Pat Robertson: A Flood of Praise for Hambo’s Ark

This is a strange and tangled tale involving two well-known creationists. The first is Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. The second is Pat Robertson, described by Wikipedia as “an American media mogul, executive chairman, politician, televangelist and former Southern Baptist minister who advocates a conservative Christian fundamentalist ideology. He serves as chancellor and CEO of Regent University and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.”

A few weeks ago we posted Pat Robertson Says the Earth Is Old. He said the idea of the universe being only 6,000 years old is “nonsense.” Ol’ Hambo was horrified, of course, but his blogging response was subdued. We wrote Hambo’s Response to Pat Robertson, but it wasn’t much of a response.

Obviously there’s been some behind-the-scenes diplomacy, because we were just informed by our clandestine operative in Kentucky — code named “Bluegrass” — of this amazing article at the Christian Broadcasting Network website (CBN), of which Robertson is chairman: ‘Seeing is Believing’: 10-Story Ark Encounter Attraction Replicates Noah’s Boat to the Last Detail. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Did you ever wonder if Noah’s Ark could really have been big enough to keep all those animals safe from the biblical flood? [Nope, not even for a second!] When you stand next to an actual accurate reproduction of the Ark, it may cause any doubts to fall away. More than a million people a year have flocked to central Kentucky’s Ark Encounter in Williamstown since it opened in 2016.

Ooooooooooooh! More than a million droolers a year! The CBN article says:

Patrick Kanewske, the attraction’s media and ministry relations director, chatted up the wonders of the Ark with CBN News and a number of guests as he guided us around and through the big, big boat. “People want to come see,” he said. “Well, what did the Ark really look like?’ or ‘How big was it?'” The exact length, width and height are what they see, Kanewske assured, saying, “It’s the biblical proportions. These are the dimensions from Genesis.”

Ooooooooooooh! It’s the exact size as described in the bible! How wonderful! After that glorious information, CBN tells us:

One amazing revelation — expert nautical engineers brought in to consult found as they studied God’s design for the Ark that it was absolute perfection. [Gasp!] “We all know that God’s the Great Designer. He’s the Great Engineer,” Kanewske said. “It’s the perfect dimensions for seaworthiness, weight distribution, smoothness of ride.”

Ooooooooooooh! Truly it’s a miracle!

The CBN article goes on and on. And on. If you want to read the rest of it, click over there and go right ahead. We’re quitting now, before we lose our mind completely and start driving to Kentucky to experience the ark for ourselves.

We’re pleased to see that Hambo and Robertson are buddies again. But what does Robertson think of the age of the Earth? Has he changed his mind? Maybe that will be disclosed one day. Or maybe not.

Addendum: Only a few days later, Robertson’s website has this: Visitors to Kentucky’s Creation Museum See Universe of Intelligent Design Made by God.

Copyright © 2019. 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

16 responses to “Pat Robertson: A Flood of Praise for Hambo’s Ark

  1. I am no nautical engineer, but I have my doubts about a big box without any keel, prow or stern, without any sails, propellers, or oars, and without any provisons for navigation, could last very long in a global tempest and flood. I have my doubts about the safety of the animals when such a box would be tossed about.

    To describe the building in Kentucky as an accurate representation of Noah’s Ark … It is not housing many animals. It is not able to float on water (it is solidly fixed to the ground). It is dependent upon modern materials, not just gopher wood (wahtever than is) and pitch. And I hadn’t heard that this was ten stories – the Bible says three floors. (And, by the way, for some reason, the builders have decided to use their own idea of the length of a “cubit”. So much for “exact”. The dimensions are based on guesses.)

    Maybe it works in that different world, but I’d say that the constraints that the forced the deviations from the Biblical description tell us that Noah’s Ark is incompatible with modern understanding.

  2. In addition to the comments of TomS, no wooden vessel of that size has been built because of strength and rigidity limitations. The largest ship ever built completely of wood was the Wyoming. Here’s a note about her:
    “Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold … Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands.”
    If a modern shipyard couldn’t build a ship this large I can’t believe that it was possible several thousand years ago, especially if the shipwright was as old as is alleged.

  3. @TomS complains: “The dimensions are based on guesses.”
    As our dear SC already pointed out just before he decided to stop reporting that’s exactly what makes the Gay Wooden Box so miraculous.

    “It’s the perfect dimensions for seaworthiness, weight distribution, smoothness of ride.”
    Ol’Hambo and co were exactly right, against all odds! What more proof do you need? You are not going to point out that Kanewske’s “expert nautical engineers” are faceless and nameless, are you? Are you?

  4. “But what does Robertson think of the age of the Earth? Has he changed his mind?”

    No. But he probably has learned to lie better. “For the cause,” you know.

  5. Our dear SC hardly can control a primal need: “start driving to Kentucky to experience the ark for ourselves” and hence needs my support. How can I withhold it? That would be too cruel. Fortunately YouTube comes to his (and our!) rescue.

    But why do I have some nagging feeling about Poe’s Law?

  6. @Cynic
    Yes. The descripton of Noah’s Ark was the product of a cuture with no experience of shipbuilding. Probably with no interest in the details of nautical engineering.
    The builders of the Kentucky thing have told us, by building this thing, that they don’t know how to manufacture a replica of Noah’s Ark. The Kentucky thing is telling us that eloquently.
    It reminds me of so much of the self-defeating rhetoric of Intelligent Design. (No intelligent designers that we know of have been able to design life; Therefore life must be intellligently designed.)

  7. Dave Luckett

    It’s late here, and I must admit that I am weary of enumerating the obvious facts about Ham’s construction. It isn’t any sort of seagoing craft, It could not last a day on moving water. It is held together with steel ties, bolts and plates, and rests on concrete piles bedded into a concrete pad. It has a keel, bows, and a sternpost, none of which is mentioned in Genesis, and would be totally pointless anyway since neither it nor the box described in the myth has any propulsion system. Not that that would matter, because it’s mostly wooden construction would fail almost immediately under flexing and torsion. The fastenings would simply tear out of the wood. It would quite literally fall apart.

    In the later nineteenth and early twentieth century there was a crying need for larger ships to carry heavier cargo, with economies of scale. The six-masted schooner Wyoming was a last attempt to build a really big sailing ship in wood. She was probably the largest sea-going wooden ship ever built. She was also very unseaworthy. She simply exceeded the safe limits for the length and beam of a wooden hull.

    The New England shipwrights who built her were the best in the world, with centuries of expertise between them, steel tools, and access to the best timbers of the New World. In addition she was diagonally braced with iron, and fitted with the latest in steam-driven pumps. In her fourteen year career she came close to foundering at least half a dozen times because she leaked like a birdcage. In any kind of sea, her seams shot jets of water. She foundered in a moderate gale off Chatham, Massachusetts, with all hands. She was about three-quarters the length and half the beam of Ham’s construction.

    The Ark is impossible. OK, so it’s a miracle. No, it’s several layers of overlapping miracles. So what? Ham believes in miracles. He also believes at one and the same time, that the Ark is physically possible. But to say Ham is confused is inaccurate. And inadequate. He knows with perfect certainty what he believes: it’s whatever he says he believes at the time.

  8. This is a strange and tangled tale involving two well-known creationists

    Some would say A Tale of Two Titties.

  9. Eddie Janssen

    I still wonder about the single window.

  10. @Dave Luckett
    OK, so it’s a miracle
    And whoever designed the Kentucky thing knew that following the literal description in the Bible would not work.
    Just take a look at the picture that FrankB provided. See those braces hold the thing up. And any kid can tell that there are no giraffes to be seen.
    Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with following one’s own design.
    When you stand next to an actual accurate reproduction of the Ark, it may cause any doubts to fall away.
    Yes, maybe if you were to stand next to an actual accurate reproduction of the Ark, your doubts might fall away. Maybe, if it were floating on water. (But if it were near some world-class mountains, mountains like Mount Rainier which shows a large prominence, one’s doubts about survival in a flood that deep would not fall away. But let’s forget about that.) Maybe, if.
    The fact that believers could not follow the Biblical description in designing this thing should tell one something other than Noah’s Ark is possible. (Maybe it isn’t proof of the impossibility, but it certainly isn’t suggestive of the possibility.)
    Just as the fact that nobody has designed life should tell one something other than that life is designed. (Maybe it isn’t proof of the impossibility of design, but …)
    Just as the supposed fact that “the laws of thermodynamics” (or “conservation of specified complex information”, or “Earth is a privileged planet”) make life impossible (without special intervention) should tell one something other than that the laws of nature are fine tuned for life.

  11. jimroberts

    The much earlier Atrahasis flood story at least makes some attempt to describe a boat based on known technology of the time (Kuphar), one that would actually float if the design could be successfully scaled up enough. According to Irving Finkel, Assistant Keeper of the Department of the Middle East at the British Museum (Was the ark round? A Babylonian description discovered)

    When the gods decided to wipe out mankind with a flood, the god Enki, who had a sense of humour, leaked the news to a man called Atra-hasis, the ‘Babylonian Noah,’ who was to build the Ark. Atra-hasis’s Ark, however was round. To my knowledge, no one has ever thought of that possibility. The new tablet also describes the materials and the measurements to build it: quantities of palm-fibre rope, wooden ribs and bathfuls of hot bitumen to waterproof the finished vessel. The result was a traditional coracle, but the largest the world had ever dreamed of, with an area of 3,600 sq. metres (equivalent to two-thirds the area of a football pitch), and six-metre high walls. The amount of rope prescribed, stretched out in a line, would reach from London to Edinburgh!

  12. “expert nautical engineers”

    Who are conveniently unnamed but likely included a repertory therapist, a chiropractor, a dentist and a preacher.*

    *”Experts” that creationists have used in the past to “validate” their stunning scientific work.

  13. Michael Fugate

    As boats, both are only imagined.

  14. Has anyone tried calculating just how hard the rain would have to fall for the water to cover Mt. Everest in forty days? (The Bible, after all, says the whole earth was submerged.)I have, and suffice it to say that even a modern steel vessel would be pounded to powder by it. (If I’ve done my numbers right, it comes out to about 0.1 inches per second, or 725 feet per day.

    Even if one throws in the “waters under the earth,” that’s a hell of a lot of rain.

  15. Correcting for silly American chauvinism (save it for Megan Rapinoe please) and using SI-metrics (hey, we’re doing science!): the Mount Everest is 8800 m high. Fourty days means on average 220 m a day. That’s more than 9 m per hour.
    That’s some hard rain indeed – in the wettest place on Earth, Mawsynram India, it’s somewhat less than 12 m a year.
    Unfortunately for there are too many uncertainties regarding size, mass and speed of rain drops to speculate about the force Noah’s Ark had to endure.

  16. Some Arkeologists say that mountains were smaller the.