Ark “replica” to open around 7/7

| 64 Comments

Ken Ham’s Ark “replica” is scheduled to open around July 7, or 7/7, in part because Genesis 7:7 says “and Noah went in and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark,” according to a recent article and a short video by Karla Ward in the Lexington News-Herald. Sorry, no animals inside, but there will be a petting zoo outside. The animals inside the ark will be “sculpted.”

Among other things that are possibly of interest to PT readers, Mr. Ham asserted that guidelines for hiring employees at the Ark Park “will be different than Answers in Genesis.” No telling exactly what that means, but presumably they will not require employees to pass as stringent a religious test. It seems to me that they could have saved a lot of litigation by having asserted nondiscriminatory guidelines in the first place.

In passing, Ms. Ward notes that a journalist asked Mr. Ham whether he believed in the Noah story as a historical event, rather than as a piece of literature and not intended to be understood literally. Mr. Ham’s response was, “Jesus referred to Noah. He’s referred to as a real person and a man of great faith.” That sure proves it!

Finally, Mr. Ham noted that the Ark will feature dinosaurs, but they will not be stressed. I suppose that there will be no unicorns in the Ark, because as everyone knows they got to the pier late.
______

Thanks yet again to Dan Phelps for a never-ending stream of articles that keep us up-to-date.

64 Comments

Creationists, always coming up with great ways to have fun.

Nothing’s more fun than drowning sinners.

Glen Davidson

I guess they weren’t be ready in time to open on 6/6/6.

The animals inside the ark will be “sculpted.”

Save’s the crew from doing poop deck clean-up duty! Also, they don’t have to feed any animals inside, including the dinosaurs. Which brings up an interesting point. How many species of dinos will have display, and how big will they be as compared to his ark? Imagine trying to fit them inside if you will.

DavidK said:

The animals inside the ark will be “sculpted.”

Save’s the crew from doing poop deck clean-up duty! Also, they don’t have to feed any animals inside, including the dinosaurs. Which brings up an interesting point. How many species of dinos will have display, and how big will they be as compared to his ark? Imagine trying to fit them inside if you will.

Oh I think a lot of little kids will imagine just that. And they will probably ask some really tough questions, as kids will often do. I can just see all the stammering and stuttering as some wild eyed ignoramus tries to convince the kids that the dinos just wandered onto the ark, that they ate and pooped quietly in a corner for a year or two, then got off the ark to find a devastated world with nothing at all to eat and hungry carnivores right behind them. I hope we get some videos of those precious moments when the kids realize that they are being lied to and their parents realize that they paid to be lied to.

An Ark which does not float and which has no animals. Some kind of Ark. Some kind of Ark!

Every picture of the Ark that I’ve ever seen has had a pair of giraffes sticking their necks out.

There are going to be a passel of disappointed kids.

Oh, I forgot the other important feature of the Ark: All of the people and animals which drowned. Will the kids be treated to that?

TomS said:

Oh, I forgot the other important feature of the Ark: All of the people and animals which drowned. Will the kids be treated to that?

At the very least they ought to have some sensorama: a permeating odor of rotten human and cute panda bear and pony flesh from the surrounding water, and fermenting manure and other lovely animal smells from the zoo, plus piercing screams and pleas for help from drowning little children.

Just Bob said:

TomS said:

Oh, I forgot the other important feature of the Ark: All of the people and animals which drowned. Will the kids be treated to that?

At the very least they ought to have some sensorama: a permeating odor of rotten human and cute panda bear and pony flesh from the surrounding water, and fermenting manure and other lovely animal smells from the zoo, plus piercing screams and pleas for help from drowning little children.

And corpses floating around the hull.

DS said:

… a lot of little kids will … probably ask some really tough questions…

I look forward to inquiries from bright-eyed little bible nerds, such as “Genesis 6:14! Why is this not pitched within and without with pitch?”

DS said:

… a lot of little kids will … probably ask some really tough questions…

As I mentioned on the Wall yesterday, Dan Piraro at Bizzaro offers some timely help with an explanation of how Noah gathered his animals.

Tommy: Were there dinosaur on the ark?

Authority figure: Sure Tommy.

Tommy: Then why aren’t there any dinosaurs today?

Authority figure: Well they all died out after they got off the ark.

Tommy: Why?

Authority figure: They got killed.

Tommy: What did they eat after they got off the ark?

Authority figure: Plants.

Tommy: But the plants were all dead, cause of all that water.

Authority figure: Well they must have found something to eat, at least for a little while.

Tommy: Then what good did it do them to get on the ark? DIdn’t god know they were gonna to die anyways? If he wanted them to be saved, why didn’t he save em and if he didn’t want em to be saved, why take them on the ark?

Authority figure: God works in mysterious ways Tommy. You’ll understand when you are older.

Tommy: I understand god couldn’t save the dinosaurs. That’s really all I need to know.

Given that Fred Flintstone used dinosaurs in his work, and had a pet dinosaur at home, does that mean he lived before the alleged flood?

Noah existed because Jesus referred to him. Well, Professor Dumbledore referred to Cedric Gryffindor many times, and even had the hard evidence of his sword with an engraving of his name, so he must have existed too.

bachfiend said: Noah existed because Jesus referred to him. Well, Professor Dumbledore referred to Cedric Gryffindor many times, and even had the hard evidence of his sword with an engraving of his name, so he must have existed too.

Ah, but the difference is Jesus was real and as God everything he said must be right. And we know this because Paul tells us so.

eric said:

Ah, but the difference is Jesus was real and as God everything he said must be right. And we know this because Paul tells us so.

Who…Paul the misogynistic asshole? That Paul?

Just Bob said:

Who…Paul the misogynistic asshole? That Paul?

Fwiw, historians generally agree the most misogynistic “Pauline Epistles” are among the forgeries.

FORGERIES? In the BIBLE?

Next you’ll be telling me there’s gambling at Rick’s!

Just Bob said:

Who…Paul the misogynistic asshole? That Paul?

Paul is dead. The Illuminati killed him. Billy Shears took his place. John and Ringo let it slip one day.

The perils of Paul?

Pierce R. Butler said:

Fwiw, historians generally agree the most misogynistic “Pauline Epistles” are among the forgeries.

Saul of Tarsus, AKA the Apostle Paul, was the world’s most successful secret agent. At the direction of the Roman Imperial government, he turned a simple religion of communal love into a misogynistic church, now based in Rome.

Little Johnny: But Mister, where did the kids stay on the Ark?

Ark Guide: Uh, well, there weren’t any children on the Ark.

Johnny’s sister Sue: Why not? Didn’t Mr. Noah have any grandkids that needed saved? He had three married kids, didn’t they have any children?

Ark Guide: [growing nervous] Um, the Bible doesn’t tell us of any, so there must not have been any. Look! That’s where the bears stayed!

Johnny: But there were lots of other little kids then, weren’t there? And their mommies and daddies and grandmas? And babies? Weren’t there babies? What happened to all those babies and little kids like us?

Ark Guide: The Bible tells us that the Lord was angry at the whole world, so they all died in the Flood… but God, in his love, saved Noah and his family and every kind of animal!

Sue: So… God saved rattlesnakes and scorpions and vultures and… and icky spiders, but not the little kids?

Guide: Um… Oh, look, it’s my break time! Sister Julie will take you from here. Have a blessed day!

1 Peter 3:20 explicitly says that there were 8 souls saved on the Ark. So Johnny was right, there were no kids on the Ark.

Sour grapes, yes?

FL said:

Sour grapes, yes?

To the hundreds of families involved in building the ark, Under the auspices and protection of Noah*, yes, being left to die probably left them in a shitty mood.

*Again, it’s always important to the Ark story to remember that Noah and his family were not just some farmers. The Ark was huge, so large that it could not have fit in the Coliseum. It required enormous resources and wealth to build it (look at how much trouble Ark Park is having raising enough money today).

In the late bronze age wealth, and the ability to protect it, simply did not come without military power. Noah and his family were certainly some sort of regional princes, perhaps using the Ark as a busy-work project between planting seasons (like the Pharaohs, but on a smaller scale). The multitudes that actually built the Ark were Noah’s subjects and if they were evil in the eyes of God it’s only because Noah allowed it.

Then after decades of working side by side with hundreds of his people and being supported by thousands of their families, the raindrops started to fall and Noah shut the big doors on the Big Boat™ and sailed away, leaving his people to drown.

Sour grapes. FL would do well to examine his metaphors. “Sour grapes” refers to Aesop’s fable, where the fox, having failed to reach an inviting bunch of grapes after repeated attempts, walks off, saying, “The grapes are sour, anyway.” Moral: those who fail to reach a goal often react by denying that the goal was worthy.

Apparently, Ham will reach his goal of building a wood-clad but steel braced structure in the form of a large boat. Nobody ever tried to prevent him from doing it. “Sour grapes” doesn’t apply.

The point of the discussion was whether the manifestly obvious shortcomings of this structure - not floating, steel bracing, no animals, no mighty Flood - will bring home to visitors just how big of a lie this is. Whether it’s possible that Ham will find that his project actually has the opposite effect to the one he intends. That is, since it fails so spectacularly as a concrete realisation of a narrative, it only makes the narrative’s fictional nature more apparent.

That would depend on the visitor’s willingness to process reality. FL isn’t willing to do that. In fact, I suspect he actually can’t do that.

TomS said:

1 Peter 3:20 explicitly says that there were 8 souls saved on the Ark. So Johnny was right, there were no kids on the Ark.

To which FL apparently replied

Sour grapes, yes?

FL, maybe you don’t know what ‘sour grapes’ means.

It’s from one of Aesop’s fables about a fox who wanted some grapes, but they were too high to reach, so the fox, to assuage his disappointment, convinced himself that the grapes would have been sour anyway, and thus he didn’t miss out on anything. So the expression ‘sour grapes’ is used when someone can’t get something he desires, so he bad-mouths it to show others (and probably himself, too) that he’s really not disappointed: “Those people who win the PowerBall, they all end up blowing their dough, and all their relatives hit them up for loans, and the lawyers and government end up with most of it anyway. I’m better off bein’ just Joe Sixpack.”

That’s sour grapes.

Now, can you explain what little children and babies being drowned has to do with sour grapes? Do you imagine that as they watched their little sisters and mommies drown they thought, “Boy, I’m lucky I didn’t get on that stinky old boat!”?

Dang, typing at the same time as Dave in Australia!

I wonder whether the only food available on the “Ark” will be vegan.

Dave Luckett said: Apparently, Ham will reach his goal of building a wood-clad but steel braced structure in the form of a large boat. Nobody ever tried to prevent him from doing it. “Sour grapes” doesn’t apply.

Its hard to tell, but I think he was referring to the fact that nobody on the thread is weeping and wailing over the legal victories Ham’s had (on tax breaks for his park and hiring practices). He’s implying not complaining about them here = pretending we no longer care about these things. For the record, FL, I still care about the fact that Ham is running a for-profit amusement park and yet is allowed to discriminate in hiring. I still care that he’ll be getting a break on state sales taxes to operate it. I bet most PTers do too. The reason I haven’t complained about those issues here is (1) they aren’t the subject of the post, and (2) the courts have ruled, the governor will not appeal, so until some other event happens to change the legal landscape, these issues are pretty much over.

I believe FL has used “sour grapes” correctly, but in the context of making a mistake. He perceives criticism of the Ark thing as the same as an effort to shut it down.

I tried to make the point to a very nice guy who’s a misguided conservative, the other day, that “I don’t think it should be illegal to sell 32 ounce sodas but I don’t think it’s a good idea to drink them, either”. He could not grasp the difference between personal advice, social disapproval and legal proscription; each time I made the point that it isn’t a good idea to drink 32 ounces of soda at one time, all else being equal, he became agitated with a compulsion that I must be “trying to make soda illegal”. He would probably call himself a “libertarian” but supports aggressive and punitive sentencing for marijuana because he disapproves of it. This mentality is extremely common in the “baby boomer” and my own “generation X” cohort. He ended up denying all evidence that sugary drinks contribute to obesity and related conditions, because he went into a defensive frenzy of “saying whatever it takes to advocate for soda”. He has no connection to the food industry and no financial incentive. This is an exact analogy of creationist behavior. No-one is trying to make soda illegal and no-one except Mike Bloomberg is trying to limit serving sizes (and Bloomberg has no clear strategy to stop you from buying to 16 ounce servings).

I can’t help but describe this tendency as “authoritarian”. The ultimate objective is to shut down everyone else’s ability to do or say anything that is not identical to what they do, because any social disapproval, or even different arbitrary choice, makes them uncomfortable. Just having the legal right to do something isn’t good enough for them. Everyone else must ideally be forced to do the same thing, or if not that, at least forced to never criticize it.

This unique type of authoritarianism seems to be due to an extreme hyper-sensitivity to social disapproval.

No science supporting American can experience the “sour grapes” phenomenon that the Ark whatever has opened, because no-one ever tried and failed to prevent it from opening.

I have repeatedly stated my extremely strong support for freedom of expression.

I certainly do believe that any business tax incentives given to the project by the state of Kentucky are misguided, on multiple levels. First of all it’s probably illegal because the project is a religious crusade. Second of all, putting that aside, the project misinforms the public about science - I wouldn’t want an “aliens built the pyramids” park getting tax breaks either. Third of all, putting that aside, the thing is probably going to lose money and leave the taxpayers of the not-exactly-affluent state of Kentucky holding at least part of the bag.

Actually, “I could care less” is not an error. It is a deliberate statement of intended to be obviously the opposite of what the speaker believes. Just like rolling your eyes and saying in a bored tone “I am so impressed!”.

I must respectfully disagree.

If one wanted to make a sarcastic statement, then something along the lines of “Oh, I’m so worried about that,” or “Oh, no, we can’t let that happen,” (probably accompanied by an eyeroll) would indicate a dismissive attitude. But one who says “I could care less,” in my experience anyway, means that he doesn’t care at all, and thus could not possibly care any less. Grammar gurus seem to agree that that’s the case, and that dropping the “-n’t” was a careless habit begun in the ’60s in the US, and almost never appears among other English speakers. It also seldom appears in print and is unacceptable in Standard Edited English (what we try to teach kids to write).

So there ;-)

Just Bob said:

I must respectfully disagree.

If one wanted to make a sarcastic statement, then something along the lines of “Oh, I’m so worried about that,” or “Oh, no, we can’t let that happen,” (probably accompanied by an eyeroll) would indicate a dismissive attitude. But one who says “I could care less,” in my experience anyway, means that he doesn’t care at all, and thus could not possibly care any less. Grammar gurus seem to agree that that’s the case, and that dropping the “-n’t” was a careless habit begun in the ’60s in the US, and almost never appears among other English speakers. It also seldom appears in print and is unacceptable in Standard Edited English (what we try to teach kids to write).

So there ;-)

Abi gezint. Ikh denk es iz Yidish-English.

Michael Fugate said:

Just Bob said:

Actually, most people couldn’t care less.

–your 5th grade teacher

I could care less, but I don’t.

It’s been a couple of decades since ESL, but it seems to me that you merely demonstrate Just Bob‘s point.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on February 22, 2016 1:17 PM.

Solar corona Cloud iridescence was the previous entry in this blog.

Hirundo rustica is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter