"I was working on a flat tax proposal, and I accidentally proved there’s no god."
I went to my regular sites this morning to catch up on the stories and reading of the last day or so. When my surfing took me to one of my favorites, God is for Suckers, I looked at the second story down and was taken to a video link of Kent Hovind giving a lecture about dinosaurs and the age of the Earth.
It was like watching a car accident or a man on fire; there was nothing I could do to stop it, I could only watch in horror. The spectacle held my gaze for almost an hour before I snapped back to reality and shut it off. I defy you to watch it and not have your head open up, your brain jump out of your head, and run to the closest library to read about anything that makes a modicum of sense. Maybe the latest Kevin Federline lyrics.
Mr. Hovind, or "Dr. Dino", as he likes to be called, talks about how evolutionists believe that we came from rocks. In the video he says something to the effect of, "...it rained and rained and rained on the rocks, the rocks turned to soup, and we came from the soup." I half expected a joke like, "if we came from soup, why do we still have soup?" I mean, if you're going to rehash the, "my grandpappy wasn't no monkey" argument, why not go all the way? Hovind does what most creationists do which is, focus on the details of why what they say is correct while glancing over the big picture. See, the tactic they use is to get you arguing about the minutiae of their "theory", thus you spend all your time talking about the number of hairs on a Wookie's nutsack, rather than the fact that there have never been Wookies at all.
A favorite part of the almost half of the video I suffered through, was the bit about the floating water. He actually says that there was some sort of dividing layer of water in the sky, "possibly supported by the Earth's magnetic field". I'll let you go check the material available on the strength of planetary magnetic fields and judge for yourself if it's possible to hold up an ocean. Frankly, it's beneath me to justify.
Hovind goes on and on about the numbers of pictures on cave walls of "dinosaurs" and "dragons". He asks pure-heartedly, "...why would these people draw pictures of dinosaurs on the walls? Probably because they saw them." Perhaps the people who drew those things may have just made a mistake. It's not like we're infallible or always get what we saw precisely accurate. There are tales of Mothmen and Alien Abductions to attest to folks filling in blank areas to make sense of what they "saw".
Also, last I checked, people had great imaginations, and sometimes even make shit up. Like the legend of Prometheus for example - chained to a rock for stealing fire from the Gods and giving it to mankind, he suffered by having a big ol' bird come and eat his liver every damn day (you know, because he was a god he couldn't be killed and his liver would grow back at night). Sounds pretty fantastic. We can get creative when we make shit up.
Not to mention the Predator, the Alien, and tribbles.
Hovind goes on at length about the variety of flood legends that come from all around the globe and takes these legends as evidence for the biblical flood of Noah. Well, I'd like to forward the theory that perhaps regional floods happened on occasion and people would tell stories about them for generations, sometimes (gasp) embellishing on the seriousness. Or, in the case of China's Yellow River - which in 1931 had a flood that killed between one million and 3.7 million folks - not so much. People lie about the size of fish they catch, for fuck's sake, why not inflate a story of disaster to make it dramatic and scary to those being told?
I really cannot go into Hovind's belief in "fire-breathing dragons". It is embarrassing and beneath me. All I will say is that he only cites the damn bible for his proof (as far as I remember). Seriously. A fire-breathing dragon. This certainly shows us the sort of "intellect" we're dealing with. Quick question: What sort of biological mechanism could be proposed to ignite something inside a creature's mouth? I bet ol' Kent believes in spontaneous human combustion.
I have to end this with Hovind's little "gotcha" on the college professor story. He talks about nailing (intellectually) a prof with the regression line of argument: that is, she said "I believe we came from a complex molecule".
Kent said, "where'd the molecule come from?"
Prof says, "...from the organic soup", and blah blah back to the "it rained on rocks and so, we came from rocks." He does this to her but never applies it to his own "theory". So we came from god? Well, where did god come from? Science is ok with getting to a point where we just don't know. Science is comfortable with the unknown. Religion must have an answer, although they are fantastic at reversing this situation. They say that science "takes away the mystery and beauty of the world". Quite the opposite; science exposes the beauty and connectedness of everything. All we know is, by definition, tentative. Religion is rigid and stand-offish, secretive and exclusive. For me, it has been quite a comfortable ride to being happy in my uncertainty and I am always leery of people with an answer to everything.
At best, science explains what we see around us and makes predictions about what we will find or what we will be able to do in the future. "God made it/did it/doesn't like it", is nothing but a statement based on a silly book written by men. It certainly isn't based on what "god wrote on a rock with his finger". Kent Hovind is a dangerous man and his silly, manipulative drivel must be addressed and shown to be the load of religious, suppressive, oppressive, horse-shit that it is.