Evolution vs Young Earth Creationism

Transitionary Fossils The article NewLifeChristian gives to talk about organisms that appear with no transitional fossils gives no evidence of this claim. And there might be missing links in the fossil record, this does not redeem Evolution as false because not all 'links' will be there. We have to work with the evidence we have. = Further more, NewLifeChristian decided to strawman my argument with quote mining. While it is arguable that there are better pieces of evidence to prove Evolution like with DNA, this does not mean the fossil record can't prove Evolution. Further more, this quote was stated in a science journal entry which seems to have been published in the 1980s. [1] In other words, the quote is very old and new fossils would likely have been discovered in the course of over 3 decades. NewLifeChristian has dodged my argument with quote mining and giving a source with no evidence for it's claim. Millions of yearsWhile this is a downfall of radiometric dating, Isochron dating can help find the original parent to daugher element ratio in the fossil/rock being dated[2] "Isochron dating bypasses the necessity of knowing the quantity of initial daughter product in the rock by not using that value in the computation. Instead of using the initial quantity of daughter isotope, the ratio of daughter isotope compared to another isotope of the same element (which is not the product of any decay process) is used as the comparison for isochron dating. The plot of the ratios of the number of atoms of the parent isotope to the number of atoms in the non-daughter isotope compared to the number of atoms of the daughter isotope to the non-daughter isotope should result in a straight line that intersects the vertical y-axis (which is the ratio of daughter to non-daughter isotopes). This point of intersection gives the initial ratio of daughter to non-daughter isotope" Organsisms arranged in Chronological Order [3] NewLifeChristian insists that the arrangement of fossils is a result of water rising up taking in the organisms living in lower altitudes first. This would be a very unlikely explanation, because the fossil arrangement isn't due to the altitudes the organisms lived at. For example, there were dinosaurs that lived in Africa [4] and humans first originated in Africa [5]. Humans originated from Africa and dinosaurs lived all over Africa. If a flood really happened to arrange organisms, why did the Humans rise to the top? Why did the dinosaurs sink? If it's due to their density, remember that there are light invertebrates down below. Natural SelectionNewLifeChristian insists that micro-evolution can be true but macro-evolution can't be true. Micro-evolution is literally the same thing as Macro-evolution, the difference is the scale. [6] If micro-evolution happens quickly and is observable, it would be reasonable to see that organisms will be very different over the course of millions of years. Micro-evolution doesn't simply stop. It is like believing in centimeters but not meters. Enough centimeters would eventually be long enough to be a meter. Size of Noah's Ark I will accept that NewLifeChristian brought up a valid point that new organisms would have been created after the flood. StarlightNewLifeChristian has dropped my initial argument on the speed of light. No matter how the stars were created, light can't travel faster than a lightyear. Further more, it is proven by astronauts that stars do not form supernaturally. We have even observed steller nebulas in which stars seem to be forming. [7] An example is the Orion nebula. Astronomers have also observed star clusters [7] as a result after a nebula finished forming into stars. These stars however usually drift away from each other later. Astronmers can also see remnants of supernovas, which are though to eventually clump together from gravity into stellar nebulae. NewLifeChristian also states that comets and the decaying magnetic field prove a young earth. I have already refuted the magnetic field argument, which he seems to ignore. Comets are formed from icy rocks all the way in the Kuiper belt that come too close to the sun. [10] This does not prove a young Earth because only a few icy rocks actually come near the sun, most stay in orbit in the Kuiper belt. The icy rocks are thrown to the sun as a result of Neptune's gravitational interference, or possible collisions in the Kuiper belt. [11] 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://apps.usd.edu...3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...4. http://www.southafrica.info...5. http://humanorigins.si.edu...6. http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...7. http://abyss.uoregon.edu...8. http://earthsky.org...9. http://chandra.harvard.edu...10. http://www.space.com...11. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov...;