Praising God, Jo Hovind remains free!

To God be the Glory! This evening the 24th of August, one week before Mrs. Hovind was scheduled to begin her sentence that was handed down by Judge Rodgers, a stay was granted that will allow Mrs. Hovind to remain on release pending her appeal. The following is a portion of what Judge Rodgers ordered today.

******************
Pending Appeal (doc. 234) is GRANTED as to defendant’s release pending appeal and
DENIED as to the stay. An order regarding defendant’s release status will be entered
promptly following notification of the Eleventh Circuit’s disposition of defendant’s appeal.

DONE this 24th day of August 2007.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

********************

We will be posting more information as allowed.

Thank you all for your prayers! We are so greatful to God for working in this situation. He receives all the Glory and all the Praise!

For those who have been enjoying the knee-mail, there will be many more coming soon.

The CSE team

197 Comments

  1. Russians August 24, 2007 9:15 pm Reply

    Hallelujah!!!! Praise the Lord for answering our prayers!!!

  2. OldPaths August 24, 2007 10:07 pm Reply

    PRAISE THE LORD!!

    THANK-YOU FOR THE GOOD NEWS AND UPDATE ON THINGS. I’VE BEEN CHECKING EVERYDAY FOR ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT MAY HAVE BEEN POSTED.

    OUR PRAYERS ARE STILL WITH YOUR FAMILY AND MINISTRY.

    MAY THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST BE PRAISED!

  3. Ganf August 24, 2007 11:55 pm Reply

    What is the status of the Hovind’s trial transcripts? Aren’t they necessary for the appeal process?

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: The last I heard they were mostly typed up, but not available yet. Yes, I understand that they are necessary in order to appeal. P.A. ]

  4. campsuz August 25, 2007 4:55 am Reply

    Yes! Praise God indeed!

  5. Lakedaimonios August 25, 2007 5:43 am Reply

    This merely delays the inevitable. If I were her, I would report immediately and get it over with. With good behavior she could be out in several months instead of one year.

  6. SC Girl August 25, 2007 6:02 am Reply

    Praise God! We have been praying that God would intervene and true justice would prevail to allow Mrs Hovind to remain free. HE has been faithful just as HE has promised. We are so happy for your family.

    My boys and I saw Dr Hovind last night. It was raining some so we were not able to go onto the patio to look for bugs. A 14 year old girl from our church, K., came along for her second visit. She actually called me to see if she could go again because she enjoyed her first visit so much. K was a little apprehensive on her first visit, as was I, visiting a federal prison. On our way home from the first visit she commented on what a “really nice guy” Dr Hovind is, and she felt safe knowing there were no violent criminals in that section of the prison. Last night she told me she had a good time again and would like to continue going with me Friday evenings. So what was so fun? Dr. Hovind was teaching K. some algebra tricks for multiplying big numbers in your head. He loves to teach.

    Dr Hovind mentioned the last he heard they were still waiting on the court transcript. Goodness, it has been 10 months! Is this normal? It is disturbing to think everyone has to wait 10 months or longer for court transcripts, and more disturbing to think Dr Hovind may be getting “special” treatment. I don’t know much about legal things so if someone can enlighten me on this issue I would appreciate it.

    Thankful for God’s Mercy

    SC Girl

  7. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 25, 2007 6:30 am Reply

    “The husband and wife are one, and that one is the husband.”
    Sir William Blackstone

    [note: form Wiki] U.S. courts frequently quote Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England as the definitive pre-Revolutionary War source of common law; in particular, the United States Supreme Court quotes from Blackstone’s work whenever they wish to engage in historical discussion that goes back that far, or further (for example, when discussing the intent of the Framers of the Constitution)

    but, more importantly, quoting Jesus the Christ:

    “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Matthew 19.6

    It is, perhaps, this verse more than any other that shall truly judge all manner of man in this case.

    the turning phrase is “what God has done…….”

    might we thus Glorify God, for “what God has done”, from day one of creation through until now, and forever more ……

    from the creature to the Creator, all power, praise, honour, glory, thanks …….

  8. DQ August 25, 2007 6:59 am Reply

    If god gets the praise for keeping Jo out of jail, does he also get the criticism for Kent being in jail?

    Did Jo pray harder than Kent?

    And if it’s “part of god’s plan” that Kent be in jail and Jo not, why praise him for Jo not going? He’s just carrying out his plan.

  9. mtlionsroar August 25, 2007 7:04 am Reply

    AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! Our God is the God who hears our cries! Praise Him for His mighty works! As tears fill my eyes as I read this blog, I’m rejoicing with you all in celebration of the Wonderful, Merciful God we serve. Yes, may HE get all the praise.

    Thank you, too, CSE staff, for your hand-written note. You will never know how much it’s meant to me to received such a personal and loving thank you. Praying for you all…staff (hang in there!), editor of this blog (what great work you’ve been doing. Can’t imagine having to sort through all the junk!), Marissa (praying for your strength), Kent Andrew (did I get that right? hope so!), Eric (good job at the wheel! keep it up!), grandchildren (don’t worry, Poppup will be home soon!) wives/daughters-in-law, dear Jo (rejoicing with you!) and Kent (remembering your bonds)

    Much love to you all
    Dee

  10. DQ August 25, 2007 8:48 am Reply

    I am going to take advantage of a “clean slate” (comment-wise) to ask a question that I asked before but that got lost among the hundreds of comments.

    I am still waiting for someone to give me evidence for the genesis 6 day creation. All I’ve seen so far is poking holes in evolution. That’s fine and dandy, but even if you prove that evolution is false, that still doesn’t prove that the earth was created in 6 days. I have seen some claims of phenomena that point to a creator, although so far those have been pretty weak and have only been acceptable to the staggeringly ignorant and/or the intellectually dishonest.

    However, even if we were to assume that this evidence for a creator is true, that still does not prove that the bible’s god created the world in 6 days. Even if you have proof of “intelligent design,” that design could have been done by god in 6 days, or Zeus in 8 days, or Thor in one day.

    So what I am looking for is evidence that the Israelite/Christian god created the world in 6 days as described in genesis. Not evidence that evolution is wrong, not evidence of intelligent design, since neither of these are evidence of 6 day creation. I am looking for POSITIVE evidence of 6 day creation.

    Or, as an alternate challenge, can anyone even think of something that, if discovered, would be evidence of a 6 day creation?

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Or … you could study. Watch Dr. Hovind’s Seminar #1, “The Age of the Earth” then you’d know. We don’t need more arguments from ignorance here. Debate, but from from knowledge, which you do not yet have. And you admit such above. Do you need your hand held? Be a man and do some studying, then come back. The evidence for a young Planet Earth is everywhere.

    Job 38:2-3 “Who is this that darkeneth counsel without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.” Research. Study. Learn. P.A. ]

  11. ptl August 25, 2007 9:20 am Reply

    Thank the Lord! Prayers are still coming. Bless you and your family! I watched Bible and Health again last night, so strange to think of Dr. Hovind behind bars. I know it must be so hard for Jo and the rest of his family to be so “far” apart. Stay positive and keep the Lord as number one, as I know you do. Bless you all.

  12. Three Crosses August 25, 2007 11:58 am Reply

    Well praise God! Glory be to Jesus! We’ll be praying for the appeal.

    With love three crosses

  13. DQ August 25, 2007 12:36 pm Reply

    The editor said: Or … you could study. Watch Dr. Hovind’s Seminar #1, “The Age of the Earth” then you’d know. We don’t need more arguments from ignorance here. Debate, but from from knowledge, which you do not yet have. And you admit such above. Do you need your hand held? Be a man and do some studying, then come back. The evidence for a young Planet Earth is everywhere.

    You’re kidding, right? This is a joke? A setup? What’s the punchline? YOU are asking ME if I need my hand held? You have just demonstrated, by the above statement, that you have the reasoning skills of my four year old. Besides, Kent has shown himself to be a compulsive liar, for example when he claimed that he had no assets despite having 3 cars registered in his name, or when he has repeatedly said that noone has ever explained what law he is accused of breaking despite being given charging information that spells out exactly what he is being charged with, so I don’t trust his seminars.

    What I am asking for, and I will spell it out as clearly and with as small words as possible, is POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR A 6 DAY CREATION. Not evidence that the earth is young. Those are two different things. Tell you what, for the sake of this discussion, I will give you a head start. For the sake of this discussion, I will assume that the evidence shows unambiguously that the earth is 6000 years old. I will assume that the evidence shows that evolution did not happen. OK? Got that? I’m spotting you those assumptions. OK, now listen carefully, because here is where you seem to be having trouble. EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH IS YOUNG DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE EARTH WAS CREATED IN 6 DAYS BY gOD AS DESCRIBED IN THE bIBLE. All it does is prove that the earth is young. Get it? Similarly, evidence that evolution is wrong, and evidence that creatures were designed, do not prove a 6 day creation. What I am asking for is evidence, one simple piece of evidence that shows that the earth was created in 6 days by god. For example, show me evidence that the sun was created on day 4. Or that the plants were created on day 3. Heck, I’ll even spot you some more freebies, and I’ll take evidence of the creation described in genesis 1 OR the creation described in genesis 2. I’m not picky.

    So let’s review. I’m giving you a huge head start. (For the sake of this discussion only) I’m granting you that the earth is 6000 years old. I’ll grant you that evolution is false. I’ll grant you that life shows signs of intelligent design. I will accept evidence for the creation in genesis 1 or the creation in genesis 2. Ok? Now, even if the earth is 6000 years old, shows no signs of evolution, and shows evidence of design, that does not prove that god created the world in 6 days exactly as described in genesis. It could have been created by some other god in some other amount of time, or by some as-yet undiscovered scientific process. So here is what real scientists do- they find evidence for why their hypothesis is more supported by the evidence than other hypotheses.

    An ancient book says god created the earth in 6 days. Another ancient book says that Bor’s sons dragged Ymir’s enormous body to the center of Ginnungagap to make the earth. Both of these statements are consistent with our parameters (6000 YO earth, no evolution, design). So what a real scientist would do is look for a verifiable, repeatable experiment to show which of these is true. They would identify some physical characteristic that, if observed, would show that one of these is more likely to be true than the other. And then they would examine that physical characteristic to see if it supports one side or the other. The result of their experiment could be repeated by any scientist who cared to do so.

    So, what is the evidence for a 6 day creation? I have seen many people on this blog claim that it exists. I’m still waiting to see it.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: If you were going to discuss and debate types of music, for example, wouldn’t it make sense to come to the table already possessing a knowledge of the types of music? If you were going to get into a debate between Corvettes and Mustangs, wouldn’t it make sense to first know something about each type of auto BEFORE taking sides.

    If you are not too weak (as many evolutionists are) first study! Learn what we contend are the evidences for a young Earth! That is not too much to ask.

    And as a reminder, the “creation v. evolution” (i.e. science vs. religion) debate in this blog is not its focus. This is a side issue. I must keep it from taking over the blog. The purpose for this blog site is to relate news about the Hovinds, CSE, DAL, and related topics.

    Stop “waiting for the evidence for 6 day creation” and instead watch one of Dr. Hovind’s DVDs. You do not need to wait any longer. Again, you seem to need your hand held here. I/we cannot do that. I cannot spoon feed you. You do not need one-on-one attention for the basics of creation theory. Pick up the spoon yourself. Research. Study. Learn.

    A child looks to tear down. A man looks to build up. I ask you to not come here looking for a fight. Instead, why not approach life as one looking for truth? Or is that too threatening to you? You will be the better for it. Name calling is not needed. Study. Learn the basics of creation theory, then come back. P.A. ]

  14. Matthew August 25, 2007 2:15 pm Reply

    Editor said to DQ: Or … you could study. Watch Dr. Hovind’s Seminar #1, “The Age of the Earth” then you’d know.

    Paul, I am sure that DQ has seen the video, as have I. What we want is people explain in their own words what is the evidence of a 6-day creation. If one cannot explain this to us, this suggests either that there is no evidence or that you do not want to argue about it.

    To get you started, is the oldest tree really 4,300 years old?

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Our own words should be to turn to what is already known or already presented. Starting all over here is not helpful.

    I do research. I read and watch evolution and creation information – from both sides. I do not go out “looking for fights” like an adolescent; I go out looking for truth. A man should (I would contend) want to build up others, not look for opportunities, and from ignorance to boot, to tear them down. DQ should do his studying on his own time. Then come back. The age of the Earth is basic. He does not need them recapped here.

    Creationists, I have many opportunities to get drawn into one-on-one debates with hiding evolutionists. I do not do it. They are usually not interested anyway. One who is interested studies. The Pharisees sought to catch Jesus in some error because they saw Him as a competitor of sorts. They were not interested in the truth.

    Most evolutionists are not strong enough inside to truly consider both sides: 1 – an explosion of nothing into something for no reason, getting more complex all by itself; and here we are. 2 – A Lawgiver put laws into place, designed, spoke the universe into existence; and here we are. In #1, there is no purpose to life as it is all an accident anyways. In #2, this life is a temporary time of learning and testing.

    Please do not come here looking for fights. Please come here to learn the truth, or at the least to discuss and to learn, after understanding the basics of both sides. Rather than wanting to pull others down (which any child can do), prefer to build others up as what a man does, please. P.A. ]

  15. Ekkman August 25, 2007 2:42 pm Reply

    Well, praise the Lord that is something neat. I don’t see a lot of good happening for the body of Christ in these last days since we are being judged. God can and I believe he will break down all the barriers, confusion that is going on as we look to him so we can come out on top at the other side of the trial. He is coming for a church walking in him.

    DQ
    Said this on August 25th, 2007 at 8:48am:

    I am going to take advantage of a “clean slate” (comment-wise) to ask a question that I asked before but that got lost among the hundreds of comments.

    I am still waiting for someone to give me evidence for the genesis 6 day creation. All I’ve seen so far is poking holes in evolution. That’s fine and dandy, but even if you prove that evolution is false, that still doesn’t prove that the earth was created in 6 days. I have seen some claims of phenomena that point to a creator, although so far those have been pretty weak and have only been acceptable to the staggeringly ignorant and/or the intellectually dishonest.

    However, even if we were to assume that this evidence for a creator is true, that still does not prove that the bible’s god created the world in 6 days. Even if you have proof of “intelligent design,” that design could have been done by god in 6 days, or Zeus in 8 days, or Thor in one day.

    So what I am looking for is evidence that the Israelite/Christian god created the world in 6 days as described in genesis. Not evidence that evolution is wrong, not evidence of intelligent design, since neither of these are evidence of 6 day creation. I am looking for POSITIVE evidence of 6 day creation.

    Or, as an alternate challenge, can anyone even think of something that, if discovered, would be evidence of a 6 day creation?

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Or … you could study. Watch Dr. Hovind’s Seminar #1, “The Age of the Earth” then you’d know. We don’t need more arguments from ignorance here. Debate, but from from knowledge, which you do not yet have. And you admit such above. Do you need your hand held? Be a man and do some studying, then come back. The evidence for a young Planet Earth is everywhere.

    Job 38:2-3 “Who is this that darkeneth counsel without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.” Research. Study. Learn. P.A. ]

    Ekkman said:
    DQ,
    I don’t know if they were “poking holes in evolution” as much as they were showing where many of the holes were at since evolution is full of holes before the creationists even looked at it.
    You need to know the Creator, not just a few things about him but know him. He is a prayer away from all of us. But we must see ourselves as sinners in need of a Saviour before we can truly meet him in Spirit and in truth.
    The “god” in the bible is Satan, he is the so-called god of this world. He is the one causing all the problems, pain, evil, death, fear, hatred, etc. God is the one who came in human flesh to set us free. He loves us ever so much. He put it within mankind to know he is here, there and everywhere.
    “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.
    Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.
    There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.”

    We know that there is a God, it is innate, he put it within us to know. Jesus Christ made it plain that we won’t come to him cause our deeds are evil.

    “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
    For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

    As already discussed, evolution can’t be proven since it is nonsense, macro, that is. I don’t even really care for them using the term “micro” evolution since it makes people think macro evolution. The first is biblical, the second isn’t. Evolution is a very loose term. Creation can’t be “proven” in the sense that creation already occured around 6,000 years ago. The fruit of creation can be proven, such as “kind” producing the same. There are all types of evidence for a young creation that has already been discussed.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  16. Ekkman August 25, 2007 3:02 pm Reply

    I condensed a little of the readings that I have done on the “monkey men”. Mainly taking the information from one or two sources. I have read in a lot of other books but I limited the best worded examples to the two books below. I basically summarized what they were saying.

    Evolution:
    Man making a monkey out of himself- Part 1

    The first to discuss is ‘Ramapithecus’. His shape; length of arms and legs, head, height, amount of hair, etc. has been shown in detail in drawings concerning him. What evidence do they have? A piece of a jawbone about two inches long. What more proof do you need?
    Australopitecus is the next on our list. His skull was found but the brain case and skull form is distinctly ape. The name even means ‘southern ape.’ The reason that this was even used is because there were tools found nearby. If that doesn’t prove that it was an ape-man, what would? Richard Leakey has even removed Australopitecus from the chart in his book, ‘Origins.’
    Donald Johanson discovered some bones in Africa. They were shown in National Geographic magazine in December of 1976. These bones have come to be known as Lucy and they are no different than the bone structure of modern chimpanzees that walk upright. Once again, this proof that we came from monkeys is getting more and more unbelievable.
    Next on the list is ‘Homo habilis’. This skull was found by Richard Leakey, the leading expert regarding prehistoric man. After the skull was found, Leakey had this to say in the June, 1973 National Geographic, “Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man.” This is the reason why: Leakey said that the skull was 2.8 million years old yet it was of man’s genus. It was more man- like than other supposed ape-men on the chart yet it was two million years older than some of them were. So how could it be? Leakey knew this so his solution is “toss out this skull or toss out our theories of early man.” He also made this comment: “it leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.” (1)
    Homo erectus is the bones of supposedly the oldest nearly human remains on earth. This classification is based on two fossil finds: “Peking Man” and “Java Man” Let’s look at them. Peking Man will be first. “In 1921, two molar teeth were found in a limestone hill 25 miles from Peking, China. Six years later, a third tooth was found and given to Dr. David Black. Over the next several years dozens of pieces of broken up skulls were found. Some time after 1936, a man named Franz Weidenreich, who was in charge of the dig, fashioned a model of what “Peking Man” supposedly looked like.” World War Two comes along and all of the fragments were lost except for the two teeth. But before the war, “a French scientist, Marcellin Boule, examined the actual fragments of the skull and in 1937 published his findings. He said that the fragments were definitely monkey-like, that the model did not correspond objectively to the fossils. The date of Peking man was supposedly in the neighborhood of half a million years. Human fossils have been dug up from the same area.”(2)
    Let’s look at ‘Java Man”. This one will make you want to go out and get some ‘Espresso’.” In 1891 a Dutch physician named Eugene Dubois discovered ‘Java Man.’ Well, want he really found was an ape-like skullcap. A few years later he returned to the site along the Solo River and found a human leg bone and two molar teeth 50 feet away from the first find. Like a good scientist, Dubois put the head bone together with the leg bone and called it ‘Java Man.’ Expert evolutionists have ingeniously estimated the age of the find to be 500,000 years old.” (3) Some concluding remarks on ‘Java Man’. Dubois admitted before he died that he found two truly human skulls near the place that he found the other fragments. He also said that ‘Java Man’ was, in reality, a giant gibbon.
    What man will do so that he doesn’t have to show accountability, responsibility to a Creator. He chooses to believe that he came from a monkey even though the evidence is clearly against it. To show what depths that depraved, Godless men will go to fool the public, let’s look at Cro-Magnon Man and Neanderthal Man.
    As we look at these we will see that they are as human as we are. Cro-Magnon Man(12,000 to 30,000 years ago) was found in a cave by some boys out running with their dog. He fell into a crack in the ground. The boys went into the cave, it was several hundred feet long. There were colorful pictures on the wall of deer, horses, and bison.”The paintings are now famous as the skillful artwork of people we call Cro-Magnon. Some of their skeletons were found buried in another cave at Les Eyzies, France in 1868. Smithsonian magazine (October 1986) carried an article titled” ” Cro-Magnon hunters were really us, working our strategies for survival “.(4)
    Neanderthal Man is the next on our list. An interesting fellow, his name even sounds super primitive. “The name comes from the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. It was here in 1856 that the first skeleton of Neathderthal Man was discovered. Since then there have been many Neanderthal graves found in Europe and the Middle East… During the late nineteenth century, with Darwin’s theory shaking the scientific world, these early ‘ape-men’ were ‘proof’ that human evolution was a fact”(5) They were shown as bent over, club swinging cave men and the reason being is that the one skeletal find was a person severely deformed by age and arthritis. His brain was larger than an average man’s today. Oh no! Evolution going the wrong way and that is basically what Creation is. Creation teaches that things get worse as time goes on, not better and it is because of sin. It’s the law of thermodynamics, things break down and die or rot or whatever. Evolution contradicts the law of thermodynamics.
    There are new theories of evolution going around and the dates on the present theory of evolution are different by a few thousand years in different books written by different evolutionists. Differences abound but what difference does it make? In conclusion, as one Christian brother who is a scientist says, “The missing links are and will remain missing because they were never there to be found.” That is in regards to the evolution of monkey to man. But there is a missing link in man. The true missing link is a Saviour missing in our hearts. He came in human flesh approx. 2,000 years ago. He created you and he wants you to know him in a personal way. He desires to give you life for all eternity. So turn from sin, confess it now. He’ll give you strength and this is how. Submit to him, give him your life. He’ll give you the best advice. Jesus is his name! Receive him now. He loves you!

    (1) Unlocking the Mysteries Of Creation Vol. 1– Dennis R. Peterson, B.S. M.A.,
    (2) Evolution: The Fossils Say No– Dr. Duane Gish
    (3) Unlocking the Mysteries Of Creation Vol. 1– Dennis R. Peterson, B.S. M.A.
    (4) IBID
    (5) IBID

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  17. Ekkman August 25, 2007 3:16 pm Reply

    A little more food for thought:

    Next in line is a little information for those who seem to think that Creationism is religious not scientific and evolutionism is scientific not religious.
    “In striking down the Arkansas ‘Balanced Treatment Act’ in 1982, Judge Overton contended that the theory of creation could not be a part of science because he thought it could be derived only from a religious document. This demonstrated his ignorance of the process of science. That is akin to saying that because evolution is the basis of the first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto (the statement of faith of a tax extempt religious organization) then it could not be true or be part of science. Indeed the manifesto, signed by a number of prominent evolutionists, does read:
    “‘Tenet 1: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
    “‘Tenet 2: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of continuous process.’

    “Using Judge Overton’s kind of logic, one would be compelled to exclude evolution from science because many of the original formulators and promoters of the theory such as Herbert Spencer (an atheist), Charles Darwin (an agnostic) and Thomas Huxley (an agnostic), had religious motivations. It is undoubtedly true that these men first became anticreationists and nontheists on religious grounds. But this has no bearing on whether or not evolution might be the correct explanation of origins or whether it meets the requirements of a scientific theory. The resolution of those questions is a matter entirely separate from the motivation issue.”(2)
    (2) Darwin’s Enigma, Luther D. Sutherland, pgs. 37-38.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  18. jnthomasville August 25, 2007 3:35 pm Reply

    Dear Dr. Hovind,
    I have never written before except by sending a postcard once, but you and your family have been a tremendous blessing to me and my family for years. I have always been so proud of you and intimidated by your knowledge. I always check to see if what you say is in line with God’s word and I have never found you to be incorrect, yet. I know you have been out there on the cutting edge of ministry and it has not been a walk in the park for you over the years. But you have done so well. I just wanted to say I appreciate you. I consider you my brother!

  19. robtzfamily August 25, 2007 4:52 pm Reply

    Isn’t God wonderful !! ALL GLORY TO HIM !!
    Our entire family having being praying specifically that “Jo would not spend one minute in jail”.
    (We will continue to pray as we have – looking to our Lord, for His perfect will)
    We have, and are also continuing to pray for Kent’s release (Acts 12:5).
    Keep yours eyes & heart on Him!
    Lots of love, in Christ
    The Roberts family
    AUSTRALIA
    (John 13:34-35)

  20. fish153 August 25, 2007 6:12 pm Reply

    This is so awesome. Bless the LORD,O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. I have never met Kent Hovind but I really like his seminars. I hope that I can meet him someday. His seminars have been a huge part of my Christian education. I have had a lifelong interest in science. Watching a couple of his videos and studying some other books like ‘Icons of Evolution’ by Jonathan Wells really changed my world view.

    I pray every day for Dr. Hovind and his family and I also pray for the Judge and other people involved with the case. I am going to continue praying but this is just such great news. I had to go and tell someone just as soon as I read it. Please keep this journal going, because there are probably other people like me who care about Dr. Hovind and his family.

    PS, my favorite Psalm is #103.

  21. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 25, 2007 7:31 pm Reply

    To: DQ,
    I agree with you. A demolition of Darwinism [whatever form of it] doesn’t amount to a proof of a 6 day creation ~ 6000 years ago.
    I believe, iff you go looking for it, all you shall find are lots of “evidences”. You won’t come up with a proof. It seems to me, God hasn’t allowed for a proof of a Q.E.D. type in connection with His appearing in this Universe.
    If life in this Universe is actually a test of “us” and our desire to know then the best we shall all find is a preponderance of evidences that make for compelling conclusion.
    The number one evidence for a 6 day creation is the Bible itself. And the number one historical evidence for the veracity of the entire bible is, in fact, the resurrection of Jesus. The numbers of people involved and what demonstrably must have happened in “this world” is “extraordinary”. The whole world is heading “in the direction of” speaking English and the date most referenced across the entire globe is the datum line set around the birth of Jesus Christ. English might just be a coincidence for us, but perhaps why it got to where is has is not so much because of the expansion of commerce but the sincere desire of missionaries to go into all the world and build the church.

    there are hundreds, maybe thousands of “evidences” for a young earth, that are easily researched. stuff like C14 in diamonds or in coal depositories, or ice cores containing subannual depositions that are commonly mistaken for annuals, the regression of the moon, ……etc. etc.

    the important thing about these sorts of lists though is not that the evidence is compelling but that everyone is going to have their own favorite “evidences”. the sort of top ten that Russell Humphrey’s comes up with [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp] is going to be different to what Jonathan Sarfati is most impressed by. Evidence, in a way, has personal component to it – stuff that you will find the most interesting won’t necessarily line up with someone else.
    Personally I think Mount St Helen bears a striking testimony to catastrophic events including hydrodynamic sorting in the deposition of layers, or layering resulting from pyroclastic flows, that would elsewhere in the world be interpreted as annual depositions; the polystrate tree trunks/ vertical and sheered off tee trunks, at the bottom of Spirit Lake etc.

    in the end, do you want to know …….????

    [better to ask now than face the same question put in the past tense at an out of body debriefing in which you will have no excuses]

  22. YoCuzwaasup August 25, 2007 7:40 pm Reply

    Dear EDITOR …

    Why do you even post some of the repetitional clowns that have nothing good to say about the Hovinds? Needless to say, about God either. They are such a bore. |o They make no sence, write long posts that put you to sleep in the 2 sentence. I just don’t understand. If God is not going to have them in heaven … can’t you do what it says in God word now, and not have them in here too?

    I’m glad that Jo does not have to suffer in this IRS charade.

    PS. Did you notice thst latest. The war is going to be ending and the tradgy with the bridge, How many billions of dollars is it going to take to fix them? Am I cold, or is this just another coincidence? Check out these little video’s. Sad part is I voted for the man.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbIvPhZ3IsQ&NR=1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89SB59DT34&mode=related&search=
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3avVyf1OMjQ&mode=related&search=

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: The 3 video links appear to be broken. Can you give me a Scripture verse with a principle on not posting what the skeptics have to say? Also, I request that you use a spell-checker prior to posting. P.A. ]

  23. YoCuzwaasup August 25, 2007 7:52 pm Reply

    Alex,

    I’m a Jewdeo-Christian Believer. I’m coming to believe in these “Conspiracy Theories” and still am taking it all with a grain of salt. I’m taking it slow. I do tell people of the coincidences, I see.

    In watching many of these video’s … the first of the one’s were Dr. Kent Hovind who is now in prison (Go to CSE BLOGS for more info) for exposing these horrors that the normal citizen does not know about. Cem-trails, Georgia Guide stones, Truth radio … Loose change, and now your link.
    My question is about, “The Masons” or Illuminati Scull and Bones, all the names they can be called … but one stuck out because of the Biblical significance. I don’t know where you stand with God, but regardless where you’re at, (and I would hope it is with His son)… I learned that History is in the Bible. The book of Daniel is like a plan so evident. Alexander the great, the Roman Empire and so on. Just in case you did not know as I did know of your observances, I like to give you one word that was in Daniel that stood out and it was the word “Craft”. If you read the whole chapter of Daniel 8, you will see the hind site of what has happened in part in the history till today. You can look this up in any history book. Up until verse 15 it is God language till Daniel asks for its interpretation. Again look in any history book and you will see this all ready happened. I believe verse 22 was the end of the Roman Empire when Christ came and Jewdeo-Christianity started to grow. And starting in 23, is the times we are living in now. The whole book, is good, it’s too much to write in this little spot, but you should read it to see how all this pertains to today.

    Look at these verses; Daniel 8: 23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 24And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. 25And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. 26And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. 27And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king’s business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.

    Daniel even got sick from what he saw as we do today and some of the things we see. They at that time did not have presidents, Republics, They had Kings and kingdoms. So substitute some of our word for there’s but … Look at the words, Craft, and dark secrets … Policy, and peace. Sounds like “Homeland Security and the Patriot act to me.

    Well, I’m just a simple guy too. I don’t know if I could do what you do. But I play the part God wants me to and that is Getting the word out that God sent his only Son to die for mankind, and He wrote the Book on all this stuff and only some as He said will understand it.
    Alex, in finding out this stuff, and fighting, don’t for get your soul.

    Anthony Carfagno

  24. richardturner August 25, 2007 7:53 pm Reply

    AWESOME! Praise the Lord! PRAISE THE LORD!

    Sandy and I were so excited to learn what God has done for Mrs Jo!

    We know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purposes, and although we do not always understand His ways, because they are so much higher than ours, we trust Him, and trust that He has some great plans for Dr. Hovind and CSE, right around the corner.

    We are so thankful to God for His goodness, and will continue to pray for the release of Dr. Hovind, and the overthrow of the entire case! Equally we will continue to work to get public attention to this miscarriage of justice!

    God is so GOOD!

  25. Ekkman August 25, 2007 8:09 pm Reply

    eecreationist
    Said this on July 16th, 2007 at 6:33pm:

    These are all good points. I looked through a lot of them. As I said before, I have studied the KJV topic a lot and do find that the KJV is the superior Bible. My point is not its accuracy or authority, rather its difficulty to read. I know of scripture that is as accurate or more accurate than the KJV. It is the original scripts written in Greek and Hebrew. So if you had a choice, which would you rather be stuck on a deserted island with, those or an NIV? I was actually able to answer a lot of those questions with my wife’s NIV, which has footnotes that include the missing information.

    I am praying and trying to read it and understand it. As Hovind often said, “I’d rather you read the NIV than Playboy” so I don’t necassarily think it is bad to read a Bible that is not King James as long as you agree on the essentials (Deity of Christ, Trinity, Salvation, etc.). But I do think that the serious Bible student should use the King James (which I do on some key verses). Does anyone recommend some books or literature that will help to understand the KJV? I know I have seen them. Gail Riplinger has some books on the topic…not sure if any of them help to read it. In “New Age Versions” Appendix C she has a chapter called “how to understand the King James Bible”. It was not of specific help, mostly it was Bible verses that show that you need to humble yourself to God, pray and meditate. All good, but I am looking for something (preferably in book form) that has a list of the words not commonly used with their definitions and some other material that helps you to read and understand it.

    So as I said before, I do believe the KJV is the ultimate authority for the english speaking person. But I think the fact that Riplinger has a chapter devoted to “how to understand the KJV” drives home my point.

    Ekkman said:
    eecreationist,
    I went back to July to find a quote from btodd the other day. Anyway, I saw this comment and I didn’t remember it before. Oh well!
    Have you read any of the other books by Riplinger? Such as “The Language of the King James Bible”? In that one, she shows you that the KJV is the only bible with a built in dictionary in it. Or “In Awe of Thy Word”. It is an awesome book showing why the KJV is the only true word of God in the English language.
    You said that you could understand some of the new “bibles” easier. What is bad about that, many of the things that you might understand easier are false doctrine in many cases. Below are a few links that I posted at an earlier time. I don’t go very deep in these links, just hit some of the highlights of the perversions. There are many problems that I don’t deal with, way too many.

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

    http://www.ekkcom.net/niv-kjv2.htm

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

    The one below, I scanned, typed into my computer to put it on my web site. It has a lot of good comparisons in it.
    http://www.ekkcom.net/kjv4kd.htm

    Since some on here have been getting into the slaves’ scenario. I have been meaning to put the link below for a two fold purpose, the new bibles are taking us away from an important truth in the word of God. The difference between slaves and servants. There is a big difference and I mean big. I added the last part on that link when I am quoting from Compton’s Encyclopedia and I make a few comments regarding darwinism.

    http://www.ekkcom.net/gail35.htm

    Hope it helps!

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  26. campusministry August 25, 2007 8:55 pm Reply

    Dr. Hovind and Team,

    I have been a great admirer of you and your ministry, all you have accomplished, and your firm stance on Biblical creation. If you don’t mind, I would like to share with you some things I have learned about your situation, and what you all could do to fix it.

    First, it is well known from your lectures that you publickly denounce the gov’t using our tax money to teach evil-ution and other satanic lies. You are right. However, when you openly publish the fact that you “protest” federal taxation, you run into the wrath of the US gov’t. When you openly inform persons like Dr. Gibbs that you don’t intend to pay taxes, didn’t you know that he is an officer of the court and must turn you in or be open to prosecution himself? He might have given you advise and shown you simple options to avoid the situation you’re in now.

    All you have to do is get a church, ministerial association of churches, or ministerial association, mission society of a church or association to give you a letter of affilliation as a para church ministry, use their Fed. tax ID number, and set up a board (at least 3 persons), draw up a charter and by-laws. YOu take your minutes and letters proving you are an integrated auxillary of a church or association, and your are set. Any gifts given through the mail which are not in return for goods and/or services, don’t have to be reported. However, I personally report them all, so if I get audited, the IRS owes me money!

    You must take out FICA and witholding from any employees, or give them 1099’s, any tax consultant could help you, Gibbs has a 501c3. As for structuring withdrawals from the bank, didn’t you know that the gov’t can find out anything it wants to from anyone who does business at a bank? The gov’t can inquire about any transactions you do at a bank. Why didn’t you just take out 10,000 or more at a time, they know every transaction any way. Who cares. By taking withdrawals of 9500 or 9400 over 50 times, you showed a pattern.

    As for Kent getting out of Fed. prison, nothing short of a miracle would do that.

    That’s why we pray
    from [email protected]

  27. campusministry August 25, 2007 9:01 pm Reply

    to Mr. DQ,

    The answer to your question about the 6 day creation is simple. God took six days because He wanted to take His time and do a good job. Otherwise He would have done it all in a nano-second, or quicker.

    from [email protected]

  28. Ekkman August 25, 2007 9:29 pm Reply

    I have been reading about slaves on these posts a little lately and I have been wanting to put this link on my Page into the scenario. It talks about the difference in “slaves” and “servants”. I added the information at the bottom of the article to enforce the truth of the article.
    I added some information from Compton’s Encyclopedia and some thought from darwinism evolution. In some of the new bibles Christians become slaves of God and that is sad, super sad.

    http://www.ekkcom.net/gail35.htm

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  29. Learned Hand August 25, 2007 10:48 pm Reply

    Congratulations to Mrs. Hovind. I would be interested in reading the appellate briefs, if they are made available. In the circuits where I have worked, Mrs. Hovind’s odds would be very poor on appeal. Every circuit handles criminal appeals of this type differently, though, so I’m not competent to assess her chances (especially without having read her arguments). Statistically, very few criminal appeals succeed. From what I’ve read, she’s more likely to mount a serious attack on her sentence than on her conviction. A successful appeal of the sentence will result in a resentencing, but not an acquittal. If you’re interested in the issues, it will probably involve the post-Booker “reasonableness” analysis, but we’ll have to wait and see.

    Someone asked if 10 months was a typical amount of time to wait for transcripts. The answer is that it certainly can be, depending more on the reporter than on the court. I’m still getting transcripts back in a complex trial from January, and my sense is that we’re getting them relatively quickly because of some post-trial work going on, and because we were using an electronic reporter (recording the trial) rather than a traditional reporter. She probably did get some degree of special treatment as a criminal defendant, in that their transcripts often get bumped to the front of the line because the stakes are so high for them.

  30. Harriet August 25, 2007 11:33 pm Reply

    This is glorious! PTL!

  31. Ekkman August 26, 2007 1:38 am Reply

    Darwin reasoned that as a married man he would be a “poor slave,… worse than a Negro,” but then reminisces that, “one cannot live the solitary life, with groggy old age, friendless…and childless staring in one’s face….” Darwin concludes his discussion on the philosophical note, “there is many a happy slave” and shortly thereafter, married (Darwin,1958:234).
    (Darwin, Charles. 1896. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. New York: D. Appleton and Company.)

    Darwin concluded that adult females of most species resembled the young of both sexes and from this and the other evidence, “reasoned that males are more evolutionarily advanced than females” (Kevles, 1986:8). Many anthropologists contemporary to Darwin concluded that “women’s brains were analogous to those of animals,” which had “overdeveloped” sense organs “to the detriment of the brain” (Fee, 1979:418). Carl Vogt, a University of Geneva natural history professor who accepted many of “the conclusions of England’s great modern naturalist, Charles Darwin,” argued that “the child, the female, and the senile white” all had the intellect and nature of the “grown up Negro” (1863:192).
    (Kevles, Beltyann. 1986. Females of the Species: Sex and Survival in the Animal Kingdom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.)
    (Fee, Elizabeth. 1979. “Nineteenth-Century Craniology: The Study of the Female Skull.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 53:415-433.)
    (Darwin, Charles. 1896. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. New York: D. Appleton and Company.)
    Darwin’s Teaching of Women’s Inferiority
    Institute for Creation Research,
    Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  32. Paulus August 26, 2007 2:29 am Reply

    Hood to hear that. So judge Rodgers has shown some mercy after all!

  33. praybird August 26, 2007 5:05 am Reply

    We are so grateful to hear this news about Mrs. Hovind. We pray that the appeal process will go through as to free her once and for all. We continue to remember Dr. Hovind in his bonds. Praying that he also will be soon released.
    We have been studying the Seminar notebook that goes with the Creation Seminar Series, what a wealth of information, thank you Dr. Hovind. It was very well written.
    What I appreciate most is your heart to reach the Lost, Your Love for the Lord is very evident, and this blesses me so much.

    There are many preachers preaching the so called prosperity message, that teaches a works based theology of if you do and claim it you will receive. As there are some half truths to this, the bible warns that those teaching that gain is Godliness from such withdrawn thyself, 1 Timothy 6, there is also a warning in Ezekiel 34, and throughout the bible, of Shepherds that feed themselves instead of the flock. A warning to those leaders who scatter the sheep, that don’t help the poor and needy. Those that don’t bind up the broken hearted. Jesus said you would know them if they were his disciples if they have Love one to another, we pray for a unity and a solidarity if you will, come to the body of Christ.
    Bro. Hovind is not like these tv evangelists, totally opposite of them. He has taught consistantly bible Truths to build peoples faith in God. We appreciate his ministry so very much. As I don’t understand all the scientific lingo, he puts these teachings in basic format and understanding so that all can understand and benefit by it. Evolution tears down the basic moral principals in a society that has been founded on biblical morality. Where there is evolution there is no evil, no moral absolutes, no right and wrong. The information he brought out we all can attest to in the break down of morality in our country, murder suicide, rapes, violence, divorce, sexual immorality, much comes from atheist teachings of evolution and the fall of mankind. Although there have been cults risen from those selfish leaders who want to use the bible for their own selfish gain, there is a true Biblical Faith that will stand the tests of time, that the gates of Hell won’t prevail against the true Church, that Jesus Christ is the Chief Cornerstone that the builders rejected. Paul the Apostle was beaten, shipwrecked, put in prison, he knew peril, famine, he went through many things but remained true and faithful to the Lord, He knew the Lords voice because he heard it one day on his way to persecute Christians, and the Lord knocked him off his horse and he saw a bright Light and voice from the light saying Saul Saul why persecute thou me? He said who are you Lord? He said I am Jesus whom thou persecutes. Saul who became Paul really did have a (close encounter) and it was with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We trust the Lord to bring us out of all our trials and tribulations, and to be found faithful and true to him by his Gracy and Mercy. amen. Love from Brenda and Don

  34. BadBob August 26, 2007 8:15 am Reply

    I wish you would stick to what you said below. Last blog post had over 500 comments. I do not have time to read 500 posts to find out the latest about Hovind and his wife. My personal opinion is that these debates need to be done on a different blog. Presently, all these debates are drowning out what should be the main focus of this particular blog.

    “And as a reminder, the “creation v. evolution” (i.e. science vs. religion) debate in this blog is not its focus. This is a side issue. I must keep it from taking over the blog. The purpose for this blog site is to relate news about the Hovinds, CSE, DAL, and related topics.”

  35. Timothy Fellows August 26, 2007 11:42 am Reply

    Kent Hovind visit update:

    Praise the Lord for his kindness to Mrs. Hovind!

    I was able to visit Dr. Hovind this last Friday August 24 with three of my children, and we met the Scgirl and her two children and another girl she brought. Dr. Hovind had six children to entertain and teach math and science skills and allusions, right there at the Federal Prison. We trust the Lord knows what He is doing, and even the wrath of man shall praise Him. In the midst of barbed wire, concrete, drug dealers and common crooks, watchtowers and surveillance cameras, guns and iron bars, creation evangelism was continuing for the next generation of young children who were as sheep among wolves, or as the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace, unscathed; or as Daniel in the lion’s den — safe and sound.

    “The twig is bent, the tree inclined, and so the heart and soul and mind.” If only those prisoners had learned creation evangelism from the Bible when they were young, they wouldn’t have ended up in such a place, except for the Gospel’s sake. Christians throughout history have been put with criminals, and Jesus himself was crucified between two thieves.

    Beka Horton might rage against Kent Hovind out of jealousy and hatred like Bloody Mary, but she’s just revealing what side she’s on. The Bible talks about traitors and those who betray one another to be punished by ungodly governments, but the Bible also promises “it shall turn to you for a testimony.” What the enemies of Christianity have never understood is that God is above them and turns their hearts whithersoever He will, and He will get the glory in the good guys (like Israel) and in the bad guys (like Pharoah).

    Kent Hovind is more the victim of the liberated American women, than the righteous law of the courts. Kent didn’t start this fight, they did. They were all women who put Kent Hovind away, and they never did show what law he broke — not once. Women don’t judge reasonably, but emotionally, so women are most cruel when they are in power, because they step out of their created order of being a helpmeet to man, to ruling over man, which thing the Bible forbids in the Old and New Testaments. “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to remain in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (I Timothy 2:11-14). Notice, this entire order goes back to creation. Kent Hovind is being persecuted by a government that has rejected the God of creation, so it will also reject the order.

    Women judges, preachers, etc. are all a new thing in American history, as a result of rejecting God, the Bible, creation and the founders’ beliefs and convictions. You will note that womens’ rights are protected today by the government, much like endangered species are. If they were as competent to do the work of men as some claim, they could fend for themselves like men instead of getting special protection like the handicapped.

    People need to stop reasoning like women and start proving their facts against Kent Hovind:

    –Kent Hovind is not a tax protestor (even though there’s nothing wrong with that — that’s how America was founded, due to the oppressive taxes from England and unreasonable demands of King George III) Go back to England if you aren’t really an American by principle.

    –The tax laws are fine as written. It is impossible to live in the United States without paying taxes. We are taxed on everything we do and everywhere we go. If Kent Hovind checks into a motel, he pays a special motel tax. If Kent Hovind pumps gasoline, he pays a gas tax. If Kent Hovind smoked, he would pay a tobacco tax; but for a person to say he is evading paying the tobacco tax by not smoking is to reason like a woman. Where are the men? What law has Kent broken, people? Stop the emotion, and start the logic. Kent Hovind has never refused to pay any tax he owed.

    –Kent Hovind sent many letters to the IRS asking for advice, and they never answered even once! Who’s evading things here? Kent Hovind asked the US attorney Michelle Heldmyer three times (a year before his arrest) in affidavits to shew him any tax laws he was violating – no response (who’s evading here?) Such affidavit was entered into the court record, and maybe that’s why they are delaying the release? Why would it take ten months to release the transcript ? Could it be that this judge is altering the transcript? Do all cases take this long? Why this one only? This judge is in trouble, and she knows it. Is the judge above the law? They thought so back in the Dark Ages.

    –Kent Hovind is not anti-American. If you think so, you must think the founding fathers of this country were anti-American. The fact is that the definition of what an American is has changed. For most of American history, abortion was murder; Sodomites were punished by all 50 states; Creationism was taught in the schools; Judges were all men and appealed to the Bible; Money was based on true wealth (gold and silver) not paper and credit and inflation as it is now. Churches were separate from the Government and not listed as 501 (c) 3 organizations under the government.

    –The Charges against Kent Hovind were from 1999 to 2002, and Glen Stoll did not even come into the picture until 2003. Know your facts before you make your emotional charges.

    America is in the same place Russia was in, Germany was in, and in other ways, like Rome was in. Do you have your papers on whom you are, and can you prove it? Do you meet the current qualifications as to whether or not you have a right to exist? The Government is God now, and most professing Christians have already submitted their Bibles to their government’s interpretation. Most people now put the American flag above the Bible and Patriotism to country above loyalty to God. Choose you this day whom you will serve, but you cannot please God if you’re on the side of His enemies.

    Timothy Fellows TrueReligionWorks.com

    http://TrueReligionWorks.com

  36. Three Crosses August 26, 2007 11:53 am Reply

    To Ekkman:
    Fellowship is a good thing! I don’t currently have any talk machines. I have dial-up and even instant messengers take long enough to make coffee and eat some breakfast. I do have a myspace page for witnessing and some fellowship. Just their banners and adds are enough to make some people sick, me included. There are however, many people to witness to, and a couple of good sights from dedicated believers.

    Have a blessed day three crosses

  37. david84ss August 26, 2007 12:04 pm Reply

    Praise the Lord, this is truly encouraging news. I will continue to pray that brother Hovind is released sooner than later.

  38. CDog August 26, 2007 2:35 pm Reply

    As far as evidence of a young earth (6000 years), I would cite the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project completed by the scientists at the Institution for Creation Research in San Diego, California in 2005 (http://www.icr.org/rate/). To sum up one aspect the findings, when uranium-238 decays into lead in zircon crystals in the earth’s crust, helium is also produced as a daughter product in the form of alpha radiation. Helium is a very small, slippery, unreactive atom that should diffuse out of the earth’s crust very rapidly. Based on the amount of helium still present in the earth’s crust versus the amount of uranium and lead, the earth’s age is limited to about 6000 years. The idea of accelerated nuclear decay is proposed in light of the findings. This is the idea that at certain cataclysmic events in the past (e.g. the Fall and the Flood) radioactive nuclei have broken down at a much faster rate than at present procesess. This research built somewhat on Robert Gentry’s abbreviated work with radio-polonium halos. I recommend the RATE book, DVD, and conference.

    CDog

  39. JR Turner August 26, 2007 3:32 pm Reply

    First Circuit:
    United States v. Turano, 802 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1986), that court held that the “16th Amendment eliminated the indirect/direct distinction as applied to taxes on income.”

    Second Circuit:
    Jandorf’s Estate v. Commissioner, 171 F.2d 464, 465 (2nd Cir. 1948), that court declared, “It should be noted that estate or inheritance taxes are excises * this court holds that the personal income tax is a direct tax.
    Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 87 (2nd Cir. 1984), that court stated that the personal income tax was an indirect tax:

    Third Circuit:
    Keasbey & Mattison Co. v. Rothensies, 133 F.2d 894, 897 (3rd Cir. 1943)(“[A]n income tax is a direct tax upon income therein defined”); Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 277 F.2d 16, 19 (3rd Cir. 1960)(“Pollock * * * only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property that it could not be imposed without apportionment.

    In the Fourth and Sixth Circuits:
    the income tax has been held to be an excise tax; White Packing Co. v. Robertson, 89 F.2d 775, 779 (4th Cir. 1937)(“The tax is, of course, an excise tax, as are all taxes on income * * * “); United States v. Gaumer, 972 F.2d 723, 725 (6th Cir. 1992)(“Brushaber and the Congressional Record excerpt do indeed state that for constitutional purposes, the income tax is an excise tax”).

    Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Circuits:
    arguments that this tax is an excise have been squarely rejected and determined to be frivolous. Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir. 1984), the court clearly rejected the contention that this tax is an excise:

    The Supreme Court:
    United States v. Sitka , 845 F.2d 43, 46 (2nd Cir. 1988)(citing Parker, infra, for the proposition that the tax is direct).

    Kent and Jo Hovind are INNOCENT!!! The FRAUD continues!!!

  40. Diamond August 26, 2007 4:21 pm Reply

    Dear Hovind Family, DAL, and CSE,

    Once again, I hope you can see this through the clutter, but my family and I are still praying for you! This recent entry is awesome news and we’re looking forward to what God will do next! To God be the glory, and it is going to be a thrill watching it all come together. The fruits of your labor are still seen Dr. Hovind, and your positive mental attitude, faith, and trust are inspiring. I pray that your example will further God’s kingdom even more! How amazing that your present suffering is being used by God to reach still more people to the upward call of God in Christ Jesus and to the truth of the Gospel! Thank you for being God’s vessel of love to a dying world, Dr. Hovind and family, you are an inspiration to all. My prayer is that people will learn from your example and go sow seeds and reap the harvest, especially myself.

    In His love,

    Tyler B.

  41. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 26, 2007 5:12 pm Reply

    PA,
    you are 100% spot on.
    If I were going to live in India I would try to learn something about the Sikh and Hindu religions before I left. If I were going to Utah I’d do some reading on Joseph Smith. If I were going to Brooklyn I would read up on Charles Russell. Every journalist wanting to do a semi intelligent and meaningful interview goes to the effort of studying works of the interviewee. They may not agree with them but they study them to draw out and develop more insight.

    I do not agree with GK Chesterton but I read him because I sympathize with him and because he writes magnificently. He is an essayist par excellence.

    God bless you PA. Keep up the good work.

  42. ibelieve2 August 26, 2007 10:19 pm Reply

    PRAISE GOD!!!!!!!!!!!! I was soooooooo excited to hear the news!!!! Thanks so much for keeping us updated!!!! Still praying!!!!!!!!

    ibelieve2!!!!!!!!

  43. Istvan August 27, 2007 2:15 am Reply

    Good for Mrs. Hovind! It must be very comforting for her and the Hovind family to get this extra time and new hope. Not a lot of people believed that something like this would happen. They must be quite surprised. It is very interesting to see how this case develops. God takes care of His children.

    I once met a pastor, a tiny man, who wrote a letter to Stalin to change his evil ways, and convert. As a reward, in 1947, he was taken to the Gulags, where he spent 92 months of his life. Freezing cold, murder and death almost every day, pointless, but still life-threatening work, very little food, filth and disease everywhere. This tiny man believed in the Heavenly Father, and served his time in Siberia as His humble servant. During the 92 months, God never left him, and saved him from death several times. A book was written about this remarkable little man and his ordeal in Siberia.

    The point is that God takes care of His children, but not always the way His children would like to be taken care of. Sometimes it seems that God has left a person alone in his ordeal. Why is Dr. Hovind incarcerated? Why did God not interfere? I have no idea. But He has a plan for Dr. Hovind, and He also has a plan for Mrs. Hovind. As well as for everyone reading this blog. Even for Btodd and LearnedHand, and the rest of the protectors of evolution and so-called ex-Christians. Even if they do not believe in Him. I know they have their reasons, but they might want to reconsider them. Who knows, perhaps there is a flaw in their logic. As I said, you guys can only win.

    God bless all who bring people to Christ, wherever they are!

    Kind Regards,
    Istvan

  44. steelingminds August 27, 2007 2:56 am Reply

    Praise Yah! Awesome – this made my day. Our prayers reached His Mercy Seat!!! Now let’s get Kent out, bring him home, and get him on the front-lines again! YES, YES, YES!!!

    http://www.YourChristianPresident.com

  45. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 27, 2007 5:19 am Reply

    campusministry,
    all John Bunyan had to do was accept a license.

    Patrick Henry is quoted as saying of another preacher he perchance encountered, ‘When they stopped beating him, I could see the bones of his rib cage. I turned to someone and asked what the man had done to deserve such a beating as this.’
    The reply given was that the man being scourged was a minister who refused to take a license.
    Purportedly that same preacher was again beaten; and that unto his death, just several days later.
    Patrick Henry perhaps more than any other gave moral authority to the establishment of a republick

    What you seem to find difficult to understand is that any man could occupy any place in public life and exercise a moral conscience at the expense of expedience: If no greater insight than you have brought is the best that you can give I wonder if people shouldn’t be more appalled at your condition than that of those men beating Patrick Henry’s chance encountered preacher to death.

    So many people have come to the blog with no better explanation to offer than that the man must be a thief at the public expense.

    It is a testament of their thought processes that financial profit is the only explanation they can offer. That is all they seem to have learnt from their observations of those in public life.

    Is this the same republick Patrick Henry envisaged?

    bro. Kent is neither a liar, nor a thief, but for ways in which we aren’t all guilty of the same. And I agree with you, God is in the miracle business.

  46. DQ August 27, 2007 5:26 am Reply

    Editor:

    Wow, it is really sad when Philip George 1974 can grasp a simple concept more quickly than you can. Even he realizes that all the evidence in the world for a young earth still does not prove a 6 day creation. And yet, here you are, still babbling on about evidence for a young earth.

    I have attempted to watch the Hovind seminar on positive evidence for a 6 day creation. I cannot find this seminar on the Dr. Dino site or anywhere else. Please tell me which seminar details the positive evidence for a 6 day creation, and I will be happy to watch it.

    The editor said: A child looks to tear down. A man looks to build up.

    Really, so how would you describe somebody who gives seminars entitled “Lies in the Textbooks”? Sounds like tearing down to me. How about “The Dangers of Evolution”? More tearing down. Hmm, that would make Hovind a child, wouldn’t it? You actually love tearing things down, as long as they are things you don’t like. But when somebody tears down something you like, you pout about how only children tear things down. Everyone can see right through your blustering about me needing my hand held and not wanting to get into a creation/evolution debate. Everyone can see that you have NO evidence for a 6 day creation. If you had that evidence you would be shouting it from the hilltops, not making up excuses for not sharing it.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: If evolutionists are “on the side of science” shouldn’t they be the FIRST to want lies taken out of the textbooks? Instead, time and time again, they are against corrections. They put their religion ahead of doing good science. Standing against lies, and telling the truth instead builds others up.

    Those with the loudest voices are not always those who are most right. Swinging a powerful verbal fist against those who don’t want to fight or argue in the first place doesn’t make the meaner, louder person right.

    == Ancient Persian Proverb ==

    He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.

    He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a student. Teach him.

    He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake him.

    He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise. Follow him.

    P.A. ]

  47. DQ August 27, 2007 5:30 am Reply

    campusminister said: to Mr. DQ,

    The answer to your question about the 6 day creation is simple. God took six days because He wanted to take His time and do a good job. Otherwise He would have done it all in a nano-second, or quicker.

    You christians sure do place a lot of restrictions on god. He couldn’t do just as good a job in a nanosecond as he could in 6 days? That does not sound like an all-powerful god to me.

    However, I would like to thank you for trying. Unfortunately, unsubstantiated guesses from campus ministers are usually not considered as scientific evidence, even by such unprincipled liars as Kent Hovind. In fact, even if you are correct in your guess, that would only explain the reason for the 6 day creation, not provide evidence for it.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: The Campus Minister is right. Actually, in Martin Luther’s time they had the opposite problem that we do today. There were some folks wanting to contend that “God is so powerful that He could have done it in one day” and the like. Luther replied (paraphrased) “Let us trust that the Holy Spirit has more wisdom than we do in these matters, and that it took six days, as the Scripture says.”

    DQ, please do not come here looking to swing your verbal fists at any and all who disagree with you in your ignorance. Study, then come back and DEBATE from knowledge, please. P.A. ]

  48. DQ August 27, 2007 5:36 am Reply

    Philip George 1974 said: I agree with you. A demolition of Darwinism [whatever form of it] doesn’t amount to a proof of a 6 day creation ~ 6000 years ago.
    I believe, iff you go looking for it, all you shall find are lots of “evidences”.

    Mr. George:
    I cannot believe that the day has come where you are the most lucid person speaking about any topic on this blog. Unfortunately, I have gone looking for that evidence, and have found none. Perhaps, since there is “lots of evidences” out there, you could be kind enough as to point me to just one of those evidences? That should not be a difficult task, since there are so many. A simple link would be fine, so as not to take up too much space on the blog. The editor has said many times that he likes links to things, although he has not seen fit to hold my hand by providing that link for me.

    The number one evidence for a 6 day creation is the Bible itself.

    If this is true, then creationism is not science. The bible is not scientific evidence. I am looking for scientific evidence, which has been claimed to exist many times on this blog and elsewhere.

  49. Paulus August 27, 2007 5:39 am Reply

    [DQ Said this on August 25th, 2007 at 12:36pm: Now, even if the earth is 6000 years old, shows no signs of evolution, and shows evidence of design, that does not prove that god created the world in 6 days exactly as described in genesis.]

    This is indeed an interesting thought. If you put aside the evidence for or against a 6000 years old earth and let the scientists decide about that (which I think they have already), consider this. If a 6000 years old earth is unrelated to whether God created the world in 6 days or not, you are not forced to believe in the 6000 years at all. God could have created the earth in 6 days as described in genesis, but millions or billions of years ago.

    As far as I understand, the belief in the 6000 years comes from a Christian minority, but is not shared by any other religion. The reason is that no other holy book mentions any genealogy that would support a 6000 years belief. So the question is whether the bible really support this. The 6 days are clearly described in Genesis but where is the proof that the 6000 years, based on human genealogy and human interpretation, are infallible truth?

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: We have some company with Orthodox Jews. But it is true that the truth is becoming more and more difficult to discern, as deceptions get built upon deceptions. Matt. 24:4; Mark 13:5; Luke 21:8a.

    We are witnessing the reversing of Babel in our lifetimes. Governmentally – a re-coalescence; in business and economics, an internationalization. And it is happening in religion as well. Evolution gives non-Bible-believing people around the world a COMMON (believed) “heritage”. 2 Timothy 3:13 “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”

    By the Tribulation, ALL of the false religions will be mostly or completely re-coalesced into one. Evolution, provides one step in that direction. Do not be deceived as to what its nature is and that it has arisen from The Pit. It gives man a common false foundation (that aids non-Bible-believing Catholics or Protestants, and Buddhists, Atheists, Shintoists, etc.) for ALL religions and belief systems – except for those “trouble-making” Bible believers. P.A. ]

  50. darling August 27, 2007 8:22 am Reply

    Glad to hear Mrs. Hovind remains free. Hopefully things will end well for her.

    Timothy Fellows Said this on August 26th, 2007 at 11:42am:

    “They were all women who put Kent Hovind away, and they never did show what law he broke — not once.”.

    I find it hard to believe that Mr. Hovind didn’t even read the indictment. Nor ask his attorney what it said.

    “Women don’t judge reasonably, but emotionally, so women are most cruel when they are in power”

    Something something, ad hominem attacks, something something.

    “What law has Kent broken, people? Stop the emotion, and start the logic.”

    Mr. Hovind was charged – among other things – under Title 26 USC § 7202:
    “Any person required under this title to collect, account for, and pay over any tax… shall be fined… or imprisoned.”

    Withholding is required under Title 26 USC § 3402:
    “every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax…”

    §3401 defines wages as:
    “… all remuneration… for services performed by an employee for his employer…”

    And an employer as:
    “… the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person…”

    The §3401 definition of employee, because of its use of “includes,” is not a comprehensive definition (see definition of “includes” in §7701(c)) so we need to look elsewhere. Specifically, we look to the taxes imposed.

    These taxes are listed in a number of places. The FICA tax, for example is in Chapter 21 (§31xx), which defines an employee (in §3121(d)) as:
    … any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee…

    So, we look to – and apply – the usual common law rules. For example:
    http://www.wm.edu/grants/HANDBOOK/irs20ruletest.htm

    The jury (correctly, in my opinion) decided that Mr. Hovind and the people who worked for him were in an employer-employee relationship, and thus Mr. Hovind broke the law by not withholding taxes. (Whether or not CSE is a church or a non-profit is irrelevant.)

    “–Kent Hovind sent many letters to the IRS asking for advice, and they never answered even once!”

    From what I’ve read, I wouldn’t have wasted my time answering them either. The IRS is not required to respond to every individual looking for an argument.

    JR Turner continues to say lots of things

    … but never sticks around to defend them when the errors are pointed out. So I won’t bother, except to say that context is everything.

  51. darling August 27, 2007 8:31 am Reply

    Ekkman Said this on August 25th, 2007:

    ““…Judge Overton contended that the theory of creation could not be a part of science because he thought it could be derived only from a religious document… ”
    That is akin to saying that because evolution is the basis of the first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto then it could not be true or be part of science.”

    Emphasis added.
    (In other words, no, it’s not.)

    Darwin reasoned/concluded a lot of things that turned out to be disagreeable. (paraphrased)

    So what? Darwin isn’t a deity. Like every good scientist he got some things wrong, he got some things right. And, like every good scientist, it’s their work, not their personal opinions, that are important.

    Which is why “Darwinism” and “Evolutionism” are nothing but strawmen, based on ideas that were discarded a hundred years ago.

  52. darling August 27, 2007 8:33 am Reply

    EndTimes Said this on August 22nd, 2007 at 9:18pm:

    “I will let you go back and read what I have clearly stated that they found an 83% difference in the “phenotypic expression of the genetic material.” It appears that you did not understand the technical language that I used.”

    Yes, you should probably use small words with me in the future.

    Perhaps then you would reconcile the following statements:
    – “The surrogate studies on the genome finding these two species 98.77% the same are now not corroborated by the 2004 study on chromosome 22/21 which instead found only 17% the same.”
    – “chimp and man 22/21 chromosome shows only 17% congruence”
    – “percentage differences for chromosome 22 [of] 83%”
    – “an 83% difference on chromosomes 22/21″
    – “17% of the finished product seen and acted upon at the organism level is the same”

    But I hear what you’re saying. What better way to settle this than ask the people who wrote the paper in question?

    I contacted them and inquired whether or not the following would be a more-or-less accurate statement of the study’s findings:
    “The phenotypic expression of the genetic material in chromosome of 22 in the chimp compared with chromosome 21 in man is 83% different.”

    Do you want to guess the response?

    But, even after all this, I’m happy to concede the point – call it whatever you like. Sure, 100% of 83% are 1% different! No matter which way you slice it, this just not a problem for evolution. If the chromosomes show an absolute 1.44% difference then it makes perfect evolutionary sense that those insertions/deletions/substitutions are spread throughout, rather than concentrated in one spot.

    And, as explained many times previously, it is absolutely useless in the discussion of Haldane’s Dilemma, which was my original point. This study simply doesn’t address the right questions.

    So, where does that leave us with the other threads? I think some of my arguments fell by the wayside:

    – There was the issue of how Haldane’s Dilemma can provide us with a very strict definition of “kinds”. And, how that leaves YEC with great problems fitting two (or seven) of every “kind” on the ark.

    – Then there was the question of how YEC predicts the finding of double-telomeres in the center of chromosomes.

    – Probably something else too. It’ll come to me. Oh, yes, I was wondering how you reconcile your position that YEC can be falsified with other, prominent, YECs who explicitly state that it cannot.

  53. DQ August 27, 2007 8:37 am Reply

    The editor said:
    == Ancient Persian Proverb ==

    He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him.

    He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a student. Teach him.

    He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Wake him.

    He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise. Follow him.

    OK, Paul, I don’t know where to find positive evidence for a 6 day creation. Moreover, I know that I don’t know where to find it. Therefore, according to your proverb, I am a student.

    Please follow your own proverb and teach me. You don’t have to take up any more space on the blog. Just give me a link to the Hovind seminar that discusses positive evidence for a 6 day creation. Or a link to some other website that contains this.

    You know where this evidence is. And you know you know where it is. I am trying to obey your proverb and follow you. Please show me where to find this evidence. I have already gone looking for it and cannot find it. You are putting a stumbling block in my way by refusing to tell me where to find it.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: I did not mean to put a stumbling block there. The main web site for CSE is: http://www.drdino.com (This http://www.cseblogs.com is but a secondary site.)

    Creationists contend that there is excellent scientific evidence that the Earth is young. (See Dr. Hovind’s Seminar #1, “The Age of the Earth.” http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=440 )

    This video (2 hours) can also be viewed on-line for free at:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2932359112394939560
    http://video.aol.com/video-detail/id/2348487553

    Also, there is a good book on-line, free to download, “It’s a Young World After All” by Dr. Ackerman: http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/

    The Creation Research Society has over 600 member scientists; all contend that the Earth is only thousands of years old. http://www.creationresearch.org They have 2 periodic scientific publications.

    Two other organizations that have quality creation materials are:

    ICR (Inst. for Creation Research) http://www.icr.org.

    And AiG (Answers in Genesis) http://www.answersingenesis.org. AiG is the organization that has recently opened the big “Creation Museum” near Cincinnati, http://www.creationmuseum.org

    Besides working with the Hovinds’ ministry, I am also (independently) the editor of http://www.creationism.org where there are about 30 free books to download, over 350 articles, 1000 free images, plus MP3 files, videos, etc. I/we have at least some creation info in: Afrikaans, Albanian, Arabic, Indonesian, Bulgarian, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hokkien, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Oromo, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Siswati, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish, Tamil, Thai, Ukrainian, and Welsh. P.A. ]

  54. Millerfamily6 August 27, 2007 9:03 am Reply

    Timothy Fellows
    Said this on August 26th, 2007 at 11:42am:

    Kent Hovind visit update:
    ——————————————————————————–
    Thank you Mr. Fellows for speaking the truth so boldly. We need more men filled with the Holy Spirit to speak boldly as the Lord’s witness. I know that Chuck Baldwin appears to be one of these men and he is in Pensacola, FL. I feel sure that he knows of Dr. Hovind’s plight. I’m wondering if you, Mr. Baldwin, and other spirit-filled men of God can start putting pressure on the gov’t to speak these truths on Mr. Hovind’s behalf and in his defense…perhaps a letter writing campaign or picket campaign. I think I may write Mr. Baldwin a letter myself and see if he would be willing to stand up for his brother in Christ, if he’s not already doing so.

    You are saying exactly what I have been pondering for quite some time…that America is in trouble because she has forsaken the Lord God, and not obeyed his word and forsaken His ways. The churches have allowed false teachers and wolves in sheep’s clothing within their congregations which have led the churches into apostasy. May the Lord send revival in the hearts of His people to obey His word and may His churches begin to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints!

    Rejoicing in Mrs. Hovind’s blessing! Praise be to God our Father!

    Sincerely,
    Millerfamily6

  55. DQ August 27, 2007 9:14 am Reply

    The editor said: The Campus Minister is right. Actually, in Martin Luther’s time they had the opposite problem that we do today. There were some folks wanting to contend that “God is so powerful that He could have done it in one day” and the like. Luther replied (paraphrased) “Let us trust that the Holy Spirit has more wisdom than we do in these matters, and that it took six days, as the Scripture says.”

    The campus editor may very well be right. However, that is not positive evidence for a 6 day creation. That is just speculation on why god might have done it that way. I am looking for evidence, not an explanation of why.

    DQ, please do not come here looking to swing your verbal fists at any and all who disagree with you in your ignorance. Study, then come back and DEBATE from knowledge, please. P.A

    OK, I just finished watching the Age of the Earth seminar. There is nothing in there that discusses positive evidence for a 6 day creation. I contend that there is no such evidence. Now I ask that you please DEBATE, as you have asked me to do, and show me the evidence for a 6 day creation. I have done exactly what you asked. No more hand holding. Let’s DEBATE. Show me your evidence.

  56. Arne August 27, 2007 9:40 am Reply

    Dear DQ,

    In your recent post you accused Kent Hovind to be a liar. That is not fair. Why?
    1. You didn’t (I believe tell Kent first).
    2. You didn’t tell us what he lied about, and you didn’t prove that it was lie.

    To Philip-George you said that if the proof on a 6 day creation is based on the Bible, then it’s not scientific.

    In a sense I agree with you, because when it comes to God and miracles, modern science is defined in such a way to always omit these. That is actually sad, because that way we have ruled out one possible source of truth, or maybe even the Truth! So in considering a 6 day creation, you must consider the existence of God, and the signs of His finger in nature. Personally I find much in science that points towards a creation. But more important is that I find much in nature that points towards the truth that the Bible has told us. For example the Genesis flood does give a very good general explanation of the face of the earth as we see it today. So is it then possible to find a proof that the world was created in 6 days (and not 5…)?
    Yes. But the proof will not be public. Because I believe the only proof you can get is from the One who actually created the World. But that IS REALLY GOOD PROOF!!! Wow, first source information! But the only way you can get that is to get to know Him. The Bible will be of great help for that. Firstly you may very well find out if the Bible is reliable. You might search through the prophets and see if they came through, and this can be done scientifically! So, when you indeed find, that the Bible is indeed the Word of God, and you come to a personal knowledge of Him, then of a sudden you’ll find that it is as he has said. While this is subjective proof, then there is objective proof that the world was designed by a magnificent Designer-Creator. Just take a look!

    May God bless you in your search for the truth, and my prayer is that you’ll really find the Truth – Jesus!

    Sincerely,
    Arne

  57. BlessedOneOfGod August 27, 2007 9:40 am Reply

    Praise the Lord!

    And DQ, I like the editor’s suggestion. Go study before demanding answers that are under your nose. You really are in for a fight, aren’t yah? Please, this is not a place to fight, but to debate. There is a difference between the two.

  58. Istvan August 27, 2007 10:07 am Reply

    Just like a whole lot of YECs before me, I have come to the conclusion that arguing with full-blown evolutionists is a pointless procedure. From now on I will only talk to people who are willing to listen. But, for the very last time I would like to ask the evolutionists who visit this blog to tell me why you come here? Could you do that? So, please answer the following questions:

    #1 What do you come here [this blog] for?
    #2 Why do you wish to get rid of all that is taught by the Bible?
    #3 Why do you think that this world would be a better place without Christians and God?
    #4 What kind of a world do you fight for?

    Thanks a lot in advance.

    Istvan

  59. Timothy Fellows August 27, 2007 1:08 pm Reply

    about the six days of creation:

    We believe it because the Bible affirms it numerous times. Examples can be given such as the Yucca plant and the Yucca moth: each one was created on a separate day, but each one requires the other to survive (This disproves the day-age theory among others). Examples can be given how we still observe the seven day week, since creation, all over the world. However, when it comes down to the bottom line, creationists have faith in the absolute Bible, and evolutionists have faith in relative, ever-changing evolutionists who drink cold beer and then wax eloquent. Have you ever met a sober evolutionist? The two ideas are mutually exclusive. I’m thinking of offering a reward for a sober evolutionist if one can actually be found somewhere on the planet.

    Hebrews 11:3 “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

    Colossians 1:16-17 “For by him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”

    II Peter 3:3-5 “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth…”

    Do you believe the record left by the witnesses, which (record)is going to hold up in God’s court of Law one day as superior to all the doubts of the scoffers who weren’t there and refused to believe the witnesses? Who were the witnesses? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost who inspired the Scriptures — “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (II Peter 1:21).

    You will note that evolutionists freely use the terms: “We think”; “We suppose”; “Perhaps”; “We believe”; “We assume” ad infinitum. Don’t they know anything for sure? The Bible declares the truth without apology, without debate, without contradiction or hypothesis. The truth is absolute and is going to judge the world of those who “hold down the truth” ; who are “ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth”; who must confess ignorantly “what is truth?” The Bible is going to tell you, and if you don’t like it, there is only one place for you to go and speculate for millions and millions of years whether it’s really hot or not; and there’s no beer down there, not water either.

    The debate on creation is a debate on the Bible, because it is the greatest proof. Prove the Bible wrong, and you will get somewhere, but if the Bible is true, then evolution is a lie.

    Timothy Fellows TrueReligionWorks.com

    http://TrueReligionWorks.com

  60. djhouk August 27, 2007 1:37 pm Reply

    Timothy Fellows
    Said this on August 26th, 2007 at 11:42am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Kent Hovind is more the victim of the liberated American women….Women don’t judge reasonably, but emotionally, so women are most cruel when they are in power, because they step out of their created order of being a helpmeet to man….People need to stop reasoning like women and start proving their facts against Kent Hovind.

    Timothy, I will leave it the women on this blog to respond to your misogynistic comments.

    Kent Hovind is not a tax protestor….

    The judge in his trial called him a tax protestor. And, Kent seemed proud of the fact that he had not filed a personal tax return for the last 25 years. SOMETHING is going on there….

    What law has Kent broken, people? Stop the emotion, and start the logic. Kent Hovind has never refused to pay any tax he owed.

    Beg to differ here…Kent’s indictment clearly listed the laws Kent broke. The jury found him guilty of failing to pay the taxes he owed.

    Kent Hovind sent many letters to the IRS asking for advice, and they never answered even once! Who’s evading things here? Kent Hovind asked the US attorney Michelle Heldmyer three times (a year before his arrest) in affidavits to shew him any tax laws he was violating – no response (who’s evading here?)

    The problem wasn’t that Kent didn’t know or understand the tax laws (he claims a PhD after all). The problem was that he didn’t like to pay taxes. Every employer in the US is required to withhold payroll taxes. Most of them don’t have PhDs but they were able to figure it out. Remember that Kent had an adversarial relationship with the IRS; he had repeatedly sued the agency and several agents individually.

    Kent Hovind is not anti-American.

    On May 13, 1998, Kent Hovind, in a signed affadavit recorded with the Escambria County (FL) Clerk of Courts, renounced his US citizenship. Would you call that a PRO-American action?

  61. djhouk August 27, 2007 2:09 pm Reply

    Arne
    Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 9:40am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Dear DQ,

    In your recent post you accused Kent Hovind to be a liar. That is not fair. Why?
    1. You didn’t (I believe tell Kent first).
    2. You didn’t tell us what he lied about, and you didn’t prove that it was lie.

    Kent has consistently lied when it was advantageous for him to do so. A very good example is his bankruptcy filing in March, 1996. He filed statements, under penalty of purgery, that “he receives no income, has no expenses, owns absolutely no property”. The federal bankruptcy judge noted there were 3 vehicles registered in Kent’s name and that property records in Escambria County showed that he owned a home with a mortgage. The judge concluded that Kent “provided false information in his schedules and statement of affairs in connection with this case”. Basically, the judge called Kent a liar, and dismissed the petition as filed in bad faith.

  62. A.J. Massar August 27, 2007 2:47 pm Reply

    Dear DQ,

    Maybe you (and others) will read the following: Answers for Kids (we are all Kids anyway)at the next website:

    http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/459/

    God bless you,

    Ad Massar
    Netherlands

  63. GaryMurray August 27, 2007 4:26 pm Reply

    DQ
    Said this on August 25th, 2007 at 6:59am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    If god gets the praise for keeping Jo out of jail, does he also get the criticism for Kent being in jail?

    Did Jo pray harder than Kent?

    And if it’s “part of god’s plan” that Kent be in jail and Jo not, why praise him for Jo not going? He’s just carrying out his plan.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Look all, vain babblings from a scoffer, just what the Word of God warned us of!

    I’m going to take an imaginary stab at trying to admonish you, DQ, but since the Word of God isn’t in you I doubt you’ll accept the truth of my statement…

    God has a purpose for all things, yes, he receives equal glory and praise for Ms Jo’s stay, as he does for Dr Kent’s incarcaration. Countless many have been saved and led to Christ by Kent’s jail time, those who probably would have only chosen to continue living the life of sin which got them there in the first place. That just might have been part of God’s plan. We as Christians are able to accept that we are to be a living sacrifice for a Father who, without expectation of repayment, sent his son to be sacrificed for our sake, including your own. You’re probably assuming that since we are to be a living sacrifice that is the repayment we give to God, no… It isn’t an obligation, but a desire in a Christian life to want to give back to one who gave all for us. I dont’ expect you to understand it, because you can’t accept the Gospel.

    I am not rediculing your belief or unbelief, as it were; but I would appreciate less criticism from your side about our own belief, that which you know very little or nothing about, and is evident in your babblings.

    God has a purpose, for some it is martyrdom, for others it is increase in wisdom, wealth or happiness, either way all good things come together for those who love the Lord.

    I expect a comical witty response and honestly can’t wait. I like a good laugh. I think I could honestly speak for most creationists here when I say we will read statements made by your type, even argue from time to time, but take most with a grain of salt and know nothing more than words can be accomplished with in your defense and offense. I do have a great verse for you, Samphire and all the others out there who so drastically continue to disparrage Hovind and those creationists who believe like him…

    Proverbs 29:9
    9 If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest
    KJV

    We know the word of God is the final authority and wise in all things, its the foolish who fail to see that.

    God bless those seeking and in Christ Jesus,
    Gary Murray

  64. DQ August 27, 2007 5:04 pm Reply

    Paul-
    I watched the video “The Age of the Earth.” Hovind did not discuss positive evidence for a 6 day creation. He discussed the age of the earth (in addition to tearing a lot of things down, making him by your definition a child.) I had asked for evidence of 6 day creation, and, if you recall, I had already conceded that the earth is 6000 years old. So I’m not sure why you had me watch “The Age of the Earth.”

    Let’s dispense with the charade. There is NO evidence for a 6 day creation. You know this, but you have skirted the issue in a very dishonest manner, pretending that I am the one with the problem, stating that you do not want to have to “hold my hand” by pointing out the evidence that you continue to insist is out there. This is so ridiculous on its face I can’t believe you can say it with a straight face. What does Hovind speak 700 times a year for? Why do you have a radio show and a ministry? To impart information to people. Hovind’s whole raison d’etre is to educate people. It seems to be a very important part of your life as well. So to pretend that all of a sudden you have developed some kind of diversion to teaching people things, that you don’t want to “hold their hand,” is laughable.

    Come on, Paul, just admit it. It’s ok, everybody already knows. You have no scientific evidence for a 6 day creation. If you had scientific evidence for a 6 day creation, you would be screaming it from the rooftops, not hiding it somewhere inside a seminar entitled “The Age of the Earth.” The seminar would be entitled “Positive Evidence for a 6 Day Creation,” and might address the age of the earth as a side issue. You would not, as you have done here in a VERY dishonest matter, put 30 books and 350 articles online, and then pretend that the evidence is there for anyone who cares to wade through all of it. Admit it, Paul, or confirm by your silence that you are lying- there is no evidence for a 6 day creation in those 30 books and 350 articles, is there? You have implied that it is there, but everyone knows it is not. Everyone knows that if it were there you would be pulling it out and shoving it in my and Learned Hand’s and btodd’s and all the rest of our faces. It would be in huge font bold type on the home page of your website, not allegedly buried among 30 books and 350 articles. It would be your number one argument. And you know it. The only question is whether or not you are honest enough to admit it. What would Jesus do, Paul? Would he tell the truth? Or would he continue to evade the question?

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Since you watched 2 hours of video, I have 2 questions: Which of Dr. Hovind’s scientific points showing a young Planet Earth were the strongest; and is it now clear to you that our lives have purpose since creation is true? P.A. ]

  65. Jersey Girl August 27, 2007 5:10 pm Reply

    Timothy Fellows,

    You are blaming women for what happened to Kent? Do you realize how ludicrous that is? There are plenty of male judges who make mistakes, too, and they judge with emotions as well. Just do some research on all the people who have been falsely convicted of crimes and then exonerated years later and released. Many of those judges were men. I have known countless men who have made decisions based upon emotion (usually anger). I have also seen men make decisions based upon love that messed up their careers. We are all equally capable of being wrong and having poor judgement, unless you think every decision you have ever made in your life was a good one (I know you aren’t that arrogant).

    As far as your statement about how if women could do anything as good as a man could then they wouldn’t need special protections, I ask you this: Have you spoken with women who have recently served a tour in the military? I was one of them, and I did better than most of the men at PT (physical training) even on their scale. I was promoted ahead of my male counterparts because of my ability to learn soldiering skills quickly. I went on my share of ruck marches with the exact same amount of weight in my rucksack as the men, and I am 5’1″ and 110 lbs. I still kept up with them. One one march I carried the M249 for my squad (big, heavy machine gun) with four drums full of ammo (200 rounds each). The 249 weighed about 22 lbs, and each drum of ammo was 8 pounds. Many of the men fell out of the march, and they were only carrying a 7.5 lb M16 with one clip of 20 rounds. I did not fall out. I was selected by male NCOs (sergeants) to serve in leadership roles, even though I am “just a woman” because they trusted me and respected me. Not one single time did I get special treatment for being a female. I got “smoked” when I screwed up, yelled at when I did something stupid, sent on combat training missions, etc., just like the men. I slept in the same tent as my squad, pulled guard duty, patched up wounded soldiers, and on the list goes. There were 30 other women in my company who did all of this just like I did. I was also a better aircraft mechanic than the other men in my shop. A friend of mine was a truck mechanic and she was the best mechanic in her whole company. Women CAN do things just as good as a man, sometimes better! It all depends on what particular talents Yahweh has bestowed us with, because we are each unique.

    Brother Timothy, Yeshua loves you very much, but he loves me just as much as you. There is neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus. Before you use the writings of Paul to justify your insecurity about women, you should read a copy of his original writings that were written in Koine Greek. Many of his original meanings have been lost in translation because there are words in Koine Greek that do not translate well into English.

    Hold off your attacks on women before you ruin the blog with un Christian-like behavior. Remember, Yeshua loved everyone, even the sinful women who came to see him. He did not blame them, or curse them, or tell them to go home to their husbands. He treated them with kindness, gentleness, and love. He lifted up their broken spirits and showed them how much they matter to Him. Now is the time to rejoice in Jo’s freedom, not tear down every sister in Yeshua.

    Blessings of Yahweh,
    Rebecca

  66. darling August 27, 2007 6:33 pm Reply

    Istvan Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 10:07am:

    While I wouldn’t claim to be an “evolutionist” I have a feeling these questions are directed toward me.

    #1 To learn, to discuss, to try to help answer questions.
    #2 I don’t.
    #3 I don’t.
    #4 A better one.

    You’re welcome.

    Just one question in return:
    Regarding #s 2 and 3 – why do you make up opinions for me?

  67. Leann August 27, 2007 7:23 pm Reply

    Hi, Kent. Great news about Jo!!!!! Our family is rejoicing for her. We are still praying for you and delighted with your positive spirit, which is a testimony of your relationship with Christ. I am glad to see that you have been able to have a few visitors.

    Thanks for your invitation to visit Dinosaur Adventure Land. We have talked about that for many years. I can think of several people I could visit enroute to make that trip enjoyable, but I want to see you at the end, not enroute!

    You’re doing a great ministry where you are. I know God is pleased. Praying constantly.
    Steve, Leann, Philip, Laura K (Laura loves sending you mail.)

  68. EndTimes August 27, 2007 9:07 pm Reply

    Dear darling,

    Fair enough, perhaps it is a confusing sentence and could have been written better. Nevertheless, read the article for yourself and you will find that they found that “83% of the protein products” (phenotypic expression of the genetic material) were different which was surprising to the researchers. I believe that with the number of posts on this issue with the direct references given, any shortcomings on my use of English does not in any manner negate these unexpected findings. The issue of man/chimp evolution is getting further apart, not closer as expected. So, go take a look at this creation commentary on the article and other chimp man articles.

    Major protein differences

    Previous research in Nature on the Chimpanzee genome has also suggested that even small changes in genes can have big effects on proteins. Studies between human chromosome 21 and the equivalent Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 show 83 % of proteins are different,[3] and further deletions or insertions mean that 20% of proteins show major changes between chimpanzee and man.[4] The Times Chimp genome helps reveal secrets of man also reports at least 53 genes that are completely or partially absent from apes.

    http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=33

    (Intelligent Design comment)

    Overall genetic differences create a problem since the size of the genetic differences is growing. Type ‘DNA similarities between humans and chimpanzees’ into a google search engine and you will find estimates close to 99%. Growing evidence has determined that these estimates are just plain wrong. The divergence has been found to include indels of considerable length, in the comparison of the Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 and its counterpart Human Chromosome 21 found that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts.

    http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000603.html

    (Can you imagine this a civil conversation between people on different sides. Wow, that would be quite nice on this site as well but I guess I am looking for too much. Also, I really enjoy the use of direct evidence on this site instead of conjecture. This was quite refreshing to read and look at some evidence from opposing sides instead of how many insults can be fitted onto one page.)

    Chimps are not like humans
    [28 May 2004]

    Whole-chromosome comparison reveals much greater genetic differences than expected

    The vigorous debate on how different chimpanzees are from humans is fuelled by new data in this week’s Nature, as the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts (Nature 2004, 429:382-338).

    http://genomebiology.com/researchnews/default.asp?arx_id=gb-spotlight-20040528-01

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  69. EndTimes August 27, 2007 9:15 pm Reply

    Dear darling,

    I gave an outline of a basic definition for “kind” based on observations from the Scriptures and this is what I stated could be falsifiable. Remember, it was based on “All” flesh, “Different” flesh and “same” flesh which comes directly from the Bible. It was proposed for the interest of comment and discussion. I do not recall stating that “YEC” itself was “falsifiable” whether it is or it isn’t. But again, if my use of the good king’s English led someone to that conclusion, then that was not my intention. I was speaking specifically on the issue of “kinds” and what the Bible has to say about that issue.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  70. guy42 August 27, 2007 10:10 pm Reply

    Istvan,
    Since I am here and it is related I will attempt to, briefly, address your
    questions.
    1. I believe is addressed sufficiently above.
    2. Who is trying to get rid of all that is taught in the bible? I would not
    want to live in a world where people were actively trying to admonish the
    sermon on the mount. What I want to get rid of is the teaching that if
    anyone does say “you fool” they will actually and literally be banished
    to an eternity in hell.
    3. It is not a question of whether I think the world would be a better place
    without God, I don’t, in fact I think the world could very possibly be a
    better place with God. The unfortunate reality, as I see it, is the
    world is without God, and our feeble attempts to create God are all together
    damaging. For the most part I think following Christ’s teachings is a
    good thing, what I object to is attempting to reconcile these ideas
    with horrendous creature of the Old Testament. Rational thinking would
    make this world a better place, and the evidence exist I believe God (at
    least your sense of him) and rational thinking are mutually
    exclusive.
    4. I fight for a world where people do not fly planes into buildings in hopes
    of receiving 72 virgins, what did these poor girls do to deserve such
    punishment? I fight for a world where the fruits of science are used for
    the betterment of humanity rather than to drop bombs on people who believe in
    a different supernatural deity than we do. I fight for a world were very
    smart people can research stem cells and cure painful, crippling diseases;
    where people with those diseases which have not been cured are allowed to
    die with dignity, on their own terms, rather than suffering needlessly or
    being kept alive artificially, as part of God’s plan. A world where
    whatever goes on in my bed room between me and whatever other consenting
    adult(s) are present is none of your concern, where what goes on in your
    bed room is none of mine. A world where the decency of the human
    condition is not trumped by an antiquated book – which says I
    needn’t have that consent provided the woman lived in an “evil” city
    – when it comes to deciding morality. I fight, and yearn, for a
    world where the following is called out for being the trite nonsense it is
    rather than being embraced in the name of GOD:
    Kent Hovind is more the victim of the liberated American women, than
    the righteous law of the courts. Kent didn’t start this fight, they did.
    They were all women who put Kent Hovind away, and they never did show what
    law he broke — not once. Women don’t judge reasonably, but emotionally, so
    women are most cruel when they are in power, because they step out of their
    created order of being a helpmeet to man, to ruling over man, which thing
    the Bible forbids in the Old and New Testaments.
    Women judges, preachers, etc. are all a new thing in American history, as a
    result of rejecting God, the Bible, creation and the founders’ beliefs and
    convictions.
    ~Timothy Fellows
    You have asked these questions multiple times and I think have always received
    some form of answer, I hope this is satisfactory to you.

  71. Learned Hand August 27, 2007 10:42 pm Reply

    Timothy Fellows said,

    Kent Hovind is more the victim of the liberated American women, than the righteous law of the courts. Kent didn’t start this fight, they did. They were all women who put Kent Hovind away, and they never did show what law he broke — not once. Women don’t judge reasonably, but emotionally, so women are most cruel when they are in power,

    This is absurd. I often wonder if creationists don’t use an abridged bible, one with only nine commandments. When presented with an unpleasant or ideologically inconvenient fact, creationists’ universal response is to turn to false witness. Mr. Hovind’s crimes weren’t his fault, they were the government’s fault. The IRS’s fault. The court’s fault. Women’s fault. The honest, moral answer is that only one person is ultimately responsible for Mr. Hovind’s crimes – Kent Hovind. If you must look beyond the man himself to ascribe blame, look to his so-called friends who lapped up his dishonest ministry and never once worked up the moral courage to say, “Brother, that’s not right. What you’re saying about taxes, that’s not true. What you’re saying about the speed of light coming from a moving source, that’s not true. What you’re saying about the Lucy bones being found hundreds of feet apart, that’s not true. Let’s be honest, rather than making things up to reach our goal.” If one of Mr. Hovind’s supporters had truly supported him, and remonstrated with him when he began running in front of the truth rather than being led by it, he might be a free man today.

    Let’s step through your false witness here:

    They were all women who put Kent Hovind away

    Not true, and a bizarre accusation. Any prosecution, even a simple one such as Mr. Hovind’s, is a team effort. There were men involved in the prosecution, probably at every step. The person ultimately responsible for the prosecution, United States Attorney Gregory Miller, is clearly not a woman.

    and they never did show what law he broke — not once

    An appalling lie. (Where are the creationists, when someone tells an absurd lie like this? Why do the self-appointed guardians of morality never step in and say, “Brother, I love you, but that’s just not true. We shouldn’t tell lies.”? It seems that it’s only those of us who oppose creationism who care enough to speak the truth, even on these ancillary matters.) He was shown what laws he violated in the indictment, and in the final judgment. You can read the indictment at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_of_America_v_Kent_Hovind_and_Jo_Hovind – look for key phrases, like “All in violation of Title 26 United States Code, Section 7202.” It is an egregious lie to say that no one ever told Mr. Hovind what law he broke. The fifty-eight counts of the indictment are quite specific.

    Women judges, preachers, etc. are all a new thing in American history, as a result of rejecting God, the Bible, creation and the founders’ beliefs and convictions.

    Only if by “new thing” you mean “since long before anyone living was born.” Women have been judges in this country since the 19th century. I suppose women’s suffrage does contravene the founders’ intent. . . . but then, so does suffrage for black Americans, and the emancipation of the slaves. Thank god times changed.

    What law has Kent broken, people? Stop the emotion, and start the logic.

    Outrageous hypocrisy. Read the indictment, which lists the laws he was accused of breaking. Read the judgment, which shows that a jury of his peers found, on the evidence presented, that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. “Logic” is not making things up as you go along, or refusing to deal with the facts. The logic here is that Kent Hovind broke the law, and was convicted for doing so.

    Kent Hovind sent many letters to the IRS asking for advice, and they never answered even once!

    The IRS has no responsibility to provide free legal advice, especially to those who are clearly not interested in hearing or heeding answers they don’t like. A precocious child could have explained to Mr. Hovind that what he was doing was illegal, but I don’t think he needed an explanation. Mr. Hovind isn’t so stupid that he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong. Writing to the IRS, knowing that it’s not their job to give you advice and so likely won’t reply at all, does nothing to excuse his wrongdoing. It’s no more an excuse than if you wrote to the FBI insisting that they explain to you why counterfeiting or money laundering is wrong, then did so because they never wrote back.

    Why would it take ten months to release the transcript ? Could it be that this judge is altering the transcript? Do all cases take this long? Why this one only?

    Is it Christian to libel a stranger because you don’t like them? This is an unfounded accusation, and reflects poorly on your character (and the character of the other creationists here, who have nothing at all to say about your ill-tempered, unfounded, and churlish accusations). Ten months is not an unreasonable time for transcripts to be pending; it would depend on how many transcripts there are, who the reporter is, and what else the reporter has on his or her plate at the time. Nor do judges have access to trial transcripts, and even if they did, the original tapes and recordings are securely stored. You are telling nasty, baseless and false stories about the judge.

    Your strange and bigoted rant about people “reasoning like women” demonstrates that you aren’t reasoning at all. You’re simply making up stories and spreading slander and libel, and that’s reprehensible. I can’t say it’s un-Christian, though, based on the examples set by the Christians on this board.

  72. Learned Hand August 27, 2007 10:49 pm Reply

    CDog said,

    Based on the amount of helium still present in the earth’s crust versus the amount of uranium and lead, the earth’s age is limited to about 6000 years. The idea of accelerated nuclear decay is proposed in light of the findings. This is the idea that at certain cataclysmic events in the past (e.g. the Fall and the Flood) radioactive nuclei have broken down at a much faster rate than at present procesess.

    In other words, the math and the physical evidence don’t match our preconceptions. So we made up some new numbers to replace the empirically proven constants, so that the math will say what we want it to say. You forgot to mention that the made-up new numbers aren’t consistent with any other physical evidence, unlike the dating methods used by actual scientists, which are cross-consistent. a

    JR Turner,

    None of those cases are relevant to Mr. or Mrs. Hovind’s case. It appears to me that you haven’t even read them, given how out-of-context and irrelevant those quotations are. Even if the excerpts you regurgitated were relevant to the issues at hand, not a single one of them would have been binding on the trial court. Mr. Hovind was convicted in the 11th Circuit, not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, or 10th. You missed the only circuit that matters to Mr. Hovind! Couldn’t you find any irrelevant, out-of-context snippets to snag from the 11th Circuit?

  73. Learned Hand August 27, 2007 11:03 pm Reply

    Arne, here is a quick and simple list of lies Mr. Hovind has told in the course of his ministry: http://www.skeptictank.org/hovind.htm

    There are others. Here is one giving some detail about a lie he told regarding sunflowers and humans:
    http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/HovindLie.html

    Here is one of my favorites, regarding a lie Hovind repeated on more than one occasion about the discovery of Lucy’s remains:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

    I note that last link indicates that Hovind said he’d correct his tapes to remove this dishonest remark. Does anyone know if that’s happened?

    Here is another: “Oklahoma City bombing was done on purpose. Did you know the Federal Government blew up their own building to blame it on the militias and to get rid of some people that weren’t cooperating with the system?” (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind)

    And another: “Did you know that the black suited organization that attacked the Koresh cult was a United Nations task force?” (same source)

    It was a lie for Mr. Hovind to deny having a residence, and it was a lie for him to deny ownership of personal property during his bankruptcy proceedings.

    Here are some others:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#Controversial_remarks

  74. Paulus August 27, 2007 11:54 pm Reply

    [Istvan Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 10:07am:
    Just like a whole lot of YECs before me, I have come to the conclusion that arguing with full-blown evolutionists is a pointless procedure. From now on I will only talk to people who are willing to listen. But, for the very last time I would like to ask the evolutionists who visit this blog to tell me why you come here? Could you do that? So, please answer the following questions:

    #1 What do you come here [this blog] for?
    #2 Why do you wish to get rid of all that is taught by the Bible?
    #3 Why do you think that this world would be a better place without Christians and God?
    #4 What kind of a world do you fight for?
    ]

    I think this applies to me to because I don’t believe in the 6000 years, so:

    #1 – because I wanted to learn about the fate of our Christian brother Kent Hovind (and not necessarily discuss evolution).

    #2 – I don’t. But obviously there’s much disagreement among YEC and other Christians about what is taught by the Bible.

    #3 – I don’t. (But maybe a better place without religious fanatism?)

    #4 – A world where people of different religion, or non-religion, can live in peace together.

  75. Ekkman August 28, 2007 12:41 am Reply

    darling
    Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 8:31am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Ekkman Said this on August 25th, 2007:

    ““…Judge Overton contended that the theory of creation could not be a part of science because he thought it could be derived only from a religious document… ”
    That is akin to saying that because evolution is the basis of the first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto then it could not be true or be part of science.”

    Emphasis added.
    (In other words, no, it’s not.)

    Darwin reasoned/concluded a lot of things that turned out to be disagreeable. (paraphrased)

    So what? Darwin isn’t a deity. Like every good scientist he got some things wrong, he got some things right. And, like every good scientist, it’s their work, not their personal opinions, that are important.

    Which is why “Darwinism” and “Evolutionism” are nothing but strawmen, based on ideas that were discarded a hundred years ago.

    Ekkman said:
    darling, You cut so much of my post out above that it doesn’t make sense now and by the way, neither did you comment. Make sense, that is!
    I can go with your comments though. “Darwin isn’t a deity.” I agree.
    All of us are bias, it is just according to what bias that we are biased with.
    …”Darwinism” and “Evolutionism” are nothing but strawmen…” And they are being burnt up by the creationists. Straw burns, you know. As does wood, hay, and stubble.
    You keep forgetting that Darwin wasn’t a scientist, he had a theology degree. He was a minister, call him “Pastor Darwin”.???

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  76. Ekkman August 28, 2007 1:13 am Reply

    DQ
    Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 5:26am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Editor:

    Wow, it is really sad when Philip George 1974 can grasp a simple concept more quickly than you can. Even he realizes that all the evidence in the world for a young earth still does not prove a 6 day creation. And yet, here you are, still babbling on about evidence for a young earth.

    Ekkman said:
    DQ,
    I read all of your posts asking for proof of a 6 day creation. I guess that I am slow at times. I cannot figure out why it seems so important to you that you are proven a 6 day creation. I didn’t know that you could “prove” something like that since it happened in the past and can’t be repeated by us. The bible tells us that we know it by faith. I know that is a word that you don’t seem to like. But I also know that faith in important in all of our lives. We do many things by faith as I said before. You have faith in all kinds of things that go on around you daily. You have faith in your friends or they probably aren’t your friends, or in your employer or teacher or you would probably be looking for a new one. The faith that man doesn’t have is in God unless he is born again then he walks in that faith or I should say he is called to walk in it.
    Even if a 6 day creation could be proven to you then you still won’t believe. You have shown that by your illustrations. If a man could be shown a 6 day creation, that still doesn’t show him that he is a sinner in rebellion against a holy God. Proving a 6 day creation still won’t prove a young earth to you either. I still don’t get it. Please explain your concept deeper for me and what will be accomplished through it. Thanks!
    Can’t you see it now. “Wow, I have been shown that there was a 6 literal day creation, I think I will get saved!” No, it doesn’t work that way. I am sure that there are plenty here on this blog who are praying for you, that your eyes will be opened. God is a God of love and he died in his humanity for you as he did for me. The all powerful, all knowing God actually became a man to set us free from sin. That is incredible! I read a lot of comic books when I was a kid and they came up with all types of far out stories but I don’t believe anyone in their wildest imagination could come up with a scenario that an all mighty God would become like one of the creatures that he created and be their servant and saviour. That is a mind blower, to say the least. There are have been millions of radically changed lives when they met the Lord of glory.
    He loves you and he is calling people to himself. Don’t put him off if you sense that conviction, that call, he is as near as your heart. And it does seem like you are by the way you are fighting. What exactly are you fighting anyway?
    In your mind, go back to the days of Jesus. They are hollering, “Crucify him, crucify him.” Why? He did do a lot of evil things such as heal the deaf, the blind, the lame, the dumb, raised people from the dead, fed thousands with a few fish and bread. He delivered people from devils, preached peace and deliverance to the captives. I can see why so many hate him. He loved righteousness and truth and hated sin. He was a pretty bad fellow???

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  77. Ekkman August 28, 2007 1:27 am Reply

    I believe that this little story fits evolution to a tee or at least in many ways.

    “Western Book of the Dead

    “In the beginning-i.e., before the beginning- there was NOTHING. And MATTER came out of NOTHING. And MATTER was CHAOS. Strangely, and for no reason whatsoever, CHAOS started to change. Simplicity begat complexity, randomness begat order and, most peculiar of all, inanimate MATTER begat organic MATTER.
    Many, many, many years passed and quite by chance organic MATTER developed in a strange direction. It became more and more complex, and then for no apparent reason at all, it became conscious of itself. It called consciousness MIND and it gave itself a name and that name was MAN.

    Now MAN equipped with MIND found that MIND played peculiar tricks on him. He found that instead of just accepting himself as a part of MATTER, he had a longing for significance, a desire to live for a purpose. Instead of being pushed about by blind chance, he wanted to direct his own affairs. He also found that there was a state of being that was entirely satisfactory and he called it LOVE.
    Man kept on searching for purpose and meaning and after a while strange rumors began to spread- rumors that spoke of a Creator-God who was LOVE, who had created man in His own image. Many men believed the rumors. It gave their lives meaning; it told them that the universe was not purposeless after all. Inspired by hope, these believers started to write, to paint, and to chip away at stone. Some of these craftsmen were extremely skillful. They seemed to be expressing the longings and aspirations of all men. To these exceptional pieces of craft a name was given, and that name was ART. And the men who wrote them, painted them, or chipped them were called ARTISTS. And all their ART said: MAN IS SIGNIFICANT.
    It was also rumored that the Son of LOVE became a MAN, showed them how to live, then died. A legend has it that the Son of LOVE came back from the dead and disappeared in a cloud. In some parts of the western world the BELIEVERS of this legend spread a very influential form of the message: MAN IS SIGNIFICANT.

    For many years this state of affairs existed, but MAN became restless. Was it so? Was MAN a creation of LOVE? Why should he simply believe a rumor? Had anyone used his REASON- a very special activity of MIND that had proved to be successful in understanding MATTER- to find out if the rumor was true? Did the rumor actually correspond to what really was? A thorough investigation began and it lasted many years.
    After an era of investigation MAN came to certain conclusions:
    (1) The rumors were certainly false. REASON found no EVIDENCE to verify the God hypothesis. God, they said, was the result of wishful daydreams, a figment of the IMAGINATION- which itself was an early aberration in primitive MAN, now happily under the control of REASON. And if the rumor of God was false, so surely was the complex rumor about His Son.
    (2) MAN was not some mysterious higher being who was significant. He was, on the contrary, of no importance at all- simply a complex product of cause and effect. A meaningless piece of MATTER on a larger but equally meaningless piece of MATTER called EARTH. He had emerged from primordial slime and was really neither more or less than that.

    At first nothing changed. But a few years passed and a few perceptive men began to notice a difference. Music didn’t seem to sound the same, paintings didn’t look the same, and books didn’t read in the same way. Some people started to complain, but the ARTISTS- always very honest, transparent people- simply said, “We are interpreting REALITY. If REALITY is meaningless then we must imitate that meaninglessness. You must not give yourself airs, you are nothing. You are a cosmic bit of protoplasm condemned to death on this planet.” At that, the critical group stopped harping and started to say how beautiful the NEW ART was. They didn’t want to use the word beautiful because everybody knew it didn’t mean anything, but it had been around for so long why not use it anyway?
    Then, too, a few perspective men noticed changes in the way men and women behaved. Once they had loved each other. And their LOVE was thought to be a reflection of God who was LOVE. But now there were just SEX-liaisons of the moment. And families began to die as families and the children were left to the whims of the court. And men called these liaisons LOVE, though they knew the word didn’t mean anything.

    All sorts of startling consequences followed. Some men said, “If MAN is only a machine caught up in the vast mechanism of nature, why not treat him accordingly?” So the MANIPULATORS set to work and used men just like other objects of nature. And behold there came a very efficient system called UTOPIA, and the occupants were called NECROPHILES. Of course, it was really nothing new, for the MANIPULATORS had picked up their model from the ants, a natural group of beings who years previously had attained the perfect state of affairs. Another group of men resisted UTOPIA. They said, “In spite of all that REASON has proved we will continue to believe that our longings and aspirations are meaningful.” So they tried to forget their DESPAIR (a feeling that MAN experienced when he wanted to hope and did hope knowing that it was hopeless) by taking chemicals and behaving like animals, living for each successive moment and trying hard to make each moment pleasurable. Most of them got tired of playing these games after a while and disposed of themselves in various ways. Some went to DEATH, some to PSYCHEDELIA (a beautiful country with a synaesthetic landscape), some to NIRVANA. Some even went to UTOPIA. And so nonsense was worshipped instead of sense (they called it absurd). Reason was abandoned- because, you see, it couldn’t give answers to the really big questions after all. In its place came UNREASON (they call it irrationality). And MORALITY was abandoned- because that peculiar ability to distinguish between the GOOD and the BAD had been popular once, but that was when the rumors of God were rife. The GOOD was God’s holy character and had to be obeyed. The BAD was disobedience or revolt against the GOOD. But the GOOD and BAD departed with REASON and God. And now there was no longer TRAGEDY- only MISERY.

    SO MAN ceased to be MAN- a rational, moral creature, a being who once transcended the causality of nature. Instead he became a meaningless, enigmatic machine-like piece of MATTER. Even the MANIPULATORS who controlled UTOPIA creased to be MAN in the old sense of the word. After denying their mannishness for so long, they finally lost it and so became the most terrifying animal on the face of the earth.
    The old rumors still persist- found in the outlying regions and small cliques of NON-CONFORMISTS in UTOPIA- that LOVE is. Some still say that MAN is. But these are the same ones who say no MAN ever really died, that even the ancients are alive (some well, some not) and living in ANOTHER WORLD. Such rumors are being suppressed whenever they are found.”

    This document was brought in by a foreign correspondent.

    What I want you to see from this little document is how we are headed down the same road. We are seeking to deny God, pretending homosexuality is an alternate lifestyle, justifying killing unborn babies for social convenience. In turn, we shall see as Jesus predicted the worst time in history is ahead of us because we have ignored his voice and are doing our own thing, whatever that may be. There is a payday for all of us someday soon. So as the document says, “Man has become the most terrifying animal on earth.” Mankind is God’s highest creature and we act lower than animals because of sin.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  78. Ekkman August 28, 2007 1:44 am Reply

    DQ,
    Here is a link with over 75 of Kent Hovind’s videos on their page. It would be good to watch all of them or at least it couldn’t hurt. I have watched many of them but not all yet. I think you will get a lot of insight from the time you spend watching them. I have already given my thoughts on the “6 day” question so I am not telling you to go there looking for that, it would not help you anyway. Just as the evolutionists’ cause is not hurt when they go from millions of years to billions of years or it happened so fast that you didn’t see it happen. Evolution is still a “scientific” fact, so to speak. That is to those who don’t have the eyes to see or the ears to hear.

    http://www.3bible.com/video.php

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  79. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 28, 2007 3:16 am Reply

    Arne,
    I don’t quite have the time to do it for you but there is probably a lot to read into the French Revolution’s/ Napoleonic attempts at a metric/ 10 day week – this was an age of scientific enlightenment don’t forget. There is also a story I heard that the human heart naturally slows down every seventh day – I’ll run this by some cardiologists this week.

    But just the fact that the whole world observes a 7 day week means nothing. What could it possibly mean? like the date on a newspaper – what could it possibly mean?

    I’ll say that again, the entire world observes this idiosyncracity of a 7 day week for no apparent reason at all.

    So what evidence is there that ‘the Word of God’ created Heavens [plural] and Earth in 6 days?

    ….Arne, you are sitting inside of a parable. You could be screaming from a roof top but all the deaf man in the street would perceive is a strange kind of dance and a cupping of your hands across the same type of mouth he uses to stuff his face full of God given food which he uses to sustain a body of flesh from which he lives to blaspheme his Creator.

    Like sea shells on the tops of just about every mountain range on earth.

    Like insects too large to survive, let alone fly, in a 21% oxygen atmosphere – means nothing.

    Like cave paintings of dinosaurs/ dragons – means nothing.

    Like Marco Polo writing about dragons alive in the far east – means nothing.

    Like a lost squadron 200 feet beneath the ice with thousands of “annual” layers of ice that formed above them in only 40 odd years?

    Juridical darling,
    I really aren’t being lazy, but seeing you have been doing a ring around could you contact a good yeshiva and talk to some scholars about this. were the “clean” animals 7’s or 14’s [7×2] ie. a breeding stock of 14-1=13, or 7-1=6, [one clean animal had to be sacrificed after the rescue mission]

    thus my personal retrodicition [I didn’t borrow this from anyone via anywhere]; you should be able to graph degrees of variation and speciation against life span against clean or unclean by category. For an equivalent life span there should be either 3 times or 7 times more variation and speciation among the clean animal kinds than the unclean animal kinds. and when we have the graphs will we publish in a theological journal or a secular scientific one?

    which of the two group is really more interested in looking at the anomalies of life on earth?

    ps. I really do respect how the Hasidic or Orthodox Yeshiva students and teachers try to delve into the bible. I was not being flippant.

    we can return to the top of the accumulation and expression of presumed mutational errors later, God willing.

  80. Elethiomel August 28, 2007 4:08 am Reply

    The Editor Suggests:

    “Or … you could study. Watch Dr. Hovind’s Seminar #1, “The Age of the Earth” then you’d know. ”

    Now it’s been a long time since I saw these, so you’ll have to remind me. Was this the Seminar where Hovind said the speed of light from a car was the speed of light plus the speed of the car? Was this the seminar where hovind said that rocks are dated by the fossils and fossils are dated by the rocks (they’re not)… was this the seminar where Hovind said that the Hyrax is the same as the Hyracotherium? Is this the seminar where Hovind says that correlation implies causation in the teaching of evolution and crime rates? (there’s a better link between crime rates and sales of ice cream than this). Is this the seminar where he spouts his blatant misunderstandings of thermodynamics? How about this being the one where he confuses accumulation of error in the earth’s spin, with the earth’s spin slowing down? How about this being the one where he incorrectly deals with lunar recession rates?

    Sorry, but this seminar is absolutely chock full of errors. I’ve seen it (I’ve seen all of them) and the simple errors in the science were quite amazing to behold, and that’s before we even take a single look at any of the errors he makes on evolution.

  81. DQ August 28, 2007 6:45 am Reply

    Hi istvan:

    #1 What do you come here [this blog] for?

    I enjoy the conversation. I like talking to people who disagree with me. I like to hear different points of view that challenge my beliefs. If I can defend my beliefs from attacks by people who disagree, it makes me more confident in my beliefs.

    #2 Why do you wish to get rid of all that is taught by the Bible?

    I don’t. I never said I did. Why would you assume this? There’s some nice stuff in the bible. Let me ask you this: Do you believe that the story of the Good Samaritan is literally true? Do you think it actually happened?

    #3 Why do you think that this world would be a better place without Christians and God?

    Once again, I never said this. I think the world would be a nicer place if christians actually practiced what Jesus taught. I look at this blog and see so much dishonesty, and it makes me sad because christians have the potential to do a lot of good. But they get so caught up in victimhood, crying “poor me,” whining about government oppression, like Kent and a lot of the people on this blog, and they completely lose sight of Jesus. You people think you live under an oppressive government? Try living under Roman occupation. Jesus had it a million times worse than you do, and did you see him whining and complaining and fighting about it? No, he did what he came to do, feeding hungry people, ministering to the sick and the outcasts of society. When it came time to pay his oppressive taxes he paid his oppressive taxes, because his purpose in coming to earth was not to protest the government. His purpose was to help out people who needed a hand, and paying taxes kept him out of trouble long enough to do that. The taxes he was forced to pay were oppressive, but concentrating on fighting the taxes would have distracted him from what he really wanted to do. If only Kent would have learned that lesson from Jesus. What good is he doing in jail? He used to be able to spread his (warped) point of view all over the country. His greed has made him lose sight of what is really important to him, and has kept him from doing what he obviously loves to do and is very good at. If the people on this blog would put half as much time into feeding the hungry and visiting the sick as they do coming up with reasons they shouldn’t have to pay their taxes, they could do a lot of good in the world. It’s sad to see so much potential wasted. What would Jesus say about that? What did he say about laying up treasures on earth versus laying up treasures in heaven? If these people would concentrate on storing up heavenly treasures as much as they concentrate on protecting their earthly treasures, the world would be a better place. And in the end, Kent ended up losing all of the earthly treasure he worked so hard to protect. He should have listened to what Jesus had to say about earthly treasure, and all the people on this blog complaining about the government would be wise to learn the easy way what Kent had to learn the hard way.

    #4 What kind of a world do you fight for?

    One in which the truth is spoken and recognized as such. In other words, the opposite of this blog.

  82. guy42 August 28, 2007 7:30 am Reply

    (EDITOR: I intendended to post this prior to my last post, apparently it got lost in the shuffle. sorry for the confusion)

    Dear Jersey Girl,

    You — among others — have asked why evolutionist are here arguing with Christians and trying to convince believers to become unbelievers. I think you misinterpret the intentions of the majority of those that are here arguing. For the most part there is no intent to turn anyone away from Christianity or God at all, but simply to reject pseudo science and promote rationality. It is true that we feel very strongly that science is important and that it should be spread succinctly and correctly. Science is a foundation which makes life much more manageable and enjoyable, and i would hate to see that taken away from children.

    I know that your focus here is to follow the trails that Dr. Hovind and his family are enduring, and to show your support. I appreciate that and I think I speak for all the evolutionist on here in that we do not mean any offence, or look to hurt any ones feelings or sensibilities. However, the nature of Dr. Hovinds work makes this site more than that by default (indeed it is called Creation Science Evangelism). Now as I said science is important, and fortunately there are people who are not willing to stand idly by as it is assaulted. Kent Hovind routinely attempts to have evolutionary science removed from the classroom. Science is the corner stone of progress, and however incomplete, the Theory of Evolution is a corner stone of science. Unless a better scientific explanation is offered; evolution must be taught, lest we reverse all the progress we have made in this country, and watch as we are eclipsed in all areas of life by the rest of the world. You may disagree with what I am saying here and I will not try to convince you otherwise, as that is not the point. My point here is that we are not simply here to disillusion you from Christianity; but that we feel very strongly that we have a vested interest in preventing the spread of anti-evolutionary teachings. We are not arguing with other folks of other religions because they are not peddling false science; so despite the fact that I am just as certain that their religions are nothing more than superstitions, it is not a concern for me. To be sure if you can find any other site — under whatever guise — that teaches the earth is 6000 years old, or that evolution has not occurred, that allows for outsider comments, it will be ripe with rational minded people posting the same arguments you see here. So please believe me when I say this not an anti-Christian agenda.

    You say that we are simply preaching and not educating because “we have no interest in being taught evolution” (I find your language here most unfortunate), I disagree with you here, I think anyone can be taught no matter their intentions. What they do with that knowledge is a different story. That said, I am quite happy to leave any Christian to their beliefs, provided their beliefs do not manifest themselves into a political agenda to remove science from classrooms, or to legislate morality ect. That said let me remind you that the evolutionist posters were very acquiescing to the request to curtail the evolution debate, until Creationism slowly worked it’s way back up to the predominate topic in this comment section. So please do not take offense to the debates, as there are clearly Christians here that are just as interested in a lively debate on the topic [indeed it was a creationist whom is the only one here who behaved so poorly as to be suspended from this blog], I know Kent wouldn’t have us turned away. Or maybe they are just trying to save our souls, but surely that is worth it.

    Perhaps the difference with the Darwin Fish is that those cars which display the Jesus Fish are not vandalized as a matter of routine?

    I guess my, very long winded, point is don’t let the debate post get you down maybe just use the comments section to drop a message of support and and ignore us heathens, I suspect that by now you can identify our comments by our handles and move on to the next post. Keep your chin up, and take heart in the fact that you have God on your side.

  83. Millerfamily6 August 28, 2007 7:35 am Reply

    In regards to Dr. Hovind’s plight, please read this important article:

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

    I hope this means there is hope for Brother Kent in his appeal. May the Lord do a mighty work in this nation and put down his enemies’ plans! May the Lord soon set our brother free! May the Lord reveal to His children more and more truth (open our eyes Lord) and may His people be the salt and light in this nation, once again! May the Lord open our eyes to our complacency and bring repentance and revival; may He open our eyes to the territory that we’ve given up to the enemy and may He grant us His power to take it back!

    Vote for Ron Paul; he will put an end the IRS! He is the only candidate that makes sense and his integrity appears to be impeccable!

  84. DQ August 28, 2007 7:44 am Reply

    The editor said: Since you watched 2 hours of video, I have 2 questions: Which of Dr. Hovind’s scientific points showing a young Planet Earth were the strongest; and is it now clear to you that our lives have purpose since creation is true?

    None of them were the strongest because they were all outright lies. Rather than type out responses that you will never read, I will provide you with a link that demolishes all of his points scientifically, that you will never read.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

    There are specific refutations for every single point in “The Age of the Earth.”

    This may be hard to fathom, but I don’t need the validation of a bunch of insane goat herders who lived in the bronze age for my life to have purpose!

    [EDITOR’S NOTE:
    Oh, good. Problem solved. No debate is needed then. I understand where you are coming from. P.A. ]

  85. hansjgloetzner August 28, 2007 8:12 am Reply

    Praise GOD. Your family and ministry are in are prays. We loved your Creation Boot Camp. My son Hanz and cousins TJ, Chas, Clay, and Cally tell everyone they talk to about God about you and the things they learned from your seminars DVDs and from there visit to the most incredible park [D.A.L]. thank you for the personal time you spent with them. Hanz, and Tj love to tell people that you took the time to call them and answer all there questions. I believe the judge is dragging her feet and not releasing your transcripts because she knows her decision will be over ruled. I have personally learned so much from you that I always have answer to give for the hope I have. Even when I am not asked to my wife’s chagrin but, not in a disappointing way. may GOD bless you, family, and the judge.

  86. adriennegilbert August 28, 2007 8:45 am Reply

    Praise the Lord! This has been what I have been praying for ever since her sentence. I knew God would let her stay home, but I didn’t know how. And we haven’t gotten an update in a while. The Lord seemed to say to me this morning that there would be an update and Jo would be fine. This is so exciting! Hang in there, Dr. Dino! God’s work is becoming more evident!

    “I will not boast in anything…but I will boast in Jesus Christ!”
    -“How Deep the Father’s Love”

    Adrienne

  87. Istvan August 28, 2007 9:28 am Reply

    All Concerned,

    Thanks a lot for your answers to my little questionnaire. It is alway interesting to find out actually what is going on in people’s heads. Finding it out this way is more scientific, if I may use the word in this context, than making bold statements like ‘You people here are all this and that, and you do this and that, and don’t do this and that.’. How do you know what people do when they are not replying to your posts? How can you tell what is going on in their heads without asking?

    Some of you guys do not believe in what the Bible says, but have 100% faith in what scientists and federal judges say. I say have it your way. But how about doing a bit of research? When I was first confronted with the teachings of the Bible, I did my research. It took me some time to convince the rational Istvan in me that what the Bible says is actually the truth. It was some fight, I can tell you that. I would approach my pastor, my Christian brothers and sisters and of course my wife, and I would ask them questions till I got dizzy, and they always gave me an answer based on their belief. For some reason they were able to convince me. After about 3,000 questions, I was still not totally convinced. There was this 1.4% that did not want to believe. And then my wife started praying for me. I did not know about it. And there it was. This urge to ask another 3,000 questions to convince myself was gone. My quest to find evidence that supports every line in the 66 books of the Bible finally ended. Just in time. Now there is faith instead of questions. I was one of those people who wanted scientific evidence before accepting Jesus Christ. But that just does not work. Jesus first, then science.

    I do not think I can contribute to this debate. It is a waste of time. No evolutionist will ever convince me, and I guess I will never be able to convince a single evolutionist. I believe in the Bible, and yes, I believe every word of it as is. There is a lot I do not understand, but for some reason I have no doubts about everything in it being the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I guess that is faith. A gift from God given to me just because I asked for it. A lot of my Christian brothers and sisters asked for it, and so did my wife, because I was getting on their nerves. I believe, therefore I am a Christian.

    Anyway, since a lot of you think that sophisticated people in the 21st century should know a lot about science, I feel obliged to ask one more questions, or maybe two.

    #1 If all the knowledge in the universe is 100%, what percentage do you think scientist possess today in all branches of science?

    #2 If your answer is not 100%, do you not think that perhaps there is enough scientific evidence in the remaining percentage that you do not know that may prove the existence of God and the absolute truth of the Bible?

    One more point. The Bible is sort of a confession. God admits in it that ‘I did it.’. He tells you how He did it, well, at least in what order, and that He found everything good. And He tells you what went wrong, how it went wrong, that there is a situation, and how that situation can be solved. Now, you can believe that completely, you can say that some point of the confession are just mere allusions, and you can say the whole thing is baloney.

    But, consider this. If you accept God and His Word, what the Bible says, you have a reason for the existence of the world, you personally, and everybody else around you. If you accept His Word, you should start living as the Good Book says. The message of the Bible in a nutshell is that there is more after this life, and what is going to happen to your soul after your body stops functioning depends on how you live your life. That is the reason for your existence. The Bible tells you where you come from, and where you are going. It gives you a manual to life. Accept it, study it, live it, and you will be a winner.

    Now, the other option. Without God, His Word, the Bible, you have nothing. No thing. Matter out of nothing for no reason, and then life out of matter for no reason, and then billions of years later people flying around in space shuttles for nothing. And of course when a person dies, well, that is it, gone, as if never existed. And without God we shall all disappear. But we can leave our footprints in this world, do nice things kids will remember for a few hundred years, but those kids will be goners, too, in time. So why not blow up the world today, for it will blow itself up in a few billion years anyway? Sure. Why not? Who is going to punish for it? Nobody. Since there is nobody out there, you should not be afraid. In fact you can and should do cool stuff as long as you can, depending on your temper. Write poetry, paint something on a church wall, invent something nice, so do whatever you wish to do. The problem with that is that once you are gone, you cannot remember the cool stuff you did in your life. Because you will no longer exist. There will be a point in the future without you, your family, your loved once and the planet called Earth. So, if you ask the materialist philosopher, he will tell you to do cool stuff, while you can, even if it is pointless. Others might not be as nice as you are, and they might want to blow things up, kill people, rape women, get money, power and everything they wish, because you only live once. Get what you can. Today. There may not be tomorrow. Absolutely. So you will have the good guys and the bad guys. Good guys will want to save the planet for posterity, invent the pill that will enable us to live forever in this world, invent tiny machines that repair your cells, and of course the pill that will keep us young forever. Then all we have to do is fly away from here, because we definitely do not want to be here, when our Sun turns into a black hole, or a nova, or whatever. Just make sure guys you have an ample supply of pills and tiny machines on those huge space ships! But of course you may not have time, for some crazy person with the “right” connections might blow up the world next Christmas. But should you really care? I mean without the “Live Forever Pill” and the “Repair Your Cells” nano-machines and the “Stay Young Forever” pill? According to your belief system you are an organized bunch of molecules for no reason. The tragedy of mankind is the every sane person knows that we will all die, and we must live with this thought. Well, not all of us, for alcoholics and drug addicts who drink and shoot themselves to oblivion are outside the game. The rest of the people can suffer and get used to the thought that if some creature who looks like E.T. will ever look at evening sky in a galaxy far far away, he will have no idea that something called mankind ever existed. And really, do we exist? If you consider that time is endless, the time of our existence is infinitely small, negligible even.

    You can think about this nonsense when you go to bed tonight, or you can think about an Almighty Creator, who did all this for a reason. You can consider yourself a helpless bunch of molecules existing for a tiny bit of time, a bad joke cracked by the universe, or you can consider yourself somebody who was created in the image of God for a purpose. You can think that all this is for nothing, or you can think that all this is for something. There is something called the Bible, and it actually tells Man that we are not a helpless bunch of molecules, but people created in the image of God. Read the whole thing, it tells you a lot. The choice is yours, and you shall bear the consequences in your life and afterwards.

    A lot of people have accepted the Word of God. A lot have not. They are out there and in here trying to come up with evidence against people who follow Christ. They are not saints, by the way, just try to be saints. And they dig up all sorts of filthy stuff Christians have been accused of over time, and say “See, there are the so-called Christians, the followers of Christ. They have been proven guilty in a court of law, so they are guilty. Some Christians. Nah, the whole Bible is baloney. No God.’ That is not a very good strategy. First of all, we are sinners. We do bad things. Like the Bible says. Just because Christians sin, make bad things, does not automatically mean the Bible is nonsense. It just proves that the Bible is right. It predicts that we will do bad things. Secondly, before you call someone a liar, make sure you know what you are talking about. You might be relying on sources that are in fact not true. In Dr. Hovind’s case a lot of people seem to be very well suppled with hard evidence. But is it evidence you guys are looking at or the interpretation of facts?

    I realize that I have written a short story. I apologize. Shame on me. I am not the center of this blog. Just felt I had to say this.

    Kind Regards,
    Istvan

  88. darling August 28, 2007 9:30 am Reply

    EndTimes Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 9:07pm:

    “I believe that with the number of posts on this issue with the direct references given, any shortcomings on my use of English does not in any manner negate these unexpected findings.”

    Unexpected? Perhaps. Problematic? Not really, as I explained.

    “I gave an outline of a basic definition for “kind” based on observations from the Scriptures and this is what I stated could be falsifiable.”

    I apologize for my misunderstanding.

    Any comments about the definition of kind derived from Haldane, and its implications?

    Ekkman Said this on August 28th, 2007 at 12:41am:

    “darling, You cut so much of my post out above that it doesn’t make sense now and by the way, neither did you comment. Make sense, that is!”

    You’re not giving me much to work with here.
    I’ll happily expand and explain if you want to tell me which point you have a problem with, exactly.

    “…”Darwinism” and “Evolutionism” are nothing but strawmen…” And they are being burnt up by the creationists. Straw burns, you know. As does wood, hay, and stubble.”

    That being my point. Thank you.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    “You keep forgetting that Darwin wasn’t a scientist, he had a theology degree. He was a minister, call him “Pastor Darwin”.???”

    Just like Mr. Hovind?

    Once again: Evolution is not dependent – in any way, shape or form – upon Darwin, his education, thoughts, deeds, motivations etc. Just like gravity and calculus are not dependent on the wayward lifestyle of Isaac Newton.

  89. Istvan August 28, 2007 11:45 am Reply

    Dear DQ,

    ‘This may be hard to fathom, but I don’t need the validation of a bunch of insane goat herders who lived in the bronze age for my life to have purpose!’

    I agree with you. What you need is a cold shower. May God forgive you, because you surely do not know what you are talking about.

    Still Kind Regards,
    Istvan

  90. Maturekid August 28, 2007 11:49 am Reply

    For the most part, I opted to fade to the back and focus on other things and lurk. But guy42, you really made an assertion I just have to question. And to head off all the standard posters who chime in, this question is for guy42 only.

    “Now as I said science is important, and fortunately there are people who are not willing to stand idly by as it is assaulted. Kent Hovind routinely attempts to have evolutionary science removed from the classroom. Science is the corner stone of progress, and however incomplete, the Theory of Evolution is a corner stone of science. Unless a better scientific explanation is offered; evolution must be taught, lest we reverse all the progress we have made in this country, and watch as we are eclipsed in all areas of life by the rest of the world. You may disagree with what I am saying here and I will not try to convince you otherwise, as that is not the point.”

    I’m just going to ask a point of clarification.
    First what we agree on – Science is important. Science is a cornerstone of progress in a number of fields.

    My stance – True Science is neutral. It proves or disproves opinions by testing and observation. From these observations and experiments, we build a body of knowledge that gives the potential to make advancements upon proven knowledge.

    Points where clarification is needed.
    If you mean Evolution as per what is observed and studied and is sub-defined as micro-evolution. By all means, teach it. I believe it is a misnomer and deceptively named and would be better off with an independent name to fit the definition. What is it that you define Evolution and the ToE to be? It changes so rapidly and varies from person to person.

    Your main thrust though needs extensive clarification.
    “lest we reverse all the progress we have made in this country, and watch as we are eclipsed in all areas of life by the rest of the world.”

    What “progress” has the ToE made in this country? What “progress” has the ToE provided to science? What “progress” has the ToE provided to education? What “progress” has the ToE contributed to all the various fields of science? Why does the ToE hold such a high place that if we don’t teach it we will be “eclipsed in all areas of life by the rest of the world”? Does this include the rest of the world that is doing just fine and advancing just fine w/out caring one iota about the ToE such as India and other countries that deem the ToE the latest Western religion to be ignored?

    I really would like to hear your answers. Because when you step back and look at the vaunted ToE from the viewpoint of others who could care less about it from other countries, all the ToE has done for our country is to teach the students to value assumptions, “inferences,” and inserting their opinions over cold hard data and solid logic. Which is why the same countries are mocking the “progress” of the USA. Perhaps you can illuminate us all as to what value the ToE adds to anything.

    Instead of taking up a segment of this blog to answer, please research it. Also please write a paper with your answers then come back to us with a web link to your conclusions. And please, give hard data to support that any “progress” made in the fields of science and our country couldn’t have been made w/out the ToE. Please, please try to not use semantics and conjecture as it only serves to push an opinion not hard data.

    If you stick to a very objective and neutral stance, I think you’ll find the teaching of the ToE and all of the grant money spent on researching it amounts to a colossal waste of time and resources.

  91. David August 28, 2007 12:10 pm Reply

    Learned Hand
    Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 10:42pm:

    The IRS has no responsibility to provide free legal advice, especially to those who are clearly not interested in hearing or heeding answers they don’t like.
    ********************************************************************************
    What an absurd statement. Have you ever read the IRS mission Statement? Why would anyone call the IRS helpline or teletax? The fact is, No law makes anyone liable for the federal income tax. That is why Hovind was writing the IRS. The IRS states we only have to pay taxes we are liable for, as per the privacy act notice (IRS notice 609). You have already admitted there is no such law. By the way LH, have you been taking your medications? Do they know your playing, “know it all, tax lawyer/scientist”?
    Are you allowed to spend so much time on the computer?

  92. JR Turner August 28, 2007 12:58 pm Reply

    IRS special agent challenges system
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17023

    Kent and Jo Hovind are INNOCENT! The FRAUD continues!

  93. EndTimes August 28, 2007 2:14 pm Reply

    Dear Guy42,

    Thank you for a quite polite response to Jersey Girl. The only comment that I wish to make is that Dr. Hovind quite clearly stated many times that he did not want to put creation in the schools or take evolution out of the schools, he just wanted the lies out of the textbooks. I believe that his approach is the ONLY correct approach for either side in the creation/evolution debate. So, I believe that everyone would agree with that approach no matter what side you stand on. No one supports lies in the textbooks. Just a little note for clarification of Dr. Hovind’s approach. Again, I believe that it is quite inciteful and quite constitutional. So, lets debate the facts and the lies.

    Sincerely,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  94. DQ August 28, 2007 2:15 pm Reply

    The editor said: Oh, good. Problem solved. No debate is needed then. I understand where you are coming from.

    Yep, and you can now stop saying that there is evidence for a 6 day creation. Because you have been asked repeatedly to produce it and you have refused to do so. So it is clear that there is no evidence. So unless you are a dishonest person you will now stop called creationism “scientific.”

  95. DQ August 28, 2007 2:20 pm Reply

    Istvan said:
    I agree with you. What you need is a cold shower. May God forgive you, because you surely do not know what you are talking about.

    Still Kind Regards,
    Istvan

    I appreciate the kind regards. I actually feel sorry for you, that your life seems so meaningless to you that you have to find meaning in the writings of a bunch of bronze-age goat herders. I have learned to find meaning in my life in a way that does not force me to endorse slavery, rape, abortion, and slaughter, and I am much happier now than I was when I found meaning in the bible, which I did for the first half of my life. Believe me, as someone who speaks from experience, there are so many other, better ways to find meaning in your life!

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: DQ, is it necessary for you to look for folks to attack? Are you in that much pain?

    I lived in Berkeley, CA. for over 5 years. There are some very smart skeptics out there. They contend their side based on evidence, as they understand it. Please stop insulting and looking to pick fights here. If you want to hide spiritually and scientifically, you are free to do so, for yourself.

    Learn how to build others up. P.A. ]

  96. EndTimes August 28, 2007 2:23 pm Reply

    Dear darling,

    Please refresh my memory on the definition of kind by Haldane. I am not specifically familiar with that definition by him. That would be an interesting place to start. Thank you for your kind comments.

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  97. BlessedOneOfGod August 28, 2007 4:30 pm Reply

    DQ, the Editor is right. Please, stop acting like this and start using your brain. Insulting people isn’t going to get you anywhere. I will be praying for you (and yes, I know you are going to yack at my praying).

  98. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 28, 2007 5:06 pm Reply

    Saints, take stock,

    The reason most Y.E.C./ fundies refer to macro evolution as religion is that most of us at one stage or another believed in it. We came out of “it” as a religion. We know exactly where the empirical finishes and the speculative commences.

    darling said “Which is why “Darwinism” and “Evolutionism” are nothing but strawmen, based on ideas that were discarded a hundred years ago.”

    No, No, No – essential features of the religion of Darwinism, Macro Evolutionism, Materialistic Scientism haven’t changed one iota.

    Essentially Darwinianists or Darwinites [which you are ‘darling’] are stuck with the statement “Mutation is Good”

    There is no wriggle room.

    You have to wear it. That is and remains a fundamental feature of your religious scientism.

    Change was non mysteriously generated “random” mutation; and not preexistant latent potentials encoded for subsequent expression and sequestration by incomparable and indefatigable genius.

    this page is all about one religion Vs another – and that “isn’t” going to change.

  99. GaryMurray August 28, 2007 6:41 pm Reply

    DQ Said this…
    Come on, Paul, just admit it. It’s ok, everybody already knows. You have no scientific evidence for a 6 day creation.
    _______________________________________

    The oldest form of anchient writing says we do have evidence, it claims (and is) the Word of God. I know, I know, you don’t give any credibility that what has been recorded from history in the Bible is accurate. You’d rather believe the writings of the past few centuries which allows you to do what’s right in your own eyes, that which isn’t right in a God’s eyes. Sounds so familiar, where does that come from?? Oh yeah, the Bible! Uh, wait that would mean that history repeats itself, but you believe that everyone prior to the last several thousand years were so much inferior than our logical thinking minds of today, they certainly can’t considered anchient history to be accurate.

    Man, what an amazing coincidence that the Bible is so much aligned with the life of today, there could be something to that scripture… “nothing new under the sun”, but there again that was just coincidence too, even though it was written about 2,000 years ago.

    How anyone could doubt a historically accurate and absolutly percise form of writing is beyond me. You think we’re ‘insane’ because we choose to believe a Bible that stated over 10,000 prophecies, all of which have thus come to pass exactly as it was said, and regardless you beleive it or not, is exactly where humanities moral values were established.

    All I can say “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

    For those who are standing on such a shakey foundation as evolution that which equally has no evidence of its claims or proof of its concept, please consider this. There is only one sin unto death that is considered a ‘unpardonable’ sin, the Bible calls it Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. What it basically means is the final rejection of the Holy Ghost and the drawing or calling of God the Father. If you’re waiting for evidence in Christianity to surface to make your final decision, it won’t happen. It isn’t in the nature of God to prove to the scoffers and doubters with signs, he did this through his Son for a time on earth, after that it is the calling of the Holy Ghost and the belief in your heart that Jesus is the Son of God sent to die for your sins. You must believe by faith, which is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If you continue to reject the calling (and if you have been on this blog long, you’ve heard and see the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you know who he is and know that the Bible tells us we are all sinners who are in need of a saviour) then your blasphemous decision to reject and deny Jesus, his deity and divinity, will condemn you to death.

    Bible clearly and continually warns of deceivers, cunning devices, principalities and powers that are controlled by the hand of Satan to veer you from God’s grace. If you’re a lost sinner who hasn’t trusted Christ because you just can’t trade in your faith in evolution with the faith of a divine being that which you know deep down is there, Satan’s evolution has you.

    By the way, just a foot note, if you’re also waiting for evidence in evolution to surface to make your final decision, you’ll wait right into the rapture, there is none, never will be, never has been, regardless what they want you to believe. Problem is they believe with their minds (thats part of flesh) we believe with our souls, that which is the essence and makes up our individual characters.

    Hope for the sake of those still on the fence struggling with creation/evolution, keep in mind, this evolution theory is much like all other false beliefs, looks good, sounds good, even sounds possible, but you can’t touch it, you can’t see it and you can’t hear it because it really isn’t there.

    God bless those searching and in Christ Jesus,
    Gary Murray

  100. EndTimes August 28, 2007 9:00 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 10:04pm:

    “I suppose we’re all decamping to the newest thread. To close out this one, I’d like to salute your dogged determination to go to any absurd length to obscure your poor understanding of biology. I don’t know many people who will go so far, and drag their argument to such torturous lengths, to avoid saying, “I was wrong. Evolution is not a ‘blind chance’ process.” Quoting a number of different definitions of “stochastic” doesn’t alter the fact that you referred to “blind chance [creating] these engineering marvels.” It’ s a minor point, but you were obviously wrong, and obviously more concerned with covering up your mistakes than with correcting them.”

    Dear “Learned” Hand, please get with the rest of evolution my friend. The simple fact is that blind chance is exactly at the heart of the prevailing theory of evolution at the present time. If you do not like my statements because I am a YEC creationist then you are a bigot. You have once again called me ignorant and a liar. You are wrong again as usual and you are actually quite tiresome, but since your comments about me are so easy to refute, I reserve the right to do that. I further disagree with your comment that the issue of chance in the ToE is a minor point. It is instead the major point of failure for your false theory. There have been many mathematically analysis of ToE showing that the universe is not old enough nor big enough to support the probabilities encountered in your theory. So, another useless venture into unreality by you in not understanding the issues debated from within the evolution community itself. But according to you, I am ignorant, angry and a liar. It appears after a month of your false accusations that all of those titles belong to you.

    The “neutral” theory is the prevailing theory at this time proposed by Motoo Kimura. He is the world’s leading population genetics and evolutionary authority at the present time. Since you are not convinced by anything that I state, let’s hear what the world’s most eminent expert on evolution states:

    “In 1968 Motoo Kimura of the National Institute of Genetics in Japan proposed something radical for the evolution of proteins, the macromolecules that provide much of a cell’s structure and do almost all of its catalytic work. Proteins evolve when alterations to the genes encoding them result in a change in the sequence of their constituent amino acids. Kimura suggested that most amino acid replacements that accrue during the evolution of proteins are the result of pure blind chance. Evolution without adaptation! Though radical, his idea was grounded in two well-understood phenomena.”
    http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21164?fulltext=true

    Kimura’s radical idea pitted neutral mutation against random genetic drift. Mutation pumps new neutral alleles into the gene pool, while random genetic drift purges alleles from it. This churning flux of alleles causes neutral mutations to accumulate. Return to the gene pool in a million years and all the alleles have changed; in another million years they have all changed further still (Figure 3). Molecular evolution is a result of pure blind chance.

    http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21164?fulltext=true

    As a broad description of protein evolution this, the neutral theory of molecular evolution, has proved extraordinarily robust. After 30 years of intense research biologists have yet to provide a compelling picture of the molecular basis of a single ancient adaptive event. The difficulty arises from the very nature of the data collected. The linear sequences of amino acids in proteins, and of the nucleic acid bases in genes, are readily determined. By comparing the differences along these sequences it is possible to tease apart their historical relationships. Once determined, the neutral model can be subjected to various statistical tests. Unfortunately, the tests are so weak that rejection is possible only in extreme cases. Furthermore, minor modifications to the neutral theory frequently accommodate small deviations from naive expectation.

    http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21164?fulltext=true

    “We call these events accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism’s hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendious edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact.”

    Monod, J. (1971) CHANCE AND NECESSITY, A. Wainhouse (translator), Vintage Books, New York NY USA

    The Evolution of the Flagellum And the Climbing of “Mt. Improbable ”

    Sean D. Pitman, M.D. Ó May, 2006

    For example, consider the sequence: cat – hat – bat – bad – big – dig – dog. Here we just evolved from cat to dog where every single character change was meaningful and potentially beneficial in the right environment. It is easy to get between every potential 3-character sequence in the English language system because the ratio between meaningful and non-meaningful in the “sequence space” of 3-character sequences is only about 1 in 18. However, this ratio decreases dramatically, exponentially in fact, with each increase in minimum sequence length. For example, in 7-character sequence space, the ratio is about 1 in 250,000 – and that is not even taking into account the “beneficial” nature of a particular sequence relative to a particular environment/situation. Still, meaningful 7-character sequences are generally very interconnected, like a web made up of thin interconnected roads going around the large pockets of non-meaningful/non-beneficial potential sequences. However, the exponential decrease in the ratio is obvious and the implications are clear. For higher and higher level functions, requiring larger and larger sequences to code for them, the ratio of meaningful to meaningless becomes so small so quickly that when more than a few dozen characters are needed the interconnected roadways and bridges that connect various island-clusters of beneficial sequences start to snap apart. At surprisingly low levels of functional complexity this process isolates the tiny islands of beneficial sequences from every other island to such an extent that there is simply no way to reach these tiny isolated islands except to traverse the gap of non-beneficial sequences through a process of purely random change(s) over time.

    With every additional step up the ladder of functional complexity, this gap gets wider and wider, in an exponential manner, until it is simply uncrossable this side of trillions upon trillions of years of average time. Natural selection is simply blind when it comes to crossing such gaps.

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  101. EndTimes August 28, 2007 10:31 pm Reply

    Learned Hand

    Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 10:04pm:

    End Times,

    “Or consider End Times’ repeated mistaken assertion that individuals evolve. Or consider his conflation of evolution and abiogenesis. They will never self-correct, because the appearance of wisdom is more valuable to them than an honest heart.”

    Dear LH, you had proposed that the only important element in evolution was the population. I have never denied that there are not population effects, yet you continue to deny what your hero Ernst man notes in so many different places in your favorite book that the individual is the OBJECT of selection. Go figure, but you must be right that I am ignorant and a liar when I correctly corrected your false statement that evolution has nothing to do with the individual. Did you read the book that you recommended?

    Secondly, go read the book and the chapter on the origin of life in Ernst’s book, chapter 3 called “The Rise of the Living World.” Apparently you did not read that chapter either. Just as I correctly stated, when you really put together teachings on evolution, they start with the big bang, chemical evolution and then right on to abiogenesis. If you wish to continue to call me a liar and ignorant that I cannot stop, but it is not smart to recommend a book to teach ME about evolution and then be so ignorant of what that book really states. So, go ahead and call black white and white black and show the world how easily falsifiable your statements are when you will not even accept quotations from the book that YOU recommended. In any case, it is there in black and white exactly as I stated it was taught to me over 20 years ago. So, if you believe that it should not be part of evolution, why don’t you take that up with your favorite author and why he starts his treatise on evolution with abiogenesis. It is a continuum in the events of methodological naturalism.

    With little patience for foolish statements that add nothing to this site,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  102. EndTimes August 28, 2007 10:57 pm Reply

    Dear “Learned” Hand,

    You have not ONCE shown me to have told any lies, you have not ONCE provoked me to your level of mudslinging, and you have not ONCE produced even one iota of evidence that I am not a credible person. You have not ONCE impugned my credentials in any manner.

    I have with great patience answered your false accusations over and over again, yet like the ever ready battery commercials, you just keep coming at me again and again with the same unlearned arguments. I again reserve that right to defend myself against libelous and defaming comments. I have posted science article after science article and you call me ignorant. I have quoted directly from the highest levels of evolution and you call me a liar, yet I am only correctly stating what the evolutionist’s state themselves. You state that I have no credibility, but it is yours that you attack over and over again with all of your mean spirited and false remarks against me.

    You come here as a lawyer without a background in the natural sciences and then accuse me of not understanding the natural sciences when that is how that I have earned my living for many years. You accuse my arguments of being risible, yet it is instead you that cannot even recognize when you have lost the same argument so many times over. You do not appear to be as intelligent as you try to act by using these false arguments over and over again that are so easy to refute.

    1) The individual is the object of natural selection – Ernst Mayr, What Evolution is.(several pages, go read it for yourself.)

    2) Abiogenesis is where Ernst Mayr starts his dissertation on “What Evolution Is” chapter 3, page 40.

    3) Motoo Kimura states that evolution is by blind chance.

    Don’t you understand that in calling me ignorant, angry, dishonest with the 3 issues above, you have likewise called your own witnesses the same?

    So Mr Counselor, you really have a losing plan of attack against me and creationists and I will gladly point that out over and over again as long as you keep pressing your losing battle. You have become great entertainment to see how many times you can call me a liar, ignorant, dishonest, bitter and all of your other laughable false accusations against me. If you believe the statements that you make about me and will not listen to the multiple evolutionary authorities that I am correctly quoting from, then you do in fact come full circle in not being able to learn new knowledge and sticking with your preconceived notions as you started this entire thread on July 26th, 2007. So, please keep the insults coming because you just dig your own pit deeper and deeper still. I will be quite happy to quote from only the evolutionary literature to show to all that you are the ignorant, angry, dishonest lawyer that you are by your very own unlearned words.

    With deep umbrage at a very immature man whose only source of argument is false accusations and insults and who is standing out in deep waters of ignorance for ALL to see here on this blog,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  103. Learned Hand August 28, 2007 11:06 pm Reply

    Now there is faith instead of questions.

    Finally, an honest creationist. I can respect a man who simply says that he prioritizes his faith over scientific inquiry and denies any need for evidence more than a man who distorts that inquiry and manufactures evidence.

  104. Learned Hand August 28, 2007 11:17 pm Reply

    David, exhibiting the contempt for truth endemic to tax protestors, says:

    Have you ever read the IRS mission Statement? Why would anyone call the IRS helpline or teletax?

    The mission statement is: “Provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.” No part of that requires or even encourages the IRS to squander public money by responding to the inane questions of tax protesters, who use their dishonest inquiries as thin moral cover for their criminal conduct. As a response to the common lies told by tax protesters, the IRS does provide answers to the most common questions on its website. Failure of the IRS to answer a taxpayer’s question, whatever the (non-binding) mission statement says, does not justify that taxpayer’s criminal conduct.

    The fact is, No law makes anyone liable for the federal income tax.

    That is not a fact. That is a lie. Section one of Title 26 makes individuals liable for the federal income tax. Of course, no creationist is going to step forward and say, “Hey, that’s a lie, and Kent Hovind has been hurt enough by such invidious dishonesty. It’s time to be honest about the law.”

    The IRS states we only have to pay taxes we are liable for, as per the privacy act notice (IRS notice 609). You have already admitted there is no such law.

    Your first sentence is broadly true, but irrelevant, because you are lying about liability for such taxes. Your second sentence is another lie (and a particularly blatant one, given the ease of searching my statements on this blog). The glibness and rapidity with which you tear out these whoppers is a helpful clue to the moral bankruptcy of your greedy ideology.

  105. Istvan August 29, 2007 12:22 am Reply

    Dear DQ,

    ‘I appreciate the kind regards.’

    I am glad, because I mean it.

    ‘I actually feel sorry for you, that your life seems so meaningless to you that you have to find meaning in the writings of a bunch of bronze-age goat herders.’

    Just because I believe in the Bible, which you so irresponsibly call ‘the writings of a bunch of bronze-age goat herders’, it does not mean that my life is meaningless.

    ‘I have learned to find meaning in my life in a way that does not force me to endorse slavery, rape, abortion, and slaughter, and I am much happier now than I was when I found meaning in the bible, which I did for the first half of my life. Believe me, as someone who speaks from experience, there are so many other, better ways to find meaning in your life!’

    Finding meaning in your life and finding The Meaning of life is not the same. What you have found is some way of killing time. That is definitely not the meaning of life. I am much happier now than I was when I found meaning in pubs, smoking, partying and other meaningless garbage. I am also much happier now than I was when I found meaning in running, hiking, bodybuilding, boxing, doing karate, Aikido, judo and Scientology. I spent the first half of my life on these things. Believe me, as someone who speaks from experience, the first part of my life was meaningless. Now there is meaning in my life. And my life is richer than ever. I do a lot of things that I have found good in life, things that do not go against the teachings of the Bible. I still do sports, find pleasure in good books, arts, music and nature. But I always keep my focus on God. I try to eliminate the bad things in my life that do not please God, and live according to what the Good Book says. I know that there is no meaning in life without God. There is no life without God. I believe every word of the Bible, the promises, the teachings, and the threats.

    By the way, I do not mind your insults, I am not a bit offended, because you do not know what you are talking about.

    Anyway, what about the meaning of your life, DQ? It would be interesting to see what you found instead of God. So, let us have it.

    Kind Regards,
    Istvan

  106. Arne August 29, 2007 12:57 am Reply

    Dear Learned hand,

    In answer to your letter of August 27th, 2007 at 11:03pm:

    I usually don’t like when people publicly call others liars. By using those words you are accusing a person of very bad intent. In another sense we are all liars before God. We are sinners. That’s part of our fallen nature. Usually we interpret one of the 10 commandments with the phrase “ You shall not lie”, while it really says that we should not bring false witness against your neighbors. (Exodus 20:16) That talks about our RELATIONSHIP with our neighbor. So I ask you: How is your relationship with Kent Hovind, if you call him a liar? Maybe you have noticed incorrect things in what he has been saying. Well then I think it would be more proper to say that you think he was wrong, and state what made him wrong. This just has to do with showing dignity.

    I looked up your links. To be honest it is in the border-land of what I really objectively could evaluate. According to what was said I may understand that some of the things that Kent said was inaccurate. For example the angular momentum is not lost within a closed system. If we consider the world as a closed system, then it is maintained! However I think the example with the children might not have been the best one in this context. It would be good if the CSE or Kent himself would clearify and answer some of these accusations. About the Cytochrome c – I’m not qualified to discuss that, and what I could read from the Wiki-pedia on that matter seemed quite incomplete. On the other hand I also have heard from scientific sources that humans are in many areas more similar to pigs and rats than to the chimpanzee. My mother is a chemical engineer, and she spent many years researching at the institute of nutrition in Oslo. At home we would often discuss new finds and also many blunders and errors that was made during the research. In fact you’ll find that science is filled with errors or erroneous statements that have been made by scientist through the years. Some of which are really big blunders. Yet we don’t tend to call them liars because of that. Why? Because there was no bad intent.

    In the discussion about Lucy, I found on your link the statement ascribed to Johanson himself. According to his letter about Brown misquoting him, it is pretty clear to me that what he actually said and what Brown said that he had said was pretty much the same. Yet with an important alleged misinterpretation, that Brown indicated that the scull and the bones found 2-3 km a part belonged to the same body – Lucy, while it merely was stated to belong to the same kind. The original source is not available to me. I can’t even exclude that Johanson has changed his explanation later, or wether Brown actually misquoted him. That often happens in science as well as with journalists! When made aware of, proper corrections could be made. It is interesting that the error has very little significance compared to the claims of creationists vs. Johanson on the matter. The question wether they belonged to the same kind, can still be argued, also what you can soundly scientifically find out from a couple of bones.

    Djhouk stated:
    “Kent has consistently lied when it was advantageous for him to do so. A very good example is his bankruptcy filing in March, 1996. He filed statements, under penalty of purgery, that “he receives no income, has no expenses, owns absolutely no property”. The federal bankruptcy judge noted there were 3 vehicles registered in Kent’s name and that property records in Escambria County showed that he owned a home with a mortgage. The judge concluded that Kent “provided false information in his schedules and statement of affairs in connection with this case”. Basically, the judge called Kent a liar, and dismissed the petition as filed in bad faith.”

    1. I really hope that the judge didn’t call Kent a liar. That says much more about the judge than about Kent Hovind!
    2. When I read about all of these things first I was shocked on how Kent has been treated by US-officials. You should get into that part of the story as well. His rights were frequently violated, and their behavior were ruthless. I believe that Kent made his statements on ownership by the fact that he himself belongs to Jesus Christ, and all that he possesses is consecrated to Him. So Yes, he doesn’t have any property! It is all God’s property! So he was in GOOD faith! However, the judge disagreed. My question to Kent as a Christian would then be if he is a faithful steward of the things entrusted to him? and as I have been involved in this blog, and read various testimonies about Kent, and how he has maintained this property, I would conclude that he didn’t abuse anything, but was generous and unselfish in his dealing with God’s property. I would find him to be a noble character who loves God and men. Unfortunately the tax codes are in disagreement with what is ethically right and what is constitutional. So the conflict goes on.

    Now back to you., Learned Hand

    You said:
    “Once again, please, please, please don’t trust creationists when it comes to learning math or science. What you read from the creationists here is appallingly ignorant. End Times is grasping at increasingly silly straws to cover up his more and more embarrassing gaffes. Arne’s probability calculation is based entirely on his own made-up inputs, and is accordingly totally invalid. If you want to learn science, please, read a book about science. Creationists will only tell you what they want you to believe, whether or not it’s true.”

    Do you think that your statement is fair or truthfully made? You say that my calculation is based entirely on my own made-up inputs and is accordingly totally invalid. You should be careful to know that the sizes and age of the universe are scientifically claims. You can read them everywhere. So that’s easy for you to check. About the amino-acid poly peptide it’s more difficult to say exact numbers, so I chose a conservative number that is certainly MUCH LESS than the real figures. (Just study the complexity of the cell for a moment, would you?). On the contrary my experiment is VERY practical, and easy to TEST. To answer this argument it is just for the evolutionist to show what was the smallest possible reproductive unit that probably could have existed, and to compare the numbers in an answer. It is NOT difficult! It should definately be to the interest of scientists to evaluate wether the ToE holds statistically. The reason why this is so important is that the statements made by evolutionsts is completely based on the assumptions that evolution could have happened within a time limit on earth on 4.6 billion years. Unfortunately I’ve yet to see a sound presentation that demonstrates that this would be possible. You may think that it is impossible to make such comparisons. But it’s not. We just have to be sure that we give good margins, and then we can simplify the problem up to a very few components. (As I did in my example). You will notice that my point was not an exact answer for the probability, but rather a yes-no answer if it is within what is likely to happen or not.

    To DQ:
    I did previously answer you on a 6-day creation, and a way to research this? But I didn’t hear anything from you.

    Sincerely Yours,
    Arne

  107. Ekkman August 29, 2007 1:38 am Reply

    darling
    Said this on August 28th, 2007 at 9:30am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Ekkman Said this on August 28th, 2007 at 12:41am:

    “darling, You cut so much of my post out above that it doesn’t make sense now and by the way, neither did you comment. Make sense, that is!”

    You’re not giving me much to work with here.
    I’ll happily expand and explain if you want to tell me which point you have a problem with, exactly.

    “…”Darwinism” and “Evolutionism” are nothing but strawmen…” And they are being burnt up by the creationists. Straw burns, you know. As does wood, hay, and stubble.”

    That being my point. Thank you.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    “You keep forgetting that Darwin wasn’t a scientist, he had a theology degree. He was a minister, call him “Pastor Darwin”.???”

    Just like Mr. Hovind?

    Once again: Evolution is not dependent – in any way, shape or form – upon Darwin, his education, thoughts, deeds, motivations etc. Just like gravity and calculus are not dependent on the wayward lifestyle of Isaac Newton.

    Ekkman said now:
    Since you call Darwin a scientist then call Kent one too. Thanks! It is very easy to see that Kent knows a lot more about science than Darwin did. I will agree that “evolution” is very dependent on Darwin and his belief system but “science” is in no way dependent upon Darwin.
    You define science as evolution and that will be fine if you are talking about “micro” evolution but not “macro” evolution.

    Above you asked me to give you the point that I wanted you to explain. It was the point that you cut out of my post. Here is my full post below.

    Ekkman
    Said this on August 25th, 2007 at 3:16pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    A little more food for thought:

    Next in line is a little information for those who seem to think that Creationism is religious not scientific and evolutionism is scientific not religious.
    “In striking down the Arkansas ‘Balanced Treatment Act’ in 1982, Judge Overton contended that the theory of creation could not be a part of science because he thought it could be derived only from a religious document. This demonstrated his ignorance of the process of science. That is akin to saying that because evolution is the basis of the first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto (the statement of faith of a tax extempt religious organization) then it could not be true or be part of science. Indeed the manifesto, signed by a number of prominent evolutionists, does read:
    “‘Tenet 1: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
    “‘Tenet 2: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of continuous process.’

    “Using Judge Overton’s kind of logic, one would be compelled to exclude evolution from science because many of the original formulators and promoters of the theory such as Herbert Spencer (an atheist), Charles Darwin (an agnostic) and Thomas Huxley (an agnostic), had religious motivations. It is undoubtedly true that these men first became anticreationists and nontheists on religious grounds. But this has no bearing on whether or not evolution might be the correct explanation of origins or whether it meets the requirements of a scientific theory. The resolution of those questions is a matter entirely separate from the motivation issue.”(2)
    (2) Darwin’s Enigma, Luther D. Sutherland, pgs. 37-38.

    Deal with the bolded parts above that you cut from my post when you made your comments that didn’t make any sense whatsoever. Thanks!

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  108. Ekkman August 29, 2007 2:31 am Reply

    DQ
    Said this on August 28th, 2007 at 6:45am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Hi istvan:


    #3 Why do you think that this world would be a better place without Christians and God?

    Once again, I never said this. I think the world would be a nicer place if christians actually practiced what Jesus taught. I look at this blog and see so much dishonesty, and it makes me sad because christians have the potential to do a lot of good. But they get so caught up in victimhood, crying “poor me,” whining about government oppression, like Kent and a lot of the people on this blog, and they completely lose sight of Jesus. You people think you live under an oppressive government? Try living under Roman occupation. Jesus had it a million times worse than you do, and did you see him whining and complaining and fighting about it? No, he did what he came to do, feeding hungry people, ministering to the sick and the outcasts of society. When it came time to pay his oppressive taxes he paid his oppressive taxes, because his purpose in coming to earth was not to protest the government. His purpose was to help out people who needed a hand, and paying taxes kept him out of trouble long enough to do that. The taxes he was forced to pay were oppressive, but concentrating on fighting the taxes would have distracted him from what he really wanted to do. If only Kent would have learned that lesson from Jesus. What good is he doing in jail? He used to be able to spread his (warped) point of view all over the country. His greed has made him lose sight of what is really important to him, and has kept him from doing what he obviously loves to do and is very good at. If the people on this blog would put half as much time into feeding the hungry and visiting the sick as they do coming up with reasons they shouldn’t have to pay their taxes, they could do a lot of good in the world. It’s sad to see so much potential wasted. What would Jesus say about that? What did he say about laying up treasures on earth versus laying up treasures in heaven? If these people would concentrate on storing up heavenly treasures as much as they concentrate on protecting their earthly treasures, the world would be a better place. And in the end, Kent ended up losing all of the earthly treasure he worked so hard to protect. He should have listened to what Jesus had to say about earthly treasure, and all the people on this blog complaining about the government would be wise to learn the easy way what Kent had to learn the hard way.

    Ekkman said:
    I wanted to deal with DQ’s answer to no. 3 above. I cut the others since I didn’t want to talk about them.

    I thought lot of the comments above were funny in the sad sense. First DQ told us what Jesus would do based on his teachings when he was here in the flesh. Not only what he would do but did do. One thing that needs to be brought out at the outset of this post. Jesus came to save the world the first time, he came to serve, to teach, to heal, to deliver and all kinds of neat things to those whom he gave his life to free from sin.
    BUT when Jesus comes again, he is coming as Judge and then you will see the O.T. God, the God who punishes sin. He is giving mankind a chance to repent and accept his love and forgiveness while they can. I read a bumper sticker that said, “Jesus Christ is coming back soon and boy, is he mad!” If you don’t believe it then read the book of Revelation.
    When Jesus left this planet, he told his people to minister truth to the world by his Spirit. Christians are to reject the wrong, the evil and walk in righteousness and let the world know what he has done for us by dying for our sins. He also told people plainly and we are to do the same, telk them the consequences of rejecting his life, his love. It is called hell.
    DQ asked what good is it going to jail. Good question! Paul the apostle went to jail a whole lot more times that Kent has. I don’t think Paul thought it was all that wonderful going to prison. He did think it was wonderful sharing the Lord Jesus Christ wherever he went. Paul said:
    “Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
    Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
    Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
    In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
    In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
    Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.”

    Paul was in prisons frequently, in deaths often, been beaten by whips, beaten with rods and most of that was from governmental authorities. Read above the perils that he was in, and other things he had to deal with. Christians are in a world that is not their home. We are just passing though this land but not only are we pilgrims, we are ambassadors for Christ. We are to represent him to this world by our lives and our words. We are to reprove the unfruitful works of darkness. If we don’t show the evil for what it is, who will? Christians have been deliverd from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son. We are left here for a purpose, to lead others into the life of Christ.
    DQ asked what good is Kent doing in jail. Even though I want to see Kent out as soon as possible, it looks like a lot of good is happening in the jails that he was been in. God is using him or so it seems. There are many things that Christians might not really want to be in at times but if God calls them there, he will be with them in whatever they are in.
    DQ determined that if someone is here in this blog sharing truth with evolutionists then they cant’t be feeding the poor, visiting the sick, etc. I thought that was super strange. I guess we are to be doing those things 24/7 and not doing anything else. I don’t understand that comment.
    I would be out driving and see someone with one of those signs such as “work for food.” I would tell them that I don’t have any work for them but if they want to, we could go get something to eat and talk. Some would take me up on it and some wouldn’t. Those who wanted to go and get something to eat with me, I would share the great love of the Lord Jesus Christ with them. We would talk and different things happen with different people. I would take them back to wherever they wanted to go. AND guess what, I could still drive home and share Jesus with people on the web. It sounds incredible but it can be done easily.
    Then we come to the heavenly treasures. I don’t want to talk for Kent but from what I know of him, he has helped plenty of people in many ways with his money, his ministry, whatever. If I am wrong, maybe you could show me the error of my ways. From what I have seen and known of Kent he has been focusing on heavenly treasures from above earthly treasures. I am open to reproof if I am wrong.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  109. Ekkman August 29, 2007 3:42 am Reply

    guy42
    Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 10:10pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    Istvan,
    Since I am here and it is related I will attempt to, briefly, address your
    questions


    4. I fight for a world where people do not fly planes into buildings in hopes
    of receiving 72 virgins, what did these poor girls do to deserve such
    punishment? I fight for a world where the fruits of science are used for
    the betterment of humanity rather than to drop bombs on people who believe in
    a different supernatural deity than we do. I fight for a world were very
    smart people can research stem cells and cure painful, crippling diseases;
    where people with those diseases which have not been cured are allowed to
    die with dignity, on their own terms, rather than suffering needlessly or
    being kept alive artificially, as part of God’s plan. A world where
    whatever goes on in my bed room between me and whatever other consenting
    adult(s) are present is none of your concern, where what goes on in your
    bed room is none of mine. …

    Ekkman said:
    I had to deal with the above comment that I bolded since I have heard it many times when I picketed Planned Parenthood for years. They use the same nonsense as logical. I want you to think about what you said above. Now let’s do one scenario among many. Let’s say you are married, your wife loves you and is faithful to you. Across the street is another woman with her husband, he loves his wife and is faithful to her. Now you see her one day and wow, you get something going with her in the privacy of her own bedroom or yours according to which one has their mate away for the time being. Anyway, the girl has a sexual disesase she doesn’t know it yet, she got it from the guy that she went to bed while her husband was out of town on a business trip last night. You lay with her and now you have the disease. You go back to your wife who is faithful to you. You then go to bed with her and she gets your new found disease. The woman you went to bed with the night before gives her husband who is faithful to her the disease that she gave you and now you give it to your wife. Yea, it does seem that what goes on in the bedroom of two consenting adults doesn’t matter?
    We are not a rock, nor are we an island. What we do does affect others whether we like it or not. We are social creatures and can mess up other lives quickly and easily when we are playing with sin or whatever you want to call it, it destroys. Sin by any other name still messes up the lives of those who play with it.
    As far as your other comments go, you are not going to get the kind of world where there is true peace and harmony until Jesus Christ comes to set up his kingdom and if you don’t know him as your Lord and Saviour then you won’t know that time when it happens.

    Ekkman

    http://www.ekkcom.net

  110. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 29, 2007 4:57 am Reply

    Dear DQ,
    could you please take your complaint to these people: http://www.egba.org.uk/ They are certain to be interested in your revisionism.

  111. Samphire August 29, 2007 5:25 am Reply

    Hi Endtimes,

    You said “The only comment that I wish to make is that Dr. Hovind quite clearly stated many times that he did not want to put creation in the schools or take evolution out of the schools…

    Sorry, but you are in error. If you go to http://www.3bible.com/video.php at about 58 minutes into the debate when KH is talking about macro-evolution he says “Get it out of our school system”.

    At 1.16 it was quite interesting to hear Kent talk of “prostrate” trouble in old men.

    At 1.31 he mumbles an aside: “We now have quasars putting out things 10 times the speed of light”. Any idea what he is talking about?

    Kind regards

    Samphire

  112. DQ August 29, 2007 5:49 am Reply

    The editor said: DQ, is it necessary for you to look for folks to attack? Are you in that much pain?

    Hmm, so Istvan attacks me by telling me I “need a cold shower” and I “don’t know what I’m talking about,” and you let it pass. Then I respond, and you accuse ME of “picking a fight.” How about asking him why he’s in so much pain? This is yet another example of your selective enforcement of your rules. Evolutionists can’t derail the blog with their ideas, but creationists and anti-tax protesters can post whatever they want. People can attack me with impunity, but I can’t say a word in response.

    I was not attacking him. I was trying to help him. I have been where he is, and I am much happier now than I was then. A huge weight was lifted off my shoulders when I learned how to find meaning in something other than the bible. I am recommending he try to do likewise.

    I lived in Berkeley, CA. for over 5 years. There are some very smart skeptics out there. They contend their side based on evidence, as they understand it.

    I just posted a link that contains mountains of evidence. Did you read it?

    So let’s review.
    1. I post tons of evidence.
    2. You ignore it.
    3. You accuse me of not presenting evidence.

    Is that honest? Please answer this question, because I’m really interested in how you can reconcile this behavior with your christian beliefs. You are bearing false witness against me. If you can tell such bold-faced lies, how can you accuse me of “hiding” spiritually?

  113. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 29, 2007 5:54 am Reply

    time for just a few words “only” on astronomy.

    when you look at the sky “using anything” you are basically measuring just two things.
    1. Lux = luminous intensity
    2. Wavelength.

    right ascension and declination are useful [ie. what direction you are looking in] for a trigonometric parallax method determination of distance for relatively near objects only.
    A fourth thing you might do is plot 1 or 2 against elapsed time to look for time dependency relationships.

    so what you have are a handful of measurements – this is the “empirical bit”.

    the entire “other bit” of astronomy is “theory”.

    Sure, you have some known emission spectra for some known elements as they exist on earth to make comparisons with, but thereafter, everything you have is “theory”.

    When Samphire said that the Universe is expanding he is guessing. He has come here with a guess to preach as a dogma.

    Whether you believe the universe is unbounded centreless and finite or has a centre of gravity and is either bounded or infinite is pure “religion”; there is nothing slightly empirical to it.

    When Carl Sagan said “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” he was standing in as a priest of his religion. When Samphire said the Universe is Expanding he was standing as a priest of his religion.

    How many other guesses isn’t he prepared to question?

  114. DQ August 29, 2007 6:00 am Reply

    EndTimes said: The only comment that I wish to make is that Dr. Hovind quite clearly stated many times that he did not want to put creation in the schools or take evolution out of the schools, he just wanted the lies out of the textbooks.

    I don’t know which seminar you’re talking about here, but it is definitely not what he said in the “Age of the Earth” seminar. He said a number of times that he thinks if people want to teach evolution in schools they should create private schools and people should have to pay to go to those schools to learn about evolution. He was quite clear that he did not want any of his “tax dollars” (irony can be so ironic sometimes, can’t it? This is really funny now that I think about it.) to go towards teaching evolution.

    And if you think that lies in the textbooks are bad, are you also prepared to live up to that standard yourself, and admit that your characterization of the human/chimp gene discrepancy was less than honest?

  115. Millerfamily6 August 29, 2007 6:35 am Reply

    For DQ:

    Here is some suggested study material with a bit of information to “whet your appetite” posted here from his (Mr. Chuck Missler) website:

    But “Six Days”?

    Did God really create the heaven and the earth in just six 24-hour days? How does a serious student of the Bible reconcile the Genesis account with the “billions of years” encountered in the dictums of astronomy, geology, et al?

    Many continue to attempt to circumvent the problem by assuming that the six days represent “geological eras,” or that the traditional text is simply a rhetorical “framework” for a literary summary of the creative process. Various forms of “theistic evolution” have been contrived in attempts to reconcile the Biblical text with the various theories and conjectures which dominate our evolution-based society. However, the sincere student cannot escape the confrontations which result from the straightforward reading of the text with the ostensible declarations of “science.” How can we deal with these fundamental issues?

    The account of the creation of the universe in six days is still a “bone in the throat” to many Christians. Many point out that the word for “day” is yom, ~Ayð and is translated to 54 other words; however, 1181 of 1480 occurrences it is “day,” and when used with a number it is always a literal day. But the real problem isn’t the account in Genesis. It is in Exodus. In the middle of the Ten Commandments, the Creator Himself wrote it in stone with His own finger!

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
    ——————————————————————————–

    FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH STUDY

    http://www.khouse.org/articles/2004/528/ At the bottom of the article you can order this audio cassette dealing with this subject matter of 6 days literal creation. It appears this man does do his homework, but that is just my opinion:0)

    Sincerely,
    Millerfamily6

  116. GORGE August 29, 2007 7:09 am Reply

    Hi DQ,

    Oh that you would humble your heart to seek the Face of God, so as to God would shine His light into your heart and forgive your sins as indeed HE has done with myself:
    http://www.needgod.com/001.shtml

    You said:

    “I actually feel sorry for you, that your life seems so meaningless to you that you have to find meaning in the writings of a bunch of bronze-age goat herders. I have learned to find meaning in my life in a way that does not force me to endorse slavery, rape, abortion, and slaughter, and I am much happier now than I was when I found meaning in the bible, which I did for the first half of my life. Believe me, as someone who speaks from experience, there are so many other, better ways to find meaning in your life!” end quote.

    Actually, creationists seek God in both the light of Scripture, and in the light of empirical evidence, which is much more consistent with separate creation of living things than with a chain of evolutionary ancestry.

    “And when the tumult dwindled to a calm,
    I left him practising the hundredth psalm.”

    Lord Byron (1788-1824)

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%20100&version=9

    You know, there’s room in heaven for you too!

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  117. DQ August 29, 2007 9:06 am Reply

    Arne:

    Sorry I did not respond to you earlier. I do have limited time to spend here.

    In your recent post you accused Kent Hovind to be a liar. That is not fair. Why?
    1. You didn’t (I believe tell Kent first).
    2. You didn’t tell us what he lied about, and you didn’t prove that it was lie.

    I’m not sure what you mean by point 1. Are you saying that I need to check with Kent before calling him a liar? I don’t agree with that, especially since Kent posts his lies all over the web and encourages people to watch them.

    2. It has been covered ad nauseum on this blog, including after you posted this. Check LH’s recent posts for specific lies.

    I’m not really sure how to respond to the rest of your post. Your point of view is so different from mine I can’t even begin to think of a way to respond. It’s almost like we’re speaking different languages. I will think about how to respond, and see if I can come up with a concise answer for you. I heard that Harry Truman once said, when asked how much time it takes him to prepare for a speech: “If you want me to speak for five minutes, I need a week to prepare. If you want me to speak for 30 minutes, I need a day to prepare. If you want me to speak for an hour, I’m ready right now.” That’s how I feel.

  118. Learned Hand August 29, 2007 9:43 am Reply

    Arne, as for your calculation, I think you’re pulling the “at least 1000 left handed molecules” number out of thin air. Is there a reason you picked it? I also think you’re mistaken regarding the chirality requirements; we only need “left handed” molecules once the replicators are established, or nearly so. If I remember my bio classes right, it could have happened with right-handed molecules, too. (I could very well be wrong about that, though. It’s been a long time since I read about chirality.) Your calculation also assumes that the entire process is random, which I think is unwarranted. Abiogenesis theories that I’ve read often consider a selective process working on the molecular assembly. It’s such an imprecise and undeveloped field, though, that I don’t read much of it. In any event, as I’ve discussed with End Times, abiogenesis is not a prerequisite for evolution or an old earth. They are separate, distinct theories. You could disprove abiogenesis tomorrow and evidence for common descent, evolution, and an old earth would still be overwhelming.

    I’ll take your word for what the bible says. It sounds as if you’re telling me that there’s no rule in the bible against lying, so it’s OK if Kent Hovind lies once in a while. You’re also telling me that you’re not qualified to assess the allegations of his lies. (That’s an honest and admirable admission, and I’ll echo it; I can’t personally assess his statements about cytochrome, either.) I wonder what makes Kent Hovind qualified to opine about such technical matters? I’m pretty sure that it’s not his mail-order diploma in Christian education, and I have never seen any indication that he studied scientific literature.

    In any event, you argue that scientists are often mistaken, and we don’t call them liars. That’s certainly true. The biggest distinction is that scientists test their theories. When they’re wrong, they adjust their expectations, rather than fudging the evidence. A scientist who makes assertions that he knows aren’t supported by data is lying. A scientist who asserts confidently that a fact is true and supported by the data, without knowing whether the data actually supports the statement, is also a liar. I think Mr. Hovind falls into these categories; perhaps his statements are merely mistakes, but when he repeats them after being corrected, he’s lying. When he claims the data supports his statements, he’s lying. And when he says something ridiculous, as with his assertion about the speed of light coming from a moving car, he’s lying. Sure, he may simply be ignorant of the physics – most people are, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But he’s holding himself out as an authority despite that ignorance, and that’s dishonest.

    Similarly, it’s no defense that he believes that he doesn’t own any property. When he filed for bankruptcy, he made the assertion (under oath, as far as I know) that he didn’t own any property under the law, not in his personal opinion under his religious ideology. Whether or not he considered it to be Jesus’s property, the title was in his name. The house was, I believe, in his name. (I could be wrong about that.) The mortgage was certainly in his name, despite his assertion that he had no debts. Was that Jesus’s mortgage, or Mr. Hovind’s? The man simply lied, and he didn’t do it for principle or faith – he did it to save money. I don’t think you’re doing him any favors by defending his unethical conduct. He’s only going to come out of this experience a better person if he’s able to admit that he committed both crimes and sins, and I don’t mean in the “we’re all sinners so it’s OK if I sin a little bit more” way. He should acknowledge that his very profitable but very illegal and immoral actions were wrong. Those who keep telling him that he’s a martyr are false friends indeed for encouraging him in his iniquity. I know this much about the bible: Christ threw the money lenders out of the temple – he didn’t make them his high priests.

    Thank you for your comments.

  119. Learned Hand August 29, 2007 9:43 am Reply

    End Times, you are a fountain of misinformation and flat-out dishonesty.

    The simple fact is that blind chance is exactly at the heart of the prevailing theory of evolution at the present time.

    This is a very clever attempt to moderate your prior statements without admitting that they were wrong. Earlier, you argued that evolution is a “blind chance” process. Having been shown the error in that statement, and after several failed attempts to justify the mistake, you’re now shifting your stance a little bit, while pretending that this materially different statement has been your position all along. I don’t know about anyone else, but I notice the deception, and I think the less of you for it. Nota bene, it’s not because you’re a YEC that “don’t like [your] statements;” it’s because so many of them are like your statement above — calculated deceptions intended to mislead and misinform your readers. You don’t behave in a moral, ethical, or honest manner.

    Similarly, your Kimura citations are inapposite. You either don’t understand the material, which is likely, or you’re intentionally misusing it and hoping that no one will be able (in the case of anti-creationists) or willing (in the case of creationists, who appear to be delighted by your dishonesty) to call you on it. Your error is most easily observed in this excerpt, which you highlighted: “Molecular evolution is a result of pure blind chance.”

    The “pure blind chance” here is the randomness of mutation, which we have already agreed is an (effectively) random process. Evolution itself is not a random process because it is subjected to a non-random filter. We’ve been over this several times. Having failed to show that the filter can accurately be described as a “blind chance” process, now you’re ignoring it all together, and apparently hoping that no one remembers those prior conversations. This is typically dishonest of you. The randomness of one element of biological evolution does not make the entire process random, because a selective feature applies a predictable filter to the random results. Consider, again, the example of the non-random coin toss game based on random coin flips.

    Nor is it relevant that “natural selection is blind when crossing . . . gaps. The fact that natural selection does not predict the future does not make it a random filter. It is still an inherently selective, non-random process; it merely selects in the present, and not in the future. You’re twisting the excerpt, secure in the knowledge that creationists couldn’t care less whether your statement is honest. I think you’re right about that, at least.

    End Times, why do you cleave to dishonesty so tightly? We had these conversations about randomness no more than what, a week ago? Now you think that we’ve all forgotten your failed attempts to justify your error, or the repeated demonstrations that natural selection is not a random process? This is simply immoral, unethical behavior. You made a mistake. No amount of squirming or slithering about will make that error an accurate, scientific statement. I think it says a great deal about the ideology of creationism that the most common characteristic of its defenders is their forked tongues.

  120. Learned Hand August 29, 2007 9:44 am Reply

    Dear LH, you had proposed that the only important element in evolution was the population. I have never denied that there are not population effects, yet you continue to deny what your hero Ernst man notes in so many different places in your favorite book that the individual is the OBJECT of selection.

    Our discussion began when I argued (correctly, in my opinion) that you supported Three Crosses’ ignorant statement that the theory of evolution is a theory of individuals evolving by force of willpower. I informed you that individuals do not evolve, and you began another angry tirade of responses. See, for instance, your comment of August 22nd at 10:57 p.m., where you responded to my statement (“Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time, which does not happen in an individual.) with an angry message and an utterly inapposite Mayr excerpt, which I later had to show you meant that Mayr understood that individuals don’t evolve. Now, you say, all you ever meant to say was that individuals are an important element in evolution. I’ll take you at your word as to what you meant to argue all along, although I cannot understand why you reacted so vociferously and stridently to my assertion that individuals do not evolve. As you say now that you agree with that statement, I’m not sure why you were so upset at the suggestion. I suppose, however, that we can now agree that Three Crosses statement that the theory of evolution teaches that something “makes it a conscious effort on the animal’s behalf when it evolved rather than die” is not only incoherent, but also factually wrong?

    Actually, I doubt that you’ll agree to that. I think it’s more important to you to support the ideology than to support accurate information about science, whether or not you agree with that science. Regardless, I’m proud of you. Your education is progressing slowly, but at least you have started to read a science book and admitted one true fact about evolution. It’s a long road, but a worthy one.

  121. Learned Hand August 29, 2007 9:51 am Reply

    ET, I don’t want this thread to be dragged down by your endless posts of angry recriminations and poorly-understood quote mining. Perhaps from now on, if you must persist in covering up your mistakes and errors with further misleading and inaccurate posts, that we do one post apiece, instead of three or four? The moderator might appreciate our mutual forbearance. I’ll go straight to your numbered points:

    1) The individual is the object of natural selection – Ernst Mayr, What Evolution is.(several pages, go read it for yourself.)

    Yes. You cited that passage, however, in an attempt to rebut my assertion that populations, and not individuals, evolve. (See your post of August 22nd, at 10:57 p.m.) Now you say that you agreed with my statement all along. I’m not sure what your original dispute was about, then. Perhaps you’re equivocating “natural selection” and “evolution”? That would be odd, as you equivocate “mutation” with “evolution” in this thread, as part of your attempt to justify your mistaken argument that evolution is, as you put it, a “blind chance” process.

    2) Abiogenesis is where Ernst Mayr starts his dissertation on “What Evolution Is” chapter 3, page 40.

    Abiogenesis is not, however, part of his definition of evolution, or of the definition used by most scientists. You’re being deceptive here – you can’t support your constant assertions that abiogenesis is part of the scientific theory of evolution, so you’re pointing to a book about evolution and saying, “see, this book talks about abiogenesis.” The book has a picture of a seahorse on the cover, but the theory of evolution isn’t dependent on the existence of seahorses. I’d say that this is a shameful attempt to confuse the issue, but as you appear to be quite shameless, I guess there’s no point.

    3) Motoo Kimura states that evolution is by blind chance.

    This is a lie. Kimura says that molecular evolution is by blind chance. You are confusing that with the evolution of species (as when your peer Jack Chick confuses stellar evolution with biological evolution). He is talking about the randomness of mutation, which can be preserved when the mutations are not submitted to the non-random filter of natural selection. Consider this excerpt from the website, which you curiously failed to include in your selections: “even Kimura’s theory does not deny the importance of natural selection in evolution; its only claim is that adaptive [therefore nonrandom -LH] mutations are rare, not nonexistent.”

    I notice that you haven’t cited any statement by Kimura that supports your characterization of his beliefs. Is it possible that you just googled “blind chance” and “evolution,” and grabbed an article with big words? Is that why you’ve cited an article about Kimura that includes those terms, but not his own work? And you’re just incensed that I cast aspersions on your credibility… What you’re doing is called “quote mining,” which is searching for tiny, out of context snippets that look like they support your goals as long as no one reads them too carefully or closely. It’s the Salvador Cordova school of argument, and it’s very dishonest. Read the entire article, and don’t quote excerpts dishonestly in hopes that no one will look past your out-of-context selections. Better yet, read the original article, and not a summary of it.

    Incidentally, I’m not sure why you say that Kimura is “the world’s leading … evolutionary authority at the present time.” Do you have something to support that accolade, or are you just making it up to bolster your quote-mining?

  122. Timothy Fellows August 29, 2007 10:10 am Reply

    To Jersey Girl,

    You wrote the following statement —
    “There is neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus. Before you use the writings of Paul to justify your insecurity about women, you should read a copy of his original writings that were written in Koine Greek. Many of his original meanings have been lost in translation because there are words in Koine Greek that do not translate well into English.”

    You cannot be a Christian and an unbeliever at the same time. Christians believe the Bible to be the product of Almighty God — inerrant, inspired, infallible and preserved in English — the only one Bible that came down through history and preceded all the recent counterfeits and corruptions (which doubt themselves very much like evolutionists do.) Your ignorant argument about something lost in the translation only tantalizes people who don’t want to believe the truth. I took 4 years of College Greek, Rebecca, It’s all there for honest readers. If you will not take the English translation, you won’t believe the originals either, wheresoever they might be.

    “There is neither male nor female” applies to our standing before God in Christ, but Rebecca, you and I have alot of differences between us — I for one wouldn’t have gone to the Iraq situation and then bragged about it — only a woman would do that.
    By the way, I’m not against women; I’m against perversion — both men and women. Don’t you see where this country is at right now, Rebecca? The Bible says you should be a “keeper at home.” Women in the military is a recent thing in all global history all the way back since the tadpole sprouted wings. If you will not take the wisdom of God, you will be left to your own ruin. Nobody ever proved God wrong, but millions have perished trying their hardest. We have a lot to say about women on our website. Please check it out.

    Timothy Fellows TrueReligionWorks.com

    http://TrueReligionWorks.com

  123. Samphire August 29, 2007 10:10 am Reply

    Mr Muir said: “When Samphire said that the Universe is expanding he is guessing. He has come here with a guess to preach as a dogma.

    No, I am not guessing; it is worse than that. I am parroting the words of those who have studied the phenomenon. I do not “believe” in an expanding universe but I do accept that that is what the evidence presently convincingly shows. If the evidence changes which forces the theory to be modified or jettisoned I shall doubtless bend with the wind. If I was not willing to allow my understanding of the natural world to evolve then I would still believe that the Sun went around the Earth and that on one afternoon a few decades into the modern era some dead bodies (number unknown) crawled out of their tombs and jauntily strolled around Jerusalem unremarked by their fellow citizens.

    However, I note that creationists quickly jumped on the bandwagon by eagerly finding a verse, Psalm 104:2: “He stretches out the heavens like a tent” to show that the Old Testament writers, inspired by God, were already aware of the phenomenon as though the securing of a stiff inelastic animal hide across the poles of the tent were equivalent to the highly elastic expansion of the universe. Of course, it isn’t. Like the heavens but unlike a tent, my dogma is highly elastic.

    As usual, P-G has inserted a new topic of his own devising only in order to set up a strawman so that he can knock it down. What a clever boy. It is mystifying how it is he hasn’t yet invented a free energy machine of his own.

  124. Samphire August 29, 2007 10:56 am Reply

    “BlessedOneOfGod
    Said this on August 24th, 2007 at 12:21pm: Responding to SAMPHIRE:

    So you are trying to say that a man and his family can’t build an ark?”

    I did not write that. I asked you to prove that a man (using as many creationists as he wanted to assist) could build a viable boat to the dimensions given in Genesis 6. I do not believe it to be possible but I may be wrong.

    “We have no idea how much time they spent building it (please correct me if I am missing a bit of scripture that covers this).

    Take as much time as you like.

    “Couldn’t God have been able to assist in building the ark? Where in the scripture is there proof against this?”

    I am only going on what the KJV says. God told Noah to make the ark. There is no indication whatsoever that God gave him any assistance whatsoever.

    “And please, consider the fact that we have an atmosphere that has more oxygen. It has been proven that a larger amount of oxygen versus other gases produces a larger thing.”

    Proven by who, when and what? I know of no evidence which would suggest that growing a tree in a more-oxygen rich environment would produce substantially longer, straighter, stronger and more rigid timber. Also, heavier timbers might give rise to transport difficulties. You’ll need bigger chainsaws and much stronger fixings and scantlings. That’s the trouble with boat building. Increase the length of the boat and you have to more than increase the amount and size of material from which it is built. That is why a boat twice as long as another will cost far more than twice as much.

    “Seven-foot tall bodies and taller have been dug up from these times. If you don’t believe this, pelt Doctor Hovind. He is the one who gave me this information.

    In which case you should have the wisdom to question it. But so what? There are quite a few men alive today who are reputed to be more than seven-feet tall.

  125. Samphire August 29, 2007 11:19 am Reply

    Hi Endtimes,

    Just to lighten up on your heavy discussion with LH try http://www.slatev.com/ and click on “How smart are chimps”.

    Whatever the pros and cons of human/chimp chromosome differences the chimps short-term memory abilities are quite extraordinary.

    Kind regards

    Samphire

  126. justinkees August 29, 2007 12:23 pm Reply

    So good to hear about mrs. Hovind!!

    Editor;
    plaese can you confirm me if the address of Mr Hovind still is the same in Edgefield?

    Thank you

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: I believe so; I have not heard otherwise in the past couple of days. http://www.bop.gov – use the “Inmate Locator”. P.A. ]

  127. Eugene August 29, 2007 12:32 pm Reply

    Dear Kent and family,

    Praise the Lord. We are all thrilled that Jo’s incarceration has been postponed. All Christians on this blog should continue praying for her and Kent’s release.

    Just to let you know that the 7 Seminar DVD’s are really “hot stuff” here in South Africa. Copies are available in quite a few of our libraries and are much sought after. Kent has dealt a devastating blow to the so called “new science” fanatics who have chosen to “disguise” their religion by mingling it with real science.

    The reason, I think, why so many people on this blog disagree with Kent’s explanations in his seminar series, is that he still teaches real science and not the science-fiction that we see today in our text books. Evolution has really messed-up the minds of many people.

    ————————————————————————————–

    To Samphire: Your reply to Pieter dated August 21st 2007 refers:

    > So all our similarly-minded YECs are liars just like Kent? Interesting! By your own definition, YECs must, therefore, conclude that you and your ilk are even bigger liars?
    > Having been sent to prison, Kent’s CSE Ministries will, no doubt, suffer set-backs. His seminar-videos are fortunately based on what the Bible teaches us and will remain useful and popular wherever they are shown. He seems to have many, many supporters all over the world, including myself. The wonderful thing about being a Christian is to forgive and support any other fellow-Christian, irrespective of the circumstances. We are all sinners. (Thank you for at least acknowledging that Kent is a professional evangelist.)

    > Absolute dating of specimens (radiometric dating) can only work if their relative geological ages are known. If relative dating is flawed, (in this case, the geological column) radiometric dating won’t solve the problem ….. it will make things worse!
    > You avoided answering the statement by Pieter that “…evolution is an excuse for those who want to sin without guilt:. It’s a fact, so why not admit it?

    Lastly, being a South African myself, almost nobody supports our Minister of Health and her rediculous views. She obtained her doctorate in Leningrad and also believes in the theory of evolution. Hope that answers you.

    Kind regards to all,

    EUGENE

  128. Martin Luther August 29, 2007 1:17 pm Reply

    Praise God for this Good News. We will continue to pray so that God will free and continue to surround with His love this family.
    Blessed be the Name of the Lord for He is GOD the All mighty. Thank you Jesus for such a costlove and for showing that after all YOU ARE IN CONTROL>
    GOD IS IN CONTROL AFTER ALL.

    I pray that the whole family Hovind be completely freed and reunified and that they kept the faith until the end.

    Martin Luther Neugwou, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

  129. djhouk August 29, 2007 1:24 pm Reply

    Arne
    Said this on August 29th, 2007 at 12:57am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    1. I really hope that the judge didn’t call Kent a liar. That says much more about the judge than about Kent Hovind!

    That’s EXACTLY what the judge called Kent. The judge stated that Kent “provided false information in his schedules and statement of affairs in connection with this case”. It doesn’t get much clear than that. The judge dismissed the bankruptcy filing as a sham. Why did Kent file for bankruptcy? To avoid paying an IRS judgement. Like I said….Kent really, really, doesn’t like to pay taxes.

    2. When I read about all of these things first I was shocked on how Kent has been treated by US-officials. You should get into that part of the story as well. His rights were frequently violated, and their behavior were ruthless. I believe that Kent made his statements on ownership by the fact that he himself belongs to Jesus Christ, and all that he possesses is consecrated to Him. So Yes, he doesn’t have any property! It is all God’s property! So he was in GOOD faith! However, the judge disagreed. My question to Kent as a Christian would then be if he is a faithful steward of the things entrusted to him? and as I have been involved in this blog, and read various testimonies about Kent, and how he has maintained this property, I would conclude that he didn’t abuse anything, but was generous and unselfish in his dealing with God’s property. I would find him to be a noble character who loves God and men. Unfortunately the tax codes are in disagreement with what is ethically right and what is constitutional. So the conflict goes on.

    I don’t doubt that Kent believed that all his possesions belonged to God. Unfortunately, it wasn’t God’s name on the titles of his vehicles or on the deed to his home.

    As for his rights being violated and his treatment by US officials; yes, there is more to the story. Let me quote from count 58 of the indictment (remember, a jury found him guilty of all 58 counts):

    COUNT FIFTY-EIGHT
    1. Part A of Counts One through Twelve is hereby realleged as if fully set forth herein.

    2. That between in or about March 1996 up to and including the dates of the return of this indictment, in the Northern District of Florida, the defendant,

    KENT E. HOVIND,

    did corruptly endeavor to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws by acts which include the following:

    a. Filing a petition for bankruptcy, and falsely listing the IRS as his only creditor, for the sole purpose of discharging this debt and forcing the IRS to release seized property;

    b. Filing a false and frivolous lawsuit against the IRS in which he demanded damages for criminal trespass and other false allegations during the IRS execution of a lawful court-issued search warrant;

    c. Filing a complaint for a preliminary injunction against an investigation IRS special agent and the Commissioner of the IRS;

    d. Making threats of harm to those investigating him and to those who may consider cooperating with their investigation;

    e. Filing a false complaint against investigating IRS agents with the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration;

    f. Filing a criminal complaint against investigating IRS special agents falsely alleging, among other things, false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive use of force, and theft or property;

    g. Destroying records; and,

    h. Paying his employees in cash and labeling them “missionaries” rather than employees to avoid payroll tax and Federal Insurance Contributions Act requirements.

    All in violation of Title, United States Code, Section 7212(a).

    Kent was busy violating others’ rights.

  130. GORGE August 29, 2007 1:49 pm Reply

    Elethiomel
    Said this on August 25th, 2007 at 1:42am:

    “Did Gorge forget about all the adaptations that the female mosquito has to getting the blood? CO2 sensitivity, heat sensitivity, anticoagulants? why would any of those things be needed for plants?”

    I quote:

    Carl Wieland

    “About 100 years ago, bird-biting mosquitoes called Culex pipiens entered the tunnels then being dug for the London Underground (the ‘Tube’). Cut off from their normal diet, they changed their habits to feed on rats and, when available, human beings. During WW2, they attacked Londoners seeking refuge from Hitler’s bombs. Their plaguing of maintenance workers may be the reason the underground variety has been dubbed molestus.

    British scientists have now found that it is almost impossible to mate those in the Tube with the ones still living above ground, thus suggesting that they have become a new species1 (or almost so). This has ‘astonished’ evolutionary scientists, who thought that such changes must take many times longer than this.2

    Informed creationists have long pointed out that the biblical model of earth history would not only allow for the possibility of one species splitting into several3 (without the addition of new information, thus not ‘evolution’ as commonly understood), but would actually require that it must have happened much faster than evolutionists would expect. The thousands of vertebrate species on the Ark4 emerged into a world with large numbers of empty ecological niches, often as varied as the two worlds of our mosquito example here. They must have split many times into new species in the first few centuries thereafter, as the bear population, for example, gave rise to polar bears, grizzlies, giant pandas and more.5 The observations on these underground mosquitoes are thus exciting news.

    Actually, creationists have long suspected that organisms had ‘built-in’ genetic mechanisms for rapid variation—even beyond the normal processes of adaptation where genes, reshuffled by sexual reproduction, are selected in various environments.6 Thus, recent discoveries of such mechanisms being still viable today are of very great interest.

    For example, there are genes which can ‘jump’ around the chromosome. These are normally kept in check, but Drs Jenny Graves and Rachel O’Neill of La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, have found that in hybrids, these can undergo ‘rampant’ changes.

    This may even be ‘the general mechanism for speciation in all multi-cellular creatures’ (by making it impossible to ‘back-breed’ with a parent population). Graves says, ‘We thought it took millions of years of long-term selection for a jumping gene to be activated. We’ve now shown that it can happen maybe in five minutes after fertilization.’7 These are exciting times to be a creationist.

    We think that expanding genetic research will likely reveal even more examples of built-in, ‘pre-fab’ mechanisms for rapid change in response to environmental pressures. Ironically, as more such created mechanisms (very far from normal Darwinian ideas) are discovered, they will probably be misconstrued as support for evolution, at the same time as biblical Christians are exulting in their true significance.”

    End Quote.

    Please use the link references and notes.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/biters.asp

    God Bless.

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  131. darling August 29, 2007 2:11 pm Reply

    David Said this on August 28th, 2007 at 12:10pm:

    “Why would anyone call the IRS helpline or teletax?”

    For legal information (which is different than legal advice.) I’m pretty sure most (all?) of the people working at the helpline aren’t attorneys, so they can’t give legal advice.

    The IRS is not expected, nor required, to enter into lengthy correspondence about technicalities, nor to argue over semantics or settled law. That’s the category Mr. Hovind’s questions fell into.

    “The fact is, No law makes anyone liable for the federal income tax.”

    Apart from, you know, this one:
    http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

    “The IRS states we only have to pay taxes we are liable for”

    And §1 of the IRS Code makes us liable for personal income tax. Rocket science, this is not.

    (Even so, the personal income tax is not relevant to Mr. Hovind’s conviction. As it happens, I posted some of that relevant law earlier.)

    EndTimes Said this on August 28th, 2007 at 2:23pm:

    “Please refresh my memory on the definition of kind by Haldane.”

    Well, as I said, that was derived from Haldane, not stated by him.
    Haldane says we need 300 generations for a beneficial mutation to be present throughout the population. YEC gives us 4,000 years within which to fit those 300 generations.

    Assuming a generation is 5 years (more or less, depending on the species). If Haldane’s Dilemma holds true, any two species with more than three beneficial mutations between them and their (alleged) common ancestor must be two different kinds.

    EndTimes and Learned Hand

    Do either of you have a problem with this statement:
    ‘Evolution is the nonrandom survival of randomly varying replicators’?

    If not (and reading what you’re both saying, I don’t think you do) then I think we’re all good.

    all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 Said this on August 28th, 2007 at 5:06pm:

    “No, No, No – essential features of the religion of Darwinism, Macro Evolutionism, Materialistic Scientism haven’t changed one iota.”

    Darwinism != Evolutionism != evolution

    “Essentially Darwinianists or Darwinites [which you are ‘darling’] are stuck with the statement “Mutation is Good””

    Apart from the (majority) harmful and neutral mutations, that is.

    Ekkman Said this on August 29th, 2007 at 1:38am:

    “Since you call Darwin a scientist then call Kent one too.”

    I did?
    No matter, as soon as Mr. Hovind (or anyone else) starts doing science I’ll be more than happy to.

    “Deal with the bolded parts above that you cut from my post when you made your comments that didn’t make any sense whatsoever.”

    Same answer. Same emphasis added. Same follow up.
    Evolution is not dependent – in any way, shape or form – upon Darwin (or Spencer or Huxley), his education, thoughts, deeds, motivations, etc.
    Therefore the judge’s comments don’t apply.

    Similarly, gravity and calculus are not dependent upon Isaac Newton’s wayward lifestyle (or lack thereof). Gravity and Evolution would still be here even if Newton and Darwin never were.

  132. pabramson August 29, 2007 2:44 pm Reply

    CIVILITY

    Folks, there are a few debates out there where there is practically no middle ground. Nuclear weapons & waste is one. Abortion is another. And … human origins is a third. People get heated because it is important. That is good to care, to be impassioned.

    If Dr. Hovind vs. over 100 university professors in debates could not “solve” the creation/evolution debate, we will not be able to solve it within this blog either.

    I periodically speak on campuses to “hostile” groups. One strategy I use to try to calm the situation at the beginning is to challenge them to (double-check and then) USE the data I present. It runs contrary to what their professors are teaching them. Use the data to make improved theories for the future. They don’t have to agree with me.

    Lately it seems that “lying” and “liar” and other terms are filling our posts. Well, we are not going to agree. This creation movement is not some “vast right wing conspiracy” … at least (shhh!) they can’t PROVE it!

    Perhaps I am inconsistent, however I like a witty retort. Heated exchange, with good points, I enjoy. When I have spoken to atheist groups in the past I have sometimes conceded points to them. Some skeptics are very smart people. I hope that a few of us creationists are too. To find that out for yourself, there are 20 of Dr. Hovind’s debates now on DVD: http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=629DVD

    I do not want to fully participate in blog debates. I need to moderate, and to hopefully do so fairly.

    The other person is a human soul. Yes, he or she is completely wrong, and YOU are completely right. But try to persuade instead of using lots of insults. Consider that she or he opposes you on the issue based on their best understanding, instead of assuming that there are “lies” involved. http://www.TalkOrigins.org makes some very good points. In fact I link to them from within http://www.creationism.org When St. Paul spoke on Mars Hill (Acts 17) he actually quoted a couple of Greek poets in his brief speech. Please, let us be civil. And let us learn from each other, as that is possible.

    Paul Abramson

    http://www.creationism.org

  133. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 29, 2007 2:55 pm Reply

    …………… If the evidence changes

    is evidence morphic or malleable?

    Isn’t the evidence one specific body of facts?

    Don’t you really mean if new facts arise?

    Don’t you mean if more anomalies than what currently exist and are difficult already to ignore get added to the anomalies list and become too embarrassingly long to sideline anymore?

    Isn’t that what your mind is really saying?

    not that history matters to you but it was Elethiomel who introduced astronomy to the blog recently and you added to it – so that’s about how good you are with history.

  134. GORGE August 29, 2007 3:06 pm Reply

    Hi Timothy Fellows,

    The bible says women can work, am I reading you right. Does not Rachel

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  135. Learned Hand August 29, 2007 3:13 pm Reply

    I suppose Mr. Abramson’s last comment is largely directed at me. He has been an uncommonly civil and permissive moderator, and I owe him the courtesy of restraining my rhetoric. I’ll guard my tongue more carefully. I’d like to point out, however, that it’s not that creationists deny evolution that I find so dishonest. It’s the way creationists make up distorted versions of evolution, then teach those versions so that they need not confront the complexities and evidence of actual science. For instance, Three Crosses portrayed evolutionary theory as one in which genes think, and animals evolve by exerting their own willpower. That is an absurdly false picture of evolutionary theory, and not an honest portrayal of biology at all. No scientist—no person of any profession—believes the insane things Three Crosses attributes to evolutionary biologists. And no one who so portrays biology has any business holding forth as if they were an expert, or even minimally competent in the field.

    And yet, not a single creationist stepped forward to say, “Hey, that’s not right. Even if we don’t like what biologists say, we shouldn’t just make up crazy stories and attribute those stories to scientists. It’s not true, it’s deceptive, and it degrades the discussion. No one can make up their mind about whether to agree with science if they’re fed made-up stories about what that science is.” Why do creationists not care enough about the truth to correct their peers’ blatant misstatements? It appears to me that the creationist ethos is that the ends justify the means, which I find unacceptable. It’s only those of us who oppose creationism who cared enough about the truth to explain why Three Crosses’ understanding of what scientists teach was incorrect. The creationists here, i.e. End Times, eagerly support such misinformation.

    I think that’s a very important point, and that it reflects on the ethics of creationism. One of my ideologies (to stretch the word) is civil libertarianism. I adore civil liberties. When another anti-creationist suggested that Mr. Hovind not be allowed to waste a court’s time with his appeals, I remonstrated with him – although I share his disregard for Mr. Hovind’s criminal conduct, I could not be silent while he tortured the concept of justice by suggesting that a convict be denied access to the courts. Where are the creationists similarly moved by their fellow travelers’ inaccurate and untrue characterizations of science? Why do no creationists here ever step forward to correct their peers’ errors in biology or law? This would be a less heated conversation if more creationists valued their moral principles above their ideological loyalties, and were willing to say, “Even though I share your goals, this statement you’ve made is inaccurate.”

    Similarly, I’m disturbed that you keep linking to Mr. Hovind as some sort of expert, despite the quite clear evidence that he makes up facts as he goes along, and does not care about the truth enough to speak it. Mr. Hovind is not an expert in biology, or physics, or geology, or any other scientific discipline. There’s a reason he sells DVDs online instead of publishing peer-reviewed research, as scientists do. I’ll suggest, once again, that anyone interested in forming an informed opinion about science must first learn what science says about evolution. You will not learn that from a creationist. Please read a book by a scientist, such as Ernst Mayr’s excellent What Evolution Is. The much more recent Parasite Rex is only obliquely about evolution, but it’s a much more fun read, and a truly excellent book. (In fact, I think even committed creationists would enjoy it for its joyful explanations of the wonders of biology.)

    Thank you, Mr. Abramson, for your forbearance. While I find your ideology to be misguided, you are a considerate and evenhanded moderator. I do appreciate it, and I apologize for my bluntness.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: LH, no, not at all about you, per se. As I scan messages, it seems to me that several participants have been quick to contend in negative ways and with (sometimes) personal attacks against any and all who dare oppose them. This is a hard debate. I have strong opinions. Persons who oppose my particular position also have strong opinions. Each side thinks they are right. That is a recipe for heated contention. It could be good for learning. But that is not a given. I think that you make some good points. I do not believe that your opponents will be able to persuade you, at least not at this time in your life. Conversely, I also do not think that you will be able to persuade those who are contending against your position. And alas, … there is almost no middle ground. P.A. ]

  136. GORGE August 29, 2007 3:34 pm Reply

    Hi Timothy Fellows,

    The bible says women can work, do you agree brother, am I reading you right?
    Did you know the name of ‘Rachel’, Rebecca’s daughter-in-law, means ‘shepherdess’. This Signals to us her line of work (a hard, dangerous and dirty one at that). There are examples in the Bible of women working besides the more important job of being a full time mum.
    I believe 1 corintians 7 is directed to both men and women. If you can see were I am comming from when you read the chapter, ie. Though it is good, God ordained and a real blessing to to be married. It is better to be single (if God gives you the grace) so you can put all your energies into God’s kingdom.)
    I am in full agreement with your veiw on the issue of women leadership in the church and within the marriage.

    God bless brother.

    http://www.mfgc.net/

  137. Matthew August 29, 2007 5:18 pm Reply

    BadBob said: The purpose for this blog site is to relate news about the Hovinds, CSE, DAL, and related topics.

    Unforunately, there is not much news that can be reported besides the Hovinds’ legal troubles.

    On DQ’s asking for evidence of six-day creation.

    I believe DQ is asking whether there is proof that everything was created in six days compared to just one day, a month, a year or billions of years.

    Istvan’s questions

    #1 Originally, to question Kent Hovind’s position on evolution and the age of the earth.
    #2 I do not wish this, I do not care whether you believe in God or not.
    #3 I do not think this, any more than one should think it would be a better place without athiests.
    #4 Peaceful world, one where people do not think that this is the “end times.”

    On Ron Paul for president

    Would he not need the House and the Senate on side to eliminate the IRS?

    For those who dogs did not evolve from non-dogs

    Yahoo Answers has explanation for this.

    Paul Abramson said: “Yes, he or she is completely wrong, and YOU are completely right.”

    There is no indefinite right or wrong in most cases. There are more than two sides to every story. I am so amazed that creationists will not say “I did not know that” when explain evolution.

    As far as age of the earth, I am still waiting for comments to my oldest tree video. I am willing to hear arguments from either side.

  138. EndTimes August 29, 2007 5:28 pm Reply

    Dear DQ,

    I accurately stated Dr. Hovind’s strategy for removing evolution from the schools. In contradistinction to several others who have gone down the teach creation or ID in schools, I correctly pointed out that Dr. Hovind wishes to have false teachings such as the peppered moth account be removed form the textbooks. Dr. Hovind has never made any suggestions that he supports evolution teaching, so you have not found an inconsistency whatsoever on what I have quoted. Dr. Hovind opposes evolution and wishes that it was not taught in public schools. However, Dr. Hovind’s strategy is to remove false teachings, Lies in the Textbooks, as his method of opposing evolution. This is a much different strategy than other creation/ID groups that support such things as teach the controversy and that was what I commented on.

    Removing lies from the textbooks is constitutional, ethical and moral. I find it quite a brilliant strategy, but I do not personally believe that the battle of creation/evolution should be carried out in the classrooms of America with the children as the pawns on either side. Unfortunately, Muslims, Wiccans, Secular Humanists, Catholics, Gay and Lesbian advocates are allowed extensive access to the children of America which is social engineering at tax payer support. If you want to keep religion out of public schools, then keep it out. ALL of it.

    Lastly, I have quoted correctly from several chimp/man articles and had extensive discussion on those articles. I have given the many direct references to the articles so that you can read them for yourself and make up your own mind about the issues from the source of this information directly. That is an honest manner of debating an issue. I have not lied to anyone on this blog and I am getting quite tired of hearing that false accusation over and over again. If you wish to debate as a man, then focus on issues. If you wish to be an immature child and muster your arguments by insults then go ahead, but you shall lose every one of those exchanges by default from false logic and bad manners. Are you not ashamed to go to mudslinging in your comments when your comments in themselves lack any substance? Please show me what I have been dishonest about my comments on the chimp/man issue. Please do tell me since I gave all of the direct references for all of my comments as is my usual method of debating and my common practice.

    With great umbrage for immature and impolite dealings with evolutionists who cannot focus on the issues at hand. You cannot hold any candle in a conversation for one moment with people such as lagamorph2 and Samphire on these issues, and they are quite able to discuss calmly and thoughtfully the issues before us without resorting to insults. Why can’t you?

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  139. btodd August 29, 2007 5:38 pm Reply

    Regardless of the barbs involved, I wholeheartedly agree with Learned Hand’s statements about intellectual honesty. While it is true that we all fail from time to time, I agree that there is a very obvious pattern at work here, and that it reflects upon the ideology as a whole (although not all of its adherents are guilty).

    Aside from the lack of correction on the side of creationists, I personally feel like many of those I have debated deliberately cut out those parts that are most damning to their cause. The tough questions usually get cut out, and unless I continually point it out (which makes me the bully, I suppose) and grill them on it, it gets conveniently forgotten. Although I’m not perfect, I have spent considerable time trying to answer my opponent. It is very frustrating when I don’t see the same. I do try to honor your questions. But I do have several completely ignored questions right now, from people who were quite boastful about their positions.

    If there is anything specific that any of you feel I have skipped over, I encourage you to bring it to my attention. I very well may be at fault, and would like to correct it if that’s the case.

    The moderator’s and Learned Hand’s comments were well-said. I personally need to tone my statements down as well. Being more honest and forthright to the debate will lessen the frustration that causes us to be less civil.

    Btodd I

  140. EndTimes August 29, 2007 5:46 pm Reply

    Dear Samphire, the glorious magnificence of God’s creation in all of His creatures including dolphins, elephants, chimps and even pigs with high levels of intelligence really is not an issue that any creationist contends. We instead applaud and praise the Lord for all that He has created. We just do not believe that any of this was by blind chance which is the ENTIRE creation/evolution debate in a nutshell. We believe that the evidence stands squarely on the side of creation in light of the incredible complexity of life just as the Bible states:

    Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
    19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
    20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

    Peter.

    P.S. Thank you once again for being the model of decorum on this blog even though we have yet to reach much of an agreement on the items discussed. Nevertheless, like my sister and her husband who understand good manners and focused discussions of the issues, I do even more so with each passing day on this blog appreciate your civility.

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  141. campusministry August 29, 2007 7:42 pm Reply

    From CampusMinistry:

    My rebuttal to:

    Phillip-George (c)1974
    Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 5:19am:

    “campusministry,
    all John Bunyan had to do was accept a license.”

    There is not a word in my original comment suggesting that Dr. Kent Hovind or anyone get a license to preach. The license (freedom or right) to preach comes from God. For Bunyan’s case to apply here, Dr. Hovind would have to be living in a country where the church and state were in business together, as in Bunyan’s England, and the legal denomination (Church of England) would force by law any preacher to get a permit to preach. Since Bunyan was an English Dissenter or NonConformist, and refused to get a license, he was jailed. Was Dr. Hovind jailed for preaching without a license? No. He was jailed for income tax evasion and stucturing. Dr. Hovind received income from goods and services his ministry offers. He sells all kinds of goods on his website, just take a look. Each item has a price on it. He was and is in business. Now, if he had set up a tax-exempt organization, for example, which is not a license to preach, but a business, like an LLC, it would have separated his personal liability from the ministry. Does Dr. Hovind drive a car to preaching engagements? If so, does he have a drivers license? If so, then could you logically conclude that he has some sort of license from the state to facilitate his preaching, ergo, a license to preach? Did Dr. Hovind have a bank account? To open a bank account you must give personal information to the bank, they fill out forms and documents, you sign your name on those documents, thus giving you a sort of license to do banking business. Was the banking business he was engaged in related to his ministry? Yes, I think you could say it was. Then could you say the bank required him to have a license to preach, it certainly was needful for all his ministry needs, traveling etc., to preaching engagements. Did Dr. Hovind have to show Identification (drivers license, passport etc.) in order to board airplanes to go preach around the USA and world? Of course he did. Then could you say he had to have a license to travel to preach? Without the traveling, there would not have been much preaching going on, in light of the fact that he had over 900 speaking engagements in 1 year. That’s preaching about 3 times a day, more or less.

    Dr. Hovind is doing plenty of preaching in the slammer. If the gov’t required license to preach, what license does he carry now? If they ever had a right to require a license of Dr. Hovind, it would be now, I think. The Fed. Gov’t feeds him, clothes him, houses him, gives him medical and dental care, and he uses Federal facilities to preach and teach God’s Word. They should want a license from him now more than ever. But they don’t.

    I preach on college and university campuses around the world, open-air. I carry no license from the state to preach. This is my 23rd year. I stopped counting campuses after 300. I have personally preached the Gospel to thousands of students and faculty in those 22 plus years. Almost daily I am confronted and threatend by police and campus security. They ask me if I have a permit or (license) to preach on their university. I say YES! My license was issued by the Governor. They say “The Governor!” and usually name the governor of that particular state. I say “Not the state governor, but the Governor of the Universe!” Oh, by the way, I have never been arrested for preaching without a license, and neither was Dr. Hovind.

    You go on to say:

    “Patrick Henry is quoted as saying of another preacher he perchance encountered, ‘When they stopped beating him, I could see the bones of his rib cage. I turned to someone and asked what the man had done to deserve such a beating as this.’
    The reply given was that the man being scourged was a minister who refused to take a license.
    Purportedly that same preacher was again beaten; and that unto his death, just several days later.
    Patrick Henry perhaps more than any other gave moral authority to the establishment of a republick”

    Again, Dr. Hovind was never asked to take a license to preach. He was busted for income tax evasion and structuring bank withdrawals.

    You go on to say:

    “What you seem to find difficult to understand is that any man could occupy any place in public life and exercise a moral conscience at the expense of expedience: If no greater insight than you have brought is the best that you can give I wonder if people shouldn’t be more appalled at your condition than that of those men beating Patrick Henry’s chance encountered preacher to death.”

    Sir, I have received more personal injury for preaching than most in this country. I have been spit upon, publicly cursed, stoned, had rocks, sticks, water balloons, coins, thrown at me, been punched, pushed, and had personal property stolen. One student tried to set my coat on fire, I’ve had drinks dumped on my head. On a few occasions I have been followed back to my car by one or more angry men. In one case a student rammed my car with his car. Etc. So your accusation that I am the equivalent or worse than the representative of the gov’t who beat a preacher to death is preposterous. In fact, you owe me an apology.

    You go on to say:

    “So many people have come to the blog with no better explanation to offer than that the man must be a thief at the public expense.”

    If Dr. Hovind set up his ministry in the right way, he probably would’t have to pay much, if any tax.

    You go on to say:

    “It is a testament of their thought processes that financial profit is the only explanation they can offer. That is all they seem to have learnt from their observations of those in public life.
    Is this the same republick Patrick Henry envisaged?”

    Sir, this country is so far from the foundation those men laid, to bring it back to what they had would be well nigh impossible without another revolution.

    You go on to say:

    “bro. Kent is neither a liar, nor a thief, but for ways in which we aren’t all guilty of the same. And I agree with you, God is in the miracle business.”

    We may all have been guilty at one time or another of breaking the law, we just didn’t get caught. Most people get away with a lot more than they ever get caught doing. Dr. Hovind would probably still be free if he had just kept his mouth closed about what he was doing concerning taxation. Remember, loose lips sink ships.

    CampusMinistry
    [email protected]

  142. campusministry August 29, 2007 7:57 pm Reply

    CampusMinistry rebuttal for:

    DQ
    Said this on August 27th, 2007 at 5:30am:
    ——————————————————————————–

    campusminister said: to Mr. DQ,

    The answer to your question about the 6 day creation is simple. God took six days because He wanted to take His time and do a good job. Otherwise He would have done it all in a nano-second, or quicker.

    DQ said:

    You christians sure do place a lot of restrictions on god. He couldn’t do just as good a job in a nanosecond as he could in 6 days? That does not sound like an all-powerful god to me.

    However, I would like to thank you for trying. Unfortunately, unsubstantiated guesses from campus ministers are usually not considered as scientific evidence, even by such unprincipled liars as Kent Hovind. In fact, even if you are correct in your guess, that would only explain the reason for the 6 day creation, not provide evidence for it.

    campusministry answers:

    Yes, God could do just a good a job fast or slow in creating the cosmos. I’m injecting a little humor. You evil-utionists don’t seem to have much (humor). The Bible says “it doeth well like a medicine.” Most of you guys need a good dose of Bible medicine. Take one pill a day is my prescription. You may ask “What pill.” Why the GOS-PILL of course.
    We don’t limit God. God limits himself. God the Son limited Himself to be born of a virgin,(few examples in our day), live a sinless, perfect life. Preach the Truth that sets men free. Predict his death, burial, and resurrection. Then pull it off without a hitch. Offer the free gift of spiritual regeneration. Which I have received with pleasure. And it has worked for me just as the Bible describes, for 27 years. It’s the Bible sir. Read it and weep. Study for your final, final exam. When you stand before the God of the universe, and give account for your miserable life. It’s Father God, not mother earth. Evil-ution is science fiction. Smoke now, burn later. etc., etc.

    Oh by the way, God loves you.

    [email protected]

  143. EndTimes August 29, 2007 8:07 pm Reply

    Dear LH,

    Perhaps instead of going over the same argument again and again and again, why don’t you tell us the prevailing evolutionary theories and why the other theories of evolution are incorrect from the one that you feel is the best explanation. People keep talking about the “ToE” when in fact there are MANY theories of evolution that are in fact quite contradictory to the others. I see NO cohesive and unifying principles agreed upon in the evolution debates among the evolutionists other than evolution happened. I would advise everyone on this blog to read from the SEVERAL different evolution camps and the heated debates between them. If you think that the debates between creationists and evolutionists are heated, you are missing the biggest debates of all. The only issue that is agreed upon by all evolutionists is that evolution is a fact. The role of chance vs. determinism, natural selection vs. genetic drift, neutral vs. adaptive, punctuated vs. gradual and they are all at odds with each other as well as many other “theories of evolution” with the supporters of any given philosophy of evolution being quite good at lambasting each other.

    I invite all to read the mountains of posts and my practice of posting my replies with sources available. In fact, that is the honest method of debate. You have demonstrated that you will not accept even that which you state you will, direct quotes from the entire article. Again, I do not believe that there is anyone here on this blog that has quoted more direct source articles than I have and if there is then more power to them because that is the method of HONEST debate. I am finally done with this nonsense and will not waste any more time in responding to your insults any more. Actually, I am sure that all are quite sick of your insults, false accusations, misquotes and beligierant mannerisms, so I will go and talk with those that can hold a civil conversation instead. You are free to insult away, yet at the same time, you have not ONCE cast any dispersions towards me despite your angry and desperate attempts to do so. You truly offer nothing to these discussions and I actually feel quite sorry for people such as you. So, once again, goodbye.

    I will take a break from your insults so that I will be able to focus once again on praying for your salvation which is more important.

    In the love of Christ,

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  144. Ganf August 29, 2007 10:14 pm Reply

    God said that Adam could eat freely from every tree in the garden except the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. There was no mention of any prohibition from eating from the Tree of Life.

    Genesis 2
    [8] And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
    [9] And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

    [16] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
    [17] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    Could Adam (and Eve) have eaten from the Tree of Life without proscription and resulting sin?

    After disobeying God, the Tree of Life was off limits to Adam and Eve –

    Genesis 3
    [22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
    [24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

    Later, there was a big flood. Was the Tree of Life destroyed in the deluge?

    Or was it transplanted, as suggested in-

    Ezra 8
    [52] For unto you is paradise opened, the tree of life is planted, the time to come is prepared, plenteousness is made ready, a city is builded, and rest is allowed, yea, perfect goodness and wisdom.

    and

    Revelation 2
    [7] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

    and

    Revelation 22
    [2] In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

    It would seem that Satan would have wanted Adam and Eve to become immortal before gaining knowledge of good and evil if he really wanted to confound God. Regardless, I don’t understand why the Tree of Life wasn’t off-limits to begin with. Can anyone provide some additional scripture to help me out?

    Thanks, Michael

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: To eat, to take in, to consume. Also the woman at the well (John 4); Jesus asks her for water, then discusses living water. There is physical consumption; there is spiritual consumption.

    John 4:14 “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”

    Dr. Chuck Missler (see: “Learn the Bible in 24 Hours” http://store.khouse.org/store/catalog/CD105.html ) contends that the Fall may have resulted in a loss of dimensional awareness for Adam and Eve too.

    It is interesting that cherubims! were placed to “guard/keep the way” (i.e. to preserve?) to the tree of life. Cherubims are extremely powerful angels.

    So we could ask, though it MUST have been washed over in the Deluge (right?), where is Eden today? Recently, one person on this blog said that it may be somewhere “under” Lebanon. I would instead contend Jerusalem as a choice. Perhaps it is down, directly under the Temple Mount. I do not know.

    Genesis 14:18 “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.”
    Psalm 76:2 “In Salem also is his tabernacle, and his dwelling place in Zion.”
    Hebrews 7:2 “To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;”

    Salem — Jeru-salem…

    Abram tithes to Melchizedek in Genesis, chapter 14. Only afterwards, in chapters 15-17, does God give him the promise of Isaac.

    Back to Eden – there was every kind of pleasing tree (Gen. 2:9). Two trees stand out. For “the knowledge of good and evil” I question if they were to never eat (consume or ingest in some way, in some dimension) from it, or rather if the stricture was an implied “not yet”. But we do not know.

    Finally, it is interesting that many truths of Genesis (including the “2 trees”) are still remembered within the characters of the Chinese language: http://www.creationism.org/chinese2.jpg P.A. ]

  145. Arne August 29, 2007 11:36 pm Reply

    Dear DQ,

    Thanks for your kind response.
    You said this on August 29th, 2007 at 9:06am:

    DQ: “I’m not sure what you mean by point 1. Are you saying that I need to check with Kent before calling him a liar? I don’t agree with that, especially since Kent posts his lies all over the web and encourages people to watch them.”

    Arne: Yes. It would be a correct way to go directly to the one who you accuse in the first place, and if he doesn’t hear you, then you ought to bring someone else with you. Well, that’s the procedure that Jesus asks of us. The motive is LOVE. Why should I let everybody know that he is a liar if I don’t care about him? Wouldn’t that make me also into a liar?

    DQ: 2. It has been covered ad nauseum on this blog, including after you posted this. Check LH’s recent posts for specific lies.
    Arne: ok. It’s good to be specific though. And since it is public, it’s good to be polite too, and not just through generic accusation around you.

    DQ on a 6 day creation: I’m not really sure how to respond to the rest of your post. Your point of view is so different from mine I can’t even begin to think of a way to respond. It’s almost like we’re speaking different languages. I will think about how to respond, and see if I can come up with a concise answer for you. I heard that Harry Truman once said, when asked how much time it takes him to prepare for a speech: “If you want me to speak for five minutes, I need a week to prepare. If you want me to speak for 30 minutes, I need a day to prepare. If you want me to speak for an hour, I’m ready right now.” That’s how I feel.

    Arne: I understand that it is an unusual scientific approach to go to the Bible first, and then check if the Bible is reliable, and therefore a basis of absolute truth as spoken by God himself. Yet your question about a positive proof for an exact 6-day creation is extremely narrow. Given nature by itself it’s a thing I believe cannot be proved. We can of course see traits that speaks for a 6 day-creation, like Phillip-George commented to me previously, by studying rythms in nature. While it can be an argument, it is hard to use as proof. Therefore the only real proof I can think of, is what God can reveal to you personally from the Bible. So faith is in fact needed, but not blind faith, since you can test the reliability of the Bible scientifically. For this reason Creationist usually don’t say that we have proof of a 6-day creation, but we find that what the Bible says, and the processes and history of nature are in agreement. That’s why we try to find proofs for a young earth and signs after a universal flood. I would encourage you to ask God sincerely about his Word, and to actually find out for yourself. The Bible is unique in history. It is a book (actually a collection of 66 books), that can be proved to correctly having predicted the future. It is truthful. It is extremely honest. It is testable. And the sources can be proved to be historically correct. That way this book differs from all other religious books.
    But you’ll find out for yourself.

    God bless you!

    Sincerely,
    Arne

  146. Arne August 30, 2007 1:50 am Reply

    Learned Hand said:

    “Arne, as for your calculation, I think you’re pulling the “at least 1000 left handed molecules” number out of thin air. Is there a reason you picked it? I also think you’re mistaken regarding the chirality requirements; we only need “left handed” molecules once the replicators are established, or nearly so. If I remember my bio classes right, it could have happened with right-handed molecules, too. (I could very well be wrong about that, though. It’s been a long time since I read about chirality.) Your calculation also assumes that the entire process is random, which I think is unwarranted. Abiogenesis theories that I’ve read often consider a selective process working on the molecular assembly. It’s such an imprecise and undeveloped field, though, that I don’t read much of it. In any event, as I’ve discussed with End Times, abiogenesis is not a prerequisite for evolution or an old earth. They are separate, distinct theories. You could disprove abiogenesis tomorrow and evidence for common descent, evolution, and an old earth would still be overwhelming.

    I’ll take your word for what the bible says. It sounds as if you’re telling me that there’s no rule in the bible against lying, so it’s OK if Kent Hovind lies once in a while. You’re also telling me that you’re not qualified to assess the allegations of his lies. (That’s an honest and admirable admission, and I’ll echo it; I can’t personally assess his statements about cytochrome, either.) I wonder what makes Kent Hovind qualified to opine about such technical matters? I’m pretty sure that it’s not his mail-order diploma in Christian education, and I have never seen any indication that he studied scientific literature.

    In any event, you argue that scientists are often mistaken, and we don’t call them liars. That’s certainly true. The biggest distinction is that scientists test their theories. When they’re wrong, they adjust their expectations, rather than fudging the evidence. A scientist who makes assertions that he knows aren’t supported by data is lying. A scientist who asserts confidently that a fact is true and supported by the data, without knowing whether the data actually supports the statement, is also a liar. I think Mr. Hovind falls into these categories; perhaps his statements are merely mistakes, but when he repeats them after being corrected, he’s lying. When he claims the data supports his statements, he’s lying. And when he says something ridiculous, as with his assertion about the speed of light coming from a moving car, he’s lying. Sure, he may simply be ignorant of the physics – most people are, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But he’s holding himself out as an authority despite that ignorance, and that’s dishonest.

    Similarly, it’s no defense that he believes that he doesn’t own any property. When he filed for bankruptcy, he made the assertion (under oath, as far as I know) that he didn’t own any property under the law, not in his personal opinion under his religious ideology. Whether or not he considered it to be Jesus’s property, the title was in his name. The house was, I believe, in his name. (I could be wrong about that.) The mortgage was certainly in his name, despite his assertion that he had no debts. Was that Jesus’s mortgage, or Mr. Hovind’s? The man simply lied, and he didn’t do it for principle or faith – he did it to save money. I don’t think you’re doing him any favors by defending his unethical conduct. He’s only going to come out of this experience a better person if he’s able to admit that he committed both crimes and sins, and I don’t mean in the “we’re all sinners so it’s OK if I sin a little bit more” way. He should acknowledge that his very profitable but very illegal and immoral actions were wrong. Those who keep telling him that he’s a martyr are false friends indeed for encouraging him in his iniquity. I know this much about the bible: Christ threw the money lenders out of the temple – he didn’t make them his high priests.

    Thank you for your comments.”

    1. The chirality is important, actual crucial to life. If it were not, my argument would be invalid, although it wouldn’t change much on the situations, since there are other extremely unlikely factors as well. The chirality is needed for reproduction, of the genetic material into cells. All the amino acids needed for reproduction are exclusively left handed, and the receptors are exclusively right handed. Otherwise they would not have fitted into the reproduction machinery. This is a fact in itself that is extremely unlikely. You see, stones don’t possess much intelligence, and can’t plan a structure that needs only left handed and right handed molecules. By the way why should the stones think that this is better than racemakers. Racemakers would be the average mixture, if you managed to make a polypeptide. In Miller’s famous experiment he got a small number of amino-acids, but they were all racemakers. That is 100% useless for life. Left handed amino acids can be produced in a laboratory, but that needs know-how, special conditions and resources that are not available in nature. Here’s where the religious part of Evolution starts. Those who nevertheless advocate that this happened in nature are forced to put intelligence into the “stones” or the universe itself. This would reflect for example the belief system of Aldous Huxley. With other words there is a super natural demand to accomplish this structure successfully. We believe that God did this. Huxley would believe that this was something immanent in nature. It is in fact unfortunate that we have to go into the area of philosophy in order to defend a possible abiogenesis. That is not scientific. Abiogenesis and the big-bang theory is always mentioned together with the ToE. Logically it makes no sense to discuss the ToE if you have disproved abiogenesis, since it requires supernatural involvement to happen in the first place. If you needed supernatural involvement in the first place, why would you then exclude it in the rest of the theory (ToE)? Anyway the question of statistics are extremely important first to the evolutionists, because their model IS build upon a statistical-mathematical process, where the survival of the fittest is the propulsive engine. So why not just show that it either fits or not mathematically? The claim is mathematical, but the research almost always omit this area.

    About truth and lying. You took my word for this. Maybe you shouldn’t have. The commandment about false witness, just explains our relationship to our neighbor. Of course we should speak truth with each other. But when someone doesn’t speak the truth, the Bible has a procedure on how to process. We’re not just screaming out “Liar!”, but rather confront the person with his claims in private. (See my answer to DQ on this). It is an extremely personal issue. I don’t think that you like it yourself when people make public your sins and shortcomings. And if you don’t why do you do this to your neighbor? Why do we want to humiliate others? Is it to put forth our own ego? Is it to project that I am so much better than you? Now about the statements of Kent Hovind: I don’t personally know about his research methods, but I do know that he has done lot’s of searching, because his videos are filled with links and references that can be tested. While I see there are some blunders among the many words, I tend to think that he got the major point correct. I previously googled Kent Hovind, and started to read pro and against him on the internet, and to be honest with you, I believe the major reason, why I believe him and support him is that the majority are just furious about him. When they state their claims they always use grievous accusations that are attacks against his person, and not what he is representing. Also when I looked at the lists of so-called lies, I would find that the claims that this was a lie was extremely unscientific and vague. Very often the famous circular proof of the geological column and ToE was used. (You know this is layer is 50 million years, because according to ToE it had evolved at that time, while it says in the ToE that it is 50 million years because it is found in such a such a layer… In short those against him did show a bias for his person rather than the science he represented, and their claims were usually unscientific in it’s nature. It was just rage, because he had stepped them on their religious toes.

    Further when I read about his case, I found that IRS is an extremely violent and rude organization. It is a beast in the American society. It does anything to achieve it’s means. In Hovind’s case he was confronted with direct violence, so when he put up his charges he was in his very rights. (But you’ll also see that he has just been extremely patient with them also, maybe knowing that there is no Law against the IRS!) It is David’s fight against Goliath. When I googled Kent I read the accusation papers that was brought by their IRS agent. It was shocking to read. It was shocking to read about the attitudes of the judge also. As a foreigner far away from America, and basically coming to see if Kent might just be one of many American preachers that have been discredited because of greed, I found that not so in this case. This was a man who is publicly persecuted. This is an opinion that was formed in my heart based on the attitudes of the IRS, the judge, wiki-pedia, the pro’s and against Hovind on the internet. Why? Because their main goal was not to attack his “wrong-doing”, but to attack his very person. They were angry with him. The sentencing of Hovind was done in anger. That’s why he got 10 years. It has nothing to do with the charges against him. (charge 13-58 is virtually one case, and it is impossible to prove from the text of the Law, I mean any American is in theory guilty of structuring, including the judge herself. In Hovind’s case this should not have been used as a major argument, it should only be added as a likely fact at the most.)

    So also now in this Blog I’ve read so many good testimonies from people who have met Hovind. The fact that he didn’t copyright his materials, and his modest life-style all told me that there was no greed in the motivation. And also the attitude he and the ministry has shown to the opposition even in this blog is a remarkable good testimony for their benefit. (Thanks, P.A. for your gentleness as an editor of this blog!). Personally I believe that Kent has technically broken the tax laws, as lined out by the judge, although I believe that he was in his constitutional RIGHT to do so. So, I think he was morally right in what he believes and his actions on this. I think you have difficulties with understanding that. So the objective consequence was to be fined, the subjective consequence was to give him 10 years in prison, because of the anger of the judge! So, yes, he may have broken the Law, and yet be morally right, because the law on taxations was unfair.

    If it were not for the testimonies that I’ve heard from a great many people about Kent, and also the fact that he didn’t copyright his materials, I might also think as you do that he did this for his personal gain. But that doesn’t fit with the picture of the man, his family and his ministry. I think he did this, because he believes that he, and all that he has belongs to Jesus, and is being consecrated to do His ministry. Remember all the donations that he has received was towards this, and it was accordingly spent.
    It did not go towards taxes, because it should not. Firstly the donations have been previously taxed, secondly, the first amendment gives him the right to do this. This is a dilemma! It is a big problem and stress to those who run Christian ministries in many countries in the World. It is typical that the legislation is ambiguous on this area by purpose. They promise freedom and generosity with one hand and greed and slavery with the other, freedom not to pay taxes with the one hand, and obligations to pay the same taxes with the other hand!

    Well, I have to stop here, or the writings never comes to and end.

    With love in Jesus,
    Yours sincerely,
    Arne

  147. Samphire August 30, 2007 2:38 am Reply

    Hi Eugene,

    “To Samphire: Your reply to Pieter dated August 21st 2007 refers:

    > So all our similarly-minded YECs are liars just like Kent? Interesting! By your own definition, YECs must, therefore, conclude that you and your ilk are even bigger liars?

    I am not quite sure of your logic there. No, YECs generally are not liars. Certainly some are self-deceivers but most are just lazy, willing to accept uncritically as fact what suits their philosophy. Those who watch KH’s DVDs without questioning his evidences I would include in both categories.

    “> Having been sent to prison, Kent’s CSE Ministries will, no doubt, suffer set-backs. His seminar-videos are fortunately based on what the Bible teaches us and will remain useful and popular wherever they are shown.

    I have said many times on this blog and long before you joined it that I have no quarrel with his religious message. I attack his dishonest distortion of science. Remember, this is a guy who made up his mind when he was 16 on how the Universe works and no amount of evidence will ever change it.

    “He seems to have many, many supporters all over the world, including myself. The wonderful thing about being a Christian is to forgive and support any other fellow-Christian, irrespective of the circumstances. We are all sinners.

    A fine sentiment but is it the place of fellow Christians, especially those from other countries, to forgive the crimes of miscreants except those personal to the forgiver – or have I misunderstood the essence of the Lord’s prayer on the subjec? Forgiveness by an uninjured party is cheap. It would be easy for me to forgive Hitler or Stalin their crimes because I was not to any great extent directly and personally affected by their criminal behaviour. (And, no, I don’t in any way equate KH with either of those two monsters). Although Christian belief leaves judgement to higher powers the Bible is strong on admonishment and many posters to this blog have rightly, in my opinion, expressed criticism of KH for his criminal behaviour. It is not helpful to one’s fellow crew to give support to the guy who is busy down below boring holes in the hull of the boat. Remember Jesus’s example in John 8. He refused to condemn the woman taken in adultery but admonished her by telling her to go and sin no more.

    “> Absolute dating of specimens (radiometric dating) can only work if their relative geological ages are known. If relative dating is flawed, (in this case, the geological column) radiometric dating won’t solve the problem ….. it will make things worse!

    I think that you are now dealing with matters you don’t understand; you are reciting Hovindian mantras. I suggest that you read “The Age of the Earth” by G.Brent Dalrymple, particularly Chapter 3. It gives a good explanation of modern radiometric theory rather than that rapidly skated over by the scoffing KH in his seminars.

    “You avoided answering the statement by Pieter that “…evolution is an excuse for those who want to sin without guilt:. It’s a fact, so why not admit it?
    > ”

    It seemed such a silly acusation that I deliberately ignored it. I leave it to your fellow Christians who disagree with your YEC interpretation to defend themselves.

    “Lastly, being a South African myself, almost nobody supports our Minister of Health and her rediculous views. She obtained her doctorate in Leningrad and also believes in the theory of evolution. Hope that answers you.”

    I’m pleased to hear it. But what has believing in the ToE got to do with treating HIV with beetroot? What proportion of HIV/AIDS experts are evolutionists, do you think?

    Kind regards,

    Samphire

  148. Elethiomel August 30, 2007 3:24 am Reply

    all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 made a few comments on astronomy and seems to dismiss it all as “just a theory” – again it pains me to tell epople this, but theory is as good as science gets. The strength of the theory surrounding astronomy though is really quite impressive. The theories have made a great number of predictions which have subsequently been verified.

    He comments on emission spectra, but these themselves are an extremely poweful tool. variations in the emission spectra of individual elements can tell us things like temperature, pressure, magnetic field strength and a whole host of molecular properties.

    distribution of light and effects on light can tell us about matter and objects that lie between the stars and ourselves. we can see emission and absorption spectra from dust clouds for example, that show amino acids, sugars and alcohol (as well as lots of other chemicals) in the clouds around stars. we can tell how massive objects are from looking at their orbital patterns, or even gravitational lensing around larger objects such as galaxies, or the patterns that galaxies make when they smash into one another or eat one another (as our galaxy is eating the sagittarius galaxy at the moment (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/28/1064687672119.html?from=storyrhs) )

    The comment about the expansion of the universe is not a guess. Again, it is based on sound physics, stuff that we can observe and test right here on and around earth. We can test relativistic effects on both special (for example time dilation is readily observed in atom smashers such as CERN – normally the many particles we see would have almost immeasurably short lives, but because they are travelling at such high speeds and are time dilated, they only appear to have very short lives indeed (but easily measureable) and general (precession of mercury, bending of light around the sun, frame dragging and so on) and are on the verge of being able to detect gravity waves, we can look at the spectra of different elements and decay times, and the combination of these things used with an understanding of the universe can show that it is indeed expanding, add to that the evidence of the cosmic microwave background, our understanding of nucleogenesis and so on agreeing with the proportions of hydrogen, helium and lithium in distant objects and the theory is repeatedly tested and verified.

    Philip is really underselling something that he appears to not know much detail about.

  149. Elethiomel August 30, 2007 3:38 am Reply

    To gorge: I fail to see what your recent post actually has to do with what I said. I had pointed out that the “haemoglobin” issue was a total red herring, because mosquitoes do not need haemoglobin, they are after something else. then I asked why they would have all the various features to detect heat, carbon dioxide, anticoagulants and so on.

    I do find it interesting though that Gorge is telling us that the pandas and the bears share a relative in the past 4000 years, particularly since the giant panda has 42 metacentric chromosomes but other bears have 74 acrocentric chromosomes. That’s quite a rapid shift in chromosome number there.

  150. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 30, 2007 3:45 am Reply

    Gorge said; August 29th, 2007 at 1:49pm

    ……………For example, there are genes which can ‘jump’ around the chromosome. These are normally kept in check, but Drs Jenny Graves and Rachel O’Neill of La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia, have found that in hybrids, these can undergo ‘rampant’ changes.

    This may even be ‘the general mechanism for speciation in all multi-cellular creatures’ (by making it impossible to ‘back-breed’ with a parent population). Graves says, ‘We thought it took millions of years of long-term selection for a jumping gene to be activated. We’ve now shown that it can happen maybe in five minutes after fertilization.’

    Unquote:
    Gorge, thankyou for this. In fact, I live about 5 minutes away from where these people work and I slip in the LaTrobe Library to look at the full oxford. Unfortunately you have been too polite on this blog for most people to notice what you posted therefore, I am repeating a bit of it for you.
    If you took up swearing periodically the lawyers on the blog would have taken notice of this. The occasional expletive has the serendipidous advantage of making the lawyers feel at home; it reminds them of their weaning experiences.

    So what you have said Gorge is that millions of years reduces to about 5 minutes. I agree. Jenny Graves has spoken well.

    We shall move onto mitochondrial DNA shortly I hope. All glory to Jesus.

  151. Elethiomel August 30, 2007 3:45 am Reply

    Ekkman says:

    “Since you call Darwin a scientist then call Kent one too. Thanks! It is very easy to see that Kent knows a lot more about science than Darwin did.”

    well actually it’s very easy to see that Kent’s understanding of science is extremely bad. He continually makes the most elementary mistakes from his understanding of theories and laws, through basic concepts like conservation of angular momentum (no I am not talking about the picture which he says was drawn by someone else, I am talking about his actual words), special relativity and so on. If I ever find my children being taught science by a teacher that bad, I will move to have them fired, quite frankly.

  152. DQ August 30, 2007 5:53 am Reply

    If Jesus owned all of Kent’s cars and house, did Jesus pay for them? Or did Kent pay for them?

    If I transfer the titles on my cars and house to Jesus, will he start making the payments?

    This does answer one question I’ve always had- why does god, who can create anything he wants out of thin air, always seem to be running short of money? God’s preachers are always saying god needs money, and I always wondered why. Now I know. He was paying for Kent’s cars and house.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Well, is a “hit message” helpful to anyone outside of you wanting to spread pain and anger to others?

    It is clear that you have rejected Christianity. Okay, got it. It seems full of contradictions to you. Understood.

    Please stop looking for persons to hurt and maim. Again, any child can tear down. I adjure you to look for ways to positively challenge, and for ways to build others up. Persuade instead of insult and mock, please. P.A. ]

  153. darling August 30, 2007 8:13 am Reply

    EndTimes Said this on August 29th, 2007 at 5:28pm:

    “However, Dr. Hovind’s strategy is to remove false teachings, Lies in the Textbooks, as his method of opposing evolution.”

    I always found that an interesting position to take. As if one could oppose Christianity by removing so-called “false teachings” in religion textbooks.

    If textbooks do not accurately reflect science (or history, or religious thought, etc), they should surely be corrected. But that is entirely the fault of the textbook authors, not of scientists (or historians, or theologians, etc.).

    However, if textbooks do accurately reflect scientific thought, then the textbook authors are not at fault. Fighting the textbooks is futile: one must challenge the scientists.

    To conflate scientists and textbook authors into one entity, not that I’m saying you are, would be to create a straw man.

    Timothy Fellows Said this on August 26th, 2007 at 11:42am:

    “What law has Kent broken, people? Stop the emotion, and start the logic.”

    Perhaps, Mr. Fellows, you missed where I answered that question earlier.

    Please don’t serve to confirm my suspicions that everyone who asks to be shown the law, including Mr. Hovind, has no intention of ever listening to any response.

    Ekkman Said this on August 5th, 2007 at 9:05pm:

    “The United States appears to have bitten off more than it can chew when it sued Bob Schulz and the We The People organizations earlier this year in an effort to shut down “Operation Stop Withholding.””

    Apparently not, seeing as the government won such a sweeping injunction:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/business/30tax.html?ref=business

    Finally, a hypothetical question to all:

    Suppose Learned Hand and I are the same person (we are most assuredly not).
    But just suppose for a second that I created the alter ego ‘Learned Hand’ to create the illusion of support for my own views.

    Is that honest? dishonest? Is that lying?
    If none of these, how would one properly characterize that?
    Would that, for example, violate one of the ten commandments?

    (Just to be clear: I think it’s obvious to all that the variations of our antipodean friend Phillip George’s name are the same person. That’s not what I’m talking about.)

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Good post! Good points. Just a note regarding textbooks. There is a small organization in Texas that catalogs text errors and rates the texts by categories and by grade levels: http://www.textbookreviews.org/ P.A. ]

  154. Learned Hand August 30, 2007 8:43 am Reply

    you have not ONCE cast any dispersions towards me despite your angry and desperate attempts to do so

    FYI, I think the word you’re looking for is “aspersions,” not “dispersions.” Nor does that word mean what you think it means; whatever else I’ve done, I’ve certain cast aspersions at you.

    Incidentally, you accuse me of misquoting you. Where have I done so?

    Perhaps instead of going over the same argument again and again and again, why don’t you tell us the prevailing evolutionary theories and why the other theories of evolution are incorrect from the one that you feel is the best explanation.

    Unlike creationism, biology is an enormously broad and deep field of knowledge. The prevailing evolutionary theory and the evidence supporting it can be found in your local library; in fact, it could take up libraries in and of itself. I didn’t come hear to teach biology, which should be left to professional biologists. I came here originally to explain tax law to those invidious persons who encourage Mr. Hovind and others to commit crimes. If you want to learn about science, don’t get it from a blog, especially a creationist blog. Read a book. If you have the technical background, read the journal articles giving detailed explanations of the evidence of evolution. (For instance, recent research has reaffirmed the peppered moth experiment. Your complaint that it is a “lie” was never accurate, but is less so in light of the sort of ongoing, empirical research that creationists never seem to get around to.)

    People keep talking about the “ToE” when in fact there are MANY theories of evolution that are in fact quite contradictory to the others.

    Science, again unlike creationism, is the search for truth through evidence. When you start with an open mind, instead of starting with an ideology that must be defended even if the facts and evidence don’t support it, you’re going to get varying interpretations of the evidence. The conclusions of science change and improve over time. The constant testing, re-testing, and competitive examination of ideas in science is both what separates empirical study from creationist make-‘em-ups and what makes empirical science so reliable. We can see this most easily in the improving technology in our everyday lives, which benefits from improvements in empirical science but not from improvements in preaching; the pharmaceuticals you use as a physician, for instance, are the result of evolutionary biology in action, not the guidance of creationists.

    (When I was in law school, for example, I dated a girl who was a PhD student in the evolutionary biology labs. Her background was pure math, not “wet” biology. She explained to me that the mathematical models of evolution she creates are used by pharmaceutical companies to guide their research; when Rational Actor Labs has found a substance that reduces arterial plaque in chimpanzees, but not humans, they need to know what the biological differences are between the two species. Evolutionary biology provides empirically testable and useful predictions of what those differences are, making research faster and more efficient. I wonder how many pharmaceutical corporations have ever called Mr. Hovind, asking him to use his scientific expertise to predict the differences in calcium ion pumps between species?)

    I see NO cohesive and unifying principles agreed upon in the evolution debates among the evolutionists other than evolution happened.

    I agreed to restrain my rhetoric, so I’ll simply say that this is very, very, very, very, very untrue. The most charitable explanation is that you simply aren’t reading scientific material at all. “Evolutionists,” here meaning essentially every biologist in the world, agree on more than the fact that evolution occurs. The basic mechanisms are broadly agreed-upon, as is the essential math underlying the process. There are plenty of disagreements – over new developments, over what mechanism is more important in which scenario, etc. But it’s not true to say that there are no cohesive and unifying principles. It may be a convenient thing to say, but it is not a true thing.

    You haven’t answered any of my questions. You now claim to have meant all along that individuals do not evolve. Do you therefore no longer agree with Three Crosses’ claim that they do? Do you still support his assertion that they evolve through force of willpower? Do you still insist that evolution is a “blind chance” process? Do you understand your mistake in your mis-citation to the contrary? You keep throwing out these angry assertions, then, after being shown evidence of your error, just letting them fall by the wayside. Despite your string of errors, you still hold yourself out as an informed person in the field of evolutionary biology. Please do me the favor of indicating whether you still stand by the statements you’ve made. Please also indicate whether you still support the inaccurate statements of the other creationists here. Is it not worth your time to point out erroneous information propounded by other creationists? Is your goal here to disseminate accurate information, or to enforce ideological conformity? The latter, I hope you understand, is not how science works. That’s why scientists have the differences of opinion you find so baffling: their minds are constrained by the evidence, not by their preexisting commitments to statements of faith.

  155. EndTimes August 30, 2007 9:01 am Reply

    Dear folks that state creationists do not “correct” their own peers. Sorry, but that is fanciful thinking as usual. Go back and look over the posts from May to July on cse and you will see many, many posts by creationists on issues to do with the church where several different issues were contended with in a corrective manner. Just one more false accussation.

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  156. Ganf August 30, 2007 9:12 am Reply

    EndTimes
    Said this on August 29th, 2007 at 5:28pm:

    “I accurately stated Dr. Hovind’s strategy for removing evolution from the schools. In contradistinction to several others who have gone down the teach creation or ID in schools, I correctly pointed out that Dr. Hovind wishes to have false teachings such as the peppered moth account be removed form the textbooks. ”

    For a recent update on the “Peppered Moth Lie”, may I point you to:

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/peppered_moths.html#more

    Michael

  157. Three Crosses August 30, 2007 9:56 am Reply

    To the mosquito commentators: If mosquitoes were created as a pestilence, and don’t have the breath of life. What is the point of the discussion?
    With love three crosses

  158. EndTimes August 30, 2007 10:04 am Reply

    Dear darling,

    Thank you for your post, on the issue of “Lies” in the textbooks at the actual point of distribution to the students. Publishing false doctrinal issues to support the ToE is something that should be stopped and all agree on that supposition. Even S.J. Gould acknowledged that what is printed in public school texts is not accurate. Get the lies out. This is not in the least a straw man logical fallacy. It is a very real issue. Why are students still subjected to Haeckcl’s fraud as well as the peppered moth fraud? Since there are still examples where you find such things, it is quite real. Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that the majority of these texts are written by eminent scientists such as Miller so there is in many cases a direct link between the scientist and the textbooks so that is likewise not a strawman issue either even though that was not the subject that I brought up nor implied. The authors should be the source of providing accurate science for the given topics and only those knowledgeable in science should be authors.

    You are correct that if the science is inaccurate, then that should also be an issue of concern which it is, yet the first step should be accurate science data in the textbooks that our children read that have already undergone the peer review process and found to be accurate. In this issue, Dr. Hovind has provided leadership that in several places is the topic of discussion on textbook selection committees, all of which is legal and constitutional and ethical. Imagine that, a “creationist” proposing something like that. Yes, the Bible calls us to honesty and forthrightness and that is what we strive to accomplish in pleasing God.

    Take a look at this one example.

    April 8, 2001
    Biology Text Illustrations More Fiction Than Fact
    By JAMES GLANZ
    In particular, design proponents cite the 19th-century drawings of the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, who asserted that the early embryonic stages of many animals, including humans, were virtually identical and diverged only later. He said that the resemblance proved that all animals had a common ancestor.
    The drawings were reproduced in textbook after textbook for more than a century.
    Several years ago, though, biologists discovered that many of the drawings were fraudulent and that the true resemblances were not nearly so striking. Nevertheless, some textbooks still contain them.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/science/08EVOL.html?ex=1188619200&en=4c343584462ea9ef&ei=5070

    An old evolution myth still hanging around is the notion that things that look like gill-slits, tails, etc. in developing human embryos show the embryo repeating all the stages of evolution. In 1866, Ernst Haeckel proposed his “biogenitic law” (not to be confused with the law of biogenesis that says life only comes from life). His idea was that growing vertebrate embryos went through all the forms of their supposed evolutionary ancestors (“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”). He published drawings comparing growing embryos of a number of animals such as the pig, cat, salamander, etc. to growing human embryos. The similarities that he said he found helped persuade people to believe the theory of evolution. Scientists eventually discovered enough about embryology to quietly discard the “biogenetic law”, but it was not until a careful photographic study of growing vertebrate embryos was conducted in 1997 that Haeckel’s deceit was fully revealed. They found that his drawings were so far from reality that they could not have been done from the actual embryos.11 He must have faked them.

    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  159. Samphire August 30, 2007 10:16 am Reply

    Hi Endtimes,

    Post 1: “The only comment that I wish to make is that Dr. Hovind quite clearly stated many times that he did not want to put creation in the schools or take evolution out of the schools, he just wanted the lies out of the textbooks.

    Post 2: “I accurately stated Dr. Hovind’s strategy for removing evolution from the schools. In contradistinction to several others who have gone down the teach creation or ID in schools, I correctly pointed out that Dr. Hovind wishes to have false teachings such as the peppered moth account be removed form the textbooks.”

    Hmmm, with respect, I detect a little bit of sail-trimming going on here. No mention of strategy in your first post and no mention of “strategy” or “lies in the textbooks” in that section of the debate with Prof.Bartelt I referred to in an earlier post..

    When it comes to editing the textbooks, who determines what is a “lie”? Obviously not the vast majority of Earth scientists, physicists and cosmologists who all agree that the Universe and Earth are billions of years old. So who does that leave? Only YEC fundamentalists such as KH who have never carried out a day’s quantitive research in their lives?

    I’ve often wondered whether KH really wanted the “lies” removed. How much of his busy time did he spend in pursuing and haranguing the authors, editors and publishers of the textbooks and the members of the school boards which purchased them? I have never heard him speak of it or give any examples of correspondence between the parties. Have you?

    As for false teachings about peppered moths, you are not an easy man to catch out on current news but have you yet had the opportunity of looking at http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/peppered_moths.html

    Finally, ” the glorious magnificence of God’s creation in all of His creatures including dolphins, elephants, chimps and even pigs with high levels of intelligence really is not an issue that any creationist contends. We instead applaud and praise the Lord for all that He has created.

    I wasn’t making any points – just thought you might be interested in the video.

    Kind regards

    Samphire

  160. DQ August 30, 2007 10:23 am Reply

    Arne said: Yes. It would be a correct way to go directly to the one who you accuse in the first place, and if he doesn’t hear you, then you ought to bring someone else with you. Well, that’s the procedure that Jesus asks of us. The motive is LOVE. Why should I let everybody know that he is a liar if I don’t care about him? Wouldn’t that make me also into a liar?

    Arne, the moderator of this blog published an article in a magazine which has more than 50 million readers in 31 languages in which he accuses anyone who believes in evolution of being complicit in rape. I do not believe that Paul checked with all 50 million people who read National Geographic before accusing them of being rapists. But wait, that is probably OK because you agree with what Paul said, even though it has absolutely no grounding in reality. And even though Kent’s lies are well documented not only on this blog but also all over the internet, and despite the fact that Kent calls people liars all the time, presumably without checking with them first, you have decided to lecture me. Because you disagree with what I have to say. We don’t need a double standard here, Arne, one standard will do just fine. When you start lecturing Paul on checking with people before calling them rapists, we’ll talk.

    I mean any American is in theory guilty of structuring, including the judge herself.

    Did you check with every American, including the judge, before you accused them of structuring? I don’t recall you checking with me. Further, I have never been guilty of structuring. It is exactly this kind of behavior that completely discredits you. You tell me that Jesus commands you to act a certain way, and then you turn around in the very next post and do the exact opposite.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE:
    DQ, do you have a tumor? P.A. ]

  161. EndTimes August 30, 2007 10:26 am Reply

    Dear Samphire,

    Please give us your opinion on the issue of chance in evolution. All variation in the ToE comes from chance mutations with many different mechanisms of “creating” mutations. This is the “fuel” that “drives” evolution according to the ToE. Yet, Natural Selection is an elimination factor which means you end with less genetic material than you started in the population the is “evolving” since natural selection is an elimination process. Genetic drift is a random loss of genetic material as is the founders effect. In fact, once you have variation, the many different mechanisms of evolution all involve loss of genetic diversity leading to new species formation by fixation of “new” genes in the populaton. Well, how tight was that clock sprung that has never stopped ticking since we are also faced with the very difficult to find “adaptive” mutations issue? Where is your source of all this information that then gets “eliminated” or “randomly lost” according to genetic drift. Where did you get all of your adaptive mutations that allow the higher orders of animals to come into existence from simple one celled protozoa? This is the entire debate in a nutshell on evolution and creation. We do not believe that random mutations will lead to “new” information. All of your “mechanims” of evolution involve elimination or loss of information leading to “new” species.”

    (Genetic material + “adaptive” variation by mutations) – (eliminated genetic material by natural selection) = evolution and new species formation by natural selection. (but you can’t show me those hypothesized adaptive mutations)

    (Genetic Material) – (loss of genetic material by random genetic drift) = evolution and new species formation by genetic drift

    (Genetic Material + variations by neutral and harmful mutations with so few adaptive mutations that they can be ignored mathematically) – (loss of genetic material by random genetic drift) = evolution and new species formation by neutral molecular evolution and genetic drift.

    In all of these examples, there is never an evolutionary factor that is larger than the random mutational factor, thus the source for all evolutionary machines, organs, organims ultimately comes ONLY from random and improbable events since all evolutionary mechanisms that “refine” the variations from random mutations involves loss of genetic information from the population undergoing “evolution.” I would greatly appreciate your kind comments.

    Peter

    http://www.kjv1611revealed.com/.

  162. Samphire August 30, 2007 10:27 am Reply

    Endtimes,

    You said to LH “Perhaps instead of going over the same argument again and again and again, why don’t you tell us the prevailing evolutionary theories and why the other theories of evolution are incorrect from the one that you feel is the best explanation. People keep talking about the “ToE” when in fact there are MANY theories of evolution that are in fact quite contradictory to the others. I see NO cohesive and unifying principles agreed upon in the evolution debates among the evolutionists other than evolution happened.

    No-one argues that the theory is not other than in a state of flux. There is a lot of work to do; the theory is only 150 years old. Meanwhile, Christianity with 2,000 years under its belt is cut and dried? Not according to:

    http://www.unbelief.org/articles/christians_and_AiG.html

    its members cannot even agree amongst themselves about the first few verses of the Bible.

    Kind regards
    Samphire

  163. Istvan August 30, 2007 10:31 am Reply

    Dear Btodd,

    I found this remark of yours under the previous post.

    ‘You deny the extraordinary claims of other religions and mythologies, but you cannot detach from your belief long enough to recognize that yours are no different, you simply believe them strongly.’

    So you say that the Bible is no more than a collection of ‘extraordinary claims’ and that Christianity is just a religion among the many, a myth, nothing more. How sad. You say that you used to be a Christian, yet this statement of yours proves how little you actually know about Christianity and the Bible.

    Sad Regards,
    Istvan

  164. joshrjb August 30, 2007 10:34 am Reply

    DQ,

    Despite what you might have been led to believe by the devil, you will need more than just finding meaning for your life. When you pass away, you will have a very urgent need for righteousness. God is holy, perfect and righteous. He has provided one way for us to be seen as holy, perfect and righteous in His presence, and that is through the blood of His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ. God became a man, lived a perfect life, died on the cross as a substitute for all who place their trust in Jesus alone for salvation. Jesus’ blood is our righteousness, and it’s only by faith in Him alone that we can stand before God on judgment day free and innocent in His sight. I pray that you think about this. -Josh

  165. DQ August 30, 2007 10:37 am Reply

    The editor said: Please stop looking for persons to hurt and maim. Again, any child can tear down. I adjure you to look for ways to positively challenge, and for ways to build others up. Persuade instead of insult and mock, please

    Paul, this would mean so much more coming from someone who had not published an article in National Geographic accusing anyone who believes in evolution of supporting rape. Was accusing people of rape meant to “hurt” and “maim”? Was it meant to “tear down”? Is accusing people of rape “positively challenging” them? Is it “building them up”? Is it “persuading” or is it “insulting” and “mocking”?

    And while you’re typing out the latest admonishment about my “tearing you down,” you might want to reflect that all I’ve done here is to repeat your own words.

  166. GaryMurray August 30, 2007 10:55 am Reply

    Paul, I just had to post this, someone forwarded me this article and figured I’d post it for my fellow creatinists for a good laugh, hope you don’t mind. Check the title alone of the article, how hard they try to dress up nothing to make it look like something…

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070829/sc_space/planetformationmysterysolved

    I always enjoy the comic section of science! Its irony and comedy is normally better than ‘The Farside’ comics. ;) Here’s my take…

    First of all, the title alone claims a false introduction. No mystery was solved (there wasn’t one to begin with), someone had an idea and couldn’t prove it but got it published because of a computer generation model and it sounded better than “In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth” to the scientific community.

    Secondly, to stake claim that a mystery is solved, they must first solve the mystery of where these components came from. Evolution of stars, planets, life and creation in general has never been proven and by their own admission, never will be conclusive. So since they can’t prove or disprove evolution and only have (in their minds) comparative evidence from one source to another, they continue to build on its shaky foundation. They’re putting the cart before the horse, or in response to the title, solving a mystery without a murder.

    The forming of planets and stars has NEVER been observed. It has been created by computer models and thus seems to be the only evidence scientists need to believe in evolution of stars and planets. They ASSUME stars are born for a plethora of reasons but one stands out as the most comical of all… slowly they see a distant light from space,far away getting brighter over time. They deny that it could be that dust or cloud or some other type of matter might have been in front of it and is now clearing from site. By this observation (or lack thereof) they conclude that stars are being birthed. Birthed by many different types of gasses and matter coming together. One article I read in further research with this one actually claimed that they knew what type of gasses and its temperature millions of miles away. I didn’t know we had a science lab out that far…

    God said in Genesis 1:16 “…he made the stars also.”
    I can walk down an empty highway at night and eventually I may see a dim light off in the distance and as it approaches gets brighter, this is evidence that it’s a BMW created in a factory in Germany… Could it have been a Ford made in America? Or was it being birthed on the highway right in front of my eyes?!

    It’s funny, several years ago; ESPN predicted the 2006 Super Bowl teams prior to the seasons kick-off. They did so by computer generated models entering the exact details of each team, their statistics and odds from past observations of each team and individual athletes. Prior to the season opening, the prediction was that the Indianapolis Colts and the Seattle Seahawks would face-off on the gridiron. Come game day, the Pittsburg Steelers defeated the Seattle Seahawks with a 21-10 victory to win the super bowl……..
    This proves that the Indianapolis Colts evolved into the Seattle Seahawks over the course of the football season…… Does this claim hold water? Or am I just being foolish to believe that?
    Computer models and generations are only as good as the programmer who built the software, and the data that is entered in by the user. I played a computer generated game model of Star Trek, this doesn’t mean Captain Kirk is floating out in space discovering strange new worlds.

    This is the epitome of scientists falsifying claims and believing their own deceitful devices… By his own admission, Mac Low said…
    “There are enough uncertainties that [planet formation] is not going to be an open and shut case any time soon”

    Even with no observational evidence this is how they feel…

    “Despite the problem, Mac Low is confident the theory will hold up to future scrutiny”

    What this means is they know what they publish and post isn’t true or conclusive, but they swear by their own research, regardless the lack of evidence, and have faith in evolution, because they can’t accept any other possibility!
    They can find faith in evolution (the evidence of things not seen by man) yet can’t have faith in a divine creator (that which hasn’t been seen by man either).

    The reason for this is simple, if they deny there is a creator; they deny he has power over them. Thus they are the power of their own universe and can live life the way they want and not the way God wants. They have faith in themselves (flesh), but not the righteousness of God.

    Clearly, these modern day deceivers, Pharisees and hypocrites are what God referred to in Proverbs 1:20-25. Take a moment and read this passage and see if you can see the connection God made with those who take the truth of creation and make it into something other than the truth. Wow, that passage was writtein over 2,000 years ago, yet it predicts that people would doubt creation by a creator and turn to their own devices to explain existance.

    I love this… ‘Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools.’
    What I’ve heard from countless evolutionists and have seen from highly acclaimed scientists in their fields, they assume that we creationists are not as wise and well educated in the study of science and the universe, so we are too stupid to understand their wisdom. My question to them is, Kent Hovind isn’t the only creation/science researcher who has been labeled a quack because of his belief. There are hundreds if not thousands of legitimate PHD holding scientists who teach against evolution and are creationists themselves (not just speaking of ICR men and women). They received their degree, training and research from the same curriculum and sometimes the same universities as the evolution scientists.

    Sure, you can team up to nullify one man’s claims of creation based off his belief in the Word of God, but what about the others? If your community is able to assume that the disqualification of one creationist is enough to disqualify the idea of creation, then you should all understand why the creationists feel that evolution is disqualified because the early ‘fathers of evolution’ research has never been conclusively proven or observed as fact. Both believe by faith, neither by science regardless what all you Evo’s say, I hear it all the time, rediculous… “science is used to prove evolution” or “evolution isn’t faith, its science”…

    Science is used to edify someone’s theory of evolution, a Wall Street Journal is used to edify the public of current events, but because science or the Wall Street Journal is used to edify us doesn’t mean either had anything to do with the facts, findings or the stories that come out of them.

    God bless those seeking and in Christ Jesus,
    Gary Murray

  167. pabramson August 30, 2007 12:19 pm Reply

    I just learned that Mr. Aaron Russo, producer of the documentary film, “America from Freedom to Fascism”, passed away on August 24, 2007, after a long and painful bout with cancer. He was a superb filmmaker and a champion for liberty.

    http://www.creationism.org

  168. btodd August 30, 2007 12:55 pm Reply

    ISTVAN WROTE: Dear Btodd,

    I found this remark of yours under the previous post.

    ‘You deny the extraordinary claims of other religions and mythologies, but you cannot detach from your belief long enough to recognize that yours are no different, you simply believe them strongly.’

    So you say that the Bible is no more than a collection of ‘extraordinary claims’ and that Christianity is just a religion among the many, a myth, nothing more. How sad. You say that you used to be a Christian, yet this statement of yours proves how little you actually know about Christianity and the Bible.

    Sad Regards,
    Istvan END QUOTE

    No, you just quoted me, and I specifically DID NOT SAY “The Bible is no more than a collection of extraordinary claims”. Please do not quote me directly and then proceed to misrepresent it. If you want a clarification, what I am saying is that REGARDING the extraordinary claims (because the Bible also contains some real history, and I believe some good moral lessons), there is no more reason to believe them than there is in the extraordinary claims of Greek Mythology. And I stand behind that. If you can give a solid reason to believe in a talking snake, or that people lived to be 900 years old, etc., without referring to faith, then please do so.

    If you don’t believe in my magic quarter, then how can you expect me to believe in your talking snake?

    Furthermore, I did used to be a Christian! If you want to tell me I didn’t do it right, or that I really wasn’t one, then I’ll leave that to you. At the very least, when I WAS a Christian, I definitely DID NOT go around doubting others who claimed the same, or publicly claiming they weren’t (which I’ve seen plenty of here on this blog), since I considered myself to be a sinner and not a judge of others’ salvation. I was never a YEC nor fundamentalist Christian, and I was quite confused about how to view the OT, but I did confess my sins to Jesus Christ as my savior and publicly was baptized to profess my faith. I prayed every morning, night, and several times in between. I read my Bible (many times, thank you). I read apologetics. I hoped that the Lord would grant me understanding to the many problems I had with my faith. I took it quite seriously, no matter what you might assume.

    Btodd

  169. Lakedaimonios August 30, 2007 1:04 pm Reply

    “I just learned that Mr. Aaron Russo, producer of the documentary film, “America from Freedom to Fascism”, passed away on August 24, 2007, after a long and painful bout with cancer. He was a superb filmmaker and a champion for liberty.”

    I smell a conspiracy!

  170. Former Follier August 30, 2007 1:22 pm Reply

    Greetings, all. I hover around this blog quite frequently but have only posted once prior to now. I am an ex-Christian atheist who believes in evolution. I was a fundamentalist Baptist (just like Kent) for nearly two decades before slowly and painfully deconverting from my faith through the open and honest reading of “God’s Word”. I don’t remember who it was but someone asked to meet a sober evolutionist. Here I am.

    Although I no longer believe in the supernatural, I continue to live an ethical and scrupulous life (much to the chagrin of my fundamentalist parents) and raise my two young children with the principles of logic, reason and personal responsibility. Those are three things that the Bible absolutely does not endorse.

    I have an honest question for all Christians and I find this to be a suitable place to post it seeing as this site deals with creationism (belief… not science) and all that follows from it. Here’s my question:

    Using natural law, how did God keep the sun from setting on the Ajalon Valley for nearly a 24-hour time span (“…and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” Joshua 10:12 & 13) during the battle between the Amorites and the Israelites?

    If God made the universe in six days (which DQ requested evidence for and was blithely denied), He must have control over His creation. Can any of you explain to me how this could occur based on our current knowledge of a heliocentric solar system (as oppposed to a geocentric system which was the “understanding” of the cosmos at the time the scriptures were penned)?

    I’d appreciate any responses. Be well.

    Sincerely,

    Former Follier

    EDITOR: You must know that evolutionsists (believers and unbelievers, alike) would find their way here since Kent was such a high profile public figure in the proponence of creatonism. Would it be possible to set aside a place on this blog for these kinds of threads or topics? Perhaps that would relieve you of some of this inconvenient clutter (that isn’t quite so easy to sweep under the rug).

  171. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 30, 2007 2:54 pm Reply

    In fact the bible teaches us the best model for science that there is and ever will be
    God ordered……
    Get the foundations right and then proceed from the foundations with “precept upon precept”.

    with tools off induction (n) and (n+1) through mathematics we can thus arrive at a mathematical proof, where the maths logically proceeds

    Q.E.D. means, it is demonstrated/ demonstrable/ proven

    ……..hypothesis, thesis, experiment [control /variable], proof.

    if something remains in the thesis stage [a theory] do not tell your students that it is happening, nor that it is a fact, nor that it is proven.

    that is intellectually and morally bankrupt; it retards science and is, maybe, taking your soul to a literal hell.

    if the topology of “space” is that it is currently “expanding” just take some “space” in the laboratory and contract it for me.
    I shall be quite impressed.
    Do the experiment and show us all;
    and show up here with the proof.

    problem solved

  172. Samphire August 30, 2007 5:01 pm Reply

    Lakedaimonios
    Said this on August 30th, 2007 at 1:04pm:

    “I just learned that Mr. Aaron Russo, producer of the documentary film, “America from Freedom to Fascism”, passed away on August 24, 2007, after a long and painful bout with cancer. He was a superb filmmaker and a champion for liberty.”

    I smell a conspiracy!”

    So do I. Is it true he died at 11 minutes past 9 or was it 9 minutes past 11? Does anyone know if the IRS ever recovered the $2million he owed them but which he “forgot” to mention in the subsequent making of his film? And why did no-one tell the poor man about the curative powers of laetril?

  173. Samphire August 30, 2007 6:03 pm Reply

    And now GaryMurray, our resident scoffer-in-chief, will explain to us all how astronomers in 1987 watched a supernova which could not have occurred as recently as creation week because the light from it took 30 times the age of a young universe to reach us. In other words, the star exploded 170,000 years or so before it was created – by your hypothesis.

    The Proverbs reference, Gary, does not state what you say it states. I read that the Hebrew words rendered “fool” in Proverbs, and often elsewhere in the Old Testament, denote one who is morally deficient. This at last explains to me why you creationists have to accuse all evolutionists of moral deficiency. Without that false allegation your misuse of scripture for your own purposes falls by the wayside. You should be as ashamed of yourself, Gary, as if you were the Reverend Fred Phelps. I suggest for you a period of quiet contemplation and the reciting of three Hail Marys.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Is anyone else here familiar with Halton Arp’s book, “Seeing Red”? He contends that the highly vaunted “red shift” can be shown to be inconsistent and actually contradictory. It does measure something, but that does not appear to be distance, according to his calculations. P.A. ]

  174. Zeb August 30, 2007 8:18 pm Reply

    Hello Arne,

    It is refreshing to read the writings of someone that is an original thinker and the best that I can tell, completely impartial. You seem to have an uncommon amount of common sense as well. You took the time to weigh all the evidence before either praising or slamming Dr. Hovind. I just want to go on record to say that I appreciate all your posts.

    There is something that has been hinted at by one or two on this site, but never fully developed. Several people have given the URL to “The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn’t Want You to Read,” before examining all the facts, and then act like they had really found something. The person who wrote the dissertation has shown a great deal of hostility toward Dr. Hovind, even before he gave her a polite yet thorough thrashing in debate #9. If looks could have caused it, Dr. Hovind would have turned into a pile of ashes on the stage. Dr. Karen Bartelt, Ph.D. in biochemistry was spewing venom, and I’ve never witnessed anything quite like it. Dr. Hovind on the other hand was an authentic gentleman throughout all Dr. Bartelt’s vicious verbal attacks. My point is that I don’t see how she could write anything concerning Dr. Hovind while remaining objective.

    Zeb

  175. all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 August 30, 2007 8:33 pm Reply

    Former Follier,

    if you answer the question “what time is sunrise?” does that mean you are actually egocentric?

    meanwhile, until I have the time to get back to the blog
    Proverbs 13.20
    through presumption comes nothing but stife…….

  176. Elethiomel August 31, 2007 2:18 am Reply

    all epigraphs deleted: Phillip-George (c)1974 asks us to contract space in a laboratory… it’s not that simple phil, however frame dragging around the earth has been observed directly – spacecraft have to travel about an inch or two less than you’d expect when orbiting the earth.

    This desparation to do stuff in the lab is really quite odd.

  177. Elethiomel August 31, 2007 2:18 am Reply

    Three Crosses: wasn’t creation week all the first week?

  178. Istvan August 31, 2007 2:47 am Reply

    OK, Btodd, I got that wrong about you and the Bible, now I no better, and I apologize. No offence meant.

    ‘If you can give a solid reason to believe in a talking snake, or that people lived to be 900 years old, etc., without referring to faith, then please do so.’

    No, I cannot do that.

    Your magic quarter story is not a good analogy. You are 100% sure that the magic quarter does not have any supernatural powers, and want me to believe your story, which you know is not true. It is not important whether or not I know that you invented the story. What is important that you know you did it. It would be interesting to now why you want me to believe that you have a magic quarter that has supernatural powers. Maybe you want to show off, maybe you want to sell it to me, or maybe you want to start a Magic Quarter religion. Whatever your reason is for telling me that, I will want to see some proof. Now you know that you cannot prove anything, because your magic quarter does not exist, or that it exists, but has no special powers at all.

    According to this analogy, you are suggesting that the Bible contains some facts you can prove, but it is spruced up with extraordinary events which you say are not true. Well, there is not much I can say about that. There are no people around here who actually participated in the Red Sea crossing. They are all gone. Somebody wrote what happened to them. You do not believe him. You would need some evidence of that extraordinary claim. The Bible is full of such extraordinary claims. You would want proof of all of those, I guess, before you want to go back to your religion. But that is not going to happen. You can take a look at the Bible, read the prophecies, see how much historians and archaeologists can prove that they actually happened as prophesied sometimes centuries earlier. You can take a look at the prophecies Jesus fulfilled. And you can still say ‘I do not believe it.’. But those things happened as the prophets had said they would. You can say ‘OK, so they somehow saw the future, no big deal, I need more than that. Just because some goat herders told the future in the bronze age that does not mean everything in the Bible actually happened.’ Well, I guess you can do that. You can find as much biblical evidence as you want, and still keep asking: ‘How about Noah?’. Let us say one day archaeologists find stone tablets written by Noah’s neighbors, a full-blown atheist complaining about all the trees that a mad person called Noah cut down with his sons, and a huge boat they built out of it, and all the mess those animals made that got there from nowhere. Would you believe such a person. Scientist probably would, if there were enough denying of God on the tablets. But a single remark about the person believing in God would make the entire found useless. I say if you rely on science to tell you ‘Yes, my son, the Bible is actually proven true. We are through with the research, and now we have all the hard evidence we need. You can go to church on Sunday from now on. You can really meet God there. Oh, and pray, too. That is how you communicate with Him, as we have just found out using the latest technological methods.’ that is not going to happen in your lifetime. It will probably never happen. The Bible says you need to have faith. You say you need to have proof to believe the Bible as is. So if you have proof, you will go back to the faith thing. You want evidence, I guess you mean scientific evidence by that. But science rules out God, and science rules out extraordinary events described by the Bible. That means it is impossible to find scientific evidence of the claims of the Bible. You will only have things like ‘The wind did it. It actually parted the sea, which was not really a sea, but just a shallow little pond.’. Rule out miracles, and rule out God. Be reasonable. You can say that, and you can even live according to that, but that will be living according to you own rules. The Bible warns you not to do that. It tells you quite clearly why it is wise for all of us to listen to the Word of God.

    The Bible is the proof, Jesus Christ is the proof, the world around you is the proof, which scientists boast to understand. However, it is interesting to see how a huge hole in space that is not supposed to be there can leave them baffled. But they will not stay baffled for long. Scientists can always say ‘Well, we may not have an explanation for that, but we are sure there is an explanation, and we will find it in the next 50 years.’. Christians cannot do that. Christians must give answers on the spot, or they are discredited immediately. ‘A talking snake? Ha!’. ‘How about abiogenesis proven impossible, Mr. Scientist, sir?’ ‘We will find another explanation in the next 50 years, I am sure.’. Sure. Well, I will not be around to hear it.

    Istvan

  179. Istvan August 31, 2007 3:51 am Reply

    Dear All,

    This will be my last comment on this blog for a long time. Participating in the debates has eaten up a lot of my time, too much of it, really. There is just one more thing I want to say.

    Nobody knows all the answers to all the questions in this world, and there is a very good chance that nobody ever will in this life. We probably do not even know all the questions. Scientists and skeptics of God can say whatever they want, their presupposition that there is no God is unfounded. They have no proof. They believe that there is no God, because they say there is no evidence of a God existing. When Creationists tell them that there is evidence in the complexity of living things and elsewhere, they reason that the Creationists are nuts, because God does not exists, therefore He could not have Created all living things. No matter what evidence Creationists come up with, agnostic scientists will dismiss them out of hand. But in reality they are not any better than us, Creationists. They see facts and interpret it their own way. We see facts and interpret it our way. Scientists ask you not to believe in God, Creationists ask you to believe in God. And so does the Bible. Believing and not believing requires faith. Faith in God comes from God and not through reason, logic or scientific evidence.

    I continue to believe in what the Bible says, and I continue not to believe in evolution no matter what form agnostics try to sell it to me. They have been proven wrong before, and they will be proven wrong time and time again.

    I believe that Kent Hovind is not supposed to be incarcerated. He is not a liar. I happen to know how missions work, and know how tax agencies cannot understand that. His case is a very difficult one, and it is not over yet. I understand him when he says that he does not own anything and that everything he uses belongs to God. I also understand why tax officials and others find that ridiculous. They are looking at things from a different perspective. For them Creationists are liars by definition, so it is absolutely normal for them to prove that a Creationist cheated the government. But let us wait till the end, because this case is far from being over.

    Those of you have have the ability to continue the debates, God bless you all. Those of you who cannot accept the truth of the Word of God I hope that one day you will change your mind. I will pray for you, and especially for Btodd. I hope you will find the answers you are looking for and find your way back to your Saviour. You say that you used to be a Christian. Then remember what God told you: ‘I have called you by name; You are mine.’! I also find parts in the Bible that are hard to understand. I still believe it, because I have been given faith. I find it hard to understand how nuclear plants can generate so much electricity by using relatively small rods of uranium, but I can still use that electricity to bring light to my home. There are loads of things I do not understand, but I can live with that. I do not understand how love works, for instance, but I love my wife, and she loves me, and I love my children, and they love me, and although I do not have a love-meter, I know they love me a lot, and they know I love them very much too.

    Very Kind Regards and God Bless You All,
    Istvan Bally
    Translator
    Hungary

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: Brother Istvan, Thank you and may God bless you. Paul Abramson ]

  180. Elethiomel August 31, 2007 4:20 am Reply

    also to philip, There have been a great number of predictions made by general relativity (special relativity is just a special case, so this covers that too) that have been observed, so I wonder why he is doubting this particular one? we have observed gravitational lensing (deflection of light by the sun as well as longer distance objects), time dilation due to gravity, time dilation due to relative velocity, frame dragging, perihelion precession, gravitational red shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound-Rebka_experiment), red shift and blue due to recession/approach (and by this I am talking about when two stars are orbiting one another, we can see the orbital period and distance between the stars and work out how fast they are travelling and then what the shift should be, and we observe it, as well as red/blue shift due to relative motion… and additionally the red shift due to expansion that he’s complaining about)

    many of these have been detected in multiple experiments, some in the lab and some not, using different and independent techniques. I can provide journal papers and references to books that cover these things if philip wants to check for himself, though I would advise a very good understanding of GR and SR are needed to get what’s going on.

    is philip impressed?

  181. GaryMurray August 31, 2007 9:56 am Reply

    I have an honest question for all Christians and I find this to be a suitable place to post it seeing as this site deals with creationism (belief… not science) and all that follows from it. Here’s my question:
    Former Follier
    Said this on August 30th, 2007 at 1:22pm:

    Using natural law, how did God keep the sun from setting on the Ajalon Valley for nearly a 24-hour time span (”…and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” Joshua 10:12 & 13) during the battle between the Amorites and the Israelites?

    If God made the universe in six days (which DQ requested evidence for and was blithely denied), He must have control over His creation. Can any of you explain to me how this could occur based on our current knowledge of a heliocentric solar system (as oppposed to a geocentric system which was the “understanding” of the cosmos at the time the scriptures were penned)?

    I’d appreciate any responses. Be well.

    Sincerely,

    Former Follier
    ____________________________________________

    Its a loaded question and for a Christian to honestly answer with a conclusive piece of evidence is to bind the Almighty God we serve and assume he is as limited to the laws of physics and universe as we are, that which he is not.

    You’re assuming by your question that the creator is limited to his creation. While you may not be able to fathom it, I just believe God. I just believe his Word and I just believe that he is more than capable of performing tasks that are well beyond our understanding. You might as well have asked us how he parted the Red Sea or how what type of fish was prepared to swallow Jonah and how he lived in the belly thereof for as many days. None of us were there, we can’t say, much like the idea of evolution, we just have to believe by faith that what we have to go by (God’s Word) is right. Same rule applies to Evo’s of today, they rely on the theories and published writings of others to stand on their belief system. Because I believe in what man wrote 2,000 years ago and you believe what man writes today, what is the difference in how we believe, what we believe?

    Your question perceives that you truley never believed in the almighty power of God, and may have never had faith. While I am not judging your faith or lack thereof, I am discerning by what scripture tells me about those who are capable of leaving the Christian faith and grace of God. 1 John 2:19 will explain what I mean, please make sure you read the KJV scripture. I would rather you read it yourself and open God’s Word than get it from me.
    _________________________________________________

    Samphire
    Said this on August 30th, 2007 at 6:03pm:

    The Proverbs reference, Gary, does not state what you say it states. I read that the Hebrew words rendered “fool” in Proverbs, and often elsewhere in the Old Testament, denote one who is morally deficient. This at last explains to me why you creationists have to accuse all evolutionists of moral deficiency. Without that false allegation your misuse of scripture for your own purposes falls by the wayside. You should be as ashamed of yourself, Gary, as if you were the Reverend Fred Phelps. I suggest for you a period of quiet contemplation and the reciting of three Hail Marys.
    ____________________________________________________

    Samphire, you are exactly right. I apologize to you and the entire blog here and its users. I stand corrected, I am ashamed, but still forgiven.
    In my previous post which Samphire is responding, I posted the incorrect passage of scripture. I accidentally posted Proverbs 1:20-25, when indeed I meant to post it as Romans 1:20-25.

    While my error in posting was simply an error, it is evident to see by the response from Samphire, that he has never understood the Christian faith, nor believer. His assumption that all Christians believe anyone that doesn’t believe like us is an immoral wicked fool, is driven only by his own moral compass. “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. We as Christians look at unbelievers and see ourselves prior to salvation, you’re just a sinner, like me, the only difference is I’ve been saved by grace, God’s still working on your salvation.

    I have never and never will put myself above or beyond any other, nor do I think I have ever questioned your intelligence or moral character, Samphire. If I have done so, I sincerely apologize and retract my statements.
    I have questioned your sources, your beliefs, and your ideas of creation; but because I question what you believe, doesn’t mean I question your moral character.

    Those who are lost and don’t accept sound doctrine or authority are those who only want to do what they think is right in their own eyes. Not just the history in scripture, but historically this is accurate and accepted in all of humanity. They don’t want an authority to live by other than their own. If this questions your moral character, then you, and you alone should stand back and observe your own morals. Not all non-believers are wicked demons roaming the earth to devour others, and I think the majority of Christians here feel that way, if we did’t why would we continue to try so hard to win these folks (including yourself) to Christ? I’ve been to bat for you, Samphire, individually, in the throne room of prayer asking that God might soften your heart and save your soul. Don’t even know your real name, but I’ve asked God to save the wayward soul known as Samphire on the CSE Blogs. I do it because I love you and every other doubter walking the planet, and don’t wish a condemned eternity on any of you.

    You can comically respond to this in any manner you want, makes no difference to me. Wouldn’t be the first time my faith was laughed at. Funny thing tho, I’ve seen many kids on my bus route laugh and mock those who go to church with me. With a little faith, prayer and compelling, those same kids who were laughing are now saved, riding the bus to church and praying for others who mock.

    Again, I apologize to all for my error in posting the incorrect book of scripture, but I think you’ll find that the my intentions were in the right place.

    God Bless those seeking and in Christ Jesus,
    Gary Murray

    P.S. Samphire, I don’t say hail Mary’s (diffrent religion in my opinion). Mary was just a sinner who God had favor over, and she needed a saviour just like the rest of us. I don’t pray to Mary in hopes she carries those prayers on my behalf to God, in so doing would make her out to be a more receptive and loving saint than Jesus Christ. I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, to whom through the washing of his blood, I have access through the spirit unto God the Father. I can give you this scripture as well if you like to explain, its in Ephesians. :) Take care…

  182. Former Follier August 31, 2007 11:35 am Reply

    False analogies abound in this topic. It seems that Istvan doesn’t understand the concept nor the basis for love. Well, my friend, love as a “thing” is intangible however its effects are very real and can be experienced in the real world. Fantasy and myth are not needed to explain this phenomena because it is a natural process of normal human brain function. God-belief is also a natural process of normal human brain function however it appeals to the supernatural.

    Kent is/was very fond of saying that there is no such thing as “prehistory” (as in prehistoric fossils) because all of history past is contained in the Bible from the very moment God spoke everything into existence. If that is the case, if there really is no prehistory, how do you reconcile your belief in the “supernatural”? All we have evidence for is the natural and to assume anything else is just as asinine as to purport prehistory, right? If not, how do you juggle that difficult bit of intellectual dishonesty?

    Perhaps the moderator can shed some light on my question:

    How is it that God could halt the earth in it’s revolution for nearly 24 hours without destroying it? How then did he start it on its revolution again? As my quote implies, it is impossible for the sun to actually stand still as we are the ones who are moving, not it. In order for the sun to stand still, the earth would have to stop revolving. Show me how God could have achieved this without subjecting the inhabitants of this planet to unsurvivable G-forces, if you can.

    I will await a response.

    Sincerely,

    Former Follier

    P.S. To refer to “sunrise” is euphemistic.

  183. Timothy Fellows August 31, 2007 12:24 pm Reply

    Dear George,

    Yes, I believe in working women, especially as opposed to idle women. The Proverbs 31 woman handles all the affairs of the house and runs the servants and purchases real estate and delivers goods abroad. However, I don’t believe men and women should get themselves and their responsibilities mixed up as our modern society has done — No Mr. Mom for example. I commented on the women, but the men who are effeminate are just as abominable. Evolution condones perversion; Creation teaches order, design and responsibility.

    Timothy Fellows TrueReligionWorks.com

    http://TrueReligionWorks.com

  184. Samphire August 31, 2007 5:00 pm Reply

    Hi, GaryMurray,

    Thank you very much for your gracious response. Forgive the Three Hail Marys – they were just my puckish humour.

    I do not mock you for your faith. To do that would be to mock my own origins. For me, it is a case of pointing out scientific error and the mocking by those Christians of matters that they seemingly do not understand and, worse, have no interest in understanding. If you cannot tolerate the science then stay away from it – you will not influence it by shouting from the sidelines.

    I do not accept all you have to say in your post. I could pick out a number of matters but one stands out. You wrote “Those who are lost and don’t accept sound doctrine or authority are those who only want to do what they think is right in their own eyes.

    I don’t believe that that sentence has any real meaning. There are vast numbers of people throughout the world who do not believe what you believe but believe what is perceived as right in their culture. They act by reason of their faith and not by their own personal desire – just like you.

    Kind regards

    Samphire

    P.S. How about my original point about SN1987A?

  185. Jeanne September 3, 2007 8:28 pm Reply

    Praise the Lord that Jo is still free. We are earnestly praying for her and for you, Bro. Hovind. Your ministry has been such a blessing to our lives, and to the lives of our family and friends. A whole new world of joy, knowledge and excitement has opened up to us. Clouds of spiritual doubt have been dealt with. The Holy Spirit can work within us, since we have been freed from the bonds of the lies of evolution. What a pile of garbage and fairy stories we were taught. Since we know the truth, we can go through text books and laugh at the ignorance in them. Except that we really don’t laugh, because it is so sad that people still believe this trash! Life has so much more meaning now, and reading the Bible is so exciting. The truth has set us free!

    My husband and I are both public school teachers, and we have shared creation science with many other teachers, who have converted from evolution to creationism, also.

  186. arkman September 4, 2007 3:59 am Reply

    This might help a little in re: 6 day creation. Well last year I asked the Lord – God, you could have created all in one day instead, you chose to greated all in six days, why? The Lord’s response was – If I would have created all in one day, then no one would believe me including you!!!

    There is so much evidence about a young earth! So to me, the Bible states that God in six days created and on the seventh, He rested (exo 20:11) and even writes this in the 10 commandments!
    Maybe some in this blog should become like a child, and have child like faith to actually believe!
    It might just take that.

    Thank God for the Hovinds, my family and I met bro. Kent and Eric at their Creation Boot Camp, the seminar was great except the icing of the cake would have been information on the discovery of Noah’s Ark by the late Ron Eldon Wyatt. If I recall, I sent a piece of petrified wood to Dr. Hovind a few years ago!

    Anyways, I’m at work and have to get off the internet. God bless you all and may the Holy Spiti help you understand many things in regards of the mysteries of the Bible!

    The Arkman

    http://www.arkman.net

  187. GaryMurray September 4, 2007 11:04 am Reply

    Samphire
    Said this on August 31st, 2007 at 5:00pm:
    ——————————————————————————–
    If you cannot tolerate the science then stay away from it – you will not influence it by shouting from the sidelines.
    ——————————————————————————–
    I agree with this statement, but those who are in the game with equal or better experience than the other side, dont’ seem to influence the other side either. Having said this, shouting from the sidelines looks just as productive as playing the game, so why not shout?
    ——————————————————————————–

    I do not accept all you have to say in your post. I could pick out a number of matters but one stands out. You wrote “Those who are lost and don’t accept sound doctrine or authority are those who only want to do what they think is right in their own eyes.”

    I don’t believe that that sentence has any real meaning. There are vast numbers of people throughout the world who do not believe what you believe but believe what is perceived as right in their culture. They act by reason of their faith and not by their own personal desire – just like you.
    ———————————————————————————

    P.S. How about my original point about SN1987A?

    I’ll give you my take on the SN1987A star after you give me conclusive proof that light, time and the distance to that star was a constant, never changing and is exact.
    Once again, you are putting the cart before the horse. As you know Einstein’s general theory of relativity supports the idea that gravity distorts time, so the time it took for the star’s light to hit the earth isn’t truley known. When the concentration of matter is very large or dense enough, the gravitational distortion can be so immense that even light cannot escape.
    Further, you must also conclusively prove the assumption that the starting point or origin of the cosmologists claim of the Big Bang’s location is accurate, and that the universe has no limits or borders. I know that the cosmologists deny the idea that there is a center of the universe and there are boundaries of the universe, however, this theory hasn’t been disproved or proven and until it has, the idea of time, light and distance being constant, accurate and correct can yet be discerned as conclusive, which nulls the claim that SN1987A and its age are true. Now these ideas were created using the same equations, mathmatics and physics as are accepted, were created and still used by evolution cosmologists today, so no data manipulation has been used.
    Our research your methodology says something different than your research with your methodology, neither of which are conslusive, both of which could be. Sound familiar, it is the exact same science and outcome of every theory of evolution.

    Secondly, by their own claim, matter and dust particles were considerably thick around the area of the SN1987A, could that have just cleared up which is why the light was seen to begin with, it was always there, just hidden by what we didn’t know was there. Cosmologists don’t focus on the dark matter of space where it looks empty until something appears there to observe. That doesn’t mean what was there was just created or destroyed. Furthermore, if it was dark to begin with, could it have been a black hole? That which the inconsistency of gravity due to the density of matter, could manipulate the distance and time it takes for light to travel due to this anomoly.

    So many ‘facts’ that need to be proven before the current question can be answered.

    I’ll await your answers, in the event of rapture, my response might be delayed…

    God Bless those in Christ,
    Gary Murray

  188. camille September 5, 2007 1:27 am Reply

    Dear End Times,

    Just kidding, I know Paul Abramson was not talking about you when he said that some passionate people in this debate would want to remediate me. 

    I don’t want to leave my remarks unexplained, you have very high standards when it comes to requiring sound logic from people who think they have something to say, which is quite right of you. Have you read any CS Lewis? If not I’m sure you would love him, may I highly recommend The Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity for Christians and non-Christians, especially those who love logic and common sense to prevail in spiritual arguments.

    As I said, I am totally out of my league arguing theology with you, but if you will indulge me a little, and perhaps come down a few notches to my level of debate (which is lower intellectually, but not morally, I hope!) then I would love to share with you things that have blessed me in many, many aspects of my life, and could possibly be a blessing to you too.

    When I said I think Reverend William Branham may have been the “seventh angel” of Revelation, I meant the “angel of the church of the Laodiceans” who is addressed by Jesus in Rev 3:14 which is before the horsemen, sorry, I should have been more clear. Jesus tells John to write to 7 angels of seven churches, certain things he wants them to know, as I understand it. William Branham wrote An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages in which he draws parallels between the seven churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3, and specific time periods in the last 2000 or so years since the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. According to him there have been seven “angels” or messengers, major reformers of the church, who have brought God’s Word for that day, each messenger having a “church age” in which his message went out. I won’t mangle his good and inspired teachings here, but rather refer you to him. (I think all his sermons and writings are available online by now, at Spoken Word Publications, or possibly The William Branham Evangelistic Association. I will gladly search for the exact source of these materials for anyone who is interested.) You could well ask, why do I have any trust in what this guy said? I believe him because

    • He proclaimed the Word of God as it is, he was against private interpretations, denominationalism, “carnal Christianity”, the perversion of men and women, and other things which make me think he was certainly a man of God
    • He was a humble, honest man and although he had almost no formal education, he had a wonderful knowledge of the Bible
    • His prophesies came true (very important that, the Bible says to test the prophets and if what they say comes to pass then they can be believed)
    • His ministry had the signs which shall follow them that believe: the dead raised, the sick healed, the Gospel preached to the poor, etc.

    Please have a look at his books and recorded materials; it’s an uncommon privilege in this day and age to have access to the works of a vindicated prophet. He wasn’t very polished or educated, but he loved the Lord and undoubtedly had a mighty healing ministry by the Grace of God.

    Also, I wanted to mention such a thing to you because it is something that those who are debating you ignore completely, and so far as I can find in this vast blog, no one has been brave enough yet to argue the nature (if one can say that) of the Supernatural. I like what Istvan said: “Jesus first, then science.” I have personally had the healing hand of God upon me 3 times in my life (I’m talking about impossible healing here,) and if anyone would like to hear about it and try to explain to me how that could have happened in a universe where there is no God, I would love to testify of His kindness to me, to your edification.

    Peter, what are your thoughts on miracles? You clearly believe in the existence of them, being a Christian, but have any ever happened to you, or someone close to you, and do you think supernatural interventions of God can be used to verify the fact that He is in fact God and not a figment of our imagination? “Scientists” love to ignore it when unscientific stuff happens, but do you think they should be allowed to ignore it?

    Much love, God bless you.

    Camille.

  189. camille September 5, 2007 1:32 am Reply

    Dear DQ,

    My humble reply (which you may or may not have heard before, I can’t tell, everyone seems to be debating you at once) to your many, many, many times repeated question about proof for a six day creation:

    God says in His Word “Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him.” James 5:14-15

    When I was sick and beyond medical help, I did what James suggests above, and what he said God would do, God then faithfully did, and I was well within an hour. So thus I have a basis for trusting God on other issues which can’t be satisfactorily explained by science, like the Creation which no scientists were able to witness, as none of them were here at the time.

    Countless other people have had scientifically impossible things happen to them because they asked God to please step in and help them, so they have no reason to question Him when He says He did it, and in 6 days.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the word science come from the Greek “scio” meaning “to know”? Couldn’t one say that science is simply “what we know”? What about the stuff we don’t know? How does knowing a bit of stuff make us infinitely clever and infallibly right? I don’t see how it can. But when Someone comes down and breaks the rules of nature in order to show you mercy, then you start to believe He might know more than you and all the humans that ever lived put together, about the universe and the creation thereof. The more important question, I think, is: What basis do you have for NOT believing in a 6 day creation by God in light of the existence of miracles, prophesies and answered prayers? (I mean you personally, if you don’t mind talking with me about it?)

    God bless you honey,

    Camille.

    ***

    Dear Timothy Fellows,

    May I ask your advice as a young woman who wants to do the will of the Lord and obey His Words? Do you think it’s wrong for me to be saying what I’m saying in this public blog? (If you have been following.) It’s not a church, but I agree with you that the Bible says preaching is not allowed for women in church or anywhere else. What defines preaching? Do you think I may be overstepping the line and using authority I don’t have? I know you will be honest with me in the love of Christ, that’s why I’m not asking anyone else.

    Much love, God bless you,

    Camille.

  190. darrilyn September 5, 2007 12:36 pm Reply

    I am so thankful Jo is still free! We are still praying for all the Hovinds as their ministry with CSE has greatly influenced our family’s life. We appreciate their seminars and share them as much as we can. Also send them to drdino.com.
    Darrilyn Tharp

  191. darrilyn September 5, 2007 12:58 pm Reply

    to DQ and the editor. I think DQ is upset because his question is not sufficiently answered. The “proof” of a six day creation is found in the Bible! Now if he doesn’t want to believe the Bible as Gods word and His written proof of the six day creation then there is nothing that will prove it to him. It is not “scientifically” provable! The only way we can know something like that is to talk or hear from someone who was there. Well God used Moses to write it down and so the Bible is our proof! Evolution takes more faith than creation and believing in God and His Word, and proof of six day creation is faith in that word!!!! Take it or leave it, but perhaps you should stop freaking out about it.
    Darrilyn in beautifully “created” Kelseyville

    [EDITOR’S NOTE:
    I answered him. He is hiding. That is his right, in this life. Not “freaking out”, honestly. P.A. ]

  192. darrilyn September 5, 2007 1:16 pm Reply

    I don’t know what the “your comment is awaiting moderation” means because I can’t seem to change it as it posted, but I’m sorry for the “freaking out” comment, it was not a loving comment and I ask for forgiveness.
    Thank you, humbled,
    Darrilyn

    [EDITOR’S NOTE:
    Oh, okay. No problem. …They do have the right to be skeptical. It is good to be somewhat skeptical. When I lived in Berkeley … it was good for me to be skeptical of their consensus, I would contend. DQ was reacting to my reacting to LH’s reacting to ET. And the “rabbits chewing their cud” is such an old one.

    Is the objective to “come to a better knowledge of the truth” or to reject the Bible and Christianity, no matter what?

    It seems to me … that skeptics (mentally) jump from one hiding place to the next to the next. When one shows that evolution is untrue, they jump elsewhere, all along contending that they are “rational and scientific”. Okay, they can do that. It is not rational; but they can do that if they want to.

    When one finds an apparent “error” in the Bible, I have learned to look deeper. The skeptic though clings to it. Thus I realize that we won’t all be able to agree on even the foundations for establishing truth. I would contend that science is too small a box, as it is inherently limited to the dimensions available to human senses. And even within the sciences they openly hide from the full set of evidence. “Willingly ignorant” is the phrase. … Okay, back to letting them pummel me for awhile. P.A. ]

  193. Timothy Fellows September 6, 2007 12:56 pm Reply

    Dear Camille,

    Thanks for your questions, and I would say that as long as you conduct your conversations in line with the Biblical order, you will be fine. My dad used to refer to Deborah who would ask questions, “Hath God not said…?” when she desired to get a point across without lording it over or preaching or usurping authority over a man. Go to Biblical examples, and you can’t go wrong.

    I believe you should be careful of William Branum. We used to know a “faith healer” evangelist (Mr. Isham Blake) who was a follower of Branum. He and my dad would get into discussions some times. He would say that if someone was sick, it was all in their head — they just think their sick. Well, it came time for Mr. Blake to get sick and die, and my dad commented, Mr. Blake just thinks he’s dead.

    Either the Bible is inspired and all-authoritative, or we must trust men — whether “doctors” or “scientists” or “faith-healers” etc. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes. People who follow Branum have to take his word for it, over the Bible. The Bible warns of many false prophets who would come in the last days and deceive many, because they know not the Scriptures neither the power of God. If Branum could heal, let him empty out the hospitals, or quit telling lies.

    I could tell lots of stories about Mr. Blake. Let me close with saying that he divorced his wife and took her back to her mom, because she didn’t please him, and he was a very hard person to be around. He died in misery, pain, loneliness, but my dad visited him all the way to the end.

    Timothy Fellows TrueReligionWorks.com

    http://TrueReligionWorks.com

  194. Samphire September 6, 2007 3:38 pm Reply

    Hi Darrilyn

    Always interesting to see where people live so I google-earthed your Kelseyville.

    What is that strange green thing at 38 58 11N 122 48 23W?

    Kind regards

    Samphire

  195. Andrea February 28, 2012 6:28 pm Reply
  196. dr lindsey duncan February 1, 2013 11:06 pm Reply

    Hey there! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any issues with hackers?
    My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing a few
    months of hard work due to no backup. Do you have any solutions to stop hackers?

    http://cluj.net/BerndCout

    • CSE (for Dr. Hovind) April 5, 2013 2:39 pm Reply

      A strong password is the easiest.

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.