[Noctis]

Originally Posted by onion

I must just point out this:
1) His website tell's us he's been arrested for 10 years.

After much digging, I've managed to find just the one article which made any mention of it.
The article fails to mention his attempts to avoid paying taxes by making claims that he was not a citizen of the US.
The articles fails to mention his statement that everything he owns "belongs to God" and so he is not subject to paying taxes.
The article fails to mention his repeated cash withdrawals JUST under the $10,000 reporting requirement, which totaled $430,500 made in 2001 and 2002.
The article fails to mention his phone call in prison with his son where they both plotted to hide a motor vehicle title and property deeds to prevent the government from collecting the property to pay for owed debt.

2) You are using wikipedia for a source of information? lol. Did you every go to college? Wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source of information, even though he was arrested for tax fraud.

I find Wikipedia to be more reliable than most people would think, because they actually quote sources. Wikipedia would be no different than actually doing the research on a search engine. It would actually be more reliable because Wikipedia also quotes things on printed articles, whereas search engines only show online sources, some of which are quite biased.
And what part of Kent Hovind's life on Wikipedia do you find to be unreliable? Point it out for me and I'll gladly dig around on a search engine for it.

3) You still ignore my post and say because he has 1 thing wrong in his life therefore everything else in his life is wrong.

No, I'm saying that everything you idolize about him is connected to that "1 thing wrong" and his motivation for doing all those things is also connected to that "1 thing wrong".
We also know it's not just "one" thing wrong and that he makes a habit of lying to other people's faces.

4) Are you saying that every scientist in every book is perfect by the laws standard and none of them are in jail? Because I disagree, and if they've gone to jail, clearly they aren't credible.

I fail to see how simply being in jail has any effect on their intelligence, methods, research, or credibility. The only possibility I see for a prison sentence discrediting a scientist would be if that scientist used his grants or research funds to buy himself a home entertainment system.

Hovind's education comes into question because the "school" in which he was taught is a single building with 3 rooms and ridiculously low graduation requirements.

His credibility comes into question because his arguments are illogical and shows evidence of his ignorance in science and evolutionary theory. Not to mention the fact that he repeatedly uses discredited or false arguments.

His legal troubles are related to his credibility because he is obviously motivated by greed. All his debates and arguments are motivated by it. He makes a practice of lies and deception. Convincing people to believe him and gaining a mass of followers obviously gets him a lot of money, as the majority of his income is from sales from his dinosaur adventure land and donations.

5) In order to teach you need an accredited degree, therefore if he went to this school, he would not have been allowed to teach.

It's funny you should mention that:

In 1971 he graduated from East Peoria Community High School in East Peoria, Illinois. From 1972 until 1974 Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education (B.R.E.).[3] In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado which no longer offers this program).[7]

Starting in 1975, Hovind became an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools.[3] Then, in the 1980s, he opened a Baptist school and church at which he taught and pastored.[3] As these were private schools, Hovind did not require any teaching credentials or accredited qualifications.[4][5]

Next.

6) You still ignore my post, and what exactly does this post have to do with the topic? Oh right, nothing.

This post is a response to yours. You obviously aren't used to having people disagree with you if you make a remark and you don't expect people to refute it.

7) You ignore Hovinds and my arguments to simply say, "Look everyone he lied to he IRS, he's no scientist!"

And you completely ignored MY responses to your arguments(I've already responded to his false claim that public school teachers can teach Creationism, his twisting of the facts of the ACLU, his remark on angular momentum, and his mention of the lack of observation on star formation). I fail to see how you missed all that, unless a response that doesn't agree with you doesn't count as an actual response in your eyes.

8) 50% of LEGAL American's do not pay all their taxes, and 38% pay no taxes.

I'd like to see your source for that.
Also, there are people in Africa who cut other people's heads off with machetes. Because it happens so often there, does that mean that it's fine to do it? If that's your belief, I'll give you a machete(I'll even sharpen it for you) and you can swing away.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

9) Hovind is not my hero, there are several other creationist out there

Well, you kept pointing at that video, and it was getting kind of annoying.
Considering your observed behavior, I would've thought you'd at least idolize the man, so I figured I would go out of my way to point out that this man isn't worthy of your admiration.

10) Get your facts straight and don't use wikipedia.

If you actually read this post up until this point, I wonder if you can still feel the same way without coming across as a hypocrite(not that you use Wikipedia, just that you don't have your facts straight).

11) Actually read my posts and maybe stay on topic instead of examining what someone did wrong, I do not go to wikipedia and look at scientist who have commited several crimes, and say "look these books aren't credible because they commited a crime" we're all human.

Unless you pointed out every single scientist who abused their research funds, I doubt you would be right in any sense.
If Kent Hovind was arrested for assault, I would have nothing to say on the matter. But tax evasion and all his other activities suggests that the existence of his ministry only serves to put money in his pocket.

Anyways I just wanted to straighten things up. But I give you credit for trying, again lack of research on your part. And I even admitted that a lot of Hovinds arguments are irrational. However, if someone is truly interested in examining his arguments, you can see a lot of them are true. Hence why you chose to examine his personal life, instead of dispprove his arguments. But anyways I said I wouldn't post anymore, so I'm sorry for posting again. Also, if your post is only directed to me, why post it here? Especially when it has nothing to do with the thread? Just curious anyways I wrote a enormous post above this and it'd be nice if you read it, and maybe talk about that instead of something not relating to this post. But hey, apparently it's okay for you to go off topic, but not for me.

Speaking of "lack of research", what sources have YOU quoted so far for your arguments? Other than that video of course.

Even if it's seen as a "bad" source, you can at least see where I got the general facts and ideas from. If anyone at anytime doubts its validity or objective viewpoint, simply do your own research to refute it. I doubt anyone will turn up much though.

As for why I do this publicly...let's just say I like being right.
I make it a point to be right all the time, and it's not enough that I'm right, I want everyone to know that I'm right. Call me egotistical if you like, you wouldn't be too far off the mark.

[edit]
I also must say this before I stop posting. You're correct the IRS won, and Hovind did do wrong by this. Although I do believe the IRS did win, because as a Christian we are required to cheerfully pay our taxes and tithes, and as a result God disciplined him, with jail because he did not do what he was supposed to be doing in the first place. Also, I do not believe Hovind to be saved, simply because he brags through out his video, but he may very well be, it is not my place to judge. But the Bible does not like man to brag, even though he may be right. I just think that through reading your post you come to conclude everything he says to be false, because he is a man, and did something wrong, that many American's are doing as well. If you read my post earlier, I think you can conclude that just because someone is a Christian does not mean they are perfect, they should set an example, even though they don't and many of these "professing Christians" are not truly saved, and some are even pastors and religious leaders. No one is perfect, Christians never claim to be perfect. But thanks for imposing that thought.

If "many Americans" are using false logic and a parody of science to amass followers for monetary gain in the millions, I must've missed the news.
I don't recall making the accusation that Christians believe themselves to be perfect, but thanks for shoving that down my throat sir.
However, Kent Hovind certainly seems to have a very high opinion of himself, and I doubt I extended my reference beyond him.

You say Scienve VS Creationism, IRS won, they did not win in this discussion. They proven that Hovind is a man just like everyone else. And if you say the IRS/Government won, well look at the other things they have won in. They eliminated religion and prayer from schools, they managed to put us trillions of dollars in debt. Did you know even if we were to tax all the illegals, we would still be in debt? I mean you are upholding government higher than creationism, yet when we were a religious country, we had far less problems, which the argument you are presenting here is called a "red herring" fallacy:
Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

2. Topic A is under discussion.
3. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
4. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

If you want to bring fallacies into the picture, you just committed one.

I sure as hell did. I expected the two final words following that statement("go figure") would've been enough to clue everyone in on the attempt at internet humor. As in, I wasn't making a serious statement, but merely making fun of the fact of the stereotype in America that the IRS will always "get" you if you cheat on your taxes. I think it was blatantly obvious that I brought up a completely unrelated reference between two subjects, as the IRS has generally nothing to do with the old debate of Evolution VS Creationism.

I may be wrong here, as I have made no attempts to look further on this topic and I have no interest in doing so, but I thought it was Bush and the invasion of Iraq that put the country into debt? Where exactly does the IRS fit into it?

Why is removing prayer and religion from public schools a bad thing? I personally don't endorse brainwashing children. I also resent the fact that, as a child, I had Christianity shoved down my throat instead of a different religion that I might have chosen(say, Buddhism or Wicca).

"Far less problems"? Brainwashing of children aside, I suppose racism and discrimination against other minority groups(say, homosexuals) don't count as problems in your eyes do they? Witch burnings? The Crusades? The ridiculous tradition of having a man swear an oath with his hand on the Bible as though it has any impact whatsoever on his honesty?

Religion and government don't mix, much like religion and science. Certainly one can have a religious belief and still be a good scientist, and one can have a religious belief and be a good politician. But when the two mix together, it only invites stupidity and an opportunity for abuse. Science becomes a tool for religion to make it seem real. Religion becomes a tool for politics to get people to vote for you. Politics becomes a tool for religion to further the agenda of the religion(trying to teach Creationism in public schools for example). The interesting thing is that when I try to think of how science could use religion as a tool to further its own ends, I come up with a blank, how curious.

With that said, GOOD religious scientists will know to keep their religion separate from science, and GOOD politicians will also know to keep their religion out of politics.

I believe that addresses the original topic. You can certainly look at religion scientifically and still believe in God, it's just that you'll be wrong and you'll be inviting stupidity either on yourself or spreading it to others.

Oh, and I apologize if it seems like I'm ignoring your responses. I happen to work 40 hours a week, I have 13 different windows open on my desktop with about 3 tabs each, and as I am wrapping up this long post, it is currently 2 AM in the morning. As such, I don't have the time to read and reply to each and every little bit of what you posted in the exact order in which you posted them.