Dr. Dino set up for another fall!

[Paths of the Sea]

It looks like Dr. Dino has been busy recently in trying to recover his Dinosaur Adventure Land property.

In checking the public record a few moments ago, I found that he filed a motion on May 27, 2010 asking for the Court to stay the criminal forfeiture of his property.

Dr. Dino was convicted of criminal offenses and his jury returned a forfeiture verdict for $430,400.00. Property was substituted, the substitution order was not appealed, and the appeal period expired.

On June 3, 2010, the U.S. Attorney responded to Dr. Dino's motion asking the Court to deny the stay and citing reasons why such should be denied, including the facts noted above.

The judge has been advised of the need for his attention on the motion and I suspect, as before, the judge will act quickly to deny Dr. Dino's motion.

We will see.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

I went back and did some more checking about what has been up between Dr. Dino
and his Judge.

Preceding his attempt to Stay the forfeiture, he first tried asking for a
reconsideration of the Order denying his 5 separate motions.

The Judge quickly denied that request.

Then he tried something called an "Order to Dismiss Under Independent Action".

The Judge quickly denied that request also.

Having failed in those two efforts, Dr. Dino then tried his motion to Stay the
forfeiture.

We should know in the coming days that the Judge has again denied Dr. Dino's
attempt to salvage his property without giving up any money.

And it appears Dr. Dino and his son are stonewalling regarding informing tbeir followers of what is really going on and what happened or will happen to the $400,000.00 that was quickly raised last Fall in anticipation that they would actually "buy-back" Dinosaur AdventureLand.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[.]

Time for a "Motion to Kiss My Ass." Same zero chance of success, but it would liven things up a bit.

[Samphire]

Maury wrote:

And it appears Dr. Dino and his son are stonewalling regarding informing tbeir followers of what is really going on and what happened or will happen to the $400,000.00 that was quickly raised last Fall in anticipation that they would actually "buy-back" Dinosaur AdventureLand.

From the Right Reverend Reverend Eric's page:

3. Q: What will you do with the money that is raised if you don’t meet the $380,000 goal?

A: We will purchase properties one at a time as the money becomes available. However, in the event we are not able to raise all of the money needed, the board of directors has determined that the ministry will move to a new facility immediately in order to ensure that the work of the ministry is not hindered. Any money that is not used to purchase property will be used to continue the work of Creation Science Evangelism.

Maury, what specific evidence do you have that the Demented Duo are stonewalling?

Do you think it is the case that CSE has effectively given up on any chances of retaining its land bank of properties (other than Eric's house) and are now centring their new business in the new premises supported by the seed money of a few hundreds of thousands of dollars donated by their gullible supporters?

After the IRS has disposed of the property will they continue to pursue to bankruptcy Kent & Jo for the millions in tax and penalties they still both owe and which will never be paid?

I wonder how much Kent's sidekick Glen Stoll has salted away on Kent's behalf and how much Kent & Eric will be able to recover of it in due course for Kent & Jo's old age. Sound book-keeping doesn't seem to be part of the fundamentalist YECist skill set so what are the odds this bunch of co-conspirators will fall out with each other in due course. My guess is that it is a dead cert.

[Paths of the Sea]

Samphire,

A member of another list who is also on Eric's blog has advised, after repeated attempts, he has been unable to get Eric to post information on the latest details as to what is up with their plans for the future and the property deal they allegedly thought they had with the IRS.

It has apparently been quite awhile since Eric has posted any real updates on the situation and Dr. Dino's CSE blog entries fail to note the numerous denied motions in Dr. Dino's criminal case.

If anyone has any recent, more official word, from Eric or Dr. Dino, I would like to be informed as to what it is.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Here's the posting from the Dr. Dino website:

> Legal Updates
> Last Updated: March 26, 2010

> After a six-month delay, the government
> has finally responded that they will sell
> the property at a fair market value of
> $971,000. This is substantially higher than
> their intial indication of $380,000; and so,
> our Board of Directors has scheduled an
> upcoming meeting to discuss the ministry's
> options.

That was more than two months ago, and before the Court quickly disposed of numerous motions from Dr. Dino in a continuing, misguided effort to get out of prison.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Samphire]

An interesting comment on Kent's latest post at CSE Blogs by a friend of the family:

Dear Dr. Hovind,

Thank you for your post. We have been calling to see about the progress of getting your land back, since it has been paid for.

[Paths of the Sea]

That statement about "being paid for" is rather ambiguous, but it is the case that a lot of people are waiting to hear word about the latest on the deal with the property and who is going to wind up with it.

Meanwhile, Dr. Dino and his wife continue to face millions in additional personal liability in their pending U.S. Tax Court cases.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[grixit]

That's the problem with creationism, no room to adapt, no chance of ever changing.

[Imalawman]

That's the problem with creationism, no room to adapt, no chance of ever changing.

Well, that's not true as a general statement. Not to start a tangent, but believing in a creator being does not limit the ability to accept scientific advances. No one knows where "first things" have come from, believing that ultimately an intelligent being had a hand in creating the first things allows me a great deal of flexibility as well as have a meaningful faith.

[Dr. Caligari]

That's the problem with creationism, no room to adapt, no chance of ever changing.

Well, that's not true as a general statement. Not to start a tangent, but believing in a creator being does not limit the ability to accept scientific advances. No one knows where "first things" have come from, believing that ultimately an intelligent being had a hand in creating the first things allows me a great deal of flexibility as well as have a meaningful faith.

Not to take this thread off on a tangent, but "Creationism" is usually used to refer to a belief in the literal truth of Genesis 1-- a sudden creation of all species, more or less in modern form, within the last few thousand years. If you believe that the earth is indeed billions of years old, and that all life is related by common descent, but also believe that God guided, or started the process of, Darwinian evolution, you would more usually be called a "theistic evolutionist" rather than a "creationist."

[Paths of the Sea]

As it applies to Dr. Dino, the subject of this thread, a "creationist" refers to what is commonly considered one who believes that "nothing is more than a few thousand years old" and that the more descriptive term, to distinguish it from other forms of "creationism" is:

> "young-earth creation-science".

Ken Ham, proprietor of the $25,000,000.00 museum in Kentucky, may be the most famous of the "young-earth creation-science" promoters.

Despite their best efforts, young-earth creation-science promoters have not been successful in sustaining their claims to be "scientific". Rather, they have been found to follow the fundamental course briefly summarized as:

> I, a young-earth creation-science promoter,
> have my interpretation of the text regarding
> the real world and that trumps any real
> world evidence to the contrary; such
> contrary evidence simply being an
> indication that God can make things
> look older than they are.

Knowing that in advance sure makes dealing with young-earth creation-science promoters a lot easier; at least in my experience.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Pottapaug1938]

No one knows where "first things" have come from, believing that ultimately an intelligent being had a hand in creating the first things allows me a great deal of flexibility as well as have a meaningful faith.

True; but issues like this belong in a course on metaphysics, and not any sort of science course.
Metaphysics cannot explain the laws of science; but it can be the platform for an interesting discussion on who (or Who) wrote them.... On the one hand, we can accept the scientific fact of evolution; on the other, we can hold beliefs as to who (Who) or what struck the spark off that set evolution in motion.

Science and religion need not be enemies; in fact, they can complement each other quite nicely.

[The Observer]

Not to take this thread off on a tangent, but "Creationism" is usually used to refer to a belief in the literal truth of Genesis 1-- a sudden creation of all species, more or less in modern form, within the last few thousand years...

One more observation: Nowhere in Genesis 1 does it specify or even imply that the creation event took place within the last few thousand years. And keeping in mind that the Hebrew words for "morning" and "evening" can be interpreted to indicate the 6 days of creation represent six stages of creation rather than a literal 6 days.

[Samphire]

Metaphysics cannot explain the laws of science; but it can be the platform for an interesting discussion on who (or Who) wrote them

No-one "wrote" the laws of science. Natural laws are not written laws but just man-made descriptions of what stuff does. God didn't say "I'm going to make a law that if some-one pushes a rock it will carry on going until some-one comes along and pushes it the other way" (framed by Newton as his so-called First Law of Anthropomorphic Pushiness).

If physical material did not act in scientifically predictive ways then we could conclude that either matter has a mind of its own or else God is mucking about interfering in the natural course of events. But, quantum theory apart, this is not what we observe. So, in the absence of matter doing strange things, we have to conclude that the "laws" of physics indicate the absence of a Fat Controller rather than his constantly-interfering existence.

[wserra]

quantum theory apart

Schrödinger! Cat!

Very nice, Samphire.

[Imalawman]

Metaphysics cannot explain the laws of science; but it can be the platform for an interesting discussion on who (or Who) wrote them

No-one "wrote" the laws of science. Natural laws are not written laws but just man-made descriptions of what stuff does. God didn't say "I'm going to make a law that if some-one pushes a rock it will carry on going until some-one comes along and pushes it the other way" (framed by Newton as his so-called First Law of Anthropomorphic Pushiness).

If physical material did not act in scientifically predictive ways then we could conclude that either matter has a mind of its own or else God is mucking about interfering in the natural course of events. But, quantum theory apart, this is not what we observe. So, in the absence of matter doing strange things, we have to conclude that the "laws" of physics indicate the absence of a Fat Controller rather than his constantly-interfering existence.

But you must also account for the seemingly random applications of the laws of nature. In that, there is unpredictability inherent in the interaction between laws of physics and shall we say, "reality". For instance, while the same piano will always fall in accordance with the laws of physics invariably, how do we explain why it fell at the precise moment it did, and why did a large gust of wind blow said piano just to left of me and onto my mother in law? Such good fortune is inexplicable. Thus, a being that interacts with nature is not disproved by the consistency of the laws of nature.

Moreover, we have observed natural forces have a great degree of impact on the environs. We know that the application of this force will have such a result given the conditions and facts available. What we cannot explain, to a large extent, is why it happened when it did, and where it did. While we can explain the forces that caused it to take place, we cannot fully explain the entire sequence of the events which lead up to that precise moment. Thus, a supreme being need not interfere with the laws of physics in order to have a direct hand in the ongoing management of "creation". Your point only proves the constancy of the laws of nature, but little else in the way of metaphysical subjects.

[Pottapaug1938]

Metaphysics cannot explain the laws of science; but it can be the platform for an interesting discussion on who (or Who) wrote them

No-one "wrote" the laws of science. Natural laws are not written laws but just man-made descriptions of what stuff does. God didn't say "I'm going to make a law that if some-one pushes a rock it will carry on going until some-one comes along and pushes it the other way" (framed by Newton as his so-called First Law of Anthropomorphic Pushiness).

If physical material did not act in scientifically predictive ways then we could conclude that either matter has a mind of its own or else God is mucking about interfering in the natural course of events. But, quantum theory apart, this is not what we observe. So, in the absence of matter doing strange things, we have to conclude that the "laws" of physics indicate the absence of a Fat Controller rather than his constantly-interfering existence.

But you must also account for the seemingly random applications of the laws of nature. In that, there is unpredictability inherent in the interaction between laws of physics and shall we say, "reality". For instance, while the same piano will always fall in accordance with the laws of physics invariably, how do we explain why it fell at the precise moment it did, and why did a large gust of wind blow said piano just to left of me and onto my mother in law? Such good fortune is inexplicable. Thus, a being that interacts with nature is not disproved by the consistency of the laws of nature.

Moreover, we have observed natural forces have a great degree of impact on the environs. We know that the application of this force will have such a result given the conditions and facts available. What we cannot explain, to a large extent, is why it happened when it did, and where it did. While we can explain the forces that caused it to take place, we cannot fully explain the entire sequence of the events which lead up to that precise moment. Thus, a supreme being need not interfere with the laws of physics in order to have a direct hand in the ongoing management of "creation". Your point only proves the constancy of the laws of nature, but little else in the way of metaphysical subjects.

I guess that I'm wondering about things like "if matter cannot be created or destroyed, where did it all come from?" and "why do the laws of nature act as they do?" That's where science leaves off and metaphysics takes over....

[wserra]

I think you funge "how" and "why". Given enough data, "how" always has an answer. "Why", in the sense you use it, isn't a question for science.

But you must also account for the seemingly random applications of the laws of nature. In that, there is unpredictability inherent in the interaction between laws of physics and shall we say, "reality".

Only to the extent described by quantum mechanics. I don't think that's what you mean, though.

For instance, while the same piano will always fall in accordance with the laws of physics invariably, how do we explain why it fell at the precise moment it did, and why did a large gust of wind blow said piano just to left of me and onto my mother in law?

Given sufficient data, since the quantum effects of a piano are negligible, we surely can explain how all of that happened. No problem. The "Oh, the humanity" question of why your mother-in-law happened to be in the path of the piano rather than you isn't one for science. I would probably say that there is no answer to it, and require that, before you demand one, you prove that an answer in fact exists.

Such good fortune is inexplicable. Thus, a being that interacts with nature is not disproved by the consistency of the laws of nature.

Given sufficiently detailed observations, the existence of a supreme being which interacts with nature on an ongoing basis in a manner inconsistent with established laws is in fact disprovable. Of course, we may never have sufficient data to satisfy those who postulate an ever more subtle god-world interaction. And none of this disproves the existence of a god who set it all in motion. That, too, is not the province of science.

What we cannot explain, to a large extent, is why it happened when it did, and where it did.

Only, as I wrote above, if you funge "how" and "why". They aren't the same.

[LPC]

I think you funge "how" and "why". Given enough data, "how" always has an answer. "Why", in the sense you use it, isn't a question for science.

Which is also my opinion. See http://a-thin-place.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... ience.html for details.