• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheist torpedoes cited as cause for imminent sinking of Ken Ham's Ark

Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
noah_ark_sink.jpg

​
"A Kentucky theme park to be built around a full-scale replica of Noah’s Ark may sink unless investors purchase about $29 million in unrated municipal bonds by Feb. 6.

Even though $26.5 million of securities have been sold, the project needs to sell at least $55 million in total to avoid triggering a redemption of all the bonds, Ken Ham, the nonprofit’s president, said in an e-mail to supporters yesterday. Without the proceeds, construction funding will fall short, he said.

Industrial-development bonds are considered the riskiest municipal debt because they account for the largest proportion of defaults in the $3.7 trillion municipal market. Williamstown issued the bonds without a rating, making the prospect of repayment even less clear.

Instead, Ark Encounter has had no institutional investors buy its bonds, Ham said.

“The associated complications and struggles have been beyond our control,” said Ham, who cited impediments such as atheists registering for the offering and disrupting it. “I urge you to please prayerfully consider the options and help us get this bond offering completed.”

The documents cite at least 39 risks to buyers, including that Answers in Genesis has no obligation to back the debt. Bondholders’ sole revenue stream would come from money spent by visitors."
source

​
:clap       :clap      :clap      :clap      :clap But that's just my opinion   
 
I

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
I think it would be fantastic if he made it.

No surer way to visually point out just how poorly thought out is the claim that Noah's ark is in any fashion supposed to be a reliable literal account. One glance at that (scale) ship would be sufficient to recognize just how small it truly is - how it could not possibly have held the number of animals it is claimed to have held.

Particularly when some clever anti-theist buys the lot next door and simply starts making scale models of two of every animal in their front yard (along with information about how much they eat/poop - what animals they kill or are killed by - what conditions they can survive in etc)
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
InformedIgnorance said:
I think it would be fantastic if he made it.

No surer way to visually point out just how poorly thought out is the claim that Noah's ark is in any fashion supposed to be a reliable literal account. One glance at that (scale) ship would be sufficient to recognize just how small it truly is - how it could not possibly have held the number of animals it is claimed to have held.

Particularly when some clever anti-theist buys the lot next door and simply starts making scale models of two of every animal in their front yard (along with information about how much they eat/poop - what animals they kill or are killed by - what conditions they can survive in etc)
Click to expand...
Now THAT"S a great idea. But alas . . . . . . . . . .
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
InformedIgnorance said:
Particularly when some clever anti-theist buys the lot next door and simply starts making scale models of two of every animal in their front yard (along with information about how much they eat/poop - what animals they kill or are killed by - what conditions they can survive in etc)
Click to expand...

Didn't need two of every animal, due to natural selection, the Ark only needed two of every kind, (family) of created animal.
 
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I guess creationists are smarter and more pragmatic with their money than their claimed literal belief in fairy tales would lead you to believe. I find that people of actual conviction tend to put their money where their mouth is.
 
averageJOE

averageJOE

zombie
Man of Faith said:
Dr. Morris said 35,000. Obviously that number will change as new information is obtained. Ham said about 16,000. It varies depending on who you ask.
Click to expand...

It varies because depending on the creationist you ask they will lower the number enough to make animals fit on the ark.
 
I

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
And then once they build the ark 'did I say 16,000? I meant 1,600'

But lets take the larger number 35,000 - apparently creationists have far greater faith (than any scientists) in the ability of the evolutionary process to achieve the diversity of life from about 4500 years ago until now. Indeed given the alleged historical rates of mutation, one would need to wonder why it is that the rate of evolution has so abruptly diminished in the modern era.
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
averageJOE said:
It varies because depending on the creationist you ask they will lower the number enough to make animals fit on the ark.
Click to expand...

The truth is, there was only one animal. The "animal" kind. An androgynous something that evolved extremely quickly during the years after landing the ark. The ark only needed to be about the size of a jolly. LOL!
 
Debater Slayer

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
You would think a so-called devout Christian like Ken Ham would aim to put that money toward helping poor people or an actually useful cause, but instead all he does is preach anti-scientific propaganda and waste tons of money--mostly other people's money, apparently--to leverage his agenda. It's more than a little sad.
 
Last edited:
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
InformedIgnorance said:
And then once they build the ark 'did I say 16,000? I meant 1,600'

But lets take the larger number 35,000 - apparently creationists have far greater faith (than any scientists) in the ability of the evolutionary process to achieve the diversity of life from about 4500 years ago until now. Indeed given the alleged historical rates of mutation, one would need to wonder why it is that the rate of evolution has so abruptly diminished in the modern era.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. going from 35,000 kinds to 2-50 million species in only 4,362 years is an unimaginable explosion in evolutionary diversity. Genetic recombination, mutation, and drift, plus natural selection (the essential factors of evolution) would have to have been running in such high gear as to leave the fantasies of mythology in the dust. But with the more mundane issues of incredulity facing the flood myth---assembling, storing, feeding, and caring for the particular needs of the 35,000 kinds by only eight people---one need not even bother with this one. The flood story is simply so irrational on its face as to demand rejection.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Debater Slayer said:
You would think a so-called devout Christian like Ken Ham would aim to put that money toward helping poor people or an actually useful cause, but instead all he does is preach anti-scientific propaganda and waste tons of money--mostly other people's money, apparently--to leverage his agenda. It's more than a little sad.
Click to expand...
You mean you haven't heard of, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Marjoe Gortner, Bob Jones, Peter Poff, Jimmy Swaggart, and Robert Tiltion, to name just a few? "Devout Christian" no more signifies moral certitude than does "politician."
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
averageJOE said:
It varies because depending on the creationist you ask they will lower the number enough to make animals fit on the ark.
Click to expand...

That might not necessarily be the reason. It could be because new information is gathered or existing information is understood better. If you ask biologists the definition of a species, it would vary.
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
InformedIgnorance said:
And then once they build the ark 'did I say 16,000? I meant 1,600'

But lets take the larger number 35,000 - apparently creationists have far greater faith (than any scientists) in the ability of the evolutionary process to achieve the diversity of life from about 4500 years ago until now. Indeed given the alleged historical rates of mutation, one would need to wonder why it is that the rate of evolution has so abruptly diminished in the modern era.
Click to expand...

If one assumes that man came from some other creature first and that life evolved as per the claim of Darwinian evolution, then of course the rate of evolution seems to have abruptly diminished. I would agree that natural selection seems to have diminished over time, but for different reasons that an evolutionists might. According to Darwinism, evolution is via random mutation and natural selection which we don’t observe, we only observe the natural selection part, so it appears that evolution has abruptly diminished. However it could be the case that there were no mutations that led to change in kinds of creatures at all, just natural selection after life forms were created by some being designer.

Here is why I believe that natural selection seems to have diminished over time. When the designer, whoever that might be, created life forms fully whole, they had in them the ability to adapt and change depending on their environments and they did just that as they moved and migrated to the different parts of the world. Two things have slowed natural selection. One is that there is no more world for creatures to move to, for the most part, it is covered as much as it is going to be. Two is as natural selection progresses, creatures get more specific in character and information is lost in the DNA or the genes. For example if dogs came from wolves, then we could take two wolves and over time breed them until a poodle appears, which might take a thousand years let’s say as a guess. However once we get the poodle, we will never be able to breed two poodles to get back to a wolf because the wolf information is bred out.
 
Last edited:
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
Debater Slayer said:
You would think a so-called devout Christian like Ken Ham would aim to put that money toward helping poor people or an actually useful cause, but instead all he does is preach anti-scientific propaganda and waste tons of money--mostly other people's money, apparently--to leverage his agenda. It's more than a little sad.
Click to expand...

More than likely he is able to help more charities because of his work with AiG than otherwise.
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
FranklinMichaelV.3 said:
But dating has their extinction going back about 65 million years ago. Is that when you think that the flood happened?
Click to expand...

No, I assume that naturalist's dating methods are flawed because they assume old ages due to the necessity of old ages in the evolution model. If that wasn’t the case then they could see that their initial assumptions, such as how many isotopes were in rocks at the beginning of time, or how a global deluge could affect their readings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top