Re: What does Bulcher and Ham have in common?

On Jun 12, 7:34 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 12, 6:39 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1181693357.098549.292700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jun 12, 2:15 pm, "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
þus cwæð Ray Martinez:

SNIP....

I understand perfectly, kemo sabe. Talking of specifics, I do hope that
your
forthcoming and eagerly-awaited paper, will, as part of your recently
announced conversion to anti-microevolutionism, refute, in detail, each
and
every example of speciation that has been observed and documented both in
the wild and under experimental conditions? I asked this once before, but
recieved no reply. I can post a list of same, if you like, so that you
can
make a start on it. Because unless you can explain each and every one of
those events, your attempt to disprove microevolution is doomed to
failure.

This makes you and Ken Ham on the same side.

How so? Ham is one of yours....

Ham accepts microevolution, just like you do. I know for a fact that
microevolution is false, there is no evidence for the claim.



Bulcher and Ham agree on evolution, nice couple.

Ray, do you even have a clue as to what you are claiming?

Dana, Bulcher and Ken Ham, what do they these Fundamentalists have in
common?

Answer: they all believe in microevolution?

DJT

Hang on, you're now saying *microevolution* is impossible? That's
such an extreme statement that I know of no other creationist that
makes it. You're aware that microevolution is something as simple as
a single point mutation in a genome. Are you claiming that DNA is
immutable, or that changes in DNA can't be passed on?

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text

Ray



.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast