I'm still not sure which is funnier, Yahya not realising that some of the cut-and-paste pictures he used weren't real organisms, or people here defending that. This shows how "scientific" and "well researched" the whole book is. I'd be flabbergasted if someone tried to pass these kinds of errors off in a real science textbook and I would not consider anything in it to be reliable.

CTD, you claim that Hovind is correcting "lies" in the textbooks. I've seen examples of his selective quoting tactics to convince his (already credulous) audience that textbooks are full of "lies" and I've listened to him state scientific inaccuracies. But I'm certainly willing to listen to one or two salient points you think he has made about how science textbooks are erroneous. Would you present the evidence please?