Rejecting Flawed Crater Claims

We frequently encounter a very basic problem with proponents of long ages as well as fans of rat-to-raconteur evolution. That is, they will pile up conjectures and hypotheses, make models — and those things rely on each other. But the foundations are fundamentally flawed, and the topmost pronouncements are unsubstantiated. I have similar problems with anti-creationists who want to slap leather with this child, and they start out with logical fallacies, and it's highly unlikely that they'll build compelling arguments. They get mighty ornery when I point out their errors and refuse to "debate" them.

Image credit: US Geological Survey via NASA
Usage of image does not imply endorsement of site contents
Evolutionary biology draws heavily from uniformitarian geology, which also takes information from planetologists. A just so story about how Earth got its craters, when it happened (regular intervals), extinctions of life on Earth, is built on nothing much. At least someone in secular science is saying, in effect, "No evidence, no pattern."

Worse, it seems someone's been into peyote buttons, proposing a star that comes around every few million Darwin years and kicks up stuff so we get bombarded with junk. It's called Nemesis, but no trace of it has been found. Sorta like the Oort cloud. Hey, maybe it's made of "dark matter", since no evidence for that exists, either! Sure is a lot of work coming up with incoherent "theories" in order to deny the recent creation of the universe. I recommend reading this short article, "Craters: Seeing Fake Patterns".