It can be kind of funny when random humanists run around and bash you on their blogs.
Evolution speaker to face tax evasion charges
This article was published by The Collegiate Times on September 16, regarding Kent Hovind, the nutty "professor" that tries to align himself with creationists, parrots a lot of their arguments to sound legitimate, and then goes off the deep end once you're hooked.
Well, I'm just minding my own business, defending the causes I believe in, so I post the following:
As a Bible-believing young-earth creationist, I can agree with you on the style of Mr. Hovind's presentations. I have observed a few of them, and agree that his performance leaves one with little doubt that Mr. Hovind suffers from attention deficit disorder, and is only pandering to his already-Christian audience in most cases.
And now his testimony, such as it was, is further harmed by disputes with the IRS and transparent attempts to dodge tax laws.
Because we disapprove of Mr. Hovind does not cheapen the merit of the arguments such as evolution and Nazism. Just as when deaths are committed in the name of religion (which are fewer than you think) one must determine if the actual cause championed supports such actions. For example, I could stone someone I thought God disapproved of and claim support in the Bible. Am I a nut or am I truly acting on the religious text? The question then becomes, is the person's actions justified according to the Bible or not? A close examination of the Bible yields the answer; NO, the Bible does NOT justify its readers in stoning anyone.
Let the same question be applied to evolution. Can the laws that govern evolution, and the consequential moral judgments, be used to support Hitler's actions? Whether Hitler had specific knowledge that he was following the tenets of evolution is irrelevant. Can Hitler be justified according to evolution. The answer is yes. E-mail me if you wish to contest this.
Another person who left a comment went by the name Neil Purcell, who I presume is the "Mr. Neil" of a blog that he later retreated and bloviated to.
He blasts my initial comments in a comment entitled Typical Creationist Goading (**Warning: Objectionable language**). I made an attempt to contact the old boy via YIM.
He doesn't reply, but posts about it in another entry entitled Proof that people don't read.
I tried to leave a comment on his little feedback form, which he deleted, with the following explanation: "f*** off!"
Mr. Neil is a very cute specimen of humanity, and his debating skills lead one to doubt his claims to have debated creationists so many times.
Carry on, Neil. Hope you find saving grace ere the end.