UPDATE::Eric Hovind Offers Fake Apology After Using Flood Site for Pro-Creationism Video

One piece of his "defense" Dinoboy cites is the Canyon Lake flood of 2002 and subsequent study by Lamb & Fonstad - Rapid formation of a modern bedrock canyon by a single flood event - focusing in on one statement from the entire study, "“Our traditional view of deep river canyons, such as the Grand Canyon, is that they are carved slowly, as the regular flow and occasionally moderate rushing of rivers erodes rock over periods of millions of years. Such is not always the case.”

What he ignores,

This doesn’t take away from the insights from Lamb & Fonstad’s study. What they document here is just how rapid significant Earth-surface modification can occur given a certain set of conditions. In this case, they explicitly make the point that characteristics of the bedrock are important within the context of their results:

We suspect that well developed vertical and horizontal joints at Canyon Lake Gorge define blocks of bedrock that have little interlocking along their boundaries, rendering their behavior similar to an alluvial bed when critical stress for mobility is surpassed. … Thus, it seems plausible that erosion of well-jointed rock by large floods might be extremely rapid, such that canyon formation is limited by the capacity of the flood to transport plucked blocks rather than by the plucking process itself.

In other words, the bedrock which was eroded during the flood was already slowly eroding through the formation of joints (a type of fracture) in the rock. The high-energy flood event took advantage of this weakness and literally plucked large boulders of bedrock from the floor and walls of the canyon. In this case, the slow and gradual processes of joint formation worked in concert with the catastrophic flood event to produce this result. There will be some who will use this paper to attempt to tear down uniformitarianism. Not only will they fail to mention the nuances of this specific study but they will be tearing down an idea that has long since been discarded by geology. _ 

And that is exactly what Hovind did, ignored the nuances, and cherry picked what fit his version of geology. Here is the link to said study by the way, something he conveniently left out http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n7/abs/ngeo894.html

Eric Hovind Offers Fake Apology After Using Flood Site for Pro-Creationism Video