And even if Kent Hovind evaded tax, because he does not read his bible, that still does not make the stuff he teaches incorrect.
You are making way too much sense.
Might I suggest Philosophy 101? And perhaps Philosophy of evolution as well as critical thinking
Again, your advice is just too sensical. Do you know who you are talking to ?
You are talking to persons who must engage in ad hom when a source presents evidence they cannot refute. It doesn't matter if Hovind is a child rapist or a racist like Darwin who conceived of human evolution after his ''Beagle'' visit to Tierra del Fuego. Darwin deemed the Fuegians
"the lowest form of humanity on earth....In 1838 while struggling to understand how evolution worked, Darwin's thoughts returned to the Fuegians and their apparent similarity to primates in the London Zoo" (Larson 2004:67). This is the origin of human evolution, after the theory was conceived and the first drawing of the Tree of Life by Darwin in 1837.
In sequence, God is rejected as Creator THEN Darwin makes racist correspondence. Notice the "scientific nature" of the discovery. A need fulfilled by racism propagated under the false disguise of science.
Once a person rejects God they are eligible to believe anything, including the eyes of a racist to account for human origins.
I'll take a tax evader anyday - and I am talking to you Charles Knight.
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2