Creationist Ken Hovind, 10 year sentence?
- Thread starter Asden
- Start date
If you've watched some of Kent's seminars, you know that the reason he refused to pay taxes is because they teach evolution in school, which is tax supported, and he considers evolution to be a religion. It's illegal to teach religion in USA. He also said that taxes are a stupid system invented by rich people so that they can earn money by doing nothing. i don't know much about money but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ
Last edited:
in other words, he refused to pay taxes because he was ignorant and undereducated.
Last edited:
That sounds about right, Skin. But I'd assume that was simply his response after getting caught...though I don't know that for sure. Most of these Evangelical bigwigs are scam artists in it for the money alone, and either end up getting busted on fraud charges, or for soliciting a male prostitute, so it should be no surprise that this one is doing time.
i agree with him that evolution is not true, and i can also understand his point when he says that it's a religion. there is no evidence for evolution, and it's much like a religion. i believe in evolution (and ID), but i'm absolutely sure that it didn't happen the way scientists today theorize. i also believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor, but it's not quite as scientists think.
i like to defend those who are smaller. the minority. that's why i'm a theist on this forum. if i was on a christian forum, i would defend the atheists. i think a lot of people are mean against kent hovind, that's why i defend him.
no, like i said, he mentions that many times in his seminars. if you haven't watched any of his seminars, you don't understand his point of view. i also thought he was a bad guy at first, before i looked at the world from his point of view. i think it's an interesting idea that the world would be only 6000 years old, but i don't agree with it. i also don't agree with scientists who say that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.
he has quite much evidence that the earth is only 6000 years old. it shows that your ideas don't have to be true for there to be evidence for them. evolution doesn't have to be true even if there appears to be evidence for it, because evidence has a lot to do with interpretation.
people are quick to judge other people without being in their shoes.
Evolution has evidence, and it's a lot more believable than anything Ken Hovind can say for the Earth being 6,000 years old. And yes, I have watched seminars of his.
There is as much evidence for macroevolution as there is for Intelligent Design. Macroevolution just doesn't sound convincing or logical to me.
There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for two digit multiplication doesn't make sense to me. Two digit multiplication just doesn't sound convincing or logical to me.
Evolution has the entire fossil record which stands as evidence. If you count that as a single point of evidence, the tally is still: evolution 1, 'intelligent' design 0. There is no scientific evidence at all -not a shred- for 'intelligent' design.
Someone on this very site I think said that believing in microevolution and not macroevolution was analogous to believing in single digit multiplication and not two digit multiplication. I agree. And btw, Speciation HAS been observed.
Ridiculous. There is plenty of evidence for both. Again, you have not read one paper, looked at one website, or studied one course on this subject, and yet you feel you are obligated to deny it. The only side of the story you are even aware of is the evolutionist's side, because that's the one you're regurgitating.
Do the research.
your psychic abilities are not so good. i have read about evolution. i know know equally much about evolution and ID.
you probably mean the creationist's side.
I will repeat myself in order to increase my post count: Speciation HAS BEEN OBSERVED! How can you argue with that?