CSE Blogs

December 2006
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Nov		Jan »
	1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30

Filed In:
General

Posted on:
December 15th, 2006 at 5:47pm.

Posted by: tech

There's 106 comments so far.

Last comment was posted 3 months, 1 week ago.

Previous Post:
« UPDATE FROM BUNK THREE

Next Post:
The Church in G20 »

Dec15

"Random Thoughts"

106 Comments

It has been nearly four weeks since our motion for acquittal was filed, and no ruling by the judge as of yet. I think that all of the motions of the trial can be viewed on the internet if you are willing to pay a fee to set up a PACER account. You do this by going to www.flnd.uscourts.gov; then click on “Public Resources”; then click on “PACER” (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). Then you set up your account. Our case number is: Case No. 3:06cr83MCR

Another web address to check out for information about our case is www.penaltyprotester.com.

I wish I was free to tell my side of this case, but our attorneys say, “Not yet.” So those who hated me and/or the Creation Message before this trial will believe the worst, and those who loved me and/or the Creation Message I shared before this trial will believe the best. God, of course, will be the final judge.

I can say that while many things about this ordeal have been very hard for me, for my family, and for the ministry; and yet, it has also been a rewarding experience for me personally. Many parts of God’s Word have come alive for me, that I probably would have never seen otherwise. I’ve met people, had time to see things, to read things, and to meditate on things, that my hectic travel schedule of preaching during the past seventeen years has not allowed before.

One of the saddest expressions that I hear over and over again in here is “my baby’s mama.” It took me awhile to comprehend what they were saying.

Many of these men have babies by women to whom they are not married and no longer love. They cannot call them their wife, or even their girlfriend, so “my baby’s mama” does the job. The phrase tells me of heartache for all in the picture including the mother, the baby, and at least four grandparents.

It also speaks of problems for society for years to come.

The longer I live, the more I see why God’s way is best. I praise God for my wife of 33 years, our children, and our four and 7/8’s grandchildren! I will forever preach even harder for teens to stay pure until marriage, and then to remain faithful for life. The grass may look greener on the other side of the fence, but it’s artificial turf, or the water bill is terrible!

I have gained an even greater dislike for many stupid and ungodly television shows. I marvel that Christians do not see how bad our culture has gotten.

When talk shows and “court t.v.” shows approve of adultery and fornication for hours on end every week, America is in trouble! Judgment can’t be long in coming.

I do get to read the CSEBLOG postings eventually. I wish that I could give personal responses, but that will have to wait. There is no e-mail at the jail. I was surprised to see that Frank Zindler still believes that he came from a rock! I debated him about fourteen years ago at University of Ohio, where everyone said that he lost badly, and figured that he would see the light by now. I also can not understand how he can believe that humans are 99% similar to apes. He needs to watch Creation Seminar Part Four.

When I get out, I will be glad to discuss or to debate the issues with him at the University of Ohio if he is willing. Hundreds evolutionists have refused to debate, so far. What is the problem? Watch one of the debates like “Three On One” or “How To Debate A Creationist” (two of my favorites) to see why they normally run. Creationists don’t win because we are smarter, we win because we are right.

As for Lynn from Longview, (said this at 7:18 on November 21) I lived there for five years and don’t recall having met her. However, I do feel sorry for her. I would hate to go through life with her perspective.

Thank you to the many have written or called to show support in various ways. We are humbled, and thankful that the ministry continues in spite of Satan’s attacks.

Please fast and pray at least one meal this week for Judge Rogers to grant the motion for acquittal. On September 7, 1774, when the seemingly invincible British laid siege to Boston, the Colonists read Psalm 35. I have adapted this passage as my prayer.

More Later,

Kent Hovind

106 Responses to “"Random Thoughts"”

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Matthew
Said this on December 15th, 2006 at 9:40pm:

“Creationists don’t win because we are smarter, we win because we are right.”

Isn’t pride one of the seven deadly sins?
jcoursey
Said this on December 15th, 2006 at 10:45pm:

Dear Dr. Hovind,
We’ve just recently heard about your situation. We want you to know that we are praying for you. We thank the Lord for all you’ve put out there. Your video series have been a great blessing to me and my family. We pray that everything will work out for you and your family. Stay strong in the Lord!

Praying for you,
Jason in WA
EndTimes
Said this on December 15th, 2006 at 11:35pm:

Dear Dr. Hovind,
it is with great pleasure that I remember the 2 times that I was able to meet you. Interestingly, as a religious volunteer at a local California prison, I was able to go and hear you preach to the inamates of “B-Yard” on the inside of a maximum security prison. It is also with great pleasure that I acknowledge that it was through your mininistry that my son in law Dale was saved. May the Lord bless and keep you in this matter and strengthen your walk in which ever manner He will.
EndTimes
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 12:44am:

Dear Dr. Hovind, it is with great pleasure that I recall the 2 times that I have been able to see your seminars. Interestingly, the second time I saw your seminar was at a maximum security prison in California where you preached to the inmates at “B-Yard” for nothing but your Christian duty and obligation at your own expense. As a religious volunteer at the prison, I went to see you there behind the walls. You gave witness of the truth of the gospel to a couple of hundred needy men. It is with great sadness that I heard this week of your current plight and our prayers are with you. My son in law Dale was saved 3 years ago during your seminar and debate with Dr. Rainbow. May the Lord bless and keep you in all ways.

I would like to bring in a few observations that the churches in America need to consider. First is the realization that the onslot against the constitution is so pervasive as to conclusively call this great document of men, dead in the eyes of those men sworn to defend it. Psalm 2 speaks of the world wide conspiracy against the LORD and His annointed. A simple look at the website for the Architect of the Capitol with a review of the Apotheosis of Washington is clear evidence of the pagan influence of our government(Revelation 18:3). An understanding of the meaning of the rainbow as representing the glory of God leads to the terrible travesty of seeing ungodly men claim George Washington is rising to heaven to become his own god with his feet treading down the image of a rainbow in this picture which represent the glory of the only true God. Surely, my brethren, I pray that you will recognize the truth of pagan America and those men who are in power and conspiracy against the LORD and His annointed. The spiritual truth of Revelation 18:3 is found in the seeds of a government that no longer honors the foundational truth of the constitution which was based on the common law which comes from God. Instead, we now have the ancient inquisition reconstitued in military/maritime statutes also known as civil law. The laws of Rome once again are countering the grace of God’s common laws. In such, Dr. Hovind’s trial is one more example of the death of the constitution and the absolute loss of protection for it’s citizens who place their defense in the original constitutionsl values. Unfortunately, those who “interpret” these statutes no longer value them and instead are more greatly influenced by the World Court and the United Nations documents. Such was the outcome of Sgt. Michael New and his attempted constituyional defence of denying he was an American mercinary which failed. It is my prayer that the Lord will grant Dr. Hovind mercy from those that no longer defend pure constitutional rights.

Secondly, the churches in America need to learn from Luke 17:28 and the message of Lot who did not separate himself from the abundance of Sodom or the wickedness of Sodom as did Abraham. Lot also failed to separate himself from the earthly power of Sodom when he “sat” at the city gate and judged the city. Instead, Abraham sought the power of the gospel which was preached unto him through the promise of his seed. In this, I support Dr. Hovind’s stand against a corrupt government outside of it’s corrupt gates much as did our patron Abraham. May the church recognize that our government no longer lives by the constitution with the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the Military Commission’s Act, the myriad of Executive Orders, judicial activism and many other unconstitutional activities that our government routinely engages in. Instead, come out of her my people and preach the gospel which is the power of God.
Please note that Matthew 28:19-20 does not say the following:
“Go ye therefore and organize political movements in my name and influence the society of America for the good of those that oppose themselves, voting for a godly America and I will be with you unto the end of the world. Amen.”
This verse, best known as the “great commission,” instead commands all believers everywhere to simply preach the gospel to all nations.

Lastly, I must comment on the irony of the Dole committee hearings in 1983 which resulted in turning the churches of America into tax collectors with the incorporation of the FICA tax starting to be collected even by churches on January 1, 1984. Taking part in that discussion was the founding head of the CLA, Dr. David Gibbs. Since that time, there have been many churches closed and sanctioned by the IRS completely against the first amendment which states that no laws shall prohibit the free exercise thereof and this 1984 law. It was with great sadness to hear that David Gibbs III was a chief prosecution witness against Dr. Hovind. I had been interested to see if any Christian law firms had stepped forward to assist a soldier of Christ only to my most amazing shock to see not only a Christian university official testify against another brother in Christ, but also one of those that have publically sworn a duty to defend and protect the rights of Christians in America was instead one of the chief prosecution witnesses.
My brothers in Christ, whatever your oppinion of what Dr. Hovind has done in standing up for the real constitutional rights of the church to be separate from the government and freely operate as a religious entity and not as a state sanctioned tax collector of which Dr. Hovind is now accused of failing to do, let it nevertheless be understood that our constitutional rights are in grave danger and the abilities of fancy lawyers are not the source of our protection from the tyranny of a government. It is instead the simple and pure Word of God which literally shows us the complete depravity of man and all of his creations, most of which are ungodly governments. May God bless each and every one of us as we are all at risk. Even so, Lord come quickly.
BeenSaved316
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 1:21am:

Dear Dr. Hovind,

My heart and prayers are with you as you go through these troubling times. I feel as though I am in the same cell as you are. I feel this way because you were the only one who was ever able to bring me to Christ. I will give full credit to God; but it was you he worked through. As a once proud atheist, I have a great testimony to share with believers and nonbelievers alike.

It can be easily seen in the previous comments about your imprisonment who are the good, and who are the wicked. Because people are so strongly apposed to yours and the Creationist viewpoints, they would rather see you in jail for the rest of your life, then to hear or see you expressing a different viewpoint; a Godly viewpoint, that differs from their own. No matter what happens Dr. Hovind, you have brought me to God, so the least I can do to repay you is to reach out to those who scoff, or who are willingly ignorant of God, in hopes that they too will find Him.

You have done wonders in my life Dr. Hovind; I cannot thank you enough, and never will be able to. You are far from finished, whatever God has in plan for you. Thank you so much for saving me…

God Bless You,

Travis
Matthew
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 8:19am:

“Hundreds evolutionists have refused to debate, so far. What is the problem?”

The problem is your arguments have been refuted over and over as wrong. And by the look of the comments that support you and try to argue your points, they are caught unprepared and shows that your “army” is poorly trained.
Georgio
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 8:54am:

I was happy to hear from HK!
Keep up that preaching!

Xmas is coming up, and since I found no better place, than this, I would like to ask the following question:
why is Xmas a pagan holiday?????
I thought it’s a Christian one….
Thx.
vladd77
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 12:56pm:

Hello,
My Brother in Pretoria, South Africa, asked me to read your story as he thinks you have been railroaded.

I have read the background but, seeing as I live in Sweden, I am not all that up to date on how supposed tax evasion works in the USA.

However I am against all injustice and if you have been railroaded because of what you preach then you, as well as I, know that God will use you ( as He is already doing ) in the jail and possibly eventually prison.

I myself KNOW that I am a created soul in the image of my Father. I KNOW that I will be reunited with Him in His kingdom after the great Judgement.

Stay strong in Jesus’ Holy Name..

Vladd77 / Sweden

http://www.prisonpotpourri.com
joshrjb
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 1:09pm:

RE: “I have gained an even greater dislike for many stupid and ungodly television shows. I marvel that Christians do not see how bad our culture has gotten.”

Well said!

I switched to Sky Angel back in 2003 and it’s been a great blessing! http://www.skyangel.com
David
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 1:26pm:

To ALL,

Has anyone thought what it means to sign a tax return? How can anyone swear under penalties of perjury that the return is correct? Tax experts are confused about our tax laws. Didn’t God say, Do not LIE.
Didn’t Jesus say, Do not swear. Would Jesus sign a tax return? Can Caesar have a 100% tax rate? According to many of you he can. “Render to caesar what is ceaser’s” During the 50’s, the top tax rates were 90% plus.
This whole argument is much more than simply paying a tax. Most people what no problems at any cost. Even losing their souls for a little peace.

David

“According to the former IRS National Taxpayer Advocate, W. Val Oveson, the complexity of the tax law “continues to be the most serious and burdensome problem facing America’s taxpayers.” Over the years, the Internal Revenue Code has developed into a web of maddening complexity manifested by vague or highly technical requirements, exceptions, limitations, and special rules. In addition, many of these provisions must be applied in tandem with other complicated provisions that even the most sophisticated of tax advisers can find difficult, if not impossible, to decipher. As the complexity of the Code has increased, so has the complexity of the regulations that the IRS and Treasury have issued interpreting the Code. The sheer volume of tax law changes has made learning and understanding new provisions difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners and Service personnel alike. Some of the rules are so complex that even the IRS has trouble administering them.”
campsuz
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 3:09pm:

Enoch and I are praying for you and your family, the judge, jailers and those in jail with you daily. I have been posting your CSE blogs on my Xanga site with a link to this site. We are thankful for being able to hear about the work the LORD is doing through your life and we are glad for your thankful heart through a circumstance that most would not be thankful in.
Dana S. Pennington
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 5:09pm:

I have no home, until I am in the realized presence of God. This holy presence is my inward home, and, until I experience it, I am a homeless wonderer, a straying sheep in waste howling wilderness.
~ Anonymous
evilution
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 5:41pm:

We appreciate the updates and appreciate that you are eventually able to read the Blogs even if it is only once in a while. I hope it helps to see that you have many people support your cause and are united behind you in Christ. We will continue praying and certainly will fast as we present to our Lord our prayers as we remember your bonds. We do believe the end is coming soon. The signs are all showing up with increasing frequecny that herald the coming of our Lord. Thank you for remaining faithful in the work of the Lord, it has made a huge difference in our walk with Him as well as for many others, many of whom you will never know while on this side of the veil. Thanks for your comments about television. We stopped watching tv a while back and it has been a tremendous blessing to us, we reccomend that others who are serious about the Lord do the same. The television shows promote acceptance of most of the immoral activities taking place in our country (and elsewhere) today.
Sola Scriptura
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 6:41pm:

Dr Hovind

I have followed you for sevral years, and you have blessed my Heart for a long time. However, I would ask you to read this portion of scripture, and ask others who visit this Blog to please see what Holy Scripture says..

Romans 13;1-7–Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by GOD.–v2–Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves–v3–For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior; but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;–v4–for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.–v5–Therefore it is necessary to be in SUBJECTION, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake.–v6–For because of this YOU ALSO PAY TAXES, FOR RULERS ARE SEARVANTS OF GOD, devoting themselves to this very thing.—v7–RENDER TO ALL WHAT IS DUE THEM; TAX TO WHOM TAX IS DUE, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.—NASB

While you have done much good Dr hovind, by comparing yourself to great men and women of faith who suffered for there faith angers me greatly. You should warn others not to take the road you have chosen regarding taxes, and tell people that you were in error according to Holy Scripture. We all sin and I am certainly no better than you or anyone else, I know that I am wicked and sinful, but just as when David sinned when confronted with it, he repented, and you should do the same, I am worreid others will take your path on taxes and fall into the same error that has trapped you….My heart is heavy for you and your family, and you are constantly in my prayers..God bless
Gordon_Comstock
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 7:17pm:

Here, here!
God bless you, Dr. Hovind.
chaplaindoug
Said this on December 16th, 2006 at 9:12pm:

I look forward to your updates brother Kent. Having spent seven years as a missionary chaplain in maximum security jails such as yours, I know God will show you many things while you are there. You will find camaraderie from quarters least expected, and you will see the truth of 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 played out before you. God will introduce brethren to you whom the “church” missed.

I am sorry that so many naysayers glom onto this blog to wag their tongues at God. Little will be done here to turn them to Christ, because they are not at the end of themselves. However, some of the fellows you are incarcerated with are at the end; an end that God has orchestrated to bring them into the fold. Thank you for being faithful where you are.

Sincerely,
Chaplain Doug
josephericlopez
Said this on December 17th, 2006 at 12:47am:

Hello Bro. Hovind,

I have been reading your updates. I finally graduated college and started teaching High School Math. It is said to see this thing occur. I will keep your situation in prayer. I am curious though. If you get this message and can respond. I watch Court TV (Body of Evidence, Forensic Files, etc.) How do they promote fornication & adultery? I must be missing something. I see them mention these things in passing, but I haven’t interepreted that as being support for it.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing good news soon.

Joseph
alyasm
Said this on December 17th, 2006 at 8:47am:

Dear readers!
This is for all those who are ” BRAVE” now beause Dr. Kent Hovind cannot debate them at thyis point.
There is a saying in our culture ( Asian- hence Biblical):
” When Lion is in cage, then Jackles become brave”
alyasm
Said this on December 17th, 2006 at 8:55am:

Dear Readers!
This is for all those who are ” BRAVE” now because Dr. Kent Hovind cannot debate with them at this time. There is a saying in our culture ( Asian): ” WHEN LION IS IN CAGE, THEN JACKLES BECOME BRAVE”. When Jesus will set Dr. Kent Hovind free in His own timing, then all these ” Jackles” will go back into hiding.

Dr. Hovind and family, we are praying for you daily and we are grateful what you have done for our family.

Dr. Alyas Masih MD
tharsos
Said this on December 17th, 2006 at 9:11am:

We are still praying for you and continue to spread your materials to people.
God Bless
Geocentric Bob
Said this on December 17th, 2006 at 11:35am:

Don’t pass by this one. View all 14 minutes of it.

US: Juror tells why jury said “not guilty” for man who refused to pay income tax. Google Posted 2006 Dec 9

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6716929127738729234
Geocentric Bob
Said this on December 17th, 2006 at 11:41am:

Scripture is all about the visible righteous minority. Think Moses. Think Daniel. Think about presenting evolution as Kent Hovind does.

Say it loudly.

“Evolution is the dumbest religion known to man”
“There has never been a dumber idea to believe that you came from a rock over 4 billion years ago”
“and that it rained on the rocks for millions of years”
“and that you just washed up on the beach”

Make it known to all those who believe in evolution.
webegeek
Said this on December 17th, 2006 at 8:53pm:

Keep the faith, Kent. Many of us are praying for your freedom and safety.
arensb
Said this on December 17th, 2006 at 11:22pm:

When I get out, I will be glad to discuss or to debate the issues with him at the University of Ohio if he is willing.

Have you considered writing him a letter? A written exchange would allow both participants to present their side in greater depth than in an oral debate. Plus, it gives the audience (if any) time to consider the points made by both sides.
Michael Deas
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 12:21am:

Bless you Brother Hovind and keep doing Gods work. I continue to show your videos and teach people about creation and our creator at my auto repair business. I make no bones about the face that i am a Spirit filled Bible believing chickin eatin Brother in Christ Jesus and i want to get people saved. Your unjust incarceration has been a kick in the seat for me to strengthen my efforts and i thank you for your teaching and inspiration. I love you Brother, and I will continue to pray and fast for a favorable outcome. God bless you and your Family.

Your Brother in Christ
Michael A. Deas
Madness Automotive
279 westmeadow pl.
Lowell In. 46356
219-696-5539 just in case anyone wants to come learn
eecreationist
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 7:38am:

God bless you and your ministry! Does anyone know what happened to Paul? Is he not doing the radio program anymore? Also, if anyone does the PACER account, please post whatever information on this (if possible). I will try to today if I have time.
Ketchum
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 8:00am:

Dr. Hovind,
First of all it’s very good to hear from you! Thank you for giving us an update! Second, thank you for standing up for the Bible. Ever since I was given your seminar series I haven’t looked at creation the same. So thanks!
Right now I’m reading “God doesn’t believe in atheists”, which is a well done book. It’s amazing that people can actually think there is no God! Just something as simple as the earths orbit around the sun should make someone thing that there is a Creator. It takes a lot for a satellite to stay in orbit. Lots of people, with lots of computers, with lots of planning etc. It doesn’t even occur to them that the earth is placed exactly where it needs to be in order to sustain life. A couple of degrees closer to the sun the earth would be too hot to sustain life and a few degrees farther from the sun the earth would freeze. But no, we are exactly where God wants us. Nothing is by chance, there is no room for chance. It’s all planned by God who controls this place. And we should thank Him for that, not mock Him because He’s in control and not us.
mfox
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 8:33am:

Matthew,

What makes an argument “wrong”?

-Mel (A soldier in the Lord’s army)
Ketchum
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 9:34am:

Dr. Hovind,
Thankyou for standing up for the Bible! I wish there was something I could do to help! I’ve purchased many books from your book list including the Dr. Henry Morris Defenders Bible. Wow there is so much good stuff in there it’s hard to grasp it all. Thank you for recommending it! Over the past 6 months I’ve had such a thirst for the knowledge of God! And I have to say that your seminar series has contributed a major portion to my foundational Creation understanding. My heart goes out to you Dr. Hovind, I wish I could help. I wrote a letter and expressed my appreciation for you and CSE a couple of weeks ago. When I heard that you had been in jail over this situation, I found myself angry that the government has the power to do this. I’m not sure why the government is so set on getting the Bible and what it teaches out. But yet the government seems to be able to stick it’s nose in Church matters when it sees fit. The men that set the foundation of this country, I’m sure, would be upset to see what’s going on.
Kent I can’t wait for Jesus to come back! It’s all I’ve been able to think about the last couple of weeks! I don’t know about you, but I look at the worlds events and can’t help but think that the time is near!
I look forward to meeting you one day, Dr. Hovind. You are a hero to many people including myself.
Eric
Matthew
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 10:26am:

Mel,

What makes an argument wrong:
Lies (age of the oldest tree, age of Great Barrier relief), ad hominem fallacies (evolution is evil, “ungodly” tv shows) and ignorance (the Bible is right no matter what).
evilution
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 10:47am:

Georgio… You need to take a look at “www.toolong.com” for the best answer to your question and much more lifesaving info…
Always seek the truth

Hope this helps, Lord bless
lwilkinson
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 10:49am:

Dear JC’s Girl,
It’s funny that your username is JC’s girl. My four-year old daughter is named Jacy (after her Savior). I appreciate your feeling of not knowing what’s going on. I still haven’t heard (from Kent’s perspective…….I’ve had an earfull of everyone else’s) about what’s happening, why it happened, the story behind it, etc. I’m still waiting. I’m still looking. I’m still throwing out requests for info., but nobody has really responded to me. Hopefully you’ll have an easier time getting to the bottom of this than I have. Hang in there!
Love in Christ,
lwilkie
evilution
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 10:55am:

Matthew- The Bible is right because you havn’t been able to prove it wrong without using lies. And if you only tell the truth you can only prove it to be right. It is easy to make lies very convincing because there is no limit to them. The truth is something you can’t add to or take away from, so that makes it very limited. To say the truth is a lie is just dumb. Take a hike.
Matthew
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 11:12am:

Evilution,

What lies? Telling me to “take a hike” is not Christian nor is it an argument.
evilution
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 11:26am:

Mat… Not Christian? Would you rather if I made a scourge to drive you out? Before you try to define what a Christian is I would suggest you read ALL of the four gospels VERY carefully… BEWARE you may loose your ignorance in them if you keep your eyes open…
evilution
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 11:30am:

Geo Bob— Just wathed that video clip! That’s GTREAT!!! Were did you find that? To others, TAKE A LOOK!!!!!
evilution
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 11:46am:

to believe in evolution is like believing in santa… you are told about it as a child, so you just believe it… howbeit most of us see that it cannot be so when we get older (And hopefully a little more mature) so we leave those childish myths behind us and wonder why we werent just TAUGHT the truth in the first place… it is so sad to see that there are some people who simply cannot “evolve” into maturity like others, they are ever learning but always fail to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Matthew
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 12:05pm:

Evilution,

Does the quote “turn the other cheek” ring a bell?

Some people would believing in Creationism is like believing in Santa.

Do you believe that was a moon landing? There are people, including Kent Hovind, who believe that the moon landings never happened. But there were several moon landings, this includes astronaut James Irwin who said that his experience increased his belief in God and he would try to find Noah’s ark. We know it happened, even we were never there.
evilution
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 12:08pm:

do you know that most of us were taught evolution since childhood and were brought up to believe in it? did you also know that anyone who is fully studied on the word of God will never turn his back on it unless he is willing to believe in something he knows is not true? most evolutionists believe in evolution because they simply never took the time to study the other. they also do not want to give up their

hard spent studies as a failure so they will keep doing all that they possibly can to save their teachings. also it is much harder to believe in creation because it is life changing and requires so much more depth of thought, as in spirit and soul, not just mind and body. most of these people who are anti truth on this panel are grossely ignorant of the very thing they seek to invalidate. on the other hand, the truth seekers here, are (thanks to modern education) well informed in the area of evolution…
Maturekid
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 12:40pm:

**Warning – Long post, skim, skip or read at your discretion – except for Matthew – you wanted it, yah got it. – Warning**

Just a suggestion before some of the bit more flavorful posters get on here, can we at least give Kent Hovind a chance to say his side and the full legal process to run its course before we pass judgment? On a similar strand, let’s hold off on the summary condemnation and execution too. (Isaiah)

Okay tax / Fed Reserve comment: As Jason x noted, the US Constitution was made by the founding fathers to protect the people from the government. They justly feared a government could start infringing on the rights of the people. As such, they installed numerous checks and balances. One such is the ability of the people to elect to or remove from office the members of Congress & the President. All conspiracy theories aside, when the 1913 Congress & Pres. Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act and transferred the duties appointed to Congress to a UNELECTED body, did they not remove one of the checks and balances given to the people? Would it not stand to reason they’ve eroded the Constitution even further and subsequently our rights as citizens to control our government? If you want to faithfully trust politicians to govern themselves, that is your choice. History has never shown that to be very wise though.

Joseph,

Try watching Divorce Court and that line. You’ll need to TIVO them as they are on TV when you are teaching. Remember, Bro Hovind is stuck in jail 24/7.

Matty,

I was trying to be nice but oh well. Let’s put this one to rest shall we?

First, this debate is wrongly treated as if it were an On/Off switch or Evol/ Creationist option. I’ve read both sides. Both sides do have weaknesses in some of their arguments. I challenge you to look at this topic objectively. Could there be a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life? Possibly. Is Evolution the answer? Doubtful. It is far more likely Science has been barking up the wrong tree for quite a while (again).

I really like this statement by Barry Maddox, MD: “Science is simply repeatable, testable observation. Speculations about origins are religion, not science, since no human observed origins.” That is a very apt summary.

So far I’ve observed the evolution arguments (usually the ones done by non-scientists or fanatical followers) to be largely speculative, based on assumptions, leaning heavily on semantics, and unsubstantiated by empirical data. I’m a bit of a skeptic on broad based claims so I hold a position of – Prove it!!

What you have offered up so far is lacking. You’ve offered up arguments from 1849 and 1874 from Agassiz dealing with the “biogenetic law” and a version of embryology that has long been concluded as defunct as it was soundly disproved by microbiology. It has been removed from the evolution argument by the evolutionists. Also you have just offered up changes in a water flea to a water flea and changes in finches. Congrats, you’ve verified a known scientific fact that goes by many names such as variation, speciation, sub speciation, adaptation, or the semantic misnomer of microevolution. Environmental adaptation in a water flea or a finch doesn’t prove a Deinonychus became a bald eagle.

I must thank you for your examples though. What you have done is given me something to add to my notes of evidence that counters evolution. The examples are cause – effect environmental variations requiring a symbiotic relationship between the flea & the fish and the finch and the food supply. Unless I got my evolutionary tree wrong, the flea came before the fish. But your examples require simultaneous existence of both the flea and the fish or the change wouldn’t have occurred. Thanks!!

I (along with many others) consider your evolution “fact” or “truth” to be little more than an unfounded belief system that wants to be a hypothesis. Now I’m open minded so I’ll give you what you need to overcome to advance your stance. Ready for the list?

1) No fossil evidence for gradual evolution – As noted by late Harvard Professor Stephen Jay Gould and paleontologist Dr. Niles Eldgrede which led to their joint conclusion of “punctuated equilibria”
2) Circular reasoning in “punctuated equilibria” theory
3) Circular reasoning in the standard geological column
4) Subjective interpretation of the standard geological column
5) Complex initial appearance of life forms in the fossil record
6) No undisputed transitional forms in the fossil record
7) No examples of “micro-evolution” No known mechanism for evolution
9) Conflicts between anatomy and biochemistry
10) Flaws in radiometric dating
11) Statistical improbability of evolution through chance mutations
12) A leading genetic genome researcher Dr. Barry Maddox’s work HUMAN GENOME PROJECT: QUANTITATIVE DISPROOF OF EVOLUTION
13) Agnostic biochemist Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D. book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”
14) Works by David Menton, Ph.D. – Start with “Climbing The ‘Ladder of Life’ In the Grand Canyon”
15) Atheist and renowned Physicist Fred Holye calculations on mathematical probabilities of abiogenesis.
16) Michael Behe, Ph.D., in “Darwin’s Black Box”
17) No known method of the production of proteins, lipids, RNA, or DNA outside of a pre-existing living cell
18) Observations of farmers & farmer logic must be overcome as farmers have been around far longer than the origins of the ToE by the Greeks. To quote a phrase from the Philippines “You will never get a guava from a mango tree.” We’ve only seen cows come from cows and corn from corn.

The further layman’s details on 1-11 are found here: http://www.textbookreviews.org/index.html?content=http%3A//www.textbookreviews.org/nl_5_98.htm
12 http://ricter.com/wordline/AR_Gst_Lect.htm
14 http://home.gowyo.com/creation/FtB3.htm

That should be a good start for you. Oh theistic evolution is not possible until you actually can prove evolution happens. So when you can empirically prove that you have the “truth”, then I’ll take notice and consider. Until then, let others believe what they want to and let us shift all of that wasted grant money and funnel it into far more useful scientific endeavors such as cures for diseases, etc. (Side note: Natural cures should be considered but I doubt the FDA, politicians and pharmaceutical companies will do that as they can’t patent and profit from natural cures.)

(Okay, I can’t resist this last part. I’m just feeling impish. Sorry ahead of time.) So if you don’t want to contemplate a Creator, I’ll give you a project. You’ll need a new claim to champion that is much harder to disprove. Try this one: In an unspecified time and location, the former Soviet Union conducted a secret time travel experiment with a Chihuahua name Fortuitous. The brief microsecond transports were timed with gaseous expulsions from Fortuitous and created life as we know it. One test resulted in Fortuitous sneezing thus causing a funky side effect of universe creation. The last test resulted in Fortuitous passing gas in a puddle triggering life as we know it.

Now spend most of your life fleshing the details of that out. It is rather tough to disprove as a lot of the Soviet documents would have been destroyed. OR we can agree with the quote from Barry Maddox, MD and move on to something more constructive.

“Science is simply repeatable, testable observation. Speculations about origins are religion, not science, since no human observed origins.”
mfox
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 1:49pm:

Matthew,

The supposed age of the world’s oldest living tree is 4,844 years. Assuming that this claim is not a lie itself, it is based on extrapolation of current conditions into the distant past. As Kent might say: “The trees don’t have the dates stamped on them.” I reject that this 4844 is an absolute age as is reported. Error exists. How much is a subject of scientific opinion. Therefore, an oldest age of 4000 years is not a lie, it is an opinion.

From Wikipedia:

“The research outcomes funded by the CRC Reef Research Centre estimates the age of the present, living reef structure at 6,000 to 8,000 years old.”

Again, this is an estimate. To say that the reef is 4000 years old is an opinion, not a lie.

I suggest you read “Evolution and Ethics” by Sir Aurthor Kieth. Almost half of the book is an argument that evolution is “at war” with the law of Christ. Certainly you can see how a born again Christian would conclude, honestly, that evolution is evil.

I happen to agree with the opinion that tv shows on cable and the networks are ungodly. That is why I switched to skyangle 4 years ago.

If we are ignorant who take as a premise that the Bible is always correct, show this to be a false premise.

Please understand that those who disagree with your opinion are not necessarily ignorant liers and you have to do better than name calling to show an argument is wrong. Do you know what it is exactly you must do to show an argument is invalid?

-Mel
Ketchum
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 2:38pm:

I would like for a person that believes in evolution to explain how trees all over the world are found petrified connecting multiple layers of dirt, presumed to be millions of years old? Some are found even upside down petrified? please explain evolutionist? I’m really curious.
Ketchum
evilution
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 4:30pm:

Mat… I do certainly choose to “give no place to the devil” in the matter being discussed here accordingly. And also I do remember Kent saying how the young moon was found to have a thin amount of dust on it…about 6000 years worth… so if you want me to believe one of your lies about him you will have to do better than that… or are you just ignorant of what he taught??? watch some of his videos. yes, we all know there was a creation even though we were never there.
evilution
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 4:33pm:

no wonder kent didnt feel he had time to debate some of you… it would be easier teaching algebra to my cat
mtlionsroar
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 4:53pm:

Dear Dr. Hovind;

I am mindful of you daily, and when I think of you, I pray for you, your family, and your release. Isn’t it amazing how Christians can see God’s hand in everything, while the scoffers laugh! How blessed we are to know (like you say) “that in the end, God wins!” I agree with you about the T.V. What a disgrace! Keep reading that Bible–it’s the only book worth while!

May the Lord continue to bless you and CSE.

Dee
CalebJF
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 4:58pm:

Dear Mr. Hovind,

I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and I believe that you are right in this case. But I have a question about one of your Comments. You said “I will forever preach even harder for teens to stay pure until marriage”. I am tweenty years old, a virgin, just became a senior at my Bible collage. But I do not understand what bieng a virgin has to do with bieng pure. Granted I may understand better when I am married, but the Bible says that our rightousness is as filthy rags. I have looked up every passage in the Bible that uses the word virgin, thier are fifty in the old testiment and fifteen in the new testiment, and none of them have the word pure near them. I do not think defining virginity as purity is an accurate definition. But I do think that I do have an accurate definition of virginity. Virginity is a gift from God that he litterally gives everyone at conception, everyone either has it or has had it, It is not our gift. It is God’s gift to our spouse, or to be more specific God’s wedding presint to whoever we marry. If I am getting the reading right in I Cor 6, where it starts saying about bieng one flesh, and the reading right in Gen, Mat, and Eph, when it says the two shall become one flesh, then I think that in the eyes of God when you give your virginity to someone God sees you as husband and wife, everytime someone commits fornication or adultry God now sees you as one flesh, or husband and wife. Maybe that is why God made it a crime punishible by death in the old testiment, so thier would be no confussion.
Sorry for rambling on about all that but I as a virgin do not see myself as pure but I do see myself as fearing God enough to keep that gift for the one he intends it for, and by the way why doesnt anyone every preach on virginity (thier is a difference between virginity and abstance, virginity is present and past tence at the same time, while abstance is only present tense)?
Have a good day be praying for you, and even though I cant spell I think I have great content.
Samphire
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 5:07pm:

Ketchum
Said this at 2:38pm:

“I would like for a person that believes in evolution to explain how trees all over the world are found petrified connecting multiple layers of dirt, presumed to be millions of years old? Some are found even upside down petrified? please explain evolutionist? I’m really curious.”

Firstly, Ketchum, polystrate trees have nothing to do with evolution or the theory of evolution. 
Secondly, there is an excellent explanation at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html.

Samphire
Samphire
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 5:23pm:

evilution
Said this at 12:08pm:

“do you know that most of us were taught evolution since childhood and were brought up to believe in it? did you also know that anyone who is fully studied on the word of God will never turn his back on it unless he is willing to believe in something he knows is not true? ”

I do not detect too much of the teachings of Christ in your writings, Evilution. Why would anybody believe in something they thought was not true?

“most evolutionists believe in evolution because they simply never took the time to study the other. they also do not want to give up their hard spent studies as a failure so they will keep doing all that they possibly can to save their teachings.”

Please may I have your evidence for such a statement.

“also it is much harder to believe in creation because it is life changing and requires so much more depth of thought, as in spirit and soul, not just mind and body.”

Please define the difference between spirit, soul and mind. Please explain also in what way it is easier to study, say, Large-Scale Functional Genomic Analysis of Sporulation and Meiosis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae than it is to study the three different nativity stories in the New Testament.

“most of these people who are anti truth on this panel are grossely ignorant of the very thing they seek to invalidate. on the other hand, the truth seekers here, are (thanks to modern education) well informed in the area of evolution…”

That is not my experience. KH is an excellent example of someone who has difficulty understanding the basics of the ToE. Example – “I’ll believe in evolution when a dawg gives birth to a non-dawg”. The day that happens is the day I’ll cease being an evolutionist because the ToE predicts that a dog will never give birth to a non-dog. KH’s statement is about as dumb as it gets.
prewrathx
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 5:52pm:

Dear Matthew

Pride is certainly a sin but there is a big difference between pride and the blatant obviousness to the fallacies of evolution. It becomes common sense when you just open your eyes. Besides, to be a good christian, we should all believe that the entire word of God is the complete infallible truth. So, as far as pride goes, I think you’ve been mistaken.

In Christ’ name

Tyler

ps. I will continue to pray for you Matthew
Samphire
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 7:05pm:

evilution
Said this at 4:33pm:
“no wonder kent didnt feel he had time to debate some of you… it would be easier teaching algebra to my cat”

Not if the cat were Persian. Not many of them speak good English.

As for your earlier comment about moondust this is what creationists Snelling and Rush said in 1993:

“It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists’ multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.”

Even my cat knows that.
Samphire
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 7:20pm:

mtlionsroar
Said this at 4:53pm:
“Dear Dr. Hovind;

I am mindful of you daily, and when I think of you, I pray for you, your family, and your release. Isn’t it amazing how Christians can see God’s hand in everything, while the scoffers laugh! How blessed we are to know (like you say) “that in the end, God wins!” I agree with you about the T.V.

So it is God’s work that the IRS took away KH’s guns and stopped him preaching in South Africa..

So it is God’s work that KH was found guilty of a crime and is now in jail.

Doubtless, you will see that it is God’s work if the judge acquits KH in answer to prayer and lets him out.

You will also see that it is God’s work if the judge does not let him out. If the judgment uses such words as “egregious”, “wilful” and “arrogant” that too, presumably, will be God’s work.

So whatever happens it will be God’s work. What’s there to see?

And how about the Tsunami?

Dee
evilution
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 8:00pm:

Sap-mire

or sap-mite if you prefer… Of course you can’t detect anything in my speech pertaining to Christ’s
teachings if you dont know them. That,and I only used a few quotes. People don’t believe certain things that are true because it is simpler to live their life without their conscience in the way. If you were on a slowly sinking ship and had no way to get off you would not want to spend your time thinking about dying, but would want to think about somthing else to pacify yourself until the fact(eat,drink and be merry for tomorrow we die)… this is human nature.(psychology) Also you would not want anyone to remind you of the fact, and would be upset with anyone who would do so. Especially if they “claim” to have a way off. Again you seek to invalidate that which you know not. Evidence is in the fact that so many people like yourself exist. You also still have enough conscience to bother you about your false beliefs, otherwise you would not find this site so attractive. You think that if you can change the beliefs of others maybe your conscience will leave you alone. Please explain the difference between mind spirit soul? Sure… after I teach my cat a few more equations…Hmmm… sounds like you got a pretty big pacifier… can’t get rid of that o’l conscience yet? Ever learning? Can’t find the truth? Get a good King James bible and READ IT… then maybe we can talk… p.s. understanding evolution ISN’T believing it (thank God)
evilution
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 8:07pm:

Sap— I disagree with your opinion about the trees. Just because they dont fit your theory doesnt mean they should be excluded from this forum… That would be just kind of [edited], wouldnt it ???? Classic evolutionary thinking. Wow.
jimmy
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 8:32pm:

Mathew, i don’t know what your trying to do to Dr. Hovind, but simple truth does not qualify as pride.
Sola Scriptura, the passages you refer to speak only of CHURCH authority, as you will see if you take a closer look at them.
Keep up the good work Dr. Hovind! we’re praying for you. The IRS might be shocked to know that they just opened up a HUGE prison ministry! You’ve got a captive audience!
God can take a situation that man means to make trouble with, and turn it into good!
jimmy
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 8:50pm:

Keep fighting the good fight Dr. Hovind!
trust
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 9:12pm:

I have one question why do we debate with people that have no intrest in the truth of creation. If we don’t answer there comments they may just go away. I will have to find the passage in the Bible about shaking the dust off the disciples sandles.

To Dr Kent Hovind I say thank you You Creation videos made te bible more real and I will continue to show as many poeple as possible what a lie evolution is.

God Bless you
Ray from Canada
Matthew
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 9:21pm:

Long response to MatureKid’s & Mel’s arguments

MatureKid,

1) Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. “Evolution as Fact and Theory” in Hens Teeth and Horse’s Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

2) Quote mining from Eldredge.
Actual quote: “Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is simply no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. Sometimes igneous rocks, rocks we can date chemically, intrude into sedimentary rocks, and in such a fashion some hard-core “absolute” dates–expressed in terms of millions of years–are available for all subdivisions of geologic time…. ”

3) Another quote mining.
Original, “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism. (Emphasis added)

The original pragmatism of Peirce, James, Dewey, and other turn-of-the-century American philosophers drew many of its best illustrations from geology, but geologists have not used the pragmatic method to improve their basic argument….”

4) The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as “no better than a phrensied dream” (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William “Strata” Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.

The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.

5) The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Fossil microorganisms have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).

6) There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

7) It is true that much microevolution selects from preexisting variation. In animals, that kind of microevolution occurs much faster than waiting for certain mutations to occur, so we often see artificial selection programs stall when they have selected among all the variation that was there to begin with. However, if the selection is maintained, change should continue, albeit at a much slower rate. Also, you admitted that my example of water fleas and Darwin’s finches are example of micro-evolution.
The claim is a non sequitur. Intelligent design says nothing at all about the Darwinian mechanism of evolution. Whether or not evolution lacks power must be decided by looking at evolution. If intelligent design is correct, it provides an alternative explanation, but it does not automatically falsify other alternatives.

The Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is part of the normal design process. If designers were not able to abandon old designs in favor of better modified versions of the same design, then intelligent design would have very little power itself.

9) Different forms also (it is claimed) come from the same designer, so similar forms are not evidence of a common designer. Evidence for a designer must begin by specifying (before the fact) what is expected from the designer. When do we expect similar forms, and when do we expect different forms? “Intelligent design” theory will not answer that. Evolution theory has made that prediction, and the pattern of similarities and differences that we observe accords with what evolution predicts.

There are similarities that cannot rationally be attributed to design. For example, an endogenous retroviral element (ERV) is a retrovirus (a parasite) that has become part of the genome. There are several kinds of ERVs, and they can insert themselves at random locations. Humans and chimps have thousands of such ERVs in common — the same type of ERV at the same location in the genome (D. M. Taylor 2003).

10) Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth’s tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as “deeper is older” (Lindsay 2000).

The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

11) Morris’s calculation assumes that all the beneficial mutations must occur consecutively with no other mutations occurring in the meantime. When one allows harmful mutations that get selected out along the way, 200 beneficial mutations would accumulate fairly quickly — in 200/r generations using the assumptions of Morris’s model. (The real world is quite a bit more complicated yet. In particular, large populations and genetic recombination via sex can allow beneficial mutations to accumulate at a greater rate.)

12) Plagarized errors of Human Genome Project

13) Denton’s attacks against evolutionary process constitute some of the worst arguments in his book. One line of argument draws an analogy between mutation and word-transformation, showing that single letter substitutions cannot change one large meaningful word or sentence to even a closely related one without passing through a whole series of meaningless intermediates. For Denton, evolution necessitates a process like:

He sat on the mat.
He stt on the mat.
He sto on the mat.
He stoo on the mat.
He stood on the mat.(Denton, 1985, p. 89)

14) Menton was sent a copy of the then-current version of this article on February 7, 1995. On April 25, 1995 he contacted Lippard in email stating that he had heard second-hand that this article claimed he had not responded to email Lippard had sent him about this issue, and accused Lippard of writing a knowing falsehood (i.e., lie) to that effect. On the same date, Lippard responded in email noting that the February 7 letter was sent via U.S. mail, c/o the Missouri Association for Creation, which published the Menton article criticized herein. Lippard’s email included a copy of the then-current version of this article. Menton has not replied to repeated email requests for comments and for a retraction of his accusation about Lippard, but an online copy of his article was updated on July 19, 1996 to clarify that the 1973 knee joint has not been claimed by Johanson to be Lucy’s (http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/apeimage.htm).

15) They calculate the probability of the formation of a “modern” protein, or even a complete bacterium with all “modern” proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

16) Darwin’s Black Box

17) DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA — all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).

Despite the complexity of the system that Behe describes, protein transport need not be that complex. Some proteins direct their own secretion so that no transport mechanism is necessary (see references in Ussery 1999). Certainly, other simple systems that could serve as precursors to vesicular transport should be possible.

Many of the proteins involved in transport in eukaryote cells have molecular “ancestors” in bacteria. These molecules, the ABC transporters, serve in a much simpler system. If Behe is interested in the simplest system that accomplishes a function, why does he not even mention them?

Irreducible complexity is not an obstacle to evolution and doesn’t imply design.

18) The “you can only get a dog from a dog” argument. Evolution does indeed predict a continuum (of sorts) of organisms. But not a dogs-to-cats continuum. Rather, a past-to-future continuum, where you can find intermediaries between any two given organisms that have a direct lineage. Evolution specifically predicts a lack of continuum of present organisms (dog-to-cat) due to those unfit intermediate-cousins not having survived to reproduce and give rise to them. This is not a true continuum because there can be no intermediary between parent and offspring. Ultimately, evolution is discrete. Not a continuum.

In the example of humans and chimpanzees, we are both animals, we are both mammals, we are both primates and we are both apes. So, conclusively, we are closely linked to each other, humans did not evolve from chimps, but we have a common ancestor .

Mel,

There are two systematic errors in the measurement of time by dendrochronology: Missing rings and additional rings. Additional rings go in the right direction for creationism, making the ages seem too large, but the effect is not only far too small and easily spotted, but also loses in effect size against the missing rings, which can make the trees appear about 5% younger.
“In certain species of conifers, especially those at lower elevations or in southern latitudes, one season’s growth increment may be composed of two or more flushes of growth, each of which may strongly resemble an annual ring. Such multiple growth rings are extremely rare in bristlecone pines, however, and they are especially infrequent at the elevation and latitude (37° 20′ N) of the sites being studied. In the growth-ring analyses of approximately one thousand trees in the White Mountains, we have, in fact, found no more than three or four occurrences of even incipient multiple growth layers.” (See Ferguson, C. W. (1968). “Bristlecone Pine: Science and Esthetics.” Science 159(3817): 839-846.)

By the way, there were trees older than the current oldest tree and the Great Barrier reef is estimated to be 20,000 years old.
evilution
Said this on December 18th, 2006 at 9:34pm:

Sap – Like I said, earlier ,lies are boundless… I can assure you there are plenty of books(almost unlimited supply) full of them to keep you occupied (pacified) away from the truthful one. Please continue to study up on “ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTIONABILITY OF LARGE SCALES” so you won’t have time to waste on this site. Remember? Harrod’s?
Michael Walsh
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 12:17am:

As I skim the web offerings about Dr. Hovind I am impressed by the number of salivating, conformist, worldlings that are reveling in his current situation. These folks, many of whom probably never had an original thought of their own, are apparently popping champagne corks and throwing confetti on the occasion of Dr. Hovind’s imprisonment; as if this non sequitur provides the rebuttal these critics were so often destitute of in debating him.

No, I don’t think Kent is perfect in thought and deed. He’s most likely in error on some things and tends to speculate, but he usually tells you he’s speculating. That’s much more than the evolutionary pontificators will do.

With Dr. Hovind we are, perhaps, experiencing something of the Branch Davidian syndrome: if somebody seems wierd enough, if they live and believe outside the mainstream such that they fall out of grace with the big media, then they should be assaulted and, perhaps, even burned out. Most distressing of all is the condemnation from Christians. These folks need to wake up and smell the gas from the New World fascists. My thoughts and prayers are with Dr. and Mrs. Hovind and their family. God’s strength and anointing to you, as well as His vindication.
Samphire
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 3:18am:

Hi, Evilution,

I don’t think that you are quite the man I would wish to spend all of eternity alongside – perhaps just half. You seem to have been at the back of the queue when God was dishing out a sense of humour, not to mention charm. I suspect, also, that you are not a regular churchgoer despite your pious sermonising.

You said: You also Sap— I disagree with your opinion about the trees. Just because they dont fit your theory doesnt mean they should be excluded from this forum… That would be just kind of [edited], wouldnt it ???? Classic evolutionary thinking. Wow.

1. With what do you disagree about the polystrate trees explanation?

2. Where did I suggest that the subject should be excluded from this forum? Yet another strawman.

3. Where do I write that I study “ANALYSIS OF THE FUNCTIONABILITY OF LARGE SCALES” a title which, as is your habit, you misquote. Far to clever for me, I assure you.

Kind regards

Samphire
Samphire
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 3:22am:

Jimmy
Said this at 8:32pm:
Keep up the good work Dr. Hovind! we’re praying for you. The IRS might be shocked to know that they just opened up a HUGE prison ministry! You’ve got a captive audience!

Hi Jimmy,

My guess is that the good doctor will not have the run of the entire facility. His ministry will be more like that of a house church than a mormon city temple.
CreationCD
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 5:59am:

Samphire,

I’m sorry my modem has been down since my last post.

Starting with your post about the big bang on a different thread:

Today’s best Big Bang Theory is the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Inflationary Theory.

Where did all the matter and the energy come from?

One theory is that there are infinite parallel universes in 5th dimensional space.

When two universes collide (one with strange physics) it causes a big bang in the other universe.

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_space_membranes_010412_02.gif&cap=ANIMATION%3A+See+how++branes++would+exist+in+a+fifth+dimension+and+create+an+Ekpyrotic+Universe.

The new universe expands faster than light for an instant of time during which unknown physics are in operation. The universe is too small, the time too small, the temperature too hot for any known laws of physics to operate.

According to the textbook: Astronomy Today / Chaisson McMilliam / 3rd Edition 1999 /p637

During the inflationary epoch the universe expands from

10^-25 meter to 10^25 meters between 10^-35 second and 10^-32 second after the big bang during the Epoch of Inflation.

1 Light-year = 9.46 x 10^15 meters
so that’s zero to 1 billion light-years in no time flat.

Also the universe must contain dark matter and dark energy.

Dark matter is not ice, black holes, and non-luminous forms of ordinary matter, it is a type of matter not made up of baryons (protons and neutrons) never observed before. And 5 times more of this matter must exist than all the conventional type of matter that we detect in the universe.

Dark energy is a strange type of repulsive force also never observed. Our universe must contain 15 times more of this unknown and unobserved energy than all other types of observed energy.

The current best guess is that the universe is 150 billion light years across and 14 billion years old.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

That means space is stretching or has stretched such that particles appear to be moving away from each other at FTL speeds after the inflationary (miracle growth) epoch.

OK, so the big bang needs, many parallel universes, a time of special physics (none of today’s physical laws), 5 times more mass than all those trillions of stars as a special form of ghost matter, 14 times more energy than the output of all those stars, black holes, quasars, active galaxies, and everything else we can see as a special form of repulsive energy never observed before and faster than light expansion.

Christians believe in a God who exists outside of our universe, who created our universe and can operate within it not bounded by our physical laws or space or time.

Evolutionist say that’s supernatural and their theory is not.

Could God exist in all those parallel universes?

Evolutionists say, No need, if simple ‘natural’ processes could do it without God.

But they can’t.

Last thought, why is interstellar space expanding and space within matter or within our solar system is not? If it were we would see the effect in our solar system and if the space within matter was also expanding our rulers would be expanding too, and we wouldn’t know it.

Here’s a couple of creationist views of the observable universe as to why we might see what we see if God created it as he told us.

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

http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/starlight_and_time.html
CreationCD
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 6:44am:

Carbon 14

Samphire you said on a different thread:

I have been watching a video on the AlphaNova website which I found quite dishonest or, more generously, disingenuous. Have a look and perhaps you would like to comment. It is at

http://www.worldbydesign.org/alphanova/programs/c14dating.html

CreationCD:

I have viewed this video before. Even though I have done personnel monitoring and measured Co-60 and tritium activity in samples using a multi-channel gamma scintillation detector when I was in the Navy nuclear power program and I am interested in radiometric dating I found it a bit tedious.

Let’s go over the points that you most likely feel are disingenuous.

Theoretical problems (from a creationist standpoint) with carbon 14 dating are discussed.

(1) We do not know the percentage of carbon -14 in the atmosphere in the past.

If the earth is C-14 + proton
The neutron is from the interaction of cosmic rays with atoms in the upper atmosphere.

At equilibrium the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has built up to the level where
the amount that decays each year is equal to the amount that is formed each year.

This should take at least a couple half-lives to achieve 75% of equilibrium
if we assume the atmosphere started with zero carbon-14.

Things that would affect the production (equilibrium value) of C-14 are things that would
affect the composition of the atmosphere and the flux of Cosmic rays:
Water canopy, earth’s magnetic field, amount of N2 in the atmosphere, etc…

Also if the earth’s atmosphere was at equilibrium and suddenly almost all of the
biomass of the earth was buried in a flood the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere
would decrease from equilibrium because some atmospheric CO2 is continuously
exchanged between the atmosphere and living things. Although the ratio of C-14/C-12
would not necessarily change instantly.

Anything scenario that assumes a lower amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere will give
erroneously large apparent ages to the sample.

Today cosmic rays produce an estimated 60 tons of C-14 a year.
Today the atmosphere contains about 50 tons of C-14.
The atmosphere is not at equilibrium and this is made worse when you consider that
nuclear testing is said to have doubled the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere in modern
times.

(b) Next suppose the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was greater in past times and
assume C-14 has always been at the equilibrium value of 60 tons C-14 in the atmosphere.
This dilutes the amount of carbon-14 contained in CO2.

Plants take in less C-14 per gram of CO2 therefore organic molecules build with this CO2
will have less C-14 per gram of carbon than organic molecules built by plants today.

Since radiometric dating uses the amount of C-14 per gram of carbon, this again results in
erroneously large apparent ages for the sample.

(2) If coal and oil deposits are >1 million years old then they should contain no detectable C-14.

1 million years / 5,730 year half-life = 174.5 half lives

(1/2) ^ 174.5 = 2.95 x 10 ^ -53 or 1 / (3.38 x 10 ^ 52)

The 5 gram sample used for carbon dating contains:
(5 grams) / (12 grams per AMU carbon) x (6.022 x 10 ^ 23 atoms per AMU) =
2.51 x 10^23 atoms of carbon in the sample.

There should be almost no chance that the sample would contain even one C-14 atom
after 1 million years.

Coal and Oil deposits do contain detectable amounts of C-14. This is inconsistent with the
ages assumed for coal and oil deposits, but is consistent with a young earth scenario.

I will say that there are radiometric processes that do give an apparent old age to the earth, Christians must come up with a plausible reason for these observations, just as evolutionary biologists must continually create plausible ways that structures that have all the appearances of design must have evolved. At least in our favor there are observations such as helium diffusion rates and polonium haloes that let us know that unexplained and unknown factors exist in the radiometric record of history.

Have you looked at the links I gave you?

‘Carbon 14 and the Age of the Earth’
‘Dr Russ Humphreys: Radioisotopes and a Young World’
http://www.answersingenesis.org/answersmedia/searchProcess.aspx?keywords=carbon
darling
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 8:11am:

“evilution Said this at 11:30am:
Geo Bob— Just wathed that video clip! That’s GTREAT!!! Were did you find that? To others, TAKE A LOOK!!!!!”

When you take a look, bear in mind that Marcella Brooks was a juror for a state trial, under state law. There were no federal tax charges, so the IRS wasn’t involved at all. (Oh, and even though he was acquitted in this criminal trial, the defendant – Gaylon “Whitey” Harrell – still has to pay the taxes. Payment is a civil, not criminal matter.)

________________________________________

Maturekid said this at 12:40pm, Dec18:
“when the 1913 Congress & Pres. Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act and transferred the duties appointed to Congress to a UNELECTED body, did they not remove one of the checks and balances given to the people?”

No. Congress can change the rules of the Federal Reserve, and even dissolve it entirely, anytime they want.

If you wanted a debate on evolution, perhaps you could pick your best argument out of that list. As a reader, I’d find it much easier to follow.

But I do have a problem with this:

“Science is simply repeatable, testable observation. Speculations about origins are religion, not science, since no human observed origins.”

Does that mean speculation about electrons are religion, not science, since no human observes electrons?

Are forensic investigations into witness-less crimes are religion, not science, since no human observed the crime?

________________________________________

Kent Hovind said this:
“When I get out, I will be glad to discuss or to debate the issues with him at the University of Ohio if he is willing. Hundreds evolutionists have refused to debate, so far. What is the problem?”

I don’t think that I would qualify as an evolutionist. I have no problem believing both the bible and in an old Earth. Even so, I would be more than happy to debate you on the topic right now given an appropriate forum and appropriate rules.
AlbynGA
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 8:46am:

Dear Dr. Hovind,
It’s Albert Medina. You know I had been trying to get a hold of you for a while on your cell phone, then I talked to Tanya and Eric and found out what happened.
Now i’ve been keeping track of what you write and communicating with everyone at CSE quite a bit. I was upset to hear about you in jail but I praise God for how well you are doing in there. I wrote a letter for the courts and i’ve been praying that the Lord’s will would be done throughout this whole thing. I can only imagine how hard it is for your family, especially. But know my prayers are with you, and I hope to be able to talk to you in person, soon.
Your brother in Christ,
Albert Medina
evilution
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 9:07am:

Sap- Before you let rush, snelling or your cat do your thinking for you, think about this… it is real easy to explain away (or just ignore) any facts that may not support your distorted view, or have others do it for you. since you were told what to think all your life, the few original thoughts you might have do not leave any way to the outside of your little box. not that would want that, but I, for one, would recommend it…
Ketchum
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 9:12am:

Sap-
I’m not sure why polystrate trees that connect different layers of so called millions of years doesn’t have anything to do with evolution. But ok. If you say so. Umm….you still didn’t answer that question. You gave me a link that doesn’t work and just stated that polystrate trees has nothing to do with the theory of evolution! Why pass the buck when you can clearly explain it yourself? (according to your statement that polystrate trees has nothing to do with evolution) This whole layers in the earth theory that evolutionists hold so near and dear to they’re heart doesn’t make any sense. How can a tree that will only stand hundreds maybe thousands of years be in the middle of millions of year of dirt? I just doesn’t make any sense! Then I want to read a good explanation as to why some polystrate trees are found upside down???? Once that is answered then I want someone to answer how is it that we find whale fossels not just laying horizontally but in the vertical position connecting multiple layers? How did a whale stand up on it’s nose for millions of years waiting for all that dirt to fill in around it? And where is all this dirt coming from?? I don’t want links I want someone to just answer the questions??
jimmy
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 9:17am:

Thanks Walsh, you’re right on. The corparate sole thing was a distinct mistake, but I’m confident that it was done in ignorance.
I am shocked by the opposition Dr. Hovind recieves from fellow christians! Sadly enough, it is true that christians are the only army that shoots their own wounded. Come on folks! THis is a brother in CHRIST! Even if you don’t agree with everything he’s doing, you at least have a duty to stand by him in this time of need! I’ve followed the Hovind/IRS conflict for quite some time, and am convinced that someone want a good man of God removed from his incredibly effective ministry. Persacution’s going to come, and us christians MUST band together! this is a fight to retain the religious freedom guaranteed us by our founding fathers. But we can’t cry too loud. No, the IRS or some other ECAA (efective christian abducting agency) might be on out tail next. Wake up! It’s our fault for sitting back for so long and letting our government get to the point it’s at. But we can still make a difference in America today. Our great country is worth saving yet. I guess this is a battle cry for all christians to band together and stand up for the Lord in our greatest capacity. Let’s get some backbone and change this country back to what it was, or at least keep tyranny at bay. THe most effective way to do this at this time is to PRAY, PRAY, PRAY! Also, write CSE a letter adressed to the court, and lets flood the county with mail from the army of the Lord. If it wasn’t for the fact that I live all the way up in Michigan, I would love to organize a protester march on the courthouse the day of the sentencing. If this happened, maybe the officials would see that America IS A CHRISTIAN NATION, and that christians are going to rise out of the holes that we’ve been in for so long, and stand for what’s right. God commands us to. Paul rebukes the hebrews for not “resisting unto blood”. Now’s our chance. Let’s take it.
We’re praying for you Dr. and Mrs. Hovind!
prewrathx
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 9:33am:

Matthew

Instead of talking about teaching Algebra to your cat, try providing some sort of an argument for evolution. I’ve yet to hear one.
bobbright
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 4:52pm:

I don’t know what the big deal is. I researched the claims and from what I can tell they really aren’t anything worthy of jail time. I happen to specialize in Accounting Policies and procedures in California and have seen numerous instances of similiar accounting practices in the private, non-profit, and public sector that go unnoticed let alone get prosecuted. I’m not endorsing paying independent contractors cash for their services, but it is legal, although not the prefered method of accounting control. You simply need to document the money properly and issue a 1099-M to the recipient at end of the year. In fact, I predict that Rick Warren’s precedent setting Parsonage law suit with the IRS two years ago will come into play to resolve this case. Rick Warren, from Purpose Driven Church sued the IRS because they were arbitrarily picking on ministers that lived on church campuses especially in small churches. The IRS tried to settle with him to make him go away and we wouldn’t settle because he knew he was right and the IRS was in the wrong and that no one was sticking up for the little guy. He won the case with something like a 11-2 outcome. Now the IRS can’t do that anymore. As somewhat of an expert in the area of question (Employee vs Missionary Independent Contractor) I’ve seen many employers inside and outside the body of believers take the approach Kent has taken yet none of them get prosecuted or even noticed. I might have taken a little different direction by employing higher level of accounting practices thus protecting his great institution but I don’t think jail time is appropriate.

Off the top of my head I can think of two other non-profits that do the exact same thing that Hovind does, Wycliff Bible Translators and Saddleback Church. In fact I’ve prepared the individual tax return for 10 years for a Wycliff Missionary and numerous Saddleback Church Ministry leaders that appear to be employees of their perspective organizations but are in fact actually independent contractors responsible for their own Social Security/Medicare/Federal/State tax. Yet as a minister they have the option to “Opt out” of putting in to Social Security and Medicare by filling out an additional form and including it with the return.

I’ve never seen something so minute ever enforced to the level they are enforcing it with Kent. Something seems fishy. I guess if you enrage the wrong people they can get you back in other ways, that’s what happened to Senator Tom DeLay immediately after he announced the intention to get legislation passed to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The District Attorney from the opposing party initiated a full scale investigation and harassed him endlessly with bogus information, that kept getting leaked to the press, until he simply resigned so he wouldn’t bring down his party down. But the problem with the whole DeLay thing is that they didn’t find anything on him because nothing was there.
Gordon_Comstock
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 5:00pm:

Comrade darling,
Yes, on paper, congress has power over the “federal” reserve, but I keep telling you, in no way does congress have REAL power over that private institution.
If you want an example of how reality plays out when congress goes up against the international banksters who run the “fed”, I would invite you to read “Foundations: Their Power and Influence” by Rene A. Wormser. In the 1950s it was discovered that the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation, and many other of the giant tax-emempt foundations had been financing socialist and otherwise subversive causes (as they still do). The concern over this was so great that TWO separate congressional investigation committees were formed in the early 1950s–the Cox Committee, and the Reece Committee. Both investigations concluded that, yes, the giant tax exempt foundations were indeed subverting the U.S. and the Constitution by furthering the cause of socialism in domestic and world affairs, and in domestic education.
However, they ran out of time because there were “moles” planted on both committees. Such was Rep. Wayne Hays of Ohio, who during one pivotal witness hearing, interrupted the witness 246 times in 185 minutes, often with childish and sarcastic remarks. Did you get that? I said 246 times in 185 minutes. No, I didn’t transpose those numbers. They are quite accurate. Hays later admitted that both the Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, and the White House, had told Hays to bust up the investigation of Rockefeller and the banksters.
You really ought to read Wormser’s book, Comrade Darling. You’d have an entirely new and better appreciation of the power of the international financiers, the same blokes who stole our monetary system when they illegally and duplicitously formed the “Federal” Reserve. They had enough power to tell the President of the U.S. and the Speaker of the House back in the 1950s to STOP investigating the subversive work of their tax-emempt foundations. Now that’s power. Real power; ss opposed to paper power.
And, really Comrade Darling, if ANYbody should understand how irrelevant and useless are the dictates of paper, it ought to be you. Aren’t you the guy who keeps telling us how irrelevant is the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, as compared to recent U.S. judge’s decisions?
I know none of this will sink in, and you probably still have “Friends” on in the background, and before that you were watching CNN at 5, but hey, it was my turn to volley…and that one was in.

Comrade Darling said:
Congress can change the rules of the Federal Reserve, and even dissolve it entirely, anytime they want.
evilution
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 6:10pm:

Mat- Speak for yourself- I see you found a great definition for yourself. The reason CSE exists is to try to keep people from remaining unsaved. Jesus said, concerning his salvation ” whosoever will” not ‘whosoever won’t’. I don’t think you (and a few others) are on here to gain salvation but are out to ridicule the very fact that it exists in order to try and keep others from being saved. “For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” ———– Words of my Lord Jesus Christ found in St. Matthew chapter 23.
I am a supporter of CSE and Kent Hovind’s message. I have been greatly edified by his teachings and do both prayerfully and financially support the ministry.
Gordon_Comstock
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 6:27pm:

darling,
I’ve shown you how hopeless is this world. Would you like to not have to be afraid of it?
Would you like to receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour?
Me, knowing what I know about this world, I’d be very afraid to accept the things I’ve been telling you, if I didn’t have my Hope in Him. So I do not blame you in any way.
If you are willing, darling, He is always willing. He died for your soul when you did not deserve it. I didn’t deserve it, I’ll tell you that. I still don’t deserve it. I never will deserve it.
darling, there is no shame in admitting one is a sinner, and that this world is hopelessly sinful, and that Jesus was who He said He was, and declaring that you are no longer at war with Him. There is only sobering reality…and hope.
Me, He saved me from suicide, and from hell. What’s He gonna save you from, if you’re gonna be saved at all? He is willing; the trick is getting yourself to be willing. Trust me, I know. And it hasn’t been easy since, either. Not by a long shot. I’m a dirty rotten scumbag, except for Him, and even with Him, He’s gotta keep reminding me of what I really am without Him, and yet love me He nevertheless does, and die for me He nevertheless did.
darling, if you’d like, anytime, I could tell you what kinda words you might say;
your daunting job: meaning ‘em.
Samphire
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 6:55pm:

Matthew
Said this at 11:25am:
“Samphire,
I am beginning to think that “Evilution” is, what we call in internet lingo, a troll.”

Hi Matthew,

I am not sure what a troll is but, from its illiterate posting this evening, it sure ain’t human.

Kind regards

Samphire
Samphire
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 7:01pm:

Hi, Ketchum,

Who said that the layers were millions of years old?

I’m sorry if the link did not work. If you google “Talk Origins” you will find the site and you can then search on “polystrate trees”. Some evil body has been messing with the Talk Origins archive so, presently, it is not quite as user-friendly as it normally is.

Regards

Samphire
ReceivingRed
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 7:01pm:

Hi Kent,

Just wanted to let you know you and your family are still in my prayers. I am encouraged by your ability to minister there in jail, rather than sitting there feeling sorry for yourself as so many of us would do. Keep the Faith Brother,
Ray (ReceivingRed)
CMarychurch
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 8:11pm:

“12) A leading genetic genome researcher Dr. Barry Maddox’s work HUMAN GENOME PROJECT: QUANTITATIVE DISPROOF OF EVOLUTION”

Barney (not Barry) Maddox is a urologist from Texas [1] whose only claim to genetic research is writing an essay for Young Earth Creationist publication [2].

Within that essay we have the following howler of a claim which Kent Hovind also included in his seminars.

“And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal (and of course the death of a crippled mutant animal ends all possibility of further change)”

Maddox’s illogic was as follows; cystic fibrosis is caused by three SPECIFIC mutations therefor ALL mutations are harmful.

Maddox also gets himself tied up in knots with probability but that is outside this current discussion.

[1] http://www.ucomparehealthcare.com/drs/texas/urology/Maddox_Barney.html
[2] http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html?http%3A//www.creationevidence.org/archives/maddox.htm
CMarychurch
Said this on December 19th, 2006 at 8:27pm:

“How can a tree that will only stand hundreds maybe thousands of years be in the middle of millions of year of dirt? I just doesn’t make any sense! Then I want to read a good explanation as to why some polystrate trees are found upside down???? ”

The problem with the “polystrate argument” is that it is built on the false premise that any type of geologic layering involves millions of years and that all depositation is done at a constant rate over long time periods. It is a type of hyper-Uniformatarianism which hasn’t been used in geology for centuries. Once that particular strawman argument is removed the “polystrate argument” becomes obsolete. The formation of polystrate fossils can be seen occuring today. Ironically, Kent Hovind accidently gives an example of the depositing of “standing” tree debri on the bottom of Spirit Lake after the eruption of Mt St Helens being buried by multiple layers of debri.

“Once that is answered then I want someone to answer how is it that we find whale fossels not just laying horizontally but in the vertical position connecting multiple layers? How did a whale stand up on it’s nose for millions of years waiting for all that dirt to fill in around it? And where is all this dirt coming from??”

The whale in question was not buried vertically. It’s was buried horizontally and the geology it was contained within was tilted upwards but only to a 45 degree angle. The “dirt” was diatomaceous earth which is accumulated on the ocean floor.

“I don’t want links I want someone to just answer the questions??”

I hope that helped.
praybird
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 1:38am:

Dear Dr. Hovind, thank you for sending us this update, you and your family are daily in our thoughts and prayers. If I read the first post correctly, your wife is also involved in this, and possibly a future incarceration. We pray for a miracle in this situation, that she will be free from further trouble, for I know her family needs her greatly especially her grandchildren. Although we don’t understand all the legal ramifications and awaite the time when you can defend yourself and explain; we pray for wisdom for your Lawyer and a way to make any restitution if there is any needed. The Lord himself said he is the Spirit of Truth, and will lead us and guide us into all truth. If I have this right, from watching the Creation videos, Dr. Hovind has led a life of truth and integrity or at least has tried too, and would not intentially put his family at risk by breaking any law. The Lord has had mercy on all of us at one time or another, for we all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God, and also The Lord knows how to rescue the Godly out of temptation, and trial. I pray for our Lord to comfort and strengthen Dr. Hovind and family, to rescue them out of this trouble. Job had his accusers sitting around the campfire of you will, but in the end, he remained faithful through his trial, and was given even more the second time around. I heard something the other day that I thought would bring a smile to Dr. Hovind, I hope this blesses, Someone said Hey I believe in the BIG BANG, because GOD spoke and BANG it happened. We place our Trust and Hope in Him today, with much Christian Love and Prayers, the Flickinger family.
Millerfamily6
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 7:11am:

Matthew said:
Isn’t pride one of the seven deadly sins?

Proverbs 6:16-19 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abonmination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among the brethren.

Mr. Hovind was not being prideful; he just knows he’s right about Creation because he stands on the authority of God’s word. We, Christians have the authority of our Lord’s words and we speak with boldness…that, friend, is not pride. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke boldly and He knew He was right. Speaking for Christians: If you know what the Bible says and you’re a workman that need not to be ashamed because you’ve done your duty to study and rightly divide the Word of truth, then you are able to speak with authority. Its that simple:0)
salibas
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 8:19am:

I am glad to see your blog, Dr Hovind. Never quitting. I wish I was with you and I am learning a lot from you anyway. I have listened to your lectures over and over again. They really helped me in getting stronger in Christ because now I got the answers for many questions that I had in mind. I think I don’t need to tell you that you are now getting a great chance to know God better in a different view. Do you know that your trial have put many of the evolutionists in a very bad situation because they know if someone is right, he would be attacked personally? I use to point this when I talk to evolutionists and till now they didn’t have anything to answer that. So it is really astonishing how even now your fight is winning even more, because you fight for the Lord but they fight for themselves.

I want to stress on the fact that you have made a great deal in strengthening many people’s faith. As you always said, it only needs a person to be open-minded so that he comes to understand the reality of creation and thus believe in God. Your faith in the Lord is flowing to others, I can tell you that.

It is amazing how you still advise the people who willingly chose to close their mind from the true. They know they are wrong, but continue with it.

Anyway, I wanted you to know that you are in my prayers.

Samer Saliba
JR Turner
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 9:30am:

Where do your income tax dollars go??? http://www.devvy.com/notax.html
wrkeener
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 9:57am:

It is sad to see people delight in kicking a person when they are down. Christians made their mark in the early days before there were any church buildings because of their compassion for those who could not help themselves. They rescued infants discarded in the ditches, prisoners, homeless, diseased, and elderly. Jesus demonstrated love by sitting with a naked man in the graveyard, asking a woman who was shacking up for a drink, and kneeling in the dirt beside an adultress. However, Jesus was very clear regarding those self-righteous Pharisees who carried stones just hunting for someone to make a mistake.

It may be a simple way to look at things, but the blogs seem to simply divide between those with love/compassion and those who seem to be carrying stones.

But it is always possible that some posters are not honest in what they share. I have a deep passion for prison ministry and noticed postings that triggered memories of what many converted con-artists have taught me regarding tricks of those engaged in evil and deceit. So I decided to do a Google search on one such name.

Lynn Shea Blackmon

And found the following:
Another schizophrenic poster with 5 trolls
Dwight Powers
Phil Hendrie
Lynn Shea Blackmon
Dionshay Buckets
Clarence Buckets

Lynn Shea Blackmon
Banned

There were a few more search engine hits but nothing to indicate that this Lynn Shea Blackmon is a real person who ever went to church with Dr. Kent Hovind.

I do not have the capacity of love exhibited by Jesus when his home church of Nazareth led him to the edge of a cliff to stone him. Later He listened to the palm waving crowd shout Hosannas to His name knowing that in a few days they would yell “Crucify Him” Jesus remained compassionate toward those who hated Him.

My prayer is that I can have a compassionate heart to all those who are kicking Dr. Kent Hovind.

Merry Christmas and Peace on Earth Goodwill to all Men!
djhouk
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 10:51am:

bobbright,

I understand your argument; and, in fact, have been a 1099 contractor myself. But I think the Hovind case is a bit more complicated. First, I’m pretty sure he didn’t issue any 1099s. I say this because he paid his “missionaries” in cash with the intention of avoiding traceable transactions. In fact, as I’ve pointed out previously in these blogs, the majority of charges against him (and the majority of jail time he faces) were completely unrelated to taxes. They were for “structuring”: withdrawing large sums of cash from his bank accounts in such a way as to intentionally avoid government reporting requirements. In fact, all of the charges against Jo were for structuring.

It seems to me that the Hovinds were really, really trying to avoid any government scrutiny, knowing that what they were doing was illegal.
evilution
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 11:06am:

Millerfamily – In reality the only sin that is truly deadly is the sin of unbelief. “For such were some of us” All other sins can be forgiven to them that would only believe. To truly believe one must first acknowledge God, then His law, also that we are guilty of transgression of that law, be willing to repent, and trade in one’s own wicked, soon-to-end life for Christ’s eternal life. If we live in Him, and sin not, we are then, and only then, free from the law of sin and death. To take these steps one MUST believe. To keep from sin, one must love Christ enough to keep His commandments: “love the Lord your God above all else, and your neighbor as yourself” and also “this is the whole duty of man”.

It is impossible to not have faith. Even if it is in evolution. But to serve God, one must believe.
JCs Girl
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 11:13am:

To Matthew and all who are attacking Dr. Hovind. Or even seeking answers. The following will give you some answers.
Matthew
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 12:27pm:

MatureKid,

Probably a weakness in evolution is where and how life forms began. Scientists have been studying this aspect with looking asteroids that crashed into earth. As noted by praybird earlier, some people say “I believe in the BIG BANG, because GOD spoke and BANG it happened.” Metaphorically, the dirt that created humans in the Bible could mean how evolution created humans.

As far as my “pride” comment earlier, Hovind is proud to tell people that he often defeats evolutionists in debates (this is questionable), that often he tells about his “beautiful” wife and family, and that no one can prove evolution happened. He is being arrogant as opposed to being humble as Jesus was.

I pray that you all see the light, not the darkness, and the truth, not the deceivers. Merry Christmas.
eecreationist
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 1:03pm:

CMarychurch,

“The problem with the “polystrate argument” is that it is built on the false premise that any type of geologic layering involves millions of years and that all depositation is done at a constant rate over long time periods.”
-How can you tell if one type of geologic layering is millions of years old while another is not?

The formation of polystrate fossils can be seen occuring today. Ironically, Kent Hovind accidently gives an example of the depositing of “standing” tree debri on the bottom of Spirit Lake after the eruption of Mt St Helens being buried by multiple layers of debri.
-He was illustrating what it takes to form polystrate fossils. It is obvious that it takes a catastrophe to create this type of phenomenon. So if we see polystrate fossils all over the world, either there were dozens of Mount St. Helens eruptions all over the world, or something else, like a worldwide flood. If you come across a site that has polystrate fossils, the first thing you conclude is that there is no way it could have taken millions of years to form. So the evolutionist/old-earther will then say, ‘okay, that particular portion does not fit our old age, therefore it was formed recent and not at the same rate of long time periods’. You have only answered the first part- that particular layer cannot be millions of years old. Now how do you explain how the trees got there? In the case of Mount St. Helens, it is easy, a volcanic eruption blew the trees there. If there are no volcanoes nearby, how then do you explain it? Is there evidence of volcanic eruption near every polystrate fossil site? I agree that polystrate fossils do not disprove millions of years. They certainly disprove millions of years in the layers they happen to be in. However, the bigger conundrum is “how did they get there”.

“I don’t want links I want someone to just answer the questions??”
-This was someone else’s comment. But I agree that links are not an argument, only a reference if the reader wants to dig deeper. I have had people do that to me where rather than making an argument, they just point to some website.
CreationCD
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 2:50pm:

Our Pastor is out on Christmas vacation, and getting his oldest son married off at Hyles Anderson College. We always give guest speakers and missionaries a set of Kent Hovind’s seminars. Our guest preacher last Sunday turned out to be Eric M. Tharp, who Dr. Hovind knows well, he says he grew up with Dr. Hovind for a Sunday School teacher ( he also says Dr. Hovind named his son after him ).

We had a lovely conversation with Dr. Tharp and we encouraged each other to continue praying for the Hovind’s (he is very concerned for Mrs. Hovind). He told us what Dr. Hovind was like as a Sunday school teacher and he said he could not begin to tell us what a remarkable Christian man Dr. Hovind is.

He also told us:
2 Timothy 3: 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

He also preached to us on:
Acts 18: 23 “… strengthening the disciples.” (each other in our trials).

I gave Dr. Tharp what few seminar sets I had and he promised to give them to teachers at that college. (Anyone from CSE listening?)

Dr. Tharp teaches theology at Golden State Baptist College, in Santa Clara, CA / http://www.gsbc.edu/index.htm / 1.888.GSBC.4.ME. and said he was the one that talked Pastor Trieber into letting Dr. Hovind preach there earlier last year.

My family did attend that seminar, but more remarkable were the seminars he did with the college students there. The question and answer session went on and on, especially after the students found they could ask any question on their heart. These were all Fundamental Independent Baptist kids from all over the country many home-schooled through A Beka and most had heard or seen something from our constant bombardment with evolutionary propaganda that bothered them. Some were from our old church to whom I had given Dr. Hovind’s seminars (on CD-ROM back then) but they had never watched him. After meeting and listening to him, they asked us for a new set. College students, even Tempermental, Fundamental, Bible-Thump’n, Devil-Hating, Sin-Stomp’n, Right-Wing, Chicken-Eating Baptist College students need a man like Dr. Hovind.

Many have commented that this blog site should be used as a place of exhortation and encouragement. They are right, and it is, and so I’m writing this post. (While researching polystrate fossils and burning DVD’s.)

I hope everyone who has shared there love for Dr. Hovind is praying for him and his family daily, and has written him an encouraging letter (by mail).

Others came to this site to mock and challenge and we should be to give an answer of the hope that is in us. For me it an encouragement to be able to see the best the evolutionists can offer because I am trying to make arrangements to show Dr. Hovind’s seminars at our local library and will have to do a question and answer period afterwards. “Iron sharpeneth iron.”

My thanks to mfox and maturekid and others for some great points.

2 Timothy|3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

2 Timothy|3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

2 Timothy|3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

2 Timothy|3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy|3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy|3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The Bible’s is true, keep the truth and watch out for lies, don’t be discouraged.

Hebrews 11:36 And others had trial of cruel mockings …

Stand up, Stand up for Jesus.

Doug Hove
darling
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 3:27pm:

Dec19 Maturekid Said this at 2:33pm:

“I feel the duties spelled out in the Constitution should remain exactly as they wrote it. They wrote it that way for a reason. You’ve taken the stance that Congress can …etc.”

Yup, because that’s what the Constitution says.

I understand the differing viewpoints on Constitutional interpretation. But there’s no question that the Federal Reserve is constitutional. Article 1 Section 8 gives Congress the power to pass laws in order to coin money and regulate the value thereof.” Congress chose to create the Federal Reserve. Congress makes the FR rules. If Congress changes its mind, Congress has the power to nix the FR.

“My question is based on logic. Which number is easier to attain? Corruption of 51% of Congress or 51% of the entire US population?”

The founders gave the power to the Congress, not the US population. Didn’t you just say you fell the Constitution should remain as the founders wrote it, because they wrote it that way for a reason?

I know Dr. Maddox was talking about the origins of life. I was just using the exact same reasoning on other issues. No human has observed electrons – by Maddox’s logic, that makes electricity a religion. Which tells me that his logic isn’t so sound.

Looks like Gordon_Comstock can’t address my points, so he’s reduced to:

*name calling*
*repeat conspiracy theory*
*personal attack*
*more name calling*
*call to repentance*

How odd.
Ketchum
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 3:30pm:

CMarychurch

“The problem with the “polystrate argument” is that it is built on the false premise that any type of geologic layering involves millions of years and that all depositation is done at a constant rate over long time periods. It is a type of hyper-Uniformatarianism which hasn’t been used in geology for centuries. Once that particular strawman argument is removed the “polystrate argument” becomes obsolete. The formation of polystrate fossils can be seen occuring today. Ironically, Kent Hovind accidently gives an example of the depositing of “standing” tree debri on the bottom of Spirit Lake after the eruption of Mt St Helens being buried by multiple layers of debri.”

I totally agree that it’s based on a false premise of millions of years. That’s the point, if a flood happened, then the layers of dirt fits right in. So yet again evolution can’t stand up to the truth in the Bible.
Ketchum
evilution
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 4:02pm:

MAT – I’m afraid you don’t know Jesus at all to try to declair His character. He was not a doe eyed hippie like portrayed by most folk. He was much different than most people like to presume. Much to the the contrary. Incidently if you were to meet him in the flesh, you would be most likely to decide that He was not a Christian at all by your standards! Again, I dare you to read for yourself His own words!! Too simple for you??? (old KJV version of course)

Later…
Samphire
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 6:04pm:

Ketchum
Said this at 3:30pm:
“CMarychurch

“The problem with the “polystrate argument” is that it is built on the false premise that any type of geologic layering involves millions of years and that all depositation is done at a constant rate over long time periods. It is a type of hyper-Uniformatarianism which hasn’t been used in geology for centuries. Once that particular strawman argument is removed the “polystrate argument” becomes obsolete. The formation of polystrate fossils can be seen occuring today. Ironically, Kent Hovind accidently gives an example of the depositing of “standing” tree debri on the bottom of Spirit Lake after the eruption of Mt St Helens being buried by multiple layers of debri.”

I totally agree that it’s based on a false premise of millions of years. That’s the point, if a flood happened, then the layers of dirt fits right in. So yet again evolution can’t stand up to the truth in the Bible.
Ketchum”

OK. Ketchum. So why don’t all strata have polystrate trees growing up through them?
CMarychurch
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 6:15pm:

“How can you tell if one type of geologic layering is millions of years old while another is not?”

That answer is too complicated to put into a blog.

“The formation of polystrate fossils can be seen occuring today. Ironically, Kent Hovind accidently gives an example of the depositing of “standing” tree debri on the bottom of Spirit Lake after the eruption of Mt St Helens being buried by multiple layers of debri.
-He was illustrating what it takes to form polystrate fossils. It is obvious that it takes a catastrophe to create this type of phenomenon.”

No, Hovind was attempting to give an example of rapid petrification – the phrase “polystrate” is not mentioned. This occurs when Hovind is machine gunning through his Young Earth proofs on Seminar Part 1 (@1h:30). He segways from polystrate fossils into rapid petrification but does not notice that his “rapid petrification” example is a potential polystrate fossil. The contradiction is not noticed.

“If you come across a site that has polystrate fossils, the first thing you conclude is that there is no way it could have taken millions of years to form. So the evolutionist/old-earther will then say, ‘okay, that particular portion does not fit our old age, therefore it was formed recent and not at the same rate of long time periods’. You have only answered the first part- that particular layer cannot be millions of years old. Now how do you explain how the trees got there?”

You appear to have got yourself a little confused. Just becaue a particular set of layers did not take millions of years to form does not mean the event did not occur millions of years ago.

The question of how unspecified trees became embedded in an unspecified formation is impossible to answer.
eecreationist
Said this on December 20th, 2006 at 9:05pm:

No, Hovind was attempting to give an example of rapid petrification – the phrase “polystrate” is not mentioned. This occurs when Hovind is machine gunning through his Young Earth proofs on Seminar Part 1 (@1h:30). He segways from polystrate fossils into rapid petrification but does not notice that his “rapid petrification” example is a potential polystrate fossil. The contradiction is not noticed.

-To quote him directly “…go there and check out the article about petrified polystrata fossils.” He does not use the phrase polystrate, however polystrata and polystrate are the same thing. If the trees get buried in mud and petrify rapidly, how is that a contradiction?

“If you come across a site that has polystrate fossils, the first thing you conclude is that there is no way it could have taken millions of years to form. So the evolutionist/old-earther will then say, ‘okay, that particular portion does not fit our old age, therefore it was formed recent and not at the same rate of long time periods’. You have only answered the first part- that particular layer cannot be millions of years old. Now how do you explain how the trees got there?”

You appear to have got yourself a little confused. Just becaue a particular set of layers did not take millions of years to form does not mean the event did not occur millions of years ago.

-Not confused…let me rephrase, ‘okay, that particular portion does not fit our old age uniformitarian process, therefore it was formed quickly and not at the same rate as these other layers that took millions of years to form’.

The question of how unspecified trees became embedded in an unspecified formation is impossible to answer.
-Would you be willing to entertain the possibility that a worldwide flood did it? Side from multiple volcanic eruptions all around the world similar to mount st. helens, I do not see any other good way to explain them. However as I said before, is there evidence of volcanic activity near every polystrate fossil site?

And if you are willing to admit that these layers formed quickly, why not all the other layers around the world?
prewrathx
Said this on December 21st, 2006 at 10:32am:

Matthew I do apologize for the mistake. I tend to skim over the articles rather quickly at times. I am still praying for you though. I hope that you eventually come to see that Jesus is the light of the world and that his word is the truth. Remember, Jesus does love you.

In Christ’ name

Tyler
Maturekid
Said this on December 21st, 2006 at 12:12pm:

darling,

I’m not going to do any name calling. Feel assured of that. Lessons derived from my odd siblings, their spouses, and former students have taught me many valuable skills. But this isn’t the forum for that.

We can go dancing around and around the fire of legalilty, intent, etc until we’re exhausted. The US Constitution was written to curtail the federal government and keep the federal government servants to the people. Not the people being the servants to the government. Trusting politicians to do the right thing because they made it a “law” gives unnerving historical flashbacks. Of the top 10 most dishonest professions, car salesmen, politicians, lawyers, and journalists/media dominated the list. Most of the members of Congress were former lawyers. Do I personally trust the government? No. Am I fairly convinced our government has become corrupt? Yup, try and find governments that aren’t. Do I think we are dangerously close (or already have) to repeating horrid historical decisions? Yes, it appears that way. Since the 7 deadly sins were brought up, the two focal ones are Lust (for power & control) and Greed seems to be the clarion call of the day. But let us agree to disagree.

As for electrons, electricity, forensic science, etc. those are tangent topics and getting off track. But don’t worry, I’ll address them later.

Matthew,

Speaking of the 7 deadly sins, I wasn’t the one to mention them to you. But I’ll comment and get on with the rest of our topic.

“Hovind is proud to tell people that he often defeats evolutionists in debates (this is questionable)”
I haven’t watched all of the debate videos. But from the ones my wife and I have observed (me being a debate judge and her having been in formal debates), we’ve observed a few things regarding the debates in question.
1) The vast majority of trained individuals in specific fields have a devil of a time in a free-form public forum.
2) The specialists (Chemists, IT guys, etc.) tend to not bring it down to the audience’s level and get flabbergasted quite easily.
3) Hovind does have a noted edge in debate forums with experience on his side.
4) His opponents sometimes have a tendency to cross the debate protocol line and do personal attacks. Strict no-no in debates.
So from a sheer debate judge standard (not content standard), yes Hovind gets the nod.

“that often he tells about his “beautiful” wife and family”
I would conclude from this statement that you are single. Correct? My dad has the best line I’ve heard. “Happy wife, happy life.” If all men took such “pride” in demonstrating their love, care and adoration for their family, many of our social ills would be gone. I commend Kent Hovind on his stance as a father and husband. I don’t know him personally but those who have spoken to his humble and caring nature show he’s a good man at heart. That’s a good father and husband.

“and that no one can prove evolution happened.”

Heh heh, this is why we are debating. So are scientists. That leads me to my next questions as I work my way through all the info.

Do you agree with Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D. in the article you gave me titled “Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics”? Do you have any critique of the article yourself?

I for one like the links provided. But I’m an information sponge and researching geek. Personal preference thing.

CMaryChurch,

Like I said, I like links. So please substantiate your statements with a link to the refuting source. My numbers 1-17 were copy-pasted so I could find out what Matthew had to say. If you checked it out, my link titled 12 – is the identical article to what your 2nd link was (after searching the site for it). So provide me with something to substantiate your statement on Maddox’s supposed illogical rationale. Matthew did. Thanks Matthew.
Matthew
Said this on December 21st, 2006 at 5:00pm:

MatureKid,

Hovind winning debates is questionable because those in the audience tend to favour Hovind’s position. Also, has there ever been a vote on declaring who is the winner and is it by the audience or by a judging panel? Hovind has used ad hominem attacks in his seminars, particularly wiht Darwin. He also blames evolution for Columbine, rise of crime, out-of-wedlock births, teen suicide and STDs.

He may have pride of a loving family, but don’t flaunt it. I know people have a problem with homosexuals flaunting their lifestyle style.

I’ll admit that I don’t have expertise in genetics or any scientific field, just going on what the experts have to say, someone with knowledge in the field. This is why I don’t trust Hovind’s arguments since he is diploma is theology and not scientific.
Gordon_Comstock
Said this on December 21st, 2006 at 6:03pm:

I’ll tell you what is odd, Comrade.
Here you, at last poking your head out of your insular circle of socialist friends, have finally met up against a Biblical and Constitutional literalist Christian who is more than your match in an intellectual debate, and so what do you resort to?
The old “woe is me, he’s attacking me” bit.
It’s not gonna work, Darling.
You refused to answer my question about your political stance, so I took a guess, and that guess was probably too close to home and so you are smarting from it, that’s all. That and the fact that I returned you volley for volley and here I am but a lowly Christian and I’m supposed to not be an intellectual right back at you like that and it’s really really got you freaking out scratching your head over it, this is not what you’d counted on in your little atheistic glass menagerie model you got constructed in your head about the way the world is supposed to be.
So what, get over it.
Be a man, get up, dust yourself off, get back in the fray.
Ball’s in your court.

p.s. I can’t help it if Jesus Christ is the Lord God Almighty. He did all that. If you don’t like it, get hold of a King James Bible, turn off all major media disinfo outlets, read your KJV, and prove Him wrong. But you gotta read it, though. Ah…there’s the rub.

Looks like Gordon_Comstock can’t address my points, so he’s reduced to:

*name calling*
*repeat conspiracy theory*
*personal attack*
*more name calling*
*call to repentance*

How odd.
Gordon_Comstock
Said this on December 21st, 2006 at 10:41pm:

Face it, darling,
I’m your Obi-Wan Kenobi.
And it’s driving you nuts that a guy who’s at least your intellectual match should believe with his whole heart and mind that a certain Galilean named Yeshua was exactly who and what He claimed to be.
CMarychurch
Said this on December 22nd, 2006 at 12:16am:

eecreationist:

-To quote him directly “…go there and check out the article about petrified polystrata fossils.” He does not use the phrase polystrate, however polystrata and polystrate are the same thing. If the trees get buried in mud and petrify rapidly, how is that a contradiction?

**You are correct, he does use that tautological description for the fossils (I hadn’t noticed it). Regardless, the contradiction occurs because he gives an example of the trees washed into Spirit Lake being buried vertically through potentially multiple layers of past (and possible future) layering.

-Not confused…let me rephrase, ‘okay, that particular portion does not fit our old age uniformitarian process, therefore it was formed quickly and not at the same rate as these other layers that took millions of years to form’.

**What we have hear is confusion between 19th century Uniformatarianism and modern Uniformatarianism (more accurately called Actualism). Modern geologists acknowledge the lithosphere is a dynamic place. The 19th Century idea that something could be dated by calculating how long it was deposited for is generally NOT used as a dating mechanism with some exceptions for things like lake varves.

-Would you be willing to entertain the possibility that a worldwide flood did it? Side from multiple volcanic eruptions all around the world similar to mount st. helens, I do not see any other good way to explain them. However as I said before, is there evidence of volcanic activity near every polystrate fossil site?

**Mechanisms to form polystrate fossils (in no particular order): pyroclasitic flows, floods, landslides and sand drift. I’m sure there are more but we can agree there is no shortage of these types of events.

-And if you are willing to admit that these layers formed quickly, why not all the other layers around the world?

**The problem for such a suggestion is the existance of formations which can only form slowly, for example, chalk deposits such as the White Cliffs of Dover. It is impossibe to form that amount of diatom accumulation in a short time frame. We won’t mention how chalk deposits remained free of flood debri.

Actualism (modern Uniformatarianism) can handle both slow and fast events over long periods of time. Catastrophism can offer an explanation for fast events but trips up on the long period events.

Maturekid:

Like I said, I like links. So please substantiate your statements with a link to the refuting source. My numbers 1-17 were copy-pasted so I could find out what Matthew had to say. If you checked it out, my link titled 12 – is the identical article to what your 2nd link was (after searching the site for it). So provide me with something to substantiate your statement on Maddox’s supposed illogical rationale. Matthew did. Thanks Matthew.

**The “refuting source” is myself. It doesn’t take any great skill to spot the flaws in Maddox’s argument. Or are you suggesting that it is in fact true that ANY three point mutations are lethal because cystic fibrosis is caused by three SPECIFIC mutations? Notice how his argument morphs from 3 specific mutations into any three random mutations.

Maddox: Cystic fibrosis is caused by tiny (point) mutations in chromosome 7, leading to deletion of a single amino acid in as=m ion transport protein, 1,480 amino acids long. [...] The cystic fibrosis genetic mutation involves a random change of not more than 3 nucleotides. The important point is that science has now quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (.0000001%) of an animal’s genome is relentlessly fatal! [...] And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal (and of course the death of a crippled mutant animal ends all possibility of further change).

I hope everyone at least acknowledges that Maddox is not a “leading genome researcher”. I would love to know how that urban legend started.
havekoranwilltravel
Said this on December 26th, 2006 at 1:24am:

Its amazing that it takes intelligent people to design a argument that the universe didnt take intelligence to design it. The reasons stated below is why I believe in Creation. With references. And please, dont assume by ivalidating one point negates the reasons. You have to disprove ALL of what is below before I will even consider a counter post.

Living cells are the only places in NATURE where proteins are made because they contain the information to put amino acids in the right order for each individual protein, and have tiny machines that link them together. No proteins ever form in nature outside of already living cells. Never!

Amino acids come in two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only left-handed amino acids will work in living things. Proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is like taking a piece out of a puzzle, turning it upside down and trying to put it back in. It is the same size and shape, but it won’t fit. Amino acids formed in nature or in experiments like Miller’s will not work to make the proteins of living things because they are half left, and half right-handed. This evidence, added to the fact that proteins never form outside of cells, makes it even more clear that life could not have come from organic soup.

In spite of the difficulty, already living cells can make proteins because:

If you think of DNA as the cell’s library, and RNA as a book that can be checked out of the library, one kind of RNA checks out information from the DNA to line up left handed amino acids in the precise order for a particular protein.
The amino acids are then linked together by a “molecular machine” made of another kind of RNA and several proteins. Each cell has many kinds of molecular machines.

amino acids:

Do not concentrate in the ocean. They disperse and break down.
Outside of cells, amino acids will not link together in nature to form proteins, not even when scientists help them by buying all left-handed amino acids from a chemical supply house to make the perfect organic soup.
Proteins could not get together with DNA in a primordial soup because DNA does not form outside of cells either. Scientists can’t even make DNA in the laboratory.

“Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water. However, most scientists no longer argue that the first proteins assembled spontaneously. Instead, they now tell us that the initial macromolecules were composed of RNA, and that RNA later catalyzed the formation of proteins.”1

The idea that RNA, rather than proteins, formed in primordial soup, is also false. RNA and DNA are made of nucleotides, a bit like proteins are made of amino acids. Fry states:

“…water greatly interferes with the linking of amino acids and nucleotides into chains, a crucial step in the origin of life.”2

In fact, even when the nucleotides are dry, RNA cannot be made except by already living cells:

“…no one has yet succeeded in creating RNA.”3

Many atheists today are abandoning the false argument that life began when proteins formed in primordial soup to believe the even more false claim that RNA did. Not only can RNA not be formed anywhere except in living cells, it contains sugars which must all be right-handed. If left-handed sugars were present, and were included, RNA would never work even if it could form. Hiding these facts, some schoolbooks now make the formation of RNA sound as easy as they made protein formation sound to previous generations of students. Here is an example:

“First, RNA nucleotides formed from simple gas molecules in much the same way as in experiments similar to those done by Miller and Urey. Nucleotides then assembled spontaneously into small chains…. These small chains were able to make copies of themselves. Once replicating molecules like these appear, natural selection and evolution are possible.”4

This is science fiction. Perhaps the authors have confused nucleotides, which will not form, with bases, the main ingredients of nucleotides. Scientists have repeated the experiment of Stanley Miller and his teacher, Urey, many times in many variations. Neither RNA nor nucleotides, their building blocks, will form, nor could nucleotides sort for all right-handed sugars if they did form. This is real evidence, and has been put to the test.

“Perhaps RNA was the first self-replicating information-storage molecule. After it had formed, it could also have catalyzed the assembly of the first proteins….”5

Before you get too enthused over the marvelous powers of “perhaps RNA,” remember that years of research have not been able to make RNA form, nor does RNA catalyze the assembly of proteins.

“Though a few organic substances-for instance, certain simple amino acids-can form relatively easily under prebiotic conditions, other biochemical building blocks, such as nucleotides and lipids, require for their synthesis a ‘real factory.’ … The synthesis of these substances involves a series of reactions, each reaction following the previous one in utmost accuracy.”6

The “real factory” that can make nucleotides is any living cell. Some other atheistic scientists also tell it like it is:

“Some of the steps leading to the synthesis of DNA and RNA can be duplicated in the laboratory, others cannot.”7

The fact that RNA does not form in nature outside of living cells and scientists cannot even make it from scratch in the lab is scientific evidence, and can be tested. In the case of both proteins and RNA, atheists have opposed my evidence by pointing out smaller and simpler molecules which do form in nature. This is true, but so what? Proteins do the work of the cell with the direction and help of RNA, and DNA. All three are often called macromolecules because they are so large and complex. None of them form in nature outside of living cells.

Proteins must fold perfectly

When a cell has made a new protein, while it is still moving into place, it folds into the exact shape which will allow it to connect with the proteins next to it. Some scientists use the illustration of a hand in a glove to describe how a protein must fit. Others liken it to the way a key fits in a lock. How does a new protein know how to fold? IBM is building the world’s most powerful super computer named Blue Gene, hoping to figure this out. The Oregonian describes the new super computer:

“The machine, dubbed Blue Gene, will be turned loose on a single problem. The computer will try to model the way a human protein folds into a particular shape that gives it its unique biological properties.”8

IBM writes:

“To make proteins, agents known as ribosomes connect amino acids into long strings. These strings loop and fold around each other in a variety of ways. However, only one of these many ways will allow the protein to function properly.”9
“… proteins fold into a highly complex, three-dimensional shape that determines their function. Any change in shape dramatically alters the function of a protein, and even the slightest change in the folding process can turn a desirable protein into a disease.”10

Because Blue Gene will unleash tremendous computing power, by running it day and night it should only take, “about one year to simulate the complete folding of a typical protein.”11 Living cells, however, fold such proteins in less than a second. This evidence shows that the One who invented the way proteins fold in cells is much more intelligent than the new super computer.

In the lab, intelligent scientists have learned how to link amino acids together to form some of the smaller proteins. However, unless the amino acids are all left-handed and the proteins fold properly, they are no better than miniature spaghetti as far as biological activity is concerned.

Addressing proteins

Even though there are huge numbers of wrong places for proteins to go, there is only one correct place in which each newly made protein can fit and function. Proteins are worthless except in the one spot they fold to fit. How do proteins find their way?

“… newly minted proteins contain an amino acid string that determines their eventual home.”12

The amino acid string which forms the address is usually added as a tail on the end of the longer string of amino acids which make up the protein. This tail has been compared to the address on an envelope.

Before you claim this evidence does not matter, put a bunch of your letters in the mail box without addressing them. If the right addresses form spontaneously, let me know! Science News says,

“Misplacing a protein is more serious than losing a letter, however. There are diseases where proteins are mistargeted in cells.”13

In 1999, “The Nobel Prize for Medicine went to Dr. Guenter Blobel of The Rockefeller University in New York”14 for discovering the amino acid address tags that direct each protein to its proper place in the cell. All available evidence indicates that creating the correct information for each address, and expressing it in code requires intelligence. Cells can’t live unless each of their many proteins not only folds correctly, but receives the correct address tag. Things which will not work at all unless several things were in place and working together from the very first are called “irreducibly complex.”

Turning proteins on and off

The cell also needs the right amount of each protein. If there was even one protein that the cell did not stop making after it had made enough, the cell would soon be jammed so full of that protein that it would pop. The production of every individual protein is, and must be, turned on and off at just the right moments.15

If a first cell did not contain the information to correctly turn on and off the production of each protein, that cell would have died. This is evidence that the divine programmer who coded in the necessary information knew when to turn protein production on and off.

So what?

The proteins that make up cells do not form anywhere in nature except in already living cells. One reason cells can make them is because the instructions for constructing them and then turning their production on and off are already present in the cell’s library of information. Once made, proteins could not function unless they were properly folded and addressed. Neither making proteins, folding, addressing, nor regulating their production could invent itself, yet no cell could live unless all were in place and coordinated. These are scientific facts; evidence for a very intelligent Creator who plans ahead.

Textbook authors who replace scientific evidence with atheistic theory contribute to the “dumbing down” of students. Students are not taught the important scientific facts we have just seen because they contradict atheistic theory. Instead, class time is taken up learning propaganda that is contrary to real science.

A Cell Needs a Membrane

Each cell is contained inside a two layer membrane made of lipids (fats).1 Lipids are only formed by living cells. Here is a quote that we read earlier, when we were considering nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA and DNA. It is important here as well:

“Though a few organic substances-for instance, certain simple amino acids-can form relatively easily under prebiotic conditions, other biochemical building blocks, such as nucleotides and lipids, require for their synthesis a ‘real factory.’ … The synthesis of these substances involves a series of reactions, each reaction following the previous one in utmost accuracy.”2

Cells can’t live without lipids, and lipids are only produced by already living cells.

What does the cell’s membrane do?

Alberts writes:

“A living cell is a self-reproducing system of molecules held inside a container. The container is the plasma membrane – a fatty film so thin and transparent that it cannot be seen directly in the light microscope. It is simple in construction, being based on a sheet of lipid molecules…. Although it serves as a barrier to prevent the contents of the cell from escaping and mixing with the surrounding medium…the plasma membrane does much more than that. Nutrients have to pass inward across it if the cell is to survive and grow, and waste products have to pass outward. Thus the membrane is penetrated by highly selective channels and pumps, formed from protein molecules, that allow specific substances to be imported while others are exported.”3

A lipid membrane without its protein pumps and channels would let water enter the cell, but would keep nutrients out, starving the cell,4 so proteins had to work together with the lipids from the first. This is evidence of carefully planned irreducible complexity.

If cells had really formed by themselves, we would expect their important parts to be made of substances that are easily formed under natural conditions. Amazing! Not one of the four: lipids, proteins, RNA, or DNA, can be formed in nature except by a living cell, yet for a cell to live, all four must be up and running, each one doing its job.

If God had wanted to shout to us that He is here, and show us proof that He created, can you think of a better way for Him to do it? Run, don’t walk, to the nearest Bible and get to know your awesome Creator personally through His Son, Jesus Christ! Start with the book of
John.

1George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996, p. 235.
Return to text

2 Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 245.
Return to text

3 Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 65. See also 62-6.
Return to text

4 Holt, Annotated Teacher’s Edition, Biology, Visualizing Life, 1994, p. 201.
Return to text

5 George B. Johnson, Peter H. Raven, Biology, Principles & Explorations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996, p. 230.
Return to text

6 Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 126, 176-177.
Return to text

7 Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe, 2000, p. 63.
Return to text

8 Justin Gillis, The Sunday Oregonian, June 4, 2000, A5.
Return to text

9 November 2001, IBM Research News, October 1, 2001.
Return to text

10 http://www.research.ibm.com/bluegene/press_release.html
Return to text

11 Robert F. Service, Science, 12/17/99, p. 2250.
Return to text

12 Tom A. Rapoport of Harvard Medical School, Science News, 10/16/99, Vol. 156 Issue 16, p. 246. See also Britannica Biography Collection, Guenter Blobel.
Return to text

13 Rapoport, Science News, 10/16/99, Vol. 156 Issue 16, p. 246. See also Britannica Biography Collection, Guenter Blobel.
Return to text

14 www4.cnn.com/HEALTH/9910/11/nobel.medicine.03/index.html
Return to text

15 Susan Aldridge, The Thread of Life, The Story of Genes and Genetic Engineering, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 47-53.
Return to text

1Bruce Alberts, Essential Cell Biology, An Introduction to the Molecular Biology of the Cell, 1998, p. 348, 363.
Return to text

2Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 126, 176-177.
Return to text

3Bruce Alberts, Essential Cell Biology, 1998, p. 347.
Return to text

4Essential Cell Biology, p. 347, 356-357.
Return to text
Vasahond
Said this on December 26th, 2006 at 2:25am:

Is it just me, or does it seem ridiculous that we have a bunch of ignorant evolutionists trying to push their beliefs on us? This argument can go on for eternity with no conclusion. I wish somebody besides me could see that. So, instead of replying to their posts, wouldn’t it be better to simply ignore them? I mean, seriously. Look at how enlightened these people make themselves out to be. With all seriousness, I have to agree that neither creation nor evolution is testable or provable. Like God said to Job in Job 38:4; “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.”

Nobody knows “how” God did it. I would even argue against the creationists knowing how God did it. Evolution is just like us telling God that we know how He did it, because we’re so “enlightened,” wonderful, and brilliant. May I say to you, God must surely be laughing at how pitiful we truly are… And also saying “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.”

I don’t care who you are, what degree you have, or what “evidence” you have to support your pathetic origin theory. You’ll never know how God did it. The great thing about Creation is that creationists don’t attempt to show how God did it; they just show the evidence that illustrates the fact that we were created and that the Bible is, indeed, accurate — contrary to popular belief. Also, the majority can be wrong. Just look at the lemmings. If one goes over a cliff, the rest follow. Just because popular belief says that evolution is true does not mean that it’s right.

That’s the only understanding that we need — and also, let me remind you… It’s useless to argue or reason with people that are not open to your opinion. If they’re sincerely opposed to it, nothing with change that. So Christians, do yourselves a favor and don’t bother casting your pearls to the swine. Oh, and I’m blunt. Make no mistake; I’m not about to beat around the bush.
Maturekid
Said this on December 27th, 2006 at 1:03pm:

Matthew,

Vasahond has several good points. I was just dusting off my debating style as it had gotten a tad rusty.

A couple things about me:
I’ve got a pretty good baloney meter when I hear arguments. Why? Best example is something I did in college on a term paper for an argumentative English class. I wrote a paper on “Bart Simpson Is Not an Underachiever” and backed it up with 14 resources. I got an A on it. Both the professor and I knew it was total baloney, but I followed the criteria for the essay. So I know how easy it is to make a load of baloney sound good.

Next, I’m a former teacher and now a father. I will always fight for the children. Adults can mess up their own lives the way they want to. But I feel, they don’t have the right to ruin the lives of children because of the choices of the adult. (Long background on that stance.) For that reason and others, I agree with Hovind and his campaign to get the false information out of textbooks. Also, I’m all for comprehensive, age appropriate study of topics in the education setting. The evol vs. creation debate is a complex topic which begs the question of what grade level it belongs in. No one can convince me it belongs in the K-6 curriculum. So what is the purpose of teaching at that level? Likely, it isn’t a beneficial reason for the betterment of society or education. (Subjective arguments)

As for Hovind and his debates, there is a simple observation. (Not content related) Most professors and “experts” in any given field stink in a public forum. The best I’ve seen are those with training in public speaking, professional orators, or former K-12 teachers. The same “experts” do shine in written forums where they can edit what they say. It’s pretty simple really. Side note: I’ve been around long enough to observe there are very few true unbiased experts in any given field.

As for his “pride” in his family, I’m all for his shouting out his love for his family to the world. If you don’t like it, oh well don’t listen. Freedom of speech

On the whole E vs C debate, there is one thing that irks me. Changing the definition of science so only naturalistic explanations are acceptable is flat out lame. If you tried that in a debate forum (pick any topic), you’d automatically lose the debate and be considered a fool. If you tried that on a argumentative essay for an English college class, you’d be flagged for a poor argument. If you tried that on an exam or essay for a final grade, you’d flunk. Just try that on a Geometry test and see how far that gets you. Changing the definition of a word to make you automatically correct is just pathetic.

Hovind is totally correct on a number of common sense points. Evolution can’t be proven (realistically). Fossils do not provide evidence to support it because they can’t. There are only two ways you can solve the debate. Neither is realistic for the debate. 1) You’ll need to die. Then if evol is true, you will never know. If Creationism is true, you’ll know it when you meet God. But it is too late to admit your mistake. 2) Travel back in time to document your observations scientifically. Then share the technology so your research can be duplicated. Careful though, if you pick the wrong time you may end up materializing in nothing and end up dead.

So Vasahond is correct. We’ll never know while we live. Maddox’s statement was correct. Pick what you want to believe. You’ll find out when you pass on if you were right or not.

When I read Dr. Edward E. Max’s article titled “Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics”, I found him to be respectable and honest. He identified the concept of evolution as a hypothesis. That is 100% correct. To summarize his conclusion, he stated his conclusion was based on his best interpretation of the data with the information we had so far in that dynamic field of study. Translation, it was his opinion or best guesses. That is all any speculation on origins is – a best guess, a hypothesis.

Hence it is my stance that any guess in science shouldn’t be in the textbooks. Math doesn’t permit room for much philosophy to distort it. Science used to be taught the same way. Now we are teaching leaps of logic in science and wondering why scores go down in math. If we were to allow children to answer test questions the same way this highly contested hypothesis is being pushed, education will falter and the US hold on intellectual advancements will erode.

(This part is a nod to darling.) Now on the topic of electrons, we know electricity exists. We can readily observe it. We may hypothesize about electrons but currently we lack the tools and skills to observe it. Evolution and electricity are two totally different concepts.

Forensic science is a very good criminal justice TOOL with limitations. It can reconstruct the cause of death given sufficient amounts of data. Forensic science will not give you a motive though. Also, the further back in time you go for a forensic study the less effective it gets. (Cleopatra documentary showed this.) Why? The amount of environmental data and societal data worsens as you try and backtrack. This requires more assumptions and increases the potential for error. Forensic science can never tell you if a subject had children just from the study of a given subject. Insufficient data and information.

The fossils in the fossil ‘record’ are the same. First, the quantity of fossils found of vertebrates is very small. Complete or near complete fossils are extremely rare. Definitely far too insufficient to paint grandiose pictures of the past and teach it as fact. Second, if the animal wasn’t in the process of giving birth when fossilized, there is no way to know if there were any offspring.

So in review Matthew, there are problems abounding in proclaiming your “truth”. Where, when and how life began are problems for naturalistic science. Endtimes in the ATW thread spelled out a batch more. Fossils aren’t an argument for it either. All origin talk is about belief. If you don’t want to believe Creationism, fine. Evolution is merely a hypothesis – a guess. If you want to believe it, fine. Just don’t support teaching your belief to my daughter at my expense.

I’ll keep reading stuff. But I’m waiting for someone to give the only honest answer there is in the origins of life topic (from a scientific or naturalistic statement) – there is insufficient information available to make any definitive conclusion on the origins of life. Honesty and humility would be a welcome change. Until then, keep reading and learning but Vasahond is correct. There is no point in beating each other over the head. I proved in a paper Bart Simpson wasn’t an underachiever, that doesn’t make it fact or the “truth”. I definitely don’t waste my time declaring I know the “truth” about Bart Simpson.

I’ll keep fighting for honesty and the children. You do what you want Matthew.

God Bless
Maturekid
Maturekid
Said this on December 27th, 2006 at 8:10pm:

Oh Matthew,

I knew I heard about the life from a meteor someplace before. It clicked in my head so I looked it up. It was in the movie Creepshow from 1982 in the segment “The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill”. A meteor came down and created plant life.

Nice to know where the inspiration is for the expenditure of our tax dollars in grant research. Since we can’t prove life came from a rock here, we need to use rocks from somewhere else. Let’s just ignore the heat of entry into the atmosphere and how the meteor would have gotten the materials necessary to create life in the first place. (same problems + more complications = more wasted money)

I wonder what other scientific “advancements” we can get from Hollywood.
CMarychurch
Said this on January 1st, 2007 at 4:59pm:

havekoranwilltravel

Muslim fundamentalist and Christian fundamentalists – what strange bedfellows

It also appears that academic dishonesty also crosses the religious divide. havekoranwilltravel has plagiarised the entirity of his/her post from “In the Beginning…Soup?” .

Biochemistry is out of my league so I can not comment of the accuracy of the claims made, however, I note the argument boils down to the logic fallacy of Argument from Ignorance and God in the Gaps. If a process is unknown and/or mysterious that does not mean it is the result of the supernatural. Such a line of reasoning has hitorically had a 100% failure rate.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Popular Categories

General Meetings Political Happenings Uncategorized

About

This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.

Calendar

Recent Months

Popular Categories

View the Complete Archives »

Pages & Interesting Links

Pages

Blogroll

Live Search

"Random Thoughts"

106 Responses to “"Random Thoughts"”

Matthew

jcoursey

EndTimes

EndTimes

BeenSaved316

Matthew

Georgio

vladd77

joshrjb

David

campsuz

Dana S. Pennington

evilution

Sola Scriptura

Gordon_Comstock

chaplaindoug

josephericlopez

alyasm

alyasm

tharsos

Geocentric Bob

Geocentric Bob

webegeek

arensb

Michael Deas

eecreationist

Ketchum

mfox

Ketchum

Matthew

evilution

lwilkinson

evilution

Matthew

evilution

evilution

evilution

Matthew

evilution

Maturekid

mfox

Ketchum

evilution

evilution

mtlionsroar

CalebJF

Samphire

Samphire

prewrathx

Samphire

Samphire

evilution

evilution

jimmy

jimmy

trust

Matthew

evilution

Michael Walsh

Samphire

Samphire

CreationCD

CreationCD

darling

AlbynGA

evilution

Ketchum

jimmy

prewrathx