Sep 092014
 

This new article at The Washington Post, Long-forgotten secrets of whale sex revealed, has just confirmed something Hovind has been teaching for decades:

“People that really know the reproductive biology of whales and dolphins already know and have known that these pelvic bones are an anchor point for reproductive organs,” co-corresponding author and Collections Manager of Mammalogy at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Jim Dines said. “But it’s not something that they teach you in a marine mammal class.” Outside of a small circle of experts in whale anatomy, he said, the common consensus, even among marine biologists, was that the pelvis was a useless bone — one that would disappear, given a few million years more of evolution.

Kent Hovind, has been teaching this since the 1990s, as seen in this clip from Creation Science Series, Disc 4 – “Lies in the Textbooks”:

This textbook says, “The whale has a vestigial pelvis.” ….. Now, excuse me, that is not a vestigial pelvis! Those bones are necessary because muscles attach to those bones. And without those bones and those muscles the whales cannot reproduce. It has nothing to do with walking on land. It has to do with getting more baby whales. So the author that wrote this is either ignorant of his whale anatomy and should not be writing a book about it, or he’s a liar trying to promote his theory.

He’s been widely mocked for it, but now that he’s been proven correct, the apologies will start rolling in. Right?

Read the full article at The Washington Post.

  One Response to “Science again confirms something Kent Hovind argued: The “vestigial” whale pelvis is actually a functional device related to reproduction”

  1. This very same detail is also confirmed in Professor Walter J. Veith’s presentation series, Genesis Conflict.

    I’ve never seen anyone succeed in mocking Dr.Hovind to his face. It always happens between like minded individuals behind his back or to those who quote him.

    Much is made of the fact that Kent’s delivery is well practised and unsparing in its derision of the evolutionary religion. However, the scientific facts which he presents throughout are well established and unerringly correct. I’ve heard him called “a clown”, a fact to which he would probably respond with a statement to the effect that God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise. He certainly has a lot of fun doing it and why not?

    I’m about halfway through watching Walter Veith’s Genesis Conflict series. Unlike Kent, he began his scientific career as an atheistic evolutionist. His delivery is more sober and detailed with a great deal of direct reference material.

    Between Hovind and Veith lies the difference between a High School Teacher and a University Lecturer in terms of their delivery and presentation but what they deliver are the same facts. Likewise, what they both protest are the same lies.

    One might reason that one might be more persuasive than the other, were it not for the fact that what they are both opposing is the dogmatic, pseudo-scientific religion of those who willingly deny the truth.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)