The Duration Of Ray's Research
Devils Advocaat
Note these posts from Ray himself.
In June 2007 it went from "many years" to "some five years".
In March 2008 in a single post it went from "two plus years" to just
"two years".
He has at least been consistent since then, claiming that he has done
two years of research during which he was unable to find any evidence
of microevolution.
But how much research did Ray do, and over what period?
Where are his field and lab notes?
Where is the bibliography of other papers, journals and works that he
examined?
Why is it taking him so long to publish his paper?
In a nutshell, where is the scientific evidence that he is supposed to
have found that refutes evolution?
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
> How long did Ray do his research for?
>
> Note these posts from Ray himself.
>
> In June 2007 it went from "many years" to "some five years".
>
> In March 2008 in a single post it went from "two plus years" to just
> "two years".
>
> He has at least been consistent since then, claiming that he has done
> two years of research during which he was unable to find any evidence
> of microevolution.
Would someone slap Ray with a DOG PLEASE
Rolf
I asked a similar question of Ray 14th March in the thread
Re: A Simple Challenge For Ray Martinez
but I didn't expect an answer. He will just pretend we never asked for
obvious reasons.
Devils Advocaat
Ah yes, that was another thread of mine where I asked Ray some simple
questions that he continues to refuse to answer.
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Desertphile
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> How long did Ray do his research for?
> Note these posts from Ray himself.
> In June 2007 it went from "many years" to "some five years".
Five years is a life time for a rat like Ray.
> In March 2008 in a single post it went from "two plus years" to just
> "two years".
So, as the years pass his research grows younger.....
> He has at least been consistent since then, claiming that he has done
> two years of research during which he was unable to find any evidence
> of microevolution.
Golly: he must not read talk.origins
> But how much research did Ray do, and over what period?
>
> Where are his field and lab notes?
Bewah ha haha hahahahahahhahaha ha ha ha haaa.... (falling off the
chair with laughter)
> Where is the bibliography of other papers, journals and works that he
> examined?
>
> Why is it taking him so long to publish his paper?
>
> In a nutshell, where is the scientific evidence that he is supposed to
> have found that refutes evolution?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Wombat
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:36:28 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
>
> > How long did Ray do his research for?
> > Note these posts from Ray himself.
> > In June 2007 it went from "many years" to "some five years".
>
> Five years is a life time for a rat like Ray.
>
> > In March 2008 in a single post it went from "two plus years" to just
> > "two years".
>
> So, as the years pass his research grows younger.....
>
> > He has at least been consistent since then, claiming that he has done
> > two years of research during which he was unable to find any evidence
> > of microevolution.
>
> Golly: he must not read talk.origins
>
> > But how much research did Ray do, and over what period?
>
> > Where are his field and lab notes?
>
> Bewah ha haha hahahahahahhahaha ha ha ha haaa.... (falling off the
> chair with laughter)
>
> > Where is the bibliography of other papers, journals and works that he
> > examined?
It is my understanding that all the documents he has read are 19th
century, and he seems to have misunderstood most of what he has read.
>
> > Why is it taking him so long to publish his paper?
>
> > In a nutshell, where is the scientific evidence that he is supposed to
> > have found that refutes evolution?
He had a "eureka" moment, remember. Whether it was a psychotic
episode in his bath or not he didn't say.
Wombat
Boikat
> How long did Ray do his research for?
>
> Note these posts from Ray himself.
>
> In June 2007 it went from "many years" to "some five years".
>
> In March 2008 in a single post it went from "two plus years" to just
> "two years".
>
> He has at least been consistent since then, claiming that he has done
> two years of research during which he was unable to find any evidence
> of microevolution.
>
Someone should tell him tht staring at a blank wall and saying "Nope.
Still nothing" is not "reaserch".
> But how much research did Ray do, and over what period?
You mean *real* research? Are you kidding?
>
> Where are his field and lab notes?
The wolf-dog ate them.
>
> Where is the bibliography of other papers, journals and works that he
> examined?
AIG, CRS, Discovery Institute....
>
> Why is it taking him so long to publish his paper?
You're joking, right?
>
> In a nutshell, where is the scientific evidence that he is supposed to
> have found that refutes evolution?
The same place as adman's ability to think logically: In some god-
forsaken parallel universe where dark is light, war is peace, and up
is down.
Boikat
Steven L.
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> How long did Ray do his research for?
>>
>> Note these posts from Ray himself.
>>
>> In June 2007 it went from "many years" to "some five years".
>>
>> In March 2008 in a single post it went from "two plus years" to just
>> "two years".
>>
>> He has at least been consistent since then, claiming that he has done
>> two years of research during which he was unable to find any evidence
>> of microevolution.
>
> Would someone slap Ray with a DOG PLEASE
>
>
>> But how much research did Ray do, and over what period?
In fairness to Ray, you can't rush scientific research. Or any
research. Major breakthroughs in science can take decades. And Ray
isn't asking you to fund his work.
So yours is a cheap shot, of the childish form "Are we there yet?"
If and when Ray has completed his work, he'll tell us.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Burkhard
> [M]adman wrote:
> > Devils Advocaat wrote:
> >> How long did Ray do his research for?
>
> >> Note these posts from Ray himself.
>
> >> In June 2007 it went from "many years" to "some five years".
>
> >> In March 2008 in a single post it went from "two plus years" to just
> >> "two years".
>
> >> He has at least been consistent since then, claiming that he has done
> >> two years of research during which he was unable to find any evidence
> >> of microevolution.
>
> > Would someone slap Ray with a DOG PLEASE
>
> >> But how much research did Ray do, and over what period?
>
> In fairness to Ray, you can't rush scientific research. Or any
> research. Major breakthroughs in science can take decades.
Can you have a word with my Head of department too, please ;o). This
is what I keep telling him, but will he listen!
Rolf
I certainly will not live to see that day - even if I still have 21 to go
before 100...
Greg G.
Give Ray a break. It took Darwin decades to produce his work and Ray
has an extra 150 years of evidence produced by thousands of other
scientists to deal with.
Ray Martinez
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's right.
Very objective and fair comments Steven----thanks.
But I HAVE repeatedly made the same points, that is: research takes
time; and I have repeatedly admitted to making many mistakes in the
form of setting deadlines. It took Immanuel Velikovsky twenty years to
write one his books while he waited for space exploration data to be
published. Again, I have repeatedly pointed out that it took Darwin
over twenty years to publish the "Origin" and he was wealthy. While
finances are not a problem for me either, it takes time to do research
and establish facts. And I have repeatedly pointed out that it took
19th century scholar James Secord "a large part of his life" to
research and write "Victorian Sensation" (2000:XV); and it took
Harvard Professor Janet Browne seven years to write the second half of
Darwin's biography "Charles Darwin: The Power of Place" (1995-2002).
I am in my fifth year.
And again: AFTER two years of research I announced abandonment of
microevolution-mutability and conversion to immutability. That is how
long it took me to disentangle my mind from the assumption of
microevolution. Again: I could find no evidence supporting the
concept----NONE. I have carefully researched how Darwin concluded for
mutability: it was and remains an unwarranted assumption. Creationists
who argue in favor of their enemy (any kind of evolution) are ignorant
(like I was). The scientific facts have forced me to accept the truth
of immutability and I have every great scientific authority that
Darwin mentions of page 310 of the "Origin" on my side. And it is
worth noting that Darwin credits these men as having produced, at the
time, all of our [scientific] knowledge.
Ray
Kent Paul Dolan
> If and when Ray has completed his work, he'll tell
> us.
Sure, but he's already told us he's started his
work, and I don't even believe that.
xanthian.
Dr. Acula
Interesting. What kind of lab or field work have you conducted?
Dana Tweedy
>
> And again: AFTER two years of research I announced abandonment of
> microevolution-mutability and conversion to immutability. That is how
> long it took me to disentangle my mind from the assumption of
> microevolution.
Microevolution is an observation, not an assumption.
> Again: I could find no evidence supporting the
> concept----NONE.
The fact that all populations vary is evidence supporting the concept.
Surely you aren't going to claim that there is no variation in populations?
> I have carefully researched how Darwin concluded for
> mutability: it was and remains an unwarranted assumption.
Making up something is not careful research. Darwin concluded the change
in species from many observations, not from assumptions.
> Creationists
> who argue in favor of their enemy (any kind of evolution) are ignorant
> (like I was).
Ray, you are still ignorant, and worse off than before. "Any kind of
evolution" is what's been directly observed, depsite your wishes.
> The scientific facts have forced me to accept the truth
> of immutability and I have every great scientific authority that
> Darwin mentions of page 310 of the "Origin" on my side.
Except those "authorities" wouldn't agree with you. They would see the
evidence for change in species, if they had the chance. What 'facts' do
you claim have "forced" you to ignore the vast amount of evidence of change
in populations?
> And it is
> worth noting that Darwin credits these men as having produced, at the
> time, all of our [scientific] knowledge.
It's also worth noting that Darwin showed clearly that fixity of species is
wrong.
DJT
Devils Advocaat
Evidence he has already discarded as irrelevant, because he is in
possession of invulnerable scientific evidenc that will destroy the
theory of evolution and ruin the life of every evolutionist.
I honestly don't believe he has such evidence, for if he did he
wouldn't be promising to publish it on the internet, he would present
his paper with its abstract, findings, conclusion, glossary and
bibliography to a recognised scientific journal for peer review and
publication.
[M]adman
Ray, i am sure Darwin took notes of his research and observations over the
years. I am sure any good researcher keeps organized notes. Darwin probably
sat down with many volumes of notebooks and compiled them into his book.
Do you have notes Ray? Surly something in your research is recorded albeit
not complete.
Care to share some excerpts of your findings and observations so far with
the class?
[M]adman
Do You actually believe Ray is working on disproving evolution? Where are
his notes? After 5 years of research he should have something he can show
the class. But he does not. My shot was not a cheap shot but a truthful
shot. DevilsAvocate has asked Ray too many times for his proof that
microevolution is wrong. I have given Ray clear evidence on several
occasions that Dogs are proof for microevolution.
Now it seems to me that if Ray was in possession of some kind of proof, or
evidence that disproves microevolution he would post it. Or at least post
what he has discovered so far.
You defend stupidity.
But I would expect nothing less from you.
Rolf
Dummy. Darwin had no idea whatwoever about what a mutation was; the
mechanism was a mystery before DNA was discovered. Have you put any effort
into researching genetics? Can you answer that? It should not be that
difficult, should it?
Yes or No is all it takes. I know it is No, but I'd like to hear it from the
horse's mouth.
Ye Old One
Do you honestly think that Dishonest Ray is actually capable of doing
research?
--
Bob.
Devils Advocaat
There is a possibility he may have done some, admittedly that
possibility is vanishingly small, but a non-zero value on any
possibility still gives that possibility a chance of happening ...
possibly.
>
> --
> Bob.- Hide quoted text -
wf3h
god is ray's notekeeper and secretary. i'm sure ray is paying Him at
least minimum wage.
Devils Advocaat
Ah, but which minimum wage would that be?
I doubt God would be happy with the UK minimum of £5.73 an hour,
unless it got back-dated to the beginning of time.
Which undoubtedly would cause a conflict as no one except God
(presuming he/she/it exists) actually knows when that was.
Wombat
He thinks mis-reading books from the 19th century is research.
He thinks having a psychotic episode is a 'eureka' moment.
There is almost certainly no paper; there almost certainly will never
be a paper.
If, by some miracle he ever does vomit something he calls a paper, it
will be the biggest laugh in history.
Wombat
Rolf
I have already commented on this post but I overlooked the above claim.
Ray: Are you really unable to understand a simple fact: What Darwin said or
not about, in your words "MUTABILITY", has nothing whatsoever with the
subject of "micorevolution." The fact that you make no reference whatosever;
never indicate that yoy are familiar with, have read anythong about, studied
any of the research that have been performed SINCE 1859 about the subject
reveals that you are totally out of touch with reality.
You are not up to date, you are not ajour, you are ignorant, you are
backward, you are disqualified from the debate due to ifnorance and
incompetence.
If your paper, as we have every reason to believe will ignore everything
that has happened since 1859, it goes without saying that it will be even
less relevant than an episode of the Martha Stewart show.
Rolf
To me it seems like in Ray's universe those 150 years are nonexistent.
Kent Paul Dolan
> you are disqualified from the debate due to ifnorance
xanthian.
Dick C.
837b-dfd...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> And again: AFTER two years of research I announced abandonment of
> microevolution-mutability and conversion to immutability. That is how
> long it took me to disentangle my mind from the assumption of
> microevolution. Again: I could find no evidence supporting the
> concept----NONE. I have carefully researched how Darwin concluded for
> mutability: it was and remains an unwarranted assumption. Creationists
> who argue in favor of their enemy (any kind of evolution) are ignorant
> (like I was). The scientific facts have forced me to accept the truth
> of immutability and I have every great scientific authority that
> Darwin mentions of page 310 of the "Origin" on my side.
Since I don't have access to the Origin, could you list these
authorities.
And it is
> worth noting that Darwin credits these men as having produced, at the
> time, all of our [scientific] knowledge.
And could you provide the cite for this claim? Thanks.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Devils Advocaat
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:2279b26f-3cf3-45c9-
> 837b-dfdd15759...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > And again: AFTER two years of research I announced abandonment of
> > microevolution-mutability and conversion to immutability. That is how
> > long it took me to disentangle my mind from the assumption of
> > microevolution. Again: I could find no evidence supporting the
> > concept----NONE. I have carefully researched how Darwin concluded for
> > mutability: it was and remains an unwarranted assumption. Creationists
> > who argue in favor of their enemy (any kind of evolution) are ignorant
> > (like I was). The scientific facts have forced me to accept the truth
> > of immutability and I have every great scientific authority that
> > Darwin mentions of page 310 of the "Origin" on my side.
>
> Since I don't have access to the Origin, could you list these
> authorities.
> And it is
>
> > worth noting that Darwin credits these men as having produced, at the
> > time, all of our [scientific] knowledge.
>
> And could you provide the cite for this claim? Thanks.
You can find much of Darwin's works at the link below:
However I would like to add the following comment with respect to
Ray's posting.
The part of Darwin's book “On the Origin of Species” to which Ray
refers is found on page 310 of the first edition, pages 310-311 of the
second edition, pages 336-337 of the third edition, pages 374-375 of
the fourth edition, pages 383-384 of the fifth edition, and page 289
of the sixth and final edition.
And indeed Darwin does show his respect for various named and unnamed
geologists and palaeontologists for the knowledge they given to the
world, and Darwin does indeed note that these people have “have
unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of
species”.
But what Ray seems to ignore is that one of the nine named in this
paragraph, Sir Charles Lyell, during the years between the publishing
of the first edition to the publishing of the sixth edition goes from
having “grave doubts on this subject” (in other words doubts on the
immutability of species) to giving “the support of his high authority
to the opposite side” (in other words Darwin's theory).
And Ray also seems to ignore the fact that in the fourth edition
Darwin notes that “some other great geologists and palaeontologists
are much shaken in their confidence”, in the fifth and sixth editions
Darwin notes that “most geologists and palaeontologists are much
shaken in their former belief”.
So one can see that what Ray proclaims as the majority scientific view
prior to 1859, was actually a belief (undoubtedly influenced by
religious views) and not a proven fact as he would like to think.
John S. Wilkins
And Cuvier and Forbes died before the Origin was published. Owen
accepted evolution in the end (he nearly came up with it himself) but
never natural selection. Falconer also accepted evolution almost as soon
as the Origin was published, and was a friend and correspondent of
Darwin's.
So Sedgwick, Murchison, Agassiz and Barrande are the ones who remained
opposed to evolution after having had a chance to see Darwin's version,
and towards the end of his life Agassiz said it was at least a
defensible view, although he did not accept it. Barrande was a French
naturalist, whose reasons may have had something to do with his
religious views, but by and large there was no consensus on fixity from
around 1795 onwards.
>
> And Ray also seems to ignore the fact that in the fourth edition
> Darwin notes that "some other great geologists and palaeontologists
> are much shaken in their confidence", in the fifth and sixth editions
> Darwin notes that "most geologists and palaeontologists are much
> shaken in their former belief".
>
> So one can see that what Ray proclaims as the majority scientific view
> prior to 1859, was actually a belief (undoubtedly influenced by
> religious views) and not a proven fact as he would like to think.
Murchison's rejection was based on his catastrophist geology. Cuvier's
by the alterantive (Lamarckian evolution), which was unsupportable.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Frank J
How about giving us a "sneak preview" of one small part of your
research, namely "how many biospheres have there been on this old
Earth, and when did each one originate?"
If you share those conclusions with us we might be able to help you
with your research. When I was doing research back when I always found
it helpful to bounce my ideas off of others, especially those who
might challenge them.
Dick C.
news:a75c2454-40f0-4603...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
> On 21 Mar, 03:16, "Dick C." <foo.dic...@toast.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:2279b26f-3cf3-45c9-
>> 837b-dfdd15759...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > And again: AFTER two years of research I announced abandonment of
>> > microevolution-mutability and conversion to immutability. That is
>> > how long it took me to disentangle my mind from the assumption of
>> > microevolution. Again: I could find no evidence supporting the
>> > concept----NONE. I have carefully researched how Darwin concluded
>> > for mutability: it was and remains an unwarranted assumption.
>> > Creationists who argue in favor of their enemy (any kind of
>> > evolution) are ignorant (like I was). The scientific facts have
>> > forced me to accept the truth of immutability and I have every
>> > great scientific authority that Darwin mentions of page 310 of the
>> > "Origin" on my side.
>>
>> Since I don't have access to the Origin, could you list these
>> authorities.
>> And it is
>>
>> > worth noting that Darwin credits these men as having produced, at
>> > the time, all of our [scientific] knowledge.
>>
>> And could you provide the cite for this claim? Thanks.
>
> You can find much of Darwin's works at the link below:
>
> http://darwin-online.org.uk/
I have a copy on my pc, I was asking Ray to list the scientists and
provide a cite because I really did not want to dig through it to find
the information.
Devils Advocaat
> How long did Ray do his research for?
>
> Note these posts from Ray himself.
>
> In June 2007 it went from "many years" to "some five years".
>
> In March 2008 in a single post it went from "two plus years" to just
> "two years".
>
> He has at least been consistent since then, claiming that he has done
> two years of research during which he was unable to find any evidence
> of microevolution.
>
>
>
> Where is the bibliography of other papers, journals and works that he
> examined?
>
> Why is it taking him so long to publish his paper?
>
> In a nutshell, where is the scientific evidence that he is supposed to
> have found that refutes evolution?
Make it easy on yourself Ray and come up with the evidence.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Make it easy on yourself Ray and come up with the
> evidence.
Ray has probably never done a single speck of work
on his "paper".
In every single case where he mentioned his paper
_unprompted_, it was to use it as a false authority
in an attempt to overcome a foe and an argument he
could otherwise not defeat. There is no need at all
for his paper to be "real" for the purposes for
which he employs it.
Considering the quality of the rest of Ray's
argumentation, vaporware is probably the best status
for his "paper" from his viewpoint, too.
That protects his delusions that he has some great
contribution to make overturning evolution from the
sad reality that if he published, he would be
laughed off the planet.
Since "delusional" is the best description for much
of what Ray writes, the contents of his paper, were
it ever to be written, can well be imagined from
prior examples.
xanthian.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frank: when I refer to myself as an "Old Earth-Young Biosphere
Creationist-species immutabilist" this means I accept the fact of a
Great Flood. Thus, I only need to explain how biological diversity
seen today came to be in a mere 5,000 years. I don't need to address
any biosphere that preceded 5000 BC.
But all of this is neither here nor there since I am mainly going
after Darwin 1859. As I have said before: once I destroy Darwin 1859
everything built on top goes with it----everything.
Fact: the main foundation and structure of Darwin 1859 remains
scientifically sound today. But I have discovered Darwin 1859 to
actually be a house of cards built on quicksand. Jesus specifically
warned us to NOT build on sand because when the storm comes the house
will not stand. Jesus said to build on rock. In the metaphor the
"rock" typifies Himself. As we all know Darwin 1859 is not built on
"the Rock." Darwin 1859 is built on sand and I am the coming storm.
Ray Martinez, Christian
redd...@bresnan.net
Why do you accept this "Flood" when there isn't any evidence of it
happening?
> Thus, I only need to explain how biological diversity
> seen today came to be in a mere 5,000 years. I don't need to address
> any biosphere that preceded 5000 BC.
Except that the "biosphere" today isn't any different from the
biosphere of 5000 years ago. Also, there isn't any evidence of a
global flood.
>
> But all of this is neither here nor there since I am mainly going
> after Darwin 1859. As I have said before: once I destroy Darwin 1859
> everything built on top goes with it----everything.
Well, that demonstrates why you are going to fail. Going after
Darwin's 1859 work is like shutting the barn door after the horse has
already run away, raised a family, and died.
>
> Fact: the main foundation and structure of Darwin 1859 remains
> scientifically sound today.
Because Darwin's work is sound science.
> But I have discovered Darwin 1859 to
> actually be a house of cards built on quicksand.
Which means you don't know what a solid scientific foundation looks
like.
> Jesus specifically
> warned us to NOT build on sand because when the storm comes the house
> will not stand.
Kind of like basing one's beliefs on the word of a dead
televangelist.....
> Jesus said to build on rock. In the metaphor the
> "rock" typifies Himself.
It could also typify the scientific foundation that Darwin's work is
based on.
> As we all know Darwin 1859 is not built on
> "the Rock." Darwin 1859 is built on sand and I am the coming storm.
Ray, you are at worst, a squirt gun, trying to wash away a granite
column.
DJT
Devils Advocaat
[snipped for brevity and focus]
> Fact: the main foundation and structure of Darwin 1859 remains
> scientifically sound today. But I have discovered Darwin 1859 to
> actually be a house of cards built on quicksand.
[snipped for brevity and focus]
So you reckon the main foundation of Darwin 1859 is scientifically
sound.
But you also reckon that Darwin 1859 is a house of cards built on
quicksand.
A fine example of doublethink.
heekster
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
<...>
> Darwin 1859 is built on sand and I am the coming storm.
This is what's called "delusions of grandeur."
heekster
No, sir. "Delusions of publishing" an evolution shattering work.
Which hasn't even been written, yet.
--
Ridendo dicere verum.
John Smith
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4c419c5f-7672-4d2d...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 21, 4:59 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 4:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 8:44 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > [M]adman wrote:
> > > > Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > > >> How long did Ray do his research for?
>
> > > >> Note these posts from Ray himself.
>
> > > >> In June 2007 it went from "many years" to "some five years".
>
> > > >> In March 2008 in a single post it went from "two plus years" to
> > > >> just
> > > >> "two years".
>
> > > >> He has at least been consistent since then, claiming that he has
> > > >> done
> > > >> two years of research during which he was unable to find any
> > > >> evidence
> > > >> of microevolution.
Duh ... the fact that he is neither a clone of his mother or father IS
macro-evolution in progress!
>
> > > > Would someone slap Ray with a DOG PLEASE
Don't you DARE hurt that dog!
Frank: when I refer to myself as an "Old Earth-Young Biosphere
Creationist-species immutabilist" this means I accept the fact of a
Great Flood.
***Then you believe in a fairy tale that never happened. ***
Thus, I only need to explain how biological diversity
seen today came to be in a mere 5,000 years. I don't need to address
any biosphere that preceded 5000 BC.
*** Bwahahaa .... such ignorance! I don't need to explain reality, because I
don't BELIEVE in reality!
But all of this is neither here nor there since I am mainly going
after Darwin 1859. As I have said before: once I destroy Darwin 1859
everything built on top goes with it----everything.
*** This is getting to silly to believe!
For 150 years thousands upon thousands of VALID scientists have found tons
and tons of evidence that SUPPORT Darwins basic theory.
You're going to tear all that down - because you'd rather believe in fairy
tales?
Fact: the main foundation and structure of Darwin 1859 remains
scientifically sound today. But I have discovered Darwin 1859 to
actually be a house of cards built on quicksand.
*** People in this news group have discovered that your little more than an
ignorant fool.
Jesus specifically
warned us to NOT build on sand because when the storm comes the house
will not stand. Jesus said to build on rock. In the metaphor the
"rock" typifies Himself. As we all know Darwin 1859 is not built on
"the Rock." Darwin 1859 is built on sand and I am the coming storm.
Ray Martinez, Moron!
Caranx latus
A brief puff of hot air is not normally considered a storm.
Devils Advocaat
> In the, "More like a sparrow fart, rather than a typhoon", category:
>
>
> >As we all know Darwin 1859 is not built on
Kent Paul Dolan
> heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>> In the, "More like a sparrow fart, rather than a
>> typhoon", category:
> Do sparrows fart?
Oh, probably:
Results ... about 28,900 for avian flatulence
>>> As we all know Darwin 1859 is not built on "the
>>> Rock." Darwin 1859 is built on sand and I am the
>>> coming storm.
150 years of strident scientific confirmation of
Darwin's Theory of Evolution and some no-brain
creationist is going to blow the house down? Ever
see a picture of Louis Armstrong, in his later
years, playing the trumpet, cheeks swollen like
balloons? That "all blow, no wind" is all the storm
the braggert would be againt the ToE.
xanthian.
VoiceOfReason
I think you mean Dizzy_Gillespie:
http://www.jazzphoto.ch/images/Dizzy_Gillespie.jpg
Rolf
Christian, really?
QUOTE: Madman is a dope (= Atheist ass kisser).
You think Jesus would kiss you?
Kent Paul Dolan
> I think you mean Dizzy_Gillespie:
> http://www.jazzphoto.ch/images/Dizzy_Gillespie.jpg
That's certainly the same effect, but I
saw Louis Armstrong from about third row
center when he performed at the US Navy
Training Center, Dam Neck, VA, and hard
though it may be to believe, the effect
was even more pronounced as he played.
xanthian.
Dick C.
@news.albasani.net:
I remember seeing Louis on TV, and I always wondered
how anyone's cheeks could be so big.
>
> xanthian.
Dick C.
No, it does not. Since everything built on top of it is supported
by massive amounts of evidence. And, you apparently do not realize
that many of Darwin's ideas have been shown to be wrong. So, even
if you do manage to knock down some of his ideas, you will not be
doing anything new, nor will you affect today's understanding of
evolution.
>
> Fact: the main foundation and structure of Darwin 1859 remains
> scientifically sound today. But I have discovered Darwin 1859 to
> actually be a house of cards built on quicksand. Jesus specifically
> warned us to NOT build on sand because when the storm comes the house
> will not stand. Jesus said to build on rock. In the metaphor the
> "rock" typifies Himself. As we all know Darwin 1859 is not built on
> "the Rock." Darwin 1859 is built on sand and I am the coming storm.
Darwin's ideas were built on far firmer ground than the bible. And since
what much of what Jesus said was either borrowed from other religions or
has been shown to be false, and since most of christianianity is built on
ancient misunderstood or misstated myths, it is built on pure vapor.
And no, Ray, you are not a coming storm, rather you are a gnat's fart
in a dixie cup
Dave Oldridge
>On Mar 21, 4:59 am, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
You're probably a Christian, since it seems likely that someone baptized
you. But you are an apostate, excommunicate Christian, preaching the
creationist anti-gospel of salvation by lying about science.
Why do you base your salvation on the quicksand of false witness?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Devils Advocaat
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk>:
>On 22 Mar, 23:27, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>> In the, "More like a sparrow fart, rather than a typhoon", category:
>Do sparrows fart?
Only the guys. Small anus; high-pitched chirping sound.
>> >As we all know Darwin 1859 is not built on
>> >"the Rock." Darwin 1859 is built on sand and I am the coming storm.- Hide quoted text -
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless