Lie #54. It was in 1908 that Belgium annexed Congo Free State in response to slave abuses and it became known as the Belgian Congo. Congo Free State was instituted in 1884, so Hovind is wrong on both counts. There was no swamp called the 'Belgium Congo'.

Hovind: "...in 1980, Dr. Roy Mackal, a very famous micro biologist at the University of Chicago and a strong believer in evolution, decided that he was going to go and check it out."

If microbiologist (one word) means someone who studies microscopic life forms, is a micro biologist (two words) a really small biologist? Either way, Hovind sets up Mackal as a strong believer in evolution and tries to pretend that, somehow, even if dinosaurs were found in deepest, darkest Africa, it would totally destroy the theory of evolution. Hovind is wrong yet again.

Hovind: "He calculated that the mosquitoes landed on them at the rate of about a 1,000 per hour the whole time that they were there. It was a relentless attack of blood-thirsty mosquitoes. In spite of all the difficulties, they stayed there for six weeks."

And yet they still had blood left. I'm going to call this a pathetic exaggeration, rather than an out-and-out lie, but it is a close call.

Hovind: "The flood formed all of the fossils. The reason there are layers to them is due to hydrologic sorting."

Lie #55. This is definitely a lie until and unless Hovind and his ilk can demonstrate scientifically, that this kind of sorting is not only possible, but the norm, and show evidence that it actually happened.

Hovind: "Animals with similar density are buried together. Birds are frequently found on top not because birds evolved last, but because birds were the last ones to drown in the flood."

Lie #56. Animals of similar density are found widely dispersed throughout the fossil record and animals of different densities are found together.. Not a single pterosaur has ever been found up there with the birds. Why is this? I'll tell you why. Hovind is lying.

Hovind: "Loch Ness is about twenty-four to twenty-five miles long, and about one mile wide. It is a long skinny lake in the mountains of Scotland, and because it is in the mountains, it is a very deep lake. Its in between two mountain ranges and is up to 1,000 feet deep in some places."

Lie #57. The greatest depth of Loch Ness is 754 feet.

Hovind: In 1933, they cut a groove along the side of the mountain to put in a road....Before the roadway was put in, if you wanted to see Lock Ness, you had to travel up the river seven miles, and then go into Loch Ness, and then twenty-five miles by boat."

Lie #58. 'Lock' Ness? Well it does have a quay.... There was already a road on the south side that had existed for years. My reference? Myself - I've been there.

Hovind: "Now look! If 11,000 people claim that they have seen something, I would say that there is something to what they are seeing."

Is this from the same hypocritical moron who claimed that majority opinion doesn't prove anything? Here are his exact words from chapter one of this very seminar: "In the first place, everybody doesnt believe that. In the second place, even if they did, it wouldnt make it right. Majority does not make it right! The majority is frequently wrong." Hovind: "...an underwater picture was shown of the flipper of the animal. It was estimated that the flipper was six feet long."

Lie #59. The so-called flipper picture is always shown 'computer enhanced'. The actual original version of the picture shows nothing even remotely like a flipper.

Hovind: "That six-foot flipper (figure 2-25) was attached to something pretty big. Here is a picture (figure 2-26) with its mouth open."

If that's the one I am thinking of, it looks exactly like...a log.

Hovind: "A Japanese fishing boat caught one in 1977. They caught a dinosaur? Figure 2-27 is a picture of a rotting plesiosaurus carcass."

Lie #60. This was a basking shark. All carcasses of rotting sea monsters are actually whale carcasses or basking sharks - at least the ones that have been investigated are, but hey, who knows? I guess all the real rotting dinosaur carcasses simply are not got to in time! It's just like all the real witnesses of Nessie never have a camera, or never remember to get a picture, or get a picture that is blurred, or shows the water just after the monster dived, or shows something that looks precisely like a log in the water. Same with ghost pictures. Same with UFOs. Sad, isn't it?

Hovind: "There are several swamps in Africa that are still reporting creatures like pterodactyls....They are not as big as they used to be. The fifty footers couldnt fly in todays atmosphere. The air is too thin."

Lie #61. Actually, this is not so much a lie as complete and utter brainless bullshit. The air is too thin? Too thin? I would love to see his science for that one. Oh, I forgot - he doesn't have any. All he has is his opinion. If he is so solidly convinced that dinosaurs and pterosaurs exist today in Africa, why are he and his creationist cronies not financing expeditions to catch them and prove their case instead of spending their money on new air-conditioning systems? I know why - they have no faith in their faith, that's why.

Well this completes chapter 2 of Hovind's hilarious seminar, and the mistake tally is over 60. So far he is averaging 30 lies per chapter - a lie per printed page! This does not include his grammatical and spelling errors and his brain dead stupidity and gullibility.

In chapter 3 he continues his monotonous story of Job. It is an example of Hovind's sick obsession that he spends so much time on the story of Job, since that particular book is one of the least Jewish stories in the Bible!

According to Lloyd Graham in "Deceptions and Myths of the Bible" (Bell Publishing, 1975), "Theistically, it is not Hebrew at all, but Arabic and maybe Babylonian." The Talmud tells us "Job was not created but is an allegory."

Isaac Asimov (Asimov's Guide to the Bible) says that there is a form of this story existing in Babylonian literature, and equates Behemoth (which is in the plural, not the singular, which would be Behemah) to a mythical bull in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Remember that Behemoth eats grass according to the Bible. I don't know of any really large dinosaur that ate grass, but cows and bulls most certainly do. We already know that the flood story was stolen bodily from this epic, so it is not a stretch to see the story of Job stolen from Babylonian myth, too.

Asimov likewise likens Leviathan to a Babylonian legend about the god Marduk slaying Tiamat - some kind of sea monster, or maybe even the raging sea itself - from the remains of which he then created the universe. It is interesting, Asimov points out, that in the Genesis creation story, the Hebrew word for 'the deep' is tehom, which is somewhat similar to Tiamat. I can add to this that the Hebrew for sea is 'yam' and for rain is 'matar.' Maybe it is too much of a stretch to combine them as te-yam-matar or tehom-matar. Maybe it isn't - at the very least, my invention makes more sense than Hovind's. I think we can conclude that Hovind's claims of Biblical dinosaurs are nothing but lies.

It ought to be obvious, from the very fact that the story begins so simplistically, with no begats or any attempt to link it to anything else in the Bible, that Job is nothing but a fairy tale - one that was well known in Biblical times and therefore needed no introduction. Yet here is Hovind pretending the story is the absolute truth from start to finish. Hovind, the one who insists that science come up with definitive proof of every single step of evolution, is here extolling a tale as gospel truth which has not one shred of proof and all the hallmarks of ancient fiction! What a hypocrite he is!

Hovind: "I believe that Leviathan is a Tyrannosaurus Rex."

Lie #62. Until and unless Hovind can show definitive proof that dinosaurs existed contemporarily with humankind (for which there is none in the fossil record), any purported reference to dinosaurs in the Bible has to be mistaken. Hovind gives away his own lie: "God said to Job, Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook, or his tongue with a string which you let down?"

Why would a reference to a Tyrannosaurus talk as though these were creatures you go fishing for? T. Rex is not associated with water. Crocodiles and whales are. Wouldn't it make more sense to use Occam's Razor here and assume, in the total absence of any evidence at all for contemporary dinosaurs, that the writer of this tale was either talking about a mythical creature or about the very well-known crocodiles, which no one in their right mind would try fishing for? A crocodile, whose tail is gnarly like a cedar?

I leave the following in because it is not a lie - it is merely a tragic demonstration of the kind of sick, twisted and vicious sociopath that Hovind is:

"I took one of my kids to the dentist one time when he was about six or seven years old...He tried to sit still, but when the doctor pulled out that giant needle about twelve feet long, and poured in about eighteen gallons of Novocain, and said, Okay kid, open up, he freaked...He lost it. He was screaming and hollering and yelling...Finally, after a few minutes the doctor gave up and said, I cant work on this kid...I said, Doc, let me take him outside and talk to him for a few minutes."

Read on and find out how Kent Hovind defines 'talk to him'.

Hovind: "We went out to the parking lot, got in the old Chevy van and sat in the back seat. I said, Son, listen carefully. You know that I love you."

Get ready for Kent Hovind's definition of love.

Hovind: "He said, I know daddy. I said, Now son, I told you to sit still. You did not sit still. What happens when you disobey daddy? He said, Sniff, sniff... I get a spanking? I said, Correct, bend over. Boy, did I give him a spanking, and it was a doozy. A few minutes later, smoke was rising off his hind end, tears were coming out of his eyes, and pearls were coming out of his nostrils"

That's Kent Hovind, evangelist, who will later try to tell you he loves you and wants to show you the love of god. This man is sick, cruel, and dangerous.

Here's a continuing demonstration of Hovind's idea of love.

Hovind: "We are going to go back into the dentist office, and you are going to sit in that chair. If you wiggle one time, Im not going to yell at you and Im not going to scream at you. Im going to calmly take you back out here to the van, and Im going to give you two spankings just like the one you just received. Then, we are going to go back into the dentist office, and you are going to sit in the chair. If you wiggle, we are going to come back out to the van, and you are going to get three spankings just like the one you just got. Son, we are going to go back and forth all day long until I get tired, and I have played tennis for years. I have a wonderful forehand smash. I dont believe Ill get tired for a long time, son."

You want psychotic thugs like this running your country? Just go right ahead and throw science out of school, let fundamentalists (with the emphasis on mental) in, and this is what you'll get. I know this for a fact because it has happened before - throughout history, whenever fundamentalism has reigned, people have suffered, been tortured, and died horribly. Hovind doesn't believe in Jesus' dictum "suffer little children to come unto me." Hovind believes in his own dictum: let little children come unto me and suffer.

Hovind revels in his child abuse: "The doctor then said,...I dont know what you said to that kid while you were outside, but I would like for you to work for me. I said, No sir, you dont want me to work for you, the Child Welfare would have me in jail in a flash...The second time that we were in the dentists office, the kid was still scared of the dentist; no question about it. He was scared, but he was more scared of me than anything else in the world at that time."

That's how much Hovind loves your children. He loves them so much he is prepared to beat the snot out of them to show his love. You know it does not say, in the Bible, "spare the rod and spoil the child"? That phrase comes from "The Irish Schoolmaster" by Thomas Hood ("He never spoils the child and spares the rod, but spoils the rod and never spares the child."). It is deriding corporal punishment, not encouraging it.

The Bible is much more authoritative: "He that spareth his rod, hateth his son" (Prov 13:24). In other words, Hovind is only slavishly doing what his savage god tells him to - abuse your children or you do not love them. Many Christians take this Biblical injunction deeply to heart. Children have died because of it. There is worse in the Bible:

Psalms, 2:9: Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

or how about this? This is probably Hovind's life story, right here:

Revelation, 2:27: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Well we should try to be understanding - at least Hovind (as far as we know) didn't try to burn his child on an altar. Any fundamentalist who pretends that he loves you does not love you at all. Nobody who loved you would threaten you with hell. Nobody who loved you would beat the snot out of you.

Hovind: "Before you become excited, let me tell you the four reasons that I believe in fire-breathing dragons. My first reason why I believe in fire-breathing dragons is that the Bible plainly states it as fact."

Lie #63. Hovind assumes as fact what the Bible writers meant as allegory.

Hovind: "It says that Leviathan could breathe fire. There is no way around reading that passage. Thats what it says! You can try to misinterpret it, but the obvious interpretation is -- the animal could breathe fire."

Lie #64. There is no animal that can, or has ever been able to, according to the best available evidence, breathe fire, although whales do blow what (from a distance) might look like a blast of smoke. There is no need for proof when you have faith, but if any creationist is going try to replace evolution with this, they need to come up with the evidence, and with a scientific explanation as to how this is possible.

Hovind: "My second reason is because of all the historical evidence. There are so many stories from countries around the world of animals breathing fire."

There are many countries around the world that have animals that live in caves, and also have volcanoes (a kind of cave) from which fire spits out. Isn't this a simpler, and therefore better explanation for dragon myths than Hovind's ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim that there really were fire-breathing dragons? This argument is from the same guy who claims the majority if often wrong?

Hovind: "My third reason for believing in fire-breathing dragons is: it is possible to blow fire. You say, WHAT? Yep! Its possible. There is an insect that lives in South Florida and in Central America that is called the Bombardier Beetle."

Lie #65. There is no animal that can blow fire. The Bombardier beetle spouts hot chemicals under pressure. This is not fire by any definition.

Hovind: "The Bombardier Beetle has two chemicals in storage compartments in his rear end. The chemicals are hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone. When these two chemicals are mixed together, they explode. BOOM! Its called an exothermic reaction."

Lie #66. Once again the creationist has to simplify things to get their ill-educated audience to understand it, and in the process, they turn the explanation into a lie. Here is what http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html says:

"Secretory cells produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals, depending on the species), which collect in a reservoir. The reservoir opens through a muscle-controlled valve onto a thick-walled reaction chamber. This chamber is lined with cells that secrete catalases and peroxidases. When the contents of the reservoir are forced into the reaction chamber, the catalases and peroxidases rapidly break down the hydrogen peroxide and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-quinones. These reactions release free oxygen and generate enough heat to bring the mixture to the boiling point and vaporize about a fifth of it. Under pressure of the released gasses, the valve is forced closed, and the chemicals are expelled explosively through openings at the tip of the abdomen."

Lie #67. It is the other way around - the heat is what generates the pressure that forces the chemicals out. There is no explosion in any meaningful sense. Perhaps explosive decompression might be a more accurate term.

Hovind: "He has a third chemical that is mixed in there with them. The third chemical is called the inhibitor...He has a fourth chemical. The fourth chemical is in the outer chamber. He squirts it in at the very last possible second. The fourth chemical is the neutralizer. The neutralizer eliminates the inhibitor so the first two chemicals can explode. Is this too complicated?"

Lie #68. Yes it is, as the talk.origins explanation makes clear. The actual mechanism is much simpler than Hovind pretends. The talk.origins FAQ goes into much more detail than I can here about how this mechanism could have evolved.

Hovind: "So, my third reason for believing in fire-breathing dragons is: it is possible for them to produce fire."

Lie #69. Hovind thinks he has demonstrated that because the Bombardier beetle can squirt hot chemicals, this is somehow equivalent to a dragon breathing smoke and fire and therefore proves they exist(ed). He has demonstrated nothing but how stupid and clueless he is.