

  21. docbill1351

    I visited a Parc de Troglodytique in France, more for kids than anything else, situated in a forest at the base of a stone cliff that contained actual caveman, well, caves. They had a series of zip lines 50 to about 100 yards long through the trees. They also had giant fake spiders in rope webs kids could climb on.

    I would imagine the liability insurance for a zip line park would be somewhat steep. Maybe it will drive Hambo out of business sooner.

  22. David ponders:

    “So Ham is betting on his zipper working?”

    Well, he can count on David McConaghie to monitor the situation very closely.

    He’s a preacher. Do their zippers ever work?

  23. I would imagine the liability insurance for a zip line park would be somewhat steep. Maybe it will drive Hambo out of business sooner.

    Natural selection at its finest. Hambo went down a direction that wasn’t conductive to long-term survival and now he shall be removed to make way for something else.

  24. @RSG: The handicap access part would depend on the starting point, which is sometimes from the top of a tower. Other than that, Zip-lining is something anyone can do, you clip onto the cable and away you go.

  25. This is how I imagine the end of Ham. Ok it is pretty hard to put his beard on a pig but it is there.

  26. gnome de net

    The story’s author is Alan Colmes, who some may remember as the moderate/liberal counterpoint to Sean Hannity’s conservatism on Fox’s old Hannity and Colmes show. He is probably retained by Fox so they can continue to make their Fair and Balanced™ claim with a straight face.

  27. Ham on a zipline:

  28. It should no longer surprise me that people will believe anything they read on the internet. The Creation Museum is doing just fine and with a little research you could have learned this. Their financial records are public record. Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean you need make fun of it or lie about it. Time to stop the lying and name calling.

  29. Name calling, insults, carefully selected (less than 6) “blogs,” no research and no opposing view. Just goes to show what one can do with a couple meg of free website space from their IP. Keep up the good work of self-delusion.

  30. “Biblically-Approved Fun House”

    And doubles as a porta-potty.

  31. docbill1351

    Hambo the Huckster!

    Let’s all visit Jurassic Lark!

    Enjoy the banjo music and especially the description at the end that Hambo’s Hopeless Monster is just a “church decorated with dinosaurs.”

    Awesome!

  32. lea writes: “Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean you need make fun of it or lie about it. Time to stop the lying and name calling.”

    Just because something is insanely wrong, that’s no reason to call it what it is. Just because someone won’t listen to any form of reasoning, that’s no reason to ridicule them so others can see how unreasonable they are.

    As for the name calling, you might have a point, but it’s still kind of funny. Besides, ‘ole Hambo started it.

  33. This thread is getting hundreds of hits from Facebook, where I’m not registered. Does anyone know where it’s coming from?

  34. SC, it looks like it’s coming directly from his facebook page. He likes you! He really likes you!

  35. “This thread is getting hundreds of hits from Facebook, where I’m not registered. Does anyone know where it’s coming from?”

    Mr. Ham’s Facebook page. He posted a link to this site. 🙂

  36. Mark Germano says: “He likes you! He really likes you!”

    I like him too. And that explains some of the comments we’ve been getting.

  37. Mr. Ham posted your link with this comment:

    “Here is just one example of the urban myths many secularists are posting across the internet at the present time. For those who just repost, I’m sure they do so with glee as they regurgitate the myths/lies someone else posted. For those who make up these lies, maybe they hope to somehow undermine the Creation Museum in some way.

    For those of you who have been to the Creation Museum previously, and in recent times, one of the many myths in this post will stand out immediately—that nothing has changed at the Creation Museum in 5 years! What nonsense!

    Also, we just closed the books on the 2012-2013 fiscal year—it’s our biggest year yet! And, Creation Museum attendance and budget exceeded projections.

    Sad news apparently for the atheists—the Creation Museum continues to expand, and continues to attract visitors from across the USA and around the world and continues to teach people the truth about God’s Word beginning in Genesis and the gospel—and continues to exceed projections. All praise to the Lord.

    I have news for the secularists—the Creation Museum and the ministry of AiG are reaching more people than ever with the truth of the creation/gospel message.

    Oh by the way–the ‘end is coming’ –read 2 Peter 3!”

    I don’t think he’s too concerned by the rumors or name calling.

  38. Ol’ Hambo must be doing everything right his Master real proud by his entrepreneurial skills and teaching people worldwide to defend their beliefs. I detect deep jealousy, fiery hatred and inane downright disrespect at the root of the crass comments on this blog, the vast bulk of which are complete and utter drivel. But what else would one expect from people who believe the fairy story that they are descended from brute beasts?

  39. I have been to the creation museum several times, and there has been different material each time. I don’t know what this article is talking about but it is clear they have never been there, nor researched it very well. In fact the creation museum is in it’s best year financially! I love it!

  40. Actually…I’m not sorry. 😉

  41. The amount of hate shown here is appalling.

  42. Good link Troy. The 2012 tax returns should be quite interesting.

  43. Baseless article, totally lacking in the pursuit of truth – keep up the good work, Ken Ham!

  44. docbill1351

    But what else would one expect from people who believe the fairy story that they are descended from brute beasts?

    Actually, my family came from France where we descended from Brut Beasts. Yes, we were a motley cru.

  45. What’s more alarming than this is more & more scientists & paleontologists are finding evidence that CONTRADICTS Darwinism (especially in China) yet our schools are forced to present this THEORY as the only idea in school books. Look up info on the “Cambrian explosion” .

    Keep making fun about what you don’t know about, there are 2 sides to most stories….not that you seem to care.

  46. Gosh Curmie, your post must have really dropped some ants-in-their-pants to stir up such a fuss.

    *Do it again!* 🙂

  47. I normally wouldn’t put any stock into what Noah wrote, but then he capitalized both “contradicts” and “theory.” Now, I’m not so sure. I’m sure he’ll come back and give us examples of all that evidence the Chinese scientists (and also paleontologists) are digging up.

  48. Tomato Addict says: “*Do it again!*”

    The problem is that I really try not to mistake blogger gossip for actual news, so I ignore a lot of what’s out there. I only posted what I did because Fox reported it.

  49. “Creationists should read the rules before posting any comments” – wow, your bias site with its evolutionary worldview has rules specifically for those who disagree. The rules pretty much say if you don’t agree with us then don’t post. So, since I’m a creationist I shouldn’t waste my time commenting on your post even those it is not only bias, it is also bogus when it comes to facts concerning AIG.

  50. I know, and you are very conscientious about that too. It’s just fun watching them dance around like this.

  51. @Anon: And if I were commenting at AIG’s web site, would that be allowed?

    Oh wait, AIG doesn’t allow comments. Silly me!

  52. Your ignorance is painful

  53. retiredsciguy

    docbill: “Actually, my family came from France where we descended from Brut Beasts.”

    Ah! That explains your dry wit.

  54. retiredsciguy

    Noah floats the comment, “…more & more scientists & paleontologists are finding evidence that CONTRADICTS Darwinism…”

    Who & who would these “more & more” be? Please give names, Noah, or be seated. And while you’re at it, please cite the evidence that you say contradicts Darwinism, as you call it. And since you say its “scientists & paleontologists”, cite only evidence that has been published in a respected peer-reviewed science journal, such as Nature or Science. Respected by other scientists, that is, not a bogus “creationism only” journal.

  55. Retiredsciguy. ‘peer-reviewed science journal, such as Nature or Science’. What eminence have these journals got? They peddle the fairy story. What you ask of Noah is like asking him to go to Roman Catholic Journals to find papers peer-reviewed by Presbyterians.
    ‘Dry wit’ – that’s right – it lacks substance. No word of the museums(?) advancing your fairy story gobbling up your tax millions. AiG do not have that luxury.

  56. @RSG: I think this guy only accepts ONE publication. Too bad the Author has only that one major publication, in Hebrew, which cites no references, and it wasn’t even submitted for peer review. Some even doubt he wrote it himself.

    Since that one publication, the scientific community has had a very rough time trying to replicate his results. He never applied to the Ethics Board for permission to use human subjects, and when one experiment went awry, he tried to cover it up by drowning the subjects.

    Actually, that last bit is just a rumor – there is no substantiating evidence.

    Reference
    http://www.jimpoz.com/jokes/god-tenure.html

  57. ‘One Publication’. You’re spot on – one Book and One Author.
    The fairy story doesn’t even have a book.

  58. retiredsciguy

    So, Ian, it is apparent that you believe all science is a “fairy tale”. So how do you account for that computer you are using to communicate with us?

    Don’t bother answering. It’s already clear that you do not accept logic.

    It’s a shame that creationists don’t have enough faith and trust in their fellow man to believe that we can practice the message of love and peace that Jesus taught without having to profess a belief in all the oogity-boogity of six-day creation, forbidden fruit, global flood, etc., etc.

    You are entitled to believe what you wish. But please, don’t insist that the rest of us must follow suit. We prefer to live by reason. Peace be with you, Brother.

  59. Hi retiredsciguy. When we understand exactly Who Jesus is, we know we can trust His every word. He advises us, as He told the Sudducees of His day, if we are to not to be mistaken in our thinking, we have to understand the Scriptures and the Power of God. When we have a thorough knowledge of these, the oogity-boogity of Creation is not problematic. He taught that He created – in the beginning – male and female – I believe Him. He taught that Adam was a real historical character, having noted Zechariah (a historical character) and Abel (the son of Adam) in the same breath – I believe Him.
    The apostle Paul confirms – no Adam – no gospel.
    The science I learned in High School was in a class of about 30. One of them went on to develop the beta-blocker, another went on to be a nuclear physicist, another joined ICI to develop every-day uses for nylon and other synthetic fibres, yet another joined IBM to develop computers and I went on to be a Quantity Surveyor. I was up with these lads in both physics and chemistry in the grades I attained each year. So the kind of science I learned in the 1950s set the foundation upon which others built to produce the computer at which I am typing now.
    That is a far cry from the fairy-tale of a fully-functioning universe which conforms to laws which can be proved, and even predicted, has got everything in it here by mere random chance. Further, I can readily understand that man is set apart from other creatures, if he is made in the image of God. However. that dignity is removed as soon as we even moot the possibility that we came from primordial soup via the lower animals, through a process of imperceptible changes over billions of years, with little or no legacy of the process being left as evidence. Do we evolve into angels next?
    I came on to this blog just to make one comment as to the jealousy, hatred, vitriol and crass remarks I observed in it. However, you seem to be a sane and sensible person who has called me your brother and wished me peace. I rather like that. I, too wish you the peace of Christ, and respectfully ask you to remember that it is in Him where all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (science) are hidden. Ian

  60. Ian, you seem like a fine fellow and you’re welcome to comment here, but we don’t don’t allow preaching, okay?

  61. Thanks Curmudgeon, but I ask you to lay off Ken – he’s one of the best.. Amen.

  62. Ian Ross says: “I ask you to lay off Ken”

    This is a science-oriented blog. We’ll be happy to ignore Ken as soon as he quits bashing science. And please, don’t bother telling us about his artificial distinction between operational (or observational) and historical (or origins) science.

  63. Ian Ross writes:

    I came on to this blog just to make one comment as to the jealousy, hatred, vitriol and crass remarks I observed in it.

    Actually, what you will find here is ridicule, though you and I can respectfully disagree whether or not such is warranted.

    But for “jealously, hatred, vitriol and crass remarks” one need look no further than the outpourings of the Creationist community, who–and this is just one example–dishonestly attempt to equate Darwin’s insights with Hitler’s maniacal crimes against humanity. And are you familiar with the “Wedge Strategy” document produced by the Discovery Institute of Seattle? This isn’t about religious belief, or freedom to practice freedom of worship–you are free to believe as you will, as your conscience alone can determine, you will look in vain on this blog for anyone advocating restriction of that fundamental freedom–but in the Creationist community there is clearly a specific political theocratic agenda which is inconsistent with precisely that freedom, and that is the heart of the matter IMHO.

    If I may, let me note one other of your comments:

    Further, I can readily understand that man is set apart from other creatures, if he is made in the image of God. However. that dignity is removed as soon as we even moot the possibility that we came from primordial soup via the lower animals, through a process of imperceptible changes over billions of years, with little or no legacy of the process being left as evidence.

    There is a super abundance of “legacy of the process” and more solid evidence empirical evidence for evolution than one could hope to read in a lifetime–but let’s set that to one side. It simply does not follow that human “dignity” can only be acknowledged if one believes we are the direct product of divine fiat. If anything, to live in a world in which we must value and protect one another (as we do not look to a cosmic Santa Claus to do so for us) is morality of a very high value–and one that acknowledges and preserves human dignity far, far more than the questionable morality of no end of warring religious cults that litter our history with hideous sagas of persecution, bondage, and bloodshed.

    Please, believe and worship as you will, but do not be surprised if your denial of empirical science and your claim for a greater morality are met with richly-deserved ridicule.

    I, too, however, wish you well, and thank you for your comments.

  64. retiredsciguy

    Well said, indeed, Megalonyx!

  65. Hi Carmudgeon. If you re-read my ‘preaching’ bit you’ll find proof from my own life that there is an undeniable distinction to be made between the science we all learn, independent of basic beliefs, and the science that is coloured by the individual’s worldview. I do not accept that Ken Ham bashes science. What he does is tell the world there is an alternative to the make believe story of primordial soup to princes evolution. I note no one has answered my question – do we evolve into angels next? As far as I can make out, imperceptible changes or no, I know of no one sprouting wings yet. My own logical mind prefers to believe the simple fact: ‘And He breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul’.

    Hi Maglonyx. Jealousy is at the heart of the ridicule. If Ken Ham and AiG were fighting to keep evolution alive you would have a wonderful asset on your hands. I note no one has answered the point I made that natural history museums nation wide are receiving millions of your tax dollars to fund the promulgation of a fairy story in your country. Whereas Ken Ham has to depend on people like me, It is really regrettable that some who believe in Creation adopt the same tactics as those who do not know Christ. I can only apologise that this is the case. Especially when all they need to do is observe the recorded life of the One they purport to follow and adopt the principles He taught and used. He never lost a debate in His life. Regarding a theocratic agenda. If this means that Jesus Christ is the Lord of the life, then I agree. This is the basis of true freedom. If the Son (Jesus Christ) sets me free I will be free indeed.
    ‘solid empirical evidence for evolution’ – within creature kinds – yes, across creature kinds – no. Let’s hear from you why it is we observe perfectly spherical heavenly bodies in a perfectly balanced universe, and how we miraculously end up with male and female examples of each un-designed kind by purely natural processes, remembering always that no designer exists to manipulate or bring anything into being, together with the unproven assumptions on which the fairy story is cobbled together. I much prefer to believe the statements of the Creator – ‘the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork’ and ‘by Whom also He made the worlds’, and of the poet: ‘Earth’s the favoured spot He chooses to display the truth of this – that God is Love’..

    Gents
    I really am sorry – I am sure you will be relieved – but, although I am 74 now, I am heavily involved in a Flood Alleviation Project in the north of Scotland where I live. I have a very tight schedule over the nest 2 weeks so blogging will be out of the question for me. I thank you all for your grace and politeness in honest debate and I wish you all the Creator’s blessing on your lives.
    I apologise, Cumudgeon, but I am quite unable to determine when comment ends and preaching begins! I think Maglonyx has the same problem!

  66. Ian Ross says: “I apologise, Cumudgeon, but I am quite unable to determine when comment ends and preaching begins!”

    I can see that. Permit me to suggest (and insist upon) a few guidelines for you. (1) We already know what your religion teaches and what you believe. You don’t need to tell us about it. If you feel compelled to behave like a missionary, then go somewhere like Borneo and teach the natives. (2) We already know what Ham says about science, so we don’t need you to tell us about such things. (3) We often link to AIG’s essays and discuss them — and we’re confident that we know what’s wrong with them. (4) You may want to browse among our prior posts about AIG in order to realize that it’s not necessary to tell us about Ham’s view of things.

  67. So why bother to blog at all? It’s a pointless exercise for you – and me.

  68. Hi Curmudgeon. My parting shot: According to what you have written, I perceive you are involved in a one-sided anti AiG, anti-God, anti-Christianity, anti-Scriptures and anti-proper-science campaign purely and simply for the express purpose of getting rid of Christianity and replacing it with your godless religion – and all this based on a fairy story.

  69. Ian Ross says: “I think Maglonyx has the same problem!”

    I’m quite certain he (Megalonyx) doesn’t. As someone who died 187 years ago (to the day) famously said: “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. “ Ken Ham is master of unintelligible propositions.

    More, you might want to review the definition of “Fairy Tale”. These are typically stories that feature fantasy characters, such as vampires, sea monsters, dragons, ghosts, angels, demons, giants, golems, cockatrices, unicorns, gryphons, satyrs, or zombies, and often magic or miraculous events. These are all completely unsupported propositions. All can be found in the Bible.

    Compare those to the propositions:
    1) Humans and dinosaurs coexisted together (aside from modern birds).
    2) The Earth is only 6000 years old.
    3) Creationist “Hydroplate” theory.
    4) Creationist “Runaway Subduction” theory.
    5) Creationist assumptions about radiometric dating.

    Now who is telling a Fairy Tale? Be happy with your faith, and don’t mess with science.

  70. Ian Ross drops the mask:

    I perceive you are involved in a one-sided anti AiG, anti-God, anti-Christianity, anti-Scriptures and anti-proper-science campaign purely and simply for the express purpose of getting rid of Christianity and replacing it with your godless religion

    Just doesn’t really merit a serious response. ‘Nuff said.

  71. Hi Tomato Addict. I trust you are well.
    I have noted what you say.
    The Microsoft Word definition of ridicule is mockery, scorn and derision. A modern update on Megalonyx by Ian Ross 187 years on: “To use ridicule against an opponent is the sure sign that the opponent has gained the upper-hand”. The team at AiG are critiquing your fairy story and finding fault. They are giving the world the proper alternative scientific perspective which accords with the Scriptures. And you don’t like it.
    A Scottish fairy-tale is a bed-time story which has no basis in fact nor does it have any substance. I think it fits your ‘nothing to everything by nobody’ scenario absolutely perfectly.
    If your science is so wonderful why are you not answering the simple questions I have asked? No amount of pseudo-science, no matter the amount of time allocated will bring an ordered universe out of nothing by chance. I have asked you to explain by your pseudo-science how we observe perfectly spherical heavenly bodies suspended in space that supposedly came out of nothing by random processes. I have also asked you to explain how your pseudo-science managed to come up with a male and female in every kind. I have also asked you to tell me plainly what we evolve into next.
    Your fairy story is full of ‘perhaps’, ‘might’, ‘maybe’ and ‘if’ and even they are joined up by propositions full of colourful imagination.
    You would like that, wouldn’t you, to have us all to be brainwashed like our kids in State Schools and to be as credulous as you to believe as fact in the fairy story you peddle. Messing with your pseudo-science is bringing up answers by PhDs that you don’t like. Hence the sustained campaign.
    I regret I must leave it there guys. I am behind schedule already. Shalom.
    Ian

  72. Megalonyx says: “Just doesn’t really merit a serious response. ‘Nuff said.”

    Now y’all understand a little better why I discourage debates with creationists, and why their participation here usually doesn’t work out very well.

  73. You and your participants have my sympathy, Curmugeon. I ought to have known better than to participate. I must say I commend you and the others. I usually end up being called a liar and other unsavoury names, and this has not happened here. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that you should continue to encourage debate with people who believe in Creation. That way you will get an angle on every aspect of the argument. If someone had tried to answer my simple questions seriously and in layman’s terms there might have been a different end to our conversation. These are matters which have bugged me for a long time. But you all just seemed to give up, and accuse me of ‘dropping the mask’ and ’nuff said’. It seems to me that what I said either struck a raw nerve regarding sustaining your faith in evolution or you are not really interested in the other side of the debate.
    With many thanks, kindest regards and best wishes to all. Ian

  74. Ian asks, “If your science is so wonderful why are you not answering the simple questions I have asked?”

    I’m sure Ian believes he asked a veritable truckload of questions that science is unable to answer. These questions were prescient and precise, exposing the challenges that the Theory of Evolution faces. I’ve taken the liberty to list them here, not only for posterity, but in the name of science.

    1. But what else would one expect from people who believe the fairy story that they are descended from brute beasts?
    2. What eminence have these journals [Science and Nature] got?
    3. Do we evolve into angels next?
    4. I note no one has answered my question – do we evolve into angels next?
    5. So why bother to blog at all? I defer to SC.
    6. If your science is so wonderful why are you not answering the simple questions I have asked?

    Man, the Galactic Communist Darwinian Conspiracy is going to be busy tonight.

  75. Ian Ross writes: And you don’t like it.”

    On the contrary, I quite enjoy mocking silly people for doing silly things (ie: Ken Ham), but our Curmudgeon is correct – this has gone on long enough.

    And Mark Germano thanks for listing Ian’s actually questions, I thought of adding that myself.

  76. I think a new term is in order, hambies. The rabid and mindless holy army of Ken Ham. (A cross between Ham and zombie)

  77. Troy writes: “I think a new term is in order, hambies. … (A cross between Ham and zombie)”

    Definitely not kosher! Also kind of unfair to the zombies.

  78. The person who mocks people who he considers silly is the silliest person of all and the person who resorts to name-calling acknowledges he has lost the argument.

  79. So if I was to ridicule someone who believes in Santa Claus (or Father Christmas) that would mean he is real? The people who read and post here know there is no way to win a debate with a creationist. If one selectively rejects empirically derived facts because as he is looking through Ken Ham’s “Biblical glasses” there is no convincing such a person.

  80. docbill1351

    Awwwwwwww, poor widdle Ian Ross haz a sad.

  81. Wow! The pearls of wisdom emanating from your highly-advanced scientific minds are absolutely mind-blowing.

  82. Ian Ross says: “Wow! The pearls of wisdom emanating from your highly-advanced scientific minds are absolutely mind-blowing.”

    But didn’t you just tell us: “The person who mocks people who he considers silly is the silliest person of all”?

    In truth, Ian, the novelty of having you here is wearing thin, and you are becoming tedious.

  83. docbill1351

    No, no, Curmie! Don’t clean out the litter box just yet. Little Ian still has some entertainment value and it’s a lazy Friday here in Houston.

  84. He’s not banned, docbill1351. But he’s not … you know, he’s not really contributing. Maybe it’ll get better.

  85. Well Curmudgeon, I want to thank you that you considered me a novelty for a wee while, and also for putting up with me for the length of time you did. I am new to blogging, as you have probably guessed, and I found your own comments and retiredsciguy’s sane and refreshing. Thank you for your patience and I promise not to take part in any of your blogs ever again. I trust you won’t mind me perusing some of your essays you mentioned in one of your posts for which you provided a link. I am genuinely interested in comparing the opposite ends of the spectrum.
    Sincerely yours,
    Ian

  86. docbill1351

    Fare thee well, aged Ian, may ye live to be 1000 and the last voice ye hear before ye dies be mine. Oh, wait, that’s an old Irish expression.

    My bad, lad. How ’bout a wee toast then!

  87. retiredsciguy

    Thanks for considering me sane, Ian. I’ve become adept at fooling people that way.

    All kidding aside, ever since Jim Jones of the People’s Temple, I have developed a deep distrust of any person or group who insists on blind religious belief or faith. You are insisting that we all believe every word of the King James Version of the Bible, even though many parts are in direct contradiction to observable evidence. I fear that religious fanatics, such as Ken Ham, are turning more people away from the teachings of Jesus rather than leading us to him.

    Personally, I can see the truth in his message of love, trust and peace without having to accept the divinity of Jesus. Unfortunately, too many clerics, in my opinion, rely on a fear of the Lake of Fire to keep people in line, rather than teaching the logic of Jesus’s main message.

    Good luck with your flood abatement, Ian.

  88. Ian:

    I am not interested in a long debate with you. As our Curmudgeon has often said, debating creationists is unlikely to get us anywhere. However, perhaps you will feel better if someone answers your questions.

    As presented (correctly so) by Mark Germano above:

    1. But what else would one expect from people who believe the fairy story that they are descended from brute beasts?
    – we may ridicule those who selectively deny science on this site, but there is no lying involved. On the contrary, one can trace the lies and selective omissions in creationist literature to their sources. Biblical literalists also have a tendency to selectively allow for non-Biblical truths when convenient, but then create all kinds of stories and theories when convenient (see Vapor Canopy, run away subduction, among others already mentioned above).

    2. What eminence have these journals [Science and Nature] got?
    -most widely read and circulated peer-reviewed journals.

    3. Do we evolve into angels next?
    -this question is ridiculous and really doesn’t deserve an answer. We have no way of know where the human race will go next. It could be cyborgs, it could be extinction. It’s not the kind of testable prediction that the ToE provides for. ToE deals with what has happened. All we can know of the future is that unless selective pressure remain static, evolution will continue.
    -both the ToE and the Bible give us testable predictions about what we should find when studying the natural world. Those of the Bible, namely an Earth younger than about 10K years, a global flood, instantanteous special creation are easily falsified when you look at the evidence provided by the world itself. Those of the ToE, namely gradual change of organisms in tree of life, are quite evident. Other related concepts (though not found in the ToE), such as a very old Earth, are confirmed by multiple lines of evidence.

    4. I note no one has answered my question – do we evolve into angels next?
    – see above

    5. So why bother to blog at all?
    -blogs are not necessarily meant for debates. SC is gracious enough to allow that on his blog.

    6. If your science is so wonderful why are you not answering the simple questions I have asked?
    -go to your local library and check out a few texts on biology, focus on evolution.
    -most of your questions do not concern evolution.

    Please note, Ian, I have not ridiculed you at all. I have not ridiculed any creationist. And I have answered your questions within the scope of the discussion here.

  89. Beautiful job, TJW. You have much more patience than I.

  90. Gents. I have made a promise to The Curmudgeon that I will not participate further on any of his blogs ever again, but I have no other way to tell you that I truly appreciate that retiredsciguy and TJW have come back with serious comment without ridicule in response to my short input.
    Finally, the flood abatement project (that reiredsciguy refers to and in which I am deeply involved) is valued at circa $150,000,000 and it centres around the city of Elgin and the town of Forres on the Moray coast which was subject to serious flooding in the past. A major milestone is about to be achieved at the end of this month when we take delivery of a double arch bridge which has been built at Darlington in England to span the River Lossie in the centre of Elgin. The project is due for completion in June 2016. It is presently ahead of time and on budget.
    Sincere thanks for your good wishes retiredsciguy.
    Ian

  91. @ TJW: I concur with retiredsciguy, very well done post, and exemplary patience in answering the absurd ‘questions.’

    And as you note, “debating creationists is unlikely to get us anywhere”, and the main reason for that IMHO is most tellingly shown in this quote from one of Mr. Ross’ earlier posts on this thread (my emphasis added):

    I can readily understand that man is set apart from other creatures, if he is made in the image of God. However. that dignity is removed as soon as we even moot the possibility that we came from primordial soup via the lower animals…

    That really gives the game away, doesn’t it? The Creationist starts, a priori, with a solitary acceptable conclusion and declares that “even to moot” any other conclusion is simply out of bounds. No empirical investigation, no data, no theory even, just an absolute guillotine on any conclusion that is not acceptable, on grounds of pre-existing belief/prejudice/dogma/hysteria (take your pick).

    It would be something like engaging a Police Detective to investigate a murder, but at the outset the Detective says, “the identity of the murderer is not allowed to be Joe Bloggs, who is a friend of mine, because I do not wish the identity of the murderer to be that friend of mine.” And what would such a Detective do if presented with no end of compelling evidence (including a signed confession) that Joe Bloggs was indeed the murderer? All of the usual shucking and jiving we hear from Creationists: ‘you weren’t there’, your mountains of evidence are somehow flawed, and the innocence of Joe Bloggs is assured as an article of faith, &c. &c.

    IOW: it is indeed utterly pointless to discuss empirical issues such as the nature of the physical cosmos and the magnificent phenomenon of life on earth with folks who dogmatically choose to reject empirical methods on the grounds that such threaten their predetermined, non-empirical ‘conclusions.’

    And it is possibly even more futile to argue with them about the basis of their a priori ‘conclusions’, which we are invariably told rely on the unchallengeable authority of ‘scripture.’ It does not matter to them that there is no empirical basis for a rational selection among the plethora of competing scripture (no more reason to assign the Bible greater or less ‘authority’ than the Q’uran, the Hindu Vedas, or the Homeric epics), and generally a waste of breath to remind such folks of the (often bloodthirsty) sectarianism even within one tribe of believers; e.g. mainstream Christian congregations don’t have an issue with science or even Darwin, it’s the literalist lunatic fringe (such as Ken Ham) that have these kind of issues.

  92. retiredsciguy

    Great post, Megalonyx. This whole thing with Ian Ross started three days ago when I posted this:

    “Noah floats the comment, “…more & more scientists & paleontologists are finding evidence that CONTRADICTS Darwinism…”

    Who & who would these “more & more” be? Please give names, Noah, or be seated. And while you’re at it, please cite the evidence that you say contradicts Darwinism, as you call it. And since you say its “scientists & paleontologists”, cite only evidence that has been published in a respected peer-reviewed science journal, such as Nature or Science. Respected by other scientists, that is, not a bogus “creationism only” journal.”

    Well, Noah never answered (perhaps he was seasick, or the stench of his bilge finally got to him), but Ian Ross responded by calling into question the authority of peer-reviewed science journals by saying they just promote the “fairy tale” of science. Neither Ian, Noah, or anyone else provided any names of “scientists & paleontologists” who have found evidence contradicting ToE.

    This would seem to be a favorite tactic of creationists — when they can’t back up their bogus claims, they shift the burden unto the rational side of the debate.

    Yes, Megalonyx, we should know better. This makes the 95th comment, and the creationists still refuse to accept reality. Imagine that!

  93. If I might insert a word in favor of ridicule, there are very few beliefs founded either in faith or reason, that do not benefit from criticism. We should test our assumptions: poke at them, kick them around, and make sure they still work. If not, replace them with something better. Science is extremely good at this process of systematic criticism. That doesn’t mean ridicule and mockery should be the first response to a contrary belief, but they may be the only responses that remain after polite and rational criticism has been refused.

  94. retiredsciguy

    TA: Speaking of criticism, the DI is forever promoting the idea of discussing the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. I wonder how the “design proponents”, creationists all (closet or otherwise), would feel if schools would open up discussion of the “strengths and weaknesses” of their particular religious beliefs?

  95. retiredsciguy

    “Raised from the dead, you say? Hmm. Can you replicate that? Do you have documentation? Do you have a valid death certificate to establish his deadness?”

    “Born of a virgin, you say? Hmm. Can you replicate that? Do you have proof of her virginity?”

    Well, I guess there are some questions that will just not be allowed. We wouldn’t want to offend anyone, now, would we?

  96. Our Tomato Addict notes:

    That doesn’t mean ridicule and mockery should be the first response to a contrary belief, but they may be the only responses that remain after polite and rational criticism has been refused.

    Well stated. What other response is even possible to a genuine believer in a flat earth? Or–for that matter–a young earth?

    No one is obliged, nor should be, to ‘accept’ the scientific method, or the findings of science. But science is not only open to but positively welcomes empirical challenges.

    So: Ken Ham, find a pre-Cambrian rabbit or equivalent challenge, and we can talk. Until then, you are an ignorant jerk and a shameless charlatan worth only of ridicule–as a mark of the utter contempt in which any rational person must hold you.

  97. And I just want to sneak in quickly in order to clam the 100th post on this thread–all thanks to the Hambie invasion of this blog!

  98. RSG writes: “I wonder how the “design proponents”, creationists all (closet or otherwise), would feel if schools would open up discussion of the “strengths and weaknesses” of their particular religious beliefs?”

    I think that suggestion has been made before. So far, no takers,

    RSG also writes: “Well, I guess there are some questions that will just not be allowed. We wouldn’t want to offend anyone, now, would we?”

    Well founded beliefs can stand up to criticism. I generally consider the Creationist I encounter in my adventures to be people of strong belief, but maybe I am wrong about that. Maybe the Creationists who shout the loudest are those with the most fragile beliefs. Maybe. I’ll think about it.

    @Megalonyx: nogooddirtyrottenonehundredthpoststeaer! grumblegrumblegrumble
    😉

  99. Somebody stole my “l” too.

    And here’s a bit of classic ridicule from Lewis Black.

  100. retiredsciguy

    Hey, guys, if we keep it going, someone can “clam” 200. (Gotcha, Megs. Not that I’m immune to typos myself, though.)

  101. Our Tomato Addict and Pope RSG are persecuting me!.

    I was of course prepared for “jealousy, hatred, vitriol and crass remarks” from that quarter—but not for the horrible indignity of ridicule!!!.

    So okay you smarty-pants sciencey fairy-tale believers! What you brashly assumed to be a typographical error—even though neither of you was even there when I was diligently tapping it into my keyboard—is a perfectly legitimate (because I say it is) creation of a brand-new spanking transitive version of a hitherto intransitive verb, viz.:

    CLAM: (v.t.) to rapidly seize, grasp and utterly absorb something, as in the action of a clam in clamping its shell around prey. Examples: “John clamed the dollar bill he spotted on the table”, and, “The attack gerbil clamed the title of Expert in ID.”

    I expect you heathen Darwinists will protest that this is an utterly idiosyncratic and solipsistic use of the language, but in TRVTH it is only another instance of rampant Humpty-Dumptyism as it is so brilliantly practised by the likes of David Klingdiddlehopper, John Westie &c &c &c. Words mean whatever I say they mean, and if you disagree with that, then let’s teach both sides of the controversy and let the kids decide for themselves! Academic Freedom demands no less.

    But of course, your pathetic use of ridicule against me only goes to prove that you are jealous of me because I am right and you are wrong, and that none of you can answer the very simple questions I have posed in all due humility, to wit:

    [1] Is it faster to New York than by train?

    [2] What is the difference between a lightbulb and a pregnant lady? (Hint: one can be unscrewed)

    [3] Fred earns $35K a year, after tax. If he donates 25% of his annual net income to AiG, 50% to the Discovery Institute, and 50% of the balance remaining to Ken Ham, how many millennia will it be before the Ark Project is completed—and how many weeks before Fred’s wife takes the children and leaves him?

    [4] Pismo Beach, CA, is the Clam Capital of the World: True or False?

    [5] Will someone be able to clam the 200th comment on this thread before Ken Ham’s Creation Museum goes bust? (Use both sides of paper)

    [6] There is no question 6. Discuss.

    So my brethren, it behoves thee to repent ye mightily lest you find yourself spending all eternity in the Great Steamer with a variety of edible marine molluscs!

  102. Ha! Two hours since I challenged you soi disant clever folks with a half-dozen simple questions, and you are all stumped!

    I hereby clam total victory!!!

    But–just in case some recalcitrant anti-Clam amoral humanist out there still refuses to admit defeat, then here is the Magic Bullet, the all-time grandaddy of killer questions that mere so-called ‘science’ simply cannot answer:

    [7] Is Certs a breath mint, or a candy mint?

  103. Megalonyx says: “I hereby clam total victory!!!”

    I showed your recent ravings to Olivia. She’s still laughing. Sometimes she pauses and says things like: “I really shouldn’t laugh at someone who is so far ’round the bend, but …” and then her laughter resumes, louder than before.

  104. retiredsciguy

    Megs, you’re 4 or 5 hours east of me, and I believe TA is even further to the west, so no fair claiming victory while we sleep. Besides, the past tense of your new definition of “clam” should be “clammed”, not “clamed”. You Brits spell funny. And that’s “spell” with a “p”, not an “m”. I’m not trying to insult you. I have too much respect for your humor (or is that “humour”) to do that.

    I’ll let TA pick it up from here. He has a much more finely focused wit than I. Besides, I type slowly.

  105. Our Curmudgeon twists the knife:

    I showed your recent ravings to Olivia. She’s still laughing.

    Aaarrrrrgggghhhhhh!!! More ridicule!!!!

    I’m melting! Meeeeeeellllllttttttiiiinnnngggg….!!!

  106. Oh man, I just blew coffee all over my laptop! (Don’t tell Gary.)

  107. Clam can be the new cool word replacing the ever popular sphincter (which replaced bucket) .Obscure early 1990s Wayne’s World reference

  108. Pope Retiredsciguy continues his inquisitorial campaign of persecution against moi with the claim:

    Megs, you’re 4 or 5 hours east of me

    Are those standard terrestrial hours, or super-flex ‘Creation week’ hours that can be as long or short as you want them to be?

    His Holiness also asserts:

    the past tense of your new definition of “clam” should be “clammed”, not “clamed”

    Naw. My neologism, my orthography–that’s the rule, and I should know (as I just now made that rule up).

    …Man, I’m coming around to see, where previously I only saw the weaknesses, the positive strengths of the Creationist mindset!

  109. Megalynx writes: [1] Is it faster to New York than by train?

    Travel to New York is instantaneous, and twice the speed of light traveling away.

    Megalumpkin writes: [2] What is the difference between a lightbulb and a pregnant lady?

    Although you most surely have heard otherwise, lightbulb-to-pregnant-lady evolution is not a proven scientific fact!

    Megallama writes: [3] Fred earns $35K a year, after tax. […] and how many weeks before Fred’s wife takes the children and leaves him?

    Fred’s wife and 17 kids are already packing.

    Mega-alpaca writes: [4] Pismo Beach, CA, is the Clam Capital of the World: True or False?

    Not sure, but I think I found where Cdesign proponentists come from.

    Megalapse writes: [5] Will someone be able to clam the 200th comment on this thread before Ken Ham’s Creation Museum goes bust? (Use both sides of paper)

    I hereby Clam the 200th comment! I win!! (I figure if Creationists can skip all the intermediate work and leap straight to the conclusion, why shouldn’t I?)

    Megafauna writes: [6] There is no question 6. Discuss.

    If question #6 is written on a clam at the bottom of the sea, is it really a question?

    Megadodo writes: [7] Is Certs a breath mint, or a candy mint?

    Seven Certs were taken aboard The Ark by Noah, and became the progenitors of all candy and mint Kind.

  110. My other persecutor, Tomato Addict, confesses:

    I just blew coffee all over my laptop

    Yea verily, my Clam is a vengeful mollusc!

    Tremble thee in His presence, and study well that thou doth not provoke His wrath again!

  111. Holy crap, Megs! I can imagine you saying that all in one breath. That was quite a stream (scream?) of consciousness.
    Now I have to figure out your secret so that I, too, can get TA to blow more coffee all over his laptop. I owe him. Many times over.

  112. Megaflora says:

    my Clam is a vengeful mollusc!

    ALL HAIL THE DSM (Deepsea Shellfish Monster)! (NOTE: The fact that “DSM” is also a tome of the psychiatric profession should be considered nothing but a coincidence… that’s right… a coincidence!)

  113. Gary proclaims:

    Now I have to figure out your secret so that I, too, can get TA to blow more coffee all over his laptop. I owe him.

    Having now read Tomato Addict’s sagacious replies to my killer queries, I am now in need of a new keyboard as well 🙂

  114. By popular demand, a few of my famous clam jokes:

    Question: What do you do if you discover a clam in your underwear?
    Answer: Smile and go on about your business.

    Question: What do you get when you cross a clam with a creationist?
    Answer: A smarter creationist.

    Question: What do you do if a clam falls out of your nose on your wedding night?
    Answer: Tell your bride she’ll get used to it.

  115. Curmie, you will have us clamoring for more!

    For a while there, I forgot what the subject of this thread was. Oh yeah — Ken Ham’s revenues in decline. My son-in-law just happened to mention today that he read somewhere that ticket sales for the Creation Museum are off 40%. He thought it was in Cincinnati Business Courier, but wasn’t sure. I haven’t had a chance yet to go looking for it; perhaps someone will find it.

    And Megalarynx, we aren’t persecuting you; we would never do anything to drive you away from this blog! You and TA are the life of the party!

  116. A bit late, I know, but Fox News Radio foxed up “Pharyngula” twice, first as “Phyranula” and later as “Phyrangula.” Journalistic care and vigilance, indeed.