But indeed, don’t underestimate ‘him’. The wish from the owner of that thing above was moving to the harbor we are looking into. And the thing is HUGE, so ‘noop, noop, noop, please do not’, we prayed to every god we could think of, and to be sure we also killed a black rooster. Danced around a three and some more of that stuff.
And you don’t believe it: It worked! Pure magic.
I heard of an Italian who claimed that Dutch sounded like a throat disease. I’m not sure a drunken German is really better, but it’s also not something to get particularly mad about.
Less time than that, it sounds like… though I’m not so sure about the pool. The money might have been spent half-building the park that will sit around rotting. I wonder about the auction, too, actually - the cost of the tear-down might be more than the land is worth (certainly more than they paid for it).
I was reading something about early financial projections based on different assumptions about the park. One was that the park’s purpose was to proselytize for creationism, giving the employees evangelical roles. Unsurprisingly, this version had projected attendance numbers that were a small fraction of a Noah’s Ark-themed park that existed purely for entertainment rather than indoctrination. Despite Ark Encounters being a for-profit corporation owned by AiG that, in theory, should have been maximizing its revenue, they went with the proselytizing option. (But AiG apparently use projected attendance figures that they pulled out of a hat that are three or four times bigger.) So the for-profit company is taking on the mission of the non-profit owner. Somehow.
My understanding is that AiG technically only built the ark itself (with donations), with Ark Encounters, the for-profit LLC building the park around it. I also read that Ark Encounters got not only tax rebates/exemptions but also a sweetheart deal on some of the land from the county ($1 for 98 acres), and the Tax increment financing designation amounts to a $62 million interest-free loan that would be paid back through real estate taxes over 30 years (or not, if they didn’t last that long).
Including the many that are not creationists? It seems to me that being a creationist would be more relevant to this job than being a Christian. Not that I’d want to work there, but I do wonder how they’d respond to non-fundamentalist Christians working there who are honest about evolution towards visitors.
If they really wanted to make some money, they would have opened up Chickneyland. Chickneyland is a magically judgemental place that celebrates the Jack Chick characters we all grew up with. I have some designs in mind, but I haven’t worked out yet how to keep the liberals from being incinerated in the gift shop. It’s a sure money-maker due to Jack Chick’s enduring appeal to both the irony-deficient and the irony-delighted.
Young earth creationism, especially in its most common form, is predicated almost entirely on Christian theology. And the concepts described by that term are almost exclusively accepted by Christians. There are analogous concepts in Hindi theology, Judaism, Islam, and some other religions. But they typically go by other names and are constructed from a wholey different religious frame work.
So yeah it’s fair to describe it as explicitly Christian. Arguing that it isn’t is like arguing that belief in the divinity of Jesus isn’t explicitly Christian. The concept itself openly states a belief in Christian ideas. And Christian ideas are baked into it from the start. But not all Christians accept the concepts (though far more Christians accept the divinity of Jesus than any form of Creationism). And some Jews, Muslims, and even to some extent Buddhists do accept the divinity of Jesus.
Should have read that New Testament thingy. Jesus said you should pay your taxes, he didn’t ask the State for a handout. Judas on the other hand did get a state handout, and by some accounts he came to a bad end.
Other relevant scripture would be Luke 14:28-30, although the original meaning was meant more metaphorically rather than the literal interpretation that fits so well here
"(28) Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? (29) For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, (30) saying, 'This person began to build and wasn't able to finish.'
just looking at that thing i can tell it will breakbe ripped apart the first deep water swell it hits. there is no way that is an ocean worthy vessel, even the barges it sits upon aren’t meant for crossing the ocean. A+ for effort though. It goes to show how far people will stretch what they think in order to conform to ancient myths.
i’m sorry. i didn’t mean to come across as insulting, I respect you and your contributions to our community. Sometimes words on the internet come across other then intended. I’ll try harder with my wording, thanks for being patient and understanding with a bumbling word putter downer.