I have to agree, with one commenter, your approach does come across as a little crude, but hey, this is a forum and that's what we have here.
Question: Are you really seeking truth here?
It does seem, by your wording that you are unwilling to be open to reason, as you have already stated, "Explain the fossil record contained in earth's sedimentary strata without evolution." Could it possibly have been asked, "what other possibility could there be for the strata we see today..."?
Additionally, you made the comment: "In doing this you are required to utilize science and only science." So, what is your definition of science? Evolutionists tend to skew the definition and or meaning of that word. Is "science" to you "evolution"-based conclusions or is "science" objective observation and experimentation, to either verify or falsify a hypothesis?
You also stated: "...evolution according to the mainstream scientific community" which is a front you have propped up, saying that the only real science is what evolution says." If that is the case, you are quite unlikely to listen to any other interpretation based observations; meaning, you are so convinced of your stand, that you are unwilling to hear anything else.
You see, RickG, it is your wording that too many sincere, God-loving, Christ-sharing, evangelical, creationists fail to catch, and fall right into your trap. All many of them want to do is share Christ with you, and this is one path to do it. They make the mistake of thinking that you are open to discussion and reason; and that they can convince you, when they cannot. Then, you dismantle them and feel good about it. You have already set the stage in your favor.
Here is an example of your thinking: "How would you explain the fossil record without evolution? How did those fossils get where they are in the sedimentary strata (geologic column) if not by means of evolution, by what other means?" Surely, you are aware of the creationist flood geology, and are just waiting for someone to bring it up and you're gonna "slam 'em" with evolutionary "science" rebuttals.
So, how can someone make their case without you summarily dismissing it? It's like you are holding a big flyswatter and anyone who "takes a crack at it" will be smacked. So, tell me, how can one expect a fair shake here?
For example, you are assuming, based on generalizations of the positions of the fossils that they display an evolutionary pattern, i.e. they are "progressing" from one form to the next based on evolution's interpretation of "geological column," while ignoring the other side of the interpretation that the same data could be extrapolated to mean that they are in (general) order of habitat . . . Not to mention that there is an utter absence of the plausible millions of micro-transitioning organisms; and what we see in the Cambrian layer is a lateral distribution of organisms that make up several phyla, rather than the hypothesized vertical progression. It's not there.
Also, fossils themselves indicate rapid burial - without rapid burial, remains of organic life tends to decay and disappear. How is it that we have so many fossils if they supposedly took millions of years to fossilize? Keep in mind, that the majority of fossils are invertebrates, and only a very small percentage are vertebrates.
How you respond to this will either demonstrate that I was accurate in my observation of your bias or that I am wrong and there is a lack of bias (and my apologies); and whether I will continue or not. If I perceive some amount of objectivity in your response, I'll be happy to proceed further. If none, I'll just move on. But, that is contrary to what you began this thread for, right? You wanted to discuss this, right? Or was there another purpose in your thread aside from truth-seeking?
Suffice to say, the apparent fossil record has anomalies that falsify the fictitious images we find in textbooks and to which you are referring. One basic and well-known observation of geology: we find the same seashells in every strata. Can you explain how that may have happened in an evolutionary model? How about extinct creatures as indicated in evolution's geo. column from millions of years ago, suddenly showing up in modern times? Please tell me how that would not falsify the evolutionary geo. column hypothesis? There are a lot of out of place artifacts in evolution's geologic column (mixed-up fossils). There are living fossils today. By their own admissions, evolutionists state that there are problems with the geologic column.
The Malachite find gives the indication of regular old humans living in the same strata (era) as dinosaurs. There are numerous references to dinosaur-looking creatures throughout history. How could that be without direct contact with humans?
I'll end with a few predictions:
Prediction 1 (if you are a typical evolutionist): You or another evolutionist attached to this thread will read this and first thing, "react" instead of read objectively, thereby negating a reasonable discussion. You or another evolutionist attached to this thread may even give some kind of emotional rebuff or attack creationists, or even (probably) me.
Prediction 2 (if you are a typical evolutionist): You or another evolutionist attached to this thread will demand "references" for my statements. However, I am pretty sure you have encountered these comments before and are aware of them, and are "ready" for them with a deluge of contradictory counter-references from Talk-Origins; and in your evolutionary worldview, dismissed them without consideration.
Prediction 3 (if you are a typical evolutionist): You, or someone other adherent to evolutionary philosophy hanging on this thread will give a reply with all kinds of information promoting your worldview, digressing and detouring from the subject, rather than discuss the matter reasonably.
