The Grand Canyon is such an icon of the Earth's geological history, of slow and steady uplift, erosion, submergence and deposition, that the creationist crowd thought it essential to tackle it head on. So they have come up with an explanation as to how it might have got there in a world created only 6,000 years ago. Their attempts to squeeze this majestic testament to natural processes into bronze age mythology are not just clumsy, they're the stuff good comedy is made of [10:03]
This is a nice way to learn geology. 2 parts fun, 1 part real science.
For one horrible moment I expected to be watching an ID production. Thankfully not.
One could go a little further than this short, and point out how the Creationists are poster children for the dangers of reasoning from analogy. Analogies have their place - in conveying some key points of an idea, laying the ground work for a teaching experience, etc. i.e., their usefulness is descriptive. Not prescriptive. Mixed in with starting from analogy is starting from unexamined and erroneous statements and using them as axiomatically TRUE for the ensuing "proof". Yes, they say "if A then B", but then studiously ignore the fact that their A is actually and demonstrably FALSE, instead taking it as proof that B is TRUE.
Now I think of it, I do not recall them ever using a construct other than "if A then B". Maybe it sounds too close to English? Maybe the others (constructs) do not? What part of A -> B is it that they miss?
The stupid - it deluges!