Ex-Con Hovind released from the pokey.

pat34lee · Jul 12, 2015

bhsmte said:
What the United States needs is more general knowledge about science. We don't do real well in that department compared to other advanced countries.

That is because the government and science groups have so much invested in the religion of evolution, that they must teach children in school what to think, not how to think for themselves.

bhsmte · Jul 12, 2015

pat34lee said:
That is because the government and science groups have so much invested in the religion of evolution, that they must teach children in school what to think, not how to think for themselves.

Are you from the United States?

RickG · Jul 12, 2015

pat34lee said:
That is because the government and science groups have so much invested in the religion of evolution, that they must teach children in school what to think, not how to think for themselves.

You have personally witnessed this?

RickG · Jul 12, 2015

Jan Volkes said:
I agree, evolution is the governments fault, it's all the governments fault.

The government determines the school curriculum?

pat34lee · Jul 12, 2015

bhsmte said:
Are you from the United States?

Yes. But from what I've seen, most other countries like Canada, England and Australia are very similar.

bhsmte · Jul 12, 2015

pat34lee said:
Yes. But from what I've seen, most other countries like Canada, England and Australia are very similar.

Similar in what way?

pat34lee · Jul 12, 2015

RickG said:
The government determines the school curriculum?

The government sets the standards and controls most of the money. The states and local governments don't rock the boat because the feds can withhold that money.

pat34lee · Jul 12, 2015

RickG said:
You have personally witnessed this?

Just look at what they teach. And no, I won't post it. You can look it up. Better yet, if you have kids in school, read their textbooks and visit their classrooms.

MikeEnders · Jul 12, 2015

RickG said:
No, you need to show scientific fraud by mainstream science that has been exposed by non-mainstream science or non-science entities.

to coin a word your nonsensicality continues. the only people that have access to the data are people who would be considered science entities. The average public cannot walk into a lab and demand to see details. its like asking if anyone has ever found a problem in the Oval office that was not connected to a politician in some way. No because in order to get in there it usually requires a politician to invite or hire you. The whole argument silly anyway. the fraud is rampant

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/s...ulls-60-papers-in-peer-review-fraud.html?_r=0

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/...m-how-authors-are-reviewing-their-own-papers/

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-fraud-accusation-20140709-column.html

and I could post scores more without breaking a sweat. Pretending like its no big problem just shows your bias. Your claim its found fast is a fabrication. Some of these were published years and years ago and with the regularity they are being found far more are likely to be found.

pat34lee · Jul 12, 2015

bhsmte said:
Similar in what way?

See the following article:
http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm

bhsmte · Jul 12, 2015

pat34lee said:
See the following article:
http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm

It appears as though, the countries you mentioned tend to do much better in science, as education of their children advance to the 12th grade. Not so in the United States.

RickG · Jul 12, 2015

pat34lee said:
Just look at what they teach. And no, I won't post it. You can look it up. Better yet, if you have kids in school, read their textbooks and visit their classrooms.

I asked because the strongest criticism generally comes from the outside from people who have nothing more than an agenda to pursue rather than first-hand knowledge.

I'm retired, most of my professional career was as a research chemist and process engineer in private industry. However, I have teaching experience as well, having teacher certification in three different states as well as experience in each of those. I have taught science at the middle school level, high school level, and geology at the college level. The government does not set the school curriculum, rather this is done at the state education level and local board of education level by educators. It is not set by federal or state politicians. As for evolution being taught, it is a very small portion of the entire science curriculum. Of the science textbooks used containing some 35 to 40 plus chapters, only one chapter, if that much is dedicated to evolution, of which only the basic concepts and historical aspect is taught.

RickG · Jul 12, 2015

MikeEnders said:
to coin a word your nonsensicality continues. the only people that have access to the data are people who would be considered science entities. The average public cannot walk into a lab and demand to see details. its like asking if anyone has ever found a problem in the Oval office that was not connected to a politician in some way. No because in order to get in there it usually requires a politician to invite or hire you. The whole argument silly anyway. the fraud is rampant

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/s...ulls-60-papers-in-peer-review-fraud.html?_r=0

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/...m-how-authors-are-reviewing-their-own-papers/

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-fraud-accusation-20140709-column.html

and I could post scores more without breaking a sweat. Pretending like its no big problem just shows your bias. Your claim its found fast is a fabrication. Some of these were published years and years ago and with the regularity they are being found far more are likely to be found.

The scientific journals are open to everyone, including you. And as I said before, it is the scientific community that reveals such frauds and corrects them. You also need to understand that such frauds are almost entirely found in what the scientific community describes as "Outline Journals". Outline journals are journals that regularly publish papers outside their field(s) of expertise or have reviewers that are reviewing work outside their respective fields of expertise; and that generally describes what your links describe. There peer review system is not perfect, but I know of no other system maintaining academic excellence any better.

As for the creation science literature, who reviews that? And why is so much of it done by people writing about a specific field of science they have no background in, if they have any scientific background at all.

HitchSlap · Jul 12, 2015

outsidethecamp said:
Nope, wrong again. He treated them as independent contractors.

Maybe Walmart should too?

HitchSlap · Jul 12, 2015

outsidethecamp said:
A federal judge, however, acquitted Kent Hovind on Monday of the March conviction for contempt of court and on Tuesday dismissed mail fraud and conspiracy charges in connection with court filings on land seized by the federal government in his case.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/good-news-for-convicted-creation-evangelist/

He was paying people as "missionaries".

And conspiring to hide assets, and making deposits no more than 10k at a time, and talking crazy while under oath, and...

Smidlee · Jul 12, 2015

RickG said:
No "Science people" are people who have the academic credentials and experience in "specific" areas of science. You keep missing the whole point. It is those qualified science people who uncover hoaxes and "intellectual dishonesty". Not the media.

That is true in every field including the media. The ones I first read about having doubts about the peer review were the creationist. You just need to know something about human nature which is exactly what scripture deals with. And since the hoaxes came from the so called "qualified scienctist" that makes them "qualified" hoax.

I do believe strongly, as history has proven, that scientist should questioned by those outside their field (as with any field). (Centuries ago some churches thought scripture should only be read by the "qualifies" bishop and of course the church governed who were "qualified.")

Anything that deals with "truth" should not be left to only the "qualified" which is why peer reviewed has failed. Any group who tries to control "truth" will eventually abuse their power even if it meant for good.

outsidethecamp · Jul 12, 2015

So who is a fraud now? Judge overturns Kent's convictions and yet the government stole his property and his freedom for over 10 years.

HitchSlap said:
And conspiring to hide assets, and making deposits no more than 10k at a time, and talking crazy while under oath, and...

Conspiring to hide assets was the gummit's accusation. It wasn't against the law to withdraw or deposit less than 10,000.

joshua 1 9 · Jul 12, 2015

RickG said:
it is the scientific community that reveals such frauds and corrects them.

There is a small voice of reason in science but the lies they shout from the loud speakers.

essentialsaltes · Jul 12, 2015

outsidethecamp said:
So who is a fraud now? Judge overturns Kent's convictions and yet the government stole his property and his freedom for over 10 years.

I'm sorry to burst your delusional bubble, but the convictions that led to his prison time were not overturned. He served his sentence and is now released.

It wasn't against the law to withdraw or deposit less than 10,000.

It is against the law to structure your withdrawals to avoid alerting the authorities. Hovind was convicted on dozens of counts of structuring.

outsidethecamp · Jul 12, 2015

essentialsaltes said:
I'm sorry to burst your delusional bubble, but the convictions that led to his prison time were not overturned. He served his sentence and is now released.

Hovind was singled out and persecuted. How do I know? Because of the structuring case of US vs Lang.

In Lang, the court held that the indictment against Mr. Lang—for structuring!—was invalid. The government charged Lang with 85 counts of structuring. Each of those counts, though, was for an amount of less than $10,000. The Court of Appeals decided that, in order to charge someone with structuring, the amount at issue had to exceed $10,000.

The government could do that by grouping multiple withdrawals that together exceeded $10,000 into a single count, but sub-$10,000 withdrawals did not, standing on their own, constitute a cognizable charge.

As a result, the indictment was defective; though the indictment could be fixed (by, for example, refiling a corrected version with the grand jury), it wasn’t the court’s place to fix the indictment. And because a defective indictment violated procedural fairness, the court threw out Lang’s conviction.

In Hovind's case the government was combining two withdrawals that were a couple of days apart since they could not find any one withdrawal more than 10,000.00.

Ex-Con Hovind released from the pokey.

Messianic

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Messianic

Newbie

Messianic

Messianic

Newbie

Messianic

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

PROUDLY PRIMATE

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Veteran

Heb 13:10-15

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Heb 13:10-15

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency