You should look up earlier posts in this forum by a member named "FlamingFlams" or something to that effect. He brought up every point you've made thus far and then some, and was refuted every time (back when ole BandScience was a religion hotspot).nescient7 wrote:But if evolution is really an observable process, we should have thousands upon thousands of fossils showing the slow transformation from one species to another, but that is not the case. And why couldn't God make owls with superior eyesight to humans? There is nothing in the Bible that states that humans are supposed to be a model of perfect superiority over animals.
Additionally, the major assumptions upon which C-14, K-Ar, and Rb-Sr dating are all based is that they all have a constant decay rate and that the atmospheric content of these chemicals has been constant, which is not provable nor reasonable.
Evidence of this: (PDF)
So I therefore cannot conclude that the fossils that scientists have identified are, in fact, in sequential order, and could very well have existed side-by-side, and been deposited by such a catastrophe as a global flood.
I'd be more interested in your "evidence" if it was published by a publication without an inherent bias. If it has been published elsewhere, I'd love to see some peer reviews of it. It's also highly fallacious of you to extrapolate the findings of an isolated research study to discredit there different types of dating as opposed to the singular type that was discussed in your "evidence".
Also, the flood thing has been hit twenty million times from Sunday. That didn't happen.