The Return of Kent Hovind
Dr. Jason Gastrich
JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
Enjoy!
Jason Gastrich
--
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
MSN: jasong...@hotmail.com
Carol Lee Smith
> Hi everybody,
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
Is that Kent Hovind the tax-evader?
Kent Hovind who claims that he is exempt from paying taxes?
Interesting.
Are the seminers "How to evade taxes by claiming you are employed by God"
???
> A man named Michel
Michael? The Archangel?
Were there wings poking out from under his shirt?
Probably Mike Schultz.
> has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
Pictures?
How about this virtual tour of Patriot University:
http://www.geocities.com/odonate/hovind.htm
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
>
> Jason Gastrich
"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of
the few." -- Marie Henri Beyle (Stendhal)
_AnonCoward
news:IL5Jb.38801$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
:
: Hi everybody,
:
: JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
: seminars. A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions
: and they cover over half of his seminars. They even include over
: 100 pictures.
Ralf:
Huh? Does this sound like some kind of sordid, back street illicit
transaction to anybody besides myself? "A man named Michel has
approached me with the transcriptions" ... that's just weird. The even
include "pictures".
Ralf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {| |} {| |} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Those who assert that scripture is inerrant or is to be
understood literally invariably find themselves confronted
with the need to ignore or distort the plain meaning of the
text. In the process, they change the scriptures to bring
them into conformance with their doctrine rather than
modifying their doctrine to bring it into conformance with
scripture.
AC
Dr. Jason Gastrich <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
This should go well along with the other lies on your site.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Carl
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
Just to bring you up to speed: these are old transcripts. Hovind
offered these via his web site a couple of years ago. In fact, I used
them as the basis for my web site [1]. Oddly, Hovind no longer provides
transcripts. Or maybe this poor Michael guy just wasted an awful lot of
time.
All the olden goldies are there, even the "leap second" argument [2].
Since you now have Hovind's quackery on your web site I assume you have
the integrity to defend it?
[1] http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/
[2] http://jcsm.org/Creation/Hovind/seminar_part1b.html
--
Creation Science: the bastard child of Scientism and Fundamentalism.
Scientism: science will provide the answer to everything
Fundamentalism: we already know the answer
Seppo Pietikainen
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
Are the pics still uncolored?
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
>
> Jason Gastrich
>
Seppo P.
Boikat
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:IL5Jb.38801$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they
cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit
http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
>
Internet access: $19.99/month
Hovind's credibility: Worthless.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
<religious spam snipped>
Boikat
Elmer Bataitis
> Hi everybody,
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
As if:
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/kent.htm
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
catshark
<ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Hi everybody,
>
>JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind had
misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
perjury, i.e. under oath?
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html>
Is there something in the Bible about false swearing? Do those seminars
have anything about Hovind repenting?
Why am I not surprised you like Hovind?
[...]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
If Christ were here now there is
one thing he would not be --
a Christian.
- Mark Twain -
Roadrunner
"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi everybody,
> >
> >JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
seminars.
>
> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind had
> misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
> perjury, i.e. under oath?
Why not facing him in a live debate with public and also win?
Charles C.
<ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Hi everybody,
>
>JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
>A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
>over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
>If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
>Enjoy!
>
>Jason Gastrich
Oh this is too precious, Roadrunner and Jason teaming up!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Charles
Remove the underscores to contact me.
Creationism: Sci-Fi for the soul
Lucas Bachmann
Dr. Jason Gastrich wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
>
> Jason Gastrich
>
Shouldn't you put a disclaimer on there that this is for historical
reference only? After all there might be something Hovind deems
unworthy of being repeated anymore because it is in error. You
wouldn't want that would you?
Now I can make links to Hovind being contradicted by AIG and ICR on a
christian website again!
Lucas Bachmann
get_thrashed
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
>
> Jason Gastrich
>
>
But you do know that every claim made on that page is utter crap, right?
Cubist
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
freely available to the public. As well, I'm sure that everyone,
Creationist and gentile alike, will appreciate being able to examine
Hovind's actual words and claims, the better to judge their true
worth.
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
Mr. Gastrich, the last paragraph of text on that web page states,
in part, "It is interesting to read the ramblings of Creation
naysayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to disprove
the evidence for a young universe. See how many times they use words
like 'we believe,' "perhaps,' 'could have,' and so on." Apparently, it
is your belief that use of qualifying phrases such as "could have" is
indicative of weakness in an argument. But that web page itself uses
just such qualifying phrases:
"The Flood in Noah's day COULD HAVE washed out 80 percent of the mud
there in a few hours or days..." [emplasis added]
"This indicates all of the ice COULD HAVE accumulated in 4,400 years."
[emplasis added]
"The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) COULD easily BE
generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than
4,000 years." [emplasis added]
My question is this: If the use of qualifying phrases like "could
have" indicates a weakness in an argument, doesn't that mean there is
a weakness in those specific arguments on your web page which include
such phrases?
Matt Davis
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
>
> Jason Gastrich
If you were given clear evidence that some of the claims in Hovind's
seminars are wrong, would you take them down or post a disclaimer stating
that some of the claims are incorrect? Or would you keep them up and
knowingly provide false information to your readers?
Just curious.
Therion Ware
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 05:24:30 +0000 (UTC) in free.christians,
_AnonCoward ("_AnonCoward" <a...@xyz.com>) said, directing the reply to
free.christians
>"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
>news:IL5Jb.38801$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>:
>: Hi everybody,
>:
>: JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>: seminars. A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions
>: and they cover over half of his seminars. They even include over
>: 100 pictures.
>
>
>Ralf:
>Huh? Does this sound like some kind of sordid, back street illicit
>transaction to anybody besides myself? "A man named Michel has
>approached me with the transcriptions" ... that's just weird. The even
>include "pictures".
It's probably an IRS sting!
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Ernest Major
Gastrich <ne...@jcsm.org> writes
>Hi everybody,
>
>JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
>A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
>over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
>If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
>Enjoy!
>
>Jason Gastrich
I'm surprised that no one else has asked this, but do you have Kent
Hovind's permission to republish his material?
--
alias Ernest Major
Thore Schmechtig
For the sake of honesty, let's not forget to mention that "Dr." Hovind
is a liar and a conman.
--
"From the fury of the Northmen, o lord, deliver us!"
(Desperate prayer of christian monks when the Viking dragon ships were sighted. Obviously the lord was not listening.)
Greetings from Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Emails to commoner AT carcosa DOT de will need a "HI-AK 523" in the subject or go down the drain!
Jos Flachs
<peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
>
>"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
>> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi everybody,
>> >
>> >JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>seminars.
>>
>> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind had
>> misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
>> perjury, i.e. under oath?
>
>Why not facing him in a live debate with public and also win?
Come one. Be reasonable. Poor "Doctor" Jason couldn't debate a teacup
publicly and win.
Jos Flachs
That is why "Doctor" Pepper, sorry, Gastrich likes it so much.
Jos Flachs
<ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Hi everybody,
>
>JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
>A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
>over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
>If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
>Enjoy!
Dear "Doctor", is that material in the public domain? Doesn't Mr. (?)
Dr. (?) Hovind have a copy right on it? Do you have his permission to
publish it?
Dr. Jason Gastrich
> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
>> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everybody,
>>>
>>> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>>> seminars.
>>
>> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind had
>> misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
>> perjury, i.e. under oath?
>
>>
I did not know that. This link is on his bankruptcy. Do you have a link
for the federal court ruling? How come he is out of prison if he was
convicted? Incidentally, I haven't heard that he was in prison.
JG
Dr. Jason Gastrich
> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> news:IL5Jb.38801$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>> seminars. A man named Michel has approached me with the
>> transcriptions and they cover over half of his seminars. They even
>> include over 100 pictures.
>
>
> Ralf:
> Huh? Does this sound like some kind of sordid, back street illicit
> transaction to anybody besides myself? "A man named Michel has
> approached me with the transcriptions" ... that's just weird. The even
> include "pictures".
>
>
> Ralf
This cracked me up.
JG
Dr. Jason Gastrich
Yes. All of Kent Hovind's material has no copyrights. Michel told me that
Kent gave him praise for the transcription and I have just contacted Kent
and told him that I'm providing the information online as well.
God bless,
Jason
Dr. Jason Gastrich
This paragraph was Michel's. Since it is a bit inflammatory, IMHO, I have
removed it.
JG
Dr. Jason Gastrich
with AIG/ICR. If this is true, then please email me that outdated claim and
I'll check it out. I'd be happy to add a disclaimer.
Jason
386sx
http://www.google.com/search?q=+kent+hovind+site:www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.google.com/search?q=+carl+baugh+site:www.answersingenesis.org
--
"He affirmed that only in man we had the beatings of the heart, that the
left side of the body was colder than the right, that men have more teeth
than women." -- John Tyndall
Mike Dworetsky
"Matt Davis" <m_d...@pacific.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.01.02....@pacific.edu...
A very good question, "Dr." An answer would be illuminating, indeed. And
if you agree, can anyone send you a "correction"?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Jos Flachs
Took you quite a bit longer than 11 SECONDS, didn't it? More like
126.144.000 seconds?
Roadrunner
"Jos Flachs" <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
news:ukbavvo8ghai0igje...@4ax.com...
Naturally words are easy to put out, but complying, well that's an entirely
different thing.
Roadrunner
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:WUbJb.38863$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
Don't go into this, it is a diversion tactic. They can't win over him in
live debate and so one tries other ways to discredit him We all already
know how manipulative governments are.
Roadrunner
Hovinds material does not bear any copyright!
TomS
<kTbJb.38862$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com>, Dr. Jason Gastrich stated..."
Is this the straight dope?
Andrew Arensburger
> All the olden goldies are there, even the "leap second" argument [2].
But not, it would appear, the bit about the New World Order
people wanting to reduce the world's population to (not by!) half a
billion people by May 5, 2000.
Pity, that. It's just not a "Best Of" album without that one.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
If you can lead it to water and force it to drink, it isn't a horse.
Andrew Arensburger
> Cubist wrote:
>> Excellent! I'm sure Hovind won't mind your making his material
>> freely available to the public.
FWIW, he has said several times in his seminar MP3s that
nothing that he produces is copyrighted. So you can do pretty much
whatever you like with it; gotta give the man his due.
>> Mr. Gastrich, the last paragraph of text on that web page states,
>> in part, "It is interesting to read the ramblings of Creation
>> naysayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to disprove
[...]
> This paragraph was Michel's. Since it is a bit inflammatory, IMHO, I have
> removed it.
The "ramblings of Creation naysayers" paragraph is still
there. Or did you mean some other paragraph?
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
To boldly go where no sane person has any business.
Dr. Jason Gastrich
You're absolutely right about the diversionary tactic.
JG
MarkA
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>
>>Hi everybody,
>>
>>JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>>seminars.
>
> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind had
> misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
> perjury, i.e. under oath?
>
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html>
>
> Is there something in the Bible about false swearing? Do those seminars
> have anything about Hovind repenting?
>
That helps to answer one question that has always troubled me about
Creationists: Are they genuinely stupid, or are they intentional liars? I
realize that this is a false dichotomy, and that the majority of them are
probably, in fact, deluded, but it is nice to have documentation that they
are not opposed to lying when it suits them.
> Why am I not surprised you like Hovind?
>
> [...]
>
> ---------------
> J. Pieret
> ---------------
>
> If Christ were here now there is
> one thing he would not be --
> a Christian.
>
> - Mark Twain -
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Boikat
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 06:17:23 +0000 (UTC), "Roadrunner"
> <peg...@privat.utfors.se> wrote:
>
> >
> >"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
> >> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi everybody,
> >> >
> >> >JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
> >seminars.
> >>
> >> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind had
> >> misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
> >> perjury, i.e. under oath?
> >
> >Why not facing him in a live debate with public and also win?
The proble that "Geococcyx sp." doesn't seem to understand about live
debates is that usually they are sponcered by creationist organizations and
*they* set the rules. Unfortunatly, the rules are slanted in favor of the
creationist master debator, since they already understand that it only takes
a few seconds to utter their lies and misrepresentations, but it would take
hours, in some cases to adequatly explain in sufficient detail, how and why
the creationist claim is wrong.
Boikat
TomS
<pan.2004.01.02....@stopspam.net>, MarkA stated..."
[...snip...]
>That helps to answer one question that has always troubled me about
>Creationists: Are they genuinely stupid, or are they intentional liars? I
>realize that this is a false dichotomy, and that the majority of them are
>probably, in fact, deluded, but it is nice to have documentation that they
>are not opposed to lying when it suits them.
My observation of human nature tells me that the most important step
is to *deceive*oneself*.
It takes the benign form in being an actor, when one must pretend to
be the character -- you have to first convince yourself before you can
convince the audience.
Likewise, a person in sales, or politics, or trial law, or public
relations, must first get into the mood of believing what they are about
to say. That the product being sold really deserves to be sold -- even
if it is "I am only giving them what they want" or "They deserve to be
sold this" or "Somebody has to do this".
It probably beyond the capacity of most people to act deliberately
against their own beliefs.
And a bit of advice: Your best friend is someone who will tell you
when you are deceiving yourself.
Just a bit of cracker-barrel psychology and philosophy from an
amateur, FWIW.
Rob Naylor
<snip>
>
> You're absolutely right about the diversionary tactic.
demeanour. He's been criticied by AnswersinGenesis for continuing to repeat
certain claims re "problems with evolution" in his talks long after they've
been shown to be wrong or, at best, to give no evidence one way or the
other. He's been shown to have mis-represented the award of his "doctorate"
(Karen Bartlett's review of his "Dissertation" at
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
is something you really should read). The added fact that he lied under
oath (on the Bible!) is just one more nail in the coffin of the guy's
credibility.
Rob
.
Boikat
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi everybody,
> >
> >JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> >over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
> >
>
> Oh this is too precious, Roadrunner and Jason teaming up!
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
"The enemy of my enemy is my ally"
Boikat
>
> Charles
> Remove the underscores to contact me.
>
> Creationism: Sci-Fi for the soul
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> napisał w wiadomości
news:q3dJb.40738$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
That's what I like to hear.
Maybe I'll get some translated into Polish.
Uncle Davey
Boikat
Unless you know something I don't know, T.O. already has a "Dr
Pepper":
Dr Pepper
[?-] Computer scientist. Active on the Evolution Echo, and also at one
time a t.o. regular. Author of FAQs on brief introduction to
evolution, "So you want to challenge evolution", and "The SciCre Game"
(which includes among its point- getting items a scientific theory of
creation). Often requests of SciCre-ists, "Now please state the theory
of creationism."
Also:
http://www.antievolution.org/people/dr_pepper/dp.html
The "Quiz" should be mandatory for posting, but alas, it is an open
forum. ;}
Boikat
MarkA
You are really quite insightful. All of us believe many things, and those
beliefs are not always arrived at through a rational process. Once a
belief is established, however, it can be very hard to change it, even if
evidence is presented that would justify such a change. This is called
the confirmation bias: you put more stock in evidence that supports what
you already believe than you do in evidence that contradicts it.
Professional scientists are just as susceptible to it as anyone else,
which is why peer review is an important part of the scientific process.
Rob Naylor
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:BjdJb.38872$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
<snip>
> You're absolutely right about the diversionary tactic.
>
OK, to add to my other post. Let's take a look at a claim which Hovind
continued to repeat for years (and still does, from what I hear, when he can
get away with it). He has been told many times why this particular claim is
wrong. It's very easy, with just a modicum of thought, for a reasonably
intelligent layman to understand just *why* Hovind is wrong. Yet he
continued to repeat it, years after it was debunked.
Hovind:
Another factor. The earth is spinning - we are turning around. How many
knew that already? We are turning around. You know the earth is going a
little over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator, but the earth is slowing
down. It is actually slowing down 1000th of a second everyday. Pensacola
News Journal, 1990, said on December 6, "Earth's rotation is slowing down,
June will be one second longer than normal. The earth is slowing down 1000th
of a second every day." Astronomy magazine announced, 1992 in the June
edition, "Earth's rotation is slowing down, June is going to be one second
longer than normal." We will have to have a "leap second." A leap second?
Most people have heard of leap year, but lots of folks have never heard of
leap second. Did you know we have a leap second about every year and a half
now because the earth is slowing down?
Me:
It is true that leap seconds are added to the "official" length of a day
every so often...one's just been added in the last week or so, I believe.
This has nothing to do with the earth slowing down, though: it's just to
correct the accumulated discrepance between the "official" number of
complete integer seconds in a day of 24 hours (86,400) and the actual number
of seconds in a single rotation of the earth (86,400.002). The earth is
therefore *running slow* by around 2 milliseconds a day, which accumulates
to around 1 second every 500 days. It is NOT *slowing down* by 2
milliseconds a day (or Hovind's incorrectly-cited 1 millisecond a day).
It's exactly like adding a leap year every 4th year...the earth makes an
orbit of the sun every 365.25 days, yet for convenience we use a year length
of 365 integer days and correct it every 4 years (plus a few additional
corrections over longer periods). The earth does *not* take an exact integer
number of seconds to rotate once, so we have to correct for that, too.
The earth *is* slowing down, by about 5 milliseconds a year, which would
give a day length of 22 hours around 400 million years ago, and a year
length of around 400 days. This, strangely enough, is what we see when we
look at seasonal changes in such things as fossilised corals from around 400
million years ago.
Now from this, as I said above, it's very easy for most people to understand
exactly how Hovind was wrong in what he wrote. His error was pointed out to
him by many people within days of him making it, yet he (and this *must*
have been wilful, since the explanation is so easy) continued to repeat it
as one of his points of evidence for a young earth for *years* after he was
shown his mistake. Is this the action of a basically honest man?
I would be very interested in hearing your response to this point. Most of
Hovind's other "evidence" can be similarly and unequivocally rebutted.
Rob
.
Dave Oldridge
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
> seminars. A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions
> and they cover over half of his seminars. They even include over 100
> pictures.
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit
> http://kenthovind.jcsm.org. Enjoy!
More garbage attempts to deceive the unwary. When you people come down
with a real case of honest Christian truthfulness, call me back. In the
meantime do NOT ask me to sign off on your lies, innuendoes and libels.
Hovind is not just a crank. I believe he is active in the service of
EVIL, teaching young people to lie in God's name. Are you in league with
him and do you serve his master, the father of these lies? For example,
the section supposedly dealing with the age of the earth is a long
diatribe about spider's legs and contains no actual scientific analysis
whatever. Why? Because Hovind's phony PhD was not acquired by learning
science, but by writing a piece of creationist apologetics for a diploma
mill. I can get a better degree for $99 without having to write
anything. Why do you support these people?
Blunt questions, requiring a blunt answer, sir!
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Dr Dave W
@twister.socal.rr.com:
You mean you think it would be like focusing on a 11 second delay in an
answer?
Hovind has discredited himself, perjury is lying. Hovind is a liar.
Birds of a feather I guess...
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
catshark
<ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Roadrunner wrote:
>> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
>>> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi everybody,
>>>>
>>>> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>>>> seminars.
>>>
>>> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind had
>>> misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
>>> perjury, i.e. under oath?
>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html>
>
>I did not know that. This link is on his bankruptcy. Do you have a link
>for the federal court ruling?
That *is* the ruling, Jason. A Federal Court of competant jurisdiction
made a "finding of fact" about what Hovind *did*.
>How come he is out of prison if he was
>convicted?
Who said he was convicted? Is *that* the standard of the Bible?
"Thou shalt not be convicted . . ."
I suppose you didn't think Clinton committed perjury just because he was
never convicted. A Federal prosecutor probably wouldn't prosecute since
the upshot was that Hovind's case was dismissed for his *misconduct*.
>Incidentally, I haven't heard that he was in prison.
Thanks for letting everyone know *just* how low your moral standards are!
-----------------------------------------
DR. J. PIERET, B.S., J.D.
-----------------------------------------
The Moral Sense teaches us what is right,
and how to avoid it . . .
-- Mark Twain --
Kate
Anything written is automatically protected by copyright.
If you had no permission, you broke the law and to be ethical should
remove the material until you do.
catshark
<ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Roadrunner wrote:
>> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
>> news:WUbJb.38863$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>> Roadrunner wrote:
>>>> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
>>>>> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everybody,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>>>>>> seminars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind
>>>>> had misrepresented his income on court documents filed under
>>>>> penalty of perjury, i.e. under oath?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html>
>>>
>>> I did not know that. This link is on his bankruptcy. Do you have a
>>> link for the federal court ruling? How come he is out of prison if
>>> he was convicted? Incidentally, I haven't heard that he was in
>>> prison.
>>
>> Don't go into this, it is a diversion tactic. They can't win over
>> him in live debate and so one tries other ways to discredit him We
>> all already know how manipulative governments are.
>
>You're absolutely right about the diversionary tactic.
Actually, Jason, I agree it has nothing to do with his arguments. Those
stand or fall on their merits, of which they are conspicuously lacking.
But on the other hand, *you* have refused to remove those dishonest quote
mines from your website, despite being shown plenty of evidence that they
were taken out-of-context in such a way as to distort what the authors
said, because you "trust" Johnson. I just wondered if you "trusted"
Hovind, despite his documented dishonesty.
Boikat
> >> Hi everybody,
> >>
> >> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
> >> transcriptions and they cover over half of his seminars. They even
> >> include over 100 pictures.
> > Creationist and gentile alike, will appreciate being able to examine
> > Hovind's actual words and claims, the better to judge their true
> > worth.
> > in part, "It is interesting to read the ramblings of Creation
> > naysayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to disprove
> > like 'we believe,' "perhaps,' 'could have,' and so on." Apparently, it
> > is your belief that use of qualifying phrases such as "could have" is
> > indicative of weakness in an argument. But that web page itself uses
> > just such qualifying phrases:
> > "The Flood in Noah's day COULD HAVE washed out 80 percent of the mud
> > there in a few hours or days..." [emplasis added]
> > "This indicates all of the ice COULD HAVE accumulated in 4,400 years."
> > [emplasis added]
> > "The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) COULD easily BE
> > generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than
> > 4,000 years." [emplasis added]
> > My question is this: If the use of qualifying phrases like "could
> > have" indicates a weakness in an argument, doesn't that mean there is
> > a weakness in those specific arguments on your web page which include
> > such phrases?
>
> This paragraph was Michel's. Since it is a bit inflammatory, IMHO, I have
> removed it.
>
The "Quote page" of yours is also inflammatory, due to it's dishonest nature
of the quotes being out of context. When do you plan on removing it? Same
goes for the Dawkins interview.
Boikat
> JG
>
Elmer Bataitis
> Roadrunner wrote:
> > "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> >> I did not know that. This link is on his bankruptcy. Do you have a
> >> link for the federal court ruling? How come he is out of prison if
> >> he was convicted? Incidentally, I haven't heard that he was in
> >> prison.
> > Don't go into this, it is a diversion tactic. They can't win over
> > him in live debate and so one tries other ways to discredit him We
> > all already know how manipulative governments are.
> You're absolutely right about the diversionary tactic.
Jason, do you really want a scientologist's support?
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Rob Naylor
Hey, waddya know, I looked at the transcripts that you're hosting and
Hovind's misconception about the leap second is *right there* in part 1B,
near the end, under "Slowing Earth"!
Now, assuming that you have read, understood and accept the explanation I
gave in my post above, can I take it that you'll either *remove* this
erroneous point from your site or, at the very least, annotate it clearly as
a point which is included in the transcription for completeness, but which
Hovind got totally and utterly wrong?
To just let it lie there, without correction or comment, once you know for
sure that the point is plain *wrong*, would not be very honest, would it?
Rob
.
Boikat
> I noticed someone saying something about outdated research and disagreeing
> with AIG/ICR. If this is true, then please email me that outdated claim
and
> I'll check it out. I'd be happy to add a disclaimer.
How about a disclaimer for all his claims that can be shown to be false or
misleading? Are you willing to post a disclaimer that addresses the false
or misleading claims?
Boikat
John Bode
> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi everybody,
> >
> >JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
>
> misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
> perjury, i.e. under oath?
>
You know, we (being those in the evolution-is-right camp) get properly
ticked off when someone uses real or perceived flaws in Darwin's (or
Gould's or Dawkins' or whomever's) character as an argument against
the validity of evolutionary theory. I think it's just as wrong to
use the same tactic against prominent Creationists.
I'd rather focus on deconstructing Hovind's claims by pointing out
where those claims are wrong, rather than on whether Hovind himself is
of stellar character.
I'll grant that the latter is a lot more fun, though, and probably
less work (after all, Hovind gets *so much* wrong). But in the end
it's the ideas, not the person presenting them, that matter the most.
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html>
>
> Is there something in the Bible about false swearing? Do those seminars
> have anything about Hovind repenting?
>
Boikat
Much like the way creationists engage in diversionary tactics bt attempting
to link Darwin and the ToE to hitler, Marx, Communism, "moral decay of
society", and so on. Creationists have no problem with that kind of
"diversionary tactic" when *they* engage in it, but let someone else do it
to one of them, and it's "an attempt to discredit". Hypocricy at it's
holiest.
Boikat
>
> JG
>
Jeff
> > misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
> > perjury, i.e. under oath?
> >
>
> You know, we (being those in the evolution-is-right camp) get properly
> ticked off when someone uses real or perceived flaws in Darwin's (or
> Gould's or Dawkins' or whomever's) character as an argument against
> the validity of evolutionary theory. I think it's just as wrong to
> use the same tactic against prominent Creationists.
>
> I'd rather focus on deconstructing Hovind's claims by pointing out
> where those claims are wrong, rather than on whether Hovind himself is
> of stellar character.
If Hovind were a scientist, speaking to scientists, your claim would be
valid. Unfortunately, Hovind is a huckster speaking to people who accept his
propaganda because they trust him, not because they have critically examined
any scientific research. This personal trust being a channel for
disseminating his propaganda, it is legitimate to stop up the channel.
I listen to Hovind's videos only out of morbid curiosity and as a case
lesson in effective propaganda.
Mark VandeWettering
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
> Enjoy!
If your interested in that experience, you could also just wander into
your kitchen, pick up a fork and jab it into your temple.
Mark
>
> Jason Gastrich
>
Donald Stanley Hayden
: "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
: news:BjdJb.38872$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
: <snip>
: > You're absolutely right about the diversionary tactic.
: >
: OK, to add to my other post. Let's take a look at a claim which Hovind
: continued to repeat for years (and still does, from what I hear, when he can
: get away with it). He has been told many times why this particular claim is
: wrong. It's very easy, with just a modicum of thought, for a reasonably
: intelligent layman to understand just *why* Hovind is wrong. Yet he
: continued to repeat it, years after it was debunked.
: Hovind:
: Another factor. The earth is spinning - we are turning around. How many
: knew that already? We are turning around. You know the earth is going a
: little over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator, but the earth is slowing
: down. It is actually slowing down 1000th of a second everyday. Pensacola
: News Journal, 1990, said on December 6, "Earth's rotation is slowing down,
: June will be one second longer than normal. The earth is slowing down 1000th
: of a second every day." Astronomy magazine announced, 1992 in the June
: edition, "Earth's rotation is slowing down, June is going to be one second
: longer than normal." We will have to have a "leap second." A leap second?
: Most people have heard of leap year, but lots of folks have never heard of
: leap second. Did you know we have a leap second about every year and a half
: now because the earth is slowing down?
: Me:
: It is true that leap seconds are added to the "official" length of a day
: every so often...one's just been added in the last week or so, I believe.
: This has nothing to do with the earth slowing down, though: it's just to
: million years ago.
: Rob
FYI, there was an article on the CNN website about the earth's rotational
speed. It should be under the space news section if it is still there.
Don't know what to make of it myself.
Don H.
: .
--
Ernest Major
<cob...@newscene.com> writes
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:42:13 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
><ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>
>>Ernest Major wrote:
>>> I'm surprised that no one else has asked this, but do you have Kent
>>> Hovind's permission to republish his material?
>>
>>Yes. All of Kent Hovind's material has no copyrights. Michel told me that
>>Kent gave him praise for the transcription and I have just contacted Kent
>>and told him that I'm providing the information online as well.
>
>Anything written is automatically protected by copyright.
Unless the author explicitly disclaimed copyright (placed the work in
the public domain).
>
>If you had no permission, you broke the law and to be ethical should
>remove the material until you do.
>
And it appears the Mr. Hovind did do so, so in this case Mr. Gastrich
would not be acting illegally.
--
alias Ernest Major
Susan S
<ne...@jcsm.org>:
>I noticed someone saying something about outdated research and disagreeing
>with AIG/ICR. If this is true, then please email me that outdated claim and
>I'll check it out. I'd be happy to add a disclaimer.
>
>ne...@jcsm.org
>
>Jason
You have made such claims before, but refused to do anything as a
result. You are a liar, Fake Dr. Jason.
Susan Silberstein
Jon Fleming
Stanley Hayden) wrote:
<snip>
>FYI, there was an article on the CNN website about the earth's rotational
>speed. It should be under the space news section if it is still there.
>Don't know what to make of it myself.
The consensus on another message board is that CNN is out to lunch.
<http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000106.html>.
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Routerider
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote ...
> I noticed someone saying something about outdated research and disagreeing
> with AIG/ICR. If this is true, then please email me that outdated claim
and
> I'll check it out. I'd be happy to add a disclaimer.
>
> ne...@jcsm.org
>
> Jason
I thought you were already well aware of this. I've brought this up before
and you defended Hovind by saying he was a busy man, maybe he hasn't had
time to update his research [or something to that effect].
Routerider
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they
cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit
http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
>
Hmm.....Hovind has been in trouble for evading taxes and has been in trouble
for not getting a permit to build, he obviously has no respect for the
federal or state authorities. According to Jason, religious beliefs mean
everything...integrity means nothing...that explains alot.
Dana Tweedy
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:IL5Jb.38801$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they
cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit
http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
Jason, up until now, the people you have been associated with have been
merely dishonest. By placing Kent Hovind's "seminars" on your site, you
have now begun consorting with a criminal.
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/assault.htm
http://www.skepticnews.com/features/03/01/10/1252207.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html
May I suggest that if you are going to host Kent Hovinds dishonesty, you
should at least provide a link to this site.
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/
What excuses do you have for Hovind's dishonesty?
DJT
Donald Stanley Hayden
: On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 17:45:03 +0000 (UTC), ai...@chebucto.ns.ca (Donald
: Stanley Hayden) wrote:
: <snip>
: >FYI, there was an article on the CNN website about the earth's rotational
: >speed. It should be under the space news section if it is still there.
: >Don't know what to make of it myself.
: The consensus on another message board is that CNN is out to lunch.
: <http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000106.html>.
: --
: Replace nospam with group to email
Not that I'm up on the physical sciences involved here, but somehow it
didn't make sense to me. Still don't know what to think.
Don H.
--
Rob Naylor
"Donald Stanley Hayden" <ai...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:bt4aqe$ib1$1...@News.Dal.Ca...
> Rob Naylor (rna...@itl.wellmunnged.uk.com) wrote:
>
>
> : .<snip>
>
> FYI, there was an article on the CNN website about the earth's rotational
> speed. It should be under the space news section if it is still there.
> Don't know what to make of it myself.
The CNN article is sheer bullshit.
Go to http://maia.usno.navy.mil/eo/leapsec.html for a proper explanation.
The comment below is a direct quote from this US Navy website:
QUOTE
Confusion sometimes arises over the misconception that the occasional
insertion of leap seconds every few years indicates that the Earth should
stop rotating within a few millennia. The confusion arises because some
mistake leap seconds as a measure of the rate at which the Earth is slowing.
The one-second increments are, however, indications of the accumulated
difference in time between the two systems. As an example, the situation is
similar to what would happen if a person owned a watch that lost two seconds
per day. If it were set to a perfect clock today, the watch would be found
to be slow by two seconds tomorrow. At the end of a month, the watch will be
roughly a minute in error (thirty days of the two second error accumulated
each day). The person would then find it convenient to reset the watch by
one minute to have the correct time again.
This scenario is analogous to that encountered with the leap second. The
difference is that instead of resetting the clock that is running slow, we
choose to adjust the clock that is keeping a uniform, precise time. The
reason for this is that we can change the time of an atomic clock while it
is not possible to alter the Earth's rotational speed to match the atomic
clocks. Currently the Earth runs slow at roughly 2 milliseconds per day.
After 500 days, the difference between the Earth rotation time and the
atomic time would be one second. Instead of allowing this to happen a leap
second is inserted to bring the two times closer together.
UNQUOTE.
Rob
>
>
> --
>
.
Uncle Davey
Użytkownik "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> napisał w wiadomości
news:q3dJb.40738$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...> news:tobavvsmgi6a2rhgq...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr." Jason Gastrich
> > <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
> >
> > >Hi everybody,
> > >
> > >JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
> seminars.
> > >A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they
> cover
> > >over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
> > >
> > >If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit
> http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> > >Enjoy!
> >
> > Dr. (?) Hovind have a copy right on it? Do you have his permission to
> > publish it?
>
> Hovinds material does not bear any copyright!
>
That's what I like to hear.
Maybe I'll get some translated into Polish.
Uncle Davey
Daniel Kolle
<ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>Hi everybody,
>
>JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
>A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
>over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
>If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
>Enjoy!
>
>Jason Gastrich
...That name sounds familiar? Is he the one that offers like a million
dollars if you prove evolution to him?
catshark
wrote:
>catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com>...
>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
>> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi everybody,
>> >
>> >JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
>>
>> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind had
>> misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
>> perjury, i.e. under oath?
>>
>
>You know, we (being those in the evolution-is-right camp) get properly
>ticked off when someone uses real or perceived flaws in Darwin's (or
>Gould's or Dawkins' or whomever's) character as an argument against
>the validity of evolutionary theory. I think it's just as wrong to
>use the same tactic against prominent Creationists.
You are right (with some provisos) and I should have been clearer about why
I even brought it up. "Dr." Jason has refused to remove certain quote
mines from his website, after posting them here and after being shown how
that were taken out-of-context, because he "trusts" Johnson. Implicitly,
he was making a moral judgement between Johnson and us "atheists" and
choosing to accept uncritically what a "believer" does over evidence he has
been shown. Jason put the issue of credibility and morality into play.
It should also be noted that I never said that Hovind's actions in the
court meant that his arguments should be ignored. I merely asked Jason if
he knew about it.
Incidently, the only reason the decision is in the t.o. Archives in the
first place is in connection with the analysis of his "$250,000 Offer". As
noted there:
It is only reasonable to inquire if Hovind even has the $250,000.
In 1996, Hovind filed for bankruptcy, declaring in official court
documents under penalty of perjury that, as of that time, he was
receiving no income and owned absolutely no property.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html>
Also, as noted in the Index to Creationist Claims FAQ, one common thread in
creationist arguments is that "Creationism, because it is based on the
Bible, is moral. The denial of Creationism is a denial of the Bible and is
therefore immoral."
<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH010.html>
Again, creationists put this into play.
>
>I'd rather focus on deconstructing Hovind's claims by pointing out
>where those claims are wrong, rather than on whether Hovind himself is
>of stellar character.
>
>I'll grant that the latter is a lot more fun, though, and probably
>less work (after all, Hovind gets *so much* wrong). But in the end
>it's the ideas, not the person presenting them, that matter the most.
I will confess that the chance to tweek Jason was not a deterence to my
bringing it up.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Robert Grumbine
Everything is 'born' with a copyright. But Hovind explicitly and
publicly gives away the copyright to anything he writes. Visit
his web site to see. Anybody, whether they like Hovind or not,
can do anything they darn well please with anything Hovind writes.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Dana Tweedy
"Daniel Kolle" <DKo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7mbvvo4vlh28k44r...@4ax.com...
That's the one. Only it's $250,000 and the offer itself is bogus. What
Hovind will accept as proof is basically "nothing that can be shown". His
rules don't allow any chance of anyone winning. He picks the "committee",
he decides what evidence he will accept, and he won't allow anyone to
contact "committee members" for independent confirmation.
Also, he doesn't have the money to pay out anyway. It's all a cheap
publicity stunt.
DJT
>
Cubist
> Cubist wrote:
> > "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> > news:<IL5Jb.38801$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> >>
> >> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
> >> seminars. A man named Michel has approached me with the
> >> transcriptions and they cover over half of his seminars. They even
> >> include over 100 pictures.
> > freely available to the public. As well, I'm sure that everyone,
> > Creationist and gentile alike, will appreciate being able to examine
> > Hovind's actual words and claims, the better to judge their true
> > worth.
> >
> > in part, "It is interesting to read the ramblings of Creation
> > naysayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to disprove
> > the evidence for a young universe. See how many times they use words
> > like 'we believe,' "perhaps,' 'could have,' and so on." Apparently, it
> > is your belief that use of qualifying phrases such as "could have" is
> > indicative of weakness in an argument. But that web page itself uses
> > just such qualifying phrases:
> > "The Flood in Noah's day COULD HAVE washed out 80 percent of the mud
> > there in a few hours or days..." [emplasis added]
> > "This indicates all of the ice COULD HAVE accumulated in 4,400 years."
> > [emplasis added]
> > "The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) COULD easily BE
> > generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than
> > 4,000 years." [emplasis added]
> > My question is this: If the use of qualifying phrases like "could
> > have" indicates a weakness in an argument, doesn't that mean there is
> > a weakness in those specific arguments on your web page which include
> > such phrases?
>
> This paragraph was Michel's. Since it is a bit inflammatory, IMHO, I have
> removed it.
which of course implies that the text is question isn't part of that
page any longer, I was still able to read that "inflammatory"
paragraph on the web page when I visited it just now. Some other t.o
regulars would be quick to lambaste you for yet another lie, but since
I've done a fair amount of webmastering myself, I fully realize that
the time one corrects a file on one's "home box" is usually not the
same as the time one uploads the corrected file to one's web site. So
I am going to take you at your word when you say you already have
removed the paragraph in question. Specifically, I accept that as of
02:47 PST on 2 Jan 2003 (the time-stamp on your email), you removed
that paragraph from the relevant file on your personal hard drive.
I am also going to browse the page in question from time to time,
in order to learn how long it will be between correction and
uploading.
C.J.W.
Kate wrote:
You obviously don't understand copyright law.
> If you had no permission,
Wrong.
> you broke the law
Wrong.
> and to be ethical should
> remove the material until you do.
Wrong.
Why this drive to "remove the material," I wonder? But irrelevant, you don't
understand copyright law.
--W
Tom McDonald
> Roadrunner wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
>>news:WUbJb.38863$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>
>>>Roadrunner wrote:
>>>
>>>>"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
>>>>><ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi everybody,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>>>>>>seminars.
>>>>>
>>>>>Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind
>>>>>had misrepresented his income on court documents filed under
>>>>>penalty of perjury, i.e. under oath?
>>>>
>>>>><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html>
>>>
>>>I did not know that. This link is on his bankruptcy. Do you have a
>>>link for the federal court ruling? How come he is out of prison if
>>>he was convicted? Incidentally, I haven't heard that he was in
>>>prison.
>>
>>Don't go into this, it is a diversion tactic. They can't win over
>>him in live debate and so one tries other ways to discredit him We
>>all already know how manipulative governments are.
>
>
> You're absolutely right about the diversionary tactic.
>
> JG
>
Jason,
Would that be like the diversionary tactic of trotting out
'Dawkin's Pause'?
Tom McDonald
Rob Naylor
"C.J.W." <watt...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:3FF5E552...@bellatlantic.net...
>
> Why this drive to "remove the material," I wonder? But irrelevant, you
don't
> understand copyright law.
I agree that if Hovind's publicly,renounced his copyright, then there's
nothing to stop anyone propagating his stuff in any way they want, and that
some of the people posting here haven't quite sorted out copyright law.
However, the "drive" to get Jason to remove the material is nothing
sinister...the vast majority of it is simply wildly inaccurate and Jason is
doing everyone a dis-service by propagating it further. He's made several
comments to the effect "show me something that's wrong and I'll remove it or
write a disclaimer". Several people have shown him specific errors in
Hovind's material, yet he hasn't (so far) modified his site.
Rob
.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
Now you're really out to prove what a dishonest scum you are.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
>
> Użytkownik "Roadrunner" <peg...@privat.utfors.se> napisał w wiadomości
> news:q3dJb.40738$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
>>
>> "Jos Flachs" <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
>> news:tobavvsmgi6a2rhgq...@4ax.com...
>> > On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr." Jason Gastrich
>> > <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Hi everybody,
>> > >
>> > >JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>> seminars.
>> > >A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they
>> cover
>> > >over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>> > >
>> > >If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit
>> http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
>> > >Enjoy!
>> >
>> > Dear "Doctor", is that material in the public domain? Doesn't Mr. (?)
>> > Dr. (?) Hovind have a copy right on it? Do you have his permission to
>> > publish it?
>>
>> Hovinds material does not bear any copyright!
>>
>
> That's what I like to hear.
>
> Maybe I'll get some translated into Polish.
Careful. Copyright does not require copyright registration and hasn't in
some years now. Nor does an author have to put a copyright notice on a
work for the law to protect it.
In general, nothing enters the public domain now unless explicitly
released to the public domain...
rsm...@york.ac.uk
> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message news:<IL5Jb.38801$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> >
> > JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> > A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> > over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
> freely available to the public. As well, I'm sure that everyone,
> Creationist and gentile alike, will appreciate being able to examine
> Hovind's actual words and claims, the better to judge their true
> worth.
>
> in part, "It is interesting to read the ramblings of Creation
> naysayers like Scott, Matson, Babinski, etc. as they try to disprove
> the evidence for a young universe. See how many times they use words
> like 'we believe,' "perhaps,' 'could have,' and so on." Apparently, it
> is your belief that use of qualifying phrases such as "could have" is
> indicative of weakness in an argument. But that web page itself uses
> just such qualifying phrases:
> "The Flood in Noah's day COULD HAVE washed out 80 percent of the mud
> there in a few hours or days..." [emplasis added]
> "This indicates all of the ice COULD HAVE accumulated in 4,400 years."
> [emplasis added]
> "The current population of earth (5.5 billion souls) COULD easily BE
> generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than
> 4,000 years." [emplasis added]
> My question is this: If the use of qualifying phrases like "could
> have" indicates a weakness in an argument, doesn't that mean there is
> a weakness in those specific arguments on your web page which include
> such phrases?
More to the point, the nature of the scientific method *demands* that
qualifying phrases be used, unless we've performed the infinity of
conceivable experiments so that we're certain that no exceptions exist
or can exist anywhere. We haven't, we've not even come close, and
(given that we don't have an infinite amount of time at our disposal)
we never will. Even Hovind with his tinpot diploma-mill doctorate
realises this, even if the rest of his arguments defy logic and
intelligence.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Kate wrote:
>
>>
>> Anything written is automatically protected by copyright.
>
> You obviously don't understand copyright law.
Oh yes she does.
You need to go look up the Berne Convention and the Berne Convention
Implementation Act of 1988.
Essentially, a work is protected as soon as it exists. Published or
unpublished, with or without copyright notice.
Improper notice can cause you to lose the ability to sue for statutory
damages and attorney fees but that's about all.
Mark K. Bilbo
>
> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> news:WUbJb.38863$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>> Roadrunner wrote:
>> > "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
>> >> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi everybody,
>> >>>
>> >>> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>> >>> seminars.
>> >>
>> >> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind had
>> >> misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
>> >> perjury, i.e. under oath?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html>
>>
>> I did not know that. This link is on his bankruptcy. Do you have a link
>> for the federal court ruling? How come he is out of prison if he was
>> convicted? Incidentally, I haven't heard that he was in prison.
>
> Don't go into this, it is a diversion tactic. They can't win over him in
> live debate and so one tries other ways to discredit him We all already
> know how manipulative governments are.
Hovind lying to a judge is a government conspiracy?
I did not know that.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> Roadrunner wrote:
>> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
>> news:WUbJb.38863$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>>> Roadrunner wrote:
>>>> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
>>>>> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi everybody,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>>>>>> seminars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind
>>>>> had misrepresented his income on court documents filed under
>>>>> penalty of perjury, i.e. under oath?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html>
>>>
>>> I did not know that. This link is on his bankruptcy. Do you have a
>>> link for the federal court ruling? How come he is out of prison if
>>> he was convicted? Incidentally, I haven't heard that he was in
>>> prison.
>>
>> Don't go into this, it is a diversion tactic. They can't win over
>> him in live debate and so one tries other ways to discredit him We
>> all already know how manipulative governments are.
>
> You're absolutely right about the diversionary tactic.
Yes, indeedy. Why, we certainly wouldn't want to get into whether the
people who spend all their time lecturing the rest of us about this
"absolute morality" thing are, well, moral people.
Gosh, you'd almost think people are expecting christians to "avoid the
appearance of evil" or some silly standard like that...
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
> Roadrunner wrote:
>> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 03:39:37 +0000 (UTC), "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
>>> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi everybody,
>>>>
>>>> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
>>>> seminars.
>>>
>>> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind had
>>> misrepresented his income on court documents filed under penalty of
>>> perjury, i.e. under oath?
>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html>
>
> I did not know that. This link is on his bankruptcy. Do you have a link
> for the federal court ruling? How come he is out of prison if he was
> convicted? Incidentally, I haven't heard that he was in prison.
Boy, there's a moral standard for ya:
"Well, he wasn't *convicted now was he?"
My, what an *inspiring model to live up to. Long as you manage to *not
*get *convicted, it's okay!
Carol Lee Smith
--------excerpt------------------------
"The world has sped up over the last few years. Timekeepers at the
National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) note that they have not had
to insert an extra second (called a leap second) into their time scale for
five years. Why? Because the rate of the Earth's rotation has sped up
since 1999. "
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
>
> You know, we (being those in the evolution-is-right camp) get properly
> ticked off when someone uses real or perceived flaws in Darwin's (or
> Gould's or Dawkins' or whomever's) character as an argument against
> the validity of evolutionary theory. I think it's just as wrong to
> use the same tactic against prominent Creationists.
There is an important difference ---- creationists are attempting to
tell us that not only is their "sciecne" correct, but they themselves
are "True Christians<tm>(c)" who are more godly, holy, moral and
saintly than the rest of us mere mortals, and therefore should be
trusted as God's Messenger's to give us the Holy Truth<tm>(c). And that
religious argument has won them immeasurably more converts than any
"sciecne" ever did.
The fact that they are all lying sacks of shit bears directly on their
claim to be "True Christians<tm>(c).
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
> And so upon Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:39:19 +0000 didst C.J.W. speak thusly:
>
>
>>Kate wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anything written is automatically protected by copyright.
>>
>>You obviously don't understand copyright law.
>
>
> Oh yes she does.
>
> You need to go look up the Berne Convention and the Berne Convention
> Implementation Act of 1988.
>
> Essentially, a work is protected as soon as it exists. Published or
> unpublished, with or without copyright notice.
>
> Improper notice can cause you to lose the ability to sue for statutory
> damages and attorney fees but that's about all.
>
Since I've had seven books published (most of them by a division of
Simon and Schuster) and have met more than my share of intellectual
property attornies, perhaps I can help here:
Under US and international copyright laws, anything written (or produced
in any way, in the case of music/software/movies/photos, etc) is
automatically copyrighted by the creator at the time of its creation.
The author retains all rights to the work unless and until he
specifically gives up those rights, either by selling the rights to
another (such as a publisher, although in most cases the publisher only
purchases the right to print the copyrighted work -- the writer still
legally retains the copyright) or by declaring the writing to be "in the
public domain" and therefore no longer covered by copyright law.
(Exceptions occur if the work was published before a certain year (1916,
I think -- sorry, I don't recall offhand), in which case it is
considered "public domain" and can be freely reproduced.
Note that even granting permission for use does NOT invalidate the
copyright. On my own website, for instance, I specifically grant
permission to anyone to use any of the writings therein for
noncommercial educational purposes, but *I* still retain the copyright
and reserve all rights to myself, and any use not falling within the
specific permission I granted would be copyright infringement and
subject to legal penalty.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Speaking of taxes, I seem to recall something about . . . what was it? .
. . oh, yeah -- "Render unto Caeser".
Apparently "Dr" Hovind, like "Dr" Gastrich, thinks it's OK to be
dishonets for the Lord.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
Do they include the ones where "Dr" Hovind says that the government is
spying on us through our TV sets? How about the one where he says the
US government blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City? Where he
says there are dinosaurs alive in Africa? That Bigfoot disproves
evolution? Flying saucers come from Satan? Vitamin B12 cures cancer?
Jos Flachs
<ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>You're absolutely right about the diversionary tactic.
That is the field where you earned your doctorate?
Steve
Hey there RR...
Can you pease advise me where science is developed and scrutinised using the
"debate" method ??...please ?
If your mate Mr Hovind has anything of substance to say.. why cant he right
his theory down and let everyone understand this knowledge that has escaped
everyone else...or is he too busy ? .. with courts and stuff ?
--
Steve
The Earth is degenerating these days. Bribery and corruption abound.
Children no longer mind their parents, every man wants to write a book, and
it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching.
- Assyrian Stone Tablet, c.2800BC
Steve
news:BjdJb.38872$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
: Roadrunner wrote:
: > "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
: > news:WUbJb.38863$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
: >> Roadrunner wrote:
: >>> "catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: >>> news:pq1avvgt0qc1m19ea...@4ax.com...
: >>>> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
: >>>>
: >>>>> Hi everybody,
: >>>>>
: >>>>> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's
: >>>>> seminars.
: >>>> Say, Jason, did you know that a Federal court found that Hovind
: >>>> had misrepresented his income on court documents filed under
: >>>> penalty of perjury, i.e. under oath?
: >>>
: >>>>
: >>>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html>
: >>
: >> I did not know that. This link is on his bankruptcy. Do you have a
: >> link for the federal court ruling? How come he is out of prison if
: >> he was convicted? Incidentally, I haven't heard that he was in
: >> prison.
: > Don't go into this, it is a diversion tactic. They can't win over
: > him in live debate and so one tries other ways to discredit him We
: > all already know how manipulative governments are.
: You're absolutely right about the diversionary tactic.
:
: JG
This is pretty funny.... DrSilence seems to obsess on Darwin's personal
history and how it proves hes a fraud...yet with Mr Hovind its a diversion..
*hypocrites*
Steve
Mark K. Bilbo
> That helps to answer one question that has always troubled me about
> Creationists: Are they genuinely stupid, or are they intentional liars? I
> realize that this is a false dichotomy, and that the majority of them are
> probably, in fact, deluded, but it is nice to have documentation that they
> are not opposed to lying when it suits them.
Ayup.
Mark K. Bilbo
thusly:
Sorry, my fault.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Another factor. The earth is spinning - we are turning around. How many
>
> knew that already?
Interesting he expects his audience to *not know this...
Boikat
> <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi everybody,
> >
> >JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> >over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
> >
> >If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> >Enjoy!
> >
> >Jason Gastrich
>
> dollars if you prove evolution to him?
Yup, but it's only 250,000. Of course the money is safe, since his
challenge is impossible to meet, for several reasons. First off, he
gets to pick the judges, and one could almost make a bet they are all
hand picked creationists. The challenge itself amounts to recreationg
the "Big Bang", such that a univers comes into existence, stars and
galaxies form, planets form, and then on at least one planet, life
emerges, diversifies, "invents" sexual reproduction, and eventually
gives rise to a species of intelligent beings. Then you have to prove
that this can occure without God causing it. Of course, if you could
meet this challenge, he'd still would not agree that you met the
challenge, since an intelligence was needed to set up the experiment
that reproduced the BB, and so on.
Boikat
Dr Walking on Glass
alt.atheism, news:bt4mkq$qdf$5...@news1.radix.net:
Manufacturers of kitsch toilet paper take note...
--
Dr Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
Michael Lloyd
> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <ne...@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> news:BjdJb.38872$Vs3....@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > You're absolutely right about the diversionary tactic.
>
> demeanour. He's been criticied by AnswersinGenesis for continuing to repeat
> certain claims re "problems with evolution" in his talks long after they've
> been shown to be wrong or, at best, to give no evidence one way or the
> other. He's been shown to have mis-represented the award of his "doctorate"
> (Karen Bartlett's review of his "Dissertation" at
> http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
> is something you really should read). The added fact that he lied under
> oath (on the Bible!) is just one more nail in the coffin of the guy's
> credibility.
>
> Rob
>
>
> .
Thanks for posting this link, Rob. As a community college instructor I
would be appalled at this standard of writing from one of my students.
But then again, if this is the benchmark, then maybe "Dr" Jason is
about due to awarded a Chair soon.
Tom McDonald
Robert,
This is not strictly speaking true. He refuses to allow his
thesis (either the one that got him his phd, or the one he's
accreted around it in the intervening years) to be copied, posted
or quoted from. Interesting exception to his rule, nicht wahr?
Tom McDonald
David Wise
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
>
> Jason Gastrich
>
>
> Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
> http://www.jcsm.org
> Over 60,000 web pages!
>
> John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
> indeed."
>
> Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
> has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
>
> ICQ#: 20731140
> AIM: MrJasonGastrich
> YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
> MSN: jasong...@hotmail.com
How's about issuing a disclaimer about Hovind's "leap second" claim on
http://jcsm.org/Creation/Hovind/seminar_part1b.html? :
"Slowing Earth
"Another factor. The earth is spinning謡e are turning around. How many
knew that already? We are turning around. You know the earth is going
a little over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator, but the earth is
slowing down. It is actually slowing down 1000th of a second everyday.
Pensacola News Journal, 1990, said on December 6, "Earth's rotation is
slowing down, June will be one second longer than normal. The earth is
slowing down 1000th of a second every day." Astronomy magazine
announced, 1992 in the June edition, "Earth's rotation is slowing
down, June is going to be one second longer than normal." We will have
to have a "leap second." A leap second? Most people have heard of leap
year, but lots of folks have never heard of leap second. Did you know
we have a leap second about every year and a half now because the
earth is slowing down? Now kids this is going to be kind of
complicated so listen carefully. The earth is spinning but it is
slowing down. So that means that it used to be going faster. How many
can figure that out with no help? Okay several. Well, now if the earth
is only 6,000 years old that is not a problem. It was probably
spinning a little faster when Adam was here. Maybe they had 23 and 1/2
hours in a day. They would not notice, they did not have a watch
anyway. Some of these folks want you to believe that the earth is
billions of years old. Now that would make a problem. If you go back a
few billion years, the earth was spinning real fast. Your days and
nights would be pretty quick! Get up, go to bed! Get up, go to bed!
Get up, go to bed! You would never get anything done. And a
centrifugal force would have been enormous, would have flattened the
earth like a pancake. The winds would have been 5,000 miles an hour
from the Coriolis effect. You think the dinosaurs lived 70 million
years ago? I know what happened to them? I know what happened to
them... they got blown off! No they did not live 70 million years ago,
folks; it simply cannot possibly be true."
I think you should recognize that claim; I'm the one who emailed you
about it a few months ago and I do still have a copy of your reply.
Shouldn't you issue a disclaimer this one of Hovind's claims?
And how's about his "sunflower cytochrome c" claim? Here it is from
page http://jcsm.org/Creation/Hovind/seminar_part4b.html :
"If you want to just pick one item and that's supposed to prove
relationship, did you know that human Cytochrom C is closest to a
sunflower? So really the sunflowers are our closest relative folks."
In trying to get Roadrunner to support Hovind's claims (he posts
almost identical transcriptions on his site; check out his current
"Creational View" thread), we have presented him with the actual
cytochrome c sequences for humans, sunflowers, and chimpanzees. The
interesting thing is that sunflower cytochrome c differs from human
cytochrome c by 34 amino acids (not counting the sunflower having 7
extra amino acids tacked onto the beginning), whereas chimpanzee and
human cytochrome c sequences are IDENTICAL (not counting an extra
amino acid on the beginning of the human protein).
So could you please explain how 34 is less than zero? Or share with
us the disclaimer that you will post.
Here are those sequences, their source, and the discussion I presented
to RoadRunner, who hightails it over the border every time it's
brought up:
Now, from this site, http://www.enzim.hu/~tusi/cgr/pir.example , we
have these listings of the amino-acid sequences of Cytochrome c
(please note the misspelling you committed, though ) for humans,
sunflowers, chimpanzees, and rhesus macaques. Here they are listed
(each letter represents a single amino acid, look here,
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/Molbio/aatable.html (thank you for
that table link, Harlequin), for the meanings of the codes). And, as
I understand the format, the numeral 1 at the end is there to tell the
programs that process this data (eg BLAST) where the end of the
sequence is.
Here are the sequences (and there's a lot more listed at that site):
>CCHU Cytochrome c - Human
mgdvekgkkifimkcsqchtvekggkhktgpnlhglfgrktgqapgysytaanknkgiiwgedtlmeyle
npkkyipgtkmifvgikkkeeradliaylkkatne1
>CCCZ Cytochrome c - Chimpanzee (tentative sequence)
gdvekgkkifimkcsqchtvekggkhktgpnlhglfgrktgqapgysytaanknkgiiwgedtlmeylen
pkkyipgtkmifvgikkkeeradliaylkkatne1
>CCMQR Cytochrome c - Rhesus macaque (tentative sequence)
gdvekgkkifimkcsqchtvekggkhktgpnlhglfgrktgqapgysytaanknkgitwgedtlmeylen
pkkyipgtkmifvgikkkeeradliaylkkatne1
>CCFS Cytochrome c - Common sunflower
asfaeapagdpttgakifktkcaqchtvekgaghkqgpnlnglfgrqsgttagysysaanknmaviween
tlydyllnpkkyipgtkmvfpglkkpqeradliaylktsta1
Now let's compare the sequences. I'll mark a mismatch with an X and
additions on the ends with v or ^, depending on whether I'm pointing
up or down. I've separated the lines with spaces at every fifth site
in order to make it more readable; that does not change the sequence
in any way. I've also broken them into two lines so that it can be
posted legibly; again, that does not affect the comparison in any way.
Human Cytochrome c (CCHU) vs Chimpanzee Cytochrome c (CCCZ)
diffs: v
>CCHU m gdvek gkkif imkcs qchtv ekggk hktgp nlhgl fgrkt gqapg ysyta
>CCCZ gdvek gkkif imkcs qchtv ekggk hktgp nlhgl fgrkt gqapg ysyta
(continued)
>CCHU anknk giiwg edtlm eylen pkkyi pgtkm ifvgi kkkee radli aylkk
atne1
>CCCZ anknk giiwg edtlm eylen pkkyi pgtkm ifvgi kkkee radli aylkk
atne1
diffs:
CCHU vs CCCZ Differences Count:
1 human end amino acid missing from beginning of chimpanzee sequence
(v)
0 internal differences
0 differences at end of sequences
Human Cytochrome c (CCHU) vs Common sunflower Cytochrome c (CCFS)
diffs: vvvvvvvX XXX X XX X XX X X XX XXX
X
>CCHU m gdvek gkkif imkcs qchtv ekggk hktgp nlhgl fgrkt gqapg
ysyta
>CCFS asfaeapa gdptt gakif ktkca qchtv ekgag hkqgp nlngl fgrqs gttag
ysysa
(continued)
>CCHU anknk giiwg edtlm eylen pkkyi pgtkm ifvgi kkkee radli aylkk
atne1
>CCFS anknm aviwe ently dylln pkkyi pgtkm vfpgl kkpqe radli aylkt sta
1
diffs: X XX X X X X X X X X XX X X
X^
CCHU vs CCFS Differences Count:
7 sunflower amino acids missing from beginning of human sequence (v)
34 internal differences (X)
1 human amino acid missing from end of sunflower sequence (^)
Human Cytochrome c (CCHU) vs Rhesus macaque Cytochrome c (CCMQR)
diffs: v
>CCHU m gdvek gkkif imkcs qchtv ekggk hktgp nlhgl fgrkt gqapg ysyta
>CCMQR gdvek gkkif imkcs qchtv ekggk hktgp nlhgl fgrkt gqapg ysyta
(continued)
>CCHU anknk giiwg edtlm eylen pkkyi pgtkm ifvgi kkkee radli aylkk
atne1
>CCMQR anknk gitwg edtlm eylen pkkyi pgtkm ifvgi kkkee radli aylkk
atne1
diffs:
CCHU vs CCMQR Differences Count:
1 human end amino acid missing from beginning of rhesus macaque
sequence (v)
0 internal differences
0 differences at end of sequences
NOTE: chimpanzee and rhesus macaque sequences are IDENTICAL to each
other; ZERO differences.
OK, the human protein has one amino acid tacked onto the beginning
that the chimpanzee and the rhesus macaque proteins do not have.
Other than that, they are IDENTICAL; there are ZERO differences.
Outside of that initial amino acid, each and every amino acid is
identical in the corresponding locations.
But when we compare the sunflower protein with the human protein,
THIRTY-FOUR locations have different amino acids, PLUS the sunflower
has an extra 7 amino acids tacked onto the beginning and is missing an
amino acid from the end.
So, in comparing the two comparisons, we cannot help but conclude that
chimpanzee cytochrome c is much more similar to human cytochrome c
than sunflower cytochrome c is. The facts are right there in front of
us.
So why do you claim otherwise? Or are you trying to claim that our
"preconceptions" have brainwashed us into falsely thinking that 34 is
greater than zero?
David Wise
> Hi everybody,
>
> JCSM is now hosting the transcription of several of Kent Hovind's seminars.
> A man named Michel has approached me with the transcriptions and they cover
> over half of his seminars. They even include over 100 pictures.
>
> If you'd like to read the seminars, please visit http://kenthovind.jcsm.org.
> Enjoy!
>
> Jason Gastrich
>
> --
>
> Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
> http://www.jcsm.org
> Over 60,000 web pages!
>
> John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
> indeed."
>
> Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
> has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
>
> ICQ#: 20731140
> AIM: MrJasonGastrich
> YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
> MSN: jasong...@hotmail.com
Sorry, I forgot two other questions.
What is "Michael"'s source for these transcripts?
And, what is Christian doctrine about lies? Is lying a sin even if
you think you are doing it for God? Is God supposed to be served
through lies and deception? Or more generically, Is God supposed to
be served through falsehood? (note that lying means you know the
statements to be false; if you don't know that, then you aren't lying
even though you are still spreading false claims and lies -- the moral
distinction is kind of fine, but I believe that the consequences of
using false claims, and especially transparently false claims, are the
same either way)
Mind you, I'm not accusing YOU of lying. Rather, we have caught so
many creationists in so many lies that this has become an important
question, one that no creationist ever wants to answer. I mean,
shouldn't it be basic Christian doctrine?