Citations please II

This December, I have written a few blogs on the Ark Encounter controversy.

AiG or the Ark Encounter versus Kentucky

A couple of more points on the Ark Encounter

Citations please

Last night, I started to examine Ken Ham's claim which had one of it's most recent iteration in a video he posted to facebook. 

We even looked into building in Indiana, but Kentucky’s incentive encouraged us to build here. Yet most secular bloggers and many in the media would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark. So let me say again, that’s simply not true.

I am at a lost to find secular bloggers who are saying this.  At best, they are arguing like Ham himself that the tax incentives would offset the creation of the park.  I cited five secular bloggers that are not claiming this.  These were not low level no names, they were some of the main bloggers arguing against Ham on this issue.  Two of them, PZ Myers and Dan Arel have gotten personal responses from Ham.  Ham knows that at least these two are not making this claim.

I also called into question, Ham extrapolating a particular meaning from an infinitive used by Maddow when he used the same infinitive in his recent video.  Infinitives can have multiple meanings depending on the context.  For some reason, Ham assumes an interpretation that makes Maddow's statement false, when most interpretations would make the statement true.

Well, it is time to add another secular blogger that is not claiming that the Ark Encounter is "asking the state for money to complete the Ark."  The Sensuous Curmudgeon has written a December 18, 2014 blog, Is Opposing Ken Ham’s Tax Breaks Anti-God? on Ham's criticism, Lexington Herald versus God!, of a recent editorial in the Lexington-Herald, Few questions for Answers in Genesis. The Sensuous Curmudgeon wrote:

That newspaper has previously opposed tax benefits for Hambo’s new theme park — see Problem for Ken Ham’s Ark Park? That was back in August, before Hambo was officially notified that the state wouldn’t provide sales tax rebates for his Ark project.

 So the number is up to six which means Ham must provide seven to support his claim.  However Ham's line of evidence is found wanting. He questions whether tax incentives are "tax breaks".  He even parses infinitives for the worst possible interpretations.

The Sensuous Curmudgeon does a great job discussing Ham's over reaction (with even an exclamation mark) to the Lexington-Herald editorial.  He did not deal though with Ham's citation of someone in the media claiming the Ark Encounter "is asking the state for money to complete the Ark", so I will deal with it here.

Ham starts out claiming that the Lexington-Herald "[f]or years, it has spread untruths and misleading information about Answers in Genesis and our life-size Noah’s Ark project."  He then begins the next paragraph:

I suggest that the editors of the Herald-Leader have an anti-Christian agenda. It has resulted in inaccuracies in its stories and editorials concerning the Ark project.

 In the third paragraph, he triples down.

In a recent typical anti-Christian editorial against the work of AiG, we read considerable misinformation and downright untruths. Actually, I believe it’s clear that the editors are really shaking their fist at God.

OK, so he is claiming that the editorial is saying things that are so untrue that they are "shaking their fist at God." What are these untruths?  Well he cites two examples from the editorial which he criticizes by specifically using the word true ("not true" and "doesn't tell the truth here").

Perhaps Answers in Genesis should give up thanking God that intolerant liberals “can’t sink this ship,” and ask the deity instead whether it can be built without more government handouts.

Ham does not quibble over whether or not these tax incentives are "government handouts".  He does argue that "[t]his certainly implies that AiG has already received government funding to build the Ark."  Even for Ham, he can only claim that this "implies" this falsehood.  It only does if you take the worst interpretation.

Ham also accuses this point as being untrue.

Since the Ark park would rely on such secularists [sic] services as highways, sewer systems, and police and fire protection to attract and accommodate its visitors, the $18.25 million in taxes it wouldn’t pay to support those services would fall on other taxpayers.

 Ham's response is strange.  He argues that this is untrue, because the rebate "would [only] be given is if the park is operational and is having a positive economic impact, bringing significant dollars into the state." Ham is right, but he is beside the point.  The point is the rebated sales tax would not go to fund  "highways, sewer systems, and police and fire protection to attract and accommodate its visitors".  Since Ham is not funding them as much as he would, someone else would need to.  The statement is clearly true.

Ham also disputes the nature of the bonds and his property tax discount.  He disputes that the Ark Encounter has not hired anyone yet and we do not know what the standards would be (even though they are claiming that it is legal for them to follow AiG's standards.)  I am not dealing with those claims, because they are beside the point to this discussion.

Ham argues:

Yet most secular bloggers and many in the media would have you believe that we are asking the state for money to complete the Ark.

I am searching, but I still cannot find support for his claim.  Remember, to be true someone must now provide seven examples of individual bloggers.