blackbird

God has already saved him. He's home free. If he's not in prison for the questionable charges, he does about 900 speaking tours a year. He is the evolutionist's worse nightmare because he makes it very clear. The U.S. justice is quite different than Canada's. That would be an interesting study on it's own. Probably interesting to read some of the stories about the wrongly convicted. We have seen some movies telling true stories about it. Seems justice is heavily effected by politics, money, powerful lawyers, and of course bias for various reasons. I guess that's still the best system in the world, but not always fair or correct. We see how many people's judgment is often effected even in politics with the election of Trudeau. The world is far from a perfect place and if one thinks the justice system is an exception, he is fooling himself. Debating the existence of God may be kind of like a dog chasing his tail. It always seems within reach, but he never reaches it. I could re-hash some of the points, but don't want to sound repetitious. You know the points, the evidence in the creation, the complexity of creation and the fact, I believe, it couldn't just happen by itself but had to have a designer-creator. And the Holy Scriptures, which if you haven't studied, will not mean much to you.

Your comment very much sounds like the bald statements that have already been tossed out in one way or another over and over, but prove nothing. I hope you have read some of the preceding discussion. Otherwise we keep having to repeat every point over and over. I urge you to read some previous comments and speak to them. Essentially the believers in God accept the creation all around us as clear evidence that God exists.

Why, because they supported Trump? Wasn't much choice and he did promise to do some things to oppose the liberals/Dems anti-christian agenda. Ethics is not on the ballot, only fallible people with all their warts.

I don't see how the Dems or Hillary have any monopoly on ethics. But it seems Dems want to major on Trumps alleged failings as the main reason why they should be supported. That's a losing proposition.

Judging christianity by what is happening in politics or political leaders is a losing proposition. Biblical christianity is based on the teachings of the Bible, not what some politicians are doing. Christianity has been around 2000 years and been through it all.

Jamaica has apparently declared itself in a state of emergency and lawlessness.

It is a covenant relationship, not a master slave relationship. Partnership is a good word. Yes, the Bible says "Wives, submit yourselves unto you own husbands, as unto the Lord." But it also says "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." Further down it says "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."................."So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself." Ephesians ch5. You can't take one verse in isolation from the rest. They all apply.

I'm not entirely sure I intended to be disrespectful. I didn't. All I can say is that verse should be understood in the context of the entire chapter, not just a single verse. Husbands have a responsibility to love their wives as themselves. In a family, there are occasional times when two people cannot be chiefs. Most times they work together and come to mutually agreeable decisions that effect the family. There are certain spheres where one is in charge or the expert such as the wife may be the expert in the kitchen. There is usually an unwritten understanding that one does not interfere with the other in those areas. If it comes to a difference of opinion, then they should allow the head of the family to make the decision. If it is too difficult then maybe seek a counselor and get some third party advice. Maybe a minister in the church they attend or a friend they can both trust. This would be extremely unlikely to be needed but it is an option if necessary.

It doesn't have much to do with the discussion around creation/evolution, but since the subject did work it's way into the topic, might as well make a contribution. Probably better to get back to the topic evidence for God. Creation-evolution is a central issue to the topic.

Here's a newspaper opinion piece called: The staggering number of wrongful convictions in America https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cost-of-convicting-the-innocent/2015/07/24/260fc3a2-1aae-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html?utm_term=.11453e50b0ed More than 2,000 wrongfully convicted people exonerated in 23 years, researchers say http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/21/more-than-2000-wrongfully-convicted-people-exonerated-in-23-years-researchers-say/ This may be only the tip of the iceberg. There could be far more people who have been charged, convicted, and sentenced with questionable charges and evidence. When people raise serious concerns about someone's situation in the system, it does raise some doubts about justice. The American justice system seems to be in a poor state.

"They are all innocent, and never stole a cent in their lives. " "Dr. Dino is employed by God,.... blah blah" Obviously you are very biased. They are all guilty because they are ministers according to you. It would be pointless to try to discuss something which requires a degree of impartiality or open-mindedness. Plus an enormous amount of time would be required to look into his legal affairs with the result being unlikely to come to a clear conclusion. However, to be reasonable I will take a look at some of the links. I took a brief look at the list of charges. It is a very long list, much of which doesn't have the sound of reality. Did you go through the list? Hovind said he prayed on a radio program about the IRS agent(s) and was accused later of threatening them, and was sentenced to three years in prison for that alone??. The article above gives the rough wording of the prayer he made on the radio. It doesn't sound like threats. So it looks more like a case of he said/she said. Choose your side. Obviously you have chosen yours evident by your comments. And since I am not an American lawyer or any kind of lawyer, it would be impossible to draw any conclusions from that kind of information. A long list of charges does not prove guilt. It is obviously a very complex issue with his supporters making a very strong case for his innocence. I'm not a big admirer of the American justice system. I somehow doubt you gave any time to watching the creation-evolution debate on the video link above. His debate on creation-evolution on youtube is still an excellent debate worth watching.

Amazingly, I googled Ken Hovind after you made this comment because I knew nothing about him other than the evolution/creation debate on youtube which I watched and posted. Like everything there are two sides to every story. It seems there are a lot of questions as to why he was or is in prison. I read this article and will examine it further but I posted it so that you can examine it too. Before reaching a hasty conclusion, we need to hear both sides of this story. There are many people imprisoned in the U.S., some for very minor offences, and others are completely innocent. Also, it is known people are often given severe sentences for relatively minor offences. In many in cases in Canada, they would not even go to prison. This has been found repeatedly. Ken Hovind is a Baptist minister and doesn't seem to fit the definition of a criminal by any definition. Many believe the real reason he was imprisoned are his controversial views and his powerful delivery. He is definitely a very gifted speaker. So let's look at the details and hear both sides of the story before jumping to conclusions. It is interesting he gave a prayer over the radio I believe concerning the tax agents and was charged with threatening the tax agents because of the prayer, if one can believe. He was given three years in prison for this charge. Quote Who Is Kent Hovind and Why Is He in Prison? By Art Smith If you don’t already know about Kent Hovind, be sure to research him and listen to his speeches and debates. They are truly fascinating. Kent Hovind is a Baptist minister arguing for Creationism and he is very convincing. Dr. Hovind also spoke about the age of the earth (young earth), the flood, the dangers and implications of the wide promotion of the Evolution theory, dinosaurs, the new world order, and most recently Post-Tribulation Rapture theory. He has traveled extensively to different schools and universities and debated many professors. Many believe that his controversial views and his powerful delivery are the real reason he is in prison. Dr. Hovind has been in prison for eight years now, and his case shows disturbing facts about how our courts currently operate. No matter what your religion or beliefs on creation versus evolution, his sentencing seems much harsher than any wrongdoing he allegedly has committed and it points to much bigger issues. His original sentence is nearing its end, but now Dr. Hovind is facing new charges that may keep him in prison for the rest of his life. Dr. Hovind maintains he is innocent and that he hasn’t broken any laws and that contrary to what many believe he is not a tax protestor and is willing to pay any taxes he is shown he owes.1 Dr. Hovind founded Creation Science Evangelism in 1989. It is a ministry dedicated to providing evidence against evolution and showing links between true science and the Bible. He was very successful, giving 900 speeches and debates per year in schools, universities, and churches as well as appearing on radio and television. 2 His troubles started in the mid-1990s when he started receiving letters from the IRS regarding the financing of his ministry. Dr. Hovind did not incorporate his ministry with a 503(c) tax exempt status and had contractors and volunteers working in his ministry, not employees. In order to get answers to questions about ministry and taxes, he wrote an IRS agent, an attorney, and a personal accountant (per IRS instructions), and asked them to look over the finances and operations of his ministry. They all wrote back saying everything is fine and he is not breaking any laws. He sent that documentation back to the IRS and didn’t hear from them again until 2004 when they raided his ministry, stole money, and took many of his documents and records. According to Dr. Hovind they did all of this without any prior recent letters showing what law he is breaking.3In 2005 he had a Grand Jury convened against him but he was not allowed to testify or participate. He again asked what law he was breaking and got no response. A year later in 2006 they stormed the property with a SWAT team. 4 On the next day Dr. Hovind did a radio broadcast. He prayed for himself in handling the situation and for the agents who raided him, and was charged with threatening an IRS agent because of that prayer. He claims his prayer was in no way threatening. He said something to the effect of, “God, I want you to handle these folks who came against me, I don’t know what they want, I can’t handle them, they are way too powerful for me, I turn them over to you, you judge them as you see fit.” He was later charged with 3 years in prison for this prayer for threatening an IRS agent in the performance of his duty. They arrested Dr. Hovind and his wife and they were arraigned in front of a Magistrate for three charges: 1) Twelve counts of not withholding taxes from employees, (According to Dr. Hovind, they didn’t have employees) 2) Forty-five counts of structuring (According to Dr. Hovind, they told him “you withdrew money out of your bank in amounts less than $10,000”), 3) Threatening an IRS agent (the “threatening” prayer). In regard to the structuring charge, Kent Hovind claims he had never heard the term before. They were making deposits less than $10,000 once every 12 days in the operation of their ministry, not hiding any money. 5 Transactions of $10,000 or more get reported by the banks to the government, but making a cash deposit of less than $10,000 in an attempt to avoid that scrutiny, is called structuring and may be considered a felony. It is meant to catch drug dealers and other criminals. However, it is being applied to citizens in arbitrary ways that have nothing to do with crime or drugs and can lead to the seizure of bank accounts and more. For more details, refer to “‘Structuring:’ who can get away with it, and who can’t” and “The federal ‘structuring’ laws are smurfin’ ridiculous,” two great articles that explain structuring in detail. 6, 7 Kent Hovind was sentenced to ten years in prison, of which he has served 99 months. His wife, Jo Hovind, was sentenced to nine months in prison and has served her sentence. 8 He was supposed to be released to house arrest in February 2015 and complete release in July 2015, but that is now in question because there are new charges against him that may keep him in prison for the rest of his life. The new charges against Kent Hovind have to do with the church property real estate, which the government has forfeited. He filed paperwork with intent to notify the potential buyer of lis pendens or suit pending, and for this he is charged with five counts of mail fraud, each of which carries a 20-year sentence, up to 100 years total! 9 There are many more issues with this case that speak of gross injustice but going over each one is beyond the scope of this article. One of them is that Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers allegedly said that Kent Hovind’s crimes are “worse than rape” when it is obvious he did not hurt anyone or rape anyone and that is not at all what the trial was about. There were witnesses who heard her say those words, yet they were later removed from official court transcripts. Dr. Hovind paid $6000 to get those transcripts, and he had to wait 16 months to get them when it usually takes two months. This same judge will preside over the case again in the coming court date on March 2, 2015. 10 Two juries were dismissed before a third one finally convicted Kent Hovind and his wife. Kent Hovind is hoping his case from 2006 will be overturned and his reputation restored. He maintains he is innocent of all charges and that he was never shown what laws he has broken and he believes he was unjustly imprisoned and that his case needs to be overturned. 11 In my opinion Kent Hovind is innocent. I believe he was set up on trumped up or even bogus charges because of his Creationist message and the fact that he was very convincing and dangerous to the Evolutionist worldview that is promoted so heavily. I believe at least some of the charges that are being applied against him, such as structuring, can be applied to almost anyone and they are currently used against other innocent citizens who operate legitimate businesses, have committed no crime, and are just depositing money into their bank accounts. I believe George Lujack is absolutely correct and said it best when he says that Kent Hovind is a “prisoner of a cultural religious war.” 12 There are several ways we can help Dr. Hovind. He would like to bring attention and publicity to his case, and he gets joy in the fact that new people continue to learn about him and his work while he is in prison and unable to pursue it. He is also seeking legal help and advice but so far refusing to compromise and also wants to preserve his reputation and that of his ministry. His website is http://www.2peter3.com/. On it you can read Kent’s blog, read court documents and transcripts, sign a petition to release him, or donate to his legal fund. A great way to keep up to date on the case is through Rudy Davis’ YouTube channel, LoneStar1776. It has many phone calls with Kent from prison and information about his case. Another great website is freekenthovind.com. There are many interviews and videos on YouTube with Kent Hovind speaking in detail about his case and his work. If you haven’t seen at least some of them, spend some time on them and consider ways you can support him in his fight for justice and freedom. Unquote http://www.hourofthetime.com/wordpresstest/who-is-kent-hovind-and-why-is-he-in-prison/ I heard a report about a Muslim woman in Pakistan who was converted to christianity and was subsequently charged with blasphemy and sentences to death. It was being appealed but didn't look good. I have not heard what came out of this. But this Ken Hovind case should remind us that there are things happening in our own western democracies which amount to unjust persecution of people for their opinions and beliefs. We see that recently in Canada with Trudeau's singling out of christian organizations and churches, whereby his government has said they are not going to provide funding for summer students if their organization (or church) is opposed to abortion on demand, LGBT rights, etc.

Here is a debate between a creationist and three scientists on youtube. You may find it interesting.

If you are assuming evolution is a proven fact, you need to read this article. There are so many holes in the theory of evolution is like a piece of Swiss cheese. Variation and natural selection versus evolution First published in Refuting Evolution, Chapter 2 This chapter contrasts the evolution and creation models, and refutes faulty understandings of both. A major point is the common practice of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science to call all change in organisms ‘evolution.’ This enables Teaching about Evolution to claim that evolution is happening today. However, creationists have never disputed that organisms change; the difference is the type of change. A key difference between the two models is whether observed changes are the type to turn particles into people. Unquote For the full article, go to: https://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-2-variation-and-natural-selection-versus-evolution

You explain it one or two sentences then. No diversion, no obfiscation. Get right to the point.

Here is part of an interesting article, not evolution, but more to do with creation: Cosmology The reigning paradigm in cosmology is the Big Bang. Despite promising initial observations of an expanding universe and microwave background radiation, the idea of an explosive origin guided by no intelligent hand is increasingly proving problematic. In recent years it has become quite clear that there are many properties of our universe which, if they were slightly different, would make life impossible. In addition, it seems even our place in the galaxy is purposeful.i The odds of a happenchance Big Bang producing such a universe are incredibly small. Evolutionary cosmologists have responded by speculating about other universes unlike our universe (“multi-verse”), to improve the odds of such an ideal universe existing by chance. “Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi-verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.”ii Of course, all these other universes are forever beyond our detection. They are a metaphysical construction, a position of pure faith. Prominent in multi-verse models is “string theory,” a branch of theoretical physics that despite two decades of work has yet to produce any experimental confirmation. All the observable evidence indicates that our universe was purposefully designed. Big Bang Theory has run into other problems. The universe is far too lumpy. It doesn’t make sense that there would be vast empty spaces between galaxies with billions of stars. Scientists have postulated the existence of cold dark matter to solve this problem. There is no clear evidence for this matter; it is only a construct to save the theory. Moreover, the experimental evidence shows that the present universe has very a low geometrical curvature in its spacetime (it is nearly flat). Theoretical arguments that are well established suggest that this is a very unlikely result of the evolution of the universe from a Big Bang, unless the initial curvature is confined to an incredibly narrow range of possibilities. While this is not impossible, it does not seem very natural. Theorists have postulated “inflation” at the beginning of the Big Bang, but this is another ad hoc addition to try and solve the problems. For many years creationists have argued that the existence of comets in our solar system is an indication of a young earth.iii If the earth were billions of years old, all of the comets should have burned up long ago. Evolutionists responded by proposing a swarm of comets nuclei at the periphery of our solar system (the Oort Cloud) conveniently beyond our observation. This Oort Cloud is again a hypothesis with no empirical support. While critical of the supernatural (and scientifically unobservable) origin presented in Genesis 1, the evolutionists have, in the end, fallen back on metaphysical positions themselves. Paul Davies declares that The Big Bang “represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle…”iv Here a truth is mentioned. Evolutionists have fallen back on metaphysical claims and abandoned scientific methods because they simply don't have answers.

Here is an interesting article: Evolutionists Retreating from the Arena of Science (As printed in Journal of Creationism, Vol. 23:3, December 2009, pp. 121-127.) This year, the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his famous book’s publication, has seen a lot of reflection on the history of evolutionary theory. Indeed, it is difficult for a 21st century creationist to appreciate the giddy optimism that surrounded the evolutionism of a century ago. Direct scientific observations from the field had been formed into a cohesive argument for naturalistic origins over against supernatural creationism. This began with Charles Lyell traveling extensively in Europe and North America to gather geological facts in favor of his theories of uniformitarian gradualism. Charles Darwin’s insights came from his field work on his now famous voyage and observations as a naturalist. Within a few decades of Darwin’s writings a series of hominid fossil discoveries (like the Neanderthals, Java Man and Piltdown Man) appeared to confirm key predictions about human evolution. Haeckel’s embryology arguments were prominently presented. Huxley offered up Bathybius, the slime dredged from the ocean floor, as the link between nonliving chemicals and simplistic life. Creationists, on the other hand, were divided and unable to marshal an effective rebuttal. Unquote During the beginning of the 20th century some difficulties emerged in evolutionary theory, caused by biologist’s increased specialization and the concern that burgeoning genetic research would be difficult to reconcile with gradual evolution and the mechanism of natural selection. Through the decade of 1936 to 1947 the Darwinian Synthesis reconciled ideas from several branches of biology that had become separated, particularly genetics, systematics, morphology, and paleontology. In some ways, this time period was the scientific highpoint for evolutionism. The Darwinian Synthesis became the unquestioned reigning paradigm of the scientific community. Still today the scientific position of almost every large university and governmental institution remains unaltered. But since the middle of the 20th century an interesting new trend emerged. Evolutionary theorists were forced, step by step, to steadily retreat from the evidence in the field. Some of the evidences mentioned above were demonstrated to be frauds and hoaxes. Other discoveries have been a blow to the straightforward expectations and predictions of evolutionists. Increasingly, they have been forced to tack ad hoc mechanisms onto Darwin’s theory to accomodate the evidence. Their retreat to unfalsifiable positions is now evident in every arena where they once triumphed. Let us examine how Darwinian theorists have moved from concrhttp://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creatorete predictions and scientifically observable supporting evidences to metaphysical positions in several key fields of research. For the rest of the story go to: http://www.genesispark.com/essays/retreat/

If it's wrong, how would you explain it in layman's language? Isn't it the scientific method that scientists use to reach a hard and fast conclusion about something? The problem with old earth age and evolution is it is impossible to go back through that long period of time to see what happened. There is no way to replicate it in a lab. So all you have is scientists who come up with various assumptions upon which to try to reach conclusions. But conclusions reaches by making assumptions is not the scientific method. It is completely fallible and falls more into the category of the theoretical.

First I must declare my personal non-interest. I am not a sports fan of any kind I noticed from time to time, as recently, a hockey player is what would appear, to receive serious brain injury. This occurred the other day and was caused by a hit by another player. As a kind of outside observer, my question is should this really be an acceptable part of the "sport" in Canada? It seems kind of like the ancient gladiators who went into the Roman coliseum to fight lions with a sword or the bull fights that take place today in Spain or the bare-fist boxing that is done possibly illegally, with bets taken. Although the consequences of the injuries in hockey might not be as serious as in the coliseum or bare-fist boxing match. There seems to be a macho mentality that supports this industry and pays to watch it. Should it be considered as barbaric rather than a legitimate "sport"? Is it possible to even play without these kinds of injuries?

The difference between a theory and a fact is quite simple. A fact can be proven by what scientists call the scientific method. A theory is simply speculation that has not been proven by the scientific method.

Don't think they want to dominate science. Atheists often ridicule christianity by pointing to science saying blah blah blah. So there are some Bible-believing scientists who wish to set the record straight about some things like evolution that many have fallen down to worship as absolute fact. Evolution has not been proven and creation scientists find it interesting to investigate the subject and point out where some widely accepted theories are flawed. It is impossible to prove something which it is claimed happened over a long period of time because that time is gone and we cannot re-create it in a laboratory. Here is an interesting article on the age of the earth. https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

I don't believe in the claims of evolution. As far as I know, it has never been proven and is impossible to prove. Many creation scientists have examined it and dismissed the claims of evolution for different reasons. Professor Philip Stott has shown with the mathematical theory of probability that evolution is impossible. He said there is not enough time for creation to occur by random chance processes. Some good articles on creation.org

Jesus has been used as some kind of football for all kinds of doubtful things. It has often been claimed Jesus was some kind of socialist or Marxist, but that is false. He said his kingdom is not of this world. I don't know the details about what you claim so won't comment on it. All I can tell you, most people in the world don't understand the western concept of democracy. Before that would work, the people would have to understand it and accept it.

Nobody can force a country to adopt western style democracy because that's not how they think. It would require most of the population to change their thinking which they are not capable or willing to do. You're beating a dead horse.

The heading for this thread is The Evidence for God. The best website I have seen which makes the case for the existence of God is: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html There is a page that reviews some of the most famous scientists who believed in God. There are many other pages and links to various related topics. One of them discusses the gap theory. This is the modern atheist theory that there is a gap in science which when gradually filled will allegedly show why the atheists are correct. This is another good article. Some scientists today do believe in God. Many are vehemently opposed. These various articles deal with a lot of that. One interesting scientist who is mentioned is: Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)