Awww, he remembers me!

Ken Ham is complaining about someone lying about the content of the Creation “Museum” (I think the museum is so awful that lying could only improve it — but meanwhile, the student adresses those comments). But what warmed my black heart was that Kenny-Boy remembered my visit a few years ago, and quoted Mark Looy on a detail of that trip.

It helped that all 285 atheists/agnostics signed a statement that they would be civil—they did that when they checked in and got their tickets from their organizer, Lyz (who was a pleasure to work with). By the way, I did not request that the signed agreements were to be done (with the exception of getting the professor’s signature [he is an out-spoken atheist and anti-creationist, who is known for making vile comments], which we demanded in a certified letter mailed to him over a week ago)—to her credit, Lyz, after hearing our concerns about the web chatter about the possible behavior of her SSA group, did not want to see a ruckus in the museum, and she, I understand it, volunteered the idea of having her group sign such a statement (and we did verify with Lyz that the prof signed it).

It’s true! I did have to sign a promise not to be naughty in the “museum” — they were very concerned that we might have gay sex on the exhibits.

By the way, I’m still extra-special. Ham mentions the student’s name — Tyler Simko — and even links directly to his blog, Quantumaniac, but me? I’m still the vile Atheist Professor who must not be named.

I’m a little bit proud of that.


  1. says

    I’m extra special to!

    Every time Ken Ham whines about someone getting him wrong he implicitly admits that I get him right; but he continues to run from me and explicitly advising his followers that I’ve got it right regarding Ken Ham and his position as to my “Goliath of GRAS” critical thinking exercise regarding young-earth creation-science:


    Ken Ham recognizes my “Goliath of GRAS” argument
    as being logically valid.


    Ken Ham recognizes, based on the stipulations and
    the force and effect of sound, biblical, common-sense
    reasoning that the major premise of the “Goliath of
    GRAS” argument is true.


    Ken Ham rejects the minor premise of the “Goliath
    of GRAS” argument because he’s got his
    interpretation of the Bible regarding the age of
    stuff and that trumps any other evidence and
    its interpretation to the contrary.

    In his whining about Tyler, Ken made reference to the work of Mr. Looy, his right hand man. Mr. Looy, acting as agent for Ken Ham, recently advised me that Ken Ham simply was not going to come out, come clean and publicly admit that I got him right!

  2. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’m still the vile Atheist Professor who must not be named.

    I’m a little bit proud of that.

    Well you should be…Voldemort (with voice throwing directed toward the Fallacious Presuppositional Museum of Lies of bullshit) vocalizing the name…

  3. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I wanted to be the first to Voldemort the thread.

    Take the credit. I’ve been swilling grog *hic*…

  4. says

    I may not be able to Voldemort it but I am going to use the term “Gaysexhibit” to describe any Creation Museum display on homosexuality…

  5. chigau (無味ない) says

    It’s all about timing.
    -get home
    -pour a drink
    -open Pharyngula
    -check the Lounge and the Thunderdome
    -check other old threads
    -check newer threads
    I may need to change the order.

  6. Rodney Nelson says

    he is an out-spoken atheist and anti-creationist, who is known for making vile comments

    PZ’s comments aren’t noxious, loathsome or contemptible but merely vile. He’ll have to try harder.

  7. Don F says

    But . . . but . . . you WERE naughty! I’ve seen PICTURES of it!!

    You were doing unspeakable acts with that model of a dinosaur, were you not? I mean, you were ASTRIDE it and EVERYTHING! –GASP–


  8. jnorris says

    One would think that K-Ham would welcome any free publicity he could get for the thing. Haven’t its revenues dropped way below the estimate he gave Kentucky for the money to build it?

  9. spamamander, internet amphibian says

    *kicks stuff* of COURSE I got preemptively Voldemort’ed. I not only pee’d and got a drink, I took a nap.

  10. says

    It’s nice to be remembered. I’ve watched too many videos today. My desire to be human is 0% right now. Is it time for bed yet?

  11. hypatiasdaughter says

    Perhaps the ham is afraid of what might happen if he says your name 3 times.

  12. says

    There’s no point in lying about the contents in the creation museum; the exhibits (if you can call them that) lie for you.

    Of course, now Ken Ham is lying that you lied about a lie. That’s got to unlock some kind of achievement or something.

  13. says

    Simko writes: “A scientist should use God as neither an explanation or a result of a scientific finding”.

    If God is first defined in any way that allows testing and coming up with God as a plausible, parsimonious explanation, along with a mechanism it for doing things, that would be ok. Of course, the believers would fidget around a bit and probably deny that their God has been found, and insist that the real one is still way back there in some murky gap of ignorance, simply because there’s no way ancient semi-nomads could have been wrong about it and because any attempt at a definition rigorous enough to pose testability would reduce the grandeur and ineffability of the being that they wish God to be.

  14. Tyrant al-Kalām says

    “But what warmed my black heart was that Kenny-Boy remembered my visit a few years ago”

    Of course he would, because as we know that’s the only question worth asking. ever.

    Were you there? Yes you were.

  15. borax says

    Damn. Hammy is apparently afraid to say your name, PZ. If I say your name is my floor going to erupt with a bunch of tentacles that slap me up side the head with reason and a bunch of science?

  16. says

    It’s true! I did have to sign a promise not to be naughty in the “museum” — they were very concerned that we might have gay sex on the exhibits.

    That’s what the spanking couch in the Lounge is for.

  17. Rodney Nelson says

    PZ Ham aka Reap Paden #23

    The bard described your rant over 400 years ago:

    It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  18. birgerjohansson says

    It’s no use. I have chanted “Candyman” lots of times but the yellow wanker will not appear. I will stick to Ctulhu in the future.
    (But you seem to have successfully summoned a slymepitter. Work on it, and let me know when you get something more substantial popping up in the pentagram). :)

  19. F [disappearing] says

    I’m not sure this blog or its comments section is an appropriate place for two year olds who write like Chick tracts on acid.

  20. says

    First, people aren’t actually banned for being from the Slymepit. PZ doesn’t have some magical way of knowing who you are, so he can ban you. What happens is that slymepitters very often turn out to be complete, blithering assholes.
    I’ve said it before, make a new account, post decent, rational arguments and only then reveal that you’ve been a slymepitter all along. That would be the way to go. It would be like a freakin’ christmas special or something.
    – “I was one of them from the beginning.”
    – “Oh, I see the error of my ways, now.”
    *big hugs and fadeout with music in the background*

    Second, we keep hearing about all these reasonable arguments you guys have. Yet, oddly, you never seem to get around to actually making them. Without fail your posts are always the wort drivel.
    And no, it’s not that the good ones are being deleted by the evil PZ. He can’t delete the mails we get when subscribed to a thread. Even if your comment is deleted, the subscribers can still read it. So far, the good, sensible posts just haven’t been forthcoming.

    Of course you already know this, but I’m just posting for the benefit of anyone unfortunate enough to stumble into the middle of this.

  21. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Dear Reap is so totally over Pharyngula and A+ that he can’t go for a day without creating a sock-account.

    Such obsession isn’t rational. Makes everything he says irrational before, during and after the posts.

  22. Ogvorbis says


    Does creating multiple sock-puppets in order to carry out your personal vendetta give you the moral high ground? If so, please explain how.

  23. dianne says

    I’m still the vile Atheist Professor who must not be named.

    But…I said “PZ” in the mirror three times and you didn’t appear and strangle me with your tentacles. I am…disappointed. Perhaps it only works for creationists. Or maybe I was supposed to use the English pronunciation of Z.

  24. ChasCPeterson says

    Isn’t derailing a bannable offense?


    plus, Paden’s been banned. There’s just still stuff he needs to get off his chest. If you miss his comments here, he tends to cross-post to the ‘pit so that nobody has to be cruelly deprived of his prose and wisdom by that mean ol’ hypocritical poopyhead censor Meyers.

  25. ChasCPeterson says

    people aren’t actually banned for being from the Slymepit.

    yeah, actually, in fairness, they are:

    The Lymepit
    Lately, some people with a notorious history of repulsive behavior and an association with a place of ill-repute called the Slymepit have taken to blatantly trolling here to get recognition of their vile behavior. They are thrown into the dungeon all right, but I’m not going to grant them any notoriety by mentioning them — they just get namelessly blocked without acknowledgment.

  26. says

    Yes, but why is that? It’s not from some random prejudice of PZ’s. That policy is in place because of the long history of trolling behavior exhibited by Slymepitters. In addition to that, it would be downright trivial to simply create a new account and not mention that they were from the slymepit.

    So, the real reason is not where they’re from, but how they act. Where they’re from simply works as a handy heuristic for predicting their behavior. That’s the distinction I was getting at.