Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Of course, 'mythic discourse' can serve as the description of any philosophy, including, dare I say, the one which provokes some people to indulge in ridicule against this theme park.

Furthermore, the term 'myth' only makes sense if the concept of 'truth' has validity. A philosophy that cannot account for 'truth' has no basis to dismiss any view as 'myth'. That would be like trying to measure something without either a measuring rod or a belief that measuring rods even exist. A 'subjective measuring rod' doesn't really do the trick ('subjective truth' is an elastic ruler - not very reliable!)

Anyway, the theme park called 'nature' is good enough for me.

I'd quite happily go along to something like this, much the same way I'd go visit an attraction about King Arthur or Atlantis. It's probably going to be quite the spectacle, there's been a lot of money invested in it. The demarcation between church and state in the USA is a joke anyway and is flouted as often as they can get away with it.

However, to consider the story of a global flood has even one iota of plausibility is stretching the boundries of credibility just too far. Just the simple question of where all the water came from/went to is impossible to answer.

Myth (from Collin's): a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age, usually of how natural phenomena or social customs came into existence.
Legend (same source): a popular story handed down from earlier times which may or may not be true

You're getting your definitions mixed up there, LSV. But of course, why bother answering questions about the technical aspects when you can question the philosophy!

Couldnt resist this.

Interesting one, not for the American tax breaks issue cause lets face it billions of dollars are spend fighting wars nobody wants with people nobody knows in places nobody in America can point to on a map (Ok, bit of tongue in cheek that sorry my American buddies lol) But, tax breaks are given to loads of giant multinational companies who up and leave when the going gets tough (read Michael Moore's "Downsize This"), lets face it this modern Ark isnt likely to up and float away any-time soon and any jobs it generates as an attraction will stay put.
So the economic argument for granting tax breaks for it is sound in my view, especially when you dig a little and see what companies actually get these tax breaks for.


Aside from that though this is the first time I've heard of the building of a full size replica Ark, I think its a brilliant idea for many reasons, chiefly it will exist as a life-size experiment in the feasibility of whether such a thing was actually possible. Isnt this what many who oppose the idea vehemently demand?

How many original types of creatures would it have needed to carry, was there room?
How could they be housed and treated whilst on the craft?
How much space for food was required?
How could eight adults feed X number of creatures?
What would living accommodation be like for those aboard?
How would the craft be constructed?
How would the interior be lit and ventilated?
What waste management systems would it require?

Etc etc etc

ALL these questions will need to be addressed and answered sufficiently, those who ridicule the idea of the account of the Ark and those who believe it should, if they have the courage, applaud the construction of such a craft, after all those who propose to build the thing will have to answer those questions experimentally.

Isnt that what both sides have always wanted?




Let them build it and lets have a look.



Beece

Natman (@ 2) -

"Myth (from Collin's): a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age, usually of how natural phenomena or social customs came into existence."

How very cunning of you, Natman, to only quote one definition. Unfortunately for you, I also am a proud owner of a Collins dictionary.

Now why not quote the WHOLE definition, as follows:

myth n 1a. a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age taken by preliterate society to be a true account, usually of how natural phenomena, social customs, etc., came into existence.
1b. another word for mythology (senses 1,3).
2. a person or thing whose existence is fictional or unproven.
3. (in modern literature) a theme or character type embodying an idea: Hemingway's myth of the male hero.
4. Philosophy (esp. in the writings of Plato) an allegory or parable. [C19: via late Latin from Greek muthos fable, word]

Now since meaning #1b informs us that 'myth' is another word for 'mythology', I therefore need to list the meanings of this word, according to Collins:

mythology n, pl -gies.
1. a body of myths, esp. one associated with a particular culture, institution, person etc.
2. a body of stories about a person, institution, etc.: the mythology of Hollywood.
3. myths collectively.
4. the study or collecting of myths.

Now here are the full definitions, and the only information I left out were the two pronunciation guides using the phonetic alphabet.

So how is my understanding of 'myth' incorrect? "A person or thing whose existence is fictional or unproven" covers every conceivable falsehood, does it not?

Furthermore, you will notice that definition #1a, which you partly quoted, includes a reference to 'preliterate society'. Both Jewish and Christian societies described in the Bible are not 'preliterate'. Therefore this definition doesn't even apply.

Nothing like documentary evidence, is there, Natman?

I am looking forward to the time when I will be able to go to visit the Museum and this new venture.

Yes it is hard these days for people to comprehend the idea of a global flood but there is much evidence around the world that can be seen to support it. It may take a representation like this to show that it was possible.

I'd like to see a similar venture that illustrates a 'Big Bang' which happened out of nothing and then when all the matter appeared then half of it disappears.

Now which of these is a stretch to the imagination?

Natman (@ 2) -

"But of course, why bother answering questions about the technical aspects when you can question the philosophy!"

Exactly right. Well done, Natman, for that observation.

Empirical data needs to be interpreted and for that we need to have sound assumptions. I assume you have heard of something called 'the philosophy of science'? Or maybe you haven't?

Anyway, I can't see your common descent idea in the empirical data around me, I'm afraid, so I assume that this idea is based on an interpretation of the evidence. If I decide to become a really really radical genealogist, and attempt to construct my patrilineal family tree as far back as possible, then, if some of your ideological bedfellows are to be believed, I will have to enter one of my many many times great grandfathers in as a fish.

The trouble is, Natman, that, try as hard as I can, when I look at myself in the mirror (a truly joyous experience) and observe other members of the human species, I just cannot see piscine ancestry. Obviously there is some 'technical' aspect that I am not quite seeing!! But, then again, I am just a miserable old empiricist, so maybe that's the reason!

Or could it possibly be to do with an attempt to fit the data into a philosophical scheme, I wonder?! Surely not!!!

Myth (from Collin's): a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age, usually of how natural phenomena or social customs came into existence.
Legend (same source): a popular story handed down from earlier times which may or may not be true

You're getting your definitions mixed up there, LSV. But of course, why bother answering questions about the technical aspects when you can question the philosophy!

Atheism (from Collin's): atheism[[aith]-ee-iz-zum] n the belief that there is no God, Greek a- without + theos god

If Carl Jung is taken seriously by the Ö÷²¥´óÐã, referencing a recent article, I don't see why myth or Noah's Ark shouldn't be either.

LSV,

Give it up, you don't need to subscribe to a philosophy for the results of an emperical test to still be valid.

As for evidence of piscine ancestory, check out embyronic development! (And take the comments to an appropriate thread)

Love the pic. Must have been quite a trek for those kangaroo's at the front of the queue :p Maybe they hopped on a Qantas flight - or they could've been on a backpacking holiday around the Eastern Med/Middle East at the time - those Aussi's everywhere!

Noah's Ark- according to the Bible, came to rest at Mount Ararat- now eastern Turkey on the borders of Armenia & Iran. Although another possible candidate is Mount Judi,in Northern Iraq, where according to Josephus, the remains of the ark were still shown in the 1st century AD.

Both regions sit between the Black sea & the Caspian sea & to the south lies the Persian Gulf. Dating back to the last Ice Age, all 3 have been subject to Outburst Floods (within a timeframe of human settlement). With the melting of the Scandinavia Ice Sheet, a massive river discharge flowed into the Caspian Sea,raising it to as much as 50 metres above present-day levels. "The rise was extremely rapid and the Caspian basin could not contain all the floodwater, which flowed from the northwest coastline of the Caspian Sea, through the Kuma-Manych Depression and Kerch Strait, over the current eastern coastline of the Sea of Azov into the ancient Black Sea basin"

Regarding the Persian Gulf, its basin was above sea level during the last Ice Age & glaciation would have been extensive in the Taurus Mountains. "The drainage of the combined glacial era Tigris-Euphrates made its way down to the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Sea.Close to the steeper Iranian side a deep channel apparently marks the course. There is a theory that there was also a Black-Sea-type sill collapse at the Strait of Hormuz at the outlet of the Persian Gulf."

"In addition to this large scale flooding of the Persian Gulf there is confirmed evidence of relatively recent extended local flooding in this part of the world. Excavations in Iraq, for example, have shown evidence of a flood at Shuruppak around 2900-2750 BCE which extended nearly as far as the city of Kish- whose king, Etana, supposedly founded the first Sumerian dynasty after the 'Deluge'."

Plus, the entire flood story as recounted in Genesis is almost an exact copy of the much older story of Utnapishtim, the King of Shurrupak, from the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh.

I like the concept that an all powerful, all loving god could only destroy the evil people on Earth by flooding it all. I guess it never entered his head to just kill the evil people. Why he had to go through the effort of the flood story is beyond me.

Natman (@ 9) -

Firstly, let me say that you have lost all credibility as far as the issue of posting 'off topic' is concerned, after your false accusation against me on one of the other threads. Who set you up as the resident blog policeman anyway?

As it happens, I was actually responding to a rather ill-informed remark that you made on this thread. So don't try and hide behind some kind of self-righteous concern about topicality of threads. This thread actually looks suspiciously like one concerning the subject of origins, in case you hadn't noticed!

"Give it up."

Pardon me? What are you talking about? Give what up?

You are not suggesting that I am not permitted to express my point of view, are you? If so, then how arrogant and censorious.

You obviously believe that empirical data interprets itself. How is that possible when there are different ways that it can be interpreted? How do you then decide which interpretation is correct, because the data itself will not necessarily tell you, and that is certainly the case as far as the issue of embryo development is concerned. How on earth you can prove common descent from fish, from the fact that there are certain similarities in embryo development between different species, is beyond me. This crude argument is nowhere near a proof or even strong support. It could just as easily be interpreted as common design (which is exactly what one would expect given that there are inevitably going to be similarities between creatures who inhabit the same planet).

Don't bother chiding me about posting off topic again, because you don't run this blog.

Natman (@ 11) -

"I like the concept that an all powerful, all loving god could only destroy the evil people on Earth by flooding it all. I guess it never entered his head to just kill the evil people. Why he had to go through the effort of the flood story is beyond me."

The Almighty obviously made a big error in not consulting the all-wise and all-knowing Natman before daring to do anything!

Apparently God is only allowed to exist if Natman can understand him fully (as evidenced by this comment, as well as a similar comment on the Open Thread concerning Vitamin C - the "dumb things" remark).

Well, as a matter of fact, I don't fully understand Natman's mind (and doubt I ever will). Great! That means that I can claim that Natman doesn't exist!

(But apparently it's OK for Natman to accept that there are things beyond his understanding within his own worldview, such as time without a beginning or the existence of a multiverse. Funny that. If he doesn't understand everything within his own worldview, then how come he believes it's true then? Very strange...)

This is $40 million of taxpayers money that will be used to indoctrinate children in religious balderdash. I am taken aback by the size of the overall investment - $150 million. Will it be like a Disney theme park? What also concerns me is that a business plan has presumably passed muster (no one, not even the world's nuttiest creationist, would stump up an investment of $110 million without anticipating a return). I despair!

LSV,

I seem to have touched a nerve with you, alas.

If you don't want to answer legitimate lines of inquiry and hide behind caustic attacks on me, that's fine. Just so long as you're happy in LSVland.

William: That picture you have is wildly inaccurate.

Frstly, the ark is the wrong shape. Secondly, and more importantly, there aren't any dinos on it.

Natman accuses me of being 'caustic'.

And yet...

Natman's post #19 on the 'In The News This Week... 2nd June 2011' thread:

"I reserve the right to be as vitriolic about religion as I like"

and...

Natman's post #161 on the 'In The News This Week... 12th January 2011' thread:

"You might not like it, but I will mock your beliefs..."

(And then, of course, we have the false accusation on the 2nd June thread, which I have already mentioned, and the perpetrator of that falsehood is too proud to apologise. Oh dear.)

In other words...

"I reserve the right to throw stones at other people, but...

...I will play the poor wounded innocent when other people throw those stones back at me."

Oh yes, Natman, you really have hit a raw nerve in me. I am sooooo utterly convinced by everything you say and do and my whole worldview is just collapsing around me because of the relentless pounding I am experiencing from the utterly irrefutable evidence that you are presenting, and the wonderfully gracious, mature and completely fair-minded attitude with which you deign to communicate with me.

(Oh dear, perhaps Peter Klaver is right. Maybe I am dishonest after all, as I do admit that I fibbed in the previous paragraph. Can't think why I would do such a thing!)

I almost hate to point out to you LSV that the attacks you quote from Natman are against your beliefs or religion while yours are caustic attacks on Natman himself.

You should know the difference after all to paraphrase christian mantras, Love the believer - Hate the belief. Natman may be simply be attacking your 'sin' with boundless love whereas you seem to be attacking the 'sinner'.

Have you forgotten this or does this particular device only apply to justify christians attacking and when christian beliefs are attacked they are allowed to call it personal. Where is that dictionary - I am sure that is close to hypocrisy.

If you want to talk about credibility then assess how much credibility a poster has when a significant amount of what they post is caustic sarcasm aimed at discrediting an opponent in a debate as opposed to either providing evidence to discredit their assertions or evidence to support counter assertions. I would suggest you would give little credibility to posters such as yourself.

Dave -

Please give me an example of where I am attacking Natman himself, rather than his belief or his attitude as it directly relates to an attack on my belief.

Or perhaps you haven't noticed on this blog that Natman and others (one other particular person) constantly accuse me of dishonesty (a very personal attack!) - without any evidential foundation other than the fact that they don't agree with my points - and yet I don't see you criticising them!

So your attempt at being the blog policeman (or self-appointed moderator) looks rather silly.

(Also, I don't remember you being concerned about the sort of comments AboutFace frequently came out with - those which actually survived moderation, which were not many - such as expressing how much contempt he had for me, simply because of my views.)

It's very simple. If people can't handle a vigorous debate, then don't mock other people's beliefs (which is not the same as having a mature disagreement). If Natman continues in the way he is going, then I will respond in no uncertain terms, whether you like it or not.

When Christians complain about how we are treated, we are accused of having a whiny 'persecution complex' and told to get on with it, whereas when we say something strong against an atheist, we get all this hyper-sensitivity and "why are you being so nasty?" response! I wonder why! (I think I know the answer to that.)

LSV,

I see you missed the point again,

In other news : water flows downhill

Accusation: "I almost hate to point out to you LSV that the attacks you quote from Natman are against your beliefs or religion while yours are caustic attacks on Natman himself."

Request for evidence to support accusation: "Please give me an example of where I am attacking Natman himself, rather than his belief or his attitude as it directly relates to an attack on my belief."

Response from the accuser to my request: "LSV,

I see you missed the point again,

In other news : water flows downhill"

Now the jury will retire to consider their verdict.

..... pause ....

Back they come 3 seconds later.

Judge says: "That was quick!"

Foreman of the jury replies: "Because it was an easy decision".

Judge: "And what is your decision?"

"Not guilty."

Judge to the defendant: "You are acquitted due to a serious lack of evidence."

Can we now please get back to something a bit more sensible, Dave, eh??

3. Beecefromsuff:

Hi Beece, hope you are well.

Your comment 3 makes some very good points; are you sure you're ok? lol.

Just to take a couple of your proposed ark experiments though:

"How many original types of creatures would it have needed to carry, was there room?"

The problem we have here is that many YECs subscribe to the notion of "variation within 'kinds'"; how this differs from 'evolution' remains a mystery to non-YECs. But it allows a 'get-out clause' once the Ark proves incapable of holding even a fraction of the earth's animal population (even young ones), not to mention extinct forms, such as dinosaurs, mammoths, etc.

The get out clause is that the Ark didn't need to carry every species, just one or two species from every 'kind'. So, for example, a brown bear became a polar bear 'after' the Ark made landfall. All the species of dinosaur in the fossil record are descended from one or two 'kinds' of dinosaur that micro-evolved over the period of a few years, etc... These are real arguments that have been used, and which no doubt will be used again.

Nearly all of your proposed experiments will be met with equally outlandish responses, so there really is no point in conducting them.

On a broader point, a better question to ask might be: "Where did all the water come from, and where did it go to?" But again, the answer will come back, once all else fails "God did it by his all-powerful hand". Once again, all academic discussion will be stymied by an appeal to special pleading.

Let's face it; myth and scientific experiment are not compatible with one another, because the results of the experiments will always be subject to rejection on the grounds that they reject the possibility of supernatural influences. This is true; because science cannot evaluate un-testable claims.

LSV,

I believe it, it is for you to disprove it.

"I believe it, it is for you to disprove it."

Not at all, Dave. I believe in "innocent until proven guilty". Therefore the onus is on the accuser to prove his case.

I don't know what totalitarian state you're living in. Sounds awful.

LSV,

'"I believe it, it is for you to disprove it."

Not at all, Dave.'

So if you believe in something (ie a designer/god) we don't have to disprove it?

Yey! Sensible reaction at last! The burden of proof is on the -right- side.

Ironically, for those who believe in a total global flood, complete with a set of all 'kinds' on the Earth stowed away inside, the rate of 'microevolution' needed to create all the variety of species seen on Earth today from the limited number of 'kinds' on the Ark (assuming some space is taken up by dinosaurs) would far surpass the rate of even the most radical of any evolutionary model. In fact, to get from the couple of hundred 'kinds' postulated on the Ark to the millions of distinct species seen today in just the few thousand years would assume a rate of evolution that would be easily visible (radical changes from one generation to the next) and would instantly disprove the concept of evolution as put forwards!

It makes a mockery of the whole concept, frankly.

Natman (@ 25) -

"So if you believe in something (ie a designer/god) we don't have to disprove it?

Yey! Sensible reaction at last! The burden of proof is on the -right- side."

1. Dave accused me of something.

2. I asked for evidence from Dave to support the claim he was making (hardly unreasonable!).

3. He failed to provide it.

4. Therefore, on the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', I argued that his case could not stand.

Now what on earth has this judicial argument got to do with the fact that I believe in God?

This looks suspiciously like a total misapplication of what I was saying. Since when was 'my belief in God' an accusation against you?

If the fact that I believe in God constitutes an accusation against you (can't think how), then, of course, it is down to me to prove my case, since I am accusing someone who is protected by the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. But the point is that my belief in God is not an accusation against you. You might think it is if you are totally paranoid (but that is irrelevant, since that would be a false belief on your part).

The only issue I have with you is simply the fact that I happen to vehemently disagree with you on various fundamental concepts concerning the nature of reality. If this 'disagreement' is interpreted as an accusation, then, of course, the same would apply to you, since you clearly disagree with me on those same points!! Therefore, according to your logic the burden of proof would be on both of us!

A misapplication of logic, Natman. A very common error.

LSV,

Lighten up, it was meant in jest!

Unfortunately I don't have a Natman barometer to hand, so can't always judge your mood swings!

Hence my 'sledgehammer to crack a nut' approach - just to cover all the bases (and just to horribly mix metaphors!)

LSV,

No cracked nuts here, it must have missed.

You haven't provided the evidence to disprove my assertion. I have evidence but I will wait to see yours first, and if it acceptable I will post mine - that is unless I have moved onto another thread.

Dave -

Here is my evidence:

The principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

You, of all people, should respect this principle, since you frequently expatiate about moral issues and how certain people (particularly Christians) should back off from being judgmental.

Now you're being judgmental towards me and seemingly working on the principle that the burden of proof is on the accused and not the accuser!

You're doing my head in, Dave. I can't work you out on this one. Sorry.

LSV,

That is a principle - not evidence,

All I am asking for is evidence that you have not done something, how difficult can evidence of nothing be?

"...the burden of proof is on the accused and not the accuser!"

Would that in any way be close to the burden of proof is on the asserter of an idea (say deities or guilt) rather than the person who does not assert such ideas.

Maybe the principle is

Assertion not valid until proved valid.

or is a assertion of the existence of a deity a special case which pleads an out clause from principle.

All the infighting and posturing on this blog has completely turned me off and I see little point in coming back.

The subject WAS an interesting one but I don't want to wade through all this guff.

Hopefully it is only local guff and not global guff.

I still think this ark is a good idea to let people judge whether it was possible or not.

And by the way with regard to 'kinds'. Look at how many breeds of dog we now have after only a few hundred years which rose from the dog 'kind'. This is valid evidence to me anyway.

Have a nice blog. :-)

Luxfuit (@ 33) -

"All the infighting and posturing on this blog has completely turned me off and I see little point in coming back.

The subject WAS an interesting one but I don't want to wade through all this guff."

Ouch.

I'm off to do penance...

In answer to LuxFuit's comment (as the poster might not read it),

The different breeds of dog can interbreed, they're not different species. Speciation is much more complex and requires fairly radical changes in the genome of the organism. There are 'kinds' out there that have species that cannot interbreed and are both genetically and physiologically very different.

One example does not a hypothesis make.

Apologies for the intemperate nature of my comment @33 but I do enjoy reading (if not always participating) in these blogs. I enjoy the banter as well and I hope you will not hold it against me.

As for the doggies! I made the point that they are from the one kind and have produced either naturally or by breeding an astonishing variety from Dachshunds to St Bernards.

Speciation as you say Natman is much "more complex and requires fairly radical changes in the genome of the organism". Persackly Mr Pugh as Charlie Drake used to say. It is the evidence for this speciation that is lacking in the fossil record or as observed in nature.

Darwin's finches didn't turn into mice to avoid extinction but adapted within their 'kind' to benefit from the conditions they were presented with.

Also if we look at the human population and how it has mushroomed this can explain the flora and fauna we have around us in a post flood scenario.

LuxFruit,

You mention the Flora, I assume most of it was killed off by being submerged in the salty water of the flood. Any seeds that survived (as tubers etc would be destroyed by flood) would have to root and grow before they could be of use to the herbivores who would probably have died or been eaten by then. Of course once they had grown it would be a tough job for a couple of Bees to pollinate them all to produce enough second generation crop of all the varieties needed to supply the varied and oft unique needs of many herbivores. I pity the Koala waiting for the eucalyptus leaves to come into existence.

Now there are many questions to be asked of a post global flood scenario, but these are the easy ones.

Luxfuit,

There -is- evidence in the fossil record for speciation and I could provide numerous examples if you so wish of remarkable species that appear to be partway between two of today's recognisable species. The term 'transitional' is misleading and implies that the species involved was almost one thing and not quite another. Instead it was a species all in its own right and fully capable for the environment in which it thrived (which it did, evidently, by continuing to breed and evolve).

Darwin's finches are perhaps the least useful example of speciation and are only notable as they were the first example put forwards by Darwin. Since then, other species have been identified that give a better example of speciation, particulary what are termed 'ring species'.

In fact, if birds turned into mice that would disprove evolution quite remarkably.

I'm also a little bemused by the comment "if we look at the human population and how it has mushroomed this can explain the flora and fauna we have around us in a post flood scenario."

You do realise that if only 8 people were on the ark and the Great Flood killed every other living creature on the planet that, according to the bible, the Tower of Babel was contructed just 100 years later. This tower was so great that it threatened God, so it must have been greater that the pyramid of Khufu which took 30,000 people to build. Even a growth rate of 500%, which is absurd beyond all imagination, would only produce about half the required people to even begin to think about such a construction project.

It still doesn't answer the most basic question of why an omnipotent god, wishing to remove all the evil people from Earth, needed to do so with a giant flood that killed every other single living thing as well.

36. LuxFuit:

You overlook a very important point regarding dogs (or cats, or chickens, or roses, or wheat, or potatoes, or bananas, etc). All modern examples of these things are the result of intensive and deliberate human selection over several thousand years.

We act as the selector for breeds of dogs that can do certain work, or crops that produce high yields. This rapidly accelerates the process of variation. Nature relies on natural phenomenon to force selection, which can be very slow and requires geological time spans.

On human population: the growth rate relies on births and mortality. It doesn't just go up exponentially; it creeps up (or down) by a very low percentage. In pre-industrial societies this rate was about 0.12% per year.

The flood is claimed to have taken place around 2350 BC. So some interpret the Bible as saying there were only 8 adults alive c. 4360 years ago. If the annual growth rate was 0.12%, then:

P = 8*(1.0012)^n

Where 'P' is the new population after 'n' number of years.

The Bible says Moses led 600,000 men (women and children on top of that, so at least 1.5 million) out of Egypt around 1446 BC, 904 years after the flood. Using our realistic population growth rate, there would have been a total of about 24 people in the entire earth at that time: 8*(1.0012)^904.

You already need to invoke 'special pleading' in order just to change the growth rate from one that is realistic for a small group struggling in an ancient, post apocalyptic world, to one that would be very high even in a modern industrialised economy.

My question re this is "what's the point?" What is the point of running scientific experiments on this proposed Ark for instance, when we already know that anything that comes up short of what the Bible says will simply be explained away by special pleading - 'it was the hand of God', etc?

You cannot test myths scientifically, because those who believe the special stories to be true will simply thumb their nose at any contradictory evidence and invoke the miraculous.

Newlach,

"What also concerns me is that a business plan has presumably passed muster (no one, not even the world's nuttiest creationist, would stump up an investment of $110 million without anticipating a return). I despair!"

The feasibility study that promised the large number of jobs and revenue for Kentucky was cooked up by one of Ken Hams close buddies, according to this post:



I don't have the links at hand, but there has been quite a bit of follow-up on this. Basically, the state was conned out of several dozen million in tax payers money. The high numbers seem to have been purely to get the state legislature to cough up.

And then they got concessions for another 11 million in road improvements:

PeterKlaver

Thanks for the links. Kentucky currently has a similar sort of nonsense and seems determined to stymie the educational development of Kentuckians yet further. Interestingly, Answers in Genesis's share of this project is only 20 per cent. Other companies might have their eye in setting up somewhere along the road that will have improvements costing $11 million. Land bought prior to the announcement of the road upgrade might have been a little bit cheaper than it is now!