Talk:Kent Hovind

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Kent Hovind convicted

Should we add an update about the 58 counts of tax "fraud" Kent and Jo Hovind were said to be guilty on? Or should we wait until the sentencing to put anything on his biography page. I don't want to make personal attacks, but it is a fact, and we don't want people to think that every thing is OK with Kent Hovind. We shouldn't be biased about it either way. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can read about it here: http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=42944 Thanks.

--Amanda 13:15, 08 November 2006 (EST)

Yes, I think news should go in when it is factual. I wouldn't put it in if there were just rumors about him or someone else, but his conviction is a fact and is recorded everywhere else. There's no reason to not report it here.

--Klang 08:09, 9 November 2006 (EST)

I agree - a brief report is appropriate.

--Chris 08:20, 9 November 2006 (EST)

All right, I'll get on that task.

--Amanda 09:20, 9 November 2006 (EST)

Stop press: The appeal lodged against the sentence has just been rejected by the court.
Roy 08:28, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Problematic to use Hovind?

Isn't using Hovind problematic? Kent Hovind has been critized by one of the more well known creationist organizations Answers in Genesis. [1]

I say adding a section at the end titled "Criticisms of Hovind" with quoted and cited criticisms would be very valuable -- i don't know much about him, tho -- would you do the honors:)? Ungtss 01:19, 15 December 2005 (GMT)

Personal attacks

The CreationWiki will not tolerate personal attacks of creationists. Kent Hovinds fruits are self evident and glowing testimonials from those who have benefitted from his message are common. Creation ministers can not be expected to be an expert on all science disciplines, and it is extremely inappropriate for AiG or other creationists to engage in such criticisms.--Chris Ashcraft 01:35, 15 December 2005 (GMT)

the linked article is not a personal attack, but a substantive refutation and criticism of an article he wrote. i'd agree that personal attacks should not be permitted, but i think a documentation of substantive conflicts between creationists could be useful. Does the policy of this wiki also forbid that? Ungtss 01:52, 15 December 2005 (GMT)
May I please request clarification on what is meant by "personal attacks?" If it is not permissible for negative factual information to be included in the article on Kent Hovind, I'd like to be aware of it. However, the reason that I came to this page was to try to understand if Dr. Hovind has any reasonable defense; the article on him from Wikipedia looks pretty bleak. I was hoping to gather new information on what valid defense he had, and this article doesn't help. I would like to root through the facts and update the article accordingly, or perhaps start a new article on his charges and subsequent arrest; however, I don't want to do either if that would be considered inappropriate.
In other words, if "personal attacks" means ad hominem attacks that spuriously attack character of reputable people, then I understand and would never do such a thing; otherwise, if "personal attacks" means "anything negative about people who have provided advancement for Creation apologetics," then please let me know that also. Jsharpminor 12:21, 18 April 2011 (PDT)
The existing content about the charges is not sourced, and should be. By all means, if you can improve upon it, then do so. I have sent the original author a note asking if sources could be provided, but its been several months since it was updated and I dont think you would be stepping on toes.
The main purpose of the biographies of creationist missionaries is to support their ministries. They are not meant to provide a forum for personal attacks. That being said, light should be shed on Kent's legal problems, since they are ministry-related. --Ashcraft - (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2011 (PDT)

Criticisms

They are accusing him of a lack of integrity and misrepresentation, but thats beside the point. Placing "criticisms of Hovind" on his biography page would be a personal attack. The various perspectives of creationists should be addressed on the appropriate topic page.

Creationist theories perhaps http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Theories

or evidence of recent creation http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Young_earth --Chris Ashcraft 02:35, 15 December 2005 (GMT)

Okay. Ungtss 02:58, 15 December 2005 (GMT)

Refusal to use pics from CSE ministries

I put up some pictures on some other pages that are evidence to support the subject in which I put them up for use. But some Christians think we should distance ourselves from Hovind because he was convicted and placed in jail. So I will quote what I have said on two discussion pages about this.

So we abandon a brother in Christ just because he makes a mistake? What if Christ abandons us for a simular reason? Who in the bible was perfect besides Christ? So if we judge Hovind in this manner, but trust those who wrote the books in the bible, to what end do we justify our actions? And what excuse will we have for treating a brother in this manner? Or has this brither become unsaved because of the crime that he has committed. [http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 23:55, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Nobody has said abandon, I said we should distance ourselves from him from a science perspective, the man is in JAIL and we are asking for our credibility to be in question when that is our source for some scientific information.
From what I have heard from Hovind since his trial and everything is that the man doesn't seem to be scripturally following Christ in regard to following laws of the U.S. --Tony Sommer 11:53, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Was he put in jail for doing uncreditable things about science or creation, or tax evasion? He got the wrong idea about paying taxes because he did not want to file for a 501c3 because that would have restricted what he could say while preaching. But he failed to understand that he has to pay Ceasar regardless of what the tax law actually says. I noticed the term science prospective. What about the prospective of Christ?

I did some work on my end to get CSE to let us use these pics. I guess I could call them back and say that the creation wiki rejects their material on the bases that their head minister is in jail on unrelated charges. People will think what they want about the wiki, about YEC, and Hovind. If I worried about what science (evolutionists) thought about what I said, I would not have put up the pages that I have so far. In fact my website would not have been built. In science the creditibility is gone once God comes into the picture, and we use it to deny the amount of time (billions of years) it takes for their main theory to work (evolution). There is basically nothing that can be done that would ever make science accept YEC. If you have not figured that out by now, I don't know what to tell you.

Also, if we restrict ourselves to trying to find truth within the parameters that science would have us abide by. Then we would have to deny the devine power of God to create. I'm not ready to do that over a small credibility issue. Besides, can anyone here show me a major evolutionists scientist that shows any respect to a YEC? So if it's scientific respect we are trying to acheive, exactly who in science is going to give it to us, and for what reason? Christian compromise might get respect, denying God to some level might get respect. But is that what we want as YECs?[http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 21:21, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

That is exactly what I am saying, evolutionists don't show respect most times and for a Christian site, or person relying upon somebody in jail to prove a point, that is asking, to put it nicely, for a criticial comment from the evolutionist. Its as if you are adding gas to the evoluionists fire of insults, but I am no sysop, just my opinion. He is and was a VERY important prominent figure in creation science, sadly he is now in jail. --Tony Sommer 13:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Just a few comments. I don't wish to debate for offend.

1: CreationWiki is one of the few creationist sites that doesn't just endorse a Christian view. Deists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and whatever religion you can imagine can edit as long as they support an account of creation and don't break Wiki rules. CreationWiki is meant for science.

It is this unity that I think all theists should unite in. I would rather a person try to reach heaven then for one to deny it's existence.

2: Your comments regarding CSF and calling them seems just wrong. It sounds more like black mail.

3: In past conversation with you, I might have seemed like I consider the presence of God is unscientific. I believe this is false. Intelligence is detectable, thus we can consider God a possible source for data. However, we must not abuse this factor of God to create crazy and groundless theories. invoke the divine when it is likely.

4: Science does support YEC and science alone can be used to support it's case. God is a rationalist and a realist.

5: The respect for the creationist community grows everyday. Paul Davis and shown respect for us in several areas and we do REAL research. Think about the layman? We are fighting over their minds. Who will win?

6: The issue has nothing to do with Hovind being a brother is Christ. When you are wrong, you are wrong.—unsigned comment by Nlawrence (talk • contribs)

Do we act as Christ in the way we treat the bretheren? Or do we act as the world as we try to appease those of this world?

eph 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
Our representation of creation with the removal of how we should act as Godly Christians. Is not a good represenatation of our Creator.
mt 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
If our rejection of Hovind makes him, or any brought to Christ by his ministry, reject salvation (because of our rejection) and fall away. To what end can we claim that this rejection is justified? Science is controlled by world veiw, and it will never relinquesh what controls it because those who control it will never allow God back in. We allowed those who do not believe in God, and do not wish to believe in God. To gain control. So we now reap what we have sown and have no one else to blame but ourselves.
mk 4:19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
jn 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
jn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
The truth of Christ cannot be received by the world who rejects it. And they will hate all those who represent it. We do not conform to what looks worldy if we truly seek to be ambassadors of Christ.
rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
If they know the truth, have heard the truth and reject it. Will our compromise of rejecting others make it true again in their minds? For if all our secret sins were revealed unto the world for all to see. How many here could truly say that there past life would look any better than Hovinds? And by their own judgement of him, be able to say that their own works still be justified to stay on this wiki, but yet what Hovind did makes his works not justified? Let ye that is without sin cast the first stone.[http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 03:55, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Quote: 2: Your comments regarding CSF and calling them seems just wrong. It sounds more like black mail.
Maybe you should explain to them why it should be this way? Strife behind the bretheren back is how Satan works. If you can't say what you mean to the face of those you are talking about, then you are admitting to knowing it is wrong. The black mail that I am implied as using was a thought provoking comment to make you understand that if you are going to say this, and do this. Then you should also be able to tell their ministry why. If this makes you feel guilty for saying such things. Then what does that tell you?
Christ ran his whole ministry based on caring for others. Christ also said:
Matthew 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
We all cannot visit Hovind in prison. But if we allow his work to continue because he is a bretheren, then it would be like he was not there. But if he reject his work just becaused he sinned. Then we also reject all the works Hovind did for Christ. And in turn we reject Christ Himself as we allow Hovinds works to become null and void. Our rejection digs a bigger hole for Hovind. One that if enough of the bretheren do it, it will bury him. And his ministry will be in vain. And it will be more of our fault fo worrying about what people think, then doing what Christ cammanded us to do. And what we will be judged on.[http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 04:03, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Time out!

STOP!

If you have been involved in this debate, please take a couple days off from it, and come back when you are prepared to be gracious and civil, making allowance for possible misspeaking and misunderstanding.

Thank you.

~ MD Otley (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

If you think that it is best Nlawrence. [http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 01:39, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Times up

We can keep putting this question off forever. Or we can address it. So is our rejection of Hovind's pictures biblical, or carnal? And would someone like to list the reasons, one by one, as to why we should reject. Then apply scripture to back it up.

Why do I ask so much? This Wiki is based on who's creation? So who's rules should we consider when making decisions?—unsigned comment by Ikester7579 (talk • contribs)

I now see this is going to be totally left up to me. Before I even presented this to you guys in the Wiki, I had already discussed this with Ashcraft. And basically already had approval. I then worked with CSE ministries to come up with a copyright. From there it went here. And now no one wants to discuss it. So when I get a chance. I will add some pics to some pages here, where the pics would make a good addition. I guess this is when someone will say something because they figure their article was tarnished by a Hovind pic. Some might think that is a harsh thing to say. But your silence on this matter speaks volumes into what most are thinking on this issue, but are not willing to voice it. Speak up and prove me wrong.[http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 05:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
Just thought I'd share a word...Using CSE ministries' images has nothing to do with Kent Hovind's conviction and sentence. By possibly using the images, we should not be asking who is behind the images because it doesn't matter; we should just make sure that they are credible and accurate. It doesn't matter that the man that either used them or created the images is in jail, unless the images are inaccurate and misrepresented. I say use them if they will help CreationWiki in promoting and teaching Creation. --└Amanda M.┘┌talk┐  09:26, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
That is true. I did give my permission and also specific instructions on how the upload to CreationWiki should be handled. The posts that were subsequently made by you regarding those images were not in keeping with said instructions. None of those images are usable based on the guidelines I provided - due to their low resolution. Furthermore, I would discourage the use of the text only graphics.
Your frustrated and somewhat hostile tone is inappropriate at best and comes off as an attack of the CreationWiki editorial staff. If you want to upload the images, then do so accordingly, then please discontinue your campaign and make no further comments regarding this issue. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 10:47, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Why can't we remove the "Controvery [sic] over Copyright on CSE Material" section?

It's nothing but a bunch of poorly written garbage copied from Wikipedia & WikiNews where it was originally written by the anti-creationist trolls of the Rational Response Squad.

If this is a creationist website we shouldn't be attacking Hovind, especially not over some trivial YouTube dispute. --Rucas 18:19, 15 January 2008 (EST)


First, may I ask why is that section about the copyright controversy "garbage", if it is in fact all true and valid? Our purpose on CreationWiki is not to gloss over the facts (our purpose is to promote creationism), but to present the facts truthfully. Furthermore, no one is attacking Kent Hovind.
I would suggest two things, 1. Research the sources and verify the validity of the claims and 2. Ask Mr. Ashcraft about the section -- because, to be honest, I don't really care if we keep that section or not; but we might need to analyze it, and ask what our purpose is in having it. As you well know, there is so much more information on Wikipedia about Kent Hovind that we don't have, so maybe we should ask if that section is relevant to CreationWiki. --└Amanda M.┘┌talk┐  19:16, 15 January 2008 (EST)
I already asked Mr. Ashcraft, he told me to post my thoughts about it here. The reason it's garbage is because it's not important and it has simply been taken way out of proportion by those who oppose Hovind and his views. A minor Internet dispute, which hasn't resulted in any lawsuits or anything else to make it remotely notable, does not deserve attention here. --Rucas 19:28, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Well, for the record, I agree that that section really doesn't deserve attention here. --└Amanda M.┘┌talk┐  19:53, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Alright, I've removed it since no one provided any reasons as to why it should stay and the consensus here has been to remove the section. --Rucas 20:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Your main opposition seems to be the source of the information, not its validity. You've still provided no information contesting the assertion that Kent has indeed recalled the copyrights of those videos. From what I've heard there is some truth to that.
I don't at all consider reporting it to be an attack. It seems perfectly reasonable for Kent to want to reinstate his copyrights on those videos if they are being used in a negative manner. I assume he's within his rights to do so - I know that Creative Commons Licenses are changed and even recalled.

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I've rewritten the section so it's more detailed (it now mentions the RRS, the threatened lawsuit, and Mr. Sapient) and fair (instead of just copying the RRS' side of the story). I hope this is satisfactory. --Rucas 12:23, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Also, for the record, my complaint is not with the source of the information so much as the whole thing is unremarkable and not worth writing about. It's only getting attention in atheist circles because it's an attack against Hovind, otherwise minor YouTube copyright disputes are not worth writing about. --Rucas 12:24, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Possibly move "Controversy over Copyright on CSE Material" section

Since this section has to do with CSE directly, shouldn't it be moved to that the CSE article? --└Amanda M.┘┌talk┐  19:25, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Yes - that seems appropriate. The CSE page could use some major work. I'll assign it to a student next semester if nobody gets to it before then. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2008 (EST)

tax fraud link to primary source, factual info

Please refrain from censoring accurate information. I believe we need to rewrite the majority of this article. It is written in an emotional defensive style and has zero sources.—unsigned comment by Michalis (talk • contribs)

Had you provided a source upfront, it might not have been restored. But, for future reference, you are not permitted to reverse admin edits. Instead, use the talk page to provide justification of the deleted text and await a decision.
I agree the article should be rewritten, but be objective and provide both sides, keeping in mind the potentially antichristian views of journalists. As with most disputes, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, and as a Christian brother we should provide Hovind the best possible support. --Ashcraft - (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2011 (PDT)

His debates.

Hay i would like to add information about how he offered to debate Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins and another professor that was offered $900 on his own campus to debate him (and they ALL declined). Is a youtube video where he says these things himself good enough for a source or??? Samh 22:46, 9 September 2012 (PDT)


Tax-exempt information problematic

There are a number of claims made in this article about the meaning and implications of being "tax exempt." I'll cite one example:

"Twelve counts concerned failure to file quarterly payroll tax returns (a false charge, CSE is Tax Exempt) for Creation Science Evangelism."

I don't recall whether or not CSE was registered as a 501(c)3 organization. While it is true that a church is not required to be registered as a 501(c)3, there are implications for not doing so. Being "tax exempt" means you do not have to pay Federal Income Tax. You are still responsible for "payroll taxes." The above example in the article is flat-out wrong.

501(c)3 status also allows donors to deduct their donations. Many states will also not grant you tax exemption unless you have a 501(c)3. Bulk mailing rates are not available without this status.

In some states you are exempt from paying sales taxes if your organization is a 501(c)3. This is granted by state governments -- you are considered non-profit or not-for-profit by the state, not the Federal government.

Bottom line is that the section on "What Really Happened" contains quite a bit of incorrect information on taxes. It either needs to be cut or documented. Wstumper (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2018 (EDT)


Kent has no payroll

Yeah, Wstumper, a non-501C3 needs to pay payroll tax, unless they have no employees, which is Kent's case, everybody who worked to help CSE worked as "Independent contractor". Also kentisinnocent.com no longer exists, so there is no source at the current moment, but there was in the past.

You need to respond to within my thread, Loanm, and not create another topic. And leave your signature at the end of your comments. That's the rule for Creationwiki.org. Wstumper (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2018 (EDT)
Retrieved from "http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_Hovind&oldid=356023"