No, we think he's an idiot for believing that humans and dinosaurs lived together 6,000 years ago. The only thing it has to do with tolerance is that we're intolerant of willful stupidity.
2/9/2010 2:11:27 PM
Rob, you're an idiot. Calling someone an idiot and ignorant is not contrary to tolerance. Do you see me preventing Ken Ham from speaking his mind? No, so you're an idiot.
2/9/2010 2:12:02 PM
Keep your BS out of the schools and we'll let you be.
2/9/2010 2:16:16 PM
Rat of Steel
"I sure hope you all are right. Wouldn't be embarrassing when life as we know it ends and maybe Mr. Ham was right? By then, for many, it will be too late."
Pascal's Wager again. Would I be at all inaccurate in describing the use of Pascal's Wager as a religion-specific version of Godwin's Law?
2/9/2010 2:29:55 PM
Mr McIntosh, if I wish I will be intolerant towards racists, bigots, fools, ignoramuses, "rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists,"
2/9/2010 2:31:14 PM
Wow unintentional honesty and irony in the same post:
"Its interesting to me how so many people who have not investigated or researched these topics have an opinion about them?"
Like all fundies have an opinion about evolutionary biology without having the slightest understanding of it?
2/9/2010 2:57:39 PM
The age of the Earth is not opinion and ignoring mountains of evidence using 'Jesus Glasses' is deceptive. I do not tolerate liars.
2/9/2010 3:11:47 PM
Sorry, double post
2/9/2010 3:16:57 PM
Ken Ham is entitled to his hold opinion, and entitled to voice it, just as I am entitled to hold and voice mine. Why is Ken Ham allowed to criticise the work of hundreds (thousands) of scientists and distort and belittle my beliefs with strawmen and fallacy, but I am supposed to not say a bad thing about his crapuscular (sic) wittering?
Oh yeah, "special pleading", you fundtards are good at that.
2/9/2010 3:30:32 PM
Translation: Ken Ham's an idiot but it's not fair that you call him one
2/9/2010 3:38:56 PM
Ken Ham is allowed to have an opinion, but when he parades his opinion around as scientific fact without any real evidence then people are free to voice their disapproval of him and his agenda.
2/9/2010 3:52:55 PM
Ken Ham is a village idiot. The only thing he learned in his life was the con game.
2/9/2010 4:00:12 PM
It is possible to respectfully disagree with someone. Ken Ham however, is an idiot. I've seen fresh produce with more intellectual capacity than he's got.
2/9/2010 4:04:50 PM
He voices his opinion. We voice ours.
2/9/2010 5:46:09 PM
Ken fucking Ham. KEN FUCKING HAM.
I shook that man's hand once. It haunts me to this day. Idiotic bastard.
2/9/2010 5:59:40 PM
"It's interesting to me how so many people who have not investigated or researched these topics have an opinion about them..."
Phew. Good thing I bought that irony meter explosion containment unit...
2/9/2010 6:19:19 PM
You have given the basic reason xianity is so successful. Somebody tells you what he thinks (that hasnt a clue about what is real). Warns you that there will be those that disagree. That the disagreement is in and of itself proof of it being real as the religion itself predicts others will condemn it for just such reasons. And there will be plenty of ignorant people who will think this is valid proof of said religion. The perfect self fulfilling prophesy.
Mr Ham can have his own opinion. The problem we have with him is that he cant have his own set of facts..... which are not facts at all.
2/9/2010 6:21:23 PM
Once upon a time we used to have places to put the delusional.
2/9/2010 7:23:37 PM
Wow, someone posted this on Pharyngula ... ?
I bet PZ Myers had a LOT of fun with this twonk.
I've dealt personally with AiG's lies and bullshit, and I KNOW they're lies and bullshit. Congratulating Ken Ham for spewing this shit (with the accompanying veiled eternal torture threat that supernaturalists love to toss in to their rants) isn't a sign of "tolerance", it's a sign of stupidity, gullibility and fuckwittedness on a galactic scale.
2/9/2010 8:07:22 PM
And there you haev it. All that Christianity comes down to is wanting the unbelievers to be embarrassed when it turns out that they were wrong to mock the religious lunatics.
2/9/2010 8:41:34 PM
@ Thrutch: Hedley Lamarr FTW.
2/10/2010 2:22:58 AM
Nice way to contradict yourself. In the first place, Ken Ham hasn't investigated anything, the contrary. Second, saying that what he says is BULLSHIT is telling the truth, not being intolerant.
2/10/2010 4:17:49 AM
The problem with Ken Ham is that he HAS an opinion about things, without doing any (perceivable) investigation or research about the topics.
You yourself started by saying that it's "interesting" to you.
Tolerance goes both ways, you know. Everybody is entitled to their opinion.
Nobody has the right to force that opinion onto others.
For that you need tangible evidence and scientific theories.
2/10/2010 4:40:30 AM
"It's interesting to me how so many people who have not investigated or researched these topics have an opinion about them."
Yah fundies do that a lot.
2/10/2010 6:00:08 AM
There are degrees of wrong, and one could be wrong because they are misinformed.
Then there's people like Ken Ham, who were proven wrong years ago yet still tell the same lies. How tolerant is Ken Ham of the scientific consensus? Moreover Ken Ham (Hovind, Comfort etc) all know their spreading lies and are laughing all the way to the bank.
Hovind and Comfort and Ham having any followers is only the result of a ready made young-Earth Christianity base that can be easily milked
2/10/2010 8:01:30 AM