State notices Ark Park's hiring practices

The bigger story, and a much bigger problem than the one highlighted here, is that the pathological liars of Asses Endanger Us want it both ways simultaneously, to be a non-profit and a for-profit at the same time, to claim the tax benefits of each:

1. Ark Encounter is a nonprofit when Ken Ham tells the suckers that donations to his Ark Park are tax-deductible because the Ark is a non-profit religious ministry devoted to propagating the faith;

2. Ark Encounter is a for-profit devoted to making as much money as possible and "creating jobs" when Zovath demands tax incentives and corporate welfare from the state of Kentucky and its taxpayers of all faiths, the great majority of whom are of the dirty religions who can never be employed at the Ark's shitty part-time jobs;

3. Ark Encounter is a religious ministry when it declares it has the "religious freedom" to discriminate against Jews, Catholics, Protestants of the wrong sort, Muslims, atheists, or any person sane enough not to believe in creationism, all of whom are not good enough to scrub AIG's toilets or sell tickets in their ticket booth, because wrong Jesus.

No problem that can't be solved by some Mafia-style crooked bookkeeping.

AIG may of course cry "Hobby Lobby" and threaten to take it to the Supreme Court.

Kentucky authorities have noticed the apparently deceptive hiring practices of AIG and Ark Encounter, and sent a letter informing the proprietors of the Ark Park,

Assuming that Mr. Zovath is not being disingenuous

If I were running a medical practice at which termination of pregnancy were offered as a procedure, and if I were hiring, say, a receptionist, would it be reasonable to include a question at the interview or questionaire something like: "What are your personal views on the termination of pregnancy? Do you believe that there should be legal restrictions on its availability, and if so, what should they be?"

If I were operating a facility such as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and I wished to hire a biologist to carry out a program which assumed evolution, would it be reasonable to ask him/her to explain his/her views on evolution, and to exclude applicants who indicated that they didn't accept it, as fact or as theory?

Is it reasonable to require employers to employ without discrimination, people who are opposed to the purpose for which the employer is operating?

Robert Byers said: no wonder Noah closed the doors solid!! The herd needs thinning.

hey Byers, I heard you were banned from Uncommon Descent because of your 1920s view on women

Robert Byers said: Its not about religion but about conclusions. Its just that only bible believing Christians would hold, the parks conclusions.

Its possible som Catholics, Mormans etc might also agree.

To tell this park it can't pick people who stand by and advocate the agenda of the park is government interference and absurd.

Would they allow a teacher to teach evolution class etc if they didn't consent previously to the question if they believed in evolution?

Of course, people who don't believe in evolution teach it in public school every day. No one cares what they believe, as long as they teach the science. Byers just wants to have his cake, eat it, shit it out and smear it in your face, all at your expense.

booby is wrong again, what he says is not true, censor him. TIme to thin the herd. Unless you wan fourteen pages of this kind of nonsense repeated over and over and over and over.

I apologize to Byers for the negative tone of my previous comment and to my readerd for excessive repetition of the phrase "Lying little creationist." I hadn't had my coffee then ;)

I apologize for my tone, but my point stands: it is hypocritical for creationists to redefine and redefine words like "religion", nonprofit, for profit, etc. on the fly as it serves their agenda to get money and power.

diogeneslamp0 said: Here we see the infinite hypocrisy of the creationist mind. Creationists, decades ago, redefined "religion" to mean "any belief about the origin of anything" because they wanted to call evolution and/or atheism a "religion", and thereby get it banned from US public schools, by citing separation of church and state. Christians had given the word "religion" a terrible reputation, so they redefined "religion" so that it included evolution. By contrast, scientists did not redefine "science" so that it included anti-evolution.

TomS said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Here we see the infinite hypocrisy of the creationist mind. Creationists, decades ago, redefined "religion" to mean "any belief about the origin of anything" because they wanted to call evolution and/or atheism a "religion", and thereby get it banned from US public schools, by citing separation of church and state. Christians had given the word "religion" a terrible reputation, so they redefined "religion" so that it included evolution. By contrast, scientists did not redefine "science" so that it included anti-evolution.

Some of the fundamentalists also claim that they do not have a religion. I recall that one of the Jack Chick tracts has one of the "Christian" heros mention that he does have a religion, but is a Christian.

stevaroni said: And while Ark Encounter may, with every fiber of their being, want to push the limit on hiring only the Godly, surely their HR staff should have looked at the posting and realized it was a problem, and their lawyers should have looked at it and realized that practicing public hiring discrimination was an amazingly f&%*ing stupid thing to do while they were engaged in a delicate dance to pull in tax breaks based on being a big local employer.

Robert Byers said: Would they allow a teacher to teach evolution class etc if they didn't consent previously to the question if they believed in evolution?

diogeneslamp0 said:

TomS said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Here we see the infinite hypocrisy of the creationist mind. Creationists, decades ago, redefined "religion" to mean "any belief about the origin of anything" because they wanted to call evolution and/or atheism a "religion", and thereby get it banned from US public schools, by citing separation of church and state. Christians had given the word "religion" a terrible reputation, so they redefined "religion" so that it included evolution. By contrast, scientists did not redefine "science" so that it included anti-evolution.

Some of the fundamentalists also claim that they do not have a religion. I recall that one of the Jack Chick tracts has one of the "Christian" heros mention that he does have a religion, but is a Christian.

I presume you mean he does not have a religion. Any link to that?

eric said:

Robert Byers said: Would they allow a teacher to teach evolution class etc if they didn't consent previously to the question if they believed in evolution?

We do indeed allow teachers who don't agree with evolution to teach it. Not doing so would be discriminatory, illegal, and unethical to boot. And if Ark Park wants to limit hiring to only people who believe it's message, they can become a religious non-profit organization. As long as they are a for-profit business, they cannot discriminate in hiring based on religion.

diogeneslamp0 said: I apologize to Byers for the negative tone of my previous comment and to my readerd for excessive repetition of the phrase "Lying little creationist." I hadn't had my coffee then ;) I apologize for my tone, but my point stands: it is hypocritical for creationists to redefine and redefine words like "religion", nonprofit, for profit, etc. on the fly as it serves their agenda to get money and power.

Robert Byers said: Would they allow a teacher to teach evolution class etc if they didn't consent previously to the question if they believed in evolution?

Doc Bill said:

diogeneslamp0 said: I apologize to Byers for the negative tone of my previous comment and to my readerd for excessive repetition of the phrase "Lying little creationist." I hadn't had my coffee then ;) I apologize for my tone, but my point stands: it is hypocritical for creationists to redefine and redefine words like "religion", nonprofit, for profit, etc. on the fly as it serves their agenda to get money and power.

I'm glad you asked to borrow my broad brush, you know, the one that paints ALL creationists as dishonest. I know it gets up in Joe F's grill but, dammit, Jim, I'm a butcher not a surgeon!

booby is wrong again, what he says is not true, censor him. TIme to thin the herd. Unless you wan fourteen pages of this kind of nonsense repeated over and over and over and over.

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

Doc Bill said:

diogeneslamp0 said: I apologize to Byers for the negative tone of my previous comment and to my readerd for excessive repetition of the phrase "Lying little creationist." I hadn't had my coffee then ;) I apologize for my tone, but my point stands: it is hypocritical for creationists to redefine and redefine words like "religion", nonprofit, for profit, etc. on the fly as it serves their agenda to get money and power.

I'm glad you asked to borrow my broad brush, you know, the one that paints ALL creationists as dishonest. I know it gets up in Joe F's grill but, dammit, Jim, I'm a butcher not a surgeon!

I'm wondering how a butcher uses a broad brush. But then you're the butcher here... Glen Davidson

Americans United weighs in again against the ark project:

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/stormy-seas-discriminatory-hiring-practices-at-ky-ark-park-put-its-tax

eric said:

stevaroni said: And while Ark Encounter may, with every fiber of their being, want to push the limit on hiring only the Godly, surely their HR staff should have looked at the posting and realized it was a problem, and their lawyers should have looked at it and realized that practicing public hiring discrimination was an amazingly f&%*ing stupid thing to do while they were engaged in a delicate dance to pull in tax breaks based on being a big local employer.

Well, in other instances we have seen creationist outfits or people hire completely incompetent legal help, because tribal affiliation is more important to them than competence. The same could be going on here; in hiring a HR manager, the leadership at Ark Park might have been more concerned with the applicant's religion than their bureaucratic competence. After all, they seem highly concerned about the religious affiliation of their janitors and ticket-takers.

Please Submit: * Resume * Portfolio or Samples of your work * Salary Requirements * Salvation testimony * Creation belief statement * Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith

It seems pretty clear that Ham is trying to play a shell game with the money he hopes to make with this for profit ark park.

I would venture a guess that, deep down in his psyche, Ham is much very like kent Hovind in his attitudes toward taxes.

We are already seeing statements from them that imply that they are being singled out for their religious beliefs. If the State of Kentucky sees through the scam and pulls the promises of tax incentives because they are going for sectarian proselytizing and Ham's personal enrichment, I could see Ham threatening to sue the State of Kentucky.

If the State pulls the tax incentives, I wonder what that would trigger in the minds of the county and village representatives who already gave Ham a bunch of cheap land with a low tax burden. I also wonder what those people know about Ham's real motives.

Mike Elzinga said: It seems pretty clear that Ham is trying to play a shell game with the money he hopes to make with this for profit ark park. I would venture a guess that, deep down in his psyche, Ham is much very like kent Hovind in his attitudes toward taxes. We are already seeing statements from them that imply that they are being singled out for their religious beliefs. If the State of Kentucky sees through the scam and pulls the promises of tax incentives because they are going for sectarian proselytizing and Ham's personal enrichment, I could see Ham threatening to sue the State of Kentucky. If the State pulls the tax incentives, I wonder what that would trigger in the minds of the county and village representatives who already gave Ham a bunch of cheap land with a low tax burden. I also wonder what those people know about Ham's real motives.

Mike Elzinga said: If the State pulls the tax incentives, I wonder what that would trigger in the minds of the county and village representatives who already gave Ham a bunch of cheap land with a low tax burden. I also wonder what those people know about Ham's real motives.

stevaroni said: It's almost like they're picking a fight. For instance, though the offending Ark Encounter job posting is gone, this one for a graphic artist at the creation museum is still up as of today (10/8).

That smacking sound you hear is some aide to the governor, who really, really needs this deal to go through solely for the sake of the enormous pile Christian ass-kissing points, who has spent the last year bashing his forehead raw against his palm at the sheer political stupidity of these people.

It's honestly okay if some authorities want to make sure the Ark Park hiring practices are in line with the current laws. This story is not the end of the world, and most certainly it's not the end the Ark Park at all.

(Not even a speed bump! Heh!)

****

Hey, by the way, if any of YOU need a job, and you have some construction-related skills, why not apply? You Pandas need to feed your kids like all the rest of us, right?

So let AIG and the Ark Park be a blessing to YOUR family's economy.

After all, they're already a blessing to the entire nation!!!

I just posted an update above the proverbial fold. Is AIG itching to extend Hobby Lobby to for-profit corporations? They are people, after all.

FL said: It's honestly okay if some authorities want to make sure the Ark Park hiring practices are in line with the current laws. This story is not the end of the world, and most certainly it's not the end the Ark Park at all. (Not even a speed bump! Heh!) **** Hey, by the way, if any of YOU need a job, and you have some construction-related skills, why not apply? You Pandas need to feed your kids like all the rest of us, right? So let AIG and the Ark Park be a blessing to YOUR family's economy. After all, they're already a blessing to the entire nation!!!

FL said: It's honestly okay if some authorities want to make sure the Ark Park hiring practices are in line with the current laws.

Mike Zovath told Reuters, “We’re hoping the state takes a hard look at their position, and changes their position so it doesn’t go further than this,”

Pls do not feed the FL troll. He got his 1 comment, and that is it. Future comments will be sent to the BW, as will all responses.

Although I am sure there are plenty of people in the state government who would like to allow Ark Park to discriminate, they know it would be in violation of federal law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Kentucky is actually saving the Ark Park from a federal law suit that they would surely lose.

Also, they better keep their books straight. The IRS does not have a sense of humor. If the IRS discovers AIG has been mixing funds, they could lose their tax exempt status.

Even if they are narrow, there should be more than door.

Since a significant number of local people are probably either tolerant or supportive of Ham and the rest are looking forward to making money off of the deal, I suspect they will be pissed at Kentucky. The locals would probably be interviewed by Fox News and state that if it was a Muslim Park, the federal government would have given money and Obama would have been there to cut the ribbon. I doubt if you could find a dozen people in the local area who object to the park for religious reasons.

AIG has said that it will fight for its “religious rights after state officials warned he could lose millions in potential tax credits if he hires only people who believe in the biblical flood.”

Scott F said:

AIG has said that it will fight for its “religious rights after state officials warned he could lose millions in potential tax credits if he hires only people who believe in the biblical flood.”

Hmm. That might be a stretch. Does AIG feel that it has a "religious right" to use state money to spread the Word of God?

I wonder if AIGs actual goal is to lose the state tax breaks and then declare that the project is no longer viable, then keep what money they got and abandon the whole thing...blaming the state for making it fail.

Matt Young said: I just posted an update above the proverbial fold. Is AIG itching to extend Hobby Lobby to for-profit corporations? They are people, after all.

stevaroni said: right on time for it to become an embarrassing question in political debates all over Ohio in the runnup to the elections.

W. H. Heydt said: I wonder if AIGs actual goal is to lose the state tax breaks and then declare that the project is no longer viable, then keep what money they got and abandon the whole thing...blaming the state for making it fail.

Mike Elzinga said:

W. H. Heydt said: I wonder if AIGs actual goal is to lose the state tax breaks and then declare that the project is no longer viable, then keep what money they got and abandon the whole thing...blaming the state for making it fail.

In Kentucky, and with Ham's gullible investors, it just might work. What kind of class action law suit could people bring against Ham? After all, wasn't it a "free-will" offering? They got their pieces of planking or pegs, didn't they? Didn't some even get a wooden hammer out of it? And how do you sue over the promise of a lifetime ticket to something that didn't exist when you sent in your money and doesn't exist because the devil and his minions killed it? So many rubes, so little time.

Mike Zovath asked:

"… why are you [the state] requiring us to do something you don’t require other applicants to do? And why are you requiring us to give up our religious freedom and our religious rights to comply with an additional requirement that isn’t in the state Tourism Act?"

Let me ask you a question Mike. Why have you not already lost the tax breaks? Why were you not fined for breaking the law? Why are you not already in jail for tax fraud? See here is the thing, you were caught read handed breaking the law. That is why you are now required to provide assurance that you won't do it again. But instead of saying thank you and complying, you bitch and moan about how badly you are being treated.

Ironically, this is exactly why god is supposed to have sent the flood in the first place, because people like this were lying and cheating and stealing. That is why it was supposedly necessary to wipe them all out. Could these guys be any more hypocritical?

Can you imagine the horror if these guys ever actually build this monstrosity? Does anyone really think that they are going to obey the laws about treatment of animals? Or will they just claim that they are being discriminated against if an inspector tries to enforce the law?

DS said: Ironically, this is exactly why god is supposed to have sent the flood in the first place, because people like this were lying and cheating and stealing. That is why it was supposedly necessary to wipe them all out. Could these guys be any more hypocritical?

Is it just getting funnier or just more pathetic regarding Ham on Ark, or should it be on the wry side?

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/constitutional-confusion-ky-ark-park-claims-first-amendment-right-to

Can someone remind me what was the point of making Ark Encounter for-profit in the first place? Why did AiG separate that operation from their non-profit "ministry", where they can discriminate (to a limited extent) in hiring?

ksplawn said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

TomS said:

diogeneslamp0 said: Here we see the infinite hypocrisy of the creationist mind. Creationists, decades ago, redefined "religion" to mean "any belief about the origin of anything" because they wanted to call evolution and/or atheism a "religion", and thereby get it banned from US public schools, by citing separation of church and state. Christians had given the word "religion" a terrible reputation, so they redefined "religion" so that it included evolution. By contrast, scientists did not redefine "science" so that it included anti-evolution.

Some of the fundamentalists also claim that they do not have a religion. I recall that one of the Jack Chick tracts has one of the "Christian" heros mention that he does have a religion, but is a Christian.

I presume you mean he does not have a religion. Any link to that?

There is a popular meme among some of the rabid fundamentalists: Christianity isn't a religion, it's just a relationship with God. (See here for one version of the argument) To them, "religions" are things invented by either mankind or, more commonly, Satan to lead people away from that relationship. Sometimes they seriously use this "not a religion" schtick to argue against separating the state from their sectarian beliefs. This had appeared in a few Chick Tracts over the years, because those are just a gravity well for crazy Apologetics. Here are some examples.

Beyond all the tax categorization and discrimination issues, does AiG just not understand what "preliminary" approval means? They seem to be under the impression that it means "guaranteed." Some Literalists they turned out to be!

Carl Drews said: Can someone remind me what was the point of making Ark Encounter for-profit in the first place? Why did AiG separate that operation from their non-profit "ministry", where they can discriminate (to a limited extent) in hiring?

Carl Drews said: Can someone remind me what was the point of making Ark Encounter for-profit in the first place? Why did AiG separate that operation from their non-profit "ministry", where they can discriminate (to a limited extent) in hiring?

Carl Drews said: Can someone remind me what was the point of making Ark Encounter for-profit in the first place? Why did AiG separate that operation from their non-profit "ministry", where they can discriminate (to a limited extent) in hiring?

The volume of Kent Hovind cites on the web seemed to go down dramatically once he was locked up for his tax shenanigans. If AiG received a massive smackdown for tax fraud and their dirty laundry became widely aired, I would like to think they'd also slide into nigh-irrelevance as people found out how criminal they are and quietly stopped citing them. There will always be the small, hardcore fans for them who would maintain that they were innocent victims of persecution, but that kind of vocal remnant doesn't seem to have made up for the blow to Dr. Dino's reputation among Creationists.

Maybe when Kent Hovind gets out of jail Kennie can hire him for his tax advice and experience.

Carl Drews said: Can someone remind me what was the point of making Ark Encounter for-profit in the first place? Why did AiG separate that operation from their non-profit "ministry", where they can discriminate (to a limited extent) in hiring?

tedhohio said: Maybe when Kent Hovind gets out of jail Kennie can hire him for his tax advice and experience.

Ark Encounter receives no support from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty:

http://bjconline.org/ky-officials-seek-nondiscrimination-assurances-from-creationist-park-100914/

Ken Ham is certainly doing the nonprofit/for profit scheme wrong, and it's right to suspect fraud.

My own parish church has to deal with the nonprofit/for profit situation as well, and I think we do it right. Our chrch property and the land it sits on is non-taxable, being that it is the property of an organized, recognized church (Episcopal, in our case).

There used to be a multi-story, residential hotel on the adjacent property. When the owner died, he willed it to the church, to house ministries. It turned out to be structurally unsound, so most of the cash left by the owner went into demolishing the building. Since it is right next to the church, we use it as a parking lot. However, since it is in a downtown location, where parking is at a premium, we came up with a different solution.

A separate, for-profit corporation got created, whose sole asset is the parking lot. This corporation subcontracts with a parking management company to provide the manpower to collect the parking fees during the week, and not charge church members during services. The corporation is for profit, and pays property and income taxes, and then turns over the after-tax profits to the church, where it shows up as a separate line item on our budget. Corporate trustees are all church members, but it exists totally separate from the church itself.

If Ken Ham were that honest, he might not have the problems he's having now.

Mike Clinch said: If Ken Ham were that honest, he might not have the problems he's having now.

So the solution is to turn the whole thing into a parking lot?

(With plenty of drainage in case of rain, of course.)

Mike Elzinga said:

Mike Clinch said: If Ken Ham were that honest, he might not have the problems he's having now.

Ham just might be as stupid as he appears. Trying to set up what appears to be a blatant money laundering scheme may be the least of his stupidity. If Ham really intends to restrict employment opportunities to only those who pass his tests of sectarian fidelity - and, furthermore, to those who would be willing to accept mostly temporary positions at that - what kind of technical and intellectual ability will he be able to get? How will Ham know who is competent; Ham has no understanding of science. Consider the kind of technical ability that understands the extremely obvious physical limitations on the size of a wooden ark. Ham's ark is definitely not going to be a full-scale replica of an imaginary ark from ancient tales; such a structure is not physically feasible with that ancient technology. So, is an individual with such scientific and engineering understanding going to hold Ham's beliefs? Why would such a person fake such beliefs just to get a job with Ken Ham? There are far better paying permanent jobs in civil and structural engineering in the secular world. What will be the pool of applicants for positions at Ken Ham's organization? What kind of scientific and technical competence can be expected from individuals in that pool? One thing is for certain - even if Ham finagles his way around Constitutional law and builds something resembling an ark - that ark is NOT going to be a replica of anything that ever existed. At best, it will be built with steel and concrete supporting a façade that looks like the pictures in Ham's advertising. How will the cross-sectional area of such a structure withstand the forces of even a moderate windstorm without the extensive use of modern structural engineering technology? So just who would supervise the construction such a structure and still meet Ham's sectarian screening procedures? Will there really be structural engineers out there who don't mind faking it just to get on Ham's team temporarily? There isn't any way that this project can come out looking legitimate. If it sneaks by man-made laws, a prospect not unheard of in the annals of sectarian fundamentalism, it still fails all physical laws. Nature can't be bamboozled like some desperate government bureaucrats looking for political gain can.

Dan Phelps has just sent me a link to this article, Ark Encounter in the Headlines Again!, in which Mr. Ham attempts to defend his hiring practices but, perhaps predictably, ignores the heart of the matter, which is whether Ark Encounter and AIG are deliberately laundering their recruitment practices so that AE can (illegally) discriminate on the basis of religion.

What bemused me the most, however, is his claim that Americans United is an atheist organization -- an odd charge to level against a group whose head is an ordained Protestant minister. Unless of course you consider anyone who disagrees with AIG to necessarily be an atheist.

Matt Young said: Dan Phelps has just sent me a link to this article, Ark Encounter in the Headlines Again!, in which Mr. Ham attempts to defend his hiring practices but, perhaps predictably, ignores the heart of the matter, which is whether Ark Encounter and AIG are deliberately laundering their recruitment practices so that AE can (illegally) discriminate on the basis of religion. What bemused me the most, however, is his claim that Americans United is an atheist organization -- an odd charge to level against a group whose head is an ordained Protestant minister. Unless of course you consider anyone who disagrees with AIG to necessarily be an atheist.

By the way, a recent article on the AU website states, “That job post [for a CAD position] has since been removed.” By stating this in the context of their article, there is certainly an implication we were pressured to remove it. Now AU may be surprised at this, but when AiG fills a job vacancy, we then take the job posting down! If the job had not been filled, the posting would be still up!

The funny thing about all of this hubbub is that there really is no story here at all. You see, the Ark Encounter has not yet even considered hiring anyone, or even drafted its hiring policies or employee handbooks. The Ark Encounter is currently under construction, and no doubt will begin employing people once construction gets to a certain stage.

Just to be clear about what the "hubbub" is all about.

Ham implies AiG filled a CAD position that was advertised as being for the Ark Encounter. So AiG's sectarian screening is supposed to be legal because the employee works for AiG.

But then the employee is assigned to work on the Ark Encounter. Thus there never was a position that met the requirements of the law for tax incentives. There is really no job added to the State economy; only to Ham's payroll, which Ham hopes to offset with the tax breaks he receives.

There is another point to tax incentives that Ham is glossing over. When tax incentives are given to businesses, the bet being placed is that the boost to the economy more than offsets the tax break. If the business fails or turns out to be bogus, the taxpayers ultimately pick up the shortfall in taxes the State needs.

All Ham has to do is keep his show going long enough before gullible state officials or politicians figure out that the game was never going to offset the tax breaks. By then Ham will have taken a tax write-off for business failure.

Matt Young said: Dan Phelps has just sent me a link to this article, Ark Encounter in the Headlines Again!, in which Mr. Ham attempts to defend his hiring practices...

Matt Young said: Dan Phelps has just sent me a link to this article, Ark Encounter in the Headlines Again!, in which Mr. Ham attempts to defend his hiring practices but, perhaps predictably, ignores the heart of the matter, which is whether Ark Encounter and AIG are deliberately laundering their recruitment practices so that AE can (illegally) discriminate on the basis of religion.

Typo: Ken Ham said Peroutka is NOT a board member of LOS.

It would be fun to work there as a fake YEC. You could show visitors the sky, and explain that there is a hard dome (firmament) covering the earth, holding back the waters above. Just like the Bible says!!! Could they argue with that?

Karen S. said: It would be fun to work there as a fake YEC. You could show visitors the sky, and explain that there is a hard dome (firmament) covering the earth, holding back the waters above. Just like the Bible says!!! Could they argue with that?

Karen S. said: It would be fun to work there as a fake YEC. You could show visitors the sky, and explain that there is a hard dome (firmament) covering the earth, holding back the waters above. Just like the Bible says!!! Could they argue with that?

You underestimate the amazing properties of gopherwood, which was so strong that modern engineers have to use steel and concrete to replicate its abilities.

No, I'm sorry, you can't have a sample to experiment on. The last of the species was catapulted into space when the Fountains of the Deep got going. But we can sell you this fine polystyrene replica manufactured by Saved Orphans in our East Asian mission for just $5. (That's a prayer offering of course - no sales tax).

What they need is transparent aluminum...

AiG and KEN HAM blocked me from Facebook!

The purpose and logic of the ARK is worse than an apparent need for one! ANY SANE GOD WOULD HAVE PROVIDED MORE THAN ONE ARK, OF SMALLER FEASIBLE SIZES, and not closed the door on anybody!

But for sure that one WINDOW sure gives a light problem! And 1 year is a food and water problem! My brother says their God must have had all animals in hibernation! And that Noah and family must have managed to get enough food! OR THE ANIMALS DID NOT FILL UP ALL THE SPACE IN THE ARK!

Anyway folks NOAH's ark is as good as a childs story! That is for sure!

And Ken HAM, is using some logic for what is logic, and then forcing the Ark and other stuff on us, like blood sacrifices, as true or good logic!

"Dagone", and good riddance!

We do not need the Bible for good ethics and good morale!

Yes, George, you're right. The Ark story is a story, and we don't need the Bible for good ethics. Our morale is OK, too, although it tends to decline a bit when people shout at us.

Hint: tone it down a little. You're not at a parking lot trunk sale, you haven't got a bullhorn, and we can read. All caps doesn't make you any louder.

Matt Young said: Dan Phelps has just sent me a link to this article, Ark Encounter in the Headlines Again!, in which Mr. Ham attempts to defend his hiring practices but, perhaps predictably, ignores the heart of the matter, which is whether Ark Encounter and AIG are deliberately laundering their recruitment practices so that AE can (illegally) discriminate on the basis of religion. What bemused me the most, however, is his claim that Americans United is an atheist organization -- an odd charge to level against a group whose head is an ordained Protestant minister. Unless of course you consider anyone who disagrees with AIG to necessarily be an atheist.

It is no secret that Answers in Genesis has been working on the Ark Encounter project for a number of years. In the process, AiG has employed a number of people in the various aspects of its design and planning. It is also no secret that AiG (just like AU and groups like American Atheists) exercises its legal rights to employ people who have beliefs that fit with the organization. The practice is as common as it is logical.

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said: The purpose and logic of the Ark is worse than an apparent need for one!any sand God would have provided more than one Ark, of smaller feasible sizes, and not closed the door on anybody!

I remember as a kid that I realized that whatever the fix that Superman got into, there would be some super-power that he would use to get out of it. I never had any interest thereafter. And Superman was not omnipotent.

I'm not sure that one can even describe what omnipotence means, whether it is consistent (and I'm not speaking about the "stone so big" thing). In extending from the finite to the infinite takes care to avoid inconsistency. Is "potency" one of the things that applies in the infinite?

This relates to "Intelligent Design". What sense does it make for an infinite agent to use design? Design is something that we finite beings do because, first of all, we find things not to our liking (but we weren't responsible for that) and then follow rules of design which take account of the possibilities of the material, and then follow the design we planned (and how often do we have to deviate from the design when confronted with reality) in producing something, and product has to work by following the laws of nature. None of that makes any sense for an omnipotent agent.

stevaroni said:

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said: The purpose and logic of the Ark is worse than an apparent need for one!any sand God would have provided more than one Ark, of smaller feasible sizes, and not closed the door on anybody!

I've always been baffled about the exact moral of the Ark story. After all, God is omnipotent. He can do - literally - anything, and the best plan he can come up with for ridding the world of evil revolves around a 600 year old man build building a giant boat for hibernating baby dinosaurs?

SWT said: I think the use of a flood is brilliant from a literary standpoint. The Noah narrative is, in some aspects, a recapitulation of Genesis 1: at the end of the flood, the world is re-created from the waters.

Does anyone know if any plans for AiG's Ark have been submitted yet to the relevant authorities in Kentucky?

The comment by A Masked Panda(jz5E0 was me . . .having problems signing in. grrrrr

SWT said:

stevaroni said:

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said: The purpose and logic of the Ark is worse than an apparent need for one!any sand God would have provided more than one Ark, of smaller feasible sizes, and not closed the door on anybody!

I've always been baffled about the exact moral of the Ark story. After all, God is omnipotent. He can do - literally - anything, and the best plan he can come up with for ridding the world of evil revolves around a 600 year old man build building a giant boat for hibernating baby dinosaurs?

It makes more sense than you give it credit for, if you look at it from the right standpoint -- as a response to the narratives from other nearby religions and as reinforcement of Hebrew beliefs. The Biblical flood narrative is preceded by the Babylonian and Sumerian flood narratives, in which (in some versions) the god Enlil decide to kill everyone out of irritation because humanity is too "noisy". The only reason the hero survives is because of the god Ea's help. In the Biblical narrative, HaShem's decision to destroy humanity is based on divine righteousness, and the survival of a righteous remnant is part of the plan from the beginning. This is arguably reflected even in the Hebrew of the narrative, in which the word we translate as "ark" has overtones that suggest not so much a big boat, but rather a chest in which someone might store something precious. Note also that HaShem, and not Noah, seals the precious cargo within the ark. I think the use of a flood is brilliant from a literary standpoint. The Noah narrative is, in some aspects, a recapitulation of Genesis 1: at the end of the flood, the world is re-created from the waters.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl2PtmKz3VXukwjXo1-ftFFKBm2GNAjZ5E said: Does anyone know if any plans for AiG's Ark have been submitted yet to the relevant authorities in Kentucky?

ksplawn said:

SWT said:

stevaroni said:

George Frederick Thomson Broadhead said: The purpose and logic of the Ark is worse than an apparent need for one!any sand God would have provided more than one Ark, of smaller feasible sizes, and not closed the door on anybody!

I've always been baffled about the exact moral of the Ark story. After all, God is omnipotent. He can do - literally - anything, and the best plan he can come up with for ridding the world of evil revolves around a 600 year old man build building a giant boat for hibernating baby dinosaurs?

It makes more sense than you give it credit for, if you look at it from the right standpoint -- as a response to the narratives from other nearby religions and as reinforcement of Hebrew beliefs. The Biblical flood narrative is preceded by the Babylonian and Sumerian flood narratives, in which (in some versions) the god Enlil decide to kill everyone out of irritation because humanity is too "noisy". The only reason the hero survives is because of the god Ea's help. In the Biblical narrative, HaShem's decision to destroy humanity is based on divine righteousness, and the survival of a righteous remnant is part of the plan from the beginning. This is arguably reflected even in the Hebrew of the narrative, in which the word we translate as "ark" has overtones that suggest not so much a big boat, but rather a chest in which someone might store something precious. Note also that HaShem, and not Noah, seals the precious cargo within the ark. I think the use of a flood is brilliant from a literary standpoint. The Noah narrative is, in some aspects, a recapitulation of Genesis 1: at the end of the flood, the world is re-created from the waters.

So in a way, it's taking 'common knowledge' history at the time and putting a Hebrew spin on things? Basically a way to incorporate the past as it was understood, but with a different message specific to Hebrew culture. That way they wouldn't be too at odds with their neighbors. "You know that flood that destroyed the world and killed almost everybody a long time ago? Everybody's heard the story, but most of them get it wrong. Here's what REALLY happened..."

TomS said:

SWT said: I think the use of a flood is brilliant from a literary standpoint. The Noah narrative is, in some aspects, a recapitulation of Genesis 1: at the end of the flood, the world is re-created from the waters.

Agreed. You can't argue with the staying power of a story that has lasted for thousands of years.

stevaroni said: No, I totally get that it's a wonderful, narrative story. It's just that if, like AiG, you take it to be literally true, it's filled with enormous moral ambiguity.

Mike Elzinga said: I have no idea what their CAD program is capable of handling in the way of alerting them about structural weaknesses in an architectural design.

David Cox said:

Mike Elzinga said: I have no idea what their CAD program is capable of handling in the way of alerting them about structural weaknesses in an architectural design.

I'm pretty sure they tested their dream park using Minecraft and didn't have any structural problems...

"Discover the truth about Noah’s Ark by constructing your own scale model!"

Mike Elzinga said: Some of the statements coming out of AiG have said something about employing Amish workers to build the structure. I doubt that such Amish builders would be registered professional engineers who would understand the physics and engineering issues in a wooden structure of such size. Barns and family dwellings don't have issues anywhere near the magnitude of those of the ark project; and the ark will be open to a gullible public, many of whom have no idea about how certification and licensing of structural engineers and architects protects the public from fraud and shoddy or stupid construction.

Mike Elzinga said: Here is what the AiG staff appear to have done so far.

What scale is the model? It depends which cubit you want to use. Ark expert Tim Lovett suggests that very ancient building cubits should be closely linked to the Tower of Babel, and hence Noah’s Ark. A good example would be the Nippur cubit of 20.4 inches (518.5mm). For more discussion on the cubit for Noah’s Ark see "Which cubit for Noah’s Ark?" [a PDF file]

Construction Crew for the Ark The Ark Encounter picture of the Ark’s construction depicts roughly two dozen people building the boat. There are a couple of possibilities as to who these people could have been. First, they could have been additional family members. Although Genesis mentions Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, it does not tell us about his extended family. He may have had many brothers and sisters who might have been willing to help with the project.

Mike Elzinga said: Either the State of Kentucky gets involved in assuring that experienced and licensed construction firms design and build it, or the structure will collapse during construction and someone is going to get hurt.

There is also a possibility that Noah employed the use of animals for hauling and lifting heavy loads or other purposes. He may have also had access to sophisticated mechanisms and technology that people have not considered.

Maybe God should resurrect the people who wrote those stories, and then sue them for slander...

Scott F said: I wouldn't bet against the Amish. They may not use power tools, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. They know their woodworking skills, and they know how to build wooden structures. My impression is that the Amish tend to be reasonably straight forward and honest. I'm betting it would not be a good fit with AiG. My guess would be that, if they were brought onto the project, they would take one look at the plans, and hike a quick retreat back to Pennsylvania.

I'm not a construction engineer, but as I view construction videos at the Ark Encounter website, I notice several earth moving machines digging and moving earth. But, I can't see any survey stakes or other survey monuments. How do those guys know where to dig, how much earth to move and where to move it without evidence that the project has been surveyed? Am I missing something here? Maybe the markers are actually there, but just don't show up easily on a video?

waldteufel said: I'm not a construction engineer, but as I view construction videos at the Ark Encounter website, I notice several earth moving machines digging and moving earth. But, I can't see any survey stakes or other survey monuments. How do those guys know where to dig, how much earth to move and where to move it without evidence that the project has been surveyed? Am I missing something here? Maybe the markers are actually there, but just don't show up easily on a video?

Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain.

They have FAITH that they're putting the holes and the dirt in the rite places!

(And if they had a belfry, it would have bats in it.)

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said: Some of the statements coming out of AiG have said something about employing Amish workers to build the structure. I doubt that such Amish builders would be registered professional engineers who would understand the physics and engineering issues in a wooden structure of such size. Barns and family dwellings don't have issues anywhere near the magnitude of those of the ark project; and the ark will be open to a gullible public, many of whom have no idea about how certification and licensing of structural engineers and architects protects the public from fraud and shoddy or stupid construction.

I wouldn't bet against the Amish. They may not use power tools, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. They know their woodworking skills, and they know how to build wooden structures. My impression is that the Amish tend to be reasonably straight forward and honest. I'm betting it would not be a good fit with AiG. My guess would be that, if they were brought onto the project, they would take one look at the plans, and hike a quick retreat back to Pennsylvania.

Henry J said: They have FAITH that they're putting the holes and the dirt in the rite places! (And if they had a belfry, it would have bats in it.)

Over at the Ark Encounter website is a link to this page.

The Troyer Group out of Mishawaka, IN is apparently handling the bids by potential construction contractors.

The Troyer Group appears to be a Christian firm with the architectural and structural engineering expertise to do the design and supervise the construction. If their website is an indication of their expertise and what they have done, then they are probably licensed at least in Indiana.

Assuming that they value their reputation, Ham's ark is not going to be a replica of the ark in the Genesis fable. That ark was physically impossible and didn't exist. Concrete and steel with a wooden veneer it will be.

Steel and concrete beams will be covered with wood to make it look like the entire structure is made of wood. It should be pretty easy for anyone to determine that just such a construction is the case.

What might Ham's excuse be? "Oh, since this is a public building, we had to follow the codes of the State; but we could have built the ark as it was; prove me wrong."

There are some links to the Ark Encounter on the home page of The Troyer Group. One of the links gets nowhere and the other links to an article by MSNBC about Ham's ark.

Compared to other links to other projects The Troyer Group has done and seems proud of, the links to Ham's project don't display any enthusiasm for the upcoming project.

I suspect the project is not only uncertain, but, given the experience they tout on their website, The Troyer Group may be harboring reservations about Ham's project. What construction contractors are going to be attracted to this project? There are a lot of Amish folk in that part of Indiana.

And if the project stalls and fails to materialize, what happens to all that land that is being torn up at the moment?

@Mike Elzinga:

"However, the First Amendment states explicitly - and the courts have upheld the notion - that the government cannot promote or favor one religion over another. Various churches already have their First Amendment right to worship as they please in their own churches. If the government, or any publicly funded agency of the government, were to funnel money to a particular church, that act would be a violation of the law."

GW Bush basically trashed this limitation with his "faith based initiative program." Money continues to be funneled into churches with questionable accounting practices and government oversight. Obama promised to clean up and/or eliminate this nonsense, but he never followed through, afraid of altogether pissing off the fundies and FOX who would have a field day if he tried. Americans United has time and again called him on the carpet for this but to no avail.

Bats were later listed as unclean: Leviticus 11:19. That they were unclean at the time of Noah is specifically denied at Genesis 9:3; but Genesis 7:2 says that there were clean and unclean beasts, without saying which was which. In this, as in much else, the scripture contradicts itself.

This may be off-topic, because it deals with actual reality, but if anybody is interested in a giant flood that really did happen, Ars Technica ran a nice story today about geologist Harlen Bretz and his quest to understand the Washington Scablands and decode the Missoula megafloods.

I'm sure AiG's research projects will soon bear fruit and they will will shortly be bringing us their geological evidence of Noah's flood, but until then we'll just have to make do with ordinary, run-of-the mill giant natural floods in the Northwest.

DavidK said: GW Bush basically trashed this limitation with his "faith based initiative program." Money continues to be funneled into churches with questionable accounting practices and government oversight. Obama promised to clean up and/or eliminate this nonsense, but he never followed through, afraid of altogether pissing off the fundies and FOX who would have a field day if he tried. Americans United has time and again called him on the carpet for this but to no avail.

stevaroni said: This may be off-topic, because it deals with actual reality, but if anybody is interested in a giant flood that really did happen, Ars Technica ran a nice story today about geologist Harlen Bretz and his quest to understand the Washington Scablands and decode the Missoula megafloods. I'm sure AiG's research projects will soon bear fruit and they will will shortly be bringing us their geological evidence of Noah's flood, but until then we'll just have to make do with ordinary, run-of-the mill giant natural floods in the Northwest.

gnome de net said:

stevaroni said: This may be off-topic, because it deals with actual reality, but if anybody is interested in a giant flood that really did happen, Ars Technica ran a nice story today about geologist Harlen Bretz and his quest to understand the Washington Scablands and decode the Missoula megafloods. I'm sure AiG's research projects will soon bear fruit and they will will shortly be bringing us their geological evidence of Noah's flood, but until then we'll just have to make do with ordinary, run-of-the mill giant natural floods in the Northwest.

I learned of Harlen Bretz and his ordeal >15 years ago on a visit to eastern Washington and regard him as a worthy role model. He'd be the perfect poster boy for the ID movement except that he had evidence.

TomS said:

stevaroni said: No, I totally get that it's a wonderful, narrative story. It's just that if, like AiG, you take it to be literally true, it's filled with enormous moral ambiguity.

There are in this story in particular, and in at least the "Primordial History" Genesis 1-11, plenty of things going on which must have meant something to the original audience, but have been forever lost to us. In the introduction to the Flood narrative, there is the mention of the sons of gods and human women and their offspring, the Nephillim, who curiously turn up in story of the Exodus. And no one has any idea of the meaning of those precise numbers of years for the Patriarchs (with the tantalizing 365 for Enoch). And who were the people that Cain moved in on. And one that has bothered me for years is how could the audience accept the contradictions and duplications? When the hypothesized Redactor came along, why wasn't any need felt for "continuity". (Didn't they have a "script girl"?) Yes, I know that dedicated literalists have answers, but seriously, we don't have a chance of ever finding out.

Scott F said: Wow. From the AiG web site:

Construction Crew for the Ark The Ark Encounter picture of the Ark’s construction depicts roughly two dozen people building the boat. There are a couple of possibilities as to who these people could have been. First, they could have been additional family members. Although Genesis mentions Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, it does not tell us about his extended family. He may have had many brothers and sisters who might have been willing to help with the project.

Not only did Noah leave behind all his subjects, he also left behind the rest of his extended family. Good thing that righteous Noah lied to his kin about who was going to be saved and who wasn't. Or maybe God lied to Noah about who God was planning to save and who he wasn't.

I keep hoping that a knowledgeable local newspaper or media reporter would spend some time observing the earth moving crew at the Ark Encounter to see if what they are doing is genuine preparation of the ground where the ark is supposed to be built, or if all that motion is just for show to appease the dupes, er I mean investors, who bought the AiG junk bonds.

apokryltaros said:

Scott F said: Wow. From the AiG web site:

Construction Crew for the Ark The Ark Encounter picture of the Ark’s construction depicts roughly two dozen people building the boat. There are a couple of possibilities as to who these people could have been. First, they could have been additional family members. Although Genesis mentions Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, it does not tell us about his extended family. He may have had many brothers and sisters who might have been willing to help with the project.

Not only did Noah leave behind all his subjects, he also left behind the rest of his extended family. Good thing that righteous Noah lied to his kin about who was going to be saved and who wasn't. Or maybe God lied to Noah about who God was planning to save and who he wasn't.

Wouldn't this then throw a monkeywrench into the claim that the Chinese word for "boat," "船," allegedly represents the "eight mouths of Noah and his family on the Ark"?

waldteufel said: I keep hoping that a knowledgeable local newspaper or media reporter would spend some time observing the earth moving crew at the Ark Encounter to see if what they are doing is genuine preparation of the ground where the ark is supposed to be built, or if all that motion is just for show to appease the dupes, er I mean investors, who bought the AiG junk bonds.

Also note that they used a dead lift. There aren’t any pulleys on these cranes. Also, there are large drums, but not large enough for treadmills. So how were these cranes magically powered?

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said: I wouldn't bet against the Amish. They may not use power tools, but that doesn't mean they're stupid. They know their woodworking skills, and they know how to build wooden structures. My impression is that the Amish tend to be reasonably straight forward and honest. I'm betting it would not be a good fit with AiG. My guess would be that, if they were brought onto the project, they would take one look at the plans, and hike a quick retreat back to Pennsylvania.

One would hope that the Amish would know intuitively their own limits and would have some intuitive notions about the effects of scaling. The Amish are quite skilled at building structures fitted to human and farm animal needs. Once the designs and techniques for such structures are tested and established, they become a traditional design that can be passed on within the community. The Amish are skilled with wood, but within a very narrow strength-to-weight window where wood remains strong relative to the weight of the structures they build. Naval architecture and engineering are quite a different matter, however. Bouncing around on the high seas is not like sitting on an open field or in a living room. And these structures - especially wooden structures - have to be supported properly while being built. I believe some Amish in the past have built wooden ships; but very likely under the supervision and direction of experienced naval architects and engineers at the time. These ships would not have been anywhere near the purported size of Noah's ark; nor would they have had such a silly, un-seaworthy design. There is nothing about Ken Ham and his obsessions that strike me as being knowledgeable about the detailed structural requirements of ships. All he sees - and all he seems to want to present - are appearances to gullible people who can't see through the fakery of the ark and all that it lacks in the way of any seaworthy structure. And that doesn't even take into account the magnitude of the energy being deposited on the surface of the Earth during the purported worldwide flood.

You don’t have to worry about building a seaworthy ark if that’s not your intent to begin with. It’s going to be a “replica”.

Emergency exits, sprinklers, signage, lighting, HVAC, handicap access, insulation, fire proofing, weather proofing

I think it is likely that only one floor...and possibly only a part of one floor...will be accessible to the public.
As to an 'all wooden structure'...It is possible...especially if the images I've seen actually depict the Ark with
external scaffolding and bracing. Height is not so much a problem as the cantilevering in the curvature of the "hull".

Lots can be hidden from the public if only the 'port' side is viewable.

Thank goodness that Noah during his 100 years of construction wasn't faced with evil bacteria and cellulose
consuming critters...termites,etc....those didn't exist until after the flood. Ham has Orkin, modern roofing and sealers
to solve that problem.

Karen S. said:

You don’t have to worry about building a seaworthy ark if that’s not your intent to begin with. It’s going to be a “replica”.

That's because they don't have the faith to make a seaworthy ark.

Well I guess Ham is a "food" point, even if I meant "good" point. Somehow, I accidently hit submit, even though I wasn't signed in.

DS said:

Karen S. said:

You don’t have to worry about building a seaworthy ark if that’s not your intent to begin with. It’s going to be a “replica”.

That's because they don't have the faith to make a seaworthy ark.

This is a very food point. If Ham were trying to build an actual floating ark, I might have some sympathy for him. If he really believed that the ark story was real, he would most certainly try to prove it by replicating a floating ark. But he isn't even trying to do that. If he really thought that such an ark would hold two of every species on earth, he would make an attempt to fill the ark with animals. He isn't trying to do that either. IF he really thought that eight people with hand tools could build the ark he would be out there every day building it himself along with his family. He never even tried to do that. What Ham has done is to prove that a structure that will remain fixed to the ground cannot be built with millions of dollars and all of the modern equipment in the world. And, even if such a structure could be built, it could not hold even a small fraction of the number of species found on the earth. And all of this is independent of the fact that it could never float, let alone survive a rough sea, or the worst storm in the history of the earth. So, in the end, all Ham has done is to display his complete lack of faith and the absurdity of taking such a story literally. Not to mention the hypocrisy pf breaking the law trying to get the thing built, the exact same kind of thing the original flood was supposedly meant to punish. And all this is true regardless of whether the monstrosity is ever built or not.

Does kennie ham have a License to Discriminate? Sure seems like he does.

TomS said: Not to mention that the largest loss of life in the history of disasters is being reconstructed as fun for children.

DS said: That's another very good point. Why are they doing all this? To commemorate the greatest disaster in the history of the world? To celebrate the day their god deserted them? To honor mass murder? To remember the horror of the slaughter of the innocents? You would think that the last thing that they would want to draw attention to would be the utter impossibility of the events described in the bible. Or the utterly illogical scenario described after the supposed great flood. If your religion really required you to believe such blatant nonsense, you would think that you would want to hide that fact from the public.

Well I suppose that if you can make a comedy out of the second world war, (Springtime for Germany, in the Producers, by Mel Brooks), you can make a shrine to the biggest mass murder in history and expect people to pay to see it. Of course in the plot, the movie was supposed to be a flop and the producers were supposed to take the money and run. Is that the same kind of thing Ham has in mind? Only time will tell.

I have only two words, DS: Doctor Strangelove.

If this piece of crap were ever actually built, it would only serve to demonstrate the absurdity that such a structure could have ever operated as a seaworthy vessel, and further erode the faith of the people who visited it.

But it won't be; the whole enterprise is only being undertaken to fleece the faithful, then blame the project's inevitable and profitable demise on the evil reality based community.

You cite facts, but is kennie, or any of his 'Hamians' ever derailed by facts? The whole 'giant log rafts' to explain geographic biodiversity is an example. Facts are just something to be ignored or explained away with an interpretation of an obscure biblical reference . . . and if they cannot find one, they simply assume that their explanation is what God meant to say.

Dave Luckett said: I have only two words, DS: Doctor Strangelove.

Even if this thing gets built, which seems highly unlikely, who in the world would actually make a trip to see what is essentially a large-ish, not terribly interesting looking, wooden building with a handful of farm animals in it?

They provided what most people think are wildly optimistic attendance projections (and hence job creation and local tourism revenue) in justifying their appeal for tax breaks. Supposedly they think 1.6 million people will visit the first year. Does anyone really believe that? King's Island, the popular and successful theme park close by gets 2.8 million visitors a year, and they actually have things to do besides look at and maybe walk through a replica of a boat.

They ditched plans to have exotic animals when they realized how expensive and difficult it is to keep them alive and healthy, so that's one potential attraction gone, although with large, excellent zoos in nearby Cincinnati and Louisville, I don't know why anyone would bother. (I think this displays their lack of faith: if a mere 8 untrained, uneducated people could keep millions of animals with highly specific diets and other needs alive and well, why couldn't they?). What's left of that plan is essentially a petting zoo with farm-type animals, and pictures and statues of the more exotic varieties. How wouldn't drive hundreds of miles, and wait in long lines under the hot sun for that?

DS said:

Karen S. said:

You don’t have to worry about building a seaworthy ark if that’s not your intent to begin with. It’s going to be a “replica”.

That's because they don't have the faith to make a seaworthy ark.

This is a very food point. If Ham were trying to build an actual floating ark, I might have some sympathy for him. If he really believed that the ark story was real, he would most certainly try to prove it by replicating a floating ark. But he isn't even trying to do that. If he really thought that such an ark would hold two of every species on earth, he would make an attempt to fill the ark with animals. He isn't trying to do that either. IF he really thought that eight people with hand tools could build the ark he would be out there every day building it himself along with his family. He never even tried to do that. What Ham has done is to prove that a structure that will remain fixed to the ground cannot be built with millions of dollars and all of the modern equipment in the world. And, even if such a structure could be built, it could not hold even a small fraction of the number of species found on the earth. And all of this is independent of the fact that it could never float, let alone survive a rough sea, or the worst storm in the history of the earth. So, in the end, all Ham has done is to display his complete lack of faith and the absurdity of taking such a story literally. Not to mention the hypocrisy pf breaking the law trying to get the thing built, the exact same kind of thing the original flood was supposedly meant to punish. And all this is true regardless of whether the monstrosity is ever built or not.

TBPlayer said: They provided what most people think are wildly optimistic attendance projections (and hence job creation and local tourism revenue) in justifying their appeal for tax breaks. Supposedly they think 1.6 million people will visit the first year. Does anyone really believe that?

What's left of that plan is essentially a petting zoo with farm-type animals, and pictures and statues of the more exotic varieties. How wouldn't [sic] drive hundreds of miles, and wait in long lines under the hot sun for that?

harold said: Yes, a rational person might note that trying to promote a "literal" reading of Noah by constructing a "replica" ark that won't be seaworthy is grossly inconsistent.

Why not do what I've suggested for many years that they should do, and put out to sea in a replica ark full of animals?

eric said:

harold said: Yes, a rational person might note that trying to promote a "literal" reading of Noah by constructing a "replica" ark that won't be seaworthy is grossly inconsistent.

This argument (along with the 'let's see him construct it like Noah did') seem to keep popping up. I find it somewhat disturbing. Frankly, we should all very much hope that Ham is constructing his Ark in line with all applicable Federal, State, local, and NGO civil engineering codes for structures humans are allowed into. We should hope he's putting in steel I-beams. We should hope he's building a building and not an all-wooden boat. Yeah, I likes me some shaudenfreude as much as the next guy, but I'd rather (eventual, possibly never-appearing) visitors be safe than point fingers at Ham for not using gopherwood or for using a construction team with modern equipment. I'd be much more concerned for all the people involved, and think the situation much worse than it is, if Ham declared he was going to try and make an accurate copy using stone age building techniques.

Why not do what I've suggested for many years that they should do, and put out to sea in a replica ark full of animals?

Again, we should all hope he doesn't do that. If Ken wants to try it himself, that's one thing. Stocking it full of animals and then trying it is animal cruelty.

DS said:

TomS said: Not to mention that the largest loss of life in the history of disasters is being reconstructed as fun for children.

That's another very good point. Why are they doing all this? To commemorate the greatest disaster in the history of the world? To celebrate the day their god deserted them? To honor mass murder? To remember the horror of the slaughter of the innocents?

Astrology believers will schedule their weddings according to their horoscopes, so why shouldn’t Noah’s ark obsessed creationists go out to sea in their replicas?

harold said:

Astrology believers will schedule their weddings according to their horoscopes, so why shouldn’t Noah’s ark obsessed creationists go out to sea in their replicas?

Of course, I should make it clear that I'm merely pointing out their hypocrisy, not actually trying to encourage them to ply the North Atlantic in replica arks. Here are a few reasons why they shouldn't: 1) Inland and coastal waterways have regulations for the public good, and replica arks don't make the grade. 2) We wouldn't want them wasting the Coast Guard's time and resources on a rescue effort, and they'd never make it past the limits of coast guard jurisdiction. 3) If some cruel god did miraculously intervene and get them out on the open ocean, then allowing to sink, even that could be socially undesirable. A passing merchant vessel might be forced to waste time and resources on a rescue effort. So yes, Eric is right, he is, indeed, the voice of responsibility. I should refrain from any attempts to taunt creationists into trying to sail in replica arks, and I will do so going forward.

I have no idea why the last comment was moved to the BW.

It was not in any way intemperate or insulting. It noted the existence of a similar replica, gave its maximum throughput and questioned the economic feasibility of Ham's project. It was no more off-topic than any of the last several dozen posts, relating to whether the employment created by Ham's project, on which his State tax breaks and funding is supposed to depend, is real or not.

TomS said: Or what to do with a single pair of naked mole-rats.

stevaroni said:

TomS said: Or what to do with a single pair of naked mole-rats.

Clothe them, obviously (Matthew 28:36) If naked mole rats don't count as the least of our brethren, I don't know what would. They seem pretty least to me. Besides, that way they won't have to wear little tiny fig leafs, which will probably be hard to find in a post-flood world anyway because all the fig trees will be dead.

I have no idea why the last comment was moved to the BW.

Ed Hensley, who provided most of the content of this piece, was recently interviewed on a Cincinnati radio station, and I finally got around to listening. Mr. Hensley's analysis: "Since the host and the caller agreed with me on the most important points, I will call it a victory." The host, Scott Sloan, appeared to favor tax incentives to attract industry but agreed with Mr. Hensley that Ark Encounter is not entitled to discriminate on the basis of religion, as long as it remains a for-profit corporation and accepts tax incentives.

How would "male and his mate" be applied to snails?

Henry J said: How would "male and his mate" be applied to snails?

There is one full-scale "replica" of the Ark already extant: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246247/Dutchman-Johan-Huibers-launches-life-sized-Noahs-Ark-replica-Dordrecht.html It is actually a steel frame clad in Baltic pine and cedar, and it rests on steel barges, bedded in concrete. The whole assembly does actually float, on an inlet from a canal. The only live animals in it are some chickens and the staff and tourists. The rest are plastic and resin models. It's licenced for a throughput of 3,000 visitors a day, but whether it gets that many is not actually stated, and I find that figure very dubious - a little over a million visitors a year, if it's open 365 days. But of course, it was built in a very secular country. Maybe Ham's Ark Park would get something like that, being in rural Kentucky, among the faithful. But I doubt it. Dordrecht is in a very densely populated area, and very well served for road and rail links. Petersburg, KY, well... Ham can't be relying on the locals - there just aren't enough of them. He's hoping that people will go out of their way to drive in on a local road that comes close, and follow the signs. This for a visit that can't possibly be for more than a couple of hours for the "attraction" itself. I really don't think so.

Mike Elzinga said:

DavidK said: GW Bush basically trashed this limitation with his "faith based initiative program." Money continues to be funneled into churches with questionable accounting practices and government oversight. Obama promised to clean up and/or eliminate this nonsense, but he never followed through, afraid of altogether pissing off the fundies and FOX who would have a field day if he tried. Americans United has time and again called him on the carpet for this but to no avail.

Everything that has been aimed at Obama by the Republicans reeks very strongly of pure racism. One of the largest groups within the Republican Party is comprised of those Jim Crow Southerners who bolted from the Democratic Party after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. The Republicans deliberately blame Obama for just about everything that they, the Republicans themselves, routinely obstruct. And yeah, GW Bush pretty much wrecked everything he touched. Maybe I am being a bit naive to assume these days that sectarians won't get "special treatment" and exemptions with regard to taxpayer money and the law. The fact that Republican gerrymandering, the Far Right, and fundamentalist sectarian religion make up the core values and platform of the Republican Party makes it pretty hard to extract their teeth from just about everything they get their teeth into. On top of all that, the Supreme Court's decision on Hobby Lobby has totally mucked up the Constitutional separation of Church and State. More sectarians are going to demand special exemptions for their prejudices and hatreds. Ham may be counting on that. I suppose we will find out just how corrupt sectarians can be when they can get taxpayer support and exemptions from the laws for their sectarian beliefs. Fundamentalism has shown itself to be pretty evil at its core.

Klaus - give it up you will never make modern republicans look sane no matter how hard you try.
The democrats have their problems and you are certainly correct about the 60s, but you are full of shit about today.

Yes, this is OT, but it is a direct response to Elzinga’s post, which was also OT and allowed here, rather than sent to the BW.

Matt Young said:

Yes, this is OT, but it is a direct response to Elzinga’s post, which was also OT and allowed here, rather than sent to the BW.

I have no objection to off-task comments, as long as the discussion leads somewhere. This one is likely to end in name calling, so I request that replies be few and limited to demonstrable facts.

There is one full-scale “replica” of the Ark already extant:

KlausH said:

Mike Elzinga said:

DavidK said: GW Bush basically trashed this limitation with his "faith based initiative program." Money continues to be funneled into churches with questionable accounting practices and government oversight. Obama promised to clean up and/or eliminate this nonsense, but he never followed through, afraid of altogether pissing off the fundies and FOX who would have a field day if he tried. Americans United has time and again called him on the carpet for this but to no avail.

Everything that has been aimed at Obama by the Republicans reeks very strongly of pure racism. One of the largest groups within the Republican Party is comprised of those Jim Crow Southerners who bolted from the Democratic Party after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. The Republicans deliberately blame Obama for just about everything that they, the Republicans themselves, routinely obstruct. And yeah, GW Bush pretty much wrecked everything he touched. Maybe I am being a bit naive to assume these days that sectarians won't get "special treatment" and exemptions with regard to taxpayer money and the law. The fact that Republican gerrymandering, the Far Right, and fundamentalist sectarian religion make up the core values and platform of the Republican Party makes it pretty hard to extract their teeth from just about everything they get their teeth into. On top of all that, the Supreme Court's decision on Hobby Lobby has totally mucked up the Constitutional separation of Church and State. More sectarians are going to demand special exemptions for their prejudices and hatreds. Ham may be counting on that. I suppose we will find out just how corrupt sectarians can be when they can get taxpayer support and exemptions from the laws for their sectarian beliefs. Fundamentalism has shown itself to be pretty evil at its core.

Wow, some people seriously are into history revisionism! A far higher percentage of Republicans were for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. In fact, it never would have passed if it was up to Democrats. Opposition was from senate Democrats, especially KKK boss Byrd and Al Gore Senior! Furthermore, the vast majority of dixiecrats stayed in the Democrat party. And criticism of Obama is clearly based on his actions, and the criticisms are usually very clear on what is criticised, and why. It is lying Democrats who always ignore the actual criticisms and just scream racism, so they can ignore the actual arguments. It was also the Democrats that passed the Jim Crow Laws and invented Gerrymandering. Almost all allegations of Republican Gerrymandering are actually simply attempts of Republicans to legally undo Democrat Gerrymandering! Yes, this is OT, but it is a direct response to Elzinga's post, which was also OT and allowed here, rather than sent to the BW.

Folks, they are NOT building a boat. They are constructing a big building that looks like a big boat. It will no more be a boat than the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse in the Magic Kingdom in Orlando, FL is in a real tree. Although they tout the building as an all-wood building that will be the largest timber-frame structure in the US, it will be built within all of the building regulations in force.

Take a look at the three level floor plan, https://arkencounter.com. It will have elevators, stairwells, emergency exits and the whole works. It will have animal exhibits, displays, a theater, a restaurant, plus other things. Since they plan to keep it open year round, it will need air conditioning, heat, and insulation. In the end, it will be closer to a second creationist museum then anything like the real ark (which no one could begin to guess what the real ark looked like anyway).

When the park first opens, it will just be the "ark" and a petting zoo (https://arkencounter.com/park-map/). They claim on their web site the other stuff will be built later, but insist it will not be an amusement park. While the park may be visually interesting to see I can't imagine anyone other then a true believer coming back. They may actually get their projected 1.6 million attendees the first year (plus a 200,000 guest increase to 500,000 guests at the Creationist Museum ), but it is going to fall off quickly after that.

It might stay open for 10 years.

alicejohn said: Take a look at the three level floor plan, https://arkencounter.com.

From the FAQ:

"Are you building an actual Ark?"

"Yes, we are constructing a full-scale, all-wood ark based on the dimensions provided in the Bible (Genesis 6), using the long cubit, and in accordance with sound established nautical engineering practices of the era. It should become the largest timber-frame structure in the USA."

Gee, sounds like the real deal to me, with no modern stuff, thank you.

Karen S. said: From the FAQ: "Are you building an actual Ark?" "Yes, we are constructing a full-scale, all-wood ark based on the dimensions provided in the Bible (Genesis 6), using the long cubit, and in accordance with sound established nautical engineering practices of the era. It should become the largest timber-frame structure in the USA." Gee, sounds like the real deal to me, with no modern stuff, thank you.

Also from the FAQ:

"Are you doing any non-conventional green building"?

"We intend to integrate solar panels along with passive solar, geothermal, water, and wind technologies into our mechanical systems, as well as some other innovative and sustainable technologies to maintain good stewardship during construction and for long-term operations."

Sounds pretty modern to me.

alicejohn said: Also from the FAQ: "Are you doing any non-conventional green building"? "We intend to integrate solar panels along with passive solar, geothermal, water, and wind technologies into our mechanical systems, as well as some other innovative and sustainable technologies to maintain good stewardship during construction and for long-term operations." Sounds pretty modern to me.

alicejohn said: Also from the FAQ: "Are you doing any non-conventional green building"? "We intend to integrate solar panels along with passive solar, geothermal, water, and wind technologies into our mechanical systems, as well as some other innovative and sustainable technologies to maintain good stewardship during construction and for long-term operations." Sounds pretty modern to me.

Will they use oil lamps for lighting?

Will they use oil lamps for lighting?
Pit toilets?
Don't they want the experience to be realistic?

Maybe they should hire that guy from the thread over on AtBC for any software they might need?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Will they use oil lamps for lighting? Pit toilets? Don't they want the experience to be realistic?

Folks, they are NOT building a boat. They are constructing a big building that looks like a big boat. It will no more be a boat than the Swiss Family Robinson Treehouse in the Magic Kingdom in Orlando, FL is in a real tree. Although they tout the building as an all-wood building that will be the largest timber-frame structure in the US, it will be built within all of the building regulations in force.

Why not present the real experience of a huge boat load of animals defecating, urinating, and vomiting for 40 days and nights as all that stuff gets thoroughly blended together with salt water while the visitors got to tumble around in it? Your ticket would be for a 40 day experience. If you liked the experience, you could upgrade to the yearlong experience where an actor playing Noah released a dove.

Sounds pretty modern to me.

Karen S. said:

Sounds pretty modern to me.

You aren't supposed to notice that modern stuff! Especially the cash register.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: And the snack bar....

Little know fact: Noah actually had a snack bar on the original Ark. The Sailing Day Unicorn Roast was quite a hit.

Karen S. said:

Little know fact: Noah actually had a snack bar on the original Ark. The Sailing Day Unicorn Roast was quite a hit.

It's true. The ruminants could order a flake of hay. The juvenile oceanic birds could get regurgitated food.

fnxtr said: I can see the sandwich board now. "Worms, just like mama used to puke. 2 Shekels."

Is this cabin at the Ark Park as funny as it appears?

The first picture shows a cabin located across a valley from where the excavation is taking place; i.e., in a future parking lot at quite some distance from the construction.

The empty cabin shows windows above eye level and benches that don't appear to allow much viewing.

Then the inside of the cabin is shown full of pictures of what Ham is claiming the ark is going look like.

I get the impression that the actual construction will be far away and off limits to the viewing public so that they can't see what materials and support structures are actually going into the construction.

Visitors get a faux viewing of the construction by way of pictures on the wall of a cabin too far from the actual construction site for comparison.

What do you bet that binoculars and telescopes will not be allowed anywhere near that cabin?

I wonder how they will prevent access to viewing from adjacent property not owned by AiG. Maybe AiG has acquired a lot of property surrounding the building site.

A Potemkin village perhaps?

I would think that anyone living near that site could keep track of what kinds of construction materials are going into the site. I-beams, large concrete trucks, truckloads of reinforcing rods, etc. would all be clues.

I wonder if anyone living in the vicinity of that ark would think to observe things like that.

If I were in the area and had access to helicopters, I would be taking frequent high-resolution pictures from the air and posting them on line.

Mike Elzinga said: If I were in the area and had access to helicopters, I would be taking frequent high-resolution pictures from the air and posting them on line.

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said: If I were in the area and had access to helicopters, I would be taking frequent high-resolution pictures from the air and posting them on line.

Who needs a "helicopter"? That's soooo last millennium. All you need is a little RC quad-copter and a Go-Pro to buzz a construction site. :-)

Mike Elzinga said:

Scott F said:

Mike Elzinga said: If I were in the area and had access to helicopters, I would be taking frequent high-resolution pictures from the air and posting them on line.

Who needs a "helicopter"? That's soooo last millennium. All you need is a little RC quad-copter and a Go-Pro to buzz a construction site. :-)

Yeah, that is sort of what I had in mind, but with some military grade infrared capability and gyro-stabilized, long-range video cameras. There is infrared capability that can "see through" the wooden covering on steel beams and reveal the steel support structures underneath. It was stuff I worked on back in the 1980s and early 90s. Some of it is now available commercially. Ham will likely continue to insist that his structure - IF it is ever built - is completely of wood; just like the "original." There are lots of ways to demonstrate otherwise; some with infrared taken from a distance (without "trespassing") and others done from inside the structure (I wouldn't give Ham a nickel to go inside).

harold said: As I noted above, the construction of a non-functional replica is not a logically consistent way to create a model that provides evidence for the existence of a functional original.

Mike Elzinga said: Yeah, that is sort of what I had in mind, but with some military grade infrared capability and gyro-stabilized, long-range video cameras.

Ham will likely continue to insist that his structure - IF it is ever built - is completely of wood; just like the "original."

On second thought I'm going with a much simpler explanation: these claims that he's building an all-wooden, true-to-original boat are just intended to bring in investments, and have little to nothing to do with his actual engineering plans. Kinda like a developer promising a pool in every yard etc... and then when building starts, gee, sorry, we've had to modify our plans.

When they break ground and start construction, I bet he'll make some PR statement about how atheists, democrats, and the other forces of evil prevented him from realizing his dream, so he has to compromise and build it out of concrete and steel. All his followers will shake their fists and nod in sympathy at the thought of poor Ham, having to compromise his construction vision for the sake of evil secularists. Meanwhile, the construction company will start pouring concrete...to the original specs.

When they break ground and start construction, I bet he’ll make some PR statement about how atheists, democrats, and the other forces of evil prevented him from realizing his dream, so he has to compromise...

Perhaps Noah's Wild Ride ala Toad's from Disneyland would be better model.....
but he might want to leave out the drunk, naked 600 year old man at the end.....

eric said: On second thought I'm going with a much simpler explanation: these claims that he's building an all-wooden, true-to-original boat are just intended to bring in investments, and have little to nothing to do with his actual engineering plans. Kinda like a developer promising a pool in every yard etc... and then when building starts, gee, sorry, we've had to modify our plans. When they break ground and start construction, I bet he'll make some PR statement about how atheists, democrats, and the other forces of evil prevented him from realizing his dream, so he has to compromise and build it out of concrete and steel. All his followers will shake their fists and nod in sympathy at the thought of poor Ham, having to compromise his construction vision for the sake of evil secularists. Meanwhile, the construction company will start pouring concrete...to the original specs.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: ... leave out the drunk, naked 600 year old man at the end.....

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: Yeah, that is sort of what I had in mind, but with some military grade infrared capability and gyro-stabilized, long-range video cameras.

All of these efforts to see what the Ark is really made of seem like overkill. Just FOIA the state or federal inspector's report after he/she determines whether it's built to code (or not).

TomS said: How about a magnetometer to detect steel? Are gravimeters sensitive enough to detect materials heavier than wood? Are there radars of a type that might be useful?

Mike Elzinga said:

TomS said: How about a magnetometer to detect steel? Are gravimeters sensitive enough to detect materials heavier than wood? Are there radars of a type that might be useful?

There are cryogenically cooled infrared cameras that operate in the 1 to 3 micrometer range that can pick up small temperature differences. Also, some materials that are opaque in the visible are transparent at other wavelengths. Steel surrounded by wood is detectable because wood is transparent to some wavelengths. Inside the structure, a simple magnetic compass should be capable of detecting steel beams inside wooden structures. Also a small radio receiver tuned slightly off a radio station will find the dead spots cause by steel construction from inside and outside the structure. Both of these methods require you to pay Ham money to get near the structure; and you might get thrown out if you get caught looking suspicious. Some radar sets are also capable of picking up the metal support structure simply by the strength of the returned signal; much stronger than expected for wood. However, you need the shorter wavelengths of infrared to get enough resolution to actually see the outlines of the steel structure. The infrared imaging systems are also passive in that they don't transmit a signal that is then reflected back; they detect the infrared radiation from the structure itself. Another trick with these systems is to take advantage of changing ambient temperature around the structure as nighttime approaches. As a structure cools, different materials radiate outward at different rates causing the different materials to be at different temperatures while the structure is cooling - or warming. Current infrared imaging systems, especially the cryo-cooled systems, can easily pick up the differences in temperature.

Glen Davidson said: There are things called "metal detectors."

eric said:

Glen Davidson said: There are things called "metal detectors."

There are these things called "lights." If he has them in the Ark, and there aren't cords running everywhere, then the walls are not solid wood. Nothing needed to see through the claim but the mark I eyeball.

Maybe it was a mistranslation instead of Gopher Wood - it really said Steel. The Bible is only inerrant in its original form.

Mike Elzinga said: There are currently a bunch of ads on television around here for metal detectors; but they are the kind you swing over the ground. You can't hide them inconspicuously, so they wouldn't get by Ham's security guards. I haven't looked at how small such commercially available detectors can be...

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: There are currently a bunch of ads on television around here for metal detectors; but they are the kind you swing over the ground. You can't hide them inconspicuously, so they wouldn't get by Ham's security guards. I haven't looked at how small such commercially available detectors can be...

Well if you are determined to go this route, you probably want something like this or this. No need to reinvent the wheel.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q said: Maybe it was a mistranslation instead of Gopher Wood - it really said Steel. The Bible is only inerrant in its original form.

alicejohn said: Take a look at the three level floor plan, https://arkencounter.com. It will have elevators, stairwells, emergency exits and the whole works. It will have animal exhibits, displays, a theater, a restaurant, plus other things.

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: Yeah, that is sort of what I had in mind, but with some military grade infrared capability and gyro-stabilized, long-range video cameras.

All of these efforts to see what the Ark is really made of seem like overkill. Just FOIA the state or federal inspector's report after he/she determines whether it's built to code (or not).

eric said: All of these efforts to see what the Ark is really made of seem like overkill. Just FOIA the state or federal inspector's report after he/she determines whether it's built to code (or not).

W. H. Heydt said:

eric said: All of these efforts to see what the Ark is really made of seem like overkill. Just FOIA the state or federal inspector's report after he/she determines whether it's built to code (or not).

All of this is starting to sound like the old (joke) Engineering exam question... You are given a Mercury barometer. Use the barometer to determine how tall a particular building is. Generations of Engineering students have come up with ingenious and offbeat ways to do it, such as dropping the barometer off the top of the building and timing the fall. One solution is particularly apt here...go to the basement of the building and find the building engineer. Tell him, "I will give you this fine barometer if you will tell me how tall this building is."

Scott F said:

eric said:

Mike Elzinga said: Yeah, that is sort of what I had in mind, but with some military grade infrared capability and gyro-stabilized, long-range video cameras.

All of these efforts to see what the Ark is really made of seem like overkill. Just FOIA the state or federal inspector's report after he/she determines whether it's built to code (or not).

Naw. The point of the quad-copter/go-pro is that you can watch the steel (and concrete) framework go up during construction, prior to the wood veneer. No need to "guess" what is underneath. The framework will be standing for weeks, and the wood veneer is going to be the last thing to be applied. Unless they get all paranoid, and build a giant tent or false building shell over the whole construction site, like the Navy does when building certain ships in dry dock.

I recall reading that the "Nigerian prince" scam is so obviously a scam is that it is designed to keep away people who will have a chance of catching on after the time has been spent on setting up the transfer of money. Or is it that it isn't worth the effort to make it more efficient? It's good enough to survive?

Is it design or evolution?

TomS said: I recall reading that the "Nigerian prince" scam is so obviously a scam is that it is designed to keep away people who will have a chance of catching on after the time has been spent on setting up the transfer of money. Or is it that it isn't worth the effort to make it more efficient? It's good enough to survive? Is it design or evolution?

Mike Elzinga said: Well, perhaps the real point of all this is to try to imagine what kinds of deception Ham will use to build a "replica" of something that never existed, and couldn't have existed even in principle.

Mike Elzinga said:

W. H. Heydt said:

eric said: All of these efforts to see what the Ark is really made of seem like overkill. Just FOIA the state or federal inspector's report after he/she determines whether it's built to code (or not).

All of this is starting to sound like the old (joke) Engineering exam question... You are given a Mercury barometer. Use the barometer to determine how tall a particular building is. Generations of Engineering students have come up with ingenious and offbeat ways to do it, such as dropping the barometer off the top of the building and timing the fall. One solution is particularly apt here...go to the basement of the building and find the building engineer. Tell him, "I will give you this fine barometer if you will tell me how tall this building is."

My recollection of that old joke goes back into at least the 1960s or early 70s. It actually came up as a fun exercise in an undergraduate physics course I was teaching at the time. The game was to think of as many creative ways as possible to use a barometer to find the height of a building that deliberately avoided using the difference in pressure between the top and bottom of the building; but it always had to involve the barometer. Some solutions start with tying it to a string and lowering it to the ground and measuring the length of the string, to dropping it and timing the fall. Some of the solutions are quite hilarious and fall into a sort of "Rube Goldberg" scenario. All the solutions have to work in principle. One fairly obvious question concerns the accuracy and precision of the result. Can a barometer be used to find the height more precisely than by actually reading the barometer?

W. H. Heydt said: One of my favorites was to use the barometer as a pendulum and measure its period at the top and bottom of the building to determine the difference in gravity and from that the height of the building.

eric said:

W. H. Heydt said: One of my favorites was to use the barometer as a pendulum and measure its period at the top and bottom of the building to determine the difference in gravity and from that the height of the building.

Hmmmm...because pedantry is sometimes fun, I will point out that according to wikipedia, pretty much all of the solutions offered are for use of an altimeter. While they are the same instrument in terms of operating principle, a barometer is a stationary altimeter used to measure variances in pressure at a specific location due to weather. A barometer can also be placed on a ship, because the ship's altitude doesn't change and you're still measuring changes due to weather. So if you're swinging it from a string, lowering it, dropping it, etc... you've got yourself an altimeter, not a barometer. If you really want to solve the problem in a strict sense, you have to measure the height of the building without moving the instrument from its original placement. Or at the very least, using the on-ship requirement and not moving it to different altitudes. Maybe you can do something with shadow length along the ground. :)

eric said:

W. H. Heydt said: One of my favorites was to use the barometer as a pendulum and measure its period at the top and bottom of the building to determine the difference in gravity and from that the height of the building.

Hmmmm...because pedantry is sometimes fun, I will point out that according to wikipedia, pretty much all of the solutions offered are for use of an altimeter. While they are the same instrument in terms of operating principle, a barometer is a stationary altimeter used to measure variances in pressure at a specific location due to weather. A barometer can also be placed on a ship, because the ship's altitude doesn't change and you're still measuring changes due to weather. So if you're swinging it from a string, lowering it, dropping it, etc... you've got yourself an altimeter, not a barometer. If you really want to solve the problem in a strict sense, you have to measure the height of the building without moving the instrument from its original placement. Or at the very least, using the on-ship requirement and not moving it to different altitudes. Maybe you can do something with shadow length along the ground. :)

W. H. Heydt said: Well...there is a solution that doesn't require moving the barometer, once set up. Measure the length of the shadow of the barometer and the length of the shadow of the biulding, and simple math will give you the building height.

Just Bob said:

W. H. Heydt said: Well...there is a solution that doesn't require moving the barometer, once set up. Measure the length of the shadow of the barometer and the length of the shadow of the biulding, and simple math will give you the building height.

But then you're not using it as a barometer... merely as a stick ;-)

eric said:

Just Bob said:

W. H. Heydt said: Well...there is a solution that doesn't require moving the barometer, once set up. Measure the length of the shadow of the barometer and the length of the shadow of the biulding, and simple math will give you the building height.

But then you're not using it as a barometer... merely as a stick ;-)

I agree. If that sort of shennanigan is allowed, then I melt it down, use the mass to create a one-atom-thick very long string, and use it to measure the height of the building directly. I'm still using the "thing" you gave me, just not as a barometer.

eric said:

Just Bob said:

W. H. Heydt said: Well...there is a solution that doesn't require moving the barometer, once set up. Measure the length of the shadow of the barometer and the length of the shadow of the biulding, and simple math will give you the building height.

But then you're not using it as a barometer... merely as a stick ;-)

I agree. If that sort of shennanigan is allowed, then I melt it down, use the mass to create a one-atom-thick very long string, and use it to measure the height of the building directly. I'm still using the "thing" you gave me, just not as a barometer.

On the other hand, I think that anybody who has been in school for more than a few years can sympathize with the student who had had it with poorly formed questions.

Did anyone else notice that on “Deck 2”, the “Waste Management Exhibit” is right at the entry doorway for the “Restaurant” at the pointy end. And that the “Kids Play” area is behind the “Waste Management Exhibit”.

TomS said: And now, I am trying to think of how this can elucidate the failure of creationism. There has to be some way that creationism is "using" something-or-other in the same ways that we're "using" barometers. Or, maybe, that creationism doesn't even come up to that standard.

Matt Young said:

On the other hand, I think that anybody who has been in school for more than a few years can sympathize with the student who had had it with poorly formed questions.

Funny you say that. I deliberately give students an underconstrained problem -- build a bridge that will hold a certain load -- and let them assume that I will put the load on flat. When I put the load down on edge, the bridge collapses. We then discuss that many real problems are underconstrained, often because the client is not an expert. I hope they remember.

eric said: I think it's a truism across many many industries that understanding the system requirements is often the most difficult part of the problem...and its difficult in many cases because the client hasn't thought them through, or doesn't really know what they need.

W. H. Heydt said: One of my favorites was to use the barometer as a pendulum and measure its period at the top and bottom of the building to determine the difference in gravity and from that the height of the building.

Just Bob said:

W. H. Heydt said: Well...there is a solution that doesn't require moving the barometer, once set up. Measure the length of the shadow of the barometer and the length of the shadow of the biulding, and simple math will give you the building height.

But then you're not using it as a barometer... merely as a stick ;-)

By the way, I don't know how much those who have heard of the barometer "problem" know how it connects to the notion of operational definitions. The early barometer expressed pressure in, say mm of Hg. In other words, we use the height of a column of mercury to measure pressure. It is the weight of that column of mercury per unit area on which the column sits. And what is weight; how is it measured?

Force can be measured in many ways; e.g., the amount of stretch or compression of a spring. Temperature emerged from "degrees of heat" by how much a column of liquid, such as grape juice, rose in response to the perception of the intensity of heat. Other thermometers give "degrees of heat" in proportion to a voltage difference, which is, in turn, measured by the amount of additional coiling of a coiled, mechanical spring in the form of torque, which gets back to measuring force in some way.

The reason this problem gets interesting to physics nerds - other than being just a funny story about screwing with the "system" - is because it gets at the kinds of things physicists actually have to do in constructing operational definitions that will measure something in the real world. It is a constant challenge at the frontiers of physics to put those operational handles on phenomena that experiments are designed to detect in a quantitative way that can ultimately be fitted into a theoretical framework.

So, at bottom, the challenge is a useful exercise to get physics students to think carefully about what is being measured and how an experimental operational definition gets at and quantifies that measurement.

I remember my engineering friends complaining about the question on their exam to name 10 types of screw-less fasteners. Some of them said something to the effect of, "I couldn't think of a lot of the answers they wanted, so I just added tape, glue, chewing gum and a lot of silly answers." They didn't realize that the prof wanted "silly answers" as an indication of imagination.

Actually, attaching a string, or better yet a long tape measure, to it and lowering it to the ground is WAY more likely to give an "accurate to 1mm" answer than using it to measure differences in air pressure, the time of a pendulum oscillation, or the length of a shadow.

Just Bob said: Actually, attaching a string, or better yet a long tape measure, to it and lowering it to the ground is WAY more likely to give an "accurate to 1mm" answer than using it to measure differences in air pressure, the time of a pendulum oscillation, or the length of a shadow.

TomS said: I remember my engineering friends complaining about the question on their exam to name 10 types of screw-less fasteners. Some of them said something to the effect of, "I couldn't think of a lot of the answers they wanted, so I just added tape, glue, chewing gum and a lot of silly answers." They didn't realize that the prof wanted "silly answers" as an indication of imagination.

W. H. Heydt said:

Just Bob said: Actually, attaching a string, or better yet a long tape measure, to it and lowering it to the ground is WAY more likely to give an "accurate to 1mm" answer than using it to measure differences in air pressure, the time of a pendulum oscillation, or the length of a shadow.

Yes and no... You are assuming the string doesn't stretch. A Physicist might accept that premise, but an Engineer is much less likely to.

SWT said:

W. H. Heydt said:

Just Bob said: Actually, attaching a string, or better yet a long tape measure, to it and lowering it to the ground is WAY more likely to give an "accurate to 1mm" answer than using it to measure differences in air pressure, the time of a pendulum oscillation, or the length of a shadow.

Yes and no... You are assuming the string doesn't stretch. A Physicist might accept that premise, but an Engineer is much less likely to.

I'm an engineer and I'd probably accept the string result, as long as the person who made the height determination used the appropriate correction factor from the "Building Height from Suspended Barometers" table to account for the string material, temperature, humidity, and barometer weight and had calibrated his apparatus using at least three buildings of known height.

W. H. Heydt said: Hmmm... Needle and thread, button and buttonhole, velcro, rivet, nail, hook and eye, zipper, buckle, carabiner, paperclip (and binder clip), split ring, lashings, splice, cotter pin. Some of those might be considered redundant and others might squint a bit as "fasteners".

Just Bob said: Seems to me you could also compensate for stretch by laying the string out horizontally and putting it under a tension equal to the weight of the barometer before you measured it.

Matt Young said: Funny you say that. I deliberately give students an underconstrained problem -- build a bridge that will hold a certain load -- and let them assume that I will put the load on flat. When I put the load down on edge, the bridge collapses.

stevaroni said:

Matt Young said: Funny you say that. I deliberately give students an underconstrained problem -- build a bridge that will hold a certain load -- and let them assume that I will put the load on flat. When I put the load down on edge, the bridge collapses.

It's funny. I work in a field where we end up building a lot of specialized equipment. Having been in the custom engineering business for 30 years, and working closely with the users, I am always think I have a pretty good handle on their problems and provide well-designed solutions with appropriate features. This fantasy seldom survives the first trip out to the floor to see how people actually use the stuff I give them.

Scott F said: Unless they get all paranoid, and build a giant tent

Mike Elzinga said:

W. H. Heydt said: Hmmm... Needle and thread, button and buttonhole, velcro, rivet, nail, hook and eye, zipper, buckle, carabiner, paperclip (and binder clip), split ring, lashings, splice, cotter pin. Some of those might be considered redundant and others might squint a bit as "fasteners".

Don't forget duct tape; it has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

Scott F said: Unless they get all paranoid, and build a giant tent

Mike Elzinga said: In other words, we use the height of a column of mercury to measure pressure. It is the weight of that column of mercury per unit area on which the column sits. And what is weight; how is it measured?

W. H. Heydt said:

TomS said: I remember my engineering friends complaining about the question on their exam to name 10 types of screw-less fasteners...

Hmmm... Needle and thread, button and buttonhole, velcro, rivet, nail, hook and eye, zipper, buckle, carabiner, paperclip (and binder clip), split ring, lashings, splice, cotter pin. Some of those might be considered redundant and others might squint a bit as "fasteners".

eric said:

W. H. Heydt said:

TomS said: I remember my engineering friends complaining about the question on their exam to name 10 types of screw-less fasteners...

Hmmm... Needle and thread, button and buttonhole, velcro, rivet, nail, hook and eye, zipper, buckle, carabiner, paperclip (and binder clip), split ring, lashings, splice, cotter pin. Some of those might be considered redundant and others might squint a bit as "fasteners".

You forgot "virgin engineers." :)

eric said:

W. H. Heydt said:

TomS said: I remember my engineering friends complaining about the question on their exam to name 10 types of screw-less fasteners...

Hmmm... Needle and thread, button and buttonhole, velcro, rivet, nail, hook and eye, zipper, buckle, carabiner, paperclip (and binder clip), split ring, lashings, splice, cotter pin. Some of those might be considered redundant and others might squint a bit as "fasteners".

You forgot "virgin engineers." :)

Dave Lovell said:

Mike Elzinga said: In other words, we use the height of a column of mercury to measure pressure. It is the weight of that column of mercury per unit area on which the column sits. And what is weight; how is it measured?

But would a physics nerd not have to point out that since the barometer balances the weight/unit area of the mercury with the weight/unit area of the air, the barometer is unaffected by the nature of "weight"?

Mike Elzinga said: Neither work in the absence of a gravitational field; in which case one has to go to measuring applied forces and accelerations and then use Newton's second law.

Just Bob said:

Mike Elzinga said: Neither work in the absence of a gravitational field; in which case one has to go to measuring applied forces and accelerations and then use Newton's second law.

Couldn't you use a balance scale in a zero-G situation by giving and maintaining just a slight acceleration in the direction opposite the "down" of the balance arm? I don't think you'd have to measure the acceleration, just note which side goes "down".

They are building, praise the Lord, despite the obstructionism of you secularists.

Obstructionism is futile!

The life-size Noah’s Ark project is moving ahead in leaps and bounds.

Here is a summary of the highlights of the construction progress as given to the board this past week: 1. The excavation of the actual Ark site is complete. There is still grading and other excavation (including the construction of the tram road, upon which people will be shuttled) that will continue at this site for a few more weeks. 2. Most of the storm drain installation on the Ark site has been completed. 3. Foundation work for the construction of the life-size Ark is now underway. 4. At the beginning of November, the construction of the towers that will anchor the Ark (and contain the rest rooms, etc.), will begin. 5. Erection of the timbers for the Ark should begin around early March next year.

If donations keep flooding in as they have during the past seven days, the goal will be met by the end of 2027. (Data provided upon request.)

Looking to the future, Ham could use a few tips from these people: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29776510

(It's about moving 1799 animals being cared for by a rescue shelter.)