Kent Hovind Is Sentenced

After a nearly three-month wait, the wheels of our legal system have turned, and justice has been done at last: Kent Hovind, tax protestor and creationist con man extraordinaire, has been sentenced to ten years in federal prison for tax evasion. Hovind’s wife Jo, who was also convicted on the same slate of charges, will be sentenced in March.

When writing about Hovind’s conviction back in November, I said:

I think an eight- to twelve-year sentence would suit him well, although I suspect something in the neighborhood of three to six years is more likely.

This is one instance where I am pleasantly surprised to be wrong: the judge imposed the very sentence I thought would be most fitting, not the one I expected him to give. Best of all, the fact that Hovind will be serving his sentence in federal prison means that Florida’s governor, Republican Charlie Crist, will not be able to pardon him to score cheap political points with Christian fundamentalists. (I suppose it’s not out of the question that George W. Bush will pardon Hovind, but I doubt it.)

Ten years is a harsh sentence, no doubt about it. On the other hand, Hovind willfully chose to break the law, knowing exactly what he was getting into. Even after an earlier attempt of his to get out of paying taxes, by petitioning for bankruptcy, was rejected with the court finding that he had filed false statements in bad faith, he was unrepentant and chose to continue his illegal behavior. He has absolutely no one to blame but himself, and he now has a long time to reflect on the consequences of his actions and to learn that the privileges our society grants its citizens do not come for free.

Interestingly, it seems the time Hovind spent in jail awaiting sentencing may already have begun to affect his behavior. From the Pensacola News-Journal article reporting on the sentencing:

Prior to his sentencing, a tearful Kent Hovind, also known as “Dr. Dino” asked for the court’s leniency.

“If it’s just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach,” Hovind said.

This is a fairly dramatic reversal of Hovind’s previous position that he was not obligated to pay the government anything, although, as usual for him, it totally misses the point. It is not “just money” the IRS wants; it wants people who live in the United States to accept that they are subject to the law and act accordingly. Hovind instead acted as if he had a right to break the law whenever he saw fit, and he is now being punished to disabuse him of that notion. (A commenter on the PNJ forum noted perceptively that Hovind seems to think other people can shield him from punishment by complying with the law on his behalf – a result, perhaps, of the illogical notion of substitutive sacrifice at the heart of his own fundamentalist Christian beliefs.)

The PNJ article contains several amusing comments from true believers furious over the “persecution” of their idol Hovind. Here’s an especially vicious example:

Doubtless, by now those involved in this case have begun to experience the first wave of horror come in their own lives. Perhaps they have not yet put 2+2 together… but soon enough they will. That extra glass of wine to relax.. the antidepressants they take will not soothe them. The inward terror will fester, grow and follow them about withersoever they go.

…Who knows the extent and weight of a divine curse, how far it reaches, how deep it pierces? God’s pronouncing a man cursed makes him so; for those whom he curses are cursed indeed.

Yes, it is a sad and sorry day for the Hovinds today.. but prayer needs to go up for the wicked ones involved in this case ..if it were only the wrath of man these folks had invoked.. it would be but a small matter.. but these poor fools have placed themselves under the wrath of the almighty God and there is no escape…

Feel that Christian compassion! So much for “love your enemies”, apparently. That notion, regardless of what it has to recommend it, tends to go up in smoke as soon as someone does or says something that religious fundamentalists do not like, and is replaced instead by deranged revenge fantasies. Truly, their concern for others is no more than skin-deep.

About Adam Lee

Adam Lee is an atheist writer and speaker living in New York City. His new novel, Broken Ring, is available in paperback and e-book. Read his full bio, or follow him on Twitter.

  • http://www.booktalk.org Chris O’Connor

    I just found your Blog and am loving it. I don’t fully understand what Hovind did to get 10 years, but he has caused harm to this world in so many other ways that it hardly matters to me. Kent Hovind has helped dumb down an already ignorant society by preaching nonsense and pseudoscience.

  • David Goza

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (Ohhhh, let me catch my breath….) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Man, oh man! A ten-year sentence is, what, roughly .0017% of the ENTIRE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE!

  • David Goza

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA (Ohhhh, let me catch my breath….) HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Man, oh man! A ten-year sentence is, what, roughly .0017% of the ENTIRE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE!

  • http://secularplanet.blogspot.com Secular Planet

    There is no reversal or repentance in quote by Hovind. He said that he would be willing to pay the money to get out, not that the government was actually due that money or that he was wrong for taking it. Hovind may be sorry, but that sentence doesn’t indicate it.

  • http://secularplanet.blogspot.com Secular Planet

    There is no reversal or repentance in quote by Hovind. He said that he would be willing to pay the money to get out, not that the government was actually due that money or that he was wrong for taking it. Hovind may be sorry, but that sentence doesn’t indicate it.

  • http://hellboundalleee.blogspot.com Alison

    It would be silly to expect repentance or regret from Hovind. He doesn’t think he did anything wrong. Do we expect people to lie to make us feel better? Anyway, I don’t think he deserves 10 years for not paying the gov’t. To me, Hovind and the gov’t are simply competing religions, and Hovind gets 10 (actually, probably just a couple) years to “educate” a captive audience about his bullcrap. And his fans get a martyr. Nobody wins. He gets to continue to believe that America is atheist or whatever, and is against Christianity, when “america” just wants his $ to waste teaching children that marijuana is bad, recycling is wonderful, and violent coercion is good and patriotic. All I see is Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

  • http://hellboundalleee.blogspot.com Alison

    It would be silly to expect repentance or regret from Hovind. He doesn’t think he did anything wrong. Do we expect people to lie to make us feel better? Anyway, I don’t think he deserves 10 years for not paying the gov’t. To me, Hovind and the gov’t are simply competing religions, and Hovind gets 10 (actually, probably just a couple) years to “educate” a captive audience about his bullcrap. And his fans get a martyr. Nobody wins. He gets to continue to believe that America is atheist or whatever, and is against Christianity, when “america” just wants his $ to waste teaching children that marijuana is bad, recycling is wonderful, and violent coercion is good and patriotic. All I see is Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

  • Snail

    Does this mean he’ll be in jail when Jesus comes?

  • Snail

    Does this mean he’ll be in jail when Jesus comes?

  • Chris C

    Alison,

    How can you say that the government is a competing religion? That is ridiculous, especially when you consider that millions of religious people manage to live within the laws set down by the government without betraying their religion. You might have a point with regards to blind nationalism, but given the popularity of the current president, it seems to me that most people are not so devoted to the state.

    Hovind repeatedly broke the tax law in very significant amounts and then proceeded to lie about it. He’s had years to straighten himself out, and he completely failed to do so. As such, he is subject to criminal penalties. This is not a case of him forgetting to do his taxes one year; he has been committing willful and unrepentant tax fraud. He deserves what he got.

    As to martyrdom, his followers are going to buy his story not matter what they see or hear. It is just like reading the Bible and inventing ways to get around the passages that you don’t like. If we bend the laws around him to avoid it, we have set a precedent that I don’t care for–namely that people are exempt from following the laws of this country if they have (or claim) religious motivation.

    No, he must be punished. It is unfair to everyone else, including the religious followers who somehow manage to also follow the law, to create an exception to avoid making a big deal out of him.

    P.S. Ebonmuse,

    I’ve really enjoyed the material you’ve put up here. (Just thought I’d let you know.)

  • TPK

    ZEUS DAMN IT, now what do I do?!?!?!?? My budget is limited, and I don’t have enough to contribute to both Benny Hinn’s new jet and Dr. Kent’s tax bill….

  • TPK

    ZEUS DAMN IT, now what do I do?!?!?!?? My budget is limited, and I don’t have enough to contribute to both Benny Hinn’s new jet and Dr. Kent’s tax bill….

  • Alex Weaver

    Alison:

    Government as a religion?

    Um…that…I’m really…gonna have to see some extraordinary proof of.

    Incidentally, what exactly is your objection to recycling?

  • Alex Weaver

    Alison:

    Government as a religion?

    Um…that…I’m really…gonna have to see some extraordinary proof of.

    Incidentally, what exactly is your objection to recycling?

  • http://infophilia.blogspot.com Infophile

    Alex: I’ll refer you to Penn and Teller’s episode of Bullshit! on recycling.

    In case you don’t have time or ability to watch it, let me sum up their points:

    1. The energy used to recycle most materials is significantly worse for the environment than the benefit it gets from reusing the small portion that actually is reusable (the one exception is Aluminum).
    2. Paper, the most commonly recycled material, is a renewable resource (from trees). In fact, the more paper we recycle, the fewer trees we need to grow. Having fewer trees is bad for the environment.
    3. There’s no crisis on running out of landfill space. Even over the next 1,000 years, at our current rate, we’ll have plenty of room. (Personal note: Over that time scale, I believe we’ll also see significant decomposition, so we can even start to reuse space.)

  • Alex Weaver

    And what about plastic, which is as I understand it mostly made from petroleum, a conspicuously non-renewable resource?

    And that point about the trees only holds if one postulates that trees will only be planted if people intend to harvest them for paper later.

  • Alex Weaver

    And what about plastic, which is as I understand it mostly made from petroleum, a conspicuously non-renewable resource?

    And that point about the trees only holds if one postulates that trees will only be planted if people intend to harvest them for paper later.

  • Christopher

    Let the fraud rot in prison. Perhaps he make a nice bride for “Big Bubbu” in the slammer…

  • http://www.let-me-be-frank.blogspot.com Stephen

    Hovind has called Bush a Satan-worshipper. I don’t think Dubya will be inclined toward pardoning him.

  • http://www.let-me-be-frank.blogspot.com Stephen

    Hovind has called Bush a Satan-worshipper. I don’t think Dubya will be inclined toward pardoning him.

  • http://infophilia.blogspot.com Infophile

    And what about plastic, which is as I understand it mostly made from petroleum, a conspicuously non-renewable resource?

    Well, different types of plastic are made from different sources, but even for the ones that are made from petroleum, I believe the energy it takes to transport, sort, and recycle them outweighs the benefit. I can’t say for sure on this point myself, though.

    Here’s one fact P&T point out about recycling like this: If it weren’t subsidized, would some company engage in it? If it’s profitable to them they would. And if it’s profitable, this means they’re getting more out of it than they’re putting in. If it’s not profitable, then it takes more energy and/or resources to convert it than you get out. In the case of most metals, they actually can make a profit (why do you think some homeless people can make a “living” off of collecting and selling cans?). This doesn’t seem to be the case with plastic, so I’d guess that the energy investment in recycling them isn’t worth it.

    And that point about the trees only holds if one postulates that trees will only be planted if people intend to harvest them for paper later.

    Well, of course that’s not the only reason trees are planted, but it’s one of the reasons. And since it is one of the reasons, the demand of non-recycled paper will affect the number of trees planted.

  • http://infophilia.blogspot.com Infophile

    And what about plastic, which is as I understand it mostly made from petroleum, a conspicuously non-renewable resource?

    Well, different types of plastic are made from different sources, but even for the ones that are made from petroleum, I believe the energy it takes to transport, sort, and recycle them outweighs the benefit. I can’t say for sure on this point myself, though.

    Here’s one fact P&T point out about recycling like this: If it weren’t subsidized, would some company engage in it? If it’s profitable to them they would. And if it’s profitable, this means they’re getting more out of it than they’re putting in. If it’s not profitable, then it takes more energy and/or resources to convert it than you get out. In the case of most metals, they actually can make a profit (why do you think some homeless people can make a “living” off of collecting and selling cans?). This doesn’t seem to be the case with plastic, so I’d guess that the energy investment in recycling them isn’t worth it.

    And that point about the trees only holds if one postulates that trees will only be planted if people intend to harvest them for paper later.

    Well, of course that’s not the only reason trees are planted, but it’s one of the reasons. And since it is one of the reasons, the demand of non-recycled paper will affect the number of trees planted.

  • Kate

    Energy conservation is a different issue to material conservation; recycling may be inefficient in terms of energy consumption right now, but that is improving. Refusing to develop the technology further because it isn’t ideal right now is asinine; the finite materials are still going to run out or be increasingly harder to obtain in the future, and we will still need the skills to use what we have. Unless we develop the tech & cultural habits necessary to make them work now, they won’t be there when we need them.

    Newly planted trees don’t have the same environmental benefits in terms of co2 removal that established trees do, in some cases they produce more co2 than they scrub for up to a decade, so having fewer trees harvested for paper & then replaced by saplings is beneficial.

    We have severe land-fill shortage problems in Europe, so there is a major issue there. This isn’t just about what will work for the US.

  • Kate

    Energy conservation is a different issue to material conservation; recycling may be inefficient in terms of energy consumption right now, but that is improving. Refusing to develop the technology further because it isn’t ideal right now is asinine; the finite materials are still going to run out or be increasingly harder to obtain in the future, and we will still need the skills to use what we have. Unless we develop the tech & cultural habits necessary to make them work now, they won’t be there when we need them.

    Newly planted trees don’t have the same environmental benefits in terms of co2 removal that established trees do, in some cases they produce more co2 than they scrub for up to a decade, so having fewer trees harvested for paper & then replaced by saplings is beneficial.

    We have severe land-fill shortage problems in Europe, so there is a major issue there. This isn’t just about what will work for the US.

  • andrea

    The goverment is there to make sure everyone pays taxes. These taxes are largely to support programs that benefit everyone, like infrastructure. Hovind didn’t think he had to since evidentely infrastructure that he uses magically appears.

    the idea that paper the fact that paper is renewable makes for less trees is bizarre. Have you ever seen a paper mill and what it does? And what “plantations” of just paper-worthy trees do?

    And as for landfill space being “plentiful” are you nuts? Do you know what’s required to make a landfill?

    To depend on recycling to be “worth it” in a capitalistic sense is ridiculous, sometimes it costs to do the right thing.

  • http://infophilia.blogspot.com Infophile

    Man, have we gotten sidetracked here. Somehow we’ve gone from “The Bible says God created evil” to a debate on the merits of recycling. Ah well, such is life.

    I’d like to note that the arguments I’m giving aren’t necessarily mine (though I do see some points in some of them), I’m just passing on what P&T have said, and other things I’ve heard. Personally, I’m rather undecided on the issue, but I’ve been roped into playing devil’s advocate here to keep the debate going. I will recommend though that anyone who can, go and watch P&T’s episode on recycling. Get their arguments first-hand, not second-hand through me.

    I will address a couple of points that I do know about, however:

    Energy conservation is a different issue to material conservation; recycling may be inefficient in terms of energy consumption right now, but that is improving. Refusing to develop the technology further because it isn’t ideal right now is asinine; the finite materials are still going to run out or be increasingly harder to obtain in the future, and we will still need the skills to use what we have. Unless we develop the tech & cultural habits necessary to make them work now, they won’t be there when we need them.

    Quick quiz: Where does the vast majority of energy we use come from? Non-renewable resources. And a fair chunk of that is petroleum itself. If we burn petroleum to recycle petroleum, we’d damn well better be saving more than we’re using up. As for whether this can work in the future, that’s way out of my field of expertise. If there’s potential that we can make it efficient, then maybe it’ll be worth it to start now.

    Newly planted trees don’t have the same environmental benefits in terms of co2 removal that established trees do, in some cases they produce more co2 than they scrub for up to a decade, so having fewer trees harvested for paper & then replaced by saplings is beneficial.

    Actually, most trees that are used for paper come from tree farms. From what I’ve heard, they’re actually much more efficient environmentally than natural forests (speaking from a point of view of CO2 removal/land area).

    We have severe land-fill shortage problems in Europe, so there is a major issue there. This isn’t just about what will work for the US.

    Fair enough. Maybe the different continents should just have different recycling policies then.

    Okay, gotta split for class now. I’ll address Andrea’s points when I have a chance.

  • http://infophilia.blogspot.com Infophile

    Man, have we gotten sidetracked here. Somehow we’ve gone from “The Bible says God created evil” to a debate on the merits of recycling. Ah well, such is life.

    I’d like to note that the arguments I’m giving aren’t necessarily mine (though I do see some points in some of them), I’m just passing on what P&T have said, and other things I’ve heard. Personally, I’m rather undecided on the issue, but I’ve been roped into playing devil’s advocate here to keep the debate going. I will recommend though that anyone who can, go and watch P&T’s episode on recycling. Get their arguments first-hand, not second-hand through me.

    I will address a couple of points that I do know about, however:

    Energy conservation is a different issue to material conservation; recycling may be inefficient in terms of energy consumption right now, but that is improving. Refusing to develop the technology further because it isn’t ideal right now is asinine; the finite materials are still going to run out or be increasingly harder to obtain in the future, and we will still need the skills to use what we have. Unless we develop the tech & cultural habits necessary to make them work now, they won’t be there when we need them.

    Quick quiz: Where does the vast majority of energy we use come from? Non-renewable resources. And a fair chunk of that is petroleum itself. If we burn petroleum to recycle petroleum, we’d damn well better be saving more than we’re using up. As for whether this can work in the future, that’s way out of my field of expertise. If there’s potential that we can make it efficient, then maybe it’ll be worth it to start now.

    Newly planted trees don’t have the same environmental benefits in terms of co2 removal that established trees do, in some cases they produce more co2 than they scrub for up to a decade, so having fewer trees harvested for paper & then replaced by saplings is beneficial.

    Actually, most trees that are used for paper come from tree farms. From what I’ve heard, they’re actually much more efficient environmentally than natural forests (speaking from a point of view of CO2 removal/land area).

    We have severe land-fill shortage problems in Europe, so there is a major issue there. This isn’t just about what will work for the US.

    Fair enough. Maybe the different continents should just have different recycling policies then.

    Okay, gotta split for class now. I’ll address Andrea’s points when I have a chance.

  • thomas

    HORRAY! Hovind was convicted of tax fruad, this proves Christians are wrong. In case you didn’t get that that was sarcasm. Just so there is no confusion this is what all the Christians I know, including myself, believe about Hovind.

    1. He dabates a lot of people and seems to win all of the debates.
    2. He commited tax fruad or basically he messed up.

    Now you can argue the first one but everybody agrees on the second one for the most part.

    So what is it we are discussing here anyways?

    It seems that the popular belief is that Christians in general are ignorant criminals, well I think we can safely agree that crime reaches into the Christian world and the atheist world aswell. So it seems the point you are making is that Hovind commited a crime so Christianity is proven wrong. Well, I guess you can believe that but why attack Christians? Is it fun? I mean even by this path of logic you seem to have taken you must basically believe that Christians are retarded and if thats the case why would you make fun of a retarded person?

    Now I won’t argue that Hovind didn’t get what he had coming but I will argue this, Martha Stewart cheated the government and investors, but she didn’t sit in jail for ten years, I’m betting she was scamming a lot more money then Hovind did.

  • schemanista

    thomas: Wikipedia has an entry concerning schadenfreude. It might help you understand Ebon’s point.

  • schemanista

    thomas: Wikipedia has an entry concerning schadenfreude. It might help you understand Ebon’s point.

  • Marcus

    What a “Brood of vipers” you all are. Jesus sure was right about you. So what? Kent withheld and is now paying the price. I am a convert from evolution to Christ and creationism because the proof is in the pudding! Do you really think that God is going to let him sit and rot away in prison? Negative! He will make good use of him!GOD is in control…not you “Lucy” lovers! (Although Im sure you never read about the Acts of the apostles!!!) Make NO MISTAKE…His will be done!!!

  • Marcus

    What a “Brood of vipers” you all are. Jesus sure was right about you. So what? Kent withheld and is now paying the price. I am a convert from evolution to Christ and creationism because the proof is in the pudding! Do you really think that God is going to let him sit and rot away in prison? Negative! He will make good use of him!GOD is in control…not you “Lucy” lovers! (Although Im sure you never read about the Acts of the apostles!!!) Make NO MISTAKE…His will be done!!!

  • http://infophilia.blogspot.com Infophile

    Bah, looks like my reply post from this morning disappeared. Probably for the best, don’t want to further hijack this thread. I’ll just sum it up with saying that all I know of the criticisms against recycling is what I saw in that episode of Bullshit! I’ve pretty much just been repeating those arguments here, so I’d recommend anyone who can, just watch the episode.

  • Christopher

    Response to Marcus:

    Mr. Hovind had no idea what he was talking about when he gave his little pro-creation pep talks. He has no credibilty in the academic community (see this critique of his work to know why: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm )and even other creationists can’t take him seriously.

    Also, most of us are familiar with the apostolic legends in the Book of Acts; we just don’t give them much credibility. Perhaps if you put as much effort into understanding our belief systems as we do yours instead of accusing us of Satan worship, you might understand our perspectives.

  • Christopher

    Response to Marcus:

    Mr. Hovind had no idea what he was talking about when he gave his little pro-creation pep talks. He has no credibilty in the academic community (see this critique of his work to know why: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm )and even other creationists can’t take him seriously.

    Also, most of us are familiar with the apostolic legends in the Book of Acts; we just don’t give them much credibility. Perhaps if you put as much effort into understanding our belief systems as we do yours instead of accusing us of Satan worship, you might understand our perspectives.

  • Marcus

    response to christopher…
    first of all why would I “accuse” you of being a Satan worshipper if you are truly athiestic.second of all have you looked at crime statistics since we removed prayer from schools in ’63? I have done extensive research as per required in lieu of going with the flow. How much do you know of the demise of Rome? was it an outer attack or did Rome fall from within? I would love to hear some of your perspectives Christopher..

  • Alex Weaver

    My understanding is that Rome rotted and crumbled and the outer attacks were just the last straw. The fact that this occurred while the empire was becoming increasingly Christian does not support your point.

    And no, I don’t think any god is going to let him sit and rota way in prison–I see no reason to believe that there is any god to make that decision, and arrogant, obnoxious sputtering from those attempting to replace evidential support with undiluted indignation makes me more certain of this, not less.

    And if there is a god, what makes you so certain that his will isn’t being done–a teacher of falsehoods who ignored Jesus’s injunctions against material greed and instructions to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” is now sitting in prison, stewing in his just desserts.

    Now. As for the crime statistics, even if they’re not bogus, repeat after me: “Correlation is not causality.” Keep saying that until it sinks in. And while it’s somewhat doubtful, I sincerely hope you had the presence of mind to look at per capita crime rates rather than raw numbers. Also, perhaps you could explain why many of the most religious areas have a disproportionately high crime rate?

  • http://www.anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com Tommykey

    Right on Alex. It’s the same with some of the wingnuts who support the war in Iraq. “It’s no coincidence” they claim, “that while we have been in Iraq there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States.” Well, like we have been in Afghanistan during that time too, so maybe it is our presence in Afghanistan that is responsible for the lack of terrorist attacks in America.

    Marcus, I bet they had school prayer during the mid-19th century, but that did nothing to prevent the horrible carnage of the Civil War, the atrocities committed against blacks in New York City during the draft riots of 1863 et cetera.

  • http://www.anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com Tommykey

    Right on Alex. It’s the same with some of the wingnuts who support the war in Iraq. “It’s no coincidence” they claim, “that while we have been in Iraq there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States.” Well, like we have been in Afghanistan during that time too, so maybe it is our presence in Afghanistan that is responsible for the lack of terrorist attacks in America.

    Marcus, I bet they had school prayer during the mid-19th century, but that did nothing to prevent the horrible carnage of the Civil War, the atrocities committed against blacks in New York City during the draft riots of 1863 et cetera.

  • Marcus

    aS PREVIOUSLY STATED….”You brood of vipers!” quite defensive when it comes to spirituality eh? Your loving support of our current government is juvenile to say the least. Of the many scriptures written thousands of years ago concerning you…I think 2 Peter sums it up best…”Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Explain evolutions cause for finding 10 ft wide petrified clam shells on the top of Mt. Everest..geologic column? I think not! I believe the only missing link you have to show for your “religion” is yourselves: there is something missing between your ears!

  • Marcus

    aS PREVIOUSLY STATED….”You brood of vipers!” quite defensive when it comes to spirituality eh? Your loving support of our current government is juvenile to say the least. Of the many scriptures written thousands of years ago concerning you…I think 2 Peter sums it up best…”Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Explain evolutions cause for finding 10 ft wide petrified clam shells on the top of Mt. Everest..geologic column? I think not! I believe the only missing link you have to show for your “religion” is yourselves: there is something missing between your ears!

  • Alex Weaver

    Marcus: Evolution has no answer for that. This is because it is not part of biology; it’s a geological question. As for why there are clam fossils on top of Mount Everest, are you really utterly ignorant of geology in addition to biology?! Plate tectonics explains the presence of fossils at the top of Mount Everest. The rocks on the top of Mount Everest were formed as seafloor sediments and raised to their present level due to the continental plates “crinkling” when the Indian plate collided with the main Asian plate.

  • Alex Weaver

    Marcus: Evolution has no answer for that. This is because it is not part of biology; it’s a geological question. As for why there are clam fossils on top of Mount Everest, are you really utterly ignorant of geology in addition to biology?! Plate tectonics explains the presence of fossils at the top of Mount Everest. The rocks on the top of Mount Everest were formed as seafloor sediments and raised to their present level due to the continental plates “crinkling” when the Indian plate collided with the main Asian plate.

  • http://infophilia.blogspot.com Infophile

    Your loving support of our current government is juvenile to say the least.

    Where the hell are you getting that from? Most of us completely detest the current government for the way it’s trying to push faith into politics.

  • schemanista

    I’ve long suspected that trolls like Marcus are really just perl scripts which have “gone off the reservation.”

  • schemanista

    I’ve long suspected that trolls like Marcus are really just perl scripts which have “gone off the reservation.”

  • schemanista

    Marcus:

    Much of the massive limestone formation is composed of sand-sized particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells broken by the waves. Such a sedimentary rock qualifies for the name sandstone because it is composed of particles of sand size cemented together; because the term sandstone is commonly understood to refer to a quartz-rich rock, however, these limestone sandstones are better called calcarenites. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding that is common in this formation are additional evidence of waves and currents at work. Even in Mississippian rocks, where whole crinoids are rare fossils, and as a result it is easy to underestimate the population of these animals during the Paleozoic era. Crinoidal limestones, such as the Mission Canyon-Livingstone unit, provide an estimate, even though it be of necessity a rough one, of their abundance in the clear shallow seas they loved. In the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone was deposited to a thickness of 2,000 feet on the margin of the Cordilleran geosyncline, but it thins rapidly eastward to a thickness of about 1,000 feet in the Front Ranges and to about 500 feet in the Williston Basin. Even though its crinoidal content decreases eastward, it may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. How many millions, billions trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination.

    from: Clark, Thomas H., and Colin W. Stearn, 1960. The Geological Evolution of North America, (New York: The Ronald Press).

    Your bibilical timeline accounts for this…how?

  • Jack Bauer

    Marcus: You can’t be a “convert” from evolution to creationism as evolution is not a religion. Besides if you can believe in creationism then you do not strive for facts, as stated in the AiG (Answers in Genisis) statement of faith D-6. “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp Need I say more? Creationists can’t believe anything that doesn’t comply with scripture on fear of hellfire. Hovind is a bull-shitter of note not only his in his half truths, misleading quotes and blatant unfounded lies but also his use of (what to me) qualify as hypnotic techniques (whether he knows it or not) to induce susceptibility as well as age regression trances to make the audience docile and ignorant of the obviously bad maths, worse science and atrocious common sense he needs to propagate creationism and adding to that the “fact” if you don’t believe him your going to hell well that just clinches it doesn’t it creationists are smart and will go to heaven and everyone else are morons on their way to hell. As you said: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

  • Jack Bauer

    Marcus: You can’t be a “convert” from evolution to creationism as evolution is not a religion. Besides if you can believe in creationism then you do not strive for facts, as stated in the AiG (Answers in Genisis) statement of faith D-6. “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp Need I say more? Creationists can’t believe anything that doesn’t comply with scripture on fear of hellfire. Hovind is a bull-shitter of note not only his in his half truths, misleading quotes and blatant unfounded lies but also his use of (what to me) qualify as hypnotic techniques (whether he knows it or not) to induce susceptibility as well as age regression trances to make the audience docile and ignorant of the obviously bad maths, worse science and atrocious common sense he needs to propagate creationism and adding to that the “fact” if you don’t believe him your going to hell well that just clinches it doesn’t it creationists are smart and will go to heaven and everyone else are morons on their way to hell. As you said: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

  • http://www.auniversenamedbob.com Matt R

    Hello everyone,

    I have a question that I think some of you may be able to answer expertly. A statement of Kent Hovind’s that always stuck out in my mind goes something like this:

    Evolution states that humans came from rocks. (no quotes intended as this is a paraphrase.) I heard this on a videocassete produced by Kent Hovind.

    Is this simplification true or false? I know that Hovind says some other things which are misleading, but is this particular statement true? Does evolution really imply that humans came from rocks?

    Thank you for your help and time,

    Matt R.

  • http://www.auniversenamedbob.com Matt R

    Hello everyone,

    I have a question that I think some of you may be able to answer expertly. A statement of Kent Hovind’s that always stuck out in my mind goes something like this:

    Evolution states that humans came from rocks. (no quotes intended as this is a paraphrase.) I heard this on a videocassete produced by Kent Hovind.

    Is this simplification true or false? I know that Hovind says some other things which are misleading, but is this particular statement true? Does evolution really imply that humans came from rocks?

    Thank you for your help and time,

    Matt R.

  • http://www.auniversenamedbob.com Matt R

    Marcus,

    I have found the following Bible verses very useful in dealing with situations such as this:

    1 John 4:7-8
    Matthew 22:39-40
    John 15:17
    Matthew 5:44

    When I follow these commands, things turn out well for me.

    Matt R.

  • Alex Weaver

    Matt:

    Short answer: no. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, merely about the genetic trends in populations over time (ultimately leading to reproductive isolation and phenotypic divergence of different populations of an ancestor species, which in turn gradually leads to drastic morphological differences between species). Abiogenesis, a related field that deals with the origin of recognizably living things, suggests that the predecessors of cells as we know them were self-replicating chemical compounds formed in the oceans of earth very early in its history, none of which, so far as we know, were ever recognizably “rocks.” Ebon has some fairly comprehensive essays on this; if you’re interested in learning more about evolution I suggest you start here.

  • Alex Weaver

    Matt:

    Short answer: no. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, merely about the genetic trends in populations over time (ultimately leading to reproductive isolation and phenotypic divergence of different populations of an ancestor species, which in turn gradually leads to drastic morphological differences between species). Abiogenesis, a related field that deals with the origin of recognizably living things, suggests that the predecessors of cells as we know them were self-replicating chemical compounds formed in the oceans of earth very early in its history, none of which, so far as we know, were ever recognizably “rocks.” Ebon has some fairly comprehensive essays on this; if you’re interested in learning more about evolution I suggest you start here.

  • Alex Weaver

    Heh…well, at any rate this is a great start to the new year. Motorhead – Dancing on Your Grave has a permanent place in my playlist now… ^.^

  • http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/ Bronze Dog

    Hovind was performing a vast oversimplification, Matt: There were a lot of chemical reactions on this rock called “Earth.” Some of these chemical reactions resulted in chemicals that could make copies of themselves (We haven’t figured out the details, last time I checked). Those chemicals eventually gave rise to DNA and RNA, long chains of amino acids that could replicate (more or less have children) and vary themselves (mutate). DNA that produced proteins that aided in self-replication had a competitive advantage over ones that didn’t. Over time, DNA chains using these strategies got longer, and formed more complex interactions of proteins and other useful chemicals (bodies). Over time, these bodies changed as different strategies lead to better survival in the changing environment. Eventually one group, after several replications and successful mutations, started producing the organisms we call human beings.

    Creationism’s “alternative” is, essentially, that some guy, with no origin, for no reason (or at least no discernible reason) turned some mud into the first human beings through unspecified mechanisms and made the universe look like they came from an extended process of knowable mechanisms.

  • http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/ Bronze Dog

    Hovind was performing a vast oversimplification, Matt: There were a lot of chemical reactions on this rock called “Earth.” Some of these chemical reactions resulted in chemicals that could make copies of themselves (We haven’t figured out the details, last time I checked). Those chemicals eventually gave rise to DNA and RNA, long chains of amino acids that could replicate (more or less have children) and vary themselves (mutate). DNA that produced proteins that aided in self-replication had a competitive advantage over ones that didn’t. Over time, DNA chains using these strategies got longer, and formed more complex interactions of proteins and other useful chemicals (bodies). Over time, these bodies changed as different strategies lead to better survival in the changing environment. Eventually one group, after several replications and successful mutations, started producing the organisms we call human beings.

    Creationism’s “alternative” is, essentially, that some guy, with no origin, for no reason (or at least no discernible reason) turned some mud into the first human beings through unspecified mechanisms and made the universe look like they came from an extended process of knowable mechanisms.

  • Marcus

    My Goodness Gentlemen….
    There is so much hostility towards God (mainly those who believe)it is unsettling. I am blessed to raise my children to love one another as Jesus taught us to do. Because it seems in this circle of yours there is no room for love and acceptance and hope. I have tried to accept peoples belief systems and practice humility and understanding. There is so much resentment and pride in your “Religion” I believe even George Harrison would have a difficult time. I am thankful to the words he wrote in 1971…”The more I learn, the less I know.” As I read your words of egotistical hipocrisy (with the exception of Matt R.) I am reminded of the witch trials of Salem in the latter 17th century. You have become exactly what you accuse others of…

  • Alex Weaver

    My Goodness Gentlemen….

    And what makes you so certain all those speaking are male? That may well be the case, but I find the presumption offensive nonetheless.

    There is so much hostility towards God (mainly those who believe)it is unsettling.

    If you seriously believe this to be the reason behind our responses to you, after everything you should have read here between your comments, you’re either a fool or a lunatic.

    I am blessed to raise my children to love one another as Jesus taught us to do.

    You’re lucky I’m not in the mood to misconstrue this as an endorsement of incest, given the propensity of those who supposedly “love one another as Jesus taught us to do” to quote-mine our statements unmercifully. Rest assured that if you had engaged in it here, that I noticed, I would have done so.

    Because it seems in this circle of yours there is no room for love and acceptance and hope.

    There is room for love and acceptance and hope. You have displayed none of these qualities in your dealings with us, and have been treated accordingly. You might try dropping the insufferably self-righteous tone, actually absorbing and considering our arguments and stated positions, and attempting to respond intelligently rather than dismissing them as “prideful resentment.” However,we certainly practice tolerance; otherwise you wouldn’t still be posting here.

    I have tried to accept peoples belief systems and practice humility and understanding.

    Try harder. Your failure in this endeavor of yours is vicariously embarrassing–particularly on the humility part.

    There is so much resentment and pride in your “Religion” I believe even George Harrison would have a difficult time.

    Ah, yes, the standard “atheism is a religion” lie. Do you even think about these comments before you make them, or are you just repeating what the nice-nice people on the Christian networks with the winning smiles and the obvious ulterior motives tell you?

    I am thankful to the words he wrote in 1971…”The more I learn, the less I know.”

    I think “Ignorance is strength” is a more elegant formulation of the same idea.

    As I read your words of egotistical hipocrisy (with the exception of Matt R.) I am reminded of the witch trials of Salem in the latter 17th century. You have become exactly what you accuse others of…

    1) It’s “hypocrisy.” The word (and its derivatives, such as “hypocrites”) is used quite frequently in the gospels. I’m surprised you haven’t absorbed it, if you’ve ever, you know, read the actual Bible…

    2) Let’s see. Witch Trials in Salem: A number of more or less ordinary and unambiguously ignorant community members accused of “witchcraft” on completely spurious grounds, convicted with a sham trial in which “spectral evidence” was admitted and any counter-evidence was dismissed as the work of the devil. Yep, I too see the uncanny resemblance to our satisfaction at a sneering con-man who enriched himself at the expense of the naive and ignorant and did his best to further that ignorance by undermining science education getting his just desserts.

  • Alex Weaver

    My Goodness Gentlemen….

    And what makes you so certain all those speaking are male? That may well be the case, but I find the presumption offensive nonetheless.

    There is so much hostility towards God (mainly those who believe)it is unsettling.

    If you seriously believe this to be the reason behind our responses to you, after everything you should have read here between your comments, you’re either a fool or a lunatic.

    I am blessed to raise my children to love one another as Jesus taught us to do.

    You’re lucky I’m not in the mood to misconstrue this as an endorsement of incest, given the propensity of those who supposedly “love one another as Jesus taught us to do” to quote-mine our statements unmercifully. Rest assured that if you had engaged in it here, that I noticed, I would have done so.

    Because it seems in this circle of yours there is no room for love and acceptance and hope.

    There is room for love and acceptance and hope. You have displayed none of these qualities in your dealings with us, and have been treated accordingly. You might try dropping the insufferably self-righteous tone, actually absorbing and considering our arguments and stated positions, and attempting to respond intelligently rather than dismissing them as “prideful resentment.” However,we certainly practice tolerance; otherwise you wouldn’t still be posting here.

    I have tried to accept peoples belief systems and practice humility and understanding.

    Try harder. Your failure in this endeavor of yours is vicariously embarrassing–particularly on the humility part.

    There is so much resentment and pride in your “Religion” I believe even George Harrison would have a difficult time.

    Ah, yes, the standard “atheism is a religion” lie. Do you even think about these comments before you make them, or are you just repeating what the nice-nice people on the Christian networks with the winning smiles and the obvious ulterior motives tell you?

    I am thankful to the words he wrote in 1971…”The more I learn, the less I know.”

    I think “Ignorance is strength” is a more elegant formulation of the same idea.

    As I read your words of egotistical hipocrisy (with the exception of Matt R.) I am reminded of the witch trials of Salem in the latter 17th century. You have become exactly what you accuse others of…

    1) It’s “hypocrisy.” The word (and its derivatives, such as “hypocrites”) is used quite frequently in the gospels. I’m surprised you haven’t absorbed it, if you’ve ever, you know, read the actual Bible…

    2) Let’s see. Witch Trials in Salem: A number of more or less ordinary and unambiguously ignorant community members accused of “witchcraft” on completely spurious grounds, convicted with a sham trial in which “spectral evidence” was admitted and any counter-evidence was dismissed as the work of the devil. Yep, I too see the uncanny resemblance to our satisfaction at a sneering con-man who enriched himself at the expense of the naive and ignorant and did his best to further that ignorance by undermining science education getting his just desserts.

  • schemanista

    Marcus: what hostility? What humility, what understanding?

    You hold a position on the validity of evolutionary theory. That position is demonstrably false-to-facts. People are calling you on it, and when you’re deliberate about your ignorance, people will set you straight and will not feel any compunction to be gentle about it. The rest (i.e. “brood of vipers”, “no room for love and acceptance and hope”) is you engaging in hysterical drama for rhetorical effect.

    The only hypocricy in this thread comes from your keyboard.

  • schemanista

    Marcus: what hostility? What humility, what understanding?

    You hold a position on the validity of evolutionary theory. That position is demonstrably false-to-facts. People are calling you on it, and when you’re deliberate about your ignorance, people will set you straight and will not feel any compunction to be gentle about it. The rest (i.e. “brood of vipers”, “no room for love and acceptance and hope”) is you engaging in hysterical drama for rhetorical effect.

    The only hypocricy in this thread comes from your keyboard.

  • schemanista

    MattR: current evolutionary theory has to align itself with current age-of-the-earth and age-of-the-universe estimates. Paleobiology and geology are necessarily intertwined and both discuss their respective timelines in very long–dare I say geological–terms. If you hear anyone, Hovind or otherwise, saying “humans came from” and deliberately shortening some 3.5 billion years into a fictional “A-to-B” progression, then you’re being played.

    I’ll steal a famous creationist canard: what Hovind is doing is akin to asserting that “aerospace engineering says that airplanes came from rocks, since that’s where we find aluminum.” The Theory of Evolution (TOE) does not suggest, state or imply that humans developed directly from rocks and to say that it does is to engage in a deliberate misrepresentation.

    “Dr.” Hovind is lying to you. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

  • Christopher

    Response to Marcus:

    1. You refered to Atheists as being “Lucy lovers.” If I’m not mistaken, “Lucy” is shorthand for Lucifer (better know to Christian mythology as Satan). Satan worship was implied by that statement.

    2. The fall of Rome had many factors (uncontrolled immigration in the northern provinces, an extremely hedonistic philosophy that eroded the Romans will to fight, Barbarian invasions, etc…), and this all occured as Christianity was replacing Paganism as the dominant faith. Could it be that your pet religion was a contributer to the destruction of the civilization that embraced it?

    3. Even if those stats are accurate (I find them a bit convinient for apologists…), what proof do you have the it was the end of school-sponsored prayer that kicked off this wave of violence?

    On a related note, I can show you a corralation between the rise of global temperature and the reduction of pirates. Does that mean that a shortage of pirates is causing global warming (if you’re sane, the answer is “no”)?

  • Christopher

    Response to Marcus:

    1. You refered to Atheists as being “Lucy lovers.” If I’m not mistaken, “Lucy” is shorthand for Lucifer (better know to Christian mythology as Satan). Satan worship was implied by that statement.

    2. The fall of Rome had many factors (uncontrolled immigration in the northern provinces, an extremely hedonistic philosophy that eroded the Romans will to fight, Barbarian invasions, etc…), and this all occured as Christianity was replacing Paganism as the dominant faith. Could it be that your pet religion was a contributer to the destruction of the civilization that embraced it?

    3. Even if those stats are accurate (I find them a bit convinient for apologists…), what proof do you have the it was the end of school-sponsored prayer that kicked off this wave of violence?

    On a related note, I can show you a corralation between the rise of global temperature and the reduction of pirates. Does that mean that a shortage of pirates is causing global warming (if you’re sane, the answer is “no”)?

  • http://infophilia.blogspot.com Infophile

    1. You refered to Atheists as being “Lucy lovers.” If I’m not mistaken, “Lucy” is shorthand for Lucifer (better know to Christian mythology as Satan). Satan worship was implied by that statement.

    Actually, my first impression was that he was referring to the Austrolophithecus fossil. Given that he’s equating atheism with belief in evolution, and Lucy is quite good evidence of evolution, it seems likely to me.

  • Marcus

    To Alex….
    Considering it is quite unlikely I will be seeing you (and your “enlightened subordinates”) in the afterlife (Thank you God), Perhaps your arrogance is simply a reflection of your current bankrupt spirit. I promise you this..”Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!” It doesnt get any easier than this…its your choice! Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved! Its your choice! Now I know how Jonah felt towards Ninevah when God chose to forgive them! You shall not see me here again..continue your hostilities and blasphemies all the way to your final destination-HELL! As for Dr.Hovind (and I do mean Dr.) He shall be out soon preaching the truth again soon enough-Behold the Power of Yahweh!

  • Marcus

    To Alex….
    Considering it is quite unlikely I will be seeing you (and your “enlightened subordinates”) in the afterlife (Thank you God), Perhaps your arrogance is simply a reflection of your current bankrupt spirit. I promise you this..”Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!” It doesnt get any easier than this…its your choice! Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ shall be saved! Its your choice! Now I know how Jonah felt towards Ninevah when God chose to forgive them! You shall not see me here again..continue your hostilities and blasphemies all the way to your final destination-HELL! As for Dr.Hovind (and I do mean Dr.) He shall be out soon preaching the truth again soon enough-Behold the Power of Yahweh!

  • Alex Weaver

    Put up or shut up. That’s really what it comes down to.

    Although I must say that spending eternity in a lake of fire sounds preferable to spending it with self-righteous brats like yourself and the sort of god who could stand to be around such brats, regardless of the climate.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blog/daylightatheism/ Ebonmuse

    I have a comment on this remark by Infophile:

    Here’s one fact P&T point out about recycling like this: If it weren’t subsidized, would some company engage in it? If it’s profitable to them they would. And if it’s profitable, this means they’re getting more out of it than they’re putting in. If it’s not profitable, then it takes more energy and/or resources to convert it than you get out. In the case of most metals, they actually can make a profit (why do you think some homeless people can make a “living” off of collecting and selling cans?). This doesn’t seem to be the case with plastic, so I’d guess that the energy investment in recycling them isn’t worth it.

    I don’t know a lot about the energy costs of recycling. However, the assumption that it isn’t profitable if companies don’t engage in it is not necessarily true. It would be true if the process of recycling plastic and the process of making fresh plastic both took into account all the costs of those processes – but they may not. In our current system of capitalism, there are msny businesses that have externalities – additional costs that are passed on to the public rather than being borne by the company that produces them. These are things like pollution given off by the process, manufacturing by-products that have to be disposed of, the environmental impact of drilling for more oil to make plastic, and so on.

    Since the companies that make new plastic may not be paying these costs, the total cost to them may be reduced, making it seem as if manufacturing new is less costly than recycling old. (In effect, the process would be subsidized by the public.) But when the true costs of both processes are taken into account, that may not be the case. If a company had to pay the true cost of its way of business, recycling might turn out to be cheaper in the end.

  • http://www.auniversenamedbob.com Matt R

    Hello everyone,

    Thanks for your responses. I do intend to respond to some of them individually, but my time is short now.

    One more question: Why is everyone so worked up about Dr. Hovind being sentenced anyway?

    Cheers,

    Matt R

  • schemanista

    MattR: a better question is “why aren’t moderate/liberal Christians more worked up about this.” ‘Dr.’ Hovind entire behaviour is far more damaging to Christian credibility than a bit of schadenfreude is to ours.

  • schemanista

    MattR: a better question is “why aren’t moderate/liberal Christians more worked up about this?” ‘Dr.’ Hovind entire behaviour is far more damaging to Christian credibility than a bit of schadenfreude is to ours.

  • andrea

    Matt, the reason that we’re interested in Hovind being caught is that he was so admant that he was oh-so pure and innocent, a “model” Christian. He was not. He stole from everyone and lied. It amuses me when other Christians circle the wagons and try to either insist “it wasn’t so bad” or that “he’s not a “real” Christians”.

  • andrea

    Matt, the reason that we’re interested in Hovind being caught is that he was so admant that he was oh-so pure and innocent, a “model” Christian. He was not. He stole from everyone and lied. It amuses me when other Christians circle the wagons and try to either insist “it wasn’t so bad” or that “he’s not a “real” Christians”.

  • http://www.auniversenamedbob.com Matt R

    Schemanista,

    Please do not read too deeply between the lines of my post. Although I do not think it is right to gloat over the downfall of one’s advesary, I have done the same thing many times. For me to chastise you for doing the same thing would be utterly hypocritical.

    No, my question was in good faith. Why are you so interested in Kent Hovind’s downfall. If it is because he was your advesary, my response will be one of understanding, not one of triumph. If it is because you are glad a criminal has received justice, then I rejoice with you because I have the hope that Dr. Hovind may learn from his mistakes and become a better person through this difficult experience.

    I do not wish to promote the “Christian Agenda” because I do not agree with many things that are part of the popular Christian Agenda. I am more interesed in promoting the teachings of Jesus which can be summed up by saying “love God and love one another”. I recognize that the first part of that may be an anathema to some, but the second part is very practical and useful in society. I come to these forums because I find Ebonmuse and the posters to be intellectually stimulating. You challenge me to think outside of my preconcieved notions. You make me a better person. For this I am thankful and if I have offended you or hurt your feelings in any way, please accept my unqualified apology.

    In closing, I do not care to discredit your intellectual viewpoint by pointing out your schadenfreude, but I would like promote the idea that we should love even those who oppose us. Having said that, I freely admit that I need to learn this lesson with the rest of humanity.

    Does this make sense? I wish to sow seeds of peace and not discord. I hope I have done so.

    Respectfully,

    Matt R.

  • http://www.auniversenamedbob.com Matt R

    Andrea,

    Matt, the reason that we’re interested in Hovind being caught is that he was so admant that he was oh-so pure and innocent, a “model” Christian. He was not. He stole from everyone and lied.

    Yes. It is good to see that no one is perfect and even those who may claim perfection or a high degree of moral uprightness may be fooling themselves.

    Within the framework of Christian beliefs, no one is a “model Christian”. Anyone who follows Jesus must realize that they fail to live up to the standard of perfect love. For any Christian to claim to be a “model” Christian is to reveal that Christians lack of understanding of Jesus and the New Testament. If Kent Hovind claimed to be a “model” Christian in the sense that he is morally perfect, he was wrong. I do not know the man and have only seen one of his videos, so I cannot speak to whether or not he made the claim.

    It amuses me when other Christians circle the wagons and try to either insist “it wasn’t so bad” or that “he’s not a “real” Christians”.

    It makes me sad. The irony is disheartening. For Christians to insist that “it was not so bad” ignores Jesus’ teaching about respecting the authority of government and also ignores the basic morals that Jesus taught. On the other hand, to turn our backs on a fellow Christian when he needs it the most is deplorable as well. This in no way reflects the love that Jesus spoke of.

    Either of the two responses is not in line with Jesus and is not “Christian” in the purest sense of the word.

    Basically, the whole affair with Dr. Hovind is a sad story from start to close, unless he learns from his mistakes and becomes a law abiding citizen, which I hope he will.

    Respectfully,

    Matt R.

  • http://www.auniversenamedbob.com Matt R

    Andrea,

    Matt, the reason that we’re interested in Hovind being caught is that he was so admant that he was oh-so pure and innocent, a “model” Christian. He was not. He stole from everyone and lied.

    Yes. It is good to see that no one is perfect and even those who may claim perfection or a high degree of moral uprightness may be fooling themselves.

    Within the framework of Christian beliefs, no one is a “model Christian”. Anyone who follows Jesus must realize that they fail to live up to the standard of perfect love. For any Christian to claim to be a “model” Christian is to reveal that Christians lack of understanding of Jesus and the New Testament. If Kent Hovind claimed to be a “model” Christian in the sense that he is morally perfect, he was wrong. I do not know the man and have only seen one of his videos, so I cannot speak to whether or not he made the claim.

    It amuses me when other Christians circle the wagons and try to either insist “it wasn’t so bad” or that “he’s not a “real” Christians”.

    It makes me sad. The irony is disheartening. For Christians to insist that “it was not so bad” ignores Jesus’ teaching about respecting the authority of government and also ignores the basic morals that Jesus taught. On the other hand, to turn our backs on a fellow Christian when he needs it the most is deplorable as well. This in no way reflects the love that Jesus spoke of.

    Either of the two responses is not in line with Jesus and is not “Christian” in the purest sense of the word.

    Basically, the whole affair with Dr. Hovind is a sad story from start to close, unless he learns from his mistakes and becomes a law abiding citizen, which I hope he will.

    Respectfully,

    Matt R.

  • schemanista

    MattR: thanks for the thoughtful reply.

    If you read the talkorigins FAQs on Hovind, you’ll get an idea why he’s so derided and why I’m glad to see him get his comeuppance.

    As for the other points you raise about tolerance and love, I refer you to this blog entry discussing forgiveness from a metaphysical naturalistic point of view.

  • http://infophilia.blogspot.com Infophile

    I don’t know a lot about the energy costs of recycling. However, the assumption that it isn’t profitable if companies don’t engage in it is not necessarily true. It would be true if the process of recycling plastic and the process of making fresh plastic both took into account all the costs of those processes – but they may not. In our current system of capitalism, there are msny businesses that have externalities – additional costs that are passed on to the public rather than being borne by the company that produces them. These are things like pollution given off by the process, manufacturing by-products that have to be disposed of, the environmental impact of drilling for more oil to make plastic, and so on.

    Since the companies that make new plastic may not be paying these costs, the total cost to them may be reduced, making it seem as if manufacturing new is less costly than recycling old. (In effect, the process would be subsidized by the public.) But when the true costs of both processes are taken into account, that may not be the case. If a company had to pay the true cost of its way of business, recycling might turn out to be cheaper in the end.

    I believe that there are taxes on pollution (in some form, possibly just having to buy credits for it) in most areas of the states, so it’s not exactly free for them. But aside from this, you do raise a good point. As I mentioned before, I’m just parroting their arguments for the most part for the benefit of those who can’t go and watch the episode, and to me, this one really smacks of pure Libertarian philosophy. There are indeed many places the government needs to step in, and the environment is one of them.

    Of course, the problem is that we don’t have any hard numbers to work with. Without that, all we can do in arguing is comparing our theories on reality. While there might be some benefit to it, in the end, it’s the evidence that decides.

  • http://www.daphneszoo.com/ daphne

    I have become convinced over the years that people who refuse to pay taxes on this level, as Hovind did, which was insidiously admit – via taped conversations – that they are hiding revenue in order to deceive the government, should be simply deported.

    That’s right. Deport them. Deport’m all with no possibility of re-entering the country without paying up.

    You don’t have to pay taxes. Sure. This is true. We cannot force you if you’re dead set against doing so. But, if this is how you feel, then you should not be able to benefit from the amenities that those taxes provide. No admendment rights, no due process, no nothing. Have a nice weekend of Tijuana jail and you’ll surely be wanting to pay those taxes…..

    Kent, you are lucky I have no drive and never became a judge. I would have given you 2 months to pack your stuff and head for anywhere else, but not here. And shame on you for deceiving your followers, you muttonhead. You might be a deceptive individual, but I bet many of your faithful followers aren’t. I’m not sure which is worse – evading the law or misleading others when you’re in a position to influence. That’s a moral juju I’d not want hovering over my head.

    I like your blog, regardless of the fact that I like my Jesus. Nice job!

  • bryan

    Regarding the tax issue, I think Kent Hovind made some wrong turns. But in the “spirit” of food for thought, check out this movie on line for free. It touches on income taxes and several other relevant issues:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198
    Bryan

  • AwakeNow

    Hovind was wrong for the tax evasion… Also wrong to own a handgun… There are laws of man and laws of GOD, Hovind broke a law of man… There are NO commandments forcing man to submit to government… I do believe Hovind had good intentions… I also believe what he was trying to teach… WAKE UP !!! The path to salvation is being erased and we are gladly aiding the ends…

  • Alex Weaver

    And just what do you think “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s” means? Particularly says Jesus said it in response to a question about whether Jews (this being before there were much in the way of Christians) should pay taxes.

  • Bechamel

    There are NO commandments forcing man to submit to government…

    Do you realize how foolish you look when you don’t even know your own holy book?

    1 Peter 2:13: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake”

    Romans 13:1-3: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (2)Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (3)For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same”

  • Bechamel

    There are NO commandments forcing man to submit to government…

    Do you realize how foolish you look when you don’t even know your own holy book?

    1 Peter 2:13: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake”

    Romans 13:1-3: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (2)Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (3)For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same”

  • http://www.patheos.com/blog/daylightatheism/ Ebonmuse

    It does my heart good to see when atheists know the Bible better than believers. :)

  • Alex Weaver

    Bechamel:

    Do you realize how foolish you look when you don’t even know your own holy book?

    I smell a future bumper sticker… ^.^

  • Alex Weaver

    Bechamel:

    Do you realize how foolish you look when you don’t even know your own holy book?

    I smell a future bumper sticker… ^.^

  • http://www.myspace.com/gentleshred David Eason

    I just got out of prison (firearms charges), where I watched not some but ALL of Hovind’s Creation Seminar. Although his science is only as arguable as a typical HBJ high school textbook’s, his theology matches no mainline protestant doctrine. I’m curious just how far his smug attitude gets him with the General Population.

  • Mark Mandarano

    I went on this web site and kind of thought that would be the response. As soon as an Evangelical Christian falls the aetheist jump up and down with joy. Let me clear a few things up. First of all I think Kent Hovind was wrong in not paying his taxes as Romans 13:1-7 are very clear on this matter. However, despite the fact that he wrongly broke the law, that doesn’t change the truth that the information he presents (now via DVD’s) in his seminars is accurate. Lets face the facts, although micro evolution is scientifically proven to be true (and consistent with the Bible) , macro evolution has a lot of holes in it’s theories. Dogs are not turning into frogs nor are cats into sheep. Spontaneuos generation and the big bang theory are not only unscientific but are contrary to the laws of sciene. You so called aetheist may have thought you won some kind of battle but whether you believe it or not you will stand before God and give an account for your life.

  • Mark Mandarano

    I went on this web site and kind of thought that would be the response. As soon as an Evangelical Christian falls the aetheist jump up and down with joy. Let me clear a few things up. First of all I think Kent Hovind was wrong in not paying his taxes as Romans 13:1-7 are very clear on this matter. However, despite the fact that he wrongly broke the law, that doesn’t change the truth that the information he presents (now via DVD’s) in his seminars is accurate. Lets face the facts, although micro evolution is scientifically proven to be true (and consistent with the Bible) , macro evolution has a lot of holes in it’s theories. Dogs are not turning into frogs nor are cats into sheep. Spontaneuos generation and the big bang theory are not only unscientific but are contrary to the laws of sciene. You so called aetheist may have thought you won some kind of battle but whether you believe it or not you will stand before God and give an account for your life.

  • Alex Weaver

    Mark:

    1) Drop the patronizing tone.
    2) Read here; your objections (like Hovind’s) are relevant only to the most ridiculous, cartoonish caricature of evolutionary theory and have been dealt with repeatedly. Evolution does NOT predict “dogs turning into drogs” or “cats into sheep” (the phenomenon of bipedal primates turning into sheep is a purely sociological one).
    3) On a specific point, spontaneous generation of multicellular organisms from decaying matter is not “unscientific” but is unambiguously falsified; fortunately this is not what modern scientists believe to have taken place, a fact of which you would be well aware if you did even the most cursory reading of the available material on the subject. Formation of cells from simpler, cell-like masses of chemical is not at all falsified and has in fact been supported experimentally. As for the Big Bang, if it’s unscientific, someone ought to tell virtually every physicist on the planet about it. Clearly having studied the subject extensively hasn’t given them the same level of insight you’ve obtained from…what? Chick tracts?
    4) And your evidence that a god exists, will demand an account of our lives, and will judge them the way you think it will would be…? In the unlikely event that a god does, despite all evidence, exist, I can give it an honest account of my life, secure in the knowledge that any being worthy of worship in the first place would find it well spent. Can you say the same? Or have you merely spent your entire life being arrogant and hostile to your fellow man and bowing and scraping before the phantoms of your mind?
    5) It’s “atheist.” Whether English is your first language or not, the word is plastered all over the site. Then again, not reading the piece you’re attempting to critique seems to be par for the course for you; you’ve already approached the scientific literature in that fashion.
    6) Also, what on earth is a “so-called atheist?” Is there a better label you’d suggest?

  • Carlos

    Why is everyone so hateful…you are angry at Kent Hovind because he gave us some other things to think about.What you should be worried about is if he is telling even a fraction of truth…yes,he did not follow the rules that we abide by(via taxes)however if you would take the time to read the constitution-you would see that federal taxes are not constitutional…so he did not break any constitutional laws by not paying taxes-he took a stand and lost(if we don’t we too will be arrested and such)so by saying that I do believe he was wrong because his ministry now will be criticized by people who do not understand what he was fighting for…the fact that he did not pay taxes doesn’t change what he said or his research in by which he debunks alot of evolutionary so-called facts..I myself feel that he is fighting the battle that no christian wants,and thats the battle of belief via Creation/Evolution…what he says is true they are beliefs.
    Many christians have been forced into accepting evelutionary ideas to be non-judgemental towards anyone…now Kent has disappointed me greatly,but that doesn’t change that he was a brilliant man…now that being said have fun making fun of me the same way…I would look within before you pass sentence on Kent Hovind…you may too suffer the same fate in some way,and God(if you believe) will judge us how we judge others…if you don’t believe live it up cause your time is running out and the great sleep is coming…that is all

  • Carlos

    Why is everyone so hateful…you are angry at Kent Hovind because he gave us some other things to think about.What you should be worried about is if he is telling even a fraction of truth…yes,he did not follow the rules that we abide by(via taxes)however if you would take the time to read the constitution-you would see that federal taxes are not constitutional…so he did not break any constitutional laws by not paying taxes-he took a stand and lost(if we don’t we too will be arrested and such)so by saying that I do believe he was wrong because his ministry now will be criticized by people who do not understand what he was fighting for…the fact that he did not pay taxes doesn’t change what he said or his research in by which he debunks alot of evolutionary so-called facts..I myself feel that he is fighting the battle that no christian wants,and thats the battle of belief via Creation/Evolution…what he says is true they are beliefs.
    Many christians have been forced into accepting evelutionary ideas to be non-judgemental towards anyone…now Kent has disappointed me greatly,but that doesn’t change that he was a brilliant man…now that being said have fun making fun of me the same way…I would look within before you pass sentence on Kent Hovind…you may too suffer the same fate in some way,and God(if you believe) will judge us how we judge others…if you don’t believe live it up cause your time is running out and the great sleep is coming…that is all

  • http://www.patheos.com/blog/daylightatheism/ Ebonmuse

    however if you would take the time to read the constitution-you would see that federal taxes are not constitutional…

    Here is the text of Amendment XVI to the U.S. Constitution:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    Thank you for playing. Have a nice day.

  • Alex Weaver

    Why is everyone so hateful…you are angry at Kent Hovind because he gave us some other things to think about.

    Wrong. We are not “hateful,” however we take more pleasure in seeing this particular con man get his comeuppance than most because of the money he has defrauded many of the trustingly foolish demographic in America of, and his attempts to undermine science education. This has been explained repeatedly in the comments; perhaps you should try *reading* them.

    As for what he’s given us, he’s given us a huge supply of things that it takes a few seconds of thought to realize are not merely false but so egregiously false as to constitute an insult to the intelligence of any person expected to believe them.

    What you should be worried about is if he is telling even a fraction of truth…

    He is telling a fraction of truth, namely that the earth exists and the Genesis account is incompatible with the discoveries of modern science, though even his take on these facts is fraudulent. Oddly, I’m not worried.

    yes,he did not follow the rules that we abide by(via taxes)however if you would take the time to read the constitution-you would see that federal taxes are not constitutional…so he did not break any constitutional laws by not paying taxes

    Where in the constitution does it say that no payroll tax may be levied?

    He did, in fact, break some constitutional laws. Via usconstitution.net, article VI, paragraph 2:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    So, unless you can find a clause in the constitution that *forbids* the passage of laws levying payroll taxes, the laws Congress has passed to this effect are “the supreme law of the land.”

    he took a stand and lost(if we don’t we too will be arrested and such)

    And what exactly is this supposed to mean? If you’re claiming that good citizens who pay their taxes and abide by the law are going to be arrested for doing so…on what conceivable grounds? Do you have a single fact to back this up?

    so by saying that I do believe he was wrong because his ministry now will be criticized by people who do not understand what he was fighting for

    Ironically, his ministry is supported only by people who don’t understand what he is fighting for: the destruction of science education and the “right” to continue to fleece rubes without having to pay taxes on the money the changes hands in the process of him doing so.

    Here’s a question for you: is there anything Kent Hovind could do that would convince you that he’s a scoundrel?

    the fact that he did not pay taxes doesn’t change what he said or his research in by which he debunks alot of evolutionary so-called facts..I myself feel that he is fighting the battle that no christian wants,and thats the battle of belief via Creation/Evolution…what he says is true they are beliefs.

    What research? What facts has he debunked that were not invented out of whole cloth by creationists as straw men to attack?

    Creationism is a belief. Evolution is only a “belief” if one “believes in” gravity.

    Many christians have been forced into accepting evelutionary ideas to be non-judgemental towards anyone

    1) Since when have Christians ever had an objection to being judgemental?
    2) Please give an example of a Christian who has been, in any meaningful sense, “forced” to accept the veracity of evolutionary theory by anything other than the conjunction of intellectual honesty and an honest examination of the data.

    now Kent has disappointed me greatly,but that doesn’t change that he was a brilliant man…now that being said have fun making fun of me the same way

    Making fun of you? You’re clearly a fool rather than a villain (Kent was both) and so I pity you.

    I would look within before you pass sentence on Kent Hovind…you may too suffer the same fate in some way

    If I defraud the federal government of the revenue needed to provide my share of the services I enjoy from it, and innocent but gullible citizens of their hard-earned cash, I expect I would. As I have no intention of doing so…

    and God(if you believe) will judge us how we judge others…if you don’t believe live it up cause your time is running out and the great sleep is coming

    Again, what is your evidence of this?

    that is all

    We shall see.

    By the way. may I politely suggest that people will have an easier time taking you seriously if you develop basic competency in English grammar and a meaningful idea of how to structure a coherent argument?

  • Polly

    It’s possible that some on this blog may be from other countries and English may not be their native tongue.

    Anyway, I know it’s probably too late, but I really wanted to respond to Marcus:
    You talk about the hate here. I think you may be suffering from some kind of memory loss. Perhaps, if the VERY FIRST words on your post weren’t an insult ref:”You brood of vipers…JC was right about you” you would have received a less caustic response from your audience. Note that John the Baptist (not JC) was speaking to the religious leaders of his time. Also, the fact that you consistenly and purposely antagonize everyone here by inappropriately, and incorrectly, labeling evolution a religion doesn’t lend any credibility to your self-assigned righteousness. Add to that, the fact that you “Now [I] know how Jonah felt towards Ninevah when God chose to forgive them!” betrays a striking vindictiveness that even the God of the OT, in this one (very rare) instance was teaching against. I am shocked at the inconsistency in your character. If this were a creationist website, I would think that an atheist may have planted such an incoherent diatribe to make Xians look bad, but this is an atheist blog, so such a stunt would only be preaching to the choir.
    Although I’ve been neck deep in Xian fundamentalism virtually all my life until recently, I never held or encountered this attitude except for the weirdos at the Rose Parade holding signs stating that “God hates gays.” But, even my Xian friends don’t agree with that tactic or that God actually HATES anyone, though they do call it a sin and believe in Hell – hence the “fun” of fundamentalism.

    I think he meant “Lucy” the fossil since he said, “first of all why would I “accuse” you of being a Satan worshipper if you are truly athiestic” Surprisingly, he understood THAT much.

    I think it was talk.origins that refuted almost 3 dozen of Hovind’s “arguments” for a young-Earth. I spent a good amount of time reading the material on that site.

    Matt R. – please keep reading and keep an open mind. The only guard against bias is to read both sides of every story – both FOR evoution and FOR Creationism and the “anti-” literature of both. Be true to your own reasoning powers.

  • Polly

    It’s possible that some on this blog may be from other countries and English may not be their native tongue.

    Anyway, I know it’s probably too late, but I really wanted to respond to Marcus:
    You talk about the hate here. I think you may be suffering from some kind of memory loss. Perhaps, if the VERY FIRST words on your post weren’t an insult ref:”You brood of vipers…JC was right about you” you would have received a less caustic response from your audience. Note that John the Baptist (not JC) was speaking to the religious leaders of his time. Also, the fact that you consistenly and purposely antagonize everyone here by inappropriately, and incorrectly, labeling evolution a religion doesn’t lend any credibility to your self-assigned righteousness. Add to that, the fact that you “Now [I] know how Jonah felt towards Ninevah when God chose to forgive them!” betrays a striking vindictiveness that even the God of the OT, in this one (very rare) instance was teaching against. I am shocked at the inconsistency in your character. If this were a creationist website, I would think that an atheist may have planted such an incoherent diatribe to make Xians look bad, but this is an atheist blog, so such a stunt would only be preaching to the choir.
    Although I’ve been neck deep in Xian fundamentalism virtually all my life until recently, I never held or encountered this attitude except for the weirdos at the Rose Parade holding signs stating that “God hates gays.” But, even my Xian friends don’t agree with that tactic or that God actually HATES anyone, though they do call it a sin and believe in Hell – hence the “fun” of fundamentalism.

    I think he meant “Lucy” the fossil since he said, “first of all why would I “accuse” you of being a Satan worshipper if you are truly athiestic” Surprisingly, he understood THAT much.

    I think it was talk.origins that refuted almost 3 dozen of Hovind’s “arguments” for a young-Earth. I spent a good amount of time reading the material on that site.

    Matt R. – please keep reading and keep an open mind. The only guard against bias is to read both sides of every story – both FOR evoution and FOR Creationism and the “anti-” literature of both. Be true to your own reasoning powers.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blog/daylightatheism/ Ebonmuse

    Since I’ve already had to remove several comments, let me be clear: Comments containing insults and personal attacks will be deleted without warning, as per this site’s comment policy. Criticism of other people’s beliefs is acceptable; ad hominem attacks are not.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blog/daylightatheism/ Ebonmuse

    Since I’ve already had to remove several comments, let me be clear: Comments containing insults and personal attacks will be deleted without warning, as per this site’s comment policy. Criticism of other people’s beliefs is acceptable; ad hominem attacks are not.

  • freddy

    The blog master has removed comments that I believe everyone should read..because its ok to blast Kent Hovind but noone else…I was personally insulted with my grammar but that was acceptable…I’m not gonna blast anyone personally again other than God’s judgement is on your heads…you can erase this-its cool,but God knows what your doing…you’re blocking your own medicine..I see alot of insults against anyone religious on this site and that is one-sided and wrong.
    I hope that anyone religious or God fearing does not write anymore on this site because you are wasting your time…this site obviously is anti-God and they are loving the chance to bash christians.

  • freddy

    The blog master has removed comments that I believe everyone should read..because its ok to blast Kent Hovind but noone else…I was personally insulted with my grammar but that was acceptable…I’m not gonna blast anyone personally again other than God’s judgement is on your heads…you can erase this-its cool,but God knows what your doing…you’re blocking your own medicine..I see alot of insults against anyone religious on this site and that is one-sided and wrong.
    I hope that anyone religious or God fearing does not write anymore on this site because you are wasting your time…this site obviously is anti-God and they are loving the chance to bash christians.

  • Alex Weaver

    Oddly, there are a sizable number of comments from Christians that are left up. Oddly, the ones deleted seem, based on my observation of the ones that subsequently disappear, to be from people who either refuse to abide by basic rules of civility or refuse to substantiate their one-liners or offer a substantive argument. I’m not entirely sure when Adam stopped giving warnings for the former category; if there was an announcement I’ve missed it. Adam, perhaps it would be worthwhile to add a prominent “commenting policy” somewhere closer to the top?

  • Alex Weaver

    As for “insulting you on your grammar,” it was a criticism of the presentation of your argument, not of your character. I suggest you learn the difference. And it’s true; very poor grammar gives most people an impression that the writer is uneducated, and distracts readers from the logic of the argument. Consult any competent English teacher, most competent teachers of any sort, and the introductory chapter of almost any standard writing reference. (For the record, the gross overuse of ellipses (…) is particularly annoying.)

  • Alex Weaver

    As for “insulting you on your grammar,” it was a criticism of the presentation of your argument, not of your character. I suggest you learn the difference. And it’s true; very poor grammar gives most people an impression that the writer is uneducated, and distracts readers from the logic of the argument. Consult any competent English teacher, most competent teachers of any sort, and the introductory chapter of almost any standard writing reference. (For the record, the gross overuse of ellipses (…) is particularly annoying.)

  • freddy

    Hey Alex,

    Ask Adam if he would be so kind as to let you read my blogs,they are quite fun and educational.
    Are you an English teacher?And if so does that mean you are a further evolved ape?
    I admit I was personal towards you,because it seems you are blasting everyone who believes in God.
    There are alot of attacks by you on intellegence,do you feel smart now?I am amazed on how fast you shut down my blogs as if you are sitting by your computer waiting for someone to defend Kent Hovind or God in any way,and then attacking them.
    How many good points have been deleted,(A sizable number?)I don’t see you abiding by your own rules.I believe you are filtering the blogs to suit your agenda.
    Anyway,there is the elect and and “non”elect,it appears you prefer the lather.

    My grammar better?I didn’t use the”….”ellipses
    I hope that helps

  • Carlos

    I am clearly a fool Alex says(insult)

  • Carlos

    Alot of insults on this blog…I really think we got Alex with the blogs he erased thats why he deleted them only minutes after we wrote them-so noone can see.
    What are you afraid of Alex or Adam?Let everyone see-I think we got ya.

  • Alex Weaver

    I am clearly a fool Alex says(insult)

    As distinguished from being deliberately deceitful. Would you disagree that “fool” is a more charitable interpretation of your hostile, ignorant commentary?

    Incidentally, I don’t have the capacity to delete comments (not “blogs”). Thank you for proving my point here.

  • Carlos

    You are trying to sound intelligent that is good…keep it up maybe someone will think your smart…you obviously know the commentmaster,and obviously are reading our comments(did you like them?)
    “Fool”a charitable interpretation?lol you crack me up!!!!I love it

    Fool is worse than anything I said on my comments…(ellipses I love’em)

    I think I did prove my point,and its scary to you!!
    I will read one last comment and then I’m done-thanks for your time.

    I won’t forget you

  • peter

    Real Americans are
    Toll Road,Income,SS and MC tax Proester.
    Chistians get of your rocking chair and Fight

  • peter

    Real Americans are
    Toll Road,Income,SS and MC tax Proester.
    Chistians get of your rocking chair and Fight

  • http://www.patheos.com/blog/daylightatheism/ Ebonmuse

    I think it’s long past time to close the comments on this thread.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X