…and this is a 
Your greedy, grasping host would really like to snatch an iPod Touch from Eric Hovind, so once again I'm reminding you to click on this link — each click counts as a vote for me. And oh, boy, is Eric Hovind's latest argument a winner: the current level of the Colorado River is several thousand feet lower than the peak elevations of the Grand Canyon, therefore the river must have flowed uphill to cut the canyon when it was formed. I know a few seven year olds who could take that argument apart.
Yeah, I know, it's cruel of me to send you over there to witness such awesome stupidity, but think of it as simply a harsh way to jolt you into wakefulness in the morning, like a bad cup of strong coffee.
Comments
Posted by: Ranson | May 21, 2009 9:34 AM
Umm...wow. I can't...wow...that's too dumb to respond to.
Posted by: PGPWNIT
|
May 21, 2009 9:34 AM
I can't see!!!
I think I've actually been blinded by that video.
I'm incredulous at the stupidity.
Posted by: James Sweet | May 21, 2009 9:38 AM
Maybe it *does* take a 7-year-old to pick his argument apart, because I can't... I don't really understand his argument well enough to respond to it.
Oh, I get it! He's assuming the entrance was always at the same height, but the exit must have started at 7000 ft? Is that about the gist of it?
Heh, okay, I guess that makes sense. The first time I watched the video, I couldn't even really rightly say I thought it was stupid, because I couldn't even grasp what he was trying to say...
Kinda reminds me of the first time I stumbled on TimeCube (I stumbled on it accidentally before I knew it was an interwub sensation). I wasn't immediately sure whether it was woo or not because the words didn't even make sense next to each other. heh...
Posted by: David Wiener
|
May 21, 2009 9:38 AM
He can't be wrong! His video so damn sciency. They must have prayed really, really hard to make those graphics. Ah, the power of prayer - science at its best.
Posted by: Saint Pudalia | May 21, 2009 9:39 AM
No problem. I just click the link and then come back here right away. Like "ring and run"!
Posted by: James Sweet | May 21, 2009 9:41 AM
Note that when I used the words "make sense" in #3 above, I didn't mean that it was logical or even worth bothering to refute.. I simply meant it was parse-able. :)
Posted by: Malastare | May 21, 2009 9:44 AM
Is he suggesting that the river sort of sat on top of the earth's crust in a rainbow shape and then gradually sunk down to its present location? Uh - what? We might say "Erosion Fail".
On the other hand, Eric's been gifted with some pretty snazzy graphic design. If he could actually make a coherent point, then it could be a cool multimedia production.
Posted by: rumleech | May 21, 2009 9:51 AM
Hasn't this thing finished yet?
Posted by: blf
|
May 21, 2009 9:52 AM
The Big Theory of River Crayons says the river stayed in the same place whilst the land rose and sank around it. This can fool people into thinking the river carved out a canyon or flows down a hill.
The Revised Bigger Theory of Watercolours and Crayons says the land under the river can rise and sink as well. Those heretics have all been shot.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
May 21, 2009 9:55 AM
I hit my little get-in/get-out Firefox iMacro every day.
Have to say I'm a little concerned about the terms of the contest, though. I find it hard to be sure that they'll count every click, or even every unique IP. The phrasing is loose enough so that they could pretty much cut the result any way they want - and they won't want to cut it any way that gives the thing to PZ.
If I thought every click would count I'd set up an endless loop on some machines here. As it is, I do it just once a day.
Can anyone confirm what counts as a vote here?
Posted by: minimalist | May 21, 2009 9:56 AM
Their server seems to be getting hammered. Must be way more traffic than they've been used to handling before. Hilarious!
Posted by: Sili
|
May 21, 2009 9:57 AM
Could you please put the link at the top of the page until the contest is over - for us with memories of a goldfish.
In return: Bacon Chocolate-Chip Cookies!
(By the way, I'd like a good recipe for chili-chocolate biscuits.)
Posted by: Onotheo | May 21, 2009 9:58 AM
You see, even his 'magic river' seems to make more sense than Noah's flood.
Posted by: recovering catholic | May 21, 2009 9:58 AM
minimalist--yes, can't get to the site by clicking on PZ's link or by opening in a new tab...
Posted by: toomanytribbles | May 21, 2009 9:59 AM
oh no! pz, link's not working! is it me or the link?
Posted by: breadmaker | May 21, 2009 10:05 AM
when has a strong cup of coffee ever been bad?
Posted by: nal | May 21, 2009 10:08 AM
I'd rather buy you an iPod Touch than go to that site.
32 GB?
Posted by: breadmaker | May 21, 2009 10:10 AM
has anyone already pointed out that he has video footage of creation on that ipod?
Posted by: Facely | May 21, 2009 10:10 AM
Hmm, yes, it must have been caused by Noah's Flood. That's why there are grand canyons all over the place.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 10:11 AM
Er, huh? Do we have to play the video, too? I have to admit, I've been clicking through most every day, and all that has registered in my memory is a pretty, albeit generic, blue and green background.
Posted by: Scaryduck | May 21, 2009 10:12 AM
I watched the video, and now I am bleeding out of my ear as a result of the asshattery.
We should ALL get iPod Touches for havng to sit through that.
Posted by: Thomas Winwood | May 21, 2009 10:15 AM
Maybe it *does* take a 7-year-old to pick his argument apart, because I can't... I don't really understand his argument well enough to respond to it.
It's so simple
So very simple
That only a child can do it!
Posted by: Cowcakes | May 21, 2009 10:17 AM
"Posted by: James Sweet | May 21, 2009 9:41 AM
.......I simply meant it was parse-able. :)"
James, you forgot to drop the p :-)
Posted by: AJ Milne | May 21, 2009 10:25 AM
Saint Waits (cheap gin be upon him) commented a while back that it's getting harder and harder to get a really bad cup of coffee. I can't say I've noticed this, myself...
Anyway. Y'know that really, really bad gas station coffee? Stuff that's been in the crappy plastic urn for something like half the week, rewarmed, overcooked, boiled into a thick, heavy sludge sorta resembling crude oil? You touch it to your lips, and your whole body feels suddenly dirty? And you start to think: I need a healthier dependency... Mebbe somethin' like snorting PCBs outta old transformers?
You can all hear this coming, but I'll take that stuff over Hovind. Any day.
Posted by: Ilya Gotfryd | May 21, 2009 10:27 AM
There is low argument and then there is this. I did have to watch it twice cause my coffee did not kick in. And then I realized what has been seen can not be unseen. This is cruel. You can't argue with these people. There is no way we can chew the facts down to sufficient simplicity for these dishonest morons to comprehend.
Posted by: E M | May 21, 2009 10:28 AM
You know, I don't even have to read the insanity at the site to help P.Z. I just middle-click the link to open it in a new tab, wait until the spinner on the new tab stops, and middle click it to close it. Presto! A vote for P.Z. with no brain-melt for me.
Posted by: Wolfbreath | May 21, 2009 10:28 AM
The video is proof that the world is a lot more interesting than many people think. It may be trivial information to readers of Pharyngula that the Earth's topology is not static, but there are all too many people to whom this would come as surprising news.
Posted by: Rugosa | May 21, 2009 10:30 AM
PZ, you've got to be kidding. You don't really want an iPod stuffed with creation videos, do you?
Anyway, since you made me click the link (I've resisted so many, many times before), I had to reply:
When I was a kid in the frozen wilds of Buffalo, I got a lesson in How Landscape Is Formed by observing the "rivers" of meltwater that formed on pads of ice as the weather warmed up. A sunny day - a slick of water on the ice; a few more sunny days, the water finds its level and carves a channel. The channel winds around a lot because the water always flows down the lowest spot. Sort of like how the Colorado River winds through the GC.
Use the brain God gave you and take a few science classes.
Posted by: Lindsay Waterman | May 21, 2009 10:30 AM
Geez I'm such a minion.
Posted by: mybhl
|
May 21, 2009 10:41 AM
What I find odd is the sense of awe given to biblical explanations of physical phenomena. They're so tame when compared to details uncovered by scientific research.
According to Genesis 6:1-7, the flood was brought on because the chief god was ticked about miscegenation between minor gods and humans and the resultant breed.
I implore Mr. Hovind to display that biblical section with the steamy video it deserves. If done with proper application of steam, it would go viral on the internet.
Posted by: JackC
|
May 21, 2009 10:42 AM
One thing I have always been unclear on - is clicking the link ONLY all that is required? Or does one have to "watch" the video as well?
What I do: Click the link as "Open in new tab" - click the video to play, then swap back and turn off the sound.
Do I need to play the video at all?
JC
Posted by: JD | May 21, 2009 10:42 AM
Da water flowz downz when god gets madz!
Posted by: Pi Guy | May 21, 2009 10:50 AM
Can there really be enough simpletons in the world who actually think that this actually makes sense and says anything useful - even to theists - at all?
OMf*&#ingG...
Posted by: Brian | May 21, 2009 10:52 AM
I would love to help you out, but my company's aptly name "smart filter" blocks that website.
Posted by: sceptic | May 21, 2009 10:52 AM
Have they ever explained why there is limestone at even higher elevations other than the Devil put it there.?
Do they even know that limestone = ancient coral reefs.?
Posted by: tceisele | May 21, 2009 10:58 AM
I like the way he winds up with "Or could it have been made by Noah's Flood?", as if that somehow answers something. But, granting his (erroneous) assumption that the land has never changed its height, "Noah's Flood" couldn't have made the Grand Canyon either. There *still* would have to be water flowing uphill to make it, whether it came from a flood or a river. So much for his "explanation".
That's one of many things that cracks me up about creationists: they go to all this effort to try to find "holes" that the don't think are fully explained by standard geology, but are completely oblivious to the fact that their creationist "theories" often have *exactly the same holes*.
Posted by: Lynna | May 21, 2009 10:59 AM
Hoo, boy. This must be sooo painful to our resident geologist, Josh. Every time he votes he has to see that link to the Grand Canyon, and the Noah's Flood question-that-is-not-a-question. I don't look anymore myself. I click the link, look away, and then quit and relaunch my browser. That Grand Canyon thing hurts.
I agree with others that we need a daily reminder.
Posted by: Josh
|
May 21, 2009 10:59 AM
Important fixes in bold.
I've heard everything from tsunamis depositing the stuff on pre-existing high topography to really super fast post-flood tectonics uplifting the limestone deposits to their present elevations.
And this is from the more thoughtful of the YEC crowd. For the rest it's pretty much: teh rox iz from da flud.
Posted by: ChrisG
|
May 21, 2009 10:59 AM
I click, and I click, and I click, and the stupid never goes away! *whimper*
When will this end....?
Posted by: Nabla | May 21, 2009 11:00 AM
Holy shit, that is a stupid argument. It never ceases to amaze me how they come up with such dumb ideas.
Creationists are missing a great career in stand-up comedy!
Posted by: catta
|
May 21, 2009 11:08 AM
Same question as JackC and the Naked Bunny (band name!) - I've been clicking the link, but didn't torture myself with the videos. Do they need to be watched? Would this be a way for them to say "nu-uh, no iPod for you, your minions didn't see our glorious arguments, so it doesn't count"?
Also, Thomas Winwood, damn you for getting "New Math" stuck in my head. Probably for the next 48 hours. *shakes fist weakly*
Posted by: apthorp
|
May 21, 2009 11:08 AM
Must be nice weather, but I found the grand canyon video quite charming. The wonderful 'touch nothing in mid air to control really cool scientific stuff', the devastating 'how did it get over the hill' logic. Clearly, the *scientific* conclusion that a global sea level over 7000' existed is the only possible explanation!
It's a little confusing though, since he seems to be claiming that the GC is begotten, not made. If the run-off when the flood drained created it in the normal way, what he would probably call 'micro-erosion' as opposed to the grand 'made' earth of original creation, how did it end up down hill only one way at the bottom?
But he is such a well spoken and pleasant young man.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 11:13 AM
Awesome! I can play a pretty mean air Pan flute, too!
Posted by: JackC
|
May 21, 2009 11:16 AM
Rivers flow UPHILL all the time! Sheesh! You would think the people here would know that! I personally live very near one such - the Wallkill River. There is a whole big list of them too.
Even the Niagra flows uphill! Why is this silly person so amazed art rivers that flow uphill?
oh .. wait... Is North really NOT uphill?
Nevermind.
JC
Posted by: beadle | May 21, 2009 11:18 AM
Aside from the unbelievable ignorance of even rudimentary geology, Eric once again trips over his own words. It’s hard to take seriously a guy pontificating about the creation of the Grand Canyon, when he doesn’t even know which way the Colorado River runs. He states “[it] exits the canyon 1,800 feet above sea level” while pointing to the east end of the canyon, where the river ENTERS the canyon. He then makes the matching mistake of stating it enters the canyon, while pointing to the western EXIT of the canyon. Once again, Eric is demonstrably wrong.
Posted by: JackC
|
May 21, 2009 11:22 AM
Catta - Thanks - I was feeling ignored :-) Oh - and I just two days ago played "New Math" for my son. He is terribly deficient in the Works of Lehrer.
Still wondering if the video needs to be actually watched, or just clicked upon. Inquiring minds - and possible outcome of this contest - need to know.
JC
Posted by: Michael W Simpson
|
May 21, 2009 11:26 AM
Creationists always suspend science to make their rationalizations for anything. Think the flood story, where simply that much water falling would raise the temperature of the earth so high that the water wouldn't fall, because it wouldn't be in a liquid form. That and a million other issues with physics, geology, etc.
So, when I was watching the video, I kept thinking that Hovind accepts the theory of gravity, because it fits his beliefs. But other theories are easily set aside by him whenever convenient.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 11:36 AM
Yesterday on Larry King there was a guy who said "God created the earth and put planets on it." Priceless.
Posted by: IST | May 21, 2009 11:41 AM
The. River. flowed. uphill?!?
The Fail is strong with this one
Posted by: TFK
|
May 21, 2009 11:50 AM
I hope he has to give it to you, PZ, not only for that victory, but so the next time you're stuck on a plane, you'll have more to read than Eagleton (if you get Stanza, a great book app with access to Project Gutenberg--of course, you'll probably have to delete all the creation videos to make room for the classics).
Posted by: fftysmthg | May 21, 2009 12:09 PM
This guy can't be serious. Even when I was still a believer I would have thought he was a complete wackadoodle. Where do you find these people?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 21, 2009 12:16 PM
Gack! How much longer does this mission last?
Posted by: Joe
|
May 21, 2009 12:18 PM
Ha. Finally a good thing about the stupid filters my school has installed. The active content from that site is removed, so I don't have to listen to "Dr." Dino, Jr. ramble on about stuff he doesn't understand.
Posted by: 386sx | May 21, 2009 12:30 PM
I was just watching some Arsenio Hall clips. Talk show hosts are all faking it of course. They're putting on an act. But Arsenio Hall is the absolute worst I've ever seen! He just don't give a crap what people say, and is the absolute worst I've ever seen at pretending like he does.
Oh, and Firefox web browser is a piece of crap. (Except for some of the the plugins like Firebug though.)
Posted by: Sgt. Obvious | May 21, 2009 12:41 PM
When does this contest END? It's been going on for over a month now. There's been no mention of an end date, is there even one?
Posted by: fly44d | May 21, 2009 12:46 PM
I sure wish they had a comment section. Typical... spout the crap and keep their ears plugged from any criticism. But then they aren't dumb... they would get a Great Flood. Of criticism.
Posted by: Russell | May 21, 2009 12:50 PM
I gave you about 25 clicks.
Posted by: bastion of sass | May 21, 2009 12:51 PM
I don't know why you scientists can't see the obvious explanation:
At one time, gravity didn't work the same way it works now. Why is that so HARD for you to grasp?!
Wasn't the speed of light much slooooower earlier in the 6000 years the universe has existed?!!
Didn't radioactive elements decay faster in the past?!
Do you believe omnipotent God couldn't make water flow uphill?!!!
Posted by: Russell | May 21, 2009 12:52 PM
BTW, don't buy that crap about no moving parts, it vibrates so there is at least one moving part.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
May 21, 2009 12:54 PM
Clicked again and watched in pain. Oh, the stupidity.
Posted by: karen | May 21, 2009 1:04 PM
I clicked several times just now for you, PZ. I guess it's just my computer-no one else has said anything about this- but when the video comes up for me, the audio and video are completely out of sync. The audio plays all the way through, then the video plays after. Satan must be messin' with it.
And I think it's a great idea to have the link posted somewhere at the top of the blog for easy daily access until this painful mission is complete!
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 1:06 PM
Plainly, in the old days, the river had to flow uphill to school, in the dead of winter, with no shoes, both ways. And it was grateful for the opportunity! Not like those punk rivers today.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 1:15 PM
It's not gravity--it's iintelligent falling.
Posted by: Matt
|
May 21, 2009 1:18 PM
I'd be interested to learn if the Hovind brand of dishonesty is deliberate or just due to an unwillingness to understand the facts.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 1:18 PM
It's not gravity--it's iintelligent falling.
Posted by: C. M. Baxter | May 21, 2009 1:19 PM
A God billboard I’d like to see just outside the boundary of Grand Canyon National Park:
Posted by: JM Inc. | May 21, 2009 1:26 PM
Is there any consensus as to what he's even saying? It looks to me like.... I don't even know. The river flows uphill? What? He was doing so well - ok, river flows through grand canyon, exits closer to sea level, right.... then what? How.... I mean the graphic shows the arrow going up over the part that isn't eroded. How does he think canyons are formed?
Posted by: JM Inc. | May 21, 2009 1:45 PM
Ok, I've watched it a few more times and I think he either thinks that the river started at one side and dug it's way to the other side like digging a tunnel, or he thinks that the geography of the area has been otherwise identical for millions of years. Strange.
Posted by: Cactus Wren
|
May 21, 2009 1:55 PM
I think my favorite part is how "some scientists have suggested that the Colorado River formed the Grand Canyon".
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 2:14 PM
Some errors I have found in the posts above:
Folks - Hovind does NOT think. Please stop implying that he does. What he does do is ... coalesce the vapours of human existence.
You're welcome.
JC
Posted by: PhilB | May 21, 2009 2:20 PM
Cruel isn't the word I'd use for this. Sadistic gets a little bit closer, but it's still not enough.
Gonna go take some Advil now.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | May 21, 2009 2:27 PM
Eric Hovind must of got the idea from the reversing of the flow of the Chicago River. Over a century ago, engineers were able to send the river flowing downstate so that all of the waste products did not flow into Lake Michigan, the source of Chicago's drinking water.
Posted by: Brango | May 21, 2009 2:34 PM
I'm still struggling with the concept of anyone with a brain being dumb enough to even postulate such an argument... but I think see where he's going with it. Basically he's trying to stun people with a staggering level of inanity to the point where they have to replay it several hundred times before even believing he is saying it. With that level of exposure he's statistically guaranteed to pick up at least a few converts!
Posted by: PixelFish | May 21, 2009 2:41 PM
So many things are wrong with Eric Hovind's assumptions, it makes my brain hurt. I want to return the favour. Somebody show him Arches Nation Park and watch his brain explode.
(Also, given enough pressure, water can totally flow up hill. How does he think his pipes work?)
Posted by: PixelFish | May 21, 2009 2:43 PM
Also add mass and momentum. ie. if enough water flows downhill from another direction, it could still flood an area above it.
(But that's neither here nor there for the meat of his argument. Merely a footnote.)
Posted by: PixelFish | May 21, 2009 2:47 PM
Okay, just watched the video, and he is arguing for Noah's flood? Gee with all the flash floods in the Southwest, how did he single out THAT flood?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 21, 2009 3:36 PM
Several have asked when the pain will end. The contest says links will be tabulated during the release of the first four videos in the series, and the winner will be announced after that. The grand canyon video is #3, so one more after that.
Posted by: Timebender13
|
May 21, 2009 3:37 PM
The stupid! It burns!
Posted by: Flea | May 21, 2009 4:06 PM
I'm clicking this link every morning, religiously.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | May 21, 2009 4:36 PM
As a fellow traveller in the battle against Rationalutionists I'd just like to commend Eric Hovind for fighting the good fight while all about mock him. He's a faithful soldier for Christ, a scintillating synthesiser of faith and science, an illeducated spokesman for the uneducated masses. It is also my firm belief that he's fond of chaps with sartorial flair. God told me it is no accident that Eric's name is an anagram of "Chino Diver".
Yours in defiance of gravity
S. Batzrubble
Posted by: Smidgy | May 21, 2009 5:02 PM
You know, I thought I'd just about plumbed the very deepest depths of creationist ignorance, then along come Hovind with this and shows that the chasm goes deeper than I even thought possible.
Amazing.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | May 21, 2009 5:09 PM
Maybe its because he implies things that aren't true, but I can't see the explanation for how he's wrong about this. I think he'll fool a lot more people than you think. From what he said it seems the river starts out 2800 feet above sea level on a flat plain at maybe a few feet below the plain, then it enters a canyon at 2800 feet, but the canyon is at 7000 feet and the river suddenly 4200 feet below the level of the surrounding land instead of a few feet. I don't get it - how did that happen? I know plate techtonics can force land upwards into mountains, but can it force upwards the 200 miles (or whatever it is) of the land around the ground canyon in one even level without the choppiness of mountain ranges? Or is it that the land where the river enters the canyon was also eroded 4200 feet down?
Posted by: Priya Lynn | May 21, 2009 5:13 PM
I guess what I'm asking is how did the top of the Canyon get to be at 7000 feet while the land just before the river enters the canyon is at 2800 feet.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 5:47 PM
@Priya Lynn: Look up "laramide orogeny" for some answers. The western half of North America has apparently been flexing and bowing for millions of years in numerous ways.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 21, 2009 5:54 PM
I wonder if my clicks count. My computer won't let me see the videos; I try to click, but nothing happens.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
May 21, 2009 5:57 PM
@rumleech #8: Yeah, I suspect the iPod will be handed out by Jeezus himself after the crapture.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | May 21, 2009 6:06 PM
Thanks Naked Bunny with a Whip. That gives me a rough idea of what happened. By the way, I really get a kick out of your handle - kinky.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 6:15 PM
@Priya Lynn: *grins* Thanks.
Yeah, the basic problem with Hovind's "thesis", and with creationist thinking in general, is scale. They don't have a problem claiming massive geological change in a matter of months, but if it's too slow to see it happening on human timescales, it must be entirely static. You'll recognize this sort of thinking in their arguments about evolution, too.
Posted by: The BeadKnitter | May 21, 2009 6:20 PM
Wow...... just wow....... I didn't know someone could be that stupid. What is erosion then? A scam?
Posted by: Rugosa | May 21, 2009 7:00 PM
MadScientist - you're lucky.
Posted by: a lurker | May 21, 2009 7:01 PM
Eric Hovind is a genius compared to Jason Gastrich who confused what this old creationist claim was even supposed to mean and thus argued that the Colorado River flows uphill in the here and now.
I have two words for Eric: "Tilted uplift." I wonder if he can figure out what that even means.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | May 21, 2009 7:22 PM
The beadknitter said "Wow...... just wow....... I didn't know someone could be that stupid.".
Yes, that was a pretty common sentiment on this thread. And yet few, if any gave any suggestion as to how exactly Hovind was wrong. If an atheist like me, one that knows about and accepts plate techtonics couldn't see how he was wrong right of the bat I suspect there will be precious few theists (the vast majority of the population) whom you'll convince he's wrong with nothing but the shocked claim that he is.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 7:36 PM
Aww. I did try. Geology isn't my thing, though.
Posted by: mothra | May 21, 2009 7:51 PM
@ NBWAW #88 Good point! Creo cognitive dysfunction extends to anything not constant (or not proceeding at a constant rate). Where else except creationist dreck can one find arguments for a young earth based upon: Poynting Robertson effect, decrease in strength of the earths' magnetic field, miners' tools in calcite, upright chunks of petrified wood, change in lightspeed, change in radioactive decay, and my favorite- attempts at determining the age of the Earth based upon Monarch butterfly migrations.
I'm sure I've overlooked other young earth fantasies in my short list, but they all depend on a need for constancy or of one-for-one change (or incredulity). It is part of their authoritarian mind-set- things just can't be, uh, unpredictable with confidence intervals, error terms, and probabilities.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | May 21, 2009 8:05 PM
Naked Bunny with a whip said "Aww. I did try. Geology isn't my thing, though.".
And well enough for me to conceive how the different land levels could have come about. Thank you for giving the effort to actually explain how Hovind was wrong instead of just pretending to be astonished at how wrong he was.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 8:13 PM
@mothra #94: Very good examples. They also illustrate how people like Hovind sneer at "uniformitarianism" except when it seems to help their case (magnetic field decay, solar emissions, moondust) -- and then they go totally too far the other direction. It's nothing but extremes for them. Evolution is either "dogs giving birth to cats" or it doesn't happen at all.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 8:22 PM
Eh, well, I'm and work and couldn't watch Hovind's video even if I wanted to, so I didn't know what he was claiming with "water flowing uphill" until you asked a nice, clear question. Then I could do a little quick research. ^_^
I have no problem with people just calling Hovind an idiot (he is) and assuming everyone knows why until someone asks, so thank you for asking.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
May 21, 2009 8:30 PM
Oy, the submission process is extra bad today.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
May 21, 2009 8:42 PM
I'm a chicken. I did a few click-and-run entries into Hovind's website. I didn't watch the video.
Posted by: defective robot | May 22, 2009 12:31 AM
I couldn't even understand the argument he was making in order to pick it apart. The only thing that video made me question is "what the fuck is he talking about?"
Posted by: Wayne Robinson | May 22, 2009 6:34 AM
How long will it take to get to the 4 creation videos, so we can forget this nonsense? It's painful having to look at his webpage.
Posted by: astrounit | May 22, 2009 4:01 PM
"And oh, boy, is Eric Hovind's latest argument a winner: the current level of the Colorado River is several thousand feet lower than the peak elevations of the Grand Canyon, therefore the river must have flowed uphill to cut the canyon when it was formed."
I would invite Hovind to watch my sand & gravel driveway (which is long and has an average 7-degree slope over one stretch of 80 meters) as a SINGLE hard rainstorm erodes canyon-like ruts into it hip-deep. I'll be there to help him measure the pre-storm level of the driveway surface, and ensure that he notices that the water is always running downslope with frequent reminders.
Afterwards I would ask him to sign an affidavit I intend to publish that he has in fact witnessed the whole process from beginning to end, and that he agrees it is consistent with the same erosional processes that were responsible for that much bigger gutter, the Grand Canyon...while giving him fair warning that the video I shot to document the entire observation will otherwise be used to expose him as an intellectual fraud.
Posted by: Per Edman | May 23, 2009 3:45 PM
Wait, did the header of that link read "with _Mr_ Kent Hovind" last time I clicked it too?
Posted by: agenoria
|
May 25, 2009 6:19 PM
You've got a mention in the May/June issue of New Humanist magazine, p7.
After explaining Kent Hovind's iPod contest it says:
(Sorry, don't have time to plough through all the comments on the different threads to see if this has already appeared.)
Posted by: super cheap ipods | June 1, 2009 2:37 AM
Thank you so much to give the valuable information about this.