It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationist group sues Kentucky over $18 million in tax rebates for Noah’s Ark theme park

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Spider879
It depends what agreements the state entered into with AIG before production began. It is still a tourist attraction and tax revenue subsidiary of the state of Kentucky.


Right, but they outright claim that they will hire via discrimation (only people who are creationists), so that forbids the state by providing financial assistance by law. At least, that's one of arguments I heard as to why they're pulling out.

I, for one, think that the state is doing right by the residents and their tax money (or, in this case, potential revenue). No businesses should get tax breaks, but that's just my opinion and isn't reality. Hopefully it will be one day.




posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I say give him the rebates if he builds that life sized ark. Conditions to be met? Yes. It must be built on water.


WITHOUT a barge underneath to support it like all current ark models have.


I don't see how it would be a problem, the Chinese built longer wooden ships than the ark.


You plan on backing that statement up with any evidence?

Noah's Ark is too big to float


So, depending on what you use for a cubit, Ye Arke is about 450 feet long, 75 wide, and 45 tall, right? I work best in metres, so lets do a bit of conversion: that's 137.16 by 22.86 by 13.716 metres, right? For ease of calculation, let's call it 140 x 23 x 14. This give you 45.080e+3 cubic metres. One cubic metre of pure water is one metric tonne. Salt water is a bit more dense. Be nice, add another thousand tonnes or so... Ye Arke displaces 46,000 tonnes. Maybe 46,400 at max. And I'm being generous. (The reader who knows something about ship-building will also spot a certain minor problem with the above figures. No creationist has ever seen it... in part 'cause if it's corrected, things get worse for Ye Arke.)

The sheer size. HMS _Victory_, still preserved at Portsmouth, was 186 feet long on the gundeck. HMS _Victoria_, the last ull-rigged 1st rate ship of the line to serve as flag of the Channel Fleet, built in 1859, was 250 feet long on the gundeck. And she had a steel frame because the RN had found that building wooden ships much bigger than 225 feet long was not a good idea because they tended to straddle or to hog on being launched; that is, they tended to bend, their bows and sterns to stick up out of the water at an angle, (that¹s straddling) or to bend the other way, the bows and sterns supported by waves but the midships sections out of the water (or at least not as well supported) (that¹s hogging) and either way their keels tended to crack under the strain. Even with steel frames, wooden ships bigger than 250 feet long tended to hog or straddle. Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself. One possible source: _The Wooden Fighting Ship In the Royal Navy, 897-1860_, EHH Archibald, Blandford Press, London. Sorry, my copy was published back before ISBNs. Edward Archibald was at the time of writing the curator of the National Maritime Museum, Portsmouth, England. Or build a wooden boat 250 feet long and see what happens. Ye Arke was the size of _two_ 1st rate line of battleships, laid end-to-end. Noah was a shepherd. He knew
better than the shipwrights at Chatham who built the ships with which the RN dominated the world for 150 years? If I'm wrong, and it is possible to build a 450 foot wooden vessel, by all means demonstrate it. I'll even put up some of the money... so long as I get to record the launch of said vessel. And so long as those who say that such a craft would be safe are willing to stay on it while it's being launched. Me, I figure that I'd get some _great_ pix.


List of longest wooden ships

I don't see any ships in that list that meet the criteria for the ark's dimensions. The Chinese did get close though. Also note this:

Finding the world's longest wooden ship is not straightforward since there are several contenders, depending on which definitions are used. For example, some of these ships benefited from substantial iron or even steel components since the flexing of wood members can lead to significant leaking as the wood members become longer. Some of these ships were not very seaworthy, and a few sank either immediately after launch or soon thereafter. Some of the more recent large ships were never able or intended to leave their berths, and function as floating museums.


Well we at least know that the ark was entirely wooden. So even the wikipedia article infers that a ship the size of the ark wouldn't float. Seriously, why do you think ALL the floating noah's ark models have barges underneath them? Because if they were to build them honestly, they'd sink. See?

edit on 4-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah I asked him this also....still waiting.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

It's fine. I did his work for him. No surprise, he was wrong.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's fine. I did his work for him. No surprise, he was wrong.

The jury is still technically out.

The size of the Chinese treasure junks is mostly hearsay, but there was an intriguing discovery, in 1962 (Ming boatyards, Nanjing), of a rudder post measuring 36 feet long.

If the proportion of the ancient Chinese treasure junks was the same as most known Chinese junks, that would have put the beast at around 500 feet long.

Granted, that could just be the remnants of some rudder post experimentation, as well.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Spider879

I agree. If anything they should be sued for ever giving a rebate to Ham in the first place. As if anyone doesn't already know who Ken Ham is and what kind of crazy park it was going to be.

BTW, his other Creationist Museum, if you can even call it a museum, is going bankrupt as we speak. The last thing the people of that state need is another Creationists money pit sucking up their money.


This. Why should the state be funding theme parks of any sort at all? The only leg he may have to stand on if he can prove that similar non-religious theme parks got the same rebates he was denied but, well, screw him.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: boymonkey74

He wasn't playing the Church angle for taxes with the Ark Park he was playing the state or historical angle for tax breaks and it was revoked because they had hiring practices that discriminated against non-Christians. He was using the states dime to try to put money in his own pockets which violates the constitution both federal and state.



Fixed it for you.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
The jury is still technically out.

The size of the Chinese treasure junks is mostly hearsay, but there was an intriguing discovery, in 1962 (Ming boatyards, Nanjing), of a rudder post measuring 36 feet long.


Soooo... Source? Actually I'll do your work for you, just like the last guy.

Chinese treasure ship


Treasure ships' dimensions are debated on practical engineering grounds, with some suggesting they were as short as 61–76 m (200–250 feet) or that they could only have been used on special occasions in the relative safety of the lower Yangtze River. Although a claimed treasure ship rudder has been unearthed in Nanjing, China, its size is no larger than rudders known to have been used in less than 60m long Jiangsu traders in the 1930s, so cannot be taken as evidence of the uprooted giant dimensions.



If the proportion of the ancient Chinese treasure junks was the same as most known Chinese junks, that would have put the beast at around 500 feet long.


More from that same wiki article:

Some scholars argue that it is highly unlikely that Zheng He's ship was 140 metres (460 ft) in length, some estimating that it was 110–124 m (390–408 feet) long and 49–51 m (160–166 feet) wide instead [12] while others put them as 61–76 m (200–250 feet) in length,[14][15] since in later historical periods ships approaching the extreme sizes claimed for the treasure ships (such as HMS Orlando and the schooner Wyoming) were unwieldy and visibly undulated with the waves, even with steel braces.

One explanation for the alleged size of these colossal ships was that the largest 44 Zhang treasure ships were merely for a display of imperial power by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats on the Yangtze River when on court business, including when reviewing Zheng He's actual expedition fleet. The Yangtze River, with its calmer waters, may have been navigable for such large but unseaworthy ships. Zheng He would not have had the privilege in rank to command the largest of these ships. The largest ships of Zheng He's fleet were the 6 masted 2000-liao ships. This would give burthen of 500 tons and a displacement tonnage of about 800 tons.[4][15][16]

edit on 4-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

From what I can tell they (the state) offer incentives for theme parks with the idea that they will bring more tourism to the area which is more revenue for the state. Ken Ham's problem is that his park is audience specific, Religiously based and apparently has decided to discriminate in it's hiring to only include those who are Creationists which is against state law that requires equal opportunity. Mr. Ham wants the state to basically help fund his Religious Indoctrination and discriminatory hiring practices and the state can't and won't do that.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: NavyDoc

From what I can tell they (the state) offer incentives for theme parks with the idea that they will bring more tourism to the area which is more revenue for the state. Ken Ham's problem is that his park is audience specific, Religiously based and apparently has decided to discriminate in it's hiring to only include those who are Creationists which is against state law that requires equal opportunity. Mr. Ham wants the state to basically help fund his Religious Indoctrination and discriminatory hiring practices and the state can't and won't do that.


Whelp, all I can say is if you want the state's (IE taxpayer's) money, you have to play by the state's rules. Whereas I have no problem with a private company hiring whomever they want or not, once you take taxpayer funds, you have to comply with the stipulations taxpayers put on said funds.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yay, contradictory, partially un-cited information from wiki!

Yup, that supersedes science all over the place.

Ironic that your own edit (the ones with actual citations) start between 400-500 feet...which is already far bigger than what we are told wooden ships are capable ...and, very close to the size of the supposed ark.

Also, if they were only for local display purposes, we would never have had any legends from anywhere outside of China...but, we do.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Exactly. Mr. Ham seems to have his own set of rules however and expects everyone else to follow his rules instead. I don't see that happening though. Which is a smart move on their part both constitutionally and financially. Especially since Mr. Ham's Creationist Museum is heading toward bankruptcy very quickly and I imagine this Ark Park, if it even get's built will soon follow.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: NavyDoc

Exactly. Mr. Ham seems to have his own set of rules however and expects everyone else to follow his rules instead. I don't see that happening though. Which is a smart move on their part both constitutionally and financially. Especially since Mr. Ham's Creationist Museum is heading toward bankruptcy very quickly and I imagine this Ark Park, if it even get's built will soon follow.


The religious aspect aside, for the state of Tennessee it makes no sense to invest in a failing enterprise. The whole intent of the program, as I understand it, is to support enterprises that will bring in more tax revenue to the state than the state shells out in subsidies through tourism, jobs, etc. If the place is going bankrupt, then it is a losing investment and thus a waste of taxpayer money.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I agree, it's a bad investment IMO. Or at the very least it's a very very risky investment. To be clear though, it's not the Ark Park which is failing. It's not even done being built yet. It's Ken Ham's Creation Museum which is failing. This Ark Park is his new venture which is already getting worse reviews than originally thought. Even the amount of people that it has been estimated it will bring has been reduced almost in half. However, none of this is actually why he's been denied the state funding. The funding has been denied because Ham changed the business model and is using discriminatory hiring practices. He actually did have the funding until he decided to change the parameters of the agreement. Like always he not only wants his cake and eat it too, he wants your cake as well.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

but the original one was built on dry land or so the biblical history book says .



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: tom.farnhill



This puts noahs ark to bed....
Didn't happen can't happen.



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

nice one , but my post was a tongue in cheek comment , because i don't believe in any fictitious sky entity .



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yay, contradictory, partially un-cited information from wiki!

Yup, that supersedes science all over the place.


More evidence than you posted. So I'd say my credibility is a bit higher than yours.


Ironic that your own edit (the ones with actual citations) start between 400-500 feet...which is already far bigger than what we are told wooden ships are capable ...and, very close to the size of the supposed ark.


Yes, but the wiki article CLEARLY says that those dimensions are disagreed upon by engineers. It also says that most of those dimensions come from China's stories about the boats, which could just be exaggerations. We don't actually have any parts from the ships to determine their sizes, except maybe that rudder. But that rudder doesn't imply the ship was 500 feet long like you originally suggested.

So how about YOU post some evidence for a change that says that not only did these ships definitely exist but were definitively 400+ feet long? You guys are making the claims that such ships exist, so produce the evidence.


Also, if they were only for local display purposes, we would never have had any legends from anywhere outside of China...but, we do.


A 200 - 300 foot ship is still massive enough to cause local populaces from outside China to create legends about them. Also, legends aren't proof of existence.
edit on 4-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Spider879

why does ken ham need a tax rebate ??? : as a absolute biblical literalist - he should just pray for what he wants [ as per the bible he insists is innerant ]

Maybe the tax rebate is the answer to his prayer.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Link

The floatability of the ark was scientifically studied in 1993.

Here




I don't see any ships in that list that meet the criteria for the ark's dimensions. The Chinese did get close though. Also note this:


Marco Polo noted that by the 15th century Chinese junks had grown to the size of 450 feet. And Chinese historians have also said this.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join