Creationists: What do you think about leading Creationist Kent Hovind being exposed as fraud?

Question

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/NEWS01/611030338/1006

http://www.answers.com/topic/kent-hovind

flandargo: suggest you read the links, and perhaps also this one:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

Answer 1

they will simply point to one of the other .15% of scientists who claim to research creationism. As it is right now over 99.8% of the scientists working in biology dismiss creationism, calling it "not even science" (this includes the research of 72 Nobel Laureates), yet they still believe in it anyway.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
(in case someone doesn't believe these statistics)

Answer 2

probably because of the fact they blind to his convictions very like they're unaware approximately approximately his lies on evolution. case in point with technology, the huge bang and the origins of life have not something to do with organic and organic evolution. He supplies, like many creationists, incorrect definitions of micro and macro evolution. His factors for a youthful earth and universe have been refuted alongside with lunar recession, slowing of the earth's rotation and the Sahara wasteland, He does not do his study such because of the fact the information superhighway internet site he makes use of for the oldest tree isn't residing yet became decrease down. on the taxes, he became convicted by a jury on all expenses in some hours. CSE isn't a ministry, yet a corporation and could adhere to paying taxes. Audio tapes have been presented at his sentencing, displaying that he asked his son, Eric, to cover call and ingredients deeds. Like Hovind has stated, tell little lies so human beings could have faith a huge lie.

Answer 3

Evolutionist here. Hovind was convicted for tax evasion, not academic fraud. He is a bad citizen but it has nothing to do with his Dr. Dino gig. Expressing an opinion, however mistaken, annoying or disingenuous it may be, is not a crime.

Should Clinton have been impeached for messing around with an intern? It's the same reasoning. Let's stick Hovind for something relevant, not some idiosyncratic character flaw.

Answer 4

Are you sure you can read and understand English?

He was found guilty of fraud (not "exposed as fraud"). And you also need to understand that in a court of law, persons found guilty of 'whatever', may not necessarily be guilty. Was his lawyer right that he was being persecuted because of his PUBLIC stand against evolution?

In addition, that guilty verdict has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with creationism. Those are two different issues. How do you connect them?

On the other hand, evolutionists have been guilty of manufacturing evidence to support evolution :the peppered moth; chemically aging bones, etc.

Answer 5

Well, to be consistent, they should argue that although there is masses of evidence from the IRS and the police heaped up against him, they've found a few highly spurious pieces of "evidence" that surely call into question the case against him, meaning that the whole thing can be disregarded - he's innocent!

===

Bingo, flandango - I never knew I was a prophet!

Actually in law, to be found guilty of fraud is generally to expose oneself as permanently unreliable in other areas of life - a criminal record for fraud will very likely exclude one from certain professions forever, from acting as a character witness, from getting or being a guarantor for a loan - it's not good.

Not that creationism needs much help to be exposed as nonsense, but it's a point of law.

Answer 6

Hilarious. As an added thought, I think that he and any others like him who claim to be "citizens of heaven" and its ambassadors on earth should all be deported back to their home country. I don't know that they have diplomatic immunity in our country.

Answer 7

Never even heard of him.