Ark Encounter Doing Well So Far


This photo of Ark Encounter is courtesy of TripAdvisor

It seems to me that most reports from the science side on the success of the Ark Encounter claim that it is doing poorly. But it is doing well enough, at least, if we can believe the figures given by Ken Ham. A study claimed that only 325,000 visitors per year would be expected if it included creationist teachings, and last year they had 1.1 million visitors. Ham claims that more will visit this year, although the current numbers look doubtful for that prediction.

If we can believe Ham, the Creation Museum also had a record year last year, with 500,000 visitors.

The difference between the projected figures and last year’s attendance might not be as meaningful as Ham suggest, however, since we should expect more visits when it is new than after the novelty has worn off. 325,000 visitors per year was likely was the figure for expectations over the long term. Will there really be many repeat visits, when it’s little more than an illustration of a Sunday sermon? I doubt that it does much more than preach to the converted and to those very unlikely to be converted, however Ham seems to be making money off of the flocks thus far. Suckers continue to be born.

77 thoughts on “Ark Encounter Doing Well So Far

  1. It’s pretty I guess. It’d sink in 10 minutes, couldn’t weather a storm or hold any appreciable fraction of Earth’s biodiversity. But hey, it’s pretty woodwork.

  2. Proof that Noah invented the imperial system of measurement. 2×4, 2×6, 4×4…

  3. Is it possible that the good early numbers is for the same reason that freak shows used to be popular?

  4. I checked again, and I noticed that Ham does claim that the 325,000 figure was supposed to be for the first year.

    But, having no access to that study, I just don’t know if he characterized it properly or not. If he did, then the 1.1 million figure certainly is well above projections. I really don’t know how anyone would be able to come up with meaningful projections for such a project, though.

    Glen Davidson

  5. Ever since I have become involved in the debate between ID vs Materialists, I have always wondered what effect on society would have the findings of the original Noah’s Ark…

    Just by regularly reading TSZ, UD and the like blogs, one can easily form a pretty accurate answer…

  6. J-Mac:
    Ever since I have become involved in the debate between ID vs Materialists, I have always wondered what effect on society would have the findings of the original Noah’s Ark…

    Just by regularly reading TSZ, UD and the like blogs, one can easily form a pretty accurate answer…

    Suppose we found archeological evidence of some vessel of the right time and place, and after much debate, archeologists and Biblical scholars agreed that it was more likely to be Noah’s ark than to be anything else. What conclusions do you think we should draw from that?

  7. J-Mac:
    Ever since I have become involved in the debate between ID vs Materialists, I have always wondered what effect on society would have the findings of the original Noah’s Ark…

    Just by regularly reading TSZ, UD and the like blogs, one can easily form a pretty accurate answer…

    Finding the entailed evidence for evolution certainly hasn’t affected a good many people, even though they have no legitimate evidence for “design” or whatever they imagine happened.

    That’s a matter of actual fact, while there seems little chance of ever finding a boat that rode out a non-existent global flood.

    Glen Davidson

  8. GlenDavidson: Finding the entailed evidence for evolution certainly hasn’t affected a good many people, even though they have no legitimate evidence for “design” or whatever they imagine happened.

    That’s a matter of actual fact, while there seems little chance of ever finding a boat that rode out a non-existent global flood.

    Glen Davidson

    Glen,
    Give me one good reason why I should waste my time trying to change your mind about anything…

  9. J-Mac: It can’t be just some vessel for that time…
    Plus, you totally missed my point.

    I understood your point perfectly well: you’re assuming that people with different worldviews will assign different significance and value to this discovery. My question remains: what conclusions do you think we ought to draw from this discovery, should it be made?

  10. J-Mac: Give me one good reason why I should waste my time trying to change your mind about anything…

    How about your sweet, tight, male ass? The source of all that is “true”, the asshole where all your “truths” are pulled from. What better reason could there be?

  11. dazz: How about your sweet, tight, male ass? The source of all that is “true”, the asshole where all your “truths” are pulled from. What better reason could there be?

    After your embarr-ass-ment with okapi evolution, I laugh to tears even today each time you comment here pretending that nothing had happened…
    How did you let 2 kids to set you up like that? It still boggles my mind…

    BTW: Don’t misunderstand me. I have nothing against homosexuals. It’s your finger pointing that bothers me. I know a thing or two about it. A good colleague of mine used to be an angry, confused homosexual. Now he is happily married.

  12. Kantian Naturalist: I understood your point perfectly well: you’re assuming that people with different worldviews will assign different significance and value to this discovery. My question remains: what conclusions do you think we ought to draw from this discovery, should it be made?

    I am assuming that the great majority would pay lip service to this finding even if it were officially acknowledged as the real thing.
    The great majority of evangelical churches would be in our faces driving us to insanity.
    If the real Ark were found, the conclusions would be obvious ,but as I mentioned at the outset, not profound to the masses.
    That’s why it will never be found.

  13. J-Mac: I am assuming that the great majority would pay lip service to this finding even if it were officially acknowledged as the real thing.

    I’ll wait until it is actually discovered, before I try to judge whether it is the real thing. I won’t hold my breath while waiting.

    You say “officially acknowledged”. But what office is charged with acknowledging such things?

  14. J-Mac: I am assuming that the great majority would pay lip service to this finding even if it were officially acknowledged as the real thing.
    The great majority of evangelical churches would be in our faces driving us to insanity.
    If the real Ark were found, the conclusions would be obvious ,but as I mentioned at the outset, not profound to the masses.
    That’s why it will never be found.

    What would constitute as strong evidence the vessel is the Biblical Ark?

  15. In toronto here we could use this vessel storms aplenty.
    Its great to see the victory, another ham one after the museum, of such a popular thing. Imagine the impact on kids, teenagers, adults, and they impact so many others back home. its like tens of millions have been influenced by a intelligent decription of the great biblical story and as true. Believe it or not but they have been impacted.

    I know many Canadians who have gone to see it who otherwise only go to top notch places. Indiana had gained for sure.
    one would think a depreciation effect would take place but she is still afloat.
    Hmmmm. Do i sense a desire to see the ark sink here??? Say it ain’t so in the name of friendship and tolerance and other mantras invoked as by the left wing etc.
    Maybe this area could become a new borshe belt (sp) except as a religious area and not a fraudulent national/ethnic segregationist movement locality. . I understand that place has sunk.

  16. J-Mac: BTW: Don’t misunderstand me. I have nothing against homosexuals

    That’s good, because those who constantly call others gay are usually closet homos. You should give that friend of yours a call and have some fun together

  17. J-Mac: I am assuming that the great majority would pay lip service to this finding even if it were officially acknowledged as the real thing.

    I don’t think you know what paying lip service means.

    The great majority of evangelical churches would be in our faces driving us to insanity.
    If the real Ark were found, the conclusions would be obvious

    The conclusions would be very non-obvious, because what would a large ocean-going boat be doing in the mountains of Ararat?

    ,but as I mentioned at the outset, not profound to the masses.

    Um, who do they sell creationism to?

    That’s why it will never be found.

    It will never be found for the same reason that no legitimate design evidence will be found in wild-type life.

    Glen Davidson

  18. J-Mac: BTW: Don’t misunderstand me. I have nothing against homosexuals. It’s your finger pointing that bothers me. I know a thing or two about it. A good colleague of mine used to be an angry, confused homosexual. Now he is happily married.

    Lots of angry, confused gay men are now happily married — to other men.

  19. Assuming marriage equates to happiness and that all gay people are male.

    🙂

  20. GlenDavidson: It will never be found for the same reason that no legitimate design evidence will be found in wild-type life.

    You’re too late. Legitimate design evidence was found a long time ago.

  21. Mung: You’re too late. Legitimate design evidence was found a long time ago.

    Sure, now all they need is a designer and a how.

  22. Kantian Naturalist: Lots of angry, confused gay men are now happily married — to other men.

    I’ve heard that before… What I can’t understand is why happily married gay people would want to have children???

    Also, why natural selection has been impotent at weeding out gay and people with gender dysphoria? Since they can’t reproduce and reproduction is an essence of evolution, something doesn’t add up… Maybe Joe Felsinstain should come up with new assumptions for population genetics to fit the data ? Because right now nothing in population genetics fits these observations…

  23. newton: What would constitute as strong evidence the vessel is the Biblical Ark?

    The evidence of the Ark’s superior design is already documented. Finding the Ark is just a formality, unnecessary for those who know…

  24. Mung: You’re too late. Legitimate design evidence was found a long time ago.

    Just not the design of biological life.

  25. J-Mac: The evidence of the Ark’s superior designis already documented. Finding the Ark is just a formality, unnecessary for those who know…

    Where did the Bible give the Ark’s “superior” design? It’s described as a big flat-bottomed unpowered and unsteerable wooden box. That’s a shape which would turn broadside, rapidly founder and sink the first time any waves hit it.

  26. newton:

    Mung: You’re too late. Legitimate design evidence was found a long time ago.

    Sure, now all they need is a designer and a how.

    And to actually produce said evidence.

    And no, not BS ID attempts to redefine life as designed.

    We need good evidence for the design of bird wings by growing five digits, paring those down, then fusing a bunch of bones together to make wings during development. Do we have a candidate for such an idiotic designer/design process? No, but it might be amusing to imagine these bozos actually trying to explain the below, rather than changing the subject (strangely, the time progression is latest on left to earliest on right):

  27. Adapa: Where did the Bible give the Ark’s “superior” design? It’s described as a big flat-bottomed unpowered and unsteerable wooden box.That’s a shape which would turn broadside, rapidly founder and sink the first time any waves hit it.

    I guess you, just like Glen Davidson, would have to know something scientific about the designing of large vessels and the ideal proportions of length and width to come to the right conclusion…
    The problem is not the evidence actually… It’s the optimism bias that is the problem and no amount out of evidence will overcome it….

  28. J-Mac: The evidence of the Ark’s superior design is already documented.

    Some of us think we should be skeptical until it is shown that it can float and can weather storms at sea.

  29. J-Mac: I guess you, just like Glen Davidson, would have to know something scientific about the designing of large vesselsand the ideal proportions of length and width to come to the right conclusion…
    The problem is not the evidence actually… It’sthe optimism bias that is the problem and no amount out of evidence will overcome it….

    You don’t have to know anything besides basic physics. In a storm an unpowered boat will turn broadside to the waves and founder / capsize if the waves are big enough. There’s a reason powered ships caught in a storm will steer directly into and hopefully over the big waves.

    Da Flood was supposed to be the biggest, most violent storm in history. Your fantasized floating zoo wouldn’t have lasted 5 minutes.

  30. GlenDavidson:

    Poor Glen… he has never seen 3 different robot arms designed by the same engineer…
    If evolution did it, why can’t mutation produce any new species with different limbs? Have you ever heard of the law of recurrent variation, Glen? Have you ever seen any mutation experiments performed? Have you seen the results?

  31. Adapa: You don’t have to know anything besides basic physics.In a storm an unpowered boat will turn broadside to the waves and founder / capsize if the waves are big enough.There’s a reason powered ships caught in a storm will steer directly into and hopefully over the big waves.

    Da Flood was supposed to be the biggest, most violent storm in history. Your fantasizedfloating zoo wouldn’t have lasted 5 minutes.

    So you have no clue what you are talking about but you are going to pretend like you do.. You didn’t even bother to check what the ideal length to depth ratio would be for a floating vessel… You don’t have to go to wiki… just read the bible and you would figure it out if you are smart enough… or ask Glen. He apparently can read… what he wants to hear though…lol

  32. GlenDavidson:
    J-Mac,

    What a shock, the dullard explains nothing, just attacks with his mighty incompetence.

    Glen Davidson

    Translation: Glen has no answer to the challenge, so he is going to throw some wild punches at credentials while he reconsiders how to throw some more…
    Yes Glen, your blind faith is that obvious…

  33. J-Mac: Translation: Glen has no answer to the challenge, so he is going to throw some wild punches at credentials while he reconsiders how to throw some more…
    Yes Glen, your blind faith is that obvious…

    Projection.

    Glen Davidson

  34. J-Mac: So you have no clue what you talking aboutbut you are going to pretend like you do.. You didn’t even bother to check what the ideal length to depth ratio would be for a floating vessel… You don’t have to go to wiki… just read the bible and you would figure it out if you are smart enough…

    “Lying Ahull

    Lying ahull simply means dropping the sails and letting the boat fare for itself, possibly while you go below to seek shelter.

    This strategy may work in limited situations when the waves are not too big, the boat is far enough from land and shipping channels so that it doesn’t matter how far the boat drifts downwind. In some cases, it may be necessary to lie ahull to attend to an injury or simply because one is too exhausted to continue active strategies.

    If the waves are large and breaking, however, there is a significant risk of the boat being rolled and capsizing because it will tend to lie broadside to the waves. Never attempt this in an open boat that would rapidly fill with water and sink; a larger boat with a closed cabin should bob back up. Still, this is seldom the preferable approach to take in a serious storm. ”

    Heavy Weather Sailing

    Typical Creationist – your arrogance is directly proportional to your ignorance.

  35. J-Mac:
    If evolution did it, why can’t mutation produce any new species with different limbs?

    It did. Evolution changed non-flying 4 legged mammals into flying bats around 52 MYA. It did so through mutations which lengthened the finger digits in the forelimbs and effectively transformed them into wings.

  36. J-Mac: Bye Glen!

    At some point you’ll only be seeing comments from the likes of Mung, FMM et al. At that point you’ll be free from distractions and you’ll be able to make a real start on the science of Intelligent Design.

    I expect that at some point you’ll post an OP on the work you have done between you to provide scientific support for your claims.

    I expect that OP somewhere around the year 2090-3050. Probably just after you post that youtube video of your replication that interference lines can be adjusted by thinking at them.

  37. J-Mac: The evidence of the Ark’s superior designis already documented.

    The supposed design of the Ark, the primary source does not go into much detail beyond size and materials.

    Finding the Ark is just a formality, unnecessary for those who know…

    J..Mac”If you’d ever make up your mind and become interested in anything other then finding support for your preconceived ideas, make sure you make it obvious…”

  38. OMagain: At some point you’ll only be seeing comments from the likes of Mung, FMM et al. At that point you’ll be free from distractions and you’ll be able to make a real start on the science of Intelligent Design.

    I expect that at some point you’ll post an OP on the work you have done between you to provide scientific support for your claims.

    I expect that OP somewhere around the year 2090-3050. Probably just after you post that youtube video of your replication that interference lines can be adjusted by thinking at them.

    J-Mac is convinced that one gets to the truth by closing one’s eyes and ears to those who disagree. It’s false, but it’s also a comforting way to live.

  39. walto: J-Mac is convinced that one gets to the truth by closing one’s eyes and ears to those who disagree. It’s false, but it’s also a comforting way to live.

    No no no — it’s everyone who disagrees with him who is being dogmatic and close-minded! Only people who accept that quantum mechanics entails that God exists are genuine seekers of truth! Didn’t you get the memo?

  40. Kantian Naturalist: No no no — it’s everyone who disagrees with him who is being dogmatic and close-minded! Only people who accept that quantum mechanics entails that God exists are genuine seekers of truth! Didn’t you get the memo?

    Missing: An arkload of irony.

    At least he can’t see it.

    Glen Davidson

  41. GlenDavidson: If that “designer” were unthinking evolutionary processes, anyhow.

    Thinking processes and unthinking processes.

    How do you tell the difference, scientifically?

Leave a Reply