Hovind: Lies in the Textbook

In recent topics such as this Creation DOES need to be taught with evolution
certain newer members have been citing Kent Hovind's seminar series repeatedly. While not denying their source none of the two in question have cited their source either (could one be the man himself?). Suggestions have been made to open up a new Hovind thread. I became impatient and decided that I would try. Since the question that keeps being knocked around is the honesty of Hovind (defended by the poster in question) I thought a focused topic specifically on Hovind's seminar "Lies in the Texbooks" would be appropriate. Transcripts of the seminar can be found here: Telenor | Sidan hittades inte | 404My goal for this topic is to have us choose a particular point to support or not, particularly those statements which are demonstrably lies as opposed to those that are simply ignorant (although with Kent Hovind there seems to be little distinction, when someone is shown something they said is incorrect yet they keep on using it, that then becomes a lie).I want to start with this one, although it has nothing to do with textbooks. However, it is a theme Hovind likes to tie to every point he makes against evolution, that it is tied to every evil institution created by man. He says concerning abortion and Palnned parenthood, "Margaret Sanger was a racist. She hated Blacks, Hispanics, Jews anyone who wasn’t Aryan." A thorough search online found this viewpoint to exist only amoung certain groups of evangelicals. I am assuming the source for this comes from the following quote, "Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a menace to the race" which was concocted in the 1980's and never said by Sanger. Sanger helped Jews and other minorities to escape from Hitler's Germany. She worked closely with Eugene DuBoise on poverty issues with inner city African Americans. A quick Google search turned up tons of information on this remarkeble woman and her life. So, I will put forth the question, Why is Hovind lying to his audience here? Could it be that his scattered facts alone may confuse and disorient the audience unless he repeatedly ties any point to communism, naziism, and the like?I want this topic to be about specific points. Not a generalized Hovind bash or support. My hope is that if point by point it can be shown that he is dishonest or at least incorrect that his supporters will look to more reputable creationists (I may disagree with all YEC's but some of them I believe are trying to find the truth as opposed to Hovind and his ilk that are snake-oil salesmen). I think this topic would fit into the Education and Creation/Evolution forum.A great source of information on Margaret Sanger can be found on the site http://www.ppct.org/facts/research/sanger.shtml. This is the source of my information as presented above.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

i'll bite. Hydrologic Sorting

​

See, just the earth turning under the moonthe moon causes the tides, and if the earth were totally covered by water the tides would become harmonic. You music folks understand that. People have calculated that the tides would go [through a] 200-foot tidal change. If the earth were covered with water, there would be no continents to stop them. And with a 200-foot tidal change every 6 hours and 25 minutes, you would get reshuffling of the sediments down at the bottom for thousands and thousands of feet. You would get over a mile of sediments down there in finely stratified layers.
You can get a jar [of mud] out of your yard here, put some water in it, shake it up and set it down it will settle out into layers for you. Hydrologic sorting. They say those layers are different ages, I have a hard time with that because don’t you think if each one of those layers laid there for millions of years waiting for the next one there would be a few erosion marks in-between the layers? Why are there no canyons and gullies and cricks in-between the layers? I mean, why is it all stacked up like pancakes? Those layers are not different ages and the Grand Canyon did not take millions of years to form.
this would suggest (by elementary physics) that dense objects would sink and less-dense objects would float. why then do we have great big elephants and whales and such hich up in strata and little itty bitty trilobites way way way down in the strata? don't tell me they have lead for blood.i heard the guy talk once at my middle school's chapel service. he's shit nuts (note how he equates communism as an evil, godless system... yet it was practiced by jews for like ever[scripture says to give to your brother and the alien in your gates according to his need... that's communism in it's purist. not the authoritarian states.]. that's how they survived ww1 and why the germans hated them).This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-02-2004 11:26 PM

Why would the tides be any higher if there were no land? What causes tides and determines their height is the gravitational attraction between the earth and moon ( and to a lessor extent the sun, all the other objects can be ignored, their influence is simply too small). Whether or not there is land above the water is immaterial. The attraction between the Earth and the Moon is still the same and so the tides would still be the same.It's a classic example of telling a lie convincingly.This message has been edited by jar, 12-03-2004 12:08 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

the tides wouldn't be higher. they'd prolly be lower without land in the way (if the planet were just water... perhaps you mean dry land).

Doesn't matter if it were dry or not. The tides would still be the same but if the land were significantly below the water level, you would not get the mechanical height rise created by slopes or constrictions (Bay of Fundy, Minas Basin).But like so many of Hovinds's assertions it is simply wrong. If he taught science he knows it is wrong. If he does not know it was wrong then he is either a real liar or was a lousy science teacher.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

or just a fundie from pensacola and thus raised like he's from backwoods alabama and believes everything he's told based solely on the statement that it supports what he "knows" to be true. i know the type. i lived there for ten years.

I don't know what the value would actually be but there is a place where there is, today, no land in the way.The Antarctic ocean circles the globe. There are no 200 foot tides there. I think he is utterly wrong. My guess he is just making numbers up.Here is a paragraph from Wikipeida: I read that as saying that the all-ocean tides would be 1 meter. Hovind may have a problem with the metric system but someone should tell him that 1 meter is appreciable less than 200 ft. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-03-2004 12:33 AM

Hovind said: Again, if he actually taught science, particularly Earth Sciences, he should know that is simply an incorrect statement. He is either lying or is again shown to be a really, really poor teacher.Here is a Link to information on just where a complete example of the Geological Column can be found. And it's not just one location, but at least 25 other locations around the globe. As we continue exploring we will certainly find even more examples.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I wanted to insure Hovind fans out there that I don't think he a complete liar, he can be completely honest when describing himself.

Just look at my avatar... Those are living trillobites! At least that is what Kent shows in his video series (same species). Actually those are specimens of the deep-sea isopod Bathynomus giganteus. I was in the process of cataloging the specimens prior to preservation and staged the photo as recently there were rumors of cockroaches in the biolab. Seemed funny at the time.

I think it's hilarious!I think there is a whole site devoted to exposing kent hovinds lies. Lets see... ah here it is:Account SuspendedI'm sure there are others though.In praticular check out the 300 lies index.This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 12-03-2004 05:21 AM

Glad you found my photo funny, the crew didn't. The largest of those (in the picture actually) was 36 cm long! We actually had to wrap them in plastic bags and sneak them into the galley freezer as the head cook was adamant that those things wouldn't go near his kitchen (we were storing frozen specimens in the kitchen deep freeze). This was on a boat commissioned for scientific research that normally just did deep sea oil-pipeline work.I have seen the website before. Thank you it is relevant to bring to the attention of our current crop of Hovinists. Although I hope they respond here, it is more fun.

yeah. 36 cm. that's a trilobite. pft. yeah fuckin right.

brennakimi writes: Actually that size is not outside of the trillobite range. What is ridiculous is that these are isopod crustaceans not trillobitomorphs. They are phylogenetically as far (at least) as is a human being and a sea squirt (Tunicate, Urochordate).Back to Hovind: I LOVE this. What he is referring to is a discovery of a species of hemichordate that are structurally similar to graptolites (Cephalodiscus graptolitoides) and believed by the discoverer to be distantly related. Noel Dilly believes that characters of this new species are similar enough to graptolites to group graptolites and hemichordates together as sister taxa. Nowhere is it claimed that these are graptolites. I doubt Hovind ever read the paper, probably just copied the story from other YEC sources. If he did read the paper (and understood it) then this is another lie. Maybe if you read the papers you like to cite rather than high school textbooks you would learn something. Maybe if you studied science you would come up with a good argument. Nope, on the video he shows Bathynomus giganteus. These are isopods and come from the western Atlantic. He got it wrong, the song goes
"I'm not crazy (Institutionalized!}
You're the one that's crazy (Institutionalized!)"
Sheesh, doesn't even know his classic era punk.