Talk:Ark Encounter

	This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes This needs to talk more about what the Encounter says about all these things. This mainly talks about the backstory.

Visiting the Ark Encounter

Jesus Christ, indeed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

One of the worst experiences, security is tight and will chase you if you are seen as a threat. We were more Christian than them but then again it is funded by millionaires like Bill Gates. It was a very unpleasant experience. I wish there were refunds but its going to the film they are making. The Ark wasn't even the right size for crying out loud, and they put too many dinosaurs and not enough other types of creatures.--(ノ°Д°）ノʇsədɯəꓕ nɹnɯıꓤ 00:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

How were ye more Kristian? Did ye cut yer bollocks off with a sword? https://medium.com/@alysdexia/kristians-dont-exist-59f4730f6dea Lysdexia (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fire risk

Ark Encounter is the largest wooden structure in the world. It consists mostly of flammable material, wood. It's large enough so fierce convection currents can develop spreading a fire fast and trapping people inside. See How Does A Fire Spread? Even Grenfell Tower did not contain the same high proportion of flammable material as the Ark. Are there fire safety experts around who can add a section on fire risk? Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Quick google says it was built to at least come kind of code, since they made the planners use steel pegs to hold the thing together instead of wooden ones. Might have some kind of fireproofing treatment since I really don't think they'd do that and then turn around and let them wire electrical systems into a building made of untreated timber that's open to the public. Or that anyone would give them liability insurance if they did.

Edit, also, watch the video above at 3:33, there's cinderblocks in it. So this brings up the question of what the thing is actually made of (mostly wood, or just wood cladding over a cinderblock frame), making it impossible to evaluate how it would behave in a fire. Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What about 'termites, assorted fungi (dry rot, wet rot, bracket fungi etc etc) and other destructive pests and pestilences'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Commercials

Quite recently animated commercials for The Ark encounter have appeared on the channel TBS. Humorously, The commercials tell you virtually nothing about the place other than you should 'visit and bring friends'. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.183.118.159 / talk}

Reversion

@Bongolian @Carthage Uh, why did you guys remove my latest edit to the page? I thought my remark about the Bible not being "The Idiot's Guide to Shipbuilding & Architecture" (and never intending to be that in the first place) was pretty darn funny. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

First, needless redundancy ("We repeat: this was said by a Christian blogger"). I've seen you do this sort of thing before: it's annoying and serves no purpose. Second, you make the assertion, "The Bible didn't exactly give detailed parameters on the ark's design", likely true but you give no evidence, only citing a fake publication. Bongolian (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to build off of Bongo's point: Cite your sources or your "mini-essays" are gonna get reverted. Carthage (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The "We repeat: this was said by a Christian blogger," thing is meant to draw attention to the fact that a Christian of all people is telling off the people behind the Ark Encounter for spouting off nonsense. It'd be one thing if the person levying the criticism was, say, an atheist who completely disagreed with the Christian worldview, but if it's another Christian making the criticism — someone who does hold a similar worldview — that makes it hit just a bit heavier, right? It carries a connotation of "here's someone who has at least some of the same beliefs as these fundies and still thinks they're batshit insane".

As for the Bible not being intended to be "The Idiot's Guide to Shipbuilding & Architecture"… I figured that was obvious enough to not need a citation. Since when did the Bible ever claim to be a guide to shipbuilding or architecture?! Since when did Christians ever extol the Bible as a masterpiece of shipbuilding technique?! That's not what the Bible was written to be, so of course it wouldn't go into as much detail about boats as a book that is supposed to be about boats. Moby Dick goes into a lot of detail about the Pequod, but it's a story about a sea voyage; the boat is a big part of the book's focus. The Bible is (or claims to be) about the history of the Jewish people. It mentions important boat rides that important Jewish people went on, but it doesn't go in depth on the dimensions of the boats because the boats aren't the main focus. So, yeah, if the Bible doesn't supply the exact dimensions of Noah's Ark, no duh it doesn't. The Bible's authors probably didn't see that as a crucial detail that needed to be explored in depth. That's not the kind of book they were writing. I don't think my comment about the Bible not being a book about boats needs a citation because it's something that should be obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the text. --Luigifan18 (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Luigifan18 For your initial point, the emphasis is unnecessary. What you're talking about is implicit from the moment that it is brought up that the person is a Christian. To expound on the point needlessly increases the reading time without adding anything of substance and feels borderline condescending. Our readers are not stupid, Luigifan. There is no need for this. Sometimes less is more, you know?

For your second point: "I figured that was obvious enough to not need a citation." I am rather confused by why you assume that minute, glaringly obvious details need in-depth explanations but the assertions we make don't. It should be the other way around.

Lastly... do you remember how a few days ago you told me that you DO care about what others have to say? Well, I'm seeing two editors here who feel like your edit wasn't very good. I can tell they feel that way Luigifan, because they wouldn't have reverted it if they thought otherwise. Perhaps it would have been better to just accept the reversions? IF you really believe that other people's opinion is as valid as yours, that is. I am mystified by why you would edit war with them. They both have mops, while you don't. If they wanted to they could just protect this page, but they are choosing to take the high road because edit wars are won by the people with the superior "internet stamina." The person who has more spare time and is willing to press "undo" X + 1 times gets to be the winner. That sort of shit is beyond tedious, and clearly neither Bongo nor Cart think that battle is worth having.

But this is a mobocracy, Luigifan. And I am going to add my voice to theirs. I think that these edits, while clearly written with good intentions, are not particularly enjoyable to read. These notes are excessive (putting Notes under References violates the Manual of style, btw) and are not funny. So I have undone the edits. Now, Luigifan, you have two choices: you either admit that the opinion of others is just as valid as yours and if the votes are overwhelmingly in favour of reverting you than the reversions should stand. OR you can hit "undo" one more time. You can win this little edit war we are having by pressing "undo," and tell ALL THREE OF US THAT YOU DON'T CARE WHAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO SAY because, somehow, YOUR OPINIONS ARE SUPERIOR TO OURS! And you don't strike me as nasty or malicious, Luigifan, you often seem quite cheerful and friendly, so I hope that's not how you feel about us... but I wouldn't know what else to think if you did hit undo. That would be the only conclusion I can possibly come to.

The choice is yours. Regards. - Rairyu75 (Talk) 06:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I can't really let go of my "The Bible isn't The Idiot's Guide to Shipbuilding and it never tried to be that" gag. I think it's pretty darn funny. I will concede that the double emphasis on the Christian blogger was lame and unnecessary, so I've removed that part. --Luigifan18 (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Luigifan18, It's now three editors who find your edits unhelpful and not amusing. You were previously warned about these "mini-essays". Don't push it. Bongolian (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else you want from me. I've removed the double-emphasis on the Christian blogger part (I agree that that isn't needed, and kinda ruins the joke a bit), and I cited the part of the Bible where God does in fact provide Noah with specifications for the ark (but doesn't go into any more detail than its height, length, width, and the kind of wood it should use). I just don't see why we shouldn't take a jab at Ken Ham by pointing out that the people who wrote the Bible were not writing a book about building boats or a book that geeks out about boats and goes out of its way to elaborately describe its boats. Let's be real, they could not and did not anticipate anyone trying to prove that their global flood story happened exactly as described by building an exact replica of Noah's ark, and so they didn't feel the need to go into more depth or detail than "Noah built a really big boat to gather the animals onto to wait out the flood without drowning". The Bible does go into detail in other places where it feels the need to do so, so the fact that it didn't feel the need to specify the dimensions of every individual room on the ark, the thickness of the hull, the length of the prow, whether or not it had a mast, etc, etc. is rather telling (and makes it… not exactly feasible to recreate the boat without (unwittingly or otherwise) taking some artistic license with it). In short, just how many sources and citations do you think I need to make the claim that the Bible is not The Idiot's Guide to Shipbuilding?!? Please. Tell me. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

A hundred citations and sources won't make these note essays any more helpful or amusing. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be for you to create this essay in essayspace and then have someone link to it in the see also section. Carthage (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Luigifan18 has been advised to use Essayspace in the past, but seems quite resistant to it. Bongolian (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hm. An interesting proposition. The reason I call my mini-essays mini-essays is that, generally speaking, they're single paragraphs or less — too small to be an essayspace article IMO. (I have moved mini-essays into essayspace in the past if I think there's enough substance to them — "Why Heresy Is Good And Blasphemy Is Bad" being one example.) So, I don't think my "The Bible is not The Idiot's Guide to Shipbuilding" thing could be an essay on its own. I could make a "List of things that the Bible is NOT (and has never pretended or tried to be)", but "The Idiot's Guide to Shipbuilding" is all I've got there. For now. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Then make it a placeholder or WIP for now. Carthage (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You can call your maxi-essay something like "Luigifan18 expounds on life, the universe and everything" or something like that. Then you can put all your opinions in one place and organize them as you please. Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)