Skip to comments.Creation evangelist derides evolution as ‘dumbest’ theory [Kent Hovind Alert!]
Posted on 12/17/2005 3:58:48 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Especially if he doesn't pay taxes, which seems to be the case so far.
In a sworn statement to obtain a search warrant, IRS agent Scott Schneider said none of Hovind's enterprises has a business license or tax-exempt status as a nonprofit entity.
"Since 1997, Hovind has engaged in financial transactions indicating sources of income and has made deposits to bank accounts well in excess of $1 million per year during some of these years, which would require the filing of federal income taxes," Schneider said.
I guess I won't wait by the phone for your retraction.
Haeckel (18341919), a flamboyant German biologist, provided a series of drawings which conveniently demonstrated just this. These pictures appear even today in graduate-level biology textbooks, such as American Academy of Science president Bruce Alberts Molecular Biology of the Cell, with no statement that this evidence is a well-established blatant fraud, a shameless fake. Even Darwin, who called this his strongest single class of facts, was duped.
Photographs of the embryos Haeckel selected demonstrate virtually no resemblance with his drawings. Additionally, Haeckel did not draw the first stage of growth, where closest resemblance was predicted, but selected precisely the stages where five (out of the seven) carefully selected vertebrate classes are least different. For the amphibian class the natural choice would have been a frog, which looks, however, very different than the other four organisms used, so a salamander was used as (uh) representative (ahem) for this class. Apparently all this was not good enough for him. In some cases, Haeckel used the same woodcut to print embryos that were supposedly from different classes (p. 91).
Although the embryos vary in size from less than 1 mm to almost 10 mm, Haeckel portrayed them the same size. Wells points out that the processes of cleavage (subdivision in many separate cells without overall growth) and gastrulation (movement and rearrangement of the cells to form organs and other structures) proceed before the point in time drawn by Haeckel. Here is where Darwins expectations should be tested, and there is certainly not a pattern in which the earliest stages are the most similar and later stages are more different (p. 97). In fact, the evidence points clearly to unrelated lineages and not a common ancestor.
Another myth is the claim human embryos go through a fish-like stage and display gill slits. These pharyngeal folds are not gills.14 Ironically, theyre not even gills in pharyngula-stage fish embryos, although they do develop into these later, but in a reptile, mammal, or bird they develop into other structures entirely (such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland) (p. 107). In reptiles, mammals, and birds they never resemble gills, and what is observed are merely some parallel lines in the neck region.
Professor Douglas Futuyma, author of the 1998 textbook Evolutionary Biology, responded in February 2000 via an internet forum to a critic who had accused him of lying by using Haeckels drawings as evidence for evolution. He admitted he had not been aware of Haeckels dishonesty, a rather staggering admission.
Non profit Ministries now have to pay taxes?
So how about one you wise-en-heimers debate him and collect the cash? Nah ya got no facts just snide remarks....jokers...lol!
If you were reading that, you were reading Gish, Morris, Sarfati... someone like that. And you clearly didn't stop.
Assuming what you say is true (Praise [insert your favorite deity's name here]!), you're talking about loss leader marketing materials. Done all of the time in business...and in religion as a business. Fleecing the flock. Most sheep are too dumb to recognize the shears. Say "Baa."
Even ministers have to pay taxes on their income. If Kent's been doing a crappy job of keeping his personal assets seperate from his ministry's assets, he's got nobody to blame for this but himself.
His *offer* is not winnable because he has redefined what evolution means. It's not an offer made in good faith.
That's a good one! It caught my attention when he posted it.
You can't hide from the stake, monkey boy!
</internet idiot mode>
I hope that when they come to get me, you're at the head of the pack.
Hey babe, when they guy will come and preach for free, and takes the copyright off all his materials so that anyone can reproduce them, there isn't any fleecing going on.
Still, I'd do it. I love a circus. I presume a few minutes devoted to my adversary's 'career' would be permitted?
If he's thinking logically [stop laughing] but can't run away from the stake. implies that it's mobile.
ROTFL!!! They are used and often!! I checked out a book when I was pregnant to show my son the progression of the growth of the baby and what did we get??? Haeckel drawings, and the book was copyrighted 1996.
They are also used in a booklet by the National Science Foundation.
See, evolution is a lie, is based on a lie and it has nothing but lies as it's foundation. That's why those fake drawings are still being used. The Evo fairy tale people have nothing else.
When the IRS finds that he is taking in more than a $ 1 million a year (see prior posts), doesn't have business licenses, tax-exempt status, or pay taxes, then yes, there is some fleecing occurring. Being a good Christian, isn't Dr. Dino supposed to be rendering under Caesar? Guess not.
Now THAT would qualify as a miracle. Sounds like evidence of God to me.
I must thank you and the GrandMaster of DarwinCentral himself, PH; this thread is one of the delighfully entertaining amusements I've seen in a long time -- a perfect diversion for a pre-Christmas Weekend.
if you want proof, try mathematics, photography, or a fine Scotchhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1541028/posts?page=220#220
(With thanks to Jesus's General)
I've been using my line for a while, but I think I may have *borrowed* the main idea from a different quote I heard or read somewhere else. I forgot to add photography though; this is odd since my father was professional photographer for a long time. lol
Jonathan Wells assigns textbooks a grade of "D" for using photographs of embryos to make any points about evolution.
To improve their grade to a D, a book uses "misleading photographs" of real embryos instead of the Haeckelian drawings. Again, however, what is the objection here? These aren't fudged or inaccurate drawings. They are photographs of vertebrate embryos that accurately illustrate what they look like, that anyone with a microscope and access to embryos can see (Figure 3). Is it next on his agenda to condemn classes that allow students to examine live or preserved embryos in the laboratory?Wells and Haeckel's Embryos.Figure 3. A chick embryo at the second day of development. The peculiar way that the vertebrate face is initially structured from arches of tissue (the jaw arch, j, and the 2nd, or hyoid arch, h, are labeled) that subsequently rearrange themselves is clearly seen.
The Grand Master accepts your thanks. Tracking Hovind's career is one of the few amusements he allows himself.
On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,
[In a nutshell, debates like this do not settle issues of scientific understanding,...]
A debate between the supporters of evolution and creationism is like a debate between the supporters of bicycles and bananas.
The Heackle drawings WERE and ARE used. You can lie until you are blue in the face, but they are still used. In fact, a friend of mine has a copy of the pages of that book. I made the copy at the time and sent them to him.
The evolution fairy take rests on nothing but lies and the Heackle drawings are just more proof of that.
I'm waiting for creationists to evolve normal levels of intelligence and integrity, but my money's on your goldfish.
"Your scientific arguments are particularly convincing."
Thank you and Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones.
May the good Lord shower you with health, prosperity, happiness and wisdom.
"Its just so laughably Luddite that I want to make sure I understand what you saying."
What's so "laughably Luddite?"
You really are totally clueless, aren't you?
The IRS, in conjuction with the DOJ (the IRS can't indict anyone, they refer criminal cases to the DOJ for prosecution after they have conducted their investigation) routinely takes years to get around to bringing criminal charges.
Take a look at recently convicted tax protesters/tax cheats Schiff, Rose, Meredith and Thompson. All of those cases dragged on for far more than one lousy year beyond the point where the IRS got interested in their activities.
You seem to think that your boy can do no wrong because he hasn't yet been criminally indicted and/or civilly enjoined. Believe it or not, it can take longer than a year or two to bring a scammer to justice.
I won't wait for your apology when you're finally disabused of your odd notion.
Before the stake catches me and wrestles me to the ground, yes. May you achieve calm and sobriety at the same time.
"I hope that when they come to get me, you're at the head of the pack."
You can always break that pact with the devil and repent. A little contrition goes a long way.
And your explanation for these handsome creatures (and thousands of others) is...?
Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.
I don't claim that he has "done no wrong." I personally do not know if he has or has not as far as that case is concerned.
I do know for a fact that the last time the IRS tried to harrass him, they ended up returning the cars they seized.
And if the IRS had anything to charge him with, they would of done so already.
Feathers added to a fossil? In these specimens we find powerful flight feathers on strong wings, shown as faint steaks radiating out from what appears to be a small reptile body. The head and body of Archaeopteryx is similar to that of a small coelurosaurian dinosaur, Compsognathus; the flight feathers are exactly like those of modern birds. If they were removed, the creature would appear to be only a small dinosaur. If you carefully examine a photograph of the "London specimen," you will note that the flight feathers consist only of carefully drawn lines!
That public offer will never be paid out as there is no scientific proof of evolution. I guess that is the reason he made the offer.