The ark encounter museum

[Job 33:6]

I saw this video on TV just recently,

Stream WE BELIEVE IN DINOSAURS on PBS

The PBS documentary "we believe in dinosaurs" focuses on can hams "the ark encounter".

I figured I would share for those who are interested in this subject.

 

[Job 33:6]

In science, we discover challenging concepts and we make efforts to resolve challenges through testing and discovery.

We faced the challenge of flying to the moon. And through testing and discovery we made a trip to the moon possible. As an example.

Newton faced a challenge of explaining how distant bodies interact gravitationally. And through testing and discovery Einstein advanced ahead with general relativity. Etc.

I think that the ark encounter promotes an alternate position of simply denying the existence of challenges altogether.

Rather than trying to understand or explain science (and in effect, reality), the museum simply ignores science and otherwise denies it.

It ignores trying to answering challenging questions about reality and tends to just kind of ignore observations of the world discussed in science.

Beyond just ignoring observations, it then goes further to deny observations. For example, there were at least 5 independent glaciation events in the recent cenozoic, understood through observations of striations, kames, drumlins, layers of till etc. But the ark encounter doesn't recognize the observations of several ice ages. At best it just talks about one occurrence and denies evidence of any others.

The ark encounter doesn't recognize the existance of scientific observation, it ignores and denies what we see with our own eyes. And then substitutes answers with...well...miracles that are imagined by the interpreter of scripture.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A real "ark encounter" would involve building an ark according to the actual Genesis account, loading it with weight to approximate what went into the original, and towing it out to sea to observe how it would fare during a flood event.

 

[St_Worm2]

A real "ark encounter" would involve building an ark according to the actual Genesis account, loading it with weight to approximate what went into the original, and towing it out to sea to observe how it would fare during a flood event.

Here is a picture of the only full-sized floating ark that I know of, plus a couple of articles about it: Full size dutch ark - creation.com // This Dutch Christian boatmaker wants to sail his life-size replica of Noah's Ark to Israel - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

​

--David

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Here is a picture of the only full-sized floating ark that I know of, plus a couple of articles about it: Full size dutch ark - creation.com // This Dutch Christian boatmaker wants to sail his life-size replica of Noah's Ark to Israel - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

​

--David

This isn't a replica of the ark, just a fanciful version, and it is floating on barges beneath it, not by itself.

 

[St_Worm2]

Yes, I believe that, like the Ark in KY, it's purpose was to show people just how big Noah's Ark actually was. It's too bad that its builder (Huibers) could not have built it w/o the steel supports and barges, as that was his original plan apparently.

Unlike Noah, one would think, Huibers had to have his ark conform to a vast array of rules and regulations. For example, fire-safety standards meant having to apply three coats of fire-retardant varnish. Also, a special ‘mooring anchor’ had to be installed, so as to qualify the construction as a ‘building (house boat), rather than a vessel.

Bureaucracy was also the reason for having to build it on floating steel barges as well as to install a heavy steel reinforcing frame. Lest critics claim that this is proof that it would have been impossible to build a wooden vessel that size, Huibers, an experienced worker with wood, says it would actually have been much easier to make a wooden ark.

In fact, there are records of ancient ships bigger than the Ark. See Pierce, L., The large ships of antiquity, Creation 22(3):46–48, 2000, creation.com/huge-ships. ~https://creation.com/full-size-dutch-ark (excerpt)
​

--David

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, I believe that, like the Ark in KY, it's purpose was to show people just how big Noah's Ark actually was. It's too bad that its builder (Huibers) could not have built it w/o the steel supports and barges, as that was his original plan apparently.

Unlike Noah, one would think, Huibers had to have his ark conform to a vast array of rules and regulations. For example, fire-safety standards meant having to apply three coats of fire-retardant varnish. Also, a special ‘mooring anchor’ had to be installed, so as to qualify the construction as a ‘building (house boat), rather than a vessel.

Bureaucracy was also the reason for having to build it on floating steel barges as well as to install a heavy steel reinforcing frame. Lest critics claim that this is proof that it would have been impossible to build a wooden vessel that size, Huibers, an experienced worker with wood, says it would actually have been much easier to make a wooden ark.

In fact, there are records of ancient ships bigger than the Ark. See Pierce, L., The large ships of antiquity, Creation 22(3):46–48, 2000, creation.com/huge-ships. ~https://creation.com/full-size-dutch-ark (excerpt)
​

--David

Great post!

It must also be pointed out that critics never consider the purpose of the ark, which was not to transport cargo, for which strength of construction must necessarily be compromised. The warships in your link were constructed to survive warfare a sea, not transport trade goods.

 

[Job 33:6]

Great post!

It must also be pointed out that critics never consider the purpose of the ark, which was not to transport cargo, for which strength of construction must necessarily be compromised. The warships in your link were constructed to survive warfare a sea, not transport trade goods.

I was actually thinking the same thing.

A child can build a ship out of sand. It is a relatively simple task. But the question isn't necessarily if it can be built. It's a question of if it can be built to handle the task that it's being made for.

Which is why government regulations stepped in and forced the ark to consist of steel parts. Because it otherwise would be of danger to visitors, even as just a simple and stationary mock-building, not dealing with skyscraper sized waves and temperatures high enough to metamorphose mountains.

 

[St_Worm2]

I'm certain that many problems would have existed (and, in fact, been insurmountable) during the Ark's construction and (no doubt) rough ride, had the undertaking been left to Noah alone. So it's a good thing that the Captain (Whose plans were followed by Noah when he constructed the Ark) was there superintending the project from start to finish .. cf Genesis 7:15; Genesis 8:15-17

--David

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'm certain that many problems would have existed (and, in fact, been insurmountable) during the Ark's construction and (no doubt) rough ride, had the undertaking been left to Noah alone. So it's a good thing that the Captain (Whose plans were followed by Noah when he constructed the Ark) was there superintending the project from start to finish .. cf Genesis 7:15; Genesis 8:15-17

--David

No doubt that once 'fitted out' the ark was a very sophisticated piece of design and engineering, perfectly suited for it's task.

 

[Within Reason]

I saw this video on TV just recently,

Stream WE BELIEVE IN DINOSAURS on PBS

The PBS documentary "we believe in dinosaurs" focuses on can hams "the ark encounter".

I figured I would share for those who are interested in this subject.

Thank you. I am downloading it now so I can post it elsewhere.

Gift for you: