Yet he would cheat the government out of taxes, and see this free society overthrown for an oppressive and restrictive fundamentalist regime that would turn America into a Christian version of Iran under the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Hovind: "Start a tape lending ministry. Maybe you do not know how to preach on creationism. I do, so get my tapes and books, and pass them out to somebody."

Be sure to pay Hovind first, so he can travel the country preaching lies at your expense.

Hovind: "Cancel cable TV and newspapers (give time and money to God)"

And render yourself ignorant of what is really going on in the world so you will fall prey more easily to the lies of the creationists and fundamentalists.

Hovind: "When you are dealing with Jews, you talk about Scripture, and the Messiah. When you go to the heathen, you must to do it as Paul did on Mars Hill. I want to talk to you about the unknown God, the creator of the universe. Thats where you must start. Scripture does not phase them."

So Hovind has no faith in the so-called word of god?

Hovind: "Start a Bible club release time. A lot of counties have release time. Thats where they have to allow the students out of school for an hour to have Bible study."

So rather than have them get an education in school and study the Bible in the evenings and on weekends, Hovind wants to tear your children away from their education and have them read the Bible. Next time you see him - ask him why.

Hovind: "Jesus said to preach the gospel to every creature"

Lie #150. (Although this depends on where in the Bible you look - you look in the right places, you can use the Bible to justify anything you care to). In Matthew, 10:5 it specifically says, "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not." So why is Hovind overriding Jesus express command?

Hovind: "What about pangaea? Were the continents ever connected?...School children are still being taught this theory. The only evidence to support this theory is that Africa and South America look as if they would fit together."

Lie #151. When you consider there is a volcanic trench running the length of the Atlantic (it comes ashore in Iceland), and that either side of this trench, the seabed is pulling away measurably, does this sound like it's 'only a theory'? There are similar trenches in other places (California sits on one of them).

Hovind: "The second evidence that is given for pangaea is..."

Wait a minute! He just got through saying 'The only evidence to support this theory...' - now he is saying there is more?

Hovind: "...the idea that the continents are drifting. There is a little movement, but that doesnt prove that it has been happening for millions of years. It could have started one hundred years ago."

Lie #152. If it started one hundred years ago, then Hovind and his cronies need to come up with an explanation as to why the continents on either side of the rifts actually contain similar fossils in the rock strata - rock strata which are also similar. They also need to explain the pattern of embedded magnetism in the rocks, which has changed, along with the earth's magnetic field, over the time the seabed has spread apart, leaving a magnetic pattern in the rock, which matches on either side of the fissure.

Hovind: "Camels have been found at the North Pole. That doesnt prove that the North Pole was at the equator in times past."

Lie #153. I would love for Hovind to explain how camels were found at the pole, since there is no land up there, only ice. Were they aquatic camels which got stuck in the ice? It is unfortunate for Hovind that he made me check up on camels, since I found an interesting FAQ at the www.talkorigins.org archives which mentions camels several times in relation to transitional forms!

Hovind: "...many mammoths are found frozen standing straight up...they suffocated, which means they didnt drown. They were frozen so fast that the food in their stomach and teeth is still fresh. The food is still green as if they just ate it!".

Lie #154. This is as much a deceit as a lie. A quick visit to Woolly Mammoths: Evidence of Catastrophe? reveals information from a book by E. W. Pfizenmayer, one of the scientists who actually recovered and studied the Berezovka mammoth, and wrote a book, "Siberian Man and Mammoth" about it. In this book, he reveals the lie to Hovind's nonsense above:

"When one looked at the body one had the impression that it must have suddenly fallen into an unexpected fissure in the ice...After its fall the unlucky animal must have tried to get out of its hopeless position, for the right forefoot was doubled up and the left stretched forward as if it had struggled to rise. But its strength had apparently not been up to it, for when we dug it out still farther we found that in its fall it had not only broken several bones, but had been almost completely buried by the falls of earth which tumbled in on it, so that it had suffocated...Its death must have occurred very quickly after its fall, for we found half-chewed food still in its mouth, between the back teeth and on its tongue, which was in good preservation. The food consisted of leaves and grasses, some of the later carrying seeds. We could tell from these that the mammoth must have come to its miserable end in the autumn."

Hovind: "A gentleman from Waterloo, Ontario told me, Brother Hovind, my dad lived at the north slope of Alaska, and he ate mammoth meat. They dug one out of the ground, cut the meat off, and ate it. They said it tasted like roast beef and it was still as fresh as the day it was killed."

Lie #155. I am not sure if Hovind made this one up and is lying, or if the guy who told Hovind is lying, but mammoth meat, whether in the ice for 4,000 years or 40,000, is going to be so desiccated that I doubt very much it would be as tender as freshly slain mammoth, but it could, I guess, be edible, if you were really, really hungry - kinda like beef jerky. There is no way, regardless of how it met its end, that the meat could be fresh. Anyone who owns a freezer and has left meat in it too long understands this.

Here is another typical creationist ploy: it didn't happen to the creationist directly. The creationist never attempted to verify this information which came not from the person it happened to, but from yet another person. It was already second hand by the time Hovind got it. This scenario is typical in UFO lore as well. Can you imagine trying to defend yourself in court with such nonsense? Oh yeah, your Honor, my dad says he knows some guy who swears I didn't do it.

Hovind: "Baron Toll, the Arctic explorer, found a frozen, ninety-foot tall plumb tree on the New Siberian Island, which is 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle. This tree still had huge plumbs and leaves on it."

Lie #156. Plumb tree? I think this illiterate moron means 'plum' tree. I had a hard time locating this Baron Toll, until I discovered his name mentioned in the talk.origins archives (obviously, I should have gone there first!). There is an article by E.T. Babinski on Cretinism or Evilution? Ninety Foot Tall Plum Tree from which I took this information.

Again, though he offers no credit, Hovind stole this story from Bible-Science News Vol 23. #4, April 1985. The article was entitled, "The Mystery of the Frozen Giants" by Lee Grady. He, in turn, took the information from "The Waters Above" by creationist Joseph Dillow (Moody Press, Chicago, 1981). Neither of these latter creationists, Hovind or Grady, bothered to check the source - they simply took another creationist's word for it. So much for creationist research. So much for their desire to learn the truth.

Was this information original with Dillow? Nope - he got it from another book: "The Mammoth and Mammoth Hunting in North-East Siberia" by Bassett Digby (H.F. & G. Witherby, London, 1926)! This book talks about what Baron von Toll found. Notice that none of this information comes direct from von Toll himself. Here is what Digby's book states:

"There was lying among them, too, a 90 ft. alder-tree (Alnus fructicosa), with even its roots and seeds preserved."

In other words, Hovind's story is fifth hand. Not one of the creationists tried to discover what the original story said, and so they pass on this legend of a "plumb" tree, when the truth is about an alder tree. Babinski actually tracked down von Toll's own report, which revealed that far from finding a freshly preserved saber-toothed cat, what was found was only a shoulder bone. Far from finding fresh "plumbs", all that was found was a well preserved tree - with no information whatsoever as to its freshness - all of that is invented by the creationists.

If there are so very many freshly preserved mammoths lying around, why is it that the Japanese cannot buy one from the Russians? According to an article in Discover magazine (April 1999), Japanese researchers believe they can clone a mammoth if they can find tissue which is fresh enough - they have so far failed to find any. Obviously, if this is the case, Hovind's entire story about fresh mammoth meat is a lie.

Hovind: "Mammoths do not have any sweat glands. They were not designed for cold climates."

Lie #157. Obviously Hovind is too stupid to see the connection between sweating and heat. Mammoths were, by every indication, evolved precisely for cold climates, although I am really skeptical about Hovind's categorical denial that mammoths had no sweat glands - they were mammals, after all. See the following web page, Woolly Mammoths: Evidence of Catastrophe?, (by Philip Burns) for further information on mammoths.

Hovind: "Before the flood, there was no cold climates in the world. It was seventy-five degrees from pole-to-pole. The temperature was perfect everywhere."

Lie #158. There was no cold climates? I would love to know how it is that a supposed PhD can write a sentence like that. Anyway, if this is not a lie, Hovind needs to come up with the science to explain how the planet managed to be a 'perfect' 75 degrees everywhere, despite it being a globe. First of all, by whose definition is 75 perfect? Secondly, how was it that it never cooled at night? Thirdly, how was it that the poles, which receive sunlight at a very shallow angle at the best of times, managed to stay as warm as the equator, where the sun is largely overhead all the time. Also, he needs to explain, scientifically, how all of the present animals - which must have been alive then if there is no evolution, managed to survive in that climate.

Hovind: "The mammoths were not designed to live in cold climates, in spite of their long hair."

Lie #159. From the web page by Bush, cited above, the mammoths showed the following adaptations to cold climate:

Mammoths in what is now northern Russia were smaller than those living in warmer climes, and smaller than today's elephants. Their trunks, ears, and tail were all smaller, suggesting they lived in a cold climate, where frostbite was a bigger problem than heat dissipation.

Mammoths had a dense inner coat of wool, protected by a long outer coat of shaggy hair. This is typical of mammals in cold climates - it is not found in mammals in warm climates.

Mammoths had a 3 inch layer of fat under their skin. This is typical of cold environment animals (think of whale blubber) but a distinct disadvantage in warm climes.

Hovind: "About 2,300 BC the earth was stuck by an outside object."

Until Hovind proves this - as he ought to be able to do if it is that recent, then this is nothing but a lie. Since Earth does get struck by objects from time to time, I shall not include this in the official tally. It is worth asking Hovind, if you ever see him, the following questions: what size of object would it take to hit the Earth and tilt it by 23 degrees? How it was that any living thing survived this massive impact? How it was that not one single civilization recorded the incident? How could something with the mass of a snowball do this?.

Hovind: "Today, the earth is leaning over about twenty-three and one half degrees, which is what causes our seasons. By the way, the seasons as far as spring, winter, and harvest, are not mentioned in the Bible until after the flood. Genesis 8:22 is the first mention of cold weather."

Lie #160. Once again Hovind doesn't even know his own Bible. Genesis 1:14 specifically mentions seasons:

"And god said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years."

By the Bible's own word, there were seasons before the flood - god designed it that way.

Hovind: "the earths magnetic field was much stronger back in those days. The magnetic field is getting weaker and weaker with time. It was probably twenty times stronger in Adam and Eves day."

Lie #161. Hovind needs to prove this with scientific evidence. Until he does, this is a lie.

Hovind: "God designed the original creation to take care of all the problems that we have today...Insects wouldnt bite. They didnt have to worry about mosquitoes. Everything was vegetarian according to Genesis 1:30. All the animals were friendly. It was an unbelievable paradise. That is what the world started off to be like until sin messed it up."

Lie #162. And god threw all of this out just because Eve wanted to learn something? What a childish god Hovind worships! If he is going to make claims about non-'biting' mosquitoes and non-aggressive animals, he needs to come up with the scientific evidence. I am not going to take a proven liar's word, especially since female mosquitoes preserved in amber have bloodsucking mouth parts. How did they use this as vegetarians? If they had different mouth parts, how did the present mouth parts arise - with no mutations and no evolution?

Hovind: "Another factor to keep in mind is that there are comets (figure 5-3) that fly around in space. Most comets are extremely cold snowballs, while some are rocks and iron.

Lie #163. All comets are what has been described as 'dirty snowballs' - they are mostly ice with some space debris. The 'rocks and iron' bodies are meteors and asteroids. Hovind ought to know this. If he doesn't, he's an idiot, if he does, he's a liar.

Hovind: "God sent a comet or knew that one was coming toward the earth..."

God must have both sent it and knew about it if the Bible is true! Why does Hovind have this confusion?

Hovind: "As it was progressing through our solar system, some of the fragments broke off and became trapped in what is now some of the rings around Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. All three of these planets have ice rings around them that are still not stabilized, indicating that they have not been there for millions of years. These rings are still separating the lighter particles from the heavier particles from the Pointing Robertson Effect of the solar wind."

Lie #164. That's the Poynting-Robertson effect, which was discussed in lie #19, so I am not counting this again. What I am counting is the suggestion that the rings of the outer planets are not stabilized and are therefore new. I challenge Hovind to provide evidence that would prove, scientifically, that these rings are only 4,000 years old, and in addition, demonstrate how this proves that the universe is not millions of years old. In doing this, he needs to disprove the alternate explanation, that the rings are renewed by material from the satellites orbiting these planets. Until and unless he does this, I am calling this a lie.

Hovind: "Some of those meteors may have hit the moon and caused the craters on the moon. What made the craters? On Mars and the moon there are actually flow marks as if there was water flowing. Maybe the ice meteor hit the planets, made a crater, and then melted in the heat of the day, because in the heat of the day the surface of these planets is about 250 degrees."

Lie #165. Assuming he is sticking with Fahrenheit for his 250 degrees (notice how he never specifies the scale - this is how scientific the creationists are), this would be 120 deg. Celsius. Well it's a lie. The average temperature on Mars is about -55 C, but temperatures range from -133 C at the winter pole to almost 27 C during summer days, so the maximum temperature on Mars is less than the temperature of your blood. It is definitely not 250 degrees.

I don't understand how a self-proclaimed physics teacher can mistake the Moon for a planet, but Hovind appears to. He should have stuck with the Moon because it is closer to what he wants than Mars is. It can climb over 120 C, which is almost exactly the 250 degrees that Hovind quotes, but note that it is the maximum. Unfortunately, all of this exercise is really farcical unless Hovind seriously expects us to believe that an "ice meteor" crashing into the surface of the moon would not vaporize on contact, but would instead make a soft landing and then melt....

Hovind: "The closer it got the stronger the pull of gravity and the faster it traveled. It continued travel to closer and move faster until it reached a point called Rosches Limit, which is about 2.44 times the diameter of the larger planet."

Lie #166. The imbecile means "Roche Limit," and it is about 2 1/2 times the radius of the larger body, not the diameter. It does not make any major impact on the smaller body unless the smaller body in question is one held together by gravity only. If this were not the case, then we would not be able to orbit satellites within the Earth's Roche limit (approx 10,000 miles) because they would break up. Hovind's so-called theory falls apart even more dramatically than his supposed "ice meteor" ever would

Hovind: "About 20,000 miles out, the meteor exploded in space and turned into a puff of snow. Ice that is 300 degrees or below becomes magnetic and can be picked up by a magnet."

Lie #167. It is hard to tell since, once again, there are no references, but I think what Hovind is talking about here is diamagnetism, which can affect water. Unfortunately for Hovind, this is the very opposite of magnetic attraction - if this applied, Hovind's 'space snow' would be repelled by the Earth's magnetic field and would not fall at all!

Hovind: "At this low temperature, this magnetic ice would be sucked to the north and south pole because of the intense magnetic field. That would cause a very rapid snow fall of some very cold snow, about 300 degrees below zero, at the North and South Poles."

Lie #168. Unless, of course, this speeding ice which exploded into a 'puff of snow' was heated up as it entered the atmosphere, and melted....

Hovind: "Another thought to keep in mind is that the South Pole is considered a desert because they receive less that ten inches of precipitation a year; yet, the ice is up to 14,000 feet thick at the South Pole. Either it took millions of years to accumulate 14,000 feet of ice or it was dumped there all at once."

Lie #169. I am glad that Hovind offered this dichotomy, because if these are the only options, then the slow accumulation has to be the answer - if it were not so, there would not be seasonal layers of ice, would there?

Lie #170. The deepest ice, to my knowledge, at the south pole, is less than 10,000 feet. Hovind needs to quote solid references for his higher figure to get this lie repealed.

Lie #171. The continent of Antarctica is the Earth's fifth largest, with a summer area of over 5 million square miles. Assuming a depth of ice of 2 miles, that amounts to 10 million cubic miles of ice - minimum, and this does not even include the ice at the North Pole.

According to Hovind's theory, all of this came from space. How is it that no one on the entire planet has ever made mention, just 4,000 years ago, when civilizations were flourishing, of a celestial body, growing larger in the sky every single day, that was over 250 miles in diameter? Most comets are relatively small (Halley's comet is thought to be no larger than nine miles, for example) - can you imagine the tail that would stream out from such a massive comet? It would have been like a white ribbon across the midday sky, and have been visible for months before it arrived. Yet nowhere, not in any known inscription, carving, engraving, or frieze is there any mention of this super-comet.

Lie #172. Hovind seems to think all comets are like giant snowballs - made of ice water. Yet the rings of Saturn, which Hovind claims were created by this mega-comet, are actually, as measured spectroscopically in 1969 by the University of Arizona, ammonia ice. Can you imagine, for a minute, the catastrophe inherent in a 250 mile comet composed of ammonia ice hitting the Earth?

Hovind: "This is just a theory that seems to fit some of the facts."

Lie #173. It doesn't fit any of the facts! This is proof categorical that creation 'science' is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of its adherents.

Hovind: "As the snow deepened, it began to push toward the equator, and the glaciers went racing across the Northern Hemisphere...possibly hundreds of miles an hour. As the ice pushed out further and further, it carved out all the glacial effects we now see today."

Lie #174. How is ice rushing at 'hundreds of miles an hour' not going to leave distinctive marks? How is it not going to melt from friction? How are there going to be dead, preserved animals standing upright at the North Pole if the ice has just pushed out from there at hundreds of miles per hour?

Hovind: "Between the ice coming from outer space, the rain coming down to earth from the canopy..."

By the way - how did this 'space snow' get through that thick canopy of water without melting (or alternately, without freezing the water)?

Hovind: "...and one more source I will discuss next, the earth was completely covered with water from pole to pole. Some was liquid water and some was frozen water."

Lie #175. There is no evidence of one, huge, worldwide flood. At least, the creationists have never offered any. Until they do, this is a lie. Anyway, why was the water not all frozen if a 250 mile comet at -300 degrees hit the Earth (and Noah survived this!)? How could there possibly be a flood at this temperature?