Ex-Con Hovind released from the pokey.

[brinny]

Miss Brinny, Kent Hovind is doing a real service for the King, and the Devil doesn't like it.

So he's going to run anyone who supports Mr. Hovind through the mill.

Just take it with a grain of salt.

Thank you. I'm aware those dynamics might be going on.....

and either way, i gotta be honest. it honestly baffles me that there is soooooo much outrage against Kent Hovind. i've heard him speak numerous times, and he appeared to be a brilliantly gifted man, regardless of whether he's for or against the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately most of the outcry against him appears to be that he's been outrageous and audacious enough to challenge evolution.

I would hope that's not the case.

 

[Loudmouth]

I appreciate your generosity and kindness and patience in explaining, but i don't see a flat out lie. Perhaps i am not understanding the details, however.

"One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here’s two parts of the same animal. That’s from USGS Professional Paper #862."--Kent Hovind

The truth is that it wasn't two parts from the same animal. It was two parts from two animals. Hovind lied when he said the two dates came from the same mammoth.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, we forgive them.

Try it sometime.

I thought part of your faith requires one to also change his behavior? Why are you giving him a second chance?

 

[Loudmouth]

However, I find nothing indicating that he is attempting to "fool" me or that he is a "con" man.

He is trying to fool you into thinking that carbon dating doesn't work by lying about the dating of mammoths. That's his con game.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you. I'm aware those dynamics might be going on.....

and either way, i gotta be honest. it honestly baffles me that there is soooooo much outrage against Kent Hovind. i've heard him speak numerous times, and he appeared to be a brilliantly gifted man, regardless of whether he's for or against the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately most of the outcry against him appears to be that he's been outrageous and audacious enough to challenge evolution.

I would hope that's not the case.

When I saw evolutionists in his video lined up behind a microphone, and he taking their questions one at a time and answering them in rapid-fire succession, I was highly impressed.

 

[brinny]

I am quite certain, you don't believe everything someone says when you hear them speak, correct?

So, there must be another level you go to, to determine what someone says has reliability and I am just curious what method you use.

Certainly not. Nobody is perfect and therefore what they say should not be "swallowed whole". As far as credibility and reliability? It has to jive with me, make sense, and coincide with something i have already found to be credible and therefore that i believe.

Thank you kindly.

 

[brinny]

When I saw evolutionists in his video lined up behind a microphone, and he taking their questions one at a time and answering them in rapid-fire succession, I was highly impressed.

I've seen that too. And as i watched, i wondered if any one he was speaking to, especially those lining up to ask questions "heard" anything he said....

 

[Loudmouth]

and either way, i gotta be honest. it honestly baffles me that there is soooooo much outrage against Kent Hovind.

Why shouldn't there be outrage when someone lies about science, especially those who are claiming that science is unreliable.

i've heard him speak numerous times, and he appeared to be a brilliantly gifted man, regardless of whether he's for or against the theory of evolution.

That's part of the con game. A brilliant person wouldn't make boneheaded statements about such things as the conservation of angular momentum. Hovind actually argued that the Big Bang can be disproven by finding two planets that spin in opposite directions.

Unfortunately most of the outcry against him appears to be that he's been outrageous and audacious enough to challenge evolution.

The outrage is over the lies that he tells, such as those that even you can't admit to.

 

[brinny]

This is hilarious!!!

i'm glad you have been provided with some comic relief

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought part of your faith requires one to also change his behavior? Why are you giving him a second chance?

As the advice goes:

Restore a person to fellowship, not back to his position.

In Mr. Hovind's case, he's entitled to both, since he allegedly defrauded the government, not us.

In other words, if the government, whom he allegedly defrauded, doesn't mind him going back to work ... neither do I.

 

[Loudmouth]

i'm glad you have been provided with some comic relief

We have been provided a perfect example of how creationism blinds people to the facts.

 

[brinny]

We have been provided a perfect example of how creationism blinds people to the facts.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Loudmouth]

As the advice goes:

Restore a person to fellowship, not back to his position.

In Mr. Hovind's case, he's entitled to both, since he allegedly defrauded the government, not us.

In other words, if the government, whom he allegedly defrauded, doesn't mind him going back to work ... neither do I.

I would agree. He did his time, and now he should be free to become a free law abiding citizen once more.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are entitled to your opinion.

Thank you kindly.

You still can't understand how Hovind is lying?

 

[brinny]

You still can't understand how Hovind is lying?

No.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

Thank you kindly.

Was Hovind telling the truth when he said the two dates came from the same animal?

 

[RickG]

You are entitled to your opinion.

Creation science is not just another scientific opinion, it deliberately misrepresents science, or put another way "bears false witness". The example concerning the mammoth is only one of many.

 

[bhsmte]

Certainly not. Nobody is perfect and therefore what they say should not be "swallowed whole". As far as credibility and reliability? It has to jive with me, make sense, and coincide with something i have already found to be credible and therefore that i believe.

Thank you kindly.

That makes sense. If what someone says coincides with your beliefs, you tend to believe it.

Do you ever challenge your own beliefs by cross referencing them with multiple sources, or is it a priority to not disturb current beliefs by doing that?

 

[Willtor]

Thank you. I'm aware those dynamics might be going on.....

and either way, i gotta be honest. it honestly baffles me that there is soooooo much outrage against Kent Hovind. i've heard him speak numerous times, and he appeared to be a brilliantly gifted man, regardless of whether he's for or against the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately most of the outcry against him appears to be that he's been outrageous and audacious enough to challenge evolution.

I would hope that's not the case.

The reason is that he's a very easy target. Anybody who is on the fence of evolution can see he's a fraud (the mammoth example is an unambiguous one), so evolutionists pick on him because creationists defend him, and in defending him, the credibility of creationism is hurt.

Consider the opposite example: Suppose an evolutionary scientist were caught fabricating data. Now, creationists attack evolution on his account. But evolutionists don't defend him. They say, "we care about what's real, and he's an impediment to that." They disassociate themselves from fraud -- they want no part of it. That shows integrity on the part of evolutionists.

Hovind is caught in fraud (creationism-related -- forget about tax-related). Now, evolutionists attack creationism on his account. Unlike in the above case, creationists defend his fraudulent behavior! Whereas any fence-sitter was able to see evolutionists honestly disassociating themselves from fraud done in the name of evolution, they now see creationists staunchly standing by things that are obviously and deliberately manufactured.

TL;DR: Evolutionists attack Hovind because doing so causes creationists to support dishonesty in a way that is easily visible to those who are unsure. If creationists disassociated themselves from him, his fraud wouldn't sully the whole community. The more he is defended, the worse creationism looks to those who are unsure.

 

[bhsmte]

i'm glad you have been provided with some comic relief

I wouldn't be here if it didn't happen as often as it does.