Why Have Birds Never Gotten as Big as T. Rex?

Well, the thing is, we have genetics now. If the fossil record didn't align with genetics, then it would basically become nonsense and wouldn't be viable in terms of support of the theory of evolution. But of course that isn't the case. The fossil record exists and it parallels phylogenies of the field of genetics.

And with that said, the question becomes, if we have evidence for evolution, but creationists have a problem with that, what is their better explanation?

"God did it". Isn't particularly meaningful. Because God could just use evolution.

Anyone can say "God did it" but the question is, what did God do? Evolutionists could say "God did it" just the same.

So, when we talk about the theory of evolution, we need to speak in terms of mechanisms and science. And the question returns to the beginning of the discussion, if not evolution, then what is the better mechanism that creationists propose?

lifepsyop said:

if fossils were in different places than they are today, you would simply have a different 'understanding' of how evolution occurred.

Click to expand...

Right. Their location is evidence for the way it works. The key is that the order of fossils fits Darwin's theory, but we only knew that after Darwin had published it. Theories are tested by their predictions. The order of fossils confirms his theory.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YCE Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

lifepsyop said:

knowing this, it's rather awkward to point to their current locations as some kind of amazing vindication for the theory.

Click to expand...

Knowledgeable YECs disagree with you.

Job 33:6 said:

Anyone can say "God did it" but the question is, what did God do? Evolutionists could say "God did it" just the same.

Click to expand...

YECs and theistic evolutionists agree that God did it. The difference is that theistic evolutionists aren't offended by the way He did it.

lifepsyop said:

evolutionists look at the fossil record and say "see! it all fits!", but in a way it's like marveling over how well a fluid like water conforms to the shape of the container you used to hold it, not realizing that a totally different shaped container would hold the water just as well....

Click to expand...

The difference is, the fossil record nicely fits Darwinian theory, and the "tree of life" first noted by Linnaeus, who was not even aware of evolution. Again, fulfilled predictions in the fossil record is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory, as knowledgeable YECs admit.

lifepsyop said:

it's not exactly that simple

Click to expand...

No kidding. For example, Huxley predicted transitional forms between birds and other dinosaurs. Much later, the predictions of the theory were confirmed. Do you understand the difference?

lifepsyop said:

since evolution theory's constraints are imaginary 'common ancestry' nodes

Click to expand...

As you now see, many such predicted nodes have been found long after they were predicted. This is how theories are validated in science.

lifepsyop said:

*edit: there's nothing wrong with modeling your theory around the data, that's expected, actually.

Click to expand...

But as you see, that's not how it works with evolutionary theory. Predictions based on the theory have been repeatedly validated much later. Theory first, data later. Would you like some more examples?

lifepsyop said:

it's just that evolutionists who say "the fossils match with the theory" haven't thought about just how malleable their theory actually in terms of conforming to the shape of fossil data.

Click to expand...

See above. You've been badly misled about how it works. Darwin, in The Descent of Man, predicted the origin of humans in Africa, and predicted transitionals between humans and other apes. Both of those predictions were much later confirmed.

There are many, many more. Would you like to see some more?

River Jordan said:

I'm very confident that if they came up with a vastly superior model that got better results, someone somewhere would take it up and use it.

Click to expand...

Yes. Science is very pragmatic. If something works, it will be used, no matter who objects. If it doesn't work, they won't bother with it.