Ken Ham lowers attendance expectations for the Ark Park

[essentialsaltes]

Formerly 2 million in its first year, now Ham says 1.4 million. Although, as this article points out, the new estimate requires the uniformitarian assumption that the rate of attendance is constant over the entire year. Some of us might expect that that rate, based on summer freedom and the grand opening, might be a little higher than the overall average for the year.

"None of this is very surprising, though. The one thing we know about Ken Ham and his Creationist crew is that they’re awful when it comes to dealing with large numbers."

 

[juvenissun]

Formerly 2 million in its first year, now Ham says 1.4 million. Although, as this article points out, the new estimate requires the uniformitarian assumption that the rate of attendance is constant over the entire year. Some of us might expect that that rate, based on summer freedom and the grand opening, might be a little higher than the overall average for the year.

"None of this is very surprising, though. The one thing we know about Ken Ham and his Creationist crew is that they’re awful when it comes to dealing with large numbers."

Are you sure it is in million? Take it to be 1 million, that means 2700 people per day. Don't you think it is a very encouraging number?

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's currently averaging about 4,000 visitors per day. Yes, a million is a very large number. To put it in perspective, 1.4 million would be almost the attendance achieved by the Kennedy Space Center.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Although I wonder what the number from that is for the people who went there because they believe what the park says vs those who went there just to see it (like a tourist trap) vs those who went there to mock it. Although admittedly those last two might be more of the same.

 

[Jimmy D]

I read an article about this the other day that made me laugh, the big headline read....

New Scientist Writer Rejects Scientific Evidence for the Ice Age, Fossil Record, and Flooding on Mars

"Those who have visited the Ark Encounter will quickly realize that Rosenau either has not been to the Ark, or that he did visit but didn’t pay attention to the signs, or that he is simply lying to readers about what is in the Ark. His most embarrassing gaffe came when he stated, “From astrophysics to zookeeping, the visitor is deluged with misinformation. It may be impossible to find a single sign in the park that is free of scientific errors.”

AIG responds to this criticism by highlighting the 10 or so information signs (out of the thousands) that actually are scientifically accurate (such as one about Glaciers)..... thus demonstrating that the "New scientist writer rejects scientific evidence".

 

[RickG]

I read an article about this the other day that made me laugh, the big headline read....

New Scientist Writer Rejects Scientific Evidence for the Ice Age, Fossil Record, and Flooding on Mars

"Those who have visited the Ark Encounter will quickly realize that Rosenau either has not been to the Ark, or that he did visit but didn’t pay attention to the signs, or that he is simply lying to readers about what is in the Ark. His most embarrassing gaffe came when he stated, “From astrophysics to zookeeping, the visitor is deluged with misinformation. It may be impossible to find a single sign in the park that is free of scientific errors.”

AIG responds to this criticism by highlighting the 10 or so information signs (out of the thousands) that actually are scientifically accurate (such as one about Glaciers)..... thus demonstrating that the "New scientist writer rejects scientific evidence".

I would love to see the information sign about glaciers in full context.

 

[Jimmy D]

I would love to see the information sign about glaciers in full context.

Did you look at the article Rick? (I don't mean that sarcastically!) I understand your point, The sign itself seems reasonable enough, there could easily one another one next to it saying that they occurred 4000 years ago or something.

Edit: Just had a look and the article reads...

While we hold to one ice age caused by the worldwide Flood and evolutionists generally believe in multiple ice ages, the sign below is scientifically accurate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Formerly 2 million in its first year, now Ham says 1.4 million.

If you build it, they will come.

 

[SkyWriting]

I read an article about this the other day that made me laugh, the big headline read....

New Scientist Writer Rejects Scientific Evidence for the Ice Age, Fossil Record, and Flooding on Mars

"Those who have visited the Ark Encounter will quickly realize that Rosenau either has not been to the Ark, or that he did visit but didn’t pay attention to the signs, or that he is simply lying to readers about what is in the Ark. His most embarrassing gaffe came when he stated, “From astrophysics to zookeeping, the visitor is deluged with misinformation. It may be impossible to find a single sign in the park that is free of scientific errors.”

AIG responds to this criticism by highlighting the 10 or so information signs (out of the thousands) that actually are scientifically accurate (such as one about Glaciers)..... thus demonstrating that the "New scientist writer rejects scientific evidence".

Seems generally accurate so far:

 

[Goonie]

If you build it, they will come.

And

 

[SkyWriting]

Seems generally accurate so far:

It's hard to argue about scientific accuracy if the intent is to illustrate scripture. Complaining about the Ark Experience is just like like complaining about an illustrated Bible being out-dated.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Seems generally accurate so far:

What is a kind?

 

[Jimmy D]

Seems generally accurate so far:

I'm sure you'd find it educational.

 

[Jimmy D]

I've only just noticed that this ark is on dry land, doesn't it float or something?

 

[RickG]

Did you look at the article Rick? (I don't mean that sarcastically!) I understand your point, The sign itself seems reasonable enough, there could easily one another one next to it saying that they occurred 4000 years ago or something.

Edit: Just had a look and the article reads...

While we hold to one ice age caused by the worldwide Flood and evolutionists generally believe in multiple ice ages, the sign below is scientifically accurate.

Also from the AiG article. I would suggest that this is what the New Scientist writer was referencing.

1. There is no biblical view of any ice age.
2. The AiG view is completely made up, a complete fantasy.
3. The secular view is based on solid science, and it is not a model, its physical evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've only just noticed that this ark is on dry land,

Noah built his on dry [landlocked] ground.

 

[juvenissun]

It's currently averaging about 4,000 visitors per day. Yes, a million is a very large number. To put it in perspective, 1.4 million would be almost the attendance achieved by the Kennedy Space Center.

Thanks for the info. I might want to plan a trip to there.

 

[juvenissun]

I've only just noticed that this ark is on dry land, doesn't it float or something?

You (so was Noah) would never know until the moment comes.
You made a very good point.

 

[RickG]

I just read the New Scientist article that Ken Ham trashed. Frankly I think Rosenau was quite kind and respectful with his presentation.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is a kind?

"Kind" is a word from God's book ... not Linnaeus'.

But to further confuse you guys, look the word "genus" up in the online etymology dictionary ... you're in for a surprise.

(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from PIE root *gene- "to produce, give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to family and tribal groups.

Cognates in this highly productive word group include Sanskrit janati "begets, bears," janah "race," janman- "birth, origin," jatah "born;" Avestan zizanenti "they bear;" Greek gignesthai "to become, happen," genos "race, kind," gonos "birth, offspring, stock;" Latin gignere "to beget," gnasci "to be born," genius "procreative divinity, inborn tutelary spirit, innate quality," ingenium "inborn character," possibly germen "shoot, bud, embryo, germ;" Lithuanian gentis "kinsmen;" Gothic kuni "race;" Old English cennan "beget, create," gecynd "kind, nature, race;" Old High German kind "child;" Old Irish ro-genar "I was born;" Welsh geni "to be born;" Armenian chanim "I bear, I am born").

In plain math: genus = kind.