As a card-carrying YEC (voting member of the Creation Research Society), I don’t think the Ark Encounter project is viable, nor do I think it is a wise use of God’s money. I speculate it may go insolvent in short order. Just a guess….
170,000,000 for an amusement park? Do you know what guys like Rob Carter, Walter Brown, John Sanford, Don Johnson, the Discovery Institute could do with money like that?
Seeing an amusement park doesn’t make Noah any more real to me than going to Disney world makes Tinkerbell more real. Sorry for my cynicism, but that’s how I feel. Faith in the truthfulness of Noah’s flood comes elsewhere, not from big amusement parks.
Here is a photo 14:30 opening day:
https://twitter.com/MrAtheistPants/status/751127116960428032/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
The other thing, in creationist circles I mingle in. I hardly hear anyone saying, “Oh I can’t wait to see the Ark.” There are lots of other places like baseball games where YEC parents are eager to take their YEC kids for fun.
Here is another observation:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2016/07/a-fun-day-at-ark-encounters-grand-opening/
News reports say attendance was around 4,000 today. Of course, that’s not sustainable. But let’s imagine it was. That comes out to 1,460,000 attendees in the course of a year. That’s nowhere near what they promised, it assumes there are no days the park is closed, and it assumes attendance will continue to be at least as good as on opening day with all the hype and advertising.
Here is a supposed photo of the ticket line, I have no reason to doubt its authenticity. Should I doubt it? We’ll find out if Ark Encounter goes bankrupt:
https://twitter.com/MrAtheistPants/status/751130524949905408/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Looking at some of the photos of the Ken Ham’s Ark, this looks awful.
https://twitter.com/mattstonephotog/status/751019902203523073/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
I just as soon go to a farm or zoo if I wanted to see animals being fed. And beside zoos look more humane for animals than the cramped quarters of the ark. If you want to see the horrors Noah went through to survive the flood, the real Ark would have been the place. So the concept of this place being a fun place (an amusement park) is not so wise from the start since any semblance of what the Ark might have been like would have been one of incredible hardship.
The Ark Encounter project may do one thing, it may show how infeasible it is to feed and manage all those animals without a miracle. My reading of the flood account is that God miraculously provided for Noah in the ark to keep all those animals alive. As it said, “God shut him [Noah] in [the ark]”. The ark was miraculously protected on the inside and outside. I suspect lots of animals went into God-induced hibernation (pure speculation on my part).
So, I’m sorry, I can’t bring myself to pray for the Ark Encounter project anymore than I’d pray for an unwise endeavor. There are lots of Christian causes in much dire need of attention and money like the International Justice Mission, which I support:
https://www.ijm.org/
In some sense, I’ve desperately hoped creationists would stop supporting stuff like Ark Encounter. You want to donate to YEC or creationist causes? I recommend CRS for YEC and Discovery Institute for ID. I support both.
John Harshman and GlenDavidson,
I had essentially the same thoughts, but decided to focus on a science factoid that many kids understand on graduation from from high school. I was in the fourth grade when I learned that the radioactivity of atomic fallout was halved after a certain number of years, and halved again after the same number of years, …, and never went away entirely. That’s a very strong memory for me, perhaps as a consequence of the “Duck and Cover” anxiety of kids in the Fifties and Sixties. And that’s perhaps the reason that Salvador’s insinuation that radioactivity “goes away” grabbed me.
It’s somewhat crazier than that. The holes are drilled to different strata for different biota, strikingly consistent with phylogenies constructed from molecular data. Of course, Salvador dismisses a huge volume of data by pointing to a geological anomaly. An exception disproves a theorem, so it must be the same with a theory — right? Isn’t falsification the same thing as disproof?
Well, some Christians say that Satan did not rebel against God until after the creation, and perhaps did the work of creation for God. With intimate knowledge of microbiology, it would have been much easier for him to figure out later where to plant the fossils. But it still seems like an awful lot of work for the Great Deceiver to do, considering his unbounded capacity to cloud the judgment of unbelievers like you and me. He assigned a demon the job of possessing Darwin, you know. I’ve never seen a similar claim about Wallace. But, by the Principle of Parsimony, Wallace must also have been possessed.
Sarcasm aside, I grew up hearing, over and over, that God tests our faith. When you have doubts, pray for understanding. In retrospect, I see that as inexcusable simplemindedness, born of cowardice. But I do not see it as deceitful. No matter that I grew up in a conservative Christian environment, and had my head filled with garbage, I never encountered anyone remotely like Salvador Cordova. I insist that it’s wrong to attribute his behavior to Christianity.
Do you know what guys like Rob Carter, Walter Brown, John Sanford, Don Johnson, the Discovery Institute could do with money like that?
Speaking of crazy.
Are all of the other guys YECs (not necessarily crazy)?
Robert Carter: “Young-earth creation is the only way to have both science and the Bible.”
“Walter T. Brown (Aug 1937) is a young earth creationist, who is the director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation.”
Don Johnson: ‘After my first Ph.D. in chemistry, back in 1970, I encountered a creationist scientist who challenged me to look at the facts differently. At that time I believed that people who believed in 6-day creation and the strict biblical account had their heads in the sand and didn’t really have much intelligence, because obviously they were ignoring all this “body of facts”. When I actually looked at the evidence properly, my first thought was “this can’t be”, and then I was angry that I was deceived in so many ways for so long.’
Three of the four have retired from their professions. It’s interesting that Salvador would funnel the money to them.
As for the Discovery Institute, the most effective employee it ever had, Casey Luskin, makes a big point on his website of not being a YEC:
Perhaps the DI, which indicated in its last nonprofit filing that it had spent 22 percent more than it had brought in, has started making nice with YECs, in order to gain funding. It is perhaps uncoincidental that Bill Dembski, who pissed off YECs with The End of Christianity, “retired” from ID about the same time that Luskin left the DI.
Edited to change “25 percent” to “22 percent” after taking the exact figures from lines 12 and 18 of the DI’s Form 990 for 2013. It’s been a while since I checked for filings, so there may be data available now for 2014.
ETA: In 2014, the expenses of the DI were 5 percent less than its revenue, which rebounded (but was still somewhat less than its revenue in 2012). Its net assets at the end of the year would have covered 9 months of its operations.
Gee, what I remember is:
For the record, I don’t know what happened to Bill. I actually learned of Bill retiring from ID by reading the announcement at TSZ. Didn’t read, don’t own a copy of that book by Bill.
Bill is a friend, was an inspiration, but I have moved on from his CSI concept. I felt Patrick/Mathgrrl proved his/her point that no one could figure out how to actually apply it. Since CSI is part of how Bill’s versions of NFL and conservation arguments are framed, I have little hope the derivations and results can be reduced to analytical practice even if true.
I don’t know about Don Johnson, PhD PhD being a YEC. I wasn’t aware of that quote. He worked on recombinant DNA and is a computer scientist. Smart. Programming of Life is my most recommended video.
Rob Carter did some genetic engineering. Was among the first to make glowing fish through transgenic engineering.
The DI aren’t YECs. That’s ok. I was an IDist and OEC before becoming a YEC.
You’re reading too much into what’s happening, imho. Starting to sound like Gregory.
Well, probably one the most influential applied geneticists on the planet, at least in the 1980-1990s time frame.
See:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1167048
Why? Would you prefer I send it to Ken Ham or Kent Hovind? I listed them because I liked their work. There is one non-creationist I like:
http://www.flinders.edu.au/science_engineering/caps/staff-postgrads/info/cahill-r/process-physics/
I should have listed evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg. I like his work to.
And a new comer, former atheist, turned Christian, former curator and practicing paleontologists Gunter Bechley.
But now he’s in our camp. Bwahaha!
Tom,
You can find the DI’s 2014 Form 990 here.
Some interesting compensation data for 2012-2014:
Stephen Meyer:
2012 $180,000
2013 $200,000
2014 $200,000
Bill Dembski:
2012 None reported
2013 $115,500
2014 None reported
David Berlinski:
2012 $100,782
2013 $115,000
2014 None reported
George Gilder:
2012 $120,000
2013 $166,500
2014 $120,000
stcordova,
So Bechley now thinks his life’s work is based on nonsense? Just goes to show.
‘Former atheists’, ‘former evolutionists’ – they’re the best! Nothing like parading a few of them to show it’s not just indoctrination from birth.
keiths,
I’ll take a slice of that action! I have just discovered a fatal flaw in evolutionary theory … former atheist and evolutionist nobody Allan Miller sez …
It’s sad really.
From Bechly’s (no e) page:
” I am a German scientist (paleo-entomologist), specialized on the fossil history and systematics of insects (esp. dragonflies), the most diverse group of animals.
I am also a conservative, evangelical Christian, who supports Intelligent Design Theory and Biblical Creation. I strongly reject secularism, materialism, naturalism, and scientism. “
And, somehow, cognitive dissonance is a stranger to me.
But then … I have not become a Christian in spite of being a scientist but because of it. My conversion was purely based on a critical evaluation of empirical data and philosophical arguments, following the evidence wherever it leads.
http://gbechly.jimdo.com/world-view/intelligent-design/
Likewise that invisible pink unicorn could well explain the observed patterns. I wonder how many cardboard pyramids this guy get’s through a year. FMM, Sal, how many do you wear out in a typical year?
Strange that Sal claims him as one of his own. They share Christian faith, but not much else. I wonder where he stands on Da Fludde?
Bechly again: “Young Earth Creationism arguably has to deny much of well-established science in modern cosmology, geology, and biology. Contrary to OEC it cannot easily explain the orderly pattern of stratigraphical and biogeographical distribution of fossil and recent organisms, and it has to assume an extremely fast evolution of the numerous fossil and recent species from the few natural kinds that found place on Noah’s ark. Nevertheless, YEC in my view is a highly respectable position, because it is consistent and plausible for a devout Christian to give God’s infallible word the priority over fallible human science. “
Wrong in every respect, but respectable ‘cos what could be more holy than dogged denial in the teeth of all evidence? I do sometimes think people adopt YEC as some kind of penance – they think God will reward their dogged sticking-to-guns. And how can I say he won’t?
Yeah, that’s why I’d like to know what Sal thinks will happen to OECs re: Sal’s wager: Will they burn in hell? Will they go to heaven but have a lower status in the divine hierarchy than YECs, like YEC’s slaves maybe?
Allan quotes a YEC whose religious belief trumps reality. Fair enough, if your beliefs are more important than being able to examine the world about us dispassionately, it’s a choice I can understand that some make. But Sal? To claim that he is attracted to the YEC belief because of how he interprets reality? That the evidence leads him there? Just takes my breath away.
Alan Fox,
Bechly’s actually OEC, but is expressing sympathy for the YEC position. He’d like to place the Bible above all else, but there’s this nagging problem of a scientific education and career …
I supplied a link to the 2014 Form 990 in the second edit to my comment above. But now I’m being asked to subscribe when I click on it. Anyway…
Erasmus Communications, listed as a contractor receiving about $120 thousand in 2014, is Bill and Jana Dembski. I’ve seen Dembski indicate here and there that he’s worked on educational software. He evidently contributed to the DI’s online course for home-schooled children. Note also the right column where you see Meyer’s salary. That’s a cool $16 thousand in “other compensation.”
Oops DNRCE but I’m still gobsmacked by Sal claiming he is led to the YEC worldview by evidence.
I’ve noted before that when Mung spends more time at UD than here the average IQ of both sites increases.
It’s always good to reread the classics.
Alan Fox,
I’m prepared to think that’s what he thinks. Many not-exactly-thick people have a strong contrarian streak. See Fred Hoyle FE.
Interesting that Bechly thinks the difference between YEC and OEC is hardly worth bothering about, united as they are against materialism and scientism. Interesting too that he pretty much swallowed everything the DI shoved his way, with props to every one of the leading lights. He may have had to dislocate his jaw initially, but then it went down OK.
Oh hang on, I clean forgot I’m now an ex-evolutionist myself, hoping for a slice of the DI pie. Did you know there is C14 in coal … ? 🙂
The same as in dead puppies?
Well, you’re going to have to remember to say ex-Darwinist.
Tom English,
Can I interest you in a pamphlet?
But that’s not ad hominem coming from someone who is supposed to be a moderator. You’re not fit to be a moderator Patrick.
It would be a nice change to see you drop your insistence on a woodenly literal reading of the New Testament.
As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
That’s not ad hominem at all, it’s simply a rather convoluted insult. An ad hominem is an instance where the substance of an argument is rejected based on who made the argument, rather than on the argument itself. A true ad hominem would be something like “the sky isn’t blue because Mung, who claimed it’s blue, is a lousy parent.”
Flint,
You’re trying to teach things to Mung… brave guy you are. Yes, the same Mung that just called Keiths out for “a woodenly literal reading of the New Testament” and the next thing you know he’s calling him out for saying it might be allegorical
I guess you gotta watch out for these woodenly literal allegories, because they can be tricky when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
At the end of the day understanding the Bible is all too easy: you just need to find the right guy to provide the right interpretation in bible studies of a book written by some guys who claim to speak in the name of these other guys who claimed to have met a guy who claimed to be the son of the the god who previously wrote another book for guys that don’t believe what the former guys wrote about that Jesus guy.
Allan, you’re hopeless. You’re an ex-Darwinist with DVD series to sell, not an ex-evolutionist with pamphlets to give away.
I’ll see your “smooth layers” and raise you this formation.
Go ahead Sal, tell us how Da FLUD formed this.
Tom:
But Allan can learn all of this and more, for the incredibly low price of $9,999, in my new course, How to Fleece the ID Rubes for Fun and Profit.
Ha ha, you lose. No matter how you look at it, some of the fossils are going to be in the wrong order for evolution. Sal wins.
Tom English,
The pamphlet has all the subscription details. I’m starting with the Anomaly Of The Month Club. Builds up steadily until you have nothing but anomalies.
Besides, wouldn’t lower layers be under greater compression for longer periods of time? Seems intuitive to me this would have a progressively more smoothing effect.
Allan,
Issue #1: Puppy Holes!
Rumraket,
I think it’s simply a combination of perspective and different erosional behaviour of different rock types. If you ground the vertical surface flat, much of the supposedly anomalous layering would disappear.
Mung,
Hark! Sophisticated theologian Mung has the true interpretation! Unify us, oh great feeler!
Oh, has he finally fallen off the fence?
It also makes sense that they are moving to the next stage of the project given the recent ‘ID has won’ thread at UD.
EDIT: oops, wrong thread! 😛
How can you tell?
LoL.
Another failure in reasoning. Is it something in the water here?
Why do you laugh? What he wrote is correct.
I just want to know how Satan stuck those vehicles deep inside 350 million year old rock.
If he can dig puppy holes he can also dig pickup truck holes. 🙂
Sal seems to have flounced from the thread as soon as questions on his geology claims / knowledge came up. It’s the same pattern we see from him. every time evidence to refute his YEC stupidity is introduced.