Evolution didn't happen, but is it possible?

[Jose Fly]

My evidence is that nobody for nearly two hundred years has been able to refute evolution. Indeed the more light is shined on the subject the more our confidence grows in evolutionary theory

That's just proof of the conspiracy's effectiveness.

 

[7djengo7]

[N]obody for nearly two hundred years has been able to refute evolution.

That's simply because not only is what you call "evolution" neither true nor false, but what you call "evolution" is not even cognitively meaningful; what you call "evolution" is sheer nonsense. And, of course, nonsense is not amenable to refutation. So, your boast, here, is quite akin in its silliness and futility to saying, "Nobody for nearly two hundred years has been able to refute that 'twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe."

No Darwinist for nearly two hundred years has been able to define what it would even be for something to "evolve into" something (though, despite this fun fact, Darwinists have nevertheless been, for all that time, saying--as mere parrots--that things "evolve into" things). This is simply because Darwinists mean absolutely nothing by the word, "evolve", and absolutely nothing by the phrase, "evolve into".

 

[Bright Raven]

That's simply because not only is what you call "evolution" neither true nor false, but what you call "evolution" is not even cognitively meaningful; what you call "evolution" is sheer nonsense. And, of course, nonsense is not amenable to refutation. So, your boast, here, is quite akin in its silliness and futility to saying, "Nobody for nearly two hundred years has been able to refute that 'twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe."

No Darwinist for nearly two hundred years has been able to define what it would even be for something to "evolve into" something (though, despite this fun fact, Darwinists have nevertheless been, for all that time, saying--as mere parrots--that things "evolve into" things). This is simply because Darwinists mean absolutely nothing by the word, "evolve", and absolutely nothing by the phrase, "evolve into".

Nope, The creation is not billions of years old as evolutionists would have you believe. It is actually quite young.

 

[ok doser]

My evidence is that nobody for nearly two hundred years has been able to refute evolution.

i was going to respond to this as well, but realized it's a post from four years ago by a poster who is no longer active, a poster who, when I last encountered him, displayed an inability to follow a coherent, rational train of thought

so, no

 

[ok doser]

That's simply because not only is what you call "evolution" neither true nor false, but what you call "evolution" is not even cognitively meaningful; what you call "evolution" is sheer nonsense. And, of course, nonsense is not amenable to refutation. So, your boast, here, is quite akin in its silliness and futility to saying, "Nobody for nearly two hundred years has been able to refute that 'twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe."

No Darwinist for nearly two hundred years has been able to define what it would even be for something to "evolve into" something (though, despite this fun fact, Darwinists have nevertheless been, for all that time, saying--as mere parrots--that things "evolve into" things). This is simply because Darwinists mean absolutely nothing by the word, "evolve", and absolutely nothing by the phrase, "evolve into".

when pressed, they'll say "things change" and take a victory lap

 

[JudgeRightly]

i was going to respond to this as well, but realized it's a post from four years ago by a poster who is no longer active, a poster who, when I last encountered him, displayed an inability to follow a coherent, rational train of thought

so, no

There is a similar thread here: https://theologyonline.com/node/2730341