Ark Encounter. Delusions on today's youth.

[ChristineM]

Maybe. But if we have more than 20 straight days of day 21 is gonna find me knocking on Noah's door.

I used to live on the UKs north west coast. 20 days is nothing.

 

[BSM1]

I used to live on the UKs north west coast. 20 days is nothing.

Let's go with 30 then.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Most woods float. Whether it stays in one piece under even in the mildest conditions is the question.

Over time it gets prone to saturation. Think water damage and warping.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Its interesting that modern arks are built using technology, materials and methods unavailable at the time of the claimed biblical ark

Even given the advanced tech etc, these modern monstrosities are not seaworthy.

Here's a good source that provides the numerous technical and logistical challenges that Noah would have had to face, including historical discrepancy that makes the Ark not only un-seaworthy, but literally impossible. It's an interesting read with the backing of hard facts and science.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | NCSE

The Ark Encounter is so far out of facts and reality, it's literally dumbfounding how people just go with it.

Fun factor and entertainment excluded, which I suppose the majority would be there for. I hope. .. It's a fantastical Bible story theme park,. not scientific or a historical museum, that's for sure.

 

[ChristineM]

Over time it gets prone to saturation. Think water damage and warping.

Very much doubt a wooden vessel of that size and mass built using bronze age technology would stay in one piece long enough to get warped.

If my some miracle it did survived the most powerful storm ever known and stay afloat for about a year there are questions to be answered.

1 where were the 7 blue whales kept?
2 how were the woodworm etc kept confined?
3 where was the food to feed 60 million animals stored?
4 most importantly, who did the mucking out?

 

[ChristineM]

Let's go with 30 then.

A bit of rain never hurt anyone... Much

 

[ChristineM]

Here's a good source that provides the numerous technical and logistical challenges that Noah would have had to face, including historical discrepancy that makes the Ark not only un-seaworthy, but literally impossible. It's an interesting read with the backing of hard facts and science.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | NCSE

The Ark Encounter is so far out of facts and reality, it's literally dumbfounding how people just go with it.

Fun factor and entertainment excluded, which I suppose the majority would be there for. I hope. .. It's a fantastical Bible story theme park,. not scientific or a historical museum, that's for sure.

I read it some time ago but thanks

 

[Twilight Hue]

I read it some time ago but thanks

It's a very long read.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Very much doubt a wooden vessel of that size and mass built using bronze age technology would stay in one piece long enough to get warped.

If my some miracle it did survived the most powerful storm ever known and stay afloat for about a year there are questions to be answered.

1 where were the 7 blue whales kept?
2 how were the woodworm etc kept confined?
3 where was the food to feed 60 million animals stored?
4 most importantly, who did the mucking out?

All legit questions to ask.

Couple of my own...

I'd like to know how they maintained the exterior of the ship that's dangerously close to the maximum waterline with no available inland ports to go to.

Also the pitch itself. Just where and how did they ever aquire the material to even make the quantity that would have been required? (Source addressed that a bit. Not in Noah's favor either, Nor Ken Ham's ark for that matter. )

Also wooden "ships" in those days were no larger than dingies themselves, much less an ark barely equivalent to the size of a small modern cargo ship.

Where was the expertise that is required for making large ships? Experts in large shipbuilding didn't even exist in Noah's timeframe.

 

[Skwim]

ou

Here's a good source that provides the numerous technical and logistical challenges that Noah would have had to face, including historical discrepancy that makes the Ark not only un-seaworthy, but literally impossible. It's an interesting read with the backing of hard facts and science.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | NCSE

I read this sometime ago, but forgot where. Thanks for reacquainting me with it.

The Ark Encounter is so far out of facts and reality, it's literally dumbfounding how people just go with it.

The absolute need to believe their source of faith is inviolate. Facts mean bupkis when they contradict one's faith. Faith always trumps facts. It has to.

Fun factor and entertainment excluded, which I suppose the majority would be there for. I hope. .. It's a fantastical Bible story theme park,. not scientific or a historical museum, that's for sure.

Personally, putting myself in the place of a fundie believer, from the videos I've seen of the thing I'd be quite disappointed in having had shelled out $50 (admission + parking) to walk through it.

My guess is that the biggest selling point is simply the size of the creature (despite its ridiculous design).

​

Because seeing all the various modern-day construction materials inside would be a real dream breaker.

​

As would the cheesy animal displays.

AND the outright silliness of it all

"Having had time to bring their hobbies aboard, the women often indulged themselves in arts and crafts while the
men leisurely serenaded them within their spacious living quarters decorated with potted plants and throw pillows."
(My caption.)

.​

 

[ChristineM]

It's a very long read.

Yup.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sometimes I wonder if Ken Ham envisioned this as being some kind of "Mecca" in Christian eyes, making the Ark Encounter a symbolic voyage/pilgrimage attracting Christians everywhere to commemorate the re-beginning of mankind with Noah's family. Aside from raking in the cash of course.

I can only guess what his pitch was to his financial backers, including John Q. Taxpayer.

 

[Twilight Hue]

ou
I read this sometime ago, but forgot where. Thanks for reacquainting me with it.


The absolute need to believe their source of faith is inviolate. Facts mean bupkis when they contradict one's faith. Faith always trumps facts. It has to.


Personally, putting myself in the place of a fundie believer, from the videos I've seen of the thing I'd be quite disappointed in having had shelled out $50 (admission + parking) to walk through it.

My guess is that the biggest selling point is simply the size of the creature (despite its ridiculous design).

​

Because seeing all the various modern-day construction materials inside would be a real dream breaker.

​

As would the cheesy animal displays.

AND the outright silliness of it all

"Having had time to bring their hobbies aboard, the women often indulged themselves in arts and crafts while the
men leisurely serenaded them within their spacious living quarters decorated with potted plants and throw pillows."
(My caption.)

.​

At least he didn't go for the Tower of Babel.
*Grin*

 

[Grandliseur]

I think it's healthy to confront and call out things like this and point out the resounding inconsistency and deception that religions like Christianity brings to people like Ark Encounter.

We have seen clearly what the effects of delusion do. To just blindly believe in fantastical things like a huge ark that was built out of wood and used in a global flood carrying the entire worlds population, much less it's fauna, that simply isn't true nor plausible, is not healthy for any person in the least.

It damages and suppresses a person's ability to examine and to think critically about the world around them.

That's a reason why a lot of people rightfully challenge things like the park, and matters of religion and faith in general who in turn tries to manipulate actual history, science, and world events to others.

Ark Encounter and people like Ken Ham and AIG also promotes taking things at the values they are presented as, thus setting standards for believability very low.

If critical examination and questioning is suppressed, people will have far lower standards for what is believable or not and that can translate into other areas of a person's life as well. It's potentially disastrous.

Hopefully, the girls in the video may realize this later as they grow more into adulthood and actually see all this for what sheer nonsense it is.

Ark encounter as it stands is a religious themed entertainment park.

Your side and mine stand at opposite positions far apart. We will never come to any agreement on the issues, nor will you ever admit that we have any reason for faith. We feel we have more than adequate evidence for our stance. When we point out the glaring problems you have in your faith, Yes!, faith! This is brushed aside as if easily solved though no solution to your problems exist at all.

It then becomes a never ending boxing contest without any useful input.
If I try to point out the many things we have that we feel support our beliefs, all we get is a brushing aside of it as if of no account.
On top of it, our gospel is one of hope, hope for all of mankind, a way out of this destruction of our planet, of the never ending wars. Your side preaches, but its gospel is without any content at all. You have no hope for our planet, no hope for ending our destruction of it, no hope for ending the political infighting, the never ending grab for resources by each nation without any corporation.

You speak of things plausible. Our account about the flood contains many things unexplained, but it also contains evidence for it having happened. Your account of 'creation': creation of the universe, the orderly arranging of things of suns and planets, the coming to be of life, the DNA which needs DNA to be decoded in the first place - in all of this, the word plausible doesn't, can't - ever - enter the mind since it is so implausible as is possible to be. Yet, you believe it. The fine tuned universe, implausible, even as scientists recently called it - unnatural, yet, it just all popped up on its own. So, I suggest you forget mentioning the word plausible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Your side and mine stand at opposite positions far apart. We will never come to any agreement on the issues, nor will you ever admit that we have any reason for faith. We feel we have more than adequate evidence for our stance. When we point out the glaring problems you have in your faith, Yes!, faith! This is brushed aside as if easily solved though no solution to your problems exist at all.

It then becomes a never ending boxing contest without any useful input.
If I try to point out the many things we have that we feel support our beliefs, all we get is a brushing aside of it as if of no account.
On top of it, our gospel is one of hope, hope for all of mankind, a way out of this destruction of our planet, of the never ending wars. Your side preaches, but its gospel is without any content at all. You have no hope for our planet, no hope for ending our destruction of it, no hope for ending the political infighting, the never ending grab for resources by each nation without any corporation.

You speak of things plausible. Our account about the flood contains many things unexplained, but it also contains evidence for it having happened. Your account of 'creation': creation of the universe, the orderly arranging of things of suns and planets, the coming to be of life, the DNA which needs DNA to be decoded in the first place - in all of this, the word plausible doesn't, can't - ever - enter the mind since it is so implausible as is possible to be. Yet, you believe it. The fine tuned universe, implausible, even as scientists recently called it - unnatural, yet, it just all popped up on its own. So, I suggest you forget mentioning the word plausible.

It's a wonderful appeal to emotion as is expected by which reality and actuality itself when "coldly" presented, is ignored by religious whenever faced with supporting hard facts brought about by science and common reasoning in general.

It's clear this presents a significant challenge towards a person's religious faith like Christianity and it's delusions therein that will, in the vast majority of cases, can never stand up to real world tasks whenever it's put to the test time and time again.

Faith is something that I'm not partial towards, as it has proven beyond any doubt to be an extremely unfounded and useless position for a person to take that's also extremely detrimental and damaging towards exercising sound judgment and discernment in regards to critical differences made concerning matters of fantasy and actuality. To put things bluntly, Faith is blind. Science is not.

The Gospels in fact, as well as the story of the Ark is sourced nowhere else except from an ancient vague text called the Holy Bible that was brought to "life" through its narratives, so indeed it's strictly a faith based and oftentimes emotionally attached testament that's clearly not founded upon proven principles of science and observation in direct terms.

Whenever science and religions like Christianity meet, it's not really an ongoing slug fest between the two as to what's more true. It's strictly a one sided viewpoint made on part of Christianity.

Science dosent hate religion believe it or not. Nor does science takes sides. It disproves and in some cases proves, depending on revelent findings that are critiqued and established using observation, testing, and determination.

There's simply no contest as to what a person wants and believes, in face of facts made in opposition as they are presented.

Scientific communities don't work on a basis of faith and emotion, and this simply isnt a factor when it comes to determinations and conclusions made about how the world and universe works and how it came to be. That includes any findings on the universe's origins, life and DNA, supporting historical evidence's and what not.

Once you realize science dosent take sides the better off a person will be when you consider that any challenges can be scientifically disproven through experimentation and the process of peer review.

That includes religious based claims, to which I would recommend that in order for anything like Ham's (Noah's) ark seriously, all one has to do is, "Put their money where their mouth is" and simply demonstrate in convincing and practical ways to people.

Maybe Ham would have had much better luck at the ocean front, and Instead built a cruise ark that was christened, launched, and summarily sent out on the open sea.

Then again, it's likely all for the best to have built it in Kentucky like he did and people can imagine all of it on faith. Like Christianity is.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

I'm just glad the dinosaurs made it safely on the ark. Imagine if they weren't around today! Crazy, I know.

 

[Father Heathen]

Boy, that's for sure. Look at all the suckers who bought into that Global Warming/Climate Change hocum.

Let's get serious. If you were to create a Venn diagram with one circle representing evolution deniers and another circle representing climate change deniers, do you realize how significant the overlap would be?

 

[Grandliseur]

. . .Scientific communities don't work on a basis of faith and emotion, and this simply isnt a factor when it comes to determinations and conclusions made about how the world and universe works and how it came to be. That includes any findings on the universe's origins, life and DNA, supporting historical evidence's and what not. . .

I love science. I would really like it if scientists could get beyond personal agendas and their belief system, the paradigm. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening. I see the same faults in scientists as I see in the historical failures of the Catholic church.

I see big flaws in their methodology, in their bias, and I see the same big flaws in churches. They all seem to belong to the same melting pot as far as I am concerned. Nobody likes to admit the flaws openly, nobody likes to examine their beliefs being open to change. I just ran into this wall on a religious website that I wrote to and objected to some of their material.

The problems of the flawed hourglass measurements in the dating scheme of things - where we can prove that e.g. the Potassium - Argon method is giving wrong ages for recently formed lava - these things, are not being properly addressed. And so much more.

 

[BSM1]

Here's a good source that provides the numerous technical and logistical challenges that Noah would have had to face, including historical discrepancy that makes the Ark not only un-seaworthy, but literally impossible. It's an interesting read with the backing of hard facts and science.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark | NCSE

The Ark Encounter is so far out of facts and reality, it's literally dumbfounding how people just go with it.

Fun factor and entertainment excluded, which I suppose the majority would be there for. I hope. .. It's a fantastical Bible story theme park,. not scientific or a historical museum, that's for sure.

One thing for certain, Noah had the first Navy. I reference the verse where the Ark hit dry land and "...the animals went ashore...". Having participated in Uncle Sam's Canoe Club I can attest to the validity of this statement.

 

[BSM1]

Let's get serious. If you were to create a Venn diagram with one circle representing evolution deniers and another circle representing climate change deniers, do you realize how significant the overlap would be?

Sooo...still no hard evidence, huh?