Kent Hovind

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by Ambrosia416
The rumors are the recent tax "evasion" which is actually over a jurisdiction problem facing Mr. Hovind's church...

 

This statement is simply not true.  The tax evasion was Hovind not filing his tax forms (you know what you or your family do every year on or before April 15) and not sending any money to the IRS.  The IRS went after him and filed tax forms form him.  Hovind, in an attempt evade the IRS, filed for bankruptcy protection.  In this filing he claimed that he had no income, etc.  The court noted that facts showed this simply was not so.  In fact he had just installed central air in his home and was spending quite a bit of money to send his children to private school.  The judge ruled had filed in bad faith (a polite way of saying he lied to the court) in order to evade paying his taxes and dismissed his petition to go bankrupt.

 

 

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by Ambrosia416

...



Also, I will be more than happy to look into the Patriot University degree situation..But as I said before, people need to stop obsessing over his degree in EDUCATION, and get back to the main arguement of creation v. evolution. If he's lying about his PhD in EDUCATION, that would be grounds to question where else he maybe lying. But I don't see how him not having an "accredited" degree in EDUCATION makes him any less qualified to AGRUE. 
 

I will agree whether or not he has a degree does not make his arguments valid or invalid.

However, it does go a long way to the issue of his honesty.  His doctorate comes from a diploma mill.   People get diploma mill degrees for one reason: to misrepresent themselves.  Many in the public at large are more impressed if someone can put "Dr." in front of their names.   Maybe this should not be the case, but in reality it is.  Hovind is using this phony degree to imply he has credentials he does not have.

If Kent Hovind was an honest man, he would present himself Mr. Kent Hovind, a concerned citizen who has strong opinion on this issue and not try to bamboozle the public with the false title of "Dr."

It is indeed the case that the quality of the arguments is what counts and not titles the person making the argument has or does not have.  But this is where Hovind's true weakness lies: his arguments or loaded with errors of fact and errors in logic which he continues to repeat long after they have been shown to be wrong.

 

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by Morat
  Isn't he the Chicken lysosome guy? Or was it bullfrog proteins? 


 

Now that would be Duane Gish.  Hovind is the sunflower cytochrome c guy.

 

 

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Ambrosia416
If this tax evasion thing ties into his beliefs about the government and taxes, if nothing else, at least he's consistant. I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

You mean like his claims of a shadow government making false people and giving them Social Secuity cards and then telling real people that they are these false people. How does this work? Well, the false people's names are just like the real people, but spelled with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Thus what you think is your SSN is not yours but the person whose name is in all caps.

I'm sorry, but Hovind is a conspiracy nut and a loon.

However, if you can pick which argument of his is most compelling to you, we would be happy to discuss it.

 

[sampo]

It is my very considered opinion that Dr. Dino is one of two things - he is either a decent scam artist, or he actually believes what he is teaching. Either way is dangerous and scary.

Sometimes ones faith, or adherence to a religion, can become such a priority that it seems to overshadow the ability to employ logic and reason. I do not mean that as an insult. The whole idea of that kind of faith eludes me. There is no way that a person who really wanted the answers should look to Kent Hovind for them. His credentials speak for themselves. His misinformation is easily discredited, as are his claims of his accomplishments. I have read a great deal of this mans "work", and have found not one thing that I can agree with. He is an insult to ones intelligence. Please people, do not be duped by this person. If I were a believer in what is written in the bible, Mr. Hovind precisely fits the biblical portrayal of a false prophet. (I am not saying this is true, of course. I would have to believe to assert that.) Do your research on this guy. You don't go to a liar looking for honest answers. And I dare say you wouldn't take your car to a mechanic whose credentials were as bogus as Hovinds.

 

[chickenman]

ambrosia, I'd suggest you at least look at an alternative to kent hovind.
try AIG; www.answersingenesis.com
they're a creation science website.

 

[Ambrosia416]

The tax evasion rumor I was referring to is the one going on right now involving jurisdiction with his church. I was not talking about the bankrupcy filing.
I appreciate everyone's obvious concern, but, as strange as it may sound, I do have a brain that I know how to use. I apologize for not taking your word for anything. I would be a hypocrite if I did that. Please understand that I have to talk to him and ask him myself. I understand why none of you choose to believe anything he has to say, but I have seen situations like this before. When the primary party is not involved in discussions about him or herself, things are misquoted, misrepresented, misunderstood, and exaggeratted.

Ambrosia

 

[IdahoAmber]

Hey first of all.
Why would we go to a webpage hosted by an atheist, evolutionary guy who is obviously predjudice on the issue to learn about Kent Hovind? Why can't we just go straight to the person and talk to them? You don't know where this guy got his fact? He could have heard it from someone who was going off on what liar Kent Hovind was, who could have gotten it from some guy who didn't have his facts straight, who could have gotten it from this guy who lived down the street from Kent Hovinds dog, who was on crack for 10 years of his life. Who knows? Its better to get the facts straight from the person its about rather than reading something that MIGHT be true. Once again rumors can hurt people and be spread around just as much as the truth if not more. They can also seem more believeable. Why do you guys even care about his past with the IRS? I'm sure that if we looked at your past, you wouldn't be so crystal clear anyways. HIs past has nothing to do with what he talks about in his seminars. It doesn't affect his ability to speak, or share the truth. But people who do speak the truth are often looked at and judged more critically. My brother is a pastor, and he told me that because he's in the position he is in. He is often looked at more critically.
if you guys want to talk to Kent Hovind yourself...instead of believing things that you can't prove are true...than call him!
my best friend just got off the phone with him, and i'm sure you'll be hearing what he told her in a post shortly.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Ambrosia416
The tax evasion rumor I was referring to is the one going on right now involving jurisdiction with his church.

So tell us, Ambrosia, what is the truth behind this as told by Hovind. Last thing I heard was that he was trying to not follow county building regulations by claiming that Escambia County, in which the building resides, had no jurisdiction over him. Unless he is a federally recongnized Indian Tribe, his church buildings still have to satisfy local ordinances and law.

 

[Morat]

  And this would be because Kent Hovind wouldn't lie about being a liar?

  Talk to him, and ask him "Are you lying about X". He'll say "No, I am not lying about X". Well, so? Either he's not lying, because he's a truthful person, or he's lying about lying.

  It would be odd of him to admit to lying, if he really was telling the truth, or tell the truth about lying.

  Which is why, if you want to know if someone is a liar, you read what they write, and learn about what they say. Then compare it to reality.

  Who on earth is going to say "Yeah, you got me. I'm a complete liar"?

 

[IdahoAmber]

 

 

Originally posted by RufusAtticus


So tell us, Ambrosia, what is the truth behind this as told by Hovind. Last thing I heard was that he was trying to not follow county building regulations by claiming that Escambia County, in which the building resides, had no jurisdiction over him. Unless he is a federally recongnized Indian Tribe, his church buildings still have to satisfy local ordinances and law.

 

So are you saying that a person doesn't have the right to preach about God anywhere? Do you think God would be saying..ok this building must have this and this and this done if you want to use it for my purpose. NO God is going to use that building for his purpose NO MATTER WHAT!

 

[IdahoAmber]

Originally posted by Morat
  And this would be because Kent Hovind wouldn't lie about being a liar?

  Talk to him, and ask him "Are you lying about X". He'll say "No, I am not lying about X". Well, so? Either he's not lying, because he's a truthful person, or he's lying about lying.

  It would be odd of him to admit to lying, if he really was telling the truth, or tell the truth about lying.

  Which is why, if you want to know if someone is a liar, you read what they write, and learn about what they say. Then compare it to reality.

  Who on earth is going to say "Yeah, you got me. I'm a complete liar"?

 

She's not going to just ask him if he's lying about it. Obviously she's going to expect some feedback other than a yes or no answer.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by IdahoAmber
Hey first of all.
Why would we go to a webpage hosted by an atheist, evolutionary guy who is obviously predjudice on the issue to learn about Kent Hovind?

How do you know that they are atheists? In what manner are they predjudiced? Even creationists try to distance themselves from Hovind.

Why can't we just go straight to the person and talk to them?

Well you can. You just have to be careful that he isn't lying to you. People who abuse the law are not apt to come out an admit it over the phone to a teenager. Hovind doesn't like to use email or print to talk to people because his charisma doesn't work. That is why he asks people to talk to him over the phone, where it is easier for him persuade you and it also doesn't leave a paper trail.

You don't know where this guy got his fact?

Actually we do. Hovind's bankrupcy procedings and his attempts to avoid building codes are a matter of public record. It is also a matter of public record that Patriot University is not an accredited institution and has been ordered to stop giving out mail-order degree because of problems with its "graduates" commint fraud. Furthermore, Hovind's dissertation, which is required of anyone getting a PhD, hardly meets any professional standards. That is also a matter of record.

It doesn't affect his ability to speak, or share the truth. But people who do speak the truth are often looked at and judged more critically.

The problem is that Hovind doesn't speak the truth. People have done detailed analysis of his "educational" materials and found major lies in them. Read Answers in Genesis page on arguments creationists shouldn't use and the see how often Hovind still uses them. I have an audio file of a debate between Hovind and a real scientist. The radio show is no longer hosting it on the Net, and I'm trying to find a place to put it up. When I do, I'll link to it from this thread so you girls can hear how Hovind matches up with a real scientist.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by IdahoAmber
So are you saying that a person doesn't have the right to preach about God anywhere?

Hovind can preach where ever he wants. That is not the issue here.

Do you think God would be saying..ok this building must have this and this and this done if you want to use it for my purpose. NO God is going to use that building for his purpose NO MATTER WHAT!

God can use it however he wants. But people have to use it too. That's why even churches are required to follow building codes. If you disagree, can you point me to a law that exempts God's buildings from having to follow code?

 

[Ambrosia416]

Thanks so much for assuming that I am truly stupid enough to call Mr. Hoivnd and say, "Hi, Mr. Hovind are you lying about X? You're not? Great thanks for your time!"

Of course I wouldn't say that! I talked to Mr. Hovind about 15 minutes ago and I presented him with everyone's belly aches and asked him to defend and explain himself. And do you guys know what happened? He DID! Amazing. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, believe it or not I can carry on an intellectual conversation with someone.

Now, for everyone's enjoyment, and almost assured laughter, Mr. Kent Hovind's defense (because no one else had enough time to call him themselves):

Tax evasion (bankrupcy) of 1989-1995--Government (not dealership) took his vehicles so he called a friend of his in the IRS and asked him how he might go about getting his cars back. The friend told him to file for bankrupcy, Hovind said that he wasn't bankrupt, friend told him to do it anyway so he did. While filing he made a few legal errors (by mistake!) and the court filied it as bad faith filing--not because he was in trouble, but so he would file a second time, correctly, and he chose not to do it another time. Not satisfied? Call him, I did my part.

The PhD from your so called Degree-Mill-- he spent nine years earning his PhD at Patrit University which is a non accredited Christian college. Nine years not enough, bother him about it, I'm satisfied.

Woolly Mammoth v Musk Ox--in the professional geology paper written on it was WOOLLY MAMMOTH not musk ox. Whatever the arguement about it, Mr. Hovind's point was that there were two samples taken from the same animal (which ever it was) that were dated differently. Think I'm wrong? Go to www.Drdino.com, select CONTACT US, and ask him yourself!

I would like to quote Mr. Hovind now, "Don't those guys know that in America every man has the right to defend himself in the face of his accusers?" Hmmmm, sounds familar.

About the jurisdiction problem, go to www.drdino.com and go to the article written on it and read it....if nothing else, it will tell you his stance on the issue.

To everyone, once again, I appreciate your concern, I am obviously a big girl, however and have shown that I at least am willing to go to the person and CONFRONT them. If no one else here is, then you have no place saying anything. The thing that gets me the most of this whole mess is that everyone expects me to believe he is a liar, without talking to him, while expecting me to believe them. I have at least heard his voice. All of you are just letters on a computer screen. So, if I can take your word (no pun intended) for it, then calling the  man to at least give him room to defend himself doesn't seem so far-fetched, now, does it?

God Bless,

Ambrosia

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Ambrosia416
The PhD from your so called Degree-Mill-- he spent nine years earning his PhD at Patrit University which is a non accredited Christian college. Nine years not enough, bother him about it, I'm satisfied.

LOL. It took him nine years to scrape up the fifty dollars to buy his diploma! Maybe he was bankrupt.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Ambrosia416
Woolly Mammoth v Musk Ox--in the professional geology paper written on it was WOOLLY MAMMOTH not musk ox. Whatever the arguement about it, Mr. Hovind's point was that there were two samples taken from the same animal (which ever it was) that were dated differently. Think I'm wrong? Go to www.Drdino.com, select CONTACT US, and ask him yourself!

We know what Hovind claims. It's on this page.

One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.
--Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.

"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000.
--Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30

Why should you depend on asking Hovind if it's accurate, especially since his credibility has been called into question? The wonderful thing is that you have the ability to look the paper up for your self and check up on the facts. You don't have to depend on any atheist, evolutionist, christian, or creation, only your own ability to find and read the original paper.

One person read the original paper and had this to say. (ref)

Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled "Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska". It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950's and 60's. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); "flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius" (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the "skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 "with a beaver dam"). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.

NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed "baby", and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said. . . .

The only dates I have found for "Dima" are close to 40,000 years BP: "The field evidence and radiocarbon analysis indicate that the baby mammoth, who was named Dima, was buried in a bog or small lake by a mudslide 44,000 years ago" (Newell, p. 66) and "...Dima was dated at 41,000 + 900 BP" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/atlantis.html. Since Hovind completely misrepresented the Alaskan mammoth data above, it is not unreasonable to assume that his information about "Dima" is also incorrect.

But of course you should get the paper for yourself to see who is right.

 

[sampo]

If the government seizes your property for tax evasion, bankruptcy is not going to get your property back. There was a mistake mad all right - the mistake being that Hovind should have paid his taxes like the rest of us.

Acquiring a building permit is the proper thing to do, no matter what faith you are or what your bible says about it. Why? It is a matter of codes, ordinances and safety. Obviously Mr. Hovind thinks that god would protect his building from fire or some other catastrophe. He would be more than bankrupt if something did happen and lives were lost in the building he would not get a permit for.

Hovind has spent a load of money fighting a fifty dollar permit. Would that load of money not have been better spent witenssing to people and teaching his brand of truth? I personally don't think so cause the man is a quack, but most religious people should be able to see the error in that faulty logic.

 

[Ambrosia416]

By saying that it "must have taken him nine years to scrape up fifty dollars" you are building a strawman. How do you know that he didn't actually EARN his PhD? How do you know it didn't take him nine years to do it? If making comments like that is the best you can do, then don't waste my time arguing about it because we will get no where.

Also, I am no rocket scientist, but let me try to understand something here....

"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000" but then it says, "Nowhere in the paper does it say, or even imply, that these specimens are parts of the same animal." Now, I read the whole thing, but when you take these two statements, put them together, and read them..uh......it doesn't make any sense. If Mr. Hovind messed up somewhere, I can see why.

I also wanted to reply to the point made about how Mr. Hovind prefers talking on the phone to writing e-mails because it would be easier for him to convince someone that he is telling the truth. Maybe that is a good observation, but consdering the circumstances, it is unfair. A lot of people can get their point across a lot easier talking than they can writing. Does that make them liars or deceivers? No, it means they get their point across a lot easier talking than writing. Also, although I love to write and prefer it to the phone, things can get left out or forgotten more easily writing than speaking to someone. For instance, I forgot to put this in my last post. Now, if I had been talking to you people face to face, I wouldn't have left it out. More topics can be covered and discussed while talking. I think of my brother. He hates writing, does that make him dishonest? Does that mean that he plans to decieve people? No. He hates writing. What can I tell you?

Seriously, it blows my mind how everyone can jjustify their jumping to conclusions, exagerating, taking things out of context, and purposely misunderstanding things without any problem or explanation. However, when they accuse Kent Hovind of doing the same things it is like he is the spawn of satan. Really people......

To be honest, I could care less what you say about the man, if you would stop hiding behind your computer screens and CALL HIM. Don't like it, then stop talking about him. Ambrosia

 

[Ambrosia416]

I'm sure I'll get buried for this, but I agree with Mr. Hovind's stance on the the issues of government. I don't think that the Government should possess all the powers that it does. And as far as the tax thing goes, who says he wasn't paying his taxes? Someone he knew in the IRS advised him to file bankrupcy to get his property back. And as far as the jurisdiction thing goes, there are some things the government does not have jurisdiction over. At least Mr. Hovind is practicing what he preaches. Also, it is not his church, it was the pastor who is in charge, yet no one is saying anything about his role. Actually, the whole fellowship is involved. Yet, Kent Hovind is the only one getting slack about it. Interesting......