UPDATE

285 Responses to UPDATE

1. Ekkman says:

   June 27, 2007 at 8:43 pm

   25btodd
   Said this at 6:11pm:
   ——————————————————————————–

   I cannot believe the mental gymnastics some of you will resort to in order to maintain faith in this man and his actions. I am constantly amazed how much instant credibility many are able to garner just by invoking the name ‘Jesus’ in front of other Christians.

   25btodd
   My commnets to you were going to be ????????????? but I decided to add more to it.
   I am not sure if you have been reading much of anything on this blog. Maybe you were reading with your eyes closed but you will get more insight into this scenario if you read with your eyes open and your mind open but “not too open”, we don’t want our brains to “leak out”. (Thoughts from a previous blog.) Anyway, I have posted many, many links regarding organizations fighting the government in relation to the IRS, federal reserve, and others have written and linked pages too. The income tax is ‘illegal’, Kent knows that. It seems like that are those on here that think that Wikipedia and others out there reporting on Kent Hovind are right on the “money”, so to speak. It seems to me that many think it to be an “infallible” source. Kent is also in the spotlight because he comes against the government’s sacred cow, “evolution”. It is pretty important that particular religion be soaked into people’s minds in these last days because of all the killing that is going to take place. We must see people as unimportant. Then when we cage them like animals, or experiment on them won’t seem like a big deal since we do it to monkeys and the link. Since that is where, we are being taught that we can from with government approval, of course.

   I don’t know if any of you want to critically examine him, because it seems that for some of you, questioning Kent Hovind is the equivalent of questioning God. But I would encourage you to listen to his prison tapes on YouTube. You might notice how Jo Hovind seems to question their previous actions, but is bullied into submission by Kent. She seems to know deep down that they’ve been wrong (whether intentionally or not), so I particularly feel sorry for her and what she may have to endure.

   On this part, I wanted to ask you what John the Baptist thought when he was put in jail for preaching against Herod and the evil that he was doing. I will give you a hint by telling you it was something to do with the Lord Jesus Christ. What did John think of Jesus Christ after he was put in prison that wasn’t anything like he thought before he was put in prison? It might help you to understand why Jo seems to be “questioning” the stand that they have been taking for years. John had a lot of questions too, so to speak.

   And one last thing. That ‘conversation with God’ (which ironically reads just like the new-age book of that title) is ridiculous. Just another attempt by a man to equate himself with heroes of the Bible. Instead of offender, he’s playing victim. And God’s on his side, because they had a conversation about it!
   Btodd

   I have been studying the new age movement for a little bit, please show me how Kent’s writings appear new age to you. That statement you made makes me very curious as to the why he appears new age to you.

   Kent is a ‘victim’ of a corrupt government. They are going to swallow up all the ‘peons’ very soon if we let it happen. I am talking about the “fighers”, the others will be allowed to live if they submit to their authority.
   Go back and check a lot of our links on the income tax and why it is illegal.
   Especially read on the ‘Sun M Moon’ and the millions of dollars that he took from our fine govenment, spent a few months in jail and now has the adoration of some in congress. And by your definition of theft, he stole a whole lot more than Kent did.

   Ekkman

2. Pingback: Steve’s No Direction Home Page » Blog Archive » Emailing with God

3. btodd says:

   June 27, 2007 at 10:44 pm

   Warocuya,

   What I noticed in those tapes are a man desperately trying to rationalize his illegal acts as some heroic stance bestowed on him by God. I noticed the talks about hiding assets, I noticed the veiled threats as to how he could make things miserable for his persecutors, I noticed the intellectual bullying of his wife when she tried to be the voice of reason and contrition, and I noticed him referring to his persecutors as ‘evil, wicked people’. All of this on tape, and these jail conversations are well-known to be recorded by everyone (including his attorney!). He literally flaunts all of this, and that’s one of the reasons his sentence was 10 years. He not only refuses to accept any responsibility, but instead hangs it on God’s will and all those evil people who dare question his faulty reasoning.

   And I notice a lot of people lapping it up, and refusing to face reality. I only wish that every time I did something wrong, I could just claim that it’s God’s will and everyone who disagrees with me is an evil, wicked person. Wouldn’t that be nice?

   Lastly, I don’t know why you said ‘evolutionist’. That’s not part of the legal discussion at all, unless you want to change the subject for some reason.

   btodd
4. Australian: Phillip-George (c)1974 says:

   June 28, 2007 at 2:05 am

   EndTimes [jun27 4.19]
   quote: the “tax protestor” history of Dr. Hovind which cannot be disputed
   unquote:
   I still disagree with you!!! look the dialogue between the two of you. Look at what djhouk said: “Kent is a notorious tax protester, suing and harassing IRS agents” and that which you have agreed to by way of the language you employed and continue to employ.

   And if the plain meaning of the words you employ are not the intent you wish to convey then my advice is get someone to proof read your work or write it as a co-ordinated team effort with your prayer team.

   if what you have done is unconscious then even more so “you” should

   Just be careful – lest you even accidentally agree with a curse or imputation against the Holy Spirit !!!

   [I am moving to the new page after this post - and hopefully, God willing, I will be able to take permanent leave very soon]
5. Ekkman says:

   June 28, 2007 at 6:01 pm

   Jun
   25btodd
   Said this at 6:11pm:
   ——————————————————————————–

   I cannot believe the mental gymnastics some of you will resort to in order to maintain faith in this man and his actions. I am constantly amazed how much instant credibility many are able to garner just by invoking the name ‘Jesus’ in front of other Christians.

   btodd,
   I answered this one before but I don’t know why it didn’t get posted and I did not save it so I will deal with it again.
   When I read your remarks, my reply was going to be ???????? but then I decided to give it a longer reply. It has already been discussed on this blog that our faith is not in a man but in the Lord Jesus Christ. He saved all who are born again in the same way that he saved Kent Hovind.
   I will agree that many are “invoking the name of ‘Jesus’” that are not Chirstians such as Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and many, many other cults, psuedo Christian religions, but Kent is “not” one of them.

   I don’t know if any of you want to critically examine him, because it seems that for some of you, questioning Kent Hovind is the equivalent of questioning God. But I would encourage you to listen to his prison tapes on YouTube. You might notice how Jo Hovind seems to question their previous actions, but is bullied into submission by Kent. She seems to know deep down that they’ve been wrong (whether intentionally or not), so I particularly feel sorry for her and what she may have to endure.

   I have listened to them. Now have you listened to or watched the movies on the links we have supplied or are you like the woman whom I shared with who has shown me government pages put out by our government to show they are innocent of any wrong doing?
   In regards to Jo Hovind. Have you read what John the Baptist did when he was thrown in jail (prison) in regards to the question that he sent back to Jesus Christ? Sometimes jail, prison does those type of things to people.

   And one last thing. That ‘conversation with God’ (which ironically reads just like the new-age book of that title) is ridiculous. Just another attempt by a man to equate himself with heroes of the Bible. Instead of offender, he’s playing victim. And God’s on his side, because they had a conversation about it!
   Btodd

   In conclusion, would you mind sharing with me your views on why Kent Hovind’s ‘conversation with God’ reads just like the new-age book of that title so I won’t have to go out and buy the book?
   I have been studying new age beliefs and the like for a short time and I see no parallels. I would really appreciate you sharing with me some of the similar types, pictures in the two writings, Kent Hovind’s and the book’s.

   Please to remember to check out the links we have supplied to show that the income tax is illegal. And there are IRS agents coming out and exposing the IRS as well as lawyers, and legal professionals based on the Constitution.

   Ekkman
6. Enzyme says:

   June 29, 2007 at 9:14 am

   Regarding my submission of information on 21st June.”Where did the Universe come from?”
   My apologies if I used a larger portion than I should have, but I did credit it to Perry Marshall

   I find the material totally Fascinating although he seems to be talking about an old earth whereas I am like Dr Hovind a young earth adherent.

   As Dr Hovind said quite often “Eat the meat, spit out the bones”.

   I think this material has some good stuff in it that can be reconciled to a young earth belief

   Yours sincerely Enzyme
7. Ekkman says:

   July 2, 2007 at 12:35 am

   Samphire,
   I am glad that you said that science “doesn’t prove anything; it can only falsify”. I can see that with the help of creation scientists, they are “falsifying their “proofs” of man coming from the monkey. All of their “evidence” for monkey men have been “proven” wrong, I mean “falsified”. If only they knew that they couldn’t “prove” anything they would quit trying since they will never “prove” something that never happened. The missing links will forever remain missing since they were never there to be found. You cannot find something that was never there.

   Speaking of “falsifying” something, I am cutting out some info in this web site by
   Dr. David Plaisted. http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/

   “Dr. Colin Patterson, a paleontologist, realized that amino acid sequences in near-relatives on the phylogenic tree would be expected to show close correlation, according to evolutionary theory… So here was a chance to prove or disprove evolution. If two species were considered by comparative anatomy to be near relatives, then they also should be very nearly alike when their biology is examined at the microscopic level. To Patterson, this was a great opportunity to test the theory. The results: absolutely no correlation between similarity of sequences and nearness on the evolutionary tree. Patterson, in a speech given Nov. 5, 1981 before other evolutionists, pointed out to a stunned audience that the new data on amino acid sequences contradicts the theory of evolution. He said, ‘The theory makes a prediction; we’ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely… evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge’…”

   A little down in the same article, he talks about genetic mutation.

   “The evidence obtained from the Human Genome Project indicates that a genetic mutation of as little as 0.0000001% of an animal’s genome is fatal… Obviously there is no way to bridge even a small genetic gap in animal species by random genetic changes.
   Quantitative genetic information from the Human Genome Project is proving the theory of evolution to be the most irrational belief ever held by mankind. Individual species had to be assembled separately in the genetic code by an intelligent being whose electrical and chemical engineering technology is vastly superior to ours. The only word for such intelligence is GOD.”

   The next paragraph is a little info on the light problem and as I said before, evolutionists have problems there too. I am not a scientist but since God created everything fully mature then I don’t see why the light problem wouldn’t be that way too. If you asked a Christian or creationist which came first the chicken or the egg. They would tell you the chicken. The evolutionist would say, “The Primordial Soup.”

   “We can quantify how much slowdown there would be if the universe is about 6000 years old. Let’s consider a star that was 60,000 light years away when a beam of light left it. For the light to reach us, its average speed would have to be 10 light years per year. Assuming the speed of light has been decreasing, this means that the speed of light when it left the star was at least 10 times its current value. This would mean that the star would be seen changing 10 times as slowly as it really is. For a star that was 6 million light years away when a beam of light left, it would be seen slowed down by a factor of 1000 at least. A star 6 billion years away when a beam of light left would be seen slowed down by a factor of a million at least. For objects within about 50 light years, there will be no slowdown, since we know that the velocity of light has not changed much in that time.
   “Similar calculations apply if space has stretched out, stretching light beams with it. If one has a light beam 60,000 light years long with at most 6,000 years of history in it, then this history will arrive on the average at most one year of history per 10 years of time, that is, slowed down by a factor of at least ten. Farther objects would have greater slowdowns. However, I believe that one could only observe distant objects in the condition they were in when they were 6,000 light years or less away from us.
   “This would seem to be a good way to settle once and for all the question of whether the speed of light has decreased, or whether space has recently been stretched out. One only needs to measure rates of change of close and distant objects. Our own galaxy is, I believe, about 100,000 light years across, so there should even be some slowdown for stars in the Milky Way.
   “Unfortunately, there is a tremendous variation in the lengths of periods for pulsars, binary stars, and Cepheid variables, making it difficult to detect any slowdown or to know if there is a slowdown with distance at all. Even supernovae shine for weeks, months, or years in different cases. So it is conceivable that such a slowdown exists, and simply has not been observed.”
   http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/universe.html

   And as Kent Hovind said in one of his lectures, we really can’t measure the distances that the stars are from us with very much accuracy. They are too far out to be able to measure them very well.

   Samphire, you compared science to a journey not a destination. I think I could agree with that concept. If you will agree with me based on the rocks proving the age of the fossils and the fossils proving the age of the rocks is “circular reasoning.” In the same way, the journey for the evolutionists is a journey going in circles, you never arrive at your “destination” and you keep running into the same old problems that will never be solved because there isn’t anything to find to solve the unsolvable. Evolution is a myth and many evolutionists are finding that out.

   Now some of the evolutionists are going to the “Punctuated Equilibrium”. They have all these missing links that can’t be found so now they have decided that it happened so fast that you didn’t see it happen.
   I cut out a piece of one of the first articles that I read on this. It says,

   “However, if you study the fossils of organisms found in subsequent geological layers, you will see long intervals in which nothing changed (“equilibrium”), “punctuated” by short, revolutionary transitions, in which species became extinct and replaced by wholly new forms. Instead of a slow, continous progression, the evolution of life on Earth seems more like the life of a soldier: long periods of boredom interrupted by rare moments of terror.”
   http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PUNCTUEQ.html

   Think about that Samphire, they became extinct and replaced by “wholly new forms”. Wow! That sounds pretty miraculous. Now “time and chance” or is it “no time and a lot of chance” can do the miraculous but God can’t do it fast miracle, “punctuated” that is. Such as them not believing God created the heaven and the earth in six literal days. Sad! And then with man in time we have the “equilibrium”?. Such as man interbreeding making different kinds of dogs from a dog kind or different kinds of birds from the bird kind that Darwin noticed and other kinds within the same kind, so to speak.
   Even though they (the evolutionists) are getting closer in one way, they are still very far off in another way. A dinosaur didn’t have a baby bird. They are different kinds. The concept, theory is true based on beginnings, “it happened so fast they didn’t see it happen”. Their conclusions are wrong.

   Samphire said, “Just because there are as yet unsolved difficulties that doesn’t automatically make yours right.”
   Almost everything in evolution is “unsolved difficulties”. Even if they gave up on their billion of years nonsense, they still won’t kiss a frog and see if become a prince. It happens in fairy tales not real life. Whether it is a long time or a short time, we are of a certain kind and that kind doesn’t go from one kind to another kind.
   I didn’t know that I presented you with my theory since you said “that doesn’t automatically make yours right.”
   I have watched a few videos on “intelligent design” but I didn’t see that they are admitting or even seeing who the “intelligent designer” is. At least they are admitting that the world, universe had to have happened by design not chance. They are seeing that it is impossible for the things we see to just have happened.

   Back to mathematics. In the book entitled,” ‘Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems” by Luther S. Sunderland

   ” “It is often stated by evolutionists that with enough time,
   anything could happen regardless of how improbable it might be.
   Nobel prize winner George Wald has said, ‘Time is the hero of the
   plot. Given enough time anything can happen- the impossible
   becomes probable, the improbable becomes certain.’ (Beverly
   Halstead, ‘Popper: Good Philosophy, Bad Science?’, New Scientist,
   V.87, No. 1210, 17 July 1980, pp. 215-217) Prominent evolutionist
   Julian Huxley has stated that, given enough time, monkeys typing
   on typewriters could eventually type out the complete words of
   Shakespeare. Such uniformed statements[...EDITED...].”

   ” I thought I knew the word of God a little bit [...EDITED...]

   “And anthropologist Lyall Watson, writing in Science Digest (Vol. 90), said: “Modern apes.., seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, tool making, big-brained beings—is . . . . an equally mysterious matter.”

   “Far too often anthropologists stretch the evidence to fit their preconceptions. Tim White, an anthropologist from the University of California, Berkeley, offers an explanation. He is quoted in an article in New Scientist (April 28, 1983) entitled “Hominid [early man] Collarbone Exposed As Dolphin’s Rib”: “The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone be comes a hominid bone.”
   http://www.mazeministry.com/resources/books/hardcasetext/hardcase9.htm

   In closing, I am going to give you a link to read where one of your “religious” leaders known as Stephen Jay Gould is speaking. It is an interesting article. I especially liked the ending of it. It was kind of a “happy ending” for everyone?.
   http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/gould182.htm

   The Lord Jesus Christ said, “…I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
   Jesus Christ also said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
   He is just a prayer away from each and every one of us.

   Ekkman

   [EDITOR'S NOTE: Again, we must LIMIT the creation-evolution debate. I understand that you and Samphire each have excellent points to make, but ... I have to go limit this. It was a decision made months ago, as it tends to take over the blog and get quite contentious. ... sorry ... P.A. ]
8. Ekkman says:

   July 2, 2007 at 12:50 am

   27GaryMurray
   Said this at 10:34am:

   …You’re no different as a man than I, Samphire. You believe in others who publish findings and ’scientific discoveries’ that which you read and believe by faith that what you’re reading is accurate.
   We believe in the Apostles and the plenary verbal inspiration of God that which was inspired to the writers of the books in the Bible, and which was recorded into the scriptures. We just believe what we read from them.

   Its all FAITH brother, no matter how you really want to slice it up and feed it to others, your piece may taste different than mine, but its all still from the same serving of man’s FAITH.

   God Bless those in Christ,
   Gary Murray

   Gary said a mouthful here. It was full of truth. I tell people much of the time, we all live by faith. We put faith in our spouses, our jobs, our financial position, our looks, etc. Even in everyday life we put faith in our cars, believing they will start or we would not even get in them. When we hit a light switch, we believe the light will come on or we would not even bother to hit it. We do all kinds of things every day by faith whether we are believers or not. Some “believe” their government will never do them wrong. (“Believe” is a verb for the noun “faith”.) They have faith in that and prove it by the things they say and do. The Lord Jesus Christ said, “Have faith in God.” That’s all for now.

   Ekkman
9. Ekkman says:

   July 2, 2007 at 1:17 pm

   http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747

   Above is a link showing that many scientists are coming out from under Darwinism. As one scientist said that it is against knowledge and another said that it is holding true science back. The bible says, “…of science falsely so called:”

   Ekkman
10. btodd says:

    July 2, 2007 at 5:16 pm

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: My commnets to you were going to be ????????????? but I decided to add more to it.
    I am not sure if you have been reading much of anything on this blog. Maybe you were reading with your eyes closed but you will get more insight into this scenario if you read with your eyes open and your mind open but “not too open”, we don’t want our brains to “leak out”. (Thoughts from a previous blog.) Anyway, I have posted many, many links regarding organizations fighting the government in relation to the IRS, federal reserve, and others have written and linked pages too. The income tax is ‘illegal’, Kent knows that. END QUOTE

    Yes, I understand. Aside from being a ‘doctor’ and a ‘scientist’, Kent is also a ‘tax expert’. I’ll skip re-treading the facts about Kent’s credentials in those areas (I’m sure you’ve ignored them before). I don’t know which video you’re referring to, and I’m certainly not going to watch several to appease your sense of fairness, so is there one in particular you can point me to? The first thing I ran across (going back UP the page) was a link regarding Ron Paul, taxes, fascism, blah blah blah. So immediately, we’re thrown into this world of 9/11 Conspiracy (I dare you to start that debate with me), police states, New World Orders and fascism claims. Yes, I see how seriously I should take your sources and beliefs now. Please don’t waste my time with paranoia.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: It seems like that are those on here that think that Wikipedia and others out there reporting on Kent Hovind are right on the “money”, so to speak. It seems to me that many think it to be an “infallible” source.END QUOTE

    Is there a reason you’re trying to erect a Wikipedia strawman? I haven’t cited it as a source, so I don’t even know why you’re trying to use this.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Kent is also in the spotlight because he comes against the government’s sacred cow, “evolution”. It is pretty important that particular religion be soaked into people’s minds in these last days because of all the killing that is going to take place. We must see people as unimportant. Then when we cage them like animals, or experiment on them won’t seem like a big deal since we do it to monkeys and the link. Since that is where, we are being taught that we can from with government approval, of course.END QUOTE

    Paranoid much? Jeez, I don’t even know how to respond to that. First of all, evolution isn’t the argument regarding Kent’s tax crimes. You keep wanting to drag that into the argument, because this all revolves around your religious beliefs, and Kent has done a good snow job on you by CONNECTING THIS TAX ISSUE WITH GOD. BUT….If EVER in recent years there has been an administration that would refrain from attacking Creationism, THIS IS THE ONE. The claim that the government is out to get him because of evolution is pure comedy. Only in recent years have we had to re-tread the waters of religion trying to pose as science again (Intelligent Design). We have faith-based initiatives, too. Yeah, George Bush sure hates you Christians and your Creationism.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: On this part, I wanted to ask you what John the Baptist thought when he was put in jail for preaching against Herod and the evil that he was doing. I will give you a hint by telling you it was something to do with the Lord Jesus Christ. What did John think of Jesus Christ after he was put in prison that wasn’t anything like he thought before he was put in prison? It might help you to understand why Jo seems to be “questioning” the stand that they have been taking for years. John had a lot of questions too, so to speak. END QUOTE

    Ekkman, John the Baptist has nothing to do with this issue. Kent can compare himself to Bible figures all he wants, and you can lap it up all you want. Once again, this tax thing is tied to your religious beliefs. You simply cannot face the fact that Kent might be wrong about some things. It’s painfully obvious to an outsider what Jo is doing there. She’s responding to that little voice of guilt and recognition that this tax belief is all a big sham. Luckily for you, Kent just bullies her intellectually by putting the onus on her to tell him which law the government is referring to. When she can’t answer (as he knows she can’t), she’s forced right back into submission. Yes, how admirable!

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I have been studying the new age movement for a little bit, please show me how Kent’s writings appear new age to you. That statement you made makes me very curious as to the why he appears new age to you. END QUOTE

    I’ll come back and post some lines from it to compare, but I’m going to finish this post. My point was NOT that Kent is new-agey. The point was partially that the dialogue between the two books is strikingly similar, but you would consider one of them a total lie, and the other total truth. He’s definitely not; he’s Fundamentalist and paranoid. Let me ask you, do you really believe that was a real dialogue between he and God? Does it bother you that Kent thinks you’re stupid enough to believe that just because he wrote it? Let me put it another way…..is there any method that you use to discern the truth of such a claim? What method? If someone says they’re a Christian, and then proceeds to tell you an exact conversation they had with God, do you automatically swallow that?

    EKKMAN WROTE: Kent is a ‘victim’ of a corrupt government. They are going to swallow up all the ‘peons’ very soon if we let it happen. I am talking about the “fighers”, the others will be allowed to live if they submit to their authority. END QUOTE

    More paranoia and conspiracy claims. Welcome to the same techniques used by 9/11 “Truthers”, Scientology, and just about every other bogus belief that can’t produce tangible facts.

    EKKMAN WROTE: Go back and check a lot of our links on the income tax and why it is illegal.
    Especially read on the ‘Sun M Moon’ and the millions of dollars that he took from our fine govenment, spent a few months in jail and now has the adoration of some in congress. And by your definition of theft, he stole a whole lot more than Kent did. END QUOTE

    Once again, you want to talk about everyone else and how it makes what Kent did OK. Sun Yung Moon doesn’t have anything to do with this, and you certainly won’t see me defending him, either. What’s your point, that if Sun Yung Moon broke the law and didn’t get as much time as Kent, then it was OK for Kent to break the law? I’m having trouble with your reasoning, because…..well, there isn’t any.

    If Kent was not a Creationist, and didn’t invoke Jesus as the reason for his cause, then you wouldn’t be defending the cause. This is simply tied to your religious fervor. Since you love bringing evolution / creationism into this, it’s very similar to that situation. You have a bunch of laypersons who are trying to tell the body of science that it’s wrong….about SCIENCE! Now if evolution is the bold-faced lie that you claim, wouldn’t there be quite a few non-religious scientists that notice that and bring it up? But no, there are only the fanatically religious who do so…why is that? The greatest way to make a name for yourself in the science world is to overturn a widely-held theory….no one is willing to do that? What’s your explanation for why only the uber-fundamentalist-religious take this stance? I know what the answer is, but I’m sure you will resort to conspiracy again (the grandest one of them all), by saying something to the effect of them being evil, blinded by Satan, or the like.

    btodd
11. Three Crosses says:

    July 3, 2007 at 10:52 am

    To btodd you said this:

    “If Kent was not a Creationist, and didn’t invoke Jesus as the reason for his cause, then you wouldn’t be defending the cause. This is simply tied to your religious fervor. Since you love bringing evolution / creationism into this, it’s very similar to that situation. You have a bunch of laypersons who are trying to tell the body of science that it’s wrong….about SCIENCE! Now if evolution is the bold-faced lie that you claim, wouldn’t there be quite a few non-religious scientists that notice that and bring it up? But no, there are only the fanatically religious who do so…why is that? The greatest way to make a name for yourself in the science world is to overturn a widely-held theory….no one is willing to do that? What’s your explanation for why only the uber-fundamentalist-religious take this stance? I know what the answer is, but I’m sure you will resort to conspiracy again (the grandest one of them all), by saying something to the effect of them being evil, blinded by Satan, or the like.”

    Hey you answered yourself! I guess you need open eyes and ears to have noticed!

    “Now if evolution is the bold-faced lie that you claim, wouldn’t there be quite a few non-religious scientists that notice that and bring it up?”

    Answer: I know of no “non-religious scientists” but as far as scientists go; They do! You know it, or you’re faking you knowledge of science. [...EDITED...]

    God bless america God save us all!

    [EDITOR'S NOTE:  Sorry, we're not doing a creation-evolution debate.  But is it good to know that someone has everything figured out.  You spelled America wrong again, by the way.  P.A.  ]
12. Ekkman says:

    July 4, 2007 at 12:32 am

    2btodd
    Said this at 5:16pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: My commnets to you were going to be ????????????? but I decided to add more to it.
    I am not sure if you have been reading much of anything on this blog. Maybe you were reading with your eyes closed but you will get more insight into this scenario if you read with your eyes open and your mind open but “not too open”, we don’t want our brains to “leak out”. (Thoughts from a previous blog.) Anyway, I have posted many, many links regarding organizations fighting the government in relation to the IRS, federal reserve, and others have written and linked pages too. The income tax is ‘illegal’, Kent knows that. END QUOTE

    Yes, I understand. Aside from being a ‘doctor’ and a ’scientist’, Kent is also a ‘tax expert’. I’ll skip re-treading the facts about Kent’s credentials in those areas (I’m sure you’ve ignored them before). I don’t know which video you’re referring to, and I’m certainly not going to watch several to appease your sense of fairness, so is there one in particular you can point me to? The first thing I ran across (going back UP the page) was a link regarding Ron Paul, taxes, fascism, blah blah blah. So immediately, we’re thrown into this world of 9/11 Conspiracy (I dare you to start that debate with me), police states, New World Orders and fascism claims. Yes, I see how seriously I should take your sources and beliefs now. Please don’t waste my time with paranoia.

    From reading the above, I see that you are a ‘doctor’, ‘scientist’, and ‘tax expert’. There are tons of scientists who reject Darwinism, always have and always will. I haven’t ignored the clips, writings showing how corrupt Kent is. Not only have I read them and watched some of them. I actually listened to the other side, Kent’s side, that is. I am sure if you were in his position that you would want all people just listening to “the other side” whether government or experts as some on this site seem to think such as Widipedia and NOT listen to your side also. Tsk! Tsk!
    I am not referring to “a video” but many videos and web sites of those who are against the IRS whether ex-IRS agents, lawyers, business professionals and the list is growing. One of the most popular presidential candidates, Ron Paul, in spite of the media seeking to ignore him will outlaw the Federal Reserve and IRS if elected. Those who study law who are working to outlaw the IRS and many other government organizations.
    I will be more than happy to take you up on your dare. There are tons of agencies, people, who know that 9/11 was a conspiracy to destroy America freedoms. There are those who think that giving up freedoms for protection is freedom, it isn’t. There are big wheels in government who believe that the government was behind the attack at 9/11 as well as Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, etc. I am beginning to think that you MUST think that our government is innocent of all crimes since they appear to be your god. The one who will “protect you from cradle to grave”. I would be paranoid too if I thought that and then I am exposed to how corrupt they are. That would be a nightmare. Some of the videos are below. A government who will allow the killing of innocent little babies in the wombs of their mothers will do anything in the negative.

    http://www.givemeliberty.org/
    http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/
    http://showmethelaw.net/
    http://www.theft-by-deception.com/
    Many who are professionals in the income tax area not paying income taxes and are letting it be known that no normal everyday working American should be paying it.

    http://www.theadvocates.org/civilliberties.html
    Our civil liberties are at stake.

    A couple of good links to see where Congressman Ron Paul stands with the IRS and other agencies and/or laws.
    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo

    http://www.atgpress.com/
    This link shows us that the media has been lying to us on many issues.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: It seems like that are those on here that think that Wikipedia and others out there reporting on Kent Hovind are right on the “money”, so to speak. It seems to me that many think it to be an “infallible” source.END QUOTE

    Is there a reason you’re trying to erect a Wikipedia strawman? I haven’t cited it as a source, so I don’t even know why you’re trying to use this.

    Todd, it appears to me that you are erecting the “strawman” here. I never said that “you” use wikipedia but others that I have been debating have. Sorry you were offended at that statement. It appears that you are the one who is paranoid with about any statement made that contradicts your beliefs or your stand with our fine government.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Kent is also in the spotlight because he comes against the government’s sacred cow, “evolution”. It is pretty important that particular religion be soaked into people’s minds in these last days because of all the killing that is going to take place. We must see people as unimportant. Then when we cage them like animals, or experiment on them won’t seem like a big deal since we do it to monkeys and the link. Since that is where, we are being taught that we can from with government approval, of course.END QUOTE

    Paranoid much? Jeez, I don’t even know how to respond to that. First of all, evolution isn’t the argument regarding Kent’s tax crimes. You keep wanting to drag that into the argument, because this all revolves around your religious beliefs, and Kent has done a good snow job on you by CONNECTING THIS TAX ISSUE WITH GOD. BUT….If EVER in recent years there has been an administration that would refrain from attacking Creationism, THIS IS THE ONE. The claim that the government is out to get him because of evolution is pure comedy. Only in recent years have we had to re-tread the waters of religion trying to pose as science again (Intelligent Design). We have faith-based initiatives, too. Yeah, George Bush sure hates you Christians and your Creationism.

    I love your arguments. “Paranoid much? Jeez,…” Is evolution a government sponsored “science” i.e. religion for our public schools? Sure it is! So do you think that the government takes it lightly when a man comes against it in the name of science?
    Anybody can see that it didn’t take an intelligent designer to make all we see around us even though our smartest scientists cannot make what we see in this world via nature, the heavens, etc. We really only have science because of a Creator, if no design there wouldn’t be anything to study. All would be by chance and chance has no design, does it? And if so where did it come from? And when you tell me that, I ask you, do you have absolutes? And if not, how can you have science, isn’t that based on absolutes? Here is a very good link on my web site to deal with this, too much to type.
    http://www.ekkcom.net/western.htm
    Speaking of Bush, he is in a secretive, Satanic society called the Skull and Bones. He was “born again” when one of the members pulled him out of a casket. It could have been Kerry lifting him out, who knows? I can almost sense the “paranoia” in your comments. Calm down and read, study the posts made. Don’t get angry, just focus on the subjects at hand. Compare what you “believe” with the facts.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: On this part, I wanted to ask you what John the Baptist thought when he was put in jail for preaching against Herod and the evil that he was doing. I will give you a hint by telling you it was something to do with the Lord Jesus Christ. What did John think of Jesus Christ after he was put in prison that wasn’t anything like he thought before he was put in prison? It might help you to understand why Jo seems to be “questioning” the stand that they have been taking for years. John had a lot of questions too, so to speak. END QUOTE

    Ekkman, John the Baptist has nothing to do with this issue. Kent can compare himself to Bible figures all he wants, and you can lap it up all you want. Once again, this tax thing is tied to your religious beliefs. You simply cannot face the fact that Kent might be wrong about some things. It’s painfully obvious to an outsider what Jo is doing there. She’s responding to that little voice of guilt and recognition that this tax belief is all a big sham. Luckily for you, Kent just bullies her intellectually by putting the onus on her to tell him which law the government is referring to. When she can’t answer (as he knows she can’t), she’s forced right back into submission. Yes, how admirable!

    John the Baptist has everything to do with the situation. If you had really read it in context and know the scriptures that I am referring to then you couldn’t miss the parallel. Now you are telling me that I took my John the Baptist illustration from Kent??? That is strange. I said that you know us a lot better than we know ourselves. Where did Kent said that? Please furnish a reference to it. Thanks! But if you were just saying it from bible figures then that is all right since Kent is a saint of God as well as any of them are.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I have been studying the new age movement for a little bit, please show me how Kent’s writings appear new age to you. That statement you made makes me very curious as to the why he appears new age to you. END QUOTE

    I’ll come back and post some lines from it to compare, but I’m going to finish this post. My point was NOT that Kent is new-agey. The point was partially that the dialogue between the two books is strikingly similar, but you would consider one of them a total lie, and the other total truth. He’s definitely not; he’s Fundamentalist and paranoid. Let me ask you, do you really believe that was a real dialogue between he and God? Does it bother you that Kent thinks you’re stupid enough to believe that just because he wrote it? Let me put it another way…..is there any method that you use to discern the truth of such a claim? What method? If someone says they’re a Christian, and then proceeds to tell you an exact conversation they had with God, do you automatically swallow that?

    Here you had a wonderful opportunity to support some of your “beliefs” in this blog but you flunked out ‘for now’. I await your “proof” to show that Kent is ‘new age’ plus “fundmentalist and paranoid”. I believe that you will be able to show me that he is Fundamentalist but the paranoid doesn’t fit with a Fundamentalist unless to you, they are one and the same.

    EKKMAN WROTE: Kent is a ‘victim’ of a corrupt government. They are going to swallow up all the ‘peons’ very soon if we let it happen. I am talking about the “fighers”, the others will be allowed to live if they submit to their authority. END QUOTE

    More paranoia and conspiracy claims. Welcome to the same techniques used by 9/11 “Truthers”, Scientology, and just about every other bogus belief that can’t produce tangible facts.

    Another good answer. 9/11 “Truthers” and “Scientology” have nothing in common from what I know of them. Please furnish parallels. It goes back to your “belief” system. The government can do no wrong and if you find out they could, there goes your god. Scary!

    EKKMAN WROTE: Go back and check a lot of our links on the income tax and why it is illegal.
    Especially read on the ‘Sun M Moon’ and the millions of dollars that he took from our fine govenment, spent a few months in jail and now has the adoration of some in congress. And by your definition of theft, he stole a whole lot more than Kent did. END QUOTE

    Once again, you want to talk about everyone else and how it makes what Kent did OK. Sun Yung Moon doesn’t have anything to do with this, and you certainly won’t see me defending him, either. What’s your point, that if Sun Yung Moon broke the law and didn’t get as much time as Kent, then it was OK for Kent to break the law? I’m having trouble with your reasoning, because…..well, there isn’t any.

    Sun M Moon is not an American as far as I know. If he were, the laws would apply to him like any other American. I would defend his right to not pay income taxes if he were an American just as I would defend Kent’s right. You also didn’t read my blog very well even though it is in your rebuttal. I said, “…by your definition of theft,”
    I believe to understand “reason”, a person has to operating in reason. You need to calm down and read, not only read but read in context with the subject at hand. You don’t seem to be doing that by your comments all through this blog.

    If Kent was not a Creationist, and didn’t invoke Jesus as the reason for his cause, then you wouldn’t be defending the cause. This is simply tied to your religious fervor. Since you love bringing evolution / creationism into this, it’s very similar to that situation. You have a bunch of laypersons who are trying to tell the body of science that it’s wrong….about SCIENCE! Now if evolution is the bold-faced lie that you claim, wouldn’t there be quite a few non-religious scientists that notice that and bring it up? But no, there are only the fanatically religious who do so…why is that? The greatest way to make a name for yourself in the science world is to overturn a widely-held theory….no one is willing to do that? What’s your explanation for why only the uber-fundamentalist-religious take this stance? I know what the answer is, but I’m sure you will resort to conspiracy again (the grandest one of them all), by saying something to the effect of them being evil, blinded by Satan, or the like.
    btodd

    By the Constitution and Bill of Rights, no American should be paying income taxes, they are illegal. Well, it is to those who were endowed with rights by their Creator, not the ones who came out of primordial soup, oceans or whatever. Seriously though, because of the bible this land was based on you have freedoms too even though you deny the one who gave us those freedoms, the Lord Jesus Christ. One of the first things Ron Paul would do if he were President is take the IRS out.
    There are others who are not Christians or creationists but are against a corrupt government, I would back them too in that area.

    Make sure that you read the page link below and tell me if you really believe those scientists are “religious” people by your definition of religion. But they are rejecting Darwinism, not because of religion but because of science.

    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747

    Ekkman
13. btodd says:

    July 4, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: From reading the above, I see that you are a ‘doctor’, ’scientist’, and ‘tax expert’. There are tons of scientists who reject Darwinism, always have and always will. I haven’t ignored the clips, writings showing how corrupt Kent is. Not only have I read them and watched some of them. I actually listened to the other side, Kent’s side, that is. I am sure if you were in his position that you would want all people just listening to “the other side” whether government or experts as some on this site seem to think such as Widipedia and NOT listen to your side also. Tsk! Tsk! END QUOTE

    You caught me. I’m not a doctor, scientist or tax expert. In that sense, Kent and I are the same. Which is why I’m not going to defy the knowledge of doctors, scientists or tax experts on a subject I’m barely familiar with. Do you see my point? And if Kent’s stance was that the tax code is illegal, and he has sound reasons to believe it, then why was his defense one of ‘I don’t know who’s charging me, and what I’m being charged with”? Why wasn’t a case presented on the merits you are now espousing?

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I am not referring to “a video” but many videos and web sites of those who are against the IRS whether ex-IRS agents, lawyers, business professionals and the list is growing. One of the most popular presidential candidates, Ron Paul, in spite of the media seeking to ignore him will outlaw the Federal Reserve and IRS if elected. Those who study law who are working to outlaw the IRS and many other government organizations. END QUOTE

    Good luck to them. I don’t have a stake in such things, if there’s a better system available, then great. I’m glad you said that those who study law are working on it, because that implies that they will cooperate with the law and bring their case through the proper channels. That’s not what happened here.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I will be more than happy to take you up on your dare. There are tons of agencies, people, who know that 9/11 was a conspiracy to destroy America freedoms. There are those who think that giving up freedoms for protection is freedom, it isn’t. There are big wheels in government who believe that the government was behind the attack at 9/11 as well as Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, etc. I am beginning to think that you MUST think that our government is innocent of all crimes since they appear to be your god. The one who will “protect you from cradle to grave”. I would be paranoid too if I thought that and then I am exposed to how corrupt they are. That would be a nightmare. Some of the videos are below. A government who will allow the killing of innocent little babies in the wombs of their mothers will do anything in the negative. END QUOTE

    I’ve spent a fair amount of time debating 9/11 Truthers, and they operate on many of the same principles of Creationist arguments. A layperson with little understanding of a complex topic ignores monumental physical and tangible evidence (agreed upon by virtually the entire body of experts)in favor of a default, a priori assumption. For 9/11 Truth, it’s that the government was behind it, without ever producing any arguments or evidence that they did it. Instead, the entire movement is based on trying to knock holes in the information that is physical and tangible in nature, instead in favor of appeals to motive, conspiracy, distrust of the government, and wild theories about one world governments, illuminati, and whatever else sounds good to the ears that week. But the eventual conclusion is, “well, I don’t like the official story, therefore the government did it”. It’s a default position based on the original assumption. We’re almost six years out from the events of 9/11, and the “Truth” movement still has no tangible evidence. It’s still operating on appeals to motive, and YouTube videos with spooky soundtracks. Much like Creationism, we need everything to fit into a quick soundbite and catch-phrase (like ‘teach the controversy’ and such), so people who have very little understanding of the subject matter can feel like they really do, and keep their a priori assumptions.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Todd, it appears to me that you are erecting the “strawman” here. I never said that “you” use wikipedia but others that I have been debating have. Sorry you were offended at that statement. It appears that you are the one who is paranoid with about any statement made that contradicts your beliefs or your stand with our fine government. END QUOTE

    You’re not debating those others when you type ‘btodd’. That’s me. Bring it up with them. Even if one does use Wikipedia, however, you can actually check the sources. Not everything on Wikipedia is truth, not everything is a lie. But it can be found out.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I love your arguments. “Paranoid much? Jeez,…” Is evolution a government sponsored “science” i.e. religion for our public schools? Sure it is! So do you think that the government takes it lightly when a man comes against it in the name of science? END QUOTE

    How else can I respond to claims of conspiracies everywhere? I can’t disprove a negative, so if you’ve got it in your head that all these grand conspiracies exist everywhere, how could I ever convince you that they’re not? You can always claim I just haven’t discovered the ‘truth’ yet! As for evolution as ‘government sponsored science’, the science that gets taught is the prevailing science of the day. Evolution has been the prevailing science, by a landslide, for many years. It is always open to be challenged, and refuted, in the scientific community, through research, papers and peer review. The government itself has no stake in your passion here, and you wouldn’t have to resort to claiming conspiracy if you had tangible evidence for your theories that stand up to scientific scrutiny. That’s why movements like intelligent design went for local school boards instead of peer review. We have to get this in the back-door, you know. And if Kent was ‘attacked’ because of his stand against evolution, then why aren’t all of his other peers, some of whom have greater influence, being attacked for tax charges? The answer is obvious.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Anybody can see that it didn’t take an intelligent designer to make all we see around us even though our smartest scientists cannot make what we see in this world via nature, the heavens, etc. We really only have science because of a Creator, if no design there wouldn’t be anything to study. All would be by chance and chance has no design, does it? And if so where did it come from? And when you tell me that, I ask you, do you have absolutes? And if not, how can you have science, isn’t that based on absolutes? Here is a very good link on my web site to deal with this, too much to type. END QUOTE

    Ekkman, this has been done ad nauseum by better people than you and I. As you’ve probably heard countless times, who made the designer? If some things are so complex that they must be designed, then God is more complex yet. Your solution (whether it is correct or not, which I cannot know) is no different than saying ‘It’s magic’. As my statement in parenthesis implied, I am an agnostic. We can go on for pages about whether or not there’s a creator, but you and I aren’t going to reveal anything that far greater minds haven’t all these years.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Speaking of Bush, he is in a secretive, Satanic society called the Skull and Bones. He was “born again” when one of the members pulled him out of a casket. It could have been Kerry lifting him out, who knows? I can almost sense the “paranoia” in your comments. Calm down and read, study the posts made. Don’t get angry, just focus on the subjects at hand. Compare what you “believe” with the facts. END QUOTE

    I’m familiar with the Skull and Bones conspiracies. David Icke is right around the corner to tell you how lizard people from outer space are connected with this, too. That’s what scares me about modern-day conspiracy buffs, one is never enough. One seems to lead to another, and another….and it isn’t healthy.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: John the Baptist has everything to do with the situation. If you had really read it in context and know the scriptures that I am referring to then you couldn’t miss the parallel. Now you are telling me that I took my John the Baptist illustration from Kent??? That is strange. I said that you know us a lot better than we know ourselves. Where did Kent said that? Please furnish a reference to it. Thanks! But if you were just saying it from bible figures then that is all right since Kent is a saint of God as well as any of them are. END QUOTE

    I wasn’t referencing Kent as having spoken of John the Baptist specifically, but referencing the continual usage of comparing him or his situation to characters from the Bible and their tribulations. I find it a bit dodgy and convenient. As for Kent being a Saint of God, I’ll just have to let you have that one. I can’t possibly know that, nor do I understand how you possibly could.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Here you had a wonderful opportunity to support some of your “beliefs” in this blog but you flunked out ‘for now’. I await your “proof” to show that Kent is ‘new age’ plus “fundmentalist and paranoid”. I believe that you will be able to show me that he is Fundamentalist but the paranoid doesn’t fit with a Fundamentalist unless to you, they are one and the same. END QUOTE

    First of all, re-read my last post. I DISTINCTLY said Kent is NOT new-age, but fundamentalist and paranoid. So don’t continue saying I’m claiming he’s new age. My beliefs? If you think I’m a new-age believer, I’m not. As I stated, I’m an agnostic. I read that book years ago, and it reads much like Kent’s post, where a man and God are just having a good ol’ conversation, and we’re supposed to believe it because he says he did. You also had a wonderful opportunity to tell my how you determine whether a conversation with God written by a Christian is true (and whether you believe in Kent’s version). I think it’s a very dangerous thing to promote the idea that you and God are speaking in literal sentences and having full conversations with each other. I’ve already laid out why I think he’s paranoid, with the many conspiracies and strange claims he makes regarding Creationism, tax laws, 9/11, OKC Bombings, cancer cures, and the like.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Another good answer. 9/11 “Truthers” and “Scientology” have nothing in common from what I know of them. Please furnish parallels. END QUOTE

    I lumped 9/11 Truth and Scientology in with Creationism and Intelligent Design. They don’t all share exactly the same characteristics, but there are many parallels.

    1. Use of a lack of evidence AS EVIDENCE. Intelligent Design, instead of making a positive case for it’s claim, instead spends it’s time by trying to poke holes in evolution, and then if a gap or lack of understanding is found, all other evidence is out the door and it’s, “See? God did it!” 9/11 Truth uses the same technique. “I don’t believe WTC 7 could fall since it wasn’t hit by a plane, and I don’t understand structural engineering, therefore the Government blew it up. Even though there’s zero positive evidence to support that claim, it’s now used as the default position, so you get, “Well, I don’t believe the official story, so until you convince me, the government did it!”. Scientology doesn’t really apply on this one.

    2. Resort to conspiracy. When it’s pointed out that there is no verifiable, objective or scientific evidence to back up their position, then it’s because of conspiracy. For Creationism / Intelligent Design, it’s those lying scientists that are hiding God’s truth, or the government, or atheism. For 9/11 Truth, it’s the government who is not only hiding an unimaginable amount of evidence that would signify demolitions, but also has convinced thousands of people, among multiple agencies, to go along with killing thousands of citizens and covering it up to this very day (all so we could go to war in Iraq, except we forgot to plant WMD’s and now we look like idiots- yeah, great plan). For scientology, the conspiracy is psychiatry (the entire field and all its practitioners), suppressive persons and a galactic event from 75 million years ago. They actually share some of your views on secret societies and government conspiracy.

    3. Illusionary expertise. Laypersons making claims regarding areas of expertise that require extensive education and experience in. Instead, cloaking them in just enough ‘technical speak’ to sound knowledgeable for an audience that is clearly not knowledgeable. So you have people like Dr. David Ray Griffin, a professor of Theology, giving his opinions on structural engineering and demolitions, and contradicting experts in those fields with REAL CREDENTIALS. And people actually believe him! The same goes for creationism vs. evolution, where someone like Kent claims a doctorate and is addressing real, educated and experienced scientists with just enough knowledge and catch-phrases to snare and already believing, unsuspecting audience. In Scientology, L Ron Hubbard made many claims to the effectiveness of Scientology over the field of psychiatry, medicine and many other sciences. Yet there are no studies or any peer review to back up those claims. His followers don’t question it, though.

    There are three parallels on how I think those bogus belief systems work and prosper.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: It goes back to your “belief” system. The government can do no wrong and if you find out they could, there goes your god. Scary! END QUOTE

    You don’t know what you think you do. I’m not a right-wing guy, nor big on the government. I hardly believe that the government ‘can do no wrong’. I didn’t vote for Bush, I think he’s the worst president we’ve ever had, and I thought Kerry was a terrible choice also, but I voted for him because it’s all I had. I’m not for 9/11 Truth because it’s hogwash, pure and simple. Tell them to produce something factual and get back to me. I also think Holocaust-deniers are full of it too, but it’s not because I’m pro-Israel. Hogwash is hogwash, and I don’t mind calling it such.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Sun M Moon is not an American as far as I know. If he were, the laws would apply to him like any other American. I would defend his right to not pay income taxes if he were an American just as I would defend Kent’s right. You also didn’t read my blog very well even though it is in your rebuttal. I said, “…by your definition of theft,”END QUOTE

    I didn’t give a definition of theft, did I?

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I believe to understand “reason”, a person has to operating in reason. You need to calm down and read, not only read but read in context with the subject at hand. You don’t seem to be doing that by your comments all through this blog. END QUOTE

    You’re no more calm than I, please. I haven’t been rattling off about multiple agencies, all conspiring against me all the time. I think I’m doing pretty well. If I believed what you do, I don’t know how I would function nor live in this country.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: By the Constitution and Bill of Rights, no American should be paying income taxes, they are illegal. Well, it is to those who were endowed with rights by their Creator, not the ones who came out of primordial soup, oceans or whatever. Seriously though, because of the bible this land was based on you have freedoms too even though you deny the one who gave us those freedoms, the Lord Jesus Christ. One of the first things Ron Paul would do if he were President is take the IRS out.
    There are others who are not Christians or creationists but are against a corrupt government, I would back them too in that area.

    Make sure that you read the page link below and tell me if you really believe those scientists are “religious” people by your definition of religion. But they are rejecting Darwinism, not because of religion but because of science.

    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747

    Ekkman END QUOTE

    Ekkman, I know the ‘evolution is a religion, too’ catch-phrase is really popular, but that’s only so you can feel better about not being able to defeat the science with science. If evolution is a religion, then EVERYTHING is a religion, and the word religion doesn’t mean anything.

    btodd
14. btodd says:

    July 4, 2007 at 11:11 pm

    EKKMAN WROTE: Make sure that you read the page link below and tell me if you really believe those scientists are “religious” people by your definition of religion. But they are rejecting Darwinism, not because of religion but because of science. END QUOTE

    I almost missed replying to that specific question, didn’t want you to think I was dodging it, so here goes:

    I visited your link. If you want me to link you to a few articles that point out the misleading nature of that list, I can. Aside from what the articles say, how does that list tell me what their religious beliefs are? That was my point, that you don’t seem to see any non-religious movement that has problems with evolution. A list of people with various degrees, most of which have nothing to do with knowledge that even deal in subjects that involve evolution, doesn’t address that question at all. I know nothing about their religious faith. If they do believe what they signed, then I assume they might have written some papers? Some papers that address the scientific points (only) of evolution that they disbelieve?

    Here’s another thing. What is your definition of Darwinism? If you take that to mean ‘Godless’, and so does a person of science who is religious, then he will doubt it regardless of the science, because you have put it at odds with his faith. And it doesn’t have to be. Evolution doesn’t speak of the ultimate origin of life, that subject is called abiogenesis, or is covered under religion. The way the word Darwinism is thrown in there in brackets is suspect, as if the word evolution by itself didn’t carry as much sinister literary weight as Darwinism, which I think it’s fair to say the more literal interpretations of Christianity regard as Godless.

    btodd
15. Three Crosses says:

    July 5, 2007 at 11:02 am

    Dear mediator/editor: I do try to spell America correctly in the body of the post, but in my opinion next to God it capital G little me. for example: God bless america, God save us all! Please forgive my post from yesterday it was harsh. I did pray about it however, so you editing it was an answer. Thanks so much and God bless you.
16. Thegospelevangelist says:

    July 6, 2007 at 1:48 am

    Hello

    I think Kent Hovind is great and I dont think he did it but can someone detail what happened and whether he said he was inoccent or guilty.

    God bless
    David
17. Three Crosses says:

    July 6, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    It’s a constitutional tax issue the supreme court should probably pick it up.

    I haven’t heard his personal stance.

    Thanks God bless!
18. Healthy Skeptic says:

    July 9, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    I am completely humbled by this update. I so need to get my act together. I did not realize anyone else in this world prayed the same way as me. I too write my prayers and many times God responds through my writing. I know it sounds crazy. I was encouraged by you today. Thanks
19. Ekkman says:

    July 10, 2007 at 1:50 am

    Jul
    4btodd
    Said this at 9:29pm:
    ———————————————————————– ———

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: From reading the above, I see that you are a ‘doctor’, ’scientist’, and ‘tax expert’. There are tons of scientists who reject Darwinism, always have and always will. I haven’t ignored the clips, writings showing how corrupt Kent is. Not only have I read them and watched some of them. I actually listened to the other side, Kent’s side, that is. I am sure if you were in his position that you would want all people just listening to “the other side” whether government or experts as some on this site seem to think such as Widipedia and NOT listen to your side also. Tsk! Tsk! END QUOTE

    You caught me. I’m not a doctor, scientist or tax expert. In that sense, Kent and I are the same. Which is why I’m not going to defy the knowledge of doctors, scientists or tax experts on a subject I’m barely familiar with. Do you see my point? And if Kent’s stance was that the tax code is illegal, and he has sound reasons to believe it, then why was his defense one of ‘I don’t know who’s charging me, and what I’m being charged with”? Why wasn’t a case presented on the merits you are now espousing?

    Question: “Which came first, a college run by people with diplomas or people running them without a college diploma?” My point is that you can get the knowledge at PhD level without ever going to college. By just studying, you could get even more knowledge than a person with a PhD in any particular field. So in that sense, you and Kent are probably not the same. Many evolutionists and they are supposedly “scientists” with leters behind their names won’t debate Kent again since they know they don’t know enough in their field to debate him. One called him the David of creationism vs the Goliaths of evolutionism.
    For years, Kent has written the IRS wanting to know what law tells him to file a 1040 with them. They never answered his question. Now they are using the “law” or is it the “anti-law” to put him out, so to speak. They got him based on so-called laws to do with that anti-law.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I am not referring to “a video” but many videos and web sites of those who are against the IRS whether ex-IRS agents, lawyers, business professionals and the list is growing. One of the most popular presidential candidates, Ron Paul, in spite of the media seeking to ignore him will outlaw the Federal Reserve and IRS if elected. Those who study law who are working to outlaw the IRS and many other government organizations. END QUOTE

    Good luck to them. I don’t have a stake in such things, if there’s a better system available, then great. I’m glad you said that those who study law are working on it, because that implies that they will cooperate with the law and bring their case through the proper channels. That’s not what happened here.

    Todd,Our government is at the point of lawlessness. Many judges sit behind those big wood desks thinking they are gods and do whatever they please. They don’t care about law, especially constitutional law, common law.

    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22457.html

    If you really want to see a little clearer the perverted, sick government that we have then read the link above.

    Why are you writing in this blog? Is it to just to cause problems since you don’t have answers? You haven’t really answered anything in the blog that I sent you. This post here has little parts of my quotes. Did you read any of the links or watch any of the videos that I sent you backing up my points or did you just delete all of them “out of your mind” as you did in your reply? Then the last post you wrote on the last link that you said that you forgot to mention that one. Then you went on to imply that they weren’t really scientists, so to speak, or the article wasn’t speaking the whole truth since they reject Darwinism now. Was that a correct assumption?

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I will be more than happy to take you up on your dare. There are tons of agencies, people, who know that 9/11 was a conspiracy to destroy America freedoms. There are those who think that giving up freedoms for protection is freedom, it isn’t. There are big wheels in government who believe that the government was behind the attack at 9/11 as well as Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, etc. I am beginning to think that you MUST think that our government is innocent of all crimes since they appear to be your god. The one who will “protect you from cradle to grave”. I would be paranoid too if I thought that and then I am exposed to how corrupt they are. That would be a nightmare. Some of the videos are below. A government who will allow the killing of innocent little babies in the wombs of their mothers will do anything in the negative. END QUOTE

    I’ve spent a fair amount of time debating 9/11 Truthers, and they operate on many of the same principles of Creationist arguments. A layperson with little understanding of a complex topic ignores monumental physical and tangible evidence (agreed upon by virtually the entire body of experts)in favor of a default, a priori assumption. For 9/11 Truth, it’s that the government was behind it, without ever producing any arguments or evidence that they did it. Instead, the entire movement is based on trying to knock holes in the information that is physical and tangible in nature, instead in favor of appeals to motive, conspiracy, distrust of the government, and wild theories about one world governments, illuminati, and whatever else sounds good to the ears that week. But the eventual conclusion is, “well, I don’t like the official story, therefore the government did it”. It’s a default position based on the original assumption. We’re almost six years out from the events of 9/11, and the “Truth” movement still has no tangible evidence. It’s still operating on appeals to motive, and YouTube videos with spooky soundtracks. Much like Creationism, we need everything to fit into a quick soundbite and catch-phrase (like ‘teach the controversy’ and such), so people who have very little understanding of the subject matter can feel like they really do, and keep their a priori assumptions.

    I thought you “dared” me to debate you on 9/11. Many of the ones who believe, know, that 9/11 was a conspiracy are doctors, scientists, professionals in those areas of expertise. If they operated on the same principles of the creationist arguments then they must be right on the money and I see that would be a really good reason not to want to debate the issue. I agree with this part of the sentence above, ” A layperson with little understanding of a complex topic ignores monumental physical and tangible evidence (agreed upon by virtually the entire body of experts)” These experts that I was just talking about say that there isn’t any way that two planes hitting the twin towers could bring those building down like that in the way they fell and as fast as they fell. They proved it in many ways.

    http://newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley6.htm

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Todd, it appears to me that you are erecting the “strawman” here. I never said that “you” use wikipedia but others that I have been debating have. Sorry you were offended at that statement. It appears that you are the one who is paranoid with about any statement made that contradicts your beliefs or your stand with our fine government. END QUOTE

    You’re not debating those others when you type ‘btodd’. That’s me. Bring it up with them. Even if one does use Wikipedia, however, you can actually check the sources. Not everything on Wikipedia is truth, not everything is a lie. But it can be found out.

    So I can’t use illustrations or types or pictures from other blogs??? That’s sad! I agree with your next statements, it is basically a computer encyclopedia with truth and error in it. They try to assemble facts but they have their biases as everyone does. In reality, it is according to what bias we are biased with.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I love your arguments. “Paranoid much? Jeez,…” Is evolution a government sponsored “science” i.e. religion for our public schools? Sure it is! So do you think that the government takes it lightly when a man comes against it in the name of science? END QUOTE

    How else can I respond to claims of conspiracies everywhere? I can’t disprove a negative, so if you’ve got it in your head that all these grand conspiracies exist everywhere, how could I ever convince you that they’re not? You can always claim I just haven’t discovered the ‘truth’ yet!

    Todd, I cut this out of a post that I wrote to Samphire. You might tell me that I can’t use quotes that I made to Samphire since I am talking to you but I will anyway. I said,
    “Samphire,
    “I am glad that you said that science “doesn’t prove anything; it can only falsify”. I can see that with the help of creation scientists, they are “falsifying their “proofs” of man coming from the monkey. All of their “evidence” for monkey men have been “proven” wrong, I mean “falsified”. If only they knew that they couldn’t “prove” anything they would quit trying since they will never “prove” something that never happened. The missing links will forever remain missing since they were never there to be found. You cannot find something that was never there.”
    Todd, I am sharing the above quote with you since you told me that you can’t disprove a negative just as Samphire told me that science can’t “prove” a positive, that is from their viewpoint. In other words, it can only falisify something. I would think falisfiying something is proving something but I could be “false” in that assumption. That would seem to line up with many who are into evolution that nothing can be proven or disproven, no absolutes, you know?

    As for evolution as ‘government sponsored science’, the science that gets taught is the prevailing science of the day. Evolution has been the prevailing science, by a landslide, for many years. It is always open to be challenged, and refuted, in the scientific community, through research, papers and peer review. The government itself has no stake in your passion here, and you wouldn’t have to resort to claiming conspiracy if you had tangible evidence for your theories that stand up to scientific scrutiny.

    Todd, evolution doesn’t stand up to true science, that is why many are leaving Darwinism, it can’t stand up to the facts, to real evidence. It most certainly is government sponsored. Are you saying that those who work in our government know science, hence make it the tax-payers’ religion, I mean science?

    That’s why movements like intelligent design went for local school boards instead of peer review. We have to get this in the back-door, you know. And if Kent was ‘attacked’ because of his stand against evolution, then why aren’t all of his other peers, some of whom have greater influence, being attacked for tax charges? The answer is obvious.

    I sent a few links to others who are not paying income taxes, it is against the Constitution. It is part of the Communist Manifesto, I think it was plank 2.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Anybody can see that it didn’t take an intelligent designer to make all we see around us even though our smartest scientists cannot make what we see in this world via nature, the heavens, etc. We really only have science because of a Creator, if no design there wouldn’t be anything to study. All would be by chance and chance has no design, does it? And if so where did it come from? And when you tell me that, I ask you, do you have absolutes? And if not, how can you have science, isn’t that based on absolutes? Here is a very good link on my web site to deal with this, too much to type. END QUOTE

    Ekkman, this has been done ad nauseum by better people than you and I. As you’ve probably heard countless times, who made the designer? If some things are so complex that they must be designed, then God is more complex yet. Your solution (whether it is correct or not, which I cannot know) is no different than saying ‘It’s magic’. As my statement in parenthesis implied, I am an agnostic. We can go on for pages about whether or not there’s a creator, but you and I aren’t going to reveal anything that far greater minds haven’t all these years.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Speaking of Bush, he is in a secretive, Satanic society called the Skull and Bones. He was “born again” when one of the members pulled him out of a casket. It could have been Kerry lifting him out, who knows? I can almost sense the “paranoia” in your comments. Calm down and read, study the posts made. Don’t get angry, just focus on the subjects at hand. Compare what you “believe” with the facts. END QUOTE

    I’m familiar with the Skull and Bones conspiracies. David Icke is right around the corner to tell you how lizard people from outer space are connected with this, too. That’s what scares me about modern-day conspiracy buffs, one is never enough. One seems to lead to another, and another….and it isn’t healthy.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: John the Baptist has everything to do with the situation. If you had really read it in context and know the scriptures that I am referring to then you couldn’t miss the parallel. Now you are telling me that I took my John the Baptist illustration from Kent??? That is strange. I said that you know us a lot better than we know ourselves. Where did Kent said that? Please furnish a reference to it. Thanks! But if you were just saying it from bible figures then that is all right since Kent is a saint of God as well as any of them are. END QUOTE

    I wasn’t referencing Kent as having spoken of John the Baptist specifically, but referencing the continual usage of comparing him or his situation to characters from the Bible and their tribulations. I find it a bit dodgy and convenient. As for Kent being a Saint of God, I’ll just have to let you have that one. I can’t possibly know that, nor do I understand how you possibly could.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Here you had a wonderful opportunity to support some of your “beliefs” in this blog but you flunked out ‘for now’. I await your “proof” to show that Kent is ‘new age’ plus “fundmentalist and paranoid”. I believe that you will be able to show me that he is Fundamentalist but the paranoid doesn’t fit with a Fundamentalist unless to you, they are one and the same. END QUOTE

    First of all, re-read my last post. I DISTINCTLY said Kent is NOT new-age, but fundamentalist and paranoid. So don’t continue saying I’m claiming he’s new age. My beliefs? If you think I’m a new-age believer, I’m not. As I stated, I’m an agnostic. I read that book years ago, and it reads much like Kent’s post, where a man and God are just having a good ol’ conversation, and we’re supposed to believe it because he says he did. You also had a wonderful opportunity to tell my how you determine whether a conversation with God written by a Christian is true (and whether you believe in Kent’s version). I think it’s a very dangerous thing to promote the idea that you and God are speaking in literal sentences and having full conversations with each other. I’ve already laid out why I think he’s paranoid, with the many conspiracies and strange claims he makes regarding Creationism, tax laws, 9/11, OKC Bombings, cancer cures, and the like.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Another good answer. 9/11 “Truthers” and “Scientology” have nothing in common from what I know of them. Please furnish parallels. END QUOTE

    I lumped 9/11 Truth and Scientology in with Creationism and Intelligent Design. They don’t all share exactly the same characteristics, but there are many parallels.

    1. Use of a lack of evidence AS EVIDENCE. Intelligent Design, instead of making a positive case for it’s claim, instead spends it’s time by trying to poke holes in evolution, and then if a gap or lack of understanding is found, all other evidence is out the door and it’s, “See? God did it!” 9/11 Truth uses the same technique. “I don’t believe WTC 7 could fall since it wasn’t hit by a plane, and I don’t understand structural engineering, therefore the Government blew it up. Even though there’s zero positive evidence to support that claim, it’s now used as the default position, so you get, “Well, I don’t believe the official story, so until you convince me, the government did it!”. Scientology doesn’t really apply on this one.

    2. Resort to conspiracy. When it’s pointed out that there is no verifiable, objective or scientific evidence to back up their position, then it’s because of conspiracy. For Creationism / Intelligent Design, it’s those lying scientists that are hiding God’s truth, or the government, or atheism. For 9/11 Truth, it’s the government who is not only hiding an unimaginable amount of evidence that would signify demolitions, but also has convinced thousands of people, among multiple agencies, to go along with killing thousands of citizens and covering it up to this very day (all so we could go to war in Iraq, except we forgot to plant WMD’s and now we look like idiots- yeah, great plan). For scientology, the conspiracy is psychiatry (the entire field and all its practitioners), suppressive persons and a galactic event from 75 million years ago. They actually share some of your views on secret societies and government conspiracy.

    3. Illusionary expertise. Laypersons making claims regarding areas of expertise that require extensive education and experience in. Instead, cloaking them in just enough ‘technical speak’ to sound knowledgeable for an audience that is clearly not knowledgeable. So you have people like Dr. David Ray Griffin, a professor of Theology, giving his opinions on structural engineering and demolitions, and contradicting experts in those fields with REAL CREDENTIALS. And people actually believe him!

    The same goes for creationism vs. evolution, where someone like Kent claims a doctorate and is addressing real, educated and experienced scientists with just enough knowledge and catch-phrases to snare and already believing, unsuspecting audience. In Scientology, L Ron Hubbard made many claims to the effectiveness of Scientology over the field of psychiatry, medicine and many other sciences. Yet there are no studies or any peer review to back up those claims. His followers don’t question it, though.

    Those real, educated and experienced scientists are being blown out of the water by unreal, uneducated, and unexperienced scientists like Kent Hovind who debate them. Just watching those debates makes ou wonder how any thinking person can stay on the side of the evolutionists. But in reality, it isn’t a mind problem, it is a spiritual problem, they refuse to admit they are sinners in need of a Saviour. They are not stupid, they are blinded. Go up to a very smart blind person, show him a flower that the Lord has created. You might be amazed at their “stupidity” when they can’t see the unique design and beauty of the flower. When in reality a lot of scientists are not stupid, just blind. Satan has blinded their minds to the truth.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: It goes back to your “belief” system. The government can do no wrong and if you find out they could, there goes your god. Scary! END QUOTE

    You don’t know what you think you do. I’m not a right-wing guy, nor big on the government. I hardly believe that the government ‘can do no wrong’. I didn’t vote for Bush, I think he’s the worst president we’ve ever had, and I thought Kerry was a terrible choice also, but I voted for him because it’s all I had. I’m not for 9/11 Truth because it’s hogwash, pure and simple. Tell them to produce something factual and get back to me. I also think Holocaust-deniers are full of it too, but it’s not because I’m pro-Israel. Hogwash is hogwash, and I don’t mind calling it such.

    I didn’t know that you knew what I think I know.?
    I agree with you on your statement that Bush is the worst president we have ever had. I will add to that, it will get worse in regards to presidents and governments if God’s people don’t repent and get right with him. He is our only hope!

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Sun M Moon is not an American as far as I know. If he were, the laws would apply to him like any other American. I would defend his right to not pay income taxes if he were an American just as I would defend Kent’s right. You also didn’t read my blog very well even though it is in your rebuttal. I said, “…by your definition of theft,”END QUOTE

    I didn’t give a definition of theft, did I?

    You said that Kent stole from the government, didn’t you? You were telling her how he did those evil things to our wonderful government and how he made his wife do it too. Not an exact quote. If you want me to go back in the blogs and find it then let me know. I am still waiting on the proof regarding your new age comments that you haven’t furnished me with yet and the one that you said in this blog, that you will show me how that article regarding all those scientists can be shown incorrect or something to that effect.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I believe to understand “reason”, a person has to operating in reason. You need to calm down and read, not only read but read in context with the subject at hand. You don’t seem to be doing that by your comments all through this blog. END QUOTE

    You’re no more calm than I, please. I haven’t been rattling off about multiple agencies, all conspiring against me all the time. I think I’m doing pretty well. If I believed what you do, I don’t know how I would function nor live in this country.

    So you mean “rattling off about multiple agencies” means I am not calm? Good logic?!
    You probably wouldn’t be living without the Lord Jesus Christ. He told us to be on the watch, the last days will be the worst man has ever gone though. Seeking to convince yourself that everything is fine isn’t going to help you in the long run, you will be unprepared in other ways since you will be going through the evil days that are ahead.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: By the Constitution and Bill of Rights, no American should be paying income taxes, they are illegal. Well, it is to those who were endowed with rights by their Creator, not the ones who came out of primordial soup, oceans or whatever. Seriously though, because of the bible this land was based on you have freedoms too even though you deny the one who gave us those freedoms, the Lord Jesus Christ. One of the first things Ron Paul would do if he were President is take the IRS out.
    There are others who are not Christians or creationists but are against a corrupt government, I would back them too in that area.

    Make sure that you read the page link below and tell me if you really believe those scientists are “religious” people by your definition of religion. But they are rejecting Darwinism, not because of religion but because of science.

    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50747

    Ekkman END QUOTE

    Ekkman, I know the ‘evolution is a religion, too’ catch-phrase is really popular, but that’s only so you can feel better about not being able to defeat the science with science. If evolution is a religion, then EVERYTHING is a religion, and the word religion doesn’t mean anything.
    btodd

    Todd, Glad? to see that you realize that evolution is a religion. It takes all kinds of faith to believe in it, that is why many real scientists are turning away from it, they don’t have that much faith anymore, which in reality is blind faith.

    I don’t know anyone trying to defeat science with science unless you are talking about evolutionists. The best scientists that we have ever had were creationists. Check the link below.

    http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm

    One dictionary definition of “religion” is the worship or God or gods. In that sense, everything is a religion. Since we all have God or gods. God is the being who created everything, gods are the “beings,things” that we worship, live for, such as sex, money, popularity, looks, statues of Mary, Peter, whomever or whatever else besides the one true God. Hey Todd, let’s deal with one subject at a time so we can make our posts a lot shorter.

    Ekkman
20. Ekkman says:

    July 10, 2007 at 1:57 am

    4btodd
    Said this at 11:11pm:
    ———————————————————————– ———

    EKKMAN WROTE: Make sure that you read the page link below and tell me if you really believe those scientists are “religious” people by your definition of religion. But they are rejecting Darwinism, not because of religion but because of science. END QUOTE

    I almost missed replying to that specific question, didn’t want you to think I was dodging it, so here goes:

    I visited your link. If you want me to link you to a few articles that point out the misleading nature of that list, I can. Aside from what the articles say, how does that list tell me what their religious beliefs are? That was my point, that you don’t seem to see any non-religious movement that has problems with evolution. A list of people with various degrees, most of which have nothing to do with knowledge that even deal in subjects that involve evolution, doesn’t address that question at all. I know nothing about their religious faith. If they do believe what they signed, then I assume they might have written some papers? Some papers that address the scientific points (only) of evolution that they disbelieve?

    Todd, Please send me the few articles that supposedly show the misleading nature of the list. Since we are on this, below is a link regarding that the link I sent you was based on. This would be more open-minded to you, I guess.

    http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

    Here’s another thing. What is your definition of Darwinism? If you take that to mean ‘Godless’, and so does a person of science who is religious, then he will doubt it regardless of the science, because you have put it at odds with his faith. And it doesn’t have to be. Evolution doesn’t speak of the ultimate origin of life, that subject is called abiogenesis, or is covered under religion. The way the word Darwinism is thrown in there in brackets is suspect, as if the word evolution by itself didn’t carry as much sinister literary weight as Darwinism, which I think it’s fair to say the more literal interpretations of Christianity regard as Godless.
    btodd

    The easiest and quickest way to answer that question is defining Darwinism as macro-evolution. It never happened and never will happen. Even though it can be defined in other ways, I guess.

    We were talking about doctors, scientists, and tax experts earlier. Did you know that the only degree that Darwin had was in theology? Some people on here seem to like Wikipedia so I thought I would link their page on Darwin since they seem to think highly of this “preacher” who evolved in an agnostic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin‘s_views_on_religion

    “Those who have been intoxicated with power… can
    never willingly abandon it.”
    – Edmund Burke

    I thought that quote was interesting since it fits our government. They must be forced to abandon their power by “We, the people”.

    The Lord Jesus Christ is a prayer away. Call upon him today and experience what true life is about,freedom from sin and having peace, love, power, deliverance, healing, encouragement.

    “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” John 1:12

    Ekkman
21. btodd says:

    July 11, 2007 at 6:35 pm

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Question: “Which came first, a college run by people with diplomas or people running them without a college diploma?” My point is that you can get the knowledge at PhD level without ever going to college. By just studying, you could get even more knowledge than a person with a PhD in any particular field. END QUOTE

    That is completely absurd. Studying on your own leaves no system of checks-and-balances, so you get people who are impossible to address (like Kent), because there’s no way to show them where they are wrong. They literally have no standard, except to hold to their own faulty understanding. If it’s faulty, and mixed with faith, then it will persist forever as the delusion that it is. You go on to mention that many evolutionists won’t debate Kent, and you’re right. To do so would be foolish, because Kent has no standards, except to hold to whatever his interpretation of the Bible says. It is impossible to address him on a professional level, because he’s not a professional. To prop him up on a stage merely lowers the standards of science and reason, and gives those fanatical believers who don’t understand science a way to feel victorious.

    I would like to hear how seriously you would take a man who claims to be a heart surgeon, without going to medical school and internship, because he ‘studied alot on his own’. I assume that you would have no problem having a serious surgery performed by someone who got his PhD by correspondence from an unaccredited school that is no larger than my house? Please address this, it will show me how much you really believe what you just said.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Why are you writing in this blog? Is it to just to cause problems since you don’t have answers? END QUOTE

    I posted here originally to at least present a critical view of Kent Hovind’s delusions. I’m still here because more than one of you has addressed me and I’m too stupid to just let it go, so I’m still stuck here debating.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: You haven’t really answered anything in the blog that I sent you. This post here has little parts of my quotes. Did you read any of the links or watch any of the videos that I sent you backing up my points or did you just delete all of them “out of your mind” as you did in your reply? Then the last post you wrote on the last link that you said that you forgot to mention that one. Then you went on to imply that they weren’t really scientists, so to speak, or the article wasn’t speaking the whole truth since they reject Darwinism now. Was that a correct assumption? END QUOTE

    I confess that I don’t go chasing all of your links. I’ve already seen enough from you to know that you pretty much believe in every conspiracy out there right now. There is simply no way to reach you with reason. The only fortunate thing is that your Fundamentalist Christian beliefs will probably preclude you from being a Holocaust-denier, or I fear you would fall for that one, too. You seem to have no method for critically examining claims, instead opting for paranoia and conspiracy every time, and whatever aligns with your foregone conclusion about the Bible’s literal truth. Here is just a sample of the beliefs you’ve exposed me to, either by direct words or links:

    * The US government is behind 9/11, OKC bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge, USS Cole, and is also hiding a cure for cancer to make money.
    * We are all on our way to a one-world government, which is the motivating factor behind all the things the government does.
    * George Bush is part of a Satan-worshipping secret society, as are many of the world’s influential leaders.
    * The earth is 6000 years old (and therefore the majority of science is completely wrong).
    * The Illuminati / Trilateral Commission / Bildebergers.
    * Evolution is a religion.
    * Creationism is science.
    * There is no law requiring one to pay taxes.
    * Dinosaurs lived alongside humans.
    * Kent and Jo Hovind are being persecuted unjustly by the government for their anti-evolution stance.

    That’s just a sample; I’m sure I’ve left out a ton more. I literally have no way to reach you, because I don’t spout conspiracies.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I thought you “dared” me to debate you on 9/11. Many of the ones who believe, know, that 9/11 was a conspiracy are doctors, scientists, professionals in those areas of expertise. END QUOTE

    Wonderful! Please link me to some arguments by demolitions experts and structural engineers that support your position about the buildings. I look forward to reading the papers they’ve submitted on the subject and how they researched and tested it. Then I can see how they did under peer-review, and make an informed decision. I’m excited because 9/11 Truthers so far have only thrown out appeals to sinister motives and grand conspiracies, and put them to spooky music on YouTube. It will be very refreshing to see actual positive, scientific evidence for their demolitions claims.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I agree with this part of the sentence above, ” A layperson with little understanding of a complex topic ignores monumental physical and tangible evidence (agreed upon by virtually the entire body of experts)” These experts that I was just talking about say that there isn’t any way that two planes hitting the twin towers could bring those building down like that in the way they fell and as fast as they fell. They proved it in many ways.

    http://newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley6.htm END QUOTE

    Once again, you linked me to a hodge-podge of conspiracies about several subjects. I want to take on issue at a time, and since the most central issue is how the buildings fell, then I would like to see the evidence for your position. Is Mr. Monteith qualified in the fields of structural engineering and/or demolitions? Where did he graduate? What degree did he receive in those fields? What real-world experience does he have in those areas? If not, what good does it do to have him speculate about things he has no expertise in?

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Todd, evolution doesn’t stand up to true science, that is why many are leaving Darwinism, it can’t stand up to the facts, to real evidence. It most certainly is government sponsored. Are you saying that those who work in our government know science, hence make it the tax-payers’ religion, I mean science? END QUOTE

    No, you’re simply claiming something that isn’t true. If evolution didn’t stand up to true science, it wouldn’t be accepted, period. As the evidence mounts, there comes a point in which it is impossible to deny. Many, many theories in science have been overturned in this manner. The requirement is evidence, and even if science is slow to accept it, it is inevitable when the evidence exists. If you have a position, present evidence FOR IT. As I stated earlier, your arguments consist of trying to knock holes in evolution and then claim that the only other answer is “Goddidit”. Science is based on positive evidence. Produce some, and science will take you much more seriously. How did God do it? What are your predictions and how did your experiments show them to be true? What methods did you employ to try and falsify those predictions? That’s how it works. What would you do with a science class, simply start the semester with “Goddidit” and then take naps until next semester?

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Those real, educated and experienced scientists are being blown out of the water by unreal, uneducated, and unexperienced scientists like Kent Hovind who debate them. END QUOTE

    Keep telling yourself that. And science will keep laughing at you with good reason. What experiments has Kent done? What methods did he use? What are the real-world applications of his science? We wouldn’t have gotten very far in the fields of medicine and biology by saying “goddidit”. Let Kent show some evidence for Creationism. The theory of evolution didn’t simply poke fun at Creationism and then claim Evolution is true because Creationism isn’t. So by all means, Creationists, step up to the plate. If you want scientific credibility, then start doing science for once.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Just watching those debates makes ou wonder how any thinking person can stay on the side of the evolutionists. But in reality, it isn’t a mind problem, it is a spiritual problem, they refuse to admit they are sinners in need of a Saviour. They are not stupid, they are blinded. Go up to a very smart blind person, show him a flower that the Lord has created. You might be amazed at their “stupidity” when they can’t see the unique design and beauty of the flower. When in reality a lot of scientists are not stupid, just blind. Satan has blinded their minds to the truth. END QUOTE

    Yes yes, and faith has blinded you and Creationists from the truth. They simply refuse to admit that they need the ability to reason. You might be amazed at their stupidity when they claim that the earth is 6000 years old, but they’re not really stupid, just blinded by faith. Faith has blinded their eyes to reason.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: I didn’t know that you knew what I think I know.? END QUOTE

    Don’t try to dance around it. You tried to paint me as an overzealous right-wing fanatic who can’t bear to doubt our government. I called you out on it with that statement, because you’re dead wrong.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: You said that Kent stole from the government, didn’t you? You were telling her how he did those evil things to our wonderful government and how he made his wife do it too. Not an exact quote. If you want me to go back in the blogs and find it then let me know. I am still waiting on the proof regarding your new age comments that you haven’t furnished me with yet and the one that you said in this blog, that you will show me how that article regarding all those scientists can be shown incorrect or something to that effect. END QUOTE

    I don’t think I said Kent stole from the government at all. And I highly doubt that I used the word ‘evil’, because that’s the word you and Kent are big on. Remember, those ‘evil, wicked people’ who held him accountable for his crimes? And I’ve stated twice now that I don’t think Kent is new age. Specifically! I did make a comparison between his ‘conversation with God’ and the book of the same name, because in each one, the writer is transcribing what is supposed to be a literal conversation with God, in casual sentences just like you and I might talk. And you won’t answer the question…..do you believe what Kent posted was real? How would you go about determining such? By faith?

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: So you mean “rattling off about multiple agencies” means I am not calm? Good logic?! END QUOTE

    Yes, if everywhere you look, you see a conspiracy, then I have no problem in saying that you are not calm. Paranoia isn’t calm.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: You probably wouldn’t be living without the Lord Jesus Christ. He told us to be on the watch, the last days will be the worst man has ever gone though. Seeking to convince yourself that everything is fine isn’t going to help you in the long run, you will be unprepared in other ways since you will be going through the evil days that are ahead. END QUOTE

    Yes, and ever since he said that, people have believed that their present time was part of those last days. But they were all wrong, yet Ekkman is right about it. Or maybe I don’t understand how many days count as the last days? I mean if it’s the last gazillion days, then I suppose you could be right.

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: One dictionary definition of “religion” is the worship or God or gods. In that sense, everything is a religion. Since we all have God or gods. God is the being who created everything, gods are the “beings,things” that we worship, live for, such as sex, money, popularity, looks, statues of Mary, Peter, whomever or whatever else besides the one true God. Hey Todd, let’s deal with one subject at a time so we can make our posts a lot shorter.

    Ekkman END QUOTE

    That’s one of the most prized tactics used by Creationists. Just redefine words to mean what you want them to mean so you can pretend to have a point. Nobody ‘worships’ evolution, it’s a scientific theory. Don’t try to bring us down to your level because you refuse to do science. Finally, yes, let’s narrow this down. I don’t mind debating on the 9/11 thing so much, but I really don’t think this is the place to do so, and having been in them several times, I know that what each of us regards as credible evidence are so opposite, we’ll end up feeling like we’re talking to bricks. Further, I’ll try to accommodate you and others for a bit longer, but I’m not going to spend weeks on CSE Blogs debating people whom I have no chance of reaching. So if there’s a point for us to finish on, you choose it. I came here to present a different side to the story for those who are either on the fence or just haven’t bothered to look. I don’t plan on staying just to antagonize you people, that isn’t admirable in the slightest.

    btodd

    [EDITOR'S NOTE:  Gentlemen, unfortunately we must limit the C-E (creation v. evolution) Debate.  We know that Dr. Hovind did some 100 debates against leading evolutionists.  He kept winning.  http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=629DVD  What scientists believe and what the science shows are sometimes at odds.  (Remember Galileo, an example of scientists being wrong for over 1,000 years!)  Atheism is a religion in its contention that a Supreme Being(s) does not exist, of course.  That makes evolution, in denying God's role, religious.  And it most certainly is NOT based on science.  Otherwise they'd be the first to want textbooks with evolutionary pseudo-science corrected.  They don't.  (See Dr. Hovind's Seminar #4, "Lies in the Textbooks"  http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=443 )   Most evolutionists put their religion ahead of science.  P.A.  ]
22. btodd says:

    July 12, 2007 at 5:47 pm

    QUOTE BY THE EDITOR: What scientists believe and what the science shows are sometimes at odds. (Remember Galileo, an example of scientists being wrong for over 1,000 years!) END QUOTE

    And how did those wrong ideas get corrected, sir? By science. THAT’S why there is never a closed book on the facts (unlike religion), because new information can show previously held theories to be wrong. That’s how science works! Eventually, the evidence becomes so substantial that denial is not possible. If Intelligent Design or Creationism can ever produce some positive evidence for their claims, then they can join the world of science, too.. Until then, you can call it whatever you want, but it isn’t science in the slightest. I will repeat: Evolution didn’t get accepted simply by claiming that Creationism is false. But that’s the tactic you want to be used, as if showing gaps in understanding about evolution makes your view correct by default. How scientific of you!

    QUOTE BY THE EDITOR: Atheism is a religion in its contention that a Supreme Being(s) does not exist, of course. END QUOTE

    That would be strong atheism, and you’ll hardly ever run into one who makes that claim. Most atheists (if you actually listened) are atheists because they see no evidence for a God. So they are without belief, but it doesn’t mean that new evidence couldn’t convince them. Keep redefining words, though, it will work on those who don’t wish to look any deeper.

    QUOTE BY THE EDITOR: That makes evolution, in denying God’s role, religious. END QUOTE

    Evolution says NOTHING about God. Evolution shows how life has evolved from lesser forms into more complex ones. You are equating Evolution with Abiogenesis, and you are either being less than truthful, or you simply don’t understand what you’re saying. There are millions of Christians that believe in Evolution. EVOLUTION AND BELIEF IN GOD ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! They’re only mutually exclusive if you take the Bible LITERALLY. That’s why I resent your particular brand of Christianity, you wish to impose a false dichotomy on the rest of Christians who might be able to attain a reasonable faith.

    END QUOTE: And it most certainly is NOT based on science. Otherwise they’d be the first to want textbooks with evolutionary pseudo-science corrected. They don’t. (See Dr. Hovind’s Seminar #4, “Lies in the Textbooks” http://shopping.drdino.com/view_item.php?id=443 ) Most evolutionists put their religion ahead of science. P.A. ] END QUOTE

    You would have us believe that science is religion, and religion is science. Good luck with your re-defining of words.

    btodd

    [EDITOR'S NOTE:  In showing evolution to be religious, I am standing against "science, falsely so-called" but not at all against real science.  I love science.  And like Galileo, I stand against the consensus of unscientific scientists who are wallowing in their vain traditions and peer-pressure/peer-review hollow beliefs that they just must be right.  Pasteur - mocked by scientists.  Einstein - also insulted for challenging quantum mechanics with his relativity notions.  The consensus of scientists is often wrong.  It is up to us scientifically thinking persons to correct them once again regarding the religion of evolution - a non-testable-repeatable belief system that defies science and that hides from our Maker.   P.A.

    1 Timothy 6:20  "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called."  ]
23. Three Crosses says:

    July 13, 2007 at 10:18 am

    To btodd:
    Evolution simply calls it’s god “process”. All of the unexplained “processes” which allow magical things to happen, fins to wings, bannana to bird, or anything rather than die. It requires conscious thought. That is why evolution is a religion.

    With love Three Crosses

    P.s. To Paul I’m trying to keep it short

    P.s.s. To btodd you played semantics all through your post and then you accused Paul of it.
24. btodd says:

    July 13, 2007 at 8:41 pm

    THREE CROSSES WROTE:
    Evolution simply calls it’s god “process”. All of the unexplained “processes” which allow magical things to happen, fins to wings, bannana to bird, or anything rather than die. It requires conscious thought. That is why evolution is a religion.

    With love Three Crosses

    P.s. To Paul I’m trying to keep it short

    P.s.s. To btodd you played semantics all through your post and then you accused Paul of it. END QUOTE

    I find it very ironic that you used the phrase ‘allows magical things to happen’ regarding evolution, when a giant magic trick is your ultimate conclusion.

    Evolution calls it’s ‘God’ process? Are you simply trying to goad me, or are you really that wrong? A God is a supernatural being. Evolution is a scientific theory. No matter how many times you repeat “evolution is a religion” or anything similar, you will still be completely and embarrassingly wrong, and simply reinforce the point that Creationism has no positive arguments to make in support of its own position.

    Should I start calling Christianity a cult? How about I just keep repeating that, no matter how many times you explain the difference between a religion and a cult? Then I can argue against cults and pretend it’s an argument against Christianity. Won’t that be fun and educational?

    Finally, what semantics? Seriously, point out any semantical statement I made.

    btodd
25. Three Crosses says:

    July 14, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    First to Paul: I know this looks like debate on evolution but it isn’t. I would say it’s theology and semantics (maybe a little debate).
    //////////////////////////////

    To btodd: Arguing semantics is when you fight over and change word meanings in any given language. Good examples would be:

    “And how did those wrong ideas get corrected, sir? By science. THAT’S why there is never a closed book on the facts (unlike religion), because new information can show previously held theories to be wrong. That’s how science works! Eventually, the evidence becomes so substantial that denial is not possible. If Intelligent Design or Creationism can ever produce some positive evidence for their claims, then they can join the world of science, too.. Until then, you can call it whatever you want, but it isn’t science in the slightest. I will repeat: Evolution didn’t get accepted simply by claiming that Creationism is false. But that’s the tactic you want to be used, as if showing gaps in understanding about evolution makes your view correct by default. How scientific of you!”

    All through your argument, you argue that the religion of evolution somehow means “science” and “facts”. When it is just a religion. If you are interested in history and facts you will find evolution was only excepted because; priests from different religions started blending it in to their Bibles and teachings. They were terrifed that “science falsely so called” (evolution) would prove them wrong. The scientists laughed it off and still do. Evolution has never joined the world of science it is a religion. But hey semantics is a science so “How scientific of you!”

    Another good example is this:

    “That would be strong atheism, and you’ll hardly ever run into one who makes that claim. Most atheists (if you actually listened) are atheists because they see no evidence for a God. So they are without belief, but it doesn’t mean that new evidence couldn’t convince them. Keep redefining words, though, it will work on those who don’t wish to look any deeper.”

    Atheism means “the denial of the existance of God”! This is not the same as the meaning you have tagged onto it, which is “ignorance”(not having been educated or shown evidences). The evidences for God, are usually the ones you claim for the reigion of evolution.

    Oh here’s some more good examples:

    “Evolution says NOTHING about God. Evolution shows how life has evolved from lesser forms into more complex ones. You are equating Evolution with Abiogenesis, and you are either being less than truthful, or you simply don’t understand what you’re saying. There are millions of Christians that believe in Evolution. EVOLUTION AND BELIEF IN GOD ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! They’re only mutually exclusive if you take the Bible LITERALLY. That’s why I resent your particular brand of Christianity, you wish to impose a false dichotomy on the rest of Christians who might be able to attain a reasonable faith.”

    Here you once again change the religion of evolution into something else. I guess you simply “don’t understand what you’re saying”. Man is not becoming more complex, he is breaking down! Evolution says alot about God, it shows us there doesn’t appear to be any other reasonable explanation.
    You changed out the meaning of the word saved for Christian. You should have claimed billions, the catholics claim evolution is a fact. If you don’t believe the Bible literally there is not any reason to be a Christian. I resent that you add the word reasonable to faith to try and change the meaning of faith. The last part of your statement contradicts the rest of your statement. If there is no evidence then faith would not be reasonable. So you are “being less than truthful and redefining words”

    I’ll try to speed this last part up a little
    your statement:

    “I find it very ironic that you used the phrase ‘allows magical things to happen’ regarding evolution, when a giant magic trick is your ultimate conclusion.
    Evolution calls it’s ‘God’ process? Are you simply trying to goad me, or are you really that wrong? A God is a supernatural being. Evolution is a scientific theory. No matter how many times you repeat “evolution is a religion” or anything similar, you will still be completely and embarrassingly wrong, and simply reinforce the point that Creationism has no positive arguments to make in support of its own position.
    Should I start calling Christianity a cult? How about I just keep repeating that, no matter how many times you explain the difference between a religion and a cult? Then I can argue against cults and pretend it’s an argument against Christianity. Won’t that be fun and educational?”

    Here’s my point first look up “ironic”
    ‘allows magical things to happen’ That’s evolution, a giant magic trick is your ultimate conclusion.

    Evolution calls it’s ‘God’ process? A God is a supernatural being. Evolution is a supernatural being. “evolution is a religion”, you are still be completely and embarrassingly wrong, and simply reinforce the point that evolution has no positive arguments to make in support of its own position.

    Should I start calling evolution a cult? How about I just keep repeating that, no matter how many times you explain the difference between a religion and a cult? Then I can argue against cults and pretend it’s an argument against evolution. Won’t that be fun and educational?

    I’m sorry, I would have tried to be more polite than you were, but turning your statements about our perspective religions back to you was just alot easier. If you don’t mind a little critique a dictionary comes in handy!

    And by the way, Paul never said creationism was science. He only pointed out your religion wasn’t either!
    With love Three Crosses

    p.s. may God grant you clarity of sight.
26. btodd says:

    July 15, 2007 at 11:21 am

    THREE CROSSES, let’s simplify here. I stated that you guys are trying to re-define words to help you make arguments. I corrected your definitions.

    You come back, and change the definitions, once again, to what you want them to mean so you can claim that evolution and creationism are on level playing fields (which is ridiculous).

    I specifically stated that evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion. You claim that I’m playing semantical games by doing such. So please, grab your local dictionary, or search the web definitions, and provide me with a definition that labels evolution a religion. If I’M the one who is changing definitions, you should be able to provide me with examples of evolution being defined as a religion. Please cite your source when you do so.

    The same goes for atheism. I pointed out the two different types of atheism, strong atheism (which is more rare, and actually asserts that God does not exist), and weak atheism (which means a lack of belief in God due to lack of evidence). My search through the definitions shows me to be correct, as atheism is defined (they don’t typically define ‘strong’ or ‘weak’, but instead present both views under the general heading of ATHEISM).

    Further, as I have pointed out, Evolution does not equal Atheism. There are millions of Catholics who believe in Evolution, and they are NOT ATHEISTS. So to make that connection is patently false.

    The theory that life came from non-life (an oversimplifacation, but I’m trying to help you here) is ABIOGENESIS. Please stop confusing that with evolution, which only addresses how life has evolved from lesser forms to more complex ones.

    btodd

    [EDITOR'S NOTE:  "Take Our Quiz: Is Evolution a Religion?"

    http://www.creationism.org/articles/EvolutionQuiz.htm  

    Babel is reversing around us.  Babel divided our early ancestors.  Everyone, until recently, still remembered this event:  http://www.creationism.org/flood/FrazerFolkloreOT_5.htm  But now humankind is coming back together.  This is happening in government, in economics, and ... in religions.  It is true that many Catholics (and Mormons, Shintoists, Jews, and wayward Protestants, etc.) believe evolution.  But it subtly* changes their understanding of our ancient history.  God is shunted to the side.  It purports that we are going up automatically, rather than down in sin.  It is subtly (*Gen. 3:1) building a common foundation for all the non-Bible believing religious systems.  It is an anti-history; a false foundation.  It is a step of re-coalescence into a false (anti-)history (a history that never happened, but it will be believed to have happened in men's minds) so that the anti-Christ can then arrive as the "answer" for that false belief system.  (Christ came as the answer to our true history of the Fall and our need for salvation.  Conversely, the anti-Christ will come as the great answer to this now growing anti-history.)   By the Tribulation there will only be two main religions: Bible believers and everyone else as they follow the Anti-Christ (built on this prepared anti-history) to their future destruction.  P.A.  ]
27. Soundman says:

    July 15, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    I have been praying for Kent Hovind and consider his conviction of not paying taxes to be suspect considering his ministry is a religious non profit organization that is supposedly not subject to taxes.

    His conversation with God is an amusing take on the personal relationship Dr Hovind has with the God who created heaven and earth and to whom we will all stand. Some of us will be glad to be before him, others will not be so glad.

    More importantly, If and stress the word IF Kent Hovind has been breaking the law (I have had no suspicions or reasons to suspect that) Then I have absolutely no doubt that God will personally punish him. And, I don’t think God’s sentence would be only a ten year sentence. God has a way of dealing with those who bring embarrassment to his name on a somewhat more permanent basis.

    It seems to me that he has simply joined a long list of men who have had to face imprisonment for the sake of freedom, (religious or political.)

    I do believe it is way too early to throw rocks at him. The very real possibility is that his imprisonment is the work of those who hate him, his work and his god.

    What I have know of Kent Hovind suggests that he would obey a righteous law as a religious duty and disobey an unrighteous law as a patriot.

    But, that’s just my opinion.
28. Three Crosses says:

    July 16, 2007 at 10:58 am

    To btodd:
    You really missed the point of my post didn’t you. I’m sorry you think your religion is more important that mine. Your religion only offers death, hatred, racism, and genocide. It offers no salvation only justification for the horrible things people do to one another.

    It’s not science no matter how many times you repeat it. Just like your definitions, you do an online search for anyone who agrees with what you think a word should mean “or search the web definitions”.

    You didn’t read my post very closely! All catholics BELIEVE YOUR RELIGION if they don’t they are heretics to the catholic church. Catholics call the elected pope god.

    My dictionary is the “Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English language” I’ve only read about 8 different definitions for religion. They all cover your belief and devotion to your religion.

    may God grant you clarity of sight

    P.S. I’m sorry if I belittled your process I know how you feel about him.

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

    Dear Mediator: It’s not debate but it is evolution. Isn’t a “double standard” interesting they won’t make anything alright in front of the judgement seat of Christ!
    If you have time what do you think of “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (II John 1:10+11)

    With Love three crosses

    [EDITOR'S NOTE:  There are sinners and there are saints (who still sin).  But one could argue that there is a third category.

    Genesis 3:15  "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

    Satan has a seed?  This prophecy appears to not only foretell the Messiah, but also ... that her seed and the serpent's seed will hurt each other. 

    Matthew 23:33  "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

    Matthew 23 is where Jesus takes the false teachers of His day to task.  He calls them a "brood of vipers" or "generation or vipers."  (Also see Matthew 3:7, where John the Baptist states similarly.)

    One who misleads others spiritually makes himself or herself a teacher over others.  They impact lives.  They are not "partly good" if the fruit is bad.  We are warned of what to look for.  Don't look for gifts, they can be mimicked.  Moses had Aaron throw down his rod (Exodus 7:10-12), and then so did the Pharaoh's magicians.  Are there televangelists who get folks "slain in the spirit"? - So what.  What are the fruits!?  Again, don't look for signs, and miracles, and wonders.  Jesus told us what to look for.  Don't look for gifts.  Look for the fruits!
    

    Matthew 7:15-18  "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." 

    The Bible says almost nothing about the history of the "seed of the serpent" but it appears to be a theme down through time.  Do not wish them "Godspeed" nor encourage their truly anti-evangelism efforts.  P.A.  ]
29. btodd says:

    July 16, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    QUOTE BY THREE CROSSES: To btodd:
    You really missed the point of my post didn’t you. I’m sorry you think your religion is more important that mine. Your religion only offers death, hatred, racism, and genocide. It offers no salvation only justification for the horrible things people do to one another. END QUOTE

    What’s the matter, you realized that you couldn’t back up your claim? I can. Since you’re convinced that evolution is responsible for death, hatred, racism and genocide, I guess you skipped reading the Old Testament. All of those things are in there, coming from the religion you endorse so vehemently.

    LOL, you couldn’t find any definitions that fit what you were saying, so that equates to me ‘missing the point of your post’. Good one!

    QUOTE BY THREE CROSSES: It’s not science no matter how many times you repeat it. Just like your definitions, you do an online search for anyone who agrees with what you think a word should mean “or search the web definitions”. END QUOTE

    You shouldn’t even be allowed to use the word ‘science’. Check the standard definitions, I’m not asking you to accept one from some anti-Christian site or something. Check any source you want.

    QUOTE BY THREE CROSSES: You didn’t read my post very closely! All catholics BELIEVE YOUR RELIGION if they don’t they are heretics to the catholic church. Catholics call the elected pope god. END QUOTE

    Yes, I realize that your narrow version of Christianity is the only true path.

    QUOTE BY THREE CROSSES: My dictionary is the “Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English language” I’ve only read about 8 different definitions for religion. They all cover your belief and devotion to your religion. END QUOTE

    Wait a second, you said evolution is a religion. I asked you to find a source that agrees with that definition of evolution. Now you are claiming that you read the definition for ‘religion’ instead, and interpreted it to include evolution. How honest of you! Did the definition list evolution as a synonym?

    Did you look up atheism, too? Or did you just skip all of that, and proceed in a different direction to avoid being dead wrong in front of everyone?

    Yes, that’s exactly what you did. Much like End Times earlier, who refuses to admit either being wrong or dishonest about his direct quote of me. He’ll be missed!

    Anyway, re-defining words isn’t going to work, as you see.

    btodd
30. Three Crosses says:

    July 16, 2007 at 8:34 pm

    Dear Paul: Thank you for the in depth answer it really gives me something to think about and it was very different from any other answer I had received. God bless!!

    ////////////////////////////
    To btodd: You’re right changing definitions doesn’t seem to work. That’s why I didn’t. I did quote the definition for atheism. That’s why it was in quotes. Putting words in my mouth is an interesting way to argue a point. I didn’t say I was convinced of anything, I just told you what your religion offers. Who would think the history of humankind would have death, hatred, racism and genocide. You seem to be saying “science is a religion” and not testable, demonstratable, observable, and repeatable. Webster’s definition of religion “something that has a powerful hold on a person’s way of thinking”. Geno has another one on your side of the argument listed under (Thanking You for Your Prayers).
    /btodd said “Yes, I realize that your narrow version of Christianity is the only true path.”
    Dear sir I did not write the “catechism of the catholic church” THE CATHOLICS DID! I guess you want to rant and rave because they agree with you.
    /You also said: “Wait a second, you said evolution is a religion.”
    Exactly!!!! ding! ding! ding! It requires a whole lot of faith to believe that 13+ billion years ago nothing poofed into everything.
    Are you trying to say evolution only means change? If you are we may agree with each other, but then again do you evolve a flat tire?
    Btodd I’m not here to fight with you. I just personally don’t like your religion. I don’t know you, but I do hope you wake up to the world around you.
    With love three crosses
31. Ekkman says:

    July 18, 2007 at 9:33 pm

    Jul
    11btodd
    Said this at 6:35pm:
    ——————————————————————————–

    QUOTE BY EKKMAN: Question: “Which came first, a college run by people with diplomas or people running them without a college diploma?” My point is that you can get the knowledge at PhD level without ever going to college. By just studying, you could get even more knowledge than a person with a PhD in any particular field. END QUOTE

    “That is completely absurd. Studying on your own leaves no system of checks-and-balances,”

    Todd,
    You go on and on and on talking about how silly my question was but you didn’t answer it. Where did the “checks and balances” come from, for the first professor or professors? Did they just give each other degrees or what? So you are telling me since you implied that it was a stupid question. So the first college professor got his degree even though there wasn’t any college to get it or if the college came first who taught the man what he needed to know to get his degree?

    Please remember you are talking to a guy who is probably not anywhere close to your level of expertise or so it appears by your statement to me above. Did the very first professor study “on his own” in the same way that you are implying that Kent studied on his own? Or would you agree that the first professor probably discussed with others of like intelligence and they learned from each other as Kent has not only in school but with other scientists?

    Ekkman
32. Ekkman says:

    July 19, 2007 at 1:31 am

    11btodd
    Said this at 6:35pm:

    I confess that I don’t go chasing all of your links. I’ve already seen enough from you to know that you pretty much believe in every conspiracy out there right now. There is simply no way to reach you with reason. The only fortunate thing is that your Fundamentalist Christian beliefs will probably preclude you from being a Holocaust-denier, or I fear you would fall for that one, too. You seem to have no method for critically examining claims, instead opting for paranoia and conspiracy every time, and whatever aligns with your foregone conclusion about the Bible’s literal truth. Here is just a sample of the beliefs you’ve exposed me to, either by direct words or links:

    * The US government is behind 9/11, OKC bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge, USS Cole, and is also hiding a cure for cancer to make money.
    Ekkman said,
    True but if I supplied proof, links by people that even you would approve of then you probably wouldn’t go to the links like you told me in your last post to me.

    * We are all on our way to a one-world government, which is the motivating factor behind all the things the government does.
    Ekkman said,
    Mostly true but not “all” the things they do but many of them.

    * George Bush is part of a Satan-worshipping secret society, as are many of the world’s influential leaders.
    Ekkman said,
    The skull and Bones is a Satanic Society. If you did a little research you would see this is true. I could supply different links but you have already shown me that you don’t read them. They are a waste of time for you or so it seems.

    * The earth is 6000 years old (and therefore the majority of science is completely wrong).
    Ekkman said,
    The majority of science has been wrong on many things in the past and will be wrong on things in the present and in the future. Science is learning. Many scientists don’t agree with each other. That is one reason that 700 scientists signed the petition saying that they don’t agree with Darwinism. Talking about Darwinism, you didn’t mention what you thought of my definition that you wanted from me. I gave it.

    * The Illuminati / Trilateral Commission / Bildebergers.
    Ekkman said, Once again different politicians have admitted that they are in some of the groups mentioned above.

    * Evolution is a religion.
    Ekkman said,
    Evolution is a religion and there are many scientists in that religion but are getting out.

    * Creationism is science.
    Ekkman said,
    Creationist is a religion but the scientists in Creationism use the bible as a guide line when they study science text books as well as nature to understand the things around us.Ekkman said,
    Kent Hovind never said that nor did anyone on this blog that I know of. You are on here slamming a man whom it appears that you know very little about from the above comment. Kent continually said that he pays all the taxes he owes. There are many taxes that we all pay that are legal taxes, the income tax is not one of them. That subject has been covered in depth on these blogs. Please read a little deeper before you make comments like that.
    http://www.wethepeoplecongress.org/

    * Dinosaurs lived alongside humans.
    Ekkman said,
    True, but you stick your head in the sand for all the proof that has been supplied already so what can I say.” You don’t read the links but I will give you a few in this post until you tell me that you will not read them.>/b>
    http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id17.htm

    * Kent and Jo Hovind are being persecuted unjustly by the government for their anti-evolution stance.
    Ekkman said,
    I have already talked about this. Look at the link below and tell me why Kent is being treated the way he is using your logic. Also explain the one about Sun M. Moon, the one who supplies light to our government now but he was a big time “income tax evader” and he was only in pen for a few months. Using your logic, he “stole” a lot more than Kent ever did.

    Please read the article below and tell me if it is just written by a religious fanatic who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22457.html

    Maybe you will agree that they are “justified” in what they are doing. You can also give me your opinion on the link below. If you are dogmatically certain that you are not going to read any of the links then let me know and I won’t send any more of them.

    http://freehovind.com/info-hovind’s_legal_battles
    To see a little deeper into Kent’s legal battles.
    Under “info” on the http://www.Freehovind.com/info page

    Ekkman

    [EDITOR'S NOTE:  Always CLOSE any HTML tags (bold, italic) that you open, please.  P.A.  ]
33. Kristina says:

    July 29, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    Beloved Brother Hovind,

    My heart has grieved so much these past months thinking about how easily you were taken down, and all actually for not rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesars… how I wish you were still on the road, and that the Gov’t had it’s full share of your proceeds from the Lord’s work and people. It has been instructive to me. It makes me want to be sure I get persecuted for serving Christ, not for standing against a Shadow Gov’t and being a citizen of the true USA…

    I see by what has happened to you that it is later than we think in this nation, we are now fully the united states, not the United States of America… your treatment puts that on display in the brightest way… although that is temporal at best. As I see the violence that has been done to you and your wife – as easily as swatting at a fly – my heart aches for you all, and for all true believers at what it portends.

    My prayers for you include thankfulness at how the Lord is working this for good, for salvation of lost souls and to see what else He has in store dear brother. This I know, you are surely His beloved son and He will be with your precious wife as He is with you.

    I want you to know our hearts and home are open to you and yours. Our love and prayers go with you. Keep posting so we can follow. We need you as much now as we ever did.

    In His love for you and ours,
    Kristina Floyd
34. Padenreilly says:

    September 18, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    The Atheists are having a field day with one of God’s great preachers in the clink. I’m Suprised that they are not making Kent Hovinds arrest into an Atheist Holiday. The humanists already have April fools day, why do they need another one! I sent a letter to Dr. Hovind with that comment (as well as a cartoon that I made), he wrote back saying he loved it and told me to post what I said in this blog. I hope he gets out of jail and back into the mission field, we need more harvesters for the field! By the way If you want to see my cartoon you can go to my website.
35. Paul Kirshner says:

    November 11, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Hi – I don’t comment on many blogs but had to on yours. It’s really nice! I really like how you write – very to the point. Thanks for having this site. I don’t have time to read all the information you have right now, I found this site when looking for something else on Bing, but I’ve bookmarked your homepage and will visit again soon to see the latest articles. I always enjoy reading on the internet about religious topics. Do you suggest any particular biblical commentaries? I’m looking for one to start reading, I just finished one and need a new one to read. I have a site with scripture and related art on it. Please visit it – it as at http://www.GotTB.com. Do you have a favorite Bible passage or story? I would not even know where to being the processing of picking just one. God’s Peace!