Kent Hovind, Dear Sir!

I am currently watching a video of thunderf00t about stupidities by creationists. Obviously he cites you. And he mentioned you are in prison for tax fraud "currently", which of course means I wanted to know if you still are.

Which seems to be the case.

I was reminded of St Peter in Chains. St Peter was in prison on two occasions, once in Jerusalem as described in Acts 12, once in Mamertine prison in Rome. Empress Eudocia found the chain relic in Jerusalem, brought it to Rome under Pope St Leo I, who already had the chain relics from the Mamertine Prison. He compared the chains, which miraculously fused. They are still there. A better attested fusion than that of hydrogen into oxygen or carbon, don't you think?

I owe you.

First of all, collecting evidence for dinosaurs - as such skeletons are called (sometimes petrified sometimes even with blood vessels in them) - living side by side with men or being sighted as "dragons" and Nessies is a boost to one aspect of Creationism, which Edgar H. Andrews had failed to provide. I was twelve when reading his "From Nothing to Nature" (Swedish translation of an edition previous to his last one of that book: "Ur Intet").

Second, though you have not provided my main argument against macroevolution, you provided a handy reminder of the fact on which I base it.

Karyogrammata
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2009/08/karyogrammata.html

I had a dream one night ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2010/11/i-had-dream-one-night.html

Another possibility
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2011/06/another-possibility.html

I tried to send links to all of the above essays as well as to my refutations against P Z Myers to Nature (something) Genetics. Just to make sure I got it peer reviewed - or that peers felt too superior to review it.

Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

The first of above articles contains a link to the page where I got the facts from, the one where you spoke about chromosome numbers in different creatures. Apparently tobacco has more of them than man, but tobacco is irrelevant to my argument. Tobacco is a plant and such creatures simetimes have high polyploidy. Mammals gone polyploid have so far not been directly attested.

Though the rodent known as Red Viscacha Rat, which is not red, not a viscacha and not a rat, is supposed to descend from a tetraploid version of some other rodent from the area.

I hope you don't mind me telling you I agree a little with your critic about the water canopy covering Earth before the flood. At least if you really did describe it once as being made of ice. But that might be him making it up. Waters above the firmament to me anyway mean the H₂O you find so generously throughout the Universe in non-liquid form. Your critic mentioned himself, when someone else misstated that argument as Earth being the only place where you find water at all, that water is the second most common molecule in the Universe. A k a "Ha-Shamayim" in Hebrew, "Oi Ouranoi" in Greek and "Coeli" in Latin. With the Hebrew word as very much punning on "Ha-Mayim", the Waters or Seas, as I heard from someone better in Hebrew than I when I was young.

Now, to the tax fraud issue. I am reminded of the LaRouche affair. Certain people stoned prophets long ago. Now it's a question of tax fraud imprisonment rather than stoning, if you ask me. Of course, if I were writing to him in prison - but he is released - I would tell him that my opposition to depending on electricity does not mean opposing the Haber process while we have electricity. Now I am writing to you. I think you and he are visibly outside the Church for not being Catholic, but I have neither in him nor in you seen vehement attacks on Catholicism. What you generally attack, either of you, Evolutionists or Malthusians, I think Catholics should attack also.

My solution to the so called Starlight Problem was written already before I left Sweden on my Yahoo Message Boards, on Netscape Message Boards, or on Both. I left Sweden in March 2005 and Christopher M. Sharp, whom I should be able theoretically to adress as a fellow Catholic ignores my solution.* If parallax is made by the angelic spirits such as those guiding the stars (or such as those in that psalm you quoted guiding waters in the heavens), rather than a parallactic view from a supposedly moving earth, then stars need not be very distant at all.

Which is one case for being thankful for the Galileo case. As far as I can tell, you have not been treated as well as he was, but that is not demonising your detention officers, that is just refusing to demonise unduly the Inquisition.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Audoux, Paris
St Didacus and St Brice
13-XI-2012

*Here is my answer to him:

Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.fr/2012/11/distant-starlight-problem-answered-by.html

By the way here are the links I was watching/reading about you:

http://www.kenthovindblog.com/?cat=40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I&list=PLAC3481305829426D&index=4&feature=plpp_video