Ark "replica" to open around 7/7

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

Nothing's more fun than drowning sinners.

Glen Davidson

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

The animals inside the ark will be “sculpted.”

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

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

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

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

There are going to be a passel of disappointed kids.

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

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

Just Bob said:

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

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

DS said: ... a lot of little kids will ... probably ask some really tough questions...

DS said: ... a lot of little kids will ... probably ask some really tough questions...

Tommy: Were there dinosaur on the ark?

Authority figure: Sure Tommy.

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

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

Tommy: Why?

Authority figure: They got killed.

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

Authority figure: Plants.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just Bob said: Who...Paul the misogynistic asshole? That Paul?

FORGERIES? In the BIBLE?

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

Just Bob said: Who...Paul the misogynistic asshole? That Paul?

The perils of Paul?

Pierce R. Butler said: Fwiw, historians generally agree the most misogynistic "Pauline Epistles" are among the forgeries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sour grapes, yes?

FL said: Sour grapes, yes?

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

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

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

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

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

Sour grapes, yes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

harold said: I can't help but describe this tendency as "authoritarian".

Just Bob said:

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

To which FL apparently replied

Sour grapes, yes?

FL, maybe you don't know what 'sour grapes' means. It's from one of Aesop's fables about a fox who wanted some grapes, but they were too high to reach, so the fox, to assuage his disappointment, convinced himself that the grapes would have been sour anyway, and thus he didn't miss out on anything. So the expression 'sour grapes' is used when someone can't get something he desires, so he bad-mouths it to show others (and probably himself, too) that he's really not disappointed: "Those people who win the PowerBall, they all end up blowing their dough, and all their relatives hit them up for loans, and the lawyers and government end up with most of it anyway. I'm better off bein' just Joe Sixpack." That's sour grapes. Now, can you explain what little children and babies being drowned has to do with sour grapes? Do you imagine that as they watched their little sisters and mommies drown they thought, "Boy, I'm lucky I didn't get on that stinky old boat!"?

It's interesting to contrast the motivation of the original Noah story with the motivation of absurd modern creationists who ostentatiously claim to take it "literally".

People, the original story is an example of post-hoc explanation of natural in terms that give humans control, the motivation for a lot of traditional mythology and ritual. Either there was a flood that made a big cultural impression, or there was a general fear of floods, or both, at some point in the early middle east. Humans at the time were fairly helpless against floods, so to feel better, they made up a story that a god who they can placate causes major floods when angry. That way, you give yourself some control. Try not to anger that god and you might reduce the frequency of floods.

On the other hand, the reason for modern claims to "take the story literally", at least from Ken Ham type people, is self-serving belligerence. It's about ostentatiously denying science and common sense, and implying that you think everyone who doesn't agree with you should be killed by God.

A common hard core authoritarian technique is to force followers to adopt nonsense that denies reality as part of the ideology. This causes them constant unconscious cognitive dissonance, which has the effect of causing them to double down aggressively on the ideology and react with rage when it is challenged, and to obsessively avoid dealing with rational responses. I think we can agree that ID/creationism is very good at manipulating its followers in this way.

To me, I find certain features of the Flood story have been deliberately designed to make it look impossible to take literally.

I don't have any experience with animal husbandry, but my impression is that there is something wrong with many kinds of animals going "male and his mate". Like seven bulls and seven cows, or seven roosters and and seven hens, that that is asking for a fight. That must have been a signal to the hearer that it is fable.

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

FL said:

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

Perfectly stated, Dave. But it is clear that SOME folks of the evolutionary persuasion, were seriously hoping that various challenges (as reported in the media), might result in the Ark Park being slowed or even stopped, just as the fabled Fox really desired to get ahold of certain grapes. But NOW, that specific outcome or goal as it were, ain't looking like a live option anymore. So what's an evolutionist to do now? Pretty much what you are seeing in this thread. Sour grapes. Only now it's the Panda instead of the Fox, doing the complaining. FL

Nope, he doesn't get it... and if he does, he'll never admit it.

Let's make it really simple: What was it that we previously thought would be really wonderful if we had it or achieved it? Now, what is that SAME THING that we are now claiming was never any good or desirable in the first place?

If there is ONE ANSWER to both questions, then it might be called a 'sour grapes' rationalization. Otherwise... not, dolt.

I think Ham's Ark project is a godsend for comedy writers everywhere. Just like I thank my local paper for publishing a weekly column by Thomas Sowell; it always makes me laugh out loud. Every one of Ham's speculations about the Ark and its fellow travellers not in Genesis should be met with "Were you there?" and then laughter.

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

I also represent and certify that [the] attraction shall not move forward without the sales tax refund incentive.

Obviously, they moved forward with the project, and have even almost completed it, without the benefit of the sales tax incentive.

Just Bob said: Notice that what FL wants to talk about is "sour grapes," (which he misuses) rather than this:

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

Just Bob said: Notice that what FL wants to talk about is "sour grapes," (which he misuses) rather than this:

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

gnome de net said:

Just Bob said: Notice that what FL wants to talk about is "sour grapes," (which he misuses) rather than this:

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

OR — there were kids on the Ark but they didn't have souls.

Or, all the kids on the Ark were just baby goats?

Henry J said: Or, all the kids on the Ark were just baby goats?

If he actually cared about saving babies and fetuses and little children.

I recently was made aware of a place in the OT where praise is expressed towards smashing babies heads on the rocks, or words of a similar meaning. I know I've read it but am unable to locate chapter/verse.

Psalm 137, verse 9. Part of the maledictions called down on Babylon.

Not sure why they're bothering to build yet another Ark. In addition to the one sitting (supposedly) on Mount Ararat, there are a whole bunch of them already. The nearest to me is behind the His Place Community Church in Burlington, Washington. (See particularly their Photo Tour).

For a whole bunch of other arks, see here.

Joe Felsenstein said: Not sure why they're bothering to build yet another Ark. In addition to the one sitting (supposedly) on Mount Ararat, there are a whole bunch of them already. The nearest to me is behind the His Place Community Church in Burlington, Washington. (See particularly their Photo Tour). For a whole bunch of other arks, see here.

But how many of them would actually float? (Let alone ride out a severe storm... )

Henry J said: But how many of them would actually float? (Let alone ride out a severe storm... )

These other arks also contain lessons for the Kentucky Ark. The half-size one in Burlington, Washington was for a church once called the Children's Church. Now, however the church is called the His Place Community Church. Their web site emphasizes the activities in the main church building, which is a very ordinary low-rise one built more recently in front of the Ark, which is no longer visible from State Route 9, the main road nearby. One has to go down Pease Road which passes along one side of the church to see the Ark. Here is Google Streetview of that Ark.

I infer that the children were not much interested in the Ark. The church now does not place much emphasis on the structure's arkiness. That is ominous news for the Kentucky Ark.

I hope you all realize that drowning would be a much kinder fate than being trapped on that ark in a storm with all the terrified animals crying, vomiting, peeing and pooping. Or were they all given ace?

Karen Spivey said: I hope you all realize that drowning would be a much kinder fate than being trapped on that ark in a storm with all the terrified animals crying, vomiting, peeing and pooping. Or were they all given ace?

I thought this God was supposed have forethought? It couldn't figure out what would happen? And yet, it keeps blundering into the same mistakes (if the stories are to be believed) over and over again - humans keep going their own way. Even pops down in human form and most could care less. Obviously a god incapable of learning from its mistakes and we are supposed to worship it?

Yeah, it hasn't even learned to make better choices of spokespeople...

Actually, most people couldn't care less.

--your 5th grade teacher

Michael Fugate said: I thought this God was supposed have forethought? It couldn't figure out what would happen? And yet, it keeps blundering into the same mistakes (if the stories are to be believed) over and over again - humans keep going their own way. ...

Just Bob said: Actually, most people couldn't care less. --your 5th grade teacher

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

I must respectfully disagree.

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

So there ;-)

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

Michael Fugate said:

Just Bob said: Actually, most people couldn't care less. --your 5th grade teacher

I could care less, but I don't.