Thanks.
This can all look and sound compelling, but it doesn't verify anything.
It's like looking at circumstantial evidence, and reaching a conclusion without having solid evidence.
That has and still continues to lead to wrong judgments.
What may look convincing, is not necessarily true.
The most that can be said, if one is honest, is that the evidence for the hypothesis can be a strong argument for those who present it - which can be said for many arguments... but it isn't "a done deal". It's not fact - although evolutionist want it to be.
Would you agree?
For example,
For decades, scientists assumed that the relatively small pelvic bones found in whales were simple remnants of their land-dwelling past, “useless vestiges” that served no real purpose, akin to the human appendix or tailbone.
A new study, co-authored by Erik Otárola-Castillo, a fellow in David Pilbeam’s paleoanthropology lab in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, suggests that the bones, in fact, have a very specific purpose — particularly when it comes to making baby whales and baby dolphins.
I'm not a scientist, but they are scientists that do not agree with these assumptions.
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
Chromosome Fusion? It’s Getting Harder and Harder to Believe.
Robertsonian translocation (ROB) is the most common form of chromosomal rearrangement in humans where the participating chromosomes break at their centromeres and the long arms fuse to form a single, large chromosome with a single centromere.
It would not be a first that they are wrong.
We cannot just take what "looks to be", and declare that it is.
Otherwise, you would have to admit that the arguments presented by ID Creationist, have been wrongly called pseudoscience.
Would you agree? How do you test and observe it? You can't.
I have a question though.
How do bacteria survive without a host?
This too would be considered pseudoscience, wouldn't it?