Kent Hovind's debates, can someone help?

I see no conviction in Paul's posted quotes. What was the punishment for alleged conviction?As I understand, Kent is going about his business openly and hiding nothing as usual to this day because he is legally correct and tax smart enough to do what he does about taxes without being convicted of any lawless proceedure.I'm still researching so open to correction but so far have concluded that he is not being unlawful. So far, as I see it, Hovind is demonstrating that it is the government that is being Constitutionally unlawful in the first place in regard to tax policy.Frequently Asked Questions... My question is this - If you think that the straw ... why do you fully agree with Kent Hovind's letter upon ... to build the foundation for his views of income tax? ...
Frequently Asked Questions

This would be true only at the split second point that the auto is at the location of the bystander. Ahh, now we're admitting that the argument does not fairly address Hovind's low speed model.

The bottom line and Hovind's valid point is that for a long time the fact of the total title has been withheld from the public and educational institutions all the way up the grades via edited editions.Had the public been aware of Darwin's racial ideology relative to evolution and the influence this evidently had on Hitler, likely the book would have been banned for the kids rather than promoted to the status it has enjoyed.

I did when he posted. I saw nothing in there to show conviction. I don't think there was conviction. So you tell me why he is going about his life without being convicted and arrested. The fact that he is not is evidence he's right. The feds have no case or they'd go after him.

I did indeed read the link, but my take on it was that there was a settlement of some back taxes as is the case with thousands of Americans but didn't see where he was convicted of a crime. My understanding is that he is still a tax protester, doing so without arrest. What have I missed?

Trixie, we all make mistakes. I'm sure Kent knows there's only one star in our solar system and I think you know that he would be aware of that also. Likely he meant to say galexy and was quoted before having a chance to correct the mistake. I believe I heard him make a similar statement in one of his programs referring to the Milky Way galexy recently and didn't hear anything like that. I think I would have easily caught it if he had.

I don't think so. Did they ever exist? With dinosaurs I suppose it might be a possibility with some kind of a blow torch effect which would not contact tissue of the mouth with no contact, but that's as far as I go. There is figurative texts in some Biblical passages depicting consuming fires in connection with living beings.

Schraf, I am saying I don't really know whether Hovind is correct about fire dragons or not. I've said that I don't agree with him about the young universe and some other, but by and large, I think he is quite credible in what he says in his lectures. You people pick out a few items and discredit him altogether on the basis of these few. That's not good science either, imo.As for the reading of Darwin's "Origin of Species," for that matter likely most of my posting opponents of Biblical debates have not read the entire Bible either, so imo, this is a bogus implication on your part that I don't know enough about Darwinism to state emphatically what I've said concerning the subject. Have you read the Bible all the way, word for word, cover to cover, Schraf? If you have, you're likely a small minority of evos here in town who have.Having said the above, there's a big difference in the reading of a book and the long time study of a book in depth, so whether one has read a book or has become apprised on the subject matter of a given subject are both considerations to consider.

Well, I did say considering the possibility was as far as I wanted to go, but bioluminescense in sea and land animals which is as I understand is produced by a heat related chemical reaction involving luciferin and luciferace, causing the oxidation of the luciferin in the process might be a source of significant heat and light if soumehow applied to some kind of large dinosaur dragon type animal. I'm not saying that's what I believe, mind you, but luminenscense bugs and sealife are quite a remarkable thing too, imo.Lucifer/luciferin/luciferace...........hmmm, interesting.........must be the scientists incorporated the evil Biblical angel of light into their scientific terminology here.

I judge Hovind on what he gives credible evidence for which is a lot more than what you're giving him credit for. Have you actually heard him lecture for two hours at a sitting? I've heard him on two hour segments on TV several times and much of what he says is very credible and interesting stuff which I believe anyone would be hard pressed to refute. I'm not including the fire dragons in this, btw, but I'm not discounting it altogether either. Nor am I including in this his claim that there are a few dinosaurs around. I don't think so, but believe he in sincere in his belief that there are some. I believe he is very sincere in what he believes, whether right or wrong.As to your question about my reading of Darwin, I've read very little except exerpts from time to time for research purposes, etc. Having said that, what have I said about him that you are ready to refute?

I didn't specify as to how much heat I simply stated that heat was involved in the bioluminescent chemical reaction. Certainly a bug is not going to produce a noticeable amount of heat compared to, say a large animal if the process were measured in proportion. Can you document that I am mistaken?

My take on Darwin's racism is that his version of evolution is inherantly racist, in that blacks were/are the lesser evolved types of humans, the blacks being more of the same color and having some features suggesting lesser evolvement. Would you agree?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Paul, this is my question to Schraf. Do you care to give your answer this specific question of my post 106?

1. The article does not say he forgot anything.
2. He's not charged with a crime or with tax evasion.
3. The article does not say his income was a million plus at any time. In my business, for example, my gross receipts are far more than my income.You need to get your posting data fair and balanced before malaigning the man.

Paul, why do you persist missrepresenting what I say? I based my assessment of Darwin's racism on the fact that he seemed to imply that their eventual elimination would be a good thing for the human race.I don't think 19th century creationists would consider the elimination of the blacks as a good thing for the human race.