Eliyahu writes:
If Bigfoot should have left some proof that he had walked through you garden, for instance, you should have seen his footsteps in the snow, and there are no footsteps in the snow, then you know, then that is proof, that Bigfoot didn't walk through you garden.
Lack of evidence for Bigfoot in my garden does not prove that Bigfoot was not in my garden. And even if Bigfoot was never in my garden, it's possible that he exists somewhere else.
Eliyahu writes:
If evolution really happened, it should have left traces in the fossil record.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, fossils are snapshots. If there's a snapshot of me in New York and a snapshot of me on Los Angeles, you can infer that I travelled somehow from New York to Los Angeles. If you don't have a snapshot of me in St. Louis, you can not infer from that that I never travelled from New York to Los Angeles. You can't even safely infer that I didn't pass through St. Louis. You can only safely conclude that there is no evidence of
that particular step in the trip.
Similarly, fossils only show individual steps in the process and most of the steps are missing from the record. You can not use missing steps to disprove that the overall process didn't happen. The very most you could conclude from the fossil record would be that it is insufficient evidence to conclusively prove evolution.