My Trip to the Ark Encounter: Some Pictures and Reflections

Just 10 days after the grand opening of the Ark Encounter on July 7th, I traveled down to Kentucky to pay a visit to Ken Ham’s latest evangelistic outreach endeavor. It was a Friday and I arrived less than one hour after opening and spent the better part of six hours on the Ark Encounter premises.   I have shared some of my thoughts about the Ark Encounter previously (Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter Opens to a Flood of Press but Few Visitors than Anticipated;  The Ark Encounter: Depicting a Real Flood with Unrealistic ImagesThe Ark Encounter Common Ancestors:  The Increasing Inclusiveness of Biblical Kinds).  Today I take you on a visual tour of the Ark Encounter theme park, share a few more thoughts about the exhibits, and suggest some needed improvements.


This was my first glimpse of the Ark as I pulled onto the Ark Encounter property.  The Ark is a bit over 1 mile away in this picture.


The park information pamphlet with map and rules includes an indication of how many people the Ark Encounter hoped to attract for its opening.  Notice that tickets were originally intended to be valid for only half the day presumably to accommodate more people.   They must have printed these pamphlets months before the opening because as much as a month before opening they had already changed to selling tickets for the whole day after it became apparent that the attendance would not meet their optimistic estimates.


A line of buses were prepared to take us from the parking lot to the Ark and other attractions.


Here I am posing in front of the Ark after departing the bus.   When I toured the ark the ramp up to the door was still under construction but it has since been completed.



While waiting in line to enter the Ark there was a 20 minute mini-movie running entitled, The Noah Interview.  I took the two images above.  The first shows one of Noah’s sons concerned that they are going to have to house huge dinosaurs and Noah assures him that they will be taking small juveniles versions.  The second is of the woman who is interviewing Noah.  There is so much that could be said about this movie but you should just see if for yourself.  You can watch it on YouTube HERE.

The enterior of the Ark is quite impressive and it smells great if you like the smell of fresh-cut wood. Photo: Joel Duff
The interior of the Ark is quite impressive and it smells great if you like the smell of fresh-cut wood. Photo: Joel Duff



I was quite struck by the amount of empty space on the Ark.  There were several decks that had areas that looked just like this while I was there.  I am not sure if this is space that they plan to fill with future exhibits or if they thought that so many people would visit and they needed to keep plenty of overflow area for people.


The Ark didn’t just have to carry representatives of living animals but also had to carry all the extinct animals as well. There is an assumption that no extinction of kinds could have occurred prior to the Flood and thus all kinds that God created must have been represented on the Ark. Thus dinosaurs and many other extinct groups of animals had to be accommodated.


Everything about the creation was perfect.  The idea that God’s original creation was a perfect paradise is central to the YEC theology.  As many theologians have pointed out, the author of Genesis doesn’t say the creation was perfect but rather that it was “very good.”  There are words in the Hebrew language that could have been used to convey perfection but the author chose to speak of the creation being good.  I don’t understand why it is so hard for Answers in Genesis to simply use scriptural language. Instead they import strong interpretive language into their scenes.


In keeping with the theme of the Ark Encounter that only representatives of a “kinds” were on the Ark, this poster informs the visitor that polar bears were not on the ark but rather only one pair of bears which then gave rise to offspring which adapted to an arctic climate.


Countering the “bathtub ark”  is a major theme of the Ark Encounter.  There is a whole room devoted to showing how Christians are doing a disservice to their children by falsely portraying Noah’s Ark in a child-like manner.   There are 7Ds of Deception explained.  Below is just one of them.



The pre-flood world if viewed as one in which people cared nothing for God’s creation.  The destruction of the environment is clearly displayed here with the burning forests and the trophy hunters taking horns of triceratops.    As an aside here, note that the animals in this picture are dinosaurs. It’s as if dinosaurs rules the world before the flood. Any chance that the AiG folks get to put a dinosaur on display they do so.


Over and over again, the visitor to the Ark and readers of AiG literature are faced with the two worldviews argument. It’s all a matter of seeing the data with the correct glasses.


Here we see the creation orchard model of origins applies to languages.  Just like “kind” the Ark presents language groups – like kinds – have a supernatural origin but then after that origin those languages have been free to evolve into many related languages.


Before getting to the displays that try to explain how all the worlds diversity of animals could have been preserved on the Ark this display tries to dispute the existence of vast numbers of extinct species.  The last sentence here “The amount of documented extinct species only numbers in the thousands…” is just false.   Fossils species are a huge problem for the Ark feasibility but the Ark Encounter tries to dismiss them.


Yes, there was an Ice Age but only one.  Like so many other displays, answers are presented as if they are just the result of different worldviews.


It isn’t enough to talk about the age of the earth.  The Ark Encounter feels it has to provide answers to other questions such as global warming and ice ages.  Here we see an attempt to dismiss anthropogenic climate change.


Some very simplistic estimates of the populations size before the Flood.


There is a whole room dedicated to explaining how the people before Noah probably had advanced technology. Mostly it came down to the saying the bible is silent or doesn’t speak against such technology so we are free to speculate that such technology exists.  It is also an admission that everything we do know about ancient technology isn’t enough to explain how such a vast vessel could have been built and so postulating greater technology than is known is required.


With a botany background I found the displays about plants to be interesting. So much emphasis is placed on animal “kinds” and how they evolved into many species after the flood.  The animals on the ark are all strange ancestors of today’s animals.  But what about plants?  Apparently the plants were just like those we see today.   Not only that but all the crop food that is displayed on the Ark were all clearly modern varieties of domesticated crops.



The 1500 seat restaurant next to the Ark. At 1pm when we had lunch there was a short line and about 50% of the lower level seats were filled. We went up to the practically empty upstairs seating area and enjoyed the view of the Ark and Kentucky countryside.


The backside of the ark was still not finished when I visited though recent pictures suggest that this last section is now complete.


Above is a screenshot of the very last scene from “Noah’s Interview” that we watched before entering the ark.  In this scene Noah’s wife concludes by saying “Well, scoffers gonna scoff.”   As strange ending. Rather than enticing the visitor to come and learn the emphasis is on the skeptic and seems to defend the Ark against critics.  It’s as if to say “You are ready to enter the Ark and if you don’t accept what we present here then you are just a scoffer.  Scoffers are going to scoff and we wash our hand because you will have seen the truth and rejected it.”

Possible Ark Encounter Improvements

The Ark Encounter is very new and they are doubtless still working out what is working and what needs to be done better.  I would like to make a few suggestions for improvements based on my experiences at the Ark Encounter.

Get more real:  Real things are better than fakes made to look real.  The ark is made of real wood. It’s pretty impressive, it smells like wood, and is really great to be in the structure itself.  50 years from now the aged wood will give it that National Park lodges feel.   But the wood is one of the few real parts of the ark.  Everything else in the Ark reeks of something that is obviously fake trying to look real.   The displays are plastic or overlaid Styrofoam.

But authenticity is hard to generate when the Ark that is being depicting comes from a world for which there is no physical remains to display. There is not a single cultural item that remains from the YEC pre-flood world or the Ark itself.

But one way that some realism could be brought to the displays is to include real fossils.  A key conclusion of AiG’s interpretation of Genesis is that fossils represent organisms that have died and therefore existed post-fall. They are the most visible reminder of the massive death and decay you claims was wrought by Adam and Eve’s transgression.  The Ark Encounter shows pictures of fossils and talks about them so why not display real dinosaur bones, real trilobites and real crinoids.  Kids and adults are much more interested in looking at, and better yet, touching something that is real history.

A few fossil displays on the 3rd deck would give kids something to ooh and ah about.  A massive slab with crinoids, some huge ammonites and a piece of a dinosaur would be great.  There is more than enough room for these displays.   Also, I think the Ark Encounter missed out on a great fossil opportunity – the new fossil sluice notwithstanding.  I would have built some stone benches around the Ark make of upper Ordovician Cincinnati limestone which could be quarried from the Ark Encounter property itself.  Cut and polished, these rocks are chock full of fossils and you could have an interpretive sign to explain their significance.

Real help for real questions: Tour guides! and more tour guides.  The Ark has questions posted on the walls and then provides very simply speculative answers that one would expect from a vacation bible school curriculum.   Anyone who has really thought much about the Noahic story and read any books on creationism and science will not be satisfied by the simplistic answers. They will have many more questions. Who is there to answer those questions?

AiG prides itself on answers for practically every question. But where the Ark Encounter focuses on provide detailed answers are to practical – by secondary – questions such as,  where did all the poop go?   I had many questions but it was apparent that the employees in the Ark were not there to answer questions about the displays but rather there to just be caretakers of the facility directly people to bathrooms and cleaning up spills.  Maybe tour-guides are in the works.  I have to imagine that it could take a long time to find and train a group of relatively low-paid workers the ins and outs of young earth creationism.  The vast majority of YEC believers who could work at the ark probably couldn’t explain most of the displays beyond what is written. It takes quite a bit of work to understand the flood geology model of earth’s history and the YEC paradigm, in general, to be able to answer questions that aren’t the stock questions about how dinosaurs died and why there aren’t human and dinosaur bones found together.  I find that even YEC “experts” frequently contradict their own colleagues when forced to answer novel questions. So maybe it isn’t possible to provide experts advisers but with so little signage and so few details on the signs surely many people have to be leaving with more questions than answers.

More interactive exhibits.  My kids would have been bored to tears on the Ark. Yes, there is a small petting zoo and some real animals to see but once you board the ark it’s not easy to go take a break. You are pretty much stuck in there for the long haul. If you leave the only way back in is to go back to the entry point and get back in the queue to board. Fortunately there aren’t as many people coming to the ark as there were planned because if you had to wait an hour to get in you would not want to leave until you are done but on the ark there is so little to do with kids that they will go insane before you are done.  Assume that if you really want to learn from the displays you are going to need a minimum of 2 hours and probably 3 hours. Kids need distractions once in a while. You can’t just promise your kids that in three hours you will be able to touch a lama and ride a camel and expect them to read 50 more signs.   I suggest more interactive things to do. There is plenty of room on each deck that is not being put to use.  You could have a playground in there with some interactive play equipment.  Like a “use wooden pulley system to put up pilings for the ark.  Be a Noah’s helper!  The Ark felt like a museum except that it was full of imaginary and fake items.  I can look at a painting by van Gogh because I know he painted it. It’s harder to look at manikins that represent speculation.  Kids can’t just look at stuff, they have to feel and touch. And I am not just referring to 6 year olds. I’m talking teenagers too.  How about a dump your own waste system in which you get to clean fake poop out of system and dump in into a bin which will be taken out of the ark?   Again, a “help out Noah” sort of a thing.


After a long day, I headed north to go back home.  On the way I took this picture of the sunset over corn fields.

31 thoughts on “My Trip to the Ark Encounter: Some Pictures and Reflections

  1. Great tour, Joel, thanks. Maybe I wont go. I do have a question. I watched the film and could not believe it was really being shown there, because I thought it was a satire. Did you see any reactions from others showing surprise at some of the (to me) blasphemous or at least highly irreverent material in the film? Or did people just chuckle and nod their heads. I am still very confused by this.

    Another question and further suggestion. I have read that the exhibits of the original “kinds” have no labels identifying them. Is that still true? Shouldnt the kinds be identified? Otherwise what good are they as exhibits. Thanks


    Liked by 1 person

    1. I would have to characterize the majority of the reactions I witnessed as indifferent. There weren’t many who were paying much attention. Those who where didn’t seem to really be following what was happening. To me it represented everything that is wrong with Christian art and movie making. Over-acting, trying to be serious but at the same time having bad humor to lighten the mood (sort of like a typical mega-church pastor). Just so many mixed messages in there. And yes, I found Noah to be wimpy, not a preacher of righteousness.
      Regarding labels. The animals were in cages that made it hard to see them. The lighting was very poor and there were no labels at all. So many visitors were confused about what they were seeing. Kids were really not that interested.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yeah, the emptiness and incompleteness of it all really amazed me.They need many more labels, much more content, and definitely something interactive.

        Reactions I saw were mixed. I casually asked several people “So, convinced?” just to gauge responses. I usually got “I don’t know” and “maybe” and similar responses. AiG clearly wants this to be a huge evangelistic outreach junction but a lot of people seemed to view it more as a fantasy tourist attraction despite all their attempts at rigor.

        I think the people who visit both the creation museum and the Ark will be more convinced. The people who only come to visit the Ark will be impressed, but less convinced.


      2. Hello,
        Besides our recent visit, our family also visited the Ark Encounter during the first forty days. Allow me to mention some things you might have forgotten as well as new improvements. Specifically for kids, there is a walk-in cave tunnel with hidden glowing insects and small animals. The tunnel leads to a fun little room with bars on the wall facing the hallway. Many kids enjoy clinging to the bars and pretending to growl while their parents take a picture. Then, there is an interactive animatronic Noah that will answer your questions about building the Ark, the animal kinds, etc. A mini petting zoo with has since been added to the Ark’s second level. The outdoor zoo itself has been expanded. Newest yet, is a large playground featuring your usual swings, drums and xylophone, slides, stepping stones, etc. Unique rides are a standing see-saw, mini zipline suited for ages 6 to adult, plus a wrap-around swing taking you down a slight incline so that momentum carries you around. Only rain or closing time cleared kids out of that playground. Natural Historian, you did say that you never actually took your kids to the Ark, whereas my four siblings and I, ages 5 to 14 (at the time that we first went), all had a marvelous experience and would return again. It is a great place to make enjoyable, lasting memories as a family.


  2. The sunset was the best picture. How much did they charge for that unfinished “museum” anyway? This is the kind of stuff that bothers me about certain kinds of American churches in general. Whether you’re YEC or not this is just a majoring in minors type of thing. What is the final cost? Something like $100 million? And a large part of that is borrowed through local bond money. So, so much for the Biblical principle of not going into debt. I’m in my 60s and have seen one fad after another in the American Church and we wonder why we aren’t taken seriously. Most blame the world and it is going to hate the Church, but this isn’t “Church” it is a colossal waste of money widely advertised. Just my take on it as I see other more “Treasure in Heaven” uses for the money, you know like feeding starving kids. Sorry, it just bothers me.


  3. The backside of the Ark is now complete, by the way. Unfortunately you can already see warping on some of the boards, particularly in areas where you are very close to the Ark. I’m not sure how they treated it.

    I picked up a magnificient bryozoan just sitting on the ground near the parking lot. There are tons and tons of fossils RIGHT there. They should absolutely build some sort of walking trail outside the Ark with exposed fossil cuts and polished rock to show rock layers; the topsoil in this area is ridiculously shallow.

    The entrance to the ark has a 3D cutaway showing two different ways the ark hull could have been constructed, one with metal rods and one with only wooden pegs. Knowing what I know about material integrity I can immediately tell that both versions would go to pieces instantly in even gentle seas. But there was no placard or anything else explaining what it was, so I doubt the general audience would have known what they were seeing.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Scary how much we think alike at times. In my original writeup I had a whole section on how they should have a fossil hunt that they could make by digging out a trench into the Ordovician fossil reef they are sitting on. They could also have an explanation for how these specific fossils were laid down in a flood. Apply their view to actual fossils in place. That would have much more impact than most of their displays in the Ark. So they have a fossil sluice discovery site but that is pretty lame compared to the real fossils that sit right below their feet. I have a lot of pictures of the fossils there and might write another post just on the fossils of the area.


      1. The problem if they did that, of course, would be answering the constant questions of “Why aren’t there any dinosaurs (or tetrapods of any kind) here?” It’s one thing to answer those questions in a book by saying “they just didn’t live here,” but when the monument to the supposedly global flood is just meters away, that’s going to get some people thinking and wondering why a global flood didn’t evenly mix things up, or at least drop one or two dinosaurs in the bottom of the ocean.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. I find the existence of what I call “Babel Linguistics” fascinating…the lesser-known counterpart to creationism and flood geology.

    If it’s rare enough to find a geologist who buys into flood geology, I’ll wager linguists who think language diversity originated in Babylon circa 2,200 CE are as rare as hen’s teeth. Even within the Bible there are problems, since the chapter prior to the Babel story already says that the descendants of Japheth, Shem, and Ham were already dispersed and had their own languages.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. A few decades ago–and when I was pondering these things–I heard a little comment over a radio broadcast from somewhere in the bible Belt. The idea was that the Flood was not just literal water, sea water, pilled up over all land. Rather, it was a Flood of Spirit. Something happened, and generations right after that knew,,, but by the time of Moses it was either forgotten or known just by the faithful,,, who failed it seems to write down the meaning.
      I am a Geologist, living out in Rockies, and I have looked for just a single bit of evidence for a literal water flood in anything I have seen. Not there, just not there. This should not surprise! It was a one-time, miraculous event, meant to do a lot more than drown a small population of corrupt people.
      I use Ham’s (great name for him, right?) over-blown amusement park as a benchmark for the wrong interpretation.


    2. No. Genesis 10 describes the scattering of people after Babel. Not before. Chronologically, Genesis 11 is before Genesis 10. This arguement would be kind of like saying Adam was created after Cain killed Abel because that occurs in Genesis 4 and the genealogy in Genesis 5 starts with Adam’s creation. Genesis backtracks A LOT. (Genesis 2 overlapping Genesis 1 Day 6 of creation, Genesis 5 overlapping Genesis 4, Genesis 11 overlapping Genesis 10)

      Anyways, their idea about Babel linguistics makes no sense. Even if you take the Babel narrative literally to mean God actually supernaturally intervened to alter peoples languages, the text makes no claim that EVERY language or even every language family was a result of this. This intervention could have been as simple as God dividing the people into 3 languages. One for each of Noah’s sons. (Personally, I am not so sure of this literal interpretation, I suspect something else occurred that caused the people to be scattered and start developing different languages, but even in the literal interpretation, the view in the ark encounter is simply unnecessary)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Genesis 10 describes the scattering of people after Babel.

        I know some people argue that view, but I think it dismisses the logic of Genesis 10. For example, the descendants of Japheth (cognate to Greek Iapatus) spread to the Mediterranean and become the ancestors of the Greeks and Black Sea nations.

        On the other hand, the Babel story supposes that everyone was still living as one monolingual group (“one language and few words” says Gen 11:1) several generations later, migrating from the east to Babylon where they built the first city.

        Trying to combine the stories requires some awkward harmonization. Are we supposed to think that all the descendants of Japheth were still with those of Ham and Shem, and yet after their languages were diversified and they couldn’t talk to each other, just the descendants of Japheth headed off to Greece and Asia Minor? That the descendants of Canaan all arranged themselves neatly in the Levant from north to south as listed in the genealogy? (Recognizing, of course, that the names are symbolic; Canaan was not actually founded by someone named Canaan, nor Egypt by someone named Egypt, etc.) It’s hard to see any harmonizing scenario here that really follows the spirit of either Gen. 10 or Gen. 11.

        Personally, I think it’s wrong to say that either Gen. 10 or 11 came before the other. They are simply different traditions that the compilers of Genesis arranged topically.

        Anyways, their idea about Babel linguistics makes no sense.

        On that, at least, we agree.

        This intervention could have been as simple as God dividing the people into 3 languages.

        17th-century linguists, having given up on the Babel hypothesis, tried hypothesizing a language tree with three branches as you suggest, but that was given up by the 18th century.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I’m not sure I get you on the chronology of Genesis 10 & 11. Genesis 10 describes the scattering of peoples after the flood and Genesis 11 describes how that scattering was started. One would assume that because of the lifespans and in general how families tend to work. Noah’s three begotten lineages remained somewhat distinct. As for the pattern of scattering, I assume the descendants of Ham decided to migrate westward, the descendants of Japheth broke up and scattered north and east, and the descendants of Shem remained in Arabia & Mesopotamia. The “neatness” in the table of nations probably is just a product of the writer of the text arranging them in such a way, not the way the people at the time actually arranged themselves. This just seemed the natural interpretation for me and not forced or “awkward” at all.


          1. Again, let me explain using the example of Japheth. Japheth’s seven sons and their sons (only Gomer’s and Javan’s are named) are said to have spread along the maritime region (10:5) and become, by implications of their names, the nations of Greece, Anatolia, and the Black Sea.

            If we try to incorporate that into the Babel story, it gets difficult. Why did all the descendants of Japheth and only the descendants of Japheth, despite being unable to communicate after the confusion of tongues, somehow coordinate a mass disposal to the same region?

            The much more natural and straightforward reading of Genesis 10 is that Japheth emigrated to the eastern Mediterranean (Greece, judging by his name), and his offspring colonized the regions around him.

            If you want to mix chs. 10 and 11, you also have to do some large-scale genealogical telescoping, since 10:10 has Nimrod as the third generation from Ham, yet he founds the cities of Babylon, Erech (Uruk), and Akkad. The 100 people or so alive at that time is barely enough to put on a county fair—never mind colonizing three great cities—so you have to add centuries of missing generations. And that just compounds the problem of Ham, Shem and Japheth somehow remaining as distinct tribes so their distant, post-confusion ancestors can all head off to Greece/Anatolia together.

            And I’m still only dealing with the biblical texts and the intent of its writers. Any treatment of the stories as factual history must consider the fact that Babel’s tower sounds exactly like the ziggurat of Etemenanki, completed by Nebuchadnezzar II in the 6th century BCE — which, as described by its commemorative stele, was built with bitumen and glazed bricks and reached to the top of Heaven. (All that wording is remarkably similar to Genesis 11.)

            And we still haven’t asked why Genesis 10 and the dispersion of mankind seems unaware of the existence of the Inuit or the Incas or the Japanese or the Maori or the sub-Saharan bushmen…ancient lineages with unique language families that aren’t accounted for in a text whose geographical horizons are what you would expect for a 6th-century Jewish writer.

            But my original point was, of course, about linguistics, and how no linguists working in the field use the story of Babel, the flood, or the table of nations as historical data. The language diagram shown in the article above is one of the few places I have ever even seen creationists address the matter.


          2. One thing to consider is that in this are of Genesis 10 and 11, the word for ‘tongues’ in the end of Gen 10 is NOT the same word used in the start of Gen 11 for ‘speech’. In the Gen 11 case, it seems to be referring to a religious bent, not language.


        2. To Paul D:

          ” Japheth’s seven sons and their sons (only Gomer’s and Javan’s are named) are said to have spread along the maritime region (10:5) and become, by implications of their names, the nations of Greece, Anatolia, and the Black Sea.

          If we try to incorporate that into the Babel story, it gets difficult. Why did all the descendants of Japheth and only the descendants of Japheth, despite being unable to communicate after the confusion of tongues, somehow coordinate a mass disposal to the same region?”

          You are making the unwarranted assumption that Japheth’s sons couldn’t communicate. It is possible different indo-european languages simply diverged naturally over time. AFTER they already spread out.

          “If you want to mix chs. 10 and 11, you also have to do some large-scale genealogical telescoping,”

          First of all, as I have told you before, the geneologies are clearly telescoped and many scholars would agree with this. I see no reason to put an upper limit on “how much” they are telescoped. There could be 5 missing generations or 10 quadrillion, it makes no difference.

          “The much more natural and straightforward reading of Genesis 10 is that Japheth emigrated to the eastern Mediterranean (Greece, judging by his name), and his offspring colonized the regions around him.”

          I don’t see any reason to necessitate that Japheth was already dead at the time of Babel. For all we know, Noah was still alive at the time of Babel. (I don’t actually believe the “Babel” in Genesis 11 is the same “Babel” founded by Nimrod in Genesis 10, I would put the Babel incident in Genesis 11 as taking place around 55,000 BC, well before actual babylon)

          “Any treatment of the stories as factual history must consider the fact that Babel’s tower sounds exactly like the ziggurat of Etemenanki, completed by Nebuchadnezzar II in the 6th century BCE — which, as described by its commemorative stele, was built with bitumen and glazed bricks and reached to the top of Heaven. (All that wording is remarkably similar to Genesis 11.)”

          Well, using seared stone bricks with tar was not exactly an uncommon practice in ancient times. And would be the obvious option for building the tower. The “reached to the top of Heaven” is remarkably similar, but it isn’t enough to fully convince me that there is a connection. And even if there is a connection, It doesn’t prove that this ziggurat actually IS the Tower of Babel, and not simply an attempt to copycat it in some way.

          “And we still haven’t asked why Genesis 10 and the dispersion of mankind seems unaware of the existence of the Inuit or the Incas or the Japanese or the Maori or the sub-Saharan bushmen…ancient lineages with unique language families that aren’t accounted for in a text whose geographical horizons are what you would expect for a 6th-century Jewish writer.”

          Because God didn’t feel the need to reveal that knowledge to the writer. Because even without direct references to those things, the text makes it clear that all humanity is from the flood and Babel. Even if groups the hebrews weren’t aware of weren’t mentioned because it would seriously confuse them. Essentially, Genesis 10 takes the all the peoples in the KNOWN world to the hebrews and lists where they came from. Any groups discovered after that point could be correctly assumed to just be unmentioned by the text, but still come from Babel.

          To CK:

          Interesting idea. If this is true, It would make sense when you consider Deuteronomy 32:8. I’ll have to look into this.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. The. Video was ….interesting. After watching it I watched one of the other videos posted on YouTube by TheTimTracker out of curiosity, and found it quite interesting to see the Ark through what is probably a typical lightly churched person’s eyes. It reinforced some of your thoughts as to the lack of explanations as well as the general lameness of the exhibits.
    Interesting also that Noah and wife appear to be pretty typical mid-western couple ethnically. Do they sell the Noah hats in the gift shop?


        1. “I was hoping they’d have all those weird amalgam animals in the gift shop.”

          Maybe we can help them by giving things catchy names. I read your post and I was thinking, “amalgam animals” = “amalgimals!”

          Liked by 1 person

  6. Ditto on the fossils. My family spent the better part of a morning near there in a fossil park at the end of an industrial drive/development, a really memorable experience (don’t even remember where we were going).

    Even before kids, at DisneyWorld, we came across a large, but plain-ole playground that was mobbed with kids tired of standing in line to get on rides and attractions. It was eye-opening that even DW needed such an outlet for kids.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. As a pure aside,,, I can’t help but goggle at the thought of rather primitive men, with crude clubs/axes of wood and stone, killing a Triceratops like it was a lamb! I have a good-natured Angus bull who weighs in less than a ton, and am careful not to anger him. A reptillian archeosaur, coming in at 4 to 6 tons, with thick scaled hide and massive skull,,, oh, sure! I’ll just push his head down with my hands and hold him there while I club away!
    What are these people smoking?!

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Thanks for a very interesting article on the waste-of-lumber that is the Ark Encoubter. I honestly enjoyed & appreciated it’s. However, it is rife with misspellings, missing commas, missing words and other errors. Please go through it and fix them. It really detracts from the article.

    “only representatives of a “kinds” where on the Ark” (It’s *were not. You make this mistake numerous times in the article.)

    “this poster informs the visitor that polar bears where not” (Again, *were)

    “though recent pictures suggest that this last section is not complete.” (I assume you mean “now” complete”?)

    “and decay you claims was wrought by Adam ”
    (Not sure what this means… maybe “yec claims…”)

    “employees in the Ark where not there to answer questions” (it’s still *were not. )

    “Kids need distractions once and a while”
    (The phrase is “once IN a while”)

    Hope this helps!



  9. I just can’t imagine how a TRAINED scientist like a Nathan Jeanson or Jason Lisle could be anything but embarrassed by the “sloppy” and evidence-less bold declarations of the signs on the wall at the Ark Encounter: a “Biblical view” of the Ice Age that associated one such glaciation event with the Noahic Flood for no reason whatsoever. Doesn’t that bother anybody? And doesn’t the 200 years of “hyper-evolution” leave anyone craving supporting evidence?

    “Lots of dead things” as “worldwide proof of the flood” seems like the ultimate in not-even-trying science.

    And I can never get any YEC to explain the self-contained animal burrow-tunnel networks in all of that “rapidly deposited flood layers.” (The 15,000 alternating layers of the Haymond Formation has always been my favorite—as well as the White Cliffs of Dover.)

    Ken Ham is neither a Biblical scholar nor a scientist—yet he claims that his is THE correct interpretation of all things “answered” in Genesis.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Both the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum by The Answers in Genesis Ministry are well worth a visit. Whether you believe in the flood or creationism, you will get an excellent education.

    I came away with a reinforcement of my beliefs that after reading the book ‘Did Man Create God’ on that is it more likely that Man created God in man’s image rather than the other way around.

    In one of the pictures in the Ark labeled Bones and Berries, it states: “Initially, the dog kind meets the challenges of the new world head-on, reproducing abundantly and diversifying into many fresh varieties. I would love to see my son’s male and female Yorkshire terriers start reproducing great danes, akitas, Alaskan malamutes and the 336 other breeds of dogs. It would also be interesting to see a pair of black bears reproduce a grizzly and a polar bear. Even as far as science has come, I do not believe that if only one pair of the dog kind got off the Ark, that any dog breeder could reproduce the different breeds.

    While visiting the Creation Museum, we listened to a speaker that was from the Answers in Genesis Ministry who spoke about the many Americans leaving Christianity and what could be done to bring them back. I took exception with a couple of ideas he presented. Even if one could find fault in any part of the Bible, since faith is the basis of all religion, that would not be justification for throwing the entire Bible out the door. In the Old Testament, if nothing else is true, I would argue that living one’s life by observing The Ten Commandments would set a good example for all to follow. And in the New Testament, even if nothing else is true, if one accepts that Jesus came and sacrificed his life for our sins, then that should suffice to help us lead better lives.


Comments are closed.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: