The Mark Twain quote above from Blake shows that fallacy is not a new invention by Hovind.
Geometry class doesn’t discuss theories, it discusses theorems. They’re not the same.
What does that have to do with evolution? 
But they have mostly the same letters, therefore we can project that they’re mostly alike.
So, for example, since my name is “Joe” I will share many traits with Joseph Stalin - like a wicked moustache and a dislike of Hitler.
-Joe
Between the ages of 12 and 13, I grew a foot in height. Using that data and projecting forward, I am currently over 25 feet tall.
No, it’s based on a lot of evidence, many different lines of it:
[ul]
[li]The pattern of similarities and differences between animals. Organisms naturally fall into a series of nested boxes, which in reality are the tips of the twigs on a branching tree: housecats and other small wildcats (servals and ocelots and so on) are very similar to one another in appearance and behavior; as are lions and leopards and tigers. The “big cats” and the “small cats” are both clearly branches of a larger group of cat-like animals. Dogs, on the other hand, are very similar to wolves, coyotes, or jackals; and the wolves, dogs, coyotes and jackals make up one branch of a group of dog-like animals, with the foxes making up another branch of the dog family. Cats and dogs, along with other groups (weasels or bears or hyaenas) make up various branches of the carnivores. The Carnivora are one branch of the mammals (more specifically, they are one branch of the placental mammals, and the placental mammals are one branch of the mammals generally, as opposed to the marsupials). Mammals, birds and the various groups called “reptiles”, and the amphibians, are all branches of the four-legged vertebrates. The four-legged vertebrates in turn branch off from the vertebrates generally (including many aquatic forms, the fishes). These classifications were made before evolution was accepted; though experts will always argue about the details and spend time writing papers to refine the classifications–because trying to make their descriptions of the world better and better is what scientists do for a living–some groups immediately leap out at us: cats, dogs, monkeys, mammals, snakes, bats, whales, birds, turtles, insects, butterflies, and so on. All these groups and sub-groups and super-groups fall into place when sees as larger or smaller branches on a family tree.[/li][li]There are oddities in the distribution of the forms of organisms which are difficult to explain in terms of “intelligent design”, but which make sense in terms of organisms existing as a branching pattern of family relationships. Thus, there are animals which are clearly mammals–the females thereof feed their young with milk, and they have lungs and breathe air, yet these air-breathing and undoubted mammals live their entire lives in the ocean. There are animals which are clearly birds–they have beaks and feathers and wings–but they can’t fly; their wings are either basically useless or else they function as something other than wings (flippers perhaps, for swimming). It makes no sense to design an air-breathing but fully aquatic organism, given that there are countless billions of fish which do not need to breathe air, as they have perfectly serviceable gills, and are thus well-adapted to the environment they live in; but it does make sense when we consider that what happened is that some air-breathing land-dwelling mammals re-adapted to life in the sea. Their “design” has allowed them to survive and reproduce, even though viewed from an engineering standpoint it is a series of seeming compromises (continue to depend on lungs while living in the ocean, but learn to hold your breath really well, instead of just using gills instead).[/li][li]There are also many examples of bad “design” at the level of the individual organism, which make sense when we see them as the end-result of the gradual adaptation of existing structures to some new way of life. The wings of an emu are pretty useless structures (although the “wings” of a penguin now make very good flippers). Human backs and knees don’t show evidence of having been designed from the ground up for a bipedal lifestyle; they show evidence of having been gradually adapted from millions upon millions of years of existence as four-legged land vertebrates; and as a result our backs or knees cause us a lot of trouble. Related to this, we see over and over again a pattern of “variations on a theme”: The wings of a bat, the arms of a human or an orangutan, the legs and paws of a tiger, the flippers of a whale, the legs and hooves of horses or antelopes, and the fins of certain are all outwardly quite different, and serve different functions–on land, in the sea, in the air. Yet the underlying structure of all these diverse limbs follows the same basic plan. The insects are wildly diverse, but again show a pattern of “variations on a theme”–this is because the insects are one great family tree, which branched out from the ancestral great-grand-insect to include the beetles and the butterflies and the ants and so on (and each of those groups–“beetles” or “butterflies”–is itself a great big bushy branch with many countless individual twigs on the family tree of living things).[/li][li]There are patterns to the geographic distribution of organisms–Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos, or the way in which marsupials dominate in Australia and certain nearby islands. These make sense if viewed as an organism (such as a finch) colonizing a new habitat (the Galapagos Islands) and its descandants branching out and evolving into a group of related species.[/li][li]The fossil record provides examples of extinct organisms which sometimes clearly lie at the base of two branches (though often they form a branch from such a common ancestor, which would lie parallel to existing groups but has died out). See, for example, the family tree of the horses and their living relatives.[/li][li]When we discovered molecular biology–decades after Darwin–it turned out exactly as Darwin’s theory would predict it should: If you look at the DNA or living organisms (or the proteins they use), they do in fact generally match with how we classified animals before discovering molecular biology; the DNA or proteins of dolphins and whales are more like those of land mammals than they are of the fishes; the DNA or proteins of bats are more like those of non-flying mammals than they are like those of birds. We see the same patterns of branching and variations on a theme: We have genes which are recognizably different versions of genes found in mice, or fruit flies.[/li][li]Completely indepedently of biology, geologists and astronomers have found many separate lines of evidence to show that the planet we live on is many billions of years old, and the Universe it’s a part of is even older.[/li][/ul]
What’s more, you didn’t exist at all until you were six years old.
Today I drove 120 kilometres west. Therefore, two weeks ago, I was driving west on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.
Oh, and I was ten pounds heavier a couple of months ago than I am now. Therefore, thirty years ago - when I was 7 years old - I weighed about two thousand pounds.
100 years ago, average temp was 1 degree lower than now. If this keeps up, in 200 years, we’ll have oceans covering the world.
And half a million years ago, the planet was sitting at just about absolute zero.
And a million years ago, the global temp was some 500F lower than absolute zero.
Wait. Are you talking one degree F or one degree C? If it’s C, then cut my numbers in about half.
The planet was never, afaik, close to absolute zero. They think it was cold enough that ice covered most of the planet…but that doesn’t even come close to absolute zero.
Frankly, I’m convinced. The earth is only 6000 years old. The only thing is…a year equals something like 66 million revolutions of the earth around the sun (assuming my back of the envelop calculation is close)…
-XT
By the year 2026 the waiting period for an abortion will be 15 months.
If I name my cat Jesus, will he end up having 10 lives, or just 2 and then ascend into heaven?
Except the integrity of your tax accounting, apparently.
Is this a real Twain quote? Because it’s F-ing awesome. 
Reminds me of when I got a traffic ticket in New Mexico. I was going about a fairly constant 64 MPH in a 55 zone. I started down a hill, so my car started to accelerate and got to 68 when the cop caught me on radar.
When he pulled me over, he noted that I was speeding AND accelerating, and noted, “There’s no telling how fast you would have gone had I not stopped you.” He said it as if I would keep accelerating forever. I guess he figured by the time I got to Texas, I’d probably be going 400 MPH.
By that logic, I must have been going about 3 MPH on the freeway when I crossed the state line into New Mexico.
Yup. On both counts. 
-XT
Never said it was, things can be named by association as well as after their inventors. It’s a great quote anyway.
I’m not sure there is *any *possible way to actually prove that. Over the past few months I’ve scratched the surface of accounting due to the nature of my work, and it’s done my head in. Complex analysis and statistical mechanics I could just barely get my head around, but what accountants to do numbers just defies comprehension.
I’m not sure if you got the reference to tax accounting, but Hovind is in prison right now for tax fraud.
Yes, it’s called dumbshittery.