Arky Melarkey

I had only heard recently that there is a $100 million replica of Noah's ark nearing completion in the great state of Kentucky. Apparently it was built to the exact specifications in the Old Testament, which in its self is rather dubious.
(below: a prehistoric crane and propane tank)

 I doubt that if three separate construction engineers were to take on the same task using their own interpretations from the good book's textual blueprints, they would achieve the same results. And setting aside the obvious observation (couldn't a hundred million dollars be better spent on something worthwhile?), my take on this is, if they wanted to build a monstrosity to prove the truth of the famous flood story, why didn't they go all the way and use the same number of people and types of materials as the bible claims were used?
(below: the bible didn't specify a concrete foundation)

 How am I going to be convinced that an old man with just a few helping hands could pull this off in a short period of time when modern man needed teams of construction workers, electricity, gas, industrial steel, polymer bonding and forming agents, cranes, hydraulic lifts, plywood, scaffolding, vehicles, and tons of money? Not to mention the impossible task of rounding up a pair of every species, acclimated or not, co-habitable or not (prey bunking with predator-how quaint), including dinosaurs.

(above: ancient steel scaffolding)
I'm not writing this because I think the Noah story needs debunking. I think it practically debunks its self. The whole thing requires a major suspension of belief and common sense. I'm more or less concerned about the total disregard for detail. If Ken Ham wants to provide us with Answers in Genesis, shouldn't he stick to the story, and avoid using modern tools and materials for his proof of the flood story's validity? I am hardly convinced.

(above: ancient battery powered portable drill)