Lie #195. I cannot help but call this one. So let me get this straight. First the dinosaurs walk on the soft, flat ground. Then the world is covered in a massive flood with torrential rain, then the mountains rise and the floods retreat, and despite all this turmoil, perfect dinosaur footprints are preserved at a 45 degree angle? Nothing got filled in during a year long flood that left chalk deposits 300 feet deep? Nothing washed away in 40 days and 40 nights of torrential rain?

Hovind: "The textbooks state that it took billions of years to form the Grand Canyon. That is just not true"

Lie #196. You're damned right it didn't take _billions_ of years, and for Hovind to portray it as such is truly pathetic. Only an imbecile would pull a cheap stunt like that. Creationists are forced to lie about what the textbooks say because if they told the truth, their own lies would be startlingly obvious. The canyon formed in about six million years as far as scientists can determine from the observable evidence. Where is Hovind's observable evidence that shows it was caused by sloshing floodwater?

Hovind: "The tour guides will tell you that it took millions of years to form the Grand Canyon..."

Hovind corrects his lie.

Hovind: "...and the Bad Lands. How do you know that sir? He will say, Well, we only get about twelve inches of rain out here every year. You can tell by the hardness of the rock, and the amount of rain we get that it would take millions of years to make these Bad Lands. Well now sir, you are assuming that the rock hardness has always been the same. What if it was all soft mud, and there was 500 feet of water running through there?"

Then everything would have been washed away! The mud would be on the bottom of the ocean and there would be flat rock, no mud, no soil, and no canyon. How does Hovind propose that a mile high wall of mud did not collapse and slither away along with the rushing water?

Hovind: "Was it a little bit of water over lots of time, or was it lots of water over a little time? There is a big difference."

Yes there is, and only a moron could confuse the two.

Hovind: "If the ocean was lowered, you could walk anyplace in the world. For the first one-hundred years, the oceans were smaller, the continents were bigger, and the ice caps were huge, trapping lots of water."

Lie #197. And all that water, an entire planet full of it, heated 24 hours a day by the sun for a year, couldn't melt all those ice caps?

Hovind: "The people spread out across the world could walk anywhere they wanted to go. As the water level rose because of the ice caps melting, they became trapped in certain regions. The people then developed peculiar traits."

Lie #198. Why did these traits develop? How did they develop, if mutations are always harmful? If we came from such a small stock, so very recently, how is it even possible to have as much genetic variation as we see in humans, whether or not there is evolution?

Hovind: "They all developed these peculiar traits as small inbreeding groups were trapped in localized areas after the flood."

Lie #199. Localized areas like The Russian steppes? Like North America? Like Africa? Tiny, tiny localized areas!

Hovind: "I think that it took one-hundred years for those ice caps to melt. It would take a long time for a big block of ice to melt. As the ice melted back from Kansas City, it left behind Drumlins, Terminal Moraines, and glaciers."

Lie #200. This is the same heavy weight of ice that is sitting right smack on top of those mountains that were trying to rise up after the flood waters tried to "asswage"? How did the ice melt in 100 years? That amount of ice would have taken considerably longer since the earth would have cooled dramatically as all that ice reflected away the warming sunlight.

Hovind: "The Bible warns us in I Timothy chapter 6 to be careful about what is so-called science."

Lie #201. Go ahead - look it up - it mentions nothing even akin to science. It takes about slavery (not once denouncing it) and rich people.

Hovind: "I wish to re-emphasize that I believe the Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of the living God. I taught high school science for fifteen years, and I can assure you that there are no conflicts with the Bible. It is Gods Word."

Lie #202. It is the word of a bunch of primitive, ignorant, narrow perspective, undereducated writers, the names of whom we do not even know. How anyone, anyone at all, who claims to be a believer can put their faith in that book as opposed to seeking the answers directly from god is beyond me to comprehend. The Bible is provably errant:

Examine 2 Chronicles, 36. verse 23, the last verse, ends right in the middle of a sentence. The very next book in the standard Bible, Ezra, begins at verse one of course, but verse one of Ezra 1, is really verse 22 of 2 Chronicles, 36, and the two parallel each other from that point through verse 3 of Ezra 1, where Ezra actually continues the story broken abruptly at the end of Chronicles.

There is no arguing this, no debating it, no weaseling out of it as fundamentalists incessantly do when errors are brought to their attention. This is simply, plainly, clearly, unarguably a gross mistake in the Holy Bible. If this one, which shouts at you, which glares in your face, has survived down to us today uncorrected, how many other mistakes and misperceptions are there that are not so obvious? How many errors are there that we do not have any means of checking or verifying?

Precisely - we do not know. For someone like Hovind, or Duane Gish, or Henry Morris to pretend, even for an instant, that this book is the inspired and inerrant word of god is the most blasphemous insult to any god. To pretend that this ad hoc collection of writings, put together by ancient cardinals, none of whose veracity we can attest to, is patently insane. To hold sacred this anonymous scribble of primitive writers telling tales from even more primitive nomads, none of whom we know, is the act of an irresponsible idiot.

Everyone has heard of the game whereby a series of people whisper a few sentences to one another down the line, and then compare the beginning phrase with the final one. Imagine playing that same game, not down a short line of people at a party, but over decades, centuries even. After that, someone who speaks a different language writes the story down, and then it gets translated and retranslated for a few centuries more. Finally, a bunch of people get to sort through all these copies and without any reference whatsoever to the original storytellers, they compile these texts from multiple sources, in multiple languages.

Creationists are always whining about the odds against evolution happening. Well what are the odds that the Bible we have today accurately represents anything that might have happened five or six thousand years ago? Sure, it can come close on actual, major historical events - those would be well-known - but what about all those personal stories? What about those chats with god that happened when the writers were not even present? What about those miracles? Knowing what we know now about eyewitnesses and their complete unreliability, how can we begin to pretend the Bible is reliable? This is a matter of science, not of opinion.

Hovind is incessantly griping about how bones found here and there in the fossil record are put together and claimed to be from the same animal (case in point, his diatribe on horse evolution). Well what about his Bible, where texts found all over the place and not even in the same language were put together and claimed to be the word of one god? The man is a hypocritical numskull.

Hovind reveals his scatological roots: "I was raised in a Lutheran Church, a Mennonite Church, and a Methodist Church; we also visited the Catholic Church and just about every other kind that there was...I was saved when I was sixteen and started attending a little right-wing, radical, independent, temperamental, fundamental Baptist church."

Now you know the truth about Hovind. He's a Christian fascist.

Hovind: "I was only sixteen, and the brain doesnt even start developing until about twenty."

Lie #203. I will not even dignify this rank stupidity with an explanation. Hovind's brain obviously never did develop at any time.

Hovind: "My preacher had told me, If someone ever tells you there are contradictions in the Bible, hand them your Bible and tell them to show you one. I thought, Ill try it. I handed him my Bible, and I said, Show me one of those contradictions, would you please?"

I showed Hovind the problem I mentioned above - the Chronicles/Ezra mix up - in an email a couple of months ago. His response? He did not even address that issue. He doesn't dare. I have hit him with so many problems from his seminar material that he will not even write to me any more. That's what a 'great debater' he is. Pin him down with hard questions and he shrivels up. His excuse is that I won't tell him who I am, so he will not write to me. That's the kind of worthless piece of scummy, lowlife, lying, defrauding, moronic debater he is. If we won't play to his rules, so he can win, he won't play at all. The man is a jackass.

Hovind: "He took my Bible...He said...Look down in verse twenty. This is where we start day five. Verse twenty states, And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. He said, Kent, what day did God make the birds? I said, He made them on the fifth day. He said, What did he make the birds out of?...I said, He made the birds out of the water."

Lie #204. The creationists are constantly bleating as to how the evolutionists cannot prove that one animal evolved into another. Anyone who can show me a real living bird made out of nothing but hydrogen and oxygen will get a medal.

Hovind: "Look at Genesis 2:8-9. He read, And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."

When Hovind, in his usual tediously pedantic way, finally gets to the point, the point turns out to be his claim that there are not two creation stories, only one, and that the second story actually refers to only the creation of the garden of eden. Well, as usual, he is wrong. Even Biblical scholars agree that there are two distinct stories, and a casual reading of the Bible makes this clear.

Hovind: "This is a continuation of the creation. God is not done yet. God is still creating. It is still day six. When God finished making all the trees, he looked at Adam, and said, Adam, it is not good for you to be alone. I am going to make a help that is meet, or suitable for you."

And so god goes on to make a bunch of animals. What went wrong? Did the supreme being never think that a woman might be a suitable partner for a man - he wanted him to try bestiality, first? Was this creator so stupid that he didn't foresee that a man might like to have a woman - or even another man - for a partner? Was the creator of all things so stupid and short sighted that even though he just got through making male and female animals, it never occurred to him to create male and female humans? Or was it not that the creator was stupid, but the idiot who wrote this story and the bigger idiots who take it literally?

Hovind: "Out of the ground, God made one of each of the animals on the earth. The rest of the world is already full of animals. This is just taking place in the garden"

Lie #205. There is no indication whatsoever in the Bible to lead one to believe this. The actual text (assuming it was passed down and translated correctly, of course) says "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air." That sure sounds to me like a major creation event - not simply a small event to populate one garden.

Hovind: "This question comes up frequently, What are those little lines on the products for? It is not an Ethiopian family portrait."

Despite Hovind's having dealt with this in chapter 4, he seems unable to bar it from chapter 6. He is equally unable to avoid making note of the tiny strip in paper money in case we forgot that he lied his way through it in that same chapter. He covered radiocarbon dating in chapter one, but raises it again here. His mind is obviously decaying more than the carbon 14 is. I shredded his brain dead analogy of a candle burning in part 40 of my posting series.

Hovind: "If you assume that the candle was twelve inches tall, and you assume a constant burn rate, it had been burning for five hours. The answer is only as good as your assumptions."

I am glad he raised this point - "the answer is only as good as your assumptions" - because what is it, other than absolutely pure assumption, that there is a god and that the Bible describes his behavior and plan with utmost accuracy?

Hovind: "Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has remained constant through all time. This is a very faulty assumption."

Lie #206. Radiocarbon dating is based on the scientific fact that such dates have been tested and independently verified, and the decay of C14 into N14 is very well understood. If decay rates changed over time, we would see evidence of this in the radiation just now arriving on Earth from distant stars. It makes no difference if you believe those stars developed millions or billions of years ago or if you believe they were created just 6,000 years ago to fool intelligent, thinking people into believing there was a big bang. Either way, the radiation reaching us has traveled at least 6,000 years. It originated in the past either way, and we are able, in effect, to take a time machine back into the past by means of examining this electromagnetic radiation. It shows no evidence that the laws of physics have changed in any way since they developed out of the big bang.

Hovind: "Due to the fact that the magnetic field is decreasing, cosmic radiation causes the Northern Lights and the Southern Lights."

Lie #207. The aurora borealis is caused by electromagnetic disturbance - not by decreasing electromagnetic disturbance.

Lie #208. The evidence of how the Earth's magnetic field has behaved in the past is preserved in igneous rock, which effectively "freezes" the pattern and strength when it solidifies. Regardless of how old you believe the Earth to be, these rocks show no consistent or reliable pattern of decreasing magnetic fields.

Hovind: "Uranium lead and potassium argon dating methods work on basically the same principle. They all make some faulty assumptions."

Lie #209. If the decrease in earth's magnetic field affects the dating of the earth, "proving" it to be only 6,000 years old, rather than 4.5 billion, how is it that the date of the moon rocks agrees completely with the 4.5 billion age of the Earth? There is no magnetic field on the moon. How is it that both these ancient ages agree completely with the measurements of the sun's fusion reactions, showing it to only a little older than the Earth?

Hovind: "Carbon dating is only good for about 30,000 or 40,000 years."

Lie #210. Now Hovind is putting lies into other people's mouths. No one who knows what they are talking about would shrink C14 dating spans down to 30,000 years. The age range for acceptably accurate dates from C14 is between about 500 years and 50,000 - quite a bit older than Hovind pretends, but not nearly old enough to measure the age of dinosaurs, and not nearly miraculous enough to measure the age of anything that was not, at some point, alive. Besides, if it is only good for 30,000 years (as Hovind here admits), that is five times longer than we need to disprove Bible chronology.

Hovind: "They brake off a piece and test it."

This is from someone who claims to be a PhD and a high school science teacher for 15 years. "They brake off a piece"!

Hovind: "You see; everything must fit within the geologic column. The geologic column is the bible to the evolutionist. Any radiometric dating that is given that is outside the realm of the geologic column is rejected."

Lie # 211. I challenge Hovind or any creationist to show any incident where the general body of science has knowingly falsified dates - or any information - and sought to preserve the falsification. Next time you hear a creationist claim something like this, challenge them with this question: "Who is it that has most often and traditionally tripped up science when it has got something wrong? Has it been the church, or has it been other scientists? Ask them where this critical and painful honesty is within the creationist camp. Ask them why it is that every mistake they provide in their futile attempts to disprove evolution has been the result of the work of a scientist, never a creationist.

Creationist honesty is a contradiction in terms, I assure you. Creationists are fundamentally dishonest from day one, and they begin by being dishonest with themselves. After that, they have no compass whatsoever to guide them to the truth. If science is an evil conspiracy to overthrow god, why are scientists always calling out their own mistakes so loudly?

Hovind: "Dont fall for the statement, They proved it is so many millions of years old based on carbon dating."

Lie #212. Definitely don't! No real scientist ever claimed anything was proven millions of years old from carbon dating. See what I mean about Hovind's missing compass? I don't think he can even tell any more when he is lying. Let me give you a guide: How do you tell a creationist is lying? His lips are moving.

Hovind: "Who built the Great Pyramid?...The Egyptians did not build it. It is the only pyramid with no hieroglyphics in it. The other pyramids were copies of the Great Pyramid."

Lie #213. There are actually 3 lies here, but I'll only count one.

Hovind: "The Great Pyramid is very special. It does not have a cornerstone."

Lie #214. Yes it does - many for each corner. What it does not have is a capstone. Neither does the Washington monument in Washington DC have a capstone. Instead, there is an aluminum pyramid which serves as a lightning conductor. How does Hovind know that these words do not refer to the Washington monument in prophecy?

Hovind: "The cornerstone was rejected by the builders just as the Bible says. Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone"

Cornerstone - that's what Psalms118:22 (and Jer 51:26, and three of the gospels, and Acts, and Peter ) says - the Bible writers were obsessed with this imagery, but not one of them mentions pyramids or capstones. Even the Book of Mormon gets in on the act. It says: " The stone the builders refused is become the head of the corner." That's corner not cap, or point, or top, or apex.

Hovind: "If they could have found the entrance, they could have just touched it and it would have swung open."

Lie #215. This pyramid was a tomb designed to glorify the Pharaoh and protect his wealth - there is no way the door would swing open at a touch. The tomb was, at one time, sealed.

Hovind: "When you enter into the pyramid, the passage leads downward. After a short distance you must make a choice....If you choose the narrow way to the kings chamber, you must to go up one-hundred and fifty-three steps."

Lie #216. To the best of my ability to determine, there is only one step in the Grand Gallery - immediately before the king's chamber area. The passage itself is not stepped, but it is roughly cut - and it is 153 feet long. No doubt this is from where the clueless creationists invented their steps. If Hovind has any evidence to the contrary, I challenge him to produce it. I am betting this is yet another example of one incestuous creationist stealing from others and being too bone-idle lazy to check the facts for themselves. Do you want these lying imbeciles teaching your children in school?

Hovind: "The men who developed the symbol on the back of our dollar bill in 1776 were the Illuminati group."

Lie #217. The designing of a seal was commissioned by the Continental Congress after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson together couldn't hack it (Jefferson never came up with an original idea in his life, and Franklin had his finger in too many pies), so two other committees were asked to do it. Neither of these came up with anything acceptable, either. In 1782 the task was turned over to Charles Thomson, secretary to the congress. He prepared a design that was adopted after some alterations, in June, 1782. To even pretend it was developed by the so-called "illuminati" in 1776 is a double lie.

Hovind: "If you notice, the Roman numerals at the bottom of the pyramid denote the date 1776, and they are not there because of the Declaration of Independence they signed. It is there because that is the date the Illuminati was formed, and this was their symbol."

Lie #218. And it is going to stay a lie until Hovind proves otherwise. I'm not going to take the lying skunk's word for it - are you?

Hovind: "Many of the wealthy and the super rich of this world have had a continuing conspiracy to control humanity by controlling the currency of this world. What they are trying to do is get all of humanity together so they can institute the light bearer, the all-seeing eye, as the ruler."

Sorry, but isn't that precisely what the Christian evangelists are trying to do? The eye over the pyramid is representative of god. That's why the words "Annuit coeptis" are on there - they mean: 'He has smiled on our undertakings'.

Hovind: "That light bearer, the all-seeing eye, is Lucifer the devil."

Lie #219. Lucifer is nothing to do with the devil - it has to do with the planet Venus. If Hovind thinks he can prove otherwise, he is welcome to try.

Hovind: "The purpose if the New Age Movement is to get everybody together under one government, one religion,"

Lie #220. Isn't that the plan of the fundamentalists?

Hovind: "The Bible says that the new Jerusalem is going to measure 1,500 x 1,500 x 15,00 miles. Most people assume this to be a cube measurement. A pyramid can also be 1,500 x 1,500 x 1,500 miles."

Lie #221. Unless Hovind cares to prove otherwise.

Hovind: "It might be that Jesus Christ is the light bearer..."

Make up your mind!

Hovind: "...and since the city will be pure gold, translucent, it will not need any light."

Lie #222. Since when is pure gold translucent?

Hovind: "Jesus Christ is the light. When the chief cornerstone is put in place, it will light up the whole city. That is just something that is interesting to think about."

Hovind finally admits he is a liar!