Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2018 6:12 AM
211 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 208 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,416 Year: 17,239/29,783 Month: 1,227/1,956 Week: 224/506 Day: 29/131 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind's debates, can someone help?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 127 (101064)
04-19-2004 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Coragyps
04-18-2004 10:13 AM


Re: Hovind and taxes
Read what I wrote, buz! "seems to have...."
I fully realize that he hasn't been convicted of anything. I'll wait and see.

I did read what you said. You figured he was likely in enough trouble that his lecturing would cease and you said he seems to have forgotten a million plus income. Gross receipts are a far cry from gross income and gross income is usually over double net income. Gross receipts include cost of goods sold, etc. Check again. I believe the link alluded to gross receipts, not gross income or net income. Some businesses have huge gross receipts and end up with a net loss.

I understand that gross isn't the same as net, too - but I would imagine that you actually file a return each year, don't you, buz? A church is tax-exempt, but the minister isn't - my dad filed a return each and every year. That's the law in this country.
.

I repeat.........Kent Hovind maintains that the tax laws are not Constitutional and all I can say is that he states this openly in public and is hiding nothing. He's been doing this for years and still charged with no crimes. I understand that these people who operate this way do so lawfully, though the feds don't like it and are doing everything they can think of to find a valid charge to arrest them. I understand also that you better be pretty smart on your tax laws and your legal rights or don't try this at home.

Sole proprietors such as myself file yearly. I've filed every year for over 50 years and do my own books and accounting.

[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-19-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2004 10:13 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Darwin Storm, posted 04-20-2004 12:40 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 127 (101071)
04-19-2004 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Coragyps
04-19-2004 10:57 PM


You're probably right there, buz. How would any work have gotten done on the farm if they had vanished?

Yah, I thought of that as I was posting, but no, it was the premise of evolution, imo, that gave Darwin the idea of their demise and physiological inferiority to other races.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Coragyps, posted 04-19-2004 10:57 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 127 (101075)
04-19-2004 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Chiroptera
04-19-2004 11:09 PM


Buz, are you saying that Darwin advocated genocide? Note: I am not putting words in your mouth; I am asking for clarification.

Thanks Chirop for allowing me to clarify my own thoughts.
Put it this way. He considered them to be more subhuman than the other races and likely unlike Hitler, would leave the process of elimination to time. However, having said that it was this mindset that seemed to motivate one who achieved the political power and military wherewithall to move the process along. After all, the quicker this was accomplised, the more advanced, the more intelligent and the more purely human a nation and a world would become, as one with this mindset would likely figure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Chiroptera, posted 04-19-2004 11:09 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 127 (101078)
04-19-2004 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by nator
04-18-2004 10:12 AM


Specifically, can you provide any support for your claim that Darwin's theory states that more color = less evolved?

True or false? Apes are dark skinned. True or false? If evolution was factual human primates would tend to dark skin rather than white and much time required for that to change. Methinks Darwin figured dark skinned folks were the lesser evolved and lesser advanced of the human species. Simple as that. Creationists would never have any reason to entertain such thoughts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by nator, posted 04-18-2004 10:12 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Sylas, posted 04-20-2004 1:06 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 127 (101084)
04-20-2004 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Buzsaw
04-19-2004 11:10 PM


Re: Hovind and taxes
I repeat.........Kent Hovind maintains that the tax laws are not Constitutional and all I can say is that he states this openly in public and is hiding nothing. He's been doing this for years and still charged with no crimes. I understand that these people who operate this way do so lawfully, though the feds don't like it and are doing everything they can think of to find a valid charge to arrest them. I understand also that you better be pretty smart on your tax laws and your legal rights or don't try this at home.

Kent Hovind may claim many things, but that doesn't mean they are true. I have heard various claims about how tax laws are unconstitutional. Of course, if he, or anyone making those claims, had read the constitution, they would know their claims are flat out lies.


Article 1:
Section 8:
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; -US Constitution

Now, there have been those that thought this article wasn't clear enough in giving power to the government to collect taxes on personal income, so to clear things up, amendment 16 was passed.


Amendment 16 (1913)
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 of enumeration.
-US constitution, amendments

Failure to not file your taxes or to pay them is a crime. Just because the IRS hadn't audited him previously, and discovered malfeasance, doesn't mean he hasnt been breaking laws. You misunderstand the tax laws and the powers given to the US government by the constitution if you think it is lawful to not to pay your taxes. True, there is special tax-exempt statuses that can be applied to organizations (not individuals), but those groups are tightly regulated in how they can obtains and spend money. Additionally, their finances are carefully monitered. Since Kent Hovind is an individual, his buisnesses are not tax-exempt organizations (I believe they are single proprietorships in most cases).
There are other misconceptions, but those are the big two that come to mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Buzsaw, posted 04-19-2004 11:10 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Sylas
Member (Idle past 3214 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 126 of 127 (101092)
04-20-2004 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Buzsaw
04-19-2004 11:59 PM


buzsaw writes:

Specifically, can you provide any support for your claim that Darwin's theory states that more color = less evolved?

True or false? Apes are dark skinned. True or false? If evolution was factual human primates would tend to dark skin rather than white and much time required for that to change. Methinks Darwin figured dark skinned folks were the lesser evolved and lesser advanced of the human species. Simple as that. Creationists would never have any reason to entertain such thoughts.

Darwin did tend to consider, along with most other Victorians, that his own society represented a kind of pinnacle of civilization and culture. However, this is a cultural matter rather than biological. This distinction was not clearly recognized by naturalists of the time, and even Darwin confuses the two concepts in some contexts; though in others he appears to appreciate it. The co-discoverer with Darwin of the role of natural selection, Alfred Wallace, made this distinction more clear. In any case, Darwin did explicitly address the matter of skin colour in Descent, and he does not use it as an indicator that black skinned people are less evolved.

Evolution implies that all currently living species are all equally the evolved results of common ancestors, but evolved in different directions. Darwin also recognized this in his writings.

Many people did consider other races, especially negroes, to be "less evolved" and even "less human"; but Darwin was more inclined to see them, correctly, as evolved in a different direction, and to a superficial degree. Darwin also appreciated that the term "negro" obscured considerable variety and did not logically represent a well defined race. Darwin considered humans to represent a single species, with the various differences as biologically superficial. Further work since Darwin's time has increasingly confirmed the superficiality of racial differences.

As for what creationists might think, you underestimate the ingenuity of people to defend their prejudices, even if they are creationists. Creationists believe we are made in the image of God, and on this basis many have put considerable emphasis on "image". Many have concluded that those who look radically different, in colour for example, are not in the same image. Try doing a web search, for "white adamic race". You might be surprised!

Here is an extreme example, from The 11th Hour Remnant Messenger

Adam Man (Adamite) is mentioned over 2,000 times in the Bible. Human (“HUE”MAN [tinted or colored skin]) is not mentioned once in the Bible. That is because the Bible, the WORD of Father Yahweh God is written for Adamic White Skinned Aryan Hebrew Israelites only.

Only the Adamic White Skinned race has the physiological ability to “blush red”. No other race can blush red. The non-race JEWS cannot blush red..

No other race of peoples are mentioned in the Bible except as they occasionally came into contact with His Chosen, his Adamic White Skinned Aryan Hebrew, Israelite people.

It is a lie that Jesus Christ came to redeem any other race other than his own people, the Chosen people of Israel, the Israelites.

I should emphasize, to take the above as representing authentic Christian belief is ridiculous. So also it is ridiculous to represent evolution as a racist notion which ranks the various living races on some kind of progression. Both distortions and cheap and contemptible rhetorical devices, indicating either ignorance of the system they seek to criticise, or else dishonest application of obvious nonsense.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 04-19-2004 11:59 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 127 of 127 (101102)
04-20-2004 1:40 AM


Closing topic
I think this is/was a "Short Subject" type of topic. The originator was looking for copies of Hovind vidios.

This topic has since sometimes touched on things Hovind, but I think it should have been shut down back about page 1.

Adminnemooseus


WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads


  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018