I was wondering why nothing was said about her and why she wasn't in the recent
family pictures that Tip has been promoting:

http://www.facebook.com/tipkill

She does show up in some of the older photographs that Tip's wife has up on her
page at:

http://www.facebook.com/laurie.killingsworth

The last I remember hearing anything about her she and her husband had gotten
into Tip's line of business; preaching.

The following might explain, in part, what is going on with that:

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

http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Florida/Orange-County-FL/Karis-Love-Mcduffie.663\
0360/details/

The following Official Record of Karis Love Mcduffie
is being redistributed by Mugshots.com and is protected
by constitutional, publishing, and other legal rights.

This Official Record was collected from a Law Enforcement
agency on 2/03/2012.

Orange County, FL
Karis Love Mcduffie
Official Records

Name: MCDUFFIE, KARIS LOVE
Race: BLACK
Gender: FEMALE
Birth date: 6/28/1984
Hair Color: BLACK
Eye Color: BROWN
Height: 5′ 5″ (1.65 m)
Weight: 150 lb (68 kg)

Scheduled Termination Date: 2/05/2013
Location: ORLANDO
Supervision Begin Date: 8/06/2010
Current Status: ACTIVE
Supervision Type: PROBATION FELONY

Names / Aliases:

> KARIS L KILLINGWORTH
> KARIS MCDUFFIE
> KARIS LOVE MCDUFFIE

Offense Date: 07/28/2009
Offense: POSS.CONTROL.SUBS/OTHER

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

Just to let you know, "Jen Fishburne" was not an alias of the person who wrote
that blog post, or posed for the profile picture, at the time of Kent Hovind's
trial. It is the current name of the blogger at jensgems.

If that really matters to anyone, I'm sure they can track down what her name
actually was at the time, and why it changed.

Daniel B.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50"  wrote:
>
> (In light of the recent experience of Peter J. Reilly and myself in
communicating with Kent I think I can safely say the Judge and prosecutor
probably had Kent's acting pretty well figured out. - RLBaty)
>
> From one sympathetic to Kent:
>
> http://jensgems.blogspot.com/2007/01/kent-hovind-maxed-minus-one.html
>
> by Jen Fishburne
> January 19, 2007
>
> Kent Hovind: Maxed Minus One
>
> I took my children to Kent Hovind's sentencing trial today. In shackels and a
green jumpsuit, Kent quipped,
>
> > "I chose green today ...
> > to match my lawyer."
>
> It was so good to see him smiling and laughing.
>
> Casey Rodgers, allegedly the youngest US judge, and one who represented local
strip clubs pro bono while still working to pass the bar, was clearly not
enthused about the profusion of Christianity in her courtroom. Although Kent was
previously found guilty of 58 tax fraud-related charges, today's hearing
included character witnesses, recorded phone calls from the prison, and Kent's
own "hear my heart" speech. While I realize that we were not present for the
initial trial, and we did not hear all the evidence presented on both sides, I
will report what I did hear today.
>
> The trial began with the judge deciding that Jo Hovind's original trial was
incomplete and asked counsel to go back and look at two more issues. Her
sentencing will now take place March 1.
>
> Scott Schneider, an IRS special agent, took about 90 hours worth of recently
recorded phone calls and played back 31 minutes of those calls. It was his
purpose, he said, to show that Kent Hovind was hiding assets and making
additional legal threats while he was in prison.
>
> "Incriminating" Phone Calls
>
> As we listened to the phone calls, I heard Kent ask about the motorhome, which
later turned out to be a gift someone had given the ministry and needed some
electrical work. Kent thought it needed to be parked elsewhere, which Schneider
interpreted to mean that he was hiding his assets. Kent also said that if
Schneider had not taken all the church funds and ministry materials, he
recommended that they keep them safe. Since this was supposed to be a personal
trial for Kent Hovind, and not for his ministry, I wondered why keeping the
church funds safe was considered "hiding assets."
>
> > "If I get out [of prison],"
>
> Kent told his wife on the phone,
>
> > "I'm going to leave [the judge, the prosecutor,
> > and the IRS special agent] alone. If I don't get
> > out, I'm going to sue them. I don't really want
> > to fight them, but Schneider needs to obey the
> > law. I'm not ready to roll over; this is America.
> > I just want everybody to obey the law. I'll hold
> > him harmless if he will just drop the case. I
> > just want to be a Nehemiah and build the wall."
>
> I am NOT a Tax Protester
>
> > "The tax laws are written just fine,"
>
> Kent insisted.
>
> > "The government just doesn't obey them."
>
> According to Kent, the W-2 is a voluntary tax withholding agreement, which his
ministry declined to use. He claims he does not have employees, per se, but
independent contractors, which, in a ministry, are exempt from being required to
file a W-2 at their place of employment.
>
> "What Have I Done Wrong?"
>
> The rule of law is the constitution, and Kent does not see what law he has
violated. Over and over again, throughout all the testimony today and throughout
hundreds of pages of documents, Kent continually asked,
>
> > "What have I done wrong?
> >
> > How can I repent if I don't
> > know the specific charges?
> >
> > What law have I broken?
> > Show me the code and we'll pay it.
> >
> > We have a responsibility to God to obey the
> > law. Please show me which specific law we
> > are violating; so far all I've seen are vague
> > generalities."
>
> A Man of Conviction and Honor
>
> The first character witness for Kent was his son, Eric, who stressed Kent
Hovind's consistency in all of life - truth. Standing on the truth of God's Word
is so important to Kent that he will always stick with it, win or lose. Eric
also gave many examples of how Kent was unbelievably in love with God, how he
loved his country, and how he loved others, especially the unloveable, because
of God's own love toward him. Calling Kent his hero, Eric praised him for being
an "awesome" dad and grandpa to five grandchildren, one of which was born just
10 days ago and Kent has not yet seen. He told about Kent's vow of poverty that
he took in 1989, not owning anything personally, but even having seven different
offices in the parsonage in which he lives with his wife. Giving away so much of
their material, Kent did not even bother to copyright it so that it would be
available to more people. Kent's number one goal, Eric explained, is to love
God.
>
> John Dustin told of his long-term relationship with Kent, a man of honor and
conviction. He explained that Kent's convictions were so deep that his
personality sometimes seemed abrasive in getting those convictions across.
>
> Pastor Greg Dickson, 74, said,
>
> > "A good name is to be honored more
> > than choice silver."
>
> He noted that in the 31 minutes of phone calls we listened to in court, it was
remarkable how a convict had seemingly no malice toward those who prosecuted
him, no filthy or vile language, no bitterness whatsoever.
>
> (That's the same Greg Dixon who led the seige at
> the IBT in Indianpolis; where the Government took
> his church property over tax matters. - RLBaty)
>
> Paul Abramson, a contractor for CSE, said that incarcerating Kent Hovind would
be detrimental to society as a whole; Kent Hovind's voice in the creation
movement was so needed.
>
> The Lion and the Mouse
>
> When it came time for Kent to give a speech about where his heart was, he
began with one of Aesop's fables about a lion and the mouse, in which the mouse
begs the lion not to harm him by promising to help the lion later when he might
be in need.
>
> > "I feel like the mouse,"
>
> Kent sobbed.
>
> Although he has led 15 men to Christ in the last three months, Kent clearly
and desperately wanted out of jail.
>
> > "I would have obeyed if only I'd known
> > (what I was doing wrong) before the arrest."
>
> He couldn't understand a justice system that wouldn't allow all the parties to
just sit down and talk. He was sure that they could have come to a mutally
agreeable conclusion if he would have just been able to sit down with the
prosecutor and the IRS agent.
>
> Apologizing for not making peace with Scott Schneider, Kent told of how he
asked Scott to leave the property when he came to take pictures for the court.
Kent was very sorry that in all the years of his welcoming thousands of people
to his ministry's property that he had actually told Scott to leave. He also
apologized for his pride and his frustration at the seeming lack of due process.
>
> Deafening Silence
>
> Relating some of the history of both his ministry and the current charges,
Kent presented volumes of letters he had written both to professionals to ask
for advice, and to those prosecuting him to ask for help, all during the last
several years. It was especially noteworthy to me that his letters to the
prosecuting attorney and to the IRS special agent all went unanswered and his
frustration mounted at not being able to know just what he had done wrong.
>
> Ordained in 1974, Kent claims that his understanding of the law is that
ordained ministers are exempt from paying withholding taxes and that churches
and ministries, both of which applied to his situation are also exempt from
paying the withholding taxes on behalf of their employees, which are actually
independent contractors, or more commonly known to Christians as missionaries.
Kent claimed that both Wycliffe Bible Translators and Rick Warren's Saddleback
Church use the same method of not withholding income taxes from their
independent contractors (employees). Kent encouraged his employees to pay their
own taxes.
>
> Accused of structuring, Kent claimed that based upon the advice of Glen Stoll,
who now controls Creation Science Evangelism, he did not take out more than
$10,000 cash from the bank at any one time, using the cash to pay his
missionaries who preferred cash and to pay for the expenses of the ministry.
Sometimes there would be three days in between large withdrawals, while other
times there would be up to 34 days in between. Not only did the discrepancy in
dates indicate no structuring, but structuring is based upon violations of
drug-trafficking laws, in which Kent and Jo were clearly not involved either.
>
> Regarding the charge of destroying documents, Kent claimed that he used a
shredder to destroy customer's credit card receipt copies. He kept insisting
that he never knowingly or willfully violated any law.
>
> Tears of Humility
>
> In tears during this whole testimony, Kent then says that the only thing he's
changed his mind about is that if he goes back to prison, he will not sue the
IRS.
>
> > "I feel like the mouse.
> > What can I do?"
>
> > "When you wrestle with a skunk, you can win,
> > but it gets awful messy."
>
> When asked if he's repentant, he again asks,
>
> > "What have I done wrong?"
>
> He admits,
>
> > "I am guilty of being proud and frustrated.
> > I am willing to make any changes necessary
> > (in my finances)."
>
> Always the preacher, Kent openly shares the gospel in court and ends with
prayer, begging God to help him to understand all this.
>
> No Mercy
>
> The prosecutor closed by saying that Kent's testimony wasn't really heartfelt,
it was all just subterfuge for the appeal he knew he would be making later on.
>
> Refusing to accept responsibility for those 58 charges of which he was
previously found guilty, Kent continues to ask,
>
> > "What have I done wrong?
> > What specific law have I broken?
> > How can I change if I don't know
> > what it is that I am doing?"
>
> For Judge Rodgers closing remarks before sentencing, she stated that this case
is not about religion. Kent brought religion into it, but she said that the law
states that churches are not exempt from withholding taxes. I did find it
noteworthy that she freely quoted each specific law and its regulation number
when she spoke of many other details regarding sentencing, but she did not give
any specifics regarding which law this particular one might be.
>
> Although Kent repeatedly stated that he was not a tax protester, the judge
insisted that the evidence was to the contrary, being especially persuaded by
the fact that Kent had given control of his ministry to Glen Stoll of Remedies
at Law, apparently someone toward whom judges in tax fraud cases have very
little charity.
>
> She also went to great lengths extolling the virtues of our great country and
how unique it is in our freedoms and rights, but that those can only be paid for
by our taxes.
>
> > "You have dishonored the constitution,"
>
> she rebukes Kent.
>
> Maxed
>
> For the implied legal threats and hiding assets, for his personal attacks
against Scott Schneider (?), for his refusal to accept responsibility, and
because he gave his ministry over to Glen Stoll who is also in trouble with the
law, Judge Rodgers decided to all but max his sentence: 10 years in prison.
>
> (The maximum amount is 10 years, one month.)
>
> He was fined to pay restitution of $604,874.87, a $2000 fine, $5800 in special
monetary assessment costs, and $7078.24 in prosecution costs, payable at a
monthly pro-rated amount of approximately $1000 per month beginning three months
after his three-year probation begins upon completion of his time served.
>
> Based upon his low risk factor for taking drugs, the judge waived the
mandatory drug testing for Kent Hovind.
>
> So kind of her.
>
> God is Still Sovereign
>
> Although we were crushed by the outcome, we were glad we came.
>
> The courtroom was packed.
>
> They brought in extra chairs and Alicia even had to sit on my lap. It was
interesting to watch the different strengths and weaknesses among the family
members. Everyone responded according to their different personalities. This was
a time when one's trust in a Sovereign Lord became apparent for all the world to
see. I spent much of the day in prayer, but with a judge that seemed so hard and
cold, I wondered what good my prayers did. This is a time when I know that I
have to believe that all things work together for good for those who love God -
and I know Kent Hovind loves the Lord. May He show him some mercy in this case.
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------
>

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"bucksburg"  wrote:

> Just to let you know, "Jen Fishburne" was
> not an alias of the person who wrote that
> blog post, or posed for the profile picture,
> at the time of Kent Hovind's trial. It is
> the current name of the blogger at jensgems.
>
> If that really matters to anyone, I'm sure
> they can track down what her name actually
> was at the time, and why it changed.

I just glanced briefly at all of that before posting my original reference to
her eyewitness account.

It looked like she has had quite a history.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Here's the link to the story and readers' comments:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/02/08/is-irs-persecuting-kent-hovi\
nd-for-creationism/

There's now over 40 comments following the article which I recommend as well as
the article.

I thought I would post two of the most current comments here for special
consideration:

(1)

From: D. Buck
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013
Time: About 12:30 PM MT

D. Buck 1 hour ago

Kent Hovind's problems began many years ago,
when he decided that as a Citizen of Heaven
he was not subject to the Law of the Land.

Where the deceit come in–and I'm sure he was
the first and last to be victim of this deceit–is
his claim that he is obeying the law, insomuch as
it applies to him, to the best of his ability.

Clearly the IRS has miserably failed to explain
to him–beyond a gruff and threatening ipse dixit–his
responsibility to pay Caesar his due, but I informed
him many years ago, when his worse violation to date
was refusing to get a building permit for Dinosaur
Adventureland, that he was just plain wrong about
not needing to follow zoning laws, and that I could
prove it to his satisfaction were he interested in
hearing it.

He wasn't interested in listening then, nor do I see
any evidence that a few years behind bars have made
him interested now.

He is just as self-deceived as ever, and I don't have
any reason to believe that 5 more years in a succession
of federal prisons will change that one iota.

(2)

From: RLBaty
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013
Time: About 1:25 PM MT

D. Buck,

Thanks for that insight.

I am not convinced, however, that Kent is deceived.

I would like to hear some direct testimony from Jo
Hovind, independent of any Hovind handlers, in order
to evaluate the extent to which she was deceived, a
deceiver, or possibly just pressured into playing
along with Kent's schemes for familial reasons.
(Does anyone know if Oprah is working on getting
that interview with Jo?)

It may well be that Kent is the deceiver, and he's
learned his trade well.

Part of my reason for proposing that option is his
recent treatment of Peter and me in our personal
correspondence. Kent refused to engage in an open,
honest discussion of certain simple matters dealing
with his problems.

Kent, I am convinced, has been repeatedly told of
the law that stipulates income tax return filing
requirements and liabilities.

Kent is not looking for that information.

Rather, in my opinion, when he and his kind ask
for the references they are not looking for information.
They are looking for an argument and tax administrators
have long since wearied in arguing with folks like Kent.
Rulings from the Tax Court, and warnings, reflect such
circumstances. Kent's own Tax Court case already reflects
what the Court has noted as numerous, frivolous claims
regarding the argument Kent is wanting to engage if
someone will only provide a platform.

Perhaps Kent's response to the current motion, if he
makes one, will provide another opportunity for Kent
to put on his show despite how frivolous it may be.

I'm looking forward to Kent's reply to the Court, if
he chooses to make a reply, though it might move a
long a little quicker if Kent simply decides not to
respond.

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

The life jackets the four chaplains surrendered wouldn't have been of any help
to them, unless they were required wear for admission to a lifeboat. With air
and water temperatures near freezing, everyone not in a lifeboat died of
hypothermia anyway, the life jackets merely serving to keep the bodies afloat
until they could be recovered.

Daniel B.

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50"  wrote:
>
> Tomorrow is a national holiday that will probably pass unnoticed. No, not
> Super Bowl Sunday; that's more like a High Holy Day.
>
> I'm referring to Four
> Chaplains Day, memorializing an event that occurred 70 years ago, on
> February 3, 1943.
>
> Shortly after midnight, the USAT Dorchester, with 904
> troops and crew aboard, was torpedoed by a German submarine off the coast of
> Newfoundland.
>
> Only 230 of those aboard survived, with most of the casualties
> dying of hypothermia.
>
> George L. Fox lied about his age to enlist in the Army during WWI where he
> was awarded several medals, including the Purple Heart. He was ordained a
> Methodist minister in 1934, and reentered the Army as a Chaplain in 1942.
>
> Alexander D. Goode was a Jewish Rabbi and the son of a Rabbi. He was
> educated at Hebrew Union College and earned the PhD at Johns Hopkins. After
> Pearl Harbor he volunteered as an Army Chaplain.
>
> Clark V. Poling was the son of a Baptist minister. Educated at Yale Divinity
> School, he volunteered as an Army Chaplain because he wanted to face the
> same dangers other men were facing.
>
> John P. Washington, a Catholic priest, was educated at Seton Hall and
> Immaculate Conception Seminary.
>
> When the Dorchester, originally a cruise ship designed to carry 400
> passengers and crew, was torpedoed, many troops were trapped below decks and
> confusion reigned.
>
> The Four Chaplains quickly began to restore calm, escort
> the troops to the top deck, and see that they had life jackets and a place
> in the lifeboats.
>
> When the life jackets were all gone, the four men took off
> their own jackets and gave them to the troops.
>
> When they were last seen,
> they were standing arm-in-arm, saying prayers, and singing hymns as they
> went down with the ship. All four were First Lieutenants, newly graduated
> from Army Chaplain School at Harvard, and on their way to their first
> European assignments.
>
> All were awarded the Purple Heart posthumously, but
> were denied the Medal of Honor on the technicality that they were not under
> fire while performing their heroic deeds.
>
> Two Protestant pastors, a Rabbi, and a priest. I will remember those heroes
> tomorrow when I look in the mirror and wonder....
>
> ----------------------------
> ----------------------------
>

Kent Hovind tries to claim he's like the Amish (Ken Miller) when it comes to tax
matters.  I don't think so, but I think there are some similarities between Kent
Hovind and Ken Miller when it comes to their criminal behavior, invocation of
God, and the support they continue to enjoy from a select constituency.

Kent Hovind has had a criminal career involving tax evasion.
Ken Miller has had a more limited career in kidnapping.

Here's the latest regarding Ken's continuing support:

http://www.millercase.org/

(excerpts)

> Ken Faring Well
>
> Published on Tuesday, February 12, 2013
>
> Ken has been doing well in his first two weeks
> in prison.
>
> We hear that a guard quieted his enthusiastic
> singing in the shower.
>
> The same guard later awarded him with some
> extra telephone time.
>
> He's been receiving a lot of correspondence,
> which is wonderful.
>
> Anyone wanting to visit should contact our
> coordinating person here in Virginia.

Ken is in jail as a result of his contempt of court problem and will probably
remain there for several years, his sentencing on the kidnapping conviction
coming up early next month.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Ray Ausban  wrote:
>> I haven't followed the case closely, but all I can say is there are crazy
and stupid people in every religion. Religion only has value when people make
some effort to live it. The Mormon Church, like many other churches, consider
murder a sin. But unlike some other churches, we don't think murder is so easily
forgiven. In our view, to repent of a sin, restitution needs to be made. <<

Yeah, it's called 'blood atonement.' It's no coincidence that when the death
penalty was restored, the first person to suffer it was a Mormon murderer in
Utah.

http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-March-1997/petch.html#1

Daniel

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "rlbaty50"  wrote:
>> Mrs. Winkler killed her Church of Christ preacher husband with a shotgun and
then took off with the kids.  One big angle on the case was the sexual
relationship between him and his wife.<<

Another big angle to the case was his habit of threatening her with a loaded
shotgun. She apparently didn't realize that when you do this, it's very
important not to put any pressure on the trigger, and tried it at home--with
predictably fatal results.

Daniel B.

> From: Nick Lally (Creationfacts@...)
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:45:26 -0500
>
> Subject: Creation Science Hall of Fame Announcement
>
> Dear Creationists,
>
> We are proud to announce the induction of Dr. Jay Wile
> into the Creation Science Hall of Fame.
>
> You may read about Dr. Wile by clicking on his
> induction page link:
>
> http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/living/jay-wile/
>
> Mike Snavely has been listed on the CSHF, "Honorable
> Mention" page.
>
> Please read about him.
>
> Congratulations to the both of you!
>
> Nick Lally,
> Chairman, Board of Directors,
> Creation Science Hall of Fame

I did some browsing around and found where Jay Wile wrote the following:

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5366#more-5366

> I think Genesis is best read as historical
> narrative, with the days of creation being
> 24-hour days.
>
> However, I am readily willing to admit that
> this is not the only reasonable (or orthodox)
> way to read the creation account.
>
> Those who try to say otherwise can only do so
> if they ignore vast amounts of orthodox theology
> as well as significant portions of church history.
>
>> Jay Wile

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

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
"rlbaty50"  wrote, in part:

> http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5366#more-5366
>
>> I think Genesis is best read as historical
>> narrative, with the days of creation being
>> 24-hour days.
>>
>> However, I am readily willing to admit that
>> this is not the only reasonable (or orthodox)
>> way to read the creation account.
>>
>> Those who try to say otherwise can only do so
>> if they ignore vast amounts of orthodox theology
>> as well as significant portions of church history.
>>
>>> Jay Wile

Some may recall how it is that the Creation Science Hall of Fame mentions and
tries to downplay the controversies between young-earth creation-science
promoters.

One of the recent, well-publicized controversies involved Jay Wile and Ken Ham
and a certain Home School Conference.

Jay's account can be found at:

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4647

and

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4602

There, he writes, in part:

> I first made it clear that I do believe that the
> days in Genesis 1 were 24-hour days. However, I
> recognize (as theologians have since the earliest
> times in Christendom) that the case is far from
> ironclad. As a result, while I believe that they
> are 24-hour days, I am not about to claim that
> anyone who disagrees with me on that point has a
> poor view of Scripture.

and

> My point, however, is that the text is simply not
> ironclad on this, and you don't need evolution or
> "millions of years" to see that. Augustine, Clement
> of Alexandria, Origen, and many other great Christian
> theologians did not need evolution or "millions of
> years" to force them to interpret the days as
> something other than 24-hour days. They just needed
> the text.

and

> Ken Ham is simply dead wrong when he claims that
> Dr. Enns doesn't have a Biblical view of the
> inspiration of Scripture.
>
> Dr. Enns doesn't have Ken Ham's view of the
> inspiration of Scripture. However, he clearly has
> a Biblical view – one that just happens to be
> different from that of Ken Ham.

Interesting!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

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

> (Kent Hovind) thinks he is being 'persecuted',
> but every one thinks that when the IRS is after 
> them.

Preachers in particular seem adept at using the "persecution" card.

Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker come readily to mind!

A little research would reveal a host of other preachers who used the
"persecution" card when their kingdoms started falling down around them for
reasons unrelated to "persecution".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

I thought this was also interesting regarding Jay Wile:

(1)

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4647

(excerpts)

The other interesting question I got was theological, and
it was probably inspired by what I posted previously
( http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4602 ) about Ken Ham. In my
talk on the science that you find in the Bible, I discussed
Matthew Maury ( http://www.icr.org/article/20022/ ), a
naval officer who read Psalm 8:6-8:

> You make him to rule over the works of Your
> hands; You have put all things under his feet,
> All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the
> field, The birds of the heavens and the fish
> of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths
> of the seas.

Since Maury believed (as I do) that every word in the Bible
is important, he decided that this verse meant there are
actual paths in the seas. Because of this, he discovered
many of the prevailing currents in the oceans, and that revolutionized world
travel at the time.

A person in the audience asked me how I can be so detailed
in my interpretation of Psalm 8:8 but not in Genesis 1. If
I believe "path" means "path" in Psalm 8:8, why can't I
categorically state that "day" means "24-hour day" in
Genesis 1?

I first made it clear that I do believe that the days in
Genesis 1 were 24-hour days. However, I recognize (as
theologians have since the earliest times in Christendom)
that the case is far from ironclad. As a result, while I
believe that they are 24-hour days, I am not about to claim
that anyone who disagrees with me on that point has a poor
view of Scripture.

To answer his question, however, I made it clear that
"path" doesn't really mean "path" in Psalm 8:8. It means
"prevailing current." However, it is clear what the word
is meant to imply, since we have a lot of context for such
an idea. We are all familiar (at least through the benefit
of books) with the oceans and the fact that fish are found
in them. We understand that they swim to get from point
"A" to point "B," and we understand that paths connect point
"A" to point "B." Thus, through context, it is very clear
that the paths mentioned in Psalm 8:8 have something to do
with getting from one point to the other in the sea.

(2)

http://www.icr.org/article/20022/

(excerpts)

Paths Of The Seas
by Duane Gish, Ph.D.

One day, while reading Psalm 8, he was struck by an important
truth in the 8th verse. There he read that God had given man
dominion over "the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea,
and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas."

He immediately saw the great practical significance of that
verse, recognizing that there must be currents of water in
the oceans, just like vast rivers, as well as in the atmosphere (Ecclesiastes
1:6).

With confidence in the accuracy of the Bible, Maury determined
to discover the paths in the seas and the wind circuits,
utilizing the charts and log books he had at his disposal.

A genius?

No.

Just a simple Bible-believing Christian who trusted the
inerrancy of the Word of God.

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

My further comments:

More job security for my Maury Ministry!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

http://www.drwile.com/contact.html

Your message has been sent to Dr. Wile.
Typically, he responds to contacts within
one or two business days.

From: Robert Baty
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013
Time: About 6:15 PM MT

I got a message about your induction into the Creation
Science Hall of Fame, and in browsing around I ran across
your following presentation:

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=4647

I think your representation of Matthew Maury therein is
not quite accurate and your reference to an article by
Duane Gish is similarly not quite accurate.

I have long criticized those who have thought to canonize
Maury because of their romantic notions about Psalm 8:8
and what, if anything, it might have had to do with some
of his life's work.

I happen to think that Maury pursued his development of
charts and such based on his empirical observations and
those of seamen and scientists for centuries (i.e., there
were paths in the seas).  Maury's lament was that there
weren't popularly available charts and many of the paths
had not been charted yet.

As to Psalm 8:8, I think it can be argued that Maury was
glad to find that God was on his side of the question.

In any case, the popular stories about him hearing Psalm
8:8 or reading it and using that to decide to go find those
paths is an injustice to the history of Maury and man's
historical knowledge of the sea.

Since I started my Maury ministry I have noticed that the
more egregious myths may have been mitigated to some degree,
but yet the effort to canonize Maury continues.

I just recently concluded some contentious efforts with Nick
Lally of the Creation Science Hall of Fame over Maury.  I
did some good, but Nick insists on his canonization of Maury
for the young-earth creation-science cause.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

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

http://www.facebook.com/2peter3

From: Kent Hovind
Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2013

(excerpts)

The Apostle Paul had a LOT of folks who helped him
in the ministry while he was in prison too.

He even had a lawyer (Zenas-Titus 3:13) who helped
him win his case against the Roman government just
like I will!

I KNOW about having to fight the legal system WHILE
you keep preaching and teaching! (Thanks legal team!)

I also know about the ones who, like Job's friends,
tell me, "Give up and admit you sinned!"

THAT'S no help! :((

Ted,
Thanks for all your help during this trying time!
YAAB!

Kent Hovind

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

(Kent Hovind, ever the "control freak"!)

http://www.facebook.com/2peter3

(Note how Kent Hovind signed the following post!)

From: Kent Hovind
Date Posted: Thursday, February 14, 2013

(excerpts)

Dear Mattie,

The Bible has a lot to say about helping and
encouraging those in prison.

I thought I would answer your letter publicly
to possibly help others in your same situation.

It is totally unfair to have a contest like this
where it is teacher vs. student!

Sounds like a bully to me. (and most others!)

I'll take the challenge for you.

He can't fail me,
doesn't pay me,
can't fool me and
sure doesn't scare me.

Tell him we will post all the emails from both sides
on www.2peter3.com for the world to see and judge
who "wins."

Here are the simple rules:

A.

The whole class watches my video #4 in class without
interruption. (I think it is 2.5 hours so it would
take about 3- 45 min. sessions. All students will
be given copies of all our emails throughout the
discussion. They will also be posted on www.2peter3.com
without comments or edits by us. It may be that the
ones who host the site can make a comment section.

B.

After everyone understands the 6 different meanings
of the slippery word "evolution" we will all agree
that the so-called "micro-evolution" or variations
within the same "kind" do take place and are well
documented.

C.

My position is that these minor variations are always
limited and have never been seen to produce a new kind
of plant or animal. If he knows of any I would like
to see them.

D.

The teacher (or the class if he likes) can pick one
topic at a time to discuss via, email. I would like
to have him start with his BEST evidence he has for
evolution above the mis-named "micro-evolution" level.
We will discuss that one until one of us admits we
are wrong or have nothing else to say about it.

E.

Then he will send the next best "evidence." and so
forth until we have discussed every piece of evidence
that he wants to on this topic.

F.

When he runs out of evidence to present he will agree
to forever stop using any "evidences" that I have proven
wrong.

G.

Once he has exhausted his "evidences" for evolution
above the micro-level he can THEN attack my position
if he likes. Here it is:

1.

I believe the scientific evidence shows that the earth
is only a few thousand years old and everything was
created fully functioning in 6 literal 24 hr days exactly
as described in the King James Bible in Genesis chapter 1.

2.

I believe the earth's surface and all life outside the
ark was destroyed 1656 years later by a global flood
lasting many months exactly as described in Genesis 6-8.
All life forms today descended from the animals and people
preserved on that ark.

3.

I believe dinosaurs have always lived with man but were
called dragons in most cultures since the word dinosaur
was invented in 1840's.

4.

I further believe that the evolution theory currently
taught in schools is the dumbest and most dangerous
religion in the history of mankind. There is not a
single shred of real science to support it. It certainly
should not be taught in tax supported schools!

H.

Once he is done defending his belief and attacking mine
(if he so chooses) we will ask anyone following the email
debate to vote on who "won" and post the results.

I.

No profanity, name calling, ridicule, etc will be allowed.
Just facts from science. If either side wants to venture
an opinion or theory it shall be made clear that this is
an opinion not currently provable scientifically.

Please let me know what response you get from him.

Lora will have to be the "middle man" (well, woman) to
keep everyone in the loop.

Thanks again for your letter Mattie.
This will be FUN!

Kent Hovind
POW # 06452-017
FPC Box 9000
Berlin, NH 03570

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

This was mentioned on my local news, and I liked it:

> It was a great 3 day cruise.
> It was a lousy 4 day camping trip.

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

Jay has responded to my inquiry and we have exchanged a number of emails.

I don't know if it's over or not.

Time will tell.

Perhaps I'll have a report on all of that later.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/02/16/the-adam-and-eve-batt\
le-its-actually-a-deeper-serious-problem/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&\
utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28Around+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29

Adam and Eve battle!
It's actually a deeper serious problem!

By Ken Ham
February 16, 2013

(excerpts)

She continues,

> "Some Christians look at this list of
> questions and see an exciting area of
> investigation, but most find it daunting!"

Actually, do you want to know what I think when I look
at these questions?

I think,

> "God has provided the answers to all these
> questions in the history in Genesis - case closed!"

Sadly, Dr. Haarsma has given up the authority of Scripture
in this area and embraced the fallible opinions of scientists instead.

Now, I would never question her salvation, because belief
in a young earth is not necessary to salvation in Christ
alone.

But what Dr. Haarsma is teaching is a grave error and it
ultimately undermines biblical authority - and thus
undermines the foundation of the gospel message.

This actually reflects the deeper serious problem.

The battle over Adam and Eve is just a symptom of the very
serious problem - an attack on the Word of God itself.

That's the real issue.

Haarsma, like all those who compromise God's Word, will
have to give an account for how she's led people (adults
and children) astray by placing man's fallible word and
the pagan religion of evolution/millions of years in
authority over the Word of God.

Thanks for stopping by,

Ken

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

My comments:

Ken has his interpretation of the Bible regarding the age of stuff and that
"closes the case", as far as he is concerned; as he himself again confirms.

And again we see Ken being rather convincing as to the "salvation" nature of his
young-earth doctrine and that he knows that is not politically correct and so he
tries to tell us otherwise.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

I just noticed that Mary had made her appearance on the Forbes website a couple
of days ago.

So, I am just now responding to her posting there (see archives here for earlier
history with Mary):

Link:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/02/08/is-irs-persecuting-kent-hovi\
nd-for-creationism/

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

From: Mary Jo LeBlanc
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013

Robert, I do think you are delusional.

(1)

We have no relationship and if we did it would not
be working out well because I am revolted by you.

(2)

I do not have an internet presence. I have assured
you that I am a nobody, yet you continue to insinuate
otherwise.

(3)

If you want to call me a Hovind apologist, go ahead.
But I am not here to defend them legally since I know
very little of their case. They are my friends and
friends stand up from each other when others try to
exploit them.

(4)

I seriously doubt that your intentions for digging up
the Empower network pages had anything to do with
clearing your name, rather you were most likely flexing
your cyber-muscles and attempting to intimidate me.

(5)

I still don't know why you choose to make such a big
deal about Dr. Hovind choosing you as his correspondent.
He was misled. I don't know who misled him and I never
accused you of doing it. All I was saying is that he
withdrew from the conversation as soon as he realized
that your intentions were to exploit him, his case,
his family, and his ministry. Can anyone blame him for
that?


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

From: Robert Baty
Date: Saturday, February 16, 2013
Time: About 7:15 PM MT

I haven't figured out how to keep up with all the
postings to the articles I have an interest in and
so it is the case that I just now noticed that Mary
had made her appearance here.

My apologies for the delay in responding.

(1)

We do have a relationship, and it has worked out well
enough considering the circumstances.  In her latest
posting to the Hovind FaceBook pages on the subject,
she wrote, in relevant part:

> Robert:
>
> Please forgive me for accusing you of finding
> a link that doesn't exist. I did find it this time,
> but have NO idea how to delete it since it is
> part of the Empower Network.
>
> I was mistaken and accused you falsely.
> Please forgive me.
>
> And, just to clear the air, I also want to
> mention that I never accused you of
> misleading Dr. Hovind.
>
> I don't know who did.
>
> It was just clear from the transcript that
> he was misled.
>
> Who did it?
> I don't know.

(2)

Despite the fact we are both alleged "nobodies", we
both have an Internet presence.

(3)

She is a Hovind apologist, and given her oft-professed
ignorance of Kent's legal problems and his problems with
his legal problems, she would have done well to leave me
alone.  She didn't, and the rest, as they say, is history.
It seems a little hypocritical of Mary to propose I am
exploiting Kent Hovind when Kent Hovind comes across as
one professional exploiter.

(4)

I didn't dig anything up.  It just falls out of the Internet
when you check on Mary.  It had very much to do with "clearing
my name", but Mary, quite typically, doesn't like to admit she
sees the analogy between her concern over being associated with
the "Empower Network" that she alleges she gave up on and my
concern that she and others have insinuated that I misled Kent
Hovind or his handlers regarding his choosing me as a
correspondent.

(5)

Kent Hovind choosing me as a correspondent is a big deal.
It's historic.

Kent needed/needs help with his problems.

I gave him some, and then he rejected the therapy.

I could have helped him so much had he been receptive, open
and honest in dealing with his problems.

Mary is deceived if she really believes that Kent cut the
cord because of any concerns over my alleged exploitation
of him, his family, his cases, and/or his ministry.

I don't blame kent for what Mary represents the case to be;
I blame Kent for the way the case is.

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

Here's the announcment I made on Eric Hovind's FaceBook page:

http://www.facebook.com/erichovind

From: Robert Baty
Date: Saturday, February 16, 2013
Time: About 7:35 PM MT

Mary Jo LeBlanc makes her appearance on Forbes!

Maybe others will follow her lead.

I just noticed that Mary made her appearance there
and so just now was able to post a reply.

You can review the two messages in the readers'
comments section of the article on Forbes at the
link given below or at the posting of these developments
that I made at my place via the link below.

In her appearance on Forbes, Mary states the claim that,
with regard to having chosen me as a correspondent, Kent
Hovind was deceived.

Some insinuate that I was involved in that deception;
Mary denies she intended any such insinuation.

So, my previous challenge for the Kent Hovind folks,
and for Kent himself, to publicly give an account of
the correspondence that led up to me becoming one of
his "chosen ones" remains outstanding an unanswered.

Hints, my correspondents leading up to Kent choosing
me included Nick Lally, the Chairman of the Board of
the Creation Science Hall of Fame, and J. Ted Rosien,
one of Kent's other chosen ones.

Here's those links:

Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/02/08/is-irs-persecuting-kent-hovi\
nd-for-creationism/

My Place:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/30991

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

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

I just noticed that Mary had made her appearance on the Forbes website a couple
of days ago.

So, I am just now responding to her posting there (see archives here for earlier
history with Mary):

Link:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/02/08/is-irs-persecuting-kent-hovi\
\
nd-for-creationism/

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

From: Mary Jo LeBlanc
Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013

Robert, I do think you are delusional.

(1)

We have no relationship and if we did it would not
be working out well because I am revolted by you.

(2)

I do not have an internet presence. I have assured
you that I am a nobody, yet you continue to insinuate
otherwise.

(3)

If you want to call me a Hovind apologist, go ahead.
But I am not here to defend them legally since I know
very little of their case. They are my friends and
friends stand up from each other when others try to
exploit them.

(4)

I seriously doubt that your intentions for digging up
the Empower network pages had anything to do with
clearing your name, rather you were most likely flexing
your cyber-muscles and attempting to intimidate me.

(5)

I still don't know why you choose to make such a big
deal about Dr. Hovind choosing you as his correspondent.
He was misled. I don't know who misled him and I never
accused you of doing it. All I was saying is that he
withdrew from the conversation as soon as he realized
that your intentions were to exploit him, his case,
his family, and his ministry. Can anyone blame him for
that?


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

From: Robert Baty
Date: Saturday, February 16, 2013
Time: About 7:15 PM MT

I haven't figured out how to keep up with all the
postings to the articles I have an interest in and
so it is the case that I just now noticed that Mary
had made her appearance here.

My apologies for the delay in responding.

(1)

We do have a relationship, and it has worked out well
enough considering the circumstances. In her latest
posting to the Hovind FaceBook pages on the subject,
she wrote, in relevant part:

> Robert:
>
> Please forgive me for accusing you of finding
> a link that doesn't exist. I did find it this time,
> but have NO idea how to delete it since it is
> part of the Empower Network.
>
> I was mistaken and accused you falsely.
> Please forgive me.
>
> And, just to clear the air, I also want to
> mention that I never accused you of
> misleading Dr. Hovind.
>
> I don't know who did.
>
> It was just clear from the transcript that
> he was misled.
>
> Who did it?
> I don't know.

(2)

Despite the fact we are both alleged "nobodies", we
both have an Internet presence.

(3)

She is a Hovind apologist, and given her oft-professed
ignorance of Kent's legal problems and his problems with
his legal problems, she would have done well to leave me
alone. She didn't, and the rest, as they say, is history.
It seems a little hypocritical of Mary to propose I am
exploiting Kent Hovind when Kent Hovind comes across as
one professional exploiter.

(4)

I didn't dig anything up. It just falls out of the Internet
when you check on Mary. It had very much to do with "clearing
my name", but Mary, quite typically, doesn't like to admit she
sees the analogy between her concern over being associated with
the "Empower Network" that she alleges she gave up on and my
concern that she and others have insinuated that I misled Kent
Hovind or his handlers regarding his choosing me as a
correspondent.

(5)

Kent Hovind choosing me as a correspondent is a big deal.
It's historic.

Kent needed/needs help with his problems.

I gave him some, and then he rejected the therapy.

I could have helped him so much had he been receptive, open
and honest in dealing with his problems.

Mary is deceived if she really believes that Kent cut the
cord because of any concerns over my alleged exploitation
of him, his family, his cases, and/or his ministry.

I don't blame kent for what Mary represents the case to be;
I blame Kent for the way the case is.

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

Ken has announced he's raised half the $24.5 million to build the Ark, just the
Ark, and that he is planning to have the permits in hand by the end of this
year.

It will be interesting to see how that prophecy turns out and the "progress" on
actually building the Ark and associated $125 million Park.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/02/17/ark-encounter-contrac\
t-signed/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+KenHam+%28A\
round+the+World+with+Ken+Ham%29

Encounter Contract Signed

February 17, 2013
By Ken Ham

(excerpts)

The strong year-end giving will allow us to apply for
all of the permits necessary to begin excavation and
construction as the funding is provided. (AiG is about
halfway to its overall donation and boarding pass goal!)

Last week, we signed the formal contract with the Troyer
Group.

We hope to have all of our construction permits in hand
by November of this year (2013).

The Troyer Group, located in Mishawaka, Indiana, is bringing
its construction management skills to this project.

Thanks for stopping by,

Ken Ham

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

http://www.facebook.com/RoomforDebate

From: Robert Baty
Date: Sunday, February 17, 2013
Time: About 6:00 PM MT

Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino), a career tax cheat, is currently serving a 10 year
sentence in a federal penal institution. His wife was prosecuted along with him
and he let her be sent to prison for a year for her part in going along with his
schemes.

Recently, Kent wrote as posted to his FaceBook page, in part:

> "When Satan sees someone trying
> to serve God he attacks. The
> IRS began 'investigating' our
> ministry in 1995. We are still
> fighting and WILL win."

Recently, the U.S. Tax Court rendered its decision in the case of Kent's wife
and she's on the hook for several million dollars in personal income tax
liabilities, including interest and penalties.

A similar decision in Kent's related U.S. Tax Court case should be handed down
soon.

Kent likes to frame the issue as one of his evolutionary-inclined adversaries
persecuting him for his young-earth creation-science hobby.

Is that it?

Or, has Kent Hovind been properly prosecuted, tried, convicted and sentenced as
a result of his tax cheating career?

One Forbes contributor has posted 3 columns on the Hovind cases in the last few
months. It's a case the popular media would do well to give more attention to.

Of special interest is the prospect that someone like Oprah might get Jo Hovind
to give her personal testimony regarding her part in the anti-government,
tax-evading scheming of her husband. It seems to me that Jo has been
conspicuously silent in recent years regarding these important, public issues.

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

Nick Lally, in presenting Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino and career anti-government
tax cheater) for induction into his Creation Science Hall of Fame, had for
months the following posted to his Hall of Fame website regarding Kent:

> Nick Lally, Chairman, Board of Directors,
> Creation Science Hall of Fame, says that
> he met Kent Hovind at his Creation Boot
> Camp in Pensacola, Florida and found him
> to be a dedicated Creationist and Christian.
>
> Nick believes that Kent is in jail out of
> principle and not deceit.

I just checked and the following is now reflected on that website:

http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/living/kent-hovind/

As of Sunday, February 17, 2013
Time: About 7:00 PM MT

> Nick Lally, Chairman, Board of Directors,
> Creation Science Hall of Fame, says that
> he met Kent Hovind at his Creation Boot
> Camp in Pensacola, Florida and found him
> to be a dedicated Creationist and Christian.

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

I just noticed that the following statement was also removed from Nick's latest
revision of his tribute to Kent Hovind:

> Since January 2007, Hovind is serving a
> ten-year prison sentence after being
> convicted on 58 federal counts. If you
> are interested in Kent Hovind's legal
> case see www.2peter3.com.

I also note, for ready reference, that Nick had the following Jerry Bergman
analogy on the Hovind tribute page and Hovind's own letter correcting Nick's
earlier claims about his problems: both of which were removed earlier and both
of which were added in an earlier effort to establish an appropriate tribute to
Hovind:

> One writer told the CSHF that
>
> "The main thing that Hovind went to prison
> for was taking money out of the bank in amounts
> slightly less than 10,000, presumably to avoid
> bank reporting requirements, so that he could
> pay the employees of his ministry in cash. To
> me this is like a policeman giving a man a traffic
> ticket for doing 54 miles an hour in a 55 MPH
> speed zone with the claim that he was avoiding a
> ticket by driving just under the speed limit, thus
> got the ticket. The fact is Kent withdrew the
> dollar amount under the amount that would trigger
> an audit just like the man who drove 54 miles an
> hour to avoid a traffic ticket".

> Statement by Kent Hovind:
>
> Kent Hovind wrote this letter to the Creation
> Science Hall of Fame to explain his case and
> his precise legal circumstances:
>
> 1.
>
> I went to prison Nov. 2, 2006 not Jan. 2007.
>
> 2.
>
> I have NEVER been a tax protester. America was
> founded by those type guys and we NEED them today,
> but I am NOT one. If you read The Banker's Letter
> or The Third Affidavit or Doc #365 (all are posted
> on www.2peter3.com) you will see that I NEVER
> protested or deliberately defied or broke any laws.
> The government, however, broke over 20 laws to put
> me in prison. This has been the history of man. See
> the story of Joseph, Job, Jesus, 6 million Jews in
> Hitler's camps etc.
>
> 3.
>
> I did NOT lodge a complaint in the courts nor did I
> lodge a disagreement on principle. I followed all
> laws and was reading my Bible getting ready for staff
> devotions when over 25 armed agents stormed my office
> unprovoked and arrested me illegally. The Warrant was
> issued without an "Oath or affirmation" as required
> by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. THESE
> issues ARE being complained about and litigated but
> I was NOT trying to prove any point about taxes to
> anyone. I was (and still am) trying to obey any and
> all of the hopelessly complex and convoluted tax laws
> that apply to me. I sent my Affidavit to the Grand
> Jury 3 times where I showed that I had written numerous
> times to the IRS asking questions to see if my
> understanding was correct and asking for clarification
> on their laws. I said at the end of each letter, "If
> I do not hear from you within 20 days I will assume my
> understanding is correct and that I am breaking no laws."
> I never got one response to any of my letters or questions –
> till they showed up with handcuffs!
>
> 4.
>
> I DO NOT admit to breaking any laws. I maintain my
> innocence as did Joseph (Gen. 40:15), David (I Sam.
> 20:1; 26:18), Job (6:24; 13:18; 23:10; 27:5; 31:6),
> Jeremiah (Jer. 37:18) Paul (Acts 24:13; 25:10; 28:17)
> and tens of millions of others throughout history.
>
> 5.
>
> I DO admit to not being perfect! :) My wife can assist
> you if you are making a list!
>
> 6.
>
> I DO NOT say the tax laws are unconstitutional nor did
> I break one to "prove a point" or "test the law."
>
> 7.
>
> The 20+ issues raised in Doc. #365 on 2peter3.com will
> demonstrate that I did NOT get a "righteous judge." I
> AM wondering if there are ANY of those in the
> Federal system. See Luke 18:2.
>
> 8.
>
> I was NOT trying to "invalidate the tax structure." I
> was trying to follow it as my affidavit clearly shows.
> I am NOT suffering punishment for deliberately
> breaching any law.
>
> 9.
>
> I do NOT know of, or admit to, any deceit on my part
> but can point out plenty in the federal system from
> the top down, however, that is not my calling from God.
> We do need the John the Baptist types to tell Herod he
> was in sin, but my part of the war is in a different
> arena. God will defend me. It may be revealing to your
> readers to Google the US Attorney who helped prosecute
> me and seized the Church Ministry bank account. John
> David Roy Atchison from Sept. 20- Oct. 5, 2007.
>
> 10.
>
> I DO confess to believing in a supernatural creation
> by God as described in Genesis. More specifically, my
> study has led me to be 100% convinced that the
> specific Genesis account (and all other 1188 chapters)
> in the King James Bible is the correct preserved Word
> of God.
>
> 11.
>
> A significant difference comes up between the various
> versions by the 7th word! Is it heaven or heavens?
> Many say they are defending Genesis yet cannot show you
> which Genesis they are defending! Things that are different
> are NOT the same!
>
> 12.
>
> Since the creation of the water "above the firmament" did
> not happen until day two and the stars etc on day three
> it would be INCORRECT to use the plural "heavens" in verse
> 1. NOW there are three heavens (II Cor 12) but in Gen. 1:1
> there was only one. ONLY the King James Bible and the Jewish
> Torah have it correct with the singular "heaven" in verse
> one from what I have found in my 44 year study. I wish all
> creationists saw the slippery slope they are on by using
> other versions. Where EXACTLY are God's PRECISE Words?
> What EXACTLY are we defending? Please DON'T say it is in
> the non-existent "originals" that NOBODY has seen in about
> 2,000 years! That is a battle that I DO feel called to fight!
>
> Thank you again for the honor of being invited into the
> Creationist Hall of Fame.

As it stands now, after numerous revisions, the Hovind tribute page includes NO
references to or apologies for Hovind's criminal career and current
incarceration.

That's probably a good idea, politically, and consistent with the all the flack
Nick has no doubt been getting since announcing Hovind's speeded up induction
that was, allegedly, designed in part to spite my own criticism of the treatment
by Hovind by the Hall of Fame.

I'll mark that down as another victory for my ministry.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

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

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

Nick Lally, in presenting Kent Hovind (aka Dr. Dino and career anti-government
tax cheater) for induction into his Creation Science Hall of Fame, had for
months the following posted to his Hall of Fame website regarding Kent:

> Nick Lally, Chairman, Board of Directors,
> Creation Science Hall of Fame, says that
> he met Kent Hovind at his Creation Boot
> Camp in Pensacola, Florida and found him
> to be a dedicated Creationist and Christian.
>
> Nick believes that Kent is in jail out of
> principle and not deceit.

I just checked and the following is now reflected on that website:

http://creationsciencehalloffame.org/living/kent-hovind/

As of Sunday, February 17, 2013
Time: About 7:00 PM MT

> Nick Lally, Chairman, Board of Directors,
> Creation Science Hall of Fame, says that
> he met Kent Hovind at his Creation Boot
> Camp in Pensacola, Florida and found him
> to be a dedicated Creationist and Christian.

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

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

>> It seems to me that Jo has been
>> conspicuously silent in recent
>> years regarding these important,
>> public issues
>
> Pi:
>
> As is her right.
> She owes the public no explanation
> for anything.

Similarly, the "public" has the right to make inquiry and seek Jo's direct
testimony regarding the important public issues raised by her involvement in
certain matters of public interest.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

Step #1:

Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument so constructed
that if its premises are true its conclusion will
follow as true therefrom?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> Victor McAllister - ???

Following are some additional comments from Victor McAllister that might be
worthy of further consideration depending on his progress in the "Goliath of
GRAS" exercise.

--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/75062
Victor McAllister wrote on February 18, 2013, in part:

> Formal logic did not come into existence
> until Aristotle.
>
> Logical syllogisms go back about a century.
>
> The Bible states that time is in our minds:
> Ecclesiastes 3:11.
>
> Let's examine the age of the earth with biblical
> logic, rather than mathematical logic.
>
> Can the universe be both old in age and young in
> years?
>
> If ancient days and years were vast eons and days
> and years steadily accelerate, then the world would
> have vast age, yet few rotations around the Sun.
>
> Every old person remembers that days and years
> were slower during our youth.
>
> The age of the universe is not a problem for Changing
> Earth Creationists.
>
> Changing Earth Creationist's reject the idea Peter
> predicted for the last days - the notion that all
> things remain the same.
>
> A universe where matter changes as it ages, the
> cosmos could have vast age, yet the Earth could
> have orbited the Sun only 6,000 times.
>
> Creation does not use syllogisms, just Moses'
> Hebrew words.
>
>> Victor McAllister
>> Monday, February 18, 2013

-------------------Original Message-------------------

--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Robert Baty <rlbaty@...> wrote:

Victor McAllister v. "Goliath of GRAS" - Step #1!

cc: Creationism@yahoogroups.com
cc: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com

I detect some ever so slight improvement in Victor's thinking regarding these
important, fundamental matters, and so I will again try to help him to
successfully complete the "Goliath of GRAS" exercise in critical thinking with
emphasis on young-earth creation-science promoters.

Step #1:

Is the "Goliath of GRAS" argument so constructed
that if its premises are true its conclusion will
follow as true therefrom?

> Robert Baty - Yes
> Victor McAllister - ???

My reasons for allowing Victor to again engage the exercise are based on his
latest posting:

--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/75062
Victor McAllister wrote earlier today, in part:

> The Bible contains hundreds of verses
> with the expression "if" and "then."
>
> Biblical "if - then" statements are
> related to the commonplace meaning of
> words and ordinary affairs.
>
>> Victor McAllister
>> February 18, 2013

Victor himself has used that "construct" extensively in his writings, as was
previously pointed out.

And yet, despite my earlier efforts, Victor McAllister has not admitted,
explained and corrected his errors regarding such things and as reflected in his
following comment:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/21401

> GOLIATH OF GRAS IS A
> VISIBLY FALSE CONSTRUCT.

>> Victor McAllister
>> http://godsriddle.com/

It's not about Aristotle as Victor might propose.
It's not about logical systems as Victor might propose.

It's about how Victor thinks, today, February 18, 2013.

Following is the argument that forms the foundation of the exercise and the
basic stipulations.

Victor, please provide your simple "yes" or "no" answer to Step #1 and then we
might further consider what discussion might be appropriate as to Step #1 and if
you are prepared to progress to Step #2 and, just possibly, the final Step #3.

The "Goliath of GRAS" argument:

MAJOR PREMISE:

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

MINOR PREMISE:

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

CONCLUSION:

> (D); The interpretation of the
> text by some is wrong.

Basic Stipulations:

> "God's word" - communication from
> God in words that are not wrong.

> "Interpreted by some" - what some
> folks think it means and what thinking
> might be wrong.

> "Empirical evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few thousand
> years" - some thing is more than a few
> thousand years old and we can so determine
> from evidence and its interpretation
> independent of "the text".

> "Few thousand" - 100,000 or less.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty