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.
Do you have some specific claim in mind made by some IDer about how bird wings were designed or evolved or is this just another of your straw-man arguments?
Do you have some specific point to make about the lack of evidence for Design or is this just another Mung poo-flinging troll fest?
Hey Mung, what do you think the evidence points to regarding the origin of bird winds, design or evolution?
I imagine those fence posts have become somewhat uncomfortable the decades you’ve been sitting on them now.
My interest is in whether Glen can back up his claims, and I don’t find design and evolution to be mutually exclusive terms.
By who? Please provide said documentation. I know some nautical engineers who would be ecstatic to see it and improve upon their own designs.
The proportions are not the problem. It’s the sheer size of the Ark that’s problematic.
So…you are clueless because you don’t know the fundamentals of ship engineering? Insurance companies made the engineers to think in terms of not the moving vessels, when they set sail, but in terms of a floating vessels. The Ark’s dimensions are within the range of most vessels built today but they vary because of the cargo distribution; oil tankers are not the same as cruise-liners, naturally…etc
Vessels built today are made of steel, not wood which makes large ships prone to hogging and sagging. Vessels today are powered and have rudders and keels so they can turn into waves and ride out storms. Your fantasy Ark was an unpowered floating wooden shoebox. If built today even a minor storm would sink it inside of 5 minutes.
Thanks.
I assume you have tested your claims?
Shipbuilders have for centuries. That’s why they don’t build flat rudderless unpowered boxes for ocean transport.
The largest wooden ships in history were 6-masted schooners such as the Wyoming (which was 330 ft between perpendiculars), which were used expressly for coastal sailing because they would break apart in the open ocean — and these ships still required iron strapping to remain even slightly watertight. The Ark is said to be over 100 ft longer, with no ironwork, and drifted in the stormiest seas the world has ever known, with basically no crew to help with constantly pumping out water.
If you approached any competent marine engineer with the schematics for the Ark, they would laugh you out of their office.
What history? Are you telling me you are going to dismiss the scientific facts about the dimensions of the Ark because they were not registered in your preferential books?
You must be the seeker of truth , like Glen Deviationson…
Moved a couple of posts to guano.
What scientific facts would those be? Bible mythology isn’t scientific fact.
Human history. Hurf durf.
The Ark described in the Bible can not possibly have existed without the help of magic. There are no “scientific facts” there.
They are not scientific facts, they are dimensions recorded in a story written someone who never saw the Ark.
The ark need not of moved much. More likely a vortex of calm was its place as indeed all the sea life. Otherwise indeed the oceans/new ones were being created by great power surges of water etc.
God directed the building and so it would be good enough.
it was a ARK and not a boat. It was a floating box.
Silly me.
Then why build a box at all? Why not just miracle up a safe space to ride out the storm instead? Why build a box? Why not build an open platform, i.e. some wood on the floor?
If the ark needed miracles to stay afloat they why not add a few more miracles? What’s a couple of extra miracles when you are destroying the entire earth? Why not a 5* hotel?
Presumably you think of yourself as a seeker of truth. Then why do you run so when questioned? Why do you act like a 10 year old?
You’ve been asked what these “scientific facts” regarding the ark are. How would a true seeker of truth respond to such a challenge? Your response defines that, you get that right? You might think of yourself as the righteous one here but I’d suggest you might want to get some independent advice on that particular point….
Your status as a seeker of truth now depends on these scientific facts regarding the ark you claim exist. I think I already know the answer to that, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. For some reason.
Out of interest J-Mac, what’s your answer to the question “What did the Koala bears eat as they made their way back to Australia”?
Also, for bonus points, could you describe how they obtained sufficient eucalyptus leaves in the first place to keep the notoriously picky things sufficiently well fed during the flood?
As, I mean, Koala bears exist now. And evolution could not have created them, we know that, right? So logically they must have been on the ark. Unless you are a believer in ultra-rapid speciation directly after the ark? In which case, perhaps you might describe how that worked? When did they start to exclusively eat eucalyptus leaves, for example?
And when you are done with that I’ve got a couple of 100 other similar questions regarding very similar issues. But none of that will dent your unwavering faith that the children’s story of the Ark is the literal truth, will it?
koalas didn’t exist before the flood. they are only post flood adaptations of some creature. they would first be a ground creature with a varied diet.
In fact the reson they survived is only because of a restricted diet and living in trees. Australia etc was devasated by drought sometime adter the migration of creatures there and the rise of the water to separate the lands there.
marsupialism also is a post flood adaptation in those areas.
God had to save mankind by practical means. the ark , which mirrors thje ark of the covenant, had to save all air breathing biology.
So no weird miracles.
Booby, it doesn’t matter whether or not it moved much on it’s own. It would have been blasted to splinters by the force of a global ocean either way.
It wouldn’t. If its just floating calmly it would float. A vortex in the waters, needed by the way to preserve all the biology in the seas just like land creatures, would keep it calm. Otherwise indeed the waters would be crazy wild. in fact YEC needs great waterflows to be a source for deposition of sediment etc.
I am very confident there was a ark.
thats why in the fossil record there is the great segregation called now the k-t/pg-t line. just as it would be if there was a ark.
Robert Byers,
If you can’t invent events ad hoc, why be IDist/YEC at all?
Glen Davidson
Is there something evil about inventing events ad hoc that somehow disturbs the perfect universe that you appear to desire?
Can’t we all just get along?
ETA:
It’s a truth thing. You’d never understand it.
– Glen Davidson
It wouldn’t be floating calmly. We’re talking about a global ocean