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

a reply to: SlapMonkey

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.

Hey, I sure agree with that. But if the state entered into contract and promised certain tax subsidies as a condition of a contract, then for them to back out mid-production is grounds for a lawsuit. It would be a breach of contract.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

But if the state entered into contract and promised certain tax subsidies as a condition of a contract, then for them to back out mid-production is grounds for a lawsuit. It would be a breach of contract.

That depends on whether or not Ken Ham breached the contract first.

If Ham breached the contract agreement, then the state has the legal right to back out of it and pull their funding.

a reply to: CranialSponge

True, so how did he breach the contract?

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: NOTurTypical

But if the state entered into contract and promised certain tax subsidies as a condition of a contract, then for them to back out mid-production is grounds for a lawsuit. It would be a breach of contract.

That depends on whether or not Ken Ham breached the contract first.

If Ham breached the contract agreement, then the state has the legal right to back out of it and pull their funding.

Correct. Everyone will have to wait and see if the judge grants standing to proceed with the lawsuit.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Dunno.

Guess we'll find out when he gets his day in court who is in the wrong.

I'm going to go with the assumption that the state would not make the mistake of breaching contract first... but you just never know these days.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Dunno.

Guess we'll find out when he gets his day in court who is in the wrong.

I'm going to go with the assumption that the state would not make the mistake of breaching contract first... but you just never know these days.

Not to say they did, but States break the law all the time.

its very simple :

" ark encounters " is founded as a business enterprise - not a religious enterprise

but hams creationist cult still insists on demanding that all employees should affirm the cults " articles of faith "

this is discrimination - which is illegal under state and federal law

thus - " ark encounters " cannot legally recieve any state BUSINESS rebates

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Link

The floatability of the ark was scientifically studied in 1993.

Here

Ok first, that is a link to answers in genesis. They are a dubious source, but I went ahead and looked over your link anyways since you provided two about the same thing. The calculations they are doing omit forward motion saying that the ark only had to float stationary.

N221: Noah's Ark only had to float, like a barge

The study mentions 8 factors involving the movement of the ark. It omits forward motion

Two other young earth creationists, Baumgardner and Barnette, have worked out a model of how water will flow on an earth filled with water. The ocean currents peak at 194 miles per hour (87 meters per second), centered over the continents in gyres. Thus, the ark would not have been stationary, but would have been forced away from the continent by these currents, and sent into the open ocean. This invalidates the safety investigation done by these creationists

Though, obviously all they have to do is build a life size version of the ark and float it. That will end all the answers. Why hasn't that been done exactly? Again all models with the correct dimensions have barges underneath them.

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.

That is anecdotal evidence. Produce PHYSICAL evidence that such ships existed.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Possibly--it depends on if it was a known issue prior to the contract that AIG had intentions of hiring in a discriminatory way (only those who believe what AIG is hocking). If that were the case, then AIG is the problem with the contract, because with any state (or commonwealth) contractors or businesses who get state tax breaks or money or whatever perks, you must be an equal-opportunity employer.

But with that reality comes my point of view that private businesses should be able to hire whomever they want--just don't expect to get tax breaks or government investment if that hiring practice only allows for one certain group of people to be employed.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: SlapMonkey

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.

Using illegal hiring practices would be breach of contract as well. There are discrimination laws that forbid discrimination in employment.


Hey, I sure agree with that. But if the state entered into contract and promised certain tax subsidies as a condition of a contract, then for them to back out mid-production is grounds for a lawsuit. It would be a breach of contract.

18 million? What a waste of tax dollars. Good call pulling the funding as there are REAL issues that tax dollars should go toward, and brainwashing people with lies is not one of them. If they get their 18 million dollar theme park, then I want my 1000 foot tall pure marble Easter Bunny statue.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Spider879

Why is it a "goofy" theme park? Because Noah's Ark is a story in the Bible? What a ridiculous and childish stance to take.

It's goofy because it's an impossible story that DID NOT HAPPEN and they are sinking 18 million of the people's money into something that has no evidence behind it. The ridiculous childish stance comes from the people who believe this story hook line and sinker.

I can see already that this thread is more akin to a members only club of people who hate and mock Christians in every form, and defame anyone who is a part of that.

Only the fundamentalists that deny reality and science. The rational majority of Christians do not consider the story of Noah to be absolute literal truth, they see it as teaching a lesson, just like they accept evolution as science. I don't hate Christians, I think that attacking science and knowledge over ancient myths and fairy tales and getting millions to fund this farce is detrimental to society.

My statements have only to do with your pathetic and immoral attitude which is only flinging hatred. I thought you people were aginst hating others? Oh, that's right I forgot, that's only when it one of the approved items that are propagated by way of the liberal media and all the groupie think-a-likes?

Here we go again with the finger pointing and accusations. Oh yeah, anybody who doesn't believe YEC to the absolute letter is a hater with no moral compass! Forget scrutiny, that's evil and pathetic!

It isn't immoral to deny things that have no evidence behind them. That isn't flinging hatred, it's acknowledging the evidence or lack thereof for the claims made by Ken Ham and his joke of a sideshow act. LOL at liberal media behind behind this.

OR is it because when someone who isn't on that approved list wants a tax rebate, it's tapping into things that might take away funding from one of those approved topics so in come the troops to mock, rubbish, defame, and bash and troll? Because you already "Know" that anything that has to do with Christ has no merit at all right?

No, it's because they are using tax payer dollars to fund something that is useless in society, goes against science and technology, and is complete faith based guess. Can I get 18 million dollars to construct a theme park based on the ancient Egyptian gods? People think their belief system triumphs over all others so they promote it as fact, despite having very little fact at all behind it and Ken Ham is a proven liar. There's no way around that. If you think it's okay to grant millions of dollars to liars, then something is seriously wrong.

I'm not judging you, I'm just trying to understand how your following this road you are on is going to deliver you to some sanctuary. How do you stand to profit from trying to "educate" readers of this thread to believe the way you believe? What will be the pay off for you in the end?

We don't care about profit. We care about science and education, 2 things that are vehemently denied by the owner of the museum and ark project. Our modern society is BUILT ON knowledge. Building something like this and funding it with tax dollars is the epitome of foolishness and it's good to see that Kentucky realized that there are tangible REAL issues that matter much more.

I mean, can I get a grant to build the flat earth theme park, or the geocentric universe theme park? They'd get denied in a heartbeat because we know those ideas are wrong, just like young earth creationism and the story of the great flood.

It might be that this guy is scamming the government and doesn't even follow the rules of true Christianity just to gain something, and "SUING" people is definitely NOT a Christian thing to do. But if this is the case, then he should be exposed that way, not by you trying to mock Christian themes by themselves just because you think the entire thing is silly.

Nobody is mocking all Christians. Only the toolbags that support YEC and this false version of history that has no evidence behind it whatsoever. Stop putting all Christians under the same label. They are a very specific type of fundamentalist that favors literal bible verses over proven verified science. They should be mocked and Ken Ham has already been exposed numerous times. That's probably why they pulled the funding. They probably realized that he's a snake oil salesman and nothing more.

I wasn't aware that "science" has to approve of every project this planet comes up with, but to answer your question, I wouldn't pick his theme parks for my own kids to visit, but that's not really the point. The point is him having merit or not to be suing the government, and if he doesn't, then he is wrong, but the veracity of his beliefs and what his parks show people isn't really the point. People grow up and learn and will intuitively know if what he's selling is rubbish and made for his false gain or not. His own ways will expose what he truly represents in the end.

So you honestly believe that we should sink 18 million dollars of tax dollars into spreading lies? Ok great. Let's allocate this 18 million dollars into my geocentric universe model. I mean You really think that the subject matter has no relevance on this? He has already been debunked and that's probably why the funding was pulled. If you call something science and make a museum about it, IT SHOULD ACTUALLY BE SCIENCE. Not pseudo science made up to mislead people.

And no, people won't just grow up and realize that he's wrong. That's the problem! The cycle of indoctrination is not easy to break. These are fundamentalists that are taught from a very young age that the bible is the absolute infallible word of god and have this constantly pounded into their head. As a result they home school their children and do not teach them important subjects like science. They are emotionally connected to the faith so they buy everything this idiot sells without scrutiny. It's harmful to society. Bottom line.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok first, that is a link to answers in genesis. They are a dubious source,..

Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

The calculations they are doing omit forward motion saying that the ark only had to float stationary.

Where did Noah have to go? The ark wasn't built to go from point A to point B. It's only purpose was to survive the flood, not go anywhere specific.

Though, obviously all they have to do is build a life size version of the ark and float it. That will end all the answers. Why hasn't that been done exactly? Again all models with the correct dimensions have barges underneath them.

Have people ever set out to build a seaworthy ark, or just one showing the exact length and height? If it's the latter, then I don't see anyone taking the necessary steps to make it structurally secure for sea voyage. To be honest, I have no idea what the folks at AIG are trying to accomplish, whether they are going for the former, or latter. I dunno.

That is anecdotal evidence. Produce PHYSICAL evidence that such ships existed.

It's a 15th century wooden ship! What would be left of it today? All there is is recorded history.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Answersingenesis is sponsored and funded by Ken Ham. It isn't a scientific source, and they have made tons of claims that have been proven false. Sorry but you can't defend Ken Ham, using a link that he wrote! It's circular logic like saying the bible is infallible word of god, and using the bible to prove that claim. That isn't ad hom nor circumstantial. That's the truth. You are citing a religious site that has nothing to do with science. It is definitely dubious.

rationalwiki.org...

Info and criticism of the site.

www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

Specific wrong claims broken down with evidence.

There are tons more, and I have debunked many of their claims myself.

There are dozens of reasons why a global flood is impossible. Was there flooding during the end of the last ice age? Yes. Was it global? No. Was 2 of every single species alive today put on an ark along with all necessary food and rations to last several months, including plants, birds and insects? Of course not. That notion is absurd. Most insects, plants and trees cannot survive under salt water for months. Stop taking ancient myths as literal truth and you might begin to understand why it is ridiculous. How did all the animals get from Mt Arafat back to North and South America? How were they procured in the first place?

There's nothing wrong with having faith, but it's NOT fact by a long shot, in fact it is demonstrably wrong. It is a children's story meant to teach a lesson, like humpty dumpty and the hundreds of other children's stories. What makes Noah's ark any different? Is it just because a council decided to include it in a compilation book of ancient stories? How do you know that these stories were literally truth? You really have to place LOTS of faith in ancient humans that were barely literate to believe that.

a reply to: Barcs

Sorry but you can't defend Ken Ham, using a link that he wrote! It's circular logic like saying the bible is infallible word of god, and using the bible to prove that claim.

For starters, I'm not defending Ken Ham. I only mentioned that a circumstantial ad hominem argument is a fallacy.

Huh? You realize the Bible isn't a single source, it's 66 different sources written by 40 different people? Most of whom never met the other authors.

Was 2 of every single species alive today put on an ark along with all necessary food and rations to last several months, including plants, birds and insects? Of course not. That notion is absurd.

Well of course it's absurd!! Re-read Genesis 6, does it say that there was "two of every single species of animal alive today" in the ark? That's a straw man argument of monumental proportions.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok first, that is a link to answers in genesis. They are a dubious source,..

Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

The calculations they are doing omit forward motion saying that the ark only had to float stationary.

Where did Noah have to go? The ark wasn't built to go from point A to point B. It's only purpose was to survive the flood, not go anywhere specific.

Though, obviously all they have to do is build a life size version of the ark and float it. That will end all the answers. Why hasn't that been done exactly? Again all models with the correct dimensions have barges underneath them.

Have people ever set out to build a seaworthy ark, or just one showing the exact length and height? If it's the latter, then I don't see anyone taking the necessary steps to make it structurally secure for sea voyage. To be honest, I have no idea what the folks at AIG are trying to accomplish, whether they are going for the former, or latter. I dunno.

That is anecdotal evidence. Produce PHYSICAL evidence that such ships existed.

It's a 15th century wooden ship! What would be left of it today? All there is is recorded history.

Anything like the Ark would have had to have gone from A to B - it would have had to have gone before the wind. Otherwise it would have broached and then sunk. And we have built large wooden ships. Please see earlier references to them on this thread. Without a steel frame they tend to work in a following sea, which makes them more than a bit leaky. There's a reason why we switched to metal ships - we'd reached the limit of size for wooden ships.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

For starters, I'm not defending Ken Ham. I only mentioned that a circumstantial ad hominem argument is a fallacy.

You may want to brush up on your fallacies. If what he says is true, it's not ad hom, and I'm not sure where the word "circumstantial" even applies to the statement. Are you saying it's circumstantial because only parts of the site are blatantly wrong?

The website in question is a religious site not a scientific site. I don't go to religious sites for science, just like I wouldn't go to a scientific site to learn about god. I don't take my car to the PC repair store to fix. Dinosaurs and humans living together is blatant lie based on hoaxes and false claims about the age of the earth and denial of the validity of the science involved. All scientific geological, biological and genetic evidence points to an old ever changing earth.

Huh? You realize the Bible isn't a single source, it's 66 different sources written by 40 different people? Most of whom never met the other authors.

I guess you didn't read the whole post. I referred to it as a compilation book near the end of my response. Regardless of that fact, people still choose to believe the entire thing as if it is a single source aka infallible word of god, and that it's literally true from cover to cover. I could have sworn that was your viewpoint, if not I apologize, I mixed you up with somebody else.

Well of course it's absurd!! Re-read Genesis 6, does it say that there was "two of every single species of animal alive today" in the ark? That's a straw man argument of monumental proportions.

So we're resorting to semantics? Sorry, it says the translated word for "kind", not "species" because the term species didn't exist at the time and neither did science. Straw man of monumental proportions? The difference between species and kind? Really? As if the rest of the story makes perfect logical sense without that distinction? What about the fact that the majority of plant life and insects would perish?

The ice age ended and there were floods all over the world. Stories were written about them and exaggerated. There was also a mini ice age some 7-8 thousand years ago. The cause is unknown thus far, but it could be an impact event from a comet or asteroid. Many of the flood stories could also be based on that event.

Based on the sheer amount of flood myths, Noah and his family being the sole survivors is extremely improbable, not to mention the genetic bottleneck that the majority of creatures on earth would suffer from inbreeding and many would go extinct. Then there's the issue of hyper-evolution of all the races of human and subspecies of other animals completely repopulating the earth in a mere 5000 years, contradicting the fossil record big time.

a reply to: Barcs

You may want to brush up on your fallacies. If what he says is true, it's not ad hom, and I'm not sure where the word "circumstantial" even applies to the statement. Are you saying it's circumstantial because only parts of the site are blatantly wrong?

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

Nizkor

I guess you didn't read the whole post. I referred to it as a compilation book near the end of my response. Regardless of that fact, people still choose to believe the entire thing as if it is a single source aka infallible word of god, and that it's literally true from cover to cover. I could have sworn that was your viewpoint, if not I apologize, I mixed you up with somebody else.

I do consider it an integrated message system that had to have it's origin outside the space-time dimension. But my point was that people can't claim "circular reasoning" when people say the Bible can prove the Bible, because it's not a single source. I think most people just repeat something someone else claimed and it sounded cool, then they think to themselves that it's only 1 book on the shelf, it must be a single source. It's not, it's 66 books/letters.

So we're resorting to semantics?

Not at all.

Here

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

No, AiG is a terrible source for valid scientific research. The only reason I even read it was because you produced another source other than AiG, but the research is still flawed.

Where did Noah have to go? The ark wasn't built to go from point A to point B. It's only purpose was to survive the flood, not go anywhere specific.

A floating barge will capsize in a storm. You have to be able to direct it to crest waves. We are talking about a supposed storm that flooded the earth. Naturally there will be some pretty tall and nasty waves in such a storm. A barge wouldn't be able to fight such waves. Heck, most ships BUILT to handle storms wouldn't be able to handle a storm of that magnitude, let alone a rudderless barge. First wave that sideswipes it will capsize it.

Have people ever set out to build a seaworthy ark, or just one showing the exact length and height? If it's the latter, then I don't see anyone taking the necessary steps to make it structurally secure for sea voyage. To be honest, I have no idea what the folks at AIG are trying to accomplish, whether they are going for the former, or latter. I dunno.

Seems to me like an easy way to prove you are right. Just build the ark EXACTLY as laid out in the bible and see if it can float. Oh yeah, make sure you can fit two of every animal on it plus a small collective of people, plus food and other necessities. Part of proving seaworthiness is proving it can float with the right weights.

It's a 15th century wooden ship! What would be left of it today? All there is is recorded history.

I dunno, maybe directions on how to build it? There is a reason why the Chinese ships are in speculative history and the European ships of old are in confirmed history. We actually have evidence outside of written texts that they existed. We know how they were built. Meanwhile, with the Chinese ships we have written accounts of what people saw and THOUGHT their dimensions were. But these dimensions conflict with engineering calculations making them not seaworthy. Therefore, in order to believe the extreme measurements of these ships, you need to produce additional objective evidence that they were of that length. Keep in mind I'm not debating that they existed, just that they were as large as claimed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

A floating barge will capsize in a storm. You have to be able to direct it to crest waves. We are talking about a supposed storm that flooded the earth. Naturally there will be some pretty tall and nasty waves in such a storm. A barge wouldn't be able to fight such waves. Heck, most ships BUILT to handle storms wouldn't be able to handle a storm of that magnitude, let alone a rudderless barge. First wave that sideswipes it will capsize it.

Then you didn't read the experiments, the study used a 1/50 scale model in a wave tank system and it showed the ship would have survived intact from waves of at least 30 meters. And you couldn't capsize the ark, it had a closed roof. It was basically a floating wooden box.

Just set aside your presuppositions for 15 minutes and read the links. It's actually pretty fascinating.