Jared v. Hovind

this sounds interesting. i'll give 'em a listen.

yeah, it's give and take, really.hovind is convining. that's why a lot of people believe him.

---

אָרַח

frustrated that hoag couldn't answer this ridiculous claim -- maybe answers it later. regarding birds, archaeopteryx, and bird v. lizard hips. does hoag later answer this one?i addressed it over here Message 10. so if anyone feels like debating it, do it over there.

---

אָרַח

here's a sub-thread for the outrageous claims on BOTH sides, reference links only.

• hoag made some comment about a bird with lizard-arms. what is he talking about? clawed wings? can someone provide a reference?
• hovind made a claim about living trilobites. is he talking about sow bugs? if so, does he realize that trilobites are entirely different organisms, and butting one forth as the other is entirely dishonest? i mean -- look at them. they're not quite the same. does hoag ever catch him on this?

---

אָרַח

ah ha. i had pictured something with a lot less of a wing. but it's interesting to know -- i can see why it would be compared to old archae.

---

אָרַח

hey jared. welcome to evc -- i think you'll be right at home here. that's good. because it's a really good sounding, but totally spurious and ridiculous claim. hovind seems to prey on people who just don't know any better by making arguments that SOUND right, but aren't.i'm curious to hear how that particular conversation went...

---

i'll elaborate. there are two kinds of dinosaurs, ornithischians ("bird-hipped") and saurischian, ("lizard-hipped").archaeopteryx is a "lizard-hipped" dinosaur. hovind claimed that this means he cannot be related to birds, because he has the wrong kind of hip.the problem is, of course, that birds are (surpise!) saurischian, and archaeopteryx shows (suprise again!) a hip that is strongly turned backwards, a good half-way point between standard forward-facing "lizard" hips and backwards-facing bird hips. ornithischians have have a section of their hip that projects forward that birds do not have. the name is not a name of relation, but because they look similar.but kent uses the lay-people names to make it sound like he has a really, really good point, when he in fact as no such thing. it's a trick of semantics -- we'd expect birds to have "bird hips" when they in fact do not.the question i want to know is -- what did kent say when our friend hoag explained this relatively simple fact to him? will he continue to use the point, even though it is so obviously wrong to anyone who's studied paleontology or biology?

---

jared! you didn't call him on this one either:CB930.4: Pterodactyl in stoneedit: i don't mean offense, of course. hovind is quid skilled at the run-around, and knows how to sound like he has a point and make you look uneducated because you don't have all the sources at your fingertips. it's not as readily apparent to the audience just how full of it he is when he trots out the "common designer" argument -- when he can clearly see that archaeopteryx's hip is identical to deinonychus's, and clearly a "lizard hip" even though archie is a "bird." the advantages of radio -- diagrams don't work well. and you're never going to get an admission of error from him.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-08-2006 02:16 AM

---