(In case there are any "April fools" who might dare to take on my "Goliath of
GRAS"!  April fool or not, the invitation remains outstanding.)

I am going to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the
churches of Christ and its young-earth creation-science movement.

To date, no bonafide young-earth creation-science promoter has dared to
repudiate, deny or rebut the comments.

I will then give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for any who may want to "come
out" in response to its call and take up the public discussion as to the
argument's logical validity (i.e., if its premises are true the conclusion will
follow as true) and soundness (i.e., are the premises true).

Three simple steps have been posted to this list in order to facilitate the
discussion and insure the argument is properly considered and appreciated for
just what I have proposed for it.

Many have tried and failed (see list archives); most recently Terry Hightower,
David B. Willis, Jerry McDonald, Terry Benton and the infamous Goldsmith.

In order to respond to the "call", one need only utilize the "post" and/or
"reply" features of this list, membership not being necessary to post, or simply
address an e-mail to:

> Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com .

Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the
comments from that leading light amongst the young-earth creation-science
movement within the churches of Christ:

-------------------------------------------
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

THE YOUNG EARTH

(excerpts)

"(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and the
evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history

> in other words,
> the age of the Earth..

While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist, it is the
death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the
Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.
Much of the controversy today between creationists and evolutionists revolves
around the age of the Earth.

A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that there is no
compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the
gulf separating the biblical and
evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just too large......

(W)e must 'query if vast time is indeed available.'

That is our purpose here.

There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time is not available,
and that the Earth is relatively young, not
extremely old.

That evidence needs to be examined and considered...
There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age of only a few
thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."

(end excerpt)

------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe that

> the Bible teaches that

>> "nothing is more than a few
>> thousand years old".

The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental young-earth
creation-science position on that point is whether or not the real world
evidence really does support that interpretation and/or if that interpretation
is subject to falsification based on the real world evidence.

I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS")
proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated
with the young-earth creation-science movement (i.e., "nothing is more than a
few thousand years old") is subject to falsification with reference to the real
world evidence.

Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

Major premise:

> If God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousand years, then the
> interpretation of the text by
> some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> The interpretation of the text
> by some is wrong.

You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity of the argument, or
simply accept it for what it is...a simple,
logically valid statement of the real world falsification test for the
fundamental real world claim commonly associated with
the young-earth creation-science movement.

It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the above argument is,
in the context of the popular young-earth
creation-science movement, the "evidence of age".

Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves
retreated into the UNscientific position
summarized as follows:

> I've got my interpretation
> of the text regarding the
> real world and that trumps
> any real world evidence
> to the contrary.

The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot
stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence
falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is
more than a few thousand years old".

That is a good thing to know.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

(Also note the report indicating the church runs a number of different
organizations.-RLBaty)

From: The Gainesville, FL Sun

Marion County church school teacher charged with molesting boys

By Austin L. Miller
Staff writer

Published: Friday, March 26, 2010 at 4:19 p.m.

OCALA — A music teacher at a church school was charged Friday with four counts
of lewd and lascivious molestation, one count of lewd and lascivious conduct, 12
counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition and one count of child abuse.

MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

David Solomon Lanham, 29, turned himself in at the Marion County Jail at 1:50
p.m. He remained behind bars Friday night. He declined to comment for this
article.

He is a teacher at Royal Child Academy in Summerfield, and is a member of the
Open Door Community Church, where the school is located, at 5200 S.E. 145th St.
According to the church Web site, Lanham is listed as a worship leader/design
coordinator.

He reportedly has been on administrative leave since March 15.

Officials believe the incidents, which involved kissing, fondling, other sexual
acts and physical abuse, involve four children ages 5 to 11. The abuse began in
January 2009, authorities said.

The investigation began March 13, when the parents of one of the victims
contacted the Sheriff's Office. Two days later, the child was interviewed at
Kimberly's Cottage, also known as the Marion County Children's Advocacy Center.
The juvenile told officials that Lanham made him touch Lanham's private area
over his clothing.

Lead Detective Miriam Diaz spoke to the 5-year-old and his parents. The parents
told Diaz their child informed them about the incident and they removed him from
Royal Child Academy, then contacted law enforcement.

The 5-year-old boy earlier had told another juvenile about the encounter. Diaz
went to the school and talked with that child. She was told the 5-year-old said
he squeezed Lanham's genitals three times.

Diaz was told by another alleged victim that Lanham had twisted his arms behind
his back and ordered him to lie down, even though he was already on the ground.

Continuing her investigation, Diaz found another child who told her that Lanham
may have kissed him and made him touch his private area once. He said Lanham
apologized. The child said the incident occurred during Easter at the school.

On Thursday, Diaz located another alleged victim, an 11-year-old boy, who told
her that in June 2009 he attended summer camp at the school for two weeks. He
said while in a bathroom, Lanham touched his private area and performed a sexual
act on him. The child said such activity occurred 12 to 15 times during camp.

After camp, the child said, Lanham visited him at his home and, with his
parents' permission, took him out to eat to "help him with the church
functions," the arrest report notes.

He said Lanham took him to a chocolate factory, a dollar store and Subway, and
they visited the school, where he was again molested. The incidents, the child
said, occurred between June and December 2009.

•••

The Open Door Community Church Web site biography on Lanham states he comes from
a "musical family" and was taught to play piano by his mother at age 4. After
high school, it states, he was at Chili's After School Coral at Colinas Del
Norte Elementary School in Rio Rancho, N.M.

Evangelical Bible Mission International was founded by G.T. Bustin in 1940. His
son, Gerald Bustin, is president of EBM International and senior pastor at Open
Door Community Church. EBM operates a number of organizations, including Royal
Child Academy.

A woman who answered the telephone Friday afternoon at the church said they
would make no comment. She referred all inquiries to attorney Henry Ferro.

Ferro, reached by phone Friday, said he represents the church, not Lanham.

•••

A woman whose son attended the academy up until Friday told the Star-Banner late
in the day that roughly three months ago, she noticed he would not use the
bathroom at the school.

"He would say he did not want to potty over there," said the woman, covering her
mouth with her hands and crying. "Now I know why."

She said her son saw Lanham in his underwear at the school in December.

The woman's other sons, ages 11 and 8, who do not live with her, visited
recently and told her that Lanham talked "funny" to them while they were at
church. She said she told them to stay away from him.

The woman went to the church Friday to talk with Bustin, but he was not there.

She told the Star-Banner she was able to reach him by phone and the pastor told
her Lanham has been on administrative leave since March 15.

Bustin told the woman they plan to have a meeting, with their attorney, at the
church next week.

Ferro confirmed there will be a meeting. Asked if it would be about Lanham's
arrest, he said that is between him and the people having the meeting.

•••

Davie Richardson, 43, and son Davie Jr., 17, said they are members of the church
and have heard rumors about Lanham and boys, but classify them as just rumors.

Lanham, they said, leads the choir, hence his status as worship leader, but he
is not a preacher and does not preach at the church. They said Lanham is in
charge of the church's lighting.

The duo described Lanham as "a nice guy" and a "hard worker who does anything
for the church."

"This has nothing to do with the church and the pastor. I go to the church for
God, not the people. He seems like a nice guy to me," the elder Richardson said.

Sheriff's officials are asking anyone who may have been abused by Lanham to call
Detective Diaz at 368-3515, the Sheriff's Office at 732-9111 or Crime Stoppers
at 368-STOP, or visit www.ocalacrimestoppers.com.

Contact Austin L. Miller at 867-4118 or austin.miller@....

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

Looks like Goldsmith has now given Terry the boot from TheClashGroup:

From: Terry W. Benton
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010
Subject: TheClashGroup underground

> I guess TheClashGroup could not...
> and decided to go underground and
> also delete my membership.

> Well, so much for a Baptist troll
> group who wants freedom to slander
> with no accountability.

> (T)hey wanted only to lie and slander
> and answer no questions, and the
> father of the two wanted to remain
> annonymous while he did so.

> Terry W. Benton
> http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

---------Forwarded Message-----------

From: Terry W. Benton
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010

Subject: Re: TheClashGroup status!

That is probably what happened.

You are not in the membership, and only those in the group can see the page.

He is probably trying to find a way to trap me in something like the Pharisees
tried with Jesus. I have gotten on to the LIES and SLANDER pretty heavy over
there, and they are in a squirm.

-----Robert Baty's Message-----

From: Robert Baty
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Subject: TheClashGroup status!

Terry,

I don't think it is a glitch.

YAHOO! doesn't show me as a member any longer; but I never checked out as a
member.

Can you tell if TheClashGroup is still publicly viewable.

I suspect it is not and that Goldsmith revoked my membership. That may be why I
only get a webpage with TheClashGroup name and no other information when I
check.

It looks to me like Goldsmith simply revoked my membership and took the group
"underground".

Let me know if you have an interest and can figure out anything further.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

---"Terry W. Benton" wrote, in part:

> > The group is still going strong
> > with their games of lies. You may
> > have a glitch on your end. The site
> > is still up.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

The United States District Court wasted no time in disposing of all of Dr.
Dino's motions to dismiss his criminal convictions.  Here's relevant information
from the five ORDERS of the Court which were entered today:

> Filed: March 31, 2010
> Entered: April 1, 2010

> The relief requested is DENIED.

> Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules
> of Civil Procedure does not
> provide relief from judgment
> in a criminal case.

>> Signed: M. Casey Rodgers
>> United States District Judge

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

I suspect there is a back-story to Dr. Dino filing all of those motions to
dismiss in his own name even though they were prepared by his "attorney".

I suspect part of that story involves the prospect that had any legitimate
attorney filed such motions trying to use civil procedures to file a motion to
dismiss in a crminal case, such attorney would be subject to disciplinary
action.

So, for now, the person who actually prepared Dr. Dino's motions remains secret.
I wouldn't be surprised if that person is the same person who recently filed his
U.S. Tax Court petition.

This may be a sign as to how his Tax Court case is going to go; though the Tax
Court case will probably move rather slowly.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

The United States District Court wasted no time in disposing of all of Dr.
Dino's motions to dismiss his criminal convictions.  Here's relevant information
from the five ORDERS of the Court which were entered today:

> Filed: March 31, 2010
> Entered: April 1, 2010

> The relief requested is DENIED.

> Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules
> of Civil Procedure does not
> provide relief from judgment
> in a criminal case.

>> Signed: M. Casey Rodgers
>> United States District Judge

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

Here's some information on the person Dr. Dino has chosen to represent him in
his pending U.S. Tax Court filing:

------------------------------------

Tax Protester Dossiers; Gurus and Other Big Fish

Jerold W. Barringer

Background

A lawyer admitted to the bar in Illinois in 1983.

Theories Advocated/Promoted

Barringer has been involved with several cases in which it was claimed that Form
1040 does not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act so no one can be penalized
for failing to file a tax return.

Books, Web Sites, Videos, and Organizations

None known.

Court Actions

Barringer was censured by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2001 for filing a motion
with accusations against a judge that Barringer either knew or should have known
were false. In re Jerold Wayne Barringer, No. 00SH0080 (Ill. 9/21/2001).

In affirming the conviction of one of Barringer's clients, Judge Easterbrook of
the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals also critiqued Barringer's performance in the
appeal:

> "Patridge's brief in the criminal appeal
> presents 19 issues, all frivolous. Many
> are in the style of tax-protest arguments
> that we might expect from a layman
> representing himself but do not expect
> to see in a brief filed by a member of
> the bar. [….] Jerold W. Barringer
> represented Patridge at trial, in the
> Tax Court, and during the three appeals
> to this court. He has performed below
> the standard of a pro se litigant; we
> have serious doubt about his fitness to
> practice law. The problem is not simply
> his inability to distinguish between
> plausible and preposterous arguments.
> It is his disdain for the norms of legal
> practice (19 issues indeed!) and the
> rules of procedure."

After citing several ways in which Barringer's brief did not comply with rules
of practice, the court gave Barringer 14 days to show cause why he should not be
sanctioned $10,000 for "frivolous arguments and noncompliance with the Rules"
and why he should not be suspended from practice "until he demonstrates an
ability to litigate an appeal competently and responsibly." United States v.
Denny R. Patridge, 507 F.3d 1092, 1094-95, 2007 TNT 221-11, Nos. 06-3635 and
06-3785 (7th Cir. 11/14/2007), cert. den., No. 07-1045 (U.S. 3/24/2008)
(conviction for tax evasion affirmed).

Sanctions were in fact imposed, and the Supreme Court denied a petition for
mandamus by Barringer seeking review. In re: Jerold W. Barringer, No. 07-1140
(S.C. 4/14/2008).

Barringer has also been sanctioned by the Tax Court and required to pay $4,725
for time spent by government lawyers responding to what the Tax Court described
as "frivolous discovery requests" that amounted to "unreasonable and vexatious
conduct" and conduct that was "reckless and in bad faith." Robert Powell v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2009-174, 2009 TNT 138-7, No. 18134-06L (7/21/2009)
(sanctions of $25,000 were also imposed against Barringer's client for
maintaining frivolous arguments).

Barringer represented Lindsey Springer in an unsuccessful appeal to the 10th
Circuit in which the opinion of the court described Barringer's briefs as
"ambiguous" and "far from a model of clarity."

Barringer also tried to raise new issues in a reply brief that the court refused
to consider because the arguments were not raised in the initial brief. Lindsey
K. Springer v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 167-4, No. 08-9004 (10th Cir. 8/31/2009),
aff'ng Tax Court No. 17707-06L (levy allowed to proceed for collection of taxes,
penalties, and interest notwithstanding Paperwork Reduction Act claims;
government's motion for sanctions denied).

Students/Disciples/Associates

Barringer has represented Gaylon Harrell, Jo Hovind (wife of Kent Hovind), and
Lindsey Springer.

---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------

Courtesy of our friends at Quatloos in response to my inquiry thereat:

--------------------------

by Nikki
on Fri Apr 02, 2010

With respect to Dr DIgNOramus' latest Tax Court petition, the amount at issue,
NOT including interest, is $3,334,315.35 covering tax years 1998 through 2006.

Nikki
Minstrel of the Mystical Moolooh

Posts: 3118
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:41 pm

---------------------------
---------------------------

-------Forwarded Message--------

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/C2BB/message/2368

(edited slightly for clarity-RLBaty)

From: Terry W. Benton
To: THECLASHGROUP
To: C2BB@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 2, 2010 12:47 PM CDT

Subject: Closing the group for now

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/THECLASHGROUP/message/7205

> From: Goldsmith (aka Mark/J427750108)
> Date: Fri Apr 2, 2010 1:26 pm

> Subject: ClashGroup Closed

> With Terry Benton issuing threats and
> attempting to bully with lawsuits and
> the like, TheClashGroup is closed for
> the time being.

> He is threatening to sue unless I
> agree to is terms.

> However, I have told him to show
> me that he is serious by stopping
> the personal attacks and insults
> and all he has said is "no, take the
> deal or else".

> We will see whether or not he
> really wants peace or if he just
> wants people to take his deal and
> he is free to lie and slander all
> all he wants and throw a
> lawsuit up if I answer back.

Note that Mark Goldsmith deleted all my offers for us to both make a deal that
would be to the advantage of
both of us.

He says he is merely closing the group for the time being.

He wants to see if I will stop posting about
him and his father.

I will be glad to let it stop right here.

So, until he starts up again, I am through.

It would be better if we both just stop and delete everything.

He can start a new list that doesn't mention Terry Benton or Jerry McDonald or
Pine Lane and have a field day as far as I am concerned dealing with the
imaginary COC "cult".

But, if he or his father says another word about me, Jerry, or Pine Lane, the
deal comes back off the table.

I have no desire to talk about Mark or his father ever again. I wish I never
felt the need to. I hope I never fell the need to again.

Terry W. Benton
http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

------------------------------------
------------------------------------

Terry wrote to Goldsmith, in part:

> It would be better if we both
> just stop and delete everything.

I don't think it would be better, but it does appear that Terry has now joined
Goldsmith in "destroying the evidence".  That is, Terry has now deleted all the
messages on his C2BB group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/C2BB/

The message on the home page of that group now indicates that its messages are
not archived;...poof went all of the messages.

I guess, in a way, that makes the copies and/or excerpts therefrom as archived
on this list and elsewhere (e.g., Jerry's lists) all the more valuable for those
who may have an interest in the history of that matter.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com RLBaty wrote:

  
-------Forwarded Message--------

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/C2BB/message/2368

(edited slightly for clarity-RLBaty)

From: Terry W. Benton
To: THECLASHGROUP
To: C2BB@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 2, 2010 12:47 PM CDT

Subject: Closing the group for now

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/THECLASHGROUP/message/7205

> From: Goldsmith (aka Mark/J427750108)
> Date: Fri Apr 2, 2010 1:26 pm

> Subject: ClashGroup Closed

> With Terry Benton issuing threats and
> attempting to bully with lawsuits and
> the like, TheClashGroup is closed for
> the time being.

> He is threatening to sue unless I
> agree to is terms.

> However, I have told him to show
> me that he is serious by stopping
> the personal attacks and insults
> and all he has said is "no, take the
> deal or else".

> We will see whether or not he
> really wants peace or if he just
> wants people to take his deal and
> he is free to lie and slander all
> all he wants and throw a
> lawsuit up if I answer back.

Note that Mark Goldsmith deleted all my offers for us to both make a deal that
would be to the advantage of
both of us.

He says he is merely closing the group for the time being.

He wants to see if I will stop posting about
him and his father.

I will be glad to let it stop right here.

So, until he starts up again, I am through.

It would be better if we both just stop and delete everything.

He can start a new list that doesn't mention Terry Benton or Jerry McDonald or
Pine Lane and have a field day as far as I am concerned dealing with the
imaginary COC "cult".

But, if he or his father says another word about me, Jerry, or Pine Lane, the
deal comes back off the table.

I have no desire to talk about Mark or his father ever again. I wish I never
felt the need to. I hope I never fell the need to again.

Terry W. Benton
http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

------------------------------------
------------------------------------

That works out, on average, to the following:

Tax per year 1998-2006: $205,409.00

Fraud penaty (75%) per year 1998-2006: $154,057.00

Estimated tax penalty (5%) per year 1998-2006: $11,013.00

Total tax & penalty per year 1998-2006: $370,479.00

Total - $370,479.00 x 9 (rounded): $3,334,315.35

My guess is that with a little cooperation the amounts could be substantially
reduced.  But then again, Dr. Dino has yet to indicate a willingness to actually
work in determining his income, expenses and resulting tax liability related
thereto.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

Courtesy of our friends at Quatloos in response to my inquiry thereat:

--------------------------

by Nikki
on Fri Apr 02, 2010

With respect to Dr DIgNOramus' latest Tax Court petition, the amount at issue,
NOT including interest, is $3,334,315.35 covering tax years 1998 through 2006.

Nikki
Minstrel of the Mystical Moolooh

Posts: 3118
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:41 pm

---------------------------
---------------------------

It appears that newbie's "theclashgroup" and "unity_in_truth" have completely
disappeared.

If one now attempts to access the groups, the message isn't "members only", it's
"the group does not exist".

Actually, it's probably a good thing, I was getting ready to report newbie to
Yahoo for TOS violations in his "clash group".

Looks like Pi has it right.  Here are the links and messages now appearing when
attempting to connect to the links:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/THECLASHGROUP/

> Group Not Found

> There is no group called
> THECLASHGROUP. Please make
> sure you typed the web address
> correctly. If you have done so,
> the group may no longer exist.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unity_in_truth/

> Group Not Found

> There is no group called
> unity_in_truth. Please make
> sure you typed the web address
> correctly. If you have done so,
> the group may no longer exist.

Maybe he is gone; maybe he's just regrouping and will return with yet another
"manifestation"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "piasanaol" <PIASAN@...> wrote:
>
> It appears that newbie's
> "theclashgroup" and "unity_in_truth"
> have completely disappeared.
>
> If one now attempts to access the
> groups, the message isn't "members
> only", it's "the group does not
> exist".
>
> Actually, it's probably a good
> thing, I was getting ready to
> report newbie to Yahoo for TOS
> violations in his "clash group".

------------------------
------------------------

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

> Maybe he is gone; maybe he's
> just regrouping and will return
> with yet another "manifestation"!

I think that should be spelled "infestation".

Pi

Pi,

You are welcome to join the list and save me the trouble of moderating and/or
fiddling with your messages.

I can add you if you wish, or you can use your YAHOO! membership to join.

If you don't want to be bothered with all the messages here, you can be set to
"no-mail".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Pi,

Welcome to our membership.

I've placed you in unmoderated status so that you can post at will.

Stay tuned for details about Dr. Dino's Tax Court petition.  It should be
available in a few days and the rumor is it is quite a doozie!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
> Pi,
>
> You are welcome to join the
> list and save me the trouble
> of moderating and/or fiddling
> with your messages.
>
> I can add you if you wish, or
> you can use your YAHOO! membership
> to join.
>
> If you don't want to be bothered
> with all the messages here, you
> can be set to "no-mail".
>
> Sincerely,
> Robert Baty

From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
Welcome to our membership.
************
Pi:
Since I had begun lurking on a regular basis.... if it makes life simpler for
you.....
********


Robert:
I've placed you in unmoderated status so that you can post at will.
*************
Pi:
Thanks.
************


Robert:
Stay tuned for details about Dr. Dino's Tax Court petition.  It should be
available in a few days and the rumor is it is quite a doozie!
***********
Pi:
I'll be looking forward to it.  There is another group in which Hovind is a
regular topic of discussion.  I noticed his criminal appeal didn't last 48
hours.
*********




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:

> There is another group in which
> Hovind is a regular topic of
> discussion.  I noticed his
> criminal appeal didn't last 48 hours.

If you will clue me in I might check out that list.

Otherwise, what do you mean "his criminal appeal didn't last 48 hours"?

Sounds like there might be a slight misunderstanding of what transpired.

As I recall, the motions to dismiss were filed earlier in March, the government
filed its Answer to the motions towards the end of March and then the Court
filed its Order denying the motions on March 31; the Orders then were "entered"
on April 1.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

From: rlbaty50 rlbaty@...

If you will clue me in I might check out that list.
************
Pi:
It's a bunch that made themselves known when Eric had Sye as a guest on his
list.  Eric gave Sye moderator powers and they began blocking most posts. 
Here's a link:
http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewforum.php?f=7&sid=aec28dfc7ca4a75a93a5ce08a1c2b3\
ee

Over there, I'm known by my real name:  "Geno".
*************


Robert:
Sounds like there might be a slight misunderstanding of what transpired.

As I recall, the motions to dismiss were filed earlier in March, the government
filed its Answer to the motions towards the end of March and then the Court
filed its Order denying the motions on March 31; the Orders then were "entered"
on April 1.
************
Pi:
Yep.  I misunderstood.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't recall if this has been posted here before, so I am posting it now for
reference and consideration as it relates to the pending FFRF IRC 107 suit
challenging the constitutionality of the income tax free ministerial housing
allowance.

It is reported that this discussion is in the Congressional Record from 2002
concerning the legislative change prompted by Rick Warren's case:

---------------------------------

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in one of the most obvious cases of judicial overreach in recent
memory, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco is poised to inflict
a devastating tax increase on America's clergy. Unless Congress acts quickly,
the 81-year-old housing tax exclusion for members of the clergy will be struck
down by judicial overreach on the part of America's most reversed and most
activist circuit court.

The focus of this court's attack is a long-standing clergy housing allowance.
Dating back to 1921 and recodified in 1954 in section 107 of the Tax Code, this
allowance prevents clergy from being taxed on the portion of their church income
that is used to provide their housing. This allowance is similar to other
housing provisions in the Tax Code offered to workers who locate in a particular
area for the convenience of their employers, and military personnel who receive
a tax exclusion for their housing.

Clergy members of every faith and denomination rely on the housing allowance.
Without it, America's clergy face a devastating tax increase of $2.3 billion
over the next 5 years. At a time when our places of worship are financially
strapped and struggling to serve people in need, we cannot allow this important
tax provision to fall.

The case, now in the Ninth Circuit, Mr. Speaker, arose because of a dispute over
a 1971 IRS ruling [Rev Rul 71-280] that limited the clergy allowance to the fair
rental value of the parsonage.

A taxpayer [Rick Warren] in turn challenged this limit and won in tax court and
the IRS appealed.

But rather than simply considering the issue presented in the case, which was
whether the Internal Revenue Service had authority to limit the allowance, the
Ninth Circuit hijacked the case and turned it into a challenge of the very
constitutionality of the housing allowance.

Neither party in the case even raised the constitutionality issue or requested
the court to consider that issue, so the Ninth Circuit, in turn, asked for a
``friend of the court'' brief from a law professor who happened to believe that
it was unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, this is judicial activism at its worst. The legislation on the
floor today will stop the attack on the housing allowance by resolving the
underlying issue in the tax court case. H.R. 4156, the bill before us today,
clarifies that the housing allowance is limited to the fair rental value of the
home, which has been common practice for decades, for 81 years.

* * * * *

We believe Congress clearly has the constitutional authority to enact section
107 of the Tax Code and the amendments contained in H.R. 4156 that are before us
today. In addition, we believe the Internal Revenue Service should provide
guidance on the issue of fair rental valuation to avoid unnecessary disputes
with taxpayers. I intend to work with my colleagues to make sure the guidance is
issued.

Finally, the amendment clarifies that the new fair rental value limitation to
section 107 applies prospectively to the year 2002 and beyond. Both H.R. 4156
and this amendment explicitly provide that for tax years before the effective
date, the fair rental value limitation does not apply. This language is intended
to end the current litigation and fully resolve the matter.

[How many other taxpayers besides Warren get legislation enacted for their
benefit while their cases are pending in court?]

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the strong bipartisan support this legislation
has received from our colleagues, with 37 cosponsors. My fellow Committee on
Ways and Means member and friend, the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr.Pomeroy), the chief sponsor on the other side of the aisle, has been
tremendous on working on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan legislation to
protect America's clergy from an unwarranted judicial attack and to preserve the
important housing allowance.

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

My further comments:

And as far as I can tell, neither the Congress or the President have indicated
any political will to tackle the abuses of IRC 107 (e.g., those million dollar
housing benefits and "basketball minister") or remove the constitutional issues
now being pursued by the FFRF in its IRC 107 suit.

What are they waiting for; Rick Warren's permission?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Pi,

Thanks for the link.  Some interesting discussions of the Hovind kind over
there.  Don't know if I'll have time to engage the matter there, but I
might...later.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote, in part:

Here's a link:

http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewforum.php?f=7&sid=aec28dfc7ca4a75a93a5ce08a1c2b3\
ee

--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------

(Marion Fox is recommending the following as being of some interest.  Go to the
link for the conspiracy minded readers' comments.-RLBaty)

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700020756/Ruling-reveals-CIA-involvement-in-O\
klahoma-City-bombing-investigation.html

Ruling reveals CIA involvement in Oklahoma City bombing investigation
By Emiley Morgan

Deseret News

Published: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 6:20 p.m. MDT

SALT LAKE CITY — The CIA collaborated with the U.S. Justice Department in the
prosecution of convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, according to a
recent ruling by a federal judge in Utah.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups was issued as part of
litigation by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue, who has been struggling
for nearly 15 years to unearth more information about the August 1995 death of
his brother. Trentadue believes his brother was tortured by FBI agents who were
under pressure to find those responsible for the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah
Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which claimed the lives of 168 people.

On Friday, Waddoups ruled that 12 documents that Trentadue has requested from
the CIA, FBI and the FBI's field office in Oklahoma should remain classified —
based on the government's assertion that the release of the documents in
question would jeopardize national security.

Trentadue doesn't see the move as an obstacle in his case but a "good thing"
because of what it reveals.

"The significance is that it discloses a number of things. … This documents that
the CIA was, in fact, involved," he said. "The CIA is a foreign intelligence
agency. It's illegal for it to engage in intelligence activities in the U.S.
That means there was some foreign involvement into the case."

Story continues below

In his ruling, Waddoups said, "It is clear that the CIA and DOJ were cooperating
in the prosecution of Mr. McVeigh." The judge noted, however, that the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals has advised judges that "courts are ill-equipped to
properly weigh national security interests."

The appellate court has instructed judges that if the documents being sought are
clearly summarized by the government, there is no need for even a private
judicial review of the information in question.

Trentadue believes the government's decision to assert a national security
classification is an airtight way to prevent the release of the records he's
seeking.

"It's the king's X, the ultimate protection," he said. "You can't get around
it."

The documents Trentadue wants include various faxes, letters and cable
transmissions, including one from May 10, 1995, that relayed "information
provided by a foreign government about the possible identification of a suspect
in the Oklahoma City bombing."

Two other documents contain information provided by a foreign contact in regards
to the bombing and background on a source who provided details to the CIA about
the attack.

Trentadue filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the 12 documents in
question in December 2006. He received no reply from the government agencies,
prompting him to file a lawsuit in October 2008.

Trentadue's brother, Kenneth Michael Trentadue, was found hanging in his cell
while in federal custody, and his death was ruled a suicide. Kenneth Trentadue,
a convicted bank robber, had been picked up in California after violating his
parole and was transported to Oklahoma City for further proceedings. During this
time, the FBI was investigating the bombing.

When Kenneth Trentadue's body was sent to his family, it was covered in blood
and bruises, leading them to believe he was murdered, according to Jesse
Trentadue. He believes his brother was killed by FBI agents who mistook him for
a bombing suspect and subjected him to fatal interrogation.

Trentadue's family ultimately received close to a $1 million judgment after a
federal judge in Oklahoma found that the federal government intentionally
inflicted emotional distress on family members by withholding information about
Kenneth Trentadue's death.

Jesse Trentadue contends the reason the government has fought so hard to
withhold the results of the death investigation is because it may contain a
cover-up reaching to the top ranks of the DOJ.

Judges with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals have noted there is evidence that
there has been misconduct on the part of federal agents.

On Monday, Trentadue filed a motion to compel, in which he is requesting video
footage taken of the Murrah Building on the morning of the April 19, 1995,
bombing.

-----------------------------
-----------------------------

From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700020756/Ruling-reveals-CIA-involvement-in-O\
klahoma-City-bombing-investigation.html

Robert quotes:
"The significance is that it discloses a number of things. … This documents
that
the CIA was, in fact, involved," he said. "The CIA is a foreign intelligence
agency. It's illegal for it to engage in intelligence activities in the U.S.
That means there was some foreign involvement into the case."
***********
Pi:
No.  What it means is that they were looking for some foreign involvement.  The
FBI was poorly equipped to deal with terrorism and terrorist attacks, so they
simply got some help from people who had expertise in those areas.

To the best of my knowledge, no foreign link was ever found.

Now, whether or not it was appropriate and/or legal to involve the CIA is a
different matter....




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From the article recommended to us by Marion Fox:

>> "The significance is that it discloses
>> a number of things.

>> This documents that the CIA was,
>> in fact, involved,"

> he said.

>> "The CIA is a foreign intelligence
>> agency. It's illegal for it to
>> engage in intelligence activities
>> in the U.S.

>> That means there was some foreign
>> involvement into the case."

However, Pi opines, in part:

> No.

> What it means is that they were
> looking for some foreign involvement.

That's kinda what I was thinking, Pi.

I guess that $1,000,000.00 the feds paid Trentadue to settle that lawsuit went a
long ways towards financing his continuing battle over the death of his
criminally inclined brother.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/C2BB/message/2374

From: Terry W. Benton
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010

Subject: The Truth About How the World Began

The Truth About How the World Began

Gen 1:1-5

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was* on the face of the
deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the
darkness.

5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and
the morning were the first day. NKJV

[In the beginning God]  - Matter is not eternal. It could not make itself and
then make life all by random chance and accident. Life forms on the earth,
including human life, are not eternal. Yet, the heavens and earth are before us
and we have intelligent life able to observe it and study it. Life cannot come
from non-life, and that all by random chance. Intelligence and moral
consciousness does not come from non-intelligence and no sense of right and
wrong. If there was ever a time when there was absolutely nothing, including
God, that is what would be right now, NOTHING. Since matter does not have
eternal quality, and something cannot create itself from nothing, then the Bible
gives the only logical conclusion - God. God, all-wise and eternal One, CREATED
the heavens and the earth.

At some point in timelessness God brought time, space, and the materials
together in a formless mass.

The earth God wanted to form from the formless mass of materials, including
waters, was waiting for God to take action upon it.

God was "hovering over" the face of the waters, as the Spirit later "hovered"
over the virgin Mary to create a seed in  her without the aid of a man (Luke
1:30-31,35). In Mary God was going to bring forth the true Light of the world,
Jesus Christ (John 1:1-9). In Mary, God was going to bring forth the One who
would bring light into our understanding and recreate our dark hearts and lives
(2 Cor.5:17). We can say that the first creation event was only a shadow of the
greater creation of new creatures in Christ that God had in mind from before the
foundation of the world (Eph.1:4).

There is no statement as to how long the earth was in the void and formless
state when God began to take action upon it.

But, the first day of His action upon the formless mass was a day of creating
light and separating light from darkness.

How fast was the "speed of light" that day?

Perhaps faster by far than the present speed.

How fast does a man grow? At today's rate it would take 15-20 years to grow a
man, but God was not growing a man, He was creating a man. He was not growing
some plants from seed. He was creating plants with seed within as a procreation
method after the initial Supernatural creation.

So, when it comes to beginnings, all present rates of development and growth
have no application to ANYTHING at the beginning.

So, how fast and far-reaching was the light God made on the first day?  We have
no way of knowing. But, it was faster than the rate we see light traveling
today.

What about those stars whose light is just reaching us today?

God created variety of star sizes, star potential, and distances with different
lengths of light streams.

Just as there were instantly full-grown trees and younger trees that were ready
to replace the olds made in older form, there were stars built with light
already to be seen on earth, and others with eventual light distances that were
in route to be seen in different places of the universe.

All stars were not placed so that their light reaches man at the same moment.

Some were hurled instantly away from man's visibility and then given a steady
time-speed of light to reach different parts of the universe and
earth-visibility  at different times.

In revealing to Moses what He(God) did "in the beginning", God revealed that the
"days" of which He spoke were the common kind of evening-morning days that
Israel was familiar with. He did not trick Moses or Israel, but gave historic
information that they could understand. They did not and could not understand
God to be saying that these six "evening-morning DAYS" were actually six
billion-year long "evening-morning days".

Revelation from God about His creative work is far better than limited man
trying to extrapolate from present processes what happened by using all-natural
natural processes.

The modern scientific method is usually good for studying present processes, but
is useless in trying to extrapolate from present processes to all-natural
origins.

It simply cannot do so.

The conclusions will always be in error.

Why?

Because GOD was the process and modern science precludes God as not a valid
process within the modern scientific method.

God cannot be studied and observed with the human senses that uses human tools
to study what has been made, but can't study WHO made it and how fast it took
Him.

Trying to get a believer in God and His revelation to accept all-natural-theory
of origins and all-natural-extrapolated conclusions about origins is useless.

To the believer in God and His revelation the all-natural approach is good for
studying natural things and natural processes as we know them now, but is
totally inadequate for explaining origins of the universe, life, and man.

The natural process simply was not involved "in the beginning when GOD created
the heavens and the earth".

It is like trying to explain the resurrection of Jesus using all-natural
assumptions and telling the student that he cannot bring God into the equation,
and he must use only the all-natural-scientific method. The explanation will
always be inferior and WRONG. The truth will not be in an approach that
predetermines to exclude God and pre-determines that all explanations will be
all-natural or none at all.

God created order out of disorder.

The natural processes we observe sees order break down in time. Only a beginning
that empowered the world with replacing and renewing birth while death takes out
and breaks down the old is before us now.

We cannot extrapolate an eternal continuum into the infinite past.

Theistic evolutionists think they can ride along with the naturalist until it is
just too uncomfortable anymore to keep riding with them.

They know there is some point in which they must say "God", but they want it to
be all-natural until that mysterious point.

They want to be able to keep moving the goal line behind them as all-naturalists
come up with more that they think they can explain with all-natural processes.

They want to be very flexible with that goal-line behind us where the field of
time starts, and they don't care how much bending and distorting of the owner's
manual it takes to get along with the all-naturalist.

This simply is not good thinking, and is certainly not God's story on the
matter.

You either allow God to give His Supernatural testimony and allow it priority
over all-natural human opinion or you surrender the very premise of God
entirely.

There is no logical place for the theist to bend the creation story so that it
fits the naturalist's theory of Evolution.

Theistic-Evolutionists simply believe man more than they believe God.

Adam did not come from a race of almost human-looking animals. There is no place
you can bend the creation story and still bring Adam into existence by
all-natural processes.

The theistic evolutionist does not know the scriptures, nor the power of God. He
compromises the revelation of God because of his total trust and faith in the
Naturalist of the all-natural-scientific processes.

God actually CREATED everything in six days just like He said.

The all-naturalist says, "lets' study the instantly created universe and human
life as if it came through natural processes". It is as foolish as trying to
explain a watch, and the only rule allowed to explain the watch is without human
wisdom and power and allowing only non-human natural processes to be used in the
explanation.

The premise is wrong and the conclusion will be set-up to be wrong.

Even though he uses the "scientific method" (which is good for most things we
observe in the present, but not the distant past), his analysis and study will
only lead into deeper time errors as he determines to ignore and disallow the
Divine Testimony to "taint" his "objective" study that is confined to
all-natural explanations.

Genesis and the entire Bible refutes atheism, and it refutes "all-naturalism".
It refutes the all-natural scientific method for studying origins.

It basically says to mankind that you can study the universe, but the present
that you are in now is not the key to all of the past. The natural processes you
observe now had a supernatural beginning and you cannot study the Creator or His
power or wisdom using only human wisdom and a pre-commitment to only accept
natural explanations for the things seen.

That method of study is only good for history back to the time of Adam, and only
good for things seen, but no good for things not seen.

Further back than that your method will be entirely flawed and your conclusions
wrong. "Let God be true and every man a liar"(Rom.3:4).

Only God can tell us how it really came together, and He tells it in perspective
of His Supernatural power, and does not tell it as though He was limited to
all-natural processes.

The creation is no more natural in origin than Jesus' resurrection has a natural
explanation.

All theory of man that commits to all-naturalism will of necessity be in error.

Before God acted upon the formless and uninhabited mass of water and
pre-planetary materials, he put energy, light into the dark mix of materials and
then separated the light into a divided area from the dark areas.

The Light was God's energy empowering the materials of the formless mass to have
the beginnings of it's own energy and light. Now part of the formless mass was
glowing with the fire of energy and that part of the mass was separated into a
separate area from the dark matter, each ready to be further formed by the
mighty power and wisdom of God.

The light He called "day".
The dark He called "night".

God did this so that mankind would later have an adequate language with which to
describe the days and nights, the evening and mornings of their world
experience. It was a unique day one. It was not measured by the light of sun
shining upon a rotating earth. It was measured by God separating out the energy
mass from the dark mass and the dark mass having motion that caught the light on
one side but did not catch it on it's far side until it turns around with
evening and morning rotation.

At this point the energy mass is not yet formed into a sun and stars for seasons
and measuring months. It is still a radiant mass shining upon another mass that
is rotating. The separating of glowing light mass from other non-illumined
material and letting the illumined material to shine on one side of the
non-illumined matter with rotating motion gave an evening-morning, first day.

God did this by His power.

God told us that this is how He did it, and he let us know to measure it in
terms of the evening-morning days that we know.

Were the days actually long ages?

At the time of creation, the eternal God was preparing the stage for man and the
stage for the Messianic Redeemer king. God was relating these seven days with
evenings and mornings experience that man could relate to. Man could understand
day one in terms of time with illumined energy shining upon a rotating mass that
has evening and morning, day and night experience in rotating sequence.

Did it need to spin at the 24 hour rate on day one?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Who knows?

But, at some point within these seven days plant-life and earth-life is going to
need the 24 hour spin. It cannot be allowed thousands of years of dark awaiting
thousands of years of light in slow rotation. It would need immediate balance of
night and day.

There is no reason to think that God did not measure his activity equally to a
24 hour program of evening-morning days as we know them.

There is good reason to believe that the beginning was so unique, totally
involved with God's activity and wisdom, and once accomplished would not need
that same measure of activity from day to day afterwards.

Adam would not need years of sunlight while the other side of the earth gets
years of darkness. It is nothing for God to measure His work in measured time
and doing day one in the same amount of time as the days that depended upon the
shapened sun, moon and stars.

The truth about how the world began cannot be discovered in a science class that
is already predetermined to examine things using only natural explanations.

The heavens and the earth did not evolve naturally.

It was created in 6 evening-morning measured days.

After that it had natural processes that would be dependable and predictable.

Man can study the past, and he can theorize about origins in an all-natural
program of thought and examination, but once he gets back to the first man,
Adam, his natural explanations will be totally erroneous.

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.

That is the TRUTH about how the world began.

Naturalists can be very smart, but God has made foolish the wisdom of this world
(Rom.1:20-22; 1 Cor.1:18-29). His ways are past finding out.

Every theory that imagines a natural beginning and determines to explain all
things naturally will make a huge mistake in the calculations of pre-Adamic
time.

God's word is truth.

He was there.

He knows what He did and He knew how to relate to man how much time He took to
prepare an earth for man.

They were six evening-morning days as we know them now.

Moses wrote this after the fact, and he wrote this by aid of God's revealing
these things in terms that Israel and all others could know how to measure their
own seventh day of rest.

God knew how to tell the truth and it was impossible for God to lie or be
deceived.

God said it and God is far wiser than even our smartest men.

The Bible simply does not have room for the time-program of the General Theory
of Evolution.

The Bible is right, and it is right even if men choose to ignore it and take up
all-natural explanations.

They may not know that they are wrong, but they are.

God did what He did in ways "past finding out", and He let us in on the fact
that He measured His creative work in terms of six evening-morning days, using
his power in rapid speed to bring about a fully matured and operational world
for man to have what he needs.

Nobody ever thought otherwise until the 1800's when man started schooling
themselves to start looking through the lenses of Naturalism and accept only
what human wisdom could explain in all-natural terms. Man has again professed to
be wise and have largely become fools.

Terry W. Benton
http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

------------
------------

Terry wrote, in part:

> You either allow God to give His
> Supernatural testimony and allow
> it priority over all-natural human
> opinion or you surrender the very
> premise of God entirely.

That sounds like a variation of the following which has been proposed as being a
reflection of the fundamental position espoused by Terry and others similarly
minded:

> I've got my interpretation of the
> text regarding the real world and
> that trumps any real world
> evidence to the contrary.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

-------------------------------------

Terry's article:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/C2BB/message/2374

From: Terry W. Benton
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010

Subject: The Truth About How the World Began

The Truth About How the World Began

Gen 1:1-5

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was* on the face of the
deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the
darkness.

5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and
the morning were the first day. NKJV

[In the beginning God] - Matter is not eternal. It could not make itself and
then make life all by random chance and accident. Life forms on the earth,
including human life, are not eternal. Yet, the heavens and earth are before us
and we have intelligent life able to observe it and study it. Life cannot come
from non-life, and that all by random chance. Intelligence and moral
consciousness does not come from non-intelligence and no sense of right and
wrong. If there was ever a time when there was absolutely nothing, including
God, that is what would be right now, NOTHING. Since matter does not have
eternal quality, and something cannot create itself from nothing, then the Bible
gives the only logical conclusion - God. God, all-wise and eternal One, CREATED
the heavens and the earth.

At some point in timelessness God brought time, space, and the materials
together in a formless mass.

The earth God wanted to form from the formless mass of materials, including
waters, was waiting for God to take action upon it.

God was "hovering over" the face of the waters, as the Spirit later "hovered"
over the virgin Mary to create a seed in her without the aid of a man (Luke
1:30-31,35). In Mary God was going to bring forth the true Light of the world,
Jesus Christ (John 1:1-9). In Mary, God was going to bring forth the One who
would bring light into our understanding and recreate our dark hearts and lives
(2 Cor.5:17). We can say that the first creation event was only a shadow of the
greater creation of new creatures in Christ that God had in mind from before the
foundation of the world (Eph.1:4).

There is no statement as to how long the earth was in the void and formless
state when God began to take action upon it.

But, the first day of His action upon the formless mass was a day of creating
light and separating light from darkness.

How fast was the "speed of light" that day?

Perhaps faster by far than the present speed.

How fast does a man grow? At today's rate it would take 15-20 years to grow a
man, but God was not growing a man, He was creating a man. He was not growing
some plants from seed. He was creating plants with seed within as a procreation
method after the initial Supernatural creation.

So, when it comes to beginnings, all present rates of development and growth
have no application to ANYTHING at the beginning.

So, how fast and far-reaching was the light God made on the first day? We have
no way of knowing. But, it was faster than the rate we see light traveling
today.

What about those stars whose light is just reaching us today?

God created variety of star sizes, star potential, and distances with different
lengths of light streams.

Just as there were instantly full-grown trees and younger trees that were ready
to replace the olds made in older form, there were stars built with light
already to be seen on earth, and others with eventual light distances that were
in route to be seen in different places of the universe.

All stars were not placed so that their light reaches man at the same moment.

Some were hurled instantly away from man's visibility and then given a steady
time-speed of light to reach different parts of the universe and
earth-visibility at different times.

In revealing to Moses what He(God) did "in the beginning", God revealed that the
"days" of which He spoke were the common kind of evening-morning days that
Israel was familiar with. He did not trick Moses or Israel, but gave historic
information that they could understand. They did not and could not understand
God to be saying that these six "evening-morning DAYS" were actually six
billion-year long "evening-morning days".

Revelation from God about His creative work is far better than limited man
trying to extrapolate from present processes what happened by using all-natural
natural processes.

The modern scientific method is usually good for studying present processes, but
is useless in trying to extrapolate from present processes to all-natural
origins.

It simply cannot do so.

The conclusions will always be in error.

Why?

Because GOD was the process and modern science precludes God as not a valid
process within the modern scientific method.

God cannot be studied and observed with the human senses that uses human tools
to study what has been made, but can't study WHO made it and how fast it took
Him.

Trying to get a believer in God and His revelation to accept all-natural-theory
of origins and all-natural-extrapolated conclusions about origins is useless.

To the believer in God and His revelation the all-natural approach is good for
studying natural things and natural processes as we know them now, but is
totally inadequate for explaining origins of the universe, life, and man.

The natural process simply was not involved "in the beginning when GOD created
the heavens and the earth".

It is like trying to explain the resurrection of Jesus using all-natural
assumptions and telling the student that he cannot bring God into the equation,
and he must use only the all-natural-scientific method. The explanation will
always be inferior and WRONG. The truth will not be in an approach that
predetermines to exclude God and pre-determines that all explanations will be
all-natural or none at all.

God created order out of disorder.

The natural processes we observe sees order break down in time. Only a beginning
that empowered the world with replacing and renewing birth while death takes out
and breaks down the old is before us now.

We cannot extrapolate an eternal continuum into the infinite past.

Theistic evolutionists think they can ride along with the naturalist until it is
just too uncomfortable anymore to keep riding with them.

They know there is some point in which they must say "God", but they want it to
be all-natural until that mysterious point.

They want to be able to keep moving the goal line behind them as all-naturalists
come up with more that they think they can explain with all-natural processes.

They want to be very flexible with that goal-line behind us where the field of
time starts, and they don't care how much bending and distorting of the owner's
manual it takes to get along with the all-naturalist.

This simply is not good thinking, and is certainly not God's story on the
matter.

You either allow God to give His Supernatural testimony and allow it priority
over all-natural human opinion or you surrender the very premise of God
entirely.

There is no logical place for the theist to bend the creation story so that it
fits the naturalist's theory of Evolution.

Theistic-Evolutionists simply believe man more than they believe God.

Adam did not come from a race of almost human-looking animals. There is no place
you can bend the creation story and still bring Adam into existence by
all-natural processes.

The theistic evolutionist does not know the scriptures, nor the power of God. He
compromises the revelation of God because of his total trust and faith in the
Naturalist of the all-natural-scientific processes.

God actually CREATED everything in six days just like He said.

The all-naturalist says, "lets' study the instantly created universe and human
life as if it came through natural processes". It is as foolish as trying to
explain a watch, and the only rule allowed to explain the watch is without human
wisdom and power and allowing only non-human natural processes to be used in the
explanation.

The premise is wrong and the conclusion will be set-up to be wrong.

Even though he uses the "scientific method" (which is good for most things we
observe in the present, but not the distant past), his analysis and study will
only lead into deeper time errors as he determines to ignore and disallow the
Divine Testimony to "taint" his "objective" study that is confined to
all-natural explanations.

Genesis and the entire Bible refutes atheism, and it refutes "all-naturalism".
It refutes the all-natural scientific method for studying origins.

It basically says to mankind that you can study the universe, but the present
that you are in now is not the key to all of the past. The natural processes you
observe now had a supernatural beginning and you cannot study the Creator or His
power or wisdom using only human wisdom and a pre-commitment to only accept
natural explanations for the things seen.

That method of study is only good for history back to the time of Adam, and only
good for things seen, but no good for things not seen.

Further back than that your method will be entirely flawed and your conclusions
wrong. "Let God be true and every man a liar"(Rom.3:4).

Only God can tell us how it really came together, and He tells it in perspective
of His Supernatural power, and does not tell it as though He was limited to
all-natural processes.

The creation is no more natural in origin than Jesus' resurrection has a natural
explanation.

All theory of man that commits to all-naturalism will of necessity be in error.

Before God acted upon the formless and uninhabited mass of water and
pre-planetary materials, he put energy, light into the dark mix of materials and
then separated the light into a divided area from the dark areas.

The Light was God's energy empowering the materials of the formless mass to have
the beginnings of it's own energy and light. Now part of the formless mass was
glowing with the fire of energy and that part of the mass was separated into a
separate area from the dark matter, each ready to be further formed by the
mighty power and wisdom of God.

The light He called "day".
The dark He called "night".

God did this so that mankind would later have an adequate language with which to
describe the days and nights, the evening and mornings of their world
experience. It was a unique day one. It was not measured by the light of sun
shining upon a rotating earth. It was measured by God separating out the energy
mass from the dark mass and the dark mass having motion that caught the light on
one side but did not catch it on it's far side until it turns around with
evening and morning rotation.

At this point the energy mass is not yet formed into a sun and stars for seasons
and measuring months. It is still a radiant mass shining upon another mass that
is rotating. The separating of glowing light mass from other non-illumined
material and letting the illumined material to shine on one side of the
non-illumined matter with rotating motion gave an evening-morning, first day.

God did this by His power.

God told us that this is how He did it, and he let us know to measure it in
terms of the evening-morning days that we know.

Were the days actually long ages?

At the time of creation, the eternal God was preparing the stage for man and the
stage for the Messianic Redeemer king. God was relating these seven days with
evenings and mornings experience that man could relate to. Man could understand
day one in terms of time with illumined energy shining upon a rotating mass that
has evening and morning, day and night experience in rotating sequence.

Did it need to spin at the 24 hour rate on day one?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Who knows?

But, at some point within these seven days plant-life and earth-life is going to
need the 24 hour spin. It cannot be allowed thousands of years of dark awaiting
thousands of years of light in slow rotation. It would need immediate balance of
night and day.

There is no reason to think that God did not measure his activity equally to a
24 hour program of evening-morning days as we know them.

There is good reason to believe that the beginning was so unique, totally
involved with God's activity and wisdom, and once accomplished would not need
that same measure of activity from day to day afterwards.

Adam would not need years of sunlight while the other side of the earth gets
years of darkness. It is nothing for God to measure His work in measured time
and doing day one in the same amount of time as the days that depended upon the
shapened sun, moon and stars.

The truth about how the world began cannot be discovered in a science class that
is already predetermined to examine things using only natural explanations.

The heavens and the earth did not evolve naturally.

It was created in 6 evening-morning measured days.

After that it had natural processes that would be dependable and predictable.

Man can study the past, and he can theorize about origins in an all-natural
program of thought and examination, but once he gets back to the first man,
Adam, his natural explanations will be totally erroneous.

In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.

That is the TRUTH about how the world began.

Naturalists can be very smart, but God has made foolish the wisdom of this world
(Rom.1:20-22; 1 Cor.1:18-29). His ways are past finding out.

Every theory that imagines a natural beginning and determines to explain all
things naturally will make a huge mistake in the calculations of pre-Adamic
time.

God's word is truth.

He was there.

He knows what He did and He knew how to relate to man how much time He took to
prepare an earth for man.

They were six evening-morning days as we know them now.

Moses wrote this after the fact, and he wrote this by aid of God's revealing
these things in terms that Israel and all others could know how to measure their
own seventh day of rest.

God knew how to tell the truth and it was impossible for God to lie or be
deceived.

God said it and God is far wiser than even our smartest men.

The Bible simply does not have room for the time-program of the General Theory
of Evolution.

The Bible is right, and it is right even if men choose to ignore it and take up
all-natural explanations.

They may not know that they are wrong, but they are.

God did what He did in ways "past finding out", and He let us in on the fact
that He measured His creative work in terms of six evening-morning days, using
his power in rapid speed to bring about a fully matured and operational world
for man to have what he needs.

Nobody ever thought otherwise until the 1800's when man started schooling
themselves to start looking through the lenses of Naturalism and accept only
what human wisdom could explain in all-natural terms. Man has again professed to
be wise and have largely become fools.

Terry W. Benton
http://www.pinelanechurchofchrist.com

------------
------------

If you believe the world is round instead of flat, then that means you believe
man more than God.  A typically insulting post from Terry Benton.

Charles Weston

--- On Mon, 4/5/10, rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...> wrote:

From: rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...>
Subject: [M & B] Re: Fw: The Truth About How the World Began??
To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 12:15 PM







 









       Terry wrote, in part:



> You either allow God to give His

> Supernatural testimony and allow

> it priority over all-natural human

> opinion or you surrender the very

> premise of God entirely.



That sounds like a variation of the following which has been proposed as being a
reflection of the fundamental position espoused by Terry and others similarly
minded:



> I've got my interpretation of the

> text regarding the real world and

> that trumps any real world

> evidence to the contrary.



Sincerely,

Robert Baty



------------ --------- --------- -------



Terry's article:



http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/C2BB/ message/2374



From: Terry W. Benton

Date: Monday, April 5, 2010



Subject: The Truth About How the World Began



The Truth About How the World Began



Gen 1:1-5



1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was* on the face of the
deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.



3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.



4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the
darkness.



5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and
the morning were the first day. NKJV



[In the beginning God] - Matter is not eternal. It could not make itself and
then make life all by random chance and accident. Life forms on the earth,
including human life, are not eternal. Yet, the heavens and earth are before us
and we have intelligent life able to observe it and study it. Life cannot come
from non-life, and that all by random chance. Intelligence and moral
consciousness does not come from non-intelligence and no sense of right and
wrong. If there was ever a time when there was absolutely nothing, including
God, that is what would be right now, NOTHING. Since matter does not have
eternal quality, and something cannot create itself from nothing, then the Bible
gives the only logical conclusion - God. God, all-wise and eternal One, CREATED
the heavens and the earth.



At some point in timelessness God brought time, space, and the materials
together in a formless mass.



The earth God wanted to form from the formless mass of materials, including
waters, was waiting for God to take action upon it.



God was "hovering over" the face of the waters, as the Spirit later "hovered"
over the virgin Mary to create a seed in her without the aid of a man (Luke
1:30-31,35). In Mary God was going to bring forth the true Light of the world,
Jesus Christ (John 1:1-9). In Mary, God was going to bring forth the One who
would bring light into our understanding and recreate our dark hearts and lives
(2 Cor.5:17). We can say that the first creation event was only a shadow of the
greater creation of new creatures in Christ that God had in mind from before the
foundation of the world (Eph.1:4).



There is no statement as to how long the earth was in the void and formless
state when God began to take action upon it.



But, the first day of His action upon the formless mass was a day of creating
light and separating light from darkness.



How fast was the "speed of light" that day?



Perhaps faster by far than the present speed.



How fast does a man grow? At today's rate it would take 15-20 years to grow a
man, but God was not growing a man, He was creating a man. He was not growing
some plants from seed. He was creating plants with seed within as a procreation
method after the initial Supernatural creation.



So, when it comes to beginnings, all present rates of development and growth
have no application to ANYTHING at the beginning.



So, how fast and far-reaching was the light God made on the first day? We have
no way of knowing. But, it was faster than the rate we see light traveling
today.



What about those stars whose light is just reaching us today?



God created variety of star sizes, star potential, and distances with different
lengths of light streams.



Just as there were instantly full-grown trees and younger trees that were ready
to replace the olds made in older form, there were stars built with light
already to be seen on earth, and others with eventual light distances that were
in route to be seen in different places of the universe.



All stars were not placed so that their light reaches man at the same moment.



Some were hurled instantly away from man's visibility and then given a steady
time-speed of light to reach different parts of the universe and
earth-visibility at different times.



In revealing to Moses what He(God) did "in the beginning", God revealed that the
"days" of which He spoke were the common kind of evening-morning days that
Israel was familiar with. He did not trick Moses or Israel, but gave historic
information that they could understand. They did not and could not understand
God to be saying that these six "evening-morning DAYS" were actually six
billion-year long "evening-morning days".



Revelation from God about His creative work is far better than limited man
trying to extrapolate from present processes what happened by using all-natural
natural processes.



The modern scientific method is usually good for studying present processes, but
is useless in trying to extrapolate from present processes to all-natural
origins.



It simply cannot do so.



The conclusions will always be in error.



Why?



Because GOD was the process and modern science precludes God as not a valid
process within the modern scientific method.



God cannot be studied and observed with the human senses that uses human tools
to study what has been made, but can't study WHO made it and how fast it took
Him.



Trying to get a believer in God and His revelation to accept all-natural- theory
of origins and all-natural- extrapolated conclusions about origins is useless.



To the believer in God and His revelation the all-natural approach is good for
studying natural things and natural processes as we know them now, but is
totally inadequate for explaining origins of the universe, life, and man.



The natural process simply was not involved "in the beginning when GOD created
the heavens and the earth".



It is like trying to explain the resurrection of Jesus using all-natural
assumptions and telling the student that he cannot bring God into the equation,
and he must use only the all-natural- scientific method. The explanation will
always be inferior and WRONG. The truth will not be in an approach that
predetermines to exclude God and pre-determines that all explanations will be
all-natural or none at all.



God created order out of disorder.



The natural processes we observe sees order break down in time. Only a beginning
that empowered the world with replacing and renewing birth while death takes out
and breaks down the old is before us now.



We cannot extrapolate an eternal continuum into the infinite past.



Theistic evolutionists think they can ride along with the naturalist until it is
just too uncomfortable anymore to keep riding with them.



They know there is some point in which they must say "God", but they want it to
be all-natural until that mysterious point.



They want to be able to keep moving the goal line behind them as all-naturalists
come up with more that they think they can explain with all-natural processes.



They want to be very flexible with that goal-line behind us where the field of
time starts, and they don't care how much bending and distorting of the owner's
manual it takes to get along with the all-naturalist.



This simply is not good thinking, and is certainly not God's story on the
matter.



You either allow God to give His Supernatural testimony and allow it priority
over all-natural human opinion or you surrender the very premise of God
entirely.



There is no logical place for the theist to bend the creation story so that it
fits the naturalist's theory of Evolution.



Theistic-Evolutioni sts simply believe man more than they believe God.



Adam did not come from a race of almost human-looking animals. There is no place
you can bend the creation story and still bring Adam into existence by
all-natural processes.



The theistic evolutionist does not know the scriptures, nor the power of God. He
compromises the revelation of God because of his total trust and faith in the
Naturalist of the all-natural- scientific processes.



God actually CREATED everything in six days just like He said.



The all-naturalist says, "lets' study the instantly created universe and human
life as if it came through natural processes". It is as foolish as trying to
explain a watch, and the only rule allowed to explain the watch is without human
wisdom and power and allowing only non-human natural processes to be used in the
explanation.



The premise is wrong and the conclusion will be set-up to be wrong.



Even though he uses the "scientific method" (which is good for most things we
observe in the present, but not the distant past), his analysis and study will
only lead into deeper time errors as he determines to ignore and disallow the
Divine Testimony to "taint" his "objective" study that is confined to
all-natural explanations.



Genesis and the entire Bible refutes atheism, and it refutes "all-naturalism" .
It refutes the all-natural scientific method for studying origins.



It basically says to mankind that you can study the universe, but the present
that you are in now is not the key to all of the past. The natural processes you
observe now had a supernatural beginning and you cannot study the Creator or His
power or wisdom using only human wisdom and a pre-commitment to only accept
natural explanations for the things seen.



That method of study is only good for history back to the time of Adam, and only
good for things seen, but no good for things not seen.



Further back than that your method will be entirely flawed and your conclusions
wrong. "Let God be true and every man a liar"(Rom.3: 4).



Only God can tell us how it really came together, and He tells it in perspective
of His Supernatural power, and does not tell it as though He was limited to
all-natural processes.



The creation is no more natural in origin than Jesus' resurrection has a natural
explanation.



All theory of man that commits to all-naturalism will of necessity be in error.



Before God acted upon the formless and uninhabited mass of water and
pre-planetary materials, he put energy, light into the dark mix of materials and
then separated the light into a divided area from the dark areas.



The Light was God's energy empowering the materials of the formless mass to have
the beginnings of it's own energy and light. Now part of the formless mass was
glowing with the fire of energy and that part of the mass was separated into a
separate area from the dark matter, each ready to be further formed by the
mighty power and wisdom of God.



The light He called "day".

The dark He called "night".



God did this so that mankind would later have an adequate language with which to
describe the days and nights, the evening and mornings of their world
experience. It was a unique day one. It was not measured by the light of sun
shining upon a rotating earth. It was measured by God separating out the energy
mass from the dark mass and the dark mass having motion that caught the light on
one side but did not catch it on it's far side until it turns around with
evening and morning rotation.



At this point the energy mass is not yet formed into a sun and stars for seasons
and measuring months. It is still a radiant mass shining upon another mass that
is rotating. The separating of glowing light mass from other non-illumined
material and letting the illumined material to shine on one side of the
non-illumined matter with rotating motion gave an evening-morning, first day.



God did this by His power.



God told us that this is how He did it, and he let us know to measure it in
terms of the evening-morning days that we know.



Were the days actually long ages?



At the time of creation, the eternal God was preparing the stage for man and the
stage for the Messianic Redeemer king. God was relating these seven days with
evenings and mornings experience that man could relate to. Man could understand
day one in terms of time with illumined energy shining upon a rotating mass that
has evening and morning, day and night experience in rotating sequence.



Did it need to spin at the 24 hour rate on day one?



Maybe. Maybe not.



Who knows?



But, at some point within these seven days plant-life and earth-life is going to
need the 24 hour spin. It cannot be allowed thousands of years of dark awaiting
thousands of years of light in slow rotation. It would need immediate balance of
night and day.



There is no reason to think that God did not measure his activity equally to a
24 hour program of evening-morning days as we know them.



There is good reason to believe that the beginning was so unique, totally
involved with God's activity and wisdom, and once accomplished would not need
that same measure of activity from day to day afterwards.



Adam would not need years of sunlight while the other side of the earth gets
years of darkness. It is nothing for God to measure His work in measured time
and doing day one in the same amount of time as the days that depended upon the
shapened sun, moon and stars.



The truth about how the world began cannot be discovered in a science class that
is already predetermined to examine things using only natural explanations.



The heavens and the earth did not evolve naturally.



It was created in 6 evening-morning measured days.



After that it had natural processes that would be dependable and predictable.



Man can study the past, and he can theorize about origins in an all-natural
program of thought and examination, but once he gets back to the first man,
Adam, his natural explanations will be totally erroneous.



In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth.



That is the TRUTH about how the world began.



Naturalists can be very smart, but God has made foolish the wisdom of this world
(Rom.1:20-22; 1 Cor.1:18-29) . His ways are past finding out.



Every theory that imagines a natural beginning and determines to explain all
things naturally will make a huge mistake in the calculations of pre-Adamic
time.



God's word is truth.



He was there.



He knows what He did and He knew how to relate to man how much time He took to
prepare an earth for man.



They were six evening-morning days as we know them now.



Moses wrote this after the fact, and he wrote this by aid of God's revealing
these things in terms that Israel and all others could know how to measure their
own seventh day of rest.



God knew how to tell the truth and it was impossible for God to lie or be
deceived.



God said it and God is far wiser than even our smartest men.



The Bible simply does not have room for the time-program of the General Theory
of Evolution.



The Bible is right, and it is right even if men choose to ignore it and take up
all-natural explanations.



They may not know that they are wrong, but they are.



God did what He did in ways "past finding out", and He let us in on the fact
that He measured His creative work in terms of six evening-morning days, using
his power in rapid speed to bring about a fully matured and operational world
for man to have what he needs.



Nobody ever thought otherwise until the 1800's when man started schooling
themselves to start looking through the lenses of Naturalism and accept only
what human wisdom could explain in all-natural terms. Man has again professed to
be wise and have largely become fools.



Terry W. Benton

http://www.pinelane churchofchrist. com



------------

------------

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kent Hovind had a blog entry at his CSE blog earlier today in which he was
discussing how he was going about showing the government had failed to follow
procedures in his case and he had filed 5 new appeals on that basis.  His
analogy was a runner who hit a home run and failed to touch first base.

I posted an entry on the blog pointing out that all of his new appeals were
dismissed because he was trying to apply the rules of civil court in his
criminal case.

His blog entry disappeared.

Wonder why???




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Good for you, Pi.

I'm glad we were able to get out in front of that story.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
>
>
> Kent Hovind had a blog entry at his
> CSE blog earlier today in which he
> was discussing how he was going about
> showing the government had failed to
> follow procedures in his case and he
> had filed 5 new appeals on that basis.
> His analogy was a runner who hit a home
> run and failed to touch first base.
>
> I posted an entry on the blog pointing
> out that all of his new appeals were
> dismissed because he was trying to apply
> the rules of civil court in his criminal
> case.
>
> His blog entry disappeared.
>
> Wonder why???

Pi,

This development could get you your 15 minutes!

Is there any way you can come up with the actual text of Hovind's now-deleted
blog entry and your response thereto?

Also, I'm wondering if Hovind gave any credit to who it was that actually
crafted his motions.  Or, is he trying to make like he crafted them himself?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com rlbaty@... wrote:

Good for you, Pi.

I'm glad we were able to get out in front of that story.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
>
>
> Kent Hovind had a blog entry at his
> CSE blog earlier today in which he
> was discussing how he was going about
> showing the government had failed to
> follow procedures in his case and he
> had filed 5 new appeals on that basis.
> His analogy was a runner who hit a home
> run and failed to touch first base.
>
> I posted an entry on the blog pointing
> out that all of his new appeals were
> dismissed because he was trying to apply
> the rules of civil court in his criminal
> case.
>
> His blog entry disappeared.
>
> Wonder why???


--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------

Someone on the other discussion forum came up with Hovind's now-deleted
boasting.  Note that it was apparently written before the Court's dismissal but
posted today, after the April first entry of the dismissals.

---------------------------------------

Case Update—The Home Run!
0 Comments

Date Sent: 3-20-10
Date Posted: 4-5-2010

Case Update—The Home Run!

Thank you for all those who have prayed, fasted, and supported us during this 3½
year ordeal! Without your support, it would have been impossible to make it.

As most of you know, the Supreme Court declined to look at our case January 8.
They only take 65± out of 11,000 each year. So-o-o-o, we are taking a different
approach. A story will help: If you hit the baseball and run all the way around
the bases, but miss touching first base, it is a home run unless the other team
calls you on it. Before the next pitch is thrown, they can go touch first base
and you are out—the run does not count. In a similar way, if the US Attorney or
the government does not "touch all the bases" during each part of the
indictment, arraignment, trial, and sentencing, they can later be challenged and
the entire case dismissed as if it never happened.

It turns out, in our case, they missed every base so we are calling them on each
one!

Issues in the case, like right or wrong, don't matter for this stage of the game
they play with people's lives, only procedure. We have found and filed motions
on five procedures so far that they did wrong with many more coming soon. Any
one can overturn the case as if it never happened. I would go home, case
dismissed, and they would return the money taken so far. (Unlike other motions,
there is no time limit on these nor limit on the number of jurisdictional
challenges. Maybe Luke 18:5 will kick in?!)

If the district judge does not rule in our favor, we will appeal to the 11th
circuit and then to the Supreme Court for EACH issue. I will post the motions
after this update. I would encourage you to look up the cases cited where they
were overturned on issues exactly like mine. Many are "sure wins"—in Kansas—but
this is OZ!

Once I am out the door and back home, I will tell the world about the people
helping us research these issues. MANY people in prison can be helped in this
same manner. Please pray that the district judge simply rules to release me.
This could be done in 30 seconds; the camp would get the call to send me HOME!
IMMEDIATE RELEASE! If she denies or stalls, the 11th Circuit or Supreme Court
can force the issue.

This trial and prison time has been an eye opening experience! God has been
so-o-o-o-o good to me in here and the ministry out there. Thanks again for your
prayers and support.

Kent

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------


--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50" <rlbaty@...> wrote:

Pi,

This development could get you your 15 minutes!

Is there any way you can come up with the actual text of Hovind's now-deleted
blog entry and your response thereto?

Also, I'm wondering if Hovind gave any credit to who it was that actually
crafted his motions.  Or, is he trying to make like he crafted them himself?

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com rlbaty@ wrote:

Good for you, Pi.

I'm glad we were able to get out in front of that story.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@ wrote:

> Kent Hovind had a blog entry at his
> CSE blog earlier today in which he
> was discussing how he was going about
> showing the government had failed to
> follow procedures in his case and he
> had filed 5 new appeals on that basis.
> His analogy was a runner who hit a home
> run and failed to touch first base.
>
> I posted an entry on the blog pointing
> out that all of his new appeals were
> dismissed because he was trying to apply
> the rules of civil court in his criminal
> case.
>
> His blog entry disappeared.
>
> Wonder why???


--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------