Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Strictly speaking this is not an evolution vs. creationism thread. Kent Hovind has been convicted of domestic violence. His ex-wife Cindi Lincoln tells her side of the story.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You don't have to listen to it all. A lot of the info comes out early. But I found it a rather compelling account.2 hours long. No thanks..
I get that Hovind is a con artist and royal cad but I'll wait for the highlights on the other side of things.
To revel in the personal horror of a creationist, of course!...why would I want to know about his treatment of his ex/...
He is so much more than that. He is a convicted conman that is rather appealing and compelling to some. He could easily become another David Koresh. Many of his followers appear to worship the man.To revel in the personal horror of a creationist, of course!
(I skipped the video too.)
Exactly.He is so much more than that. He is a convicted conman that is rather appealing and compelling to some. He could easily become another David Koresh. Many of his followers appear to worship the man.
He is the sort of psychopath that would take his followers down with him, if he thought that it was over for him.
He is a creationist.I have no Idea who Hovind is. why would I want to know about his treatment of his ex/
As he has been convicted that should be the end of it.
He has body slammed both his ex-wife and a young child. He likes to talk tough but as far as I have heard has only tangled with those that are far weaker than he is.He is a creationist.
He has a show and a following,
He is a convicted tax cheat and has served a seven-year sentence. If I recall aright, he's facing more charges of that kind.
He is well-known for these things.
He is not very smart, but he's very manipulative.
He's a convicted wife-beater.
Over all, there are some people you wouldn't cross the road to spit on, but he may be an exception.
Yeah, he is an example of a human. So what? I mean if you want to make a scientific theory of it, have a go. But as it stands, he is is a human like the rest of us.He has body slammed both his ex-wife and a young child. He likes to talk tough but as far as I have heard has only tangled with those that are far weaker than he is.
Strictly speaking this is not an evolution vs. creationism thread. Kent Hovind has been convicted of domestic violence. His ex-wife Cindi Lincoln tells her side of the story.
Yeah, he is an example of a human. So what? I mean if you want to make a scientific theory of it, have a go. But as it stands, he is is a human like the rest of us.
Nobody has denied that Kent Hovind is a human; people are just asserting that Hovind is a dangerous man of extremely poor moral character based on both his own professed moral code or that of any humanist. In fact, there is not a single moral code in which he would come out as a normal let alone virtuous person since he readily broke the "golden rule" axiom against the prohibition of intra-tribal violence and malicious lying.
Yeah, subjective normative code, Sure. And then what? What comes next?
To quote Judge Dredd "judgement time".
PS: you got to stop relying on the relativist fallacy to flex your intellectual muscles if you want to be taken seriously. Else, you just sound like a moron, a troll or a person of similar moral character to Kent Hovind (or any combination of the three).
Sue, he will be get his day in court and all that. And properly be found guilty. Yes, we agree. And so what, he is a dangerous human and not the only one. But beyond that, what?
He has already been found guilty; that's just his ex coming out to talk about her experience of domestic violence which raised the question as to how to prevent Hovind from retaining a wealth of followers who would feed this narcissistic, dangerous ******* and get robbed and frauded by him. That's the "then what".
Violence against women and children for one thing.Yeah, subjective normative code, Sure. And then what? What comes next?
No, he is far worse than the rest of us. Also you are misapplying science here. This is a case for morals. Law and order. Science is an excellent tool for science based problems. But this is not one of those.Yeah, he is an example of a human. So what? I mean if you want to make a scientific theory of it, have a go. But as it stands, he is is a human like the rest of us.
No, he is far worse than the rest of us. Also you are misapplying science here. This is a case for morals. Law and order. Science is an excellent tool for science based problems. But this is not one of those.