#0058 RRS Newsletter CSE/Hovind Special Edition for September 17, 2007
Well folks, given the recent upheaval aligned against the CSE Ministry and the Hovinds, this edition will be dedicated entirely to them. This issue has stirred a veritable tsunami of fervent activity in the internet community of atheists, free thinkers, and everyone who values free speech and scientific education.
I have spent much more time compiling this edition than any other edition to date. It includes quite a bit of personal commentary and citation of articles that were painstakingly dug up.
Since the RRS News section will be rather lengthy today, there will not be an Affiliate section, but there isn't much new that wasn't in the last newsletter anyway. So, without further adieu, let's see what the people of the world have to say.
Thanks for reading, if you have any comments or suggestions you can reach me directly HERE. Or on Myspace HERE.
Stay rational,
Jack
and the RRS MI team
Table of Contents
Click on a title to view the article.Click HERE to find your local affiliate!
Rational Response Squad News
Operation Spread Eagle (a.k.a. "Operation Fucktard")
Video by Youtubes Sablechicken
Science News
CSE - Lies in the Textbooks Promo refuted
CSE - The Dangers of Evolution Promo refuted
CSE - The Age of the Earth Promo refuted
CSE - Eric Hovind Promo
Religion
CSE - Dinosaurs and the Bible
CSE - The Garden of Eden
CSE - Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?
Government
Illegitimate copyright flagging by CSE
False copyright flagging by CSE (Kent Hovind) MUST SEE!
Community
Atheist Blood Drive
Atheists for Autism Research Charity!
Religious Victims of the day
A list of Blogs on the subject of the Hovinds and CSE
Entertainment
NEW SONG "Letter to the CSE"
Tribute to Kent Hovind LIVE
Richard Dawkins Defends His Supercilious Attitude w a Joke
CSE (Kent Hovind) PWNED!
Operation Spread Eagle
There are quite a few people, both inside and outside the RRS ranks, involved in this project. Most notably are prominent Youtubers Rabid Ape, Thunderf00t, Christopher Boe (the man responsible for the animation in the video for everyones favorite song, Tribute to Kent Hovind, (a.k.a. Your a Fucktard), and the webmaster to a Way of the Master watchdog site who also keeps close tabs on the Hovind clan and CSE. The latest victim of the complaint happy CSE appears to be the Rational Response Squad, too!
The proverbial "wasp nest" has been smashed, and and the residents are pissed! Many lawsuits will ensue, to be sure. If you would like to help out, forward the following message to:
Dear Sir, I write to inform you of the abuse of copyright claims by cseministry (Creation Science Ministries).
cseministry (Creation Science Ministries) have been flagging videos as their copyrighted material even though they contain no material whatsoever from cseministry. cseministry was founded by the young earth creationist and public figure, Kent Hovind who is currently serving a 10 year jail sentence for tax fraud. Videos that cseministry have claimed infringed their copyright include phone calls from various scientists to Kent Hovind, Hovinds phone calls from jails where he conspires to hide property from the IRS and completely original satirical animations of the likeness of the public figure Kent Hovind. cseministry are evidently making abusive use of the copyright claims system by making false claims against videos which reflect badly on cseministry or their founder Kent Hovind.
-This is an abuse of the systems that cseministry have been systematically using as a form of 'back door censorship' and needs to be addressed.
Further cseministry have made copyright claims on videos they have previously made. Yet cseministry have previously declared that all material produced by their ministry is public domain material (see video below). Public domain material cannot be copyrighted. Indeed it would appear that it is only within the last week that cseministry have changed their website (drdino.com) to falsely claim they have copyright protection on all the material they have previously put in the public domain (see video below), simply so they can falsely flag videos critical of them on youtube. No-one can claim the copyright for public domain material, not even cseministry.
And even IF cseministry did own the copyright for any of this material, all of the videos they have flagged as infringing their copyright would fall into the category of fair use.
The following video explains the abuse by cseministry
watch?v=n953ZknacdE
watch?v=mAtTqCom8Fg
The following is a partial list of accounts that have had videos deleted by false copyright claims by cseministry.
rabidape, johnplex, Acorvettes, EGarrett01, Desertphile, qxdc, Chrisboe4ever, RationalResponse and ExtantDodo
Best wishes
Here is the video that Thunderf00t made to accompany this letter.
You can also help by going to the following link and downloading the video, then upload it across the internet. Any site that supports user videos!
http://www.briansapient.com/RRSbanned.wmv
This empire of Christian Fudamentalists has gone too far, and we at the Rational Response Squad WILL NOT take this lying down! Here is a copy of what Brian has to say on the matter, you can also find this on the front page of this site, www.rationalresponders.com
Download the latest RRS (banned) video and post it on your account on any site anywhere.
We wont even pretend later that we still own the copyright!
"Someone" (the lawyers will have to figure it out) flagged our video exposing the criminal actions of the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry, and had our account pulled. Unlike false copyright complaints, we're unsure currently how we can have this rectified at the youtube level. We may in fact decide to stay off youtube and do as Gisburne has done, having you repost thousands of our videos over and over.
Our suggestion for right this minute is to upload as many videos as you can all over the internet exposing the illegal activity that the CSE Ministry has currently been engaging in. They want to silence critics, that is clear, to ensure that this doesn't happen you must become more critical of them than you ever have. DO SOMETHING!
If you don't have a video serving that purpose merely uploading a video critiquing Kent Hovind would be good enough. If you feel like acting as childish as "they"do, feel free to flag their videos like it's your business all day long. We don't condone restricting free speech, but since nobody at youtube seems to care about these egregious and vile actions it's up to us to do anything we can to get youtubes attention. (this account is the main account causing the problems - users are reporting that they are flagging these videos left and right). That they would allow such activity after dozens of warnings from youtube members is extremely horrible mismanagement at best. There are dozens of videos and thousands of comments from angry youtube members who are pissed off that it takes 1 minute for someone to pull down a video if they're willing to claim ownership but it takes 14 days, tons of paperwork, and lawyers to reinstate what is rightfully ours. We are pissed. The Creation Science Ministries picked the wrong people to fuck with.
You have just as much right to CSE material as they do, as they've made their videos public domain. They changed their website recently to reflect a change that will never hold up in a court of law. You can't make videos public domain, and then rescind the copyright. Not only have there been countless fraudulent DMCA take down notices, but tracks have been covered with more illegal activity (by attempting to rescind free copyright usage).
Please keep in mind, Sapient wrote the above after being awake for 46 hours spending almost all of that time trying to defend all youtube atheists, only to have his own account removed. Please consider a paypal donation to help offset what will be lost.
Video by Youtubes Sablechicken
To see Brian's point by point shredding of this moronically jumbled pile of opinion, and transparently bad attempt at intelligence check out his forum post HERE!
Before you do that though, some advice from Brian on how to maximize the hilarity of his rebuttal:
*this post: kelly approved
As I went through youtube I found it funny that three of the counter responses to our work were overtly logically weak, riddled in strawmen, false assertions, and behavior even more childish than the kind I advocate. What follows is an extensive debunking, there was nothing really to debunk in the other two as they were strictly false caricatures. I highly suggest you do this in two screens, open the youtube video in a new window. Then go through the video pausing it as you read my points. The best I can do is promise laughter from our atheist constituency. And we deserve it right now. If you're reading from the homepage you can comment by being logged in and clicking the title above.
In the Science section today we will be examining a few of Kent Hovinds "scientific" claims, and presenting the real science behind the propaganda he's trying to spread under the veil of Christianity and biblical inerrancy. I am using only their promo material, since using a whole video would not only delay the release of this newsletter by about a week and cost me several IQ points from having to sit through it all again, but also there is plenty in these short clips for me to sink my godless teeth into. There will be a bit of editorial commentary in these reviews. Feel free to contact me with any grievances or agreement concerning those portions.
When viewing these videos, have a bucket ready, you'll thank me later...
CSE - Lies in the Textbooks Promo
He makes three claims in this promo for his propaganda, let's examine the first one, the creationist argument that the Grand Canyon was NOT carved by the Colorado River over a period of millions of years.
The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin (of which the Grand Canyon is a part) has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old (with most of the downcutting occurring in the last two million years). The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.
The major geologic exposures in Grand Canyon range in age from the 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge to the 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim. Interestingly, there is a gap of about one billion years between the stratum that is about 500 million years old and the lower level, which is about 1.5 billion years old. That indicates a period of erosion between two periods of deposition.
Many of the formations were deposited in warm shallow seas, near-shore environments (such as beaches), and swamps as the seashore repeatedly advanced and retreated over the edge of a proto-North America. Major exceptions include the Permian Coconino Sandstone which was laid down as sand dunes in a desert and several parts of the Supai Group.
The great depth of the Grand Canyon and especially the height of its strata (most of which formed below sea level) can be attributed to 5,000 to 10,000 feet (1500 to 3000 m) of uplift of the Colorado Plateau, starting about 65 million years ago (during the Laramide Orogeny). This uplift has steepened the stream gradient of the Colorado River and its tributaries, which in turn has increased their speed and thus their ability to cut through rock (see the elevation summary of the Colorado River for present conditions).
Weather conditions during the ice ages also increased the amount of water in the Colorado River drainage system. The ancestral Colorado River responded by cutting its channel faster and deeper.
The base level and course of the Colorado River (or its ancestral equivalent) changed 5.3 million years ago when the Gulf of California opened and lowered the river's base level (its lowest point). This increased the rate of erosion and cut nearly all of the Grand Canyon's current depth by 1.2 million years ago. The terraced walls of the canyon were created by differential erosion.[4]
About one million years ago, volcanic activity (mostly near the western canyon area) deposited ash and lava over the area, which at times completely obstructed the river. These volcanic rocks are the youngest in the canyon.
Now, let's examine the second claim made in the video, the assertion that there is no such thing as the geologic column. This claim is so laughably absurd it almost doesn't warrant a mention, but here we go. To prove how science can accurately determine the age of a particular rock, thusly proving the geologic columns relevancy, I will now show you the information about how radiometric dating is conducted.
All ordinary matter is made up of combinations of chemical elements, each with its own atomic number, indicating the number of protons in the atomic nucleus. Additionally, elements may exist in different isotopes, with each isotope of an element differing only in the number of neutrons in the nucleus. A particular isotope of a particular element is called a nuclide. Some nuclides are inherently unstable. That is, at some random point in time, an atom of such a nuclide will be transformed into a different nuclide by the process known as radioactive decay. This transformation is accomplished by the emission of particles such as electrons (known as beta decay) or alpha particles.
While the moment in time at which a particular nucleus decays is random, a collection of atoms of a radioactive nuclide decays exponentially at a rate described by a parameter known as the half-life, usually given in units of years when discussing dating techniques. After one half-life has elapsed, one half of the atoms of the substance in question will have decayed. Many radioactive substances decay from one nuclide into a final, stable decay product (or "daughter") through a series of steps known as a decay chain. In this case, usually the half-life reported is the dominant (longest) for the entire chain, rather than just one step in the chain. Nuclides useful for radiometric dating have half-lives ranging from a few thousand to a few billion years.
In most cases, the half-life of a nuclide depends solely on its nuclear properties; it is not affected[2] by external factors such as temperature, chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field. (For nuclides which decay by the process of electron capture, such as Beryllium-7, Strontium-85, and Zirconium-89, the decay rate may be affected by local electron density, therefore these isotopes are not used for radiometric dating.) Although decay can also be accelerated by radioactive bombardment, such bombardment tends to leave evidence of its occurrence. These issues aside, the half-life of any nuclide is believed to be constant through time. Therefore, in any material containing a radioactive nuclide, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay product(s) changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock that measures the time from the incorporation of the original nuclide(s) into a material to the present.
Although radiometric dating is accurate in principle, the precision is very dependent on the care with which the procedure is performed. The possible confounding effects of initial contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created. Additionally, measurement in a mass spectrometer is subject to isotopic interference of other nuclides with the same mass number. Corrections may have to be performed by measuring isotopic ratios of elements which interfere with the target isotope.
Mass spectrometers are sensitive to interference. Primary amongst these is the quality of the vacuum. Poor vacuum permits gaseous atoms to intercept ionised atoms prior to measurement. The resolution of the receptor is also a factor, but modern equipment is greatly improved on previous editions.
Precision is enhanced if measurements are taken on different samples from the same rock body but at different locations. Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron. Finally, correlation between different isotopic dating methods may be required to confirm the age of a sample.
The precision of a dating method depends in part on the half-life of the radioactive isotope involved. For instance, carbon-14 has a half-life of about 6000 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years, so little carbon-14 is left in it that accurate dating becomes impossible. On the other hand, the concentration of carbon-14 falls off so steeply that the age of relatively young remains can be determined precisely to within a few decades. The isotope used in uranium-thorium dating has a longer half-life, but other factors make it more accurate than radiocarbon dating.
Here is a list of the different types of radiometric dating used by archeologists and paleontologists:
This brings us to the final claim Mr. Hovind makes in the sample video, that is the claim that a zygote is a human at conception. Whereas this is true from the perspective of the genetic information that it contains, here he is twisting facts and distorting the information he is supposedly refuting in order to further impress upon the audience his previous claims of superior intelligence by stating the obvious against the highly out of context quote he has pulled up. He is refuting an argument that the article he used doesn't even make. He is telling the audience that the article states that a human embryo is not a human baby at the stage of 7 months. If he were to put it in context, the quote he used would take on an entirely new meaning. The article he uses here is not disputing the fact that the fetus in question is human, just that at 7 months the fetus' lungs and tepurature regulation system are not fully developed, therefore, it's not (despite outward appearance) a "normal" human baby. If the source in question had replaced the word "normal" with "fully developed" the intent and meaning of the passage would have been the same, but that's what Kent was preying on here, one single slip that he saw that he could exploit to further his own twisted agenda. Notice, I'm not even getting into the fact that for the first few months of developement a human embryo is, in form and functionality, completely indistiguishable from other species. In fact, up to the area of the 10th week, human and fish embryos are identical, and up to 16-17 weeks we are indistguishable in comparison with pigs.
I could continue my rantings on this, but I think it would start to get even further off topic than it already has. So, this concludes my rebuttal and refutation of the first CSE Ministry video we will be examining.
CSE - The Dangers of Evolution Promo
Ok, in this video Kent tries to imply that knowledge of Darwinian evolution could make one evil. He points to Stalin, the Columbine shooters, and Hitler (he left out Pol Pot, but that is immaterial). This one is an easy video to refute. I don't think it's difficult for any person to see that some people are just more prone to acts of violence than others. The fact that he brings up the same arguments that every other pro-god argumentation brings up tells me one thing. These seem to be the ONLY examples they can come up with to support their point, whereas the opposing argument can cite innumerable occurances, both past and present, to articulate the point, not just the same handful of cases that we hear repeated over and over by the creationist camp.
The main fact he is (purposfully) overlooking is that these people didn't commit these atrocities in the NAME of evolution or atheism, unlike the cases that could be cited in opposition.
To make this breif, I will evoke a quotes from Steven Weinberg:
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
-Steven Weinberg
CSE - The Age of the Earth Promo
Wow, ok, first I'll tackle the population of the Earth at the time the flood supposedly occurred (you know, the one that left only 8 human survivors, and where a 600 y/o man singlehandedly bulit a boat big enough to house 2 members of every species on the planet). I'm not going to get into the reasons we know there were more than 8 humans on the planet in the year 2400 b.c.e., i already covered radiometric dating extensively two articles up.
First, I'd like to mention in passing the abundance of human artifacts recovered dating from 2400 b.c.e., I guess Noah made them all and dispersed them across the globe, or maybe the currents carried them. In either case, there are far too many, and in far too many styles to have been created by one man, or small group of men. The largest abundance of relics fom this time period seem to be concentrated in the areas of Egypt and Mesopotamia, in which there were thriving cultures, and no evidence of an abrupt end to them as indicated in the story of Noah.
For more on this, see this relevant Google search. There is more than enough evidence to refute this baseless, deluded claim.
Now, we will examine the claim Kent makes about the theorized origin of the universe. He states that humanists believe the universe was created from nothing. This is simply not true. The first law of thermodynamics (arguably the most important law of physics, and science as a whole) states that:
Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another.
The most recent ideas about the origins of the universe are that the begining was a moment in time when a point of pure energy destabilized and exploded outward. The massive pressure involved condensed much energy into simple matter, hydrogen atoms, in a nutshell. You can read more on this theory HERE. Simply put, we have no conclusive scientific data to tell us what exactly happened at that monumentous moment, and we may never. Here is where the religious usually shout the all-to-familiar response, "God did it!", and to be truthfull, this may be the only case they have left. However, given the fact that they've been so incredibly wrong to date on each and every other claim, I highly doubt the validity of their assertion on this point. There is no more proof, or even evidence, to support them here as there is with any other claim to authenticity they might muster up.
CSE - Eric Hovind Promo
Ok, in this video, Eric Hovind (Kents Son) describes the Creation/Evolution debate. Watch the video (have a bucket handy, you'll wanna puke a few times) and after the video I will comment on several (non)points he has made.
00:11 seconds in; He says the Creation/Evolution debate is more intense now than it has ever been. Well, I can't really argue with that. Score one for Eric! He made a valid, and honest point! It's all downhill from here, though, folks.
00:26 seconds in; He claims their information has been researched for the past 30 years. Since when does reading ONE BOOK constitute "research"? Research is when you gather information from as many different relevant sources as possible to come to a conclusion. By saying this he implies that the only relevant resource we need is the Bible, and I'm sure he'd agree with that statement, sadly. Where in there does it mention physics, or electronics, or telecommunications? If it weren't for those three things, you wouldn't be watching the video he created to tell you that the Bible is the only relevant resource a human needs. So, obviously, it isn't.
00:32 He refer to the "stumbling block of evolution"? He should be reminded that there are several scientists that have been able to square evolution with their faith.
00:39 Recitation of the book of Genesis, I'm just not gonna touch this. I don't think I need to.
01:01 Refers to the age of the Earth as 6,000 years old. I've already covered that one in describing the methods of radiometric dating a couple of articles back, and how unlikely it is to be completely false. Next.
01:05 The image of a Neanderthal skull with the word "Lies" over it. To put it simply, bones discovered = an animal existed that contained those bones. Any child of more than 3 can tell you that.
01:11 Implies that evolution is bad science, well ain't that the pot calling the kettle black.
01:18 Images shown imply that a belief in evolution results in the atrocities commited by the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, ect... The same arguments you've heard over and over, and that have been refuted and chastised over and over. They must think these are the best arguments they can come up with to recycle them so much, and they suck, period.
01:35 Eric says evolution is not a science, but a world view, like Christianity. If evolution is not science, then neither is astrophysics, microbiology, paleontology, archeology, medicine, or electromagnetism! Uug, my brain hurts...
02:04 He reiterates that we are made in the image of God. Well, God must have several useless or unneeded parts then, like our gallbladder, tailbone, appendix, or floating ribs. Not a very intelligent design, I must say. I thjink George Carlin put it best when he said, "..if this is the best he can do, I'm not impressed. I'd expect these kind of results from an office temp with a bad attitude."
02:22 He says we were created for a reason. Just what might that be? Eternal servitude under a cosmic dictator, that watches your every move, and tries to convince you that you have free will when (if he is omnipotent, and all-seeing) he already knows what your going to do with your life? Why create something if you know before hand it's going to be evil? Why create a Hitler, a Grand Inquisitor, or a Jim Baker, for that matter, if you know it's going to turn people against you?
02:30 Eric tells us that a belief in evolution gives one no purpose to life. In my opinion (and I'm sure many of you will agree) it gives me a profound sense of purpose, the biggest difference being, that purpose wasn't handed down to me, it is my own. I choose my purpose in life, and that is much more satisfying than one any deity could IMPOSE upon me. I choose my destiny, I choose what is important to me, and I choose how to live my own life. He might say that that in and of itself could lead me to an "evil" path, and you've all heard the arguments for this, like the "social contract" and the principals of "do unto others", so I won't waste my breath (or your time) any further. Next.
02:43 If evolution is true, don't worry about what happens after you die, you got nothing to lose. However, we all know what he's getting at, you can be a total prick in this life and you'll get off scot-free! We all know the social, legal, and political ramifications of being a total prick, the consequences are real in the here and now. Being social animals, ostrisization is something no human wants, no matter how sociopathic. In fact, the sociopath craves acceptance, regardless of the face they show the world, but I digress.
02:53-03:37 Various testimonies from supporters. Notice how the only one they tell in full is from a child. They are, of course, the primary target of this propaganda.
03:43 He asks if you should study creation/evolution in your church. WTF?! If he were truely trying to educate in a non-biased manner he would suggest you go to a library or search online for information on evolution. That may be the biggest sign that he is NOT trying to support inquiry and education, but rather dogma and subserviance.
03:50 The public schools are indoctrinating children with (gasp) science! Wait a minute, he's accusing someone of indoctrination?! He also says the words "evolutionist philosophy". No joke.
03:56 Evolution is a serious stumbling block for non-believers? Ok, how?
04:02 He says the most intelligent thing in the entire video, unfortunately he's trying to present it as a horrible thing. "If you believe in evolution, then you believe that man created god, and that reduces the Bible to a collection of fables." At least you can't say he doesn't know our point, even if he doesn't get it.
The rest is yadda, yadda, yadda, outro.
CSE - Dinosaurs and the Bible
CSE - The Garden of Eden
CSE - Is the Bible Scientifically Accurate?
Illegitimate copyright flagging by CSE
False copyright flagging by CSE (Kent Hovind) MUST SEE!
Atheist Blood Drive
In an attempt to show the world that atheists are every bit as charitable as the religious of society, and that we need no "divine warrent" to be so, the RRS has set up a daughter organization called Atheist Volunteers. We hope you will all chip in. The most prominent of it's projects is the Atheist Blood drive.
Click HERE to get more info on this important project!
Atheists for Autism Research Charity!
Check these guys out, and donate if you can!
Religious Victim of the day
Those banned from Youtube
All those persons who were banned or censored by Youtube because of the fraudulent copyright claims sent in by the CSE. Including, but not limited to RabidApe, the RRS, desertphile, and all other victims of this abuse of the copyright laws to stifle our first amendment rights!
A list of Blogs on the subject of the Hovinds and CSE
A Great Big Thank You To All of You Who Have Blogged About This!
Sorry we can't list every blog but we wanted to give homepage exposure to a few of you, thanks for speaking out. You are our heroes.
If you want to keep up on the Hovind blogs and the firestorm that this has set off please view this relevant google search.
Open letter to YouTube video, Richard Dawkins
Kent Hovind going copyright crazy, Brian Flemming
Kent Hovind: creationist liar and evil, evil, evil, the Bad Astronomer
Hovind's Goons use Fraud to Remove Critical YouTube Videos
Operation FuckTard
YouTube Censors on Behalf of Hovind Crime Family
NEW SONG "Letter to the CSE"
Tribute to Kent Hovind LIVE
Richard Dawkins Defends His Supercilious Attitude w a Joke
CSE (Kent Hovind) PWNED!
Huge thanks go to everyone that has helped me out on this endeavor. Specifically, Zombie, head of RRS Ontario for multple article submissions, Voiderest of RRS Texas, my coding guru without whom many of the features of this newsletter (like the Table of Contents) would not be in place, Brian Sapient for his guiding hand and for the space in which this is published, and all of you who have contributed articles. Cheers go out to you all!!!
Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use Law, EFF.
The darkness of godlessness lets wisdom shine.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
