For me, it is the correlation of isotopes and fossils which make no sense in the YEC flood model. None of the mechanisms listed in opening post would explain why every dinosaur fossil is found below igneous rock with a specific K/Ar or U/Pb ratio. It doesn't explain how a flood is able to sort leaf debris and insects by their 14C content in what appears to be varved lake deposits, or even how trees and insects who are supposedly alive at the same time could have differing 14C content.
I don't see the wording as being that great a difference. Your argument is with Darwin, not me. He saw the flaws in his own theory and those same flaws stand today. Evolution is flawed because of the "seemingly rapid" appearance of organisms without intermediates. A weakness in the theory which Darwin recognised.
Darwin clearly stated that the geologic record was flawed, not the theory. He wrote an entire chapter in Origin of Species about it.
"We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created. " http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html
The problem is that the geologic record is not continuous. It isn't a problem with the theory.
So Darwin acknowledges that the fossil record appears as if species are suddenly created. This still favors creationism because sudden creation explains the sudden appearance of species better than evolution which gives excuses for the huge lapses in the fossil record.
They aren't excuses. They are facts. There are massive gaps in the geologic record. There are millions and millions of years between fossil bearing strata with no fossil bearing strata in between them.
Also, when has magic ever been a better explanation than known and understood natural processes?
Reptiles were flood survivors , being able to handle marine conditions. Mammals numbers were minor during the Triassic and confined to the Turkish/Iraq border area and the southern Turkey highlands.
How were seals, whales, and dolphins confined to the land of the Middle East? How were grasses and flowering plants confined to that region? How were migrating birds kept out of terrestrial Cambrian deposits?
Was there some magic air barrier keeping geese from migrating all over the place and being fossilized across the globe?
The air barrier was not magic, it was toxic. Birds and mammals are susceptible to oxygen toxicity. Pre-boundary oxygen levels were very high, at or above 30% until the end-Permian. Atmospheric pressure adds to this toxicity, effectively increasing oxygen by 1% for any .1 increase in pressure. Birds and mammals would have been more suitable to highlands where the air pressure was lower and oxygen content lower.
What kept birds from flying from one highland to another?
How were oxygen levels toxic to flowering plants and grasses which didn't show up in the fossil record until much later?
Added to this is the competition from huge pre-boundary insects that were larger than many birds, and terrestrial mammals being susceptible to flooding. This would explain the numbers not reflecting in the fossils.
Dolphins breathe oxygen. They would have battled at sea level and were most likely confined to pre-boundary lakes at higher altitude where the oxygen was not toxic.
Sure birds could fly to other highlands, but what are the chances of fossilisation if one did not make the crossing? Very small. Its unlikely we will ever find those one or two that did not make it. Other pre-boundary highlands? The Appalachian heights were completely eroded away since and so its difficult to find fossils that clearly originate from those highland sediments. Highlands were not as common in the pre-boundary world.
The evidence shows fully formed organisms suddenly appearing.
What evidence would that be?
What features in a fossil lead to the conclusion that it suddenly appeared?
The evidence contradicts the theory of evolution which theorises that organisms gradually change over time.
What evidence is that?
We just observe the fully formed organisms, but the transitionary fossils are all hidden away in niches or never even fossilised.
How do you determine if a fossil is "fully formed"?
For EVERY organism through EVERY geological period these transitions are missing.
What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as transitional? Let's make this specific. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?
If you can't even define what a transitional fossil would look like, how do you know they don't exist?
The only actual evidence is of clades, which is exactly what creationists expect, an adaptive variety formed from an original organism.
Since all mammals form a clade, are you saying that all mammals, including humans, share a common ancestor?
If I see that wording as literal, surely as a Christian you would not claim I am perverted in that belief.
That seems to create a rather large problem for you. An insistence on a literal interpretation only leads to the conclusion that the Bible is false since all of the evidence demonstrates that a literal interpretation is not true.
Please can you explain exactly how many of those 4 980 000 results are actually proving evolution. We know what the evidence is. Fossils exist. We can interpret that evidence. The interpretation does not suggest evolution.
How does the interpretation not suggest evolution?
Evolution is a superficial interpretation when the evidence of most organisms appearing fully formed suggests rather that they radiated out from niche locations when conditions were suitable.
Again, how do you determine if a fossil is fully formed?
To choose one transitional sequence is the exact point. I agree with short term transitions from an original kind, to prove such a transition is confirming creationism too and gives evolution no advantage. If you have any longer term transitionary sequence kindly show it. If mammalian jaws, kindly post a link or evidence for such a transition. I am genuinely interested in any evidence for this theory of evolution.
How does one "prove a transition" in your eyes? What evidence does it take?
You guys keep saying that the evidence supports evolution. Yet I still await any evidence for evolution and am still wondering how you can accept such a theory when most major phyla appeared fully formed without any intermediates from the original LUCA. Unfortunately the evidence does not favor you, you do however have the support of your educators.
You have already been given the evidence multiple times. You refuse to address it.
It would take a number of small changes over time with absolute consistency in all features until a completely different organism is in view. If for example various apes over time show slight changes in cranium capacity, upright stance, reduced tree dwelling features, arm/leg ratios, pelvis ratio, reduced feet/toe use etc etc in a logical sequence this would be convincing.
That's exactly what we have for the hominid sequence.
If any one feature shows a huge backward jump, then it has to be eliminated from the evolutionary sequence as merely a completely separate species.
Why couldn't evolution produce reversions to previous adaptations? What is stopping it from doing so?
For example if one claimed ape/human intermediate fossil has all the features that appear to indicate a transition from an earlier ape, yet its proportionate pelvis size is significantly larger than its ancestor, it has to be eliminated from the transitionary sequence to humans.
Why can't size increase, then decrease, and then increase again within a transitional series? What would evolution not be allowed to shrink a feature?