Dino Adventure Land Could Face Extinction

Wow.

I don't think there's any possible response to that which would be funnier than the article itself.

OH man I wanted to go and play with the friendly dinosaurs.......

This is off-topic. Hope nobody minds too much. I saw a story either on Panda's Thumb or on one of the blogs linked to it a few days ago about a story of two doors, and the choices made about them. One respondent suggested something to do with their choice being sitting and watching what goes on, drink in hand. It was beautiful. A friend of mine passed away a couple of days ago, and it actually seemed like a great epitath. I'd like to find the quote and send it to her husband.

Can anybody help with this? Thanks in advance.

If church officials continue to refuse to comply with local ordinances, the judge may decide that the building can be razed, Allen's ruling said.

GvlGeologist, condolences on the loss of your friend. The story you're looking for is http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/doors.php

Back to the subject at hand...the stegosaurus fossil in that article looks designed to me, and it's probably less than 6,000 years old.

GvlGeologist, is this what you were looking for? It doesn't exactly match your description, but it's kind of close.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/doors.php#comment-64238

chaos_engineer:

Many thanks. I feel a little unclean posting that request in the same posting about... yecch... Dino Adventure Land.

On the other hand, she was a geologist, and this would probably make her laugh her head off.

Off topic, for GvlGeologist; I think you want Doors at Pharyngula, and possibly this comment by Jim.

Back on topic for Hovind: BWAAHAHAHA.

This isn't funny. If the park closes it could permanently damage kids education prospects!

I have to admit, the Stegosaurus is kinda cool. I think the NCSE should buy it when it gets auctioned off along with everything else that Hovind owns in order to pay his back taxes.

BTW, the IRS raid the article refers to was one of the first things I ever blogged here. I can't believe it's been two years already...

on perhaps a more positive dino museum note:

http://www.physorg.com/news63641065.html

world's biggest T Rex skull?

Speaking of Hovind's IRS problems:

Go to: http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/asp/CaseNo.asp
Use the following Docket Number: 011894-05L
The trial begins April 24.

Owners of the park, which shows how dinosaurs may have roamed the Earth just a few thousand years ago, did not obtain a building permit before constructing the building in 2002. They have argued in and out of court that it violates their "deeply held" religious beliefs, and that the church-run facility does not have to obtain permits.

Speaking of Hovind's IRS problems: Go to: http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/asp/CaseNo... Use the following Docket Number: 011894-05L The trial begins April 24.

wow wonder what the creos think of this..will we see smears of the officials involved or will they finally wash their hands of an embarrassment

Be sure to check out the pictures.

If you want to see something funnier than the newspaper article, go to the museum website http://www.dinosauradventureland.com/ and click on "Click Here to Read An Important Message about Dinosaur Adventure Land"

The best part is how he lists 5 or 6 ways that this situation could be speedily resolved. Of course, he forgets to mention that it could also be resolved if he just paid the stupid permit fee. One assumes that money is not an object since he also says that "DAL can move to a more God fearing county." Any God fearing counties out there that don't require building permits?

Status & Disclosure Declaration of Material Facts of Kent Hovind, 29 Cummings Road Pensacola, Florida [32503] Dear Special Agent Scott M. Schneider: Declaration and Administrative Notice of Kent Hovind: [...] DECLARANT STATES AS FOLLOWS: 1. My name is Kent Hovind; herein after Declarant. I am a living, moral being endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and property, and all substantive rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Florida, declare the following for the years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. 2. As a private man Declarant is a Citizen of Florida, which is a State of the Union. 3. Declarant's abode and dwelling is geographically located in Florida, which is a State of the Union. [...] 16. Declarant is not now and never has been a citizen or resident of the geographical United States, including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (See definitions of "United States", "State", and "citizen" at 26 CFR § 31.3121 (e)-1; see also definitions of "United States" & "State" at 26 U.S.C. subsections 7701(a)(9) & (10)) 17. Declarant is not now and never has been a citizen or resident of the political coalition, compact or alliance of territories and insular possessions of the United States known as the [Federal] United States of America (not to be confused with the Union of States party to the Constitution known as the United States of America, established in the Articles of Confederation). (See notes following 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 40 Stat. 1015, c. 194) 18. Declarant is not a nonresident alien, nor a principal of a foreign corporation, operating within the United States. (See chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code generally; gross income "source" relating to items of income from taxable sources listed at 26 U.S.C. § 61 & 26 CFR § 1.861-8 generally, and requirements for withholding at 26 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq.) 19. Declarant is not a resident alien lawfully admitted to a State of the Union, the District of Columbia, or an insular possession of the United States. 20. Declarant states in the calendar year or years specified above, Declarant did not serve as an officer or employee of the Government of the United States, the District of Columbia, or an insular possession of the United States, nor as an officer of a corporation in which the United States or the [Federal] United States of America has a proprietary interest. (26 U.S.C. §§ 3401(c) & (d) and 31 U.S.C. § 9101) 21. Declarant states in the calendar year or years specified above, Declarant did not receive wages as defined at 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a) (See also, the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939). 22. Declarant states in the calendar year or years specified above, Declarant did not knowingly and intentionally enter a voluntary withholding agreement for government personnel withholding either as an employee (26 U.S.C. § 3401(c)) or an employer (26 U.S.C. § 3401(d)). (26 CFR § 31.3402(p)-1). 23. Declarant is not a person subject to Internal Revenue Service tax audit and/or check authorized by Treasury Order 150-29.

I've been checking up, on occasion, the IRS story. The key to understanding the IRS part was the term "raided."

Examiners don't raid. Criminal Investigation Department (CID) raids. It usually takes them two or three years to get to the fraud case. It can go faster, but it typically doesn't. And when the IRS does raid, it's almost certainly because they think they'll win the fraud case based on an internal referral from a revenue agent who has examined the books and come to the point the agent believes there is criminal fraud.

I'm guessing this is all a long way of explaining why Kent Hovind doesn't want to pay taxes like the rest of us, but is he really trying to say he is a citizen of Florida, but not a citizen of the United States?

"Scripture also says 'Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.' And right now, Caesar demands a building permit.

That's funny!

This story made my day! Wow thanks for the early morning laughs! Ain't poetic justice sweet?

If Hovind or his confederate(s) give in and pay the permit fees, will the county simply walk away or does he continue to face civil or criminal charges for his actions in opening and operating an unpermitted facility? After having listened to Hovind in Dover, PA I am appalled at the amount of damage he is doing in promoting his brand of (religious) ignorance to the masses.

Haha!!

This made my morning a lot more hilarious. I always expected to see this place get in trouble for teaching misleading religious beliefs as facts.. but to see it shut down for such a stupid, easily-satisfied reason is way funnier. Man, I'm going to be giggling about this one all day.

The quote from Whitehead seals the deal. Hahaha, this is great.

I also was at the Dover, PA speaking engagement of Dr. Hovind. I was hoping to hear his ideas brought into appropriate light by anyone opposing his ideas. I was disappointed to not have an articulate person with a different view even ask a question. I am not sure if that is funny (in a nervous way) or just sad.

Wow, Bush being identified as the source of the CIA leak and Dinoland shut down, all in the same week. Suddenly things seem all right with the world.

I'm guessing this is all a long way of explaining why Kent Hovind doesn't want to pay taxes like the rest of us, but is he really trying to say he is a citizen of Florida, but not a citizen of the United States?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TAX WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2005 (202) 514-2007 WWW.USDOJ.GOV TDD (202) 514-1888 FEDERAL COURT HALTS WASHINGTON STATE TAX-FRAUD SCAM Edmonds Man Uses Sham Corporation, Trusts, and "Churches" To Help Customers Evade Taxes WASHINGTON, D.C.-The Justice Department announced today that a federal court in Seattle has barred Glen Stoll, of Edmonds, Washington, from promoting a tax-fraud scheme using sham trusts and a corporation to help customers evade federal taxes. The preliminary injunction order, entered yesterday by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, states that Stoll continued to promote the fraudulent scheme after the Justice Department filed the suit earlier this year to stop it. The court found that Stoll sold a fraudulent "corporation sole" and "ministerial trust" scheme, falsely telling customers that conducting their personal and business activities through a corporation sole and ministerial trusts, and treating them as churches, eliminates obligations to file federal tax returns and pay federal tax. The court stated that the ministerial trusts Stoll created for his customers were not created for religious reasons, but were instead used to operate secular businesses, such as pest-control and carpet- cleaning firms. The order states that Stoll sells the scheme through a website and falsely claims to be a lawyer. "People who buy into tax-fraud schemes are buying nothing but trouble-past due tax bills with interest and penalties and the possibility of criminal prosecution," said Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division. "The Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service are committed to stopping the promotion of tax fraud." The court's order also requires Stoll to give the government his customers' names, mailing and e-mail addresses, and Social Security and telephone numbers. The court also ordered Stoll to notify customers of the injunction, remove materials about the banned promotions from his website, and post a copy of the injunction on that site for the duration of the case. More information about this case is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv05065.htm . This case is part of an ongoing Justice Department crackdown on promoters of tax-fraud schemes. More information about the Justice Department's efforts against tax-scam promoters can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/taxpress2005.htm . Information about the Justice Department's Tax Division can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/tax .

Hi David:

Most scientists now know better than to challenge Hovind in a venue where he controls the audience and the setting. A debate is not a proper forum for discussion of scientific ideas, and despite several attempts, Hovind has never agreed to a published, written debate or dialog for good reason. He knows he would lose.

Did you notice the following things he said during the Dover seminar:

1. On both days one of his first slides warned the audience that people who disagree with his Bible science presentation ("scoffers and deluders") should not be listened to lest they lead the "little children" away from the faith. Right there he has primed the audience to disbelieve any dissent to his message.

2. On at least two instances, he defined what an 'ad homenim' argument is and how it is used by atheists and evolutionists to attack him rather than his message. Yet when one person questioned why he has been charged with anti-semitism, his first response was to character assasinate one of his critics by mentioning his critic's alleged "sordid" divorce and charges of child molestation. He then claimed that he could not be anti-semitic because he did not know what a semite was! If that is the way he responds to questions, I doubt an "articulate" person would get any satisfactory answer from Mr. Hovind.

3. He told as fact an old Polish joke I heard 35 years ago about the polish scientist who trained a frog to jump on command. When the scientist removed the frog's legs, the scientist concluded the frog was deaf. He told this story as a factual example of how stupid some of the research scientists do can be.

4. He called multiple times for the audience to question why they, as citizens and taxpayers, could not demand the right to have their tax dollars used to teach what they wanted to their children yet he failed to mention that he has been charged with tax evasion by the government and has also renounced his US citizenship.

These are just a few of the non-scientific statements he made. (I particularly liked his statement equating Mr. Bush with Hitler and Stalin, but that is another story.) I, too, would like to see Mr. Hovind honestly address his critics, but he is too clever to put himself in that position.

He could always apply for a job in AIG's new creation museum ! Apparently AIG has removed the article "Arguments we think creationists shouldn't use" from their website. From what I can remember these were mostly Hovind's:

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

AIG's attitude towards him seems to be softening. This from AIG UK's Paul Taylor:

http://www.justsixdays.co.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?t=35

So you never know. He may resurface in another form !

I think that US creationist's willingness to kowtow to the nutters like Hovind, might explain the recent split in AiG.

In any case, as far as actual live political impact, AiG is a nonentity. Just like ICR.

Anyway, this is MY area of expertise. Hovind is going to go down and go down hard. He will lose. He will appeal. The appeal will be rejected. The IRS will seize everything and possibly jail him if they go criminal on the case.

all those lies they say about Kent is lies I've spoke to him personaly and hes that its all a conspiracy against him and he can explain if u ask him

all those lies they say about Kent is lies I've spoke to him personaly and hes that its all a conspiracy against him and he can explain if u ask him

all those lies they say about Kent is lies I've spoke to him personaly and hes that its all a conspiracy against him and he can explain if u ask him

oh, it would be such a hoot if you could get 'ol Hovind to come here and explain it himself. could you?

The best part is how he lists 5 or 6 ways that this situation could be speedily resolved.

— jkc

God can stop this II Kings 1 style in zero seconds!

I take it Leona is only joking. Or is she a real live Hovind supporter ?

"Scripture also says 'Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.' And right now, Caesar demands a building permit," County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said.

Priceless.

Maybe they are being advised by "litigation Tax Attorney" and congressional candidate Michele Bachmann.

"even the science building" was closed. hee hee...what science building?

wow wonder what the creos think of this..will we see smears of the officials involved or will they finally wash their hands of an embarrassment

Rick Lee, in charge of planning and zoning, seems to be determined to stop our ministry. Several have said he is a homosexual with a special hatred for Christian ministries but this may or may not be true. Assume he is an honest individual trying to do his job... Rick Lee, in charge of planning and zoning, needs to have home school families camping on his desk while they do a "civics" project where they learn why some areas need to be "zoned" for a church. In the Soviet Union ...

I doubt an "articulate" person would get any satisfactory answer from Mr. Hovind.

Apparently AIG has removed the article "Arguments we think creationists shouldn't use" from their website.

snax-

since you've been following it, has that list grown any in the last few years?

Thank God!

"Rick Lee, in charge of planning and zoning, seems to be determined to stop our ministry. Several have said he is a homosexual with a special hatred for Christian ministries but this may or may not be true."

Evil and clever at the same time.

Someone has said that Kent Hovind is a child molester and eats babies for breakfast, but this may or may not be true ...

If Dr Dino does not pay taxes, does he apply this philosophy to his employees? Does he take out federal taxes from his employees earnings? Adhering to the tax code with his employees would weaken his position with the government. If Dr Dino does not take out taxes and the recruits have not paid taxes on their own (how many high school students know how to pay quarterly taxes), all those employees at the adventure land could be in for a big surprise when the IRS asks for back taxes. He could not only be harming himself but those who believe in him.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Off topic for a sec again, from a couple of days ago:

Many thanks again to chaos_engineer, and to RavenT and Chris Ho-Stuart for the link. I've sent the quote and the link to the family.

And back on topic:
All I can say, is, what goes around, comes around. Justice.

"Scripture also says 'Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.' And right now, Caesar demands a building permit," County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said.

He could not only be harming himself but those who believe in him.

our first mission, CBEB?

Typical Christofascist hypocricy: "We're all good little lambs of God, we only obey God's law, not the laws of the evil majority that are inconvenient to us, none of those laws really exist, so that gives us a right to do whatever we want and treat everyone else like dirt...wait, you're not getting out of our way? OMIGOD WE'RE BEING PERSECUTED BY HOMASEKSHUL ATHEISTS!! HELP!! HELP!! WE DEMAND YOU RESPECT OUR RIGHTS UNDER ALL THOSE LAWS WE REFUSED TO OBEY LESS THAN A MINUTE AGO!!!"

Any God fearing counties out there that don't require building permits?

nope, at least not any more:

http://www.afghan-engineers.org/achievements.html

Last week Circuit Judge David Allen ordered two of our DAL buildings closed over the permit issue even though the proper parties were never noticed, the mediation settlement proposal offered by the Church 4 months ago has never been answered and the buildings have been open for 5 years, have had 60,000 visitors from all 50 states and 70 foreign countries without a single problem or complaint over health or safety. The buildings have also withstood two major hurricanes with no significant damage.

Alright, a lot is being said and I would like to weigh in with my two cents. You guys may or may not like Kent Hovind (I'm thinking you 'may not'!), but you have to admit that the only true way of being critical, is to be honest with both yourself and the defendant. What are my reasons for writing today, it seems that none of you have actually done any homework on this situation.

"Dinosaur Adventure Land has been shut down" - Pharyngula
Sorry to say, this is not true. The park is still functioning, as I'm sure you are all delighted and overjoyed to hear.

Secondly, I see a lot of people (Linda, Kal, BlueMako, etc) heralding Whiteheads (mis)quotation of the Bible's passage Mark 12:17. Now, if you are going to be intellectually honest, you would ask yourself what the passage actually says. Does it actually say "Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands" as the Pensacola News Journal stated? No, it doesn't. It says, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."

Another thing to keep in mind is this, the news journal didn't exactly put everything correctly. In Whiteheads defense, he didn't say "Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands." He said, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars, and right now Caesar demands a building permit." After whitehead said this, during the BoCC (Board of County Commissioners) meeting, I had to finish the verse for him, "and to God the things that are God's."

William Rabb, the author of the article in question, received an email from myself. The email is printed on my website www.ChristianDudesOnline.org for all who are interested.

Another thing to keep in mind is this, the news journal didn't exactly put everything correctly. In Whiteheads defense, he didn't say "Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands." He said, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesars, and right now Caesar demands a building permit." After whitehead said this, during the BoCC (Board of County Commissioners) meeting, I had to finish the verse for him, "and to God the things that are God's."

— Jonathon Sampson

17. Declarant is not now and never has been a citizen or resident of the political coalition, compact or alliance of territories and insular possessions of the United States known as the [Federal] United States of America (not to be confused with the Union of States party to the Constitution known as the United States of America, established in the Articles of Confederation). (See notes following 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 40 Stat. 1015, c. 194)

— Nick Matzke

Re "Articles of Confederation??"

Re "Citizen of Florida"

Uh, minor detail here, but when the A-of-C was in effect, wasn't Florida then owned by Spain? Ergo, said Articles never applied to that region or its residents?

Henry

arensb said: Any God fearing counties out there that don't require building permits? Afghanistan springs to mind.

In response, Sir Toe_Jam notes: nope, at least not any more: http://www.afghan-engineers.org/achievements.htm...

Articles of Confederation is really grasping at straws here.

Secondly, I see a lot of people (Linda, Kal, BlueMako, etc) heralding Whiteheads (mis)quotation of the Bible's passage Mark 12:17. Now, if you are going to be intellectually honest, you would ask yourself what the passage actually says. Does it actually say "Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands" as the Pensacola News Journal stated? No, it doesn't. It says, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."

Jonathan,
Actually the verses should be considered this way

The response of Jesus when his enemies tried to trap him by asking whether it was right for the Jews, whose nation had been taken over by the Roman Empire, to pay tribute to the Roman emperor. He took a Roman coin that would be used to pay the tribute and asked whose picture was on it; his questioners answered, "Caesar's." The reply of Jesus implied that in using Roman coins, the Jews accepted the rule of the Romans, and so the Roman government had the right to tax them, as long as the Jews were not compromising their religious duties. Jesus' more general point was, "Give to worldly authorities the things that belong to them, and to God what belongs to God."
The County Commission required the park to pay tax's and as a good Christian, Dr Dino is obligated to pay them

Sorry to say, this is not true. The park is still functioning, as I'm sure you are all delighted and overjoyed to hear.

That's, uh, not what the sign out front says. . . .

The park is still functioning

Now, if you are going to be intellectually honest, you would ask yourself what the passage actually says.

Jonboy,

My point behind addressing the Caesar quote served more than one function. The first was to demonstrate what Hovind's perspective is. If the building is used for religious purposes (as RFRA) insisted, then he would apply it as God's property. This is why I addressed the second part of the famous Caesar quote, to offer some understanding of what Hovind bases his decisions on.

Secondly, I addressed the quote to demonstrate how the news media doesn't always report with complete accuracy. The quotation wasn't what Whitehead actually said, as his true words prompted a response from me following their being spoken. This is why I asked that anybody interested in the situation do more homework than reading a mere publication. Convergence people, convergence.

Thirdly, "Rev Frank" needs to drive by DAL again. The sign out from mentions an upcoming easter egg hunt. I'm not too sure where he gets his information from but perhaps he should check that source another time through.

I have an email on my site, www.ChristianDudesOnline.org addressing relevant data; please comment there if you have any more questions about the entire situation, or my responses. And please, be respectful as I am not Hovind, and none of you should have any grudge against me personally.

Thank you for your time, and I bid you well in your search for understanding the entire situation.

Note also, I may not agree with Kent on all of his decisions, I only wish to offer a fair and balanced view of his position.

The first was to demonstrate what Hovind's perspective is.

I swear, listening to stories from Hovindland really IS just like watching an episode of the Flintstones.

points for the best Dino-Church analogy!

My point behind addressing the Caesar quote served more than one function. The first was to demonstrate what Hovind's perspective is. If the building is used for religious purposes (as RFRA) insisted, then he would apply it as God's property. This is why I addressed the second part of the famous Caesar quote, to offer some understanding of what Hovind bases his decisions on.

are you saying Hovind believes Dino Land to be a church?

Sir_Toejam: Are you saying Hovind believes Dino Land to be a church?

Jonathan: Have you looked up what a Church is? Technically, I would say that Dino Land does indeed qualify as a church. It is a building used for religious purposes (spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ through Creation Science).

Sven: Even if Hovind thought something like this, it still would be nonsensical and against the law. AFAIK, churches and any other religious builing need a building permit, too - so it being "god's property" obviously doesn't help Hovind's case at all.

Jonathan: True point, Sven. And thanking for straightening Sir_Toejam up on that point. The law, as it stands, still requires churches to receive building permits. That is the language of the current law. However, that is not the language of RFRA, which gives freedom to religious excercise. As of now, the state of florida acknowledges RFRA, which is why the Holy Land Tour in Orlando(?) won freedom from what you would consider their 'obligations', because they demonstrated their religious intentions.

This is a similar situation with DAL. The County of Escambia doesn't want to recognize DAL as falling under the same shadow of RFRA as the Holy Land Tour does; and therefore desires to treat DAL as a corporation instead of a religious agent.

Perhaps you could comment on the email (http://www.ChristianDudesOnline.org) I sent to the author of the article that started this entire thread?

I'm finished writing in this thread; perhaps something interesting will cause me to return for more discussion. I'll participate in further discussions on this topic at CDO if you wish.

Even if Hovind thought something like this, it still would be nonsensical and against the law.

Jonathan: Have you looked up what a Church is? Technically, I would say that Dino Land does indeed qualify as a church. It is a building used for religious purposes (spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ through Creation Science).

I'm finished writing in this thread; perhaps something interesting will cause me to return for more discussion.

However, that is not the language of RFRA, which gives freedom to religious excercise.

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice? So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances." (Supreme Court, Reynolds v US, 1878)

Argh, C'mon guys - I was suppose to be finished here, remember?

Toejam - "Just wanted to make it clear that this is all about religious apologetics, no science involved whatsoever."

Jonathan - You seem to have a misconception about religion and science; thinking that the two cannot coexist, or one cannot involve the other.

Sorry to say, but you're perspective is absolutely wrong. To demonstrate my piont, would you say the same thing about theistic evolutionism? Certainly not, for if you did then you would call your own worldview non-scientific since hold the same views (minus the deity) as a theistic evolutionist.

If you asked me, and I am sure you wouldn't, I think your position is just as religious as mine. But I will admit that you DO have science on your side, just as I too have science on my side.

It's no different than any other field that involved two or more competing paradigms. Of course you will slander and disrespect my views - they obviously don't make you comfortable. Unlike you, I will remain respectful and acknowledge that you do have scientific arguments for your position.

It serves as a clear indication what type of conversationalist you are when you call me a "Hovind Troll". I don't believe I did anything to prompt such a ad hominem demonstration, but to each their own - call me whatever you like.

Additionally, I do not support every view that Kent Hovind has. I am not here defending him either; I actually agree with some of your views, believe it or not. All I wish to do is aggregate the cluster of evolutionists who are so furry-driven that they cannot be honest with themselves to look at the situation from Hovind's perspective instead of resorting to effortless slandering off the line.

Can't we discuss matters like adults? Sarcasm isn't exactly a great tool in this situation.

"Rev Dr" Flank - So your argument would be that if my religion required human sacrifice, I would be immune from homicide laws?

Jonathan - Flank, I AGREE with you. Please ask me for my views before you slander me with sarcasm. I actually don't think anybody should be able to do anything they want just because of a religious conviction. That is why on the subject of building permits, I am torn between both views.

What I was merely attempting to do was to inform you (and the others) about what RFRA states, which you could have looked up if you like. The Rule in RFRA (USC:TTL42,2000cc-5(7)(b)) states that "The use, building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose."

Your example of killing somebody doesn't fill the bill; using a building does.

The entire text is available online: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sup_01_42_10_21B.html

Jonathan - religion and science can co-exist, however science is a threat to religion because many beliefs (e.g. the sun revolves around the earth; solid firmament; transubstantiation; humans created as is [in the image of god]) have been or are able to be tested scientifically and found to be wanting.

As scientists, or people of scientific background or interest, many of us look with bemusement or amusement at current beliefs (e.g. the one true religion) in light of the known history of that particular religion.

That is not to say that many of us don't hold personal beliefs, religious or spiritual. But these are usually held in full knowledge of the inadequacy of religious belief.

As for Hovind, the man is demonstrably a liar, charletan, and snake oil seller. I would caution any sane person of religious belief from hitching their line to his wagon. He epitomises everything St Augustine cautioned against.

I'm not a religious person, nor am I a furry (sic) or fury driven atheist. Just call me Thomas and show me the evidence.

Your example of killing somebody doesn't fill the bill; using a building does.

look at the situation from Hovind's perspective

From my perspective, it's kind of fun seeing you guys badmouth Hovind, considering he is your soulmate when it comes to arguing against cosmological ID. I view Hovind and PT as two sides of the same coin. By all means, have at it! When teammates fight, it always makes good theater!

From my perspective, it's kind of fun seeing you guys badmouth Hovind, considering he is your soulmate when it comes to arguing against cosmological ID. I view Hovind and PT as two sides of the same coin. By all means, have at it! When teammates fight, it always makes good theater!

— David Heddle

I view Hovind and PT as two sides of the same coin.

Geez Heddle how long has it been since you shot your other feet off?
Cosmic ID?Bwhhhwhwhwhhwhahahaha
The odor of the universe, your crackpot ideas, are starting to smell?
Your cc what was it again? 42?
Yes it might be the answer, but what was the question?

"Scripture also says 'Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.' And right now, Caesar demands a building permit," County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said.

Yeah BWE a quick prayer to the Saint of the Holy Order of Tax Dodgers should give a nice quick answer.

Then he could ask for Mammon from The Mammonites of TV Evangelism and free lawyers from the Thomas Moore Law Center
should be a cinch to get off.

I notice that F.L. ,Doc Berserkzi, Carol, Heddle, Ghosty,BlartySlardfast,Larry and all the other fellow travelers are not joining in to help him.

Pity crucifixion is out now, but considering the desire for biblical literalism on the fundies part, the punishment would certainly fit the crime.

Flank, and any others who can maintain a respectful composure - please feel free to pick up this conversation at http://www.christiandudesonline.org/archives/26 - I would love to continue speaking with you if you have the time. Unfortunately, I don't believe the majority of participants are even reading the material on this thread, as the sarcasm and irrelevant statements have no ceased, or even slowed.

I have made my position clear, and Mr. Flank, you now understand what Florida Law states through RFRA, which does indeed give Hovind some grounds for arguing. You may not like the laws, but that is an entirely different situation.

I would be interested in hearing what your views are regarding the origin of our Great Country, and what it's reason for establishing was.

I don't enjoy participating in hostile discussions with people who sincerely do not what to compose themselves in a respectful way. So if anybody would like to continue this discussion, I'll be available at teh aforementioned website.

From my perspective

I have made my position clear, and Mr. Flank, you now understand what Florida Law states through RFRA, which does indeed give Hovind some grounds for arguing. You may not like the laws, but that is an entirely different situation.

If the building is used for religious purposes (as RFRA) insisted, then he would apply it as God's property.

— Jonathan Sampson

The law, as it stands, still requires churches to receive building permits. That is the language of the current law. However, that is not the language of RFRA, which gives freedom to religious excercise. As of now, the state of florida acknowledges RFRA, which is why the Holy Land Tour in Orlando(?) won freedom from what you would consider their 'obligations', because they demonstrated their religious intentions.

— Jonathan Sampson

What I was merely attempting to do was to inform you (and the others) about what RFRA states, which you could have looked up if you like. The Rule in RFRA (USC:TTL42,2000cc-5(7)(b)) states that "The use, building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose."

— Jonathon Sampson

(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person--- (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

— USC 42 2000bb-1

(1) General rule No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution--- (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

— USC 42 2000cc-a

(b) Burden of persuasion If a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging a violation of the Free Exercise Clause or a violation of section 2000cc of this title, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on any element of the claim, except that the plaintiff shall bear the burden of persuasion on whether the law (including a regulation) or government practice that is challenged by the claim substantially burdens the plaintiff's exercise of religion. emphasis added

— USC 42 2000cc-2

Thanks for that, Kevin. Not that it won't all come out in the trial, I'm sure....

Thanks, Anton. Mr. Sampson managed to quite nicely lampoon himself, much in the fashion of He-Who-Will-Not-Stick-To-A-Name. I just called him on it.

Should I mention that in the ~150 year old Gaelic Bible I own, Mark 12:17 translates most closely to "Give to [Caesar] what [Caesar] has claimed, and give to God what God has claimed..."

Not that far off from "demands", is it? As usual, different Bibles carry different meanings. In fact, of the four Bibles I or my wife own, none of them have the exact wording that Mr. Sampson gave, nor do any of them share exact wording (obviously, one is written in another language, so that immediately disqualifies it, but none of the other three use the exact words of another)

Disclaimer: the ownership of multiple Bibles should not be used to construe any current religious affiliations on my part, or lack thereof. They are family heirlooms or titles from our youth.

Looks like they gave stegasaurus the head of a carnivore. (i.e., carivores were vegetarians before the Fall)

Why is everyone so concerned about a dinosaur theme park in pensacola, FL? Is there really nothing else you could do with your life than post mean little things about a guy that will never read them?

Is there really nothing else you could do with your life than post mean little things about a guy that will never read them? (Emphasis added.)

I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $56452. Isn't that crazy!

I can't believe it, my co-worker just bought a car for $56452. Isn't that crazy!