Or as my HS Chem teacher said,
BS = Bull Shit
MS = More of the Same
PhD = Piled higher and Deeper
He left out HS = Horse Shit
Let’s convert it into a geology & atmospheric sciences educational center, to teach kids about stuff like the geologic history of the Grand Canyon, the Missoula floods, the threat of climate change.
Or move it to somewhere like the Maldives, to use it as, you know, an ark.
If some billionaire really wanted to piss off the Right, that’s what he should do. Buy the building cheap and repurpose it as a Climate Change Demonstration Exhibit. Lots of Science-ing going on, with tours and video feeds. Really boost the local economy in ways Ham and his fakers could never dream of.
Actually, if you take the Bible literally, there were seven pairs of elephants on the ark.
Then the LORD said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time. You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.” (NASB) Gen. 7:1-3
Elephants are considered clean animals, as far as I can tell.
That’s one of the places in the Bible where it contradicts itself. Earlier, it says only two of each. This is the result of combining two slightly different stories by basically concatenating them.
Clean animals both ruminate and have cloven hooves. Since elephants don’t qualify on either criterion, they would be unclean.
Giraffes, however, would be clean by those criteria. The problem would be how to slaughter it in a kosher manner by cutting its throat.
A sharp knife, and a tall ladder, obviously.
Easier said than done, I think.
Shackling and hoisting an animal by its hind legs was traditionally part of kosher slaughter. For a giraffe you would need a two-story hoist. But hoisting is not actually required. Still, I think draining the blood from a giraffe might be a bit problematic in any case.
Another biblical loophole is that it was not each animal species, but a term of ‘each animal kind’ that was used in scripture.
Gopher wood is a but rare now-days, so hard to test.
I dunno.
Wife and I watched the PBS thingy in the link, and while we agreed that the Ark Experience was very big and impressive, we also agreed that Kentucky was not among the first five places we would choose to take a large expensive extended vacation.
Seems to me that a thing of this sort was originally envisioned to draw tourists and truthseekers and pilgrims and so forth from all over the planet… and would NEED to, in order to fulfill the original dream’s parameters.
'Tain’t so, Mcgee. Given a choice between Bibleland and Disneyland? Seems like Jim Bakker already learnt that lesson, didn’t he?
I haven’t been through the previous 7 pages on this, so this may have been posted already, but John Oliver covered the lack of economic impact in a segment on Last Week Tonight. Starts at about 5:30 into the segment. Very funny:
So it could have been two from the land, two from the sea and two from the air?
Gophers, guppies and gulls-oh my.
Jehovah, formerly Baalite war god before going free-lance, told Noe to salvage critters that walk on all fours. AFAIK the only bugs walking on four legs are mantids so all others are satanic revenants. Remember that, next time you order lobster. Flightless birds qualify too. But how to explain Jeezus storming Jerusalem astride his T.Rex?
The easy way for Ham and other arkologists to stay solvent is to persuade a president to designate their sites National Monuments. Can NM’s be setup as franchise chains? Start Ark Parks in every red-blooded state, with animatronic dire wolves to devour atheists.
Which Bible version did you get this from? I’m asking sincerely. It’s not the version I recall from my long-ago childhood, so I looked it up.
NIV
The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
King James
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
New Revised Standard
2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.
Which version says the animals are supposed to have four feet?
(IMPORTANT NOTE: I’m absolutely NOT a Bible literalist. Just find this stuff interesting.)
While watching the documentary, I couldn’t help wondering how Ham and the AIG people explain a couple of big problems: How did Noah (presumably with only the help of his sons) build such a huge ship with the technologies that were available at the time? How long did it take? How long did it take to collect the thousands of animals they had to gather up?
I got to thinking about the last one specifically because one of the museum workers interviewed explained that Noah didn’t have to collect, feed, and house adult dinosaurs; he could have saved only juveniles, which would be much simpler and more economical. A clever idea, but if you have to go out and find a few of every “kind” before the flood, it may not be a simple matter to find juveniles of every item on your list (and get them away from their parents). And I started thinking of the complexity and logistics involved in building a huge vessel and collecting thousands of animals at the same time.
Of course, they could just claim that God did it: making the ship seaworthy and magically herding all the animals needed to the site. But since having answers seems to be their big thing, I started wondering about those questions. I don’t care to spend any time at their site, but does anyone happen to know if and how they answer these points?
[del]A wizard[/del] God did it. That’s all you need to know.
Re: the bit about giraffes. That was actually obliquely referenced in the PBS documentary. There’s a brief bit where the lead designer for the animal exhibits shows a model of a short-necked okapi-like critter he identifies as the ancestor of the giraffe “kind”.
This was an example of a kind of double-work around. The ark only needed a single breeding pair of an ancestor for each “kind”, and the ark would only need the smaller “kind” ancestor of some of the bigger critters (and, as mentioned above, they might only have juveniles or eggs of some "kinds). These breeding pairs would then speciate in the post-flood world, so you’d only need a few hundred pairs of relatively small animals to produce the thousands upon thousands of different species we see around us today, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of now-extinct species that apparently speciated away from a small number of ancestors then went extinct, all within a few thousand years.
I’m far from the first to point out that young-Earth creationism of this sort actually requires evolution, and a radical form of evolution at a vastly more rapid pace than “Darwinists” propose, at that.
It might not give you the answers you are looking for, but rational wiki has a thorough article about AiG.