[_ Old Earth _] Creation by Dr. Dino

[John]

Dr. Kent Hovind Gets Ten Years: Because of Religion, or Tax Fraud?

Everyone knows Lady Justice is blind but now we know she is bigoted as well! Case in point: Dr. Kent Hovind was recently sentenced to ten years in jail. Kent argued that his ministry was tax exempt and cited the IRS code to support his case! He wrote the IRS many times asking them why he was wrong if, in fact, he was wrong. They never responded! Arrogance? Incompetence? Whatever the reason, an American citizen could not get a reply from the very people who should have been able, even eager, to help.

Kent’s enemies are painting him as a greedy tax resister when he has said repeatedly that he will pay all the taxes he owes. He could not get any response from the IRS nor did the judge, prosecutor, or anyone else inform him why his ministry was not exempt from taxes as are hundreds of thousands of similar organizations. Therefore, he spends ten years in the Big House. That’s where they send killers, traitors, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, and other Very Bad Guys.

Well, not always. If you are a celebrity entertainer, liberal politician, or sports figure, you can usually get probation; only a slap on the wrists. Sometimes a fine.

Note that Senator Ted Kennedy while driving drunk, with a young woman in his car, drove off a bridge and swam away leaving her to die a slow death as she used what oxygen was available. Justice? He is sitting in the U.S. Senate and some fools take him seriously while Kent Hovind sits in prison.

Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, an admitted pervert, confirmed that his Washington apartment had been used as a callboy headquarters by a male prostitute for a year and a half until late 1987. So, Barney’s lover-boy was using his apartment as a callboy ring to make a little money on the side. Barney did not go to jail, did not lose his seat in Congress. I’m not sure if he passed go and collected $200.00. Maybe his lover can tell us that. However, Kent Hovind sits in prison while Barney sits in Congress making laws that we are expected to obey.

The late Massachusetts Congressman Studds plied a sixteen-year-old male page with liquor and seduced him, and tried to seduce two other male pages. After admitting his seduction of the male page and taking him on an 18-day trip to Europe (where they had sex every two days) Studds was reelected to Congress 6 times! He didn’t spend a day in court or jail! He sat in Congress but Kent Hovind sits in prison.

Would it be all right if I pointed out that when Republican Congressman Foley admitted to sending salacious e-mails to a male page, he was almost drawn and quartered on the Capitol steps. His crime? There was no crime, and the e-mails did not contain any sexually explicit language. Furthermore, there was no indication that Foley had tried to meet with the teenage boy. However, the Florida Congressman was hounded out of office. Foley may be a pervert, and if so, I’m glad he is out of office, but compare his treatment with that of the above proved perverts! It depends on your worldview: Foley was cast as a conservative Republican and Studds and Frank as liberal Democrats!

But it gets worse!

Andrew James of Vermont molested a four-year-old at least ten times, admitted it and walked away with probation and a $22 fine! He had three other convictions and Judge David Howard could have sentenced him to life in prison and a $50,000 fine. The judge is a jerk!

Mark Hulett, a 34-year-old, pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault on the daughter of a friend from the time she was six to age 10! The prosecutor asked for 8-20 years in the slammer but Judge Edward Cashman gave him 60 days! That esteemed judge has esteemed rocks in his head.

I could bore you with numerous cases of schoolteachers who took advantage of their position, seduced students, and walked away with probation, although usually the men go to prison and the females go free! And have you noticed that screaming feminists are not demanding equal treatment between male and female predators?

There are recent cases where rapists and killers walk away with probation and Kent Hovind sits in prison for ten years! Folks, there’s gotta be more to it than meets the eye. Your Federal Government wanted to “get†an outspoken Christian and they did. All right, so Kent made a mistake in judgment, and even if he is guilty, don’t sane people think his sentence is excessive? After all, didn’t Kent tell them he would pay any taxes they showed him he owed? Is it possible that they got him, not for taxes, but for religion? The Feds didn’t like his outspoken brand of Christianity.

Yes, Lady Justice is blind, dumb, stupid, and bigoted as is obvious in the case of Dr. Kent Hovind who sits in prison as I write this piece. And if it could happen to him, it could and might happen to you or me. Maybe Bible believing Christians should do as Chinese Christians and keep a small bag packed with personal things waiting for that ominous knock on the door: “We’re from the Federal Government and we’re here to get you.â€Â

by Don Boys, Ph.D.
Source: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/22457.html

 

[Drew]

Everyone knows Lady Justice is blind but now we know she is bigoted as well! Case in point: Dr. Kent Hovind was recently sentenced to ten years in jail. Kent argued that his ministry was tax exempt and cited the IRS code to support his case! He wrote the IRS many times asking them why he was wrong if, in fact, he was wrong. They never responded! Arrogance? Incompetence? Whatever the reason, an American citizen could not get a reply from the very people who should have been able, even eager, to help

Kent’s enemies are painting him as a greedy tax resister when he has said repeatedly that he will pay all the taxes he owes. He could not get any response from the IRS nor did the judge, prosecutor, or anyone else inform him why his ministry was not exempt from taxes as are hundreds of thousands of similar organizations. Therefore, he spends ten years in the Big House. That’s where they send killers, traitors, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, and other Very Bad Guys.

It would be very strange if the government did not in any explain why they rejected his claim for tax-exemption. Are you sure the claim you quote is correct? And please note that if the government responded simply by referring Mr. Hovind to specific items of tax law, this is indeed a legitimate response. We taxpayers should not be expected to pay for the government having to "explain" their laws to every citizen who appeals a ruling.

You are posting some serious charges here. You really should cite evidence to the effect that the government never responded to Mr. Hovind's claims.

 

[John]

if its not correct prove it . that quote seems pretty legit to me.


he is what CSE says http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=136

 

[freeway]

Here's one I heard Hovind say.

"They said that this fossil is 4 million years old, because it is in rock that is dated at 4 million years old. So then he showed a layer of rock that was 20 million years old, and when I asked how he knew it was 20 million years old, he said that it was because the fossils they found in that layer were 20 million years old. . . Friends, that's circular logic."

The above is a paraphrase, but is generally what he was saying.

Actually, Dr. Hovind, was quoting what the “scientist’ say, and yes that is circular reasoning. That’s the point Dr. Hovind was trying to make. and as far as jail time everyone knows our government would never do anything wrong toward its people. ;-)and then admit it.

 

[John]

The admit it indirectly, lol

 

[jwu]

Here's one I heard Hovind say.

"They said that this fossil is 4 million years old, because it is in rock that is dated at 4 million years old. So then he showed a layer of rock that was 20 million years old, and when I asked how he knew it was 20 million years old, he said that it was because the fossils they found in that layer were 20 million years old. . . Friends, that's circular logic."

The above is a paraphrase, but is generally what he was saying.

Actually, Dr. Hovind, was quoting what the “scientist’ say, and yes that is circular reasoning. That’s the point Dr. Hovind was trying to make. and as far as jail time everyone knows our government would never do anything wrong toward its people. ;-)and then admit it.

Actually no, because they don't use the same fossils for dating the strata as they use the strata to date the fossils.

E.g. if fossils of type XYZ have only ever been found in strata which were independently dated to be 30 million years old, and you later find this fossil in strata of unknown age, then it's reasonable to set a first estimate of its age age to 30 million years. Usually, unless the precise age is critical, no further effort to date it is made then, as dating is very expensive and the usage of those "index fossils" is a reliable method. If a single conflicting find ever occured, all those dates would be out of the window, after all.

Then, if a different fossil is found in such strata, it is assigned the same age as the index fossil. That's reasonable, isn't it?

 

[John]

dating methods are very bad and often yield wrong results.

so with dating methods being weak, then all you have to base your dating methods is the layer/fossil method and that whole premise is based on an assumption that those layers are millions of years old. so by that reasoning the whole scenario is poo.

 

[jwu]

dating methods are very bad and often yield wrong results.

so with dating methods being weak, then all you have to base your dating methods is the layer/fossil method and that whole premise is based on an assumption that those layers are millions of years old. so by that reasoning the whole scenario is poo.

Actually, when used correctly, the dating methods are very accurate. Of course, when one applies them incorrectly, the results will be crappy. But some methods, such as isochron dating, even indicate when they are unsuitable or the samples were contaminated.

Moreover, if the dating methods all were flawed, then they should give results which vary wildly. That's not what we see though - in the graph linked below, the results of four independent dating methods agree with each other. How can this be if they are flawed?


http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.gif

 

[John]

i am no scientist so if i am wrong in my 2 cents please tell me.

lets say i have a chunk of a lava bomb i seen flown from a volcano 10 years ago and i then for giggles date it and it says 100 years, and then date it with another method and it says 98 years and then again 102 years. and i show the data to someone who does not know how old the rock really is, they can look at my data and say that it must be around 100 years old, my point is that even if you get similar results, does not nessicary prove that your method is true, now in the real case no body was there to see the rock/fossil being dated. so we must attack the laws in the dating system, witch there are many flaws.

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/isochrons2.html

http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Isoch ... le_results

would you trust a person that is known to tell lies and or half truths ? of course not because you never know if your getting the right information. i think the same principle applies to dating methods.

 

[jwu]

lets say i have a chunk of a lava bomb i seen flown from a volcano 10 years ago and i then for shits and giggles date it and it says 100 years, and then date it with another method and it says 98 years and then again 102 years. and i show the data to someone who does not know how old the rock really is, they can look at my data and say that it must be around 100 years old, my point is that even if you get similar results, does not nessicary prove that your method is true, now in the real case no body was there to see the rock/fossil being dated. so we must attack the laws in the dating system, witch there are many flaws.

Actually, in this case i would put my money on the rock really being 100 years old. Radiometric dating methods don't measure when a rock was put in the current position, but when it cooled down from liquid to solid state. In this case, it is likely that the rock really solidified 100 years ago.

Do you have an actual reference where several independent dating method yielded the same but wrong result?

would you trust a person that is known to tell lies and or half truths ? of course not because you never know if your getting the right information. i think the same principle applies to dating methods.

This whole situation is similar to witnesses at a court. People tend to misremember things, not speak the truth or just make mistakes. But if several independent witnesses, who have nothing to do with each other, all confirm that person X shot victim Y, then this usually is sufficient to send X to the death row.

I read the article on isochron dating. Its point boils down to the theoretical possibility of cases in which false isochrons. The article itself backpedals a lot on its two main points (uniform isotope rations and mixing)

The assumed uniform strontium ratios should certainly be valid when applied to a rock system solidifying from a uniform homogenized melt. We must emphasize, however, that this enabling assumption must fail in the absence of an initial homogenized melt.

A homogenized melt can be determined by careful sampling. A missed non-homogenized melt is likely to be indicated by a non-linear result of the isochron. So this is pretty much a non-issue unless the melt is heterogenous in the exact right way to produce a linear isochron by freak chance.

It is now clear, however, that there is at least one positive test for mixing. It is the whole-rock isochron itself. If the whole rock yields samples that give a linear plot, whether the slope is positive or negative, or whether the slope signifies an age that fits a preconceived model or not, there is no other known mechanism outside of mixing to which the data may be rationally ascribed.

As the article itself says, the occurrence of mixing can be tested for.


There is one important thing to note: While a bad result occasionally can happen even with isochron dating, there still is no reason why independent methods should give identical results. Moreover, for YECism to hold water, not 1% or 5% or 10% of all dating results must be false, but all of them (of those older than 6000 years). Not a single one must be valid. What mechanism do you propose could pull off this feat? There must be something else than minor details which allow occasional flawed results; there must be one huge problem for every single dating method, and all of them must correlate to put the dates off by the same degree. What is this problem?

 

[John]

Its starting to go over my head i have to admit.

 

[thinksalot]

Why the false comparisons? ie. If hitler said 2+2=4

That is a poor comparison. Hitler would not stand to profit from what he said.

Hovind on the other hand did, in fact all his money came from what he said.

Give me one claim Hovind has said that you will believe, and I will show you that it is false.

Example: Evolution tries to tell you, that you came from a rock.

Evolution NEVER tells you that you came from a rock and Hovind knows that. He kept saying it because people ate it up and bought his books. Money, Money, Money.

Hovind says God is real. Can you prove that wrong? Don't get me wrong the man has a lot of wacky ideas that even most creationists disagree with but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING he says is false.

What? You have got to be kidding me??? Can you prove Kent Hovind right? The burden of proof is on YOU my friend.........NOT on us to prove him wrong.

He has made ridiculous claims and they need proof! Kent Hovind is a crook, a liar, and a cheat.........just look at his criminal record.

 

[John]

Why the false comparisons? ie. If hitler said 2+2=4

That is a poor comparison. Hitler would not stand to profit from what he said.

Hovind on the other hand did, in fact all his money came from what he said.

Give me one claim Hovind has said that you will believe, and I will show you that it is false.

Example: Evolution tries to tell you, that you came from a rock.

Evolution NEVER tells you that you came from a rock and Hovind knows that. He kept saying it because people ate it up and bought his books. Money, Money, Money.

Hovind says God is real. Can you prove that wrong? Don't get me wrong the man has a lot of wacky ideas that even most creationists disagree with but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING he says is false.

What? You have got to be kidding me??? Can you prove Kent Hovind right? The burden of proof is on YOU my friend.........NOT on us to prove him wrong.

He has made ridiculous claims and they need proof! Kent Hovind is a crook, a liar, and a cheat.........just look at his criminal record.

You know for having a user name like "tinksalot" you sure don't think a lot.

have you even read the whole thread ?