300 Creationist Lies
Part E

Hovind: "I have a fourth reason for believing in fire-breathing dragons. Some of these dinosaurs had weird, hollow, bony things on the back of their heads; for example, the Parasaurolophus, the Lambiosaur and the Headrosaur."

Lie #70. Try Lambeosaur and Hadrosaur. Hovind gets the most complicated one right, then screws up the other two. If he cannot even spell the names right, how can we trust anything he says about these creatures? Unless he has fossil evidence that these chambers were used for belching smoke and fire, he has nothing but an inane creationist claim for which there is no foundation either historically or now.

Hovind offers the best explanation for these growths: "One textbook states, It is possible that the air passages magnified the voices of the dinosaurs like the curved tubes of a trumpet. Loud voices might be very useful for calling other dinosaurs or scaring predators away. Oh yea! Thats what they had them for, so they could call louder, Come home for dinner honey!"

These growths have been tested and do in fact, amplify sounds. There are contemporary animals that use body organs to amplify sound. Which is the more likely explanation? Hovind's 'belief' that they were fire-breathing dragons, or the scientific demonstration that some dinosaurs were capable of making loud calls?

Hovind: "This could be true but I believe since many of the dinosaur heads had these cavities (even the head of the Tyrannosaurus Rex was largely hollow), they could have stored chemicals in these cavities. The entire January 1993 issue of Discovery Magazine was devoted to the Air-Headed Dinosaur. The head of the Tyrannosaurs Rex was largely hollow and was connected to air passages"

Has Hovind ever considered that the skulls of these huge creatures had hollows in them so that they were lighter? Most animal skulls have hollows for various purposes. None of these hollows, in living things, are used to store chemicals that belch fire and smoke. (Hovind needs to demonstrate what these chemicals are, and how they were stored in the dinosaur's head). Of course, Hovind, unlike real scientists, does not have to consider every possible, reasonable explanation. The only one he has to consider is the one that fits his belief system. Real science isn't that easy.

Hovind: "There are many legends that validate this theory. These animals were probably one of the first to become extinct after the flood because those who figured out how to kill one probably became a hero."

Does Hovind ever reread what he writes? This fire-breathing dragon fantasy of his is validated by legend? Is this the kind of 'science' you want creationists to teach your children in place of the fact-based science that is currently taught in school?

Hovind: "... I believe that the critter could go on land or water. There are many species of animals that can stay on land or water, whichever they choose. If you were fifty-foot long, had a head a little smaller than a Volkswagen, had teeth six to nine inches long, had scales that nobody could poke through with a spear, weighed nearly thirty tons, and on top of that you could breath fire, you could go wherever you wanted to go"

Lie #71. If a pig had wings, it could fly. Not true, but people say that a lot. So are we going to teach this as hard science in school - just because people say it? Are we going to throw out 200 years of hard science because Hovind has a bug (or more precisely, a Bombardier beetle) up his butt?

Hovind finishes up chapter 3 with the most monotonous and appallingly tedious lecture about pride. This is the least humble creationist I know trying to teach us something about pride being a sin. I shall also skip his tedious introduction to chapter 4.

Hovind: "Before the 1800s, almost everybody believed that the world was only six or seven thousand years old. They held to the creationist or the Christian world view of history."

Lie #72. Almost everybody believed it was six or seven thousand years old just as the Bible says? Has Hovind never heard of Hinduism or Buddhism? What a provincial moron he is - he thinks the only country in the world is the USA, even though he is too proud of his relationship with god to admit to citizenship (and therefore the need to pay taxes). He thinks the only religion in the world is Christianity. Belief in a religion requires a degree of arrogance and pride (that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong and will perish because of that), but Hovind is an extremist even in this regard. Well, not only does Hovind have to defeat science, he also has to prove that his religion is right and all others wrong.

So everyone held to the Christian world view of history? Let's assume that was true, but just for this country. Why does Hovind suppose it changed? The world was then perfect according to his philosophy - everyone lived in sheer terror of Hovind's god, just as Hovind's son lived in sheer terror of Hovind.

This state of affairs continued since creation 6,000 years ago. So why, in the last 200 years, has it all changed? Is it because a satan suddenly decided to start working against god? Or is it perhaps because science has helped us to understand so much more about the universe in the last 200 years than we ever did before? We now understand that you need not invoke a god to explain every little detail about how things work. Perhaps long ago and far away, way back down the time line, there was some sort of being who initiated all of this, but there is not any evidence these days of this 'god' continuing to work it on a microscopic daily basis.

Hovind: "One of the first scoffers in the past couple of hundred years was a guy named James Hutton. James Hutton was one of the first men to really propose that the earth was more than six or seven thousand years old."

Lie #73. Hutton and Lyell pretty much began the modern science of geology, but it is important to remember that they did not produce it out of thin air. They were by no means the earliest people to claim antiquity for the Earth. The Greeks: Aristotle, Democritus, Thales, and Theophrastus for example, all had things to say about geology.

Hovind: "Along came Hutton, an amateur geologist, and he said, You know, I think the world is millions of years old."

Lie #74. First of all, everyone was an amateur geologist back then since there was no profession of geology. To specifically categorize Hutton as an amateur is to misrepresent the situation. Hutton was a physician and, unlike Hovind, had a real degree. Although he never practiced medicine, Hutton did have schooling, and if Hovind is going to categorize Hutton thus, then let me describe Hovind as an amateur geologist, an amateur biologist, an amateur cosmologist and a professional liar, since that is how he makes his living.

Hovind: "Charles Lyell, a lawyer from Scotland, was also an amateur geologist. He did not like the Bible. He didnt like the absolute authority of Scripture...Charles Lyell didn't like the Bible, and in 1830 he wrote a book, Principles of Geology."

Lie #75. Here is a quote from the concluding remarks to "Principles of Geology" by Sir Charles Lyell (1830). The full text of these remarks is available here:

"We are prepared, therefore, to find that in time also the confines of the universe lie beyond the reach of mortal ken. But in whatever direction we pursue our researches, whether in time or space, we discover every where the clear proofs of a Creative Intelligence, and of His foresight, wisdom, and power."

Does this sound like an enemy of god? Here is Lyell, in spite of his acceptance of the antiquity of the Earth, still praising the magnificence of the universe to the work of god. Also in that same book, Lyell, defending Hutton from an accusation of atheism by Richard Kirwan, has this to say: "...charges of infidelity and atheism must always be odious...." Hovind needs to read some of the material he so flatulently spouts about.

Hovind: "The geologic column has different layers known as the Cenozoid, Mesozoid, Paleozoid, and the Archeozoid."

Lie #76. These time periods are, from oldest to youngest, Archaeozoic, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic. I guess we should forgive Hovind, for he knows not what he does. Not only is he an amateur geologist, he is also an amateur thinker.

Hovind: "First of all, the geologic column can only be found in one place in the world."

It is true that, laid out in perfect sequence, complete from top to bottom, everything present and accounted for, the geological column does exist only in textbooks. What Hovind dishonestly conceals from you here is that, in actual fact, in nature, there are very many places where the geological column exists in substantial depths, everything present and accounted for, and that these substantial columns have a habit of overlapping with other columns in other places.

Now if somebody printed out half a dozen strips of paper with exactly the same text on each of them, and then tore them randomly, and mixed them up, how would you go about piecing them together and finding out what that text was? You would have to compare one strip with another. There would inevitably be places where one strip overlapped another. Such instances would give you a clue as to what to look for in each strip, and where the strips go, relative to each other. The geological column is no different. It is actually easier in some ways - because it is like working with different colors of paper. Not only are the layers identified by their differing composition, not only are they identified by the specific sequence of layering, but many of them have very distinctive fossils that are only found in specific layers.

Hovind: "Everything must be interpreted in light of the geologic column. For example, the Jurassic layer contains dinosaur bones. Therefore, if you find a dinosaur bone, its automatically classified as Jurassic layer"

Lie #77. So?!! In his pathetic attempts to blindfold you, Hovind once again simplifies something until it is nothing but a lie. The Jurassic period (named for the Jura mountains which sit between France and Switzerland) is not the only period where dinosaurs exist. They are in the Cretaceous, and the Triassic, too, along with the Therapsids. It was as the Triassic edged into the Jurassic that the dinosaurs (a specific class of creatures - not just 'any large lizard') began to really come into their own. So it is not sufficient to say, "Oh, dinosaur - Jurassic" as Hovind likes to pretend. Science is never as simple as Hovind or any of the other creationists would like you to believe, and scientists are, rest assured, nowhere near as simplistic and gullible as the creationists are.

Hovind goes on to simplify a story about a tour of a museum in Rapid City SD. I can only recommend you read it because his pride and arrogance are at their height here. Once again he picks on someone he knows will not be able to answer a detailed question, and then pretends that this person's opinion stands for the scientific view. He simplifies the position into this: "You know, they date the fossils by the layers, and then they turn right around and date the layers by the fossils."

I am going to call this Lie #78. Hovind does not point out to you that this is not what science says. Neither does he point out to you that Hovind himself uses this same circular reasoning after this fashion: we know that the Bible must be absolutely 100% true because it was inspired by god. We know god exists, because the Bible says he does, and the Bible is 100% true.

How is that argument ay better than the stratum/bone argument? The answer is that it is no better at all. Unfortunately for Hovind, while science can offer a lot more evidence regarding the age of layers and bones, Hovind cannot offer a single thing to substantiate his circular argument about god and the Bible.

Hovind: "Pictured in figure 4-3 is a fossil of a shoe print where a man stepped on two trilobites. The guy had a shoe on, a heel and everything. Many geologists refuse to look at the fossil....Those that look at it say that there are two possible ways to explain it....They said, It could be that aliens visited the planet 500 million years ago."

Lie #79. Unless Hovind comes up with something better than this folk tale, he needs to quit whining. If he has the proof, then he needs to submit it for scientific testing, period. If he does not so submit it, then it is a lie, not evidence, period. I claim his claim as a lie by default, mainly because I cannot imagine any competent and respectable geologist ever coming up with such an unscientific and patently ridiculous explanation for this fossil. Perhaps Hovind would like to explain how this guy in shoes was walking on the bottom of the sea in order to be able to step on two trilobites....

I haven't seen this fossil, but I am willing to bet Hovind's $10,000 that it is not real. It may well be a natural rock formation containing trilobites that has eroded to resemble a shoe print. For all we know, it is a plaster cast of a shoe imprint and some trilobites! I am most inclined to wonder, however, if this is another example of Hovind's complete incompetence. Knowing how sloppy and stupid he is, I am wondering if he is referring not to trilobite, but ammonite - a spiral shaped shellfish. These creatures often have the central portion of their spiral at a lower elevation than the outside portion. If two of them, of different sizes were buried very close together, fossilized, then exposed and weathered, I can well see how the result might look like the impression of a shoe on top of two 'trilobites' - if you are as stupid as Hovind is.

Creationists never seem to have their material available for examination, do they? It is always in possession of 'some guy who told me about it' (it's always a guy, isn't it? - never a woman!), or it got lost, or it is not available for testing. If a lab tests it and proves it to be false, then the creationists say the lab lied or falsified the results because of satan's vast atheist, communist, liberal, anti-creationist socialist, women's liberation, gay pride single-mom conspiracy!

Hovind: "This petrified tree is standing straight up running through many layers of strata."

I guess the PhD doesn't understand that strata is already in the plural.

Hovind: "Now, hold on just a minute! If that bottom layer is 600 million years old and the top layer is only 5 million years old, there are only two choices:..."

Can you say, 'false dichotomy' again?

Hovind: "...either that tree stood there 500 million years and didnt rot, or that tree grew through seventy-five feet of solid rock looking for sunlight."

Lie #80. Hovind first presents completely fictitious ages for the rock strata, and then offers what he considers are the only two options available to explain them. Well he is wrong, as usual. There is a web page which goes into detail about so-called polystrate fossils, so I am not going to do so here. The references examined by Andrew MacRae and others, who wrote this FAQ, are as readily available to the creationists as they were to the scientists. These issues were dealt with last century - that's how out of date the creationists are. The bottom line is that Hovind carefully avoids mentioning the third option.

From the talk.origins FAQ: "Are 'polystrate' fossils a problem for conventional geology?...Well, they were not a problem to explain in the 19th century, and are still not a problem now. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, where there are upright giant lycopod trees up to a few metres tall preserved mainly in river-deposited sandstones."

River-deposited sandstone. This is how the polystrate fossils occurred - trees in river flood plains being slowly buried over several flood seasons. There is nothing miraculous here, nothing outside the bounds of everyday science. Nothing to suggest a worldwide flood. The creationists know this, yet they continue to lie about such occurrences. Hovind is desperately passionate about the idea of a worldwide flood burying trees in layers of sediment, but somehow he just cannot get his tiny mind around the fact that the trees were slowly buried in layers of sediment due to successive river floods over a relatively short time period.

Hovind: "You can get a jar of dirt , put water in it, and shake it up. It will automatically settle out into layers for you. Its called hydrologic sorting."

Yes, but the layers always have the heaviest dirt on the bottom, the lightest on top. This is not what we find with fossil bones. I challenge Hovind, or any creationist, to get a very large container, fill it full of soil, water, and an assortment of fossil bones all of about the same weight and size, but from very different eras (as defined by evolutionary theory). Once they have done this, go right ahead and shake it up, and see if this wonderful, magical "hydrologic sorting" can sort them out into separate strata and keep them as individual as the fossil record has done, with no dinosaurs mixed in with modern mammals, no ancient fish in with modern birds, no bones sitting between two inappropriate strata, etc. I dare him. I double dare him. This would be what scientists call "doing hard science." Of course, the creationists never do any such thing. All they do is whine incessantly about what a tough time they have getting their theories taken seriously. Well I wonder why?

Hovind: "As Darwin read the book about the principles of geology, his faith in Scripture was destroyed. Darwin came back a doubter, a sceptic, a scoffer."

Lie #81. Here is what Darwin himself says in "Origin of Species," written years after he returned from his voyage on the Beagle. He is writing about speciation, and could well be talking directly to creationists:

"He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like the other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception..."

Darwin came back a doubter? A "sceptic" (same as skeptic), a scoffer? He published "Origin" in 1859, almost a quarter century after he returned from his voyage on the Beagle. For Hovind to pretend Darwin came back working for the devil, and intent on destroying belief in god is the worst kind of deceit and dishonesty. Remember what I said about ad hominem? Does Hovind indulge in it liberally or does he not?

Hovind: "Darwin was greatly influenced by Charles Lyell."

Hovind is being dishonest about this, but I will not register this as an official lie. The biggest influences on Darwin were his father, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, two people he met in college: Adam Sedgwick, a geologist, and John Henslow, a naturalist, and economist Thomas Malthus who wrote "An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), which is what really focused Darwin's ideas on how evolution works. Here is what Microsoft's Encarta has to say about Darwin's view of Lyell: "Beyond that, however, he realized that some of his own observations of fossils and living plants and animals cast doubt on the Lyell-supported view that species were specially created."

In one fell swoop, Encarta destroys both of Hovind's contentions - one that Darwin was seduced by Lyell, and two, that Lyell was basically anti-god and did not accept creation!

Hovind: "Lyell kept pushing Darwin to publish a book. Finally about thirty years later, Darwin published his book"

Lie #82. It is as easy to get this right as it is to distort it, so I am calling this one. The Beagle voyage ended in 1836. "Origin" was published in 1859. Now I am not great at math, but that looks closer to 23 years than it does to 30. Actually Darwin had the theory sketched out by late 1838 when he read Malthus' book . Some believe that he might not have published at all, had not Alfred Wallace come up with basically the same theory, which he and Darwin announced jointly in 1858. By the way, it was Wallace who gave up on evolution and went back to creationism later in life, not Darwin, and he did it through the same disability that Hovind suffers - lack of imagination and scientific expertise.

Hovind: "When [Darwin] got to the Galapagos, he made notes of many different varieties of finches...Some had a heavy beak, and some had a skinny beak....Darwin said, You know, Ill bet all of these finches have a common ancestor. Well, thats brilliant Charlie! I bet they do too, and I bet the ancestor was a finch of some kind."

Brilliant! That's precisely what Darwin said.

Hovind: "Charlie then said, You know, if these finches all have a common ancestor, then maybe these finches have the same common ancestor as does the pine tree."

Lie #83. It took Darwin two years after the voyage to come up with his theory in any kind of workable form, so there is no way it is even remotely honest to portray Darwin on Galapagos concluding that we are related to a pine tree because a few birds have different beaks. Yes, we are related to pine trees! If Hovind disagrees, let him publish his scientific theory about how it is that, since we are made from the same 20 amino acids, and the same four DNA bases, that we are not related genetically to any other living thing on this planet.

Continued in part F

Thanks to Buddika for this great work.

See Kent Hovind's reply to the lies
Kent Hovind's Homepage

email me (I am NOT Buddika.)

This page hosted by
Get your own Free Home Page