Sep 14 2007
Prev/Next Posts: « A hot, young… cluster || Bride grooming »
Kent Hovind: creationist liar and evil, evil, evil
Kent Hovind is an evil creationist liar who is currently cooling his backside in prison, convicted for evading $840,000 in taxes. That’s the good news. It’s downhill from there.
His group, Creation Science Evangelism, has been on a pogrom — a jihad, if you will — taking down YouTube videos that reveal Hovind for what he is: an evil creationist liar. This group has been sending YouTube notices of copyright infringement, claiming that the anti-Hovind videos are using copyrighted material from Hovind himself.
There’s only one small problem: Hovind has said in the past that his videos are not copyrighted! * So why would he then turn around and say they are copyrighted? Why, to illegally silence his critics, of course!
Did I mention he’s an evil creationist liar?
CSE has sent YouTube many of these notices, and YouTube has been responding by suspending the accounts of the users. I don’t blame YouTube for this; they have to take down the videos until they can determine what’s what. It’s Hovind’s group that’s the real decaying rot of society here. JanieBelle has details of the first shot across the bow by Hovind’s noisome cult, when RabidApe was suspended from YouTube. And now she has the goods on their suspension of the Rational Response Squad (NSFW language on both links; in fact, in most of the links in this post). The RRS says this is a felony, since Hovind’s group is making multiple false copyright claims.
A creationist like Hovind breaking the law? Heaven forbid!
Oh wait. He’s already in prison for a felony. Silly me.
It’s not so much the felonious actions that tick me off (though the upside is that they are actionable) as it is the wanton and horrifying misuse of the law to silence critics. They must know what they are doing is wrong and illegal. As I’ve said before, I guess, for creationists, the Ninth Commandment is optional.
Here is an RRS video on the topic (hosted by Janie, since RRS is suspended).
Here is another video made by RRS and hosted by Revver, just in case:
If you have a blog, and any sense of reality and decency, spread the word. Link to Janie, link to RRS, or host the videos above on your own site.
We must not let felonious, lying, evil men like Kent Hovind win.
*Note: the video linked shows a Hovind web page which explicitly says the materials are not copyrighted; that statement has now been changed to say all materials unless explicitly stated are copyrighted. Revisionism, anyone?
What does “The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God” have to do with creationists lying?
You must be thinking of that other set of ten commandments, but the real Ten Commandments are found in Exodus 34.
As always, thank you for the link love, Dr. BA.
This really needs to get spread around as much as possible, so thank you also for bringing it to the attention of your much wider audience.
YouTube really needs to be a little more careful in their constant capitulations to creationist whining. As I’m sure you’re aware, this is not by any means the first incident like this, only the latest.
It’s about time that evil creationist liars be held to the same standard as everyone else.
If you can’t produce the experiments, it’s not Science.
If your schtick doesn’t stand up to critical examination, you can’t censor your critics.
And if you don’t obey the law, you go to jail.
Kisses
Everything you create is copyrighted. If you say it’s not, that’s just a license for others to use it; you still have the right, you’re just telling people you won’t enforce it, and you can change your mind whenever you want. The good news, though, is that nobody should be subject to liability for posting those videos prior to his about-face; there’s a pretty clear estoppel defense there.
[…] Original post by The Bad Astronomer […]
Now, now, no name-calling! While I have never been or will never be a creationist, I recognize they have a right to be wrong (and unfortunately propogate that wrongness onto their often numerous offspring).
I’m afraid using the words “evil creationist” together this way will only make creationists more defensive and less receptive to your observations in general — and these are some of the people who have the most to benefit from reading the contents of your site! Now, I realize you weren’t trying to call every creationist evil, and that your words were not intended to inflame the full body of creatists, but those who identify with the word will probably be offended just the same.
We have to remember that those with fundamental creationist belief systems were generally steeped in that belief system from birth, and those who strongly cling to it lack either critical thinking skills or adequate exposure or ability to comprehend the enormous body of evidence to the contrary. Hardly the fault of them.
Now, I’m not defending felons or people who intentionally deceive others with what they know is false. No am I defending those who in any non-defensive action attempt to cause harm to others (which is my minimum standard for calling someone “evil”). There are plenty of truly evil people in this word, but I don’t think that the evil people that are creationists have evil rooted in their creationism itself — it is simply a reflection of their character, and some use that character to couch or attempt to spread and/or enforce their creationist beliefs.
That said, I love this site and its mission, Phil. Keep up the good work!
> CSE has sent YouTube many of these notices, and YouTube has been responding by suspending the accounts of the users. I don’t blame YouTube for this; they have to take down the videos until they can determine what’s what.
They may have to take down the videos, but under no interpretation of the law do they have to suspend user accounts, certainly not before they have “determined what’s best”. In this case this should be, at least, until the user has had a chance to respond with a DMCA counter-notice. If they file a counter-notice and Hovind doesn’t file suit in a real court within 14 days, the law *requires* Google to reinstate the videos, even if Google’s private judgement says the videos are infringing.
And if Google wanted to side with the users, they could after receiving the counter-notice (and deciding the user was right in this case) sue Hovind. Apparently, the submitter of a fraudulent DMCA notice becomes liable for damages to the service provider and not (just) to the end user who posted the video.
Ref: http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132
Regarding the DMCA notices and Youtube actions in this case, not enough details are in the linked posts. On the RRS site they write that “Unlike false copyright complaints, we’re unsure currently how we can have this rectified at the youtube level.” So was this a DMCA notice or not? Either way, Youtube/Google shouldn’t be absolved of all responsibility just like that for suspending user accounts without due process.
Phil, great to see you help bring this issue the publicity it deserves!
Rand - the thing is that even if the material was copyrighted, the use of the material in the videos that were pulled clearly fell under “fair use”, which allows the inclusion of clips of copyrighted material for the non-profit purposes of education or criticism.
No matter how you look at it, CSE were NOT within their rights to claim copyright infringement over material that used short clips of their material for the purposes of criticism.
In addition, CSE has claimed copyright over completely original material, which contains only briefly displayed photos of Kent Hovind - by no conceivable stretch of imagination do they have any plausible claim over such material.
I do not know what sort of penalties the law dictates for such abuse of copyright claims, but I do hope that it’s not just a slap on the wrist. If there aren’t swift and significant repercussions, then there’s the danger that this sort of abuse will become a tactic commonly used by pseudoscientists and various frauds and peddlers of superstition, to silence the critics they’d rather not face.
Not all creationists are evil. They are all wrong, but not necessarily evil.
Hovind is a) a creationist, b) a liar, and 3) evil. Therefore my use of these words is correct.
Phil,
Thank you for helping spread the word. I will post about this later today.
Priceless video, especially the cartoon song at the end
Let’s hope this is competently & swiftly resolved.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/09/hovinds_goons_u.html
Can’t seem to access the Dawkins forum at the moment, but I’ll create a thread there (unless someone else hasn’t done so already).
I’ve heard of this problem before on youtube. You don’t even have to have any evidence that someone has used copyrighted material, you can just accuse them. And of course, youtube has to play it safe and take it down.
Kent’s a pain in the *** even when he’s already in jail! Grrrrr!!!
As I understand it (and IANAL), Fair Use can be used as a defense against a claim of copyright infringement — i.e. after the filing of a lawsuit. The situation with DMCA is not so clear-cut. It may be that the law will be interpreted such that fair use cannot be claimed in a DMCA action. (Intellectual property law experts, correct me if I’m wrong about that!)
Rand is correct in saying that the copyright holder may assert that right at any time, even if it was waived earlier (as in this case). So if fair use is out of play and CSE chooses to revoke the waiver of copyright, we may never see those videos on YouTube again.
It certainly seems to me that the revocation of the accounts should and will be overturned. But once again, this is only a layman’s opinion.
In any case, the videos criticizing Hovind’s argument are a clear case of fair use.
It seems to me that the simplest thing we should do is just mirror the hell out of all the videos that Kent doesn’t like. Is he going to try and send out bogus DMCA notices to 100 people if they are all posting the videos in question via their own separate youtube accounts? I mean, how much resources does it take for them to get a lawyer to issue the paperwork versus the effort required to just click the upload button in youtube?
Somebody just needs to get all the videos in question in avi or mpg format and start spreading them around.
i would suggest that if you are savvy enough that you get a copy of these videos and repost on your own YouTube account (or newly created account if you don’t want your main one locked) so that there are a bunch of users with these videos.
Having said that, it’s a little harder than that because in order to keep a “banned” video on YouTube you can’t just take the original video and upload it again because YouTube is smart enough to recognize the “signature” of a video. You have to tweak the video a little, chop out the first 2 seconds (although I hear that doesn’t work anymore) or chop out a blurb in the middle (hopefully without messing up the content).
Or maybe add your own intro title and closing credits to make them look different. Suggested title, “Doing my part to thwart Creationist CyberTerrorism (or DoucheBag-ism)”
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24328&p=405486#p405486
Slashdot had a related article about this earlier today (companies forcing youtube to take down videos). They pointed out that the locked user can file a DMCA counter-claim
once again the creationist activist community has shown their duplicitious side. they are liars and worse everyone with a youtube account should repost those vids, they can’t DMCA everyone
[…] liar, fraud, huckster, swindler Kent Hovind gets videos exposing his lies removed from YouTube. More from the Bad Astronomer: There’s only one small problem: Hovind has said in the past that his videos are not copyrighted! […]
[…] liar, fraud, huckster, swindler Kent Hovind gets videos exposing his lies removed from YouTube. More from the Bad Astronomer: There’s only one small problem: Hovind has said in the past that his videos are not copyrighted! […]
Filing a DMCA takedown claim is incredibly easy. It doesn’t take more than a few minutes, and doesn’t require a lawyer. On the other hand, issuing a counter-claim under the DMCA is equally as easy.
From looking at the sites linked, I can’t see any mention of the people whose accounts were suspended having made a counter-claim, in which case YouTube is acting entirely appropriately, doing as they are obligated by the law.
http://www.denisemccune.com/blog/2007/09/on_sfwa_vs_scribdcom_the_dmca.html has some nice info on the DMCA.
From Hovinds point of view, he’s not evil. He’s just trying to make a few(million) bucks. In a society that espouses a “greed is good” attitude, how could anyone possibly take umbrage? I rather doubt he’s really a creationist believer either. It’s merely the easiest way to drain the bank accounts of gullible people. Now, as to lying, well yeah! You certainly aren’t going to make money off the gullible by telling them the truth, as in,”Hi. I’m here to RIP YOU OFF. Now, start forking over those bucks!!!”
In simpler times, when low tech tribes were faced with the necessity of separating the truly human from the human-like, they used man hood tests to identify those with the ability to control their instinctual drives. Those who failed were often times slowly simmered over a low fire for many hours until they were appropriately tenderized. Thus the psychotics and serious sociopaths became usable protein. Perhaps we’ve gone too far in our development of “civilized” behavior???
Gary 7
Nice one, it’s fantastic to see someone calling these guys’ bluffs.
Keep up the good work.
Make them less receptible than they are?
Divide by zero?
[…] BadAstronomy - helping to spread the word, by Dr. Phil Plait) Kent Hovind is an evil creationist liar who is currently cooling his backside […]
Thank you for posting this!
I’m going to have that song in my head all day at work tomorrow……
Submitted to FARK.com, got redlit..don’t know why (not interesting enuff for the masses.?)
I tried.
Passing this on to all I know..thanks, Phil, for keeping such as this in the spotlight.
‘Inconsistent’ - perhaps.
But labeling an alleged moralist
[even religious] person who’s been
imprisoned for his non-payment of
federal taxes -&during an immoral war-
“felonious” ?
This ;iteralism is hardly staking
any moral high ground, my people.
I can salute Hovind for refusing to fly
under that radar.
I’d rather soon join him,
and Irwin Schiff, if it means opposing
this illegal, politicized administration.
After all, that branch of ‘evil-doers’
has successfully manipulated our
courts. Most of America’s felons
are my politcal allies!
This is exactly the wrong way to go about something like this.
Youtube is just covering their collective ass. File a DMCA counter notification. Youtube will then be in the clear to post the videos again, and any further ado will be between the two claimants.
Regarding a recent similar issue:
quote:
…Knight had the courage to file a DMCA counter-notification claim with YouTube - something that happens all too rarely on the net, according to Fred von Lohmann, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a big-name digital watchdog.
“Almost no one ever files a counter notice. That’s the biggest problem we’ve encountered [with DMCA claims on sites like YouTube],” von Lohmann told us. “Most people have no idea that right exists.”
Plus, in filing a counter notice, you risk a lawsuit. “It can be very intimidating when you’re just one guy against a media company. In order to send a counter notice, you have to certify that you believe the take-down was inappropriate - and you have to certify your willingness to be sued.”
source: http://www.theregister.com/2007/09/13/youtube_viacom_bow_to_light_sabre_wielding_video_maven/page2.html
I’ve actually had the pleasure of hearing Kent Hovind speak in public. He generally speaks only to Baptist Church audiences, where a couple thousand people, nearly all of them uneducated in the ways of science, listen rapturously to all his oh-so-reasonable explanations of why it makes perfect sense that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Afterwards, he made this really awesome paper airplane that flew really high and got stuck on the roof of the church.
But anyway, that’s pretty much what Hovind is best at - preaching to the choir, in complete isolation from any real scientific context. He very, very rarely agrees to debate the issue with scientists, and then he regales his audiences with stories of how he totally made a fool of those secular scientists by totally busting their claims of silly things like “rivers carving out canyons” and “radiocarbon dating.”
I was pretty happy when I read a few months ago that he was in jail.
But I don’t know, I’m not getting as riled up about this particular incident as you are, because I see it more as a problem with YouTube itself. I always hated YouTube, so bull like this hardly surprises me.
God is why, science is how. And men like that give any religion at all a bad name.
Activate “Think like the enemy mode”:
He must have been created for the purpose of colonizing Pluto.
Deactivate “Think like the enemy mode”.
I think few people know that it’s possible to contest a takedown notice, or how to go about that. One organization can file dozens of takedown notices against different parties, but each of those parties is individually responsible for defending their work, and many of the most likely don’t know how. So the “shoot ‘em all” approach is effective in getting at least some content removed.
It would be nice if, when signing up for a YouTube account, there was a checkbox (checked by default): “Do you agree to allow YouTube to file DMCA reinstatement notices on your behalf?” Then YouTube wouldn’t even have to remove videos in response to takedown notices; they could immediately file a reinstatement notice and then notify the video’s poster of the event.
BA, it really looks to me like you’re using the words “evil” and “liar” to deliberately incite a lawsuit from Hovind, a la PZ Meyers’s “crackpot” case. This would bring a lot of publicity to you, your site, and the science you promote here, so of course it’s in your best interest.
I fully support you in this effort. Bring it on
No way, Carey, BA is too good for that. Sueing is wrong.
I just dropped by my Youtube account.
Half my subscriptions are missing. Because of these guys.
Give ‘em hall, Phil.
I am appauled by Hovind’s actions. However, it is not right to generalize all creationists as “evil liars.” Hovind is a scumbag..but not all creationists.
Sorry about that Pluto comment. I now understand that even if it was a joke, it was mean and not funny.
Video download not working… let me know by email where I can download them, i’ll make sure they get another extra home to be in… where they are not and cannot be protected by american copyright laws, since it’s newsworthy and contextually quoted with regards to a debate about current affairs, and if anybody files a dmca against them, they are in for alot of trouble.
PZ Myers cites several spots where Hovind gives express permission to copy his stuff: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/more_lawyer_games_from_creatio.php
Go to http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html to file a D-I-Y Counter Claim. The DMCA shouldn’t be abused to destroy free speech.
We ought to thank both Google and Mr. Hovind for this.
More people will hear about this than if Mr. Hovind hadn’t said a thing.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t watch the Emmy’s on TV last night and would never have known about Sally Field being censored when speaking out against the Iraq War. Thank you Fox for being such perfect idiots.
Go Gidget Go.
Enjoy.
No, I’m not trying to incite Hovind to sue me. I am trying to do the right thing, which is to expose this guy for the slimeball he is.
I disagree. If someone says their work is “not copyrighted” it is very likely that they are declaring that it is in the Public Domain as opposed to an implicit copyright license. Copyright licenses only work if the work is copyrighted. He certainly didn’t release his work under an explicit license with with caveats and such–nor could he if the work is “not copyrighted”–so Public Domain is really the only reasonable interpretation.
Once a work is released to the Public Domain it is free for all to use forever. It is a bell that cannot be un-rung otherwise the concept of the Public Domain would have no value since authors could simply remove their works at will, stranding people who had used the works and causing harm and unfair legal jeopardy to those users. Fortunately that is not how the Public Domain works.
While copyright automatically applies to your work on creation you can relinquish this copyright and release into the public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain). This release is one way, you can’t get it back.
Whether the precise wording that Hovind used initially is equivalent to releasing into the public domain, I don’t know. However, what he did write would seem to be irreversible for those materials. He can, obviously, retain full rights over new material…
Of course, fair use for criticism is, as noted above, a legal exception even if he retains full copyright.
Happy to link to your story in my blog.
http://buddhaglass.blogspot.com/
Looks like Hovind has a history of ignoring the law:
The building of [Kent Hovind’s Dinosaur Adventure Land] has created a “tempest in a teapot†kind of controversy with local government. Essentially, Hovind converted the backyard of his home at 29 Cummings Road into a theme park, improvising an entrance off Palafox and refusing to file the proper zoning-permit requests with Escambia County. Hovind was charged on September 13, 2002, for failure to observe county zoning regulations, but through many legal maneuvers (multiple requests to have judges recuse themselves, switching lawyers and eventually requesting a public defender, and various stays requested, once for failing to appear), the case is approaching its two-year anniversary in the court system with no conclusion imminent. The charge is a second-degree misdemeanor resulting from refusing to pay a $50 permitting fee.
This is not Hovind’s only scrape with the law (a visit to the Escambia County Clerk of the Courts Web site shows over a dozen court cases involving Hovind and his family). A month before the misdemeanor charge, Hovind was charged with felony assault, battery, and burglary with assault or battery. Charges were dropped in December 2002 when the victim, a member of Hovind’s congregation, withdrew the complaint. (A lengthy description of the incident and an e-mail tit-for-tat between Hovind and his accuser can be found at http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind.) More significantly, the Internal Revenue Service raided Hovind’s home and office in April 2004, confiscating financial documents related to the ministry and the park since January 1997. The IRS is charging that Hovind is evading taxes on more than $1 million in annual income and does not have a business license nor tax-exempt status for his ministry and the park (Norman 2004).
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/hovind.html
You don’t blame YouTube? I sure do. Those spineless gits need to stop caving in to every complaint and actually investigate them first. It is rediculous how quickly YouTube accepts a complaint and jerks the video being complained about. This isn’t a recent thing, it’s been an epidemic for years now. Those users who get suspended should *sue* YouTube for this, I swear; they must be violating their own TOS somehow.
Anyone can view the older page through the “wayback machine”, http://www.archive.org/index.php
Anyone can view the older web page through the “wayback machine”,
http://www.archive.org/index.php
Once you put something on the Internet, you can’t take it back.
I think there should be a public record of successfully countered take-down notices.
Then when someone receives a take-down notice, they can check to see whether the sender has a history of harassing people using the DMCA.
I just coincidentally caught Headline News talking about the Emmys. They mentioned Sally Fields. You know what they said? She stuttered through her acceptance speech, and lost her place when the audience applauded. No mention of censoring.
I just checked the YouTube website for policies on copyright infringement. The Help Center has a page of policies:
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/topic.py?topic=10550
Specifically:
So Hovind et al are filing statements of copyright infringement, and YouTube is responding as legally required and pulling the offending material. Furthermore, for accounts with multiple violations, they are following their own clearly stated policy and terminating those accounts. However, they notified the account holders of the DCMA claim against them. The linked article about Christopher Knight demonstrates that if you file a counter claim, they will repost the material and reinstate the accounts, per law. Ergo, the first response should be to file the counter claim.
That said, it is still smarmy for Hovind to be making these claims of copyright infringements and having material pulled.
JK said:
> I think few people know that it’s possible to contest a takedown notice, or how to go about that. One organization can file dozens of takedown notices against different parties, but each of those parties is individually responsible for defending their work, and many of the most likely don’t know how. So the “shoot ‘em all†approach is effective in getting at least some content removed.
True, but YouTube posts in the help section instructions for how to file the counter notice.
http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=58127
So YouTube can’t be faulted for following the law that requires them to pull copyright infringing materials upon notification, and they make the information easy to find and easy to follow for both takedown notifications and counternotifications.
> It would be nice if, when signing up for a YouTube account, there was a checkbox (checked by default): “Do you agree to allow YouTube to file DMCA reinstatement notices on your behalf?†Then YouTube wouldn’t even have to remove videos in response to takedown notices; they could immediately file a reinstatement notice and then notify the video’s poster of the event.
Won’t work. First off, if YouTube filed the counter notifications, they would be explicitly making themselves open to liability for any copyright infringement. The whole purpose of the DCMA is to protect orgs like YouTube to post materials and be covered for inadvertent infringement by third parties using their site. If they actively file the counternotice, they are claiming they know what material is copyright protected, what is Public Domain, and what is Fair Use. Thus, they become liable.
Shade Tail said:
> You don’t blame YouTube? I sure do. Those spineless gits need to stop caving in to every complaint and actually investigate them first. It is rediculous how quickly YouTube accepts a complaint and jerks the video being complained about.
Except YouTube is explicitly following the DCMA law regarding safe haven. They HAVE to pull the material upon notification, and can’t wait to investigate. They are acting fairly by notifying you that your material was pulled because of a DCMA notification and telling you how to file a counter notification. They can’t repost until they receive a counter notification. Otherwise, they are legally liable and could be sued for infringement. You may not like it, but that is the law. As for violating their own TOS, no they are not. Read them. I linked above to them. They pull accounts for repeat violators of copyright. If you counter notify, then they will reinstate.
Okay, Headline News had another Emmy segment. This time them mentioned the censoring, and showed both what home viewers saw and what she said.
So far so good
Not really. (1) if you give someone the right to copy a work freely, you cant unilaterally revoke that right. You can cease granting that right to new people, but you cant unilaterally revoke it from those you have already granted it to. And (2) if you explicitly state that it is not copyrighted, as Hovind did, that places the work in the public domain, and once a work is in the public domain, it cannot be removed.
IOW, everything is copyrighted by default, but you can waive copyright, and Hovinds earlier actions have done so.
Dan Armak said:
> They may have to take down the videos, but under no interpretation of the law do they have to suspend user accounts, certainly not before they have “determined what’s bestâ€. In this case this should be, at least, until the user has had a chance to respond with a DMCA counter-notice. If they file a counter-notice and Hovind doesn’t file suit in a real court within 14 days, the law *requires* Google to reinstate the videos, even if Google’s private judgement says the videos are infringing….
> Either way, Youtube/Google shouldn’t be absolved of all responsibility just like that for suspending user accounts without due process.
Hold on. I don’t know the full details of the incidents in question, but can guess at a sequence of events that does absolve YouTube. When they receive the DMCA notice, they have to pull the video and notify the video poster. If the poster files the counter notice, they have to notify the original claim filer, and if no lawsuit is opened in 14 days, then they repost. If the person who posted the videos does NOT file the counterclaim and reposts, or even if they do counterclaim but repost the material before the 14 day period, then they are repeating the copyright violation and showing a disregard for the legal system. YouTube is right to protect their safe haven by canceling accounts of users who disregard the legal process and violate YouTube policy (repeat copyright violations). If it is eventually shown that the original poster was not violating copyright, or the counterfile goes into effect and no lawsuit is filed in 14 days, then the user can get their account reinstated.
> And if Google wanted to side with the users, they could after receiving the counter-notice (and deciding the user was right in this case) sue Hovind. Apparently, the submitter of a fraudulent DMCA notice becomes liable for damages to the service provider and not (just) to the end user who posted the video.
Yes, but they would have to show legal damages in order to sue Hovind. The only damages I can think they could come up with is damage to reputation, and that’s probably hard to defend. Certainly there’s no dollar damages because the user accounts are free.
ShavenYak’s very clever, but if we went with that set of commandments, we’d be free to murder and fornicate, as long as we didn’t have steak with béarnaise sauce.
Canonically, the Ninth Commandment is “Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.” (Exodus 20:16, repeated in Deuteronomy 5:20).
Just for clarity, there are 613 Commandments (mitzvot); those ten are sort of cherry-picked for Christian purposes; the ones that appear in Ex 34, because they deal with ritual observance only, get read down for us Gentiles, and apply only as much as, say, the prohibition on planting trees in the churchyard (Deut 16:21), astrology (Lev 19:26), or the need to call a priest to inspect the shower if there’s mould growing in it, and ensuing utter chaos (Lev 14:34-57).
Hey! it looks like the videos are back up on youtube.
Check out http://www.rationalresponders.com/
I guess sometimes the good guys do win.
[…] had to laugh while reading this article about a Creationist who ended up in prison: Bad Astronomy Blog » Kent Hovind: creationist liar and evil, evil, evil It’s funny because not so long ago a Creationist from here actually tried to stop me from posting […]
[…] to suppress criticisms of his bad science. Well, check this out: now CSE has been caught red-handed revising their licensing. Where before they declared everything free and good to disseminate, now they are retroactively […]
Why can’t the same be done to them. Since the DMCA puts the onus on the wrong side, it could also be used on creationists to hamper their efforts to spread ignorance
Sure 2 wrongs don’t make a right…. except maybe in this case
I didn’t get to read all the comments but a lot of the ones I read were pure creationist-bashing. I don’t know much about this Hovind person or what he did, but no matter what he did, he’s not an evil person… just maybe very stupid.
Some of you say the creation views are ignorant…. I have not learned much about evolution but I do not see how that could be possible. Maybe I have just not heard all the facts, or maybe I have heard false facts, I just don’t know yet, but that doesn’t give me the right to go around saying it’s an evil belief and that it is -an irrational philosophy, gibberish that’s utterly worthless- (and yes, I call evoluion a belief just as I call creation a belief because none of us were there to actually witness it.)
I have been a Christian since I was young enough to know what God was, but I try not to look at facts with a biased view. Still, I hear an evolutionist’s explination and can see the holes in it.
Oh, also something I just thought of that has nothing really to do with creation/evolution, (hey, just stop reading if I’m making you angry) but all you who hate Christians, I almost don’t blame you. Christians have made it hard for people to like them. But they’re human, just like you are, and humans make mistakes. Even if you don’t share their veiw-point you can still be nice and hear what they have to say without taking their heads off for it, even if you refuse to be open-minded to it (don’t worry, we’re being close-minded when you talk, too.)
If you don’t like my opinion, I’m sorry, but that’s what it is, and if you really want to you can have your own opinion, but that’s what it is.
(Sorry if there are typos and mistakes, I usually proof-read everything but it’s late and I’m seeing two of everything.)
To allyou folk out there especially you “loving” evolutionists who label creationists as “evil”, then please provide the proof of evolution and the falsity of creationism. I’m a dumbo. I’ve heard His side of his story (Creation). Now lets hear yours. If youre man enough to right the right the wrong. Normally it is the atheists who are so vociferously make such remarks without proving that God does exist. I’m agnostic. I’m not sure God exists. So how about it you atheists and evolutionists, show me what modicum of intelligence that permeates the grey matter of your “superiorness” over believers of creationists!!!
Just like an evolutionist, attack the person with third party innuendos and avoid attacking the persons theory with first person stated facts. In the end though , given a choice, even with his infalibilities, Im far better off on Kents side.
[…] read more | digg story […]
Only in america can a person like kent hovind be put in jail for nothing. He asked the irs to show him why he owned taxes for his ministery they never even responded back. He even said he will pay everything if they showed him why, not even a response. It says in THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICA that any that any religious entity is tax exempt, but i guess the constitution in the words of bush sr. “is a god damn piece of paper”. He is in jail for using his right of freedom of speech. He gets 10 years while child rapists and murderers get slaps on the wriste or maybe worse a $22 fine, now thats justice amazing. There is no evidance that the evolution theory is a fact, thats why they call it a theory. All of you say he dose not have a real degree or the qualifications to be a scientist. Guess what , Charels darwin and charles lyle pretty much the founders of the evolution theory. Darwin went to collage to be a pastor no science classes period, but yet all you evolutionists believe every word of his book. Lyle the author of the geological colum (The book that darwin read right after collage and started believing in this theory) was a lawyer. No biology classes, anytype of science classes, a man who lies for a living, but yet all of you believe every word.
In 1960 classroom books read the earth is 500 million years old. 1970 it was 900 million. 1980 it was 1.5 billion. When i was in school it was 2.5 to 3 billion and now its 4 to 6 billion. I say that the earth is somewhere between one week and ten billion years old, now lets say that is a scientific fact and put it in our school books, wow already feel like a believer in the evolution religion.
But I guess people that talk about what the goverment disaproves of go to jail. Wow reminds me of when I Lived in communist russia same story, but one difference russia dose not do that anymore.
My friends, I have been studying physics and chemistry for five and a half years now and have had lots of time to think about cosmology for many years before that. If what you are saying is so true, why do you go about raging viciously against Hovind? Of what are you really afraid? What is it that makes you so angry? Where is your calm, reflective reality?
I mean, if you are correct, you have the answers and he is just like you only mislead. Why do you hate so and justify his doctrine of sin in which the very wickedness in which you rage against him and other persons is exposed. You are indicted by your own actions.
Is not the real reason that you are wilfully ignorant of the creation? I have studied science tertiary level for four years and am more and more convinced (in every way) of creation every day. However, holding this conviction I am not the least bit intimidated by the false view of evolution nor am I afraid of an objective honest enquiry.
Why do you behave so insecurely, if after all you were really right? As for me I seek to win you for your sake, not with malice, but with a respectful challenge. After all, the premise that I take is one in which all mankind is of one blood and we are all descendents of Adam and Eve through Noah (whether we realise this or not).
There is enough evil in the world. What can be gained now by adding to it. As for Hovind, I do not know all the facts. I do know however, that evil persons often walk free and that good people sometimes are imprisoned (which is not to prove/disprove his innocence).
Who would not agree that Galileo was not wrongfully put under house arrest by the authorities of his day? Who would not say that Socrates was wrongfully sentenced to death?
Is it not so that in America, religious organisations are tax exempt? Was it not under this premise that Hovind operated? Naive or not, Hovind is not automatically guilty.
He is one of the best persons in our cruel world! he tells the truth! Everybody should believe in Bible and Creation because iur Lord is coming very soon!
[…] the project goes any further, I want to be sure that Kent Hovind, creationist, liar, convicted felon, and Pseudo-Scientific Douche-Bag with a fake “Dr.” degree from a fake […]
Well said “Physics and Chemistry Uni Student”.
Evolution is an unproven myth, but I defend evolutionists’ right to be wrong, to the end…. and guys, as far as Kent Hovind is concerned, rather than hurling hate and invective at him…try to forgive, and don’t fall into the age old trap of judging Christianity, by Christians…. none of us are perfect….instead, look to our perfect Christ.
The problem with people like you (Phil) is that you say you reject creation because there are no facts (according to you) to support it. Why don’t you be honest with yourself and admit that even if you saw cast-iron proof that supported creation, you would still refuse to accept it? You see, accepting creation means accepting the one who created it all - God, the creator, and thus, life takes on a whole different perspective, namely, that you are accountable to him because he made you! That, is what evolutions/atheists just cannot stomach because it means all men will stand before God and answer to him.
When you take evolution to it’s logical conclusion you are left with one thing - NO PURPOSE TO LIFE. Therefore, it is far more comfortable to believe in something (yes evolution requires mountains of faith) that means a person can live life as wickedly as they want to and not be held responsible or punished.
Well Phil, it’s like this; if I follow your evolution, I can do what I want and get away with it. Let’s face it, many go through life pursuing nothing but evil and destruction. However, If I follow God’s Word, then it’s a different ball game because the day of reckoning is coming for all of us. Who’s got more to loose Phili, you or me?
P.S - you say you like facts. Show me your facts to support your hypothesis. Here are mine - the 2 laws of thermodynamics! study them!!!!!
Craig.
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of Gos is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23.
You know dr hovind is right so u put him i jail.
Hovind, is fighting for your brains not to be washed with Satanic propoganda. Survivor of the fittest. The weak die the strong proceed.
The taxes that are not paid to teach your children shoot each other.
Because most of you don’t listen there will be more shootings, more violance, more opression, more desasters, untill everything that could be shaken is shaken. One day your eyes will open to the truth but it will be too late. Like in the days of Noha people are so full of themselves, talking about science and how smart they are. Show me one person that can live a thousand (at list) years by his will, or if you are so smart by the “wonderful” law of evollution and controll your destiny. Say no to death and I will take my words back. Until then I say most of you are doomed. God sends the prophets so people would listen, but the history of the mankind is so repetative and predictable. You will say no to God, no to truth, no to anything good. But it is fulishness of the mankind, the wise of the world are stupid, because they live in the short term. Hovind lives in the long term.
What harm has he done and what bad in the physical sense his teaching created? Evolution created: Suicidal rate
Divorce rate, adultary (VICH, Parentless children, abortion every day 4000 babies is killed in US registered), racial hatrid, Feminism, Greed, violence, murder, rape, prostitution, homosexuality, preversion.
Fill the land with the inocent blood, sin and rebelion against God and
feel the breath of wreath of God almighty responding to the Sadom’s and Homora’s filled cup of sin. One more drop and the evolution will not save you, while Hovind will get his reward for the faitfulness.
Wow it’s amazing to me how you call the man evil. So, you must believe there is such a thing as evil, while there is also such a thing as good? Then it wouldn’t it be safe to say there is such a thing as a morale law, to differentiate between good and evil. And if you posit such thing as a morale law, you must posit a morale law giver, but that’s exactly what you are trying to disprove. If there is no morale law giver, then there is no morale law. If there is no morale law, then there is no good. If there is no good then there is no evil. So explain to me what you mean by calling him an evil man?