Thanks for your legal analysis, Consi.  When you look at this as false advertising, it does seem like it might be actionable.  I think it’s going to be hard, though, to find someone willing to pursue the slippery “Doctor”.

And thanks for adding “colorable” to my vocabulary.

You guys are all acting plain Elementary!!

LISTEN UP EVOLUTIONIST BULLIES. IT’S TIME TO REVEAL YOUR MATH!!

1)You believe in Science Pranks, which none of you personally experienced; while you, yourselves condemn Christians for believing Bible, which they have personally experienced.
2)You believe that the world was created out of dirt, without a designer; while you, yourselves condemn Christians for believing that people came from dirt, with a Designer behind it.
3)You, yourselves believe that energy started from nothing. This BREAKS the Proven Science Law! Yet, you condemn Christians, who believe that God (intelligent energy), who always existed, created people.
4)Evolutionism is clearly a Theory. There is a reason behind it. It’s because it has not been proven.

GO AHEAD, BURN WITH ANGER, BECAUSE YOU CAN’T STOP IT.

SWEAR, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER YOUR TONGUE.

THINK THE WORST ABOUT ME, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO TASTE.

I not trying to annoy you, but yes, I am trying to unhide your shame.

With my fairest heart, I am only asking you not to lie to yourself. You will only indulge yourself in wrong.

If you guys are ready to be honest, admit it to yourself and Email me. . I will be more then happy to reason with you fairly.

Also those who have trouble freeing themselves from drugs, alcohol, hatred, those who find no value in themselves, write me email, I am there for you. I want to help you.

Your point number three… Care to explain exactly how energy jumping in and out of existance breaks the “laws” of science? And why are you telling evolutionists what they think? We evolutionsists are far better qualified to tell you what we think than you tell us what we think.

Oh, and, I have experianced some science: ever fall up? I have not. There is direct experiance of “science”; gravity.

Cheers

Please tell me that English isn’t “Tim’s” native language cause if it is he could do with some remedial education in it.

Otherwise it’s was a very funny bit of ranting on his part notable mainly for his ignorance of science and what a “theory” is.

1) You were there when God created the universe? You were there during the raining of sulpher? When Lott’s wife became a pillar of salt? If not, you didn’t experience it personally. You either lie, miscompare the nature of “personal experience” between two different things, or hold a different definition of “personal experience” than most people. To present your argument more clearly, please define “personal experience” in the context of your argument.

2) Neither I, nor anyone else I know condemn Christians for believing in God. As an atheist, I simply posit that a designer isn’t necessary (for that matter, neither are manifold orders from said designer of how I ought to live my life). As far as coming from dirt, we don’t actually say that (if you look at a formal definition of dirt, it’s an inspecific mixture of minerals). With reference to biology and to human beings, not just any minerals would suffice to create the building blocks of life. Before you make such statements, bring proper definitions in tow to support your argument. With regard to the origins of things in the universe, that’s more questionable, and that has to do with Physics (see below).

3)Physicists who stand behind the notion of the Big Bang do not posit that light came from nothing - they posit that universe as we know it emerged from an incredible mass (I’ll mind that physics is a very different area of study from evolution - you’re addressing the wrong crowd here), and that that mass destabilized and scattered, releasing high energy waves (light) that formed into matter and anti-matter and spread throughout the universe. It does not say where that matter began (although if it’s safe to say that God has always existed, it is no less odd to say that that mass had always existed). The notion of the Big Bang is continuing to be tested, since there are many things in the universe that we are still coming to understand. The Big Bang may have sufficed to describe all the information we had on the universe when it was devised. However, there are other things we’re still trying to test against the picture of the universe that would be drawn with the Big Bang. We’re still learning.

4)Yes, evolution is a theory, and if you can’t come to the grips that it’s not absolutely true, then you can’t claim to understand the nature of science. Science is iterative. We don’t claim to know everything - quite the opposite, actually. We work to make as few assumptions as possible, and to verify all assumptions. If we learn something new, then we have to account for it in the current hypothesis. If we assert any statement to be true, it has to account for material evidence. If it makes claims that go beyond the evidence, then those claims must be tested. The end result is not us knowing everything, but working very hard to make as few mistakes as possible.

I am not ashamed to be an atheist, nor am I ashamed in my belief that science is doing us well as a species. We need medicine to heal the sick, homes for our people, and food for our booming population. Science is not perfect, that’s true, but it is the strongest provider of these things. You can tell me you owe nothing to the diligent scientific work of millions of people when you can survive without food, shelter, or medicine.

I have not lied to myself in the least. In fact, I hope I have been very clear in why I feel my position is a good one - for me, and for others. Science has done us great good, and it is worthy of respect.

In the future, please come prepared with proper definitions and sound grounds for your statements. You have made a number of faulty comparisons, incorrect statements, and a general misunderstanding of the scientific process. I’d appreciate it if you got to know your material better before you return with your argument.

Nice try, Tim. Try not to forget to take your meds tomorrow.

*Cheap shot, I know. I couldn’t resist.*

Also those who have trouble freeing themselves from their religious delusions, those who find no value in themselves, write me email, I am there for you. I want to help you.

Tim? Please stay around. You can be cured.

It cracks me up!  Ask someone if they believe in Christ… if they say no, tell them they are going to hell!  They usually get mad at that statement..DOH!

When I say they, I mean you people going to HELL!  Have fun.

Isn’t that the place in the Mid West.  I don’t have a passport (an indate one at least) at the moment.  How am I going to get there?  Will I have trouble at Idlewild*?

(*“Though this be madness, yet there is method in ‘t.“

—From Hamlet (II, ii))

James, you might as well declare that I’m flying to Atlantis or the Emerald City of Oz tomorrow. All it does is show that you’re a firm believer in fiction.  Good luck with that.

I’ve been to Hell several times. Nice little town. Had dinner there not too long ago.

i’ll pray for every1 that believe dr.hovind is mistaken.i know dr.hovind will 2.

Katie.  ‘Dr’ Hovind is already eternally damned to a an eternity of HELL for denying the one truth that is the Flying Spagetti Monster.  REPENT OR YOU TO WILL DE HATED by every NOODLY APPENDAGE. REPENT YOUR FALSE GOD. YOU CAN NOT DISPROVE the FSM. If your devil worshipping was true then YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DISPROVE HIM. But you CAN’T. The FSM MADE YOU.  EMBRACE his noodily APPENDAGES.

RAMEN

You go ahead and pray, Katie. I’m sure it’ll do a world of good.

You go ahead a pray, but please do so after you’ve finished a remedial English course.

Les: I’ve been to Hell several times. Nice little town. Had dinner there not too long ago.

You went to Norway?

Hovind threads are troll magnets, I think they’re doing some sort of googling, but SEB seems hardly the first offerings for a straight “hovind” search

Nope, Bahamat, I went to Hell, Michigan. Hell is less than 20 minutes away from where I live.

katie-  u 10d 2 xpress urself q-tly, but i’m sure u r a 1derful purrson.  i purrdict u will bee a gr8, be9 4ce in the whirled.

Death to ‘txt’ users.

Jihad! Jihad!

hallo. i am 8. why do you spend so much time hating this guy? i am not against. i am just wondering, go do something that makes you happy, why do you wanto spend time being agry with this man.

just curious
pealse dont be mad at me to.

Hi pretty kitty.  If you are really 8, then you did a very good job typing and sending your comment.

No one here is really angry with Kent Hovind.  We just think he did some wrong things.  And most of us do things that make us happy most of the time.  I do get angry sometimes, but I don’t like being angry, and it doesn’t help make the world a better place.

I am not mad at you, and no one else here will be either.  It is important to say what you think about things, even if you disagree with other people.  I think you are brave to come here and tell us what you think.

Have a good Easter.  Cheers from cold Vienna, zilch

Hello, pretty kitty.  I think you misunderstand what most of us are trying to explain, here. Most of us don’t “hate” Mr. Hovind. Many of us are angry that some of his false comments are making people do stupid things and we want to help those people to stop doing stupid things that may harm them or others. If a poisonous snake bites you, it may kill you, and we don’t want you to believe that some imaginary friend will help you better than a medical doctor. We encourage you to see the medical doctor first. Then, if it makes you happy, it’s OK to see your imaginary friend. Sometimes imaginary friends are a lot of fun.

I only skimmed a couple of your posts. So I am not coming from a position of taking issue with anything (at this point) on your blog, and it’s really not necessary. Though one comment you made I would submit for your consideration. You said science is not perfect. I know what you meant, but I would suggest that - no, science is perfect, people studying science are not, nor do we know the whole of science. If we knew it all, there’d be no need for scientists.
  That aside, a friend once told me there is no such thing as an atheist, then explained his reasoning thus by asking, “Would you say you know everything there is to know about the universe?“ Being intellectually honest, one has to answer - no. Next Question: Would you say you know half of everything there is know about the universe? Again, no. Next Question: How do you know God doesn’t exist in the half you know nothing about? And while the questions are a bit of a set-up, at face value they are fair enough questions - and many atheists answer, “I don’t”. So the final reasoning is - “then you’re not an atheist, you’re an agnostic.“ An agnostic is someone who believes, he doesn’t know if there is a God or not, and by your own admission, you don’t know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God.“ This is where the argument melts down a bit, because, in my understanding, the difference is, even when they admit they don’t know - they have concluded or reasoned within themselves there is not, whereas an agnostic has not taken a position on it one way or another.
What is your definition of an atheist?