As for the horse series, if one assumes Darwin’s theory to be true , fossils showing features that appear to be intermediate between hydracotherium through to modern horses can be strung together in a series but it is not a series of ancestors and descendants. We could not conclude from the fossil record alone that any one step was descended from the one before it.
This would be true IF we don't know the chronology.
If we found all the fossils in a big pile in a museum with no sense of when or where they came from and lined them up in series we could say "look, there is a progression here."
However, that could be a false progression of our series were out of order. In other words, we find 1,2,3,4,5 and lay them out that way, but in reality it could have gone 4,1,2,5,3.
BUT, in this case, we DO have the chronology.
So, if we line them up chronologically, we get 1,2,3,4,5
If we line them up morphologically, we get 1,2,3,4,5
How does Creationism account for this? It can't.
Creationism predicts that 5 exists and nothing else.
The presence of the other forms alone is sufficient to put Creationism to rest. The fact that they transition nicely and that that transition coincides with the chronology is gravy.
Face it, no rational person can argue for Creationism. The ENTIRE basis for Creationism is "My mommy said so."
That's not a foundation for rational argument.
™ Version 4.2
