Jesus Christ...
It's an example for the sake of making you understand the concept of how upscaling something ineffective doesn't mean that it is necessarily effective... A sword is ineffective, so you upscale to a gun. That is still ineffective, so you upscale to a bazooka. That is still ineffective, so you upscale to a bomb. That is still ineffective, so you upscale to a nuke. That is still ineffective, so you upscale to a bigger nuke, and that is still ineffective... That's the ***ing point... Shit is ineffective, and it always was. The ocean doesn't need to develop any new immunities...
The concept is the same as with a creature that is magically immune to certain kinds of damage... The example's got nothing to do with mass or size. We just don't have magic in the real world, so to give the simplest and most direct examples of real world things that are immune to kinetic force from our weapons even as we upscale from weapon to weapon, it will have to be something grand... Really ***ing simple...

You officially don't comprehend anything, no matter how simple and logical it is, got it... Either you're honest and retarded, or you're a troll. In both cases there is no point in debating with you. I'm out.

1. Huh? What are you even talking about? We upscaled the force from a low kinetic force from melee weapons to a huge kinetic force from bombs and nukes. The "creature" in this case is still unfazed.
And I am not contradicting myself. My real world example, outside of fantasy, is already so resistant to kinetic force that it is practically invulnerable to it. And that's just a real world concept. That's outside of fantasy. I could have chosen the sun or a black hole as the real world example of something that won't be hurt by us using bigger weapons, but it's really besides the point. It's just to make you comprehend that upscaling the force a bit is not a catch-all, fool-proof, "now the rules of old no longer matter", method. And that's just by using real world concepts, with real world logic, as examples. In fantasy it can be so much more invincible through whatever magic rules is in place.
My point was never that you can't make fantasy in which a creature's strengths and weaknesses can be rendered useless through sheer power. Just that it's not logical to assume that any and all strengths and weaknesses of any and all mythical creatures become useless, if you upscale the force a bit of what they were invulnerable to last time you checked. The ocean is already a good enough example of this. By switching from a sword to a rifle, we have not become "the horrors beyond comprehension", when trying to kill the ocean. It doesn't matter if it could fathom our modern weapons 3000 years ago, it is still unfazed by them. It never needed to develop a new immunity to deal with modern weapons.

Cards on the table: Why are you doing this? Are you just a troll? Because it really seems like it to me. You're really not grasping anything I am sending your way. Seems like you're busy attempting to make weak ass "gotcha" semantics instead.

1. No, it doesn't matter. A sword does nothing. A bow does nothing. A gun does nothing. A bazooka does nothing. A bomb does nothing. A nuke also does nothing. A huge nuke does nothing...
Hypothetically, you could have enough force, but no you don't, and there is no logic in "because we have developed kinetic force some, creatures that were immune to kinetic force are now vulnerable...". We've scaled up the kinetic force so many times, and it's still useless.
2. No, that is not my logic at all. My real world example is an example that's practically invincible, but theoretically could be blasted away if we scaled up the force way way way way way more than what is being talked about in the post. My real world example isn't meant to be as good as the fantasy example. But it follows the logic more than well enough to prove the logic of the post wrong. And that's without using fantasy as a crutch.
3. Where does the knowledge come from? Who cares? Experimentation? Other magical means, like divination? Like, why do you care where we know it from? Fact is that we know that fact, and even if we don't comprehend why it works like that, we know it works like that.
Also doesn't matter if it's ONLY silver. We know silver works. We know iron doesn't. We've tried iron, it doesn't work. Iron with applied kinetic force is a no. So, there is no logic in going, "Yeah, it has proved invulnerable to iron so far, and vulnerable to silver, but if we add a bit more kinetic force to the iron, we for sure can kill it.".

My use of the word is kind of lax, but not really. You comprehend the logic. You don't comprehend the physics, or chemistry, or whatever magic shit is going on, that is underlying the logic. That is fitting use and not lax. Especially, since not every definition of "comprehend" is that tight. You're cherry picking.

1. There is no win condition. It's just an example to make a point of how something that was once invulnerable to kinetic force doesn't necessarily stop being invulnerable to it, just because the kinetic force increases a bit. I could make up the arbitrary win condition that if you blast every drop away, you win, but it doesn't really matter.
2. Yeah, sure. Makes the same point.
3. No. You don't understand how only silver affects the creature, so that is beyond your comprehension. But you still understand that only silver affects it. There is logic to that, and the logic is not beyond your comprehension. You just don't comprehend the origin/cause of the logic.
That logic doesn't become pointless, just because it has an unknown magical source.

Yeah, let's apply logic. If you want to defeat the ocean, does it matter if you hit it with a sword or shoot it with an assault rifle?
The ocean is ancient. It wasn't made to defend against our modern weapons beyond its comprehension, so it can't do so, right?
...
The ocean is unphased either way. Its resistance to kinetic force is too vast, if not infinite. It doesn't matter if you apply a bit more force.

And the logic doesn't become pointless when we're dealing with magic. My point was that it is beyond our comprehension how something/someone is magically immune to anything but silver. But when we have that as a logical rule, "They are only weak to silver.", it is not logical to assume that what you were lacking with all other means was more force.
It could be like the ocean: Anything but silver just passes through, dealing no damage. Silver is the only thing that affects it in a meaningful way. That is unknown magic beyond our comprehension, but we can work with it logically.

tl;dr I applied logic to your imaginary friend. Not a funny comment. Save your time.

We're not talking poison, bacteria, or virus here. We're just talking kinetic force. It's not like kinetic force has ever been beyond comprehension.
Okay, so we've managed to make some pretty good kinetic force. Doesn't mean that a hypothetical supernatural creature's resistance to kinetic force is necessarily unable to handle that.
Heck, even if we were talking poison, bacteria, or virus, a foreign creature's resistance to such things isn't necessarily weak and vulnerable.
...
And this is just if we're thinking of these as mundane creatures. If we're thinking of them like creatures of myth whose only weakness is silver, or whatever, that is beyond our comprehension. So we have good kinetic force now. So what? Why are you acting as if that's automatically a game changer towards a creature who was unharmed by slashing, piercing, or blunt trauma in the form of knives, swords, arrows, maces, etc.?
If forces and rules beyond our comprehension renders something immune to all kinds of stuff, it's ignorant to believe that using a bit more force makes a difference. 0+0 is still 0.

Fair on you, if you want to make fiction in which all kinds of supernatural creatures are indeed vulnerable to weapons. Doesn't mean the rules of all the current fiction and superstition are logically inferior to yours.