TurboFool (Neither, really)

I just watched a great video by potholer54 on the “controversial” (among people who don’t know wtf they’re talking about) subject of carbon dating and just had to post it here:

It leads me to question these unfortunately common tactics of creationists to explain their ideological viewpoints. In this case the never-failing-to-amuse Kent Hovind manages to quote-mine papers, skew findings to achieve his desired explanation, ignore already well-known limitations of the technology within the scientific community to show what’s already been found and worked around, and ignore direct warnings from scientists over the fact that the results he’d get were KNOWN to not be of what he was trying to find. And yet he goes right ahead anyway and does all of this to “prove” that carbon dating doesn’t work when it’s clearly only HE that isn’t working properly.

Now most assume this guy is just plain dishonest. And given his history of and imprisonment over tax evasion, it’s a fair assumption. But it’s not definitely the case. It’s also entirely possible that this guy is a complete idiot. Yes, yes, he’s a “doctor,” and he speaks in a way that suggests some level of intelligence, but those aren’t proof either. And then there’s the old cognitive dissonance issue where he believes his viewpoint so strongly that he’ll do anything to back it up, justifying the dishonesty to the point where he doesn’t even realize he’s being dishonest. I think it’s likely the first problem or the last, the first placing the blame entirely on Hovind, the last putting more of the blame on the overall concept that’s poisoned his mind so deeply against reality.

At the end of the day, believe what you will, but don’t fucking lie about it to me or impressionable people. Stick to facts, stick to proof, stick to reliable evidence, stick to reality, or STFU. You’re not helping yourself or anyone else by spreading arguments that are provably wrong, and especially arguments that were already proven wrong to you BEFORE you used them. Adjust, learn, adapt, and evolve your arguments as you learn. I know it runs contradictory to your view that the world is nothing but cold stone facts written in an ancient book, but the truth is our survival depends on adaptation, and you know it. Why else would you have renamed “creation” to “intelligent design?” You know your tactics have to change if they’re going to have any shot at success, and this tactic of continuing to use arguments that were disproven is one of them. Move on. And if you run out of such arguments, maybe it’s time to reconsider your position. You know, the way rational people do.

Found this on Pharyngula. In case you’re unfamiliar, one of the common arguments against evolution is that so-called “micro evolution” exists (tiny changes between generations), but that there’s no such thing as “macro evolution” (massive changes that lead to new species). Those who have any remote understanding of evolution, and aren’t blinded by ideology, can clearly see that millions of tiny changes lead to something one could consider a massive change if you ignore all the steps in between. For those who have no imagination, though, this video fills in those blanks visually by taking five skulls from throughout the history of our evolution and computer generates the countless generations that came between. Powerful, compelling stuff. Sadly, the true believers will surely ignore it or make up whatever contradictions they can think of to further convince themselves that their ancient book knows better than reality and evidence.

Apparently the followers of a group known as the “Creation Science [sic] Evangelism Ministries,” led by currently imprisoned tax evasionist Kent Hovind, have been sending false DMCA copyright takedown requests to YouTube on any and all videos that dare to suggest that creationism is anything but non-scientific garbage. Due to a loophole in the system, YouTube essentially just automatically deletes these videos with little or no effort to verify the claims.

Brian Sapient, of Rational Response Squad fame (I forgot to add them to my links section sooner, which I’ll do now), posted a video on YouTube about this issue and his account and video were promptly suspended by YouTube.

What gives, YouTube? Your entire business exists because of your community, and lately this debate has been a heavy part of it. You’ve now drawn lines and taken sides by accepting the false claims of the creationist movement that these videos somehow violate copyrights of their founder (the people in the videos in question refer to quotes of Ken Hovind’s, but quoting a person’s opinions has never been a violation of copyright). And you’re owned by Google, whose motto, I thought, was “Don’t be evil.” Are we meant to take this as a sign of who you do or not think is evil now?

Below I’ve posted a video, which clearly states it’s perfectly legal to do so, and which is NOT hosted on YouTube, which details the RRS’s issues and request. They are considering suing Creation Science [sic] Evangelism Ministries, and they have my full support. The Atheist community (as scattered as it is) has never tried to forcefully remove any of their claims for the internet via spurious methods such as these. We’ve merely used the tried and true methods of proving their claims are bullshit. It’s worked well throughout history, and although it’s a touch slower than other less honest methods, it generally has a longer-lasting effect.