Your argument is illogical RAZD.
Because you already use this statement (and similar related others):
Theory #1:
That each species known today can be traced backwards to parent species through historical, fossil or genetic records, while only involving (1) the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and (2) the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.
...and state that it is true, and it
is true, ... you cannot then in the next breath state:
We should see not one orchard but two, one after the other, and not a tree ... IF creationism is true.
Furthermore, your seeming assumption that the earth is static and all things that have ever died should be found in perfect ordered layers within the earth is idealistic and unfounded. The earth is not static. A flood of major proportions would disturb and mix layers of sediment beyond recognition. Earthquakes or other disturbances in places would further raise or lower or bury or expose old layers while burying new layers. And since there are not any dating methods truly perfect to the year to date layers or items that might be only 100 or 1000 years older or younger than one another, because environmental inconsistencies exist which make such dating accuracy impossible, and since you (should) alreadly know this, your statements and assumptions are completely illogical and even misleading.
Your use of the word species is also misleading in this context, you should use the word 'genus' instead., since 'daughter' species are not truly new species in the context you seem to want to make them appear to be. either or, you are not aware of the variations within a genus that are referred to as different species but are actually different variations of the same genus. What you are doing is equivalent to saying that within the human race, asians and caucasions are two different species. Essentially, it is merely rhetoric which human beings find offensive when applied to themselves but freely apply to animals, fish, insects etc.
Your argument and way of presenting it assumes the reader is ignorant of the facts and you carry on with the argument in deceptive ways that continue to assume the reader is ignorant of the facts and will easily accept your notions.
it's probably not true though.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/bokcdfbhiw.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/xprcpexdwv.jpg">
.
