The Ark Encounter has opened!!

[alexandracabot]

On 7/6/2016 at 4:36 AM, 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?

Because it's completely possible to believe that the Bible is not literal but figurative, and not written by God but by men, and still be a devout Christian? You can take the lessons of Scripture and the life of Jesus very seriously and realize that the Bible was written thousands of years ago and intended as a spiritual guideline, not a factual handbook.

People who deny science in favor of the Bible do plenty of filtering of their own. Are they "caving in" when they eat shrimp or don't stone their kids to death for being disobedient? 

Sorry, this statement strikes me as ridiculous.

8 hours ago, Mirla said:

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.

None of this is right. A hypothesis is not a predetermined conclusion, it's a proposed explanation. As soon as a scientist realizes that a hypothesis is wrong, they will change the hypothesis. That does not happen with "creation science." Scientists do not "parking lot" evidence on a whim, and it's nothing like ignoring. It can be hard for you, a layman, to judge whether facts are twisted, but that's why scientists replicate experiments, test hyopotheses, and reevaluate their own conclusions.

And creationism is not a valid hypothesis in any way because it cannot be disproven. 

[Cleopatra7]

1 hour ago, alexandracabot said:

Because it's completely possible to believe that the Bible is not literal but figurative, and not written by God but by men, and still be a devout Christian? You can take the lessons of Scripture and the life of Jesus very seriously and realize that the Bible was written thousands of years ago and intended as a spiritual guideline, not a factual handbook.

People who deny science in favor of the Bible do plenty of filtering of their own. Are they "caving in" when they eat shrimp or don't stone their kids to death for being disobedient? 

Sorry, this statement strikes me as ridiculous.

None of this is right. A hypothesis is not a predetermined conclusion, it's a proposed explanation. As soon as a scientist realizes that a hypothesis is wrong, they will change the hypothesis. That does not happen with "creation science." Scientists do not "parking lot" evidence on a whim, and it's nothing like ignoring. It can be hard for you, a layman, to judge whether facts are twisted, but that's why scientists replicate experiments, test hyopotheses, and reevaluate their own conclusions.

And creationism is not a valid hypothesis in any way because it cannot be disproven. 

Also, if "creation science" was valid and universally applicable, we would expect scientists in India, China, and other non-Western, non-Christian countries to reach the same conclusions as Answers in Genesis, but they don't. "Creation science" is simply bad apologetics masquerading as science but without the rigors of actual science. Answers in Genesis is a "ministry" not a serious research institute. Its writers don't publish in Nature, Science, or any of the other major peer reviewed scientific journals or attend scientific conferences because I suspect even they know at the end of the day that they aren't doing real science and their papers wouldn't make it past the first round of critiques.

[AmazonGrace]

On 6.7.2016 at 8:05 PM, Howl said:

 

From a recent NYT article 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us/noahs-ark-creationism-ken-ham.html?_r=1

 

Quote

Tim Chaffey, a content manager and writer for the Answers in Genesis ministry, explained that most of the models do not resemble animals the way they look today, but extinct species. According to young earth creationists, the ark carried up to 1,400 kinds of creatures that gradually evolved into the animals we know today. Young earthers accept the notion that nature makes small adaptations over time — but do not accept that humans and chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor.

Okay well that might solve some of the space problems on the Ark, but they date the Flood at about  2348 BC, 4364 years ago. If they believe that everything we see today evolved in 4364 years from 1400 original species, they're even more die-hard  evolutionists than Darwin himself.

Quote

And there will be only about 30 pairs of stuffed animals on the Ark Encounter because there just isn’t enough space. “We have to have dozens and dozens of bathrooms for visitors. Noah didn’t have to have that,” Mr. Chaffey said.

 

Well well not enough space. Lol. But sure, Noah fit the animals in fine. Perhaps they didn't need bathrooms to poop but what about feed and fresh water storage? 

Quote

Drawings of Noah and his seven family members hung on a wall. Their skin is “middle brown” and their faces are a blend of racial features because, as the only survivors of the biblical flood, all the races and ethnicities on earth would have descended from these eight people, Mr. Chaffey said.

Nice of them to give eight humans when all the other animals got only two.

[Anonymousguest]

100 million dollars. I just can't help thinking what good they could have done with that money. It's an amusement attraction. They are deluding themselves to think of it as anything else. Obviously they can spend their money anyway they want, but don't call it a "ministry" or "educational". 

[quiversR4hunting]

One of my very liberal friends, posted an article about the ark opening - of course ridiculing it (he would fit in here on FJ, he just found the Duggar molestation story and I told him about Gothard, he is still in the shock and awe stage- he was never a fan but didn't know the depth of problems...any way I am derailing my own post...)

One of comments on his post was that the ark was made for a motor. On the back of the ark it is made like a motor yacht/boat would be made, not a biblical time boat/ark. So I had to google what they think biblical time boats would look like, sure enough the front and back look the same. Not that we know for sure because snapchat and instagram weren't invented yet to mark every significant event.

[slickcat79]

Creation science OR...maaagic? (language NSFW)

 

[AmazonGrace]

1 hour ago, Anonymousguest said:

100 million dollars. I just can't help thinking what good they could have done with that money. It's an amusement attraction. They are deluding themselves to think of it as anything else. Obviously they can spend their money anyway they want, but don't call it a "ministry" or "educational". 

And think that Noah was supposed to have built it for free and with biblical hand tools... and his contraption floated too. 

[doggie]

not like ken worries about accuracy or truth  i mean there were only kinds of animals of course.

[Shiny]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Okay well that might solve some of the space problems on the Ark, but they date the Flood at about  2348 BC, 4364 years ago. If they believe that everything we see today evolved in 4364 years from 1400 original species, they're even more die-hard  evolutionists than Darwin himself.

*

*Respectfully snipped for space.*

It did not occur to me, until you posted these facts, that creationists/young earthers believed all species evolved from 1400 species in less than 5000 years. I thought there was enough to dispute creationsim before, but now knowing this, it seems almost unfair to even engage in a discussion. It would be like spending time disputing the flat-earthers. Just not worth it. 

[doggie]

it is the same with people Chinese Japanese Eskimo's Indians and on and on all in 5000 years. the Chinese were really great in gods eyes as 5000 years ago there were millions of them.

[epic fail]

I'm from a relatively secular country and was raised to be an atheist. e.g. only the theory of evolution was taught at my home. But the creation museum and ark encounter fascinate and delight me (the 'I can't believe that people look at this and think it's anything but a scam' way and the mirth that goes with that). Of course my tax money isn't involved and the people (who do not think it's a scam) visiting these 'attractions' don't get to vote in my country.

 Long story short: I was ridiculously happy when this showed up on my facebook feed! This whole ark thing looks soooo boring (must watch video's:))

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/07/07/scenes-from-ark-encounters-opening-day-inside-the-ark/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

[JaChelle Sugar]

On 7/6/2016 at 11:17 PM, Grimalkin said:

      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.

Only if I am in company with other FJers. 

[HereticHick]

Are there really enough fundies who can afford the crazy high ticket prices ($40 for adults; $28 for kids, & parking is extra. Kids under 5 are free. But there seems to be no bulk discount for kids over 5) to visit this more than once?

Sure, the Duggars & Batessesseses will load up the bus & visit, but probably they'll get comp tix in exchange for publicity.

But an awful lot of large fundy families don't have hundreds of dollars to shell out for this. Even a simple family of 4, with 1 kid under 5, will be $108--plus parking!!!   Quiverfull Christians are hardly at the top of the socioeconomic ladder in the U.S.

I don't really see this as a commercially viable enterprise longterm.  Of course when it starts to fail Ken Ham will go begging for tax relief  [it isn't welfare if white Christian fundies get it, right? : )]

[Mercer]

In all honesty, I would probably go check this out if it was relatively inexpensive and I was in the area, just out of curiosity - I will go to pretty much any sort of weird roadside whatever just to say I've been there.

At $40 a ticket, though? No way! 

I don't think most people would, even if they were fundie and super into that sort of thing. I agree that a lot of large families couldn't afford it, and even for those who could, there just doesn't seem to be enough to do there to justify the price. For that much money (or less, even) you could go to an amusement park and be entertained all day.

I think that their best hope to make a go of this would be to charge a low enough price that people driving through will impulsively stop and check it out. At the price point they're charging, it's more of a destination thing, and there just doesn't seem to be enough there to justify making it a destination. I can't see there being a lot of repeat business, either, because once you've seen it, you've seen it.

[Toothfairy]

They wasted money on bullshit. 

[Khan]

This whole thing would make me laugh if I didn't have close family members who believe in Young Earth,  dinosaurs in The Garden, The Flood, etc. These relatives are Degreed Medical Professionals(tm). The line they tell is "Carbon dating is wildly inaccurate." It should be considered child abuse to deliberately teach this stuff as The Only Way to kids. A friggin book of parables isn't something to take as whole literal truth, imo.

Tax incentives for a religious theme park are such a strange idea to me. I wonder if my local Six Flags gets a nice tax break?

[Mercer]

2 minutes ago, Khan said:

Tax incentives for a religious theme park are such a strange idea to me. I wonder if my local Six Flags gets a nice tax break?

Ours does (it's no longer actually a Six Flags but used to be) but with the major caveat that it employs a huge number of people and brings in a significant amount of revenue for the state via sales tax and increasing area tourism, so the tax breaks are intended to be mutually beneficial, not some sort of subsidy. 

I just don't see this Ark place becoming the same type of big employer and major revenue source. I see it as a niche business stretching beyond its means and leaning on the state government for a handout to cover the basic cost of doing business, which is really not okay in my book.

[Khan]

Six Flags around here is a large employer and a big draw both summer and fall. I know so many people who worked during Fright Fest.  I agree with not seeing this Ark as being a huge destination with returning visitors.  Another drain we can't really afford. 

Drat. I can't remove the spoiler tag!

[applejack]

If we're looking for someone to go to see this thing and snark it, I nominate John Scalzi, who's visit to the Creation Museum still cracks me up.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2007/11/12/your-creation-museum-report/

He links his photos on Flickr in there too: https://www.flickr.com/photos/scalzi/sets/72157603091357751/

 

[Anonymousguest]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

Ours does (it's no longer actually a Six Flags but used to be) but with the major caveat that it employs a huge number of people and brings in a significant amount of revenue for the state via sales tax and increasing area tourism, so the tax breaks are intended to be mutually beneficial, not some sort of subsidy. 

I just don't see this Ark place becoming the same type of big employer and major revenue source. I see it as a niche business stretching beyond its means and leaning on the state government for a handout to cover the basic cost of doing business, which is really not okay in my book.

They only get a rebate on sales tax above a certain amount, so they have to do very well to get the tax incentive. 

[doggie]

Look at all that modern lighting how would you light it? The animals can't be in the dark all the time. Can you imagine all the oil that would be needed and the fire danger? But those biblical fire extinguishers sure came in handy.

[DutchMommy]

Bill Nye - The Science Guy- visited the ark.

answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2016/07/08/bill-nye-visits-ark-encounter/

[DaisyD]

I didn't even know that "young earth" was a thing until I was talking to a woman at the girl's cheerleading practice about the local gem and mineral society. She said "I want to take the kids there because they love rocks but we subscribe to the young earth theory and I think that might be a problem. We believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. I'd have to tell them to take the zeroes off the end of the ages." I was so stunned all I could manage in response was "Yeah, that probably wouldn't go over well."  

[Coy Koi]

8 hours ago, DutchMommy said:

Bill Nye - The Science Guy- visited the ark.

answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2016/07/08/bill-nye-visits-ark-encounter/

I love Bill Nye! I want to see HIS take on the visit, not whackjob Ken Ham's whackjob take on it.

[LadyCrow1313]

15 hours ago, Mercer said:

In all honesty, I would probably go check this out if it was relatively inexpensive and I was in the area, just out of curiosity - I will go to pretty much any sort of weird roadside whatever just to say I've been there.

At $40 a ticket, though? No way! 

I don't think most people would, even if they were fundie and super into that sort of thing. I agree that a lot of large families couldn't afford it, and even for those who could, there just doesn't seem to be enough to do there to justify the price. For that much money (or less, even) you could go to an amusement park and be entertained all day.

I think that their best hope to make a go of this would be to charge a low enough price that people driving through will impulsively stop and check it out. At the price point they're charging, it's more of a destination thing, and there just doesn't seem to be enough there to justify making it a destination. I can't see there being a lot of repeat business, either, because once you've seen it, you've seen it.

Maybe they'll give special pricing during certain times of the year (religious holidays, perhaps).  :: shrugs ::

I'm not a Christian, but I can't help what Pope Francis would think of such nonsense. He seems to be a fairly progressive man, right?