The thing with historical science is that it is extremely subjective. I don't doubt for one second that you know this
Evolutionists view the evidence through a materialistic mindset, and their interpretation of historical facts are determined by their mindset. You know this, and I know this.
Everyone has access to the same historical facts. No one can deny that there are fossils of organisms not known to be living today. We also know that there are many layers of strata. Neither side has a monopoly on this knowledge.
The major difference between creationists and evolutionists is their paradigm of the world and history.
Fossils don't come with tags on them stating when they lived and died; nor the various levels of strata come with a label explaining when it was laid down.
To determine the answers to these questions we observe what is "going on" today. In other words, we employ operational/observable science.
What we observe is that "kind produce kind." Both historical and observable science support this fact.
When we look at the fossils we soon realize that they do indeed support both creation and a global flood.
After a global flood we would expect to see fossils of fish and bottom dwellers in the lower strata. Above this we would expect to see amphibians. Next would come reptiles, including dinosaurs. Mammals, humans, and birds would be in the upper layers. However, because of the turbulence and them not being buried, we should find very, very few of these.
And, this is exactly what we do observe.
The strata in the Grand Canyon looks exactly like levels that were laid down by a global flood (look at the aftermath of Mt St. Helen's).
When the flood waters began to run off after the upheavel of mountain ranges, the runoff would have carved the GC in days.
If the various levels of strata had been laid down on millions of years, why do we not see any (none) erosion within the layers?
Also, we have petrified trees (some upside down) extending through numerous levels of strata. Again, read of Mt St. Helen's.
These trees were deposited during a global flood. No one in their right mind believes that these trees remained standing, exposed to the elements, and without decay, for hundreds of millions of years.
We observe dino fossils with significant amounts of Carbon 14 in them, which limits their age to under 75,000 years.
We have dino fossils with soft, squishy, and pliable tissue inside. And veins that are still elastic.
We have the recorded words of dozens of reputable men who have seen live dinosaurs.
We have pottery with engravings, embossments, and drawings of dinosaurs on them. They are also recorded on rocks and cave walls. Evolutionists have historical science to support their worldview.
Creationists have historical science; observable science; and, written records Including the Holy Bible) to support their convictions.
Creationists have the upper hand here, and it's not even close.
The HGP proved conclusively that there was a human population bottleneck. MtDNA and Y chromosomes clearly point to four men and four women around 4500 years ago. This was at the time of the global flood.
It is known that humans are degrading. Each successive generation has over 100 more mutations than the previous one. This is consistent with thousands of years, not millions. I'm not referring to the age of the earth, merely the history of humans.
I have several other points to make concerning your post, but that will have to wait awhile.
Wrong! Wolves, dogs, foxes, dingoes, and coyotes are of the same kind. Sometimes they do interbreed, but the results are always the same: all offsprings are of the same kind.
Don't take this personally, because it is not meant that way. But, none of the animals in this group (kind) can produce an offspring of a different kind; only a total idiot would suggest otherwise.
Evolutionists scream and squeal that it is possible (for a male and a female of the same kind to reproduce an offspring of a different kind) if we allow billions of years for this to happen. But, this isn't science; it is fantasy.
I u/s that evolutionists claim this process occurs in small incremental steps, but that which is impossible remains impossible, regardless of the amount of time involved.
Evolutionists confuse"variation" within a species as micro evolution (which is a misnomer). Then they make a jump to macro by adding long periods of time.
Observable science clearly proves that kind produce kind.