Ken Ham: Great Press for the Noah’s Ark Park

Things are starting to look better for the proposed Noah’s Ark theme park to be built by a corporate partnership including the creationist empire of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian who brought you Answers in Genesis (AIG) and the mind-boggling Creation Museum.

As you know, ol’ Hambo has been reeling from a barrage of unfavorable publicity that his latest venture has generated. For a good example of this, see our recently posted Ken Ham v. Jay Leno.

But the tide has turned. The wind has shifted. The press now seems to be favorably disposed toward Hambo’s heavenly dream. Or so Hambo says. What’s happened to signal this journalistic turnaround? Stay with us; all will be revealed.

At the AIG website we find: Refreshing Article on the Ark Encounter. It was written by ol’ Hambo himself. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

It is refreshing, amidst the onslaught of secularist propaganda articles full of falsehoods and personal attacks, to read an accurate article about the proposed Ark Encounter.

At last, Hambo can see light at the end of the tunnel. Everything will be going his way from now on. Let’s read some more:

This news article comes from the very popular WorldNetDaily news source.

WorldNetDaily? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That absolutely execrable, incurably crazed creationist rag is a winner of our Buffoon Award.

Hambo then gives us nine — count ’em, nine! — paragraphs lovingly copied from WorldNetDaily. We won’t give you any excerpts because that would ruin the suspense. Instead, here’s a link to the WND story that has lifted Hambo’s spirits: Noah’s ark coming to Kentucky. Click over there to see what has Hambo all excited.

That’s all there is to Hambo’s post — just the welcome information that news coverage of his Ark Park is finally becoming supportive. We’re happy for ol’ Hambo. With WND on his side, he can’t fail.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Ken Ham: Great Press for the Noah’s Ark Park

  1. I wonder why Hambo didn’t include the following blurb from the “article”:

    The Louisville Courier-Journal quoted attorney David Tachau:

    “It certainly sounds as if the mechanism for supporting a particular religious dogma would violate the establishment of religious prohibitions in the state and federal constitutions, but there may be slippery ways this could pass muster.”

    The rest of the article is just an interview with Hammy. (Oops, thinking of the squirrel again…I meant Hambo). Of course he’s going to think it’s a positive article. Duh.

  2. PZ mentioned this last week but its worth mentioning again: neither the Stake of Kentucky nor anyone else outside AiG has seen the economic feasibility study on which the tourism and new jobs numbers were based. IOW the state is taking the salesman’s word for how successful the product will be. That’s okay if you’re an individual buying a DVD on the street. Its not okay when its the state government spending millions of tax dollars.

  3. All I can say is thank God ol’ Hambo doesn’t live in Louisiana.

  4. Gee, I bet the ICR could have said something in favor of Ham’s fantasy land as well. That would be every bit as impressive.

  5. I don’t remember whether I’ve put this link on this site. It argues against the construction, seaworthiness and crew adequacy of the original ark based on biblical specifications .

    http://www.grahamkendall.net/Unsorted_files-1/A130-Noah_Ark.txt

    Remember that knowing any of this information will permanently exclude you from ever being employed by Ken.

  6. Benjamin Franklin

    eric-

    I read an article in the Lexington newspaper about the Ark Abomination in which a spokesperson for the Governor stated that before the project could be granted the tax incentive status, a feasibility study would have to be done by the state.

    They can borrow my rubber stamp.

  7. Ken Ham claims to have a 10,000 page analysis with a 200-page executive summary, but nobody’s seen it.

    I call bulls**t. We know Ham is a liar but this is beyond the pale. How anybody in Kentucky government can let this slide by is besides me. Don’t the do any ethics training at all?

    Ten thousand page report? You’re kidding me, right? I could do an Ark Encounter study in 50 pages. Ham is lying, pure and simple, and the elected officials of Kentucky are rolling along with it.

    I smell kickbacks and this is not going to end well. My prediction.

  8. @plumberbob:
    I read the article you linked to. As soon as I got to the part about:

    Noah would have needed a thorough education
    in naval architecture and in fields that would not arise for thousands of
    years such as physics, calculus, mechanics, and structural analysis.

    I realized there was a problem. Of course the creationists are going to look at what Noah did as “Goddidit”. That’s they’re catch-phrase for everything. Noah needs to know diffy Qs (differential equations)? Goddidit! He needs to understand stress, strain and torque? Goddidit! You see? That phrase is like Linux on a PC: It just works.
    And as for your statement that reading this will exclude you from Hambo’s exclusive club, again, I have to disagree. Understanding it will exclude you from his club. Or, more specifically, if you understand it, then most likely you won’t want to join in the first place.
    P.S. Please don’t take my comments the wrong way. I loved the article! It’s extremely well written!

  9. Gabriel Hanna

    I realized there was a problem. Of course the creationists are going to look at what Noah did as “Goddidit”.

    You don’t even need that. Ships were built for thousands of years without much more than tradition, trial and error to go on. Probably something as big as the Ark wouldn’t work, though. And many ships failed spectacularly when shipwrights deviated too far from what was done before, like the Mary Rose and the Vasa.

  10. Ships stayed fairly small until the introduction of iron and steel to shipbuilding during the Industrial Revolution. A wooden ship without internal bracing from iron or steel will sag, or “hog back” (“hogging”) under its own weight.

    In the 18th century as ships got bigger, cross-wise wooden beams for internal bracing was used to stiffen the ship, and this worked up to a certain size (the USS Constitution uses this system) but something like the size of the purported ark, built entirely of wood, isn’t going to hold together for very long in rough seas without iron or steel internal bracing.

    No doubt “Goddidit” includes providing Noah with the ability to create iron or steel ribs for the interior of the ark, using neolithic technology.

  11. “A wooden ship without internal bracing from iron or steel will sag, or “hog back” (“hogging”) under its own weight.”

    A wooden ship above a certain size will “hog back”, I meant to say.

    Modern steel ships could, in theory, “hog back” too, if too big and improperly designed.

    Modern magnetic torpedos work on a variation of the “hog back” principle: by exploding directly under the keel, instead of on the side of the ship, the torpedo explosion lifts the ship out of the water; as it falls back into the water the strain is too great and the ship breaks in half, since there is a limit to how much stress the ship can take when different points along its length are moved up and then down to different degrees of force.

    With a wooden ark, you don’t need a magnetic torpedo to lift it out of the water and slam it back down again; a good storm will do the same, and will put differential stress along the length of the ship causing the ark to break in half at some point.

  12. ED wrote:

    The rest of the article is just an interview with Hammy. (Oops, thinking of the squirrel again…I meant Hambo). Of course he’s going to think it’s a positive article. Duh.

    A bit of disambiguation – Hammy is a hamster, not a squirrel. Ol’ Hambo is just a nut. Hammy demonstrates considerable scientific acumen (for a hamster), while Ken Ham has the critical thinking skills of a squirrel (with apologies to the squirrels).

    @meh: Ship building is beyond my expertise, but I thought the Spanish Inquisition Galleons were large wooden ships intentionally built to be flexible?