For some reason this news made my day. I saw part of one his presentations on my local cable access channel and was stunned at how much of a liar he really is. Apparently he not only lies about "Evolution" but everything else as well.
" A Pensacola evangelist was arrested Thursday and indicted in federal court on 58 charges that include income tax evasion, making threats against investigators and filing false complaints against Internal Revenue Service agents.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Miles Davis handed down the indictment against Kent Hovind, who operated a creationist theme park Dinosaur Adventure Land, off Old Palafox Road.
Hovind’s wife, Jo Hovind, was also indicted on 44 of the counts and appeared in court alongside her husband.
Arraignment for the Hovinds is scheduled for 2 p.m. Monday. The couple was released pending their trial but are not allowed to travel outside the Northern District of Florida."
07-15-06, 02:05 PM DorianGreyed I suspect that Hovind will be Kind of Blue when the trial is over. But then, he may just say, "So What."
07-15-06, 02:13 PM juanruiz I understand the judge is a cheeky devil. 07-15-06, 02:32 PM GarColga alright - enough. It's kind of annoying to see there's been a post, only to find it's you guys making puns. We get it.
07-15-06, 02:38 PM juanruiz Sorry, gar. It's either the puns or me venting my spleen on Hovind. My blood pressure can't take the latter.
07-15-06, 03:17 PM GarColga Ok now it's annoying to see that there's been a couple posts, only to find it's you guys apologizing for making the posts that annoyed me earlier! Wink
I'm a little cranky - it's over 100 degrees today and I'm halfway done mowing the lawn and I'm using this as an excuse to stay inside for a few minutes longer.
Can't wait for some in-depth news about Hovind though.
07-15-06, 05:41 PM Karrow Garcolga, I don't blame you for being cranky about the responses in this thread! Whilst a bit of light-heartedness woven into sensible replies is fine, to see members (both of whom know better Roll Eyes) trying to outdo each other with puns as the only answers to a sensible post, about a serious subject, is an insult to the originator of the topic. 07-15-06, 08:48 PM
GarColga I forgive them!
01-21-07, 11:21 AM GarColga 10 years for 'Dr. Dino'
" Pensacola evangelist Kent Hovind was sentenced Friday afternoon to 10 years in prison on charges of tax fraud." Pensacola News Journal
Forgive me, but - Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho!!!
04-05-07, 05:11 PM thankyou sir People who share kent hovind's beliefs about Evolution and Intelligent Design are fighting an uphill battle, and this certainly isn't helping their case...
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 1999 | Location: Boise, Idaho, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
People who share kent hovind's beliefs about Evolution and Intelligent Design are fighting an uphill battle, and this certainly isn't helping their case...
I didnt know that there was any kind of proof for evolution, I do know that the bible said there was a flood,that has proven to be true because any mountaintop you excavate on you will find fossils,as far as evolution goes there is absolutly no evidence whatsoever because science is observation and there has never been one transitional form ever found ,so far all the things evolutionist have come up with have all been proven to be hoaxes, so the uphill battle you are talking about has fossils on it, while its easy to call someone a liar as you called Kent Hovind on what he said about the subject of evolution, I think when a person is so bold to make such a statement he ought to be bold enough to back it up with some evidence thatwhat exactly the lie is he said about evolution that wasnt true, or maybe he is lying
Whoever told you there has never been one transitional form ever found must be using a special definition of 'transitional form'.
'Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms. There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time...'evolution.berkeley.edu
It's simply not true that 'all the things evolutionist have come up with have all been proven to be hoaxes'. There have been some infamous hoaxes connected to evolution, but they are tiny in number compared to the mountain of fossil and other evidence for evolution. (And I think almost all of those hoaxes were actually proven to be so by other scientists. Science is generally interested in accurate observation and deduction, as far as possible.)
There is no 'proof' for any scientific explanation of the world. What we generally have is enough evidence to support a scientific theory - for it to be the likeliest explanation given the evidence so far. There is certainly enough evidence for the theory of evolution to be as scientifically acceptable as any other mainstream scientific theory. Here's one attempt at a summary of the evidence - www.gate.net I don't know how you can say that there is 'no evidence whatsoever'. Actually there is more evidence for evolution than is practical to give a comprehensive overview of. You'd need a few years of study. Another stab at a summary - The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Finding fossils of sea life on mountaintops is explained by plate tectonics. (Or are geologists all liars too? )
Here's a whole page of links detailing what a fraud Kent Hovind is: The Kent Hovind Page
Some of Hovind's silliest lies are reported on this page
'The Smithsonian Institute [sic] has 33,000 sets of human remains in their basement ... Many of them were taken while the people were still alive. They were so desperate to find missing links, so desperate to prove their theory that they murdered people to prove it. It was the philosophy of evolution that drove them (Hovind, Ch 4).
Five billion people [yes, he says billion] could drown in Loch Ness, and no one would show above the surface. It is a big lake. . . . As of the 1960s, there were over 9,000 sightings of the Loch Ness Monster. Today, there have been over 11,000 such sightings (Hovind, Ch 2).
The Trail of Tears was where the Cherokee Indians were driven out of the Chattanooga area all the way to Oklahoma. ... Evolution is responsible for what happened to the Indians. How any Indian can believe in evolution just blows my mind. ... [T]he evolution theory is what destroyed them (Hovind, Ch 4).'
You're right - we should be able to back up what we say with some evidence. Here's another specific instance of a Hovind lie: Kent Hovind's Cytochrome Lie.
I'm wondering if, when you said "because science is observation and there has never been one transitional form ever found", you meant to say 'there has never been any instance of speciation observed' - something quite commonly said by Creationists.
Well Ive taken all day to look at your material and there is not enough there to even raise an eyebrow ,while science cannot even cure the common cold and have studied the pyramids for a thousand years or more and not even be able to duplicate them,plus the fact all the antibiotics they have come up with are no longer working and disease is coming back with a vengeance,and the new medicine they give you now does more to kill you than anything else just watch the commercials,they say dont take this if,then they go on to say liver damage and all kinds of associated problems you get the point.science is supposed to be progress not kill the world off , with that in mind who in there right mind would expect them to explain the complicated design of the world we live in and how it got started , but what is science answer how we came into existance.We started from nothing, but because it took millions of years it all worked out okay ,and people buy into that, If the watch I was wearing and you said you liked it and I said well all the parts were in a box and it just put itself together nobody would believe it, but for some reason they will believe that very same thing about the universe and life on earth which is trillions of times more complicated than a watch; The odds for evolution being even remotely possible is about as possible as a hurricane ripping through a junk yard and when finished it leaves a boeing 747 behind completely assembled together , and that is why so many evolutionist have falsified and forged transitional forms to make evolution look real which you even admit to, cuase they know without them evolution is dead and it is
The 747 and the junkyard argument isn't really about evolution but about how life on earth began - The Tornado in the Junkyard.
It's false, anyway. As the article linked to says, 'this analogy is not an accurate representation of how evolution (or, for that matter, abiogenesis) works. In fact, it is a straw man, a ridiculous caricature that bears no resemblance to what the theory actually says'
Evolution is not about random shakings of machine parts together with a specific end in mind, but random mutations in organisms which can be preserved, built on or discarded by natural selection. That's a kind of constructive process, which an analogy like shaking watch parts in a jar does not accurately represent.
quote:
what is science answer how we came into existance
Science points out the evidence for humans having evolved from ape-like forms. On whether or not we all came from nothing, before that, science has no generally accepted theory. There isn't enough evidence to say, scientifically, how life began. The theory of evolution is about the origins of species, not of life itself. Saying that evolution is no good because it doesn't explain the ultimate origins of life is just more rhetorical Creationist trickery. It ain't supposed to.
quote:
...so many evolutionist have falsified and forged transitional forms...
There are a handful of instances where fossils turned out to be forgeries. There are countless more that are not. Do you have anything to back up your claim that "all of the things evolutionists have come up with have been hoaxes"? I think we agreed that's it important to be able to back up statements.
(Did we also agree that Hovind tells lies? Or have we dropped that subject?)
A Human Ancestor Fraud Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of Evolutionists from the Muslim online book Evolution Deceit Features of Piltdown Skull "Deliberate Fakes" Human Evolution - Frauds and Mistakes Lucy's Fraudulent Fame Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."
All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion" because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.
Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.
Orce man hominid fraud Piltdown man fraud The Ape-men fallacy by Malcolm Bowden (Review of book - Ape-men: Fact or Fallacy?) The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution The following is a transcript of The Apemen Frauds portion of the audio tape. The Piltdown Man Fraud by Monty White The Story of the Piltdown Man by the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal - A UC Berkely professor reports on the intentional alteration of hybridization data which was used to support the theory that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees. How many do you need to realize that they are liars and desperate? Evolution is dead and was never alive was just a therory taht has passed on
Didjano says : "...science cannot even cure the common cold..."
Well, Didja, unless you're a Chritian Scientist, you're a hypocrite.
When did religion ever cure the common cold?
If you break a leg, compound fracture, do you call an ambulance so that a (medical) scientist can give you antibiotics, and even a good anesthetic to help the pain, or do you go home and pray, as people had to do in the days before science? There were bonesetters then, to straighten and cast the limb, but when the gangrene set in, the treatment was ... drawing blood. And even that pitiful theory was based on a pagan theory ("the humors"). The bible is silent upon it.
You're a phony. Grow up.
Posts: 6528 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
Didyouknow's list of links seems to be from this page. I'll have a look at them as I get the time.
The first link doesn't work.
The second link - 'Deceptive Fossil Interpretations of Evolutionists..' points out that those 'caveman' pictures we often see are speculation; no soft tissue survives, so we can't be sure what our ancestors looked like, exactly. Fair enough, but that's not fraud, it's just extra illustration presumably designed to make books and articles more attractive - no one claims that these pictures are amy more than educated guesses at actual appearance. Moreover, the theory of evolution does not depend on imaginative reconstructions of faces. The bones tell us enough. (A short piece about 'paleoartists')
The third link is about the Piltdown Man. Yes, this was a fraud. It was a fraud uncovered by science. It has no bearing on current theories of evolution. I already conceded that there had been a handful of famous frauds. There are fakers in every field of human activity (even, dare I say it, religion).
The fourth link goes to a place-holding page.
Not so impressive so far, eh?
(I take it we have agreed that Hovind tells lies.)
The fifth link says that the famous Lucy skelton is a fake, composed of 30 individual skeletons. This isn't true, and the only 'evidence' presented at the link is a drawing and some photographs of Lucy (are they all actually supposed to be of Lucy?) which look different. Wow - what a clumsy fraud; do you think the fraudsters didn't bother to remember which bones they cobbled Lucy out of, and threw together a different set for every photograph? Give us a break .
'Composite' skeletons have been made, and Lucy was found near fragments of 200 other hominid fossils. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be much to this link, either.
The sixth link doesn't work.
The seventh is about Piltdown again. Yes, we see :yawn:.
Didyouknow presents great evidence, but, unfortunately, that evidence is for reinstating some sort of test to be taking before being allowed to vote. It also is strong evidence for the failure of the school system in the US, unless, of course, he tells us that he was home schooled.
Unless new evidence is brought forward, evidence not given by proven liars, I see no need to follow this thread anymore.
For those who care, Hovind is in the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Edgefield, South Carolina, from which he is scheduled to be released on 07-19-2015 .
Posts: 17476 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
First we have the "artists' impressions probably aren't exactly what our ancestors looked like" thing again. Yes, we know. Nobody said they were. (Should there be a ban on drawing dinosaurs 'in the flesh', too? Just the same thinking applies. I guess there'd be a lot of disappointed kids, though.)
Second - 'Java Man'. Firstly, note that this refers to a fossil discovered in 1893. There have been further discoveries since, of similar hominids, which confirm that the skull piece is of a human ancestor. The link claims that the skull is of a gibbon, but even other creationists have dropped this idea Java Man. The link mistakenly says that Java Man includes a human leg bone. That's hundred-year-old information. Everyone knows that the leg bone found by Dubois in 1893 was from a modern human - not part of Java Man.
It's typical of Creationists to present dated information - old mistakes and wrong turns that have long since been cleared up.
Third - the link brings up 'Nebraska Man'. This is a chestnut from 1922:
'The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor:
"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."
"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)
Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible. For example, in his two-volume book Human Origins published during what was supposedly the heyday of Nebraska Man (1924), George MacCurdy dismissed Nebraska Man in a single footnote:
"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."'...
...Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach).'Nebraska Man
Notice how didyouknow's link omits all of that information. That's dishonest. It doesn't even give the year - 1922.
Fourth - the link asserts that modern homo sapiens 'Fossils have been found in older layers than those of the so-called ape-men, but these are classed as "forgeries" or "intrusive burials". There are no details or sources given for this. Who knows what it refers to?
Fifth - there's a ridiculous claim that the robust and symmetrical Neanderthal fossils discovered are simply diseased modern humans. The link also says that Neanderthals were not modern humans' ancestors. Er, yes... we knew that already. Not every hominid has to be an ancestor of ours.
Then a long section on... oh no! Piltdown Man again. Yes, this was a hoax. Uncovered by scientists. Saying that Piltdown Man throws doubt on evolution is like saying that, because Kent Hovind is a liar, Christianity's no good.
There's more at this link, but it's all seems to be at about the same level of inaccuracy, 'economy with the truth' and childish fallacy.
Links ten and eleven are (sigh) about the Piltdown Man. (Repeating this over and over doesn't make it more than one fraud. It's still just one.)
The final link says its about a scandal, but it was more of a tiff;
'Macroevolution' was supported with or without the 'scandal.'
The 'scandal' was that the published paper contained values that did not mesh up with the presented data.
Other evolutionists, namely Vincent Sarich (and later disgruntled student Jon Marks, who made his career, if you can call it that, from beating the dead horse scandal) put up a stink, and it turned out that Sibley and Ahlquist had made mathematical corrections in some of their analyses which were not indicated in the paper.
This 'scandal' did not alter the branching arrangement of the taxa in the phylogenetic study. It is more of an example of how a little thing (really all that was needed was a published addendum or erratum) got turned into a major issue by folks whose pet ideas were challenged by the Sibley paper.'www.theologyweb.com
Didyouknow included a couple of quotes as well as all those links. These quotes are from scientists who accept and support the theory of evolution. They argue in favor of a theory called ‘punctuated equlibrium’ – which suggests that evolutionary change happens relatively rapidly following long periods of stasis in a species.
The first quote: ’Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."’
Well, first of all, he didn’t “confess” it. He didn’t even say it, directly. A reporter from the The Guardian Weekly (Nov 26, 1978, vol 119, no.22, pg. 1) paraphrased him. www.pandasthumb.org
Eldridge would have been arguing against the idea opposing “punk eek” – gradualism. Gradualism would suggest that there ought to be many more transitional fossils, more easily found, than if ‘punk eek’ were true.
The second quote: ’Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.’
I actually found the full Patterson quote – ’ You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”? I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. ‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …’internal.physics.uwa.edu.au
Again, Patterson is not arguing against evolution, but about opposing ideas of how exactly evolution happened. His seems to be an almost philosophical point – just because it looks like one thing caused another, we can’t know for sure – maybe one just preceded the other. In a more extreme way, for example, I can’t know that hitting a particular key causes a particular letter to appear on the monitor. It might just be a string of lucky coincidences.
These quotes are typical of Creationist “quote mining” – taking scientists’ words out of context and trying to make them look like they mean something they don’t. If you asked Eldridge or Patterson if they were saying evolution was not a valid theory, they would tell you ‘no.’ In fact, if you were just a little more honest and gave the full context, that would be obvious.
Didjano had said: "...science cannot even cure the common cold..."
So naturally I asked
"When did religion ever cure the common cold?"
But for some reason Didja had no answer. All she/he could come up with was
quote:
Cant take it eh,all that evidence stacked up against you...
Well, actually, no, I don't see 'all that evidence'. I just see somebody who can't answer a simple question about his/her beliefs.
The harder question is, if she/he has such contempt for science, what happens when the leg breaks, the bee stings, the heart arrests?
Prayer? Or 911? If both, why bother with 911? Isn't prayer powerful enough to handle medical emergencies?
I'll rephrase the question, hoping it will sound simpler:
If religion is the true way, do you have the courage to face a terrible road accident, refuse the ambulance and modern medicine, and just pray your way through the pain, the blood loss, the risk of terrible infection?
Is it lack of faith, when you fall back on 911?
Truth, now!
Posts: 6528 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
I think Dorian has the right answer. Didyouknow has presented fairly convincing evidence of something: the failure of our school system to keep pace (evolve) with the cumulative growth of knowledge. But the Canadian one???
I am reminded of a Chinese proverd which says: "It is better to remain silent and be thought ignorant, than to speak - and remove all doubt".
) 
