Ken Ham screws up

Doesn’t he realize that he’s turning his Ark into a gay flag?


  1. JohnnieCanuck
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    As failures go, it’s certainly fabulous in that light.

  2. Randy schenck
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    Notice he says permanently lit. Has he paid the electric bill that far in advance? Perhaps the state exempts him from electric bills too.

  3. Tim
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Hemant wrote about this in December over at the Friendly Atheist. Ham is trying to take the rainbow back.

  4. James Walker
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Once it’s gone out of business, it will make a fabulous gay nightclub!

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted July 20, 2017 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

      Lit by day too. Of course.
      In violation of normal policy, Sithrak may be blunting a stake for this one, and choosing more splinter-y wood than normal.

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted July 20, 2017 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

      Oh, I’d pay for that. And I’m not gay, and don’t like night clubs.

  5. sensorrhea
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    God owns everything, right? Including homosexuality.

    These people are not very smart.

    • W.Benson
      Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

      Good comment, but more accurate after the “very” is removed.

    • Posted July 20, 2017 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

      I think the Christian answer is that god gave mankind free will so do bad things so he can then forgive us our sins. One reason it has lasted for two thousand years is that they have an answer for every question, even if they are wrong on all counts. Too those lost in it, it all makes perfect sense. Cheers.

  6. Jeffrey
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    I think that’s exactly his point. The gay rights movement has claimed the rainbow as its symbol, but Christians hold that the rainbow originally represented a promise by God not to destroy the world by flood again. In other words, Ham’s saying, “The rainbow isn’t a symbol of gay pride. It’s a symbol of God’s mercy and love. And we Christians are taking that symbol back in a very visible way.”

    • Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

      To quote Beethoven’s apocryphal last words when a case of Rhine wine was delivered to him on his deathbed: “Pity, pity, too late.”

      • Jeffrey
        Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

        Agreed. 🙂

        • somer
          Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

          Yes it sounds like that except that meme is destroyed when visually the ark provides such a spectacular vehicle as a Mega Gay Flag. He might be attracting the “wrong” sort of convert under “Jesus had two fathers”.

    • loren russell
      Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

      The rainbow was one of my first glimmers that Holy Scripture wasn’t very reliable.

      I was probably in second grade when I got to go to a traveling science show — sponsored by GE or RCA if I remember correctly, since they were showing off new, square-screen B&W TVs. They had a number of demonstrations — flame colors, penduums and ramps, gas-law stuff, and some swell optics.

      Then a bit later sunday-school got to the postflood rainbow I had to ask — didn’t the rainbow colors always happen when you shine light through water?

      • Posted July 21, 2017 at 11:51 am | Permalink

        It is a great example of how miracles really are scientifically disreputable.

    • JonLynnHarvey
      Posted July 20, 2017 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

      D.H. Lawrence’s novel “The Rainbow” takes its title from the Noah story. (The whole novel is filled with allusions to Genesis.)
      But the story is also very much a celebration of the goodness of sexuality, which Lawrence argues should be the ultimate meaning of the symbol.

      Lawrence himself may have had a brief gay liason. (However, he portrays lesbianism negatively in his execrable novel “The Fox”).

    • gravelinspector-Aidan
      Posted July 20, 2017 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

      Slight typo.

      we Christians are making ourselves even more ridiculous than normal

    • sensorrhea
      Posted July 21, 2017 at 6:34 am | Permalink

      Isn’t that a “just so” story of the origin of rainbows? If so then that means God changed physics so rainbows would appear. Nifty!

      Ham should fund studies about how the physics of no rainbows worked during the before times.

  7. Zach
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    Two of every gender and sexual orientation!

    • bric
      Posted July 21, 2017 at 6:50 am | Permalink

      Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Genesis 7:2

      I have often observed that odd numbers are better for orgies

  8. Dave137
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    White light was supposed to be so pure. And then Newton destroyed that, demonstrating that reality is far richer than the petty metaphors we’ve ignorantly invented.

    Ham is a charlatan who warps young minds.

    • Posted July 21, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

      There are some people that think that Descartes got interested in optics because it was an area to show clearly that the cosmos runs by objective patterns and not miracles. I dunno, but …

  9. Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    Roy G. Biv – the colors of the rainbow from right to left.

    The only problem is that the colors indigo and violet are not represented.

    I don’t think anyone expected him to get this right. He’s wrong about everything else.

    • Filippo
      Posted July 20, 2017 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

      Is that if one is looking at the left side of the rainbow? If so, and if I’m thinking straight(ly), at its apex (zenith?) that sequence would be top-to-bottom, and the opposite sequence would obtain on the right side.

      (Can a rainbow be viewed from its “opposite” side? Or would one be blinded by the intensity of the [white?] light?)

      (I occasionally read – e.g., Verlyn Kinkinborg (sp.?) in a NY Times editorial several years ago – that the Milky Way galaxy, or a planet, turns in a [counter-] clockwise direction. Of course, it depends on from what pole one is viewing the movement.)

      When I first heard that post-Flood tale in the conservative/fundamentalist, evolution-denying Southern Baptist church in which I grew up, it didn’t take me long thereafter to be suspicious of its efficacy.

      • Nobody Special
        Posted July 20, 2017 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

        The Milky Way might spin anti-clockwise as we see it, but the interesting thing is that it rotates in the opposite direction than that suggested by the arms, which aren’t trailing but leading the rotation. I think that this has been observed in many spiral galaxies, though curiously none of this deserves a mention in Genesis, which is surprising as the sheer scale and intricacy of those structures makes our little home look like a much less impressive creation. It’s like somebody creating a supercar better than the Bugatti Veyron and not mentioning it whilst constantly bragging about the wheelbarrow he’d cobbled together.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted July 21, 2017 at 12:02 am | Permalink

          @Nobody Special:

          [1] You write that our spiral galaxy rotates in a ‘retrograde’ direction, but this is untrue. The MW rotates in the direction in which the arms trail e.g. as per a Catherine wheel [or pinwheel] firework.

          However around 10 years ago it was reported by the usual suspect popular sci crap mags [New Scientist etc.] that the ‘outer halo’ contra-rotates, but…

          The outer halo & the gaseous halo are not in a disc – they are spheroidal – all around the spiral disc [analogous to our solar system’s billions of ‘Kuiper Belt Objects’ out in the far darkness wayyy beyond Neptune, which is also in a sphere]. This sphere of gas, dust, old stars & globular clusters orbits any old which way like Paris or Athens traffic! About 35% of these clusters are on retrograde orbits… Random. Probably the case for nearly all galaxies at their outer reaches.

          An example of this is “Complex H” which is a very close companion galaxy [or cluster] crashing into the outer disk of our own galaxy in the opposite direction of the MW’s rotation.

          [2] Your claim “that this has been observed in many spiral galaxies” is also incorrect depending upon your definition of “many”! I think that “many” is probably much less than 1% of spiral galaxies because I can only find three well known examples [& two of those spin MOSTLY in the right direction].

          ** NGC 4622, AKA the “backwards galaxy” – due perhaps to an interaction with a similar sized galaxy or perhaps a merger between itself & a smaller object.

          ** NGC 7331 has a contra-rotating central bulge, which may be due to the infall of material from outside the galaxy with an opposite overall spin

          ** Messier 64 has an outer gas disk orbiting the ‘wrong way’ compared with its inner disk – the stars & dust are all in the inner disk which behaves correctly. It is thought the outer disk formed from a collision with a retrograde orbiting gas-rich satellite galaxy.

          • Michael Fisher
            Posted July 21, 2017 at 12:23 am | Permalink

            Correection! Replace KBO in my analogy with the Oort Cloud which extends in every direction from 0.8 light years out to maybe 3.2 light years:

            The Kuiper Belt is in a doughnut shape from Neptune’s orbit to double that distance

            • Bob Murray
              Posted July 21, 2017 at 7:55 am | Permalink

              This is a superb example of why I love this website. Thank you Michael.
              Could you please recommend any websites/books that go into detail about the examples you give. Galaxy structure/shape etc. sounds fascinating.

              • Michael Fisher
                Posted July 21, 2017 at 9:33 am | Permalink

                Hi Bob Murray. Thanks.

                I’ve posted a long reply with plenty of links, but it is in moderation waiting for Ceiling Cat to clear.

                To answer your specific question – look up old posts by Ethan Siegel on his blog, Starts With A Bang! His blog exists in two places at once…
                [1] Forbes Science – annoying layout & noisy video ads. Avoid
                [2] His own site on the Medium platform which is my preferred option

            • Michael Fisher
              Posted July 21, 2017 at 9:18 am | Permalink

              @Bob Murray. Thanks Bob!

              *** BOOKS ***

              Buy every book written by Dava Sobel. Seriously. She’s a 70 year old science writer from the Bronx. She looks at things from the historical perspective – the best way to learn science definitely because perspective.

              Asimov is brilliant even 50 years later. I still read the stuff he’s written that’s now known to be wrong because he’s THAT good.

              Books are difficult to recommend because most published scientists are dreadful writers & they get an awful lot wrong outside their immediate tight speciality/bias. Michio Kaku, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Krauss, Sagan & Hawking are bad to dreadful [it’s a sin to say that about Sagan, but it’s true – his writing has a high sugar content & makes me sick]

              *** BLOGS ***

              The best way to keep up is via blogs. Put the below in your RSS reader & get rid of any later that don’t suit you temperamentally

              GOOD WRITERS
              [1] The Time Lord is wed to Jennifer Ouellette: Cocktail Party Physics. A very good weekly aggregation of science news – leans towards astronomy

              [2] The Time Lord himself, Sean Carroll: Very good writer – almost up there with Dawkins & Coyne for style + content + clarity. Doesn’t blog enough because busy. He’s on the quantum side of things.

              CLEAR WRITER

              [1] Ethan Siegel: Starts With A Bang!
              Clear! Employs lots of pics & graphics! Very average writer! Loves the exclamation mark! Childish style, but charming & enthusiastic!!!!!! I like him a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
              View collection at

              AVERAGE, PLAIN, UNIMAGINATIVE WRITERS With interesting material sometimes:

              [1] Brian Koberlein:

              [2] Chad Orzel:

              [3] Phil Plait:
              [I dumped Plait years ago because he went a bit mental with identity politics, social justice, atheism+, but I think he’s back on track these days]

              *** YOUTUBE VIDEOS ***

              Anything with Krauss holding forth

              That’s it

              • Bob Murray
                Posted July 21, 2017 at 11:18 am | Permalink

                Michael, thank you very much. That is a pretty bloody comprehensive list. You reply is greatly appreciated.
                Starts with a bang – childish. Pitched right at my level.
                Thanks again for your time!

              • Michael Fisher
                Posted July 21, 2017 at 11:45 am | Permalink

                Read that Bronx lady
                I’ve read “Longitude…” & the Copernicus one [publications section in this Wiki: ]

                Also a bit of Sean Carroll on YouTube is good to great. Find the one where he gives the snooty William Lane Craig a deserved verbal beating with the barbs of rationality. Carroll is a very cool chap.

      • JohnnieCanuck
        Posted July 21, 2017 at 4:02 am | Permalink

        No, the rainbow can’t be viewed from the opposite side. For an appropriately sized and spherical drop of water, the light enters and is refracted once and then reflects off the back of the drop and is refracted again as it leaves at an angle of about 42º. A small amount of the light does escape at the back of the drop but doesn’t have a maximum and so ends up adding together with that from other drops to produce white light.

        There is a secondary rainbow which is produced by a double reflection, making it dimmer. It appears above the primary bow and has its colour order reversed.

    • Mark R.
      Posted July 20, 2017 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

      Not to give dipshit Ham an out. I think at night, indigo and violet are not colors that can be represented. You need a lit contrasting background to make those colors discernible.

      That’s ultimately why he’s dumb. There is no such thing as a nighttime rainbow.

      • JohnnieCanuck
        Posted July 21, 2017 at 3:25 am | Permalink

        Do moonbows count? I’ve seen pictures of them on APOD. They are too faint to give much colour response from our cones.

    • Posted July 21, 2017 at 6:40 am | Permalink

      There’s violet right on the stern (left hand end) of the building.

      Indigo isn’t really a colour. Newton only put it in so he would have seven colours instead of six, seven being a number with bullshit mystical connotations.

      • bric
        Posted July 21, 2017 at 6:54 am | Permalink

        Tell Levi Strauss that

        • Posted July 21, 2017 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

          Levi Strauss the famous purveyor of blue jeans. The picture in that article is a shade of blue. It may be a shade produced by a pigment called indigo but it’s still blue.

          Or to turn it around, if you are going to claim a hue is a new colour just because it is on the cusp of the change between two other colours, then there are new colours between all the recognised colours of the rainbow. And then there must be colours between those colours and the official colours and so on ad infinitum. One might almost believe it was a continuum.

          Of course, it is a continuum, so I have to ask myself why I see stripes of distinct colours that merge into each other. Is it biology or culture or both?

      • Posted July 21, 2017 at 11:54 am | Permalink

        Including the number of (unique, natural) notes in a scale, which of course is largely a convention! Some think orange got popularized for the same reason.

    • hugh7
      Posted July 21, 2017 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      “Indigo” is just a colour Newton made up so there would be seven, for numerological reasons. That’s why everyone is so vague about what colour it is. None of those offered in a search is a primary or secondary colour. The diversity rainbow flag gets it right with six colours.

  10. Derek Freyberg
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    And now the Sensuous Curmudgeon reports that Ark Encounter LLC (the for-profit company that operates the ark) has sold the land under the ark for $10 to the non-profit Crosswater Canyon, trying to dodge the 50 cent/ticket safety fee that the town of Williamstown wants for providing police/fire/EMT services. See

    • Filippo
      Posted July 20, 2017 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

      ” . . . trying to dodge the 50 cent/ticket safety fee that the town of Williamstown wants for providing police/fire/EMT services.”

      That’s mighty Christian of Mr. Ham.

      • Nobody Special
        Posted July 20, 2017 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

        Don’t need no stinking EMT when God’s your go-to guy for emergencies.

        • Doug
          Posted July 20, 2017 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

          What happened to “Render unto Caesar . . .?”

          • Derek Freyberg
            Posted July 21, 2017 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

            And FFRF reports that the Kentucky Tourism, Arts, and Heritage Cabinet has notified the Hamster that he is in breach of his sales tax rebate agreement because of the transfer:, and so no tax rebates on any sales after 28 June (the date of the transfer).
            And I wonder whether Williamstown, which supported the bond offering for Ark Encounter, and the buyers of the bonds, might not have grounds for legal action against the Hamster for fraudulent inducement, and whether Kentucky or one or more of its subdivisions might also have grounds for an action for tax fraud, over the transfer. Buy your popcorn now – this one is not going to go away quickly!

            • Tom
              Posted July 21, 2017 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

              Religious hucksters always overreach themselves and the tax man cometh…
              Perhaps Mr Ham will call it a revelation from his heavenly financial advisor?

  11. Mike Anderson
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    It’s an insurance scam attempt. Ken Ham wants God to smite the ark (for its gayness) with lightning or fireballs or something (not locusts – that won’t quite do the job), then Ken can collect the insurance and be rid of that money pit.

  12. Ken Kukec
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    Grist for the right-wing rumor mill: Ark Park infiltrated by velvet mafia, obvs.

  13. claudia baker
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    Gives a whole new meaning to “Ark Encounters”.

  14. Andrew B.
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    Yeah! GOD owns the rainbow! YOU HEAR THAT LEPRECHAUNS?

  15. BJ
    Posted July 20, 2017 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    Hey, dem dirty gays just up and appopper-ated the rainbow from god and use good christians!

    I say homosexual appo peration I say!

  16. MorsGotha
    Posted July 21, 2017 at 1:40 am | Permalink

    Its a shame it’s in the middle of nowhere, it would have become and awesome gay nightclub.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted July 21, 2017 at 2:27 am | Permalink

      The best ‘straight’ nightclubs are ALL gay nightclubs [from my UK, male cisgender POV]. My ‘straight’ women friends will not step inside a ‘straight’ dance/drinks/party venue here in the UK because too many male, clueless knobheads.

      KY is bible & thus there are many hidden gays waiting to flaunt their rainbow side down the Ark Encounter – especially the pastors! Though if Ken Ham had poetry in his soul, he would have tried to finagle New Orleans, after Katrina, into tax breaks, etc. rather than an empty part of KY where floods are unlikely.

  17. Bob Murray
    Posted July 21, 2017 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    It has just struck me that the ark in the photo has what appears to be a ‘bulbous bow’. Noah obviously had some training in hydraulic theory coupled with Maritime Architecture. Clever bugger. I suppose being that old allowed him to take more courses than average

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted July 24, 2017 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

      Umm, yup. And I thought marine architects had only discovered that in the 20th century. Wasn’t God clever?

      Except… the bulbous bow only helps to reduce drag when the hull is being propelled through the water. Since the Ark just floated around, I’m not sure what function the bulbous bow performed.

      Greek and Roman galleys had a ‘ram bow’, whose function was what the name says, but again, on the Ark…?


      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted July 24, 2017 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

        Note also – that round hull cross-section (judging by the photo) would have made it roll like buggery in the slightest sea. Seasickness ahoy. Can you imagine an Ark full of animals chundering in unison? Hooo boy…


%d bloggers like this: