The Wisdom of Kent Hovind’s Followers

All of his ideas are good!

(Image from Neurotopia)

Possummomma calls our attention to Kent Hovind’s blog. As you’ll recall from the last time we discussed this creatard, not only was he committing crimes against education (by telling people the Earth was only 6000 years old and poofed into existence by a magical sky daddy), but he was also committing crimes against the government. Specifically, tax evasion. He is now serving a ten-year sentence for the latter crime. He’s gotten off scot-free on the former.

Apparently being locked up isn’t good for this guy’s mental health. He was obviously crazy before, but now even more so. A lot of his posts are his fantasies of talking to God. OK. Lots of theists think they talk to God. But Hovind’s are clearly the mind of a crazy man.

While I was torturing myself by actually reading the blog, I came across this gem in the comments. (You can find it in this thread.) It’s by somebody calling himself “for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c)1974”:

…the bible got it right. basically there is no biblical distinction between planets and stars:_ the modern distinction between a planet and a star is arbitrary and scientifically useless.…

the modern distinction between planets and stars has yielded nothing useful.

20 Responses to “The Wisdom of Kent Hovind’s Followers”

  1. arkonbey Says:

    the modern distinction between a planet and a star is arbitrary and scientifically useless

    Oh, where to even start?

  2. Alex Says:

    I thought Kent’s blog was fascinating. Apparently all those who subscribe to the “God is a shepherd” metaphor keep forgetting that the shepherd has ulterior motives.

    Thus, considering the distinction between stars and planets to be arbitrary is par for the course.

    It’s a strange world we live in.

  3. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Yea that comment is overwhelmingly ignorant. I need a drink. And it’s only 9:18am…

  4. Chuck Says:

    You know, my parents go to a fundie church, and that comment – while hilarious from our perspective – wouldn’t be terribly out of place there…

  5. Private Tom Says:

    I know it’s a leap of faith (pardon the ironic pun) but I’m calling Poe. Surely even fundies recognise the structural difference between stars and planets, only disagreeing with scientists on how they came into existence.

  6. yoyo Says:

    I’m hoping he’ll try and land his spaceship and start a fundie colony on a star.

    So the Disney song should go “when you wish upon uranus”.

  7. Ron Britton Says:

    Private Tom:

    If you go to that site and read through all of the comments for the last month, you’ll see that guy commenting a lot. I believe he’s sincere. If you read the rest of that post and the ones that followed (because several people challenged him on it), I think he’s trying to say something along the lines of for all practical purposes, there is no difference between stars and planets. They’re both just points of light in the sky.

    He’s one of those people who takes the Bible literally and believes it contains no errors. In order to maintain that fantasy, he has to come up with excuses for why it’s not really wrong, even when it is. He was talking about how God created the stars so we could see at night (the moon isn’t always out). That’s how this guy thinks. The entire universe was created for our benefit. Those hundred billion galaxies with their hundred billion nuclear furnaces are all just to provide three candlepower of light for us at night. Talk about wasting energy!

  8. Parrotlover77 Says:

    But what about when it’s a cloudy night?! What then?! All three candlepower is wasted…

  9. Brian Says:

    We’ve grown so accustomed to fundie stupidity that its often hard to tell the difference at first glance between biting satire and genuine, god-fearing ignorance. Read the mailbag at Landover Baptist Church for some real laughs. There is a frightening number of people who can’t tell that its all a parody.

    If I were to go onto some Christian blog after a few stiff drinks (I’m with you, Parrotlover…) and start typing the most asinine nonsense I can dream up, it would be met with minimal resistance, especially if I can dredge up some vague bible verse to compliment it. These people will believe anything, except reality.

  10. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Brian, you have discovered Poe’s Law.

  11. Phillip-George (c)1974 Says:

    Dear Ron Britton et al,

    you nearly got the point:

    “They’re both just points of light in the sky”

    but the statement / this quote stand for much more than that. Any distinction between planets and stars is scientifically useless in terms of predicting how these things came to be where they now are. Any distinction between a brown dwarf star and a gas giant planet is really quite useless / quite arbitrary. In terms on nomenclature it gives nothing away.

    “Talk about wasting energy!” – if you got it from “nowhere” and it cost you “nothing” then why not use a ‘bit’

    perhaps one day you will realize what the bible is [God willing]

    thankyou for your [collective] posts all the same
    for Jesus’ name: Phillip-George (c) 1974

  12. Ron Britton Says:

    Phillip-George (c)1974:

    Your premise is that the Bible is 100% correct. Maybe within that context, there is no practical difference between stars and planets. However, you premise is incorrect. The Bible has been shown to be full of factual errors. Furthermore, out here in the real world, there are many practical differences between stars and planets. You are welcome to join us out here. It’s not nearly as scary as you think.

  13. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I’m confused, is “copyright” a part of his name, or is Phillip-George attempting to copyright his comments on a blog? Either way, odd.

    I know Ron already stated it, but it is worth repeating: the premise that there is no difference between stars and planets is fundamentally (irony intended) flawed. It’s a bit like saying there is no difference between a battleship and a flower. Well, by gosh, they are both made of atoms, so that makes them the same?

  14. Brian Says:

    I, for one, found P-G’s random collection of words donated to the Bay to be some of the most stupifying idiocy we’ve seen here, and that’s saying something. It’s hard to know how to combat the stupid when its just so damned bizarre.

    I don’t wish to address his “argument” about celestial objects. I’ll leave that to someone capable of understanding whatever the hell he was trying to say. I do want to address this, however:

    perhaps one day you will realize what the bible is [God willing]

    Oh, P-G, I know all too well what the bible is. Rarely in human history has a document come along to inspire people to explore the depths of their own depravities like the goddamned bible. If you are looking for an instuction manual on how to inflict misery on others, dumb down our children and treat women like property, this is it. Lest you think I’m picking on Christianity, I happily apply the same description to the koran. The only other document I can think of as being more odious, malevolent, and unforgivable is the good old Malleus Maleficarum, which translated, means “Hammer of the Witches”. The book was a sort of 24-hour tech support hotline for those looking to detect, torture, and execute women (in the name of God, of course) during the glorious Inquisition. This gift to humanity came from Christianity, I might mention.

    So, yes. I am well aware of the bible and what it has done to our species, and, if its all the same to you P-G, I’d rather not waste my time on it, OK?

  15. Phillip-George (c)1974 Says:

    you’re all missing the point lads,

    neptune radiates; means it gives off light; means there is an energy source in it. I am not talking about reflected light. what that light/ energy source is I am not prepared to guess at this point in time – gravitational potential/ collapse or nuclear radioisotopic decay or ……….. ??

    stars radiate also, at least most of them, it would appear

    when you look at the sky you have a watch, inclinonmeter, compass, etc. but by enlarge you are measuring just two things. 1. LUX and 2. wavelength.

    that makes neptune a dim star or stars bright planets.

    planet simply means “moving” – but my guess is you are unmoved – relatively speaking

    so have a great day – time constrained – day in the sun

  16. Ron Britton Says:

    Copyright © 1974 by Philip-George. All rights reserved.

  17. Parrotlover77 Says:

    What the bloody hell is Copyright trying to say?!? Why am I asking? I know it won’t make any sense at all. Neptune has an internal heat source so somehow that means that everything in the bible is correct? Somebody save me before my IQ drops any lower from this conversation.

  18. Phillip-George (c)1974 Says:

    dear Parrotlover77,
    as a fellow seeker of wisdom and truth you are obviously engaged in many a speculation about the nature of origins. seeing this particular page is all about the meaningful distinctions that can be made about planets and stars I think we can amicably now agree that arbitrary nomenclature provides no useful insight into modeling the source of the properties that they now display; roughly 6000 years after their creation.

    meanwhile, as to a “bloody hell”, what makes you think that disembodied spirits have blood. Hell might well be bone dry? but don’t allow me to carry any prejudice into the topic.

    thanks again, mirth is good for one’s coronaries

  19. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I hearby call out Copyright as a troll. He had me going up until the “bloody hell” crack, then his true colors began to show (Poe’s Law strikes again).

    He’s neither fundie nor non-fundie. He’s just a troll.

  20. Phillip-George (c)1974 Says:

    do troll’s traul? I admit to fishing for something half interesting that might have been added to the debate. what I found was droll rather than troll. this website deserves.