Why do we keep going? »« Advice to new parents

Hovind replies

Well, this isn’t going to happen. He rejects my insistence on equal profit sharing — you know, there would be TWO of us in this debate — blows right past my demand that the topic be strongly and narrowly focused, and babbles away with his usual demented hamster routine…which is a foreshadowing of what any debate with him would be like. Not interested. I wasn’t that interested to begin with, but I might have been willing if I thought I could get him to focus.

He does say he’s found a creationist to throw away money on Ray Comfort DVDs for the entire student body at Morris, so that’s a win. Coasters for everyone!

3-13-14 Response to self proclaimed atheist PZ Myers.

On 3-9-14 I sent out a blog (posted on 2peter3.com) titled “Open Letter to self proclaimed “atheist” PZ Myers of U of Minnesota- Morris. My blog had 18 numbered paragraphs.

A day or two later (I don’t have that data) he responded on his blog but I don’t have his web address either. It may be freethoughts.com/pharyngula but I’m not sure. Sorry about that. He at least referred to my paragraph numbers so below is my answer to his “A few comments from me”:

I’ll use my original paragraph numbers for ease of reference. Sorry I can’t cut and paste and insert here to make it easier to follow.

First- I was totally unaware that quote marks ” ” would scare you or anyone! I’ve never heard them called “scare quotes” in my 61 years! Is this new? I always use them for emphasis or irony. It is NOT “Rational” to believe in evolution.

1&3- I think a simple search of the web or a survey of your students would show that you do indeed push your views on others. Why do you post comments at all? I cannot “subscribe” to any blogs here but I’ll have someone do it for me. Thanks for the info.

4. PZ, you don’t “pay attention” to LOTS of details! Like the IMPOSSIBILITY of your religion being true. Dogs produce dogs. Always, no exceptions. You have a gift for not seeing the “details” that prove every aspect of the evolutionism religion wrong. I suspect this is because you like the idea of freedom from God and His Word and His authority over your life.

Notice you did NOT say, “I’m sorry I published false information about you Kent.”

5&6. I have not started any of the legal fights. They brought all this to me and I’m just defending myself as anyone should. You are “not concerned with the details” of real science that demonstrate the evolution religion to be stupid either.

7. You are either lying (again) or unable to understand simple English here. I have NEVER been convicted of fraud. There was no fraud in my case. You (and the folks at “Rational” Wiki) seem to like that word for some reason but it does not apply. Words have meanings PZ. You (and the rationalwiki folks) seem to play fast and loose with words. Like the word “science” for example. You freely include a lot of religion in with your science. I think “fraud” may apply to a person who claims to teach “biology” yet routinely mixes his religious beliefs in class about all life forms having a common ancestor or humans being related to bananas and humans being a fish (as you stated in the “Evolution vs. God” DVD). Maybe “charlatan” is a better word for these false teachers. Maybe the courts will explain to the folks at “Rational” Wiki that words have meanings and it is not good to falsely accuse someone of the crime of fraud (unless you have proof).

The government was wrong in my case as is shown in many of the filings posted on 2peter3.com. The reason we even have appellate courts and a Supreme Court is precisely because the lower courts can get it wrong. Being convicted by one person does not prove guilt. 6 million Jews were convicted and executed in Germany in WW II. Does that prove they were guilty of some crime? Watch the news. Often cases are overturned on new evidence. Sometimes many years after the conviction. Simple history 101 will show many examples. I know you are rejoicing that the lower court ruled against me just as Jesus’s enemies rejoiced when he was convicted and sentenced. Well, it’s NOT over. If I DO get the case overturned and it is admitted by a higher court that the lower court erred and I did NOT commit a crime will you also admit it or will you then think the higher court erred?

I have learned a LOT of things from all this! Read my previous blogs over the last 7 years to glean some if you like.

“Lake of remorse?” Should I be sorry I took my own money out of my own bank to pay my own bills? Read the Complaint of Misconduct against the AUSA in my case filed in the Denver court and tell me which of the 3 charges I should be remorseful for please.

8. One of your own fellow travelers corrected you on this one. “Evidences” is fine. BTW- I notice you used “scare quotes” here. Twice! It worked! I’m scared! :)

9&10. Be specific. You give a nebulous accusation about Ray Comfort lying and quote mining yet give no specifics. Anyone can watch the DVD and see you make a fool of yourself. No need for quote mining. You are your own worst enemy. A wise man once said, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” BTW-someone beat me to the 1900 students. They will all be getting the DVD soon and see the truth for themselves. This might be a good time for a long sabbatical for you. :) You may not want to show your face around the university for a while once they all see that one.

BTW- Send me the specific spots where Ray lied or quote mined please.

11-14. My offer stands as is. I have been more than generous in the terms. You are welcome to sell copies of the DVD but I am not going to hire someone to keep track of the ones I sell just so you can get a %. I didn’t ask for a % of the ones you sell or your “profits.” If you are so smart and feel so confident you will win the debate then why can’t you rest assured that people world wide will run to you to buy a copy? If you indeed decide to sell it I will add your web site as a source where people can get it. There are MANY who claim to be “atheists” and “agnostics” who would LOVE to see you (or anyone) beat me in a debate on creation vs. evolutionism. Watch ANY of the 20 debate dvds on you tube to see how they did. :)

As stated in my 3-11 post—I’ll pay my expenses to come to your turf, pay to video it, pay you as stated and give you a master copy to sell copies from for the rest of your life. I will not sell them for you. If this “counter offer” was the loophole you added so you could worm out of doing the debate at all and save face then go ahead and back out. “Rational” (hope I didn’t scare you with the quotes-didn’t mean to. I just do it for emphasis as most people do) folks will understand the real reason why you refused.

15. Once we clearly define the slippery term “evolution” into its 6 natural divisions as I have done scores of times (see DVD #4 for example) it is obvious to anyone with one eye and half a brain that the first 5 divisions/ levels/ meanings of the word as taught in your university are 100% religious! You have to BELIEVE they can happen by FAITH in the face of zero/zip/nada scientific evidence or you have to BELIEVE that they happened “long ago and far away” where no one can observe them. NO ON has ever seen matter create itself from nothing. Before you can have ANY “evolution” you must have something to evolve. It’s common sense 101. The text books at the university where you teach do indeed proclaim the big bang and matter coming from nothing. I’ll copy them when I come and show you and the students. If it is SCIENCE that matter can come from nothing-let’s do it again in a lab. I want to see it this time.

The next 4 meanings of evolution: chemical, stellar, organic and macro are just as religious and have NEVER been OBSERVED. Variations within the same kind of plant or animal happen all the time like your stickle back fish example. As Ray pointed out-they are still fish!

I know there is no chance that you will admit it or even understand it but any “evolution” above the level of minor changes within kinds only takes place in the fertile imagination of those who faithfully believe it does. Even the little boy could see- The king hath no clothes! You need to sue the “tailors” who sold you that dumb religious evolution suit you so proudly wear in public. Aren’t you embarrassed to believe you came from a rock? BTW-congrats on having an asteroid named after you. Is that an ancestor too?

What “evidence” do you teach in your class that would show scientifically that humans are related to bananas as you said on the DVD? If it can be shown there are some sections of the complex DNA code of humans and bananas that seem to be similar that would not prove a common ancestor. A freshman law student could see through that! It is just as much evidence for a common DESIGNER! Do you mention THAT to your students? The lug nuts from a Vet will fit on other Chevy products. Does that prove they both evolved from a skate board?

16. Read your answer #17 and see who is acting like they are 12 years old. BTW- in the military officers can be disciplined for “language unbecoming an officer.” Doesn’t your university have any standards of conduct or language for the teachers who represent the school? You need a committee to oversee stuff like this and discipline those who use 4th grade insults. Maybe a bar of soap?

Words have meanings as Rational Wiki may soon find out. As one ol’ country boy said, “Huntin ain’t no fun when the rabbit has a gun.” Maybe they thought they should kick a man when he was down in prison and unable to defend himself?

17. I don’t know if anyone will ever “win you over” but exposing your lies may help prevent you from ruining the students who sit in your class. I’ve debated 100 self proclaimed evolutionists and can’t claim to have won any of them over. I do it to expose lies, present truth and help students NOT be brainwashed or taking in by the slick sales pitch guys like you have. We have gotten thousands of testimony letters from students who saw the debates and saw the truth.

18. Your income is at least partially based on a tax funded institution-U of M. I feel certain you could not make a living in the real world without any government help, grants etc. That’s part of the reason why you suggested what you did in #11-14. I produce a product people want and I don’t get funding from the government to do it. The evolution you teach, even if it were true, is 100% useless in the corporate world. Nobody will pay for it. It has no commercial value. A doctor needs to know real science to do surgery not the junk science presented in evolution classes.

Again (sigh) I have never been convicted of being a “con artist” but I’m sure it makes you feel better to act 12 (see #16) and call names rather than deal with real science and the issues.

Contact Marianne to schedule a debate with the terms I already offered if you are brave enough. :)

Kent Hovind

Comments

  1. pacal says

    Ken Hovind says:

    Again (sigh) I have never been convicted of being a “con artist” but I’m sure it makes you feel better to act 12 (see #16) and call names rather than deal with real science and the issues.

    So you’ve never been “convicted” of being a con artist. Just how does that mean you aren’t a con artist?

  2. karmacat says

    Huh? Does he think all doctors are surgeons? Doctors do have to know something about genetics. And what about medical researchers? Then he says you can’t survive without a “government” job. Who does he think works in government. It is not the magical ark fairies. Should I stop working for the VA because it is a government job. Obviously he fits right into a jail cell because his world is already narrow and limited

  3. jamessweet says

    I always use [quotes] for emphasis or irony.

    Agh, I hate the quotes-for-emphasis thing. You use italics for emphasis, or maybe underlining. But you don’t use quotes for “emphasis”, that’s just stupid.

    (BTW, using quotes for irony is pretty much the definition of “scare quotes”, Hovind… just sayin’…)

  4. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I still think you should accept providing he publicly admits he committed tax fraud before you accept any terms. The torture….

  5. Wylann says

    jamessweet, the fact that he doesn’t have PZ’s ‘web address’ might be indicative of just how incompetent Hovind the pig fucker is. It’s not like this URL isn’t the first thing that shows up in ‘the google’ when you put in PZed’s name…..

  6. anteprepro says

    Wow, near fatal amounts of smarm, fake friendliness, and wrong about virtually everything he opens his yap about. Sickening and sad.

  7. monad says

    First- I was totally unaware that quote marks ” ” would scare you or anyone! I’ve never heard them called “scare quotes” in my 61 years! Is this new?

    A fib right from the first point, I thought, since nobody could actually have never noticed scare quotes. But then it occurs to me it wouldn’t be out of keeping with all the other things he’s never acknowledged. Help me out – none of the standard translations of the bible have scare quotes, right?

    I couldn’t go much further; the rest was just so much more of the same uniform froth, not even sticking to the topic at hand, I can’t even enjoy it in a mocking way.

  8. kosk11348 says

    You can’t call him guilty of fraud, even though he’s in jail serving a conviction for fraud, because at some future point a higher court *might* overturn his conviction.

    Using the same logic, you must now all begin calling me doctor, since at some point I may bother to become one.

  9. Colin J says

    I am not going to hire someone to keep track of the ones I sell just so you can get a %.

    He would have to hire someone to keep track of the money he makes from the goods he sells?

    I’m beginning to see where his tax problems come from…

  10. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    6 million Jews were convicted and executed in Germany in WW II.

    While trying to compare his plight to that of Jews in Europe, he cannot even get this fact right. Most were murdered in Poland and the Soviet Union. And most did not even get a show trial, let alone a trial of any sort.

    Have fun trying to nail yourself to the cross, Kent Hovind.

  11. Al Dente says

    Wylann @9

    jamessweet, the fact that he doesn’t have PZ’s ‘web address’ might be indicative of just how incompetent Hovind the pig fucker is. It’s not like this URL isn’t the first thing that shows up in ‘the google’ when you put in PZed’s name…..

    You have to remember that convicted felon Hovind is in prison. His use of the internet may be restricted in ways that those of us who pay our taxes and otherwise don’t get into trouble with legal authorities don’t have to deal with. Show a little understanding to the situation that convicted felon Hovind put himself in through his own stupidity and greed.

  12. imthegenieicandoanything says

    He sure has a lot of time on his hands, there in prison. He should take a famous lifer’s advice to Tim Leary and spend even more time reading the Bible.

    And that lifer was….

    Charles Manson!

  13. sigurd jorsalfar says

    In addition to being a convicted criminal, Kent Hovind is a thoroughly dishonest and disreputable person. PZ, I really can’t see why you would even for a second have entertained the notion of debating this guy.

  14. Rich Woods says

    A wise man once said, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

    Oh, the irony!

  15. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    18. Your income is at least partially based on a tax funded institution-U of M. I feel certain you could not make a living in the real world without any government help, grants etc. That’s part of the reason why you suggested what you did in #11-14.

    Says the person who got his degree from a diploma mill. Also, this can be lobbed at every person who works at a tax funded institution. Guess that Kent Hovind is showing his disdain for education.

    I produce a product people want and I don’t get funding from the government to do it.

    Just because a product is bought does not mean it is useful or helpful.

    The evolution you teach, even if it were true, is 100% useless in the corporate world. Nobody will pay for it. It has no commercial value. A doctor needs to know real science to do surgery not the junk science presented in evolution classes.

    Tell that to the makers of vaccines. And to those who search for oil and coal deposits. And am sure that those who know about biology can easily point out other jobs that make use of idea from evolution.

  16. Rey Fox says

    hope I didn’t scare you with the quotes-didn’t mean to. I just do it for emphasis as most people do

    No wonder I hate most people.

  17. SuckPoppet says

    “Lake of remorse” – is that the new emo band all the kids are talking about?

  18. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Yeah, Kent Hovind is no where near as clever as he seems to think he is.

  19. robro says

    Wow! He wrote a Gish Gallop. Why wait for the debate. Prison life isn’t all work and no play, no sirree. And let me guess: his next message will accuse PZ of being a coward for not debating him and that PZ was cowed by the convincing power of this confabulation of preposterousness.

  20. Desert Son, OM says

    Started reading . . .

    . . . and then I got here:

    6 million Jews were convicted and executed in Germany in WW II.

    A self-righteous asshole trying to appropriate The Holocaust to illustrate circumstances in their own life that bear . . . absolutely no resemblance to the circumstances of The Holocaust in even the slightest measure, not even in measures that might be invented in the wildest flights of hallucinogen-fueled fantasy.

    I have /ragequit the letter. My emotional fortitude is insufficient to continue.

    Still learning,

    Robert

  21. unclefrogy says

    I want to declare my admiration to all who could read all of that message I could only manage about 1/3 before my mind started to wonder off in other more interesting subjects like Golgafrincham poetry

    uncle frogy

  22. IslandBrewer says

    Doesn’t know PZ’s web address? Did they not invent search engines until after his conviction? Could Eric not tell him about this “Google” thing? (Those quotes were just for emphasis.)

  23. says

    “The reason we even have appellate courts and a Supreme Court is precisely because the lower courts can get it wrong.”

    Hovind has already appealed, more than once. And his appeals have been denied each time. Hovind has filed several suits and lost every one of them. His track record in court is really quite terrible.

  24. Menyambal says

    The evolution you teach, even if it were true, is 100% useless in the corporate world. Nobody will pay for it. It has no commercial value.

    I once did an interview with an oil-exploration corporation recruiter, on campus in the geology department. I told the guy that Kent Hovind was across the street giving a talk on Flood Geology. He laughed.

  25. Holms says

    What an incredible liar, and what an amazing idiot for thinking that his lies are convinvcing anyone outside his clergy. I was going to give a rebuttal to several of his points, but there is just too much drivel.

  26. says

    I’m amazed at his ability to keep sticking to a definition of evolution that no one anywhere in the scientific world uses. We already know he is deeply and profoundly delusional, but I can’t tell if it’s a symptom of that or a deliberate strawman to give the rubes something to listen to.

  27. Seize says

    Something about the failure to grasp the Holocaust plus the happy face at the end just makes this whole thing magic for me. The Comic Sans does help.

  28. anteprepro says

    I’m amazed at his ability to keep sticking to a definition of evolution that no one anywhere in the scientific world uses.

    He’s a creationist, that’s hardly surprising. The whole “scare quote” thing is what has my draw dropped, personally!

  29. says

    I feel certain you could not make a living in the real world without any government help, grants etc.

    I feel certain Kent Hovind could not make a living in the real world without any government help: religious tax exemptions, etc.

    In fact, I am reasonably certain that the abuse of that government help is why Kent isn’t living out here in the real world right now.

  30. edmond says

    That was one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever read. Oh PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE debate him, PZ! It would be such wickedly twisted entertainment! If he talks and presents himself like this in his court appearances, I hope they’re televised.

  31. Atticus Dogsbody says

    NO ON has ever seen matter create itself from nothing.

    Watch me create something from nothing…

    NO ONE has ever seen matter create itself from nothing.

    TA DA!

  32. says

    Well, PZ, I know you are going to do whatever you decide to do. Hope you don’t do what you feel. My own recommendation is DON’T. Even if you grind Hovind into the ground and counter everything he says he will benefit from attention he wouldn’t get elsewhere. He will move the goal post and Gish gallop like the greasy, loathsome pariah he is. And I don’t see you making any money from this; it will be on Youtube within minutes of the final question.

  33. Pierce R. Butler says

    Damn, if he’d only mentioned how Galileo was persecuted “too” I could’ve made Bingo!

  34. Ganf says

    “”””
    “””””””””””
    “””””””””””””””
    “”””””””””””””””””””””
    “”””””””””””””””” “”””” “””””””””””
    “””””””””””””””””””‘””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””” “”
    Oh crap, I spilled my “quote” marks

  35. theignored says

    Kent Hovind said:
    “BTW- Send me the specific spots where Ray lied or quote mined please.”

    Ok, Hovind, if you’re reading this, here you go: I detail Ray’s deceptions in the video that he posted on this particular facebook page in this comment on that page here:
    https://www.facebook.com/official.Ray.Comfort/posts/645320225488454?comment_id=93239879&offset=0&total_comments=179

    More details from Craig Standford who was misquoted in Ray’s video are here:
    https://www.facebook.com/notes/bananas-about-evolution/dr-craig-standford-interview/211924678963700

  36. imthegenieicandoanything says

    I had some time on my hands and actually read through to the end of the not-Dr’s screed.

    What a shitty, dishonest and dull fraud he is.

    I pity those related to him, but more those who choose to associate with him willingly. Xians of the creationist sort (non-JW) can just be assumed to be dull, stupid, totally immoral, untrustworthy, vicious people, can’t they?

  37. says

    I think PZ should have taken the challenge more seriously and pursued the negotiations in a more deliberate manner as if he really could cooperate with Kent in producing the debate, whether in writing or orally.

    It could have and should have proceeded in such a way that substantive progress might have been made; one reasonable step at a time.

    Kent might still have been expected to be the UNreasonable one, but it would not have blown up in the first round of the negotiations.

    Kent wanted “one issue at a time” and PZ indicated he was willing to accommodate such a principle. That should have been applied to the negotiations.

    It appears Kent was not even willing to commit himself to negotiating the details necessary to produce the debate.

    Kent’s response to PZ indicates his offer was a “take it or leave it” proposition.

    Kent Hovind:

    – Debate me PZ.

    PZ:

    – OK, let’s negotiate the details.

    Kent Hovind:

    – Let’s not.
    – I decide the details.
    – Take it or leave it.

    PZ:

    – Come back when you are ready to negotiate,
    – one reasonable detail at a time.

    Kent wrote, in part:

    – “There was no fraud in my case.”

    We are the jury, and we are certainly free to and have found that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Kent’s case(s) exhibit fraud throughout regardless of what specific charges were filed by the U.S. Attorney and that landed him in prison. Also, as a practical matter, the application of the civil fraud penalty in both Kent’s and Jo’s U.S. Tax Court cases precludes Kent and Jo from denying that “there was fraud in their case”.

    Jo did not appeal her U.S. Tax Court case.
    Kent’s appeal of his U.S. Tax Court case, I propose, will not change the results.

    There was fraud in Kent’s case.
    Beyond a reasonable doubt.

  38. Menyambal says

    Hovind mentions brainwashing. The first time I went to one of his talks, he had a very odd definition of brainwashing.

    He told, as a story, that riddle where a man hits something with a club and runs, and there’s another man in a mask, and in the end it all turns out to be a baseball game. But Kent kept interrupting the story to tell us that we didn’t know what was going on because we’d been brainwashed. (I knew what was going on, because I hadn’t been hit with a club.)

    He really does live in his own little “world” where things mean what he thinks they mean.

  39. jagwired says

    SockPoppet @23:

    “Lake of remorse” – is that the new emo band all the kids are talking about?

    No. I think it’s the prequel to Blood Ocean.

  40. Hairy Chris, blah blah blah etc says

    Am I allowed to call him a “bell-end” in these circumstances?

    I’m aware that it’s a gender/genitalia-based insult but I’m so very, very English and the phrase is so very, very fitting.

  41. David Marjanović says

    jamessweet, the fact that he doesn’t have PZ’s ‘web address’ might be indicative of just how incompetent Hovind the pig fucker is. It’s not like this URL isn’t the first thing that shows up in ‘the google’ when you put in PZed’s name…..

    The Dunning and the Kruger are strong in this one.

    BTW, I just did the experiment. The first google.de result for pz myers is de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Zachary_Myers. The second result is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers. The third is freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/…

    A fib right from the first point, I thought, since nobody could actually have never noticed scare quotes. But then it occurs to me it wouldn’t be out of keeping with all the other things he’s never acknowledged. Help me out – none of the standard translations of the bible have scare quotes, right?

    No, you misunderstand. He has noticed scare quotes, he uses them himself, for irony. What he hasn’t is ever heard the term “scare quotes”.

    So, rather than trying to find out what PZ means by “scare quotes”, he somehow assumes PZ uses “scare quotes” as a synonym for “quotation marks”. That would be stupid, so he assumes PZ is stupid and laughs at him. Dr. Dunning, meet Dr. Kruger.

    When someone uses quotation marks for emphasis, there are only two possibilities:
    1) They’ve never been to school for more than maybe a week in their entire lifetime.
    2) All their teachers have failed them, were completely fucking unqualified for their jobs, and should be shouted at, LOUD, preferably in public. Wearing a sign “I applied for a teaching job but don’t even know what a quotation mark is” is also acceptable.

  42. David Marjanović says

    he somehow assumes PZ uses “scare quotes” as a synonym for “quotation marks”

    and assumes, I forgot to add because it’s a quarter to 2 at night, that “scare quotes” means “quotes intended to scare someone”. That, too, would be stupid, so he assumes PZ is… and so on.

  43. says

    Well, Mr. Hovind, what were you convicted of?

    On the Wikipedia entry on Hovind, it states that “After closing arguments were presented on November 2, the jury deliberated three hours before finding the Hovinds guilty on all counts, 58 for Hovind and 44 for his wife.” and that these counts were “twelve counts of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over federal income taxes and FICA taxes, forty-five counts of knowingly structuring transactions in federally insured financial institutions to evade reporting requirements, and one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws.”

    BTW, Wikisource has the indictment here:
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_of_America_v_Kent_Hovind_and_Jo_Hovind

  44. says

    My stint as a journalist was brief, but I learned a nice lesson from an editor who disdained the use of quotes for “emphasis.” In mortal combat with a publisher who insisted that emphasis-quotes were perfectly all right, the editor retorted, “Then you won’t mind if the society page runs a report that Mr. Publisher and his “wife” were seen at the charity function.”

  45. says

    I’m not going to read that wall of blithering douchebucketry; I would, however, appreciate a condensed version if anyone else decided to cerebrally self-flagellate by doing so.

  46. says

    He would have to hire someone to keep track of the money he makes from the goods he sells?

    I’m beginning to see where his tax problems come from…

    Yeah, this boggled me as well. We are talking about literally the most basic business and accounting practices. If you don’t keep track of how many DVDs you sell, you don’t know if you even made money on them!

  47. says

    Fraud Defined:

    – “Wrongful or criminal deception intended
    – to result in financial or personal gain.”

    What the U.S. Tax Court said:

    – “The record shows that petitioner (Jo Hovind)
    – was an active participant in the operation of
    – CSE and, along with Mr. Hovind, engaged in
    – a course of conduct designed to conceal and
    – mislead. Petitioner’s assertion of implausible
    – and inconsistent explanations is circumstantial
    – evidence of her fraudulent intent.”

    ———————————-

  48. says

    Hovind equating his conviction to the murder of 6 million Jews. We are a long way from a “Creationist Holocaust” attractive as it sounds.

  49. Dick the Damned says

    Ha ha, he also challenged me to contact Marianne to schedule a debate if i’m brave enough.

    He sent me this today, “Natural selection–SELECTS from what is available. It does NOT and CANNOT create anything. Selecting the faster horses will not grow wings on them EVER. If you wish to BELIEVE that natural selection can create that is fine with me but it has NEVER been observed and is NOT science. It’s a religious belief pure and simple. Just admit that much please. :) KH”

    How can someone so comprehensively ignorant of a subject believe themselves to be knowledgeable about it? (Rhetorical question.)

  50. says

    @ Dick,

    It sounds like, again, Kent wants to ramble instead of negotiate the appropriate details that would allow for a proper exchange of views on some point of mutual interest.

  51. stever says

    On quotation marks for emphasis: The practice probably originated with lazy sign painters. Changing lettering style, changing color, or even underlining all require more effort than just throwing up a pair of quote marks. Since spellcheckers don’t flag misuse of punctuation, the practice spreads as a meme. See also the too-damn-common practice of treating all homophones (“there”, “their” and “they’re”, “to” and “too”…) as interchangeable.

    As for Hovind and his ilk, they aren’t worth the effort. The only reply to their drivel should be “You are masturbating with a sack of macadamias.” Young Earth Creationists don’t deserve any more respect than people who believe that God talks to them in Morse code through their Rice Krispies.

  52. says

    “Kent’s appeal of his U.S. Tax Court case, I propose, will not change the results.”

    It should be noted that Kent already appealed his tax court case. Twice. And lost both times. He filed an odd motion to have his indictment dismissed after he was convicted. This motion was dismissed. He also sued the Federal Prisons Bureau, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, his trial judge, and the district court where he was tried. He lost all of these cases. His current “appeal” is an attack on the prosecutor. I suspect that it will go as well as his previous efforts.

  53. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Stever, they do not deserve respect. And paying attention to them is not respect. And we have to pay attention to them. Enough creationists have gotten enough power that they actually been able to effect how biology is taught.

    It would be fine to ignore them if they held no power. But they are not powerless.

  54. says

    “You can’t call him guilty of fraud, even though he’s in jail serving a conviction for fraud, because at some future point a higher court *might* overturn his conviction.

    Using the same logic, you must now all begin calling me doctor, since at some point I may bother to become one.”

    The Late Kent Hovind.

  55. says

    @ aaronpound

    I think you are a little confused about Kent’s U.S. Tax Court history and the appeal in that case.

    Last I checked, the 11th Circuit had re-instated Kent’s appeal of the decision in his U.S. Tax Court case and disposition of that case is pending.

  56. says

    @ Goodbye Enemy Janine,

    I agree they need to be paid attention.

    The proposed PZ Myers v. Kent Hovind debate could have been handled a lot better and I am disappointed that it the prospects so quickly digressed.

    If PZ Myers isn’t up to and open, honest negotiation with Kent Hovind regarding a proposed debate, his side needs to find someone who is up to it.

    In hindsight, if there are still any possibilities, I would propose that Kent and PZ appoint agents to handle the public negotiations for the proposed debate.

  57. Ephiral says

    I produce a product people want and I don’t get funding from the government to do it.

    I presume he means “I don’t get legitimate funding – I steal it.”

    And for the record, (insert non-lawyer disclaimer here), he is extremely technically correct in that he isn’t quite guilty of fraud – because a) the crimes under 18 USC 47 are maddeningly specific, and b) “fraud” as defined by the law dictionaries I took a look at, has a component where the other guy believes you. So no, he’s not a fraudster – because the US government was too smart to believe his bullshit.

  58. Rob says

    He would have to hire someone to keep track of the money he makes from the goods he sells?

    I’m beginning to see where his tax problems come from…

    Yeah, this boggled me as well. We are talking about literally the most basic business and accounting practices. If you don’t keep track of how many DVDs you sell, you don’t know if you even made money on them!

    Ah yes, “God will provide” (scare quote intentional)

  59. says

    More on fraud, from Jo Hovind’s U.S. Tax Court discussion:

    “Because it is difficult to prove fraudulent intent
    by direct evidence, the Commissioner may establish
    fraud by circumstantial evidence, which includes
    various “badges of fraud” on which the courts often
    rely.”

    “(1) understating income;
    (2) failing to maintain adequate records;
    (3) offering implausible or inconsistent explanations;
    (4) concealing income or assets;
    (5) failing to cooperate with tax authorities;
    (6) engaging in illegal activities;
    (7) providing incomplete or misleading information to the taxpayer’s tax return preparer;
    (8) offering false or incredible testimony;
    (9) filing false documents, including filing false income tax returns;
    (10) failing to file tax returns; and
    (11) engaging in extensive dealings in cash.”

    “The existence of any one factor is not dispositive,
    but the existence of several factors is
    persuasive circumstantial evidence of fraud.”

    The U.S. Tax Court sustained the civil fraud penalty as to both Kent and Jo Hovind.
    Jo did not appeal.
    Kent did.

  60. ChasCPeterson says

    On quotation marks for emphasis: The practice probably originated with lazy sign painters.

    I’ve seen them called “grocer’s quotes”.

  61. says

    “Rational” … folks will understand the real reason why you refused.

    despite himself, hovind seems to be catching onto the proper use of scare quotes quite quickly.

  62. says

    “Last I checked, the 11th Circuit had re-instated Kent’s appeal of the decision in his U.S. Tax Court case and disposition of that case is pending.”

    Unless they vacated their decision, which I can find no record of, he lost his appeal. Here’s the 11th Circuit’s decision.

    http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200710090.pdf

    And here is the decision on his 2011 motion to dismiss the indictment (and other claims) that was denied by the Northern District of Florida: http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110502_0000694.NFL.htm/qx

    As far as I can tell, he’s lost his direct appeal and the appear to prevent his assets from being seized to satisfy the tax lien. He appears to be resorting to increasingly improbably collateral appeals now. That and suing the prison system and losing.

  63. says

    @ aaronpound

    Gotcha!

    I tried to warn you.

    You are confused.

    What you referenced is NOT, NOT, NOT Kent’s U.S. Tax Court case or its appeal.

  64. seranvali says

    What’s this crap about him being unable to find/read your blog, PZ? That’s bizarre. He obviously has your email address and the name of your blog so why is he incapable of asking you for a link or googling it?

  65. jste says

    @robertbaty, 71:

    You don’t win arguments by shouting “YOU’RE WRONG!” If what arronpound has referenced is not Kent’s case, then perhaps you could be so kind as to reference the correct case, and the correct case’s appeal? Elsewise, what you’ve posted is just so many words on the wind.

  66. says

    For the umpteenth time…

    Kent Hovind is in prison and has limited access.

    It is reported he has NO, NO, NO Internet access.

    He does have email, snail mail, and telephone access.

    If Kent wanted to, he could add PZ to his approved email contacts and they could communicate directly like I did last year; until Kent cut and ran and removed me from his approved email contact list.

  67. says

    @ jste,

    I am not worried about “winning arguments”.
    I just win.

    Deal with it, or not.

    I think it’s funny.

    I tried to warn him, and, by implication, you.

    I didn’t say it was not Kent’s case.

    I claimed it was not Kent’s U.S. Tax Court case.

    He obviously has the wherewithal to research the matter and can read his own material to figure out it is not the U.S. Tax Court case.

    Thanks for continuing the valuable demonstration.

  68. congaboy says

    Tax fraud is the intentional misrepresentation of information on one’s tax reports, in an attempt to avoid paying taxes on the income. This is the activity for which Hovind was convicted, thus he has been convicted of tax fraud. He was convicted of 45 counts of structuring, which is a way of laundering money, in which he laundered nearly a quarter million dollars through withdrawals of less than $10,000. He refused to pay social security taxes and other taxes.

    Hovind’s entire rant is irony. I think he is projecting. He is demanding that, if his case is overturned, that everyone admit that he is not a criminal and tax fraud, but what if the appellate courts uphold his convictions? Does that mean he will freely admit that he is a criminal and tax fraud? I’m kidding, of course he won’t. He reminds me of many of my clients who suffer from severe emotional issues and cognitive dysfunctions. There is no point in debating someone who is probably suffering from borderline personality disorder; he’ll never be able to admit that he is wrong, no matter what evidence is presented. And you certainly don’t want to give him anything he can use to make more money; he’s getting millions from the people he is fleecing through his ministries

  69. jste says

    @robertbaty

    I am not worried about “winning arguments”.
    I just win.

    Deal with it, or not.

    I think it’s funny.

    I tried to warn him, and, by implication, you.

    I didn’t say it was not Kent’s case.

    I claimed it was not Kent’s U.S. Tax Court case.

    He obviously has the wherewithal to research the matter and can read his own material to figure out it is not the U.S. Tax Court case.

    Thanks for continuing the valuable demonstration.

    And as someone who has not the training, ability, time, or resources to track down case material for a case that happened in an entirely different country to the one I live in, I asked you for the references to back up your claim. Instead I get fed this word salad and we play games about the precise wording everyone in the conversation used? I’m actually not surprised. Standard fare from your type.

    Fine, I’ll rephrase my request. Please provide the links to the reference material of the specific case you are referring to which backs up the pointless nit-picking you are engaging in.

  70. says

    @ congaboy

    One of Kent’s tax protest heroes is Irwin Schiff who is spending his old age in prison.

    Schiff’s right hand man was recently in court again trying to leverage his diagnosed Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) for some consideration.

    One of the things noted in that case was the symptom of continuing to believe something in spite of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.

    I have come to the conclusion that Kent has a severe case of it; though, for all we know, it remains undiagnosed. I have tried to get his friends and family to have him evaluated for mental issues, but I can’t tell it has done any good.

  71. says

    @ jste

    You don’t need to bug me about your bias and shortcomings.

    Why don’t you just ask that other poster to quote you something from his reference that led him to believe that his reference involved Kent’s U.S. Tax Court case.

    If he can’t come up with a legitimate quote, might you begin to think he is the one that has the problem here.

    Maybe if he won’t repent and bring forth his works meet for repentance (i.e., admit his error, explain it, and correct it), I will try to help you out later.

    P.S. – Why don’t you try Google. Do they have Google, or some other equivalent search engine, where you live that works on your computer.

    P.S.S. – It is not pointless nit-picking, though I realize you and others might like to characterize it as such. This is a most valuable exercise.

  72. anuran says

    @47Hairy Chris, blah blah blah etc

    Am I allowed to call him a “bell-end” in these circumstances?

    I’m aware that it’s a gender/genitalia-based insult but I’m so very, very English and the phrase is so very, very fitting.

    As someone who possesses a bell end I’m cool with it. Besides, it’s an essential and traditional Britishism.
    You could say that when they circumcised him they threw the wrong part away.
    Or you could shift areas a bit and call him an incompletely developed deuterostome

  73. says

    “What you referenced is NOT, NOT, NOT Kent’s U.S. Tax Court case or its appeal.”

    It is the appeal of his criminal conviction for tax related crimes. No matter what happens in the appeals from his civil tax case, he will remain a convicted tax felon. The time for appealing that issue has long since passed.

    In any event, the 11th Circuit has also ruled on Hovind’s appeal in his tax court case, back in 2007: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200615229.pdf

    Once again, unless they vacated that opinion, and there doesn’t seem to be any record of the 11th circuit doing so, Hovind’s tax court case appeal was also denied.

  74. msm16 says

    Long time lurker coming out to say: This level of militant stupidity scares the ever loving shit out of me.

  75. says

    So, robertbaty, given that I have shown that Hovind did in fact lose two different appeals concerning his taxes, why don’t you actually show what you think Hovind’s current tax court appeal is. Or is it too much to ask for you to back up your mouth with facts?

    Or are you going to keep braying without any substance?

  76. says

    @ aaronpound,

    You have shown some improvement, and helped to identify more specifically your continuing problems.

    When I speak of Kent’s and Jo’s U.S. Tax Court cases, I am talking about their recent cases involving proposed deficiencies in the millions of dollars.

    You referenced an “ancient” collection case.

    Look up Kent’s and Jo’s recent U.S. Tax Court cases, which are the ones I talk about, and get back to us with your findings about that.

    Jo did not appeal her U.S. Tax Court case.
    Kent did.
    Kent’s case is still pending before the 11th Circuit, with the latest action being within the last few days.

  77. firstapproximation says

    Aghhh, he just blathers on and on.

    Two things:

    – Hovind: I never heard of “scare quotes”, so it must be new. Watch me unleash my razor sharp wit against PZ for using a very common term I’m not familiar with.
    – Sheesh, compares himself to Jesus AND Holocaust victims.

  78. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Fucking arrogance of “words have meanings” and then throwing out the phrase

    6 million Jews were convicted

    Hovind needs a moral system – stat!

  79. chigau (違う) says

    ChasCPeterson #68

    I’ve seen them called “grocer’s quotes”.

    If I did that cutsey ‘have an internet’ thing, I’d do it for this quote.
    Meta-applause.
    (I typed meta-clap but changed my mind.)

  80. vaiyt says

    He sent me this today, “Natural selection–SELECTS from what is available. It does NOT and CANNOT create anything.

    It’s a silly tactic that some apologists have used here a few times.

    They start with “natural selection can’t create new traits”. When you point out mutations, they say “mutation can’t select traits”. When you point back to natural selection, they go back to the first point.

  81. Dr. Pablito says

    If anyone cares, here’s what @robertbaty is gabbling about. I can’t figure out why @robertbaty is being so weird and opaque. Just trolling, I guess? Wants the attention as someone who corresponds with Hovind? Whee!

    http://www.2peter3.com/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=218&posts=46&start=1

    And so what does Hovind’s current “appeal” to the 11th circuit court look like?

    http://www.2peter3.com/Court_Docs/TaxCourtAppeal.pdf

    More gibberish. Tax protesters are lower than snake butts, if you ask me.

  82. yubal says

    @ PZ

    OK. I get the fact that Kent has some sort of entertainment value, but why the *&%$* damn heck would you agree to debate that guy???

    What would you have to win from this potential; debate??

  83. Ephiral says

    @ Dr. Pablito #89: According to one (admittedly questionable) source, that was rejected on Feb 18, and he was given 14 days to respond. This is the most recent data I can find.

    @ robertbaty: Okay, I’ll bite. I’ve checked Google, Hovind’s crappy site, the 11th Circuit’s archives and current monthly logs, the US Tax Court’s docket and opinion records, and your Facebook page stirring the pot in these matters. Last I can find was the rejection of the latest iteration of appeal 13-12520-FF that I mentioned above. What newer info do you have from what sources, and what makes those sources reliable?

    Perhaps you forgot that evidence is king around here?

  84. chigau (違う) says

    harrisonfjorde
    Do you understand how life on an oblate spheroid works?
    You will need to wait until PZ is awake before you get your ‘Banned at Pharyngula’ badge.

  85. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    And now I’ll never know what made harrisonfjorde so simultaneously pathetic and ban-able.

    Am I ever not sorry.

  86. grumpyoldfart says

    I love the idea that on the day of his releases thousands of ratbag Christians will give a hearty cheer and start throwing money at him. It makes me laugh just thinking about it.

  87. says

    Hovind really is a rotten apple that should be passed on (or, ideally, pass himself on) to other people.

    In particular I was thinking about historians, who will be delighted to learn about how “6 million Jews were convicted and executed in Germany in WW II” ; chemists, who will be interested by the notion of “chemical evolution” ; psychopathologists, who will just love his delusions of grandeur (“I’m just like Jesus!”) ; logicians, who will have a hard time understanding how one can keep babbling about “science” while pushing the notion that “kinds” are some some sort of scientific concept…

    OK guys… any taker ?

  88. says

    Though I would never normally wish this on anyone, I do hope Kent is in solitary. I can’t imagine any crueler punishment than to be Kent’s cellmate and have to listen to him non-stop, hour after hour.

  89. Thumper: Token Breeder says

    The fact that he is so stupid he thinks the term “scare quotes” denotes quote marks which are terrifying in and of themselves bugs me, but the fact that he takes this bit of ridiculousness and keeps repeating it in a such a fucking smug, condescending manner is utterly infuriating. I couldn’t even finish his reply. Jesus.

  90. spongman says

    I will pay $200 to the currently-enrolled Morris student who submits, to this blog, the best (according to PZ) sculpture made predominantly of Hovind-supplied DVDs. Bonus points should be awarded for: creativity, references to reason/scepticism, but beyond all, sheer number of DVDs used. Date tbd.

  91. robinjohnson says

    The scare quotes thing is interesting. It’s quite possible that he’s never noticed that usage before – people do tend to unconsciously ignore words and phrases they don’t know, which is why when you learn a new word, you spot it being used three times in the next week. The difference is that what might be a little moment of “Oh! There’s something I didn’t know before!” for an intellectually curious person becomes a “Pah! Here’s something I’ve never heard of, therefore it doesn’t exist!” for Hovind.

  92. Thumper: Token Breeder says

    Also, what the fuck is this bullshit?

    A day or two later (I don’t have that data) he responded on his blog but I don’t have his web address either. It may be freethoughts.com/pharyngula but I’m not sure.

    As if five seconds of googling wouldn’t have given him that information.

  93. Mr_V says

    I’ve just been reading up a bit on this Hovind family, and I’m intrigued by this question:

    What’s going to happen to the business side of their “ministry” (Look! Scare quotes!) once Kent gets out of prison.

    It seems to me that his son Eric has taken a ramshackle country bumpkin “business” and turned it into… well, maybe not something respectable, but at least something a whole lot more media-savvy and (from the looks of it) profitable. He’s even gone and renamed the whole damned thing.

    So… what? Kent comes out of prison, and Eric goes, “Here you go Dad, I’ve looked after your business while you were gone.” I don’t see that happening. Eric’s philosophy may be just as rooted in ignorance as his father’s, but he seems to be an ambitious and at least somewhat talented businessman.

    And given how litigious they all seem to be… The Hovind family in court for control of the business, somewhere around 2016? You heard it here first.

  94. playonwords says

    Has Mr Hovind forgotten that his living expenses comes courtesy from a tax funded institution?

    Also does Mr Hovind think he is being starved, beaten, used as slave labour, stripped and gassed/shot/experimented upon, all without due process?

  95. David Marjanović says

    a publisher who insisted that emphasis-quotes were perfectly all right

    what

    attractive as it sounds

    No.

    So no, he’s not a fraudster – because the US government was too smart to believe his bullshit.

    Attempted fraud, then?

    And given how litigious they all seem to be… The Hovind family in court for control of the business, somewhere around 2016? You heard it here first.

    Someone – I can’t remember if it was you – made the exact same argument here a few weeks ago. :-)

  96. Ephiral says

    Attempted fraud, then?

    Pretty much – the bankruptcy declaration was clearly deceit in an attempt to deprive the government of money that legally belongs to it, at the very least. (Also, my non-lawyer’s read of 18 USC § 1001 (a) says it would’ve been fraud if there weren’t a specific exemption saying “it’s okay if you do it to the judge in your proceedings”.)

  97. Reginald Selkirk says

    Dogs produce dogs. Always, no exceptions.

    Canid hybrid
    Including:
    Wolfdog hybrid
    Dingo hybrid
    Coydog and Dogote
    Coywolves
    Jackal hybrids

  98. jimmyfromchicago says

    The difference is that what might be a little moment of “Oh! There’s something I didn’t know before!” for an intellectually curious person becomes a “Pah! Here’s something I’ve never heard of, therefore it doesn’t exist!” for Hovind.

    You don’t suppose he applies that kind of reasoning to science, do you? Nah. Couldn’t be.

  99. gussnarp says

    Has he always been this unhinged or has prison pushed him over the edge? I mean, even his son, even Ken Ham, doesn’t sound this deranged and idiotic.

  100. gussnarp says

    Honestly, I don’t know why you bothered to respond at all. Reasonable as your terms were, and as many times as you’ve made clear in the past that such terms should be non-negotiable for anyone entering into a debate with a creationist, it’s pretty clear that Hovind does not deserve the dignity of a response and should simply be ignored.

  101. says

    “Kent’s case is still pending before the 11th Circuit, with the latest action being within the last few days.”

    No, it isn’t. He has filed several documents with the 11th Circuit, and they have been dismissed. That’s not an “appeal pending”. That’s a desperate attempt by a prisoner to get something to happen by throwing anything he can think of against the wall and hope something sticks.

    I’m beginning to think you have no legal training, and don’t understand the legal situation at all. I and others have provided actual evidence relating to Hovind’s cases.

    You’ve done nothing but act like a three year old who has discovered he can get attention by smearing shit on his own face. Sorry, the shit covering your face is both unimpressive and unconvincing. You’re going to have to actually provide evidence supporting your blather to be regarded as anything other than an idiot at this point.

  102. says

    @ aaronpound

    You make this exercise all the more relevant, interesting, and quite humorous.

    You don’t think I have any legal training?

    OK, I’ll bite!

    Are you, aaronpound, the Aaron Pound that IS the lawyer.

    As Dawkins might say, regardless of your answer, this little exercise looks very good on my resume.

    Not so much on yours.

    You say, regarding Kent’s recent U.S. Tax Court case (Tax Court Docket # 4245-10), that there is no appeal pending.

    Funny stuff, funny, funny stuff.

    I find that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering Kent’s appeal of that U.S. Tax Court case at docket # 13-12520. The last entry posted by PACER was 02/27/2014; just some housekeeping stuff going on now. Substantive action to decide the appeal is still pending.

    Grow up, aaronpound.

    Maybe we’ll have something of mutual interest to discuss.
    Maybe not.

    I think you have pretty much shown yourself to be an unworthy correspondent, but if you shape up and wipe that stuff off your face, maybe we can discuss something or ‘nother.

  103. twas brillig (stevem) says

    Variations within the same kind of plant or animal happen all the time like your stickle back fish example. As Ray pointed out-they are still fish!

    True, true. ;-|
    But explain to me, dear Hovind; Horse + Donkey = Mule. And Mules cannot mate with Horses, and so is not a Horse. Neither will it do a Donkey, so not a Donkey neither. So Mule is a different “kind” than Horse. If that is not a form of Evolution, what is it reely?
    #########################################################
    How can he not understand the meaning of the phrase ‘scare quotes’, and only interpret it literally; that the quote marks are scary??? And simultaneously being so prolific with “emoticons”; throwing :-) all over through his screed of denial and cognitive dissonance.
    Did everyone notice that he failed the Godwin rule? (I’m sure everyone did, just wanted to be Cpt. Obvious again)
    I too, liked his use of the “wise man” quote. Do they have mirrors in that prison for us to tell him to look at when quoting that phrase?
    —-
    TL;DR [Too Long Did Read] stopping now before I get too long winded myself….

  104. Thomathy, Gay Where it Counts says

    Is it possible, robertbaty, that you could post a link to the information you refer to here,

    I find that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering Kent’s appeal of that U.S. Tax Court case at docket # 13-12520. The last entry posted by PACER was 02/27/2014; just some housekeeping stuff going on now. Substantive action to decide the appeal is still pending.

    because that would be helpful? I can’t seem to find it via Google.

  105. Chris J says

    @twas brillig:

    But explain to me, dear Hovind; Horse + Donkey = Mule. And Mules cannot mate with Horses, and so is not a Horse. Neither will it do a Donkey, so not a Donkey neither. So Mule is a different “kind” than Horse. If that is not a form of Evolution, what is it reely?

    Ah, but you see, a mule looks like a horse and a donkey, so of course they are of the same kind. In fact, horses and donkeys are the same kind as well, since they look similar, and can only ever produce things that look like horses and donkeys.

    … Yeah, I know. But I’m pretty sure that’s what creationists actually mean when they talk about “kinds.” “X and Y look similar, so they must be the same kind.” And since they never actually define what a “kind” is, any example you bring up of X producing Y is evidence in their mind that X and Y are the same kind. Circular reasoning at its finest.

  106. Thomathy, Gay Where it Counts says

    Well, robertbaty is definitely being somewhat obtuse. What I can access (since I can’t gain access to PACER at all), is this, which may or may not be out of date. At least, the fee appears to actually have been paid, eventually, despite the description. In any case, the notes end abruptly on the notice of a due date for a brief of the appellant.

    And that docket, anyhow, appears to have a few variations.

    If I go to the US Tax Courts website, the format of the docket for the search appears to be different from how it’s presented elsewhere. Does anyone know what docket number should be searched for at that website or if the docket for this thing that robertbaty is going on about can be searched there?

  107. Thomathy, Gay Where it Counts says

    This Yahoo group conversation is …interesting.

    Just who are you robertbaty?

    Also, are you going to link to any of the information you keep wagging around? It would be helpful if you did.

  108. says

    @ deannajoylyons, et al

    Did you happen to look at the date on that reference you gave.

    I am quite aware that Kent’s U.S. Tax Court appeal was dismissed…and has since been reinstated and is currently pending.

    I’m just a tyro with a special interest in Hovind’s criminal and legal matters, among some other interests I have as far as the Internet is concerned.

    If you go to http://www.forbes.com and use the search feature there and enter Hovind you will find a dozen or so articles about the Hovind cases from Forbes contributor Peter J. Reilly. He’s done a pretty good job with that, but it wasn’t until Jo Hovind’s Tax Court case was decided that I managed to get him interested. You might notice my name scattered about in those articles as well as in the readers’ comments sections following them.

    Keep snooping y’all.
    You’ll figure it out; maybe with a little help from me.

  109. Alexander says

    I’ve never heard them called “scare quotes” in my 61 years! Is this new? I always use them for emphasis or irony.

    I know a lot of other people have banged on this drum, but it was as far as I could get as well. After all, if you use the same marks to indicate both emphatic and ironic usage, your readers will be unable to distinguish irony and emphasis. Clearly someone who is as educated and a polific speaker as Ken Hovind would recognize this problem.

    Well, which one is it, Ken? Are quotes used for “emphasis” or “irony”?

  110. Dr. Pablito says

    Yes, robertbaty grows tiresome around here. Xe has a strange, goading tone across multiple web forums. There’s the suggestion of sockpuppetry and mimicry. I don’t think we’ll get anywhere with hir. Ignore or ban, but xe’s a waste of time. Old school troll.

  111. saganite says

    I like the part where he compares himself to Jesus being convicted. A humble man, he.

  112. says

    Regarding grocer quotes, one overlapping variation I’ve seen are what I’d call “pun quotes” on various advertisements, used to bring attention to the pun. It tends to make bad puns worse because it’s essentially explaining the joke. It’s kind of similar to joke books I read as a kid where they’d add the homophone after the punned word in parentheses. Example: “When is a door not a door? When it’s ajar (a jar)!”

    As for PZ’s negotiations about a debate, I think it’s worth noting that such negotiations can help show Hovind’s intellectual dishonesty, since it’s not risky to presume a Creationist would chicken out if there are tighter controls.

    On Hovind benefiting from the situation, I believe the term is “Morton’s Fork.” If PZ openly shot down Hovind as not worth his time, Hovind gets to pretend PZ’s afraid. If PZ just ignored the challenge without a word, Hovind gets to pretend PZ’s afraid. If PZ was unaware of the challenge because it ended up in his spam box or if it was posted in some obscure corner of the web he never visits, Hovind gets to pretend PZ’s afraid. If PZ sets terms so that good science has an advantage over Gish Galloping falsehoods, Hovind gets to pretend PZ’s afraid.

  113. haslar53 says

    So… what? Kent comes out of prison, and Eric goes, “Here you go Dad, I’ve looked after your business while you were gone.” I don’t see that happening. Eric’s philosophy may be just as rooted in ignorance as his father’s, but he seems to be an ambitious and at least somewhat talented businessman.

    Mr_V,

    It won’t be quite like that.

    When Kent went to jail Eric took over CSE and re-filmed some of Kent’s seminars using exactly the same script including the same lame jokes. It was dreadfully embarrassing.

    Eric then decided that he would give up on CSE as being too financially tainted and set up his own operation. Kent’s old sidekicks were sacked and new ones employed. Eric’s business is completely separate from CSE and is going in a different direction although preaching the same sad message. Eric has made a recent video letting us know that he has completely lost patience with his father and wants nothing to do either with Kent’s fundraising exercises to finance his continuing litigation or his future business plans. Kent will be on his own with CSE as far as Eric is concerned. He may also be on his own as far as Jo his wife is concerned although this is just circumstantial conjecture.

    With respect to Kent’s silly response to PZ he is just rehearsing exactly the same script he has used in all previous debates. It does not matter how PZ tries to restrict or focus the subject matter come the debate Kent will drift off in the same old canoe down the same old river with the same old lack of paddles. It would be a pointless exercise which PZ should have nothing to do with whatsoever.

    Kent by his own oft-repeated admissions made his mind up about origins in 1969, some 45 years ago. I think back about what I used to believe in my youth. But, unlike Kent, I have been persuaded by the discovery of a universe full of evidence that the views I held all those years ago did not match reality. They still don’t but, at least, modified by the findings of science (both historical and observational :-)) they are now far, far closer to the truth than I could possibly have imagined all those years ago.

    Poor Kent. When God was giving out brains he ran out of plastic ones so Kent had to make do with a concrete prototype.

    P.S. How do I get a new paragraph? The usual html tags for new lines and paragraphs don’t seem to work.

  114. deannajoylyons says

    @Robertbaty, stop this useless rooster strutting. Give us a link to the most recent information you are claiming to have about the case now or shut your gob.

    We have made a good faith effort to find this info despite your obtuseness, but it’s time for you to provide the evidence.

  115. Dr. Pablito says

    Okay, read Peter Reilly’s most recent article
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/01/20/is-kent-hovind-a-tax-protester/
    [Is Hovind a tax protester? Yes. Has used several of the classic defense arguments and tactics. There is a taxonomy of tax protester nutjobs. He's one.]
    “I have been greatly encouraged by my most loyal commenter, Bob Baty, who had been unsuccessfully trying to get me to look into young earth creationism prior to Mrs. Hovind’s decision.”

    Pfft.

    There seems to be some angle robertbaty is hoping we’ll ferret out, but I would wager that it is uninteresting or unhinged. All evidence and judicial decision points to the really underwhelming conclusion that Hovind is just a religious dingbat who got interested in tax protester/antigovernment arguments and ran badly afoul of the law. I don’t see anything more interesting.

  116. Ephiral says

    robertbaty: Okay, first off, Feb 27 was over two weeks ago. Your definition of “last few days” is stretched into either uselessness or outright deception. Second, many of the people interested in this do not and cannot have access to PACER – so your pretense that it’s everyone else’s fault they don’t have access to the same info you do is more than a little bit of a jerk move. This information is not, as you alluded to earlier, easily or freely available via a quick Google search. In short, you’ve been deceptive as hell and an asshole to boot; care to correct either of those?

    Everyone else: Here’s the latest information Baty deigned to share before deciding that trolling was more amusing. Deadline for refiling was Feb 28; I can access no further info including any alleged motion on Feb 27, because (contrary to Baty’s apparent assumptions) the United States is not the entire world.

  117. deannajoylyons says

    @130 Dr. Pablito, thanks for that link. I noticed that in that article, dated 1/20/2014 the author links to “with his recent filing with the 11th Circuit” a legal document (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2e4-pmYYFdqLUZsS2F1Skx5Y2M/preview?pli=1) with the same number as the one referenced above and received by the court on august 6, 2013. It does not contain the outcome of the case like YOUR Yahoo group does on November 8, 2013.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

  118. Thomathy, Gay Where it Counts says

    Peter Reilly, over at Forbes wrote, <blockquotePersonally, I am glad to see that there are many choices available besides biblical literalism and scientific materialism and would encourage you to take a look at Professor Barbour’s work.

    Weak sauce and pure nonsense. Which isn’t an indictment of Reilly, who freely admits not to be terribly educated in the matter of religion versus science (despite his apparent interest), but an observation that he hasn’t thought terribly hard about what that actually means. I have to suggest that Reilly doesn’t very much understand what scientific materialism means.

    Anyhow, I’ve learned that Bob Baty has some special interest in Hovind and I’m beginning to understand why.

    robertbaty, are you the Bob Baty to whom Reilly is referring?

  119. deannajoylyons says

    Doh, left out a bit to reference Robert Baty and HIS Yahoo group. Sorry bout the bad gammar included you, Dr Pablito.

  120. Rey Fox says

    I think he should be banned just for putting all of his sentences in separate paragraphs.

    I’ve seen people do that because they think it makes every single thing they write look more important.

    It’s not.

    It’s annoying.

  121. busterggi says

    “A day or two later (I don’t have that data)”

    I had to stop there – if he can’t even read the date on your blog because that’s too hard then nothing else he says can possibly matter.

  122. says

    PZ Myers v. Kent Hovind on Forbes!

    I introduced the subject, with emphasis on my recent exchange here, to the Forbes audience on page 12 of the readers’ comments section of the following article from Peter J. Reilly:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/09/28/has-kent-hovind-given-up-fight-against-irs/

    If any of y’all are adult enough and care to get out for some fresh air and engage the discussion there, requiting my long-suffering ministry here, you have my welcome.

    Peter has already responded to my posting there.

  123. deannajoylyons says

    I guess he is bullshitting about the case then, since he can’t produce any evidence. No need to pay him any more attention.

  124. Howard Bannister says

    If any of y’all are adult enough

    Oh noes… he has called me a chicken! Nobody calls me a chicken… now I’ll drag-race you and risk my career, for that is the worst possible thing I could be called!

    Srsly?

  125. deannajoylyons says

    I can see why he likes you.

    Peter J Reilley:
    “I’m probably something of a creationist myself. I have a really hard time accepting that we are the result of random interactions involving no teleology. That probably puts me at the far left of the creationist spectrum.”

  126. says

    Anthrosciguy wrote:

    – “Perhaps robertbaty will explain just how one has
    – access to email without having access to the internet?”

    Perhaps I won’t, but I’ll give you a hint:

    CorrLinks!

    Look it up if you know how to use the Internet.

  127. Thomathy, Gay Where it Counts says

    rlbaty @Forbes

    PZ Myers v. Kent Hovind
    The Great Debate That Wasn’t

    See:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/13/hovind-replies/

    Peter,

    I’ve had quite a time bantering with PZ’s minions the last couple of days; over the simplest of matters regarding Kent Hovind and his litigation.

    Quite a bunch over there.

    This morning I patronized them with a reference to Forbes and your articles on Hovind, so you might notice a spike in views today on some of those articles.

    If you get a chance, you might review the readers’ comments over the last couple of days following the article.

    Otherwise, PZ wasn’t man enough to properly engage Kent in the negotiations and they blew up immediately and PZ backed out; apparently executing his exit strategy just as he designed it.

    That will probably work into Kent’s PR campaign very well.

    PZ wasn’t up to it.

    Maybe PZ’s side can find someone who is.
    Maybe not.

    I don’t suppose you’ll be leaving us alone now?

  128. Howard Bannister says

    Otherwise, PZ wasn’t man enough to properly engage Kent in the negotiations

    Oh, noes, you’re doubling down on a dishonest framing of the events in question with GENDER POLICING!

    Truly, the weapons in your arsenal are vast.

  129. Thomathy, Gay Where it Counts says

    Also: Peter J Reilly

    I did follow the comment train on that. Funniest part was when somebody referred to me as an “apologist” for Kent.

    I can find where anyone called Reilly an apologist for Hovind. Where does that come from?

  130. says

    I’m sure this has been asked before, but is there some kind of atheist other than “self-proclaimed”? Was he trying to say “so-called,” which, while still baffling, at least conveys meaning?

  131. Thomathy, Gay Where it Counts says

    Hershele Ostropoler, if that’s the question that comes to mind after reading Hovind, you have significantly more patience than I ever will for the depth of his ignorance.

  132. efogoto says

    A day or two later (I don’t have that data) he responded on his blog but I don’t have his web address either. It may be freethoughts.com/pharyngula but I’m not sure. Sorry about that. He at least referred to my paragraph numbers so below is my answer to his “A few comments from me”

    I understand that Kent doesn’t have internet access, but he doesn’t need that to have PZ’s correct web address. PZ wrote that out in the very response Kent quotes from:
    I’m at freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula.
    Either the person forwarding this to Kent took that out, or Kent lacks reading comprehension.

  133. gussnarp says

    Just judging from robertbaty’s general tone and use of the language, I’m rather astounded that any blogger would show any interest in his comments at all, let alone respond to them or elevate anything in them to the post level. But then, some bloggers are idiots.

  134. Howard Bannister says

    @149

    “Self-proclaimed” is because they don’t believe in atheists.

    They believe that everybody is magically given knowledge of god, and some choose to reject him. We’re not atheists, we’re mad at god.

    They reserve the right to audit your beliefs and decide for themselves what you really believe.

  135. says

    Otherwise, PZ wasn’t man enough to properly engage Kent in the negotiations and they blew up immediately and PZ backed out; apparently executing his exit strategy just as he designed it.

    Oh, wow. I was supposed to “properly engage” a flaming creationist nutbag? My first impulse is always to tell these loons to go fuck themselves, but I gave Hovind far more courtesy than he deserves, suggesting that this debate was a possibility, but stating my specific, non-negotiable requirements. I guess you think I was supposed to negotiate them? Because I simply won’t, ever.

    If Hovind will not meet even the most basic, minimal requirements I have to consider this ‘debate’, then there is no point in further discussion. It is not unreasonable to expect equal profit sharing in an event in which we were equal participants; it was Bill Nye’s mistake that he let Ken Ham reap all the profits from their debate, and I wasn’t going to repeat that. I am very familiar with Hovind’s methods — throw a flurry of lies and mud everywhere, and then declare victory when you don’t address every single stupidity — so I insisted on a narrow and specific focus. Should I have just told him he gets all the benefit of this event, and he gets a forum to babble any damned thing that flitters across his dishonest brain? I don’t think so.

    It was predictable that the negotiations would blow up the instant Hovind gave the gerbil on the wheel in his head his first sip of morning coffee. There’s this concept of good faith; Hovind utterly lacks it.

  136. heliobates says

    Anyone else starting to think that Bob Baty and John Kw*k were separated at birth?

  137. Rey Fox says

    Anyone else starting to think that Bob Baty and John Kw*k were separated at birth?

    I am.

    Starting to think.

    That which you said.

    Leica rangefinder.

  138. chigau (違う) says

    heliobates #155

    Anyone else starting to think that Bob Baty and John Kw*k were separated at birth?

    hmmmmm

  139. says

    I’m thinking if Gea posts today’s interview with Kent Hovind that Kent might have something to say about his recent engagement with PZ Myers.

    I think I will try to catch it; she usually posts her interviews with Kent on her YouTube channel and on the Club Creation channel.

    https://www.facebook.com/geena.ambrosia/posts/10153937942025383

    From: Gea Ambrosia
    Date: Friday, March 14, 2014
    Time: About 2:00 AM MT

    INTERVIEW WITH DR. HOVIND 2NIGHT!
    STAY TUNED.

    ——————————–

  140. loopyj says

    I hate it when idiots decide to use punctuation wrong and expect everyone else to know what they’re trying to express. Quotation marks never indicate “emphasis”.

  141. mhph says

    You give a nebulous accusation about Ray Comfort lying and quote mining yet give no specifics. Anyone can watch the DVD and see you make a fool of yourself.

    I’m a particular fan of this one: “You say Ray Comfort dishonestly strings together quotes out of context to make it appear that you’re saying ridiculous things. But just look at these quotes that Ray Comfort strung together – you’re saying ridiculous things!”

  142. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Fanboys are so predictable. Kent is afraid of PZ, and he should show honesty and integrity by admitting he committed and was properly convicted of tax fraud. Then he would show he isn’t a con man.

  143. anuran says

    Robertbaty:
    Please find it in your heart to stick your dick in your ear and pee yourself down the nearest drain.

  144. says

    Wow, Hovind really is an execrable piece of shit, isn’t he? No sane Christian could read that dreadful diatribe and not conclude that he’s a snide, slimy, nasty little man.

  145. anuran says

    PZ Myers writes:

    Oh, wow. I was supposed to “properly engage” a flaming creationist nutbag? My first impulse is always to tell these loons to go fuck themselves, but I gave Hovind far more courtesy than he deserves, suggesting that this debate was a possibility, but stating my specific, non-negotiable requirements. I guess you think I was supposed to negotiate them? Because I simply won’t, ever.

    1) Never wrassle with a hog. You gets filthy and the hog enjoys it.
    2) Never negotiate with terrorists.

  146. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Hershele Ostropoler
    #149

    I’m sure this has been asked before, but is there some kind of atheist other than “self-proclaimed”? Was he trying to say “so-called,” which, while still baffling, at least conveys meaning?

    You may not have been wearing your scientifically-enhanced underwear lately, and so were denied access to the university lecture hall were we had the meeting, but in actual fact, we’ve been post-mortem baptizing theists into atheism, to aid them in escaping hell.

    Such unfortunates, obviously, are not “self-proclaimed” atheists.

  147. Alex the Pretty Good says

    *Wipes up the remains of his latest irony-meter*

    Wow … that was disturbingly … well … disturbing. So much that one could say about it but I’d be afraid of Hovind’s law-suit frenzy … Actually, try me Kenny-boy … I’m not subject to the laws of your country so I’m not afraid to say that what comes out of my behind every morning stinks less than what comes out of your mouth and pen.

    Just want to highlight a few points that jumped out:

    You are welcome to sell copies of the DVD but I am not going to hire someone to keep track of the ones I sell just so you can get a %.

    You can just use the same sales-numbers that any legally operating company keeps track of.

    I think “fraud” may apply to a person who claims to teach “biology” yet routinely mixes his religious beliefs in class [...] Maybe “charlatan” is a better word for these false teachers.

    Kenny-boy … you owe me a new irony-meter.

    Should I be sorry I took my own money out of my own bank to pay my own bills?

    When part of that money was, to refer to the bible, Ceasar’s … yeah, you should be sorry that you didn’t render unto Ceasar what was Ceasar’s.

    I produce a product people want and I don’t get funding from the government to do it.

    So do crack dealers.

  148. ChasCPeterson says

    1) Never wrassle with a hog. You gets filthy and the hog enjoys it.
    2) Never negotiate with terrorists.

    3) Never eat at a place called “Mom’s”.
    4) Never play poker with a guy named “Doc”.
    5) I forget #5.

  149. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach says

    6) There is NO rule 6.
    7) Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

  150. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    8) Never trust a man in a blue trench coat.

    9) Never drive a car when you’re dead.

  151. says

    “I am quite aware that Kent’s U.S. Tax Court appeal was dismissed…and has since been reinstated and is currently pending.”

    They returned the appeal as deficient and gave Hovind the opportunity to remedy this. That’s not “reinstated”. I was right, your lack of legal training means that you don’t actually understand what you are looking at. You’re just a child strutting with shit on his face.

  152. says

    @ aaronpound

    I thought you had run off, but it is more fun that you returned and considering what you brought with you.

    I didn’t notice though, are you the Aaron Pound who IS the lawyer; has the legal training you deny I have?

    Just what legal training do you have that I get credit for embarrassing you over, aaronpound?

    Is there some reason, with all your assumed legal training, that you can’t speak to the current state of Hovind’s U.S. Tax Court appeal.

    For instance, Pacer has the following posted to that case:

    02/27/2014 – All deficiencies have been corrected.

    I will “negotiate” with you on a resolution of this trivial detail.

    If you want to propose that the appeal has not been officially “reinstated” because the Court has not actually ruled on the motion to reinstate, I will gladly accept that analysis.

    I might even accept any alternative explanation you may wish to give as to the status of Kent’s case that you and others at first seemed to deny even existed.

    I win either way.

  153. says

    Usually I write “LOL” as a way to indicate that I thought something someone said was amusing, but I don’t really laugh out loud. I just wanted you to know that Hovind’s response elicited several genuine lols.

  154. chigau (違う) says

    robertbaty #173
    Wow.

    You haven’t commented in almost 8 hours.

    I thought you had run off.

  155. Amphiox says

    I find it hilarious that Hovind admits that he intends to sell DVDs without keeping track of the profits. That’s basically admitting that he intends to commit tax fraud…. AGAIN.

  156. says

    @ aaronpound

    Following is the letter the Court sent to Kent regarding deficiencies in his case.

    I notice it says nothing about “get lost, your case was dismissed” or anything about the motion.

    So, whether it’s official yet or not, it seems reasonable to believe the Court has “re-instated” Hovind’s appeal until and unless they come back to say, “sorry we put you to all that trouble, your case is dismissed; get lost”.

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

    ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
    56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
    Atlanta, Georgia 30303

    John Ley Clerk of Court

    February 18, 2014

    Kent E. Hovind
    FCI Berlin – Inmate
    Legal Mail PO BOX 9000
    BERLIN, NH 03570

    Appeal Number: 13-12520-FF
    Case Style: Kent Hovind v. Commissioner of IRS
    Agency Docket Number: 4245-10

    The brief filed by you in the referenced appeal is
    deficient for the reason(s) set forth below.

    The brief filed by you in this appeal does not contain
    a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate
    Disclosure Statement in compliance with court rules.

    You may use the enclosed form to fulfill this requirement.

    The brief filed by you in this appeal does not contain
    Proof of Service as required by Fed.R.App.P. 25(d).

    You may use the enclosed form to fulfill this requirement.

    File the documents above within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from this date.

    Sincerely,
    JOHN LEY
    Clerk of Court

    —————————–

  157. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Why is RB such an apologist for the convicted felon KH? Perhaps, he is the fuckwitted idjit providing legal advice to avoid paying legitimate taxes? Otherwise, who the fuck cares about KH and his personal delusions?

  158. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach says

    I care that KH is apparently going to out of jail soon. He is clearly not rehabilitated. He continues to deny that his stupendously obvious crime wasn’t against the law, more than likely he will re-offend. And he’s jumping right back into the pool of gullible people who will continue to shovel money at him.

    I sincerely hope the tax folks have set aside a few people to watch him like a hawk. Frankly, since he tried to renounce his citizenship, y’all should probably just deport him.

  159. heliobates says

    How can you tell?

    1. Trust me

    OR

    2. He links to his Facebook page. Go see for yourself. But don’t say I didn’t warn you!

  160. says

    I sincerely hope the tax folks have set aside a few people to watch him like a hawk. Frankly, since he tried to renounce his citizenship, y’all should probably just deport him.

    According to Wikipedia, he will still have three years of probation left upon release. He probably still owes the IRS a bunch of money in back taxes and fees. I suspect someone will be keeping an eye on him.

    Regarding renouncing citizenship, it’s not that easy:

    The U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Supreme Court have concluded that the intention to relinquish U.S. nationality required for purposes of finding loss of nationality under Section 349(a) of the INA does not exist where a renunciant claims a right to continue to reside in the United States, unless the renunciant demonstrates that residence will be as an alien documented properly under U.S. law.

    Since Hovind didn’t actually want to leave the US, and would not have the proper paperwork to stay as a non-citizen, he could not renounce his citizenship.

  161. deannajoylyons says

    @robertbaty 177

    That paste-job shows that “The brief filed by you in the referenced appeal is
    deficient for the reason(s) set forth below.” and asks this be remedied within 14 days. That would have been March 4th. If nothing else has been filed, it’s dead, right?

    Where is your proof that it is not dead? We’d be more inclined to believe you if you linked to primary sources.

    Does anyone here have access to PACER to check the claims?

  162. says

    @ deannajoylyons

    Maybe you should talk to aaronpound who has the better reading comprehension and legal skills.

    Did you notice the date on that letter you referenced?

    Did you notice the date on the docket entry posted here earlier:

    02/27/2014 – All deficiencies have been corrected.

    To those who may be wondering, the answer is “no”, I do not pay these people to make me look so good; and it does look so good on my resume, and I appreciate your efforts.

    Thanks for the demonstrations.

  163. Prof Weird says

    How slow-witted does someone have to be to ‘think’ that any process that has the word ‘evolution’ in it is automagically part of biological evolution ?

    15. Once we clearly define the slippery term “evolution” into its 6 natural divisions as I have done scores of times (see DVD #4 for example) it is obvious to anyone with one eye and half a brain that the first 5 divisions/ levels/ meanings of the word as taught in your university are 100% religious! You have to BELIEVE they can happen by FAITH in the face of zero/zip/nada scientific evidence or you have to BELIEVE that they happened “long ago and far away” where no one can observe them. NO ON has ever seen matter create itself from nothing. Before you can have ANY “evolution” you must have something to evolve. It’s common sense 101. The text books at the university where you teach do indeed proclaim the big bang and matter coming from nothing. I’ll copy them when I come and show you and the students. If it is SCIENCE that matter can come from nothing-let’s do it again in a lab. I want to see it this time.

    IIRC, virtual particles are ‘something from nothing’. The current explanation of the Casimir-Polder effect and Hawking radiation (why and how black holes dissipate).

    Where the universe came from is cosmogeny, and blubbering “I CAN’T FIGURE OUT HOW IT HAPPENED, THEREFORE, MAGICAL SKY PIXIES DIDIT !!1111!1″ has never been useful.

    I suspect researchers would have to create a NEW UNIVERSE in a lab in front of his eyes to even come close to satisfying his incessant whinings; I doubt that would be safe for our universe.

    The evidence for the Big Bang is OBSERVATIONS of the actual universe. The only way to make them conform to the creationut ‘model’ is to distort the most basic laws of physics (or outright lie).

    The next 4 meanings of evolution: chemical, stellar, organic and macro are just as religious and have NEVER been OBSERVED.

    ‘Stellar evolution’ is how stars change over time – from when they condense from gas, run the nuclear reactions powering them, to their eventual ends (either as white dwarfs, neutron stars, nova, supernova, black holes, etc). OBSERVED by the reality of nuclear physics (ie, SUNLIGHT) and the populations of actual stars. The whole process of stellar evolution could take BILLIONS of years – a low mass star can take on the order of 14+ billion years to use up its core hydrogen – so no sane or rational person could demand we see the whole process.

    ‘Chemical evolution’ I suspect is his ‘understanding’ of nucleosynthesis – formation of atoms heavier than hydrogen. OBSERVED by the reality of nuclear physics and observations of actual stars. As this only occurs at the extremely high pressures and temperatures found inside of stars, no sane or rational person could demand direct observation.

    ‘Organic evolution’ is most likely his quarter-witted ‘understanding’ of abiogenesis – a field of research that is more organic- and geochemistry than population demographics and such.

    Since speciation has been observed to have happened in recent times, macroevolution has been observed. Unless, of course, the gibbering antinomian seriously expects a population of reptiles to change into birds over the course of a few decades so he could directly observe them.

    Variations within the same kind of plant or animal happen all the time like your stickle back fish example. As Ray pointed out-they are still fish!

    And Dr Myers pointed out WHY THAT EVASION WAS INCREDIBLY STUPID !

    Initiating standard creationut posturing in 3.. 2.. 1.. :

    I know there is no chance that you will admit it or even understand it but any “evolution” above the level of minor changes within kinds only takes place in the fertile imagination of those who faithfully believe it does.

    There is no useful definition of ‘kinds’ – the creationuts, IDiots and theoloons refuse to give even a rough idea of what a ‘kind’ is. Also varies at need – insects are all one ‘kind’, yet humans are NOT included in the ‘primate kind’ because that offends the delicate sensibilities of the theoloons (despite the FACT that humans are more closely related to chimps than mice are to rats, African elephants are to Indian elephants, or grasshoppers are to cicadas).

    As there is no observed process that prevents changes from accumulating generation after generation (ie, no magical ‘kind barrier), evolution explains the OBSERVED patterns of relatedness more rationally than the ‘alternatives’.

    Even the little boy could see- The king hath no clothes! You need to sue the “tailors” who sold you that dumb religious evolution suit you so proudly wear in public. Aren’t you embarrassed to believe you came from a rock? BTW-congrats on having an asteroid named after you. Is that an ancestor too?

    Rocks are INORGANIC. Life arose from organic chemistry that can happen ON rocks on IN cavities in the the rock.

    What “evidence” do you teach in your class that would show scientifically that humans are related to bananas as you said on the DVD? If it can be shown there are some sections of the complex DNA code of humans and bananas that seem to be similar that would not prove a common ancestor. A freshman law student could see through that! It is just as much evidence for a common DESIGNER!

    ‘Common designer’ is a meaningless noise squeezed from the bowels of the ignorant or willfully stupid.

    Common descent produces very specific PATTERNS of relatedness – WHICH ARE OBSERVED IN REALITY.

    Whereas ANY conceivable pattern of relatedness could be generated via common designer – which makes the idea useless as an explanation (it can’t be tested since there is no way to show it is wrong).

    Do you mention THAT to your students? The lug nuts from a Vet will fit on other Chevy products. Does that prove they both evolved from a skate board?

    Living things are NOT manufactured, so the analogy fails.

    By common design, there could be mix and match of qualities – there could be some mammals with fur, some birds could have mammary glands, etc.

    THIS IS NOT OBSERVED IN REALITY.

    What is seen in actual living organisms is patterns of relatedness that one would expect from common descent.

    So sane and rational folk that UNDERSTAND real world biology will go with evolution and common descent until something that explains real world data better comes along.

    After 150+ years of howling and screaming, the various creationuts, IDiots and theoloons have failed to provide anything other than noise and hot, fetid air.

    I wonder how long it will be before Hovind restarts his bogus $250,000 offer to prove evolution to him ?

    Or if he’ll finish his ‘thesis’ ?

    A summary of Hovind’s DVDs from a few years ago :
    300 Creationist Lies

  164. deannajoylyons says

    @186 & 187 Funny, because “falsifying the record” is exactly what I am suspicious that you have done.

    Robertbaty, you have not given proof of your claim that this is an active case, despite being repeatedly challenged.

    Evidence or GTFO. Now.

    And yes, I HAVE exposed you as a secret (to us) creationist who tried to disguise yourself as JAQing.

  165. says

    @ deannajoylyons

    Last I checked, this is PZ Myers venue and he decides who gets to stay.

    If we were to negotiate a serious discussion of some issue of mutual interest, we might consider the matter of “proof”.

    I couldn’t care less as to whether or not you believe anything I might say in this entertaining bantering exercise. It’s a matter of public record for those interested enough to do their own homework.

    I’ve already scored the winning points in this exercise.

    What “secret”?

    It seems there are many anonymous, skeptical snipers here with the secrets.
    It’s certainly not me.
    It reminds me of James Randi’s place when I debated Dr. Dziubla amongst 30-50 such anonymous whiners; but we managed to produce that little one-on-one chat that has led to my highly successful “Atheism 101 Exercise in Critical Thinking”.

    Just realized just how much more value my exchange with you is going to add to my resume, Deanna:

    http://vimeo.com/42211535

    Thanks again!

  166. deannajoylyons says

    @191 If it’s a matter of public record, why won’t you show us the record?

    You’re either lying, or incompetent.

  167. says

    @ deannajoylyons

    My patronage of such as yourself and others here, has limits, but I tend to be more accommodating than the venue operator PZ Myers.

    I gave you the reference to where you can find a published record.

    That you don’t care to take advantage of the hints provides important feedback as to how serious I should take your efforts here.

    Is it the case that aaronpound is not even willing to help you out here.
    Are none of your fellows here willing to help you out.
    Are you really at my mercy regarding these important public matters?

    Wow!

  168. deannajoylyons says

    Ooh, let me post something from the Supreme Court of the 12th District of the District of Columbia, case #34-666

    03/15/2014 – Robert Baty has filed a motion that Deanna Joy Lyons’ butt stinks and she’s a big jerk. Also, this is a totally real case. Really.

  169. says

    @ deannajoylyons

    Looks good to me.

    A little exercise by which those seriously interested in such things can check out our respective claims and come to their own conclusions as to any possible difference in our respective credibility.

    How accurate have I been in describing Kent Hovind’s legal circumstances?
    How accurate is Deanna’s claim about that DC case?

    Those interested are more than welcome, as far as I am concerned, to do some homework and make up their own minds about such things.

    Thanks, Deanna, for coming up with the exercise to present to our class.

  170. says

    Holier than thou.
    Cocky as shit.
    Dishonest.
    Creationist or shill for Kent Hovind.

    Quite the resume Captain Assclam aka robertbady has going.

    I also love the snipe at people who use pseudonyms online. There are plenty of reasons to remain anonymous online. Robertybady may not approve but who gives a fuck?

  171. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Robertybady may not approve but who gives a fuck?

    Is that their proper name, or an online pseudonym? And I don’t give a fuck either way. Stupid is stupid, and needs to be addressed, no matter the ‘nym…

  172. chigau (違う) says

    robertbaty

    You should

    be cautious

    of invoking PZ.

    You might not

    enjoy the result.

  173. says

    Someone posted to me:

    – “You should be cautious
    – of invoking PZ.”

    – You might not
    – enjoy the result.”

    You can only hope for now.

    I notice PZ has not dared to requite my love and make his appearance on Forbes in response to my comments regarding him and his recent Hovind stunt.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/09/28/has-kent-hovind-given-up-fight-against-irs/

    Page 12 and/or 13 of the readers’ comments section there.

    I would be quite interested in getting PZ’s 6, one-word answers to 6 simple questions that make up my Atheism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise.

    Some have dared to answers.
    Others have not.
    I have answered “yes” to all 6.
    Peter Boghossian recently popped off, without answering, and then ran off.

    I think I can get enjoyment out of whatever PZ might do about those matters, or if he remains content to let his minions banter with me.

    I win all the way around!

  174. Rey Fox says

    Yeah, PZ will follow the comments in a Forbes article 12 pages deep to play with some kook. Sure. Winning!

  175. Al Dente says

    robertbaty,

    You may be in love with Hovind, we are not. We recognize him as a lying, ignorant crackpot, which has nothing to do with him being a convicted felon. You’re not going to convince us that Hovind is anything but a lying, ignorant crackpot. The point he’s a convicted felon, prosecuted due to his own stupidity and greed, is just another point against him.

    So you can continue your hero worship of Kent Hovind. We not impressed by him or you.

  176. anteprepro says

    So robertbaty redirects us to the comments in a Forbes article.

    My initial reaction: Who the fuck cares about comments on fucking Forbes?

    *skims through*

    My current reaction: Holy shit, robertbaty does. 123 comments on that one article, and I’d say at least 80% are from Batty Baty himself, rambling out the same eyebleeding tracts about Kent Hovind that he has gifted us with here. Currently nothing but babbling about how PZ should have negotiated more, and set it up to fail, and wasn’t reasonable with Kent, and blah blah blah. For fuck’s sake, just propose to Kent already. Leave us the fuck out of this.

  177. says

    I do not understand why people are hating on Robert Baty. I have been following his postings on Hovind for about year and believe he is trying to make Hovind understand what he has done wrong.

    I know many people do not care about Hovind, but are you not lowering yourselves to the level that Hovind argues how evolutionists/atheists engage in debates?

  178. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I know many people do not care about Hovind, but are you not lowering yourselves to the level that Hovind argues how evolutionists/atheists engage in debates?

    No, the low level is how Hovind argues in a debate. If you have real evidence RB is really trying to make Hovind understand he is wrong and is not a fanboi, why don’t you present it? Show us with evidence, unlike RB.

  179. Ichthyic says

    I win either way.

    something tells me bob batty never loses.

    in his own mind.

    ever.

  180. Ichthyic says

    …something also tells me bob batty is a dangerous man to cross.

    in a Dennis Markuze kinda way.

  181. says

    I took a glance at that Forbes thread, Mr Baty. It seems to consist mostly of you, talking to yourself. You’re a crackpot, a kook, and obsessed egomaniac, a regular Kwok. Now go away, I have no interest in talking to you ever, and if you continue to rant here, you will be banned.

  182. heliobates says

    I do not understand why people are hating on Robert Baty.

    People are “hating on” Robert Baty because of how he’s conducted himself in these comments. Think for a second: if the regulars here don’t realize that Baty actually doesn’t side with Hovind, whose fault is that, really.

    Whatever the meatspace Robert Baty is like, he’s spilled Industrial Strength Kook Concentrate all over his online persona.

  183. chigau (違う) says

    robertbaty #201

    You can only hope for now.

    Yup.
    Chances are, that if you make a comment to acknowledge the “go away”, you will be banned for real.

  184. FossilFishy(Anti-Vulcanist) says

    I propose a new unit of measurement: The Baty.

    It will be used to quantify smugness with one Baty indicating the level where the smugness becomes impenetrable. Day-to-day measurements will be conducted in milliBaties.

  185. says

    “I win all the way around!”

    Yes, you win asshole of the thread. Congratulations. You have demonstrated that you can out-asshole everyone else here.

  186. says

    “So, whether it’s official yet or not, it seems reasonable to believe the Court has “re-instated” Hovind’s appeal until and unless they come back to say, “sorry we put you to all that trouble, your case is dismissed; get lost”.”

    No, actually it is not reasonable to believe that, which is why I said that you lack the legal training to understand what you are looking at. When a deficient pleading is submitted, the clerk will return it for correction of the deficiency, no matter what the procedural posture of the case is. That doesn’t mean that the appeal, or the case, has been “reinstated”. It just means the clerk of the court is getting the case file together properly. Until there is an actual order from the 11th circuit reinstating the appeal, it is not reinstated.

  187. Ichthyic says

    It will be used to quantify smugness with one Baty indicating the level where the smugness becomes impenetrable. Day-to-day measurements will be conducted in milliBaties.

    I thought that was already covered under Dunning Kruger?

  188. vaiyt says

    I do not understand why people are hating on Robert Baty. I have been following his postings on Hovind for about year and believe he is trying to make Hovind understand what he has done wrong.

    Then why is he so invested in finding a technical point to defend Hovind’s honor?

  189. says

    Now it’s the utter bullshit of Kent, that made me tell his retarded son Eric, that if Eric wanted a real education, the local UK primary school had a place for him.

    Kent doesn’t seem to understand what the word Fraud means, and why is he going on about all those millions killed by a creationist.

    “Evidences” is NOT fine, it is bad English.

    No surprise Kent wants for students to not have a real education, he is like all creationists, it’s easier to scam people when they are too ignorant to know they are being scammed.

    Am I the only that thinks that Kent is jealous of Ken Ham, thinking that it should have been him. In every Kent Hovind debate, Kent just repeats the same ignorant uneducated drivel.

  190. says

    Howard Bannister @ 153:

    They believe that everybody is magically given knowledge of god, and some choose to reject him. We’re not atheists, we’re mad at god.

    I understand that part, but that still seems more like “so-called.”

    Tony! @ 198:

    I also love the snipe at people who use pseudonyms online. There are plenty of reasons to remain anonymous online.

    As with many commenters, I imagine, I’ve been using this nym for so long, and in so many places (particularly nowadays with the rise of blog networks and multi-site logins), that it’s not much more pseudonymous than my wallet name. Possibly less, by some measures.