<i>The Last Word</i> on the Ark Park

Kentucky: The state that pays millions to be embarrassing.

Glen Davidson

Last word? Would that be "amen"?

Or maybe "omega"?

Ummm - I thought that Ark park had failed to raise enough money via their bond offering, the remainder of the investors' money got refunded and the project didn't have enough money to proceed.

Am I just confused?

stevaroni said: Ummm - I thought that Ark park had failed to raise enough money via their bond offering, the remainder of the investors' money got refunded and the project didn't have enough money to proceed. Am I just confused?

Religious conservatives will no doubt take O'Donnell's opinion as evidence of the nation's war on Christianity... ignoring that the tax breaks themselves are material proof of just the opposite problem.

Seriously, can you imagine an atheist organization asking for millions in tax incentives? or even a non-Christian religion? What a joke.

mattdance18 said: Religious conservatives will no doubt take O'Donnell's opinion as evidence of the nation's war on Christianity... ignoring that the tax breaks themselves are material proof of just the opposite problem. Seriously, can you imagine an atheist organization asking for millions in tax incentives? or even a non-Christian religion? What a joke.

mattdance18 said: Seriously, can you imagine an atheist organization asking for millions in tax incentives? or even a non-Christian religion? What a joke.

Grrr....to include nonreligious ones. Stupid fingers...

eric said:

stevaroni said: Ummm - I thought that Ark park had failed to raise enough money via their bond offering, the remainder of the investors' money got refunded and the project didn't have enough money to proceed. Am I just confused?

Having server problems so I apologize if this is a duplicate, but IIRC AiG bought up the outstanding bonds on the last day.

eric said: What we can accuse them of is not looking carefully enough at what this business is selling, and happily trying to profit off of snake oil. But in terms of discrimination...the state is an equal snake oil profiter.

Not that I mind if Ken Ham's little fiefdom comes crashing down around his ears, of course.

For what it's worth, AiG's financials show that while the group ran nearly a million dollars of deficits in fiscal 2010 and 2011, Ham's annual salary increased by more than $30K over those two years. Speaks volumes about his managerial skills, his financial wisdom, and simply his integrity.

No, not that I mind in the slightest.

The museum itself was originally pretty slick. Very modern, very nice-looking.

But they aren't doing any actual science, so they can't update it, so it's just stagnant. No one wants to go more than two or three times. Everyone in the central KY area has run out of relatives to take.

Here is one source of info on AIG.

Just type in Answers in Genesis in the window....

mattdance18 said: The finances, though, are just stupefying. AiG, the Creation Museum, and the Ark Encounter all have serious problems, as I was just discussing. "Snake oil," indeed -- and not only in terms of creationism itself.

Here is one source of info on AIG.

Well, AiG has usually been pretty WYSIWYG. They're not the most transparent, but they're unapologetic about what they do.

david.starling.macmillan said: Well, AiG has usually been pretty WYSIWYG. They're not the most transparent, but they're unapologetic about what they do.

ksplawn said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Well, AiG has usually been pretty WYSIWYG. They're not the most transparent, but they're unapologetic about what they do.

I thought they were all about apologetics?

If they're apologetic, does that mean they're sorry for what they do?

They don't apologize for their apologetic claptrap.

Not the only ironic aspect of creationists.

Glen Davidson

Calling all engineers! (not me!)

This turkey is supposed to be 510 feet long, 85 feet tall and 55 feet wide.

The biggest Amish barn that I could find with a 5-minute Google search was about 30 feet tall, but it was tiered, that is, not a straight wooden box. It had a big "first" floor and a smaller second story.

There must be severe engineering problems to building a structure to the Ark's stated dimensions. I would think that a stationary structure with those dimensions would have lots of problems with wind alone. It seems to me to be too tall and narrow such that the Big Bad Wolf could blow it down.

As for holding 10,000 people and a petting zoo, it wasn't clear from the article if that was the capacity of the park or the Ark.

Clearly, for public access to this structure it would have to meet building codes and that means concrete, steel, electricity, accessibility ramps, plumbing, etc.

It would be fun, I think, to get some back o' the envelope opinions from our civil and structural engineers, and architects out there on what Hambo is really going to build.

Personally, I think he's really going to declare bankruptcy at some point having banked the money offshore.

Doc Bill said: Calling all engineers! (not me!) This turkey is supposed to be 510 feet long, 85 feet tall and 55 feet wide. The biggest Amish barn that I could find with a 5-minute Google search was about 30 feet tall, but it was tiered, that is, not a straight wooden box. It had a big "first" floor and a smaller second story. There must be severe engineering problems to building a structure to the Ark's stated dimensions. I would think that a stationary structure with those dimensions would have lots of problems with wind alone. It seems to me to be too tall and narrow such that the Big Bad Wolf could blow it down. As for holding 10,000 people and a petting zoo, it wasn't clear from the article if that was the capacity of the park or the Ark. Clearly, for public access to this structure it would have to meet building codes and that means concrete, steel, electricity, accessibility ramps, plumbing, etc. It would be fun, I think, to get some back o' the envelope opinions from our civil and structural engineers, and architects out there on what Hambo is really going to build. Personally, I think he's really going to declare bankruptcy at some point having banked the money offshore.

Maybe they can get it certified as a "carnival ride" instead of a building. Going from second-hand experience, I'm sure the regs are much more lax (or the inspectors much more relaxed).

...and yet somehow people believe this was a true story. Loony. Just loony.

Of course, this is where the Theory of Divine Magic comes in. "Poof!" And it be so.

Seriously, even Whitcomb & Morris acknowledged that there is no real way to explain the flood or the ark without some invocation of the supernatural. Unfortunately, Ken Ham and his lot aren't deemed worthy of similar miracles today....

Take a look at the contractor bidding process for this project.

Clicking on the link at that site gets you to his page.

For the construction of a large wooden structure that the public will be walking through, it all seems pretty informal and non-transparent.

Mike Elzinga said: Just making a wooden keel for a boat that is over 500 feet long is not possible with the lumber they have available.

It would be really amazingly ironic if building inspectors make them use steel and concrete on the grounds that a wooden building of that size would be unsafe to the public.

What does the relevant laws and regulations say? That is what has to guide the decision and not how ignorant Ken Ham is. If it were me we would stop all these subsidies nationwide. That is not the world we live in. I am sure the standards are supposed be something like would it bring bucks to the state, employ people, etc. That needs to be determined by economists. It would not surprise me if it did bring the state tourism. The fundies have a lot of sheep to be sheared. I am damn sure that it would bring in FAR more money than say a Bass Pro Shop to use an example of a business that got subsidized in OKC, OK for the tune of 19 million bucks especially since that was merely favoring one outdoors store over its competition while Ham's monstrosity would be a bit more unique.

_If_ one accepts their economic arguments, then about the objection might be that it will result in more ignorant people a generation down the road. Do the rules for subsidies have anything that can be used here? If not, I doubt we have a case _providing_ they are treating this "amusement" the same as they would a secular equivalent.

It sucks. But if governments are going to give subsidies to any idiotic thing that might bring in tourist bucks or little bit more sales tax then this can be expected.

david.starling.macmillan said: It would be really amazingly ironic if building inspectors make them use steel and concrete on the grounds that a wooden building of that size would be unsafe to the public.

Doc Bill said: Calling all engineers! (not me!) This turkey is supposed to be 510 feet long, 85 feet tall and 55 feet wide. There must be severe engineering problems to building a structure to the Ark's stated dimensions.

Maybe if they used petrified wood instead of fresh wood? After all, people back then lived so much longer than today, the wood might have had time to petrify (especially if the physics constants were different)...

(Not that that would help with the Ky fried park thing today, but still... )

Henry

My only experience building any kind of structure was a house I (had) built in Oklahoma. We employed a structural engineer for the foundation and roof design and had the roof trusses computer designed and manufactured in a specialized shop. There was a lot of cross-bracing in the attic but the house was solid as a rock in any kind of wind. Of course, the lions, tigers, bears, giraffes and unicorns were very, very cramped in the attic.

Back to Amish barns for a moment. A personal, private Amish barn built on a farm is private property. It doesn't have to adhere to the same building and access standards as a public building. Hambo can talk up Amish builders all he likes, but let's face it, this turkey is NEVER going to be built and the money is going to vanish.

One more thing.

You realize the Ky Tourism Board approved this turkey with no engineering drawings whatsoever. Not much more than a Lego diorama.

Contrast Hambo's turkey with the Grand Texas theme park. A $120 million attraction designed by Six Flags and Disney engineers:

http://grandtx.com

Lakes, water sports, rides, hotels, shopping and fun! No petting zoo or ark death trap.

The one take-away I got from David MacMillan's series that was totally new to me was the fact that YECs need evolution way more than evolution needs YEC. I hadn't really thought about it carefully before (just as I have not carefully considered the evidence in favor of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster), but clearly others have given more thought to it. And what you see is YECs actually bargaining down the number of animals on the ark https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/bill-nye-the-straw-man-guy-and-noahs-ark/ to the extent that they're not just stuck with evolution, but a kind of hyper-evolution that has to work orders of magnitudes faster than evolutionary biologists think it does.

I imagine myself to be open-minded, and I really don't have a big problem with "marshmallow" claims that God's plan for creation all somehow works out in some mysterious way that isn't really what biologists claim. But when you start attaching specific numbers, as YECs have to do I'm with some of the more strident commenters here that you need to suffer from a cognitive impairment to believe any of it. This just goes way beyond garden-variety compartmentalization. I'm suddenly reminded of a scene from Philip Dick's _A Scanner Darkly_ where the characters are arguing about who stole three of the gears on their ten-speed bike (which has only 7 gears -- two in front, 5 in back). This is provided as strong evidence that they are suffering from serious drug-induced cognitive damage. But the insane reasoning of Young Earth Creationism is on a level far beyond this. How can anyone take it seriously?

TomS said:

Mike Elzinga said: Just making a wooden keel for a boat that is over 500 feet long is not possible with the lumber they have available.

There is no mention of a keel in the Bible. And I'm sure that they will not rely on any "historical science" about what boats had to have. After all, they weren't there.

I find that webpage asking for contractor bids quite revealing.

Just who is going to bid on this project? Would a reputable construction company with experienced structural engineers bid on it; especially with that bar at the top of the webpage showing only half of the money raised for the project after this many years?

How would you be assured you would be paid? Would you want to put the reputation of your company on the line by taking on a project like the ark and still hope to be able to bid on other projects in the future?

I certainly would not bid on such a project. I know damned well my company would be sued for anything that collapsed during construction - and something definitely will collapse if they insist on holding to that scale with those materials - and when gullible tourists are inside?

So who will bid? What will be their qualifications for building such a structure? I think we can be pretty sure that the bids will go to the lowest bidders who will have no idea what they are getting themselves into.

And if the ark project is held to strict structural engineering standards by the state and by law (I don’t think it will given the way this project is being hyped), then that structure is not going to look anything like the pictures they are showing. It will also be much smaller.

Then the question will be, “What happened to all that money?”

Henry J said: Maybe if they used petrified wood instead of fresh wood? After all, people back then lived so much longer than today, the wood might have had time to petrify (especially if the physics constants were different)... (Not that that would help with the Ky fried park thing today, but still... ) Henry

Henry J said: Maybe if they used petrified wood instead of fresh wood? After all, people back then lived so much longer than today, the wood might have had time to petrify (especially if the physics constants were different)... (Not that that would help with the Ky fried park thing today, but still... ) Henry

You scoffers are forgetting one thing. Every living thing was much healthier, stronger and longer-lived in those days (Noah, for instance, lived to be 950). The trees, in particular, would provide stronger and more durable wood, well suited to build an Ark. It can't be done with our degenerate modern wood.

Ken Ham will have realised this (eventually). I predict that he will have spent all the money on an expedition to search for the site of the Garden of Eden, where some seeds of those ancient trees might still be found.

callahanpb said: And what you see is YECs actually bargaining down the number of animals on the ark https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/bill-nye-the-straw-man-guy-and-noahs-ark/ to the extent that they're not just stuck with evolution, but a kind of hyper-evolution that has to work orders of magnitudes faster than evolutionary biologists think it does.

eric said:

callahanpb said: And what you see is YECs actually bargaining down the number of animals on the ark https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/bill-nye-the-straw-man-guy-and-noahs-ark/ to the extent that they're not just stuck with evolution, but a kind of hyper-evolution that has to work orders of magnitudes faster than evolutionary biologists think it does.

Yup. I don't think YECs would actually have much of a problem with specation via descent with modification for the vast majority of species, as long as they could protect the idea of a recent, special creation of a small(er) number of species, including specifically humans. It's the human evolution and the necessity for an old earth parts of the TOE that really upset their theology. But millions of species of insects arising (recently) from maybe a few tens of species? I'm betting most would have no theological issue with that idea.

David Evans said: You scoffers are forgetting one thing. Every living thing was much healthier, stronger and longer-lived in those days (Noah, for instance, lived to be 950). The trees, in particular, would provide stronger and more durable wood, well suited to build an Ark. It can't be done with our degenerate modern wood. Ken Ham will have realised this (eventually). I predict that he will have spent all the money on an expedition to search for the site of the Garden of Eden, where some seeds of those ancient trees might still be found.

TomS said:

eric said: I don't think YECs would actually have much of a problem with specation via descent with modification for the vast majority of species, as long as they could protect the idea of a recent, special creation of a small(er) number of species, including specifically humans. It's the human evolution and the necessity for an old earth parts of the TOE that really upset their theology. But millions of species of insects arising (recently) from maybe a few tens of species? I'm betting most would have no theological issue with that idea.

Everybody today accepts that there once were (non-avian) dinosaurs, and that they are long gone. (Although there are some who claim that the Bible speaks of them, or that ancient art depicts them, and, occasionally, that some "sea serpent" is a ichthyosaur or such.) Everybody seems to accept that fossils really are the remains of once-living creatures. When Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" came out, it was immediately famous for the monkey-to-man connection. Even tough Darwin made a point of not dwelling on human origins. I bet that if you asked what "evolution" means, most would say that it means that monkey-to-man connection. How many people would care about birds being the descendants of dinosaurs (even though that is clearly a "macro"evolution, even though the Bible says that the birds were created before the land animals). And "deep time" had mostly came to be accepted even by the most "conservative" Christians up to the mid-20th century. (I think that a young Earth was mostly confined to Seventh Day Adventists.) I suggest that the monkey-to-man connection is the only powerful source of objection to evolution.

david.starling.macmillan said: But the YECs at least are quite vocal about birds preceding non-avian dinosaurs. By one day, mind you, but still. It's the damnable "Creationist orchard" thing that they love so much. Having bunches of separate progenitor species neatly preserves the need for a creator. And at the end of the day, that's what they want: a way to prove that there must be a God and anyone who questions it is a loser.

TomS said: But I don't see how they could have any serious objection to God still needed for starting off life, or the Big Bang being the creation of light. If it weren't for that monkey-to-human connection.

TomS said: What's the difference between being exalted mud or exalted monkeys? God's breath ought to be able to do either.

English Standard Version But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by mankind and despised by the people. Psalm 22:6

The final decision by the Tourist Board on whether to grant the return of sales taxes from tickets requires a feasibility study.

Many of you may recall the controversy the last time. Such as: As first reported by the liberal Barefoot and Progressive blog, the feasibility study was conducted by America's Research Group, a Charleston, S.C. consulting and marketing firm run by Britt Beemer, who also co-authored a book with Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/12/18/1570761/state-never-saw-feasibility-study.html#storylink=cpy

There are more incentives that local governments gave to the Ark Park developers. A thirty year reduction in property taxes
and a $200,000 bribe to keep the Ark Park at its present proposed location. I don't know if the increased ramp size or addition
to the main highway has been completed or not. Those ramps aren't cheap, either.
SOURCE: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/08/09/1839007/noahs-ark-theme-park-to-get-75.html

Carl Drews said: I don't get the YEC objection to simian ancestry either. The objection is almost anti-Gospel; Jesus was not impressed with claims of ancient and revered ancestry (Matthew 3:9).

Not just monkeys, either! There's also

Hominidae (includes orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee)

Catarrhini (includes old world monkeys, gibbons)

Primates (includes lemurs, new world monkeys)

Eutheria (includes most mammals)

Mammalia (includes monotremes, marsupials)

Amniota (includes reptiles)

Tetrapoda (includes amphibians)

Sarcopterygii (includes your inner fish)

Gnathostomata (includes sharks, rays)

Vertebrata (includes lampreys)

Craniata (includes hagfishes)

Chordates (includes tunicates)

Deuteristomia (includes starfish)

Bilateria (includes arthropods, annelids)

Animals (includes sponges, jellyfish)

Opisthokonts (includes fungi)

Eukaryotes (includes plants, algae)

Bacteria

A friend and colleague of mine - also a theistic evolutionist - told me that he's fine with ancestry from apes, monkeys, and even mud. But the biological forerunner that bothers him is the tree shrew. Of course it's just an emotional thing that we joke about, and he recognizes that if God can transform stones into descendants of Abraham, tree shrews can be exalted as well.

Tree shrew? The chart on http://tolweb.org/Eutheria/15997 shows that group as right next to primates. The next layer out from that includes bats.

david.starling.macmillan said: It goes a lot further than evolution alone; the whole opposition to euthanasia and to women's rights is very often couched in terms of "protecting the image of God". The same excuse comes up in abstinence education -- you have to "treat the image of God" right -- and in anti-gay rhetoric -- restrictive sexuality is based around the "proper use" of "the image of God".

The whole story (as I understand it) is about humankind being molded and shaped into the image of God by becoming more compassionate, more loving, more forgiving, more like the person of Jesus. Not some ridiculous physical essentialism like "we didn't come from no monkeys, dammit!"

mattdance18 said: Religious conservatives will no doubt take O'Donnell's opinion as evidence of the nation's war on Christianity... ignoring that the tax breaks themselves are material proof of just the opposite problem.

If you search for "largest wooden structure", you can expand the comparisons beyond Doc Bill's Amish barn. Building enormous wooden structures is no easy task, even if they don't have to float. I presume that no smoking is allowed on the construction site.

callahanpb said: One thing I've noticed about anti-abortion rhetoric is the emphasis on how early a fetus looks like a human with separate, countable fingers and so on. What I think I'm starting to understand here is that from the evangelical perspective, the fetus pictures may go beyond emotional appeal. True? I still don't buy it. A wax dummy may look very life-like but is not a human.

I have some experience (e.g. attending a choir performance at a non-Catholic church) with views that suggest that evangelicals take a lot of things really literally, just remarkably so from a Catholic perspective. Like up to the point that "gold" in heaven is the actual element, not just a metaphor for something very glorious.

The whole story (as I understand it) is about humankind being molded and shaped into the image of God by becoming more compassionate, more loving, more forgiving, more like the person of Jesus. Not some ridiculous physical essentialism like "we didn't come from no monkeys, dammit!"

While I don't think Catholics are as fettered by literalism, the resurrection of the body is a core doctrine. In that sense, I think "made in God's image" really does suggest something like God having 10 fingers, not 8 or 12, and definitely having fingers. It's not something I have given much thought to, and it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of a competent theologian. I was definitely taught that resurrection as sort of disembodied spirits was heretical. This may not make any more sense than any other literal interpretation, but I think that your interpretation of "made in God's image" is a radical departure not just from evangelicalism but a number of more mainstream Christian views.

david.starling.macmillan said: I'm not saying a physical resurrection shouldn't still be expected. I'm just saying that I view Genesis 1's "made into the image of God" as symbolic of the entirety of human history, not just the initial formation of humankind.

Carl Drews said: If you search for "largest wooden structure", you can expand the comparisons beyond Doc Bill's Amish barn. Building enormous wooden structures is no easy task, even if they don't have to float. I presume that no smoking is allowed on the construction site.

The whole YEC "after their kind" business isn't even as open-and-shut an argument as they like to claim it is. The "waters" (plural) bring forth moving creatures "according to their kind" (plural pronoun) while the air brings forth fowl "according to its kind" (singular pronoun). Then the Earth (singular) brings forth living creatures and cattle and beasts of the field "after its kind" (singular again).

The argument can be made that "after its/their kind" refers not to the species of creature, but to the inhabitants of the given "kingdom" or domain. Fowl are creatures of the air; the air brings forth its kind of creatures. Fish are creatures of the waters; the waters bring forth their kind of creatures. Beasts and cattle and creeping things are creatures of the land; the land brings forth its kind of creatures. This fits very well into the overall framework structure of Genesis 1, and obviously has nothing to do with biological classification.

When it comes to humanity, it's implied that humankind is created "in our image, after our likeness" and placed in a stewardship role over all those kingdoms and domains. Again, nothing to do with biology or physical form.

He reminds me of those old movies of people building contraptions they thought would fly.
Let him build.
Sometimes the only way to convince someone that they can't fly is to let them jump off the roof.

But he isn't trying to fly; he isn't even trying to float. He's just trying to, what, collect money with which to pad his bank account? And he may be succeeding in doing that.

david.starling.macmillan said: Which is why they have to resist any suggestion that human DNA is particularly similar to chimpanzee DNA.

stevaroni said:

Doc Bill said: Calling all engineers! (not me!) This turkey is supposed to be 510 feet long, 85 feet tall and 55 feet wide. There must be severe engineering problems to building a structure to the Ark's stated dimensions.

We went through this a few months ago on the bathroom wall. FL had posted some drivel about some Korean Naval Institute declaring the Ark seaworthy. There was some back-and-forth about how how the Ark would come apart in a storm and slowly the discussion turned to the actual mechanics of a wooden boat that big. I must admit, I had never really thought about it as an actual engineering materials problem before. After all, people built boats out of wood for millennia, and paintings of a China clipper battling its way through a storm off the Cape of Good Hope are almost a cliche'. Sure, I knew that the Ark would fall apart in a storm, but I always thought it was going to be a matter of materials or construction technology, because - hey - wooden boats float. But as Mike E points out, nature is a bitch and forces scale exponentially with extreme prejudice. But then some of us started running real numbers, and I quickly realized that it was actually impossible to build a full-sized Ark out of wood. The material just wasn't strong enough. None us us had the chops to do any in-depth dynamic analysis (though I'm sure Mike & DSM could if they tried), but many of us can certainly do simple statics and materials calculations. And if you do that you realize that if Noah had a perfect single log to carve his boat out of, such that the material was absolutely homogenous and flawless, and he carved it such that he left 3 foot-thick walls it would still fail in 5 foot seas because that's where the bending moment of the hull would exceed the crush strength of the deck (or the bottom, depending on which way you bend). And that's before any joints or fasteners of any kind. I was kind floored. Like I said I always knew it was bullshit, but I didn't expect it to fail so ridiculously. After all, it sort of felt like the kind of thing that, say, Amish carpenters could actually build, given the resources. But no, even with modern materials, it'll fall apart on a calm summer's day from the ripples in a big lake.

david.starling.macmillan said:

Carl Drews said: I don't get the YEC objection to simian ancestry either. The objection is almost anti-Gospel; Jesus was not impressed with claims of ancient and revered ancestry (Matthew 3:9).

Three words: "Image of God." In an attempt to ensure control over doctrine and practice and belief, the fundamentalists handcuffed their theology to a physical "image of God" idea that requires special creation of humankind. Having now sold their souls to this concept, they will vigorously fight any suggestions that the "image of God" is anything other than the physical human body.

XXVII. This, I perceive, is what you contend for, that the Gods have a certain figure that has nothing concrete, nothing solid, nothing of express substance, nothing prominent in it; but that it is pure, smooth, and transparent. Let us suppose the same with the Venus of Cos, which is not a body, but the representation of a body; nor is the red, which is drawn there and mixed with the white, real blood, but a certain resemblance of blood; so in Epicurus’s Deity there is no real substance, but the resemblance of substance. Let me take for granted that which is perfectly unintelligible; then tell me what are the lineaments and figures of these sketched-out Deities. Here you have plenty of arguments by which you would show the Gods to be in human form. The first is, that our minds are so anticipated and prepossessed, that whenever we think of a Deity the human shape occurs to us. The next is, that as the divine nature excels all things, so it ought to be of the most beautiful form, and there is no form more beautiful than the human; and the third is, that reason cannot reside in any other shape. First, let us consider each argument separately. You seem to me to assume a principle, despotically I may say, that has no manner of probability in it. Who was ever so blind, in contemplating these subjects, as not to see that the Gods were represented in human form, either by the particular advice of wise men, who thought by those means the more easily to turn the minds of the ignorant from a depravity of manners to the worship of the Gods; or through superstition, which was the cause of their believing that when they were paying adoration to these images they were approaching the Gods themselves. These conceits were not a little improved by the poets, painters, and artificers; for it would not have been very easy to represent the Gods planning and executing any work in another form, and perhaps this opinion arose from the idea which mankind have of their own beauty. But do not you, who are so great an adept in physics, see what a soothing flatterer, what a sort of procuress, nature is to herself? Do you think there is any creature on the land or in the sea that is not highly delighted with its own form? If it were not so, why would not a bull become enamored of a mare, or a horse of a cow? Do you believe an eagle, a lion, or a dolphin prefers any shape to its own? If nature, therefore, has instructed us in the same manner, that nothing is more beautiful than man, what wonder is it that we, for that reason, should imagine the Gods are of the human form? Do you suppose if beasts were endowed with reason that every one would not give the prize of beauty to his own species?

What if your assertion, Velleius, proves absolutely false, that no form occurs to us, in our contemplations on the Deity, but the human? Will you, notwithstanding that, persist in the defense of such an absurdity? Supposing that form occurs to us, as you say it does, and we know Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Neptune, Vulcan, Apollo, and the other Deities, by the countenance which painters and statuaries have given them, and not only by their countenances, but by their decorations, their age, and attire; yet the Egyptians, the Syrians, and almost all barbarous nations, are without such distinctions. You may see a greater regard paid by them to certain beasts than by us to the most sacred temples and images of the Gods; for many shrines have been rifled, and images of the Deities have been carried from their most sacred places by us; but we never beard that an Egyptian offered any violence to a crocodile, an ibis, or a cat. What do you think, then? Do not the Egyptians esteem their sacred bull, their Apis, as a Deity? Yes, by Hercules! as certainly as you do our protectress Juno, whom you never behold, even in your dreams, without a goat-skin, a spear, a shield, and broad sandals. But the Grecian Juno of Argos and the Roman Juno are not represented in this manner; so that the Grecians, the Lanuvinians, and we, ascribe different forms to Juno; and our Capitoline Jupiter is not the same with the Jupiter Ammon of the Africans. XXX. Therefore, ought not a natural philosopher - that is, an inquirer into the secrets of nature - to be ashamed of seeking a testimony to truth from minds prepossessed by custom? According to the rule you have laid down, it may be said that Jupiter is always bearded, Apollo always beardless; that Minerva has gray and Neptune azure eyes; and, indeed, we must then honor that Vulcan at Athens, made by Alcamenes, whose lameness through his thin robes appears to be no deformity. Shall we, therefore, receive a lame Deity because we have such an account of him? Consider, likewise, that the Gods go by what names we give them. Now, in the first place, they have as many names as men have languages; for Vulcan is not called Vulcan in Italy, Africa, or Spain, as you are called Velleius in all countries. Besides, the Gods are innumerable, though the list of their names is of no great length even in the records of our priests. Have they no names? You must necessarily confess, indeed, they have none; for what occasion is there for different names if their persons are alike?

It goes a lot further than evolution alone; the whole opposition to euthanasia and to women's rights is very often couched in terms of "protecting the image of God". The same excuse comes up in abstinence education -- you have to "treat the image of God" right -- and in anti-gay rhetoric -- restrictive sexuality is based around the "proper use" of "the image of God". Virtually any schema of control can be justified to the masses if you drop back to the "you're created in the image of God, therefore you have to do such-and-such" argument.

ksplawn said:

Cicero: Do you think there is any creature on the land or in the sea that is not highly delighted with its own form? If it were not so, why would not a bull become enamored of a mare, or a horse of a cow? Do you believe an eagle, a lion, or a dolphin prefers any shape to its own? If nature, therefore, has instructed us in the same manner, that nothing is more beautiful than man, what wonder is it that we, for that reason, should imagine the Gods are of the human form?

Carl Drews said: If you search for "largest wooden structure", you can expand the comparisons beyond Doc Bill's Amish barn. Building enormous wooden structures is no easy task, even if they don't have to float. I presume that no smoking is allowed on the construction site.

Some clarifications: "Lamb of God" is not a literal animal transformation, though it occurred to me right after submitting my previous posting, as well as the fact that the menagerie of miraculous beasts in Revelation may make up for their scarcity elsewhere. I still think there's a shred of a point about the difference between Yahweh and gods of the Greek pantheon regarding animal transformations, but just a shred, and nothing new.

About Donovan: I realize that to "make like a turtle" in 60s parlance, you don't actually have to transform into one, but the fact that he prefaces it with comparisons to Superman and Green Lantern made me picture a magical transformation rather than a mere demonstration of diving skills. Full disclosure: The line "I know a beach where, baby, it never ends. When you've made your mind up forever to be mine" really does make it sound like he's promising eternal salvation, which is where the Jesus/Sunshine Superman connection came up during my long commute.

Cicero: Why would not a bull become enamored of a mare, or a horse of a cow? Do you believe an eagle, a lion, or a dolphin prefers any shape to its own?

stevaroni said:

Cicero: Why would not a bull become enamored of a mare, or a horse of a cow? Do you believe an eagle, a lion, or a dolphin prefers any shape to its own?

I had a dog once that was demonstrably enamored of just about anything about the right size, with approximately four legs, that stood still long enough.

phhht said:

stevaroni said:

Cicero: Why would not a bull become enamored of a mare, or a horse of a cow? Do you believe an eagle, a lion, or a dolphin prefers any shape to its own?

I had a dog once that was demonstrably enamored of just about anything about the right size, with approximately four legs, that stood still long enough.

I've heard that if you tie a red rag to the end of a stick, a tom turkey will try to mate with it. I think we're a lot like that.

phhht said:

stevaroni said:

Cicero: Why would not a bull become enamored of a mare, or a horse of a cow? Do you believe an eagle, a lion, or a dolphin prefers any shape to its own?

I had a dog once that was demonstrably enamored of just about anything about the right size, with approximately four legs, that stood still long enough.

I've heard that if you tie a red rag to the end of a stick, a tom turkey will try to mate with it. I think we're a lot like that.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

phhht said:

stevaroni said:

Cicero: Why would not a bull become enamored of a mare, or a horse of a cow? Do you believe an eagle, a lion, or a dolphin prefers any shape to its own?

I had a dog once that was demonstrably enamored of just about anything about the right size, with approximately four legs, that stood still long enough.

I've heard that if you tie a red rag to the end of a stick, a tom turkey will try to mate with it. I think we're a lot like that.

The way some of those red rags tied to ends of sticks come on to me, how can you blame me? Glen Davidson

david.starling.macmillan said: The whole YEC "after their kind" business isn't even as open-and-shut an argument as they like to claim it is. The "waters" (plural) bring forth moving creatures "according to their kind" (plural pronoun) while the air brings forth fowl "according to its kind" (singular pronoun). Then the Earth (singular) brings forth living creatures and cattle and beasts of the field "after its kind" (singular again). The argument can be made that "after its/their kind" refers not to the species of creature, but to the inhabitants of the given "kingdom" or domain. Fowl are creatures of the air; the air brings forth its kind of creatures. Fish are creatures of the waters; the waters bring forth their kind of creatures. Beasts and cattle and creeping things are creatures of the land; the land brings forth its kind of creatures. This fits very well into the overall framework structure of Genesis 1, and obviously has nothing to do with biological classification. When it comes to humanity, it's implied that humankind is created "in our image, after our likeness" and placed in a stewardship role over all those kingdoms and domains. Again, nothing to do with biology or physical form.

phhht said: I've heard that if you tie a red rag to the end of a stick, a tom turkey will try to mate with it. I think we're a lot like that.

ksplawn said: He also called out the tendency for people in different regions and traditions to see their gods as being characteristically of them, sharing in their own culture and assumed to have certain characteristics with meaning to that particular society.

callahanpb said: So how do they get around the fact that human DNA really is particularly similar to chimp DNA and less so to other animals, including other primates? (OK, a quick search turns up some "answers in Genesis" so I guess they have some but I suspect the real answer involves putting your hands over your ears and saying "la la la" as loud as you can.)

ksplawn said:

david.starling.macmillan said: It goes a lot further than evolution alone; the whole opposition to euthanasia and to women's rights is very often couched in terms of "protecting the image of God". The same excuse comes up in abstinence education -- you have to "treat the image of God" right -- and in anti-gay rhetoric -- restrictive sexuality is based around the "proper use" of "the image of God". Virtually any schema of control can be justified to the masses if you drop back to the "you're created in the image of God, therefore you have to do such-and-such" argument.

This is an angle that I don't remember ever encountering in any of the debates I've seen about abortion, sex ed., euthanasia, etc. Is this an actual talking point among fundamentalists, something they circulate among themselves before engaging the public about these issues?

callahanpb said: I have been musing over something recently, now that we're bringing Roman thought into this. There are many animal transformation stories in Greek mythology (Zeus's antics in particular), but I think this kind of thing is absent from the Bible (I'm happy to be corrected). I'm wondering if that's just coincidence or it really does suggest something specific about the elevation of the human form over the animal in the Bible as compared to other mythologies. True story: I was listening to the Donovan lyric "I can make like a turtle and dive for your pearls in the sea" and thinking of the miracle discussion in another thread, when the idea popped up: That is not the kind of miracle that would be attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. Why?

TomS said: First of all, the concept of "species" did not exist until about 2000 years after Genesis was written. We in modern culture are so used to taxonomy that we should be careful not to impose taxonomic categories on the Ancient Near East. Then, the Hebrew word translated "kind" is something of a troublesome word. It only occurs in one set phrase, "after his/their kind". Never as a plural. In other words, it seems to be some kind of idiom. I am not pretending to understand Biblical Hebrew, so I would like to hear some expert on this, but is it possible that the Hebrew word (min) does not name anything at all? There are many nouns in English which behave like nouns (for example, they are the objects of prepositions, or subjects or objects of verbs) but don't refer/denote/connote anything at all (not even "abstract entities", not even negations of things (like "lack" or "dark")):"it is a shame that", "a matter of seconds/inches/grams", "by dint of". Is there any reason to think that min has any reference/denotation/connotation at all?

stevaroni said:

phhht said: I've heard that if you tie a red rag to the end of a stick, a tom turkey will try to mate with it. I think we're a lot like that.

I often think thoughts like this when I hear people argue about whether it's plausible that modern humans ever mated with neanderthals. I'm always amused by the people who primly announce "well, that would never have happened". I'm hoping they're betting on the propriety of the neanderthals, because if they're trusting the humans to have any self control, they're doomed. Based on where I've seen some of my college roommates try to stuff their genitalia, my money has always been been on "Of course they did the deed back in the day, they'd be doing it right now if only there were some neanderthals and beer around."

As for the word "kind" in "each after their own", what if we take it to mean "clade"?

Seems like that interpretation would solve the problem on both sides. Aside from a few special cases*, offspring are always in the same clade as their recent ancestors.

*(The special cases that I know of are hybridization and doubling of chromosome number.)

Henry

As for the word “kind” in “each after their own”, what if we take it to mean “clade”?

Henry J said: Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said:

As for the word “kind” in “each after their own”, what if we take it to mean “clade”?

But that can't be what the Bible means; they had no idea of clades because they had no idea of common descent.

It's fairly important to realize that...

1) It's highly plausible that this thing will never be built.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the State of Kentucky is merely giving tax advantages. (I oppose that wholeheartedly of course. In fact I oppose it on two grounds. I strongly oppose both government favoritism of some sects over others - which violates the constitution - and I also very strongly oppose crony socialism. Crony socialism - arbitrary government favoritism of some private enterprises - is bad enough even when outright violation of the constitution aren't involved. Of course it's a gray area - I don't always oppose subsidies for things I approve of. But I think anyone should oppose government favoritism of private enterprise that is obviously frivolous or corrupt. The key words are "arbitrary" and "crony".)

Having stated my opposition, tax breaks are only worthwhile if you get to the point where you would have had to pay taxes.

Unless Kentucky taxpayers are directly funding the thing, actually sending cash, I won't be overly surprised if it never gets started.

2) At least ninety percent of people who support this have no intellectual understanding, nor interest in, the actual implications of "Biblical literalism". "Every word of the Bible is true" is just socially acceptable code for "I think things were better when women, minorities, and gays were more openly discriminated against". (Because cherry-picked passages of the Bible can be read as anti-gay, anti-woman, or endorsing ethnic bigotry. The key term being "cherry-picked". Other parts of the Bible can be read as praising strong independent women, stating that men who have gay relationships can still be mighty warrior kings and favorites of God, and totally condemning ethnic bigotry.)

The intellectual literalist of the sort that DSM once was is a rare breed, and as his example shows, they tend to stop being creationists. Creationist claims are mainly a coded way of expressing bigoted authoritarian beliefs that would be criticized at a more emotional level if expressed more overtly.

Regarding the feasibility of building a large wooden structure, regardless of the desire of the customer I can assure you the architecture, design engineering, building, and insurance companies are not going to put up a building that will leave them vulnerable to lawsuits if something goes wrong. Assuming people will be allowed to go inside (otherwise what would be the point of the whole thing), they will strictly adhere to design standards and building codes. The building (it is a building, not a boat) will have electricity, plumbing, sprinkler systems, emergency exits, etc and adhere to ADA and other regulations. The only similarity to a real, floating vessel will be the exterior (mostly). In the end, the interior will look nice, but will look no more like the "real" ark then the HMS Bounty. By the way, has anyone heard what will be amusing about the inside? After all, it is supposed to be an amusement park. I can't imagine someone going to an amusement park to walk through another Creation Museum.

Regarding tax breaks, I am not surprised. States game their tax codes all the time to try to attract businesses to their states. Sport franchises always get tax breaks for new stadiums. Sales, business, entertainment, property, income, etc taxes of individual states are customized to achieve their political goals. Virginia recently got rid of their gas taxes but raised their sales taxes to pay for their road maintenance. Maryland gas vendors are now upset that they can't be competitive with the gas stations across the state line because Maryland wants the people who use the roads to pay for them via gas taxes. I think the cannibalistic tax codes (like tax breaks to attract big businesses) of the individual states should be restricted via the interstate commerce clause to the US Constitution.

stevaroni said:

Carl Drews said: If you search for "largest wooden structure", you can expand the comparisons beyond Doc Bill's Amish barn. Building enormous wooden structures is no easy task, even if they don't have to float. I presume that no smoking is allowed on the construction site.

A decade ago I was in a gigantic WW-II era blimp hanger in Tilamook, Oregon, converted into an aircraft museum. I believe it was touted as one of the largest wooden buildings in existence. It was enormous, as you would have expected from a building that could have comfortably held a Hindenberg-class air ship (though it was built a decade after that era, to house "small" 200' maritime patrol blimps protecting the approaches of hte Columbia from submarines). Apparently, there were originally two hangars on the site, the second of which was leased to store hay and lumber, with predictable results. Only the somewhat charred concrete door frames survive.

alicejohn said: Regarding the feasibility of building a large wooden structure, regardless of the desire of the customer I can assure you the architecture, design engineering, building, and insurance companies are not going to put up a building that will leave them vulnerable to lawsuits if something goes wrong. Assuming people will be allowed to go inside (otherwise what would be the point of the whole thing), they will strictly adhere to design standards and building codes. The building (it is a building, not a boat) will have electricity, plumbing, sprinkler systems, emergency exits, etc and adhere to ADA and other regulations. The only similarity to a real, floating vessel will be the exterior (mostly). In the end, the interior will look nice, but will look no more like the "real" ark then the HMS Bounty. By the way, has anyone heard what will be amusing about the inside? After all, it is supposed to be an amusement park. I can't imagine someone going to an amusement park to walk through another Creation Museum.

By the way, has anyone heard what will be amusing about the inside? After all, it is supposed to be an amusement park. I can’t imagine someone going to an amusement park to walk through another Creation Museum.

While the Bible specified that the Ark had to be built from the unknown gopher wood, the interpretation is a steel frame skinned with American Cedar and Pine and built on top of a steel barge.

What's with the Dutch fascination with Noah's Ark? My other data point is Dutch-born Peter Spier, who wrote and illustrated a children's book on Noah's Ark. It is based on a 17th century poem by Jacobus Revius, also Dutch.

I always thought the Netherlands had a reputation for secularism and tolerance. Maybe it's about the flooding? Is the poem by Revius well known in the Netherlands?

It may be of interest more as folklore than religion. I believe I heard of Noah's ark at a very young age and only later found out (to some surprise) that it was a story from the Bible, and not just an excuse for making toy boats with sets of animals.

alicejohn said: It depends on the shape of the building. I suspect the blimp hangar was made in the shape of a catenary or similar arch (the Gateway Arch in St.Louis is a catenary). Arches can be made very high. However, a building with vertical sides will only be difficult if you want a cavernous interior. It just needs a lot of bracing. Since it has to look like a boat, the bracing will have to be in the interior. I don't see this being a problem. Since I assume the ark had to be a bunch of stalls not a cavernous interior, the walls to the stalls will be the bracing. The big saving grace for this project (if it ever gets built) is that is NEVER has to float. It is a building, not a boat. All of the loads will go into a foundation.

stevaroni said:

Cicero: Why would not a bull become enamored of a mare, or a horse of a cow? Do you believe an eagle, a lion, or a dolphin prefers any shape to its own?

I had a dog once that was demonstrably enamored of just about anything about the right size, with approximately four legs, that stood still long enough.

Read the whole article by Ken Ham to see the rebuttle [sic] to misleading quotes secular media has accused him of saying on the topic of the afterlife of supposive [sic] extraterrestrial life.

Matt Young said: I suppose this is off-task, but Ken Ham just sent a deliciously funny article saying that there can be no aliens because Jesus saved only humans so if aliens existed they would all go to hell so they must not exist. Yes, you read it correctly. The e-mail I received, incidentally, invited me to

Read the whole article by Ken Ham to see the rebuttle [sic] to misleading quotes secular media has accused him of saying on the topic of the afterlife of supposive [sic] extraterrestrial life.

Merriam-Webster, also incidentally, lists a potential newish adverb, supposively, but no corresponding adjective, and even Google recognizes rebuttle as a spelling error.

Matt Young said: I suppose this is off-task, but Ken Ham just sent a deliciously funny article saying that there can be no aliens because Jesus saved only humans so if aliens existed they would all go to hell so they must not exist. Yes, you read it correctly. The e-mail I received, incidentally, invited me to

Read the whole article by Ken Ham to see the rebuttle [sic] to misleading quotes secular media has accused him of saying on the topic of the afterlife of supposive [sic] extraterrestrial life.

Merriam-Webster, also incidentally, lists a potential newish adverb, supposively, but no corresponding adjective, and even Google recognizes rebuttle as a spelling error.

callahanpb said: There are two of them (one is half-scale) and they actually float, too (on top of barges). I am not sure what Ham has in mind. Shouldn't there at least be blueprints at this point?

Matt Young said: I suppose this is off-task, but Ken Ham just sent a deliciously funny article saying that there can be no aliens because Jesus saved only humans so if aliens existed they would all go to hell so they must not exist. Yes, you read it correctly.

Psalms 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

Mike Elzinga said:

callahanpb said: There are two of them (one is half-scale) and they actually float, too (on top of barges). I am not sure what Ham has in mind. Shouldn't there at least be blueprints at this point?

Both of them are supported from the inside by steel girders. You can scroll down to a picture of a cutaway of the larger “ark” floating on steel barges. There is absolutely nothing seaworthy about either of those “replicas.”

There's something appealing about having the resources to build your own gargantuan vessel.

Here's my version: If I had sufficient capital and didn't give a rat's ass about helping out my fellow man, I think I'd spend it on a huge double-envelope, solar-powered airship. Like a giant catamaran for the skies. Now that's conspicuous consumption and livin' large!

Somewhere on the interwebz is a thread about the Hambone's Ark having to comply with American Zoological Association requirements about animal exhibit spaces re: square feet of floor space per animal, ventilation, lighting, bedding, waste removal, water and feed, special perches for birds, etc, etc. Ham won't be able to get very many animals inside...particularly if the number of animals is restricted to those that can be safely and humanely cared for by eight people.

ksplawn said:

david.starling.macmillan said:

Carl Drews said: I don't get the YEC objection to simian ancestry either. The objection is almost anti-Gospel; Jesus was not impressed with claims of ancient and revered ancestry (Matthew 3:9).

Three words: "Image of God." In an attempt to ensure control over doctrine and practice and belief, the fundamentalists handcuffed their theology to a physical "image of God" idea that requires special creation of humankind. Having now sold their souls to this concept, they will vigorously fight any suggestions that the "image of God" is anything other than the physical human body.

It's an old idea that was already old and leaky before Christ. Cicero knocked it down quite handily in De Natora Deorum by describing it as a reflexive (and useful) kind of flattery, way back in 45 BCE:

XXVII. This, I perceive, is what you contend for, that the Gods have a certain figure that has nothing concrete, nothing solid, nothing of express substance, nothing prominent in it; but that it is pure, smooth, and transparent. Let us suppose the same with the Venus of Cos, which is not a body, but the representation of a body; nor is the red, which is drawn there and mixed with the white, real blood, but a certain resemblance of blood; so in Epicurus’s Deity there is no real substance, but the resemblance of substance. Let me take for granted that which is perfectly unintelligible; then tell me what are the lineaments and figures of these sketched-out Deities. Here you have plenty of arguments by which you would show the Gods to be in human form. The first is, that our minds are so anticipated and prepossessed, that whenever we think of a Deity the human shape occurs to us. The next is, that as the divine nature excels all things, so it ought to be of the most beautiful form, and there is no form more beautiful than the human; and the third is, that reason cannot reside in any other shape. First, let us consider each argument separately. You seem to me to assume a principle, despotically I may say, that has no manner of probability in it. Who was ever so blind, in contemplating these subjects, as not to see that the Gods were represented in human form, either by the particular advice of wise men, who thought by those means the more easily to turn the minds of the ignorant from a depravity of manners to the worship of the Gods; or through superstition, which was the cause of their believing that when they were paying adoration to these images they were approaching the Gods themselves. These conceits were not a little improved by the poets, painters, and artificers; for it would not have been very easy to represent the Gods planning and executing any work in another form, and perhaps this opinion arose from the idea which mankind have of their own beauty. But do not you, who are so great an adept in physics, see what a soothing flatterer, what a sort of procuress, nature is to herself? Do you think there is any creature on the land or in the sea that is not highly delighted with its own form? If it were not so, why would not a bull become enamored of a mare, or a horse of a cow? Do you believe an eagle, a lion, or a dolphin prefers any shape to its own? If nature, therefore, has instructed us in the same manner, that nothing is more beautiful than man, what wonder is it that we, for that reason, should imagine the Gods are of the human form? Do you suppose if beasts were endowed with reason that every one would not give the prize of beauty to his own species?

He also called out the tendency for people in different regions and traditions to see their gods as being characteristically of them, sharing in their own culture and assumed to have certain characteristics with meaning to that particular society. In doing so, he also pointed out that we have many inconsistent versions of the "same" gods, versions informed by the people who venerated them rather than vice versa.

What if your assertion, Velleius, proves absolutely false, that no form occurs to us, in our contemplations on the Deity, but the human? Will you, notwithstanding that, persist in the defense of such an absurdity? Supposing that form occurs to us, as you say it does, and we know Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Neptune, Vulcan, Apollo, and the other Deities, by the countenance which painters and statuaries have given them, and not only by their countenances, but by their decorations, their age, and attire; yet the Egyptians, the Syrians, and almost all barbarous nations, are without such distinctions. You may see a greater regard paid by them to certain beasts than by us to the most sacred temples and images of the Gods; for many shrines have been rifled, and images of the Deities have been carried from their most sacred places by us; but we never beard that an Egyptian offered any violence to a crocodile, an ibis, or a cat. What do you think, then? Do not the Egyptians esteem their sacred bull, their Apis, as a Deity? Yes, by Hercules! as certainly as you do our protectress Juno, whom you never behold, even in your dreams, without a goat-skin, a spear, a shield, and broad sandals. But the Grecian Juno of Argos and the Roman Juno are not represented in this manner; so that the Grecians, the Lanuvinians, and we, ascribe different forms to Juno; and our Capitoline Jupiter is not the same with the Jupiter Ammon of the Africans. XXX. Therefore, ought not a natural philosopher - that is, an inquirer into the secrets of nature - to be ashamed of seeking a testimony to truth from minds prepossessed by custom? According to the rule you have laid down, it may be said that Jupiter is always bearded, Apollo always beardless; that Minerva has gray and Neptune azure eyes; and, indeed, we must then honor that Vulcan at Athens, made by Alcamenes, whose lameness through his thin robes appears to be no deformity. Shall we, therefore, receive a lame Deity because we have such an account of him? Consider, likewise, that the Gods go by what names we give them. Now, in the first place, they have as many names as men have languages; for Vulcan is not called Vulcan in Italy, Africa, or Spain, as you are called Velleius in all countries. Besides, the Gods are innumerable, though the list of their names is of no great length even in the records of our priests. Have they no names? You must necessarily confess, indeed, they have none; for what occasion is there for different names if their persons are alike?

His conclusion was that the person he was addressing had been woefully (even uncharacteristically!) uncritical in accepting the arguments that gods have particular, human-like forms because the human form was somehow the most perfect or beautiful or worthy abode of reason. He recognized it for what it is: a kind of biological AND cultural prejudice. This wasn't exactly a ground-breaking insight. It's probably occurred to most people at some point if they gave the matter any thought; if they noticed, for example, that Scandinavian depictions of Jesus had him looking quite Scandinavian, Syrian depictions of Jesus tend to look Syrian, Mongolian Jesus looks central Asian, etc.

It goes a lot further than evolution alone; the whole opposition to euthanasia and to women's rights is very often couched in terms of "protecting the image of God". The same excuse comes up in abstinence education -- you have to "treat the image of God" right -- and in anti-gay rhetoric -- restrictive sexuality is based around the "proper use" of "the image of God". Virtually any schema of control can be justified to the masses if you drop back to the "you're created in the image of God, therefore you have to do such-and-such" argument.

This is an angle that I don't remember ever encountering in any of the debates I've seen about abortion, sex ed., euthanasia, etc. Is this an actual talking point among fundamentalists, something they circulate among themselves before engaging the public about these issues?

harold said: ...."Every word of the Bible is true" is just socially acceptable code for "I think things were better when women, minorities, and gays were more openly discriminated against". (Because cherry-picked passages of the Bible can be read as anti-gay, anti-woman, or endorsing ethnic bigotry. The key term being "cherry-picked". Other parts of the Bible can be read as praising strong independent women, stating that men who have gay relationships can still be mighty warrior kings and favorites of God, and totally condemning ethnic bigotry.) The intellectual literalist of the sort that DSM once was is a rare breed, and as his example shows, they tend to stop being creationists. Creationist claims are mainly a coded way of expressing bigoted authoritarian beliefs that would be criticized at a more emotional level if expressed more overtly.

callahanpb said: Some clarifications: "Lamb of God" is not a literal animal transformation...

Paul Burnett said: When the missionaries came to Papua New Guinea, where there were no sheep, they had to translate John 1:29 “Behold the Lamb of God." to “Behold the piglet of God.”

stevaroni said:

Paul Burnett said: When the missionaries came to Papua New Guinea, where there were no sheep, they had to translate John 1:29 “Behold the Lamb of God." to “Behold the piglet of God.”

Is the piglet of God kosher?

ksplawn said: There's something appealing about having the resources to build your own gargantuan vessel. Here's my version: If I had sufficient capital and didn't give a rat's ass about helping out my fellow man, I think I'd spend it on a huge double-envelope, solar-powered airship. Like a giant catamaran for the skies. Now that's conspicuous consumption and livin' large!

stevaroni said:

Matt Young said: I suppose this is off-task, but Ken Ham just sent a deliciously funny article saying that there can be no aliens because Jesus saved only humans so if aliens existed they would all go to hell so they must not exist. Yes, you read it correctly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I always find creationist's insistence that there is no extraterrestrial life totally unfathomable. After all, in their world, God makes planets, and then makes creatures to inhabit them. There's no reason to believe anything prevents him from populating any planet he made, and it's now been determined that there are lots of planets out there, so the way I do logic that implies that he probably made lots of creatures to praise his glory, because he likes that sort of thing.

Psalms 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

This, to me, seems to implicitly state that God made lots of heavens, and of the heavens he made he specifically gave Earth to the children of men. But it never says what he did on Alpha Proxima XV, and I can see absolutely no theological reason at all to assume that he made no sentient creatures there. He may not have told us he did, but he's under no more obligation to tell us what he's doing elsewhere than I am under an obligation to carefully inform my cat when I leave in the morning about where I'm going and what other animals I might plan to meet that day.

While I was in the process of coming out of creationism, I remember thinking to myself, "If God can create life in geothermal vents and all these other inhospitable places, why wouldn't he create nonsentient life on Europa or Mars or anywhere else?"

Come to think of it, the YECs should take up this mantle. If DNA-based life were discovered outside of Earth's gravity well, it would be a very good argument for panspermia at the least, and I'm sure they could claim it for special creation.

I once asked a YEC colleague how he would react to the discovery that life does or once did live on Mars. His immediate response was that he would question the veracity of Bible. To him the Bible says the entire universe was created by God for humans. We possess a special place in the universe.

Well if god made everything for humans, why make other stars and planets and galaxies? Unless of course she wants us to go there. So why aren't you following the will of god? Or is all of astronomy just a made up conspiracy like evolution?

I'm sure the alien crab-like equivalent of the pope is right now sitting on his pseudo cephalothorax on a water planet orbiting a red dwarf star and "reasoning" that Ken Ham cannot possibly exist because the crab-like god Shibo has decreed that only those who have attained the exulted status of sixteen appendages can partake in the pleasures of the afterlife. Take that Kenny boy, you have been reasoned out of existence by a crab!

DS said: Well if god made everything for humans, why make other stars and planets and galaxies? Unless of course she wants us to go there. So why aren't you following the will of god? Or is all of astronomy just a made up conspiracy like evolution? I'm sure the alien crab-like equivalent of the pope is right now sitting on his pseudo cephalothorax on a water planet orbiting a red dwarf star and "reasoning" that Ken Ham cannot possibly exist because the crab-like god Shibo has decreed that only those who have attained the exulted status of sixteen appendages can partake in the pleasures of the afterlife. Take that Kenny boy, you have been reasoned out of existence by a crab!

DS said: Well if god made everything for humans, why make other stars and planets and galaxies?

True, Ham doesn’t have to show you weren't there, but he does have to demonstrate that God was–and he doesn’t.

Scott F said:

DS said: Well if god made everything for humans, why make other stars and planets and galaxies?

Silly atheist. God created all those tiny lights in the sky to be signs and portents of His Will, to glorify His Name. It says so in the Bible, somewhere. There could be no other reason.

Anyone who attempts to "prove" God by depending on discoveries only found in the last couple of centuries is incredibly, incredibly arrogant. Talk about chronological snobbery taken to an extreme.

Then again, the fundies will say, "Oh, see, these are the Last Days (TM) and so all this stuff is WAY more important now, and that's why we've got these special discoveries."

At which...**groan**.

alicejohn said: I once asked a YEC colleague .... To him the Bible says the entire universe was created by God for humans. We possess a special place in the universe.

ksplawn said:

stevaroni said: Is the piglet of God kosher?

And if so, why are we still eating bread for Communion? Shouldn't we be having pork chops?

Scott F said: Silly atheist. God created all those tiny lights in the sky to be signs and portents of His Will, to glorify His Name. It says so in the Bible, somewhere. There could be no other reason.

Matt Young said: I suppose this is off-task, but Ken Ham just sent a deliciously funny article saying that there can be no aliens because Jesus saved only humans so if aliens existed they would all go to hell so they must not exist. Yes, you read it correctly.

I don’t believe in aliens, so there will be no aliens in hell!

DS said: I'm sure the alien crab-like equivalent of the pope is right now sitting on his pseudo cephalothorax on a water planet orbiting a red dwarf star and "reasoning" that Ken Ham cannot possibly exist because the crab-like god Shibo has decreed that only those who have attained the exulted status of sixteen appendages can partake in the pleasures of the afterlife. Take that Kenny boy, you have been reasoned out of existence by a crab!

stevaroni said: To me it's just another example of the willful, narcissistic arrogance of the creationists, with all the logical consistency of members of some cargo cult in the South Pacific...

From the Ark Encounter website: When Noah built the Ark, it stood as a symbol of salvation. No doubt Noah preached that only those who went through the Ark’s door would be saved from coming judgment.

What if we built the Ark (out of wood) today? Imagine the impact it could have on the world.

Here is some typical creationist babble about the seaworthiness of the ark. This is part three of a three part “response” to critics of the ark story. The first two parts are linked at the beginning of this third part.

This snarky response by this Tim Lovett character is absolutely devoid of any understanding of the seriousness of the technical issues involved in building such a vessel out of wood.

But it is the typical creationist hermeneutics, and word-gaming that keeps changing the subject, throwing in “references” that don’t address any substantive issues, and feigning great knowledge where this is absolutely none. These idiots are masters of babble; but every such response simply makes them look worse, and they don’t even know it. He is apparently addressing this series of responses to potential rube donors who have no clue either.

Glib fast-talk appears to be a central part of creationist subculture. In fact, it is consistent with the fact that a lot of them sell “vitamins,” cosmetics (interesting choice), and other “miracle” products on the religion channels on television.

The pre-flood world, you see, was basically a sin-filled steampunk Babylon.

I remember trying to come up with a new exhibit idea to pitch to Patrick Marsh for the Creation Museum -- a glass-walled wave pool with sliding base sections that could show the effects of catastrophic tectonic movement and the "fountains of the great deep" laying down layers in a mock geologic column, all in a nice 30-minute loop so people could watch it happen. Only, I couldn't come up with any way to get the nice, neat, sequential layers I was after.

david.starling.macmillan said: steampunk Babylon.

Doc Bill said: Calling all engineers! (not me!) This turkey is supposed to be 510 feet long, 85 feet tall and 55 feet wide. The biggest Amish barn that I could find with a 5-minute Google search was about 30 feet tall, but it was tiered, that is, not a straight wooden box. It had a big "first" floor and a smaller second story. There must be severe engineering problems to building a structure to the Ark's stated dimensions. I would think that a stationary structure with those dimensions would have lots of problems with wind alone. It seems to me to be too tall and narrow such that the Big Bad Wolf could blow it down. As for holding 10,000 people and a petting zoo, it wasn't clear from the article if that was the capacity of the park or the Ark. Clearly, for public access to this structure it would have to meet building codes and that means concrete, steel, electricity, accessibility ramps, plumbing, etc. It would be fun, I think, to get some back o' the envelope opinions from our civil and structural engineers, and architects out there on what Hambo is really going to build. Personally, I think he's really going to declare bankruptcy at some point having banked the money offshore.

Katharine said: But if (to engage in more hypotheticals) God so loved the world that he would send his only begotten son to redeem it, what's to say that he doesn't love every world in his creation enough to send Jesus to it, in the bodily form of whatever soul-endowed species inhabits that planet, for the purpose of its salvation? That's right, in the spirit of Fra Bruno, I accuse Ham of having too small a Jesus.

From the Ark Encounter website: What if we built the Ark (out of wood) today? Imagine the impact it could have on the world.

stevaroni said:

From the Ark Encounter website: What if we built the Ark (out of wood) today? Imagine the impact it could have on the world.

It would have no effect whatsoever. It would fail miserably as a real ark. It would break, the animals would sicken, there'd be an incident where an endangered leopard choked to death on an echidna, and there would soon be some public rationale put forward on why they were sadly forced to pull the plug on the project, just before it became an enormous PR fiasco. The reality-based community would shrug their shoulders over the obvious demonstration that a 500' wooden ship full of the worlds' animals is fantasy, and the religious community would triumph another bold attempt to prove the secularists wrong, conveniently ignoring the total lack of substance. How do I know this? Because that's exactly what has happened with all the other ark "reconstructions" built in the last few decades.

harold said: My original response to "ark replica" types was always to challenge them to fill one with animals and sail around in it on the open ocean for however long Noah did. I used to get it wrong and say "forty days and forty nights", but some atheist reminded me that it rained for forty days and forty nights. I believe Noah floated around for a hundred days or something. No creationist ever caught that error, by the way.

It would have an effect, though, at least if some hypothetical completely sincere and honest creationist from a highly developed country tried it. There would be a rescue effort, which would waste a lot of Coast Guard resources. There would be a lot of tragic animal deaths, which would generate a lot of media attention. If the creationist survived there likely be animal cruelty charges and a controversial trial. A competent attorney would argue insanity, but he wouldn't have a competent attorney, he'd have a nut arguing "religious freedom". It would be quite a tragic circus. Luckily it can never happen, because not one creationist, not even Ken Ham, whom I consider to be one of the more "sincere" creationist leaders, Hell, not even "the world's most honest creationist" Todd Wood PhD, actually truly believes enough in Noah's Ark to do such a thing.

stevaroni said:

alicejohn said: It depends on the shape of the building. I suspect the blimp hangar was made in the shape of a catenary or similar arch (the Gateway Arch in St.Louis is a catenary). Arches can be made very high. However, a building with vertical sides will only be difficult if you want a cavernous interior. It just needs a lot of bracing. Since it has to look like a boat, the bracing will have to be in the interior. I don't see this being a problem. Since I assume the ark had to be a bunch of stalls not a cavernous interior, the walls to the stalls will be the bracing. The big saving grace for this project (if it ever gets built) is that is NEVER has to float. It is a building, not a boat. All of the loads will go into a foundation.

Oh, clearly, and I apologize if I implied that the existence of the Tilamook hangar implied in any way that a structure like a giant wooden boat was feasible. Yes, the building is enormous, yes, it's made of wood, but that's where the resemblance ends. The Tilamook hanger is a totally conventional static structure, a long series of high wooden arches, chained together with cross-bracing, bolted to a thick concrete slab, and buttressed at each end by an enormous concrete portico assembly. It is a simple, stationary shelter, and the loads it resists are largely static and utterly predictable. The only reason it (and about a dozen others like it) were built of wood in the first place was to avoid using strategic materials during the height of the war, even then, it's reliance on steel fasteners and bracing is obvious Still, a fascinating building, one of the few places where you could actually use the sentence "I have lost my pet elephant, I don't know where he might be hiding". You can see it for miles as you drive down the road.

harold said:

stevaroni said:

From the Ark Encounter website: What if we built the Ark (out of wood) today? Imagine the impact it could have on the world.

It would have no effect whatsoever. It would fail miserably as a real ark. It would break, the animals would sicken, there'd be an incident where an endangered leopard choked to death on an echidna, and there would soon be some public rationale put forward on why they were sadly forced to pull the plug on the project, just before it became an enormous PR fiasco. The reality-based community would shrug their shoulders over the obvious demonstration that a 500' wooden ship full of the worlds' animals is fantasy, and the religious community would triumph another bold attempt to prove the secularists wrong, conveniently ignoring the total lack of substance. How do I know this? Because that's exactly what has happened with all the other ark "reconstructions" built in the last few decades.

My original response to "ark replica" types was always to challenge them to fill one with animals and sail around in it on the open ocean for however long Noah did. I used to get it wrong and say "forty days and forty nights", but some atheist reminded me that it rained for forty days and forty nights. I believe Noah floated around for a hundred days or something. No creationist ever caught that error, by the way. It would have an effect, though, at least if some hypothetical completely sincere and honest creationist from a highly developed country tried it. There would be a rescue effort, which would waste a lot of Coast Guard resources. There would be a lot of tragic animal deaths, which would generate a lot of media attention. If the creationist survived there likely be animal cruelty charges and a controversial trial. A competent attorney would argue insanity, but he wouldn't have a competent attorney, he'd have a nut arguing "religious freedom". It would be quite a tragic circus. Luckily it can never happen, because not one creationist, not even Ken Ham, whom I consider to be one of the more "sincere" creationist leaders, Hell, not even "the world's most honest creationist" Todd Wood PhD, actually truly believes enough in Noah's Ark to do such a thing.

In fairness, those old ships could be pretty economical -- I one heard that the 17th-century explorers often got thousands of miles per galleon ...

They don't want to say that the Ark had a supernatural forcefield holding it together because they know it smells of special pleading, and they want the Ark to be something God gave Noah to do in order to save himself. You know, the divinely-directed bootstrap.

david.starling.macmillan said: Nowadays, they'll typically fall back on "God collected the animals, so ostensibly he would have brought them in a state where they wouldn't eat each other along the way, so ostensibly they might have been supernaturally sedated, so obviously we couldn't pull it off without God's help, and he said he doesn't want us to." Or something like that.

david.starling.macmillan said: They don't want to say that the Ark had a supernatural forcefield holding it together because they know it smells of special pleading, and they want the Ark to be something God gave Noah to do in order to save himself. You know, the divinely-directed bootstrap.

callahanpb said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Nowadays, they'll typically fall back on "God collected the animals, so ostensibly he would have brought them in a state where they wouldn't eat each other along the way, so ostensibly they might have been supernaturally sedated, so obviously we couldn't pull it off without God's help, and he said he doesn't want us to." Or something like that.

Of course, that makes the rest of the story kind of pointless. If God was doing all that, why not just zap the animals a year into the future after the rains have stopped? Maybe there was some character-building exercise for Noah and his family, but why use such a Rube-Goldberg approach to save the animals?

To me, it seems more "literal" to read the account of Noah as something other than history than it is to make up entirely new post hoc justifications to be able to pretend that it is history.

harold said: It would have an effect, though, at least if some hypothetical completely sincere and honest creationist from a highly developed country tried it.

david.starling.macmillan said: The pre-flood world, you see, was basically a sin-filled steampunk Babylon.

Jon Fleming said:

david.starling.macmillan said: The pre-flood world, you see, was basically a sin-filled steampunk Babylon.

I wanna live there.

Jon Fleming said:

david.starling.macmillan said: The pre-flood world, you see, was basically a sin-filled steampunk Babylon.

I wanna live there.

stevaroni said:

harold said: It would have an effect, though, at least if some hypothetical completely sincere and honest creationist from a highly developed country tried it.

That's just silly. Why, it's as absurd as, oh, I don't know.... maybe some Norwegian guy trying to get the world to believe that, say.... Polynesians used to make enormous voyages across the pacific on reed rafts so he ... oh, I don't know.... actually goes out and builds a reed raft and sails it across the ocean and shows that it works.

Oh... wait... somebody actually did that, you say? They actually put their money where their mouth is and they proved it could work?

Well, I suppose then that building a petting zoo in a barn in a parking lot in Kentucky us just like that, right?

david.starling.macmillan said: Everybody lived three or four centuries at least. Non-avian dinosaurs were still around and could be trained. The world was a tropical paradise covered at least 70% in vegetation (oceans and land). Everyone was dazzlingly smart. There was no oil/coal and thus no means of full industrialization, but technology had otherwise soared in every way possible. They definitely had lighter-than-air craft and gigantic cities.

david.starling.macmillan said:

Jon Fleming said:

david.starling.macmillan said: The pre-flood world, you see, was basically a sin-filled steampunk Babylon.

I wanna live there.

You and me both. Everybody lived three or four centuries at least. Non-avian dinosaurs were still around and could be trained.

callahanpb said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Everybody lived three or four centuries at least. Non-avian dinosaurs were still around and could be trained. The world was a tropical paradise covered at least 70% in vegetation (oceans and land). Everyone was dazzlingly smart. There was no oil/coal and thus no means of full industrialization, but technology had otherwise soared in every way possible. They definitely had lighter-than-air craft and gigantic cities.

So this is where I openly wonder (and ask directly since I can), do people really believe this kind of thing? It's a golden age myth like Atlantis, but with the twist that this golden age was filled with evil people and we're all very happy God destroyed every record of their lives and accomplishments.

What kind of warped mind does this appeal to? (And again, adding lots of unstated assumptions to the Bible does not make for a literal reading in my view. You're inventing a new myth.)

My first thought would be that saying Noah had more advanced boat designs than you'd think is just kind of a throwaway point, and few people take it to its logical conclusion. On the other hand, pictures like http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/03/noah-travels-th.html make me wonder. So, pre-Flood times were pretty much like today, with cranes and stuff, but there was just kind of an eerie glow to everything. I see. Now it all makes much more sense.

callahanpb said: So this is where I openly wonder (and ask directly since I can), do people really believe this kind of thing? It's a golden age myth like Atlantis, but with the twist that this golden age was filled with evil people and we're all very happy God destroyed every record of their lives and accomplishments.

My first thought would be that saying Noah had more advanced boat designs than you'd think is just kind of a throwaway point, and few people take it to its logical conclusion. On the other hand, pictures like http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/03/noah-travels-th.html make me wonder. So, pre-Flood times were pretty much like today, with cranes and stuff, but there was just kind of an eerie glow to everything. I see. Now it all makes much more sense.

Kevin B said:

david.starling.macmillan said: Everybody lived three or four centuries at least. Non-avian dinosaurs were still around and could be trained.

This led me to the thought of house-training a dinosaur, and thence to the conclusion that rather than insisting on dinosaur-licences, municipalities would require evidence of a contract with a pooper-scooper company before you were allowed to walk your Apatosaurus in the park.....

callahanpb said: So this is where I openly wonder (and ask directly since I can), do people really believe this kind of thing? It's a golden age myth like Atlantis, but with the twist that this golden age was filled with evil people and we're all very happy God destroyed every record of their lives and accomplishments. What kind of warped mind does this appeal to? (And again, adding lots of unstated assumptions to the Bible does not make for a literal reading in my view. You're inventing a new myth.) My first thought would be that saying Noah had more advanced boat designs than you'd think is just kind of a throwaway point, and few people take it to its logical conclusion. On the other hand, pictures like http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2014/03/noah-travels-th.html make me wonder. So, pre-Flood times were pretty much like today, with cranes and stuff, but there was just kind of an eerie glow to everything. I see. Now it all makes much more sense.

**offers the chance

david.starling.macmillan said: There are often huge tortured explanations for why a particular body of fantasy fiction is wrong, like...(apologies in advance)

callahanpb said:

david.starling.macmillan said: There are often huge tortured explanations for why a particular body of fantasy fiction is wrong, like...(apologies in advance)

They really have it in for Harry Potter, don't they? Is Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson series just off their radar then? It seems more immediately threatening to Christian belief and morals, what with demigods born out of wedlock and actual worship and sacrifice to non-Christian gods. Anyway, I have one huge problem with the vision of Steampunk Babylon. There are no airships in the Bible. If they had airships, I could see the appeal.

One thing about the capabilities of the antedeluvians, the creationist is typically basing it on the extremely fast technological advancements purported by Genesis, not by anything realistic. So it's just a few hundred years at most and Tubal-Cain is working iron and bronze, like he woke up one day and decided that hematite would produce good iron and he set about finding how to make the temperatures necessary for iron smelting. A few day later (maybe a few years, really), he's making great bronze and iron. The "explanation" being that they were more intelligent then, being closer to God's creation of Adam and Eve.

So it took almost no time for humans to learn to work metal, then why not progress to steam engines and what-not in roughly a couple thousand years before the flood? Why not indeed, except that technology didn't really proceed as told in Genesis?

Start with the Bible, instead of facts, and it makes a kind of sense.

Glen Davidson

Nitpick...

Heyerdahl's trip across the Pacific was on a balsa raft (NOT a reed boat), the Kin-Tiki. His much later attempt to cross the Atlantic was a reed boat (the Ra).

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Start with the Bible, instead of facts, and it makes a kind of sense. Glen Davidson

callahanpb said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Start with the Bible, instead of facts, and it makes a kind of sense. Glen Davidson

It only makes sense if you are allowed to add a lot of stuff that nobody would have considered until a few hundred years ago at the earliest. It makes about as much sense as Fred Flintstone driving the dinosaur in the quarry. It also makes me wonder how YECs think the Bible was interpreted through most of history.

david.starling.macmillan said: I firmly believed there were antediluvian airships.

Editorial comment on nitpick: Kon-Tiki.

Matt Young said: Editorial comment on nitpick: Kon-Tiki.

“WARNING: This Property Protected By Trained Utahraptors. Trespassers Will Be Chewed.”

W. H. Heydt said:

Matt Young said: Editorial comment on nitpick: Kon-Tiki.

Thanks for catching my typo. I wonder how many people here ever read Heyerdahl's _American Indians in the Pacific_ (I got part way through it) or even "Kon-Tiki"? Or, for that matter, "Aku-Aku" (his book about Easter Island)? (Four years ago I could not spell "Engineer". Now I are one. In reality, more like 40 years ago and the intervening time was spent as a programmer.)

david.starling.macmillan said: "WARNING: This Property Protected By Trained Utahraptors. Trespassers Will Be Chewed."

Drifting a bit off topic, kind of like the Kon-Tiki, but there is recent genetic evidence that the yams of the West coast of South America are genetically related to yams that originated in Asia and dispersed throughout the South Pacific, implying at least some level of contact, albeit in the other direction than Heyerdahl's notion.

Kevin B said:

david.starling.macmillan said: "WARNING: This Property Protected By Trained Utahraptors. Trespassers Will Be Chewed."

"Trespassers Will Be Masticated" has more of an official ring to it.

Just Bob said:

Kevin B said:

david.starling.macmillan said: "WARNING: This Property Protected By Trained Utahraptors. Trespassers Will Be Chewed."

"Trespassers Will Be Masticated" has more of an official ring to it.

Byers thinks that's dirty.

Americans United wrote a piect on the Ham/KY fiasco,

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/good-incentives-gone-awry-kentucky-officials-are-adamant-about-propping-up

and of course Ham in return had to attack the AU piece:

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/rocking-the-boat-fundamentalist-ministry-head-responds-to-au-s-ark-park

Not sure if anyone will see this.

SOURCE: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/08/17/3383746/non-christians-need-not-apply.html (I've copied only a small portion of the article)

Non-Christians need not apply
By Daniel Phelps....August 17, 2014

QUOTE: .......The job description included this statement: "Our work at Ark Encounter is not just a job, it is also a ministry. Our employees work together as a team to serve each other to produce the best solutions for our design requirements. Our purpose through the Ark Encounter is to serve and glorify the Lord with our God-given talents with the goal of edifying believers and evangelizing the lost."

When Ark Encounter was originally approved for much larger tax incentives they were required not to discriminate in hiring...........

.....The ad has specific religious requirements for employment. These include a salvation testimony, a "creation belief statement" and a requirement that applicants agree with the organization's "statement of faith." This required statement includes articles that imply that fundamentalist Christianity is the only acceptable religion and that denigrate non-Christians non-fundamentalist Christians, and homosexuals (regardless of their theological views)...............

Charley Horse said: Not sure if anyone will see this. QUOTE: .......The job description included this statement: "Our work at Ark Encounter is not just a job, it is also a ministry. Our employees work together as a team to serve each other to produce the best solutions for our design requirements. Our purpose through the Ark Encounter is to serve and glorify the Lord with our God-given talents with the goal of edifying believers and evangelizing the lost."

Charley Horse said: Not sure if anyone will see this. SOURCE: http://www.kentucky.com/2014/08/17/3383746/non-christians-need-not-apply.html (I've copied only a small portion of the article) Non-Christians need not apply By Daniel Phelps....August 17, 2014 QUOTE: .......The job description included this statement: "Our work at Ark Encounter is not just a job, it is also a ministry. Our employees work together as a team to serve each other to produce the best solutions for our design requirements. Our purpose through the Ark Encounter is to serve and glorify the Lord with our God-given talents with the goal of edifying believers and evangelizing the lost." When Ark Encounter was originally approved for much larger tax incentives they were required not to discriminate in hiring........... .....The ad has specific religious requirements for employment. These include a salvation testimony, a "creation belief statement" and a requirement that applicants agree with the organization's "statement of faith." This required statement includes articles that imply that fundamentalist Christianity is the only acceptable religion and that denigrate non-Christians non-fundamentalist Christians, and homosexuals (regardless of their theological views)...............

Too bad they already know I flipped on them...I could get a job there and tell everyone coming through each exhibit what hogwash it all is.

I smell legal action brewing.

CAD Technician Designer, Ark Encounter

Reports To: Lead Technical Designer, Ark Encounter

Sure does look like the new employee will be working for the for profit park. Would like to hear what
a CPA/ attorney would think of the co-mingling of the funds meant for a nonprofit with a for profit business.
Necessity of some 'creative' bookkeeping comes to mind.

That study that the state is waiting for will be a very persuasive study. Just like the last time. Predicting
a flood of visitors and cash. No problem...

Matt Young said: but Mr. Ham dissembles and says, "Apparently AU’s [Americans United] letter referred to an employment position available at Answers in Genesis."

* Produce and check 2D fabrication detail drawings for production in a fabrication shop. * Work with fabrication shop personnel to answer questions and/or solve problems encountered during the manufacturing process. * Create Bill of Materials including prices and sourcing vendors. * Maintain CAD workstation, AutoCAD licenses, and subscriptions. etc...

Dan Phelps just directed me to a letter in today's Lexington Herald-Leader. The author, who may or may not represent AIG, implicitly charges Mr. Phelps with viewpoint discrimination -- a great, new Constitutional principle that the far right discovered when they found that they could not get into science classes any other way. He does not note that Ark Encounter is putatively a for-profit corporation and consequently is prohibited from discriminating.

Matt Young said: Dan Phelps just directed me to a letter in today's Lexington Herald-Leader.

Unlike Ark Encounter proponents, Phelps shows no tolerance for points of view different than his own, and rabid hostility towards those who disagree... Mike Johnson Chief Counsel, Freedom Guard Shreveport, La.

Kentucky is willing to give up tax revenue to subsidize a project that will create few good jobs (218 of the 265 jobs projected will be part-time), that's constitutionally questionable and that's backed by an organization with discriminatory hiring practices.

The wiggle around this offered by backers of the project is that Ark Encounter is not Answers in Genesis but a distinct, for-profit entity. A glance at the corporate structure makes that a little hard to swallow, Ark Encounter is a wholly owned subsidiary of Crosswater Canyon which is a wholly controlled affiliate of Answers in Genesis, according to the tax incentive application.... [T]here's no getting around that profits from the Ark Encounter will flow to Answers in Genesis. By extension, then, the tax incentives subsidizing the Ark project will enrich the discriminatory parent organization.

So is this Ark Park thing still trying to pass pier review?