I am curious to see the argument you create against the following topics:
Missing Links.
Over the last years several fossils have been discovered showlin links from each animals.
(Wiki up "List of transitional fossils.")
The old saying that we see what we want to see holds very true in this case. The entire idea of transitional species depends on how one views them. They can be seen as one change leading to another in procession, but who is to say that they simply weren't different species of the same types of animal that coexisted? There are blue butterflies, green butterflies, yellow butterflies, orange ones and red ones. We could see this fact and assume that there was a progression from blue butterflies to red butterflies. We could also look at them and say that there is simply different varieties of butterflies and that there is nothing more to it.
It is also important to note that almost everyone of these intermediate species is based on only partial skelital remains. Many of the compositions being but togeather from bones found great distances apart (as is the case with "Lucy"). The problem with this is that when the scientists reconstructed what these partial skeletons
might have looked like they did so from the assumption that all species have a common ancestry. As such, it is very likely that their presupositions may have tainted their findings.
And lets not forget all the transitional fossilds that turned out to be frauds or just plain stupid mistakes:
piltdown man - turned out to be modern human bones
nebraska man - turned out to be a pig
java man - modern human
orce man - a donkey
neadertal - modern humans with severe cretanism due to a lack of iodine in their diet.
archaeorapter - purposeful combination of fossiles and modern feather imrints
And the list goes on.
Natural Selection
Over one generation the beaks of African birds have increased, this is due to a massive shortage of water over several years. The birds with smaller beaks could not properly eat resulting in death, where as the ones with larger beaks survived passing on his trait to their off-spring.
Here we see an example of micro evolution (which is small changes within a species or type of animal). You will be hard pressed to find very many Christians who disagree with micro-evolution when they understand what it means. The problem is that while there is clear evidence of micro-evolution caused by natural selection, there is no evidence that those changes are perminant, which would be needed for macro-evolution (large changes, such as from one type of animal to another) to take place. Furthermore, there are some changes that would be required in order for macro-evolution to take place that natural selection doesn't seem to be able to account for (such as the development of irreducibly complex organic structures).
Yes, the beaks of these birds did become longer on average(by a couple of milimeters, if we are thinking of the same study), but who is to say that the birds beaks will not return to normal when the rain returns, or if the rain does not return, why wouldn't the birds simply migrate to a place where there is water, and as such their beaks would return to normal.
Early Universe?
Carbon-14. Accurate to .1%.
Actualy, carbon-14 dateing is only this accurate when it is used in it's recommended range. The absolute max time that carbon -14 can be used to determine is 10,000 years . After this, the carbon-14 levels in the object are so minute that we cannot detect them. The older the object becomes, the less acurate the dateing becomes.
What is used to date older objects is not carbon-14 but potassium-argon dateing. While scientists generaly believe this to be accurate, given the supposed age of the objects, it is difficult to test their accuracy. With Carbon-14, the dates of the objects fall within Human history and some things can be compared to human records to test the accuracy of Carbon-14. With (supposedly) older objects, there are no such reference points to compare some results to.
Animals on Australia.
Scientific evidence (and common knowledge) will show that when looking at a picture of the world, all continents use to fit. These massive islands would not have time to separate in tke 100k early universe theory.
You are assuming, of course, that in the 100k years time frame that nothing unusual happened (such as massive sysmic activity and/or impact with extraterestrial objects such as meteriorites) and that contenental drift is constant. Both of these assumptions have no basis in science.
