Hovind: Lies in the Textbook

Saddest thing about trying to refute Hovind and his ilk is that they will still fertilise a fresh crop of Creos. (Are they bottom feeders?)
What`s that Scripture about 'tickling the ears'?

It is Ferengi rule of acquisition #223 "Beware the man who doesn't make time for oo-mox"
or maybe #40 "She can touch your lobes but never your latinum"

.........Maybe neither. Maybe he read some other secular stuff from good sources which were his sources. Maybe you're maligning him as a liar or ignoramus when he interprets observation of these no different than some reliable secular sources.For example, Hemichordata | Infoplease{Emphasis mine)

i used to be a bio major... i know the separation of the two... i just haven't studied fossils since i was like 10 so i forgot that they got big...

Buzsaw,
I concede on this point. I agree that a pop-sci web source agrees with this view. While I still hold to my original point that this does not show that graptolites are still alive, I acknowledge that Hovind was only stating what the press said. He is not a liar on this one as far as I can see. He just didn’t read the primary source.

I still don't understand how, even IF trilobites still exsisted it would damage the theory of evolution.What is his point? If we discovered trilobites living today in some ultra remote trench it wouldn't be evedence that we have misdated everything would it?This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 12-04-2004 08:11 AM

If I understand ICR correctly the issue is THE ENVIRONMENT said Col. is asserted in. If Darwin was incorrect when looking in SA at a river and strata which was now thought to have been glacial and REASONED that a COL of ORGANISM is vertical by projecting the fauna of GALAPGOES i-s-LANDS OFF this ENIRONS WOULD HAVE BEEN SAID column, THEN it seems spatially to me that Darwin's NOTION is questionable. Obviously the topographic relation of an island and mainland can be not hortzian and still have the same basic "geography". In the minds of current taught biology what I just said does not exist. But Since I said it, it exists in my own voice at least.Reality and Existence are two things!!
see http://EvC Forum: Distinguishing Baramins -->EvC Forum: Distinguishing Baramins for the cognitive opposition of Croizat's "parian" vs "hortzian".This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-04-2004 12:03 PM

Edge and I have discussed the "Geologic Column" concept in more specific topics elsewhere. We agreed that it is a timeline - A graphic representation of the relative positions and durations of the various geologic time units. Strictly speaking, the types of rocks that exist in the world are irrelivent to the geologic column.As such, it could be rightfully claimed that it exists only in graphic representations.I didn't bother checking your link content, but I presume it's the Glenn Morton collection of various locations where there are indeed sections of rock that include all the time periods over a cosiderable range. But these are stratagraphic sections, not "geologic columns".Actually, if the Earth were found to have uniform stratigraphic sections everywhere, this might be excellent evidence for creationism. It would be damn hard to explain with geologic process concepts as we know them.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Have we finished with trilobites then? They are not in any way close to graptolites are they?I'm not clear what point it is that you are conceding. It is, of course, possible that Hovind got something right. I'd just like to be clear what that is.

I agree completely. But it is simply another example of Hovind playing shell games. It is like his arguement of indicator fossils being a circular argument. That's simply hiding the truth.Perhaps this is as good a place to deal with that issue as any.Two general questions particularly addressed to anyone (notably absent so far from this discussion as usual) who support the creationist contention that indicator fossils are an example of a circular arguement.Can you explain what indicator fossils are and how they were identified?Can you explain why indicator fossils are used?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Can you explain what indicator fossils are and how they were identified?

​

Can you explain why indicator fossils are used?

---

The more proper term is "index fossil". These are fossils that were discovered to be restricted to specific times in geologic history. These time frames might be fairly broad, say such as the Cambrian and Ordovician periods, but I believe the truly useful index fossils are those confined to much smaller time units.Time to trot out my favorite web page: Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?
by Andrew MacRaeIn short, it was discovered that when various rock stratigraphic sections are studied, certain specific fossils were always found to be in the same place in the section. As you went from the bottoms to the tops of the sections, you would always find the various fossils in the same order of appearance.The rocks were dated by relative stratigraphic position - Deeper means older. The fossils were thus also dated.Now, all this showed that the specific fossils (index fossils) were characteristics of rocks of certain specific ages. Thus, if you found a certain index fossils, you could be confident that the rock unit was of a certain age.Now this does tend to sound like circular reasoning - "The rocks dated the fossils, the fossils date the rocks". But first of all, it was the rocks that dated the fossils. It was discovered that specific fossils were of specific ages. Therefore, if you found a specific fossil, you knew you were at a specific age.Well, a rather muddled explanation. Maybe someone else can do better.Moose

Oh, c'mon, it's not just the press and pop, is it? Maybe it's that you are dodging some primary stuff in your biased stance and your anxiety to dogpile on Hovind.

Could you point out the exact bias? There seems to be some chance that Hovind got one thing sorta right.Does that mean you don't think he is wrong about many other things?Let's take an example and give Hovind all the benefit of the doubt we can:The geologic column. Let's say that he is, in some way, technically correct and that the "column" does not exist in one place, that it is a composite picture.If that is the case, Hovind, may be described in some interpretations as "right". He is however, in that case totally dishonest.He deliberately ignores just what this composite column represents he tries to pretend that it is just made up. He has had a lot of time to learn otherwise. He chooses to ignore that and continue to lie.So, even in this case where we try to see if we can say his words, as spoken, are correct we find that they are in actual substance dishonest. The man is a con-man.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-04-2004 03:31 PM

Not really. He claims to have been an earth sciences teacher for 15 years. As such, it is reasonable to expect him to have atleast as much knowledge as the average educated individual about earth sciences. Yet time after time he shows that he simply does not know what he's talking about. The ONLY possible conclusion is that either he is a liar or that he is totally incompetent. Since he has been informed of many of his errors and continues to embrace them, it is hard to imagine that he is only incompetent.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Buz,
I was not dogpiling on Hovind, I was agreeing that he might not have been at fault. I found pop-sci sources that called Dilly's finds true graptolites so Hovind was correct if he was reporting what those said. I made a false assumption that this was another case of repeating flawed information. I completely and totally repeal my accusation that this was another example of Hovind lying. These could be graptolites in the strict sense. The original author believed them to be at first, then took a more conservative view. As for your accusation: The answer is no:
Dilly, P.N. 1993. Cephalodiscus graptolitoides sp.nov. a
probable extant graptolite. Journal of Zoology. London. 229,
69-78.
Dilly, P.N. 1993. When is a graptolite not a graptolite? -
Lethaia 27:34.
Maletz, J. & Erdtmannn, B.-D. - Lebende Graptolithen?
- Leider nicht!. Palantologie Aktuell 32: 50-51.
Urbanek, A. 1994. Living non-graptolite. - Lethaia 27:18.
Urbanek, A. 1994. When is a pterobranch a graptolite ?
- Lethaia 27:324.