Kent Hovind Speaks Out
Nearly two weeks after Hovind’s arrest, there’s still nothing about it on drdino.com, but now Kent has posted
an entry
on his weblog.
He describes the arrest as an Elian Gonzales-style SWAT raid:
No, they brought in a swat team to drag my sick wife out of bed and handcuffed her in her nightgown. They refused to let her get dressed, put on a robe or even go to the bathroom even though she begged for these simple courtesies. The agents rushed her and I into a squad car then into a freezing cell for 3 hrs!
Given Hovind’s predilection for, um, having a unique take on events, I advise taking this with a grain of salt. On one hand, even if he wasn’t considered a physical risk, what with his guns and all, I suspect it’s standard procedure not to give the suspects the opportunity to destroy evidence. Also, he says they were taken to the station in “a squad car”. If it had really been an all-out Waco-style raid, I suspect the police would’ve brought a paddy-wagon.
Will the pastors and other Christians who have spread malicious rumors about me repent, apologize and undo the damages? […] Will they send gifts (v. [Job 42:]8) to the ministry to help repair the damage their unfounded gossip has done?
How’s that for chutzpah? He’s been arrested for all sorts of financial shenanigans, having set up his church as a front, and now he’s asking for more money!
The IRS has taken all the church ministry donations for the year and called it Kent Hovind’s personal income. This is silly. Any church with 30+ staff will need a large operating budget. That does not mean it all belongs to the pastor as personal income!
True, but when the pastor in question claims to have no income yet manages to withdraw half a million bucks from the bank, something funny’s going on.
I have has said many times, “If you are taking lots of flack that proves you are over the target!” This recent flack just proves we are right on target in the message on creation and just strengthens my resolve to keep preaching.
So preaching creationism necessarily involves playing silly buggers in a way designed to attract the attention of the IRS? Good to know that.
And now, the moment you’ve all been waiting for:
Read the book of Acts and see if it is normal for Christians to be treated this way.
2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
It just wouldn’t be authentic if he didn’t play the Christian persecution card.
Good stuff. I found you via Technorati tag. I have been keeping up with this con’s shenanigans for some time now, arguing a lot on Cre/Ev sites.
I think someone should inform the attorneys about his blog. I would, but they do not have e-mail and it would be long distance for me to call them.
No need. I think they know who they’re dealing with. I’m reading a legal document that uses the phrase “bizarre arguments” to describe some stuff Hovind mailed to the IRS a while ago.
At least, Kent Hovind will not be heading to South Africa.
Common sense would tell anyone that there is more than ordinary fury surrounding this man. Thousands and thousands of rabid anti-hovind sites on the net testify to the fact that this man is making some massively tax funded institutional folks very nervous.
Ever see Hovinds debates? The opponents (such as Dr. Robert Trivers, who is listed by Time magazine as one of the top 100 thinkers in America )are reduced to name calling and such temper tantrums as should shame a three year old.The first debate I saw had three professors from Emory Riddle University that flat out denied the whale vestigal pelvis is ever taught in evolution. Any Mother knows that that whale vestigal pelvis is in the Little Golden Book on evolution, in every elementary , middle and high school science text . The whale vestigal pelvis is on the SAT exam, the GRE exam and also in many college biology textbooks. Yet three educated eggheads refuse to admit the whale vestigal pelvis is ever taught? Hovinds opponents are left confounded-unable to articulate their point and enraged to the point of absurdity .
Herein we find a strong warning to remember the persecution of Galileo by the supposed academic elite theologians and see it happen once again within our own time.
(Note: Fixed markup. — arensb, Mar. 6, 2007)
The following is an exact translation of the doctrine of the Church of Rome as taught today in all Roman Catholic seminaries, colleges and universities, through the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, vol. iv., p. 90:
“Though heretics (Protestants) must not be tolerated because they deserve it, we must bear with them till, by the second admonition, they may be brought back to the faith of the church. But those who, after a second admonition, remain obstinate to their errors, must not only be excommunicated, but they must be delivered to the secular power to be EXTERMINATED”
Persecution only begins with Hovind.. but soon,very soon ,it will be the parent that says no catholic priest has the right to sodomize his child..or the man who in good conscience can call no man Father upon this earth, knowing his Father is in heaven.
i like dr hovind. this is so sad.
I have been enlightened by Kent Hovind teachings on creation science for 15 years. The man has proven himself to be a servant of the most High God. Read the Bible this is nothing new that a prophet of God suffers. He promises it to all who follow Him. If you call yourself a christian and have not experienced some of this suffering from the world and those that have a form of religion but deny the power thereof then you need to examine and question whether you have a relationship with God Almighty or you have created your own god which is no god at all. You must be born again. Jesus is the only Way, The Truth and The Life.
What is so very sad is the general malaise in American society concerning the kind of governance we have in this country. Most people say we have a democracy, but we don’t, and the founding fathers thought democracy the most foolish of all options (we have a constitutional republic). The taxing scheme in the US (under the constitution) is simple: the Federal gov’t can not tax the citizens of the states per capita (Art. I, clause 9) and any direct tax must be apportioned (an amount of the federal tax bill would be given to each state in proportion to its population, i.e. New York would pay a much higher percentage than New Hampshire b/c it has a larger population). It would then be up to the States to collect the revenues. Some say that the 16th Amendment changed this, but the 16th amendment (never really ratified) did not repeal any portion of the Constitution and the Supreme Court declared that “the 16th Amendment gave no new taxing power to Congress”. Dr. Hovind new these facts and many more. Everyone should see the film by Aaron Russo, “Freedom to Facism” and then reconsider the Hovind’s situation.
Christian Attorney:
And now he sits in jail. What does that tell you about these “facts”?
To arensb what this proves is that the government has done a real good job of making us a nation of individuals that wont come together and stand up for each other and the truth. Get a copy of the tax code and on the first page it says that this tax code only applies to the district of columbia.
southernboy:
The US Code of Laws is online in various places. Care to find a URL for the passage you’re talking about? Or shall I just assume that you’re pulling stuff out of your (or someone’s) ass?
Hi Kent
Our prayers are with you from South Africa.
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and don’t lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct your way. [Proverbs 3:5, 6]”
God Bless
Steve
steveb:
As far as I know, Kent Hovind has never visited this site. You might have a better chance posting at CSEblogs.
As I read this, it means “you’re too stupid or ignorant to understand the world, so don’t even try.” It’s not an attitude that I would commend, but since you’re talking to Kent Hovind, you can take it up with him.
I find it very intresting how as soon as something bad happends too him (plenty of bad things happen too good people) that people come out of the wood work too manipulate his image more then ever, just because he is not a pro evolution believer does that mean you have too ruthlessly cut him down? is that how pro evolutionists act? because i have not as of yet heard anything nice said by a pro-evolutionist yet, so im starting too see evolutionists as negative name callin bashers but that would not be right so i dismiss that kind of thinking, in fact kent hovind has never said he hated any of the evolutionests in the least but many have said they hated him and worse and it was what was being tought and believed that he had a problem with, i have heard many of his speaches and i have heard alot (many times more) pro evolution speaches and costly documentary’s and what makes the most scientific sense is indeed what kent says weather you believe in god or not, science is science not a popular bashing arena and i would think that someone using there judgement in this mannor too attack someone without a just reason or even a just reason and manipulate there image would have something incorrect or wrong with there judgement and how they conduct themselfs and if this being so then how much is there judgement gonna convice someone like me or someone else that how they see things and judge things in science as true and/or flawless? could this part of there judgement me inpaired also? think for a minute, if kents hovinds theory’s are scientific, then they are automaticly worth looking at and accepting to do other wise would be in fact not scientific and in fact a magor flaw and would also be called bad judgement, is it just intresting or do i make a worthy point?
And yes i have heard kent hovind talk how evolution was proven wrong a long time ago and even other scientists agree with him, i wonder if they had this problem with provening the world was round and not flat, well until this bad evolutionary theory is publicly accept as incorrect as science “has proven”, i state the world is flat, why not if proof means nothing right?
Now i have talked with like minded and not like minded people when it comes too kent hovind and theres nothing spacy about him or weird, he’s a nice guy straight up, level headed and very intelligent. Now with his reactions from what all i read about is common shock but i am surprise too see what seems too be desperation too ruin his character and i would know i read alot what was said about him and quoted i would think mostly out of context as well as things he said manipulated like him saying “he’s like job or jesus” (trying too quot him) but did anyone ask what he ment? no, in fact i don’t recall much of his side of everything yet either! the law like science has both sides or should about any disagrement and when only one side is shown there is a flaw in judgement or injustice no one can say other wise and for the public too judge anything about this man when only hearing people bash is indeed unjust. one more thought… without knowledge there is no power and without power nothing can be said, so whats being hidden? thoughs who are corrupt hide truth because truth exposes them, so in the end in all comes down too truth.
Personaly i don’t know all the facts as it does seem one sided and its not generaly easy too get his side of this all from what i have found except small phrases and other people stating what he ment but one things for sure, very few people were there too witness all of this and i personaly am not saying anything i don’t know for sure about until i get the answers from both sides, im not one too judge someone so quickly, the media is renowned too make anyone look like a villain too sell what they have thats no secret, but one thing that i see that stands out reguarding kent hovind is how things are manipulated which in my books is just short of a lie because it isn’t the truth and even a small child can see someone manipulating a situation or someones intent ect.
I see how people treat his character and try and say what he’s intent was, i personaly am waiting too hear his side of it because without it reguardless of what else has been said isn’t the full story and no what other people have said will not do i would rather hear it from him first.
Kent hovind says he commited no crime, i would think hearing him out before judging would be wise first before stating how guilty someone is, we all know that goverments can have corruption and if that is impossible its an absolute but if you don’t believe something can be absolute then ask yourself if you don’t belive in god if you can be absolutely sure hes not there? and why the rest of us (huge span of people of diversitys) say we “know” he is there? the last part was just something too think about.
im not at all surprised that people take what kent hovind says out of context and twist what he’s trying too say or just leave out something that proves his point because he is straight forword and easy too understand and not confusing so how else can you discredit someone?
take care all and ty for your time.
jonathan:
When I said “try that again, but using punctuation this time”, I didn’t mean “copy and paste your comment in another thread”. I meant “try rewriting what you wrote, but in an intelligible manner.”
jonathan, you don’t do the brainy-thinky thing very frequently, do you? Trust me, it shows.
I have read all the things that have been posted here.
First of all, my mentor has been Dr. Kent Hovind since I was 16 years old. I know his logic and understanding of both the Bible and The Natural world. I am not a pro-evolutionist.
By the way, He is a Dr., he has earned that title. although he does not mind not being called dr. I think as a sign of respect it is best to call him by that name. no need to trump the man in disrespect.
also, Jonathan had a lot of things going for him, though it was a bit lengthy and should have been formatted differently (just some useful criticism John 😉
Having seen Dr. Kent Hovind and how he conducts himself, i know him to be not guilty. However, the way he does things is lawful. I say however, because the government (as a whole, i do not mean the indivual people in it) does not always do things that way. He often used to (i say used to becasue his message has changed in the last 5 or 6 years) talked about the governmental corruption and interesting philosophies surrounding it. But, he does not lie and has never been called lying. He has never harrassed, personally insulted, or hurt anyone through his ministry or otherwise. In fact, he tells in his videos that the people he dabates are smarter than him. It’s just that they bought into something that is not true. which is interesting, because we do that from time to time.
I just want to say that read up on his case both for him and against him to come up with the answer. and have an open mind…by the way…to the people who like Dr. Kent Hovind…He is starting a ministry in the prison he is at and is working on bringing people to Jesus Christ. some have already been saved. amen to that.
God Bless Everyone…
Daniel:
If, by that, you mean that he fulfilled Patriot University’s (now Patriot Bible College) low academic requirements, then that’s true enough. If you mean that he’s done original research, as is required in any legitimate Ph.D. program, then no, he hasn’t.
See also The Thesis Kent Hovind Doesn’t Want You to Read
You mean, you’ve seen him pay the payroll taxes he was supposed to? Or maybe you have evidence that the stuff he did that looked suspiciously like hiding assets and transactions from the IRS has a perfectly innocent explanation? If so, why didn’t you appear as a witness when he was on trial?
And yet every minute of his “seminar” is filled with falsehoods, some of which I’ve chronicled. He’s been challenged on them often enough, both in email and on his radio show, and been shown to be wrong time and time again, yet he continues to repeat them. How is that not lying? Or are you saying that he’s monumentally ignorant?
Baloney. He’s been called a liar many times. Even if you meant to write “caught” instead of “called”, that’s still not true. See Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire! and Buddika’s 300 Creationist Lies Index.
Not to mention that he’s admitted on the air that he falsely filed for bankruptcy, i.e., lied to the government.
We must be talking about different Kent Hovinds, then. I’m talking about the one who, on his site, sells a video entitled Why Evolution Is Stupid, the one who insults scientists’ integrity by accusing them of only supporting the theory of evolution out of fear of bucking the system and losing their jobs, the one who at every turn says or insinuates that only an idiot would believe in evolution.
Sorry to say this, but the man you’re defending isn’t worth defending. He’s a con artist (and now a con).
Dear arensb,
While Kent hovind does not need defending, i will say that you have really taken to what I have said.
By the way, I am not used to forum writing, so the quotes thing I have to learn.
I am going in the opposite order with what you started from.
The title of the book “Evolution is Stupid” is a statement that does NOT imply that the person believing in that theory is stupid. For example, The geocentric theory of the sun revolving around the earth was an assumption that lacked evidence, but (because of the time) flourished. The theory is wrong, but the scientists were not stupid just because they believed that theory. In fact, they were probably very smart. Anyway, the book is pointing out that Evolution should have been thrown out long ago for evidence that is either too vague or too complex(by this I mean that scientists make it too borad or too intricate to be able to see clearly that evolution happened—just an observation) or missing all together. Phillip Johnson would be another proponent that I would suggest you look in to.
Also on that note, It would be wise not to call people who do NOT believe evolution stupid either. I am a Christian and I also am not an evolutionist. This does not make me stupid or ignorant. I know my God created everything from nothing. but I say I believe that because of faith. Can i prove it? no. No one can. Evidence is here, but how we choose to analyse it is up to us.
First of all, i do not think you even grasped the concept of what I was saying. Whne i said he has never ben called a liar, I was saying he has never lied. I am sure a lot of people have actually, physically called him a liar. However, the point I was making was this: Dr. Kent Hovind never purposefully lied or has even said anything that wasn’t entirely factual. Now, has hwe made mistakes, of course. Before you get on to him for every mistake, consider this. If you were working a lot on scientific research and you published those resultsm then a few years later you asee that you were wrong and correct yourself. Would you lying from your previous research results?
I have read some of the material for the liar liar one (i already know buddika’s) and you have got ot be kidding me. I will deal with recapitulation, but only on a surface degree. I will say now that I do NOT have a science degree. But this is exactly what Kent hovind meant as I have seen the debate more than once. He was talking and trying to get her to denounce the LIE that is recapitulation. Instead, she defended it and went back and forth. We do NOT have gill slits or tails, however, she failed to see that. Now she is either ignorant or lying. There is no other choice. He was nto condemning her knowledge of homology or demonstrating his lack of that same knowledge. He showed that that theory (forgive me, but i do not want to have o remember the recapitulates stuff, but i will if you so need me too) to make a point. not everything in science is factual and there are known lies to support the Evolution theory. He is not trying ot take away her belief. Just the fact that lying is a suitable way to encourage a generation to believe in something that is not true (based on intelligent research)
I don’t think i am going to poke around too much at your chornicles, though i did read some of it. I know Dr. Hovind’s Material very well however. First of all He is ADHD so that does explain for the wide variety of topics on such a night. Howeve, He stills makes valid points.
By the way, I really do not appreciate i being called ignorant. I do not call you stupid, please do not insult me or others that believe in Creationism.
As i know, you are just dying ot prove me wrong, be my guest. You are much more compelled than I am. God Bless.
sorry for the bad formatting, i am sick so responding was kind sporadic. I will do better next time, save for the bombing of my character.
By the way, I meant that “He is not trying ot take away her belief. Just the fact that lying is NOT a suitable way to encourage a generation to believe in something that is SUBJECT TO BEING not true.” I would lik that statement instead of the statement i posted.
Daniel:
First of all, when did I insult you? The only possible candidate I can see for that accusation is this comment, in which I was paraphrasing Proverbs 3:5-6.
Secondly, being ignorant is not a crime. It’s not something to be proud of, to be sure, but ignorance is correctable. Richard Dawkins hit the nail on the head when he wrote:
(Note that here hs’s talking about the fact of evolution, not the theory that explains it.)
So I’m sorry if it offends you, but if you don’t think evolution occurs, or has occurred, and you’re not lying, crazy, or stupid, then you’re ignorant. Either you don’t know what evolution is, or you don’t know what the evidence for evolution is (or both). If you get your information about evolution from the likes of Kent Hovind, then you’ve been misinformed. All things considered, “ignorant” is the least offensive option open to you.
Have you ever read a mainstream biology textbook on evolution? Or even any of the popular science books by Dawkins, Gould, and others? I strongly suggest that you look for them at your local library.
Daniel:
First of all, what does recapitulation have to do with anything? Why do you bring it up out of nowhere?
Secondly, which debate are you talking about?
Thirdly, who’s the “she” you mention?
Then perhaps you can give me your take on the multiple nested hierarchies we see in biology. I’ve never seen a creationist explanation for them.
let me just put it in better perspective, now that I am not so sick lol couldn’t articulate myself as well.
ok, we can talk a lot about those things, but let me just let you consider these things before either of us go on like a couple of rabid dogs.
I am not a scientist (going by the academic standard, although i do like discovering, but professionally i am not a scientist).
I am not an expert in science. Though, i do know a lot and have studied this topic, I do not claim to know every facet of either Biblical Creationsim or Scientific Evolutionary Biology
I do not think you are dumb, stupid, or ignorant. I do believe you have bought into something that is not true, but that does not show your lack of intelligence. A lot of smart people have believed in wrong theories.
Evolution has never been proven, even as Gould has pointed out. Or Sir Arthur Kieth. Or Thomas Hutton.
5.I have been through both high school and college level Biology courses. although, I understood the material it did not make sense with the natural world.
Ok, let me get down to your questions and answers of my own.
when did you insult me? Well, in your chronicles…you said
You haven’t even tried to find out what evolution is, or why scientists support it, have you? You’re happily ensconced in your coccoon of dogmatic ignorance, so why do you bother darkening my online doorstep? Is it really that important for you to confirm my opinion that RANK and file (vile) creationists are “ignorant nuts”?
I hope i have enlightened your memory.
I want to comment and say that you are right. It is not a crime to be ignorant. It can be fixed. But it is not my idea to prove or show that my Creationist viewpoint is real or provable. Though I do believe it, and for very good reason, I am not the one that needs to prove it.
Can you prove Evolution where your Evolutionist mentors have been unable? I am not interested in tautologies or saying the same thing over and over. It gets redundant. Just show me something Evolutionistic. Prove any existance of one kind of animal producing a different kind of animal. (for all purposes here, I did not use the word species because species is just a micro change whereas Macro-evolution needs a much bigger change)
Kind would mean any animal that can mate and have an animal like unto itself. I am only interested in Macro changes. I know the definition of Evolution, just want to make sure I know where you are coming from.
I was talking about the debate with Mrs. Richardson I believe. And I got it from the Liar Liar link. I read most of the thijngs listed there but just picked one to comment on.
Not sure about the she part…I think Dr. Richardson or maybe it was a different perosn, but I know the debate very well, as I have it owned. Just cannot remember her name lol.
Forgive my format, i like things easy to read and navigate. i hope this makes it easy for you, if you would like it formatted the way you do, I could try, just not good with the quote part.
I do want to comment on something else. Please make it clear what exactly you want me to explain biblically. However, if I am unable to explain it, it does not mean that my view is dumb and yours is smart because you happened to stump me. I am not the smartest and those scientists are really smart. I will not deny that one bit. But, it only takes one fundamental principle of Evolution to be wrong, to make the whole thing crumble.
also, I get my info. always from more than one source, as anyone who studies can attest. While Dr. Kent Hovind is a model example. Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Carl Baugh, Phillip Johnson, and all of my professors at Southwestern Biblical College where I am currently going to college (though I did not take my Biology course unfortunately). (Though I need money…..because i am not going right now because of that) I also happened to have the most Evolutionistic book I have ever seen.
Also, be informed that i used to believe in Evolution before my salvation.
I am not stupid, so do not treat me as such. Although, i am no expert, I can hold my own intellectually as well as reasonably.
I do want to comment on something else. Please make it clear what exactly you want me to explain biblically. However, if I am unable to explain it, it does not mean that my view is dumb and yours is smart because you happened to stump me. I am not the smartest and those scientists are really smart. I will not deny that one bit. But, it only takes one fundamental principle of Evolution to be wrong, to make the whole thing crumble.
also, I get my info. always from more than one source, as anyone who studies can attest. While Dr. Kent Hovind is a model example. Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Carl Baugh, Phillip Johnson, and all of my professors at Southwestern Biblical College where I am currently going to college (though I did not take my Biology course unfortunately). (Though I need money…..because i am not going right now because of that) I also happened to have the most Evolutionistic book I have ever seen.
Also, be informed that i used to believe in Evolution before my salvation in Jesus Christ.
I am not stupid, so do not treat me as such. Although, i am no expert, I can hold my own intellectually as well as reasonably.
I do want to comment on something else. Please make it clear what exactly you want me to explain biblically. However, if I am unable to explain it, it does not mean that my view is dumb and yours is smart because you happened to stump me. I am not the smartest and those scientists are really smart. I will not deny that one bit. But, it only takes one fundamental principle of Evolution to be wrong, to make the whole thing crumble.
also, I get my info. always from more than one source, as anyone who studies can attest. While Dr. Kent Hovind is a model example. Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Carl Baugh, Phillip Johnson, and all of my professors at Southwestern Biblical College where I am currently going to college (though I did not take my Biology course unfortunately). (Though I need money…..because i am not going right now because of that) I also happened to have the most Evolutionistic book I have ever seen.
Also, be informed that i used to believe in Evolution before my salvation in Jesus Christ.
I am not stupid, so do not treat me as such. Although, i am no expert, I can hold my own intellectually as well as reasonably.
gtg
I meant to meant to say “take my Biology course there” in reference to Southwestern Biblical College. I also have other sources than I listed above. But my Main source of inspiration is Dr. Kent Hovind. But, we can get into others if you like. This debate interests me because either Evolution uses out-dated material or evolution uses hoaxes.
I also want to mention this: Dr. Kent hovind knows more than he puts off. He is talking to an audience who is not totally scientific in study. In effect, they are not scientists. SO, he doesn’t give them a complete science lesson, that is not the point of his seminar anyway. Some of you, I believe, want a full Science Seminar from his seminar. Which would be less effective to people who think science is boring…think about it.
I also happen to know that Dr. Kent Hovind might be smarter than you think. Now you get all over me when I say that I “know” something. Well, just trust me on it. If you don’t, I promise my feelings won’t be hurt, but his intellect is not limited to his seminars and debates.
He has said this before though, He is not a typer and that is not something he is good at. e does not care about how bad you think his degree is. That makes no difference. If I found out a huge principle of science and I had never been through college, would people ridicule me? This is fascinating for me. Sometimes people do not need degrees to be able to do something great. Look at Albert Einstein.
Now I do not equate Dr. Kent Hovind with Albert Einstein. However, I hope you understand the point I am making. While I do agree that science should be debatable and peer-reviewed(just like when I or others do articles or books on Biblical studies), they also should be analysed based on content and dependability and not the person that wrote it.
I meant to meant to say “take my Biology course there” in reference to Southwestern Biblical College. I also have other sources than I listed above. But my Main source of inspiration is Dr. Kent Hovind. But, we can get into others if you like. This debate interests me because either Evolution uses out-dated material or evolution uses hoaxes.
I also want to mention this: Dr. Kent hovind knows more than he puts off. He is talking to an audience who is not totally scientific in study. In effect, they are not scientists. SO, he doesn’t give them a complete science lesson, that is not the point of his seminar anyway. Some of you, I believe, want a full Science Seminar from his seminar. Which would be less effective to people who think science is boring…think about it.
by the way, I think it is funny that you use Richard Dawkins comment. Do you actually belive telling me that it is a “fact” rather than theory will change anyone point of view. Do you use this argument all the time? Richard Dawkins is using redundance and tautologies to explain it. Just give evidence, it will greatly help your cause.
I also happen to know that Dr. Kent Hovind might be smarter than you think. Now you get all over me when I say that I “know” something. Well, just trust me on it. If you don’t, I promise my feelings won’t be hurt, but his intellect is not limited to his seminars and debates.
He has said this before though, He is not a typer and that is not something he is good at. e does not care about how bad you think his degree is. That makes no difference. If I found out a huge principle of science and I had never been through college, would people ridicule me? This is fascinating for me. Sometimes people do not need degrees to be able to do something great. Look at Albert Einstein.
Now I do not equate Dr. Kent Hovind with Albert Einstein. However, I hope you understand the point I am making. While I do agree that science should be debatable and peer-reviewed(just like when I or others do articles or books on Biblical studies), they also should be analysed based on content and dependability and not the person that wrote it.
ok I am mad the two posts I left suddenly got deleted? why? !!!!!!
I cant believe that my 2 posts were deleted this is dumb
dangit my 2 posts were deleted somehow!!!!
Daniel,
Then stop providing so much ready fodder for that conclusion to be drawn.
As for your postings that disappeared, arensb has said in other threads that he has a spam filter on this board that removes postings. I’m confident that if your contributions are not indeed spam, he will find the time to unblock them for display.
Sorry about the deleted comments. As Fez said, I have a spam filter that occasionally gets overzealous. I think I’ve restored everything you’ve posted.
Daniel:
It sounds as though you’re still a bit “sick lol”, since you’re still having trouble expressing yourself clearly.
A few tips: the comments use regular HTML. To quote a block of text, use <blockquote>blah blah blah</blockquote>.
To link to another page, use <a href=”http://www.foo.com/”>text of link</a>. You’ll notice that every thread and every comment has a URL. You can copy and paste those. That makes it very easy to link to specific articles and comments, to make it clear what the hell you’re talking about.
Neither has gravity, or atoms. As the saying goes, proof is for mathematicians and bartenders. Nothing is ever 100% proven in science. However, some things are so well established that it is perverse not to accept them provisionally. And yes, evolution is one of these things.
Ah, you mean this comment, addressed to Fox57? Are you saying that I was somehow supposed to know that you and he are the same person, despite the fact that you used different nicknames, different email addresses, and posted from IP addresses in different states? I think you’re asking a bit much of my psychic powers.
Also, why did you just capitalize “rank” and add “(vile)”? Surely it isn’t possible that you’ve never heard the phrase “rank and file“, is it?
Wait a second. Are you asking for an instance of a dog giving birth to a cat, or something like that? If so, then clearly you don’t know what evolution is or how it works, and you should remedy your ignorance posthaste.
As for your definition of “kind”, it sounds suspiciously like one of the standard definitions of “species”, so you may want to take a look at this list of observed speciation events.
On the other hand, if you want to ask for evidence of something actually claimed by evolutionary biologists, you’re welcome to do so. I suspect, though, that you’d move the goalposts: if I showed you a population of fruit flies that mate at night, and a subpopulation evolving over generations to mate during the day, that would match your criteria, but you’d say “Yes, but they’re still flies!” I suggest that you think about how to define “kind” precisely. In particular, you should find out what definitions of “species” exist, and why.
What’s the URL for the page you meant? You know, providing links makes it ever so much easier to figure out what you’re talking about.
WTF are you babbling about here?
Eh? What exactly are you referring to
You get your information about evolution from more than one creationist source? Do I really need to point out the absurdity in that?
Do yourself a favor: go read some of Dawkins’s and/or Gould’s popular science books. They both do (did, in Gould’s case) a good job of explaining the science to laypeople. Go read the online course at Berkeley. In short, learn something about what you’re criticizing. That way, you won’t come across as ignorant.
Which book is this, out of curiosity?
I don’t think you’re stupid. However, it’s clear that you know very little about evolution, so I will deal accordingly.
I call bullshit. I won’t deny that there have been scientific hoaxes, including Piltdown man and more recently the Chinese fossil made by gluing two different fossils together (Archaeoraptor?). But look who uncovered these hoaxes: scientists, not creationists.
As for using outdated material, that claim is just bizarre. There’s no shortage of new research in the biological sciences, and all of it supports (or at least is compatible with) evolution. What out-of-date material are you talking about?
No, what most people would like would be for Hovind to stop making false statements throughout his “seminar”. Or at least to stop using arguments so bad that even Answers in Genesis says not to use them.
And anyone who thinks science is boring has obviously never run across Carl Sagan, or Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Phil Plait. You don’t get people interested in science by feeding them fairy tales; you do it by presenting science in an interesting way.
Yeah, except that Einstein made predictions (e.g., about Mercury’s orbit, and the shifting apparent position of stars close to the sun) which were tested and found to be correct. How have Hovind’s ideas been tested? What sorts of observation would prove him wrong?
ok I am going to start with the top of your comments and go down using numbers (i will refer to specific things) I will learn how to quote later.
1.) You said that evolution was proved (I like how you said the mathmeticians thing, good cover). Let’s evaluate, empirical evidence for this theory is crucial. Give an example of Macro Evolution and not Micro. I believe in Micro. Prove Cosmic Evolution or Chemical. That would be nice. I huave attended several seminars in Science. Mostly with Evolutionists trying to show proof of Evolution. It was very interesting, but completely wrong because no proof was offered, just the tautologie of “It is a fact, It is a fact” which is what me and a lot of other people are getting here.
Also, I would like to point out that something that supposedly happened that long ago, with as much evidence as you say it has, must have tons of empirical evidence. As of yet, it is taught as a theory, yet to be with evidence.
2.)The reason I said you insulted me was because you called him a “creationist” and implied that he was “rank and file” and “ignorant nuts”. First of all, I have not called you stupid and not every Creationist are that way either. Second, you have no grounds to say such a thing.
Also, I do not know why I capitalized Rank…not sure and i thought you meant vile. An honest mistake…I had not heard the term rank and file.
3.)Ok, now we are getting somewhere. This is where the whole arguement comes to a head. Ok, you said that if you give me “proof” that I will move the goalposts. Let me make this easy on you: Micro Evolution HAPPENS I BELIEVE THIS. But it does not prove Macro-Evolution. You are right, it would still be a fly.
OK THE DEFINITION OF A KIND IS AS FOLLOWS. IT IS THE SAME KIND OF ANIMAL IF IT CAN REPORDUCE. FOR INSTANCE, A HORSE, ZEBRA, DONKEY AND JACKASS ARE ALL THE SAME KIND.
Ok, I will have to leave this alone until I have more time to finish
sorry for the spelling errors
Daniel:
Let me see if I’ve got this straight:
Let’s say, hypothetically, that scientists took a population of fruit flies (all of the same “kind”, all of the same species), and split that population in two, to keep them isolated. Call them groups A and B. Some number of fly generations later, the two populations are brought back together. But now the descendants of the original group A can mate among themselves, but can’t or won’t mate with the descendants of the original group B. And vice-versa, the descendants of group B can’t or won’t mate with the descendants of group A.
If this were to happen, then groups A and B would be of different species. And according to your definitions, they would be of different kinds, right? But you’d say that they’re all still fruit flies.
If this were to happen (and please consider this as a real possibility), would you conclude that a) new “kinds” can, in fact, appear, b) two animals can be of the same “kind” even if they can’t interbreed, c) your definition of “kind” is incomplete, or d) none of the above? If you choose c or d, please explain.
Also, what the heck do cosmic or chemical evolution have to do with biological evolution?
You have no idea what the word “theory” means in science, do you?
Finally, do you now realize that “rank and file” is not an insult?
ok, I will respond with my second set of response to your earlier comments on my next post. Let me reiterate my definition of “Kinds”.
If I had a Horse, Zebra, Jackass, and Donkey. They are the basic kind of animal. A kind is any animal different from itself. A dog and a cat are two kinds of animals. Not so with species which is based on Evolutionary relationships. A basic definition of a “kind” is that it can bring forth. however, exceptions do arise when the genetic code is stretched and the limits are then added. For example, The Horse and Donkey can mate, and they make a mule. A mule, for the most part, is sterile. The mule is still part of the same kind of animal except that its gene pool is stretched so thin, that it is no longer able to mate. This happen with a liot of creatures who extensively cross breed.
Also, Chemical and Cosmic Eolution have everything to do with Biological Evolution. Without them, your whole Biological Evolution theory would not be feasible. Now, Micro is the only scientific one, you still have iven no evidence of a different kind of animal. A fly is a fly no matter what you do to it. You need to read up on the fly experiments.
ok, what deos rank and file mean? please tell me.
Yes, I do know what a theory means in science, it is the highest of all places in science and usually is fundamentally thought to be true (though not always if you look back in history), but the Evolution theory has no evidence to back it up, it should not be labeled so high on the scientific totem pole.
Daniel:
This makes no sense. No animal is different from itself. Did you mean to say that two living beings are of different “kinds” if they are different, or look different?
If so, can you please quantify this? How different do two animals have to be, in order to be of different “kinds”? Are there any objective criteria, so that I can tell whether two animals are of the same “kind” without having to ask you?
Before answering, you should go down to your local natural history museum and ask to see their beetle collection. Figure out how many different “kinds” of beetle there are. (In case you’re tempted to say that all beetles are of the same “kind”: if a “kind” accommodates that much variety, then dogs and cats are of the same “kind”, to say nothing of humans and chimps).
What the hell is this supposed to mean? How can the genetic code (or the genome, which is what I think you meant) be “stretched”? What does it mean for a gene pool to be “stretched thin”?
True, there had to be elements and planets and whatnot in order for evolution to take place. But by your logic, if you don’t know who invented the wheel, you can’t possibly drive a car.
That’s why I’m trying to get you to define “kind” objectively and precisely. I don’t want you to shift the goalpoasts on me.
Tell me: are kale and Brussels sprouts of different “kinds”?
Or you could try following the link I gave above, which you apparently couldn’t even be arsed to click.
Sigh… Why do I even bother?
Here’s something that utterly demolishes your assertion, but that you probably won’t bother to read because you’d rather stick your fingers in your ears and sing “La-la-la there’s no evidence for evolution la-la-la I can’t hear any!”: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Interesting how the mockers gloat when God’s people get some trouble! Kent Hovind is not perfect as little as I or you. Obviously he has not been wise concerning the money business (that has been a trap for so many) and that shall not be defended. What really matters though, is not in first line if a person stumbles. “For though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again” (Prov.24:16). Many have tried to divert from the real issue by attacking Dr. Hovind’s doctor title, his integrity and now of course the imprisonment. The real matter is not the human person Kent Hovind, but what he is teaching! Is it true or false, does it make sense or not? I, myself have been impressed by the facts and arguments that Kent Hovind has brought, presenting a real biblical alternative to the (religious) theory of evolution! Rom. 8:28 states that everything will work together for good for those who love God. For sure Dr. Hovind’s present situation will also be for good, both for God’s kingdom and for himself. Maybe God thought he was too busy and wanted to give him a chanse to be alone with him for a while. Or maybe it was time for son Eric to jump into the cold water…
Dan Backlund:
False.
Hope this clears things up.
Seems like you both are arguing a topic that will never be agreed upon for as long as the human race exists. Throughout history, people were raised atheists and have spread the word of evolution since it’s concept originated. Some of those people went as far as tp attempt to discredit the Bible and found the Lord in the process (C.S. Lewis). On the other hand, some people were raised knowing the Lord, and while studying evolution, came to believe that instead (Darwin). Those who believe in the Lord, such as myself, support Hovind and what he has done with his Evangelist efforts. Hovind is doing exactly what the rest of us believers are trying to do – save souls. Something we all need to remember though is Hovind’s teachings are his own thoughts, not the word of God, though, much of what he teaches is through previous words of God and evidence left behind during and after the Creation process and the Great Flood. Arensb is right to take what he says at face value and to investigate the things he teaches; Christians should do the exact same thing. On the other hand, Daniel is right to support what Hovind preaches because a lot of it is factual scientific evidence and the message is God. Your argument could go on forever; just as Hovind says, I don’t care what you believe, but I do wish for everyone to open their eyes and heart and see the obviousness of Creation and the silliness of Evolution. The complexity of Biology alone necessitates an intelligent designer, let alone all of the other great creations of the Earth.
Cheers,
The constitution does not allow for a direct tax on the people of the United States. The United States is/was not a union of citizens but a union of states. Thus, the constitution allowed for taxation to be apportioned to the states. If the federal gov’t desired to raise funds then they would apportion these funds according to the census/# of representatives each state had. It would then be up to the states to raise these funds and if the individual states desired to tax their citizens then this was up to the states.
The 16th amendment came along and many believe that the 16th amendment changed taxation. However, in 1916 the supreme court ruled in Stanton v Baltic Mining that the 16th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation to the federal gov’t.
Thus, from purely a constitutional point of view. It is unlawful for the federal gov’t to directly tax the citizens of the individual states, thus it is unlawful for an employer to withhold for these unlawful taxes and thus, Kent Hovind acted within the law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America.
Sarah,
Yes, you are absolutely right! I suggest you join the many others in demonstrate to the US Government that we will no longer tollerate this illegal activity! The “Coalition for Redacting Accumulation Practices” is serving to provide a voice for you! Write to them with the DOCUMENTED PROOF you have above and let them know you join their protest action. Send your letters of support to PO Box 5040 2400 Avilia Road, Laguna Niguel CA, 92677!
Now that Ken’s brainwashed son is taking over his delusional teachings, can you do something about him too?
Wow, I wonder who gave “David law” the authority to claim that Kent’s (NOT Ken’s) son’s teachings were delusional. He must be an expert in the subject.
I believe a point here needs to be made: Creation is a religious point of viewing the world and what happens in it, and Evolution is also religious point of viewing the world, and what happens in it. They both can not be proven scientifically (even if evolutionists want to believe so), and they both require faith, especially when you toss in the millions of year into the equation. No one was there to observe it so they both are documented specualtions of what could’ve happend. As a matter of fact it take a lot more faith to believe in the evolution theory than is creation.
One believes in God the other doesn’t.
One requires obedience to a Creator, the other owes nothing to no one.
One has eternal significance, the other goes nowhere at the end of the line.
One ends in life, the other in destruction…
If the Creation theory is wrong, then what’s the point of this life… just live as long as you can and satisfy your every need, because at the end of it, there’s nothing left. If you believe Evolution and at the end there’s nothing, then nothing is lost… but if you are wrong about evolution and there is a Creator and we are his creation, and if we are going to be held accountable for our decisions and actions during our lives… there everything will be lost.
It’s your decision at the end of the day. One has consequences, the other doesn’t. Maybe that is why so many people choose to believe evolution… they don’t have to live their lives as if they are accountable to someone.
Dr. Hovind has spent most of his life teaching or sharing that there is a meaning to life, there is a purpose after all is said and done, and that in my opinion is what really counts. He is not shouting out: “look at me and what I have accomplished”, like most of the modern scientists! He’s screaming out, look at the Lord our God and what he has done, and turn to the book where it has all been explained.
God bless
John:
Given that Kent’s such a complete nutjob that even other YECs are distancing themselves from him, and given that Kent has for years been endorsing his son as a substitute Kent, I’d say David’s statement is entirely warranted.
CA610.
CA202.
CA221.
CA612.
CA601.1.
CA620.
Pascal’s Wager.
Do you creationists have any arguments that haven’t been refuted a thousand times?
And this is where you and I differ: I actually care whether what he says is true or not.