Seems you've read too quickly. My point was that once you attach your theory to something that can't be refuted, it is easy to then conflate the theory with the facts themselves.
A rabbit in the Cambrian would falsify the theory.
A cow in the Pre-cambrian would falsify the theory.
A humming bird in the Carboniferous would falsify the theory.
Need I go on?
Further more, we can tie the order of the fossil record to the distribution of features in living species, and to their genomes. For example, we can see that vertebrates are a very diverse group that would have taken a lot of time to evolve. Therefore, we would expect the common ancestor of vertebrates to be found deep in the fossil record, and we do. We can also use molecular clocks (i.e. genetic drift) to estimate the time since common ancestry, and then confirm that in the fossil record.
That is why evolution is such a powerful theory. It can pull three independent sets of observations into a single coherent theory.
For example, Darwin was not going to argue that humans are the ultimate ancestor of all lifeforms, or vertebrate fish. That would contradict the fossil-order.
We could determine that humans were not the ultimate ancestor without looking at the fossil order at all. We could do that with both genetics and cladistics using living species. Darwin could have done it with cladistics only. So you are wrong on this one.
Evolution isn't the best explanation of the facts, and evidence doesn't belong to any theory, if a number of theories will fit the evidence. It's circular. Even if evidence is for the theory as you state, this is of no relevance because of affirmation of the consequent.
Then produce the theory. The first thing you need to do is explain why the fossils fit into the same nested hierarchy that living species fit into. The observed nested hierarchy is what every theory must explain.
Even if it was the best explanation, this doesn't mean it is the correct one.
Then you would need to explain why an incorrect theory keeps making such accurate predictions.
Because the, "order" is already established, I can't refute ANY theory that incorporates the order, logically.
What you are missing is that the theory makes predictions about the placement and morpholog of fossils that have not been found yet, and new discoveries can test those predictions. Furthermore, the theory predicts that fossils will fall into a nested hierarchy which is tested with each and every new fossil species.
I think part of the problem with people at a forum like this is they tend to concentrate on the one creationist that is present on the forum and perhaps not read the latest items of interest and news given by official Creation-scientists such as the PHDs at Creation.com that have covered these issues quite in depth.
We are counting on the creationist to bring forward the material they find interesting. Scientists in general tend to stick to peer reviewed journals and original research, so it isn't surprising that they don't read creationist websites that do not contain original research. If you want to be noticed by the scientific community, you have to step into the scientific arena. Creationists refuse to do that.
Because we know rabbits aren't found in the cambrian, as marine life generally is.
We haven't even begun to search all of the Cambrian strata. What percentage do you think we have searched? I would say less than 0.001%.
Also, there is plenty of Cambrian terrestrial strata out there.
In fact they would actually just argue contamination, and I have read that they have done this before. They also cast doubt on potentially compelling evidence such as human footprints (Laetoli) or even the human and dino footprints found together. It is at least interesting evidence but in one book Dawkins just says it's fake even though they shown how it wasn't fake.
Creationists misrepresenting science is not science.
Creationists have. They've shown we can produce a nested hierarchy for design-features in human designs, such as wheels, engines, etc... I will have to fish for the links, it's not a subject that I regard as impressive.
Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy is not expected from a design process. For example, why would a designer be required to give three middle ear bones to everything with fur? Why couldn't a species have feathers and three middle ear bones?
The creationist explanation is entirely unfalsifiable. It is nothing more than "God could have made it look like evolution for no other reason that to make it look like evolution". It is equivalent to ignoring forensic evidence because God could plant fingerprints and DNA at the crime scene.
Like pollen in the pre-cambrian? Or that we would find missing all of the missing chains? Or predictions pertaining to homology, that don't match up after all? I would say failed predictions of evolution are exciting to me and awesome, because as time goes on things like retrogressive and vestigial organs are negated. Homology is negated, the ridiculous, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is negated. The mammals in dinos bellies were not predicted, nor grass in the dino-age.
Creationist misrepresentations of science is not science.
This is how we know that creationism is false. The only way to defend it is to misrepresent the facts.
It doesn't prove anything, you just think it does. It is tautologous that more similar creatures will sometimes have similar genetics, but the opposite is also true with homoplastic, or analogous examples, wolves and various insects that look the same but their genes aren't. What they do then is absurdly say that evolution converged to create the same things, such as eyes, some forty times over. ROFLMAO! Lol! Where is the proof? Nowhere!
Convergent evolution is one of the biggest sources of evidence for the theory, and one of the greatest disproofs of intelligent design. For example, why would a designer design two different eyes but analogous eyes for the exact same purpose, and then distribute those two different eyes according to unrelated anatomical correlations. Specifically, why would a designer design a camera eye with a forward facing retina and a backwards facing retina, and then distribute those different designs based on the presence or absence of a notochord. From a design persepctive, that makes zero sense. However, it is exactly what we would expect from evolution.
The nested hierarchy disproves intelligent design.
Do you think the same old canards, regurgitated in various different forms are going to somehow now impress me given the mass of evidence for design and creation?
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Some things also only make sense by design-constraints. There are no intermediate avian, contraflow lung intermediate. Evolution would have took the path of least resistance and modified a bellow-type lung instead, like with the bat, not produce and ingenious through-flow system that is incredibly complex and only works together with the bird's anatomy.
And we see this empirical evidence everywhere. The Seahorse is an example of a vertical fish, the path of least resistance? Lol! No way, it is designed, and has no ancestors. Indeed, there are no ancestors for bats, that have full echolocation preserved in fossils for us to see. Pterosaurs and Pterodactyls, no ancestors, no ancestors for turtles.
And that's what we see, that incredibly complex designs that are required for the specific creature are there, and unique, and aren't modified. The Giraffe's bone neck-structure, not modified, ball and joint. The sea-slugs have special spikes connected to the scilia-hairs internally, it collects these little weapons from a formidable prey, and they are taken to the spikes on it's back. Had to be designed, it's that simple.
Where is your evidence that none of these things exist?