Knee-Mail Conversation between God and Simon the Zealot

July 20, 2007
(Written from the Federal Prison Camp Edgefield, South Carolina)
Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13

GOD: Simon, you don’t seem happy. What’s wrong?

Simon (Simon the Zealot): I don’t understand some things, Lord.

GOD: Well, let’s hear it, Simon.

Simon: I’m a patriotic Israelite, Lord. I love my country and our great heritage. We are slaves to the Romans, Lord, and I don’t like it. My fellow Zealots and I are the only ones offering real resistance to the Romans. We sneak out at night and blow up bridges, loosen chariot-wheel lug nuts, and change road signs to disrupt the enemy. I’ve followed you for several years now, hoping you would restore our great nation by leading a revolt against the Romans. But you don’t show any interest in helping free Israel from oppression.

I’ve put up with the likes of Matthew the Roman tax collector as a soul-winning partner several times. I wondered why you invited him to join our group of disciples. I just thought maybe you did that to have an insider in the Roman camp to feed you information. Over the years I kept watching to see if you would rebuke him for betraying his country and working with the hated Romans, but you never have. It’s as if you don’t even care that he was actually assisting the enemy before he joined us.

I don’t understand, Lord. When do we fight and kick the Romans out of our land (Acts 1:6)?

GOD: I’m the one who founded Israel, son. I’m the original patriot. I love this land and desire the best for Israel more than you can ever know. I also have seen everything the Romans have done and already know everything they will do and even what they think. I don’t need an insider to feed me information.

As for fighting to rid our land of the Romans, I don’t need your help to do that, Simon. Did you see what just one of my angels did in II Kings 19:35 to the Assyrians?

Simon: Yes, Lord. He killed 185,000 of their top soldiers in one night.

GOD: He was just an ordinary angel, so can you imagine what twelve legions of them could do (Matthew 26:53)?

Simon: That is hard to fathom, Lord. I bet they could destroy all of Israel’s enemies in a few seconds!

GOD: Yes, they could, Simon, but the greatest enemy Israel has would still be there.

Simon: Who is that, Lord? I can’t imagine an enemy worse than the Romans.
They are heathens!

GOD: Their heart is wicked, son. The problem is not Rome. The enemy of the Israelites is their own hearts! It is the enemy we’ve been working on for several years now. Yes, many lives have been changed, yet Israel’s worst enemy still lies within.

Simon: Yes, Lord, I have seen thousands of lives changed, but yes, I acknowledge there remains great wickedness in the hearts of the people.

GOD: As long as Israel is wicked, I will be their enemy, Simon (Psalm 7:11).
Getting rid of the Romans wouldn’t fix that problem. You and your fellow Zealots could kill every Roman and the real problem would still remain.
Don’t you remember what I told Jeremiah to preach to Israel?

Simon: Yes, Lord. You told him to tell Israel not to fight against Nebuchadnezzar. You said that you had sent the King of Babylon to punish Israel (Jeremiah 28:14).

GOD: Yes, Simon. I told him that wicked Nebuchadnezzar was my servant (Jeremiah 25:9). I told Nebuchadnezzar to destroy Israel. That was not the time for patriots, Simon. No amount of guerilla warfare would have saved Israel. I had ordered their destruction. They needed a revival, not a revolution.

Simon: Did you send the Romans here, Lord?

GOD: Yes, I did, Simon. I will punish them when I’m done using them just like I did Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:12).

The Romans are wicked and evil and need my judgement, but I expect the heathen to be heathen, son. The thing that really bothers me is when my people act like the heathen (II Chronicles 7:14). I will use the wicked Romans to punish my people Israel, and then I will punish the Romans for doing it. Everyone will be treated fairly, son. I don’t make mistakes.

Don’t misunderstand, son. Sometimes, it is good to defend the land against internal or external enemies. I raised up Moses and Joshua and many judges to free my people from bondage, didn’t I?

Simon: Yes, Lord. I read their stories and want to be like them. I’m willing to die for my country, Lord.

GOD: I know you are, Simon, and I appreciate that spirit in you, but this is not the time for patriots. This is the time for prophets and preachers and prayers. Sometimes, it is my will for Israel to be punished by going into slavery.

I’m always willing to forgive and rescue them. I normally raise up a Gideon for occasions like that; but right now, Israel has not repented, so you Zealots are wasting your time. My people often get involved in fights they shouldn’t be in. What happened when good King Amaziah got into a fight that he should not have been involved in? (II Chronicles 25:17-25; II Kings 14:9-14).

Simon: He was badly beaten, Lord.

GOD: That’s right, Simon. Let me pick the battles.

Simon: But Lord, what about Matthew? Isn’t he a traitor?

GOD: I called him to follow me and he did (Matthew 9:9). Did you hear what my prophet John the Baptist told the publicans to do to show they had repented (Luke 3:12-13)?

Simon: Yes, Lord, he told them not to cheat the people by collecting more than the law allowed.

GOD: He didn’t tell them to quit their job, did he, Simon?

Simon: No God, he didn’t.

GOD: Did he tell the Roman soldiers to quit their job?

Simon: No, Lord. He just told them to do violence to no man and to be content with their wages.

GOD: Like Solomon said, there is a time for everything. There are times to fight for freedom and there are times to refrain from fighting (Ecclesiastes 3:1). Right now is not the time to be a patriot. Israel’s judgement is coming soon. They are like rebellious Ephraim. “Ephraim is joined to idols. Let him alone” (Hosea 4:17).

Simon: But God! I love my country and want to see a revival.

GOD: So do I, Simon. Israel has been through this cycle many times. They never seem to learn. They go from prosperity to complacency to sin to judgement to repentance and back to prosperity. Right now, they need my judgement, son. Trust me, it is best. All countries and people seem to follow the same vicious cycle. One day I will help a group of godly men found a great country called America. They will become very prosperous and then very wicked. I will send them thousands of bureaucrats and princes to eat all their substance and bring them into bondage (I Samuel 8:10-18; Proverbs 28:2). I will call on my prophets to stop trying to save their nation and just win souls before my judgement falls. You will see it all from Heaven, Simon, and it will break your heart as it does mine.

Simon: What should I do, Lord?

GOD: Quit the Zealots. Submit to the Romans. Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you (Matthew 5:44). Preach my gospel to all the world (Mark 16:15).

Simon: Okay, Lord, if that is what you think is best.

GOD: I always know what is best, son.

254 Comments

  1. praybird July 20, 2007 10:57 pm Reply

    When we left the UPC denomination in 1990, not only did my world turn upside down, but there was no church to lean on,,,, illness, surgeries, and a whole lot of adversity hit us at once. Trials beset us daily. Nothing made sense. Then we decided to study, to seek the Lord, and to learn to trust him daily. The Potter is still molding this clay, shaping after his will and fashion. Somedays it hurts, somedays I am set on the self to just rest. But I know he is still working.
    We have been praying much for America. Today on the news I saw the fashion trend that has just come out. Modesty is the new trend. Tight jeans, short skirts are out. Modest dressing is In. It is in fashion. Knee lenght skirts and full blouses are in. Praise the Lord. There are many other indicators also recently that points to revival. What blessed me today was when I was at the library in my town, how polite everyone was to each other. I saw grandparents loving on their grandkids. I saw people smiling to each other. There was something tangible there. And I had to thank God for this. There is so much in the news that is discouraging, but remember in the midst of darkness and evil, Love shines like a glittering jewel in a dark cave. Love is there in the midst of it all, yes there is much evil but at the same time I believe the Lord is moving. Perhaps in ways we didn’t think possible. I know this God loves people, I do pray for his mercy still and that in spite of what we are seeing on the news, He is moving, and that many many souls will be turned to him. I pray God have mercy on the USA. I am reminded of Jonah, when he came and preached to Nineveh, you know Nineveh actually turned from their evil ways and repented. I still pray that we will see a mighty move of the Lord before he comes. Lord help us in Jesus name amen

  2. dustydirt July 21, 2007 1:02 am Reply

    you’re my John, our John.
    actually our Kent who’ll sit beside John.
    always a pleasure to hear from you.
    i pray for my family & yours.
    God bless

  3. dustydirt July 21, 2007 1:08 am Reply

    always a pleasure to hear from you.
    God bless.
    you’re in my prayers.

  4. ccherrett July 21, 2007 3:18 am Reply

    Bless you Kent Hovind. We Love You!

    Chris and Wendy and Allison and Maggie and David and Stephen Cherrett

  5. campsuz July 21, 2007 5:53 am Reply

    I’ve never heard anything but Truth from Kent Hovind. That’s why I’ve allowed and encouraged his videos to influence my sons and will continue to do so. “This is the time for prophets and preachers and prayers”… I know that Kent Hovind is a prophet and a preacher who has True communion with the Father. We can follow his life. He is in our daily prayers. We love him and it is apparent the Love he has for us – both the lost and the saved.

  6. mtlionsroar July 21, 2007 7:01 am Reply

    Dear Kent:

    Your ‘conversations’ always bring my heart back to where it should be! Thank you so much! How often we forget where the real battle lies. You’ve always helped me to focus and I thank you so very much for that. I will continue to pray for you, your wife, family & staff. Please don’t loose heart–judging from your ‘knee-mail’ that is not happening…Praise God! What a privilege to serve the God who created the Universe by His Words.

    Dee

  7. BadBob July 21, 2007 7:59 am Reply

    Dr. Hovind hit it right on the nail head. Kingdoms will not change until men’s hearts change. Christians in America have turned their backs on God their Saviour. Christians do not know the difference between the holy and the profane. Christians no longer sound the trumpet thru the foolishiness of preaching to warn the people. Christians honor Me with their lips but their hearts are far from me. Christians are no longer willing to become a fool for righteousness sake. Rightfully so America must be judged! God bless Dr. Hovind for his testimony and sacrifice!

  8. praying4u July 21, 2007 9:34 am Reply

    Kent,

    Your analogies of your writings are similar to Pilgrim’s Progess by Bunyan. Your experience on paper is beautiful, though the cicrumstance for it not entirely enjoyable, I’m sure. We have been in prayer for you since the beginning, but thought we would finally comment. May God grant his peace upon you. You and your bonds are remembered in this household. Godspeed.

  9. Sisterfriend July 21, 2007 1:12 pm Reply

    So, so good to hear from you Kent!
    Thank you for the excellent message. It is just what we needed today!

    Thank – you Lord for bringing us the message we need. Than you for speeking to and through your servant. Protect him where ever you have him and cover his family as you accomplish your purpose.
    Strengthen us all for the things that are comming.
    Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done,
    For Jesus Sake,

    Cheryl

  10. Harriet July 21, 2007 6:04 pm Reply

    Good to hear from you, Brother Kent! My family is preparing for a “Creation-Vacation”! We’re going camping at the Grand Canyon. We’ll prayerfully share the truth with those we meet. We’ll be sure & share that the CO River did NOT cut the Grand Canyon over millions of years!

  11. treasurekeeper July 21, 2007 6:11 pm Reply

    Assuming you’ve got your bible there, I believe I see what you mean. The things I read is what I see. I really fulfill my longing to write this to you because I have loved your seminar dvds and regret your position, being a Paul for God, for yourself and for others. (Phil. 1)

    I want you to know that your: (please read) 2 Timothy 4:2 made me greatly enthusiastic about the scientific part of the bible. Especially the magnitude of Gods greatness it is showing. It also made me to long to ask a lot of questions to you about biblical interpretation, your graced DR. knowledge of the biblical science etc. :Jude 1:3b

    There are few of us. You prayed at the end of one of your seminars “a revival Lord”. If you remember the full content of your words. I’m 22 years old now. I am not proud as in pride to say but in truth I may: I am one of the certain five I know of. Be faithful my Brother. Although on this earth our duration of existence may be leaking a few years, Ephesians 3:12, 2 Timothy 1:12, Hebrews 10:22
    I want you to know that you are right in what you have written. But for the future God is teaching us.

    In fact life is simple to live: He who has the Son has life, he who doesn’t have the Son of God doesn’t. Prison, murder, rape, abuse, in short all suffering, are mostly re-defined by bureaucrats and the perspective on what it’s all about is distorted.

    Philippians 3:8. (add: my guide for survival)

    I am bothered by the fact you are where you are. The fact we’ve never met makes it hard to pray for you daily or even at least monthly. (forgive me)

    You may carry the greatest of 13 corinth, also being given to me, that I long to send to you and your flesh and blood. Forgive me for having added my part to this defiled system by which I cannot pay you this visit I want to pay.

    I greet you with sincerity and respect, living like you is alike the words of Paul: “live like me.. then you’re doing for the better then you are now.”

    My second final words to you in this electro letter are that your time is not yet come, neither that of your wife to focus on your homecoming and leave this barren planet. You both are still alive, still for support and your testimony of revival. May God bless you and keep you in His will of definite prosperity and file you in for encountering partial future views.

    My final words at last. I have written several poems. Two of them I send hereby to show you, to know God and to pray about. Learn in His Ghost for the Holy Wind of God is facing your mind and still longs to teach you about Gods greatness.

    According to my testimony to God Most High and in recognition and allegiance to El Roi I say unto you all this and not by my flesh alone. Be fearful and humble to Him and await in prayer.

    -Birthright in medieval galantry

    O medieval one still crowned with life
    Ye hears the serpent roar
    Reply the calling of this beast
    And ye falls like the none in yore

    Ye having the moldering heart
    In the light of mind
    Would ye not be the wrong at birth
    Wouldn’t ye devour mankind

    O murderer, heroic at war
    Will ye remove this pain
    Well if it’s thine when love is nigh
    You’ll see what will sustain

    Paladin, so frightening far
    Where’s thy saving bark
    Ye dwells thyself in thy distress
    But souls find romance dark

    Find him, ye errant knight, and then
    Find nothing more to save
    The fathers trembling hands fill all
    Thy pints, thy ways are paved

    Let her be, ye o errant knight
    the adultress ye adore
    Ye hairy garment, sold salvation
    Clothed in red, a whore

    Ye gained a turn of populists
    Fairy alters rule
    Even in common ash through ages
    “Exsurge domine” jewel

    O leavesalvation, just lay there
    Redemption is not thine
    How saved they are, not only passed
    Who find it in the vine

    To Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
    The God whom we adore,
    Be glory, as it was, is now,
    And shall be evermore

    Inspired by Nahum Tate and Nicholas Brady but not as much by Gods musical creation Neal Morse

    – Come Flock, and Confine in a Fold

    This I say to you, my brother,
    sister, who want to be true;
    the radical ones, born again,
    rejecting new age humanism:

    Keep on rejecting,
    revolt to the marking,
    And see the rebellion
    against our Lord and King

    Desert your way out
    Out of global dirt
    And find your way in
    into a fellowship with Jesus

    Be the humble one
    And ignore your position
    Be responsible to God
    Instead of deficient

    Reject New World laws
    And adjust to the biblical awes
    Pray towards the God of all
    Pray for they will fall

    Be patient and clean
    Be sufficiently unseen
    Be faithful, don’t crawl
    Stay alert, they’ll fall!

    Invest and study
    See the tides of time
    Soon it is done on earth living
    I feel the pangs of it’s birth giving

  12. Harriet July 21, 2007 6:39 pm Reply

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Kent_Hovind

    Did y’all know there is a Conservapedia? Maybe some of you knowledgeable ones can edit Dr. Hovind’s article?

  13. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 21, 2007 7:59 pm Reply

    Josephus in WAR OF THE JEWS writes: [quote]

    …..Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, ‘let us remove hence'” (Book. 6, ch.5, par. 3)

    I. Only one group of people understood this sign
        a. Luke 21:2O-21 This was a dual prophecy
        b. The Christians fled Jerusalem

    In The History of the Primitive Church, the author writes:

    “Before the siege, the Christians left the city: ‘By a prophecy which had been revealed to the leaders of the Church of Jerusalem, the faithful were admonished to leave the city before the war, and to go and live in a town in Perea named Pella; they accordingly withdrew there, and thus the metropolis of the Jews and all the land of Judea was completely abandoned by the saints.'” (p. 3O6)

    J. It was difficult to flee at this time and to do so would require God’s miraculous intervention. S.G.F. Brandon writes in The Fall Of Jerusalem and The Christian Church:

    taken from: http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/churchhistorylectures/lecture04.html

    unquote:
    Pontius Pilot purportedly suicided at a lake in what is now Switzerland. Nero, purportedly, went the way of suicide also, afflicted with madness. It seems neither of them had a worry about how they were going to spend their retirements. How could one fight Truth and prosper? Their “dash between two dates” was short.

    God bless you brother Kent. Look up – redemption draweth nigh.

  14. ibelieve2 July 21, 2007 8:16 pm Reply

    Kent,

    ALWAYS good to hear from you! Still praying….Praying…PRAYING for you & your family & JO.

    Blessings, ibelieve2

  15. Ekkman July 21, 2007 10:09 pm Reply

    Kent said:
    GOD: Quit the Zealots. Submit to the Romans. Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you (Matthew 5:44). Preach my gospel to all the world (Mark 16:15).

    Ekkman said:
    If I am following this. You are saying that we won’t get America back by fighting through the political realm whether radically by taking the government by force or in a laid back manner such as voting for the right person or persons. That won’t turn it around, it has gone too far downhill. I agree! It is the II Chron. 7:14 principle. You are saying submit to the government that we have allowed to take us captive since we have gone to sleep at the wheel, so to speak. We are to obey it as long as we are not disobeying God. To pray for them, love them, share life with them every chance we get. And we are to always keep the most important thing, command, fresh on our hearts and minds by preaching the gospel in season and out. I agree!

    All of the above is just guesses though.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  16. Rock Prevaricator July 22, 2007 12:37 am Reply

    What a timely message. This really does make sense. The remnant of the church has all but disappeared and the country has sunk to a new low for “civilization”. It is no wonder that Sodom & Gomorrah will receive less harsh judgments than other nations. Our nation had such a good foundation, a tremendous start, but look at it now. The salt has lost its savor. It is good for nothing but to be trampled under the feet of men.

    It is commonly reported that other nations are sending missionaries to the USA of all places. The church here does nothing but play silly church games. The dumbing down of America has affected the language to the extent that the Church is deceived. Gospel USED to mean “GOOD NEWS”. We were instructed to take the “Good News” to the world, those that believe…will be saved. Those that believe not will be damned. Why aren’t more people being saved in this formerly great nation? Because the “gospel” that we preach is no longer “good news” but “judgment”. Our man on the street has no more Spirit in him than a WatchTower peddler. The world sees the very sins that God HATES: from the “proud look” to the “sower of discord among the brethren”…all within the Church. Why, the very spawn of av1611.org is among us this very moment, breathing judgments from a haughty perch, quick to condemn but slow to mercy.

    So many in the Church feel it is their business to judge, but they are without excuse: they condemn themselves when they judge…seeing they do the same things. The judgment of God is sure against those that do. Why would we think we should escape God’s judgment when we continue in judgment ourselves? Do we purposely despise the riches of God’s goodness, restraint and patience? Don’t you know it is the GOODNESS of God that leads you to repentance? Romans 2:1-4

    You have been forgiven a debt of over 10 trillion dollars. And you have the gall to lock up your neighbor because he owes you 50 cents??? The judgment of God will be swift upon you and you will pay the uttermost penny for it. Matt 18:35 “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” Matt 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

    We need to clean up our own house(s), not with stinging rebukes but with mercy, forbearance and love. It is the GOODNESS of God that will lead many to repentance. It led me there long ago. It can lead you to salvation too if you are on the outside looking in.

    I used to mock the “born again” crowd while I was in school. I thought the very things that Nicodemus did. I was a tad more cruel than he was. A few years later I was the one that was questioning the meaning of life and laid down my pride to see that this God I was rejecting really loved me. He was alive and He loved ME. I was a wretched man, much like you might think of yourself if you’re on the outside looking in. That was the bad news. The good news was that God didn’t care about the bad news. He had Good News for me. All the crap that I was didn’t matter. He found a substitute for me. A Substitute that paid my massive debt in full. God was satisfied with the debt repayment. All I had to do was “claim my ticket”. That ticket was Jesus. He is no longer that guy in the bible, that guy in Sunday school…Jesus is MY savior now.

    There is more than enough of Him to go around. I’m nothing special. I’m in no way better than ANY of you. I just accepted the ticket handed to me. My eternal destination changed. My spiritual Father changed as well. I am on the side that won. I was on the side that lost, and would have had to pay that price eternally. But that all changed when I accepted the free ticket. Yeah, I forgot to mention the ticket is FREE. That sort of makes it hard for some to receive. Some people want to have a part in earning the ticket. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way with God. It is FREE for the asking. That is what makes it GOOD NEWS! No one could earn it anyway. You’d have to be kidding if you thought yourself deserving of the ticket because of your own good deeds. The only score that counts with God is 100% not 90%, not 99.5%, but 100% your ENTIRE LIFE. The trouble is that we were born with a failing grade. Thanks to our ancestor 60 centuries ago (Adam). He screwed up and all his descendents received the failing grade from that point. There was only one person that kept 100% his entire life, and He wasn’t a descendant of Adam. He is the very one offering you HIS ticket. You can get in on HIS grade. For Free. It is a fantastic account, but too long for this blog. You can read about it in the best selling book: the bible.

    Grace and Peace to you all.

    Kent and Jo, I wish you both Godspeed.

  17. Rock Prevaricator July 22, 2007 12:46 am Reply

    I have a question I hope someone (perhaps the moderator) can answer.

    Have any of the other major Creationists commented on the plight of the Hovind family? And if so, what did they say? Has Creation Network of AngelOne commented?

    Respectfully yours,
    Rock

    [EDITOR’S NOTE:  Most are in prayer and/or sad to see the developments.  Some have distanced themselves.  I have taken some criticism for still wanting to help this ministry.  But I would say that sadness and concern is the general mood among other creationists.

    Dr. Hovind’s ministry is such a visible one with his DVDs and videos circling the globe.  http://www.drdino.com/

    I recall a few years ago, helping to organize a creation talk in Sacramento for Dr. Hovind.  The local Baptist church was not getting the word out very well.  Then … the Russians found out that Dr. Kent Hovind was coming to town.  Probably half the persons at the church that evening were first generation Russian and Ukrainian immigrants from all over Northern California.  A simultaneous translator volunteered to help and somebody brought in a large case of radio devices, to receive the live Russian translation of his talk.  Afterwards, there was such a long line of folks who wanted to personally (and sometimes tearfully) thank Dr. Hovind.  His seminars are in Russian ( http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=672&cat=Foreign ), with at least tens of thousands of copies now spread all across the former Soviet Union.

    The darkness of atheism had ravaged their former homeland for decades, all based on an unscientific belief system of our origins that openly denies the most important part of our lives, the spiritual. 

    The Russians get it.  The Americans, many of them, don’t.  They’ve seen what evolution does and what belief in evolution can lead to.  Evolutionary atheism led to mass fear, deprivation, the Gulag, and to horrific mass murders.  When a society believes that “God doesn’t see” and “we with guns make the rules” then “all Hell breaks loose” upon the countryside, to demonic delight.  China, Cambodia, Ethiopia … other distant lands of mass murder; when society’s value for human life breaks down and the normal understanding that God will judge our lives gets lost then Satan can revel in the harvest (“you are just an animal”; “life is a cosmic accident”; “get, take, covet”; “only the strong should survive”).  P.A.  ]

  18. desiree July 22, 2007 1:15 am Reply

    Hello…

    I just created an account… so I could leave a blog. I have just heard of Dr. Hovind. I actually haven’t viewed any of your material yet. A friend told me about you. I do not believe in Evolution and am happy to see someone making such an impact with God’s Word.

    I would like to ask the people of this blog… who support Dr. Hovind to please contact me. My email is [EDITED]@ hotmail.com

    I’ve been trying to understand what exactly happened with the case that has Dr. Hovind in this situation. I see that people have their own opinions. I’d like to hear from many people. Any links to newspapers. I understand it is all about tax evasion.. but I’d like the details and an understanding to exactly what happened.

    If you would like to know why I’m asking this. I’m more than willing to share. I’d rather talk via email or MSN. Please… contact me.

    God Bless you for your work. Your courage is amazing. I will keep you in my prayers…

    A sister in Jesus Christ..

    Desirée

    [EDITOR’S NOTE:  Desirée, what do you desire?  Why should the supporters contact you directly?  Over a year of blog postings are on-line.  Read.  Please.

    I edited your Email address out because I have to wonder at your motives.  Here is what we know about you:  You are technically proficient enough to have made an ID with which to post a comment, you can type in English with good grammar and spelling, but you’re also too lazy (?) to read like everyone else, while asking for personal identification from other participants to this blog, well, at least from those who “support Dr. Hovind” and/or creation teaching.  …why?

    I like the touches about “I am on your side, …your courage … I don’t believe in evolution either … but only just now learned about Dr. Hovind”, et cetera.  Hmmm, perhaps I am too cynical.  But it does not seem to all add up.  The end result is one where you collect data on some of those troublesome creationists, no?  Is your time so important and ours not, so that our personal attention to you on the most basic of creation teaching is sufficiently warranted? ….

    Do you work for the ACLU or the “National Center for (against) Science Education” or for someone else?  Your message does not add up.  You don’t seem to care about the time and efforts of others, expecting others to spoon feed you.  Hmmm….  (Perhaps you are just young, and you have never learned the basics of how to study and learn, e.g. a product of the modern public schools.)

    Believers, Jesus clearly taught us to NOT be “good, nice people with big smiles.”  Matthew 23.  We are not to be primarily trusting and innocent.  That is off balance!  Dare I state that to be unchristian, when one is instead in balance with Scriptural teachings.  No, wisdom is first!  Getting wisdom is (should be) a primary goal of believers.

    Proverbs 4:7  “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.”  And how do you get wisdom?  Not from “loving” God.  From the fear of the Lord.  Psalm 111:10a  “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom…”  Also see:  Job 28:28, Proverbs 1:7, 9:10, 15:33, Matthew 10:28, Revelation 1:17, and Ecclesiastes 12:13-14  “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”

    Jesus said:  Matthew 10:16  “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore WISE as serpents, and harmless as doves.”  Note my emphasis on becoming wise first.  Harmless or innocent-appearing is nice and all, but it should not be primary.

    Am I off balance, or is modern Christendom off balance?  Use the Scriptures, not church traditions, in order to form your understanding of this.  Wolves will come to us in sheep’s clothing.  They want.  Takers look for givers.  If nightfall is coming and we are in the midst of wolves, which is more important in order to help us sheep survive till morning – being wise or being harmless?  (Primarily harmless with a big smile – you are soon dead.)  If I am off-balance in wanting wisdom first, at least I have a better chance of surviving till the light returns, so that I can ask God for forgiveness later for not being “harmless” enough.

    Desirée, or whomever you are – please READ, and then you are most welcome to contribute to this blog – ANYTIME!  P.A.  ]

  19. baliset July 22, 2007 2:39 am Reply

    Kent: Should we take “Quit the Zealots. Submit to the Romans” to be code for “I have reconsidered why I am in prison and I believe I was wrong for withholding tax”? Kent, if you’ve reached some kind of change of heart here, then you need to let us know with a clear and unambiguous confession. There are still plenty here who are carrying the torch of “Kent did no wrong. Kent should not have paid his taxes.” Your statement carries the clear implication that you have changed your mind. Since this blog advertises itself as the official channel for communication from you and regarding your imprisonment, stop speaking in riddles or parables and tell us clearly what’s on your mind. Either you’ve changed your mind about whether what you did was wrong, or, at the very least, you can tell us if you think the price you and your wife are now paying is worth the principle you think you were upholding.

    I would suggest that commentaters who frequent this site should withhold on this particular post until Kent clears up what he really, really means.

    http://baliset.blogspot.com

  20. fmargulis July 22, 2007 7:24 am Reply

    A message born through refinement. We pray for Kent and his family regularly. We also have been through this particular refining fire (federal prison). God is sovereign and good … always, in all circumstances. I am encouraged for Kent because he seems to realize this. His messages will become more powerful. God be praised!

  21. praybird July 22, 2007 8:45 am Reply

    As I mentioned earlier, our family has been through much adversity. My testimony 24 years ago put 2 men in prison for attacking my son, I walked in the actual attack when it was happening. These guys went to my church. One guy got 14 years in prison, he had a prior record in the state of Florida for molesting his nephew.
    I know in my heart had I called the Pastor that day instead of the Police, the pastor would have told me not to call the police. They felt they had all the answers. “The world didn’t” They were isolated bunch of people who felt they had the “truth” and no one else did. I am speaking of the United Pentecostal Church. These are symptoms of a cult. In fact, what persuaded me of this was when the Pastor violated a direct order from the Judge and allowed one of the men on the church property, when the Judge said that he couldn’t be anywhere near children, including schools and churches. I learned then that Church was not a safe place to be. That the Leadership violated my trust.
    Trust doesn’t come easy for me. I always try when ever possible to get to the truth of the matter, because simply God is truth, and he wants us to live in truth.
    I also learned that God looks at the motive of why a person does what they do.
    Although we appreciate so very much this ministry, it has blessed us alot, I am struggling with the fact that Mrs. Hovind has been put into a very vulnerable position, and unless legal intervention happens she stands to be in prison for many months, up to a year. This bothers me alot. We do pray for restoration for the Hovind family. This has been devestating for them. But there are ways of fighting institutions without putting your family and yourself in jeopardy. Jay Sekelow is an awesome Lawyer that has been fighting for Biblical truth for a long time.
    Even though the IRS has violated peoples freedom, I do question the decisions made in this matter. Perhaps it would have been better to fight in a different way. I don’t think Mrs. Hovind should have been put in this situation to begin with. It not a sin to be an American Citizen with a social security number. I really think this Glen Stoll has made an impact this situation how much I don’t know.
    But I want to be honest in this blog, and say that this really bothers me about Mrs. Hovind. A women needs to know she is going to be protected by her husband. There should have been more of a balance in the traveling as to not leave her alone so much either.
    Personally I would appreciate Dr. Hovind speaking directly instead of dialogs like this. This causes me to question his motive.
    He has asked everyone to wait untill he can explain himself, this still hasn’t happened. Like I said before we all have sinned, made bad choices, screwed up, and a Christian family is forgiving. Dr. Hovind I pray will feel the freedom to explain himself, take responsibility for the part that is his, and then let the rebuilding, and healing begin. ((((((((((((( I understand the reasoning behind these choices, but I question putting a persons family in jeopardy because of these choices, this is what I am having a problem with. )))))))))))))))))))))))
    What is also a great concern is that there is no unity in the body of Christ. There are a gazillion ministries out there, but everyone seems to be an island to themselves, no one trusts anyone else. What does it say about how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity??? I have to find that scripture.
    Truth and Integrity means a great deal to me, coupled with kindness and Love creates a great stability.
    I would rather Dr. Hovind admit some bad choices and take responsibility, I would respect him more over this. Also I don’t like the way he has been condemned on this blog. I just want him to feel the freedom to know he can deal with the whole truth of the matter. ((((((( Because I can’t see any justification in putting your family in harms way.)))))))) I think the only time that would be different is if you were in a communist country and they would threated you to deny Christ. Then you would have to stand for the Lord no matter what.
    Again I want to say that a Woman needs to feel safe from her husband. She needs to know she can trust him no matter what. I pray that restoration happens with the Hovinds, I pray they will be set free from Prison, and that their relationship will be restored, but this time, Dr. Hovind please put your family in balance with your ministry. Better to spend more time at home and a balance traveling for the ministry. And there are legal ways to fight the IRS and the current laws.
    I appreciate the freedom to be able to be speak from my heart about this. Thank you from Brenda and Don

  22. Three Crosses July 22, 2007 11:12 am Reply

    First to Dr. Hovind’s words thanks for taking the time to share you thoughts. May God bless you and keep you safe.
    /////////////////////////////////////////////
    Second to baliset: I have some questions about your website.

    Are you lying on purpose, or just ignorant of facts? I cannot say I agree with “I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it.”(Edith Sitwell). But your website does seem to fit this. Do you feel that your accomplishments are so trivial that you have to tell anyone, who is mislead to your website how great you are? You also don’t know much about roman catholics do you? You take one of your allies and tell everyone they are your enemy. It is interesting how you accuse Christians of turning people away from Jesus while you run around screaming the Bible isn’t true. You don’t think lying to everyone who will listen and saying the Bible isn’t true will turn them from Jesus? I like how you say only intelligent people believe your religion of evolution. I will not judge you sir. You speak a lot about those that “tarnish Christianity”. Maybe you need to submit an apology? Kent and his wife will be sent to prison for separate offenses, why did you lie about that? I really don’t understand how you can claim what you do is helping anyone.

    “That The United States Government does not exist.” You don’t live in America or know anything about our current political status. Why do you proclaim yourself wise in this field?

    ” The IRS is an illegal entity and no one has to pay tax! Yay!” I like how you change people’s words and statements to fit your delusions. Please tell us, oh self proclaimed wise one, who the IRS is? What government entity they are part of? Which U.S. President said to the nation, that they had been abusing their power and were to be disbanded and when? Please tell us what their law enforcement duties are and where these are outlined in our constitution? While you’re at it why don’t you tell everyone what your dealings with them are? Would you also explain how many other taxes, not to the IRS we have to pay on a daily basis (since you are such an expert)

    ” 3. The U.S Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as part of a sinister plot to create a despotic state, just like Pearl Harbour (which was, of course, also a conspiracy).” You sir seem to not be as intelligent/wise as you have led your readers to believe. The OFFICIAL STORY of 9/11 is that Osama Conspired with 19 Saudis and Egyptian nationals from Afghanistan to fly passenger planes into the world trade center. Surprise! surprise! a conspiracy. You sure know a lot about 9/11.

    “4. The U.S Government are involved in a conspiracy to keep Hovind in jail, or worse, simply because he is a Christian. His theft of $600,000 in taxes had nothing to do with his conviction.” That was quite a lie! If Dr. Hovind had stolen $600,000 dollars he would be in state prison. God’s ministry used money, donated to God’s ministry to spread the Gospel.

    I’ll skip on down your page which goes on and on, to ask a very simple question. Are you saying that you are right about things you’ve shown yourself to know very little, or maybe nothing about because you use a “spell checker”?

    Who are you working for? I know your site says you debate for money.

    In closing I’ve gotten very used to evolutionists, scoffers, and self proclaimed wise men who rush in to kick people when they are down and then declare themselves the victor. (look at me!, Look at me!)
    /////////////////////////////////////////////

    To Ekkman, End times, Ibelieve2, and others:
    I thought I would try a little debate on this site and then move on to some secular evolutionist’s sites. I made a big mistake while debating samphire I used the words “radio activity” instead of “radiation”. So after a few people told me that if I debated experts (in the religion of evolution) on some secular sites I would be put in my place. Well I went on and debated on the evolutionist’s website. It was soooooo much easier than here! The only pseudo scientific response I received was “we are 60% banana” the rest was being cussed, people crying about their religion being exposed, and finally let know that they only want evolutionists on their sites. The only claim to “evolution” being a theory is the definition “widely held by scientists” under that same definition “creation” and “intelligent design” are both theories. If you aren’t debating on secular sites because you think it will be harder than here, it’s not. If you are not debating on secular sites because of blasphemy and being cussed I understand it seems to be the only “defense” they have for their religion.
    With love three crosses

  23. Enzyme July 22, 2007 11:51 am Reply

    Sorry to interrupt but I thought you might be interested to know that Jupiter thought of as the the (King Planet) on September 14, 3 B.C., stood in close conjunction with Regulus the (Royal star) at the time when the Magi went looking for the King. and it is thought that the conjunction of those planets might have been the star of Bethlehem at the time of the birth of Christ our great Savior

    May I quote excerpts from http://www.creationevidence.org/research_papers/star_beth/starbeth1.html

    “Scripture condemns the principles of astrology and Matthew was not endorsing such practices. While the Magi were astrologers (with its inherent potential for misinterpretation), they were astronomers (with world-leading scientific observation of the heavens) who had been influenced by Daniel and other Old Testament prophets”.

    God made the stars…for signs and times and seasons. (Genesis 1:14-16). There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel. (Numbers 24:17) He telleth the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names. (Psalm 147:4)

    Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him…and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. (Matthew 2:1,2,9)

    “Scripture condemns the principles of astrology and Matthew was not endorsing such practices. While the Magi were astrologers (with its inherent potential for misinterpretation), they were astronomers (with word-leading scientific observation of the heavens) who had been influenced by Daniel and other Old Testament prophets”.

    might I refer you also to:

    http://www.clarkfoundation.org/astro-utah/vondel/ChristmasStar.html

    I hope I have given proper credit to those people I sourced from

    My Prayers go out to you Dr Kent Hovind and your Wife Jo, I have benefitted greatly from your ministry.

  24. joshrjb July 22, 2007 3:29 pm Reply

    Harriet:

    Thank you for the link to conservapedia. I heard about their website on K-love a few months ago but never checked it out until today. I agree with you that the Hovind entry definitely needs to be edited. The writing is not very strong. The author also notes that “many young earth creationists have distanced themselves from Hovind.” This is true, but the author could have included additional positive information, including Hovind’s love for the Lord Jesus Christ and desire to see others saved.

    I believe Hovind was misinformed concerning his knowledge of tax laws and needs to realize it, but I still stand by him as a Christian and young-earth creationist. I don’t really consider 6,000 years “young,” though. “Experts” today debate the credibility of facts from just 100-200 years ago, ranging from whether President Washington was a Christian to whether Abraham Lincoln was gay. Taking this into consideration, I must say that scientists who declare the earth to be millions of years old — then later say it is not millions, but rather billions — are flawed in their observations and should not be taken very seriously. We have God’s Word and it has proven to be trustworthy through proof of prophecy, science and archeology.

  25. Rock Prevaricator July 22, 2007 4:54 pm Reply

    So, you sit there in your smug lofty position. Ever ready to suggest to Kent what he should do. You think he should confess to something YOU think he should? Get over it pal. Are you not satisfied that he has a 10 year sentence? Remember it is the government that has placed him there. The very government decision I suspect you support. You have what you want. Kent is in prison. Oh? You want more? Simply having his body in prison for 10 years isn’t enough for you? Would 15 years make it better? 20 years? How about a life term? Would that satisfy you? I suspect not. I am willing to claim that you are upset that even though his body is locked up, you can’t imprison his spirit. You sniveling little snot. You want his very soul. Well buddy, you’re not going to get it. You’re upset that Kent is just a free now as before he was incarcerated. That must annoy you to no end. We laugh at your plight.

    Below is an excerpt from a book from Henry David Thoreau recanting his time in jail for not paying “his” tax.

    Enjoy. I sure did.

    ——————————————-

    …. I have paid no poll-tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night; and, as I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet thick, the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh and blood and bones, to be locked up. I wondered that it should have concluded at length that this was the best use it could put me to, and had never thought to avail itself of my services in some way. I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through, before they could get to be as free as I was. I did not for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax. They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance, and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog. I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.

    Thus the State never intentionally confronts a man’s sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to have this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, “Your money or your life,” why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man.

    …..When I came out of prison — for some one interfered, and paid that tax — I did not perceive that great changes had taken place on the common, such as he observed who went in a youth and emerged a tottering and gray-headed man; and yet a change had to my eyes come over the scene — the town, and State, and country — greater than any that mere time could effect. I saw yet more distinctly the State in which I lived.

    (excerpts from “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau
    ————————————–

    Your money or your life. How much is enough? What is the limit on what they want? Do they have a limit? Are they entitled to it all? Are we here as an automaton of society, just to support the government of the government, by the government, for the government? These are all ancillary issues anyway.

    The USA was simply a tool for God to bring man to the point where he needed to be. I believe that God has a time table for man. Just like the Jewish age has 483 years plus another 7, I “personally” believe this current Church age has a time limit. I feel that man was behind schedule and God had the USA to be birthed so man could advance technologically and militarily to fulfill end time prophecies. I believe we are near the end. God doesn’t really need the USA anymore, and the USA is coasting. Downhill. Down, down, down. That doesn’t mean the church has to follow suit. We still have to live here.
    The remnant of the church is all but gone. We are, as one blogger posted earlier, islands, all unto ourselves. Hardly united. Easily broken. No more Church, but plenty of little churches. One mind and one accord only happened at the beginning of the Church. Is it really too late for us? Please forgive me if you are new to the faith. These comments are for the long established.

    Grace and peace to all,
    Rock

  26. Nehemiah Jeon July 22, 2007 5:21 pm Reply

    Dr Hovind, I am praying for you every night for your release.

    I do not understand at the moment what God’s plan for you, but it is certain that we all will relize and understand the Lord’s tremendous plan for you.

    You know what, brother Hovind? I am a little jealous (positive way) because I am SURE you are going to be crowned and rewarded in heaven when we all get there.

    I’m always grateful because of you, my role model, Dr. Dino.

    Cheers!
    Nehemiah

  27. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 22, 2007 8:24 pm Reply

    duress makes null and void every contract
    confessions made under torture and duress are null and void
    only a communist, fascist or natural born idiot would give any credibility to a statement made from a man in an iron maiden

    To: ‘darling’ and Samphire, I have not forgotten your questions and am working on that which is “appropriate” and “proper” – where the root meaning is things said that are truly “owned”.

    what is spectacular in the Gospels is Jesus silence on occasion; and what he did Speak from a cruel and bloody death made by professionals miss applying their legislation.

    all glory to Jesus

  28. carmen74 July 22, 2007 9:57 pm Reply

    RE: Baliset

    Until you have earned the right to cast the first stone I suggest you keep your comments and judgements to yourself. You cannot know entirely what life is like right now for Mr. Hovind or what it was in the past, only God knows. If you are a Christian,as you say,then please pray for Mr. Hovind and stop casting darkness over him and his family.
    To Mr. Hovind, my family and I pray for you. God loves you and is with you. Be faithful and do what is right. God will receive the glory in the end.

  29. Jason July 22, 2007 10:27 pm Reply

    Hi Kent,

    Wonderful to hear from you again, I find your message true but sad, a lament but yet I am glad to see that in all you have not lost your faith that God is completely in control.

    In particular I found poignant the reflective observation of Israel going through the cycle of, “prosperity to complacency to sin to judgement to repentance and back to prosperity” followed by what you have written as God’s call on His Prophets in America that they should, “stop trying to save their nation and just win souls before my judgement falls.”

    I’ve observed that many people cannot even see that there is a case to say that we are entering into a time of bondage, and they hardly seem to notice the creeping legislation that comes to take away their freedom.

    I wish they could see how truly threatened by Caesar they are, then they might humble themselves before God in repentance and put their hope in the one He sent to be their saviour.

    Thank you for the message, it is good that even through all your troubles in prison, you can still send out a message that speaks with relevance on the outside.

    Lots of Love

    Jason x

  30. WeinerTd July 23, 2007 7:01 am Reply

    I enjoyed Kent’s new blog.

    The previous blog seemed to be balanced. I think Ken’t should take responsibility for what happened. I just don’t understand, correct me if I am wrong, the Hovind’s contention that they don’t know what they were charged with? Was this a some sort of misguided legal ploy? Are we actually to believe that you don’t know that you were charged for not paying payroll taxes? The whole thing is cofusing? As I said months ago, even if you are right (as far as we are not obligated to pay taxes) you are wrong, because both Christians and non-Christians are offended by your not paying taxes stand–“lest they be offended” Jesus said” pay your “taxes” even though the disciples were exempt being “sons of the kingdom” This is just too clear to be argued. Even if you could prove you are exempt,which is arguable, you are still obligated to pay.

    My family has watched your videos a hundred times, and we still watch them, but now with much saddness. I now give seminars on Christian Proofs myself. So I say this in brotherly love, didn’t you bring this fight on yourselves? AFter all Kent in the videos actually preaches that you don’t have to pay taxes, have an SS number, or drivers liscense (though he personally has one). What wisdom could there have been in publickly provoking the government like this? I mean, I just don’t get it. We are sent to preach the good news, not tax protesting. Yet there has not been one word about making mistakes, only that you are being martyred unjustly and that you you have no idea of what you are being charged with and/or what you did wrong in their eyes. To me, the whole thing is a senseless tragedy. Of course good can come from our mistakes (I am still paying but learning from alot of mine)but only if we acknowledge them, can God give the grace and powere to overcome them.

    Sincerely,

    Todd

  31. baliset July 23, 2007 9:19 am Reply

    Three Crosses exhibits some confusion about what I and my previous writings say. The examples I quote of (loony) theories commonly spouted by Hovind supporters, (illegality of the IRS, 9/11 conspiracy, non-existence of the US Government etc) are quoted accurately from comments made by others to this very site. Three Crosses suggests perhaps these are my views, when the very purpose of my essay was to point out how deranged they are! There’s also a degree of gag-inducing hypocrisy in the notion I should keep my mouth shut because I am not a titled expert on U.S Political History or Tax Law. Excuse me? Can every single person on this site please shut down and go home now? I have never known such a dysfunctional array of tinfoil-hat wearing armchair experts as bloviate on this site. Three Crosses says my site claims I “debate for money”. Lord only knows where he picked that up. Can you point that out?

    I am a humble blogger with a passion for God and a passion for Science. This does not make me possessed. I argue, stridently when the need calls for it, that the Cause of Christ is frequently damaged when people push their faith by saying demonstrably untrue or outrageous things, which may range from “God is a Republican” to “Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden”

    Ask yourself who does more harm to the cause. Someone like me, or someone who steals tax money and puts himself and his wife in jail?

    [EDITOR’S NOTE:  I like the witty:  “…such a dysfunctional array of tinfoil-hat wearing armchair experts as bloviate on this site …” but if you could tone down your rightness against all others, it would be appreciated.  It is great that you, unlike all others, have it all figured out.  Err towards persuading us though, in lieu of harsh ever-insulting opinions, please.  Debate in a persuasive manner, allowing your (wrong) opponents a few points, instead of arguing and insulting all who dare oppose you.  I Cor. 13.  P.A.  ]

    http://baliset.blogspot.com

  32. jspatr2 July 23, 2007 9:33 am Reply

    Sweet. Hovind has learned not to revolt against what God has made. I love your work Kent! Maybe God will let you out now that you won’t lead his sheep down a bad path. We shouldn’t revolt, but submit.. just like the first generation of Christians. Its a radical thing.. Jesus saying do not resist an evil person. But we are to lay our lives down, even for those who hate us. awesomeness

    http://doctrineofjesus.com

  33. GaryMurray July 23, 2007 10:44 am Reply

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Most are in prayer and/or sad to see the developments. Some have distanced themselves. I have taken some criticism for still wanting to help this ministry. But I would say that sadness and concern is the general mood among other creationists.

    Everything this is worth something in glorifying God is criticised by someone, or some group. Criticism of God’s work is typically assurance that it IS God’s work.

    Christ was criticised before and while on the cross, he being both Lord and our Saviour, how much more shall we be criticised for believing in him? ;)

    Keep working towards the mark, boldly as Paul did in his calling.

    God Bless those in Christ,
    Gary

  34. Three Crosses July 23, 2007 11:00 am Reply

    To baliset:
    I don’t think I told you to keep your mouth shut in my post. I did however ask some simple questions to see or show that you really do or don’t know anything about what your spreading. I quoted your statements not the statements of other CSE bloggers.
    I notice you didn’t answer any of my questions. How odd?
    You did however try and change the subject over to your opinion again:
    “Ask yourself who does more harm to the cause. Someone like me, or someone who steals tax money and puts himself and his wife in jail?”
    Answer: This I would interpret as a confession of someone doing wrong and trying to justify it by putting attention off on someone who’s being persecuted for their beliefs.
    I picked up that you debated for money after your mortgage statement off the top of your page, I could have been wrong. Your ramblings are hard to interpret with all the (Look at me! look at me!).
    I saw no science for the religion of evolution on your page but I did see a lot of you bashing Christians in my opinion. I think you’re trying to do harm where as if Dr. and Mrs. Hovind did harm it was unintentional. As for shutting down and going home no. Even though one of the other bloggers here would answer your hateful remarks and address your insulting statements. I really don’t think anyone else should have to suffer through you website.
    A few more simple questions you can dodge. Do you know what humble means? Have you read the last chapter of Revelations (please refer to the bottom of your page)? Are you familiar with Luke 21:8 KJV?

    “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”Matthew 7:16 KJV
    With concern and love three crosses

    P.S. I used a spellchecker. Does that mean I’m right and you’re wrong?

  35. tobejustlikejesus July 23, 2007 2:37 pm Reply

    Dear Baliset,

    I do not think you undwerstand threecrosses arguement. I am a loving christian and do not intend to judge you as a person.

    First of all, There is NO evidence for evolution and i cannot prove that because you cannot prove the non-existence of anything. your job IS to provide the evidence for your theory, if you have none then please be quiet. that is religion. Like I have. I actually have evidence for my theory though. But it isn’t entirely naturalistic, so by definition it is only a thoery not part of science, which means you are right, right?

    Second, you judge others beliefs, but you do not judge your own. I have often wodered if I was wrong and saw couseling (that is not a professional counselor, but researched my own credibility and arguments, also the evidence) and allowed myself to look at other things and be open.

    third, You judge Kent based on your faulty assumptions that he “did not” pay taxes. You mis-understand. Her didn’t even put up a defense. that is why he was in prison. though he shouldn’t of if the judge would have known his law. We are not goign ot cover Jo in this topic though. There is just too much to talk about.

    Kent is someone who always tryed to do right and many wrongas were put against him. If he made a mistake, fine. But in my opinion and from the evidence, he didn’t. Let things roll adn find out what Kent’s own defence is, since he hasn’t really responded. Let the faxcts all play out and are open to the public, before discriminating. the evidence suggests that wrong doing was put out from the Judge. thank you

  36. tobejustlikejesus July 23, 2007 2:39 pm Reply

    also, sorry for the horrible spelling, I did forget to use spell checker.

  37. djhouk July 23, 2007 3:14 pm Reply

    Three Crosses
    Said this at 11:00am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    ….if Dr. and Mrs. Hovind did harm it was unintentional.

    Really?

    Not filing personal income taxes for over 30 years, not withholding payroll taxes, renouncing U.S. citizenship, filing a sham bankruptcy petition, lying to a federal judge; all of these were unintentional?

    I would argue that any reasonable person could forsee that doing those things were bound to harm the message that the Hovinds were trying to spread.

    The sad part of this story is that everything the Hovinds did related to [nonpayment of] taxes detracted from their ministry. It was all so unnecessary. They (and their ministry) are paying the price.

  38. tobejustlikejesus July 23, 2007 4:55 pm Reply

    It is funny though, you are so quick to judge and do not yet know the facts. there are a lot of “charges” that were filed on Kent, half of them do not even apply(in fact all of them). This was not about his “personal” money it was the ministry. Please, if you are going to judge, do it properly.

    though, I yet do not know all the facts regarding this case and will wait to see what brother kent has to say

    God bless Everyone

  39. tobejustlikejesus July 23, 2007 5:42 pm Reply

    In order to actually use this post the way it was meant to be used (not in arguement style) I wil reply to something on my mind, but i will also establish my relationship to Dr. Hovind (he has earned that title, and I have heard otherwise, but really….why argue?)

    It is kinda funny the controversy this one man has produced. All of you against Dr. Hovind I would like to ask you a question. If this one guy is so stupid and ignorant, why is so many people worried about him? Why are so many enamored by his teaching(though its the Biblical teaching as well). Let the tax thing alone, this guy has shown people what Evolution AND Creation really is.

    This one man has produced tons of fruit, yet he is sided against when the government goes after him and then call him a fraud. That is funny. Because throughout history that has been done. From the guy who scientifically found that the earth goes around the sun (geocentric theory I believe) to the guy who foudn that germs caused a lot of deaths in babies during pregnancy and later illnesses of all kinds (germ theory). A lot of Kent Hovinds information is well founded and is good for use in knowing things aobut our life here on earth.

    God has used him in so many ways.

    Ok, anyway before I was saved, I watched Dr. Hovind on the Prophecy club when he was much younger, (and alot of material from a while back). I, since then, became enamored by what he had shown me and wanted to learn more. Later on, I was saved and this being one of the direct results. Look, do not blame others for what they believe.

    By the way, if you think floride is good for you, then you keep using it. I do. but trust me, flouride is really bad for your body and is absorbed into your gums and poisons you. It can also hurt your teeth and has been an issue for some time.

    I will add more alter and I want you to know that I will defend Dr. Hovind, not because he is a Christian (Though I would stand by His Christianity), not for His status, and especially not his fame. I will defend him because he knows what he is talking about and has shown a stubborn mule that I am to be open to things that are different to what I grew up believing. I hope that you can at least see where he comes form nd check his research. I have seen all his debates and love the way he talks to the AUDIENCE and focuses on his message and never batters the opponents reputation, just the evolutionary part. Thank you.

  40. michaelmark123 July 23, 2007 6:06 pm Reply

    Very good to hear from you, Kent. You are an inspiration to all Christians. You are still being used out here, your videos and online debates are reaching many of the lost. I will continue praying for you and your family.

  41. djhouk July 23, 2007 6:32 pm Reply

    tobejustlikejesus
    Said this at 2:37pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    You judge Kent based on your faulty assumptions that he “did not” pay taxes. You mis-understand. Her didn’t even put up a defense. that is why he was in prison. though he shouldn’t of if the judge would have known his law.

    Actually, Kent DIDN’T pay taxes. Not only personally (he bragged that he hadn’t filed personal taxes in 30 years (and the IRS had seized his personal property in partial payment); but he also failed to withhold payroll taxes, and then tried to hide it by paying his employees in cash. The prosecution made a pretty convincing argument during the trial (it persuaded the jury to find both he and Jo guilty on all counts). One of the reasons that Kent elected not to provide a defense may be that he didn’t have one — the evidence was pretty clear in pointing to his guilt.

    As to the judge not knowing or following the law….you are not the first to raise that issue on this blog, but I must admit, I find it very puzzling. The case was really pretty straightforward; and the law is pretty clear. Can anyone elaborate on what law they believe the judge didn’t follow?

  42. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 23, 2007 7:21 pm Reply

    djhouk re: Jul 23 3.14

    thankyou for your post. RE: did harm …….. ?

    I know I am repeating myself but how many people stood up in the trial and testified that they suffered loss because of the life that either respondent lived?

    “crime” in english and french is exactly the same word – no variation in spelling at all.

    at common law the concept of crime originated with someone suffering loss – ie. being a “victim” of someone else’s actions.

    original debtor prisons were engineered for people to be held until a debt was repaid.

    since the dropping or the gold and silver standards and the complete floating of the dollar “lawful money” has ceased to exist – or noone is really talking anymore about what it is.

    debts cannot be paid off in a traditional sense; they can only be “discharged” with “legal tender” – a sort of promissory note that is void or should be considered void because it promises nothing. this time next week every dollar you own could be totally worthless – the possibility exists in reality.

    the real creditors in any sense are the “owners” of the federal reserve bank.

    if a government no longer coins money or exercises a sovereign right to control over its own fiscal policy then what is it? What is it?

    if a government answers to the “bank of international settlements” and is “subject” to it’s sovereignty in a legal sense in connection with its fiscal policy – what is government “of the people, for the people, by the people”?

    have you basically done your research?

    do you know the difference between “United States of America” and “the united States of America”; and do you really know what brother Kent “might” have renounced.

    you can only file a sham “anything” if the court is sitting in “competence” towards the application ie. if it has plenary jurisdiction over the matter.

    lying to a federal judge?

    this is an important accusation you are making?

    was this statement determined by the sitting of a jury or is it an allegation only and not the recorded finding of a court?

    since when is it the job of a judge to make allegations?

    since when does a judge initiate proceedings?

    if a judge was making the allegation then why wasn’t it pursued by a department of justice prosecutor in a different court?

    you have a blessing over your life because you are a p.k. – preacher’s kid. Was you father’s ministry “his” ministry or Jesus’ ministry – because what you are saying above is that cse is the property of the Hovinds and not Jesus Christ the Lord.
    Is that what you mean?

    this is my opinion; nothing I say necessarily represents the views of cse or any of it ministers or associates. I have never met Kent, I have never visited dinosaur adventure land, I have not spoken with Kent on a telephone. They have [all of them] the right to totally disavow any or every statement I have made on these blogs. I have not consulted with any of them on anything I have said here at all.

    I have watched cse 103 # 6 and 7 – or was it 7 and 8?

    I would recommend that you did the basic research on what may really have motivated a stand that Kent took?

    I will remind everyone that when John the Baptist was put in prison he seems to have had serious doubts about who Jesus is. He asked the question that expressed doubt. John the Baptist was a human and a minister of God.

    his human frailty is no reason to dismiss his calling

    God bless you.

    [ baliset – you will be pleased to know I have finally sat down and watched a serious documentary about the photos and film/ video evidence of the moon landings – and you can now put me down as one who believes there are questions to answer – many photos / video was filmed on earth [maybe all of it] – there is no doubt some filming was a mock up made on earth – the question is why? it is the same question dave von kleist asks about 911 and as much as you might hate to admit it people like me and dave just don’t know – what we do know is that official stories are seriously deficient – so who are the dogmatists? who are the narrow minded bigots? people asking lots of questions and continuing to ask them and call people give an account or people scoffing that questions and doubts should even exist?

    I admit to being slow, dull, and dumbed down by western institutions to which I have been exposed: but it only just really occurred to me that the reason a lot of people come here is because they have sold their very own moral souls to a beast of biblical proportions and they want submissive Y.E.C. to come to them cowering, begging to lick the blood from their very own Gestapo issue knee high black boots and swell their faltering confidence in their shameful decision to sell all that they have and ever will have to a foreign faceless and alien power. ]

  43. Rock Prevaricator July 23, 2007 9:05 pm Reply

    This is just shy of being hilarious.

    They have Stephen in their clutches, ready to stone him to death, and he WILL NOT SHUT UP! Just like their wicked fathers […EDITED…]

    They are immature little children throwing inward tantrums. […EDITED…]

    Truth and Divine justice has no place in this Mommy’s heart. The next fix […EDITED…]

    But remember, these little waifs […EDITED…]

    Grace and peace to the saints. Mercy to the rest.
    Rock

    [EDITOR’S NOTE:  Rock Prev., you are better than that.  I think you are capable of inspired POSITIVE writing.  I ask you to please reconsider; please rewrite your post in a way that builds others up.  In the way you wrote the post above (what was there) it maims.

    IGNORANT (def.) – the person does not know.  Perhaps he or she could be persuaded.

    STUPID (def.) – the person cannot know.  She or he is incapable of understanding.

    To my limited mind, these two are very different.  When one is ignorant (of engine repair, sewing, cooking, or creation theory, etc.) perhaps the person could be taught or positively informed in a way that empowers him or her for the future with quality information and reasoning.  Several times in the Gospels we are told (informed) that Jesus “knew their thoughts.”  He could then act on this accordingly.  The others present were not necessarily stupid.  Perhaps they were just ignorant.  Does a series of clever insults help them?  Those persons with additional knowledge thus have a greater responsibility.  (To whom much is given, much will be required.  Luke 12:48)

    WILLINGLY IGNORANT (def.) – the scoffer does NOT WANT to know, no matter what.  In Stephen’s case, they covered their ears (Acts 7:57) and yelled loudly, and quickly killed him.  I have seen a few evolutionary professors come unglued during debates.  They cannot allow their mental construct (that God can be ignored or theorized around) to be touched.  Evolution, for them, is absolutely necessary in order for them to keep mentally hiding from God.

    To my limited understanding, there are two kinds of evolutionists:  Persons who have not learned creation science yet, and those who are mentally hiding from God, no matter what.  Evolution provides a great mental hiding place.  Last year we had a raging creation-evolution debate on this blog.  As moderator I watched (mostly) from the side, but … it appeared to me that the evolutionists kept jumping from one thing, to the next, to the next.  Charge after charge, often mingled with strong insults that it must be creationists who are ignorant of “science”.

    For those who are ignorant (and not willingly so) I believe that we need to be teachers.  One should, I would contend, back up and figure out why the person is saying (e.g.) “Well, the scientists all agree that the Earth is millions of years old, of course.” or “You’ve got to admit that evolution is true, right?”

    Well, if you want to post what you wrote, send the exact same text through again.  But I request that you consider the effect:  is it persuasive or insulting and alienating to the ignorant?  Is it in love?  I Corinthians 13.  P.A.  ]

  44. praybird July 24, 2007 6:38 am Reply

    This statement was made: (((((( ” 3. The U.S Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as part of a sinister plot to create a despotic state, just like Pearl Harbour (which was, of course, also a conspiracy).” You sir seem to not be as intelligent/wise as you have led your readers to believe. The OFFICIAL STORY of 9/11 is that Osama Conspired with 19 Saudis and Egyptian nationals from Afghanistan to fly passenger planes into the world trade center. Surprise! surprise! a conspiracy. You sure know a lot about 9/11.)))))))))))))))

    MY COMMENT ON THIS, Who is wanting to be dictator, ruler, or tyrant in the USA??? What concerns me is that attitude towards President Bush since 9-11?
    I remember when Clinton was president, I didn’t vote for him either time. His leadership sowed seeds of rebellion that we are still reaping on. I don’t know if you remember all the oppression, but I felt it big time. Don’t ever forget just how destructive Adultry really is. And he did it not just on one occasion, but from all the evidence that came out; there were numerous women, close to 10 or more. There were also some very serious allegations concerning mysterious deaths associated with his leadership. I remember when President Bush took the oath of office. I remember the relief I felt. I can’t tell you just how much destruction that the Clintons had sowed in the white house.

    For 2 years before 9-11, not only was in prayer over my family, but I was in great burden over our country. Rightiousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people, this is in proverbs. 2 days before 9-11 I was praying in my bedroom, I didn’t know what was going to happen, but my spirit picked up that something terrible was about to happen. I was interceding, asking God to stay his hand. They said had the attack happened anytime later thousands of more people would have died. Do you not see all the good that President Bush has done? His stand for Biblical marriage? His stand against stem cell research? His faithfulness to his wife? He is hated by the likes of Rosie Odonnel and many others like her. And the filth, and horrible things she said about President Bush to me was treason. Their debaucherous and filthy lifestyle speaks big volumnes to me when they denounce a President who is trying to lead this country. They sure didn’t say these things about Clinton.
    Again, Rightiousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil. The enemy wants to blur what is right and what is evil, so that people don’t know which is which.
    The bible instructs us to think on things that are good, and pure and of a good report. Sometimes it is hard to to that. David said I would have fainted lest I see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.
    We continue to pray for our nation, our President, this situation in Iraq, the IRS situation, the corrupt practices in all our leaderships, we pray for there to come clear distinction between the rightious and the wicked. We pray that the hearts of the Fathers be turned back to the children. There are 65 thousand grandparents in the state of Missouri raising their grandkids, and 45 thousand in the state of Arkansas, We pray for revival to happen, God loves people he is no respect of persons. We pray for truth to prevail, unity to come to the body of Christ so that the world will know that Christianity is real. Jesus said you would know them if they were his disciples if they have Love one to another. Create in me a clean heart Oh God and renew a right spirit in me, this is my prayer.
    I pray with all my heart that the Hovinds will be delivered from this, and Mr. And Mrs. Hovind be restored in their marriage relationship. I pray for Gods truth to be revealed to all of us and for the grace of God to stand in these perilous times. The Lord is my Shield, my Truth, my Buckler, my Strong Tower, the Rightiousness run into it and find Strength, Shelter, and Safety. IN Jesus Christ name, amen.
    From Brenda and Don

  45. Millerfamily6 July 24, 2007 9:09 am Reply

    Praybird said:

    Do you not see all the good that President Bush has done? His stand for Biblical marriage? His stand against stem cell research? His faithfulness to his wife?

    Dear Praybird (Brenda and Don),

    Please be not deceived by President Bush and all the good he has done (I question this statement). I really don’t think we can know that he is faithful to his wife. The man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. You can know them by their fruits; he is not a born-again believer and he is leading this nation astray. He continually calls the Christian’s God and Allah as being one and the same (this is blasphemy). He has bowed down to false gods in Asian temples! He doesn’t uphold marriage relationships between man and woman (just on the surface). Look at all the homosexuals that he has appointed to his cabinet and how he supports the Gay and Lesbian agenda. He is a lifelong member of the secret society of Skull and Bones, of which he has had public opportunity to renounce his standing with this organization but failed to do so. He just said that it (Skull and Bones) is so secret that he can’t discuss it (this is not our Lord Jesus’ way). Skull and Bones is occultic to the core!

    Please see:
    http://www.bushrevealed.com/
    http://www.thebereanchronicles.com/pages_for_index_main/Bushwacked.html

    I pray that you can see the truth about this man, and that you not put your confidence in him. He is a wolf and a deceiver.

    Grace and peace in the name of our Lord and Saviour,

    Millerfamily6

  46. djhouk July 24, 2007 9:25 am Reply

    tobejustlikejesus
    Said this at 4:55pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    It is funny though, you are so quick to judge and do not yet know the facts. there are a lot of “charges” that were filed on Kent, half of them do not even apply(in fact all of them). This was not about his “personal” money it was the ministry.

    Actually, I have followed the case closely (as others on this blog can attest) and DO know the facts. Kent was charged with 58 counts for three underlying offenses; Jo, 44 counts for structuring. And Kent and Jo were convicted of all of them. I might suggest that you do not know the facts. You are, however, correct that none of the charges involved his personal money. Kent does, however, have a long legal history (separate from the current case) involving his failure to file personal taxes.

  47. djhouk July 24, 2007 9:45 am Reply

    Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974
    Said this at 7:21pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    lying to a federal judge?

    this is an important accusation you are making?

    was this statement determined by the sitting of a jury or is it an allegation only and not the recorded finding of a court?

    since when is it the job of a judge to make allegations?

    since when does a judge initiate proceedings?

    if a judge was making the allegation then why wasn’t it pursued by a department of justice prosecutor in a different court?

    Yes, lying to a federal judge IS a serious allegation. But I’m not accusing Kent of lying — the judge did. He ruled that Kent “provided false information in his schedules and statement of affairs” under penalty of perjury.

    You can read the entire ruling here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Hovind_Bankruptcy_Decision

  48. Jersey Girl July 24, 2007 11:03 am Reply

    Dear praybird,

    Clinton was a worse president than Bush? How many people did old unfaithful Bill send to his death? Over 3,000 men and women have been killed because of Bush’s stupid war. It could have just as easily happened to me and my husband. I don’t mind dying to protect my country, but I sure don’t want to die protecting oil interests. Probably close to a million Iraqis have died. What good does it do to have a president who is faithful to his wife but has the blood of almost a million people on his hands? I’m not justifying President Clinton’s behavior, but Bush is much much worse. He is one of the wolves in sheeps clothing that Brother Abramson talked about. Watch out for that one. He is a very dangerous man, who smiles for the public and pretends to be a Christian. I guarantee you won’t see him in heaven.

    Rebecca

  49. mianic July 24, 2007 11:37 am Reply

    Jul
    23djhouk
    Said this at 6:32pm:

    “….As to the judge not knowing or following the law….you are not the first to raise that issue on this blog, but I must admit, I find it very puzzling. The case was really pretty straightforward; and the law is pretty clear. Can anyone elaborate on what law they believe the judge didn’t follow?”

    Go to: http://www.penaltyprotestor.org and read “A Partial Update About Dr. Hovind’s Case” December 19, 2006 by a witness to the trial proceedings. Seems to me the judge’s charge to the jury may be one such place to start looking?

    There may well be other areas I don’t know, but it appears the judge was well aware that a mistrial may result by her somewhat questionable actions? Not being the expert but it also seems that nothing substantive can result until the transcript of the trial is completed. With still another request for its extension of time the continued delay (? now into its eighth month) might extend until after Jo Hovind is imprisoned? There again, if the transcript is issued before that, then Mrs. Hovind might be spared incarceration pending an appeal? The lawyers will know.

    Michael.

  50. joshtriangle July 24, 2007 12:31 pm Reply

    Thank you for writing Kent. Keep trusting the Lord and trembling at His word!!!

    The country may be bulging with the unsaved, but without them there is no harvest… let’s keep harvesting for God’s glory, until that Day. In the meantime, those blessed with the Holy Spirit’s richness, what are you doing…? There is SO MUCH NEED OUT THERE! Spread the word as Kent has allowed God to do through him. Let Him use you, and bless you.

    Peace.

    J

    ===

    Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
    or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

    For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.

    Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.

    Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

    Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.

    For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.

    For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.

    (1 Peter 2:13-20)

  51. cbgiles July 24, 2007 12:45 pm Reply

    praybird
    Said this at 6:38am:
    “This statement was made: (((((( ” 3. The U.S Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as part of a sinister plot to create a despotic state, just like Pearl Harbour (which was, of course, also a conspiracy).” You sir seem to not be as intelligent/wise as you have led your readers to believe. The OFFICIAL STORY of 9/11 is that Osama Conspired with 19 Saudis and Egyptian nationals from Afghanistan to fly passenger planes into the world trade center. Surprise! surprise! a conspiracy. You sure know a lot about 9/11.)))))))))))))))”

    Not to be anti-American sounding or play devil’s advocate, but what is the OFFICIAL story to why we went into Iraq? You stated “Afghanistan” not Iraq did the attacks and they are 1000+ miles apart. Was the war started because of Afghanistan or Iraq? I’ve always been a supporter of Bush in most all he stands for, even voted twice, except I don’t understand the explanation that it was WMD’s we were after and that had nothing to do with the 9/11. Each fanatical soldier IS a WMD and they were from Afghanistan. Just wondering, because out of all I understand, I just don’t understand this.

    http://www.herospy.com/?p=988#more-988

  52. djhouk July 24, 2007 4:06 pm Reply

    mianic,

    I’ve read Lindsey Springer’s report on the trial and believe he (she?) is at best, confused, about the law and legal system. He spends a fair amount of time complaining that the Hovinds were unaware of the law requiring them to withhold payroll taxes. Aside from the fact that ignorance of the law is no excuse, are we to believe that Kent, who claims a PhD, with a 30 year adverse legal relationship with the IRS, didn’t know there was a law requiring withholding of payroll taxes? Something every employer in the country has to do? If he genuinely didn’t know, why did he try to hide that fact by paying his employees in cash?

    The second item Lindsey spends a lot of time on is the structuring charges against Kent and Jo. He doesn’t seem to understand that withdrawing less than $10,000 in cash, if done specifically to prevent the bank from generating a CTR, is a crime. He goes on to complain that “structuring” is a law used against drug dealers. True. But, it’s primarily designed to detect money laundering, which is exactly what the Hovinds were doing. They were withdrawing large amounts of cash to meet payroll, hoping to prevent IRS scrutiny of their payroll tax violations; using cash to cover up another crime.

    As to the judge changing the jury instructions, I can’t really comment as I wasn’t at the trial. But Lindsey is incorrect in stating that it somehow changed the indictment. If you read the actual indictment (something few of the folks on this blog seem to have actually done), it clearly references the law against structuring – which is ONLY applicable for amounts less than $10,000. It sounds like the jury instructions were simply corrected to match the indictment.

  53. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 24, 2007 5:44 pm Reply

    to djhouk jul 24 9.45 am

    quote: “….provided false information…..”

    if this is the standard there wouldn’t be one congressman or senator in federal government nor one poster on this blog?

    1. making a reporting “mistake” and lying are demonstrably different concepts – see “mens rea” yet again.

    2. according to lord sir edward coke and a variety of early settlers to America it is the job of a jury to determine facts.

    3. victimless crime has never ceased being “controversial”

    4. do you consider the Amish notorious tax protesters?

    5. judges do not initiate court actions – if he or she considered that there was a case for perjury it should have been handed on to a prosecutor and decided by a jury. otherwise you should not say that a perjury took place; it is effectively a slander or liable unless you strictly and simply are quoting what a competent judge said – inwhich case it might be the cause for the “slandered” to bring an action against the person or persons saying same.

    6. I still find wikipedia a difficult source to accept for “official” debate – I don’t mind people citing it as a source and will cite it myself but for it to be the official source for allegations against a real man is problematic to say the least

    7. If there is a criminal breech of the constitution and no-one knows how to get the matter before a jury then who is ever going to “defend” the plain written meaning of the constitution?

    8. the prosecutor(s) were apparently happy to turn one case of structuring over 14 months [you say] into 30+ citations; they were not reluctant to lay spurious numbers of charges; I think the fact that they didn’t lay charges for a 30 years history of not filing 1040’s speaks of something else in their agenda – I would have thought. maybe this is all just another “test” case for them as well.

    9. fact: as a source for information neither you nor wiki have pointed out the criminality of an official record to a court case taking this long. the criminality of the prisoner movements. the reprehensible nature of a judge accusing a respondent of time wasting with their line of questioning – I think you said. like all pertinent “facts” this is a very serious question for the jury to decide rather than the men in black. and again, judges are not there to make accusations.

    10. do you believe in jury nullification and do you believe that it should be taught to every school age student in the united States of America?

    11. I only just glanced at one wiki entry, someone mentions that it was the judge who actually entered a plea – as you say you have followed this case closely – would you like to give your opinion as to whether or not this actually happened and why you don’t consider same to be a fundamental criminal act called perverting the course of justice.

    my thanks for your valued contribution to the discussion.

    without prejudice, all rights reserved
    Phillip-George (c) 1974 – 2007

  54. FuManchu July 24, 2007 6:16 pm Reply

    Politics again! Come on, people – Bush lies and Clinton did too. Just because you happen to prefer Bush’s lies doesn’t somehow make them true. Or, indeed, not sinful, if you believe in that kind of thing.

  55. tazblazer101 July 24, 2007 6:24 pm Reply

    Wow,

    July 14th/2007 I Downloaded many videos to show my children Who God is.

    In the many Videos was the 7 videos by Dr. Hovind.

    I played the first video on July 15th/2007 and was hooked all week..
    I finished the last video today July 24th/2007

    Thier was many times durring the videos that Dr. Hovind said there was bad websites about him all over the place. I decided to google his name after the 3rd video or so and found that thier was cell phone conversations from jail etc… I ignored this and said I should finish the video’s before I read anything else on the internet about Dr. Hovind.

    First off I enjoyed the video series as a greet learning tool and solid Foundation to build my Faith of God.

    The first part of the videos something troubled me. It was when Dr. Hovind said He never knew If God wanted him to do this but has for 15 years or something like that.. I will go over videos again too see what was exactly said.. But It was said something like well God as long as you provide for me then I will keep on doing this… This comment bothered me…
    This is the sole reason I would not look at what the website’s had to say until I was done the videos…

    Now I am done the videos.. Looked at all kinds of websites against Dr. Hovind and lissened to the cell phone calls from jail’s etc.. and read what people had too say about them.
    I also read the articial that Dr. Hovind wrote that I am responding too. and other peoples thoughts and editors notes.. All I can say is WOW what a experince the last 10days have been.

    I do not know all the facts as I never will..
    I know this is long but want to say a bit about me.

    I live on the East Coast, Canada
    Male 30years old married 11 years a boy and a Girl 6 and 4.
    I was a alter boy in the anglician Church most of my life…
    Baptised at Birth and durring confirmation questioned The church if all I had to do was just believe…

    I went To bible school been in and out of trouble all my life in and out of Church..
    June 24th/2007 I made a change in my Life and commitement for life to God. I got baptised in a Lake but way back as long as I can remember thier is a Bible passage that brought me to the lord and made me question everything until I understood what it ment..

    I want to share this passage with you.. As it is the one thing that bothered me in the videos I watched and the conversation on the cell phone when you where talking with your wife…

    Matthew:
    15Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

    16And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

    17Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

    18But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

    19Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

    20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

    21They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

    22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

    This bible passage brought me to the Lord and makes me question anything I read or hear..
    This bible passage after many years made me give up my beliefs I was brough up in and get Baptised as a Adult only a Month ago today.

    You said it many times in your videos Dr.. that God can do anything.. So what man creates $$$ give it to man you do not need it why fight for it.. The world GOD has for us has NO laws like that of this EARTH…. But If man wants from us Man things give them it all… As we have God and that is all we need.. I still have no clue how Jesus did with out in a desret 40days and 40nights and if God can provide and make Jesus survive then he will provide to us also…

    You are in my thoughts and Prayers Dr.. I pray your videos stay in circulation a long time.. I have no Clue the impact internet has on my own thoughts and others but you truly will make even better videos someday..

    I will look at this site again someday.. Maybe you will read this maybe you will not.. But..
    I will try and show people your videos piece at a time to people I know…

  56. John33 July 24, 2007 6:42 pm Reply

    There’s people out here that want to follow in the footsteps and evangelize in the same manner Kent Hovind did…

    The churches need to hear as much truth as they can take in this laodicean age.

    I DEFEND Kent Hovind – even if I don’t know the law – I know WHY he is in prison
    please see my website http://www.foxnewsantichrist.com

    God is sovereign – and God wants us to speak up about EVERYTHING

    The great falling away is upon us – who will be among ‘few that be saved’?

    Are we doing all we can to evangelize in THIS mission field called America?

    Are we taking a man/woman at their word that they are saved, and choosing NOT to probe into whether or not they KNOW scripture to back that claim up?

    So many professors of salvation – so few possessors of biblical salvation

    With Kent in mind, and his heart of compassion for the lost – LET’S GET BUSY and DO SOMETHING for the Lord!

    http://www.foxnewsantichrist.com

    and know also what it will cost you to give that BOLD witness – go to…

    http://www.eleniewski.blogspot.com

    John E. Eleniewski

    http://www.foxnewsantichrist.com

  57. Ignis July 24, 2007 8:10 pm Reply

    Sir,

    With as much respect as I can possibly muster… You are bat [EDITED] crazy. There is no small amount of irony in that we would view each other in much the same way, as ignorant small minded misguided fools. You are in jail because you broke the law and you are where you belong. Your message of ignorance and hatred is the devil’s work. You are so blinded and mistaken in your crusade that your piousness seems to have no bounds. It amazes me how similar the message is from both evangelical ‘young earth’ creationists and Wahhabism.

    Fanatics have no place in modern society. I encourage you upon your release from prison to buy a herd of sheep to shepherd on the edge of a desert somewhere in the southwest and go back to the bronze age from which your religion comes from.

    Wow. Just… Wow.

  58. Tanya July 24, 2007 8:27 pm Reply

    Jersey Girl
    Said this at 11:03am:

    “He is a very dangerous man, who smiles for the public and pretends to be a Christian. I guarantee you won’t see him in heaven.”

    Dear Rebecca,

    Watch out for your words. I don’t mean to be rude, but who are you to judge? Are you a God that you can decide so easily on who’s going to heaven and who’s going to hell? Are you so righteous above all of us, that only you’re going to heaven and everyone else will perish? Do you have no sin? Even if Bush did some things wrong, couldn’t he still repent? People have their chances until they die. The criminal, murderer that was next to Jesus on the cross was forgiven in the last moments of his life. How can you guarantee that a person like our president is absolutely going to hell? How can you guarantee that about anyone’s life, no matter what sins they did? If they are still alive, they have the opportunity to be forgiven and granted a life in heaven. Please, reconsider your thoughts. You can’t even guarantee anything about your own life, let alone anyone else’s. God bless you.

    Tanya

    http://hotmail.com

  59. joshtriangle July 24, 2007 9:32 pm Reply

    cbgiles said:
    but what is the OFFICIAL story to why we went into Iraq? You stated “Afghanistan” not Iraq did the attacks and they are 1000+ miles apart. Was the war started because of Afghanistan or Iraq? I’ve always been a supporter of Bush in most all he stands for, even voted twice, except I don’t understand the explanation that it was WMD’s we were after and that had nothing to do with the 9/11.

    The “official” story?

    Just be real and think about it.

    1. Global economy.

    2. Humanitarianism.

    3. Good versus evil.

    4. Free versus oppressed.

    5. Islam by definition requires all to be Islamic or die.

    6. Saddam Hussein supported al Qaeida, even if just as much as to attack America.

    7. Iraq was an aggressor.

    8. The DESIRE of Iraq to obtain WMD, at a minimum, was all that’s needed. Should one wait until they could really threaten other nations? The likes of Clinton’s in office, “living it up” and living and let live… i.e. let them build up – smile and prosper and let the future residents of the world deal with such serious matters?

    9. An actual attack on the USA… who to blame? A “few” bad eggs hiding in Afghanistan? Do we really think that’s the extent of the problem? Who ARE these people blowing themselves up? Did they just get on the bandwagon then?

    “They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God.

    “These things they will do because they have not known the Father or Me….”

    (John 16:2-3)

    I don’t portend that this is a prophecy of Islamists. But the plain truth of anyone who can kill Christians and believe that they are offering a service to God by doing so — could they know the Father or the Son? If not then are they deceived? Are they sons of destruction?

    10. Where do we draw the line about “allowing” oppression? Not in our “backyard”? Not in those countries we do business with? Not in those countries we have friendly relationships with? Think about this and think about the thought processes of a liberal/universalist/passive stance. I don’t claim they don’t have a purpose – a balance, and balance is righteous… but they hide behind the word “peace”, indeed they hide behind many “nice words”.

    11. Islam IS a WMD. Perhaps we should start counting, like the numbers we have for those murdered by Hitler’s agenda, communism, other false religions. And to try and do something about it, you’re going to hear from many who oppose war and killing – that’s a good thing; but when it’s all on the table, get behind what’s right and fight the real enemy. Keep seeking an opportunity to give them a drink, absolutely – to love them, yes – innocent like doves, but also be shrewd as serpents! Many in the free world are beginning to lose the education of that last trait coupled with innocence and tolerance.

    J

  60. Elethiomel July 25, 2007 4:30 am Reply

    campsuz:

    You’ve never heard anything but the Truth from hovind? Ok, I’ll ruin that for you:

    The speed of light emitted from the front of a car is not the speed of light plus the speed of the car. The speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their relative velocity (as in, regardless of how fast you’re going, you’ll always measure it to be 3×10^m/s)

    The Hyrax is not the same as Hyracotherium. this is a hyrax:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Ein_klippschliefer.jpg

    and this is a (drawing of, becauyse we only have skeletons) hyracotherium

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Eohippus.jpg

    They look and are totally different.

    I have lots more if you like :)

    [EDITOR’S NOTE:  Not here, please.  We are not doing a creation-evolution debate within this blog.  But the 2 images should help any aspiring snipe hunters out there!  P.A.  ]

  61. Rock Prevaricator July 25, 2007 5:29 am Reply

    Don’t let it be said the Editor only edits post from the evolutionist/scoffer. He spared them a stinging rebuke (though indirect) and perhaps a unique perspective on their underlying attitudes, motivation, goals…et cetera.

    I won’t ask Paul to post it in its entirety. However, if any in here ARE interested in seeing the post, then you will have to ask the Editor directly. The edited post makes very little sense. There is little I could remove and maintain the point of the post, even though it tests 1Cor13 a bit. Perhaps its a “hard saying”?

    Rock

  62. Matthew July 25, 2007 7:14 am Reply

    To Praybird and ThreeCrosses,

    Millerfamily6’s comments on President Bush shows just how some creationists really believe in conspiracy theories as explained by Baliset.

    Millerfamily6,

    If the god of Muslims and Christians are not the same, then neither is the Jewish god. I wonder how many people would consider it blasphemy for Kent Hovind to compare himself to the people in the Bible.
    Under the constitution, you have freedom of religion, so I am hoping you are not suggesting that Hinduism and Budhism should be banned because the president participated in their ceremony.

    It is interesting that people have said we should not judge Kent Hovind for his actions, but you are judging others who are “morally corrupt.”

    Bush is part of the Free Masons, along with his father as well as several others Presidents, however you do not understand what the movement is about.

    Finally, it is interesting, from Kent’s letter, that he makes no mention or concern to his wife.

  63. Verbal Da Mentor July 25, 2007 8:24 am Reply

    Perhaps the supporters of the income tax can show us the law which requires folks of uS citizenship to pay tax on their income. Surely then this matter would be cleared up once and for all????

  64. btodd July 25, 2007 8:50 am Reply

    Here’s an article on tax protestation, the author makes some of the same points I made here weeks ago.

    “Before you first sit down with a person who has been victimized by a con artist specializing in investment/tax shelter fraud, you need to understand that these people have spent/lost a fortune pursuing a nonexistent “Grail,” represented to hold the secrets of financial prosperity that everyone assures them exists. The people have been indoctrinated (usually at significant expense) to believe things that you are going to find hard believe.

    In dealing with your Client, bear in mind that tax protests are typically considered to be “patriotic.” It was, after all, a group tax protesters that staged the great “Tea Party” in Boston. In addition to the patriotic appeal, in many cases, these pitchmen capitalize upon religious convictions. In all cases, bear in mind that the wife may have been pushed to go along with things in spite of her intuitions.

    There is also a good bit of fear and paranoia involved in some of these cases. For example, I have had Clients who attended seminars where nabobs proclaimed that the New World Order established the Federal Reserve in 1910, during a secret meeting on Jekyll Island, attended by a cartel of international bankers, as a means of controlling governments and benefiting the wealthy at the common man’s expense.

    The whole story is laid out in, The Creature from Jekyll Island, a cult classic if ever there was one, promoted by those who market it as being second in significance only to the Bible. Written by G. Edward Griffin, a masterful proponent of conspiracy theory, this book promises to provide a “complete report on the secrets of the international monetary system” and encourages everyone to believe that, “You don’t have to be dumb to be a Christian or a good Catholic.” I trust that you share my profound sense of relief.

    By the time they come to you, Clients usually realize, and are prepared to believe, that they made some bad choices. They may accept that, but they usually haven’t lost faith in that elusive Grail. I have had Clients take money salvaged from one scam, and dump it into another one equally as ridiculous.

    Welcome to Brother Branscum’s Holy Rolling Salvation Show.”

    I made some of these very same sentiments weeks ago. Note how well this describes Kent and Jo’s situation.

    http://www.fraudsandscams.com/tax.htm

  65. Enzyme July 25, 2007 9:59 am Reply

    I just thought You might be interested in this snippet of information.

    I was reading Jeremiah 39.3 on E-Sword the free public domain bible http://www.e-sword.net
    and thought that I would like to know more about Nergalsharezer one of the princes mentioned in that chapter, wondering if there might be some indication of his excistence on record archeologically, so I looked his name up on the net.

    well blow me down! I did not see a reference about him, but one of the other princes, Nebo-Sarsekim who was with him on the same chapter.

    It seems that Archaeologists unearthed a clay cuneiform inscription in the ancient city of Sippar (about a mile from modern Baghdad) in the 1870s The British Museum acquired it in 1920, but it had remained in storage unpublished (meaning nobody had read the inscription
    until Michael Jursa (associate professor at the University of Vienna) made the discovery in 2007 (Meaning he was able to read it), and it mentioned this person by name.

    http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2007/07/book-of-jeremiah-and-new-archaeological.html
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056362.ece
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebo-Sarsekim_Tablet

    Just another piece added to the jigsaw puzzle, confirming the bible’s accuracy

    The tablet was part of an archive from a large sun-worship temple at Sippar.

  66. djhouk July 25, 2007 10:38 am Reply

    My dear PG:

    Just to answer some of your questions and provide a little more background: the Hovind bankruptcy case, while unrelated to the Hovinds’ current troubles, provides some insight into Kent’s character and his aversion to paying taxes. While I cited the WikiSource URL, the judge’s ruling can be found many other places on the web.

    PG, in the U.S., bankruptcy requests must be approved by a judge. The document I referenced was the judge’s ruling on Kent’s bankruptcy petition.

    Some background: Kent Hovind had not filed personal tax returns for the years 1989-1995. The IRS calculated the tax he owed and sent him a bill. He didn’t pay it. In turn, the IRS seized some of this personal property, including 3 automobiles, in partial payment of their lien.

    In an attempt to recover his property, he filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. The court rejected the petition as a “bad faith” filing. Why? Let me quote from the ruling:

    “Notwithstanding the debtor’s listing under penalty of perjury in his schedules and statement of affairs that he has no income, has no expenses, and owns no property, the evidence shows otherwise. Records from the State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (“DHSMV”) reflect three motor vehicles, a 1987 Mercury, 1989 GMC, and 1984 Honda titled in the debtor’s name. Real property records from Escambia County, Florida reflect that the debtor and his wife purchased a home on December 16, 1993 from Ernest and Voncile Hicks and gave the Hicks, a mortgage in the amount of $60,000 encumbering the home. The testimony of Mrs. Hicks together with a closing statement from the sale, reflects a purchase price of $90,000 for the house with the debtor paying $30,369.43 down. Mrs. Hicks’ testimony further established that the debtor makes regular payments on the mortgage and has in fact paid in advance on the mortgage. Typically, payments are made with third party checks made payable to the debtor and endorsed over to Mrs. Hicks. In February, 1995, the debtor paid $3,265.00 for the installation of central heating and air conditioning in the house. Additionally, the debtor has three children all of whom attend a private Christian school for which he and his wife pay approximately $4,800.00 per year in tuition and fees.”

    The judge wraps it up:

    “The debtor having failed to file his federal income tax returns for at least the years 1989 through 1995, having resisted collection efforts by the IRS, and having provided false information in his schedules and statement of affairs in connection with this case, I find that the debtor filed this petition in bad faith and as such the petition is subject to dismissal for cause under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. 1307(c).”

    Elsewhere in the ruling, the judge calls Kent a tax protester and quotes the IRS as saying they can find no record of Kent as ever having filed a personal tax return.

    Incidentally, after the filing was rejected, Kent paid the IRS $12,000 to get his vehicles back.

    What does this document tell us about Kent?

    – That he has a strong aversion to filing and paying income taxes. The judge noted, with some irony, that Kent “who has failed to acknowledge his obligations as a citizen and taxpayer of the United States, seeks to utilize this taxpayer supported court in order to thwart the lawful collection efforts of the Internal Revenue Service.” I suspect the ruling may have led to Kent later renouncing (again, under oath) his U.S. citizenship so that he could argue that he had no obligations as a citizen.

    – That he lied, under oath, to a federal court. Let’s be clear, this wasn’t a “mistake” or some technical violation. His claims of owning no property and having no income were the very basis of his bankruptcy filing.

    The bankruptcy ruling, recorded in 1996, foreshadowed much of the Hovinds’ current legal troubles. Kent still didn’t bother to file or pay his taxes, and he continued to lie, under oath, to the court during his trial (famously claiming he didn’t know what laws he violated when they were clearly spelled out in the indictment, not to mention that he told the judge he understood English “somewhat”).

    To me, the whole bankruptcy episode says something about Kent’s character. If he is willing to lie, under oath, to a Federal court, what does that say about his credibility when he’s not under penalty of perjury?

  67. Geno July 25, 2007 11:27 am Reply

    FuManchu
    Said this at 6:16pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Politics again! Come on, people – Bush lies and Clinton did too.
    ****************

    Geno:
    Exactly, they are politicians. Politicians lie. The easiest way to tell when they are lying is any time their lips are moving.

    With an election coming up, my students often ask me who I’m going to vote for. I usually tell them, I’ve voted in 10 presidential elections. I have NEVER voted FOR a candidate.

    Sad state of affairs in a nation of nearly a third of a billion people that we end up voting for the lesser of “evils”……

  68. Jersey Girl July 25, 2007 11:40 am Reply

    Dear Tanya,

    First of all, you cannot make rude statements and begin them with “I don’t mean to be rude, but…” All that really means is “I intend to be rude, but I don’t want anyone to say that I was rude.” What you said was very rude, and I take offense to it. You don’t know anything about me to scold me. You probably don’t know that much about President Bush. Perhaps he could repent and be saved, but the way he behaves is more like a mad man at times than a person who is able to humble himself before Yahushua and accept true salvation. How many false Christians have you known to actually do that? If you have seen this, then you are the lucky one. I have never seen a false Christian actually repent and be saved. Many sinners have been saved, and when you say “Do you have no sin?” it shows you obviously have never read my earlier posts where I talked about my sins. How can you scold me on how I shouldn’t judge the president when you are so quick to judge and reprimand me? Who do YOU think you are?

    President Bush is a very phony man. His Christianity is completely false, and he knows it. It is not that he is ignorant, President Bush knows exactly what he is doing when he acts this way. It’s pretty clear to most that he is lost, but if you think you can evangelize and persuade President Bush to get saved (for real) then you should do just that. I will gladly admit that I was wrong about him when I see both of you in heaven, and it would very much please me for him to repent, in spite of the many fellow soldiers who have died for his cause. Until the president repents of his misdeeds and accepts Yeshua as his savior, you should exercise caution in any dealings you may have with him. There are many who pretend to be one of us just to try to mislead and deceive.

    The point I was trying to make was for others to be cautious around people like that, as they are likely working for the devil in the name of Jesus. Instead of thanking God that a man who doesn’t cheat on his wife is now in office, perhaps others should consider that President Clinton is a sinner like all of us, and not be so quick to judge HIM. He has a much better chance of being saved than President Bush does.

    If you want to pursue a friendly conversation with me in the future, instead of an attack or reprimand, then I welcome any sister in Yeshua. And try to have empathy instead of reprimands when you hear any soldier talking derogatory about President Bush and his stupid War of Lies. Try to remember that if you were a soldier who had to fear for your life so that the Bush family could get richer, you probably would think that President Bush is a very evil man and one of the “lost.” You are very lucky to wake up every morning without fear that it will be your last. My husband almost died in Iraq. A terrorist had infiltrated the makeshift Army base under the guise of a “worker.” He built up trust for several months and when going on a mission he rode in the Humvee with my husband and our section chief. He had a bomb hidden on his person and was going to blow them all to smithereens, but luckily for me and unluckily for some other men’s wives, the terrorist chose to blow up the other Humvee that was on the mission. My husband and my chief survived, but to this day they live with guilt. Four people died because the terrorist decided to blow them up instead of my husband. That is just one of the scars that President Bush has left on people.

    In Iraq, there was a young Iraqi boy who got to know my husband very well. He was intelligent and spoke perfect English, and he worked hard to help the American soldiers, giving them information and performing work for them. He was murdered because of his act of “treason” against his country. So many people have died that would have lived had it not been for this war. Who knows what could have been accomplished had we worked hard at diplomacy instead of invasion. Perhaps one day Iraq and America would have become allies. Now we’ll never know. We have opened up a can of worms that only leads to death. If we stay in Iraq, we continue to die. If we leave, most of the innocents who want democracy will be slaughtered in a civil war that is bound to break out. Think about that before you are so quick to judge me.

  69. Geno July 25, 2007 11:56 am Reply

    Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974
    Said this at 5:44pm:
    5. judges do not initiate court actions – if he or she considered that there was a case for perjury it should have been handed on to a prosecutor and decided by a jury. otherwise you should not say that a perjury took place; it is effectively a slander or liable unless you strictly and simply are quoting what a competent judge said – inwhich case it might be the cause for the “slandered” to bring an action against the person or persons saying same.
    ************
    Geno:
    In Mr. Hovind’s Bankruptcy, Mr. Hovind made a number of very specific claims:
    a) He claimed to be exempt from US income tax because (among other things) he was not a US Resident. Instead, he claimed to be a resident of the “Florida Republic”. (I lived in the STATE of Florida for some 25 years, I have no idea where the “Florida Republic” may be located. I’ve even asked in this very forum, but it seems no one…. not even Mr. Hovind’s most ardent supporters has any idea where the “Florida Republic” is.) Perhaps Mr. George will enlighten us.
    b) He claimed, in SWORN statements, under penalty of perjury, that he owned no property. Yet Florida DMV records listed him as the owner of no less than THREE (3) vehicles.
    c) The finding that Mr. Hovind had committed perjury was based on (2). In a civil (bankruptcy) action it is fully appropriate for the sitting judge to both (i)make a determination that perjury has taken place and (ii) determine the penalty. In this case his bankruptcy petition was dismissed, WITH PREJUDICE.

    Here’s a link to one transcript of the finding on-line:
    http://talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html
    ************

    Phillip George:
    6. I still find wikipedia a difficult source to accept for “official” debate – I don’t mind people citing it as a source and will cite it myself but for it to be the official source for allegations against a real man is problematic to say the least
    *******
    Geno:
    Then obtain a copy of the appropriate bankruptcy records from the court itself. Here’s the case number:
    United States Bankruptcy court,
    N.D. Florida,
    Pensacola Division,
    June 5, 1996
    Bankruptcy No. 96-04256

    Note: I do NOT fault Mr. Hovind if he fell on hard times, for some reason and the only way out was bankruptcy. I had that happen to myself. I DO fault him for lying on the documentation and attempting to avoid payment of the taxes due the government on his income. As it happens, the recent charges that landed Mr. Hovind in prison are only the most recent incident in a LONG history of Mr. Hovind’s attempts to avoid payment of the taxes the rest of us pay. May he complete his ENTIRE ten year prison sentence….. and may his prison ministry prosper.

  70. Geno July 25, 2007 12:04 pm Reply

    In response to a comment I had made that creationists (specifically YEC), are completely unable to account for our ability to directly observe objects millions/billions of light years from Earth in a universe only 6000 years old, End Times had offered “created light” as an explanation.

    He claims the light was created “in place” making the universe “look” old when it really isn’t. Well, there are a couple problems with that one. For one thing, it is absolutely impossible to verify this as a scientific claim. For another, it is really, really, bad theologically.

    The reason for this is that, when we observe distant events, we are seeing a stream of light that conveys certain information. For example, a star was observed, recorded and catalogued as Sanduleak 69-202. In 1987, that star went supernova and was re-named Sn1987a. According to the “Created light” explanation, the star observed, documented, and catalogued by the astronomer Sanduleak in 1969 never existed. Further, the Sn1987a eruption observed on Earth never happened. In other words, anything we observe beyond 6000 ly is nothing more than an illusion.

    Answers in Genesis has a good article on the theological problem(s) at:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

  71. Millerfamily6 July 25, 2007 1:57 pm Reply

    Matthew said: Under the constitution, you have freedom of religion, so I am hoping you are not suggesting that Hinduism and Budhism should be banned because the president participated in their ceremony.

    No, not suggesting anything at all, other than the fact that my Lord says that we, His children, will know them (His other children) by their fruits. I’m sorry Matthew, but true born-again Christians do not enter into other false religion’s temples to bow at their shrines; our Lord forbids it.

    Matthew said: It is interesting that people have said we should not judge Kent Hovind for his actions, but you are judging others who are “morally corrupt.”

    Why are you equating what other people have said regarding KH with what I have stated regarding Pres. Bush? The Lord has told His people to mark those who obey not His doctrine. The Lord says that I should judge those within the household of faith, who name His name, so that I am careful of whom I listen to and trust. You cannot have discernment without using judgement. The Lord’s people are to judge righteously, not hypocritically and to consider ourselves as we do so.

    1 Cor 5:12-13, For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. Go ahead and read the rest of Chapt 5 regarding judging.

    Matthew said: Bush is part of the Free Masons, along with his father as well as several others Presidents, however you do not understand what the movement is about.

    Sir, I understand all to well, what the Freemasonry movement is about. I have studied and read many things regarding Freemasonry. It is a false religious system, as well. Skull and Bones is occultic, and born-again Christians have no business participating in such secrecy. John 18:20 (Jesus speaking) I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

    Matthew said: …shows just how some creationists really believe in conspiracy theories as explained by Baliset. Matthew, I don’t know if you’re a born-again Christian or not; but, with all due respect, Sir, if you are and know your Bible, you would see it is filled with conspiracies. The world is filled with conspiracy by evildoers. There is nothing new there, sir. The Bible tells us of the ultimate conspiracy, which will be for one man to rule the world. How’s that for a conspiracy? I don’t understand why people get all upset over people speaking about conspiracies. They happen all the time. There are conspirators all over the world.
    Here is the definition of conspiracy: A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement between two or more persons, to commit some crime in concert; particularly, a combination to commit treason, or excite sedition or insurrection against the government of a state; a plot; as a conspiracy against the life of a king; a conspiracy against the government. I might add to that, or governments conspiring against their people.

    Here is a list of all mentions of the word conspiracy in the KJB:
    2 Sam 15:12
    2 King 12:20
    2 King 14:19
    2 Kings 15:15
    2 Kings 15:30
    2 Kings 17:4
    2 Chron 25:27
    Jer 11:9
    Eze 22:25
    Acts 23:13

    There are a lot of references to the word conspired, as well as one to conspirators. This is nothing new since the creation of man.

    Matthew said: If the god of Muslims and Christians are not the same, then neither is the Jewish god.

    The Jewish God of the Bible is the same God we Christians worship; the Jews just do not recognize that the Lord Jesus Christ is their Messiah who came the first time to offer the promised kingdom to them, but they rejected Him. The Bible tells us there will be a remnant of the Jews who will believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and turn to Him.

    Matthew said: I wonder how many people would consider it blasphemy for Kent Hovind to compare himself to the people in the Bible. Sir, please, KH is not God. You can only blaspheme God.
    Definition: BLAS’PHEMY, n. An indignity offered to God by words or writing; reproachful, contemptuous or irreverent words uttered impiously against Jehovah.
    The people of the Bible are just like us. Paul was a sinner, Job was a sinner, David was a sinner, Stephen, John, all of the apostles, sinners, in need of a Saviour. We are comforted by the experiences of those in the Bible, who love God, and were chastened and taught of Him.

    I hope that you will earnestly seek for truth, Matthew. What do you have when you have nothing but lies? Nothing. God’s word is Truth! Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

    John 14:6-10 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

    With Sincerity,

    Millerfamily6

  72. Rock Prevaricator July 25, 2007 3:07 pm Reply

    Verbal Da Mentor
    Said this at 8:24am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Perhaps the supporters of the income tax can show us the law which requires folks of uS citizenship to pay tax on their income. Surely then this matter would be cleared up once and for all????

    ——-

    I would have to ask that you do not cloud this issue with common sense questions.

    Sheeesh… ;)

    Rock

  73. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 25, 2007 4:28 pm Reply

    dear djhouk, and Geno,

    i’ve only got 10 minutes for this, on this local time, morning so I will be brief:-

    “titled in the debtor’s”

    there is a difference between equity title and legal title and in your case on motor vehicles rather than automotives I believe that the certificate of origin is the equivalent to an equity title which means some state entity owns them

    “citizen and taxpayer of the United States”

    there is no definite article “the” in this sentence: “United-States” is a proper noun/ compound proper noun;

    and at law I believe the difference between “the united States of America” and “United States” is profound

    “false information”

    is not lying.

    I don’t know the situation about the legal versus equity title on land in United States of America but if the statement I gave earlier from Roosevelt is correct then I doubt that any flesh and blood born man owns allodial title on land:-
    please look up the word allodial in a dictionary.

    geno; “based on (2)” or based on (b); you’ve said something confusing:-

    I think djhouk/ geno your comments are mistaken. could you please just quote directly how this “judge” used the specific word “perjury”

    and still djhouk; do you consider the Amish notorious tax protesters?

    I really have to go now but will return to this tonight – I have a rush day on?

    I could spend all day on your comments but shall confine myself to these specifics as a preliminary response – forgive any typos.

  74. Maturekid July 25, 2007 4:48 pm Reply

    This is just a little note as I spied something in the world news. England is getting hit by some nasty and rising flood waters. So here is to hoping our resident gentleman & critic Samphire finds himself in good health and safety.

    As for the Bush / Clinton thing, I side with Geno on this one. I’ve always wished there was an option C for President. I’ll likely be doing a write-in candidate this next go-around.

    Thanks Kent for the note. It was quite timely as the previous strand was quite long.

  75. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 25, 2007 5:20 pm Reply

    geno, just another one minute line before i get changed.
    preliminary work on star light and time has been done by russell humphreys; but there is mounting and highly evocative evidence that the speed of light has changed dramatically – remember the first physical scientists [ natural philosophers ] thought that it [the speed] was infinite. the work of barry setterfield and others cannot be summarily dismissed. I personally think barry is a genius – but that’s another story. i just had to put in a one liner about the presumption that a constant is constant. Truth is often stranger than fiction and real liars rely on this observation.

    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

  76. praybird July 25, 2007 5:35 pm Reply

    cbgiles

    I hope you will get this post, I didn’t write that paragraph I had copied it from someone elses post. I too was responding to that paragraph in disagrement of it. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn’t write it. I should have posted where I got it from. you can scroll up and find where I got it. thank you
    One thing I want to make clear here I am a grandma, and I don’t have much understanding of politics,
    Let us remember those precious people in Pennsylvania, that lost their lives in the plane crash, this plane was on its way to the White House to destroy President Bush, they were out to kill him.
    At the same time, I don’t like war, I am sorry this lady here that posted on the blog her husband was in very dangerous situation in Iraq.
    We must realize the attacks on Sept 11 was a direct attack on our country. Negotiations can not happen with terrorists, there is no reasoning with them. They brainwash even women to blow themselves up. The terrorists in Iraq right now are connected with ben laden. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289727,00.html they are there fighting and killing their own people. They are killing their own people to get the united states to leave????? this doesn’t make sense to me, if they will quit murdering their own people the US would leave tomorrow. They are cutting their nose off despite their face. But see I have a very limited view of the whole picture. I have to trust the Lord deal with this war and all the motives involved.
    I don’t believe in conspiracy theories or stories. I certainly don’t know all that is going on. I know too many people that are hurting, and going through things, I don’t want our soldiers in Iraq, and I wish this wasn’t happening.
    I am praying that the Pastors all over will start calling prayer times instead of service times.
    Our family will continue to pray for the Hovinds and pray for this to get sorted out, and that He and his wife will be restored in their relationship. I do pray that soon he will be able to explain all of this.
    God bless you all, from Brenda and Don

  77. tobejustlikejesus July 25, 2007 6:41 pm Reply

    I have since read all the posts on this particular blog. i have got to say to the Kh supporters to stick up for the message that he(and Jesus) are trying to get across to people. The Bible is the ultimate souirce of knowledge and should be studied.

    As far as the case goes. we should wait to see the ACTUAL court proceedings manuscript BEFORE we cast judgment either way. I would also like to see KH’s response to these proceedings.

    DJhouk:

    This is imperitive that you read. Nothing from past or current thinking is involved with this trial. This is about the ministry. He also had a 501 c3 like status with that ministry which was not supposed to be taxed. Churches or Ministries…. who are a official church of the US are not to be taxed. Now I am not a tax major but I can say this… THERE IS A LAW THAT IGNORANCE IS A GOOD REASON FOR INDESCRTION WIHIN TAX LAWS. Since this blog is concerning Kent Hovind, he could have made a mistake. However, I am totally sided with Kent until further evidence comes in through the ranks.

    You, my friend, are not evidence. You are a person to demoralize a great man. Who may have made mistakes, but has helped thousands come to the Lord.

    Second, President BUSH has no way of offering explanation to these arguings and certainly does not matter in relation to this blog. It happened. I would rather have Bush than Clinton and I am glad for his leadership, however, this blog IS NOT about Pres. Bush, that should be taken elsewhere, as the editor probably wants a CS and E debate. Let us debate that fact of “evolution” over Creation Theory.

    That fact stills seems to take the latter concept, considering the evidence.

    We are not to judge the person, just the action. If anyone in here is a Tax lawyer that is learned, let him speak, otherwise, we have no wisdom to argue either way against Tax law. I am sure not able to. However, I HAVE talked to Kent before, I have seen everyone of his videos many a time over, I have never disagreed with him, despite the threats, the insults, and theories about him. He should be able to stand up for himself. DJ I ask if you would like to be talked about without a way to defend yourself. This is called gossip and it is something which God himself has said was a sin. This is not a place to gossip, but to learn. Let us reason together.

    Thank you and god bless.

    Ps. Let us side with Historical fact of moon landings and the such. This does not matter, we (as Christians) need to pick our battles and fight for Truth, and not just o be right and cause controversy. Yes, conspiracies exist and I can name several, however there is a time and a place. I suggest ss Christians to focus on God and keep running the race. We need to support our Brother Until other evidence surfaces.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE:  (If it may be of positive consequence, concerning the Apollo Missions to the Moon, … I did write a few notes back on 4-15-2007, to try to preempt such discussion within this blog, eh.  P.A. )

    From April 15, 2007 –>  [EDITOR’S NOTE: I am surprised this comes up often, though this is the first time on this blog site.  Okay, …  :-)   a ship or submarine can seal out water or seal in air, correct?  Aircraft at 30,000 feet can be pressurized repeatedly, correct?  Rockets have launched satellites into orbit around the Earth, right?  One can see them fly by late at night, a tiny pinpoint of light streaking by.  The Space Shuttle does go into space too, correct?  In the 1960s there was a huge “Space Race” between the US and the USSR.  Components were manufactured in factories all over the US.  I once met a man who said he got to test the first pressurized Apollo space suits.  We have space museums in several places in the US.  The Moon was intently studied in the 1960s.  http://www.creationism.org/books/nasalunar/  NASA TR R-277 (see link) shows the YOUNG Moon (like the Earth) to be meteorologically (and perhaps geologically) active!  Sister, I think if one looks at the various technologies involved, one step at a time, including 1960s computers, pressurized air tanks (in a hospital or filling balloons with helium), existing rocket engines, SCUBA dry suits (go to any dive shop), et cetera, then apply these inventions to what was needed at the time, there is no doubt that the US went to the Moon several times, starting in July of 1969.  And for “Moon dust” please see:  http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap01.htm  Ed. note by P.A. ]

  78. Verbal Da Mentor July 25, 2007 6:42 pm Reply

    I would not be so fast to judge Mr Hovind and call him a liar and a tax protestor. Beware of silly bureaucratic spin doctors in government who throw out dumb words and phrases to the people, who then parrot them off without even thinking it through. I seem to recall a film called “America – From Freedom To Fascism” in which the producer chased this very same “tax rabbit” and fronted the IRS for the law or laws requiring folks to pay tax on their income. The IRS acted very shady and never could show that so called law. I also seem to recall several IRS agents who have resigned or been sacked from their jobs because they have blown the whistle on this tax fraud being commited.

    Not only that, I have read numerous accounts of many others fronting the IRS to show them “that law” and the IRS then backing off with their tail between their legs. Kent Hovind has used various laws and rights to clearly demostrate that he indeed he is not required to pay these so called taxes. I’ve yet to be shown exactly what laws he broke and even if some can display various laws, are they applicable to a man in his seat?

    To be honest, I think the judge was/is receiving brown evelopes under the table or possible could be a member of the funny handshake club. This clearly is a mission to set a president to instill fear into people and indoctrinate them into the lies of the tax fraud, rather than in obedience to statutes and laws of the land.

    Why should I not believe that the tax system is a fraud? I have never seen any tax system work in the favour of the people, never!

  79. BillyShope July 25, 2007 7:05 pm Reply

    I find this last post quite troubling, for you appear to have accepted the notion that we are in the same situation as Paul when he was inspired to write Romans 13. Since this is not the case, the conversation would have had God telling the zealot that, since he was born into a country where he was “the Romans,” it was his duty to direct his zeal toward removing those elements which would destroy his birthright. Indeed, if he were to “submit,” as you suggest, he would be a covenant breaker, for it is into such a covenant that we are born in this country.

  80. Tanya July 25, 2007 11:11 pm Reply

    Dear Rebecca,

    I’m sorry I offended you. My intention was not to scold you, but to say that guaranteeing you won’t see someone in heaven is wrong. I wasn’t reprimanding YOU. I don’t even know you to do that. I am sorry your husband had to go through such hardships in this war, but thank God he wasn’t killed. I know that thousands died in Iraq War, but there is never good enough reason to hate anyone. We have to love our enemies. Jesus loved those who killed Him and forgave. Again, I do feel bad about so many people dying or being hurt in this war, including your husband, I don’t justify the war itself. I was just saying that you can’t just say who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. WE have to watch out for ourselves, and live the way Jesus told us to live. I don’t want to gain enemies here on this blog. I’m sorry for offending you. Please accept my sincere oppologies.

    Tanya

    http://hotmail.com

  81. Three Crosses July 26, 2007 1:05 am Reply

    “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” Genesis 1:3 KJV

    To Geno: I Guess God, might not have wanted to wait 13+ Billion years. So he spoke it into existence.
    Your explanation doesn’t make as much sense as the biblical explanation to me. Your explanation can also not be verified scientifically (or at least not until we are all long gone.)

    I don’t understand how End Time’s explanation is bad theology he gave you an answer from a biblical point of view, he may also point out that the Bible speaks of us losing stars. I would say however that your answer was bad theology. You seem to have suspended recorded history for unverified impractical theory(if it is theory, since it doesn’t seem falsifiable) maybe you can educate all of us on how far away from Sn1987a we were, how you measured it, how large it was, what the speed of light was in 1967, 1987, and now. Explain how End Time’s explanation “created light” equals your statement “the Sn1987a eruption observed on Earth never happened. In other words, anything we observe beyond 6000 ly is nothing more than an illusion.”
    How do you know it was an “eruption” lightbulbs don’t usually erupt, they just burn out and then you can’t see the bulb? People were created, animals were created and some of us die every day. Could you also explain how far 6000 lys. is in feet. Since temperature and strong gravity may effect the speed of light lets use Sn1987a as our control. Do you know what theology means?

    I would say a religion that defines itself as a superstition and teaches children to call an elected official “holy father” which they define as “Holy God” is really, really bad theology.

    With love: I ask you to read the catechism and open your eyes, three crosses

  82. BillyShope July 26, 2007 5:21 am Reply

    Your latest post, Kent, disturbs me for it would seem to indicate that you’ve accepted the common teaching that our situation, today, is basically identical to that of Paul’s at the time he was inspired to write Romans 13. This is not “rightly dividing the Word,” however, for you and I were born into a situation where we are “the Romans,” and, as such, we have the responsibility to preserve that situation. Indeed, if we did not fight and chose…as you suggested…to “submit,” we would become covenant breakers, for it is a covenant into which we were born, whether we like it or not.

  83. GORGE July 26, 2007 5:29 am Reply

    Dear Matthew,

    You said, ” Finally, it is interesting, from Kent’s letter, that he makes no mention or concern to his wife.”

    He mentions her and his children at the start of his seminars and at the start of most of his debates. With this in mind, I dare say he is in contact with her as much as he can.

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  84. DQ July 26, 2007 5:51 am Reply

    djhouk said: To me, the whole bankruptcy episode says something about Kent’s character. If he is willing to lie, under oath, to a Federal court, what does that say about his credibility when he’s not under penalty of perjury?
    But you don’t understand, djhouk! The Federal court is eeeeeeeeeeevil! And the judge is eeeeeeeeevil! And it’s ok to lie to eeeeeeeevil people! And kill eeeeevil people! That’s why the christians are are lining up behind Bush on Iraq. Because those dirty scum are eeeeeeeeevil and they deserve to die! Nobody cares what Jesus would think about killing tens of thousands of Iraqis! Jesus doesn’t care about them! Jesus is much more interested in whether we read the correct version of the bible, and how long our womenfolk wear their hair! Jeez, get your priorities straight!

  85. ccherrett July 26, 2007 6:35 am Reply

    Geno,

    I find it a very compromising position for a young earth creationist to try to rely solely on science as an explanation for everything God did. That is why as a Christian I am allowed to believe by faith that God did it. I know that in YEC circles that is a tough thing to do sometimes. It seems a lot of YEC are looking to say “see, science can explain that!”. I think for the most part there are reasonable explanations as to how things have unfolded according to the Bible and science, however where there is any problems arising between the two I will always give the credit to God. I know that some evolutionists may scoff at this approach, but that is what faith is all about. You learn to trust your Father to catch you when you fall. If you think this sounds foolish I understand. If I read this post as the person I was before I came to Jesus Christ i would have mocked it. If God could take me from jail, drugs, gangs and the occult then surely he could allow you to experience the miracle of believing by faith. That is if you would let him!

    I hope that helps a little.

    By faith…..
    Chris

  86. Matthew July 26, 2007 7:29 am Reply

    Millerfamily6 said:

    Why are you equating what other people have said regarding KH with what I have stated regarding Pres. Bush?

    Well, Kent proclaims to be a “born-again” Christian and has done wrong with his taxes, then it is hypocritical for you to judge Bush. Unless, you believe that Hovind was not morally wrong with this decision. I think Matthew 7:1 does a better job explaining judgment since it comes from Jesus.

    Freemason is a fraternal organization that promotes brotherhood and morality among its members. It does not promote any particular religion. They were part of Boston Tea Party and are credited with various revolutions. I do not know where you get the idea of calling it “Skull and Bones,” their symbols are the square and the compass. If Christians are not to hide in secrecy, why did Hovind try to hide his taxes from the government?

    It seems that you fear Freemasons. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.

    Yes, the Jewish God of the Bible is the same God as Christians worship as it is the same god that Muslims worship and they do recognize Jesus as a prophet.

    You will to seek the truth. Then, I suggest you should reexamine what you believe and what you know. Because, as you said, what
    do you have when you have nothing but lies? Nothing.”

  87. Verbal Da Mentor July 26, 2007 7:32 am Reply

    Rock Said:

    I would have to ask that you do not cloud this issue with common sense questions.

    Sheeesh… ;)

    What, would you have it that I dealth in the realm of stupidity and ask foolish questions instead?????? If that is your choice of reasoning then knock yourself out but I won’t be joining you.

  88. Verbal Da Mentor July 26, 2007 7:51 am Reply

    I fail to understand where so many christians are coming from. You believe in the devil and that he is systematically destroying the world(which is so evident), but you do not believe that a person like Bush could be involved in the destruction.

    Since reading the bible would give you a clear understanding that the devil has always worked through people with high riches and folks who are in high authority to attempt to achieve world domination and then world destruction, perhaps the doubting Thomas’s could offer up alternative substitutes, like Tom across the street who is skint and has no electricity in his flat or Lisa who works 2 jobs just to keep the rent paid?

    Bush supporters beware, you only see the image of president Bush, not the actual person. Plain and simple, you do not know him to be giving him the benefit of the doubt and after his introduction of Patriot Act Part 2 aswell as many other bill that can only be describe as skull duggerish, who can ever doubt that he is in the palm of the devil?

  89. darling July 26, 2007 10:35 am Reply

    Verbal Da Mentor Said this on July 25th, 2007 at 8:24am:

    “Perhaps the supporters of the income tax can show us the law which requires folks of uS citizenship to pay tax on their income. Surely then this matter would be cleared up once and for all????”

    You’d think. But I’ve lost track of the times I’ve shown it. Here it is again:
    http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

    Some people just don’t want to listen and will make up all kinds of nonsense. They fail every time.
    http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

    PHILLIP-GEORGE

    “at law I believe the difference between “the united States of America” and “United States” is profound”

    You have any court rulings to back this up?

  90. djhouk July 26, 2007 12:10 pm Reply

    Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974
    Said this on July 25th, 2007 at 4:28pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    there is a difference between equity title and legal title and in your case on motor vehicles rather than automotives I believe that the certificate of origin is the equivalent to an equity title which means some state entity owns them

    I don’t know the Australian legal system, but here in the U.S., if the title to real estate or personal property has your name on it, you own it. If might be subject to bank or mortgage liens, but its yours. There is no legal question that Kent owned the property referred to in the bankruptcy ruling.

    “false information” is not lying.

    Really?

    I would suggest that most people would agree that knowingly providing false information is lying. The federal court thought so.

    do you consider the Amish notorious tax protesters?

    I have no clue. Nor do I understand the relavance.

  91. djhouk July 26, 2007 12:43 pm Reply

    tobejustlikejesus,

    It is not my intention to malign Mr. Hovind and I am certainly not gossiping.

    I have found that many Hovind supporters are woefully ignorant of the reasons why he is in jail. And they tend to blame the government, or the endtimes, or feel that he was singled out because of his teaching. None of these are correct.

    I have taken it upon myself to deal only with the facts surrounding the case on this blog, and not to argue evolution or YEC.

    At the risk of being repetitive, let’s clear up a few things. Kent is not in jail for failing to pay taxes owed on income from himself or his ministry. He was convicted of failing to withhold payroll taxes for his workers. This is something every employer is the United States is required to do. It doesn’t matter whether they are for-profit, non-profit, 501c3 or anything else. Kent was aware of this law, and went to some effort (running a cash payroll; withdrawing amounts below bank reporting requirements) to hide his violation from the government. Kent did not make a “mistake”, his actions show that he was fully aware of what he was doing.

    Let me further point out that Kent had every opportunity to speak up in court and explain and/or defend his actions. He chose not to. He waived his right to offer a defense at the trial. So, I see no reason to wait for his explanation at this late stage.

    I am not judging Kent, only his actions. It is his actions that have landed him in jail, not his teachings.

  92. tobejustlikejesus July 26, 2007 2:22 pm Reply

    Adding on what I said in my earlier post…

    DR. KH is someone we (as Christians) should respect and admire. While many contribution things are responisible for his current predicament, he is nonetheless, an faithful Christian and an honourer of the Biblical Teaching of Creation and certainly of Science. Paul conveyed a certain dislike for “science falsely so called”, or false science, to Timothy. We, As Christians, need to look at the Big God we have instead of the Big Science that the world has.

    Is science ok? yes of course, as christians we need to rely on our minds, but not so much as to lose faith in our own Bible. the Bible meant to convey a 6 day creation. As Christians, this must be plain. In six days he made earth, sea, and heaven and all that in them is. That paraphrase is listed with the Ten Commandments. God wrote that himself.

    We need to stay away from Science that calls both Jesus Christ and the Bible wrong. this is a must for today’s Christians. We need to now, more than ever, to stand up for Jesus Christ, a Creator, and The creation in Six days. Thank you.

  93. btodd July 26, 2007 4:41 pm Reply

    VERBAL DA MENTOR WROTE: “Perhaps the supporters of the income tax can show us the law which requires folks of uS citizenship to pay tax on their income. Surely then this matter would be cleared up once and for all????”

    ROCK PREVARICATOR WROTE: “I would have to ask that you do not cloud this issue with common sense questions.

    Sheeesh… ;)”

    Here are two links to give you the specific law, and the second link addresses a multitude of tax protester arguments. I encourage you to click on his name and read his credentials as a tax attorney. Then take a look at Kent or Glen Stoll’s credentials and decide who is more educated and experienced in the issue of tax law. It’s not even debatable.

    I hope you also visited the link I posted a few days ago on the same subject, as it had a short general commentary of tax protesters and ironically described Kent’s situation very accurately. I highlighted the points most relevant to Kent in bold.

    http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

    http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

  94. EndTimes July 26, 2007 5:16 pm Reply

    Matthew
    Said this on July 25th, 2007 at 7:14am:

    If the god of Muslims and Christians are not the same, then neither is the Jewish god. I wonder how many people would consider it blasphemy for Kent Hovind to compare himself to the people in the Bible.
    Under the constitution, you have freedom of religion, so I am hoping you are not suggesting that Hinduism and Budhism should be banned because the president participated in their ceremony.

    Dear Matthew,

    Your logic my friend is quite flawed. The God of the Christians and the Jews is one and the same. The Bible is quite clear and quite consistent on this issue even if you have poor vision to comprehend this simple fact. The god of Islam is nothing more than one of many idols likewise seen in the many false religions the world over. Allah is nothing more than the moon god as seen by archeological excavations.

    Freedom of religion is good, I guess unless you are a born again Christian in public schools. The god of Islam is read about and studied while the God of Israel is kept out. Double standards. Well, the Lord God of Israel shall soon bring standardization for the whole world. You may wish to reconsider your own position.

    In kindness,

    Peter

  95. EndTimes July 26, 2007 5:35 pm Reply

    Geno

    Said this on July 25th, 2007 at 12:04pm:

    In response to a comment I had made that creationists (specifically YEC), are completely unable to account for our ability to directly observe objects millions/billions of light years from Earth in a universe only 6000 years old, End Times had offered “created light” as an explanation.
    He claims the light was created “in place” making the universe “look” old when it really isn’t. Well, there are a couple problems with that one. For one thing, it is absolutely impossible to verify this as a scientific claim. For another, it is really, really, bad theologically.

    Dear Geno,

    You credit me more than I deserve. I quoted Scripture to you, and you gave me the credit. Sorry, but I don’t write Scripture, I simply quote it. Let’s revisit the issue.

    II Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

    Geno, this is a quite provocative statement especially in light of the fact that the subject at hand is statements and theories of the scoffers that shall come in the last days. This is a direct statement from the CREATOR who made the stars in the first place stating that He made them with “the appearance of age.” I understand that you do not place your trust in the statements of your creator, yet many such as I do. The reason we do, is that it has proven itself trustworthy over and over again.

    Simply because we do not understand all things yet, does not mean that you have by any means proven the Bible incorrect. In fact, for you to state that God has deceived us and anything more than 6000 light years away is an illusion, you would have to have scientific proof of the constant nature of the speed of light, a complete understanding of gravity and what it actually is and many other cosmological truths. You assume you are correct when you cannot prove that you are correct. So, your dogmatic statements on the 6000 year old universe turn out at this time to be conjecture based on assumptions that are at this time unproven.

    I will hand you that you could place this forth as a postulate at this time yet you cannot prove it. I can place forth my trust in God’s Holy Word, and although admittedly, I cannot prove this one issue true at present as well, I have no doubt that the Lord will over and again show the accuracy of all “scientific” statements in the Word of God. So the earth is 6000 years old as is all creation, and the explosions and decay of the stars in the heavens are quite real and no illusion. Simply because I do not yet know how the Lord created all of these things is not evidence that He did not create it. So, the jury is out not because God is wrong, but because man still has limited knowledge on this issue. In the end, God’s Word will prove itself correct as it always does and your logic really is not.

    In kindness,

    Peter

  96. Ekkman July 26, 2007 5:36 pm Reply

    Rock Prevaricator
    Said this on July 22nd, 2007 at 12:37am:
    ——————————————————————————–


    It is commonly reported that other nations are sending missionaries to the USA of all places. The church here does nothing but play silly church games. The dumbing down of America has affected the language to the extent that the Church is deceived. Gospel USED to mean “GOOD NEWS”. We were instructed to take the “Good News” to the world, those that believe…will be saved. Those that believe not will be damned. Why aren’t more people being saved in this formerly great nation? Because the “gospel” that we preach is no longer “good news” but “judgment”. Our man on the street has no more Spirit in him than a WatchTower peddler. The world sees the very sins that God HATES: from the “proud look” to the “sower of discord among the brethren”…all within the Church. Why, the very spawn of av1611.org is among us this very moment, breathing judgments from a haughty perch, quick to condemn but slow to mercy.

    So many in the Church feel it is their business to judge, but they are without excuse: they condemn themselves when they judge…seeing they do the same things. The judgment of God is sure against those that do. Why would we think we should escape God’s judgment when we continue in judgment ourselves? Do we purposely despise the riches of God’s goodness, restraint and patience? Don’t you know it is the GOODNESS of God that leads you to repentance? Romans 2:1-4

    Ekkman said,
    Rock, I didn’t see this post earlier or I would have commented on it. It is the ones into the new bible perversions that are causing the fights, the problems in these last days.

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  97. EndTimes July 26, 2007 6:00 pm Reply

    Maturekid

    Said this on July 25th, 2007 at 4:48pm: As for the Bush / Clinton thing, I side with Geno on this one. I’ve always wished there was an option C for President. I’ll likely be doing a write-in candidate this next go-around.

    Dear Maturekid,

    I believe that the issue of “God and Country” that has infiltrated our modern churches lays aside the truth that as a Christian, we are not called to be “Christian Patriots” which is actually an oxymoron, yet instead we are called to be Christian Ambassadors called and sent by our Lord and Saviour. For a Christian to be an “earthly patriot,” he would at times have to renounce his heavenly calling when his country goes against the will of God or renounce his earthly patriotism if called against his country by duty to God. Sorry, but perhaps I have missed the name of that country that has never gone against the will of God and someone might be able to show which country that is. I would like to move there if you can tell me where it is.

    What does God have to say about the nations of the earth?

    Revelation 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

    Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
    9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

    Psalm 113:4 The LORD is high above all nations, and his glory above the heavens.
    5 Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high,
    6 Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!

    Which nation on earth has the Holiness and righteousness of God?? “All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.” (Isaiah 40:17) My fellow brethren in Christ, the simple answer is none!! But the LORD Himself actually spoke of such a nation that was to come when He stood before the Pharisees. (See Matthew 21:42-44)

    Which nation is this that the Lord is speaking of? Is it Israel? Is it America? Could it be the Philippines?? No, it is not an earthly nation that He is speaking of and it is not an earthly kingdom that the people of this nation will be of. The literal, scriptural fulfillment of this parable is given to us by Peter who was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). As in so many of the mysteries of the Bible, the Lord indeed has given Peter in his short epistles the keys to understanding many of the mysteries of the kingdom of God. And so is it with this mystery of a nation to come bringing forth the fruits thereof. (See I Peter 2:5-12)

    Thus, we are not of the world but we are in the world. We are a “holy nation” throughout the world and we are ambassadors sent to witness the message of Christ who called and sent us. It is not earthly princes that we represent although we are called to obey them so that our reproach would not taint the message of the gospel. We are instead to bear His reproach as His ambassador to this cursed earth of the love of God that awaits all those that will call upon His Holy name. Earthly patriot, NO. Heavenly ambassador, YES.

    II Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
    18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
    19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
    20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
    21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

    In the Love of Christ,

    Peter

  98. djhouk July 26, 2007 6:01 pm Reply

    Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974
    Said this on July 25th, 2007 at 5:20pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    <i>…there is mounting and highly evocative evidence that the speed of light has changed dramatically</i>

    I don’t want to get into a YEC debate here (the moderator won’t allow it), but Barry Setterfield’s work has been completely discredited. As a degreed Electrical Engineer, I know a little something about the properties of electromagnetic radiation. The speed of light is a fundamental constant of the universe. Had it been different in the past, the universe would look very different today. Plus, we have astronomical observational evidence that it has been constant for at least the last 150,000 years.

    Explaining light from distant stars is one of the biggest challenges for YEC.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: PG74, Setterfield’s work stands and should be researched further. Please lighten up on your inaccurate blanket statements of dismissal, when you have not checked the data. I have. Light is not a constant. Please see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=283 -OR- http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/225/ Also, do a web search on “sodium light speed” if you are so inclined to begin studying this topic. Creationists are again leading the evolutionists (decades ahead this time) in quality scientific research.

    Also, a note to those discussing distant star light and the “age of the universe”. 17 times in the Bible it states in passing that the Creator “stretches the heavens”. (Hence the “steady-state” theory was unbiblical, by the way.) Here is an article about this: http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/245/ P.A. ]

  99. Ekkman July 26, 2007 6:10 pm Reply

    Rock Prevaricator
    Said this on July 22nd, 2007 at 12:37am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    It is commonly reported that other nations are sending missionaries to the USA of all places. The church here does nothing but play silly church games. The dumbing down of America has affected the language to the extent that the Church is deceived. Gospel USED to mean “GOOD NEWS”. We were instructed to take the “Good News” to the world, those that believe…will be saved. Those that believe not will be damned. Why aren’t more people being saved in this formerly great nation? Because the “gospel” that we preach is no longer “good news” but “judgment”. Our man on the street has no more Spirit in him than a WatchTower peddler. The world sees the very sins that God HATES: from the “proud look” to the “sower of discord among the brethren”…all within the Church. Why, the very spawn of av1611.org is among us this very moment, breathing judgments from a haughty perch, quick to condemn but slow to mercy.

    So many in the Church feel it is their business to judge, but they are without excuse: they condemn themselves when they judge…seeing they do the same things. The judgment of God is sure against those that do. Why would we think we should escape God’s judgment when we continue in judgment ourselves? Do we purposely despise the riches of God’s goodness, restraint and patience? Don’t you know it is the GOODNESS of God that leads you to repentance? Romans 2:1-4

    Ekkman said:
    I started this a few minutes ago and it disappeared. I don’t know if it was sent or not but I didn’t want it to go. Anyway, I was saying that those into the bible perversions are the ones who started the fight, so to speak. I have been to AV1611.org, they speak a lot of truth on that page. You were talking about how we are not called to judge but we all judge, you judged the people at that page. We are called to judge but it is to be righteous judgment. We make judgments all the time and we better be judging people and/or situtations by the word of God then we will be judging correctly.
    Speaking of the “fight”. Here is one good article on my Page.

    http://www.ekkcom.net/kjvfight.htm

    The new bibles teach all kinds of contradicting doctrine, causing confusion in the body of Christ. I have been to bible studies where many are using different bibles and they say completely different things. Those sitting there are confused, to say the least. Here is one of my links with just a few of the differences.

    http://www.ekkcom.net/niv-kjv.htm

    I will not go into the things I have already discussed on this issue. The new bibles are taking us away from the Lord Jesus Christ, teaching no hell or water baptism saves, a different Jesus and/or degrading him. Speaking of degrading him, one person wrote on a post that it is minor changes like where the KJV says, “Lord Jesus Christ”, many of the new bibles say, “Jesus Christ”. Taking it a little further, the KJV says, “Lord Jesus”, many of the new bibles will say, “Lord” or “Jesus”. Where it says, “Lord” or “Jesus”, the new bibles will say, “he” or “him” or something to that effect. They keep bringing the Lord Jesus down and down and down. Takes too long to talk about a lot of it on this blog. You can go to my Page, e-mail me and we can talk a lot deeper on this subject. The word of God is top priority in these last days. As Satan sought to destroy the Word of God made flesh, he also seeks to destroy the word of God made scripture. The first was the biggest mistake that he made and now seeking to destroy the true word of God in the English language will be his next biggest mistake. It is already showing by the fruits. Many all over the place are turning back to God’s inerrant, infallible word in the English language.

    http://www.ekkcom.net/niv-word.htm

    http://www.ekkcom.net/answer.htm

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  100. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 26, 2007 6:51 pm Reply

    Geno; I had a very quick look at your “talk origins” website: the only mention of the word “perjury” I could find was this:

    ….. “Notwithstanding the debtor’s listing under penalty of perjury in his schedules and statement of affairs that he has no income, has no expenses, and owns no property, the evidence shows otherwise.”……..

    [I admit I only visually scanned the document quickly] to say the least, this falls way short of an accusation of perjury and the judge did not recommend pursuing a charge of perjury.

    djhouk said “But I’m not accusing Kent of lying — the judge did”

    no the judge did not! judges are usually far too subtle, clever, accomplished, to make such an obvious mistake.

    Roosevelt’s new deal for america changed everything. Somehow the abbreviation for florida state went from being Fla. to being FA. Remember Roosevelt again: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way….”

    even the names on the wiki source you cite Geno paint a picture

    see the name: Kent E. HOVIND

    see the name: LEWIS M. KILLIAN, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

    I personally looked up my own mother’s birth certificate which is from prior to the 1930; true enough names were written in true English grammatical style. ie they were written in truth. These were the days when “the promise” on a bank note meant something.

    lets all face facts; the majority of sheeple want sheep dogs nipping at their heels and they even don’t mind a few sheep being sent off to the butchers occasionally. you Geno and djhouk are a type of police force for the new world order that bush senior spoke about. if you saw a protester destroying a traffic red light camera or fixed speed camera you would probably report them. you don’t have a problem with ‘government’ inventing ever increasing lists of victimless crimes to bludgeon people with. Parens patriae is an unwritten state of affairs most people are happy with even if it comes to raining depleted uranium ‘smart’ bombs down indiscriminately on third world villagers. the problem: is that what if it is not just a few sheep who are going to be sent off to the butchers?

    in the above wiki source Geno cites the name Kent E. HOVIND is given the added title of “debtor”; the ancient romans used to call this sort of “surname” [where surname really means “additional name”: see etymology] agnomen – as it was then in the latin
    It can be argued that surnames only exist to enable a poll tax. The romans needed the specificity of: praenomen, nomen & cognomen, to administer; see also captitation.

    The thing is with a name like “debtor” the corollary becomes: “who is the creditor?”

    How did the IRS become the “creditor”? How? How did “u.S.” or “U.S.” government become a “creditor”? How did the owners of “Federal Reserve Bank” become the “creditors”?

    you see the Bankruptcy case you cite Geno mentions an agnomen: “debtor”, but where or who is the “creditor”?

    How could a document list a debtor without the name of a creditor being listed?

    I could write all day on this subject but I don’t think you are here to debate this. I don’t think you want to listen to me nor to brother Kent; to Amish folk nor to a sparse few maverick anarchists, nor the occasional itinerant eccentric. At the Stoning of Stephen they covered their ears.

    A Question exists; Is America big enough to accommodate dissent? Are its people that magnanimous? Or is its fabric so brittle and its institutions so tenuous as to run the risk of disintegration at the false dawn of minor secessions.

    The reason a lot of people want to hurt Kent is really fairly straight forward. He runs the risk of reminding people that there really is a God. He represents a place in their conscience that they want to cancel out. He represents an ever present risk they run of listening to that still small voice that needs to be drowned out by their own screams of “crucify him”.

    if these words contain errors of fact please oblige me with your better comprehension.

  101. Learned Hand July 26, 2007 10:41 pm Reply

    I am an attorney, with exerience in tax matters. The supposedly factual statements made by commenters like tobejustlikejesus and “Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974″ have no basis in law or fact. Australian’s characterization of American law is especially fanciful. There is, for example, precisely zero difference between “the united States of America” and “the United States of America” in American law. The idea that capitalization has some sort of legal effect is a misconception often found among the most radical and extreme tax protestors, but it is not a rational supposition, or one supported by any actual legal principal. Nor is it at all accurate (or even sensical) to say that “the certificate of origin is the equivalent to an equity title which means some state entity owns them.”

    Personally, I see a strong connection between the fantastic legal theories of tax protestors and the fantastic biological and geological theories of literal creationists – both mistake rhetoric for evidence, and neither ideology permits the serious consideration of facts contrary to the predetermined dogma.

    Law, much like biology and geology, can be difficult and boring. If you want to truly understand it, though, your best option is to seriously study it. Making it up as you go along, or cheering for those who do, might be comforting but will not lead you to an accurate understanding of the world around you. If you honestly study these fields, you might occasionally learn things that contradict what your father, or your preacher, or the man on the TV told you. That doesn’t make them wrong, or evil, or unchristian.

    Frankly, the commentary on this site is lowering my opinion of fundamentalist Christians. It is not that so many comments reflect serious ignorance of law and science; ignorance is a universal malady, rarely ameliorated and never entirely cured. What is shameful about the displays here is the *love* of ignorance. When did knowledge become so frightening to the faithful? People grow through discovering new things; surely God doesn’t want you to bury your heads in the sand and ignore the sophistication of creation.

  102. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 27, 2007 1:42 am Reply

    breaking news at:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

    remember you heard it first from Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 – 2007 All Rights Reserved, carrying the torch for truth, justice and the American way.

    JRTurner, please crack a bottle of Champagne [or French style sparking white wine] for all of us here at Tirade H.Q. Brother Warocuya – its high time we got a report in from you. The blog misses you. Jason mobilize the European battalions. Samphire, do you need an address to send that English golden guinea to. “darling” – I wanted to anotate my replies to your questions and progress is keeping track with the transcipt quite nicely. Harriet: where do the visionary note takers see this as leading? Cheers from the Land of Oz – as in Ozstralia. abbreviated Au – see: chemical symbol for solid gold. so when its cards on the table time – who’s smiling?

  103. Teno July 27, 2007 6:29 am Reply

    Here is some GREAT news about income taxes:

    http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

    THE POWER TO DESTROY
    IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
    Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation

    July 26, 2007 By Bob Unruh © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

    The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

    *******

    How about that? The IRS was called out to prove they have a legal right to impose an income tax on our wages, and the IRS didn’t answer the bell or prove their case. The lawyer was aquitted by a unanimous jury vote. That’s the lawyer Bro. Hovind needs to get.

    In any case, this shows all those who have been critical of Bro. Hovind should go soak their heads because they were WRONG about income taxes being owed legally.

    P.S. EKKMAN, your email address is bouncing again.

    http://www.GenesisEvidence.org

  104. CreationCD July 27, 2007 9:39 am Reply

    Dear Geno,

    I apologize for the delay, I’ve had to work some different hours and my internet is down during the day.

    My brother was here this weekend. He teaches high school chemistry, physics and geology at Twin Oaks Christian School with a well known teacher named Roger DeHart who testified at the Kansas Intelligent Design hearing.

    Geno, you really should meet some of the knowledgeable kids coming out of Christian schools (I hope you do someday). You know it’s actually allowed for a student to bring up evolution, the Big Bang and all that. Rather than stifle any mention of the other religion and threatening anyone who questions the current dogma they can ask hard questions, and they learn good science.

    I know by your question about radon gas two weeks ago that you didn’t even look at any of the links I gave with my thoughts on radio-polonium halos. But here goes again.

    Here are 3 different creationist answers to the starlight and time problem.

    http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/lightspeed_andother_puzzlingdata.html

    http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/starlight_and_time.html

    http://www.halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htm#cou

    Also you should really watch this video explaining what logic you are defending when you side with scientists who say that creationism isn’t science, it’s irrational and unthinkable (but may be true).

    http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/thermodynamic_arguments.html

  105. CreationCD July 27, 2007 1:40 pm Reply

    Regarding the anti-Hovind quote mining hit that has surfaced here several times:

    “The speed of light emitted from the front of a car is not the speed of light plus the speed of the car. The speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their relative velocity (as in, regardless of how fast you’re going, you’ll always measure it to be 3×10^m/s)”

    First Google hit:

    The University of South Wales in Sidney, Australia

    http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/

    “… can it really be that light from the headlight has the same speed for the driver and the pedestrian ?”

    Shows an animation of space car with headlights passing by a pedestrian.

    Maybe instead of mocking someone trying to teach you some science you should listen, and if you don’t understand what he’s talking about do some homework. Don’t just stand outside the school and laugh with the other class clowns, “Man, that teacher is sooooo stupid.”

    Worse yet you use this as proof when you accuse him of lying.

  106. spur July 27, 2007 5:52 pm Reply
  107. hooray4god July 28, 2007 3:07 pm Reply

    I think that Christians loose their credibility when they fight. Kent may have done wrong… he may be totally , but fighting about it will not solve anything. Everyone has an opinion that will not be swayed. Maybe, we can all accept everything with an open heart and be willing to listen to other people’s opinions. Even Christians can make mistakes. Everyone is born sinning and we all can be led astray by the devil. Fighting is EXACTLY what Satan wants us Christians to do.

  108. GaryMurray July 28, 2007 10:09 pm Reply

    tobejustlikejesus
    Said this on July 25th, 2007 at 6:41pm

    I have since read all the posts on this particular blog. i have got to say to the Kh supporters to stick up for the message that he(and Jesus) are trying to get across to people. The Bible is the ultimate souirce of knowledge and should be studied.

    As far as the case goes. we should wait to see the ACTUAL court proceedings manuscript BEFORE we cast judgment either way. I would also like to see KH’s response to these proceedings.
    _______________________________________

    I do agree with most of your opinions, TBJLJ, however, one statement you made is probably best left unsaid. None of us are worthy, nor warranted to cast judgement on anything, regardless right or wrong, this includes judgement of ones verdict. Christ Jesus is our soveriegn and just judge. We are merely dust and a vapor that he loved enough to die for.

    Regardless if the judgement made in Kent’s case is just or unjust, it isn’t for us to say. The law and its components are ordained by God the Father. He ordained government law in the Old Testament, and Jesus himself complied with unjust judgement brought against him by this same ordained law. Though he was unlawfully condemned to death by an ordained government, he still accepted the verdict and trusted that God the Father’s reasons for his condemnation acceptable. Remembering what God tells us about our Christian lives.. We are to be a living sacrafice unto the Lord, for this is our REASONABLE service. Christ knew this, and gladly accepted God’s plan.

    The Hebrews asked for a King after the Judges freed them from captivities again and again. Though God knew the outcome and wanted them to defer, he was soveriegn to give them what they requested. They received the first King (or president, or dictator, or representative, or ruler, or power figure of a nation) Saul.

    With the request of a king granted, they also received the rule that came with a King and his ideals. It was man who asked for the corruptable law to be ordained as a form of justice in this present world. Therefore, with the good of this world also comes the bad.

    This doesn’t give us clearance to judge the government ruling that judges us. We asked for God to ordain and give that power to them, therefore, he did. Secondly, having said this, God is still on the throne, and he is still in control of all things. Nothing is done without his knowledge, nor his approval. Democrat or Republican president, makes no difference who is in office, or where, as Jesus told Pilot, they have no power except that which God the Father allows them to have (Not a direct quote from the Bible, but meaning is the same).

    Know this and take comfort in the fact that all things work for the good to those who love the Lord. If it happens, it is because God stands to receive glory from it, one way or another….

    A young fella at the age of 15 walking in Colchester on January 6th, 1850 didn’t understand why it snowed so hard he had to take a detour from his original destination (which was a church his mother had suggested him visit) down an obscure street which led him to a primitive Methodist church, nonetheless, unknowing to the boy, God worked it out where he ended up exactly where God wanted him. At the end of this Methodist service, Charles Spurgeon was a born again Christian, saved by the eternal mercy and grace of God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Spurgeon, of course, was used by God to be one of the most prominent preachers ever to take behind a pulpit equal in boldness to that of Paul, Peter, or Simon.

    What happened has happened because God allowed it to be. We may not know why or even like God’s methods of achieving his will in this world, but we can and NEED to remember that we can only see in one dimension while God can see in all dimensions. It is just possible that from what man sees in a young shepherd boy, God produces a king of nations, what little rations we see in a basket, he might see an infinite supply of mana to feed thousands.

    He has a purpose for this, it isn’t our place to judge the purpose or his method, only to accept that he is a true and just God, and that his will is being done.

    What we can do is pray for the continuing grace, encouragement and mercy on the Hovind family and their ministry. Probably one of the most effective ministries that has had an impact on my Christian life, I pray for them daily in hopes that God will one day restore them and answer their prayers in his time, and his will, according to his purpose.

    Take refuge in his omnipotents, grace and soveriegnty. The Bible tells us in Nahum 1:7 ‘The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble, he knoweth them who trust in him.” He also tells us in Dueteronomy 31:6 ‘…he will not leave thee nor forsake thee.’

    Best thing we can all do as Christians on this blog is what James tells us to do, ‘Pray one for another, the continual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.’

    Continue in prayer for the Hovind’s while not forgetting to do what their ministry was built upon… Witnessing to sinners, Christ Jesus and share the gospel of salvation with them, that they might receive everlasting life.

    God bless those in Christ,
    Gary Murray

  109. tobejustlikejesus July 28, 2007 10:28 pm Reply

    What? why all the silence? we can still debate BIG SCIENCE VS. BIG God, but do you really want to? Let us debate this very subject.

  110. tobejustlikejesus July 28, 2007 10:28 pm Reply

    and please bring in support for Kent, he needs it.

  111. spur July 29, 2007 5:01 pm Reply

    I hope you can pass this along to Kent Jo and family.

    Kent,
    Many have been given new courage by your stand, and your posts, I hope these will be made to a book or published online, the conversations ones. Many servants of God have been helped by this time in your lives, many many more than post here.

    IF all can understand that each individual must answer to God, and it is that individuals path that He must choose to go through with God. May we each remember Matthew 7:1,2 and Romans 2:1.

    I came across an item that may help define the situation,

    In refelcting on the comments of previous posts and seeing with sadness the post of those with so few facts and so quick to judge, I also read most of these posts in last couple days, and read this today that I think/hope will help some who want to see to understand this situation with better, maybe even the moderator. I happen to be visiting a friend and he “happens to be reading this book at this time”.

    The book is “Bible History of World Governments” By William M. Smith

    On page 115 under section 8 of Relation of Church to Government I will quote one paragraph:

    The scriptures admonish Christians to be in subjection to the powers that be, but it does not instruct them as to how to manage the powers that be. The government is ordained of God, and we resist it at our peril. The powers that be are ordained of God even though Satan has much to do with them, and we are to be subject to them. Of course we may expect that worldly governments will sometimes make laws that Christians cannot fully keep and truly obey God in so doing. But subjection to the powers that be demands that we do not resist the government, even though refusing to do wrong. When asked by an ungodly government, in whose domains we may for a season be sojourners, to do what we conceive to be contrary to what God requires, we can positively declare our position(Kent has done this well and wide, perhaps to the point of becoming a target) and patiently submit to the punishment they deem best to inflict. That is being in subjection to the powers that be, and at the same time being obedient to God. But there is no warrant for Christians banning themselves together to resist and iniquitous law. many evil laws have been repealed as a result of Christians patiently suffering under them.

    I hope you read all the way through.

    This is the way the church has worked all through the ages. This is God’s way to see injustice righted, for just innocent to suffer to cause the unjust laws of man, strong holds of Satan to be torn down. Is that not what Jesus did ultimately? Yes it is heart breaking to hear of this, and especially for Jo, it is an outrage. It is just that cry of our hearts that brings change to the situation, in God’s way and time.

    I do and have felt the injustice of this situation will not be unheard, and will help to bring a sooner rather than later solution to the laws and practices that you have been condemned by.

    But yes the submission part is now to God, and to the powers that be, and God’s direction now is clearly for full concentration to the spread of the Gospel the salvation of eternal souls. Try to explain to one of those souls, who’s worth is more than the whole world’s treasures, that will be saved through Kent being there where he was at the time he was, that this was not God’s mercy, God’s providence.

    Keep on following that still small voice that will lead you Jo and Kent, may we each be faithful and make it to meet Jesus, who has sustained much much more for us than we ever could experience.

    For the the others: Kent has in God’s providence, just gotten a very clear, much clearer picture of the state of the USA, and thus sees the only way to spend our time is in helping other souls come to Jesus, get on the boat, because the days of Noe are here.

    As for the Former Soviet Union Many many there are praying for Kent. They have lived through years decades of such, and they see very clear similarities, to what they have experienced. Many many many other members of the body of Christ also are praying, and have been touched by this. We go on from strength to strength. The People of the USA are sleeping, but the ship is sinking. …

    Repent the Kingdom of heaven is at hand!!!

    Make sure you can hear the Still small voice.

  112. djhouk July 29, 2007 7:01 pm Reply

    Geno,

    Actually, Kent filed for bankruptcy, not because he had fallen on hard times (his mortgage and other bills were current), but solely in an attempt to discharge his IRS debt and recover the vehicles the IRS had seized. The judge saw through his filing and rejected it. Kent then paid $12,000 to the IRS to get his vehicles returned.

    Like I said, he has a strong aversion to paying taxes…..

  113. spur July 29, 2007 8:58 pm Reply

    Here is a bit more possible part of this breaking up:

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

    I do not see Kent being able to serve the whole ten years, once he give up and gives it all over to God and the whole single focus becomes hearing and doing God’s will, then the solution will come fast, and souls will be saved.

    The answer is the same for each of us total surrender to God, and drawing closer and closer to Him.

    “Seek first His kingdom, and the rest takes care of itself.” SFT

  114. RWM July 29, 2007 9:11 pm Reply

    this man is full of lies and propaganda, i am glad to see him behind bars. not to discourage anyone from their faith, but this man dose not do gods work… he uses the faithful and lies to them, filling peoples heads with his non-sense to make himself rich. anyone who speaks against me should first read all about the real Kent Hovind, as im sure his seminars and dvds do not include his fraud and threats.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

  115. praybird July 29, 2007 11:23 pm Reply

    I read Dr. Hovinds post again, I think I understand more this time. We appreciate being able to share a little of ourselves and also to post some of our frustration.
    Through it all we continue to pray for restoration for the Hovinds, we pray earnestly for this.
    We are also doing some personal soul searching, and the scripture keeps coming to us, that the world will know we are Christians by our Love one to another. We pray that our lives will reflect that Love, and that we will continue to grow in Him daily. We pray for unity of the brethren.
    My husband is taking notes on the video seminars, as some of his coworkers are asking questions about evolution and creationism.
    We will continue to pray and lift up the Hovinds and family till this gets resolved. We stand in agreement with every prayer in this blog for the Hovinds.
    God bless from Don and Brenda

  116. pabramson July 30, 2007 8:38 am Reply

    =============================================

    SERVER CHANGE!

    SORRY!

    I learned that the computer that hosts: http://www.cseblogs.com was changed a few days ago. And my ID was no longer able to moderate over the weekend – until restored this morning.

    I apologize that messages were lost and/or in limbo for 4-5 days!

    Paul Abramson
    =============================================

    http://www.creationism.org

  117. btodd July 30, 2007 9:53 am Reply

    For all of you posting this Tommy Cryer nonsense, a few points:

    1. Kent Hovind was not prosecuted regarding personal taxes, but regarding withholding employee taxes and structuring to avoid those taxes. The Tommy Cryer case involves income tax; so they’re totally separate things and shouldn’t be confused with each other.

    2. Tommy Cryer was acquitted of CRIMINAL tax charges. He will still be liable to pay his income tax, along with penalties AND interest, like many before him that claim to have ‘beaten the tax law’. The IRS simply couldn’t prove that he had criminal intent (unlike Kent Hovind). This doesn’t mean he’s not liable for his taxes, and anyone who uses this case to further that idea is either severely misinformed or dishonest. You are required by law to pay income tax. All Tommy did was escape criminal prosecution, not his tax liability.

    Btodd

  118. darling July 30, 2007 10:31 am Reply

    Learned Hand

    Nice name. I recall saying something very similar about the connection between tax and science a few months ago. I’m glad I’m not the only person who sees it.

    re: the many postings on Tom Cryer/”IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability”

    No, the government failed to prove, in a criminal trial, that Mr. Cryer willfully failed to file his taxes (i.e. that he knew he had to pay, but didn’t). In essence, Mr. Cryer’s defense was that he didn’t know he had to pay. Of course, that’s really only a defense you can use once – now he surely knows.

    I can see why someone would want to lie and spin and say that the IRS failed to prove liability, but that’s just not what happened. Mr. Cryer will still have to pay those taxes, plus penalties and interest.

  119. RWM July 30, 2007 10:53 am Reply

    “there are a lot of things we could do to make life difficult for the IRS Agents, because they lied and broke the law.” – Mr.Kent Hovind
    maybe i am mistaken, but i thought Kent was the liar and the law breaker?

  120. FuManchu July 30, 2007 10:55 am Reply

    Gorge:

    “He mentions her and his children at the start of his seminars and at the start of most of his debates.” You forget, he never mentions his wife – just a picture of her.

    Anyway, to move on to a more interesting issue:

    I read with interest several posts here about a new ruling on income tax – Aussie P-G has been especially happy about it. While I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, the article appears to be employing considerable amounts of dressing-up for what is a fairly simple story.

    If you cut out all their quotes from the lawyer, and his opinions on tax law that he may or may not have brought up in court, you’re left with the fact that he was prosecuted but acquitted. Oddly enough, that kind of thing happens all the time. It could mean there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him, or it could mean that the jury didn’t think he deserved conviction. It’s even possible they acquitted out of sheer bloodymindedness because nobody likes the IRS. But what does that prove? All the actual information the article gives us is that twelve people liked this chap more than they liked the taxman.

    The title, “IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability; Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation”, is also a tad melodramatic. The IRS didn’t lose a ‘challenge'; there was no challenge. Presumably they mean that the defendant stood up in court and verbally challenged them, but since that wasn’t the point of the court case it’s hardly surprising that they didn’t reply. And ‘acquitted after arguing…’ implies that he was acquitted because he argued it, of which there’s no evidence at all. Juries don’t have to give reasons, and whether or not he personally deserved acquittal has absolutely no relevance to wider case law.

    A bit of a non-story, really. Post another one when there’s an actual judicial opinion on the subject. Shame he wasn’t convicted, really – his appeal would have let him actually try out his argument as something more than a jury-swayer.

  121. DQ July 30, 2007 11:31 am Reply

    OK, the suspense is killing me. What is the difference between the united States of America and the United States of America?

    I can’t wait to hear this one.

  122. David July 30, 2007 12:11 pm Reply

    djhouk
    Said this on July 26th, 2007 at 12:43pm:

    “Let me further point out that Kent had every opportunity to speak up in court and explain and/or defend his actions. He chose not to. He waived his right to offer a defense at the trial. So, I see no reason to wait for his explanation at this late stage.”

    djhouk,

    You know nothing of tax trials. I have attended tax trials and was shocked at what went on. The Gov will stack the trial before it even begins. The defendant will be required to list his defense before the trial starts. Most or all evidence the defendant wants to present is ruled disallowed. Constitutional and Supreme Court arguments will be disallowed ( pre-trial motions ). The law ( title 26 ) will be disallowed, except for the prosecutor. The jury is stacked with those who have never had a problem with the IRS, Mostly younger persons who know nothing of the laws. Then when the trial starts and ends people like you will say, “he didn’t offer a defense”. Most posters here don’t have a clue about tax trials.
    If Kent Hovind or others were allowed to truly offer a defense, he and others would never be convicted.

    This is much more than paying employee taxes. This is a matter of complete submission to the Gov. Kent Hovind should never be forced to be a tax collector. Let the IRS go after the employees if they owe taxes.

    Those of us who have studied the law know the no sect of the code makes anyone liable for the federal income tax. The IRS can’t show the law that makes anyone liable for an income tax, in writing or on their web page. I can find liability for other taxes but not for income taxes.

  123. David July 30, 2007 12:26 pm Reply

    Darling,

    Why not show the law( Title 26 ) that makes anyone liable for the federal income tax from the IRS web site? This should be a very simple task. The privacy act states, we only have to pay the tax we are liable for. Why are you showing all that other junk from private sources that make a damn good living from the fraud? Just show us the LAW!

  124. hooray4god July 30, 2007 12:34 pm Reply

    Is this where Dr. Hovind really got his doctorate degree? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/PatriotUniversity2.jpg

    Is it true that Patriot Bible University is unaccredited? “Critics charge it is a diploma mill, lacking sufficient academic standards to award degrees.” (Patriot Univerity Wikepidia site)

    Is the Wikipedia site completely slanted and/or false?

  125. pabramson July 30, 2007 1:35 pm Reply

    ========================================

    – RESPECT REMINDER –

    Arguing – Each side wants to be sure that the other side gets told how wrong they are.

    Debating – Contending over the merits of facts, and coming to a better knowledge of the truth.

    Folks, please do not get personal. Contend strongly, but with respect for those who are “completely wrong” and need to be corrected by you (and me).

    Witty retorts may be funny, but meanness, pure insults, and “hit messages” that want to hurt one to disagrees with you – are not appreciated.

    Please remember that it is a human on the other side.

    Thanks!, Paul Abramson

    ========================================

    http://www.creationism.org

  126. ukulelemike July 30, 2007 1:45 pm Reply

    I wonder if the recent ruling in Louisiana, where a jury court found that the IRS has no constitutional foundation to consider wages as being taxable income, will change the tenor of some of this ongoing dedbate, as well as the position that Bro. Hovind finds himself in today. It seems to me that this will set a precedent that can be used in his appeal process. Let’s pray on this, folks, because as I understand it, it was wage taxes for his employees that Kent didn’t pay, and for which he is in prison today. It’s about time the IRS was found out, and made public on this. “Almighty God, may this ruling follow thy will, and bring down an illegal organization that has put so many good people behind bars through its pernicious ways, and may Brother and Sister Hovind be vindicated in this, and all Americans be released from the bondage of the Internal Revenue service. IN Jesus’ Christ’s name, Amen and amen.”

    http://www.bbcherlong.org

  127. darling July 30, 2007 1:48 pm Reply

    David Said this on July 30th, 2007 at 12:26pm:

    “Why not show the law( Title 26 ) that makes anyone liable for the federal income tax from the IRS web site?”
    Title 26 is Title 26 no matter who is hosting it.

    “The privacy act states, we only have to pay the tax we are liable for.”
    No it doesn’t.

    “Just show us the LAW!”
    See my post of July 26th, 2007 at 10:35am.
    Feel free to check their work at your local law library.

  128. ukulelemike July 30, 2007 1:48 pm Reply

    Hooray4god-many Christians choose to get their degres through unaccredited schools-I myself have done this. The only real difference is that the accredited schools have to allow the government to tell them what they can and can’t teach, and usually have to allow unbiblical views and ideas. It in no way diminished Brother Hovind’s acheivements-it just leaves the government out of the process.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: “Accreditation” does sound like a quality indicator. But it is a purchased institutional distinction. (There are lots of private “accrediting” agencies that have gotten setup over the years.) Like “degree mills” there are “accreditation mills” out there: http://www.chea.org/degreemills/ For those interested, here are a few other thoughts on “being accredited” or not: http://www.homeschools.org/whatIsCLASS/accreditation.html -OR- here is a good definition from one organization: http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp P.A. ]

    http://www.bbcherlong.org

  129. RWM July 30, 2007 2:02 pm Reply

    MR. ABRAMSON
    when you say “those who are completely wrong”, who are you talking about? and what corrections will you make to them by Arguing your side? you defined Debating as “Contending over the merits of facts, and coming to a better knowledge of the truth”, but clearly you must be arguing as you have no facts to support the claims to you make. i have seen mr.hovind “debate” his thoughts on evolution and religion, and according to your definitions, he is an arguing… not debating. calling people “STUPID!” and presenting his ideas and speculations as facts to people, that is not the way to debate.
    ryan

    p.s.- did you “remember that it is a human on the other side” when you answered my first letter with “Dear Stupid…”
    if you classify your hateful words as “witty retorts” rather than “pure insults”, then i must tell you BOTH are not appreciated.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Hovind won most/all debates, of the 100 he has participated in. He frequently calls evolution “stupid” and “the dumbest….” I often call evolution a “headless false religion”. The “completely wrong” quip indicates potential strong perspective on the part of the writer. The “Dear Stupid…” – when was that? P.A. ]

  130. GaryMurray July 30, 2007 3:31 pm Reply

    RWM
    Said this on July 29th, 2007 at 9:11pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    this man is full of lies and propaganda, i am glad to see him behind bars. not to discourage anyone from their faith, but this man dose not do gods work… he uses the faithful and lies to them, filling peoples heads with his non-sense to make himself rich. anyone who speaks against me should first read all about the real Kent Hovind, as im sure his seminars and dvds do not include his fraud and threats.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

    ——————————————————————————–

    RWM,
    I believe everyone here who supports Hovind and what he stands for has already seen this link and similar to those related to its contents. The problem is that Wikipedia, first of all, is less than moderate. When using a source to disclaim ones character and their belief system, it would do good for you to find a more neutral source. I am not disdaining Wikipedia, but it doesn’t take much research on their site to see that any subject matter pertaining to religious (especially Christian) doctrine in their opinions is less than equal to that of science and evolution.

    Secondly, and moreover, regardless what others think or say about a man, we as Christians should never take heed. Anyone judging another man above and beyond that which is ordained by God himself is a hypocrit and making foolish accusations.

    For any of us to look down upon Kent Hovind, regardless innocent or guilty, is to put ourselves above him. We’re all sinners. There is no specific sin. Sin is sin to God the Father. If you’ve committed perjury, you’re as guilty of murder as you are of the perjury. Sin at all, guilty of them all.

    Bible tells us ‘the wages of sin is death’. It didn’t specify what type of sin, just sin. Therefore any sin within us has condemned us all. You’re as guilty of sin as Hovind is. He’s human, just as you are. None of us are worthy, nor better than the other. For it is by his mercy we have an opportunity NOT to be condemned to death in Hell, but it was by His grace that we have an opportunity to live eternally with Him in Heaven.

    For you to tell us that we should not heed to his teachings just because you read an opinion of an editor who wrote a short and sketchy biography about Kent, a man this editor has probably never met, and has never spoken with, tells me that you yourself should stop suggesting others take part in your method of conclusion, and begin focusing that energy on your own research and discern via your own opinion.

    I believe Kent’s research, though not always correct, is for the most part sound and founded. I believe strongly in what he is trying to do because it was my faith which was shaken by the growing popularity of the evolutionary movement, and it was Kent’s ministry (keep in mind, its about the ministry, not the man) which brought me back to the realization that lies, propoganda and false doctrine looks really good, but is only a fabrication of the truth.

    Bible is clear that in the end times men will heep to themselves having itching ears and will not endure sound doctrine. The popularity of false doctrines, teachings and witnesses increase near the end. Looks like that is exactly what’s occuring. I believe evolution is only another obscurity from the truth, conducted and created by Satan himself to manifest in the intelligent community, thus allowing those less grounded in faith and easily persuaded by those they think are intellectually superior will fall into its herecy.

    When you lay out the 5 to 10 most popular ideas of creation on a table and begin removing those supportive elements from each concept that can’t be 100% proven; all you’re left with is faith. This includes the concept of science.

    A visiting preacher asked the people of our church once, how much faith do you have in what you believe? He conducted a litmus. He asked a Father of three girls. What if I put a gun to your head right now, Dad, and said if you don’t reject your faith in Jesus Christ, I am going to pull the trigger, what would you say. His answer, of course was yes. Its easy for us to make a faith based decision when it is only ourselves that stand to lose something. He then pointed to his youngest daughter and said, the same thing. He wasn’t as quick to answer this question the second time.

    Regardless your belief, is your faith strong enough and is it in the right place? What would your answer be? “Kill her, this time next year she’ll be dove flying high above the earth”, or “Kill her, she had no purpose on this earth or the universe, makes no difference to me, I don’t love her, I have no emotion, I am only interested in number one, me, survival of the fittest”, or “Shoot, I believe the Lord thy God will deliver her from your bullet, but if not, I have the faith that one day when my time shall come I will see her on the other side of glory reunited together in Christ Jesus, because he promised that as long as we accepted him and didn’t reject him, he would’t reject us come the day of judgement of our sins as we stand before the Father.”

    Are you sure? Which one would you prefer?

    And, if you’re interested, the Father’s answer was “Kill her, I believe in Jesus”.

    God Bless those in Christ.
    Gary Murray

  131. Verbal Da Mentor July 30, 2007 4:09 pm Reply

    I see certain folks have gone very quiet now it has been proven that the tax system is a fraud. It would be interesting to hear from these tax fraud advocators now, SPEAK!!!!!!

  132. GORGE July 30, 2007 4:16 pm Reply

    Dear Matthew,
    You said-
    “Yes, the Jewish God of the Bible is the same God as Christians worship as it is the same god that Muslims worship and they do recognize Jesus as a prophet.”

    The bible uniquely shows how God himself provides away back to himself through Christ. The matter of how we get right with God is of the up-most importance. Jesus says “I AM the way, the truth and the life no man come to the Father, but through me.”
    Only the blood of Christ atones for sin. The christian faith is not empty words or just rules and obligations alone, those words have to be with power that comes by God putting His spirit into a person, so that person can have liveing walk and relationship with God Almighty.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: The Koran and Bible teach very different values. If one looks at secular Moslems and secular Christians, they won’t see much difference; but one who pursues Koranic teachings emulates different values from one who pursues Biblical teachings. In many ways a “fundamentalist” Moslem (Koran-based) becomes the opposite of a “fundamentalist” Christian who follows the Bible’s teachings.

    Islam teaches that Jesus was only a prophet, and not the Son of God. The Koran claims that Jesus did not actually die on the Cross.

    KORAN
    [4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

    The text states above, “…nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so…” They claim that actually Judas was crucified by mistaken identity.

    Some have contrasted Islam and Christianity:
    “Islam is a faith in which God requires you to send your son to die for him.”
    “Christianity is a faith in which God sent his Son to die for you.”

    Jesus taught: Matthew 5:44 “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

    In the “Christian” Crusades (a response, after hundreds of years of jihads), men acted contrary to the teachings of Christ. But in the (Islamic) Jihads men acted in accordance with the teachings of Mohammed. (Since … the jihads pre-date the crusades, and then the jihads have continued long afterwards, even till today, should “Christians apologize” for the crusades, but Moslems not apologize for the jihads?)

    And also note that “Allahu Akbar” does NOT mean “God is great” but rather, it literally means: “… is greatER”, i.e. that Allah is “greater” than the God of the Bible. The Arabic word for “great” is “kabir”; “akbar” though means “greater”. In conclusion, no, the God of the Bible (for Jews & Christians) is not the same as the God of the Koran of the Moslems. At least the Moslems sure do not think so; they think that their God is greater.

    By the way, there are 164 Jihad Verses in the Koran
    http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html P.A.
    ]

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  133. JohnLake July 30, 2007 4:20 pm Reply

    Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974
    Said this on July 26th, 2007 at 6:51pm:

    “Roosevelt’s new deal for america changed everything. Somehow the abbreviation for florida state went from being Fla. to being FA. Remember Roosevelt again: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way….”

    I’m not sure what this statement from A:P-G (c)1974 has to do with anything…since many of his arguments are based on grammatical/capitalization inconsistencies and as a former Floridian, I’d like to point out that;

    The abbreviation for Florida is still Fla.

    The United States Post Office ZIP Code abbreviation for Florida is FL.

    Additionally, the ZIP Code abbreviation was not a part of Roosevelt’s New Deal –

    “Adding the ZIP Code to addresses in 1963 meant state abbreviations had to be reduced to two letters to accommodate addressing machines of the day.” USPS

    BTW, the abbreviation for “florida state” [sic] is FSU.

    JohnLake

  134. EndTimes July 30, 2007 4:21 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on July 26th, 2007 at 10:41pm:

    Personally, I see a strong connection between the fantastic legal theories of tax protestors and the fantastic biological and geological theories of literal creationists – both mistake rhetoric for evidence, and neither ideology permits the serious consideration of facts contrary to the predetermined dogma.

    Dear Learned Hand,

    I am a medical doctor specializing in Internal Medicine. I did seriously consider the predetermined dogma of evolution with its contradictory “facts” and finding it contrary to common sense and the central dogma of biology, I rejected it from an educated position because it is fantastical thinking without any basis of fact. I am one of those “literal creationists” that you have very politely called stupid. So, please show me what “evidence” I am fantastically ignoring?

    Law, much like biology and geology, can be difficult and boring. If you want to truly understand it, though, your best option is to seriously study it. Making it up as you go along, or cheering for those who do, might be comforting but will not lead you to an accurate understanding of the world around you. If you honestly study these fields, you might occasionally learn things that contradict what your father, or your preacher, or the man on the TV told you. That doesn’t make them wrong, or evil, or unchristian.

    Sorry, but I have never found biology difficult or boring and geology itself is quite fascinating. Please explain to me how that the majority of this world is covered by sedimentary rocks in parallel layers that were then broken up and distorted and how this is inconsistent with a world wide flood? What accurate understanding of the world do I not understand on the central dogma of biology which quite frankly excludes entirely the possibility of Darwinian or any other weird and magical Neo-Darwinian theories of evolution? Essentially, where did all of the incredible information come from that is at the center of ALL life? Sorry, but a person that is truly learned on the evolution/creation debate would honestly understand that it is the evolutionist that is making it up as they go along. And for that matter, why not explain clearly the assumptions that are a part of ALL dating methods that are entirely unproven and improvable, yet nevertheless are used to “prove” the age of the earth?

    Frankly, the commentary on this site is lowering my opinion of fundamentalist Christians. It is not that so many comments reflect serious ignorance of law and science; ignorance is a universal malady, rarely ameliorated and never entirely cured. What is shameful about the displays here is the *love* of ignorance. When did knowledge become so frightening to the faithful? People grow through discovering new things; surely God doesn’t want you to bury your heads in the sand and ignore the sophistication of creation.

    Frankly, your commentary has not in the least changed my opinion of your “honest” and “ethical” profession. Indeed, I have found a universal malady of willful ignorance among my learned and esteemed colleagues and fellow educated “thinkers” who have swallowed the brainwashing of the love of true ignorance called evolution. I would remind you that it is not I that has buried my head in the sand and ignored the “sophistication of creation,” it is you my friend that could not find design if it was staring you in the face. (It is by the way) So, thank you once again for the favorite ad hominem attack against Christian “fundamentalists” that has been once more displayed, albeit more politely than usual, but still, you are calling me dumb once again. I think my friend that in the end analysis, it is you that is willingly ignorant, or in the words of a very dear man named Kent Hovind, “dumb on purpose.” When did knowledge become so frightening to the unfaithful?

    In kindness,

    Peter

    P.S. By the way, you will find a large number of Christian fundamentalists who are appalled at the tax protestor movement as well. Yet, a simple question, which law was in place on December 31, 1983 that would have put Kent Hovind in prison for even one day that was used against him in his 2006 case? Perhaps the person that stated this case has nothing to do with “endtimes” could clarify that position as well. Please comment on what constitutional authority they based their decisions?

    P.S.S. The Dole Committee Hearing 1983 can be found in Senate archives:
    98-0709 Social Security Coverage for Employees Finance
    of Religious Organizations

  135. GORGE July 30, 2007 4:46 pm Reply

    Dear FuManchu,
    You said,
    ““He mentions her and his children at the start of his seminars and at the start of most of his debates.” You forget, he never mentions his wife – just a picture of her.”

    HA HA. Did you know Fu, they did spend alot of time together, it was not all work and travel. Kent mentions in his DVDs that he used to spend many enjoying times playing played piano with his wifes marching band? Sadly, he had to give it up due to the devlopment of a bad back, hahahaah/.my favorite.(he says it much better than that though)
    He does say that they are happily married and that he Loves her very much. Dr Hovind sometimes tell the story about his parents and how they would pray that he would find a good women, and he affirms God answered their prays. It’s obvious Eric loves the lord,and has been brought up in a good environment of love and discipline
    .

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  136. djhouk July 30, 2007 5:20 pm Reply

    CreationCD
    Said this on July 27th, 2007 at 1:40pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Regarding the anti-Hovind quote mining hit that has surfaced here several times:

    “The speed of light emitted from the front of a car is not the speed of light plus the speed of the car. The speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their relative velocity (as in, regardless of how fast you’re going, you’ll always measure it to be 3×10^m/s)”

    First Google hit:

    The University of South Wales in Sidney, Australia

    http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/

    “… can it really be that light from the headlight has the same speed for the driver and the pedestrian ?”

    Shows an animation of space car with headlights passing by a pedestrian.

    You misunderstood the website you referenced. It is CONFIRMING the “anti-Hovind” quote above. While non-intuitive, the constantcy of the speed of light in any frame of reference is one of the fundamental findings of relativity. It has been repeatedly observed.

  137. Three Crosses July 30, 2007 6:04 pm Reply

    Hi Paul: I’m glad to see the site back in buisness, we were worried about you. There also seems to be some new posters. I see the law worshippers are back. I’m afraid these people seem to be just throwing insults. Science doesn’t seem to have much relevance in an arguement about the religions of evolution and Christianity. Justice also seems to have no relevance in matters of law and taxes. It is interesting that you never see anyone go to jail for charging to much tax. I am rather shocked about how many mob lovers, line up to kick someone when they’re down. I would like to jump to Dr. Hovind’s defense. I however think the Christian thing to do, would be to lie down and take a few kicks for him. I have broken laws, God’s and men’s. I have lied, used my gifts to make others suffer and failed many people who relied on me. My sins are too many to list. So go ahead all of you who think you’re better than everyone else, mob lovers,l aw worshippers, scientists so called and kick away call me whatever you want insult me, try and accuse me of something I haven’t done and then go brag about how great you are!

    With love three crosses

  138. djhouk July 30, 2007 6:25 pm Reply

    David
    Said this on July 30th, 2007 at 12:11pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    You know nothing of tax trials…..The jury is stacked with those who have never had a problem with the IRS, Mostly younger persons who know nothing of the laws.

    Actually, both the prosecution and the defense have an equal hand in shaping the jury through peremptory and non-peremptory challenges. The jury is not “stacked”.

    If Kent Hovind or others were allowed to truly offer a defense, he and others would never be convicted.

    Hmmm, let’s see, what could Kent have offered as a defense? He could have argued that his employees were really contractors and thus he didn’t have to withhold taxes (his attorney suggested as much during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses). He could have argued that he lacked the intent necessary to “structure” cash transactions. He could have argued that all of those structuring counts should really be one (oops, he DID argue that post-conviction). He could have argued lots of things that were not precluded by earlier rulings or stipulations. He simply chose not to.

    Kent Hovind should never be forced to be a tax collector. Let the IRS go after the employees if they owe taxes.

    Yes, perhaps employers shouldn’t be forced to collect employee taxes. Perhaps the IRS SHOULD go after employees if they owe taxes. Perhaps I should be a retired billionaire. Unfortunately, the law is pretty clear.

  139. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 30, 2007 6:26 pm Reply

    Dear Learned Hand,

    welcome to the blog and please form a queue behind Samphire, Fumanchu and Juridical “darling”.

    I really have to be quick this morning [local time thing] but:-

    “Frankly, the commentary on this site is lowering my opinion of fundamentalist Christians.” unquote,

    when you made this statement how many of the thousand+ pages of “this blog” ie. http://www.cseblogs.com, had you already read? please tell us the date you picked up from so we can know what you mean by “the commentary”.

    I am fascinated by your definition of “study”; and “due diligence” as well, especially seeing you come here as one quite learned.

    please continue to indulge us all with the level of your learning.

    ps. hooray4god; I think if you do a brief etymological investigation that the word “doctor” derives from latin and simply means “teacher” and philosophy is straight from greek being: “lover of the goddess sophia”.

    so the “doctors of philosophy” you so seem to revere with your defense of accredited institutions are really just teachers running around teaching people to love their greek goddess of wisdom – where wisdom probably best means the stuff that came off the tree of knowledge.

    now it is ironical that academics in their cloisters receiving “peer revision” are probably getting a lot less exposure for their work than someone who enters a public arena and begins work at the coal face of the genuinely controversial.

    that is an irony. I could probably get a Phd in something from an accredited facility and have my writing read by far fewer people than will read this blog and offer useful comments on same.

    It is an irony. The internet is changing the meaning and standards of peer revision. If it had have existed as a forum 50 years ago I dare say a lot of people who got Phd’s for their contributions to evolutionary biology or uniformitarian geology would not have passed the test of “revision”.

    so thanks for your important contribution to the revision process.

    djhouk, I say again, I think Barry Setterfield is a genius and his work is by no means discredited, nor is Tift, nor Halton Arp. And for the record I believe our solar system might well be orbiting Sirius. It all raises important questions about fundamental axiomatic apriori assumptions; and who is adopting what religion?

    more later, God willing.

  140. baliset July 30, 2007 8:37 pm Reply

    I have contended here and elsewhere that the Christian cause is being done significant harm by the toleration of ultra fringe views (which I have referred to as “tin foil hat wearing” beliefs). I have quoted the ecosystem on this website as a classic example of the type of discussion that has others feeling the need to smile, not make any sudden moves, and back away slowly… sloooowly.

    The moderator here, Paul says “Contend strongly, but with respect for those who are ‘completely wrong’ and need to be corrected”, but this worthy principle only works when it has limits.

    If a brother worshipping next to me at Church on Sunday believes evil pixies put salt in his coffee every morning, and makes a point of sidling up to new visitors after the service to tell them, I might respect his right to dignity, and maybe even free speech, but I’m also sure that the Minister and I will take steps to ensure that visitors are protected from an obvious nutcase, but in a way that does not belittle him (and yet forcefully, if necessary, tells the person that he is not only wrong but giving the Church a bad name).

    I want everyone here to put themselves mentally in that picture, in your own Church. Do you agree you would act in the same way? Good. So we can agree that tolerance has its limits, and that it is entirely proper that when there is a consensus that a view is hopelessly wrong and always unhelpful to reaching the lost, then we shut it down. This kind of ‘judgement’ is entirely scriptural. This is not a ‘lazy acquiescence to the worldly status quo’, not a ‘backsliding rejection of God’s sovereignty’, and not an ‘unwillingness to hear a lone righteous voice speaking out against an unjust system’. Each of those rationalisations sound just like the vain, foot shuffling pretences that they are.

    Well, so it is here. Why is it that too many of you here are so unwilling to call a spade a spade? Publicly arguing with people who believe that the moon landings were faked or that the IRS is a demonic tool of Satan’s plan to undo the Christian legacy of the United States is like starting a shouting match in front of your new Church visitors.

    I’ve been arguing with you, to be sure, but don’t miss the point I’ve been trying to make here since day one. If someone like Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 (among many) keeps going on with the most astonishingly vapid and demonstrable nonsense, despite being called to account time and time again, then eventually the time comes for the community of believers to say “Sir, you ‘understand neither what you say nor the things about which you make assertions.’ (1 Timothy 1:7). Sit down. Sit down now and stop embarrassing us.”

    Of course, there lays the risk that anyone so admonished will take any attempt at censure as de-facto confirmation of the righteousness of their views. If so, then do not argue. Eject them from participating any further.

    Some may think this harsh, but folks, shame on you all for not recognising it is way, way past time for precisely this kind of discernment and exclusion. People like Phillip-George are arguing that the Hovinds are innocent because of the capitalisation of their names! Tossing about latin legal phrases and torturing words that have common-sense definitions to mean something completely different is an exercise in vanity, and I’m surprised and disappointed it isn’t seen as being as much.

    If you have a legitimate beef with the tax laws in the USA then do yourselves a favour by making a stand against the tide of complete hogwash put about IN YOUR NAME here on this and other sites. If you argue for views like this to continue to be heard, then do not be surprised when the mainstream (and mainstream, let me repeat does NOT automatically mean ‘compromisers’) community of believers continue to treat you and your more considered views with scorn and disdain, just like the fringe and disreputable beliefs of Hovind himself have ’caused Christianity to be mocked outside the household of faith’ (I’m paraphrasing Augustine)

    I’m calling out Australian Phillip George and say he should be censured or ejected. Enough is enough, and I stand with FuManchu, DQ, djhouk and many others here in saying so.

    http://baliset.blogspot.com

  141. djhouk July 30, 2007 9:50 pm Reply

    <i>[EDITOR’S NOTE: PG74, Setterfield’s work stands and should be researched further. Please lighten up on your inaccurate blanket statements of dismissal, when you have not checked the data. I have. Light is not a constant. Please see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=283 -OR- http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/225/ Also, do a web search on “sodium light speed” if you are so inclined to begin studying this topic. Creationists are again leading the evolutionists (decades ahead this time) in quality scientific research.</i>

    Actually, the first article you cite directly discredits Setterfield’s work. A quote:

    “Unfortunately, the authors of the technical report [Setterfield and Norman] devote great effort to the discussion and analysis of the data in separate, small groups for any kind of c decay trend within the group, and report changes which can only be explained as technique refinement, as if they were unequivocally in support of c decay. They do, in one place, however, consider the whole body of data collectively. In this one instance, they use a nonweighted least squares technique to find the straight line which best fits the data (ignoring the relative uncertainties in the different data points), and conclude:

    When all 163 values involving 16 different experimental methods are used, the linear fit to the data gives a decay of 38 km/s per year (p. 25).
    If this was the end of the matter, it would certainly seem to provide powerful evidence in favor of the c decay hypothesis. Unfortunately, even a cursory glance at the data reveals that the above analysis is inappropriate for the given data set, and, hence, the conclusions drawn from it are not valid.”

    The author goes on to say,

    “When I analyzed the entire data set of 163 points using the standard, weighted, linear least squares method, the decay of c was determined to be:

    decay of c = 0.0000140 ± 0.0000596 km/s/year.

    This result says pretty plainly that there is no discernible decay trend in the data set presented by Norman and Setterfield.”

    This article is from ICR, perhaps the best known YEC group. Hence my statement that Setterfield’s work has been discredited.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for checking the refs. Yes, I knew that it was contrary to my conclusions. I referenced both sides. P.A. ]

  142. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 30, 2007 11:01 pm Reply

    Dear DQ [I hope this drains away your life threatening levels of suspense], these are just some preliminary notes on the question you asked. I just threw them together in a hurry. I am no expert in your constitution but it seems to me that the coining of money and the issue of the sovereignty of States is a matter for further reading. Remember Louisiana has some distinct properties. Remember also the strange status of the City of London. I hope you can pursue the material in time and add to the body of knowledge contained herein:-

    ……the thirteen united States of America
    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America

    this is just taken from The Declaration of Independence.

    you may or may not give much credibility to such a document.

    at that time gold and silver, or written promises for certain weights of same, was the standard for lawful money.

    please be aware that the word “united” exists in these above sentence/ quotes as a past participle verbal adjective.

    the corollary becomes: What States were not united with those united States? ie. What are the “non-united States of America” or unincorporated territories? examples: What does Puerto Rico, [or: American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Virgin Islands, Wake Island] exist as? What exactly are the Trust Territories or Compacts of Association Territories. States existed as distinct lawfully constituted sovereign entities to more or less an extent. The thing is sovereign, and independent of each other, States were coming together in a federal association to make a declaration of intent. Without the federal association the original “States” would not cease to exist. If there are united States [where “united” is non capitalized] then there are also non-united States. What is Guantanamo bay? What is a territory under the control of “United States of America” when said territory in not one of these “united States of America”

    question [as strange as it may seem to see it written down]: Is “United States of America” an example of one of the “non-united States of America”?

    “United-States-of-America” is one compound proper noun, distinct entity, deriving its form and function from somewhere or nowhere at all. “Washington: District-of-Colombia” is not one of 50 independent Sovereign constitutionally formed States of a federal union. If sovereign independent States were coming together to constitute yet a greater thing/ entity; then they did not have the power to create that which was not a part of themselves – or which was beyond themselves.

    When did “United States of America” come into existence?

    If it was not of “the thirteen united States of America” and later “fifty” that formed or founded or constituted “the united States of America” then what did? Is “United States of America” actually an unincorporated territory, trust territory or compact of association territory? Remember “Washington: District of Colombia” is not one of the fifty sovereign independent constitutionally constituted States. Further from article one, section 8, clause 17 to the constitution, “District of Colombia” is a “cession”:- territory which is ceded/ yielded or surrendered over to something else.

    constitution Article 1, Section 8

    ………To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; …………

    unquote:

    [notice that it was the style at that time to capitalize the first letter of quite a few non proper nouns]

    So when the States were constituting a federal association that which the association had exclusive legislative control over did not yet exist? If the reasoning is correct I think anyone should find such an observation interesting to say the least.

    see: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/slurp_file.php?fileref=4
    here are a few further notes broadly covering the same subject material:
    http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/howcome.html

    remember Revelation; And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon….

    ie. what started out looking like a lamb, opened its mouth in due course, and sounded like a dragon. And in scripture there was no gap between the two clauses indicating that it happened extremely quickly after it came up out of the land.

    as always: All Glory to Jesus Christ the Lord. May you know Him, Love Him and may Truth make you free indeed.

  143. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 31, 2007 4:12 am Reply

    DQ, in an ideal world I would have the time to spend three days on each and every post. I would get a secretary or faithful research assistant to proof read them and return them with comment; they would all go through several revisions at least and then I would finally hit the submit button.

    what I tried to say in the last post in a fairly convoluted way was that “the united States of America” is fairly unambiguous. It is the aggregate of 13 at least, 50 at most, sovereign constitutionally constituted States involved in a federation.

    “United State of America”, whereas, has an inherent ambiguity, thus far maintained:-

    1. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.
    2. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or
    3. It may be the collective names of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

    1. begs the question of who owns that title of sovereignty?
    2. begs the question; if it is “territory” and not States, or State dominions, per se, who is subject of United States or who is a citizen of United States?
    3. begs the question, what authority would such a United States then have over people in territories not making them resident of one of the 50 States.

    In any case there is much one might say about brother Kent renouncing a citizenship of “United States”, especially if such a “United States” is a single sovereign, or such a “United States” has abdicated a constitutional warrant to coin money, or is a State itself come under another unspecified Sovereignty, such as might be exercised through “Bank of International Settlements”.

    And while the man himself has only a very limited right of reply one might give him the benefit of some doubt as to his motives. I am confident that they are not merely those of a man inventing some commercial scam to make money from unsuspecting “citizens of United States” :- which takes us back to looking at the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank. So many roads lead to Rome do they not – especially if one is really a part of Europe.

  144. Sade Tennyson July 31, 2007 6:00 am Reply

    Brother Hovind,

    So good to hear from you. Especially to know you’re not dis-heartened.
    The Lord who alone is God Almighty will continually keep & strengthen you.
    Be encouraged to know that more people are coming out of darkness into the light of the Lord Jesus Christ as they watch the creation seminar series. I’ll continue to pray for you & sister Jo. Your labour of love in his vineyard is not forgotten.
    Thanks for the encouragement in this blog for brethren to re-focus in fighting the enemy in God’s style. Surely changed hearts (hearts changed to godly hearts) will lead to a changed nation (godly nation).
    I hope to encourage brethren to pra more for souls & let’s trust the Lord that more brethren will be bold to witness for our Lord Jesus.

    Sade Tennyson

  145. btodd July 31, 2007 10:31 am Reply

    VERBAL DA MENTOR WROTE: “I see certain folks have gone very quiet now it has been proven that the tax system is a fraud. It would be interesting to hear from these tax fraud advocators now, SPEAK!!!!!!”

    At least three different people have linked you to the tax law you claim doesn’t exist, AND corrected you on the charade of Tommy Cryer. Are you saying those posts don’t exist?

    Btodd

  146. Three Crosses July 31, 2007 10:33 am Reply

    Dear baliset:
    Sir I understand that you want to justify your, (in my opinion) racist and unbiblical position. I’m sure the people who post here have gone well beyond your limits on tolerance to read what you have to say. You are (in my opinion) very outspoken against anything you disagree with, whether it be truth, facts, the Bible or Christians. You do seem very hurt and lashing out at anyone you don’t think can defend themselves. You do seem to be quite the hipocrite. You admit to harming the cause:
    “who does more harm to the cause. Someone like me, or someone who steals tax money and puts himself and his wife in jail?”

    Then you follow it up with telling Christians they’re harming the cause by being tolerant of your’s and other’s religions. Sir I think the brothers in Christ that post here, see through you and your racist rhetoric:
    “Why is it that too many of you here are so unwilling to call a spade a spade?”

    Because sir: a man is a man we are all of the same father. Your fur is showing through your sheepskin!
    Do you pick what you believe yourself to be guilty of and try and throw the blame onto other people?
    Sir we know “your cause”. Deception is not one of our tools. We don’t try to keep anyone from trying to hear the word of God. My hope is that any others, that might be affected by your vain ramblings can now clearly see what you are and who you’re working for.
    I offer you this in love sir:
    Hi Jesus died for us!! but, did you know he would have died just for you? Even if it wasn’t going to save anyone else. Jesus made this sacrafice so that we, as sinners, could have eternal life . We have all sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God . If you are interested in salvation and eternal life you have to recognize the sacrafice Jesus Christ made for you and know that God the Father raised him on the third day . I don’t think a prayer of salvation has to be to specific, the Holy Spirit translates for us . I would pray something like ” Dear Father that art in Heaven I know I’m a sinner and deserve to go to hell. I accept that Jesus, the Son of God, died for my sins and that you raised Him on the third day. I ask that you come into my life and give me the peace I so desparately need Amen” . Then just tell anyone that you believe. You are not instantly going to be perfect but you will be saved ! I’m sure I sin everyday. I’m not perfect, and I do regret the wrong I do . I will have to answer for my sins. So don’t get discouraged… we all have to grow .

    In closing A Christian in my opinion and by definition is someone who is or tries to be Christ like & follow Christ’s teachings.

    With love three crosses

  147. GaryMurray July 31, 2007 10:54 am Reply

    djhouk
    Said this on July 26th, 2007 at 6:01pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974
    Said this on July 25th, 2007 at 5:20pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    …there is mounting and highly evocative evidence that the speed of light has changed dramatically

    I don’t want to get into a YEC debate here (the moderator won’t allow it), but Barry Setterfield’s work has been completely discredited. As a degreed Electrical Engineer, I know a little something about the properties of electromagnetic radiation. The speed of light is a fundamental constant of the universe. Had it been different in the past, the universe would look very different today. Plus, we have astronomical observational evidence that it has been constant for at least the last 150,000 years.

    Explaining light from distant stars is one of the biggest challenges for YEC.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: PG74, Setterfield’s work stands and should be researched further. Please lighten up on your inaccurate blanket statements of dismissal, when you have not checked the data. I have. Light is not a constant. Please see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=283 -OR- http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/225/ Also, do a web search on “sodium light speed” if you are so inclined to begin studying this topic. Creationists are again leading the evolutionists (decades ahead this time) in quality scientific research.

    Also, a note to those discussing distant star light and the “age of the universe”. 17 times in the Bible it states in passing that the Creator “stretches the heavens”. (Hence the “steady-state” theory was unbiblical, by the way.) Here is an article about this: http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/245/ P.A. ]

    ———————————————–

    I drilled back to find this interesting debate on light being or not being a constant. I went through this several months ago with Samphire I do believe. Paul is correct that the creationist are far more ahead of research on this particular subject than the evolvers. No, there is no solid proven form of evidence for either side yet. In response to what djhouk said “Explaining light from distant stars is one of the biggest challenges for YEC.” If one of the bigggest challenges is one we’re leading in, my confidence is not the least bit shaken.

    I too came to the realization that as long as the scientific community continually believe that God is limited to the physical state and ‘laws’ of his creation, they can never accept him as the creator.

    Owned an ant farm once. Interesting, those ants are limited in every way by the glass case I set them in. As long as I leave it set on a desk by itself, the ants live about their lives like nothing can trouble them. Busy they are, doing exactly what they’re supposed to do, without hesitation. The moment I pick it up, turn it over or jostle it a bit, confused and shaken ants have no direction or guidance. I could easily expand the glass case without their knowledge or understanding of how I did it. They just know it was done, but are once again limited to the inside of that glass case. Is it evolution controlled, or is it creator controlled? Did the ants ever really have any control or understanding of what they lived in? As far as they knew it was dirt… Even when they were the most calm and collected and had it all figured out, they were still clueless.

    I’ve probably turned it around over, bumped it so many times, yet the ants have never done anything to prepare for it to happen again. Once the anxiety calms down, they’re back to their busy little business, they found something odd they coulnd’t quite explain, but didn’t believe it was anything more than an unexplained anomoly, so they just accepted it and moved on assuming they were all still in control of their lives and their universe.

    There’s a creator out there folks, one day the world we live in will be turned up-side-down. Plan to be on top, or underneath?

    God bless those in and seeking Christ

  148. Learned Hand July 31, 2007 10:58 am Reply

    Ukulelemike said, “I wonder if the recent ruling in Louisiana, where a jury court found that the IRS has no constitutional foundation to consider wages as being taxable income, will change the tenor of some of this ongoing dedbate, as well as the position that Bro. Hovind finds himself in today.”

    The answer is that no, it will not. A “jury court” did not find that “the IRS has no constitutional foundation to consider wages as being taxable income.” Juries answer questions of fact, not law; that jury’s determination applied only the specific facts of that case (such as what that defendant knew, when he knew it) and are applicable only to that specific case.

    “It seems to me that this will set a precedent that can be used in his appeal process.”

    No, it will not. Jury verdicts are not binding on, or even persuasive legal authority to, other courts on questions of law or fact, because they are limited to the facts of the case in which they sit. This is an intentional element of the American legal system, designed into it from the ground up. I have not read any informed legal analysis suggesting that any reversible error exists in Mr. Hovind’s case, nor have I found any in my own reading. It’s not a conspiracy against Mr. Hovind, or Christians in general, that put the man in jail – he committed serious crimes, and is being punished for them.

  149. David July 31, 2007 11:14 am Reply

    Darling,

    Again I have to give you an F for your answers.

    1. I take it you can’t find the law that makes anyone liable for the income tax on the IRS web site. Isn’t that a clue?
    Or are you saying title 26 as a whole makes us liable?
    2. Wrong again! Here’s an excerpt from the privacy act :

    Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are LIABLE for. Your response is mandatory under these sections.

    3. How long would it have taken you to show the law making anyone liable for the federal income tax instead of sidestepping the issue? I did check your sources and found no law making anyone liable for the income tax. Maybe I missed it and you would be so kind to copy and paste it for me and others.
    ***************************************************************************************

    Darling
    Said this on July 30th, 2007 at 1:48pm:

    1. David Said this on July 30th, 2007 at 12:26pm:
    “Why not show the law( Title 26 ) that makes anyone liable for the federal income tax from the IRS web site?”
    Title 26 is Title 26 no matter who is hosting it.
    2.“The privacy act states, we only have to pay the tax we are liable for.”
    No it doesn’t.
    3.“Just show us the LAW!”
    See my post of July 26th, 2007 at 10:35am.
    Feel free to check their work at your local law library.

  150. Learned Hand July 31, 2007 11:20 am Reply

    EndTimes said, “I am one of those “literal creationists” that you have very politely called stupid. So, please show me what “evidence” I am fantastically ignoring?”

    I have not called you stupid, nor have I implied it. I said that literal creationists cling to factually insupportable beliefs because the alternative, reached through objective study of overwhelming evidence, would lead to ideologically impermissible conclusions. I obviously cannot list the evidence here, as the moderator has asked that we not debate the substance of your ideology. I suggest you peruse a textbook, or the archives of published experimental biology. It is interesting to me that there are no six-day creationists other than those with a pre-existing ideological commitment to that result.

    I am not here to discuss biology, geology, or astronomy, however. I am not a scientist, although I note that professional, practicing and publishing scientists reject Mr. Hovind’s magical thinking. I am qualified to address Mr. Hovind’s fantasies regarding the law; my message is that they are the result of willful delusions. Mr. Hovind’s factually inaccurate beliefs and irrational theories regarding the law have cost him and his family dearly, and I am concerned that other people may be convinced by the uneducated and irresponsible comments left here that it is safe, ethical, moral, or logical to follow Mr. Hovind into perdition. It is not. He was, and is, wrong about the law, and although I pity anyone forced to endure incarceration, he virtually demanded a harsh punishment with his arrogant contumacy and dishonesty.

    “By the way, you will find a large number of Christian fundamentalists who are appalled at the tax protestor movement as well. Yet, a simple question, which law was in place on December 31, 1983 that would have put Kent Hovind in prison for even one day that was used against him in his 2006 case? Perhaps the person that stated this case has nothing to do with “endtimes” could clarify that position as well. Please comment on what constitutional authority they based their decisions?”

    I am glad to hear that some fundamentalists are appalled by dishonesty. I have seen some of them here. I am afraid, however, that their voice is drowned out by the self-righteous indignation of those who understand little about the law, but don’t care to learn before they protest.

    I’m not sure what you’re asking – your question is very unclear. Are you asking what law Hovind broke, and whether that law is constitutional? Wikipedia reports that he was convicted of multiple counts under 18 U.S.C. § 2, 26 U.S.C. § 7202 and 7212, and 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313(a) and 5324. I realize that those are just numbers unless you know the code, but Google will return the text of each of those statutes. I’m not aware of any serious argument that any of those statutes is unconstitutional; Congress has exclusive constitutional jurisdiction over the regulation of interstate commerce, which includes banking laws. Do you have an argument that any of those statutes was somehow unconstitutional? Is it based on what the law is, or what you think the law should be? Please remember that the difference is crucial.

  151. Learned Hand July 31, 2007 11:25 am Reply

    “Kill her, she had no purpose on this earth or the universe, makes no difference to me, I don’t love her, I have no emotion, I am only interested in number one, me, survival of the fittest”

    This is an appallingly vicious, spiteful, and dishonest characterization of those of us who reject the magical theories of creationists. Who actually thinks like this? Can you name anyone? It is beyond ridicule to suggest that evolutionary theory destroys our love for our families, or our human decency. You should be ashamed to put such vile words in the mouths of others. What credibility does Christianity have, when Christians show no decency to others?

  152. FuManchu July 31, 2007 11:25 am Reply

    GaryMurray,

    I’m not quite sure what the moral of your story was intended to be. “Believe in Jesus, and you’ll become someone who doesn’t care if his daughter is murdered”? To say nothing of the fact that “Kill her, I believe in Jesus” isn’t the best piece of reasoning. “Kill her, she believes in Jesus” might at least have been a little more relevant, although when you come down to it it’s still telling someone to kill your daughter. Oddly enough, none of the examples you gave involved saying “don’t kill her”, which is the only response a sane person would genuinely give.

    If it’s all right with you, I’ll persist in my atheistic ways, naively loving my family enough to care about whether they live or die. Silly, I know.

  153. darling July 31, 2007 12:58 pm Reply

    David Said this on July 31st, 2007 at 11:14am:

    “1. I take it you can’t find the law that makes anyone liable for the income tax on the IRS web site. Or are you saying title 26 as a whole makes us liable?”

    Title 26 is the income tax law.
    I’ve never really looked to see if the IRS site hosts the text of Title 26, but I doubt that it would.

    “2. Wrong again! Here’s an excerpt from the privacy act…”

    That’s not an excerpt from the Privacy Act.

    “3. How long would it have taken you to show the law making anyone liable for the federal income tax instead of sidestepping the issue?”

    If by “sidestepping the issue” you mean “directing people to the law” then it took about about ten seconds.

    “I did check your sources and found no law making anyone liable for the income tax.”

    You might want to pay particular attention to this section:
    http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#liable

  154. hooray4god July 31, 2007 1:34 pm Reply

    FuManchu–
    “Believe in Jesus, and you’ll become someone who doesn’t care if his daughter is ed”?

    We Christians believe that whatever happens to us was written in God’s plan… so if someone dies…we try to pray for God’s intervention and He will deal with it according to his plan. I’m not saying that God is mean and doesn’t listen to our prayers…because he does. What I’m trying to say is that when a person dies, we have the assurance(if that person was a fellow Christian) to see him/her in heaven again. Therefore, we can REJOICE and not callously. 1) becausethey are no longer suffering, 2)because it was all according to God’s plan, and 3) because we’ll see them later. Of course we care. As a Christian, is nothing to fear , rather something to look forward to.

  155. EndTimes July 31, 2007 3:00 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on July 31st, 2007 at 11:20am:

    “I have not called you stupid, nor have I implied it. I said that literal creationists cling to factually insupportable beliefs because the alternative, reached through objective study of overwhelming evidence, would lead to ideologically impermissible conclusions.”

    Wow, again in a very polite manner, you state that I am not objective and thus implying that my thinking is subjective and I am willingly ignorant of “overwhelming evidence” because of my ideology. Sorry, but one of the definitions of “stupid” is lacking understanding. So, in a very polite way, you have again stated that I am lacking in objective understanding which is actually a synonym for stupid. I would have thought a learned lawyer would understand when they are or are not calling someone stupid with great flowing words. Yup, the only reason that I am a literal 6 day creationist is because I am clinging to an ideologically impermissible conclusion. For the ignorant creationist that needs help understanding simple English, it means you have called me stupid once again. Look up the definition of stupid if you don’t understand the insults you are throwing my way.

    Stupid: Formed without skill or genius, wanting in understanding, insensible (Not sensible or reasonable; meaningless), senseless (lacking the faculty of perception).

    You have it one hundred percent incorrect on all accounts. I have my current literal creationist ideology BECAUSE of the evidence, not despite of the evidence or as well, not because I do not UNDERSTAND the evidence objectively. Take a look at some of our discussions from December to I believe April on the creation/evolution debates here on CSE and you will see volumes of objective evidence on the creation side of this debate. For example, if the uniformitarian principles are correct, then take some granite, melt it and “recreate” the granite sample since this is the prevailing theory on how it was formed. Add a little pressure to the recipe of course since “objective evidence” prevails on how this was formed again by uniformitarian principles. Add some polonium halos just for fun.

    Simple test and if and when you are able to do that, then I will quit being “willingly ignorant” and I will give up my ideologically impermissible conclusions as you have put it. However, since granite is direct evidence of God’s sole creative power, neither you nor anyone else will be able to accomplish this very simple task. It is actually a falsification test for your uniformitarian principles and a direct objective evidence of creation. Who is it my friend that clings “to factually insupportable beliefs because the alternative, reached through objective study of overwhelming evidence, would lead to ideologically impermissible conclusions?”

    “I obviously cannot list the evidence here, as the moderator has asked that we not debate the substance of your ideology. I suggest you peruse a textbook, or the archives of published experimental biology. It is interesting to me that there are no six-day creationists other than those with a pre-existing ideological commitment to that result.”

    Wow, are you in the dark and absolutely WRONG. You must have suppressed the knowledge of the great number of evolutionist scientists who are now literal creationists because of the evidence from their studies that falsified uniformitarian evolutionary thinking. (Dean Kenyon for one) Your statement is totally unsupported by the evidence of people like me my friend. I graduated from my college Summa Cum Laude with a major in Biology and minors in Chemistry and Mathematics. I completed my medical training at a prestigious college and then my Internal Medicine residency as a devout defender of evolution. I even took pleasure in harassing those ignorant creationists every opportunity that I could like you are doing now. Then after all that, I became a born again Christian at the age of 36 due to the evidence of the Bible being completely true in all regards when I was confronted with the evidence from another PHYSICIAN. My ideological background is that of a liberal, democratic, hedonistic evolutionist as are all the rest of my direct family still. Sorry, but who is the one that has a stilted attitude towards something you have no understanding of?

    What other “OBJECTIVE” remarks supported by the evidence do you have to offer in this discussion? And you tell me in a quite condescending manner to: “I suggest you peruse a textbook, or the archives of published experimental biology.” I guess in my 20 plus years in medicine I have never once considered reading a textbook or published experimental biology. Thank you once again for an incredibly condescending statement. Oh I forgot, you are objective and I am subjective, and my opinions have been “Formed without skill or genius, wanting in understanding, insensible (Not sensible or reasonable; meaningless), senseless (lacking the faculty of perception) (i.e. stupid)

    CONDESCEND, v.i. [L. See Descend.]

    3. To stoop or descend; to yield; to submit; implying a relinquishment of rank, or dignity of character, and sometimes a sinking into debasement.

    Please get off of your high horse my friend and talk about ISSUES and quit treating me like a neophyte student uneducated in the things of this world. You are not proving your statement to anyone that you have not called creationist’s stupid. Your entire manner is that of a superior to an inferior. You are greatly mistaken my friend and I am not so stupid as to miss the context of your message for which I take umbrage against you. Neither are many other honest and sincere literal creationists undeducated at all on these and many other issues my friend. The Bible never tells us to leave our brains outside of the door when we go to church. In fact, it tells us just the opposite:

    Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

    I am not here to discuss biology, geology, or astronomy, however. I am not a scientist, although I note that professional, practicing and publishing scientists reject Mr. Hovind’s magical thinking.

    Sorry, but believing in spontaneous generation of life from a primordial soup is the magical thinking in this crowd. Where did all of that information come from that is the sole difference between inanimate and animate objects? What uniformitarian process created all of the cellular machinery that keeps us alive? I objectively know of none. Perhaps because you are objective and more informed than a literal creationist such as me, you would enlighten me on this one issue as well.

    In kindness,

    Peter

    P.S. I would hope that you will consider the objective evidence of creation just in these two examples that I have given you here (recreate granite in a lab and tell us where the information came from) and perhaps even study what the Bible is really all about. It is all about repentance and mercy from our God and Creator and Saviour, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Unfortunately, you have shown no objective understanding of who He is my friend. The evidence is there if you wish to search for it, but the “ideologically impermissible conclusions” of evolution may completely prevent you from even looking. It is my prayer that you will nevertheless.

    P.S.S. I believe it is you, “Learned Hand” that has much to learn and not me or many of my fellow believers as you have insinuated several times already.

    P.S.S.S. Paul Abramson has given some a little leeway in answering questions such as this as long as it does not turn into a full blown creation/evolution debate, so go ahead and answer in kind, it will be OK at least just once.

  156. EndTimes July 31, 2007 3:27 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on July 31st, 2007 at 11:20am:

    I am glad to hear that some fundamentalists are appalled by dishonesty. I have seen some of them here. I am afraid, however, that their voice is drowned out by the self-righteous indignation of those who understand little about the law, but don’t care to learn before they protest.

    Sorry, but I did not state my objection to tax protest because I implied people are dishonest. I believe that they fundamentally believe that our government is out of control and has abrogated the intent of the founding fathers in the laws placed in our constitution. In this, many of these people are absolutely honest and loyal to our constitution, yet our current government is not.

    My objection as a Christian is that fighting the governmental injustices is not our job. Our job is to reach a lost world through the gospel. In principle however, standing up to a government that does not honour its founding principles is actually quite patriotic and should be accomplished. I just do not believe that is the first ideal that we are to place our energies. Paul did keep the Roman magistrates honest when they violated Roman law against Paul who was a Roman citizen. But he did not dwell on this issue. His prime concern at all times was preaching the gospel and from this, he was not distracted. As a Christian, we need to carefully choose our battles. For me, correcting a wayward government seems quite counterproductive to my time that is so limited as it is. So, you have not characterized my objections correctly.

    I’m not sure what you’re asking – your question is very unclear. Are you asking what law Hovind broke, and whether that law is constitutional? Wikipedia reports that he was convicted of multiple counts under 18 U.S.C. § 2, 26 U.S.C. § 7202 and 7212, and 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313(a) and 5324. I realize that those are just numbers unless you know the code, but Google will return the text of each of those statutes. I’m not aware of any serious argument that any of those statutes is unconstitutional; Congress has exclusive constitutional jurisdiction over the regulation of interstate commerce, which includes banking laws. Do you have an argument that any of those statutes was somehow unconstitutional? Is it based on what the law is, or what you think the law should be? Please remember that the difference is crucial.

    Sorry for the oblique reference to the fact that before January 1, 1984, there was no law against doing what Dr. Hovind did with his finances in 2006. In fact, that was the manner in which many churches or affiliated organizations ran their offices. If you do not understand that the power to tax given by the Dole Finance Committee has the power to destroy that which the constitution has stated there shall be no interference with the free exercise of religion, then I will not be able to impact your thinking any more than I have for darling all of these months. Yes, turning a church organization into an IRS tax collector is a constitutional issue of great importance that would have turned James Madison into outer orbit from his grave if he could have conceived this prospect. In this, I faithfully support Dr. Hovind in his consideration of this affront against Christianity in this country and against religious liberties that are being wiped off of the slate of the constitution by those that have been dishonest with their pledge to protect and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. Constitutional issue? you bet!!

    Memorial and Remonstrance
    Against Religious Assessments
    James Madison
    [1785]

    Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents.

    http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html

    With the love of Christ,

    Peter

  157. EndTimes July 31, 2007 3:34 pm Reply

    Sorry, but lets try it one more time. Paul, perhaps you will delete the one above. I had a HTML tag incomplete.

    Memorial and Remonstrance
    Against Religious Assessments
    James Madison
    [1785]

    Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. ?The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

    http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html

    With the love of Christ,

    Peter

  158. praybird July 31, 2007 5:57 pm Reply

    Gary Murrey,

    I don’t have any science background only what I study at home. I have a question if it is okay to ask? But wouldn’t bones such as dinosaur bones disinegrate after a few thousand years? Wouldn’t it be impossible for bones to last hundreds of millions of years???? Wouldn’t these bones go back to the dust after just a few thousand years?
    We will continue by Gods grace and mercy to lift up the Hovinds in prayer. Regardless of what as happened, I am so grateful for Bro. Kents teachings, and preaching the gospel on his videos, they have blessed us greatly.
    My thanks to all who have shown support and prayers for the Hovind family, and also Gary and some of you all who are imputting some of your knowledge on some of this scientific evidence. I read these with great interest.
    I do hope and pray that those who are atheists will come to understand that God is Love and I fervently pray that the Christian community will come to show and reflect that Love. Anyone who turns, or comes to Jesus, no matter what they have done he will in no wise cast out. He is there with open arms ready to receive anyone who believes. Although there have been many who have brought shame to our Savior and many wolves in sheeps clothing, and yet still many who have messed up and made bad decisions, the fact remains, is that our Savior Jesus Christ Loves and redeemed all of mankind on the cross, the final sacrifice. I know that there are cults and strange teachings out there, but I think the true Christians, if their children were in any danger would defend them and protect them. I have had to do just that. I can’t imagine doing anything else but protecting my loved ones.
    God bless, and God bless the Hovinds. from Brenda and Don

  159. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 July 31, 2007 6:40 pm Reply

    baliset,

    I appreciate that what I am saying might be hard for you to comprehend. Peter said that about Paul’s writings.

    but consider Samphire and djhouk’s response to the James Traficant quote. The first thing put in question was the man’s character. The beginning of a response was ad hominem. “Where does using that argument get you?” “Who agrees with you?” “What’s in it for me?” “Who has ratified that?” “Which courts have upheld that?” “How is that piece of information advancing anyone’s cause?”

    No earthly court ever acknowledged that Jesus was the son of God; in his time.

    The question simply is: “Is it true?”

    I have not gone everywhere with the Ens Legis, Stramineus Homo, Juridical Person evidence. But to date it gives the best explanation I have seen of what actually happened to the various court systems, commerce, money and banking systems, international politics……

    I think it simply explains the history of the world accurately. I believe it is true. I believe the UCC filing procedures acknowledge the simple fact of it in a profoundly straight forward way. That a man can place a lien against the ENS LEGIS mirror image of the man.

    The grammatically truly written name of man is different from the CORPORATE COLOURED/ JURISTIC PERSON/ ENS LEGIS/ TRADING VESSEL; and this is born out in the history of berth [sic] certificates.

    As I recently said to Graham Daniels – the gold/ silver minting man – over lunch “the common law has not been abrogated as much as it has been hidden through obfuscations.”

    I appreciate your frustration with this web site. Naturally you ask yourself the question: “If this is true why wasn’t I the first to know?”

    The fact is if you start doing some reading on this you can still be ahead of 99.9% of all people out there. Those on the broadway the bible speaks about are apt to remain sound asleep.

    Dear John Lake,
    thankyou for your references on state abbreviations [I admit I connected them with Roosevelt but maybe I should have been looking at the influence and history of the Universal Postal Union] ; I haven’t had the time to read through your references yet but will get back to them soon. Have you done any research on the Universal Postal Union and how it controls member nations?

  160. DQ July 31, 2007 6:43 pm Reply

    darling said: “You might want to pay particular attention to this section:
    http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#liable

    Thanks for a good site there darling. I trust that will put an end to the “you can’t point to the law that says I have to pay taxes” argument.

    (Heavy sarcasm)

  161. DQ July 31, 2007 6:46 pm Reply

    hooray4god said:”We Christians believe that whatever happens to us was written in God’s plan… so if someone dies…we try to pray for God’s intervention and He will deal with it according to his plan. I’m not saying that God is mean and doesn’t listen to our prayers…because he does. What I’m trying to say is that when a person dies, we have the assurance(if that person was a fellow Christian) to see him/her in heaven again. Therefore, we can REJOICE and not callously. 1) becausethey are no longer suffering, 2)because it was all according to God’s plan, and 3) because we’ll see them later. Of course we care. <b>As a Christian, is nothing to fear , rather something to look forward to.”</b>

    Hey hooray4god-
    Terry Schiavo begs to differ. This is certainly not the attitude you fundies took in her case.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Anyone can push others down. That takes nothing internally. But it takes character to want to lift others up.

    The bad guys in Germany in the 1930s started with the disabled. They called them “useless eaters”. They wanted the value of human life lowered. They wanted to push others down. P.A. ]

  162. darling July 31, 2007 9:17 pm Reply

    DQ Said this on July 31st, 2007 at 6:43pm:

    “Thanks for a good site there darling. I trust that will put an end to the “you can’t point to the law that says I have to pay taxes” argument.”

    You can lead a horse to the water…

  163. Learned Hand July 31, 2007 10:19 pm Reply

    I would have thought a learned lawyer would understand when they are or are not calling someone stupid with great flowing words. Yup, the only reason that I am a literal 6 day creationist is because I am clinging to an ideologically impermissible conclusion.

    EndTimes, I have not called you stupid, obliquely or otherwise. I will note, however, that you don’t appear to have understood my argument. I don’t believe that you are a creationist “because [you are] clinging to an ideologically impermissible conclusion.” I believe that you disregard objective science in order to avoid reaching an ideologically impermissible conclusion.

    The point is moot, however. The moderator has asked that we not argue the merits of creationism, which is a reasonable policy. There is, after all, no realistic possibility of either of us persuading the other. (Your argument that scientists must “recreate granite in a lab,” for instance, is bizarre to me. No scientific theory of which I’m aware requires that particular rocks be reproducible in a laboratory, just as stellar astronomy doesn’t require that stars be reproducible in a laboratory to be accurate, even though stars form through the mere compression of available elements.) As I said, I’m not here to debate biology, physics, or geology. I am an attorney, and am here simply because I find the dishonesty and disregard for truth being bandied about here as pseudo-legal arguments offensive to my moral and ethical sensibilities. Let us, then, turn to examples of those pseudo-legal arguments.

    Sorry for the oblique reference to the fact that before January 1, 1984, there was no law against doing what Dr. Hovind did with his finances in 2006.

    Your reference was not oblique, it was nonsensical. I’ve read the indictment now, and I don’t see any count predicated on any activity predating the 2001 tax year. Why, then, is it relevant what the law was before 1984? Please remember that in law, as in science, what you want to be true is not necessarily what is true. What you think the law should be is not relevant to whether or not Mr. Hovind broke the actual, real-world law.

    If you do not understand that the power to tax given by the Dole Finance Committee has the power to destroy that which the constitution has stated there shall be no interference with the free exercise of religion, then I will not be able to impact your thinking any more than I have for darling all of these months.

    If this is the quality of your legal reasoning, then darling is to be congratulated for putting up with it for all those months. Requiring religious organizations who hire employees to follow neutral, generally applicable laws with regard to those employees does not give the government the power to “destroy” free exercise. What is your theory here? How would the government use this power to destroy any free exercise?

    Please note that your Madison quote is not the law of the land. You are, again, conflating what you want the law to be, and what the law actually is. Madison failed to persuade the framers to exempt religious organizations from otherwise-applicable general laws. While there are limits to the authority the state may exercise over religious organizations, there is no legal principle prohibiting the requirement that churches who have employees properly withhold those employees’ taxes. Can you, as the tax protesters love to demand, show me the law?

    Praybird said, But wouldn’t bones such as dinosaur bones disinegrate after a few thousand years? Wouldn’t it be impossible for bones to last hundreds of millions of years???? Wouldn’t these bones go back to the dust after just a few thousand years?

    No. Dinosaur bones in museums aren’t actually bones, like you find in your drumstick. They are minerals, like rocks. Sometimes, very rarely, a dead animal will come to rest in such a place and such a manner that it is covered by sediment. Over time, mineral-laden water seeps in and displaces the original organic matter. The result, after millions of years, is essentially a stone in the shape of the original bone or tooth. Other sorts of fossils, such as insects encased in amber, are formed in other ways. That’s a very, very brief description of the process; if you’re interested, your library or school will have a wide variety of books on the subject. You can see good images of rocks with these imprints and remnants, as well as amber fossils, here: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/FossilGalleries.htm

  164. Learned Hand July 31, 2007 10:55 pm Reply

    Australian etc. said, The beginning of a response was ad hominem. “Where does using that argument get you?” “Who agrees with you?” “What’s in it for me?” “Who has ratified that?” “Which courts have upheld that?” “How is that piece of information advancing anyone’s cause?”

    I’m not sure what you’re quoting, but what you’ve excerpted there are not ad hominem remarks. You might be thinking of another Latin phrase, cui bono, but even that doesn’t apply to most of the questions you’ve quoted there. Wikipedia has a good page about the ad hominem fallacy, if you’re interested; you appear to be confused as to its meaning.

    I have not gone everywhere with the Ens Legis, Stramineus Homo, Juridical Person evidence. But to date it gives the best explanation I have seen of what actually happened to the various court systems, commerce, money and banking systems, international politics……

    You have not, so far as I can see, gone anywhere with those Capitalized Words. They are not any sort of “evidence,” nor are they legal concepts in the manner in which you describe them. This “straw man” and “judicial person” gobbledygook is an elaborate fantasy with no basis in actual law, politics, banking, etc. As the tax protesters say, can you show me the law establishing any of this nonsense? People who rely on these frankly silly arguments in court get themselves hurt, badly. Law is like a truck – it doesn’t matter how much you believe that it’s not there, or that it’s made of straw. It’s real, it’s heavy, it moves quickly, and if you stand in the highway long enough, you’re going to get creamed, because the law is what the law is, regardless of your misunderstandings.

    I believe it is true. I believe the UCC filing procedures acknowledge the simple fact of it in a profoundly straight forward way. That a man can place a lien against the ENS LEGIS mirror image of the man.

    Your belief does not make it so. Your belief is just that – a belief, with no actual basis in fact. The Uniform Commercial Code is not the basis of American law, and it does not distinguish between people based on how they capitalize their names. Can you show me any section of the UCC that supports this bizarre fantasy? You cannot, because you are basing your arguments on how other people have (falsely) described the UCC to you, as opposed to the actual text of the Code.

    (You can peruse the UCC at Cornell’s excellent website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html)

    The grammatically truly written name of man is different from the CORPORATE COLOURED/ JURISTIC PERSON/ ENS LEGIS/ TRADING VESSEL; and this is born out in the history of berth [sic] certificates.

    No, it isn’t, and no, it isn’t. You don’t become a different (or “juridical” or “ens legis”) person by capitalizing your name, or spelling it differently. Can you show me any law that says otherwise? Forming a corporation, which a natural person can do, actually requires specific acts, such as filing articles of incorporation with the secretary of your state (in the USA) and issuing stock. It doesn’t change the natural person’s identity, though – it just creates a business organization. Period. The incorporating person stays the same person, with the same name, and the same pre-existing liabilities. Writing your name like [STEVEN-SMITH:JONES](c) doesn’t have the slightest legal significance – it doesn’t even establish copyright in your name. It just makes you look deranged.

    I appreciate your frustration with this web site. Naturally you ask yourself the question: “If this is true why wasn’t I the first to know?” The fact is if you start doing some reading on this you can still be ahead of 99.9% of all people out there.

    The answer is, “It isn’t true.” The fact is it’s merely the bizarre hobby of some very strange people with too much time on their hands and no inclination to learn the actual, real-world law. You’re treating the law as creationists treat science – like it was a magic spell, as if you could chant the magic words loudly and quickly enough and make them true by virtue of your willpower. Reality is not so plastic, though. The law is what it is, and no amount of Angelfire websites ranting about the New World Order or the Universal Postal Union or the chips implanted in the heads of squirrels to monitor sheeple will affect the reality of what the law books actually say.

    My point – and the reason I’m posting here – to tell anyone reading this page and wondering about the merits of Mr. Hovind’s or Australian’s legal theories that that tax protesters are wrong. Wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and wrong on the morality of their position. They’re dishonest, they abhor actual learning and knowledge, they adore the ignorance of their followers, and they get innocent people hurt by bilking them into accepting bogus, post-modernist arguments about the law. I’m sure it’s lots of fun to pretend to be a crusader and rail against the many-headed beast, or whatever. But remember – there is a difference between what the law is and what you imagine the law to be. If you don’t like the tax laws, write your Congressman or run for office. But don’t sabotage your future by staking your well-being on a fantasy world in which the IRS is a foreign corporation run by evil androids from Pluto. Real people, like Mrs. Hovind, get hurt when they’re talked into ignoring the law.

  165. Ekkman July 31, 2007 11:18 pm Reply

    DQ
    Said this on July 31st, 2007 at 6:43pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    darling said: “You might want to pay particular attention to this section:
    http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#liable”

    Thanks for a good site there darling. I trust that will put an end to the “you can’t point to the law that says I have to pay taxes” argument.

    (Heavy sarcasm

    Teno
    Said this on July 27th, 2007 at 6:29am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Here is some GREAT news about income taxes:

    http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

    THE POWER TO DESTROY
    IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
    Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation

    July 26, 2007 By Bob Unruh © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

    The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer’s challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation’s income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

    *******

    How about that? The IRS was called out to prove they have a legal right to impose an income tax on our wages, and the IRS didn’t answer the bell or prove their case. The lawyer was aquitted by a unanimous jury vote. That’s the lawyer Bro. Hovind needs to get.

    In any case, this shows all those who have been critical of Bro. Hovind should go soak their heads because they were WRONG about income taxes being owed legally.

    P.S. EKKMAN, your email address is bouncing again.

    Teno, I don’t understand why it is happening with you. Other people are writing me they are coming through on both e-mails.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  166. 2ndamenduser August 1, 2007 2:06 am Reply

    I appreciate the illustration of the imaginary conversation in this post between God and Simon the Zealot. It is important to keep the main thing the main thing. And it is important to remember that God is the One Who knows what He is doing at all times. Our job is to do what His Word commands us to do.

    I certainly hope that this is not an indication of Bro. Hovind “cracking” under the torturous treatment of denied justice, convoluted application of statutory laws and public servants following corrupt leaders instead of standing behind their oath to defend the Constitution from enemies at home and abroad.

    I have seen several comments indicating that we as Christians are not to fight for our rights and it frustrates me to no end that Christians have laid down in front of the train.

    Would you Christians please wake up to the fact that our forefathers fought a revolution “relying on Providence” for His blessings!

    Many a Baptist preacher (I don’t know of any religious ministers) left his pulpit for months at a time to fight in the War for Independence. George Washington wrote a letter singling out the Baptists of Virginia as having been invaluable to the success of the war effort at the conclusion of the war.

    My guess is that many who “support” the Hovinds would have been found wanting if they had lived in that day. I think they would have been content to “write about it” from the security of their home.

    For those of you who do not investigate, but just read what others say (I’m not blaming or shaming you, just pointing out a fact that may be due to your busy-ness) and are thereby duped by those who misapply quotes from links and websites geared toward submission to lawless government agencies, here are some things you should know.

    For darling, djhouk, DQ and others of like mind, there is no law that makes a citizen of the united States of America liable for income tax unless you create that liability. The IRS Code has been written in such a way as to create the impression that we all are liable (I won’t get into why at this time). Darling said he found the law in about ten seconds. No he didn’t. He only found what the IRS wants us to think he found. It takes more than ten seconds to get to the bottom of this issue. I suggest you get the book, “Cracking the Code” by Peter Eric Hendrickson. It is available at amazon.com.

    The Tom Cryer case reveals the truth so often covered up that what a man earns for a living is his and is not taxable. Life is one of those inalienable rights. If a man cannot make a living, he dies. So to make a living is an inalienable right. And rights cannot be taxed without the consent of the taxed.

    Furthermore,the definition of a withholding agent in the IRS tax code is very clear:

    §7701 (a)(16) Subtitle F. Ch. 79
    (16) Withholding agent. – The term “withholding agent” means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.

    Would you like to know who these sections apply to? Here you go:

    CHAPTER 3 – WITHHOLDING OF TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
    SUBCHAPTER A. Nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.

    Sec. 1441. Withholding of tax on nonresident aliens.
    Sec. 1442. Withholding of tax on foreign corporations.
    Sec. 1443. Foreign tax-exempt organizations.

    Subchapter B—Application of Withholding Provisions
    Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax.

    SEC. 1461. LIABILITY FOR WITHHELD TAX.
    Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

    “Under this chapter” it is clear that no one is required to withhold taxes on the income of any U.S. citizens! The only way that it is “allowable” is if a citizen relinquishes his rights as a U.S. citizen and fills out a W-4 form authorizing taxes to be withheld! If you authorize it, you ARE liable! But not because the IRS code requires every citizen to pay, only because YOU authorize it. When you do, you are liable for it and you are also liable for any errors or false information you submit.

    I called the IRS about this several times and recorded their answers. One agent I talked to lied to me three times! I have it on tape. They try to dodge and say, “that is a legal matter, do you have any tax questions that are not of a legal nature?”

    I am not against the IRS. We need them to collect the taxes from non-resident aliens and foreign corporations that operate in our country.

    I am not against taxes. Any lawful, constitutional tax is a tax I am glad to pay, even if I do not like how it is spent. We have opportunities to do something about how they are spent through our political system of electing representatives, senators, etc.

    Furthermore, great misrepresentation is being committed by those who call those who take a stand against paying the income tax or the social security tax (that’s another issue) “tax evaders” or “tax protestors”. Tax protestors are not bad people. Tax cheaters are! Protesting is a constitutional right. Also to evade a tax is just as much of a right as it is to evade an accident or evade being the victim of a crime by taking steps to secure your person or property.
    “A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.” Proverbs 22:3; 27:12

    Let’s be thorough in our study of the law. I have read about 85% of the the tax code (I’m working on the rest). I have done many word searches to find out what it really says. It is not unconstitutional, it is merely misapplied and fraudulently taught and those who misapply it end up in an indefensible position and lose in court most of the time. (Not unplanned by the writers and backers of the code)
    God, the judge of all is watching to see how our government treats its people. He is also watching to see how many people lie and cheat. And I think He is watching those who in good faith attempt to stand on principle and law as they understand it and He will vindicate those who are mistreated by the servants of the people some day.

    A Pastor from the West

  167. CreationCD August 1, 2007 2:54 am Reply

    In regard to Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God.

    See: Endtimes, July 26;
    Matthew July 25;
    Paul Abramson SMART hour, July 30

    To be a Muslim you must deny Christ’s deity.

    To be a Muslim you must deny the doctrine of Trinity.

    The following verses come from three different translations of the Qur’an because Muslims only acknowledge the Arabic Qur’an as the word of God. This gives them leeway to make up translations of verses as it suits them. Much like when the Catholic Church kept the Bible in Latin.

    04.171
    YUSUFALI: O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
    PICKTHAL: O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three” – Cease! (it is) better for you! – Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.
    SHAKIR: O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only a messenger of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His messengers, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one Allah; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

    Surah 005.072
    YUSUFALI: They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
    PICKTHAL: They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
    SHAKIR: Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.

    Surah 005.073
    YUSUFALI: They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
    PICKTHAL: They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.
    SHAKIR: Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.

    Interestingly enough Catholics, who devoutly acknowledge these two doctrines, are the first to accept Muslims.

    item #841 of the Catechism says: “The Church’s relationship with Muslims: The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst whom are the Muslims. They profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

    You cannot be saved without believing in Jesus the Son of God.

    John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
    John|3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he
    that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

    1 John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

    1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

    Muslims do acknowledge the Catholic doctrine of Salvation through faith in God plus works.

    005.093
    YUSUFALI: On those who believe and do deeds of righteousness there is no blame for what they ate (in the past), when they guard themselves from evil, and believe, and do deeds of righteousness,- (or) again, guard themselves from evil and believe,- (or) again, guard themselves from evil and do good. For Allah loveth those who do good.
    PICKTHAL: There shall be no sin (imputed) unto those who believe and do good works for what they may have eaten (in the past). So be mindful of your duty (to Allah), and believe, and do good works; and again: be mindful of your duty, and believe; and once again: be mindful of your duty, and do right. Allah loveth the good.
    SHAKIR: On those who believe and do good there is no blame for what they eat, when they are careful (of their duty) and believe and do good deeds, then they are careful (of their duty) and believe, then they are careful (of their duty) and do good (to others), and Allah loves those who do good (to others).

    Muslims do acknowledge that only God can forgive sins.
    Which may be a door to lead them to Jesus.

    003.135
    YUSUFALI: And those who, having done something to be ashamed of, or wronged their own souls, earnestly bring Allah to mind, and ask for forgiveness for their sins,- and who can forgive sins except Allah?- and are never obstinate in persisting knowingly in (the wrong) they have done.
    PICKTHAL: And those who, when they do an evil thing or wrong themselves, remember Allah and implore forgiveness for their sins – Who forgiveth sins save Allah only? – and will not knowingly repeat (the wrong) they did.
    SHAKIR: And those who when they commit an indecency or do injustice to their souls remember Allah and ask forgiveness for their faults– and who forgives the faults but Allah, and (who) do not knowingly persist in what they have done.

    Instead they have chosen a works salvation:

    Like the Pope, Muhammad had promised forgiveness of sins to those that went to fight certain battles:

    Sirah Bukari [Hadith] Volume 4, Book 52, Number 251:
    Allah’s Apostle said, “Hatib participated in the battle of Badr, and who knows, perhaps Allah has already looked at the Badr warriors and said, ‘Do whatever you like, for I have forgiven you.”

    You can also perform ritual prayers to earn forgiveness.

    Sirah Bukari [Hadith] Volume 3, Book 34, Number 330:
    Allah’s Apostle said, “The congregational prayer of anyone amongst you is more than twenty (five or twenty seven) times in reward than his prayer in the market or in his house, for if he performs ablution completely and then goes to the mosque with the sole intention of performing the prayer, and nothing urges him to proceed to the mosque except the prayer, then, on every step which he takes towards the mosque, he will be raised one degree or one of his sins will be forgiven.

    Lots of superstitions about angles.

    Sirah Bukari [Hadith] Volume 1, Book 12, Number 747:
    The Prophet said, “Say Amin” when the Imam says it and if the Amin of any one of you coincides with that of the angels then all his past sins will be forgiven.” Ibn Shihab said, “Allah’s Apostle used to Say “Amin.”

    You must go to your weekly mass:

    Sirah Bukari [Hadith] Volume 2, Book 13, Number 8:
    The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, “Whoever takes a bath on Friday, purifies himself as much as he can, then uses his (hair) oil or perfumes himself with the scent of his house, then proceeds (for the Jumua prayer) and does not separate two persons sitting together (in the mosque), then prays as much as (Allah has) written for him and then remains silent while the Imam is delivering the Khutba, his sins in-between the present and the last Friday would be forgiven.”

    But heaven is assured if you get yourself killed fighting for Allah:

    Sirah Bukari [Hadith] Volume 5, Book 59, Number 377:
    On the day of the battle of Uhud, a man came to the Prophet and said, “Can you tell me where I will be if I should get martyred?” The Prophet replied, “In Paradise.” The man threw away some dates he was carrying in his hand, and fought till he was martyred.

    How much better to know that Jesus can and does forgive sins.
    When he was on earth he freely healed and forgave all them that came to him.

    Free Books about the origin of Islam:
    http://zipfiles.answering-islam.org/gilchrist_vol1.zip
    http://www.prophetofdoom.net

    A great site for answers to Muslim challenges and claims:
    http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/index.html

    An up to date chronological list of Muslim terrorist strikes:
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

    Ibn Warraq, author of Why I am not a Muslim (1995), Was raised a Muslim but now believes neither Bible nor Quran, only established history. He writes, “… violence is intrinsic to Islam, reflected in the bloody campaigns and massacres of the Prophet Muhammad, and enshrined in the verses of the Sword in the Koran … When Christians act violently they do so despite the teachings of Jesus which clearly preach tolerance, peace, and enjoin turning the other cheek.”

    Download searchable Qur’an 3 english translations
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

    Search the Islamic Hadith scriptures the biography of Muhammad.
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/

    I hope this helps you witness to Muslims
    Doug Hove

    Paul Abramson: A lot of free books as text are available on many sites including yours. I enjoy long car trips by using DSpeech (see downloads.com or tucows.com) to transfer text files into speech. I’ve just finished listening to Muhammad and the Religion of Islam by John Gilchrist (see above) and Hell and the High Schools from your site. The VR3 MP3 FM Modulator is a great way to pack these along for trips.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Great illumination of Koranic scriptures! I am in Pensacola this week; during my long drive down I listened to 3 hours of the audio book, “The Crisis of Islam” by B. Lewis. (And also 2 hours of “Boundaries: Face to Face” by Cloud & townsend, by the way.) I will look up DSpeech. That gives me an excuse to get an MP3 player (& modulator) soon. I have looked at them. But I like to think, so listening to music “all the time” has not been a great attraction of their “benefits” to me. -Audio book though, now that is a different matter.

    “Hell and the High Schools” by T.T. Martin, 1923. Great book! While creation books (based on science, logic & Scripture) stand the test of time, evolution-believing books keep having to be updated, and modified, and revised, and corrected, and patched up with new conjectures, etc. P.A. ]

  168. 2ndamenduser August 1, 2007 3:19 am Reply

    To follow another thread on submission to government. Many err not knowing the scriptures and the situation surrounding the time they were written. Israel was under Roman occupation at the time Romans 13 was written. There is a difference between our responsibilities under occupation and under a “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

    “We the People” are the final authority in that we can abolition the law of the land if we decide to (sorry anachists, this is not individually applied). We must submit to the laws we make. But thankfully, our forefathers and our Supreme Court have stated that any law that is unconstitutional is null and void and should be treated as if it is no law at all.

    Therefore, it is the duty of every citizen to obey constitutional laws and disregard unconstitutional laws. Those who submit to unconstitutional laws are slaves and/or cowards.

    As citizens, Christians must fight for what is right in our nation’s political realm. If we don’t, we concede to non-Christians the direction of our country, which is what has been happening for the past several decades with the exception of a few good men.

    Yes, as Christians, we must keep the main thing the main thing, which is winning the lost to Christ. But we must not forget that a close second is fighting for the right to continue to do that under the constitutional protection God has given us in this great nation of ours. The freedom we have to preach the gospel and do our duty to our Creator is being undermined and if we all take the attitude that Christians are not to fight for our rights or correct wayward government agencies, we will lose our freedom and the main thing will not be able to be done at all except at risk of life.

    EndTimes said this on July 31, 2007:

    “My objection as a Christian is that fighting the governmental injustices is not our job. Our job is to reach a lost world through the gospel. In principle however, standing up to a government that does not honour its founding principles is actually quite patriotic and should be accomplished. I just do not believe that is the first ideal that we are to place our energies. Paul did keep the Roman magistrates honest when they violated Roman law against Paul who was a Roman citizen. But he did not dwell on this issue. His prime concern at all times was preaching the gospel and from this, he was not distracted. As a Christian, we need to carefully choose our battles. For me, correcting a wayward government seems quite counterproductive to my time that is so limited as it is.”

    Th apostle Paul did, in fact, dwell on the issue of his rights being violated until he won a victory. There’s no mention of his winning anyone to Christ while he fought for his rights, but he went right back to it as soon as he did win his legal battle.

    As Kent Hovind so adequately put it in a two page article he sent me years ago, we must fight for our rights to use our money for God’s work and donate less to the government if we are not constitutionally liable to pay.

    Paul A., I will try to find that article and post it, or if you know what I am talking about, perhaps you could post it. It lists many biblical examples of people fighting for what’s right against authority.

    A brief list of examples I can think of is Moses standing up against Pharaoh; the high priest standing up against King Azariah; Samuel rebuking Saul; Peter and the apostles refusing to not preach in Jesus’ name; Jesus telling those around him who relayed to Him the message that Herod wanted to see him, “Tell that fox, Behold I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” Elisha refusing to come to King Ahab and burning up 102 soldiers in altercations with the king’s enforcers, etc.

    Christians, let’s pray for those in authority, but let’s also hold their feet to the fire. NOT correcting a wayward government is counter-productive.
    I love EndTimes and the great additions he makes to this blog, and he said many right things in the above quote; but he sort of left (in my view) the idea that fighting for truth in the arena of government is not the Christian’s duty.

    EndTimes, if I misunderstood you, please forgive me. I know that in typing out responses sometimes we don’t completely express ourselves like we may later wish we had. You seem to have plenty of time to repond to almost everybody that posts on this blog, so I would think and I hope that you take time to fight for justice in your state.

    May we all do so, with God’s grace and blessing, or any one of us could be the next person in prison for doing what we thought we had a constitutional right to do!

    A Pastor from the West

  169. Elethiomel August 1, 2007 4:35 am Reply

    CreationCD…

    you posted a link to a site that confirms what I said; the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of the speed that they are traveling at. In short, the observer in the car would see the light from his headlights receeding away from him at 3×10^8m/s, and the observer standing on the path in front of him would see the light approaching at 3×10^8 m/s, regardless of the speed of the car.

    The link and rhetorical question you pose answers with a resounding yes:

    yes, the speed of light really is independent of the relative motion of the observer.

    see this link (a sublink from the site you provided)

    http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_is_it_true.htm

    The reason for this slightly odd result, is that the speed of light is a function of two fundamental physical constants; the permittivity and permeability of free space. (the actual formula is c = 1/square root(epsilon * mu) where epsilon and mu are the permittivity and permeability of free space respectively, as derived from Maxwell’s equations). epsilon and mu do not vary with velocity, and thus neither does the speed of light (this is one of the basic principles of relativity, which essentially extend the principles of galilean relativity – “any two observers who are moving with constant velocity with respect to one another, will obtain the same results for any mechanical experiments that they perform” – to include electromagnetics as well as mechanics)

    All this is built up on very basic physics and premises that appears at undergraduate level. Maxwell’s equations and the deduction of electromagnetic waves were published in 1861. The knowledge of a null result to the concept of lumiferous aether (i.e. the knowledge that Hovind’s statements about the speed of light are wrong) were first published in 1887.

    I have done this experiment myself, several times as well as more sophisticated variants allowing you to actually measure the speed at the same time. I have watched and supervised undergraduates doing these experiments, so I am hardly the class clown standing outside the gate saying how stupid the teachers are.

  170. Elethiomel August 1, 2007 5:10 am Reply

    I notice the editor discusses whether “light is a constant” or not, several times. It should be made clear here that there are 2 issues; one is whether the speed of light is constant regardless of the relative velocities of observers and the other is whether the speed of light has changed over the life of the universe. The editor also brings up quite an irrelevant point regarding doing a google search for “Sodium Light speed”. When discussing the speed of light and observers, it is generally a given that we are talking about the speed of light in vacuum. (refer to the formula that I gave earlier). When light passes through a medium, such as glass, it has a different speed. In reality this is not a speed of light as such, but a measure of the response of the charged particles in the medium to the electromagnetic wave. An analogy to this is if you take a thin piece of cane 2m long, and point it in front of you, then sharply move it to the side, you’ll see the cane bend a bit, but if you do the same with a hard piece of steel, then you’ll see it bend less. The speed of light in vacuum is related to the speed in a material by the refractive index of the material, n. So the refractive index of glass is about 1.4, so the speed of light in glass is 3×10^8/1.4 m/s.

    The experiment that the editor talks about involves sending light through a rather exotic form of matter known as a Bose Einstein Condensate; a state of matter in which individual atoms all behave in precisely the same manner as they drop into a single quantum state. Sodium is one material that fan form these BECs, and so was used for this experiment. It is irrelevant to the issue over the constancy of the speed of light, since we are talking about the response of materials to electromagnetic waves, and not talking about the speed of light in vacuum, which is what the main issue is about.

  171. DQ August 1, 2007 5:25 am Reply

    On July 30 at 11:01pm Australian:Philip George wrote:

    I am no expert in your constitution…

    You should have stopped writing right here.

  172. DQ August 1, 2007 5:34 am Reply

    EndTimes said:
    <i>Your statement is totally unsupported by the evidence of people like me my friend. I graduated from my college Summa Cum Laude with a major in Biology and minors in Chemistry and Mathematics. I completed my medical training at a prestigious college and then my Internal Medicine residency as a devout defender of evolution. I even took pleasure in harassing those ignorant creationists every opportunity that I could like you are doing now. Then after all that, I became a born again Christian at the age of 36 due to the evidence of the Bible being completely true in all regards when I was confronted with the evidence from another PHYSICIAN. My ideological background is that of a liberal, democratic, hedonistic evolutionist as are all the rest of my direct family still.</i>

    As any scientist would know, anecdotes like this are a poor indicator of truth. I grew up in an extremely religious home, I went to a First Baptist church three times a week every week, I went to fundamentalist christian schools. I was a devout defender of creationism. Then I actually read the bible. Not the parts that the preacher reads to you on Sundays, but the rest of it. And in reading it I became convinced that it was not true. So my “evidence” directly contradicts your “evidence.” So let’s call it a wash and stick to actual legitimate arguments, which unfortunately we have been forbidden to do here.

    And you are not a scientist. You seem to be under the impression that hanging a piece of paper on your office wall makes you a scientist, but it doesn’t. Scientists ASK. You don’t. You look at the question, label it “impossible to answer,” and run back to the aprons of your religion. So it doesn’t matter how many classes you took or how many letters there are after your name. Unless you actually practice science, you are not a scientist. And creationism is not science.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Please don’t get too personal in attacks. We understand that many leading creationists are not scientists. In many fields the persons closest can lose track of the big picture. That can happen to police, to teachers, to politicians, and to scientists, etc. We are all only human. Great on details in a defined field, but their intelligence can get railroaded off course.

    Evolution, a long series of believed one-time past events leading up to today, is inherently outside of “testable-repeatable” criteria, i.e. it is not science. Folks can believe it, but should do so like other belief systems about our origins of how and why we got here, and other systems that teach us right from wrong (based upon its believed precepts), and where we go when we die. Evolution teaches a version of such things, correct? Logically then, does that make it closer to science or to a religion? You, as stated above, gave up one religion for another, correct? Leave it to a theologian (Darwin) to have started the modern world’s now dominant religion.

    Charles Darwin’s only degree was in theology. Would you have us throw out everything he said “scientifically” in accordance with your terms above? P.A. ]

  173. DQ August 1, 2007 7:09 am Reply

    Learned hand said:
    Personally, I see a strong connection between the fantastic legal theories of tax protestors and the fantastic biological and geological theories of literal creationists – both mistake rhetoric for evidence, and neither ideology permits the serious consideration of facts contrary to the predetermined dogma.

    This is a very astute observation. It makes perfect sense: if someone can read “ruler of Israel and military leader that will defeat the Assyrians” and twist that around in their mind to the extent that they can fit it onto a peace-loving peasant executed by an occupying power, or if someone can take “thou shalt not commit adultery” and torture it enough to justify committing adultery, it is a pretty easy thing for that person to read “a tax is imposed on the person” and twist it to “it doesn’t say I have to pay taxes.”

    This is a pretty dangerous thing, in my opinion. It leads to all kinds of problems. Since I was brought up in the church, but have finally come to recognize its scam, I have been able to observe the scam in an informed light. I think the reasons the christians lined up so unquestioningly behind Bush, and refused to acknowledge the horrible things he was doing, were closely related to the behavior I observed in the church growing up. When I was a child I was told that the important man up there at the pulpit was absolutely correct and not to be questioned. If anyone questioned the preacher his christianity was immediately called into question and his status as a church member and the destination of his soul was put into jeopardy. I remember the dire warnings of my sunday school teachers regarding people who dared to question the important man in the pulpit. Compare this to Bush. He is the important man in the pulpit. Anyone who questions him is immediately denounced as unpatriotic and invited to leave the country. Anything Bush does is automatically the “right thing,” even if there are a hundred verses in the bible contradicting it. This unquestioning worship of Bush and everything he does would not be possible, I believe, had the people doing it not been conditioned as children to act this way. Because it’s totally irrational. Back before Bush was in office, I used to argue about politics with a coworker who called himself conservative. After Bush got into office, he did the exact opposite of everything my conservative friend used to argue for. But my friend continued to support him. There were many, many times that my friend would praise something Bush had done, and I would point out that one or two short years before he had been arguing against that exact thing, but he didn’t care. Bush did it, and god wanted Bush to do it, and that’s all that mattered. My friend is otherwise a very intelligent, highly educated person. There is no way he could suffer from these delusions if they were not deeply implanted in him as a child.

    That said, I am encouraged to see on this blog that some christians are finally waking up to the evil being perpetrated by Bush. Unfortunately, 30% of the country still supports him. I’ll wager that the vast majority of these 30% also would support anything their pastor said without questioning too. Very scary.

  174. Maturekid August 1, 2007 7:48 am Reply

    Hello Endtimes,

    Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. I’ve been busy moving my family and my friend’s over the last 5 days in 90 degree, hot, very humid weather that we Wisconsinites aren’t used to. If you would happen to have a link or suggestion on how to beat full body fatigue & soreness, it would be most welcome.

    Regarding your post to me, I was making a bit of an obscure reference to the downfalls created by a 2 party system. When going to vote and option A & B are poor choices, I join the many in wishing there were more true choices. Pinky & the Brain were my candidates in the Clinton years. I casted my ballot for Perot and I’m hoping Ron Paul has a shot. But I have little faith in our federal government system. We’re in the tail end of the cycle all 200 yr old large countries go through. Do I hope our Constitutionally based government can be rescued? Sure. Do I see it happening? Not really.

    I am full well aware of being called to be an ambassodor for Christ. That is something I pursue. As for the other nations, my wife and I have seen plenty of countries / nations and lived in them. Or have direct relations who have. To say they fall short of being Godly nations is a gross understatement. No need to let me know that. Been there, seen it.

    The main point I agree with Geno on is a general position. Truth and trust is something I do not give to politicians, lawyers, actors, actresses, car salesmen, – i.e. most earthly princes due to their nature of dishonesty. I’ll hear most people out for their positions. But those in the listed categories have me start with the assumption they are lying.

    But for now, I’m going to flop back into bed as my body is protesting moving around.

  175. baliset August 1, 2007 8:01 am Reply

    Learned Hand needs to be congratulated for robustly and conclusively striking to the heart of the matter. I agree wholeheartedly. It’s not the ignorance that’s the problem around here, it’s the *pride* taken in that ignorance that is so offensive. I think we have all staked out our respective positions here fairly definitely. There are those here that, patiently and repeatedly, point out the plain facts of law or science that Young Earth Creationists or Tax protesters are mistaken about. We quote the statutes, the precedents and the findings of half a millennium of (often Christian) Scientists and Legislators. Western Civilisation indeed owes its enlightened commitment to the rule of law, the prosperity of open commerce, the principles of civic responsibility and empirical inquiry into the mysteries of the natural world to Christians.

    Sadly, that is far from what we see here. No, here we have people who smugly quote gibberish as though mere Latin polysyllabism is enough to see off all disproofs. Learned Hand is right, and I have made this point myself, that such conduct brings very real misery to people who get sucked into the vortex. Mrs Hovind may indeed be a lovely lady and grandmother. The Hovind grandchildren surely do not deserve the stigma and pain of seeing their grandparents in jail, but the pain these people now endure can be traced, directly, to the fact that the people on this site that represent themselves as Hovind Supporters have contributed to their fate by cheering them on, to the cliff edge, and now over it. There are a bunch of people here who pontificate about the evil tax laws or how the ‘remnant true church’ is precisely that because (surprise surprise) everyone else has rejected them for being loonies with scandalous disregard for the fact that, if their beliefs are adopted, as they were by the Hovinds, then the road ends in bankruptcy, ignominy and incarceration.

    Since it is now plainly obvious that such people are so thoroughly without shame that this point cannot soften their hearts, then, as I said, the courageous option is for the community here on this site to say “enough is enough” and bring the outer fringe to account.

    In practice, only Paul the moderator here has the power to ban anyone, and I suspect he would not do so for the reasons I am advancing, but one still holds hope. This is my appeal: Can’t you see that when you permit any and all lunacy to be spouted here in “defence” of the Hovinds that you are doing them an ongoing disservice? Tolerance may be a virtue, and especially in a culture where free speech is valued so highly. But what about discernment? What about telling people that spouting unadulterated nonsense can’t go on without consequences? Ban the bottom third (my estimate) of blowhards on this site and have some gumption. Ban me to, if your offended sense of balance demands it. If the ones who are so proud of their ignorance didn’t keep posting to this site then I wouldn’t feel the need to either.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Well, I would think that a vote may get ME banned too! :-) …I insist that the beginning of the Bible is just as true as the rest of the Bible. That is not a mainstream position.

    Have you ever heard of Eugene V. Debs? In 1920, while in federal prison no less, he ran for President. He got 3.4% of the vote! (913,664 votes total.)

    Ignaz Semmelweis, another outsider, was a doctor in Vienna in the 1840s. He discovered that washing his hands between doing an autopsy and examining live patients actually lowered mortality rates in his ward. (This was decades before the existence of germs was proven.) He did good testable-repeatable experiments; and human lives were at stake. They ran him out of town. He found work in Budapest, repeated his results, but again the other doctors became upset about all the senseless hand-washing that he insisted upon.

    There are some Christians who do not like the “negative” tone of this blog at all. Conversely, there are some skeptics who get alarmed by some of the messages that get posted. They claim that creationists are unscientific, that evolution is true with no doubt, et cetera.

    I am a visitor to this planet. It is not my home. My Master, Jesus, asked persons questions. He dispensed wisdom judiciously. He often spoke in parables – not to illuminate – but to hide some truths (Matthew 13:13) from outsiders. The Bible as a whole still does that today. Many skeptics can’t make sense of it. They are sure that the Bible is full of contradictions.

    I may be a somewhat unusual person in that I lived in Berkeley, CA., (if I don’t capitalize it, does it become another place? – sorry…) for over 5 years. There are some brilliant persons there! It is such an interesting place. But, from my perspective that the Bible is wholly true, there is also so much darkness. I tried to listen, to ask questions, and to dispense wisdom judiciously, as best as I understand it to be.

    In world history some of the best persons and leaders down through time have spent part of their lives in prison. And Semmelweis, Pasteur, and Einstein all suffered insults and criticism from their peers for proposing outlandish theories and ideas.

    I am the editor of: http://www.creationism.org I have an afternoon Internet radio program on http://www.TruthRadio.com But I also sometimes read “Skeptic” Magazine and surf infidels.org. Here is a comparison of Jesus vs. Elvis: http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor.archive/jesus_vs_elvis.html

    With these thing in mind … :-) … should I be one to “ban persons” from cseblogs.com? P.A. ]

    http://baliset.blogspot.com

  176. GaryMurray August 1, 2007 8:03 am Reply

    FuManchu
    Said this on July 31st, 2007 at 11:25am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    GaryMurray,

    I’m not quite sure what the moral of your story was intended to be. “Believe in Jesus, and you’ll become someone who doesn’t care if his daughter is murdered”?
    ———————————————————————————

    Fistly, I don’t think I ever made a statement that had so many misunderstand the point.
    Just so I am clear in my standing.

    No, I don’t believe it is ok to kill another because of their faith.

    Yes, I love my daughter and never said to be a Christian is to be without love of your family and no regard for their life. Quite the contrary, I might add. If my daugher were held at gunpoint, regardless the situation and her life was in danger, I would sacrifice my life and do all in my physical power to prevent her life from being taken, next to my Wife and God, I love her more than anything in this world. Having said that, if it is God’s will that she die for His name and glory, then she will die for His name and glory, regardless my attempt to save her. She belongs to Him. Job was clear on this when he said, naked I came out of the womb, and in the same manner I shall return. He lost everything he had, but he had nothing before he was born, all he had was given to him by God, Job said ‘The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord’ none of it was ours to begin with, God can do with this world and all that is in it as he pleases.

    ————————-

    In response to you, Fu…
    Of course you don’t understand, its because you missed my point completly. Never did I say that one didn’t care if they, or their children were killed because of their faith, but in your lack of faith in what we believe and in God, you don’t understand that we find ourselves worthy to be persecuted for the name of Jesus Christ. Just as Peter and John were after their persecution for healing a lame man. You may not like it, you may not understand it and you never will until you can accept the truth, but our faith tells us we are to be a living sacrifice unto our Lord, it is our reasonable service. We belong to him because we willingly gave our lives to him because he gave us his son first. Thus, if he sees fit to persecute us for his glory, so be it, it is our resonable service. You can continue naively loving your family and carring whether or not they live and die, and I will continue naively doing the same but in addition also worry about where they will spend eternity.

    Of course the athiests believe this is hard, very ruthless and I’ve had them tell me “what an awful God”. Our God is not any of those things, he is sovereign, long suffering and full of mercy. Each of us are condemned by our own sins to hell, a life in torment. It was by God’s MERCY that he gave us a Saviour who would keep us from this eternal torment. It’s by his grace after salvation that we have a heritage unto the Lord in Heaven… But you gotta be saved… You have to accept to receive and you have to believe to understand… God is a merciful God, he saved us for eternal life in hell, I’m content to take persecution (if any) in this small time I have on this earth for him in exchange for eternity in Heaven.

    You can stand as firm in your athiest beliefs as I will in my Christian beliefs, but know this… God doesn’t believe in athiests and furthermore, there are only Christians in hell because one day, whether you accept him and chose to believe it in this life or after your death, you will accept that God is God and Christ is Christ in eternity. For your sake, you had best hope that you are right.
    —————————————————-

    praybird
    Said this on July 31st, 2007 at 5:57pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Gary Murrey,

    I don’t have any science background only what I study at home. I have a question if it is okay to ask? But wouldn’t bones such as dinosaur bones disinegrate after a few thousand years? Wouldn’t it be impossible for bones to last hundreds of millions of years???? Wouldn’t these bones go back to the dust after just a few thousand years?
    —————————————————–

    Praybird, I don’t fully understand this line of questioning as it pertiains to my previous post, but I will answer them the best I can, I am also not a scientist, just one who does his own research in theology and creation science. I am fully content with those with more knowledge in this subject correcting me with factual evidence, and don’t mind being corrected, I don’t claim to know as much as the next person. Also, it is always ok to ask, the only dumb question is the one you didn’t ask. ;)

    As I understand it, Bones or fossils that are found today are mostly made up of nutrients and matter that was in soil where the carcass was buried. Overtime the material in the bone changes and becomes petrified of sorts (not sure if petrified is the best word to describe this process). To answer your question, yes, I assume that if bones were exposed to particles in the air for a long period of time, it would eventually, as most things do, dissipate into dust.

    Your question of “Would it be impossible for bones to last hundreds of millions of years”… Well I can’t honestly answer this for the simple fact that I don’t believe any matter in this universe has ever lasted longer than 6,000 to 10,000 years. I don’t believe in evolution, I believe in a young earth creation by God the Father.
    I assume that bones couldn’t last for hundreds of millions of years, but since hundreds of millions of years has not elapsed in this universe, much like the evolutionists in most of their best guess findings, I can only concluse that “I have absolutly no clue” ;) Sorry guys.

    God Bless those seeking and in Christ
    Gary Murray

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Okay – fixed. P.A. ]

  177. darling August 1, 2007 8:42 am Reply

    2ndamenduser Said this on August 1st, 2007 at 2:06am:

    “For darling, djhouk, DQ and others of like mind, there is no law that makes a citizen of the united States of America liable for income tax unless you create that liability…”

    At this point, one usually engages with the evidence one has been shown, rather than simply dismissing it with a hand wave.

    “Furthermore,the definition of a withholding agent in the IRS tax code is very clear”

    And completely irrelevant, since no section applicable to Mr. Hovind’s indictment so much as mentions “withholding agent.”

    ““Under this chapter” it is clear that no one is required to withhold taxes on the income of any U.S. citizens!”

    Under other chapters, it’s a different story.
    Chapter 24, §3402, for example.

    “But thankfully, our forefathers and our Supreme Court have stated that any law that is unconstitutional is null and void and should be treated as if it is no law at all.”

    Of course, if the Supreme Court has already ruled a law to be constitutional, they’re not very likely to let you use that excuse…

  178. David August 1, 2007 10:17 am Reply

    Darling,

    Glad to see you admit there is no law making anyone liable for the income tax.
    Did your tax messiah ( Dan Evans ) also write the link you left in your last post?
    That’s just his opinion and he makes lots of money selling this stuff, as do most tax professionals. Take a hint!

    “The most basic myth of tax protestors is that there is simply no law mandating the payment of income taxes.”

    There are lots of laws that tell how to pay income taxes, ( personal and businesses ) but not one law making anyone liable for the federal income tax. There are laws making persons liable for other types of taxes imposed. Here are two examples:

    Sec. 5005. Persons liable for tax
    (a) General
    The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

    Sec. 5703. Liability for tax and method of payment
    (a) Liability for tax
    (1) Original liability
    The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5701.

  179. DQ August 1, 2007 10:24 am Reply

    The editor said: “The bad guys in Germany in the 1930s started with the disabled. They called them “useless eaters”. They wanted the value of human life lowered. They wanted to push others down. P.A. ]

    Paul-
    1. Please look up Godwin’s Law on Wikipedia. (Why am I not surprised that a christian would be the one to Godwinize this blog?)

    2. I don’t think you thought through the implications of your response very carefully. Hooray4god is the one saying that it does not matter if people die because god will sort them all out. This could be seen as an endorsement of the Nazi policy. After all, if those “useless eaters” were christians, then we should all be rejoicing that their suffering is now over, right? Further, unhooking Schiavo’s life support was merely a way to allow god to execute his Perfect Plan (TM). Hooray4god stated that nothing can thwart god’s plan. So if god had wanted Terry to live, she would have lived, correct? Obviously he wanted her to die or she would not have died, according the the Perfect Plan (TM) theory. For that matter, according to hooray4god, the killing of “useless eaters” by Nazis was part of god’s plan too, unless he wants to contend that Hitler was able to discover a method to thwart god’s plan, which would revoke god’s status as omnipotent. Hooray4god indeed. He let Hitler kill disabled people! Hooray4him!

    3. I was merely trying to point out the incompatibility of hooray4god’s stance on the nature of death as stated there and his (assumed) stance on the Terry Schiavo issue. I did not mean to get into a debate on the merits of either side.

  180. DQ August 1, 2007 10:46 am Reply

    The editor said: “You, as stated above, gave up one religion for another, correct?

    I most certainly did not say this. I said that I gave up one religion. Period. Evolution is not a religion, no matter how hard you wish it to be or how many times you repeat that it is. Further, I find it very poor form for you to forbid discussions of evolution vs. creationism, and then use your moderator status to continue to launch attacks on evolution. Not that I want to get into an argument about it, I realize as I’m sure you do that that is a veeeeeery long road to nowhere. I just think this kind of action reflects poorly on you.

    The editor also said: Please don’t get too personal in attacks.

    I apologize to EndTimes for that. It didn’t seem as personal when I wrote it as it did when I read it again.

    Also, my HTML only appears to be working about half the time. Do you know why?

  181. Three Crosses August 1, 2007 10:58 am Reply

    I’m pretty sure someone else will expand on this
    Learned Hand
    Said this on July 31st, 2007 at 10:55pm:
    “No. Dinosaur bones in museums aren’t actually bones, like you find in your drumstick. They are minerals, like rocks. Sometimes, very rarely, a dead animal will come to rest in such a place and such a manner that it is covered by sediment. Over time, mineral-laden water seeps in and displaces the original organic matter. The result, after millions of years, is essentially a stone in the shape of the original bone or tooth. Other sorts of fossils, such as insects encased in amber, are formed in other ways. That’s a very, very brief description of the process; if you’re interested, your library or school will have a wide variety of books on the subject. You can see good images of rocks with these imprints and remnants, as well as amber fossils,”

    I guess you don’t know as much about fossils as you claim to know about law.

    “Sometimes, very rarely, a dead animal will come to rest in such a place and such a manner that it is covered by sediment.”
    Fossils are not rare at all sir/mam. They cover the land masses of the planet. There are millions of fossils within 5 minutes walk of my front door. It also doesn’t take millions of years to create a fossil this seems to back your lack of education. Our problem is that our libraries and schools promote your religion of evolution even when it obviously contradicts science.

    I’m not an expert on tax law. I have to rely on what I know about the IRS from the U.S. constitution, IRS auditors, their employees, what Bill Clinton said about them and how many old women, men and children they’ve helped to destroy.

    Here is an old post for your benefit:
    DEAR BROTHERS IN CHRIST:
    I’m deeply disturbed. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one to notice this. First of all we seem a bit short on stones and a bit long on those without sin. There seem to be a lot of people that think the law is infallible. In my home state of Tx. there were so many innocent men getting out of prison after being proved innocent with DNA testing that many of the judges have started refusing to admit DNA evidence. While it’s unfortunate that these innocent men will probably never see the light of day. The “law worshippers” can say “they were convicted and don’t deserve a retrial”. I only know of a couple of cases where personal bias of a judge sent innocent people to prison. I do know of a Tx celebrity let go after confessing to brutally raping a little girl over and over again with a $4,000 fine and he doesn’t even have to register as a sex offender(because his buddy was the judge)!
    Then I read on some blog sites where these up and coming law students and lawyers are so devoted to their religion of evolution that the attack blindly at the truth and science. I can’t help but wonder if it’s not like the crazy person who becomes a psychiatrist to try and figure out what’s wrong with him/her. Then he spends the rest of his life trying to mess other people up as bad as he is. These people seem to confuse legal with right. There are many things that are legal and are not right. For instance false advertising, is legal but not right. Feeding booze to your kids, is legal but not right. Stealing a man’s property and claiming imminent domain because: you can make more money with it than he can, is legal but wrong.
    The really scary thing is that these people who think they’re better than everyone else because they bought a law degree and drive an expensive car. They will cheat accident victims out of there claims for the insurance companies, leaving their victims crippled and helpless. They will defend murderers, rapists and child molesters for the love of money. Then if they’re in good enough with the judge or carefully selected jury (NOT PEERS)for enough money they’ll get them off. Following that if they keep from making mistakes or getting caught they can become the judge. After that get into politics and finally become a congressman with his very own “little boy” page. Then pass laws to protect themselves and their owners. There it was the truth, legal but wrong!!
    The most comforting part is we are all sinners, not one of us is any better than any other. The only difference is that some of us recognize are sins and repent of them, accepting the Blood Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and some of us haven’t. Please try to keep this in mind. These young men are looking for answers, something to fill that God shaped hole. The law won’t fill it, believing your a monkey won’t fill it, lust won’t fill it and no matter how full of yourself you are, you can’t fill it!
    In closing I’ve put a lot of thought and a lot of expression in this. Before I wrote this I had very little or no love for politicians, lawyers or judges. You wouldn’t believe what a difference that last paragraph had on me! I hope and pray one person can profit as much from me writing this as I did. God bless America, lawyers, judges and politicians God save us all!

    With love three crosses

    P.S. The roman catholics would define the law and the IRS as superstitions, per your beliefs. When you take infallibility from God and grant it to the law or the IRS that would qualify as superstition.
    There’s something for baliset to post.

  182. Learned Hand August 1, 2007 12:46 pm Reply

    2ndamenduser is an excellent example of the dishonesty apparent in tax protesters. He does not like what the law is, so he pretends that it is something else, without honestly engaging the facts. Your made-up assertions are not the law. Let us examine his fantasies:

    there is no law that makes a citizen of the united States of America liable for income tax unless you create that liability.

    We have seen many citations on this page to the law that imposes income tax liability on private citizens. It is 26 U.S.C. § 1 (“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [married individuals, unmarried individuals, heads of households, etc.].”). You “create that liability” by earning income, including wages, subject to taxation.

    The IRS Code has been written in such a way as to create the impression that we all are liable (I won’t get into why at this time).

    The law has been written in such a way as to actually create that liability. Your remedy, if you don’t like it, is to seek a change in the law. Lying about what the law says is neither effective nor honest.

    Darling said he found the law in about ten seconds. No he didn’t. He only found what the IRS wants us to think he found. It takes more than ten seconds to get to the bottom of this issue. I suggest you get the book, “Cracking the Code” by Peter Eric Hendrickson. It is available at amazon.com.

    Darling has been exceedingly patient in giving hard facts to some very deluded individuals. I suggest you read the actual law, instead of books written to make a quick buck off of gullible marks. If you want to see the basis for income tax liability, read the law. If you want to really “get to the bottom of this issue,” study the law. Studying conspiracy theories and lies is a waste of time.

    The Tom Cryer case reveals the truth so often covered up that what a man earns for a living is his and is not taxable. Life is one of those inalienable rights. If a man cannot make a living, he dies. So to make a living is an inalienable right. And rights cannot be taxed without the consent of the taxed.

    You are lying about the nature of the Cryer case. The jury verdict establishes no such thing, nor were these issues before the court. You are making up principles that you want to be the law, and pretending that they are the law, assuming or hoping that no one will actually check. But I’m calling you out – this is a lie.

    “Under this chapter” it is clear that no one is required to withhold taxes on the income of any U.S. citizens!

    Not only is it not “clear,” it is a complete fabrication. This is, again, a lie. Section 1461 does not establish that “no one is required to withhold taxes on the income of any U.S. citizens.” Section 7701(16) merely defines the term”withholding agent” with respect to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. No part of that definition is applicable to U.S. citizens. That does not mean that the income of citizens is not required to be withheld – the definition is simply irrelevant to the taxes of U.S. citizens. You’re glancing through statutes you obviously don’t understand, and making up lies about what they mean. God forbid anyone believe these lies, lest they – like Mrs. Hovind – pay an ugly price for putting their trust in ignorance and deceit.

    Tax protestors are not bad people. Tax cheaters are!

    Tax protesters are tax cheaters. It is not honest to say that you would pay a “legal” tax, but then turn around and pretend that the taxes applicable to you are illegal. Your arguments are fatuous and incorrect, and utterly unsupported by statutory or case law. When you refuse to pay a lawful tax because you choose to pretend that it is illegal, you are cheating on your taxes and committing an unethical action. The ethical way to “protest” a tax is to pay it (or put the money in escrow, as permitted in certain legal tax challenges) and to take the matter to court. Simply lying about your income or refusing to file is cheating. People do that instead of the legal, honest way to challenge the legal basis for their taxes because they lose challenges brought on these insane grounds. (Cryer, for instance, will still have to pay his back taxes along with interest and penalties, despite his acquittal for the criminal charges.) Tax protesters are people who know that they can’t legally, honestly, and ethically stop paying their taxes. They take refuge in lies and cheating, for their own pecuniary gain. There is nothing moral, ethical, or decent about telling lies for the sake of money.

    Let’s be thorough in our study of the law. I have read about 85% of the the tax code (I’m working on the rest).

    If you want to be thorough in your study of the law, go to law school or audit a tax law class. You either astonishingly dishonest about the law, or completely ignorant of it. Your statements are lies either way, just as if I went before an audience curious about the bible and told them, “Jesus had at least one wife, and lots of kids. Everyone knows that the Pope is a direct descendant of Jesus.” It’s a crazy statement, and even though I haven’t read the New Testament all the way through, I know (or should know) that it’s not true. It would be a lie to make such an egregiously erroneous statement, or to pretend to be an expert when I’m largely ignorant of the scriptures.

    Similarly, you’re ignorant of the law. The code isn’t something you read like a book; it’s complex, sophisticated, and operates in relation to itself. The definitions you cited, for instance, simply aren’t relevant to the withholding of citizens’ taxes. If you’re curious about what the law actually says, start by reading the excellent FAQ darling linked you to.

    I don’t think you are curious, though. I think that you’re simply dishonest, and that you make false statements because the truth is not what you want it to be. The prevarications of such dishonest men is one of the most serious liabilities of Christianity today. What credibility does the church have, when the most vocal believers are immoral people who revel in ignorance and dishonesty? Why should I put my trust in the spiritual (or scientific) statements of people like Mr. Hovind, when it is so apparent that he, like 2ndamenduser, will tell ridiculous lies for the sake of money?

  183. darling August 1, 2007 1:19 pm Reply

    David Said this on August 1st, 2007 at 10:17am:

    “There are lots of laws that tell how to pay income taxes but not one law making anyone liable for the federal income tax.”

    Apart from the one I linked to, that is. Imposition of tax == liability.

  184. Learned Hand August 1, 2007 1:37 pm Reply

    David,

    Can you show me the law that says that a statute must use the magic word “liable” to create liability? You cannot – there is no such law. 27 U.S.C. § 1 imposes a tax on individuals; because a tax is imposed upon us, we are liable for it. No court has ever held otherwise. Your belief that “liable” is a magic word is not only wrong, it is laugh-out-loud ridiculous and extremely dishonest. I know the moderator prizes civility here, and I am grateful for his graciousness. But I cannot abide an outright lie, or an attempt to deceive innocent people with such potentially harmful deceit. Lies like yours, David, are one reason why Mrs. Hovind is now a felon.

    Three Crosses,

    “Fossils are not rare at all sir/mam. They cover the land masses of the planet. . . . It also doesn’t take millions of years to create a fossil this seems to back your lack of education.”

    You have (apparently intentionally) misread my statement. Fossils are common. Animals are very rarely fossilized, however. Fossils are only as common as they are because of the staggering number of organisms that have lived and died over the millions of years of life on Earth. We can observe the rarity of fossilization by observing the rarity of partially-fossilized skeletal remains, and the lack of fossilized recently-diverged phenotypes (such as chihuahuas).

    I realize that you don’t believe that life has existed for millions of years, but I can only report the conclusions of scientists. I cannot account for the unsubstantiated beliefs of a tiny minority of untrained, non-practicing armchair pseudoscientists acting from a strong operational bias. (Why is it, do you suppose, that no research university or unbiased institution follows your radical, fringe ideology? Is it a conspiracy, like the conspiracy of lawyers, judges, Constitutional Framers, statutory provisions and case law that refutes your equally irrational beliefs about the law? Is it the same conspiracy that keeps creationists at home, twiddling their thumbs, while trained geologists and micropaleontologists are employed by unbiased corporate interests to locate date mineral samples, locate potential oilfields, and predict the location of mineral deposits? I think, rather, that it’s the inability of creationists to deliver the sort of testable, accurate, repeatable results of the sort the moderator notes Semmelweiss and Pasteur generated.)

    “I’m not an expert on tax law. I have to rely on what I know about the IRS from the U.S. constitution, IRS auditors, their employees, what Bill Clinton said about them and how many old women, men and children they’ve helped to destroy.”

    Your ignorance of tax law could not be clearer. Your self-satisfaction with that ignorance is equally well-established here. If you don’t understand the law, then don’t pretend to – study and learn, or not. But pretending to have authority in a field in which you are appallingly ignorant is a deplorable, but apparently very Christian, practice.

    If you want to learn, please start with the very excellent guide to tax protester arguments to which darling linked. Unlike the conspiracy theorists’ gibberish, that FAQ is exhaustive, well-organized, and gives in-context, accurate quotations from legal authorities such as cases and statutes (and links to those authorities that are online, such as the statutes). Making it up as you go along is no substitute.

  185. hooray4god August 1, 2007 2:08 pm Reply

    Ok DQ, I understand your point. OK? But I remain that is NO ENEMY of ours. Someone more advanced in biblical theology could explain what I feebly tried to do.
    DQ you said,
    “Evolution is not a religion, no matter how hard you wish it to be or how many times you repeat that it is.” Science is what can be TESTED and PROVEN right? You prove some evolution for me and then i’ll be convinced. You BELIEVE in evolution right?

    Furthernore, I would be interested to hear who actually believes Kent Hovind is not guilty of ANYTHING at all. I feel like people are picturing him as a martyr when he BROKE the law.

    Finally to all you conspiracy theoritist people, I am interested the moon landing and why you think it was faked…if it was faked at all. I am a firm believer that men did land and walk on the moon. Besides, if we have satellites(which we know we do), why couldn’t we have walked on the moon?

  186. Verbal Da Mentor August 1, 2007 3:03 pm Reply

    I still cannot see this law that you are taking about. It seems to me that the tax fraud advocators are reading and interpreting the law how they want to, not to how it actually is to be interpreted. “You can lead a horse to water”. Yes, you can also lead a horse to poison too(dead horse mac). I personally think that the tax supporters are just bitter that they are getting bumped by the government and so wish it to be true that you must pay tax on your income. Thats no problem, carry on paying. “Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants”. O Tax Supporters, bow down to Bush and the sacred cow of the IRS, carry on feeding the darklords in the government your money.

    Hosea 4:6

  187. pegasus590 August 1, 2007 3:25 pm Reply

    I have followed Kent since learning of his ministry through a homeless man that I invited into my home until things got better for him. I have always been interested in creation and Dr. Hovinds ministry has given me many, many answers. Since then, I have read other books on the creation/evolution subject and have learned even more.The thing that stumps me most about the evolutionists is that they take life as a given. Their not concerned with how life arose.At least that what the ones say that I have debated with. So, as I was saying, what really stumps me is if evolution may or may not be responsible for life arising, how can it be responsible for life evolving? I think Dr. Hovind is a great man who has a great talent. I think his posting is a very intimate one and he is revealing his feelings between himself and God which is his style. And I think that is very humbling. And it is what I want to know at this point. None of us can say what Dr. Hovind should have done. We can say what we would have done. But we can’t say what he should have done. That is up to Mr. Hovind. Each of us have to do things in our own way. As I was saying, we can say what we would have done. So, I would like to say just that. I would have paid the taxes, even if I didn’t think I should. I would have paid them to protect first my wife, secondly my ministry, and third myself. I must confess I do not know the whole story nor the laws on the subject, which I plan on learning. After reading Dr. Hovinds post I am awe struck on how close to God he really is and how much he loves God. That should be a lesson to us all. A lot of people would wash their hands of him and be bitter. So, Kent will be alright, I can see that. But I would rather not have him in the position he is in. But, maybe that’s not for me to say. I hope this is over for him soon if it Gods’ way. It hurts to think of him in prison, what he has gone through, and what he has yet to face. To Kent Hovind and his family, hang in there and we will all see this through together.

    http://yahoo

  188. btodd August 1, 2007 4:45 pm Reply

    In response to the ongoing false statements and misunderstandings surrounding evolution, I would like to publicly remind you that:

    Evolution is a scientific theory that explains how life has evolved from lesser to more complex forms. It does not explain, nor attempt to explain, the ultimate origin of life. Therefore, it does not compete with your God nor refute him. To equate evolution with Godlessness is a pointless argument based on misunderstanding or willful ignorance. They are not mutually exclusive things. Many Christians believe in evolution and confess their sins as you do.

    The only thing that a belief in evolution WILL refute, and I concur with Learned Hand’s point here, is a literal reading of the Bible. And that is exactly why you avoid the scientific process like the plague. You know before you even look at the evidence for Evolution, that if you find it, it will directly contradict your literal theology and force you to choose between the two. And since science isn’t comforting like faith, it’s no wonder you would deem science the loser.

    Regarding statments like ‘evolution is a religion’…. this is clearly false, and merely an attempt to re-define science as something taken on faith, and therefore equally as valid as your religious belief. It merely shows the lack of substance for your position when you resort to such paltry tactics. As I pointed out to one of your more radical posters, I could come to this site and start in with “Christianity is merely a CULT, and blah blah blah’ in just the same manner, but I suspect you would see right through that as a strawman argument and very cheap tactic. And you would be correct. If you want people to respect your opinions, then act in a way worthy of respect.

    To finish: Abiogenesis is the scientific theory of how life could have originated naturally. This is what you should be arguing against instead of assuming that the Theory of Evolution concludes that ‘there is no God’.

    Btodd

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry, some of us do not have enough faith to believe in evolution. We prefer scientific explanations. No, science does not support evolution. P.A. ]

  189. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 1, 2007 4:48 pm Reply

    Endtimes, Endtimes, […EDITED]

    [I did this just so this post wouldn’t escape your attention]

    Please would you write a few words about what you believe those two horns represent on the lamb: ie. Rev 13. And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and his voice was like that of a dragon?

    [i remember you saying you don’t want to cast pearls before swine – maybe you will shrug this question off as the same]
    cheers; and glory to Jesus.

  190. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 1, 2007 5:40 pm Reply

    baliset,

    I don’t think you will appreciate this iether but here goes. This blog is sponsored by a Creation Science Evangalistic Church Ministry.

    It is provided to you [and me] free of charge.

    You are here as a guest. The people who sponsor this web site/ discussion board believe, among other things, that there is a case for believing that a literal interpretation of Genesis is both legitimate and correct, and that there is cogent scientific evidence in support of the same. They do not say that a formal empirical proof exists nor that one could be found to exist.

    You are a guest on their website. So am I.

    quoting you: “There are those here that, patiently and repeatedly, point out the plain facts of law or science that Young Earth Creationists or Tax protesters are mistaken about.”

    and quoting you again: “It’s not the ignorance that’s the problem around here”

    and quoting you again: “What about telling people that spouting unadulterated nonsense can’t go on without consequences?”

    So lets sum up. You have come to a website sponsored by Creation Ex Nihilo believing, Bible believing Christians and the sum total of your rhetorical contribution is to point out to the sponsors that their beliefs are:

    “ignorance, mistaken, unadulterated nonsense” and, let me get this right, all because “you say so”.

    I want this to be my last direct question to you. If this one goes unanswered I hope to brush the dust off my feet permanently.

    Have you, or have you not, sat down and simply watched the CSE 7 DVD seminar series? [The ones that are free to copy and give away because their creator simply wants the message to get out]

    If you want a set and will promise to watch them I shall mail them to you. Free of charge.

    ps. there are plenty of highly intellectual skeptical websites. This one: http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/ seems to match your intellect quite nicely. I am sure you shall find lots of like minded people on their discussion board. And if truth were a consensus decision you would be well comforted there. so peace be upon your house.

  191. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 1, 2007 7:04 pm Reply

    Learned Hand Re: July 31 10.55pm

    quote you “I’m not sure what you’re quoting”

    have you read any of Samphire’s entries? Have you been that far back in the blog?

    as a champion of evolutionary thinking you certainly have “studied” haven’t you! – quite the intellectual we have all been waiting for.

    “Can you show me any section of the UCC that supports this bizarre fantasy?
    It just makes you look deranged.”

    One chap I sat and talked with personally flew to America specifically to research this and personally filed the lien: Michael John [withheld] against MICHAEL JOHN [WITHHELD]* The forms were filed as such. And it was “legal tender” that was accepted for same. It is now a matter of record.

    “judicial person”: you actually put this in quote marks. who are you quoting? Fumanchu will be impressed with this.

    “Juridical Person” comes straight from the Code of Canon Law – and can relate to “things” not “persons”.

    “…..the bizarre hobby of some very strange people with too much time on their hands……”

    the fact is, for some people I really don’t have much time at all; and as for the blog, while its primary sponsor has only a very limited right of reply I may continue on to voice some speculation as to others motives for the adoption of alternative paradigms in history, law, politics, religion and science.

    ps. I can quite comprehend how impressed baliset, aka nathan somebody? is with your writing skills. birds of a feather ….

    * for obvious reasons I have withheld the surname.

    ps. to “darling”: Learned Hand is making you look like a real gentleman. You are a shining example of your professed beliefs against a darkening background. He makes Samphire look like a saint. He makes Fumanchu look cool calm and collected. Samphire we miss you.

  192. David August 1, 2007 7:48 pm Reply

    Learned Hand (LH) and Darling

    I guess you totally ignored the two statues ( title 26 ) showing who is made liable for the taxes imposed. This is why I hate to get into these discussions. People start to lose and then resort to name calling. LH, you are the ridiculous and extremely dishonest one. No proof whatsoever to support your beliefs and/or refute my evidence. By yours’ and darlings reasoning, I guess I’m liable for the over 100 types of taxes that are imposed in title 26 ( imposition equals liability ). How stupid can you get? Learned Hand , Your last sentence shows what type of a liar you are. Accusing me of being responsible for Kent Hovind. It shows what type of person you are.
    You can lead a person to the truth but you can’t make him accept it.
    .
    *************************************************************************
    .
    .
    Learned Hand
    Said this on August 1st, 2007 at 1:37pm:

    David,
    Can you show me the law that says that a statute must use the magic word “liable” to create liability? You cannot – there is no such law. 27 U.S.C. § 1 imposes a tax on individuals; because a tax is imposed upon us, we are liable for it. No court has ever held otherwise. Your belief that “liable” is a magic word is not only wrong, it is laugh-out-loud ridiculous and extremely dishonest. I know the moderator prizes civility here, and I am grateful for his graciousness. But I cannot abide an outright lie, or an attempt to deceive innocent people with such potentially harmful deceit. Lies like yours, David, are one reason why Mrs. Hovind is now a felon.

    darling
    Said this on August 1st, 2007 at 1:19pm:

    David Said this on August 1st, 2007 at 10:17am:
    “There are lots of laws that tell how to pay income taxes but not one law making anyone liable for the federal income tax.”
    Apart from the one I linked to, that is. Imposition of tax == liability.

  193. Three Crosses August 1, 2007 8:03 pm Reply

    Dear learned hand:
    I’m very sorry I’ve offended you. This was not my intention. Sometimes it’s very difficult to break to someone that their religion has blatant problems and is unfulfilling except to the flesh. Whether they worship the corrupted law or evolution and it’s assumed god “process”.
    I understand that you don’t know the meaning of science from your post(you seem to think it means evolution). I can also report the conclusions of scientists that say the world was created.
    Yes we don’t have many, if any fossilized chihuahuas or the millions of bison who’s bodies covered the plains. It appears that most fossils were created during a world wide flood, the scientific evidence for this is staggering.
    I like how you state your scientifically unfounded religious beliefs as fact. Your insulting, inacurate questions are also interesting.
    “Why is it, do you suppose, that no research university or unbiased institution follows your radical, fringe ideology?”
    Actually many labs treat Intelligent Design(I believe creation which is different) as a scientific theory when they test their ability to mimic life or components of life in a lab. Unfortunately as you pointed out these secular institutions are very biased to your religion of evolution.
    “Is it a conspiracy, like the conspiracy of lawyers, judges, Constitutional Framers, statutory provisions and case law that refutes your equally irrational beliefs about the law?”

    I have no irrational beliefs about the law, what I know about the law is very well documented. I think your statement is evil in trying to say that your religious opinions are backed by the “constitutional framers”.
    “Is it the same conspiracy that keeps creationists at home, twiddling their thumbs, while trained geologists and micropaleontologists are employed by unbiased corporate interests to locate date mineral samples, locate potential oilfields, and predict the location of mineral deposits? I think, rather, that it’s the inability of creationists to deliver the sort of testable, accurate, repeatable results of the sort the moderator notes Semmelweiss and Pasteur generated.)”

    Wow! you sure can throw out some unfounded insults or are we back on the playground? It would be nice if you would awaken from your slumber. I guess you are “willingly ignorant” of testable, accurate, repeatable results of the sort the creationists and Christian geologists, micropaleontologists and biochemists are capable of, that have nothing to do with the religion of evolution.

    “Your ignorance of tax law could not be clearer. Your self-satisfaction with that ignorance is equally well-established here. If you don’t understand the law, then don’t pretend to – study and learn, or not. But pretending to have authority in a field in which you are appallingly ignorant is a deplorable, but apparently very Christian, practice”

    Here once again, you have nothing intelligent to say, so you resort to insults again. Yes I realize you don’t like Christians! It’s kinda like they all know something you don’t huh? Would you like to know what that is? I’ll be more than happy to tell you. I realize that since you purchased a law degree and have the ability to legally make people suffer, that you like to feel superior. A false sense of power. Brace yourself, this may come as a shocker “some people think that the truth is more important than the law, power, money or even themselves”.
    You do seem to be an expert in pretending to have authority in a field in which you are appallingly ignorant and it is deplorable, but apparently a very legal, practice. One final question. Did all of those insults you were spouting off really make you feel better or are you still offended that I don’t like your religions?
    With love, may God grant you clarity of sight three crosses

  194. Learned Hand August 1, 2007 8:20 pm Reply

    Verbal Da Mentor said, “I still cannot see this law that you are taking about. It seems to me that the tax fraud advocators are reading and interpreting the law how they want to, not to how it actually is to be interpreted.”

    Assuming that “tax fraud advocators” includes me, it should be noted that we’re not a few voices calling out in the wilderness. The “interpretation” of the statutes I’m giving you is that of the district courts, bankruptcy courts, appellate courts, Supreme Court, Congress, the IRS, every major bank and financial institution, economics and business professors, financial planners… Tax protesters don’t even agree with each other – their analyses are not limited by facts or precedent, but are constrained only by their own imaginations.

    Is there something specific about the statute that is confusing to you? I think the language is straightforward – start with Chapter 1, Section 1, page 1 of the income tax code. It’s linked many times in these comments. Look at each subsection (the (a)’s, (b)’s, and (c)’s) to see where you fit. If you are a head of household, for example, you go to 26 U.S.C. sec. 1(b): “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table…” The table following that sentence sets out the basic tax brackets. Your specific rate, withholdings, deductions, etc. can get very complicated, but the basic imposition of the tax is pretty straightforward. Do you have specific questions?

  195. EndTimes August 1, 2007 9:02 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on July 31st, 2007 at 10:55pm:

    EndTimes, I have not called you stupid, obliquely or otherwise. I will note, however, that you don’t appear to have understood my argument. I don’t believe that you are a creationist “because [you are] clinging to an ideologically impermissible conclusion.” I believe that you disregard objective science in order to avoid reaching an ideologically impermissible conclusion.

    Dear Learned Hand,

    You have made an argument based on the dogma of credulity, in other words, that the creationists believe easily without study and with out merit and without sufficient truth based on slight or no evidence at all. I believe that you will see that this argument is quite often if not always associated with “a weakness of mind.” I would admonish you that if you wish to show me what I am ignorant of, then give us some examples. I would really like to learn something new if you have something to teach me. So, yes, your argument is quite fancy, but nevertheless, it is lawyer talk for I’m smart and you are stupid as we in the YEC see all the time.

    CREDULITY, n. [L., to believe. See Creed and Credulous.] Easiness of belief; a weakness of mind by which a person is disposed to believe, or yield his assent to a declaration or proposition, without sufficient evidence of the truth of what is said or proposed; a disposition to believe on slight evidence or no evidence at all.

    Cre*du”li*ty (kr?-d?”l?-t?), n. [L. credulitas, fr. credulus: cf. F. crdulit. See Credulous.] Readiness of belief; a disposition to believe on slight evidence.

    That implicit credulity is the mark of a feeble mind will not be disputed. Sir W. Hamilton.

    http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=credulity&use1913=on&use1828=on

    Learned Hand

    Said this on July 26th, 2007 at 10:41pm:

    Frankly, the commentary on this site is lowering my opinion of fundamentalist Christians. It is not that so many comments reflect serious ignorance of law and science; ignorance is a universal malady, rarely ameliorated and never entirely cured. What is shameful about the displays here is the *love* of ignorance. When did knowledge become so frightening to the faithful? People grow through discovering new things; surely God doesn’t want you to bury your heads in the sand and ignore the sophistication of creation.

    Dear Learned Hand,

    Let’s talk about this comment which you seem to now deny, yet we do have the “court transcripts” available to review. You dwell on stating that creationists have a “love of ignorance.” Let’s look at the synonyms of the word ignorance and I will admit that they are not at all flattering to me or anyone else that believes in the Lord God of Israel and all that He has written to us. I guess in a sense, you are likewise calling God ignorant since He is the one that wrote Genesis of which you call fantastic myths.

    Roget’s New Millenniumâ„¢ Thesaurus – Cite This Source
    Main Entry: ignorance
    Part of Speech: noun
    Definition: unintelligence
    Synonyms benightedness, bewilderment, blindness, callowness, creeping meatballism, crudeness, denseness, disregard, dumbness, empty-headedness*, fog*, greenness, half-knowledge, illiteracy, incapacity, incomprehension, innocence, inscience, insensitivity, mental incapacity, naïveté, nescience, oblivion, obtuseness, philistinism, rawness, sciolism, shallowness, simplicity, unawareness, unconsciousness, uncouthness, unenlightenment, unfamiliarity, unscholarliness, vagueness

    http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/unscholarliness

    Lastly Learned Hand, for the record, you have not established what I have read or not read in coming to my conclusions on creation/evolution, so in fact, your entire commentary on the ignorance of creationists actually has no basis in facts and is itself an IGNORANT statement. You have instead subjected the readers on the CSE blogs to your own universal malady of ignorance on the issue of creationists. Let me inform you that I know many, many quite sophisticated doctors, scientists, teachers, business men, computer technicians and others who have come to know the Lord after achieving their career goals first and are quite capable intellects and they are as well YEC. Your arguments are completely without merit and show your own ignorance and prejudice against people like me. Quite frankly, I would have hoped that you would be more persuasive in your arguments than simply trumped up false, yet elaborate, insults. So, again, if you have an issue of substance, shoot away, otherwise continued insults shall not help your cause in the least. Hopefully, you might actually “grow through discovering new things; surely God doesn’t want you to bury your heads in the sand and ignore the sophistication of creation.”

    In kindness,

    Peter

  196. EndTimes August 1, 2007 9:07 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on July 31st, 2007 at 10:55pm:

    <b>The point is moot, however. The moderator has asked that we not argue the merits of creationism, which is a reasonable policy. There is, after all, no realistic possibility of either of us persuading the other.</b>

    Dear Learned Hand,

    It is not a good debate technique to not answer my question dealing with “rocks” because you state that the moderator would not want you to comment on “rocks” yet in the same post do exactly that for another statement on fossil “rocks” from Praybird despite the fact that you state quite clearly you are not here to debate “biology, physics, or geology.” Well, make up your mind, are you going to be consistent or inconsistent in your posts?

    Praybird said, But wouldn’t bones such as dinosaur bones disinegrate after a few thousand years? Wouldn’t it be impossible for bones to last hundreds of millions of years???? Wouldn’t these bones go back to the dust after just a few thousand years?

    <b>No. Dinosaur bones in museums aren’t actually bones, like you find in your drumstick. They are minerals, like “rocks.” Sometimes, very rarely, a dead animal will come to rest in such a place and such a manner that it is covered by sediment. Over time, mineral-laden water seeps in and displaces the original organic matter. The result, after millions of years, is essentially a stone in the shape of the original bone or tooth. Other sorts of fossils, such as insects encased in amber, are formed in other ways. That’s a very, very brief description of the process; if you’re interested, your library or school will have a wide variety of books on the subject. You can see good images of rocks with these imprints and remnants, as well as amber fossils, here:</b>

    http://www.fossilmuseum.net/FossilGalleries.htm

    Unfortunately, it appears to me that you are sidestepping a very legitimate question on the formation of granite rocks that could lead you to different conclusions about your outrageous statements that my beliefs are based on willing ignorance and yours are of course “learned.” Stand up like a man and answer my question just as you have answered Praybird’s or concede that you are simply ignorant on one of greatest dilemmas of modern geology and the inability for decades to reproduce granite in a controlled laboratory setting in accordance with the uniformitarian principles widely taught on the formation of granite that has never been confirmed by any scientific investigation. In fact, any person that accepts the formation of igneous granite rocks as taught in the textbooks has an incredible love of ignorance and that this theory of granite formation has not been confirmed by any scientific inquiries. YET YOU COME HERE AND ACCUSE ME OF BEING IGNORANT AND HAVING A LOVE OF IGNORANCE AND WILL NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THIS ONE QUESTION!!

    <b>(Your argument that scientists must “recreate granite in a lab,” for instance, is bizarre to me. No scientific theory of which I’m aware requires that particular rocks be reproducible in a laboratory, just as stellar astronomy doesn’t require that stars be reproducible in a laboratory to be accurate, even though stars form through the mere compression of available elements.) As I said, I’m not here to debate biology, physics, or geology.</b>

    http://www.halos.com/faq-replies/icr-open-lt-2003-1-12.htm

    Since I have listed a challenge from a “creationist” site above, let me show you the latest in an upcoming symposium on geology issues. Right in the forefront of the symposia is again, how did granite form because NO ONE ON THIS PLANET HAS BEEN ABLE TO REPRODUCE A PIECE OF GRANITE OF ANY SIZE ACCORDING TO THE UNIFORMITARIAN PRINCIPLES TAUGHT TO OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS ON HOW GRANITE WAS ALLEGEDLY FORMED. WHY THEN DO THEY TEACH YOUNG CHILDREN THE PROCESS OF GRANITE FORMATION WHEN THE SCIENTISTS HAVE NO CLUE HOW IT COULD HAVE BEEN FORMED BY UNIFORMITARIAN PRINCIPLES?

    S36: Formation and evolution of granitic magmas

    “Granites sensu lato represent an important geochemical reservoir within the earthÂ¥s crust. However, despite decades of research, <b>there are still a number of long standing fundamental problems regarding the origin and evolution of granitic rocks.</b> These include the tectonothermal requirements for granite formation, the role of mantle components and magma mixing in granite petrogenesis etc…”

    http://www.goldschmidt2007.org/theme06.php#T06-S05

    So, my Learned Hand, you do not appear to be as learned as you claim. You are completely <b>ignorant</b> of a most important geologic and evolutionary issue that will continue for all time to confound my learned colleagues in geology because there are some things in this world that ONLY GOD can create and it is direct evidence that He did create this world exactly as told to us in the book of Genesis. One of the other things that only God can create is life. So, if you are really learned, then please tell me where all the information came from to give us life? Or are you likewise as <b>ignorant</b> on this topic as you are on rocks?

    So, unless I am mistaken, you probably adhere to a position that granite rocks were slowly cooled deep in the earth over millions of years yet are completely <b>ignorant</b> of the scientific debate on granite formation and the lack of data for this uniformitarian principle of geology. It turns out that my question on the formation of granite rocks is not in the least bizarre nor is it bizarre that CSE has attracted another scoffer that thinks he knows that we are ignorant yet it is just the opposite I am afraid.

    May the love of God and the love of truth enter into your heart at some point in time before you die.

    Peter

    P.S. Perhaps you might want to rethink your position on star formation as well. That one is even more laughable than the granite formation dilemma the geologists debate. Who my friend is truly ignorant on these issues?

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: A few unfossilized dinosaur (i.e. dragon) bones have been found, of course. http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/alaska/home.html Many years later, … the evolutionists “discovered” (admitted) the same, in Science, (Science 10 November 2006 314: 920), and there was one earlier article, in the Spring of 2005. But note that, creationists were several years ahead of the evolutionists – again! P.A. ]

  197. EndTimes August 1, 2007 9:17 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on July 31st, 2007 at 10:55pm:

    I am an attorney, and am here simply because I find the dishonesty and disregard for truth being bandied about here as pseudo-legal arguments offensive to my moral and ethical sensibilities. Let us, then, turn to examples of those pseudo-legal arguments.

    Dear Learned Hand, let’s do just that, turn to the legal issues that I presented to you that you likewise appeared to be quite ignorant of the point that I was trying to make to you based on historical law evidence. It’s even sadder because I even gave you the exact reference for you to review before you gave me your answer to my question.

    Sorry, Learned Hand, it appears that you are ignorant of the historical fact that the churches of America have only since January 1, 1984 been required to act as a tax collector for the IRS. Before this date, the government honoured the sovereign and distinct realm of religious authority to the point that they would not “tax God.” So, before January 1, 1984, EVERY charge against Dr. Hovind in 2006 did not exist on the books and no crime would have been committed by Dr. Hovind of any kind for operating his ministry exactly as he did in 2006 before January 1, 1984. These are historical law facts of which I gave you the reference if you wish to no longer be ignorant of this most important abrogation of church/state sovereignty in our nation’s history. So, where did congress get the authority to Tax God on January 1, 1984 when Madison would never have allowed such an outrage?

    Please note that your Madison quote is not the law of the land. You are, again, conflating what you want the law to be, and what the law actually is. Madison failed to persuade the framers to exempt religious organizations from otherwise-applicable general laws. While there are limits to the authority the state may exercise over religious organizations, there is no legal principle prohibiting the requirement that churches who have employees properly withhold those employees’ taxes. Can you, as the tax protesters love to demand, show me the law?

    Hmmm, are you implying that the statements of the framers of the constitution are not taken into account in understanding the “original intent” of the constitution itself in various court cases? Well, that is a novel understanding of law but I won’t insult you in the manner that you have insulted me simply because you are greatly mistaken on this issue. Perhaps you would like a little refresher course in the use of this very document by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case that in fact ties into the Hovind case entirely. It was called Engel vs. Vitale, 1962:

    “Essentially, the separationist argument boiled down to this: any state support given to religion, either direct or indirect, violates the Constitution. In support of this contention, these litigants offered legal precedents and a history of the religion clauses that drew heavily from the writings of Thomas Jefferson (the “wall” metaphor was initially his) and James Madison. Particular emphasis was placed on the latter’s “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments.”

    http://www.answers.com/topic/engel-v-vitale?cat=biz-fin

    Yup, the words, a “wall of separation” are not in the constitution so they must not be relevant to any court cases today because it was only a letter written to a bunch of “ignorant” religious zealots bothering Thomas Jefferson about whether the constitution would ultimately protect America’s religious liberties. Hmmm, does that letter have any bearing on the Hovind case today? It appears that that wall of separation is now only for the protection of the government FROM religion and is no longer meant as a constitutional protection of the church from the state. How did that happen?

    So, outside writings of the framers of the constitution as you most assuredly know and are not ignorant of are often used in court documents even if they are not the law in themselves.

    What other points do you wish to “make” showing how ignorant the creationists are?

    My prayer is that you would thoughtfully learn something new from intelligent and well informed people otherwise called literal YEC’s.

    May God grant that wisdom to you now my friend for time is running short. Yup, I also believe in the literal fulfillment of all of Bible prophecy.

    In kindness,

    Peter Laird, MD

  198. EndTimes August 1, 2007 9:39 pm Reply

    DQ
    Said this on August 1st, 2007 at 5:34am:

    “And you are not a scientist. You seem to be under the impression that hanging a piece of paper on your office wall makes you a scientist, but it doesn’t. Scientists ASK. You don’t. You look at the question, label it “impossible to answer,” and run back to the aprons of your religion. So it doesn’t matter how many classes you took or how many letters there are after your name. Unless you actually practice science, you are not a scientist. And creationism is not science.”

    Hmmm, I am a man that has not only mastered many aspects of science and have actually participated early in my career in molecular biology research at the National Cancer Institute, yet according to your wise counsel, I am not a scientist. Well, gee, I concede, I am not at present a scientist, yet I am quite well versed in science nevertheless. So, what is your point?

    Likewise, which question have I labeled impossible to answer and then simple gone to my religion to answer? By the way, perhaps you should learn more of the “evidence based medicine” that is the basis of our modern medical communities. It is all based on documented science articles of which I have read a few gazillion over the years. Science has been one of the wonderful pleasures of my life for nearly 30 years. So, 30 years of studying science must mean by your thinking that I don’t know anything about science. Go figure that will you.

    Lastly, I am greatly saddened that you have never come to the knowledge of the truth even though you “grew up” with it. You forget that Paul preached and “reasoned” from the Scriptures. So do most of the people that I associate with at church.

    Peter

  199. EndTimes August 1, 2007 10:00 pm Reply

    Dear Pastor from the West,

    Thank you for your kind words. I will try to be brief which is not one of my strengths. My objection is mainly that the entire political distraction that the church is focused on today in so many ways has left us not doing the primary task of preaching the gospel. Likewise, Abraham separated himself from the abundance of Sodom, from the wickedness of Sodom and from the earthly power of Sodom and Lot did not on any of these three accounts. Lot is not our best example of fighting a corrupt government and society. Abraham is. Lot indeed attempted to clear the corruption from the inside through a political process as he sat as judge, yet this strategy failed and when Lot called upon his family to leave, most simply laughed at him because he had lost his credibility due to his involvement directly with Sodom.

    I believe that the churches of America are now sitting in the gate of Sodom when we should instead be separated from Sodom’s abundance, wickedness and earthly power. There is no greater power in this earth than the power of the gospel.

    Now, for correcting this government: If I thought that the level of corruption was not so prevalent that the there was any hope at all left for America other than saving as many souls as possible, then I would not in any sense advocate against standing up to a corrupt government. However, I frankly believe that the days of effective civil protest have passed and we are now heading into some frightful Gestapo days to come that has passed the point of no return. I believe that is the entire content of Dr. Hovind’s current post. I believe that is also the message of Bible prophecy and we should heed the warnings of the signs of the times and bring as many people to the Lord as we can through His grace and mercy while it is still day for the night cometh when no man can work. (John 9:4)

    So, yes, in principle, go correct that which is not correct, but at present I believe with time as seemingly short as it is, it is better for me to focus on the gospel and witnessing to as many people as I can than lamenting more abrogation’s of our constitution than has already occurred to date. I could do better on this issue than I am currently doing so that is where I am trying to focus my efforts for the twilight of America is coming over the horizon.

    Thank you again for your heartfelt commitment to constitutional principles, but I believe that Dr. Hovind is likewise trying to tell us not to fall on our swords for a lost cause. Go win souls.

    “Simon: But God! I love my country and want to see a revival.

    GOD: So do I, Simon. Israel has been through this cycle many times. They never seem to learn. They go from prosperity to complacency to sin to judgement to repentance and back to prosperity. Right now, they need my judgement, son. Trust me, it is best. All countries and people seem to follow the same vicious cycle. One day I will help a group of godly men found a great country called America. They will become very prosperous and then very wicked. I will send them thousands of bureaucrats and princes to eat all their substance and bring them into bondage (I Samuel 8:10-18; Proverbs 28:2). I will call on my prophets to stop trying to save their nation and just win souls before my judgement falls. You will see it all from Heaven, Simon, and it will break your heart as it does mine.

    Simon: What should I do, Lord?

    GOD: Quit the Zealots. Submit to the Romans. Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you (Matthew 5:44). Preach my gospel to all the world (Mark 16:15).”

    With the love of Christ,

    Peter

  200. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 1, 2007 11:17 pm Reply

    hooray4god,
    i really don’t know what went to the moon and what didn’t but there are some excellent examples of official photos and video that must have been taken in mock up or simultation centres here on earth and used for publicity. see: david percy’s book “dark moon” see: faked reticles or reticles in impossible positions. the camera does not lie. the photographic evidence is overwhelming. I have only looked at one doco – about 4 hours called “What happened on the moon: An investigation of Apollo: An expose of serious faults in the Apollo photographs”
    I realise discussing this topic raises eye brows beyond their elastic limit. and faces look ugly that distorted. cheers.

  201. EndTimes August 1, 2007 11:35 pm Reply

    2ndamenduser

    Said this on August 1st, 2007 at 2:06am:

    Let’s be thorough in our study of the law. I have read about 85% of the the tax code (I’m working on the rest). I have done many word searches to find out what it really says. It is not unconstitutional, it is merely misapplied and fraudulently taught and those who misapply it end up in an indefensible position and lose in court most of the time. (Not unplanned by the writers and backers of the code)
    God, the judge of all is watching to see how our government treats its people. He is also watching to see how many people lie and cheat. And I think He is watching those who in good faith attempt to stand on principle and law as they understand it and He will vindicate those who are mistreated by the servants of the people some day.

    A Pastor from the West

    Dear Pastor from the West,

    You accurately portray the state of America at present. It reminds me of what Malachi stated about corrupt Israel:

    Malachi 3:5 And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.
    6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

    May God bless America and protect us from those that falsely swear to protect the constitution but instead rise up to destroy it, against lustful men rebelling against moral values once held by most Americans, against false religions lifted up in schools (Harry Potter is in but the Bible is out), and the IRS that oppresses the hireling in his wages. Most of all, I pray for all those that have no fear of a righteous God who will be in danger of hell fires since they will not likely repent of their fornications and abominations against God. Yet I still pray that they will.

    In the love of Christ,

    Peter

  202. DQ August 2, 2007 7:32 am Reply

    hooray4god said:
    <i>Science is what can be TESTED and PROVEN right? You prove some evolution for me and then i’ll be convinced. You BELIEVE in evolution right?</i>

    You may not be aware that the moderator has forbidden the “evolution vs. creationism” discussion on this blog. I will, if the moderator will allow it, direct you to a website that contains the answer to your question:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

    I provide this even though I can tell by the way you phrased your challenge to me that you will not accept what is written there.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Links are great. If folks then want to follow them for more info – that is good! P.A. ]

  203. GaryMurray August 2, 2007 9:49 am Reply

    Learned Hand
    Said this on August 1st, 2007 at 1:37pm:

    “Fossils are only as common as they are because of the staggering number of organisms that have lived and died over the millions of years of life on Earth.”
    ————————————————-
    The first error in your belief can be found in your statement above. There is no clear concise evidence that the age of the earth is millions of years old.

    ————————————————-
    “We can observe the rarity of fossilization by observing the rarity of partially-fossilized skeletal remains, and the lack of fossilized recently-diverged phenotypes (such as chihuahuas).”
    ————————————————-
    Sure ya can… but to do this you are assuming that the rate of decay then was the same as now, you are assuming that all earthly elements consisted of the same matter/form/consistency then as it is in the present and you are assuming nothing over the period of time of decay occured out of the ordinary, you are assuming you can recreate the atmosphere, rate of decay, and all variable now, exactly as they were then when, honestly, you don’t even know when… then, occured, what was the cause of death, where did it die?
    Seems to me there are an awful lot of assumptions made in your ‘observation’ to come to your solid rock conclusions.

    The problematic hypocrisy here is that the concept behind evolution assumes things change over time.. Well, if a fossil is believed to be millions of years old today… it (and all elements of the time of death) would be considerably different than our present day state, thus, one can not and could not legitimately use present day state and observations to predict the true state of any type of matter (gas, liquid or solid) ‘millions’ of years ago. To prove past state with present observations would disprove the evolutionary theory that the universe changes in time. The challenge for evolutionist is simply that the elements and matter they use to prove their theory, when comparing to present day observations, disproves the evolutionary theory by default.
    ————————————————–

    “I realize that you don’t believe that life has existed for millions of years, but I can only report the conclusions of scientists. I cannot account for the unsubstantiated beliefs of a tiny minority of untrained, non-practicing armchair pseudoscientists acting from a strong operational bias.”
    ————————————————–
    Wow! What a bias remark…

    This statement above assumes that all scientists either believe one of two things. Creation or Evolution. Your statement also concludes (foolishly) that the majority are legitimate, educated, practicing scientists who believe in evolution, and they are the only people in their field we should take heed to; also that the minority are ignorant, untrained creationists who have no scientific worth, and are bias in all their findings because they have faith in a supernatural God…???
    Does this include those scientists who believe in God, but have nothing to do with the disproof of evolution? What about a chemist? My Father is a chemist, head chemist of a very large international corporation in China, does this mean that because he uses science, went to school to be a chemical science engineer, and has used chemistry to develop life saving products that all he does and all his research is discredited and vainly obsolete because he believes God??

    First of all, not all scientists believe in creation, nor evolution. Some athiestic scientists no more believe in the evidence produced to support evolution, no more than they believe in the beginning God created the heaven and earth. Does this mean they are also bias, in your opinion? Its what your statement implies, all who don’t believe in evolution are of the ‘tiny’ minority of untrained scientists. They (and their degrees of study would probably disagree with you).

    Secondly, your bias alone towards your evolutionary belief, infatically denies any other concept of existance because you’ve been sold on evolution. This also has made you judgemental towards those who don’t believe the way you do.

    Let me say, just because you believe strongly in something, doesn’t make it true, nor does it make those who don’t believe it, ignorant and foolish or inferior to you and those who believe like you.

    I grew up a Christian, but really never was a hardcore believer, the ‘facts’ (i use that term loosely) and observations of evolution always intrigued me. I came to a point where the idea of God was less and less possible because of the publications and the mainstream documenteries of scientific research I was previed to. Finally, something hit me… Its what we call conviction, but what you might call guilty conscience… I should make sure of the legitimacy of what I was reading, watching and hearing was credible in ever way…

    I did my research and began slowly found the margin of errors, the failure of so many past experiments that were used to proove evolution, the inconsistency of conclusions found from one ‘legitimate’ laboratory to another, the continuing inability for the evo scientific community to agree of what, how and when exactly this universe began. The inability to produce real, and tangible evidence of man’s idea of the universe and its existance and the inability for the evo community to concisely produce a consistent path of exlpanations from one type of science to the next in agreeing with the evolutionary concept.

    Finally I realized, the reason for all this inconsistency is because its all just a mass of ideas, produced by different men and women trying to explain the universe. Each one building on the other trying to create a massive structure of evidence when the inside is as hollow as 500 square feet of space. If your scientists are as intelligent as you believe them to be, why is it so hard for them to produce any true evidence of evolution? You all know why we can’t produce evidence. Because ‘Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things NOT seen’.

    Wait a minute, we haven’t seen evidence in evolution either. Faith based! Kinda puts an alternate spin on that whole ‘pseudoscientist’ statement of yours.

    God Bless seeking and in Christ,
    Gary Murray

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Folks, great discussion on both sides! But … we’ve had problems in the past where this debate took over the blog. …Please use links and limit the length of your responses. Thank you! P.A. ]

  204. Elethiomel August 2, 2007 9:54 am Reply

    The Editor in a comment above makes the statement:

    “Evolution, a long series of believed one-time past events leading up to today, is inherently outside of “testable-repeatable” criteria, i.e. it is not science.”

    and here the editor is in error. A Scientific theory must make testable and falsifiable predictions, but it is not a requirement that a particular event must be repeatable. Predictions may also be about the things that we find or expect to not find. For example, newtonian gravitation predicts that orbits for two body systems will be ellipsoidal and stable, and we would not expect to see precession of orbits regardless of the sizes of the bodies. When we look at the orbit of Mercury however, we see that it does indeed precess. It’s not possible to repeat this result; we’ve found that mercury precesses, and that’s it. This is a demonstration that Newtonian mechanics is in fact false (General Relativity however explains it). Stellar mechanics predicts that we would see a neutrino pulse just before we see the light from a supernova. Again, this is just something we see in events like SN1987A, but we can’t repeat that result. Evolution predicts that there were organisms intermediate in charateristics between mammals and reptiles, and again we see these things in the therapsids, which show jaws intermediate between the five boned reptillian jaw/one boned reptillian ear and the three boned mammalian ear and one boned mammalian jaw (both for a total of 7 bones) and we see this. Of course we can’t repeat the evolution of mammals from reptiles, but this isn’t the point. Evolution makes predictions about what we expect to see in the fossil and genetic record and what we would not expect to see, and those predictions are repeatedly verified by the data we find, just as Newtonian mechanics makes predictions that fail (hence falsifying newtonian gravity) and Stellar mechanics makes predictions that are verified (as we see in the properties of stars and supernovae)

  205. Elethiomel August 2, 2007 10:05 am Reply

    as an addition to my above post, the editor also says

    “Folks can believe it, but should do so like other belief systems about our origins of how and why we got here, and other systems that teach us right from wrong (based upon its believed precepts), and where we go when we die. Evolution teaches a version of such things, correct?”

    no, Evolution does not tell us anything of the sort. Evolution is a theory discussing the change of living organisms with time due to natural selection and inheritable variance. It makes no statements on souls, it makes no statements on the afterlife and it makes no statements on what is right and wrong. It doesn’t even make any statements about how we got here past a certain point (Evolution assumes the existance of life, but the emergence from life from non-life is a separate issue. For all we know, God may have formed the first replicators and let them evolve along the divinely simple but incredibly powerful limitations that evolutionary theory addresses)

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Evolution as a belief system is a mental hiding place from God. Which is the bigger miracle: “God created the universe and put laws and life into place” -OR- “Nothing created the universe and put laws and life into place” ? Thank you for the lucid explanation, but those of us who have studied both sides are not interested in going back into darkness. P.A. ]

  206. btodd August 2, 2007 10:26 am Reply

    THE EDITOR SAID: Sorry, some of us do not have enough faith to believe in evolution. We prefer scientific explanations. No, science does not support evolution. P.A. END QUOTE

    Faith isn’t necessary for evolution, simply intellectual honesty. Save your faith for your the cult you follow. ;)

    Btodd

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Well, I actually was not “name calling” but rather identifying the place evolution holds in the mind. It answers questions of: our origins, right vs. wrong, where we go when we die, and other religious questions. Calling it “science” adds believed credibility, but does not change what it is.

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, …. “Take Our Quiz: Is Evolution a Religion?”: http://www.creationism.org/articles/EvolutionQuiz.htm P.A. ]

  207. FuManchu August 2, 2007 11:16 am Reply

    Aussie P-G: “He makes Fumanchu look cool calm and collected.”

    Sadly we’ve yet to see the cseblogs poster who makes you look sane. Still, stranger things have happened.

  208. darling August 2, 2007 11:26 am Reply

    “David Said this on August 1st, 2007 at 7:48pm:”

    “I guess you totally ignored the two statues ( title 26 ) showing who is made liable for the taxes imposed.”

    Because they’re irrelevant. (If not, why not?)

    “No proof whatsoever to support your beliefs and/or refute my evidence.”

    Apart from the plain text of the statue and the countless published court opinions you were directed towards, that is. Don’t pretend they don’t exist – it doesn’t become you.

    “By yours’ and darlings reasoning, I guess I’m liable for the over 100 types of taxes that are imposed in title 26 ( imposition equals liability ).”

    If they’re imposed on you, you’re liable. If they’re not, you’re not. This isn’t rocket science.

  209. EndTimes August 2, 2007 11:26 am Reply

    For all of the evolutionists out there that limit “evolution” to simply the changes of living organisms over time and deny that abiogenesis has anything to do with evolution are fooling themselves greatly. I have a degree in biology and in the 1980’s there was no artificial seperation of these two concepts because at that time, biologists felt that they had the answers from the time of the primordial soup up to present. No one defends this anymore and that is because of the overwhelming evidence that it is a scientifically unsupported theory of the primordial soup. So, the rule of rational thinking has even come into the evolution camp to a certain extent that they now distance themselves from an unsupported claim that is getting more difficult not less difficult to prove. So, primordial soup was on many a test that I took on evolution for my biology degree. People that make claims to the contrary have forgotten some very recent history, but that is the history of man over and over again. So, it is the religion of evolution that has taken a step backwards in their claims of a godless world created by only uniformitarian principles. Sorry, but the claims of macroevolution are likewise unsupported by the evidence as well and have never once been “observed” as is required by science. Thus, people that believe in macroevolution are indeed taking this step by “faith” since there has never been one case documented and observed of this ever happening.

    Peter

  210. EndTimes August 2, 2007 12:02 pm Reply

    <b>Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974

    Said this on August 1st, 2007 at 4:48pm:
    Endtimes, Endtimes, […EDITED]
    [I did this just so this post wouldn’t escape your attention]
    Please would you write a few words about what you believe those two horns represent on the lamb: ie. Rev 13. And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and his voice was like that of a dragon?
    [i remember you saying you don’t want to cast pearls before swine – maybe you will shrug this question off as the same]
    cheers; and glory to Jesus.</b>

    Dear PG,

    Thank you for the thoughtful question of which I never refrain from answering. Insults and innuendos are quite tiresome but legitimate questions never are.

    Bible prophecy is not by private interpretation and we actually find that the only true hermeneutics is that the Bible interprets itself. (II Peter 1:20-21, Isaiah 28:9-13, II Corinthians 13:1 for a short reference.) So, in interpreting any prophecy, we must find the “witnesses” from the Bible which give its meaning. (Genesis 40:6) Quite simple really, and that is the way that the Bible is written. We cannot always find the answers in this fashion and it may be that some of it is left to the Mystery of God which shall be revealed at the end of this age. In any case, it is always by the Scriptures and through the power of the Holy Ghost that we are able to know any prophecy. Revelation 13:11-12 is no exception to this rule and in fact it demonstrates these points precisely.

    Revelation 13:11 And I beheld <b>another</b> beast coming up out of the <b>earth;</b> and he had <b>two horns</b> like a <b>lamb</b>, and he <b>spake as a dragon.</b>
    12 <b>And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him</b>, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

    1) “Another”:

    The word “another” has two very basic meanings. It either means “being one more of the same kind or effect,” or it means “being one different, distinct or separate from the one considered; not the same.” The meaning thus has to be considered in the context in which it is used. In this verse, we find the contrast of the first beast….

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Please forgive me if wrong here, but when answers are too concise I look around on the Internet to see if they are YOUR words of those of others. I am sure that I do miss some posts. Some of this info appears to have come directly from http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/Slide12.html and Slide13. Are you the original author of that work….? The main page says “‘open’ copyright.” I am unfamiliar with that term. But, it would still seem that proper credit should be given, right? … P.A. ]

  211. Learned Hand August 2, 2007 12:03 pm Reply

    Australian said, when I asked if he could show me any law supporting his bizarre theory regarding the legal effect of names,

    One chap I sat and talked with personally flew to America specifically to research this and personally filed the lien: Michael John [withheld] against MICHAEL JOHN [WITHHELD]* The forms were filed as such. And it was “legal tender” that was accepted for same. It is now a matter of record.

    In other words, no, you can’t show my any legal support for your theory. Just an anecdote about some guy who “filed” some document for some purpose. Why would such a lien not be accepted? Assuming you mean that he filed it with a county or state recorder’s office, they don’t check to see if all the names actually belong to the same person. You can file “liens” against yourself all day long; the courts don’t care, because they’re frivolous documents with absolutely no legal effect. Unless you can show me a law demonstrating what effect they have, and it’s obvious that you can’t. You’re welcome to call yourself whatever you like, and spell it however you like, but (for Americans, at least) it won’t relieve you of your legal, moral, and ethical obligations to pay taxes.

    I’m sorry that you’re offended that I’ve called you ignorant and a liar. You can remedy that situation by making educated or honest statements, neither of which I’ve seen from you. There’s nothing wrong with not knowing the law – it’s pretending to know the law and telling lies to support your pretension that’s immoral.

  212. Learned Hand August 2, 2007 12:05 pm Reply

    David said, when I asked if he could show me any law requiring that statutes use the magic word “liable” to create tax liability,

    I guess you totally ignored the two statues ( title 26 ) showing who is made liable for the taxes imposed. This is why I hate to get into these discussions. People start to lose and then resort to name calling. LH, you are the ridiculous and extremely dishonest one. No proof whatsoever to support your beliefs and/or refute my evidence. By yours’ and darlings reasoning, I guess I’m liable for the over 100 types of taxes that are imposed in title 26 ( imposition equals liability ). How stupid can you get? Learned Hand , Your last sentence shows what type of a liar you are. Accusing me of being responsible for Kent Hovind. It shows what type of person you are.

    This is another dishonest argument. I assume you refer to the two statutes above imposing tax liability on distillers of spirits and importers of tobacco? Please observe the deceitful nature of tax protesters: David cited two sections from Subtitle E of Title 26: “Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes.” He now wants people to believe that because certain parties are specifically made liable under the “Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes” section of the code, these provisions are relevant to other taxes under other legal provisions. He also wants people to believe that because these two specific provisions (out of hundreds, if not thousands) use the magic word “liable,” all such provisions must use the word “liable” to be valid. Neither is true. He cannot cite any support for this fantasy, but rather than retract it, he continues to tell lies about what the law says. This is why tax protesters are scorned by most legal practitioners – they lie habitually, and without shame.

    Lets not gloss over one of the most ridiculously frivolous arguments on this thread to date (excepting only Australian’s works of art): “By yours’ and darlings reasoning, I guess I’m liable for the over 100 types of taxes that are imposed in title 26 ( imposition equals liability ). How stupid can you get?”

    The evidence suggests that tax protesters get very stupid indeed. Imposition does equal liability, but you aren’t liable for every type of tax in Title 26 because it doesn’t impose them all on you. This is plain from reading 26 U.S.C. § 1; please do so, before lying about it again (I have no hope that you’ll just stop lying about it). It demeans you and the other Christians on this site, who are burdened by the ignominy with which your unethical behavior tars them. And I’ll reiterate my last comment to you: lies like yours are what led Mrs. Hovind astray. If her Christian friends had abjured the sort of greedy fantasies you’re advocating, she wouldn’t be a felon today. Morality matters, and the lies you tell have the potential to hurt innocent people. Please try to strive for a more honest demeanor; don’t speak out of ignorance or self-interested fantasy, but study the law and learn the truth.

  213. Learned Hand August 2, 2007 12:06 pm Reply

    Three Crosses, the moderator has asked that we not debate creationism, so I’m not sure what to say. I clearly trust professional scientists, universities, and I don’t see the same biases in them that you do. (Frankly, I think that an atheist scientist who could scientifically prove creation would jump at the opportunity – scientists become famous and influential by making big, new discoveries, not by defending existing paradigms.) You clearly trust your faith, and ascribe a bias to any source that reaches conclusions contrary to your ideology. What are we going to resolve on this thread on the subject? My primary purpose here is simply to stress that tax protesters are wrong, dishonest, and immoral, and my motive is that I despise their lies and the potential they have for deceiving and hurting innocent people.

    I will say that I do not “worship” the law. I’m simply honest about what it says. If I don’t like what it says, I try to change it, or I look for a valid, legal, ethical way to reach a different outcome, but I don’t tell lies about it or make it up as I go along. Why do creationists and tax protesters insist that everyone else is operating from the same religious framework that motivates them? I don’t start from a belief and look for facts or laws to support it – quite the other way around, in fact.

    I’ll also say that, to my knowledge, I have never made a person “legally suffer.” I work for large institutions in a purely advisory capacity, not for (or against) individuals. But it’s not my personal ethics or my law degree that make me correct about the law – it’s that I can point to the actual law supporting my position, and clearly, logically, and consistently explain what the law means and why it is the way it is. Tax protesters either cite random laws they don’t understand and can’t explain in context (like David), or just make up legal principles with no support whatsoever (like Australian). If you don’t like my position on the tax laws, show me the law that shows that I’m wrong.

    Tax protesters love to demand to be shown laws that they’ll never read, why can’t they show one themselves for a change?

  214. Learned Hand August 2, 2007 12:08 pm Reply

    EndTimes,

    “Credulous” and “ignorant” are not synonyms for “stupid.” I believe that the first two apply to your beliefs about the law, but I have no reason to think that you are stupid. I would excuse credulity and ignorance in a stupid person.

    Your other questions are very strange; perhaps you’ve become confused? Praybird asked why dinosaur bones don’t decay after millions of years; I explained that fossilized skeletal remains are not actually bones, but stones in the shape of the original remains. You appear to be upset that “sidestepped” his question because I didn’t address the formation of granite in a lab? I don’t think that was his question. Nor do I know much about granite. I suggest you ask a professional geologist (or a preacher, if you require a simpler, ideologically correct answer).

    So, before January 1, 1984, EVERY charge against Dr. Hovind in 2006 did not exist on the books and no crime would have been committed by Dr. Hovind of any kind for operating his ministry exactly as he did in 2006 before January 1, 1984.

    Assuming, arguendo, that this is true, so what? Mr. Hovind wasn’t convicted on the basis of any actions taken before 2001, so far as I can tell. Cocaine possession was perfectly legal up until, say, January 1, 1904 (no, I don’t know the actual date). What relevance would that have to a man convicted of narcotics trafficking in 1925? What Mr. Hovind did was illegal when he did it, and, according to you, for at least twenty years prior. He doesn’t get to commit crimes in 2001 and then be judged under 1984 law.

    Hmmm, are you implying that the statements of the framers of the constitution are not taken into account in understanding the “original intent” of the constitution itself in various court cases? Well, that is a novel understanding of law but I won’t insult you in the manner that you have insulted me simply because you are greatly mistaken on this issue.

    Framers’ statements are sometimes taken into account. Not, however, when they advocate a specific policy that was rejected by the actual constitution. Madison’s views (as you interpret them) on this subject were rejected, and are not “law” today. You may want them to be law, but they are not, and do not constitute a defense to Mr. Hovind’s crimes. Your citation to Engel reflects your fundamental ignorance of how law operates – you’ve cited the court’s explanation of what the parties argued. What a lawyer argues in court does not become the law. Nor does the holding in Engel support the argument you’re making here. Separation between church and state does not mean that the state cannot pass any law affecting a church – neither Engel nor any other court case has held that. The state has always been able to hold religious institutions to compliance with neutral, universally applicable laws.

    In other words, the government can’t pass a special tax applicable only to Catholic priests. It can require those priests to pay a standard income tax that’s universally applicable to everyone. The government can’t pass a special requirement that Baptist churches get special, expensive building permits. It can require those churches to get the same building permits that any other non-profit’s building would require. The government couldn’t pass a law requiring only creationists to withhold their employees’ taxes, but it can and does require people like Mr. Hovind to follow the universally-applicable employment law. It’s really not that complicated; you can remedy your ignorance on this subject by reading more broadly. I suggest “Saying What the Law Is,” by Professor Charles Fried.

  215. Learned Hand August 2, 2007 12:10 pm Reply

    GarryMurray said, “The first error in your belief can be found in your statement above. There is no clear concise evidence that the age of the earth is millions of years old.”

    Please read more carefully. I said, “millions of years of life on Earth.” That is not a statement that the Earth is millions of years old – the Earth is, according to the overwhelmingly huge majority of all researchers and scientists based on corroborated physical evidence from multiple independent sources, billions of years old. Your beliefs may vary.

    I’ve been very verbose, so I’m afraid my response to you must be exceptionally brief. First, readers are invited to follow DQ’s link to see examples of evidence of evolution, both in the historical record and in the laboratory.

    Second, you said, “Let me say, just because you believe strongly in something, doesn’t make it true, nor does it make those who don’t believe it, ignorant and foolish or inferior to you and those who believe like you.”

    It’s not that someone “believe[s] strongly in something” that makes me think they’re ignorant or foolish. It’s certainly not their religion – I don’t think badly of Christianity in general. It’s a strong belief in a specific factual proposition in the presence of contrary evidence that makes me think someone is ignorant or foolish. Again, my specialty is law – and tax protesters are very definitely both ignorant and foolish when it comes to understanding and stating the law. As for biology, I won’t challenge your faith any further.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Well, creationists for the most part have studied BOTH sides. Evolutionists though, only one; that’s why they’re still evolutionists. Please see Dr. Hovind’s Seminar #1, “The Age of the Earth” http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=447DVD (also viewable on-line via Google and YouTube).

    The “Creation Research Society” http://www.creationresearch.org has 600 or so member scientists, who all ascribe to young Earth creation. They publish two periodic scientific journals. P.A. ]

  216. GORGE August 2, 2007 1:33 pm Reply

    Dear Paul, aka- mr ed,
    Thanks for the info about Islam, it needed to be said., I am in complete agreement with you and EndTimes on this.
    Godbess, will write more when I have more time!!

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  217. DQ August 2, 2007 1:37 pm Reply

    EndTimes said: which question have I labeled impossible to answer and then simple gone to my religion to answer?

    What about the formation of granite? You require it to be created in a lab before you will accept the scientific explanation for it. I assume you attribute its presence to the worldwide flood? Or to god creating it as-is? Both of those explanations are “running back to the aprons of your religion.” Well, worldwide floods cannot be recreated in a lab, and god creating things cannot be recreated in a lab, so you obviously move the goalposts at your leisure, and require much different levels of proof for different things depending on whether or not you personally like the outcome. Yet another reason why you are not a scientist.

    Also, it is my understanding that the primordial soup theory has fallen on hard times. This is one of the most wonderful things about science, and one of the reasons why it is so successful. When scientists realize that they are wrong, they publish a new textbook. Christians, on the other hand, are still working out of a book that says that the earth sits on pillars and doesn’t move. The fact that you would actually think that one of the greatest things about science is actually a weakness is merely further proof that you are not a scientist.

    EndTimes said: You are completely ignorant of a most important geologic and evolutionary issue that will continue for all time to confound my learned colleagues in geology because there are some things in this world that ONLY GOD can create and it is direct evidence that He did create this world exactly as told to us in the book of Genesis.

    This is absolutely not true. Even if we were to accept that current scientific theory could not explain the existence of granite, and even if you were to conclusively prove to the satisfaction of everyone in the world that evolution was false, that still would not be evidence that the world was created exactly as described in Genesis. Creation scientists’ arguments are based solely on poking holes in evolution, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but you can poke a million holes in it and it still won’t prove that Genesis is right. The best you can hope for is to prove that evolution is wrong. But even if evolution is wrong, the world could have been created like it says in Genesis, or it could have been created in a different way by a different god, or it could have popped into existence via some other purely scientific means. If you have any scientific evidence for a 6 day creation, now would be a good time to present it. This thought that pointing out a discrepancy in current scientific theory does anything to prove Genesis is another reason why you are not a scientist.

  218. btodd August 2, 2007 2:19 pm Reply

    THE EDITOR SAID: “Well, I actually was not “name calling” but rather identifying the place evolution holds in the mind. It answers questions of: our origins, right vs. wrong, where we go when we die, and other religious questions. Calling it “science” adds believed credibility, but does not change what it is.”

    You weren’t name calling, you were simply ignoring my points (which are factual), and throwing the ‘evolution requires faith’ bit back at me immediately after I corrected that specific, fallacious statement. I regard it as further proof that you have no real position to defend, other than not believing in evolution and accepting your a priori assumption by default.

    You also piled on a few more incorrect assumptions, and offered them up as if that’s what we believe. Saying that the Theory of Evolution answers questions of right vs. wrong? Where we go when we die? IT DOES NO SUCH THING, SIR, AND YOU KNOW THAT. It is the ultimate conclusion YOU DRAW from evolution, and that is ultimately your problem (and that problem is a direct result of your literal interpretation of the Bible). Unfortunately, you are trying to make it ours as well. My morality isn’t affected by science, and I’m sorry that you feel so threatened by it.

    I offered the example of calling Christianity a CULT to help illustrate the point I’m making. Would you respect my arguments against Christianity if I start by calling it something it is not, and then childishly repeating that catch phrase every time you correct me? Is that what passes for a respectable discussion?

    If you ARE going to hold to this ‘evolution is a religion’ business, then am I correct in assuming that everything is a religion? You seem to think that anything that is given intellectual assent or belief is a religion. What is a belief in the supernatural, then? What is a philosophy? What is a cult?

    Is the Theory of Gravity a religion as well?

    Btodd

  219. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 2, 2007 4:29 pm Reply

    as is my habit I have moved to the new page and won’t be monitoring old ones unless people point me back to them.

  220. Three Crosses August 2, 2007 4:36 pm Reply

    Dear Learned Hand:
    I will try to keep this short, to the point and not offensive. I know what the laws in this country (the U.S. of A.) are all about. I don’t have the self control in dealing with people that think the law is just or infallible, that many of my brothers in Christ here display. I know the law is corrupt and for sale. It has worked for me and against me. I know that many evolutionists like to claim that their religion of evolution is science. Quite a few of them think it means the same thing. In your posts you seem to state that, since some “scientists so called” believe the religion of evolution (that you seem to exhibit faith in) that this means science supports you. It does not like the “constitutional framers” don’t support your tax code, all of your laws or the IRS. Am I correct that this statement:
    “But it’s not my personal ethics or my law degree that make me correct about the law – it’s that I can point to the actual law supporting my position, and clearly, logically, and consistently explain what the law means and why it is the way it is. Tax protesters either cite random laws they don’t understand and can’t explain in context (like David), or just make up legal principles with no support whatsoever (like Australian).”
    Means that you claim your access to a law library makes you right? What happens when you run into all of the unconstitutional laws? How about all the laws that violate our civil rights? I would say that being right about what a law says, has nothing to do with “whether or not the law is right!”. The law is structured to support, he with the most money. If you also consider that this is no longer a Republic (it’s a democracy) all of your laws mean nothing, they can simply be over ridden by the mob or the easier way, by money. I would like to point out that you play word games. Your statements are structured to associate yourself with legal, moral, valid and ethical. While anyone you disagrees with you is ignorant, a liar, wrong, dishonest, immoral, deceiving and hurting innocent people.
    I just don’t know what to think of someone who’s clearly into the law, for money. per your statement:

    “I work for large institutions in a purely advisory capacity, not for (or against) individuals.”
    So you don’t really help anybody. I guess I could say to you “You clearly trust your faith in law and evolution, and ascribe a bias to any source that reaches conclusions contrary to your ideology.”
    I’ll refer you to the “Constitution” and the “communist manifesto” for views on “graduated income tax”.
    I’ll have to ask what makes you “legal, moral, valid and ethical”? Then please answer, what makes the brothers that show you love and try to educate you, “ignorant, liars, wrong, dishonest, immoral, deceiving and hurting innocent people”? I would have to close my statement to you with a mistaken comment on your part:

    “The state has always been able to hold religious institutions to compliance with neutral, universally applicable laws.
    In other words, the government can’t pass a special tax applicable only to Catholic priests. It can require those priests to pay a standard income tax that’s universally applicable to everyone. The government can’t pass a special requirement that Baptist churches get special, expensive building permits. It can require those churches to get the same building permits that any other non-profit’s building would require. The government couldn’t pass a law requiring only creationists to withhold their employees’ taxes, but it can and does require people like Mr. Hovind to follow the universally-applicable employment law. It’s really not that complicated; you can remedy your ignorance on this subject by reading more broadly.”

    They do not seem to hold public schools which teach the religion of evolution to the same compliance as churches. The statement “universally applicable” is apparantly meaningless can you give some reference to which law covers every country on the Earth? I could also go into many of those institutions and people that are not subject to this nations laws or tax codes.

    With love three crosses

  221. Three Crosses August 2, 2007 4:45 pm Reply

    Does anyone know what “JURY NULIFICATION” is?

  222. Matthew August 2, 2007 5:31 pm Reply

    To the editor (Paul Abramson),

    Allahu Akbar means God is greatest, not greater. Also, Allah is the god of Abraham, so therefore it is the same god of Jews and Christians.

    Evolution answers questions of: our origins, right vs. wrong, where we go when we die, and other religious questions.
    Evolution does not answer these questions except origins. Evolution is not a religion as I and others have explained. Also, the speed of light and moon dust do not disapprove evolution since neither have to with the subject.

    You saidLeave it to a theologian (Darwin) to have started the modern world’s now dominant religion.
    This is an ad hominem argument and Christianity is the most dominant religion with over 2 billion. Islam is second with 1.2 billion (and growing) followed by Hinduism at about 850 million. Agnosticism is fourth with about 775 million and atheism about 150 million.

    Well, creationists for the most part have studied BOTH sides. Evolutionists though, only one; that’s why they’re still evolutionists.

    Then how you are still a creationist? Evolution is a scientific theory. You never hear the term “theory of creation.” Not all evolutionists are atheists.

    If you are so concerned about an evolution vs. creationism debate continuing on the blog, then do not make comments on the subject nor try to get people to buy a DVD. There is a great counter video at YouTube or my video on the oldest tree.

  223. EndTimes August 2, 2007 8:25 pm Reply

    Dear Learned Hand,

    1) Granite is an issue that you need to not be ignorant of any longer. I am sorry if you are too learned to stoop down and actually look at some data, but the issue is now before you and not I or any one else on this blog will hold you accountable, but the Lord God of Israel that you have so little esteem for or His followers. I have done my part and I am finished. The rest is in your hand. By the way, I listed two links to professional geologists that you are again ignoring out of hand. Perhaps your testimony on this site can best be summed up not as Learned Hand, but Ignoring out of Hand by the tenor of your other detractors on this site. So, I leave you to your bubbly millions of years of slow cooling granite and I will not try again to inform you of an issue that you should actually consider. I assure you my friend, looking at the data is not scary. What is the matter, are you afraid of some knew knowledge? Why do you not take your own advice to us in this one matter? Perhaps it will mess with your preconceived notions on evolution that will render an idea contradictory to your “beliefs.” Perhaps that is actually correct.

    2) Yes, yes Learned Hand, unofficial writings of the authors of the Constitution are never taken into consideration in official rulings by the Supreme Court and others.

    Engle vs. Vitale, 1962

    “It is true that New York’s establishment of its Regents’ prayer as an officially approved religious doctrine of that State does not amount to a total establishment of one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others – that, indeed, the governmental endorsement of that prayer seems relatively insignificant when compared to the governmental encroachments upon religion which were commonplace 200 years ago. To those who may subscribe to the view that because the Regents’ official prayer is so brief and general there can be no danger to religious freedom in its governmental establishment, however, it may be appropriate to say in the words of James Madison, the author of the First Amendment:
    “[I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?” 22

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
    Reversed and remanded.”

    [ Footnote 22 ] Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, II Writings of Madison 183, at 185-186. [370 U.S. 421, 437]

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=370&invol=421#t15

    3) Madison’s “views” were the law of the land on taxation of the church until January 1, 1984 when Congress (Caesar) began to tax God and I ask you under what authority did they assume power over God in 1984? That is the issue I have asked you to address several times and at this time, I again concede that you shall never give a direct answer to that question. So, no need to reply, this is the end of this discussion for me at this time.

    I quite believe that the quotation I listed by Madison is quite “prophetic” of the state we Americans find ourselves in 2007 despite your “learned” opinion. BTW, when did I ever state that Memorial and Remonstrance was “the law of the land.” I simply used it in the same reference manner as did the US Supreme Court, but of course, since “I am ignorant of the law”, I am not allowed to quote anything because it is too far above me to understand it and I will need to hire an esteemed and “Learned” man such as yourself to tell me what it means. (give me a break) Of course, I am ignorant and you are learned. But of course you would NEVER call anyone stupid. Thank you for keeping up with darling and not answering questions in a direct manner. You have not changed the minds of anyone on this blog about your profession as well my friend. So keep up the good old fashioned double talk with out saying anything of substance.

    Memorial and Remonstrance
    Against Religious Assessments
    James Madison
    [1785]

    Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body.The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents?The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

    http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html

    Peter

  224. Elethiomel August 3, 2007 2:17 am Reply

    The editor adds to my previous post;

    “EDITOR’S NOTE: Evolution as a belief system is a mental hiding place from God. Which is the bigger miracle: “God created the universe and put laws and life into place” -OR- “Nothing created the universe and put laws and life into place” ? Thank you for the lucid explanation, but those of us who have studied both sides are not interested in going back into darkness. P.A. ”

    This isn’t really relevent to what I said, since evolution does not state that “nothing created the universe and put laws and life into place”. There are a great many Christians who believe the God created the universe at the Big Bang and allowed the universe to unfold as He expected it to, leading to life here on earth today, just as God allows the laws of the universe to sustain life without having to perpetually intervene to stop Earth from falling into the Sun, or the Sun to run out of energy or the plants to stop photosynthesizing the Sun’s energy to make the food we eat. Accepting evolution does not require abandonment of God or Christianity, but accepting a different interpretation of the Bible, and who amongst us is really arrogant enough to think that our interpretation of the Bible is infallible?

  225. Elethiomel August 3, 2007 2:26 am Reply

    In saying “Sorry, but the claims of macroevolution are likewise unsupported by the evidence as well and have never once been “observed” as is required by science.” Endtimes makes the same mistake that the Editor made earlier. macroevolution, that is, change above the species level, makes predictions and has indeed been tested, through many avenues, from studies of the genome through to discoveries in the fissil record. It is not essential to observe a particular thing happening on order to verify a prediction. For example if we find what looks like some kind of sacrificial tool in a long dead society, we don’t have to observe that society sacrificing someone or something in order to verify the purpose of the tool, but if we find things that look like they have been sacrificed with that tool, then that supports the prediction. The claim that something has to be observed directly is indeed fundamentally flawed, and very often in science we cannot observe things directly anyway. We observe the events and artefacts that result from some particular event. Nobody has ever, nor ever will go to the center of the sun, however we don’t need to go there in order to determine that the Sun is powered by fusion. Nobody has ever seen a lone quark (and probably never will) but we don’t need to see lone quarks to know that they exist. nobody has ever seen a photon go through both slits at the same time in the Quantum Youngs Slit experiment, but we don’t need to in order to understand the wave-particle duality of light. While Endtimes may have a degree in Biology, much like many other people who did degrees at university (and no fault to Endtimes; not all universities actually teach these principles anyway), his understanding of the principles and requirements of science is indeed lacking.

  226. CreationCD August 3, 2007 2:50 am Reply

    Dear Elethiomel,

    I apologize in that I took your statement for the actual quote by Dr. Hovind and then I saw that the statement was correct and you mocking it as a quote from Dr. Hovind. I know that Dr. Hovind understands and has taught this material so it seemed reasonable to me from your other posts that it was you who did not understand.

    Here is the actual quote you referred to but did not post from an Anti-Hovind website.

    “If you are traveling down the highway at sixty miles an hour, and turn your headlights on, how fast is the light going from your headlights? Compared to you, it is going at the speed of light. Compared to someone on the sidewalk it is going at the speed of light plus sixty miles an hour.”
    Source: Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6 – a transcript of Kent Hovind’s early sermons circa 1996. http://home1.gte.net/dmadh/hovind6.htm [no longer available]

    The reference is no longer available. Did you cross check the quote and look at the context? He may have misspoken or he may have been building a model in Newtonian Physics only to say, “but its not … ”

    Still like the class clown laughing about a mistaken word your professor used and calling him a liar and an idiot behind his back because he misspoke. You would never stand up and call him names to his face in class when he could answer you because you know he only misspoke. At worst you would say, “Excuse me sir, don’t you mean … “

    In your last post [ Elethiomel, August 1st, 2007 at 5:10AM ] you said, “Sodium is one material that fan form these BECs” (not “can form”) and in your original post [ Elethiomel, July 25th, 2007 at 4:30AM ] you said, “you’ll always measure it to be 3×10^m/s”, (missing the exponent).

    I don’t care, I knew what you meant and extended you a common courtesy more often extend to me by others.

    But, by the same rules you use to call Dr. Hovind a liar, are you a liar? Have you ever misstated a law of physics during a class, when others were listening?

    Should someone then form a website calling you a liar, ignorant of the English language and of scientific notation? If several people copied the information off the first website and posted it on their own site, does that prove you are guilty or make you more ignorant?

    These are the tactics of class clowns or of religious and/or political zealots (or lawyers see Luke 11 below), who pour over Dr. Hovind’s radio broadcasts and videos looking for anything they can post, any accusations they can make.

    I’ve been trying for a long time to get you and others to look at yourselves in a mirror.

    Why are you here?

    Are your posts and methods of attack consistent with someone trying to defend science?

    Why is young earth creationism the biggest threat you see to science?

    How is it dangerous (see: DQ, August 1st, 2007 7:09AM)?

    How will it cause all geological, biological, chemical and physical sciences to fall (as Frank Collins says )?

    Are there any other threats to science or education that you are currently involved in? Give us a link.

    If not, why is nothing else so important to you as to stop those that literally believe the bible?

    Some people find the Bible’s morality primitive and unenlightened and don’t want their lifestyle and morality judged by those standards. It might be impossible for you to keep your current career or status in society and keep God’s commandments.

    Luke 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

    Dr. Hovind’s preaching attack on your belief in evolution may make you angry. No one wants to admitt they may be wrong especialy about our core beliefs. I’m sure you’ve seen people who’s carefuly laid plans and excuses didn’t hold up before the judge.

    Acts 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

    Were you once a believer but someone challenged your faith and you gave it up and began to “enlighten” others to give up their faith? Did you then hear Dr. Hovind, who was challenged with the same evidence against the Bible as you were, only he actually held on and searched and found answers to these challenges and he kept the faith. People feel guilty when they abandon their faith only to meet someone who weathered through the same temptations.

    Matthew 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
    Matthew 26:73 And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
    Matthew 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
    Matthew 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

    Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
    Luke 11:53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
    Luke 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

  227. baliset August 3, 2007 5:59 am Reply

    These are some questions for Paul, the moderator of this site:

    Do you deny quietly removing the words of a commenter to this site who said:

    “PS. I’m big on the second amendment too. I carried to church this morning, and I’ve got a loaded gun in my back pocket as I’m typing this!”

    This comment came at the end of a generic rant in favour of Hovind and decrying the evilness of the U.S Government. The comment was made to one of the last couple of blog threads, since I included the quote verbatim in my recent compilation of quotes made to this site. Now I go searching for the specific quote, it no longer appears. I could just be missing it, but I believe you have removed it. My website is now the only record it existed.

    Since you have previously made it a matter of principle to only censor contributors if they use offensive language, and not (for example) merely because they hold contrarian or disreputable views, could you clarify your editorial policy, since your other instances of censorship are clearly flagged with your note and adjudication?

    Lastly, is there any explanation to this demonstrated instance of censorship except that there is finally proof that it is possible for the beliefs of a Hovind supporter to be capable of “crossing a line” and embarrassing the cause for which you maintain this blog to advocate? IF SO, why don’t you set the bar far higher, which has been my request for some time.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: I would have added an “edited” tag if I had done so. How long ago was the post?

    I am not an example of a good, just person, by the way. I am a sinner saved by Grace. I sometimes misread, or “over-“read into what someone is writing, thinking it too strong in insults, while weak in overall content. Those things catch my eye. I do not read every post. I scan them and prefer approving whatever folks want to state. But if it seems to me (speaking not as a good person, but as one forgiven of many sins, … again – not good) that someone is baiting another or just trying to be mean – then I look some more.

    Censorship and adjudication – tough to do fairly. I don’t keep the messages locally. You should do so before submitting, particularly if you think I may edit something out. Everyone has their foibles. I am certainly no exception.

    In the book, “Persecution” by David Limbaugh, he discusses many instances of persecution against Christians now happening in the US, but that are almost never in the media. It may not be a bad thing for some law abiding citizens to carry guns to church, just in case. How many of the attackers who plan mass killings have been stopped by one law abiding citizen who knew his 2nd Amendment rights and exercised that right? “More Guns, Less Crime.”

    Actually, let me mention one more thing. This ministry, CSE, is under intense scrutiny. This blog is also under scrutiny. There are persons in positions of authority regularly reading these posts in the background. Some of the posts, I really do not like. But I am trying to be fair (while not being a “good” person, intrinsically) to all sides, I think. You may disagree. I do try though. Each day I see interesting, strong opinions post back and forth. Some great dialogue! Excellent debate! I hope that this is a pretty fair forum. Once before I was accused of surreptiously editing a person’s post, when I did not. I recall it, because it had happened only the day before. I went ahead and posted his accusation. Perhaps he really did think that I had been unfair to him. God is the one keeping score; He sees it all. He knows whether I did or did not. And I have learned that some other blog sites are scooping up some of our content (often to poke fun or ridicule it). But … knowing that this forum is being watched, any mention of guns is one that I would be careful about! I am serious. Was the reference your are asking about deleted, but with one of my “edited” notes on it? Paul Abramson ]

    http://baliset.blogspot.com

  228. 2ndamenduser August 3, 2007 7:32 am Reply

    I guess I threw the proverbial rock into the proverbial pack of wolves and the wolf that got hit howled!
    I have never seen such hatred and vitriol expressed before on this site as was expressed by “Learned Hand”.

    You may as well have said “ouch”. You may be learned in the law, but you have been “learned” by those who use the law as a profession to make money and have power and influence to control. That’s why Jesus said, “Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge.”

    You keep referencing section one of Title 26:

    26 U.S.C. sec. 1(b): “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household…”

    AAs a lawyer, you ought to know that every word is important, after all look how Bill Clinton, a lawyer, said, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

    Title 26, sec. 1 does NOT say, “There is hereby imposed on the income of every head of household…”

    Just because the word “taxable” appears in the statement does not mean all income is taxable or that everybody’s income is taxable.

    When you have been taught what Title 26 and its subsequent statutes mean by those who want it to mean what they want it to mean to get an unsuspecting populace that is ignorant of the law to create such a confusing hard to understand set of laws that nobody, not even the IRS, can totally understand, which then creates opportunities for lawyers and accountants to make a killing, I can undestand why you believe what you believe. I can understand why you would be so mad. I might be undermining your liveihood!

    Those of us who still believe we live in “the land of the free” irritate those of you who believe we need you. Your living is based on that.

    As I said, I have studied the law. I am honest. I am not a liar. I believe you are grossly mistaken. You have been deceived. I am not a tax protester. I have not written or voiced one protest of any tax whatsoever. I pay all the taxes I have learned that I am liable for. And furthermore, to say tax protestors are tax cheaters is about as dishonest as to say all lawyers are crooks. No, some are decent, law-abiding, honest lawyers who defend all constitutional laws and ignore those which are not unconstitutional.

    You’re just like the evolutionists who post on this blog. You come with a mind like concrete: all mixed up and set.

    Tha same epithets you threw at us YEC’s and constitutional tax payers (notice we’re not taxpayers; we are tax payers.) actually describe what you are.

    This can be known by biblical principle:
    1) “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2) But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 3) And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?” Romans 2:1-3

    I sure hope someday you wake up to the fact that the judicial system in America, as bad as it may be getting, is a reminder that someday we will all stand before THE JUDGE and give account for every thing done in our bodies “whether it be good or bad.”

    Though I think you are dead wrong, I do not hate you, nor am I angry with you. I have a good conscience toward God. I truly hope that you will do as I have done and come the realization that you are a sinner, you are not perfect; and that God, Who is perfect, has the right to demand perfection on our part. Since he cannot find perfection even though we were created in His image, it is utterly revolting to Him to see His creatures be so wicked as we are.
    And there is a penalty for sin, decreed by the most just Judge, Who “will not at all acquit the wicked.” That penalty for sin is death and that death is two-fold: the body dies and turns to dust, and the soul goes to the lake of fire, “which is the second death.” (Rev. 21:8)

    This second death is so terrible that most people don’t believe it. Yet, the terribleness of something does not negate its existence. Worse yet, it is eternal.
    Now, I hope I’m not wasting these words on you or anyone else reading this, ’cause the next thing I’m going to tell you is so important and so wonderful that the scoffers of this truth will indeed, and should if they never repent, suffer the torments of Hell for ever.

    God Who is both Just and Love, so loved us that He became flesh and dwelt among us and allowed a corrupted religious organization who thought they were right to crucify His body and kill it, thereby paying the penalty of the first death for us. While on the cross, He dipped His soul into Hell and paid the eternal penalty for all of us. He knew that we finite creatures could never satisfy the demands of an eternal penalty, so He Who IS eternal and infinite dipped Himself into that eternal Hell and satisfied God’s demand, thereby paying the penalty of the second death for us. Then He rose from the grave! Proving His Deity and His power over life and death.

    Since He paid the penalty for all, He has the right to offer eternal life as a gift instead to all. (Romans 6:23) But real love never forces; therefore all do not automatically go to heaven when they die. No. God has one prerequisite. We must all admit our sinful nature and believe that Jesus satisfied God’s demand for the penalty of sin in our place and rose from the dead, and if we truly believe that – we will call on Him for mercy and ask Him to save us.
    “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:13)

    I hope, Learned Hand, that you will set aside your pride and admit your sinful condition before God and ask Him to forgive you, believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as your only hope. If you do, God will see your faith and save you.

    Then He will enlighten you on other things. We can still disagree on tax issues; but at least we can agree on the reality of judgment.

    I can only hope that America will get back to its roots of justice and recognize the inalienable rights of its citizens: the right to make a living, the right to trust in God in our old age instead of a welfare socialistic society.

    Its ironic that our money says “In God we trust” yet if one decides not to trust in the government for his welfare and orders his fiduciary matters according to that faith, he gets persecuted by those who rely on the support of others instead of God. Something wrong there.

    Legally, you might win; morally, ethically and philosophically, you can not with your positions on tax law and evolution.

    Kindly and educatedly,

    A Pastor from the West

  229. GaryMurray August 3, 2007 8:08 am Reply

    Learned Hand
    Said this on August 2nd, 2007 at 12:10pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    GarryMurray said, “The first error in your belief can be found in your statement above. There is no clear concise evidence that the age of the earth is millions of years old.”

    My apologies for misreading your statement, I stand corrected. However, stating millions of years of life instead of millions of years old earth does not change the fact that you believe in evolution, which would indicate you do believe in an age old earth.

    I have seen DQ’s link about ‘evidence’ of evolution. This ‘evidence’ is only in the minds of those who worked so hard to prove it true. I saw no new ‘evidence’ on this page which supported or furthered the legitimacy of evolution. Only different variations of explanations of ‘evidence’ that couldn’t be proven last year. Most of what was listed has been challenged by the creationst community for quite some time with nothing new to advocate evolution or increase its credibility.

    I would like to see what fact you are staking claim in the statistic relating to the “Overwhelmingly huge majority of researchers and scientists” who advocate and fully believe in evolution. I think I remember a statistic being discussed some time ago that might surprise you. Don’t necessarily assume that those who research the theory evolution are also supporters of evolution. This might come as a shock, but many scientists research theories in order to prove the theories legitimacy, rather than its origin or evidence, and believe it or not, they are neither evolutionists or creationists.

    It surprises me that evolutionists can’t fathom why we as faith believers have so much faith in what we can’t see or prove, only believe what was recorded by eye-witness accounts two or three thousand years ago, and what we feel through the spirit of the Lord. What evolutionists fail to understand is that our belief in creation and God the Father has come under fire so many times by other concepts and ideas and religions, this is what God meant when he said “there is nothing new under the sun”. Its not the first, and one day when it is fully discredited it won’t be the last. There will ALWAYS be some contrary belief to the truth of creation, but there will never be an alternate truth to creation, its been tried unsucessful for so many years.

    I do appreciate the respectful manner you answered my post, Learned Hand. You seemed concerned that you may offended me or my faith and I do thank you for that. Means there might be hope for you. ;)

    God bless those seeking and in Christ.
    Gary Murray

  230. Three Crosses August 3, 2007 12:09 pm Reply

    Dear Paul Abramson:
    Well creation/evolution is sure raging again! People sure do get very irrational in defence of their religion. I know it’s really not funny. But I am blessed to see some humor in it. With the lawyers you kind of have to have a law library and 12 lawyers on retainer to fight amongst themselves as to what each law’s interpretation might be, before you can respond. With the evolutionists you would have to force an operation to open their eyes and ears, maybe throw in a seeing eye dog for good measure. On a serious note the Bible refers to us as chosen many times, this maybe why some people just can’t/won’t hear the truth.
    Keep up the good work God bless and keep you!
    ////////////////////////////////
    To the evolutionists to put it very, very simply evolution is a religion for many reasons. Here are just some “it” relies on “supernatural intervention”(mysterious unexplained processes that do magical things), “conscious thought”(some genes weren’t busy so they felt free to try new things), it requires a whole lotta “faith”(to believe that 13 billion+ years ago everything poofed into existence with no plan) and it makes it a conscious effort on the animal’s behalf when it evolved rather than die. How many mobsters do you think tried to evolve gills when sent to “sleep with the fishees” in cement shoes?

    Thank you and may God grant you clarity of sight!
    With love three crosses

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for the comments! This blog and its posting are SO interesting! I am blessed to be able to be a part of it.

    Side note – I was down in Pensacola for most of last week. We just completed a huge undertaking – a 16 language DVD of Seminar #1, “The Age of the Earth”. There are still things to complete, like cover art, et cetera, but the DVD itself has been finalized! Soon Dr. Hovind’s Seminar #1 will be circling the globe with sub-titles in: Afrikaans, Albanian, Bulgarian, Croatian, English, Estonian, German, Greek, Indonesian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, and Swedish!!

    (By the way, more volunteer translators and proofreaders are needed for this important project. We are particularly looking for: Hebrew, Arabic, Hindi, and Italian. Send Email to: cse.pabramson -AT- gmail.com ) P.A. ]

  231. Elethiomel August 3, 2007 2:03 pm Reply

    CreationCD asks “But, by the same rules you use to call Dr. Hovind a liar, are you a liar? ”

    I have never said Hovind is a liar. Someone said they have heard only the truth from kent, I was demonstrating the opposite. Claiming Kent is lying would require me to demonstrate that he actually knows that he is wrong, but is continuing to repeat a falsehood with some ulterior purpose. I do not know whether Kent knows whether he is right or not, but I suspect that he just does not know any better. What I do know is that he is a bad scientist, and that a large amount, if not the majority of the science he presents is wrong.

    Why am I here? Well St Augustine makes the point that to link falsehoods with the Bible is to damage the Bible and to damage Christianity. If Kent is attempting to convince people that Christianty is right, but is doing so with shoddy science, then I worry that when people find out his science is wrong, that they may also ignore all the teachings from the Bible and fall away. I have seen it a tragically large number of times, where young people have learned proper science and have realised that their religious educators were wrong about the science, then assumed they were wrong about the Bible too.

  232. EndTimes August 3, 2007 4:20 pm Reply

    baliset

    Said this on August 3rd, 2007 at 5:59am:

    These are some questions for Paul, the moderator of this site:
    Do you deny quietly removing the words of a commenter to this site who said:
    “PS. I’m big on the second amendment too. I carried to church this morning, and I’ve got a loaded gun in my back pocket as I’m typing this!”
    This comment came at the end of a generic rant in favour of Hovind and decrying the evilness of the U.S Government. The comment was made to one of the last couple of blog threads, since I included the quote verbatim in my recent compilation of quotes made to this site. Now I go searching for the specific quote, it no longer appears. I could just be missing it, but I believe you have removed it. My website is now the only record it existed.
    Since you have previously made it a matter of principle to only censor contributors if they use offensive language, and not (for example) merely because they hold contrarian or disreputable views, could you clarify your editorial policy, since your other instances of censorship are clearly flagged with your note and adjudication?
    Lastly, is there any explanation to this demonstrated instance of censorship except that there is finally proof that it is possible for the beliefs of a Hovind supporter to be capable of “crossing a line” and embarrassing the cause for which you maintain this blog to advocate? IF SO, why don’t you set the bar far higher, which has been my request for some time.

    Thanking You for Your Prayers
    436 Comments
    NarrowPathPilgrim
    Said this on July 8th, 2007 at 10:01pm:
    2ndamenduser,
    I noticed you said you weren’t going to be replying anymore, but I’d like to make contact with you. It seems we agree on quite a bit (everything in your posts, except for universal atonement/common grace — I adhere strictly to reformed theology), and I’m always looking for like-minded friends!
    If you’re reading this thread, please email me at [email protected].
    Sincerely,
    Zach Doty
    PS. I’m big on the second amendment too. I open carried to church this morning, and I’ve got a loaded gun in my back pocket as I’m typing this! (I CC at home, but I dont’ have a CHP so I have to carry open everywhere else)

    Dear Nathan,

    The accuser of the brethren is back at it again showing that his temperament is not Christian in nature with gently admonitions done in meekness and kindness, yet in this instance, your entire demeanor against Bible believing Christians who do not call Jesus a liar as you do has led you to make a very false accusation against Paul Abramson. The Christian thing to do would be called an APOLOGY publicly. I somehow suspect that won’t happen.

    Next, I hope that you note that this was a private message to a poster on this site and not to CSE directly but I suspect that you will likewise falsely attribute this quotation on your site to Dr. Hovind as well.

    In addition, I don’t recall your criticism of PZ Myers for his blatant blocking of pro-creation messages on his blog. Yup, you are truly fighting a “Christian” battle aren’t you Nathan. Well, for your information, Steven J. Gould and Carl Sagan are no longer atheists. They believe in God quite well right now, but it is too late for them to repent. They shall face judgement for all of their sins. It is not Jesus that is the liar my friend. He clearly authenticates all that is written in the book of Genesis in a true and literal fashion.

    Lastly, since you are such a scientific man of such great knowledge, why don’t you answer the riddle on the formation of granite that Learned Hand has walked away from.

    In kindness,

    Peter Laird

    P.S. You still have never addressed my question to you. Here it is again. I would truly like a response if you would be kind enough to respond.

    On another issue, I am quite interested in how you reconcile statements by Jesus that he changes not forever and your “evolving framework of values and standards for continuously improving the human condition.” As a Christian, are not the everlasting standards already set forever? So, if you don’t believe this, how can you trust the Words of Jesus anywhere in the Bible? Where do the prophecies of Revelation fit into your mindset?

    Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

  233. EndTimes August 3, 2007 4:35 pm Reply

    Dear Nathan,

    Are you going to remove this false and libelous statement from your site and perhaps gain a small modicum of credibility or will you continue to call Jesus a liar and castigate His faithful followers with lies and inuendos. Simply because you are incompetent in searching a website does not justify false accusations. Grow up will you. No one is out there to clean up anything on this site once it is posted. But if they did do that, you would be the first to go. So if you are still here, then anything at all outrageous against the cause of Dr. Hovind will remain as well. I guess your oath is rather meaningless isn’t it.

    In kindness,

    Peter Laird

    “15. Guns. Yep. Lots of guns.

    • “PS. I’m big on the second amendment too. I carried to church this morning, and I’ve got a loaded gun in my back pocket as I’m typing this!”

    Note, August 3: This outrageous comment did appear at Hovind’s blog site but has been quietly removed without explanation. It came as the postscript to a generic rant in favour of Hovind and decrying the evilness of the U.S Government. The moderator has on other occasions declined to censor even the most extraordinary claims made by others, and yet this must have caused a rare pang of embarrassment. Without being able to provide attribution, as I have endeavoured to do with the other quotes, I am reliant on your judgement as to whether you can believe me; but upon my oath, it was there.”

    http://baliset.blogspot.com/

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Oh – I should mention – I am not the only one with “moderator privileges” on this site. If your words were “censored” or considered too inflammatory – they could indeed have been quietly excised. (I carefully put “[EDITED]”, but perhaps not everyone does this.) I am sorry if that happened to you, and if the “guns” part was integral to your message.

    I do not want to sound paranoid (even though they are out to get me!), but be aware that this blog is being read by a wide variety of individuals and perhaps a few organizations, hint, hint.

    ALL comments and opinions made here are being sifted through. JOKES ABOUT GUNS ARE NOT AT ALL FUNNY! Don’t get yourself investigated or arrested for trying to be cute.

    CSE is being scrutinized under a microscope at this time. Let those who have eyes to read, read. P.A. ]

  234. Matthew August 3, 2007 5:01 pm Reply

    My answers to Is Evolution A Religion Quiz

    Does every major religion today teach a story of origins? Yes.

    Does evolution teach a story of origins? No, evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).

    Does every major religion today teach a future based on its beliefs? Yes.

    Does evolution teach a future based on its beliefs? No.

    Does every major religion today teach about God’s power in the past? Yes.

    Does evolution teach about God’s power in the past? No.

    Does every major religion today teach on human ethics regarding the environment? Yes.

    Does evolution teach on human ethics regarding the environment? Yes, but this goes against the creationist argument that evolution does explain morals
    .
    Do some religious people get angry when their beliefs are challenged? Do some evolutionists get angry when their beliefs are challenged? Yes, but what does this have to do with religion?

    When a country internalizes religious beliefs can this lead to wars and the killing of millions? Yes.

    When a country internalizes evolutionary beliefs (e.g. Nazism & Communism) can this lead to wars and the killing of millions? No, since Nazism and Communism have nothing to do with evolution and this an abusive ad hominem argument.

  235. Learned Hand August 3, 2007 5:29 pm Reply

    Three Crosses said,

    “Am I correct that this statement . . . Means that you claim your access to a law library makes you right?”

    In other words, do I think that my knowledge of and citations to the law make me “right”? Well, duh. You have to read the law to know what it says. Knowing, and citing, the law is much better than making it up. Here is a great secret: you have access to a law library, too. Every city in which I’ve ever lived has a law library open to the public; most have more than one, and large metroplexes will have dozens. Reading the law isn’t easy, but the difficulty of learning something doesn’t excuse your choice to simply pretend that you understand it.

    What happens when you run into all of the unconstitutional laws? How about all the laws that violate our civil rights? I would say that being right about what a law says, has nothing to do with “whether or not the law is right!”.

    When facing an unjust law, an ethical person has several choices, such as advocating legislative reform or civil disobedience. Simply pretending that the law doesn’t exist, hiding your disobedience, then pretending that your punishment is unjust is not ethical. Civil disobedience requires open and notorious disobedience, and an acceptance of the punishment. Tax protesters don’t do that; they aren’t relying on arguments about what the law should be, they’re telling lies about what the law is. See, for example, David and Australian. They don’t say that their theories should be the law – they tell people that their theories are an accurate description of the law. You don’t defeat an unjust law by telling fanciful lies about it. Doesn’t the Bible have something to say about false witness?

    While anyone you disagrees with you is ignorant, a liar, wrong, dishonest, immoral, deceiving and hurting innocent people.

    No, not because they disagree with me. Tax protesters are ignorant because they don’t understand the statutes. They’re liars because they tell lies about what the statutes say. They’re wrong because their theories have no factual basis. And they’re hurting “innocent” people when they persuade someone who should know better to become a criminal for the sake of greed. (Of course, at that point the victim is no longer “innocent.” I’m sympathetic for Mrs. Hovind, but she is a felon now.)

    They do not seem to hold public schools which teach the religion of evolution to the same compliance as churches.

    “Evolution” is not a religion; this is a rhetorical device often used by creationists. The ToE is a scientific theory that changes over time with new discoveries and evidence; it is agnostic as to the existence of the supernatural, and neither professes nor denies any metaphysical concept. Calling a scientific theory a “religion” requires a definition of “religion” that would also encompass trigonometry and particle physics, and no school could ever teach anything that an interest group disliked.

    Obviously, you’ll disagree with me as to the definition of a “religion.” The salient point is not that dispute, because neither of us is going to change his mind based on a blog post. What’s important is that you’re again confusing what the law is with what you want the law to be. Biology is not a religion under any legal precedent. Your remedy, if you want that to change, is to go to court, not to complain on teh intarwebs.

    The statement “universally applicable” is apparantly meaningless can you give some reference to which law covers every country on the Earth? I could also go into many of those institutions and people that are not subject to this nations laws or tax codes.

    This is an example of your ignorance of church/state law. Again, this is a complicated field – there is absolutely no shame in not knowing these concepts. There is shame in refusing to admit or correct that ignorance. “Universally applicable” does not mean “applicable to every country.” That is a bizarre and silly interpretation. I gave you several specific examples of universally applicable laws in my last post to you. Income tax is universally applicable, because it applies equally regardless of an individual’s religious affiliation. Building permit requirements are universally applicable, because they apply whether or not a building is a church.

    The power of the state to hold churches to universally applicable laws is a core component of our civil society. It’s what keeps churches from declaring that cocaine use or prostitution are sacraments, and evading otherwise (“universally”) applicable laws. (There have been some exceptions, such as with RLUIPA, but they aren’t applicable to these tax questions.)

    Again, you aren’t going to learn these concepts by reading tax protester or creationist blogs. You need to get away from ideological determinism, not to immerse yourself in it. Even if you don’t like the laws, if you’re going to hold yourself out as an educated person on the subject, you should be able to accurately say what the law is and how it’s applied. I recommend, again, “Saying What the Law Is” (or “What the Law Is,” I forget) by Charles Fried. He’s a brilliant scholar, and a conservative, so you won’t have to compromise your ideological homogeneity too terribly much.

    Does anyone know what “JURY NULIFICATION” is?

    I know it didn’t happen in Mr. Hovind’s case. Or Mrs. Hovind’s case. Which is understandable, as they guilty as sin of serious crimes, which they committed out of greed.

  236. Learned Hand August 3, 2007 5:29 pm Reply

    EndTimes,

    I think DQ said all that needs to be said here about granite. It doesn’t appear that there is one, single theory among scientists as to how granite formed. Why, then, is it a problem that it can’t be manufactured in a lab? We don’t make quasars in a laboratory, nor is there a single scientific theory as to their origins, but we still know they aren’t formed out of pixie dust. Again, though, I’m only a legal expert. I’ll leave geology to the geologists, who, it seems, essentially unanimously support and study an old earth.

    Yes, yes Learned Hand, unofficial writings of the authors of the Constitution are never taken into consideration in official rulings by the Supreme Court and others.

    I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. You immediately go on to cite such a quotation, so you apparently don’t believe this. You might be trying to paraphrase me, but since I never said anything like this, I’m not sure what you’re relying on. If this is an attempt at sarcasm, you’re badly misrepresenting my statements, which suggests that you’re still very confused.

    Engel (not “Engle”) is one of my favorite cases, and I do like the Madison quote here. It’s a powerful statement of the framers’ intent to build a wall of separation between church and state. I agree with the sentiment expressed in this excerpt, that taxes should not be appropriated by the secular government to assist religious institutions. But that’s really all that it says. It doesn’t prohibit the state from requiring that church employees pay the same income taxes as everyone else, or that church employers (especially those who fail to register as nonprofits) properly withhold those taxes for administrative purposes. The fact is, Mr. Hovind broke the law. Willfully and for pecuniary gain.

  237. Learned Hand August 3, 2007 5:30 pm Reply

    baliset,

    I recall reading that quote. I believe it was a response to 2ndamneduser? At any rate, while I think the moderator here has succumbed to some bizarre, counterfactual beliefs in his reluctance to engage the real world, it appears that he’s been scrupulously fair in allowing a wide range of commentary to the site. He’s a little quick to add snippy comments to the bottom of some posts, and appears to cite the “no debating evolution” rule rather arbitrarily, but deleting past comments seems out of character. Have you tried a google site search? At any rate, you’re not crazy – as I said, I clearly remember that quote.

    2ndamenduser, there is nothing dignified or honorable about scrabbling vainly at the law. It says what it says; choosing to be ignorant or dishonest about it won’t change that.

    <i>Just because the word “taxable” appears in the statement does not mean all income is taxable or that everybody’s income is taxable.</I>

    No, not everyone’s income is taxable. That’s why 26 U.S.C. § 63(a), part of the same chapter as § 1, says, “the term ‘taxable income’ means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter.” (Gross income is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 61 as “all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to)” fifteen items like “compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.” (That’s your wages, by the way.)

    Do you see the difference? Tax cheats say, “Oh, not all income is taxable, so I don’t have to pay taxes I don’t like. There’s, like, some law or something that says so.” A tax lawyer says, “Start with § 1. If the term needs a definition, take the applicable definition from the right part of the code. Here, we see that “taxable income” is all income received (§ 61) minus deductions (§ 63).” The fact that you can’t cite to the actual law is your first clue that it doesn’t say what you claim it does. That’s what makes your arguments dishonest.

    <i>As I said, I have studied the law. I am honest. I am not a liar. I believe you are grossly mistaken. You have been deceived. I am not a tax protester. I have not written or voiced one protest of any tax whatsoever. I pay all the taxes I have learned that I am liable for. And furthermore, to say tax protestors are tax cheaters is about as dishonest as to say all lawyers are crooks. No, some are decent, law-abiding, honest lawyers who defend all constitutional laws and ignore those which are not unconstitutional.</I>

    It’s not honest to pretend that some taxes don’t apply to you when they clearly do. (Not knowing you, I have no idea whether you have taxable income or not. You seem to think that the government believes that you do, though. Guilty conscience? What does God say about honest, and about taxes?) It’s cheating on your taxes to refuse to pay a valid tax on the basis of a bogus but oh-so-convenient legal theory.

    What taxes, by the way? What is it in particular that you think others might want you to pay, but that you don’t? I’ll note that simply pretending the tax is illegal and not paying it is dishonest, unethical, and immoral. There is a method for legitimately expressing a legal challenge to an asserted tax – you go to court with an open, upright, and forthright challenge. Lying about what the statutes say and secretly cheating on your taxes is something you do out of greed, not an honest or principled stance on the law.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Well, it is hard to cut down one person’s response, but not another person’s counter-response. Though I have done that at times in the past. I am hoping that if I keep asking persons to keep contentions (creation v. evolution-wise) SHORT, and to add links to help make your points, that this will keep it all from overwhelming the rest of the discussions in the blog.

    1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.” I realize that some of us, including me, sound insane (or “counter-factual”) to you. P.A. ]

  238. EndTimes August 3, 2007 6:17 pm Reply

    EndTimes

    Said this on August 2nd, 2007 at 12:02pm:
    <b>Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974
    Said this on August 1st, 2007 at 4:48pm:
    Endtimes, Endtimes, […EDITED]
    [I did this just so this post wouldn’t escape your attention]
    Please would you write a few words about what you believe those two horns represent on the lamb: ie. Rev 13. And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and his voice was like that of a dragon?
    [i remember you saying you don’t want to cast pearls before swine – maybe you will shrug this question off as the same]
    cheers; and glory to Jesus.</b>

    Dear Australian: Phillip-George,

    Sorry, I had posted a fairly lengthy answer to your question, but the roving moderator stung me and deleted the majority of my post!! CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT!! A MODERATOR THAT MODERATES!!

    Dear Paul, yes, I am the author of that website and I guess that I will just post my links to answer the question above by PG and a couple of others. Even though you deleted most of my post, I do not hold anything against you as do others that slink around on this site because that is your position and it is your judgement that I have always respected. Thank you for all of your efforts in not only supporting the Hovinds but in bringing this blog to life by all of your wisdom and I suspect significant time spent in your role as moderator. Thank you even if you deleted my entire post almost.

    Here are some of the questions that I write about in my website. May God bless you in your study.

    1) Where is America in Bible prophecy? Many authors state we are not in Bible prophecy because we will destroy ourselves due to our sins. Well, it is true that this society is corrupting itself, but actually, who is the two horned beast of Revelation 13? Understanding that all prophecy and all Scripture is interpreted by the Bible ALONE, what can we make of the strange but literal symbols of Revelation 13:11-12? Well, just perhaps, there are other Scriptures that give meaning to these symbols found here. I offer these links as help for your own self study on this issue with prayer and supplication.

    My website is called “America and King James in the Revelation” and it deals in depth with the underlying theme of MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT and its many different manifestations including unfortunately in America itself.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/Slide12.html
    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/Slide13.html
    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/Slide14.html
    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/Slide15.html

    I also have a 14 page essay on the role of “Christian Patriotism” and contrast that with the biblical calling of a “Heavenly Ambassador.” Although I have a great love of my native country, America, my heavenly country is what is at the heart of my eternal life and my earthly works. America my friends is not where we shall spend eternity, as great and mighty and even as “good” as it has been at times, we are only passing through this earth on our way to our eternal inheritance in heaven. Thus, as much as I have benefited from this once blessed nation; I STILL RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS NOT MY HOME; IT IS ONLY WHERE I SPEND MY TIME OF PILGRIMAGE. So, I ask of you to consider these issues as the heavenly ambassador that our Lord calls us to be.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/Slide11.html

    In the love of Christ,

    Peter Laird

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: SORRY! I saw the answers you had given. They seemed TOO GOOD. …So I thought I had better check to see if they may have come “from somewhere else”. But they are YOUR words, so that is completely fine, of course.

    Periodically, folks try to post entire news articles in the blog, or (uncredited) portions of them. I/we need to be careful about the rights of copyright holders. When I observe such things – I have to take action, in case the person is plagiarizing …. P.A. ]

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  239. EndTimes August 3, 2007 6:55 pm Reply

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Please forgive me if wrong here, but when answers are too concise I look around on the Internet to see if they are YOUR words of those of others. I am sure that I do miss some posts. Some of this info appears to have come directly from http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/Slide12.html and Slide13. Are you the original author of that work….? The main page says “‘open’ copyright.” I am unfamiliar with that term. But, it would still seem that proper credit should be given, right? … P.A. ]

    Dear Paul, an “open” copyright is actually what the King James “Authorized” Bible was published under and it simply means that you can copy and reproduce any of the information contained in the work but with out changing it or using it for monetary gain. Here is how I have explained it’s use in my Course Description.

    “Any person who chooses to teach these subjects once mastered, is freely encouraged to do so in accordance with the “Fair Use” copyright restrictions listed below. To this effect, all enduring materials used in this comparative religion self study course are copyrighted by the author as an open copyright©. Permission is granted to freely use and copy these materials as needed for teaching purposes only. The only restrictions imposed are to first copy accurately without any changes and secondly to adhere to the provisions of the “Fair Use” copyright regulations outlined below. Permission to use these materials for any commercial endeavor is not granted.”

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/Slide01.html

    Sincerely,

    Peter Laird

    P.S. It has been over three years since I wrote most of this material without the benefit of an editor. Rereading some of the information today leads me to note that I may wish to edit some of the material with some comments that may not have conveyed as accurately as wished my intended sentiments. If there is something that needs to be revised and edited, I will gladly consider all comments. The work itself in its entirety, I still stand behind.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  240. djhouk August 3, 2007 9:23 pm Reply

    In defense of the moderator:

    I don’t know Paul, bu I have found him to be very even-handed in his moderation of this blog. He clearly does not agree with many of the postings, but has been unfailing polite and fair. Yes, he has edited a few posts; but frankly, some of them needed editing.

    Keep up the good work, Paul!

  241. Three Crosses August 4, 2007 12:07 pm Reply

    Dear Learned Hand:
    Do you know how many laws, statutes, and codes there are in the United States of America? Do you know how many more laws, statutes, codes, precedents whether “ethical” or not are introduced everyday? Do you also understand that “all” of these laws, statutes, codes etc….. are subject to interpretation? Even the most simply stated and straightforward laws are subjected to new interpretations over and over again. The lawyers and judges change the meanings of the laws to fit their own wants and often the judges and politicians violate the same laws to show their power. Yes I know it sounds evil and paranoid. What it all comes down to is “if the law didn’t work this way, YOU WOULDN’T HAVE A JOB!”.
    Their is nothing the average citizen/subject can do about unjust or unconstitutional laws. Here’s the good news though if you have enough money the law is for sale. You can pay a judge to rule against the law and this sets a new precedent which even though it may contradict another precedent, it will make it easier(cheaper)to buy the next judge. So even though I’ve read many very simply stated laws, people are still in prison who didn’t violate them.
    You stated this:
    “Doesn’t the Bible have something to say about false witness?”
    Why don’t you read it and tell me? You should start with John 3:16 KJV then read on through or jump over to Romans. Maybe you are just being pretentious.
    YOU SAID
    “Tax protesters are ignorant because they don’t understand the statutes. They’re liars because they tell lies about what the statutes say. They’re wrong because their theories have no factual basis. And they’re hurting “innocent” people when they persuade someone who should know better to become a criminal for the sake of greed. (Of course, at that point the victim is no longer “innocent.” I’m sympathetic for Mrs. Hovind, but she is a felon now.)”

    I guess you don’t believe anyone should have the right to protest. I guess protesting something unethical and immoral, instead of giving a lawyer money to bribe a judge, doesn’t make you money. So it’s wrong. I’m sorry but arguments of how simple the laws are in this country from someone who makes their money from it’s complexity hits me as pompous.

    The statement “universally applicable” is used by lawyers when they want to slip something by as applicable in every situation. I was using a statement to counter the blanket statement you used ie(“universally applicable”).

    You almost made it through a whole post without resorting to playground insults?
    I would advise you to buy a dictionary to look up words like “religion”, “evolution”, “theory” and “universal”.
    So are you into tax law? Did you say you advise large firms on tax law? Does this mean that you advise large firms in how to avoid paying taxes, perhaps through tax shelters and what not? Do you at least show them how to pay as little tax as possible? By telling them to claim no profit, it all goes back into the business so they have no income, hence no tax? You of course realize this raises the taxes for the rest of us! When you help large firms usually owned or controlled by one person avoid paying taxes, isn’t that immoral and unethical? Sorry when talking to a lawyer ethics, morals, honesty, right and wrong are all open to interpretation.

    So what it all come down to is this being able to read the law, understand the law, and cite the law mean absolutely nothing! Being able to AFFORD to have the LAW WORK FOR YOU IS WHAT COUNTS!
    So maybe you should stop accusing people of being greedy! Greed is what tax law is all about!
    I’m sorry if this seem harsh, I know a lot about mainly criminal and civil rights lawyers they often overlap. Some are even friends. I’ll even offer you some advice read that Bible, know what it says. Then if you want to know how to get saved ask.
    I realize something has turned you away from truth and towards the corrupt law. Usually it’s children that are turned away. Real sicko pedophiles and pederasts often gravitate to work with children through schools, hospitals, kids inc., boy scouts, brownies, day cares etc.. and even ministries. Don’t blame Christianity for this the Bible is very blunt about it “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” Mark 9:42 If you must blame a religion blame evolution it teaches “they’re just monkeys and there’s nothing wrong with it.”

    With love I hope this reaches you and others
    three crosses

  242. Learned Hand August 4, 2007 1:17 pm Reply

    Three Crosses said,

    <i>To the evolutionists to put it very, very simply evolution is a religion for many reasons. Here are just some “it” relies on “supernatural intervention”(mysterious unexplained processes that do magical things), “conscious thought”(some genes weren’t busy so they felt free to try new things), it requires a whole lotta “faith”(to believe that 13 billion+ years ago everything poofed into existence with no plan) and it makes it a conscious effort on the animal’s behalf when it evolved rather than die. How many mobsters do you think tried to evolve gills when sent to “sleep with the fishees” in cement shoes?</i>

    Once again, I think you’ve demonstrated appalling ignorance, and typical dishonesty in pretending to be knowledgable despite that ignorance. It’s no shame not to know anything about the theory of evolution, but it’s dishonest to pretend that you do. None of these assertions are true. The ToE does not rely on “supernatural intervention;” it is based on the analysis of exclusively natural processes. Natural selection and mutation are natural, not supernatural, events. It does not assume any “conscious thought.” (Are you actually under the impression that the ToE assumes that genes <i>think</i>?) The ToE does not assume or require “a conscious effort on the animal’s behalf.” This is the most bizarrely ignorant thing I’ve read so far on this thread. Evolution happens to <i>populations</i>, not individuals. <b>No individual animal is assumed to, or required to, attempt to evolve.</b> Evolution happens over generations, not in individuals, and the intentions or efforts of any individual are irrelevant to the process. Once again, why do creationists and evolutionists turn to lies, instead of admitting they don’t understand something? Three Crosses has just told several lies about the theory of evolution. I doubt any of the creationists here will be concerned enough with truth and honesty to remonstrate with him.

    Some of the creationists here like to close their comments with bible verses and religious testimony. But, as a non-Christian, why should I read or care about that testimony? I know, for a fact, that Three Crosses will tell lies to support his preexisting beliefs. I know, for a fact, that his factual assertions are untrustworthy – even if you reject the theory of evolution, saying that it happens in individuals or requires conscious effort is a lie (or ignorance, in which case it is a lie to pretend to understand the theory). Similarly, why should I trust Mr. Hovind, when he tells lies about the tax laws, and when he tells lies about science, such as his assertion about the speed of light or that Lucy’s bones were found hundreds of feet apart in separate strata? Why should I accept the testimony of dishonest men? What credibility to Christians have, when they tie their testimony to lies? The venality and false witness of many Christians here is doing great damage to the church’s cause, because every lie told in defense of the faith is a scar on that faith.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Evolution never happened. It is BELIEVED to have happened. It is in the minds of men: http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/

    As a mental hiding place from our Creator, evolution (or aliens/angels implanting life on Earth, as an alternative) is absolutely essential. That is the reason why you must contend that it “cannot be questioned”. (Science can be questioned, a religion often cannot be.) Newsweek, Time, NY Times, National Geographic … every creationist knows evolutionary beliefs well. But almost no evolutionists know creation theory. We are not the ones who are ignorant. Evolution is taught and affirmed every week, but only when the full set of evidence is hidden from being examined. So many have fallen for it. “Just believe” doesn’t work on us. The scientific evidence supports creation. We win the debates too: http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=629DVD P.A. ]

  243. baliset August 5, 2007 5:43 am Reply

    Certainly, I am happy to admit I was wrong about the excision of the comment, and apologise unreservedly if the moderator feels he was impugned. Rational people respond thoughtfully when presented with evidence that they were wrong, and then admit to error without pride. I do so now. Science and civil discourse are based on this principle. Google’s cache is evidently not complete, not that that is an excuse.

    However, as we have established, those whose worldview is based on biblical literalism are specifically excluded from this requirement, since there is, by definition, no physical evidence, even in principle, that is capable of countering the canon of scripture. If this sounds like an unkind or extremist definition, then keep in mind that exactly this clause is a requirement of employment with several Creationist organisations. This explains Kent Hovind’s infamous “$250,000 challenge”, because there was no evidence, regardless of how convincing, thorough, unbiased or conclusive it may have been, that could refute that presupposition. It’s the intellectual equivalent to clamping ones hands over ones ears and going “la la la”.

    I keep this fact in mind when debating Young Earth Creationists now. When even basic arguments regarding the simple meaning of words get endlessly entangled by armchair lawyers, biologists or theologians (who, by and large have no expertise at all in the law, biology or theology), then you’ll perhaps understand when the focus of the debate turns to the existence and consequences of entrenched ignorance rather than to other matters.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: What is truth? How do we determine truth? In “Plato’s Cave” a flame projects shadows of puppets on the opposite wall, to be viewed by prisoners who have always been bound there. The only “reality” they see are the shadows. Once liberated, per Plato’s argument, won’t they want to defend that which they’ve always known against the “new reality” of real people, sunlight, and true movements of three dimensional characters?

    We arrived on Earth only recently; all of us less than 120 years ago, right? So many purported events are claimed to have happened long ago, by those before us who also had the problem in their day of trying to determine truth from error, and that thing called: reality. Oh what memories and conflicts they have bequeathed to us: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Napoleon, ancient Pharaohs, the Roman Empire, the Han Dynasty, slavery, Plato’s (purported) writings, et cetera. Which historical and religious contentions are true?

    Bible-based Christianity makes requirements on our lives. Atheism does not. Which then is preferable? One sets particular restrictions upon our conduct and includes those notorious Ten Commandments that “deny us fun” as one result. But atheism says that we (human consensus) make the rules. Which will the unrepentant sinner pick hands-down every time?

    “Remember that in 1800 there were eighty theories of so-called science that contradicted the Bible and every one of them have been given up as false.” “Hell and the High Schools”, by T.T. Martin 1923 http://www.creationism.org/books/MartinHellSchools/MartinHellSchoolsCh04.htm

    I only know of one book containing scientific claims that has never had to be revised: The Holy Bible.

    “How We Got Our Bible” by Dr. Chuck Missler, can be listened to for free on-line: http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP084/ P.A. ]

    http://baliset.blogspot.com

  244. Three Crosses August 5, 2007 9:13 am Reply

    Learned Hand said this:

    “I know it didn’t happen in Mr. Hovind’s case. Or Mrs. Hovind’s case. Which is understandable, as they guilty as sin of serious crimes, which they committed out of greed.”
    In response to this:
    “Does anyone know what “JURY NULIFICATION” is?”

    I made this statement to show others that “self proclaimed” learned hand might be less than honest in his post about jury trials. He is however right “JURY NULIFICATION” doesn’t happen ANYWHERE!! It was a safeguard against the “law” trampling the constitution! Many crooked judges and lawyers have taken away the citizen’s one and only tool for dealing with unconstitutional laws. You could go so far as using knowledge of jury nulification to be rudely excused from jury duty. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOUR FREEDOMS WERE, HOW CAN YOU CLAIM TO BE FREE????

    To learned Hand: I have heard you judge the Hovind’s! Have you never stolen anything? Have you never lied? Have you never looked on a woman or a man with lust? Would you define “serious crimes” as standing up against tyranny? I suspect people have already shown several of your answers to be less than truthful. So guess what! You like me are guilty of SIN! You will be judged just like me, Dr. and Mrs. Hovind!
    “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God” THE ROMANS 14:11 KJV

    Dear sir I would like to inform you Jesus Christ was beaten, tortured and hung on the cross to pay for the sins we commit so freely. God hates sin, judgement is his to make, not your’s. You can open your eyes and ears and except that sacrafice! You could also ignore that sacrafice and burn in a lake of fire. You can put it off another day and another but eventually you will run out of time and it will be too late!

    With love! Please! Awaken from your slumber three crosses

  245. EndTimes August 5, 2007 4:57 pm Reply

    Dear Nathan,

    I appreciate that you admit on CSE that you were in error when of course it was so evident to all after I posted the actual quotation for all to see. Yet on your website, your comments of your erroneous accusation against Paul Abramson are still present. When, I wonder, shall you stop libeling Paul Abramson on your website and remove the August 3rd remark we are discussing? We will keep track of this.

    Secondly, you still list the objection of fluoridated waters on your website of which you have not responded to my prior post declaring the toxic and medical dangers of fluoride and the scientific fact that those countries that have stopped this practice have not seen an increase in dental caries. I listed several peer reviewed science papers on this issue, which you continue to ignore. So, Nathan, please respond to this one issue. There were several others that you did not respond to either. Your credibility wears thin young man.

    By the way, what expertise do you have “in the law, biology or theology” that authorizes you to make the type of statements that you make all of the time. Please give us a list of the times that you have been called on as an expert witness on the matter of fluoride for instance.

    Furthermore, you continue to state that Creationists are ignorant and ignore science, yet the several questions on science that I have placed before you, you have in fact uniformly IGNORED. So, I resubmit an old statement for you to comment on. (Perhaps you might give us your theory on the formation of granites as well.) Please tell us from a “scientific” perspective where all the information in DNA came from and please reference your material instead of simply placing evolutionary conjecture as your rhetoric without backing it up with evidence based assertions. Perhaps you would wish to deny that DNA is in fact an abstract language representation of ALL living things. I would love to refute that argument if you should be so bold as to ignore the current scientific evidence establishing that simple fact.

    Please respond with source articles so that we can analyze the data directly. I don’t like to deal with conjecture and misrepresentation of the data from biased worldviews.

    “Patterns occur naturally – no help required from a ‘designer’. Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer – snowflakes, tornados, hurricanes, sand dunes, stalactites, rivers and ocean waves. These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day. Codes, however, do not occur without a designer. Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols create information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy.”

    http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm

    Lastly, please tell me what science evidence that I am ignoring in coming to my belief in a 6000 year old earth created by my God and my Saviour, Jesus Christ of Nazareth? I would really like some specifics, and if you wish to limit it to my area of well documented expertise in the medical sciences for future debates, I would be happy to respond on any subject of medical interest to this debate.

    In kindness,

    Peter Laird, MD

    P.S. There is much “debate” about global warming not in science articles which are overwhelmingly consistent on the documentation of this world wide phenomenon, but instead in the media. However, few people understand that it is actually one of the signs of the times before the Lord’s Second Coming. The science of global warming states that there will be famines, pestilence, great heat and great storms.

    The Bible states that there will be famines, pestilence, great heat and great storms. Thus, the Christians of our time are missing one of the greatest evangelist opportunities since the Bible clearly states that these things will come to pass at the time that they are coming to pass just as does our modern science.

    But of course, my statements must not be correct because of my “preconceived” belief in the Bible which limits my ability to understand anything at all on any subject according to the preconceived beliefs about literal creationists of darling, “Learned” Hand and of course you, Nathan. Who, Nathan is showing not only great ignorance over and over again but also great hatred? Many on this blog have dealt with you in a much kinder manner than you have dealt with any of us.

    Revelation 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
    9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

    Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
    26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

    Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
    4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
    5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
    6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
    7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  246. EndTimes August 5, 2007 6:15 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 4th, 2007 at 1:17pm:

    Once again, I think you’ve demonstrated appalling ignorance, and typical dishonesty in pretending to be knowledgable [sic] despite that ignorance.

    Oh really, please give us your credentials as an expert on evolution since that is what you require of us. By the way, I do have those expert credentials if you are to ask me that question and I would be more than happy to supply.

    It’s no shame not to know anything about the theory of evolution, but it’s dishonest to pretend that you do. None of these assertions are true. The ToE does not rely on “supernatural intervention;” it is based on the analysis of exclusively natural processes. Natural selection and mutation are natural, not supernatural, events.

    Yes, I agree that natural selection and mutation are natural, but first of all natural selection does not have the imagined “creative powers” that Darwin wished to prove by his conjectures. Natural selection does work in keeping populations healthy and free of defects. Do species change over time? Well not according to the fossil records!! That is the entire problem with “ToE.” In the documented scientific observations of millions of fossil organisms, the overwhelming constant nature of species speaks great difficulty of the supposed “supernatural” creative powers of Natural selection. I would remind you that only God has the power to Create and that is why Three Crosses made the remarks that he did. It is one of the “fingerprints” of God’s testimony to this world. So, yes, there is an underlying “between the lines” suggestion of supernatural powers of natural selection that have never been observed and this is noted in ALL of the evolution materials that I have ever read.

    So, who today my friend is pretending to know something about the ToE when they really don’t?

    Why, my dear lawyer, do you suppose that the entire study of “neo-Darwinism” came into existence? Why not spend some time reading from S. J. Gould on his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (“evolution by jerks”) and why the evidence of STASIS in the fossil record was one of the evidences that he used in forming his own neo-Darwinian theory. You are once again speaking from your IGNORANCE on the ToE.

    It does not assume any “conscious thought.” (Are you actually under the impression that the ToE assumes that genes think?) The ToE does not assume or require “a conscious effort on the animal’s behalf.” This is the most bizarrely ignorant thing I’ve read so far on this thread. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. No individual animal is assumed to, or required to, attempt to evolve. Evolution happens over generations, not in individuals, and the intentions or efforts of any individual are irrelevant to the process. Once again, why do creationists and evolutionists turn to lies, instead of admitting they don’t understand something? Three Crosses has just told several lies about the theory of evolution. I doubt any of the creationists here will be concerned enough with truth and honesty to remonstrate with him.

    It is really quite tiresome to have a lawyer speaking on evolution from his own point of ignorance and accusing others of the same thing. You are frankly in great error on this issue of the importance of the individual in the arena of population genetics. It is the individual with the “beneficial” mutation, (please give me an example of a “beneficial” mutation) that must then reproduce and spring forth a new generation with that “beneficial” mutation in the breeding population. The study of population genetics takes into account specifically how many generations it will take for this to become a part of the breeding population in general. I would suggest an excellent place to start in overcoming your IGNORANCE on this subject by studying both sides of the issue of Haldane’s Dilemma. Get back to me once you are more “learned” on this subject so that I can have an intelligent discussion with you on this issue. In the mean time, I don’t wish to be confronted by IGNORANT people calling others ignorant and instead exposing us to their own willful and quite vitriolic and ignorant statements.

    Some of the creationists here like to close their comments with bible verses and religious testimony. But, as a non-Christian, why should I read or care about that testimony? I know, for a fact, that Three Crosses will tell lies to support his preexisting beliefs.

    First of all, have you asked and established how Three Crosses became a Christian before you accuse him of having preexisting beliefs? Secondly, the reason that we quote the Scriptures is because it is not the last time that you will see them. Should you stay in your current state of disbelief toward the Holy Bible, then at the time you stand before the Creator that you don’t “believe” in for judgement of your sins, it is not Jesus who will judge you, but instead, the words that He has spoken that will judge all of your deeds and thoughts for your entire life. They are all recorded. So, in other words, we send forth the warnings in the Bible of judgement to come for all men everywhere and hope that some day you might actually repent of your sins and accept the gift of eternal life that Jesus gave for YOU on the cross. So, what “lies” are you telling us that Three Crosses has made?

    Once again, I think you’ve demonstrated appalling ignorance, and typical dishonesty in pretending to be knowledgable [sic] despite that ignorance.

    Yup, “Learned” Hand is throwing rocks from a glass house again with appalling ignorance alright. Perhaps you need to learn how to spell knowledgeable before you become “Learned” for real.

    With the love of Christ,

    Peter Laird, MD

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  247. Learned Hand August 5, 2007 7:08 pm Reply

    Do you know how many laws, statutes, and codes there are in the United States of America? Do you know how many more laws, statutes, codes, precedents whether “ethical” or not are introduced everyday? Do you also understand that “all” of these laws, statutes, codes etc….. are subject to interpretation? Even the most simply stated and straightforward laws are subjected to new interpretations over and over again. The lawyers and judges change the meanings of the laws to fit their own wants and often the judges and politicians violate the same laws to show their power. Yes I know it sounds evil and paranoid. What it all comes down to is “if the law didn’t work this way, YOU WOULDN’T HAVE A JOB!”.

    There are a few dozen statutory titles, each with a few hundred sections. I don’t know about regulations, but I assume (as a blue-sky guess) there are probably two or three times as many regulatory provisions. There are many more reported cases, each of which has the potential to exert the force of law to a greater or lesser extent as precedent, or through res judicata, but the vast majority don’t make or set new law. I’d say a few hundred cases each year make a new “law,” although most of those are only applicable in specific places and in specific circumstances. Maybe a few dozen cases each year make a new generally applicable law in more than one state. In other words, there are lots of laws. They’re all subject to interpretation in the Article III courts, as the founders intended.

    But saying that the interpretations are bent to the personal desires of the lawyers and judges is just an empty assertion. Every law you don’t like is suddenly the result of the giant conspiracy against you. How sad! In the real world, courts aren’t kings. Their decisions are subject to many layers of judicial and even legislatural review. And in the very few instances where the Supreme Court (the final layer of judicial review) rules a law unconstitutional, there is always the amendment process – the constitution can be changed. That’s hard, though. It’s much, much easier to just lie and pretend a law doesn’t apply to you, then complain that the courts are part of an evil conspiracy when they point out that you’re breaking the law. You’re right – your philosophy does sound evil and paranoid. Its how many, many criminals justify their crimes.

    Their is nothing the average citizen/subject can do about unjust or unconstitutional laws. Here’s the good news though if you have enough money the law is for sale. You can pay a judge to rule against the law and this sets a new precedent which even though it may contradict another precedent, it will make it easier(cheaper)to buy the next judge. So even though I’ve read many very simply stated laws, people are still in prison who didn’t violate them.

    Actually, bribery is an extrinsic fraud on the court. The precedent would be struck, and the judgment vacated, and the judge would go to prison. But that almost never happens, because judges are generally very fair and honest people. That doesn’t stop someone less honest, such as yourself, from accusing them of taking bribes in order to justify your own contumacy. And we’ve all seen that even when you read laws, you don’t understand them, so I don’t find your analysis significant.

    I guess you don’t believe anyone should have the right to protest. I guess protesting something unethical and immoral, instead of giving a lawyer money to bribe a judge, doesn’t make you money. So it’s wrong. I’m sorry but arguments of how simple the laws are in this country from someone who makes their money from it’s complexity hits me as pompous.

    Let’s be clear about this, because TC isn’t understanding it. There is an honest, ethical way to protest your taxes. If you honestly believe that a tax law doesn’t apply to you (as opposed to tax protesters, who know that it does apply but want a justification for their criminal greed), you can do one of two things. You can pay the tax, then sue to recover it in federal court. You can also go to Tax Court ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_court or http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/AvoidAnAudit/3waysToFightTheIRSinCourt.aspx ). In Tax Court, you don’t have to pay the tax first; you can sue first, to determine the validity of the tax law.

    Why don’t tax protesters do this? Because they’d lose, and being a tax protester isn’t about being right or obeying the law – it’s about keeping as much money as possible, even if you have to break the law to do it. Tax protesters are criminals, and they tell lies about the law to justify their crimes. You can see their character by their actions – rather than openly and honestly litigating their legal theories, they slink around and hide their money and throw slurs at the courts. Criminals fear the law; to honest men (and, one would otherwise assume, Christians) it is a tool to achieve justice. An honest man who believed he didn’t have to pay a tax would go to court. We see that Three Crosses would rather complain about the evil conspiracy that’s out to get him.

    So are you into tax law? Did you say you advise large firms on tax law? Does this mean that you advise large firms in how to avoid paying taxes, perhaps through tax shelters and what not? Do you at least show them how to pay as little tax as possible? By telling them to claim no profit, it all goes back into the business so they have no income, hence no tax? You of course realize this raises the taxes for the rest of us! When you help large firms usually owned or controlled by one person avoid paying taxes, isn’t that immoral and unethical? Sorry when talking to a lawyer ethics, morals, honesty, right and wrong are all open to interpretation.

    I am “into” honesty. I do not advise large firms on tax law; I work for large institutions in an advisory capacity, which means that I am not an advocate. My job is to read and assess the law, then honestly and objectively tell my employer what the law says, even if it is inconvenient and unpleasant. If I did represent clients in a tax matter, I would not tell them to disobey, ignore, or lie about the law. That would be dishonest and immoral, and I pride myself on my character. (Except for humility, which I’ve never been good at.) It’s what drives me to contest with liars, frauds, and cheats, which is what brings me to this forum – it pains me to see such dishonest claims used to delude and mislead innocent people. Your lies about the law have the potential to cause real harm to real people.

    So what it all come down to is this being able to read the law, understand the law, and cite the law mean absolutely nothing! Being able to AFFORD to have the LAW WORK FOR YOU IS WHAT COUNTS!

    This is a very convenient excuse for breaking the law. It’s not honest, though. If you choose to break the law, you cannot point to someone else’s alleged wrongdoing as justification for your own transgression. You are responsible for your own actions.

    So maybe you should stop accusing people of being greedy! Greed is what tax law is all about!
    I’m sorry if this seem harsh, I know a lot about mainly criminal and civil rights lawyers they often overlap. Some are even friends. I’ll even offer you some advice read that Bible, know what it says. Then if you want to know how to get saved ask.

    Let’s say that I really want to be saved. Why would I ask you, or believe what you say? I know this about you – you will lie when it suits you. You turn away from inconvenient reality and invent fictions to aggrandize yourself. So why should I trust your interpretation of the bible? Your dishonesty has consequences, and one of those consequences is that I cannot trust your religious advocacy. You are not a trustworthy person.
    – Show q

  248. desiree August 6, 2007 6:07 am Reply

    I’m leaving this comment to the editor of my first and only blog. You don’t have to post this… unless you wish to. I don’t know of any other way to comment. I was taken back.. almost brought to tears with your Editor’s Note.

    I’m no wolf in sheep clothing!!! I understand with today’s world.. you can’t be too careful. I’m sorry if I came off as someone with bad intentions. I didn’t mean to. I didn’t read all of your “note” to me. I simply wanted information. I’m not lazy… and that is an awful thing to say to someone you don’t know. I’m not against creationists!!!! I AM ONE!

    I only asked for people to contact me through email… because it wasn’t always easy for me to come to this site. I’m involved with a lot of research right now. I’m studying at http://www.endtime.com which I highly recommend. And I’m trying to piece together a string of events I’ve noticed that have been happening to Christian leaders. I also would suggest you google the recent hate bill that is coming up to our Senate.. and GET ACTIVE! It would limit what we as Christians are to teach. We are in the end times… and I simply wanted to know. I have prayed for Kent… and I do not know this man. But I can tell he is a kind soul. If you would like to create a FAKE email address… and email me at [EDITED] @ hotmail.com… I would love to talk with you. Pray about it… and see what God tells you.

    I would rather you not post this… only because I’m sending it to you. Also… this isn’t really from a Christian perspective.. but… if you google a video… called America: Freedom to Facism by Aaron Russo… you can learn about the Federal Reserve.. and how the income tax is illegal. It is VERY educational… which is another reason why I wanted details. I’m not lazy… but I tried to go and read through the many articles posted. I just thought I would save time by asking. I can’t believe I was treated this way on this website. You should learn from your friend or pastor on how to treat other people.

    You can be cautious… but that doesn’t entitle you to be rude.

    When I tried to do a lil research on Kent… so many athiest type sites popped up. It broke my heart to see the joy people took on the situation. Didn’t really inform me… other than how sad people can be. WE SHOULD PRAY FOR THOSE PEOPLE!!!

    Anyways… I didn’t come here to be insulted or treated in such a rude manner. I don’t wish to come back to your website… if you would like to contact me.. I gave MY PRIVATE email address for you to use. If you don’t wish to say anything else… I’ll be fine with that. I won’t be checking back here…

    I’m very sorry you felt the way you did. My advice is to be more kind the next time you wish to question someone. You’ll lose the purpose of your life. Which is to bring people closer to God.

    God Bless whoever you are…

    Desirée

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: If I misunderstood your intentions I apologize. I recently asked folks to insult me personally, instead of others, if they so feel the need. I am used to it and pretty much evaluate insults based on the source. Words can still hurt. But I … perhaps have become calloused enough that they don’t usually bother me, when they are directed at me. Completely separate from this blog, I get a certain amount of hate mail each week as the editor of: http://www.creationism.org. See my FAQ for more info, if interested.

    We may soon see outright persecution against Bible-believing Christians (those fighting fundies, putting the “fun” back into fundamentalism!). (See the many, many non-reported examples of persecution happening now, in the book “Persecution” by David Limbaugh.) With this in mind, I see believers who are swift to anger when insulted as “weaker” than they’ll need to be. …Is this as well callous of me…? Or, is it instead practical? Which is better (Matt. 10:16) to be wise as a serpent or harmless as a dove? How can a person be both?! Jesus said, (Matt. 10:25b) “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more [shall they call] them of his household?”

    Yesterday I put up a posted response to distinguish between having a strong position, and being intolerant of others. The first is good; the second very frightening. Do we truly stand for freedom of speech, or not? The good guys do; the bad guys do not. Should persons be informed or rather directed/manipulated by “those who know better”. You can hold a strong position on creation or evolution, and yet still be fully tolerant of the rights of others to honestly disagree.

    I would never think of contacting some expert when I know nothing on a particular topic and then expecting individual attention. There are reasons why books and DVDs exist. Learn the basics without distracting the folks doing ongoing research.

    Antarctica: Of the three general theories for how God caused the Great Flood (if He used scientific processes) one scenario initiates with a cometary bombardment. (This is the one preferred by Dr. Hovind, by the way, see CSE Seminar #6.) We have some frozen mammoths that have been almost perfectly preserved in ice down till today. These are huge animals. Some studies suggest that it would have taken super-cold ice to freeze them to the core so quickly that the blood and water did not separate. Such temperatures cannot be produced on Earth. Separately, we know that Antarctica is shown on copied ancient maps. This suggests that humans had been there, possibly long before the times of the Greeks and Romans. Did pre-Flood man go there? Why not? We have severed redwood stumps in the Arctic Circle. If it was once temperate there, why not in pre-Flood extreme southern climes too? The Piri Reis Map (from circa 1513) shows Antarctica, though mis-drawn(?) to connect with South America, which it does not do today. (Notice the Plesiosaur(?) in the lower right corner.) http://www.prep.mcneese.edu/engr/engr321/preis/pirimap3.jpg

    Pompeii gives us a glimpse into the ancient Roman world. Within hours the whole city was entombed in volcanic ash. Some kitchen waste cans still have chicken bones, and other refuse. Murals adorn the walls, etc. A 2000 year old city has been preserved for our research. I’d like to see what the pre-Flood world looked like. Now, let’s put the puzzle pieces together: Some of the mammoths were killed/frozen instantly, as possible evidence of a sudden devastating cometary bombardment that killed them while subsequently cooling vast areas around them. And as the comets broke up in the atmosphere and plummeted through clouds, perhaps they also catalyzed massive rainfall. Theoretically, could Antarctica have been similarly bombarded? If the mammoths had no warning (some died while chewing food, i.e. zero warning), did humans fare any better? Could there still be a town – an entire, perfectly preserved pre-Flood town! – buried and preserved somewhere in either the Arctic or Antarctic? If so, it would make the Pompeii research look like small potatoes in comparison.

    Evolutionists have billions of tax dollars to slosh around in each year. “The Earth is billions of years old. God is weak or non-existent. There is therefore no purpose to life, as we are a cosmic accident. Oh, and these contentions are scientific and cannot be questioned.” …send more money to further our “scientific” research and morally destroy the Western World from within as life loses purpose and morals become flexible – since “God doesn’t see us” anyways, right? Remember that this is all “science” and it cannot be questioned. Send more billions of dollars each year. …

    Somewhere on Earth is a buried pre-Flood library. Where is it? If the ancient (all post-Flood) Babylonians, Sumerians, Greeks, Romans, Hebrews, Chinese, and Olmecs had extensive record keeping – then our pre-Flood ancestors also had extensive records, right? So where are they? Have we already found such a buried library, but evolutionary-indoctrinated researchers did not recognize it for what it really is?

    Almost all creationists I know, except for one or two organizations, are barely hanging on. But we WANT to do more research. There is SO MUCH research that NEEDS to be done. Our books and videos are not even sold in Christian bookstores! Myself, I went through the humiliation of bankruptcy a few years ago. And for the past year or so I have allowed myself to become aligned as a small private contractor (though not paid much at all), to an organization that is still under intense federal investigation. If the screws get tightened on me, and not by much, then it is bye bye for my small voice here. I have had to ponder that danger. So many folks need to know that we are made in God’s image and that God has a plan for each person’s life! But I have consciously let myself get close to an organization that may yet suffer further harm or even get shutdown altogether in the near future.

    Here are my choices: Teach, on an individual level, each and every person who wants personal attention for learning the basics of creation theory -OR- post quality information on-line for tens of thousands of visitors each month, trusting that literacy is relatively high -OR- do fascinating research to fill in creation theory even more. I choose to post (Desir̩e РREAD!) and to try to do a little research on the side. Oh yeah, and keep my used car running, while paying other bills each month.

    Desirée – I won’t be sending you personal Email in response to your post here. Please … come back and read my (rude?) reply here instead. I included the info about Antarctica as but one small example of all the research that NEEDS to be done. But … each day there are so many things that need to be done. For myself … as perhaps one who has become too calloused … I prefer to direct folks (who are still learning the basics) to extant information. That is what I do for myself when I want to learn something! I read books each week; I watch DVDs; I learn without expecting lots of individual tutors.

    You are “…involved with a lot of research right now” … good, then you know that means to research. Get books, articles, DVDs, and research.

    Please pray for Dr. & Mrs. Hovind. Pray for Eric & Tanya Hovind, as Eric now leads CSE. The fields (John 4:35) are white already to harvest. Editor’s note by Paul Abramson ]

  249. desiree August 6, 2007 7:28 am Reply

    I would also like to add the following. First of all… I am aware of Matthew 10:16… in fact.. ha… it is on my MSN page right now.

    I would also like to thank you… for not posting my email address… and would ask that if you decide to post my last blog… you exclude that also… I guess that was for you to respond to me. I had a bad feeling once I put that down… and was thinking of asking someone to erase it for me. So I’d like to thank you for that.

    Also… I would like to add this verse.

    Jesus said, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” If we love God, we will obey his commandments, and if we love our neighbours, we will go to them with the Word of God, so that they might be saved. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17)

    I understand that you might be a bit paranoid.. and when I say that.. it isn’t out of mockery. I understand completely. I just think you should take a different approach. You don’t have to believe what you hear… or trust everyone. You shouldn’t! But you are commanded to love one another and treat them as you would want to be treated.

    You said:
    I like the touches about “I am on your side, …your courage … I don’t believe in evolution either … but only just now learned about Dr. Hovind”, et cetera. Hmmm, perhaps I am too cynical. But it does not seem to all add up. The end result is one where you collect data on some of those troublesome creationists, no? Is your time so important and ours not, so that our personal attention to you on the most basic of creation teaching is sufficiently warranted? ….

    I would like to say in my first blog.. I said a friend told me about Kent Hovind. I do think it is possible that I grew up being taught that Evolution was false. Many people teach that! Just because I recently have heard of Kent… doesn’t mean I didn’t believe! What do you mean it doesn’t add up?! My friend has a few of Kent’s videos. He has suggested that I watch him. I haven’t done so yet, because of other studies, but I plan to. My friend also told me that Kent was arrested on some sort of tax charge. I never forgot that. So when I started doing my research on other aspects of Christian leaders or organizations… I remembered him saying that. I went here to search for some answers. I do not think I’m special.. or above anyone else!!! I thought I came across quite polite and humble. (by the way, to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing… I would have to be ACTING like a sheep!!! As sheep… we should be polite… and humble ourselves! So we don’t stink with pride!!!!!) I only asked for some guidance as to where to start my research… TO BE WISE!

    Also… I didn’t demand to be contacted ONLY by email or MSN… those are just ways I prefer. I simply stated I would rather.. and I said please contact me. I never once said it was the ONLY way… and I wasn’t trying to force anyone.

    You said:
    (Perhaps you are just young, and you have never learned the basics of how to study and learn, e.g. a product of the modern public schools.)

    To imply I’m ignorant is ignorance in itself. I’m a 24 year old woman of Christ. I’ve been raised in Him all of my life. I was a part of public schools… but also took homeschooling… especially in the matters of SCIENCE! I know full well how to study and learn.. and I don’t feel by coming here and asking for some help in learning the situation implies I’m lazy and ignorant.

    I wanted to hear from supporters rather than non supporters… because I support. I would rather hear from someone who would be honest and not someone who would just mock the situation. You have assumed and implied much of your own feelings and paranoia into your comment.

    I’m clearing this matter up… and that is all. I do not wish to offend you. I simply wanted to make sure you know what my intentions are. I even said in my blog… that if anyone would like to know why I’m asking.. I would be more than willing to answer any questions!!!

    I hope you pray and think the next time before you JUDGE someone. You offended me greatly. By making me sound like a liar, a fake, and someone who doesn’t REALLY believe in Jesus Christ… AND I WILL NOT BE KNOWN FOR THAT!!!!!!!!!!! He is my Lord and Savior… and I will take GREAT GREAT GREAT offense to that!!

    I will not be coming back to this site due to your complete and utter lack of respect. You need to think before you speak. I believe our Bible also teaches us this.

    I hope I was able to clear up any matter. Again… I ask that you please edit out my email address. Thank you.

    If you do wish to respond.. you do have my email. If not… then I wish to you the best with your walk with Jesus… and I hope you have learned something from this situation.

    God Bless…

    Desirée

    I would like to say that I forgive whoever wrote this Note to me. We are told to forgive those who trespass against us… so that our Father might forgive us also. (Matthew 6:14)

  250. desiree August 6, 2007 12:27 pm Reply

    oh boy… um… I’m afraid for the confusion… my research is NOT on evolution. My research is on Christians and what is going on with the world today. People don’t realize what is in store for us. People don’t realize that in a very subtle way… more and more Christian leaders and organizations.. groups, pastors, etc. are being tracked down and “punished”. That was my research. Which is why my FIRST questions were not about evolution… but rather about the circumstances of Kent Hovind.

    I’m afraid you don’t see how you behave… I’m afraid you missed the entire point of my last two comments. I’m afraid you don’t see the error of your behavior.

    I don’t NEED to study evolution. I myself know that evolution is flawed and not real. I think the time to preach end times has come. That is my major field of study. Which was why I suggested http://www.endtime.com you can select audio/video link on the left hand side. If you watch the high quality videos… and I suggest you go in order… you’ll be blown away at the amazing revelations of prophecy. Just as you love to bring people to Christ by showing them about creation… I think we are at the end now… (not that creation isn’t important.. because it is!) but we can see… are seeing… and will see so much of the prophecy fulfilled.

    I don’t know where you thought I was asking about creationism. I don’t believe I ever asked a question in regards to it. I’m not asking you to school me as an individual! I simply wanted to have someone share with me what is going on with Kent Hovind. And my dear, that might not mean you… if you are busy.. that’s fine. Maybe someone else would like to share.

    Yes.. I do think you were rude. Would you kindly look at your response to my blog… reread my blog… reread your blog. And then reread my blogs in response. Hopefully it will come together for you.

    I’m not here to debate or argue. I think what I asked was simple. I think people can choose to answer or not. Or provide direct links. Or give me a summary of what took place. If it was such an arm and a leg to do… why are so many people blogging all of the time? It was honestly just a simple request. I had NO idea it would cause such a stir of commotion. I’m deeply taken back with how you act.

  251. desiree August 6, 2007 12:54 pm Reply

    I don’t think you need to be so uptight. I think maybe you should pray to God… and ask Him what to do. If you feel so stressed about your job… which is probably helping many people turn to Christ and realize the Bible is 100% true.. but you should be doing all of this for God… not yourself… or others. Your heart needs to be in the right place. I can’t say it is or isn’t… only you and God know that.

    I don’t want to fight! Come on, Brother! That isn’t what we are to do. That isn’t how we are to be. I hope you will see that. I wish you luck on your missions. Just take a second look at what I’ve said. I hope it hits you.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    To anyone who reads this:

    God Bless to those who trust in Jesus Christ… those who don’t… I suggest you study the material related to creationism… as well as http://www.endtime.com I believe two main topics for really seeing how powerful Jesus is… how amazing… are end time prophecy… and also the creation of the world… the earth… EVERYTHING THAT IS! God is so amazing.. so wonderful.

    You should open your heart and mind to God. When making a decision on something… I weigh out both sides. I think everyone should. I don’t think one should have an opinion of something… without knowing the other side! Or who is to say! For example.. if I’m going to vote for someone it isn’t about the name of the party… it is about what that party represents… what that party stands for. If I care about my country (myself, my family, my friends) I vote for the good of them. So when you approach the idea of God… and if He is real… and if the Bible is true. At the very least… you should consider what the other side says.. before you make up your mind. Looking at evolution vs. creationism… If you oppose creationism.. think about how you feel if someone who believes in creationism doesn’t have a background into evolution. You probably would tell them they need to really learn about what evolution really is before they say anything. I would turn that around and say the same thing… you should really know about creationism before you say anything.

    Also.. the study of of prophecy is another great way to show you how exact the Bible is. Take the challenge… read about these things… study them… think about it… give it a chance before you reject it. Who gave us the limit of our minds? Why is it so unbelievable that God exists? Why is it so far out to think about a Creator? You must obviously believe in gravity… how amazing is that? You must also believe in the galaxy and miles and miles of infinite space… how amazing is that? It is hard to wrap our minds around space and the way our world works so perfectly. I believe God created this perfection. I simply ask you… why is it so far fetched that I think this? Why is it that you oppose it so much? Why is wrong or bad about that? What defined your definition of what has to be… of what should be… or what can be?

  252. Rock Prevaricator August 6, 2007 8:14 pm Reply

    I took a week off on an internet-free vacation on a lake with perfect weather. It looks like the blog finally updated during that time. (I bet you were busy Paul…) I see quite a few posts were made.

    One of the most endearing traits of Kent Hovind was his ability to inject humor into his seminars and debates. Personally, I enjoy that a lot. Sometimes he even uses sarcasm but not in a mean way. A couple of weeks ago I read a post asking precisely what law in particular it is that requires us to pay taxes, so that we could lay this subject to rest. I found that to be a brilliant question, worth of asking. My sense of humor is such that I responded saying: “I would have to ask that you do not cloud this issue with common sense questions. Sheeesh…;)”

    This was sarcasm. Not mean sarcasm at all. I thought the question was brilliant like I have already said. I was in fact complimenting the blogger that posted it. Notice the wink at the end.

    However, the response to my compliment was this: “What, would you have it that I dealt in the realm of stupidity and ask foolish questions instead?????? If that is your choice of reasoning then knock yourself out but I won’t be joining you.”

    Come on now. Lighten up. I was agreeing with you. I’m sorry my humor was lost in that post, but I meant no malice. The number one radio talk show host in America uses the term “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd”. Again, I was not claiming your post as being absurd at all. I was only calling out the “tax law supporters” for supporting the absurdity of this ever-increasing cancer called “the u.s. tax code”.

    – – – – – – – – –

    I agree with the moderator:
    “I only know of one book containing scientific claims that has never had to be revised: The Holy Bible.”
    I have found that many of my early literary works are crude and in need of revision when I examine them later. This is true of all mans’ works. Only the inspired words of our Creator need no revision. If anyone asks me if I believe evolution is true, I ask them: “is butter good for you? Or margarine? Are eggs good for you? Is coffee bad for you? It was, but now ‘recent studies’ show it is good” Give it a few weeks. It will change.

    Ahhh, the fickle finger of “modern science”. Modern science will lead you one way then jerk you back on another path. Modern science can’t get out of its own way. Vioxx is good for you, right? Fen-phen is good for you, right? Hogwash. Modern science like modern medicine would use you, abuse you and leave you to die a horrible death. Modern science claims to know the answers with absolute authority, yet they change their minds continually. In fairness, theories are just that: theories. They are not fact. Except for one: Evolution. This is the only theory that is fact. Modern science will change their minds on EVERYTHING they believe except for evolution. Evolution is the sacred cow that must never be slaughtered on the alter of truth and common sense. Why is it that every theory in modern science can be dismissed by them but for one: evolution? Only the enlightened know. The unenlightened will fight to the death to defend it without admitting why. We know why, and often we tell them. But naturally we are dismissed as fools. We come to expect it. ‘Tis a shame, but true. (by the way, I was using sarcasm earlier in this paragraph)

    So my answer to the question: “Do you believe in evolution?” should be obvious. If it isn’t obvious, then let me state for the record: “NO”. Every one of evolution’s claims to fact has either been proven nonsense, or will be soon. Every one. The fickle finger of “modern science” always does. Every belief (evolution or creation) starts with assumptions, presuppositions, biases et al. I choose the foundation that still hasn’t been proven wrong: Young Earth Creation. Isn’t it time you did too?

    Rock

  253. pabramson August 7, 2007 7:07 am Reply

    Dear Desirée,

    Hmmm … overnight, but no one else has yet proffered an answer to your query yet. I will give you one perspective, but let us move this conversation to the NEW, current posting, following Aug. 2nd.

    (Please go back to the main: http://www.cseblogs.com – and select the “80 Comments” under “A Day in the Prison Life of Kent”.)

    Paul

    http://www.creationism.org

  254. Trustee August 23, 2007 7:14 am Reply

    Are we to abandon the Word? Either we are of the world or we are not. You are paying a price for principle. I admire that. However, it appears that, after reading your post, our family has been doing the zealot thing because we “felt” led to do so.

    I’m pretty tired of feelings. If God wants any more out of me, I’d appreciate a visit.

    That being said, these are the end times, not the beginning times, but maybe you are right, and God does want us to be slaves.

    Make the best of Prison, [EDITED] and We’ll be praying for you.

    Trustee

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=""> <strike> <strong>

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.