Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,565 Year: 4,822/9,624 Month: 170/427 Week: 83/85 Day: 0/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind
jar
Member
Posts: 34045
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 331 of 349 (629170)
08-16-2011 8:51 AM


Summation
Kent Hovind is nothing but a criminal and con man.
In addition there is evidence of natural causes.
Until evidence equal to the evidence of natural causes is presented Creationism and Intelligent Design are nothing but legal maneuvers to sneak Christian Biblical Creationism into the schools.
Since there is evidence that there are natural causes but no evidence of a creator or any method used by that critter to influence evolution logic demands that until such evidence is presented that the creator or the method used by that critter be simply disregarded.
It really is that simple.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Panda, posted 08-16-2011 12:00 PM jar has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 332 of 349 (629218)
08-16-2011 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by jar
08-16-2011 8:51 AM


Re: Summation
jar writes:
Kent Hovind is nothing but a criminal and con man.
In addition there is evidence of natural causes.
There is more evidence of natural causes than there is of Kent Hovind being a criminal - and Kent Hovind is definitely a criminal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by jar, posted 08-16-2011 8:51 AM jar has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 333 of 349 (629370)
08-17-2011 9:07 AM


Summation
In keeping with a part of the theme of this thread, it has been intimated that not only Kent Hovind, but most creationist use unethical tactics during debates.
There is no need to believe this is true, nor is there any need to assume the polemist on the creation side is anything but honest and that thier intentions are honorable
In this vain, I thought it would be appropriate in summation to rehearse some of the tactics, we, I, believe, secular fundamental Humanist use in these same debates.
First and foremost I notice that they have the unique ability to change the meanings of simple terms and words, making them more complicated, thereby disallowing information that does not fit into thier framework of understanding
A couple of examples are the words science and evidence. Science they say has to be limited to thier strict definition,or its not science. This is of course nonsense,. simply because any investigation into the natural world by scientist on either side is of course science
When applying the word evidence to creationist they insist that there must be direct evidence to establish the position as valid, which is actually no problem if the word is used acccurately and applied accross the board, its is not
When refering to the TOE, however, they insist thier is direct evidence, even if, like creationism,no one actually wittnessed that event. They change the nature of the word evidence to suit thier purposes and demand and insist that we provide what they are not required to establish the position as valid
We rely on order, law and purpose to describe and establish the evidence for a designer. This they say is not direct evidence. Amazingly, they turn right around, having not wittnessed the actual event of Evolution and insist that the physical evidence they use as establishing the TOE, direct evidence. The tactic they employ in this instance should be obvious
They change the rules to suit thier purposes
Akin to this position, is thier ablity to be very intolerable of anyone that disagrees with thier positions, which very quickly translates into sarcasm, insults, abuse, belittling, profanity, during these discussions
The reason, I believe, they use these tactics during these discussions is to disway thier opponent from participating further in the exchange. These types of tactics are more characteristic during the discussions online, but one only need read any thread where a theist involves himself, to wittness this type of tactic on thier part.
Thirdly Ive noticed that they argue a position as if the question of the topic of creation and evolution has been settled, beyond any doubt, intimating and often reffering to thier opponent as possessing some sort of mental inabilty, not to see the position as do they.
Amazingly, they make a faulty distinction between apologetics and the Scientific Method. They seem not to have the ability to recognize that the word apologetics is just another method of investigation
This sharp distinction and unwarrented characterization of the word apologetics is to create prejudice against a position they reject. Just another tactic on thier part. They provide no reason to believe that apologetics is any less an investigation than thier Scientific Method
They play the dumb card on such words as eternal, pretending to not know what and how a person is using that concept
The list Im sure could go on and on on both sides about unethical tactics, accused of both sides.
Amazingly, they have the inability to see the difference between direct and indirect implication. They insist that there are only evidences of natural causes. When pressed on this point they insist that there implication is not extended to the cause of everything.
They dont seem to understand that when in a discussion about the why and how of existence, claiming evidences of natural causes would naturally extend to that of existence itself. If one knows there is only evidence of natural causes, then indirectly they are claiming to know that the causes for existence itself are natural as well. Of course they have no idea or evidence for the why and how of the Big Bang, which would make thier claim to know of natural causes only an assertion
they insist that there is evidence of natural causes only, when in fact there is only evidence of existence itself. Wittnessing an immediate event of causation is not the same as knowing the cause of existence itself, if one was not here to witness the actual event.
In short however, it should be obvious to any thinking person, that where an actual event is not witnnessed, ie, creation or TOE, there is no direct evidence. However, it is not necessary for evidence to be direct for there to be evidence at all.
In short it should be obvious that if indirect evidence is used to establish the TOE, as is characterized by the fac that no one wittnessed the event and much of its tenets are still disputed, then the physical evidence that establishes creation or design, order law, purpose and design, are actually evidence as well, of a designer.
The positions are on equal footing, the evidence is of the same nature and both use the physical world for the conclusions
Creationism is a scientific evaluation and a logical proposition, neither of which, intially, have anything to do with religion or the mystical contemplation
Creationism is a valid observation of only two logical positions, which makes it even more plausible and probable given the contingent nature of the universe
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Panda, posted 08-17-2011 1:32 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 335 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-18-2011 10:44 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(4)
Message 334 of 349 (629408)
08-17-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Dawn Bertot
08-17-2011 9:07 AM


Summation
In keeping with a part of the theme of this thread, it has been intimated that not only Kent Hovind, but most creationist use unethical tactics during debates.
There is no need to believe this is true, nor is there any need to assume the polemicist on the creation side is anything but honest and that their intentions are honourable. Instead you can use your eyes and KNOW they use unethical tactics during debates; are far from honest; and have dishonourable intentions.
First and foremost I notice that creationists have the unique ability to change the meanings of complicated terms and words, making them simple, thereby disallowing information that does not fit into their simplistic and inaccurate framework of understanding.
A couple of examples are the words science and evidence. Science, creationists say, doesn't have to adhere to any rules. This is of course nonsense.
When using the word evidence, creationists insist that there doesn't have to be any evidence to establish their position as valid.
When referring to the TOE, however, they insist that all the direct evidence is NOT evidence, even if people have actually witnessed evolution. They change the nature of the word evidence to suit their purposes.
Creationists rely on order, law and purpose to describe and establish the evidence for a god. This scientists say is not direct evidence. Scientists then turn right around, having witnessed the actual event of Evolution and insist that the physical evidence they use as establishing the TOE is direct evidence - which it is. The tactics creationists employ in this instance should be obvious.
Creationists change the rules to suit their purposes
Akin to this position, is creationists' ability to be very intolerable of anyone that disagrees with their positions, which very quickly translates into sarcasm, insults, abuse, belittling, profanity, during these discussions. Dawn Bertot posting history is a very good example of this sort of behaviour.
The reason, I believe, that creationists use these tactics during these discussions is to dismay their opponent from participating further in the exchange. These types of tactics are more characteristic during the discussions on-line, but one only need read any thread where a theist involves himself, to witness this type of tactic from creationists.
Thirdly I've noticed that creationists argue a position as if the question of the topic of creation and god has been settled, beyond any doubt, intimating and often referring to their opponent as possessing some sort of mental inability, not to see the position as do they.
Amazingly, they make a faulty distinction between apologetics and the Scientific Method. They seem not to have the ability to recognize that the word apologetics is just words.
Creationists play the dumb card on such words as science or evidence, pretending to not know what and how a person is using that concept.
The list, I'm sure, could go on and on on about unethical tactics by creationists.
People know that there is evidence of natural causes, but creationists don't have a clue.
In short however, it should be obvious to any thinking person, that where an actual event is witnessed, i.e. evolution, there is direct evidence.
In short it should be obvious that if zero evidence is used to establish a designer, as is characterized by the fact that no one has ever provided evidence of a designer. The physical evidence does not establish creation, design or a designer.
Creationism is belief, which has everything to do with religion and myths.
Creationism has no observations. It is not plausible nor probable given the nature of the universe.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2011 9:07 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 335 of 349 (629608)
08-18-2011 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Dawn Bertot
08-17-2011 9:07 AM


Summation
I have provided a new summation that is not a reply to Dawn Bertots summation.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2011 9:07 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-19-2011 1:53 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 159 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 336 of 349 (629640)
08-19-2011 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by Butterflytyrant
08-18-2011 10:44 PM


Re: Summation
Butterfly, I got the impression real quick (now I know for sure) you understood nothing about debate, especially summations
You CANNOT respond to a summation, this is a simple part of the polemic process. Admin made it very clear in his message
I did not respond in detail to your very long winded post because it was disjointed and random
The point of not responding to a summation, is that I dont get a chance to respond to your comments,which involve new arguments and assertion
What Panda did was nothing short of Plagairsm
Butterfly, you cant respond, especially in detail, as you did to summations, knothead
Id be happy to address and refute any of the very vauge and fallacious points you have brought up in another thread if you so desire and admin approves
Dawn Bertot
{I agree with much if not all of what was said in this message. And, NO REPLIES to this message. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : The stuff in red.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : First "this" had been "thing".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-18-2011 10:44 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-19-2011 2:15 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 337 of 349 (629643)
08-19-2011 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Dawn Bertot
08-19-2011 1:53 AM


Re: Summation
(Sorry Moose, I had begun this reply before your comment in Dawns post.)
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Most content hidden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-19-2011 1:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4498 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 338 of 349 (629645)
08-19-2011 2:21 AM


NEW SUMMATION
I started this thread becasue I saw a challenge on Kent Hovinds website (drdino.com). The challenge was so simple that I believed that there were plenty of individuals on this site who would be able to overcome it. After being involved in this thread, I have come to realise that the challenge is not there to actually be fought. The challenge is there to exist by itself. The challenge is designed to make it appear that noone can fight it. No replies or communications accepting the challenge will ever be acknowledged. Hovind can just sit back and keep repeating that he has a challenge on his website that has gone unanswered for years. Then he will smugly say something like 'what does that tell you'. To his target audience, this will tell them that he has something so powerful to say that noone can stand against it. To others it will say that he has not allowed anyone to challenge it. Unfortunately, the two groups are not equal in size. Hovinds target audience need to believe what he says. They have a huge vested interest in remaining ignorant. They lose their afterlife if they are wrong. They have wasted the life they have if they are wrong. This is one of the creationist sides most effective forms of arguement. This tactic has been used many times even in this one thread.
There is a tone af dishonesty to many of the replies. A good example of this dishonesty is falsly represnting your position. The ID group are the best example. They attempt to make it seem as if they are part of the scientific side. Dawn Bertot seems to be a textbook example. The summation carries a perfect example of the dishonesty plainly and clearly. Other examples can be found but this one happens to be handy.
In the first few sentences of the summation he states that he is on a particular side -
In keeping with a part of the theme of this thread, it has been intimated that not only Kent Hovind, but most creationist use unethical tactics during debates.
There is no need to believe this is true, nor is there any need to assume the polemist on the creation side is anything but honest and that thier intentions are honorable
In this vain, I thought it would be appropriate in summation to rehearse some of the tactics, we, I, believe, secular fundamental Humanist use in these same debates.
Notice that he use the terms their and they when discussing the creationist side. He describes himself as a secular, fundamental humanist. Creating an us and them side, with himself on the science side. By doing this he is attempting to create the illusion that he is argueing from the science position. Suggesting that he is on our side.
However, his true colours come out throughout the remainder of the post. For all of the rest of the post, he changes to refer to the science side as they and them. Showing that he does not see himself as on this side at all. At one stage he even refers to the scientific method as 'their scientific method'
Another form of dishonesty is suggesting you are something when you are obviously not. Many people on this forum will openly state that something is not in their field and will step aside for another individual better qualified to deal with a question to do so. Many creationists argue as if they are experts in many fields of science as well as logic, theology and philosophy. A creationist does not have to take an opponents word for it when they state something, they should research it a bit themselves. But if an individual has tertiary training in a particular field, especially if they have a masters or even a doctorate in that field, then they should listen very carefully when they are informed of defenitions of basic words. An example of where this has fallen down can be found in Dawn bertots summation as well as in many other threads.
A couple of examples are the words science and evidence. Science they say has to be limited to thier strict definition,or its not science. This is of course nonsense,. simply because any investigation into the natural world by scientist on either side is of course science
When applying the word evidence to creationist they insist that there must be direct evidence to establish the position as valid, which is actually no problem if the word is used acccurately and applied accross the board, its is not
Science and evidence have definitions. All words have definitions. The standard definition of words like science, evidence, theory, supernatural, logic etc apply to everyone. Making up your own incorrect definition to a word does not improve your arguement, it just makes it confusing.
Just taking Dawns summation as a source of an example, there is obvious misrepresentation or total incorrect usage of the following words and phrases : evidence, science, secular fundamental humanist, apologetics, scientific method, natural causes (I personaly have written an extensive reply to Dawn illustrating how to correctly use the term). This sort of thing is relatively common amongst creationist debaters.
Another tactic often used is to misinterpret or misrepresent facts in order to confuse the argument. For example, using Dawn again because he is such a good source of poor arguements.
When refering to the TOE, however, they insist thier is direct evidence, even if, like creationism,no one actually wittnessed that event. They change the nature of the word evidence to suit thier purposes and demand and insist that we provide what they are not required to establish the position as valid
There are two examples of common, dishonest arguement here. There is misrepresentation of the ToE. This sentence suggests that evolution is not currently occuring. Even Dawn must know that this is not true. But this is an example used by many creationists, not just Dawn Bertot. I am only using this as an example as it is handy. This can only be deliberate dishonesty in order to further his own cause. He also suggests that followers of the ToE are changing the word evidence to further their cause when this is also not true.
One of the most common forms of argument I have seen used by creationists is repetition. Repeating a position over and over again. Often using CAPITALS to hammer their point home. Evidence is rarely in ever supplied. The sources supplied are often corrupt or used in a misleading fashion. Look up any thread involving IamJoseph or Dawn Bertot for extensive examples of this form of intellectual dishonesty. Repeating the same wrong thing over and over again does not do anything to support your position.
These forms of arguements are the most difficult to debate against. They do not create a position that can be fought. the creationist side uses the very existence of their arguement as a position. Just because they have said something, their position is valid. This is the same form of arguemnt Hovind uses with his challenge. Create a position and refuse to engage in reasonable debate. It is a position that is impossible to defeat. Rational people can see the obvious flaw in the position but the target audience do not. They have a vested interest in sowing confusion and misdirection.
This makes it a very hard sell for the non creationist side. We gain nothing but knowledge by being right or wrong. Our chances of an eternal afterlife in heaven or hell do not change. In our eyes, they often both remain a steady 0%. Our audience (and that is everybody) gains nothing from being lied to or intentionally confused. But some individuals need to remain confused or ignorant. They lose significantly if they ever change sides. They want to find arguements that help them remain confused. The people on this forum who use these tactics are being enabled when others try to debate with them. It stregthens their position if others take their statements seriously. In the end, their opponents give up in exasperation. Often it has become clear that the creationist wants nothing more than to shout their own misguided ranting to hear themselves speak. They are performing an act of intellectual masturbation. Stroking their own arguement in order to self satisfy.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 339 of 349 (741233)
11-10-2014 3:12 PM


Back in the news
'Dr. Dino' facing new legal woes
quote:
According to an Oct. 21 federal indictment filed against Hovind and Paul John Hansen a Nebraska man known for his vigorous opposition of government tax and property laws the duo has been charged with mail fraud and criminal contempt for interfering with the sale of Pensacola properties Hovind was forced to forfeit as a result of the 2006 case.
The indictment says that in 2011, Hansen filed liens on nine of Hovind's forfeited properties on North Palafox Street, Cummings Road and Oleander Drive.
In 2012 the government was granted an injunction ordering that neither Hovind nor any agent acting on his behalf file or attempt to file any "liens, notices, financing titles and claims of whatever nature ... to cloud the title of the properties."
The following year, both Hovind and Hansen reportedly mailed additional documents disputing the ownership of the property.
Both men were charged with mail fraud, attempt and conspiracy to commit mail fraud and criminal contempt. Mail fraud can be punishable by up to 20 years in prison and as much as $500,000 in fines when involving an organization.
Oh dear, poor man is being soooo persecuted for his beliefs ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by mike the wiz, posted 11-10-2014 5:17 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 341 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-11-2014 2:04 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 342 by Modulous, posted 11-11-2014 3:33 PM RAZD has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 340 of 349 (741253)
11-10-2014 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by RAZD
11-10-2014 3:12 PM


Who is this guy anyway? He seems important to evos!
Don't worry, this post is in no way an attack on you but this threads appearance has spiked some thoughts.
I stay away from individuals personally. Hovind, to me - well, to be honest, you might have noticed this yourself RAZD, but he can be used as a kind of stereotypical creationist.
It should be noted, I have never based any of my beliefs on anything he has ever said. I once watched a very entertaining four hour debate with Hovind and Hugh Ross, and that is the totality of my knowledge of the man and I AM a creationist.
It struck me that he seemed to have the style of a political rhetoricist. Hugh Ross seemed to be a genuine intellect but Hovind seemed evasive and almost condescending or so it seemed he came across that way. I will never judge an individual person of course, but if you were to ask me if Hovind was a genuine Christian, I have to confess I doubt it very strongly.
But what I find very weird is that "creationists" are supposed to buy into everything he says, or that we need to. Not likely - chances are Bubba and his friends might, but somehow I think mikey wouldn't given Bubba would think Ad-Logicam was some sort of ice-cream, if mikey was to mention the fallacy.
(Disclaimer: I'm not accusing anyone of using that fallacy, but it is very relevant if statements about all "creationists" are going to be made. For example I could argue I am a human, because I have every element that makes me human, but if a man came along called Bubba Hovind, and concluded I was human because I am Jonah Johnny-cake Jesus, from the planet Mars that wouldn't mean I would have to sacrifice my conclusion that I am human, just because he argued I was human for that reason)
(i.e. A common denominator between me and Hovind, is "creationist", but really so what - RAZD is an intelligent evolutionist that doesn't commit fallacies and behaves exceptionally, but does that mean all "evolutionists" are? Does it also follow that atheists that argue evolution Ipse Dixit, are genuinely scientific people, by association with the epithet, 'science' or, 'scientific'?) Let's be honest, a lot of them are as ignorant as Bubba, but they have respect because they accept evolution - I guess that's the kind of respect Percy and his cohorts have, respect for ineptitude and bad-behaviour, but as long as you're on the evolution-side, you're alright, Jack!
For me, atheists use guys like this to make out we are, guilty by association with him. Which is a bit like saying, "mike, please apologise for the crusades, and please tell me why you and Hovind argue that a unicorn used to exist.".
My goodness, Bubba, I wasn't in the crusades! . "mike, you still haven't apologised for the crusades"
"I know, I've been meaning to get around to it but too many telephone calls between me and Hovind about how I can avoid paying tax, have been going down, I promise I'll get around to it some day, and all of this dishonesty about how a resistant bacteria doesn't explain the creation of an organ or echolocation of a whale, is abounding mightily with me at the moment. You know, I just don't know what it is but being a Christian just makes me such an ignorant guy because we can clearly see a novel new motor is created when a bacteria mutates."
mikey-mischief complete.
(Of course, this post isn't really relevant to RAZD, but he seems to appreciate the mikey-madness a bit more than those regular old dirty birds, Percy and Dr A! Those cockadoodie-brats! Those miserable snozzcumbers!
(Please note, the Annie Wilkes personality intermingled with Roald Dahl characters comes free of charge, feel free to request it at any time, and I shall forthwith dispatch it up your "cockadoodie bumhole".)
There aint no mike like a mikey-mike! Can we agree, at least?
babas be blessed! (like my flying baba-worm? He migrates north in the winter)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2014 3:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 341 of 349 (741291)
11-11-2014 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by RAZD
11-10-2014 3:12 PM


Re: Back in the news
And there was great rejoicing in the land.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2014 3:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 342 of 349 (741342)
11-11-2014 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by RAZD
11-10-2014 3:12 PM


Re: Back in the news
. Mail fraud can be punishable by up to 20 years in prison
Given his unapologetic and remorselessness, given he was explicitly and formally told to not do what he has allegedly done, should he be found guilty I would have thought he'd get quite a high sentence if that is the maximum.
My Googling says the max prison sentence is 30 years if you try and defraud a financial institution and 5 years otherwise, maybe the discrepancy is something to do with State laws? Either way, I don't rate his chances at avoiding considerably more time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by RAZD, posted 11-10-2014 3:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by RAZD, posted 11-11-2014 4:38 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1481 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 343 of 349 (741350)
11-11-2014 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Modulous
11-11-2014 3:33 PM


Re: Back in the news
Given his unapologetic and remorselessness, given he was explicitly and formally told to not do what he has allegedly done, ...
Maybe they will find that he is insane.
... Either way, I don't rate his chances at avoiding considerably more time.
And the Christian need to be persecuted will be fulfilled ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Modulous, posted 11-11-2014 3:33 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 344 of 349 (762178)
07-09-2015 2:11 PM


He's Free
Nonreligious Questions
Doubtless he has learned his lesson and will never do anything fraudulent ever again.

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Percy, posted 07-09-2015 3:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22604
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 345 of 349 (762202)
07-09-2015 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Dr Adequate
07-09-2015 2:11 PM


Re: He's Free
Hovind's first need will be money, so there should soon be a new revitalized Hovind website (lots of lecture tapes and creationist paraphernalia for sale) and a Hovind lecture tour (coming soon to a church near you).
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2015 2:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 07-09-2015 3:54 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 347 by Omnivorous, posted 07-09-2015 7:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024