91 February 02 2010 at 19:14:25
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: Hi Rob,
Regarding the idea of "locking Hovind up forever", here's something I posted several months ago.
*** My old post begins ***
June 09 2009 at 14:36:51
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: Hi Kevin,
I'm no fan of Kent Hovind, as you'll see if you go back through this guest book or read the materials that the webmaster posted for me here. (http://kent-hovind.com/christian/index.htm). Hovind is a willfully ignorant incompetent whom we Christians have an obligation to expel from fellowship because he is also a defiantly unrepentant liar, slanderer, criminal, and hatemonger.
However, I have to object to your saying that you hope he gets "Charles Manson's sentence: life with no parole". One of the most common claims of Hovind supporters is that his prosecution and imprisonment was a miscarriage of justice (to put it mildly), perpetrated by people who hate him and want to silence him. A sentence such as you propose would be completely illegal, and expressing this kind of sentiment only confirms his supporters' fear that they are a despised majority in danger of becoming a persecuted minority. That fear is one of the things that makes Hovind supporters dangerous.
*** My old post begins ***
92 February 02 2010 at 15:52:42
Comments: Evolution has been proved ... god has not. I think it's about time the scientific community stopped arguing with lunatic creationists like Hovind, and just got on with science. Effwits like Hovind won't accept any evidence, unless it supports their arguments ... so why should anyone bother with them?
93 February 02 2010 at 15:49:19
Comments: Kent Hovind is an example of why religion shouldn't exist ... God doesn't exist, so why do we have to tolerate religion, and the buffoons like Hovind that it produces. Lock him up forever.
94 January 17 2010 at 19:54:07
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: Have You Come Here to Defend Hovind?
first posted by Jim Smith 5 June 2009
As a former scientist myself, I admit with shame that some prominent scientists are so biased against religion that they cannot read, accurately, an article entitled "Taking Science on Faith" (Footnote 1). I condemn that bias. I also acknowledge and condemn the prejudice and plain malice that many people have toward Fundamentalists in general, and toward poor rural fundamentalists in particular (Footnote 2).
The above having been said, the fact remains that Kent Hovind is an unrepentant liar, slanderer, hatemonger, and fraud, as well an a willfully ignorant incompetent. There is overwhelming evidence for this.
Hovind supporters who are unaware of this evidence will, of course, want to see it before defending him. The following is a brief list of readings and related questions to acquaint you with a small portion of the evidence. If you search for the indicated words, then answer the questions by copying and pasting, this process won't take more than 20 minutes. My responses to Hovind defenders typically take me considerably longer to write and post.
I regret that for that reason, I will give only the following reply if you don't answer all of the questions before defending him:
*****Since you do not wish to spend as much time reviewing the evidence as I will need to respond
*****to your post, you apparently do not really care whether Hovind is a liar and incompetent or
*****not, nor are you willing to make a good-faith effort to ensure that the statements you make in his
*****defense are accurate. Therefore, there is no point in having this discussion.
Thank you for your time.
P.S. By the way, and so you will know: Yes, I have seen Hovind's materials, and review one of his videos at http://kent-hovind.com/christian/rebuttal19th.htm. I have also read much of what is available at www.freehovind.com, as well as the appeal of his conviction. I assume that the appeal he filed presents the best-documented, most carefully-argued case he and his legal counsel could make against the government's conduct, as well as against his conviction and the sentence he received. Therefore, I have not taken the time to read anything else on those subjects.
READINGS AND RELATED QUESTIONS BEGIN
Reading 1 (from the Young Earth Creationist Organization "Creation Ministries International" (CMI), update of 2006) http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind
Question 1. There is a paragraph near the beginning that starts with the words **In the interests of maintaining Christian/creationist integrity, **. Please search for it, then copy and paste the rest of the paragraph in your post.
Question 2. CMI states that it is not able to **recommend Hovind's material or trust his discernment in many areas, frankly.** What action of Hovind's does CMI give as the reason for this decision?
Question 3. Please find the sentence that contains **a form of false witness **. Copy and paste the full sentence, plus the one that follows.
Question 4. Please find the paragraph that begins **[CMI]: This seems an easy way**. Copy and paste the last full sentence of the paragraph.
Question 5. Please find the sentence Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed Copy and paste the full paragraph shortly afterward that begins **[CMI]: The repeated use of this approach**.
Question 6. Please copy and paste the second sentence of the paragraph that begins**[CMI]: A worthy cause, and one we should all be engaged in**
Reading 2. (Regarding Iraq and the Philippines, http://kent-hovind.com/quotes/ethics.htm
Please search the page for the word "pig". Name at least one war crime that Hovind either approves of or advocates, according to the paragraphs that contain that word.
END OF READINGS AND QUESTIONS
1. We can see some scientists' biases in their responses to Paul Davies' 2007 article "Taking Science on Faith". It's best to read Davies' reply first (http://www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html#davies), then his article (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/davies07/davies07_index.html), and finally the scientists' responses (http://www.edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html).
2. Please see "One Nation under Elvis: An Environmentalism for Us All" (http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/2845).
95 December 14 2009 at 15:58:16
Name: hmm (220.127.116.11)
Comments: But is he wrong?
[Heyo you used this second computer on 19 November. I delete people who use sockpuppets. First and last warning - CM]
96 December 13 2009 at 02:37:15
Name: Carl M
Comments: It has come to my attention that the anonymous poster of the past few days is using the same IP address (18.104.22.168) as the poster using the screen name "Heyo".
Make of that what you wish.
97 December 12 2009 at 03:46:37
Comments: A huge problem with the "evidence" for evolution is that there have been so many instances in history where they have done such things as lie to create false data, used bully tactics against any scientific organization that is searching for the truth in evolution, and also many times been just plain wrong.
For example in London during the industrial age some scientists had claimed that the moths were changing color from white to black in order to blend in the surroundings.( black from the soot in the air) as it turned out the "scientists" were spray painting the moths in order to come up with their "proof". Many organizations even today are targeted for seeking out the truth about evolution. Many times what will end up happening is that politicians play a game of search and destroy. Some organization have even been specifically designed to find creationist science groups and look for ways to such them down, whether it be by getting their funds pulled or by other means.
And in history we see that many times evolutionists are just wrong about somethings. For instance the founder of evolution Charles Darwin himself has a wide range of flaws in his findings. He used no scientific method and ended up with skewed results. Such as the birds on the Galapagos Islands. He claimed were evolved one another his proof being that they seemed similar. What he did manage to do was develop a theory that in it self evolves. Whenever proof against his theory is developed then the theory will change to suit the new evidence against it. It is kind of humorous to see evolution from early stage to now., and how it is actually the only thing evolving.
98 December 11 2009 at 18:41:33
Name: Jim Smith
Comments: WHY IS KENT HOVIND DANGEROUS?
One reason why Kent Hovind is dangerous is that he makes statements like the following. An additional reason is that about half of his supporters (like John Harris, below) believe that those anyone who objects to those statements must have a hidden motive for doing so.
By the way, the statments quoted below are from transcripts by webmaster Carl Marychurch (kent-hovind.com/quotes/ethics.htm. Hovind's organization "Creation Science Evangelism" is aware of them (I told CSE myself), but no one at CSE, to my knowledge, has ever disputed their authenticity or accuracy.
**** FIRST HOVIND QUOTE REGARDING MUSLIMS (Truth Radio 8 May 2006)
Just get everyone of our soldiers over there in Iraq right now, dip your bullets in pigs blood. Let it be known, "Guys, we're here to help your country, we really are. We're not the bad guys. We'd like to help. You guys have a problem. We got rid of your evil dictator and we would like to see you rebuild a decent country so you can enjoy life. However, if you're going to shoot at us, we're going to shoot back, and you're not going to get to go to Heaven and forget those 72 virgins because they are not going to be there because we've got pigs blood on all of our bullets". Get your hollow point bullet. Put a little pigs blood inside and fill 'em with wax and just carry them with your from now on. And if anyone shoots at you shoot back. And I guarantee it would stop the violence in Iraq in thirty seconds.
**** SECOND HOVIND QUOTE REGARDING MUSLIMS (Source: Truth Radio 30 December 2003 @ 26:30)
I told you about the Philippines - the Muslims - they had an insurrection a hundred years ago. Some Muslims were attacking, you know, people over there, yeah. And so they captured 50 of these guys - the American general did - and he tied them all up to poles. Right in front of 'em he slaughtered a couple of pigs and dipped all the bullets into the pig blood and shot 49 of them with bullets dipped in pig blood. [.....] [According to Muslims] if you taste a pig or touch a pig or if you eat pig meat, man, you're damned forever, you have no chance of going to Heaven. So they dipped their bullets in pig blood - shot all these guys - dumped them in a hole and poured the pigs guts all over the top of them. And then let the 50th guy go. And we never had any trouble out of the Muslims there. [laughter]
99 December 11 2009 at 03:10:28
Name: John H
Hi Scott, thank you for your response. I have noticed that you referred to the word honest/dishonest 7 times with reference to me. You are obviously suggesting that I have been dishonest! These are strong and unnecessary words. There sure is nothing a like a brother in Christ attacking you! This is what mixing two religions does!
Brother Scott, I have a book that tells me to be honest and I follow it to the best of my ability (word for word). Apparently you follow the same book but distort its contents and mislead others. Perhaps you should get acquainted with Mark 9:42. The sentence for those misleading others used to be a capital punishment. If we had that today, you would be thinking twice about supporting a hypothesis that contradicts God's word.
By the way, have you decided which one of the following Christians you are yet?
The same book warns his people that in the end days even the elect will be deceived - if indeed it were possible - (Matthew 24:24). Do you consider yourself an elect, intellectual or a disciple? Would you stake your SOUL on this evolution hypothesis on basis that it's absolutely true and exactly as described?. In fact, let's put something less important on the line: Would you stake both your EYES on this hypothesis? Put it in writing and show God (and the rest of the world) that you mean business!!!!It is bad enough having to deal with the lies that support the macroevolution hypothesis, we don't need "Christians" to join in supporting it and cause more damage!
Today, I was asked by a friend. Is there a single known fact that disputes the evolution theory (he means macroevolution, because he knows that I accept microevolution as a fact)? The answer is NO; because to the religious evolutionist NOTHING is acceptable (a serious condition of close-mindedness). No one really knows how exactly the world or life began except, of course, the evolutionists. They know everything! :) Because they were there when it happened! - lol
Ok, let's tackle your statements:
"how could an evolutionist tell the difference between right and wrong or have moral principles"
"Individual's don't evolve. Populations do"? Does this same principle give a certain "population" the right to wipe out another certain "population" based on the fact that they have not evolved enough or other inferiorities (perhaps because they are less intelligent, less fit, less good looking, less....less...etc.)? Well, Hitler must have been right then to wipe out the less evolved Jews! As a nation, Germany was united (indeed well evolved!) but they certainly didn't approve of many other nations, did they? Is that your explanation for knowing absolute right from absolute wrong and having moral principles? Aren't you supposed to be a Christian? Why didn't YOU simply say "because the Bible says so"? Do you actually believe anything in the Bible?
There are some inconsistencies with the above statement and what Dr.Walt Brown claims. Dr Brown says that he is not a theologian yet apparently he taught Bible class every week at the authorís church. Interesting! Also, are you really aware of the letters/dialogs that took place between Dr Meert and Dr Brown? Why won't you check the "Summary of Joe Meert/Walt Brown Communications Concerning a Written Debate". May be trebob would like to reconsider? In fact, may be YOU want to debate him on your apparent knowledge that "...Brown leaves out the problems the hydroplate model creates and gets other facts wrong as well".
Sorry, didn't mean to offend you or trebob. It is very apt of you to notice. The reason for the missing link was because of my lack of approval of his blog. It is biased, not neutrally presented and (in some places) dishonest. Also, generally my responses are not added until he finds a suitable "attack" to append to it. Similar to Carl, trebob is just interested in attacking the person who opposes the evolution hypothesis. All trebob needs to do is to list my posts along with any responses.
No brother Scott, I'm not being dishonest ("again"). In a literal global flood, bones (depending on their density) would float and appear higher up the layers. The bones appearing higher up the layers can also be accounted for by how long the animal survives and remains floating before it's buried etc.. Regarding other models that could account for such finds....sure, I am happy to explore these views. However, doesn't the mere suggestion of alternative models impose some doubt in your evolution theory/belief? Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with that. It's just that up till now, evolutionists have been saying that evolution is a fact!!!! So can there really be another non-darwinian model??? If you want to entertain another model, then you have to agree that the evolution theory is NOT a fact!
No brother Scott, I'm not being dishonest ("again"). The "common descent" idea was invented by good old Charlie. It is an evolutionary terminology invented to support the hypothesis. You must first believe in evolution before this statement becomes true. So no, the discovery of such a creature is not going to help you or trebob.
No brother Scott, you are very mistaken. Firstly the point I was making with this article is that we DO have a self correcting system to prevent mutation. Secondly, natural selection only selects, it doesn't create. Thirdly, you need to read the next paragraph in that article:
By the way, despite that, it is true that sometimes we may get corruption in our DNA code that may "appear" to be advantageous, but usually done at a cost (or detriment). We have never observed a mutation that generally provide a benefit to a specie or allow it to evolve from one kind to another.
No brother Scott, I'm not being dishonest ("again"). If you wish I will include the rest of that page, but it won't help you. Perhaps you should point out the section that appears to satisfactorily answer/conclude the above statement for you.
Irreducible complexity has long since been debunked. This has all been covered already.Ok, Scott, this is getting very tiring now. Firstly, this is not already covered. In relation to irreducible complexity, it was ME who mentioned the flagellum on September 14 2009 at 01:28:45. Now......just because we know how a protein is put together to have a functioning flagellum doesn't mean we know it has been evolved. The sequence of events that it would have taken to build a flagellum cannot be explained by mutation and natural selection because well before the flagellum functions as a good motor, it would have been a useless list of protein components. If you want to discuss this further, that's fine by me.
Perhaps the reason why this is so difficult to comprehend :) is because Macro evolution is the opposite of Micro. Micro is the process of natural selection, it only selects from the existing gene pool, whilst Macro adds to the gene pool.
I'm ok to be mistaken but to call a brother in Christ dishonest (if indeed you are saved) without proof is lying. Lying is a sin! Besides why do I want to be dishonest? The whole idea is to remove the dishonesty from the evolution hypothesis. You should be supporting me!
As for your comment regarding "29+ evidences for macro evolution", you are clearly under the impression that this is watertight/indesputable evidence for the evolution hypothesis. I can assure you that this is not true. Pick a subject you like the most from that list and let's tackle it.Finally to Jim, why are you so passionately against Kent Hovind for his "attacks" against the Muslims? Do you have a Muslim backround or family etc.? What is the real reason?
100 December 07 2009 at 23:01:25
Comments: Is funny. this website like 90% on the internet has accomplished absolutely nothing even if you believe in evolution.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >>