Jump to content
IGNORED

The Ark Encounter has opened!!


notsocommon
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, CyborgKin said:

I actually have more respect for people who interpret science in the light of their holy scriptures than those who interpret their holy scriptures in the light of science, as the former actually have enough faith in and respect for what they believe is the word of an infallibly all-knowing God to give it more weight than the fallible words of men

I have zero respect for people who want to water down science by pretending it's something it's not. If you wanna have your faith, awesome, but you don't get to pretend that your faith is science. If you are not willing to change your beliefs in light of proven evidence, you are not doing science. That is literally the opposite of science. And the bible was most certainly written by fallible men, with their own agendas. At least the average science textbook has to provide verifiable evidence for its claims.

4 hours ago, CyborgKin said:

Like, why would any one want to worship a God who used evolution (and wrote that He didn't) and who lost track of how old the earth is?

Well, most people wouldn't. That's why there's a correlation between greater science education and lack of belief in gods, especially the omnipotent, interventionist type. 

  • Upvote 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't respect people who claimed the earth is traveling on the back of a turtle and interpreted all science based on this beliefs. 

Lots of people interpret the Bible to say that God did use evolution, so a belief in God and a belief in the Bible doesn't automatically cause one to reject reality, facts and evolution. 

  • Upvote 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most importantly, Ken Ham included a dinosaur as one of the animals on the ark.  

(face palm). 

  • Upvote 23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Howl said:

Most importantly, Ken Ham included a dinosaur as one of the animals on the ark.  

(face palm). 

But............but.............this...........

dinoark.jpg

And don't get me started on not believing in evolution......... you'll get me quoting Tim Minchin

gravity.jpg

  • Upvote 39
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's an article in today's local paper about this, & I can't believe this pile o'matchsticks cost $100 million dollars. Where the hell did they get the funding for this?

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is Answers in Genesis' response to what they consider misinformation on Meet the Press about tax breaks relative to the State of Kentucky:

Quote

Thank you for the Ark Encounter coverage on "Meet the Press." Contrary to the man quoted in the piece, we, as the publicist for the Ark project of Answers in Genesis, wish to point out that no state funds will be used to build the Ark Encounter. Thus no money will be taken away from funds to fix roads, as the man contended. The tax incentive will not be a grant from the state treasury to help build the Ark Encounter; no money will come out of the state budget and away from state services and programs (e.g., roads/potholes fixed, social services provided, schools funded, etc.).

What are the incentives? Future Ark visitors will pay sales tax at the attraction (e.g., on tickets, food, and merchandise), and at the end of each year of operation,  the state will rebate a portion of the sales tax to the Ark Encounter if the Ark meets attendance-performance standards and tourism dollars flow into the state. Ultimately, the state’s coffers will benefit tremendously when the Ark opens in Kentucky, as opposed to another state that tried to woo the Ark project.

The part of the sales tax that the state will keep, plus payroll and property taxes collected from the estimated 10,000-plus people who will eventually be working in the region at both the Ark Encounter and at other new businesses that will be created, will be significant to the state. Also, the sales tax collected by the many newly created local businesses through the Ark’s ripple effect will also add revenue to the state coffers (e.g., the sales taxes collected by hotels, gas stations, restaurants, etc. in the region). There is a huge net gain to Kentucky for having the Ark within its borders, and state services will see even more funds, not fewer.

 

re: bolded text

These are all fantasy projections that the Ark is going to be a HUGE rainmaker.  The NPR piece I referenced upthread noted that big businesses (like chain motels and chain restaurants) are all holding off on any type of development in the vicinity of the Ark to see if it continues to pull in visitors or if it turns out to be a dud (God hates it). 

10,000 people working in new jobs?  Better start prayin'. 

 

Another thing that pisses off a lot of people is that there is a religious dogma threshold that applicants must meet to work at the Ark.  And yes, a court ruled in favor of Answers in Genesis because religious belief.  

 

From a recent NYT article 

Quote

And Mr. Ham said, let us build a gargantuan Noah’s ark only 45 minutes away to draw millions more visitors. And let it be constructed by Amish woodworkers, and financed with donations, junk bonds and tax rebates from the state of Kentucky. And let it hold an animatronic Noah and lifelike models of some of the creatures that came on board two-by-two, such as bears, short-necked giraffes — and juvenile Tyrannosaurus rexes....

But it was hardly smooth sailing. The state tried to revoke the tax rebates after learning that Mr. Ham would require employees to sign a “statement of faith” that would exclude people who were gay or did not accept his particular Christian creed. Mr. Ham went to court and in January, he won.  Full text here.

 

 

 

Edited by Howl
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CyborgKin said:

I actually have more respect for people who interpret science in the light of their holy scriptures than those who interpret their holy scriptures in the light of science, as the former actually have enough faith in and respect for what they believe is the word of an infallibly all-knowing God to give it more weight than the fallible words of men, while the latter are caving in and compromising their believes because they don't actually take what they claim are holy scriptures seriously.  If they're gonna do that, why not be consistent and throw out the 'holy scriptures' they don't really believe in, entirely?  Like, why would any one want to worship a God who used evolution (and wrote that He didn't) and who lost track of how old the earth is?

Yeah the only problem with the former is that they disregard the part where their infallible God says that one should not lie and begin lying about what science says.

And eventually also about what the Earth is like.

 

There is no way to make it 6000 years old without ignoring and manipulating a whole lotta truth.

3 hours ago, Howl said:

Most importantly, Ken Ham included a dinosaur as one of the animals on the ark.  

(face palm). 

Cuz there only was one species of dinosaur and it was quite small.

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Howl said:

Most importantly, Ken Ham included a dinosaur as one of the animals on the ark.  

(face palm). 

so ken was on the ark???

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope that wood is termite-proof, fireproof, and otherwise has good "smiting" insurance.  Not that I'd expect most visitors would worry about that sort of thing.  #justpray

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad the Ark Experience doesn't float. They could have rolled that bad girl out onto the Ohio River and doubled as a casino/river boat.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mausi said:

Too bad the Ark Experience doesn't float. They could have rolled that bad girl out onto the Ohio River and doubled as a casino/river boat.

spinning for Jesus.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

      I am ashamed to say my kids pretty much dislike traditional  museums. I think they would laugh themselves silly at the Creation museum, and now this gem. My husband would nope his way out. I got so incredibly excited a few summers ago when I saw a billboard for the CM. I think all FJers should travel to the Holy CM and Ark Encounter at least once in their life.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, CyborgKin said:

I actually have more respect for people who interpret science in the light of their holy scriptures than those who interpret their holy scriptures in the light of science, as the former actually have enough faith in and respect for what they believe is the word of an infallibly all-knowing God to give it more weight than the fallible words of men, while the latter are caving in and compromising their believes because they don't actually take what they claim are holy scriptures seriously.  If they're gonna do that, why not be consistent and throw out the 'holy scriptures' they don't really believe in, entirely?  Like, why would any one want to worship a God who used evolution (and wrote that He didn't) and who lost track of how old the earth is?

I think this is perhaps a conclusion that makes sense to to many of us at first, but I have to respectfully challenge some of the assumptions here. First of all, at least a portion of Christians who believe in evolution recognize that while God is by His/Her/Their nature infallible and all-knowing*, the text of scripture as a medium of communication is by its nature always undergoing interpretation and many factors can and should contribute to a meaningful reading of the text. Science is just one of these and an understanding of the genre of Genesis 1-11 and comparison with other Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) writings makes clear to some that to interpret these passages as a "scientific" (the word itself is anachronistic to an ANE understanding) account of origins does violence to the text. Denis Lamoureaux of the University of Alberta started a graduate degree in theology with plans to then get a PhD in an evolutionary field to "dismantle" evolution from the inside. However, during his time getting a theology degree he started to doubt that "scientific concordism" is part of the Genesis accounts. He's now a strong proponent for people recognizing that "the book of God's words" and the "book of God's works" may not speak the same language, but both should be respected and believed on the claims they actually make for themselves. Lamoureaux is just an example and there are certainly others whose understanding of scripture allows them to recognize multiple epistemological lenses for viewing different kinds of knowledge.


Your final question is a very challenging one and I don't have an ultimate answer. (I would, of course, take issue with the simplistic notion that God "wrote that He didn't" since some intelligent Christians understand inspiration as more of a process of engagement through writers, redactors, translators, commentators, communities, personal experiences, and on and on.) However, I keep a book on my bedside table by the Catholic theologian Elizabeth A. Johnson called Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love. The issues this book raises sometimes pain me, but its intelligent look at evolutionary creation fills me with such awe of the natural world (and as a doubting believer, also for its Creator) that the pain of theses questions is worth while. I know many posters here are not Christians or believers and I'm not writing this to try to convince anyone that believing in both the Bible and evolution is the most perfectly sensible conclusion or that the Bible is inspired.  I only want to explain that I think there can be intellectual honesty in wrestling with questions of authority, genre and epistemology, and in holding the "both/and" rather than digging into a trench of "either God's words or man's". 

*There are some Christians who do not believe God fully knows the future

  • Upvote 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, CyborgKin said:

I actually have more respect for people who interpret science in the light of their holy scriptures than those who interpret their holy scriptures in the light of science, as the former actually have enough faith in and respect for what they believe is the word of an infallibly all-knowing God to give it more weight than the fallible words of men, while the latter are caving in and compromising their believes because they don't actually take what they claim are holy scriptures seriously.  If they're gonna do that, why not be consistent and throw out the 'holy scriptures' they don't really believe in, entirely?  Like, why would any one want to worship a God who used evolution (and wrote that He didn't) and who lost track of how old the earth is?

Wait, so if I don't take the Bible in it's most literal/simple context then I'm not a True Christian? How very Bill Maher. 

You realize that's pretty complacent narrative? Religion and faith are not as clear-cut as you seem to think. 

Edited by Jinder Roles
  • Upvote 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jinder Roles said:

Wait, so if I don't take the Bible in it's most literal/simple context then I'm not a True Christian?

 

Oh no, I'd never say or think that.  There probably wouldn't be any Christians left, myself included.  And I'm definitely no judge of whose interpretation is right.  Amusingly, I've been finding a lot that I think tends to be taken far too literally.  But I think that's something people need to think through themseelves.  I'm not anyone's conscience.

But I do encourage all Christians to make sure they have a reasonable answer to the question "Why did Jesus have to die?"  One's understanding of that relates to one's understanding of the nature and origin of sin, death, and mankind.

 

(Or am I being dogmatic by thinking Christian means "follower of Jesus Christ", rather than "anyone who self-identifies as Christian"?  It's hard to be sure these days.)

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend of facebook who "likes" at least one post on Ken Ham's page every day. Whether I want to or not I get to see everything about the ark encounter. :pb_eek:

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that comments on Facebook pages are not always a good example of intelligence but a lot of the comments on the Ark Encounter page are things that could be answered by clicking on the Ark Encounter's website. 

I have a coworker who worked at the creationist museum. I missed the actual lunch conversation where it happened but a group of coworkers were sitting together at lunch and one of them was mocking the creationist museum. Then my coworker who worked there said "oh I worked there" and it was apparently super-awkward. She later asked me if I thought it was weird that she had worked at the creationist museum. I said no I didn't think it was weird that she had. It would be weird if I had. But I am better than most at picking up religion cues in many settings where they are not obvious so I knew she was a youth earth creationist already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On July 5, 2016 at 5:57 PM, AmazonGrace said:

 I don't think they  work within science... Sure, they  aim to give the impression that they're scientific but it's not very scientific to have a predetermined  conclusion derived from an alleged holy scripture and then to twist your facts and ignore evidence that says the opposite.  

A scientific hypothesis is a predetermined conclusion, and there is no requirement in "Science" as to where this might come.  Most scientists have to parking-lot evidence, which is easy to confuse with ignoring.  It can be very hard to judge whether or not facts are "twisted" when you have your own point of view.  

I'm not saying that creationism is a valid theory, but it is a valid hypothesis, which could be worked within science.

 

Of course, a hypothesis like "Apples fall up when it rains" could also be "worked" within science.  Hopefully, that wouldn't take long to falsify, however.

  • Downvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mirla said:

A scientific hypothesis is a predetermined conclusion, and there is no requirement in "Science" as to where this might come.  

Nope. Just nope. Where on earth did you get that? A hypothesis is not a conclusion. It's a starting point. It's a chosen state of affairs that you think might be true but you want to test it and see if the evidence supports your guess or not. It's only when  you look at the evidence that you can draw conclusions. "The evidence supports my hypothesis so far... the evidence does not support the hypothesis so we have to modify the hypothesis."

What the Ark people do is just the opposite. They have already read from the Bible that the Earth is 6000 years old and there was a great flood that covered everything. And it doesn't matter what the evidence says to them. The scientific evidence has quite unanimously shown that the Earth is much older than that and that there is no evidence of a global flood covering everything, let alone in the last 6000 years. Does this change the Ark people's beliefs? No it doesn't. They started out from the Bible and that's what they will be sticking to, to hell with the evidence.

That's why it's a predetermined conclusion and a scientific hypothesis is not.

Quote

and there is no requirement in "Science" as to where this might come.

Sure, you can test some things that the Bible says, as far as they are testable within a scientific paradigm. Science is not against getting inspiration for hypotheses in holy books, but if you have already decided that the version of the events in the holy book  is correct even if the evidence says something else then you are not doing science.

 

Quote

Most scientists have to parking-lot evidence, which is easy to confuse with ignoring. 

No scientist is cognitively capable of knowing and thinking about absolutely all the available evidence at the same time but  the way books and debates about creationism keep up bringing up the same points and arguments that have been refuted thousands of times imo show that besides ignorance there is a great deal of deliberate ignoring going on. They selectively pick and choose and twist  whatever evidence they think supports their predetermined conclusion and whenever the facts conflict with it they go, "La la la we can't hear you," or blame the Satan. That is not doing science.

Quote

It can be very hard to judge whether or not facts are "twisted" when you have your own point of view

Yeah but doing science requires a certain amount of openness to the possibility that you could be wrong. "I have this book, and  it's infallible, so we already know how things are regardless of what your tests say", is not a scientific approach.  

Quote

I'm not saying that creationism is a valid theory, but it is a valid hypothesis, which could be worked within science.

Well I disagree with you there. There are  lots of things in creationism that are simply not testable. "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. " How do you test for that? 

Some parts you can test like the age of the Earth... vegetation was certainly not created before creating the sun and the moon .... according to the evidence humans were not created before plants and other animals like Genesis 2 says (of course Genesis 1 says differently). 

It's been falsified in several ways already. If creationists were scientists they'd have abandoned or modified it by now but because they are not working within science they are sticking with it because God.

 

Quote

Of course, a hypothesis like "Apples fall up when it rains" could also be "worked" within science.  Hopefully, that wouldn't take long to falsify, however.

Yeah I reckon it's been falsified a long time ago.

  • Upvote 23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2016 at 6:05 PM, Howl said:

Well, this is Answers in Genesis' response to what they consider misinformation on Meet the Press about tax breaks relative to the State of Kentucky:

 

re: bolded text

These are all fantasy projections that the Ark is going to be a HUGE rainmaker.  The NPR piece I referenced upthread noted that big businesses (like chain motels and chain restaurants) are all holding off on any type of development in the vicinity of the Ark to see if it continues to pull in visitors or if it turns out to be a dud (God hates it). 

10,000 people working in new jobs?  Better start prayin'. 

 

Another thing that pisses off a lot of people is that there is a religious dogma threshold that applicants must meet to work at the Ark.  And yes, a court ruled in favor of Answers in Genesis because religious belief.  

 

From a recent NYT article 

 

 

 

Pun intended?

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.