15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[scruffy]

Newtonian mechanics is supported by a mountain of evidence but it stands falsified. The volume of supporting observations does not compensate for falsifying observations. All it takes is one clear falsifying observation and we have to admit the theory is wrong.

It's not wrong, not at all.

What you mean to say is the theory has LIMITED SCOPE.

The Cambrian is just one example of a blatant falsifying observation.
Until I see clear evidence of common descent fossils in the Cambrian I will remain skeptical.

You're entitled to be skeptical.

But I will repeat that evolution is biophysical, it has very little to do with fossils. Or species.

But it is the evolutionists who make a big deal of fossils, it is always cited as compelling evidence for evolution by evolutionists! You can't say that and then turn around and say the fossil record is irrelevant just because it doesn't fit your expectations, look it is the first thing mentioned here, yet you say it is irrelevant!

The fossil record is artifactual. It is merely one possible trajectory.

Evolution is biophysical. It occurs at the level of DNA molecules. Everything that happens after that is artifactual.

View attachment 997551

I understand the role of genetic mutations and natural selection, yes these are observable, it is the capacity for that to account for what we see that is being questioned, the fossil record is inconsistent with the claims made about mutations etc.

No it isn't. Your lack of understanding does not equate with impossibility.

The mutation of DNA cannot be sufficient to explain the fossil record.

Sure it can.

Your line of reasoning is typical too, emphasizing the importance of this or that observation when it meets expectations then the downplaying of that when it doesn't.

I can stick a pin in a tadpole at just the right time, and when the frog grows up it will have an arm where its eye is supposed to be.

We understand "almost nothing" about biological development, historical or otherwise.

For evolutionists the only observations that are important are those that are consistent with the empirical expectations of the theory, observations that do not fit are sidelined, called "irrelevant", so the fossil record is important when it contains what you want it to and irrelevant when it does not.

Evolution is biophysical. Mutations consist of changes in the DNA sequence. Selection consists of success or failure of those changes in the niche. Period.

I make no claims about the relationship to shape, fossils, species, or anything else.

What I know and can prove is, claims of impossibility are completely bogus.

That's a form of pseudo-science.

Which is a meaningless term.

Science consists of experimentation. You know the rules. Independently observable and repeatable.

The first synthetic life form is only 14 years old. That was the first time we had enough technology to experiment. They created a brand new single celled life form that doesn't exist in nature. No one has yet created a synthetic multicellular life form. But they will, it's just around the corner.

That is how we gain scientific knowledge. By experimenting. Not by looking at fossils.