Bex, many of the things you mentioned in your post have been explained to you. What you appear to be choosing to do is say, "I don't believe it." That is of course your choice, but it doesn't say much for "creation science", nor does it lend that particular ideology any credibility.

You've been told how a simple genetic mutation can cause a chicken to grow feathers where it had scales. It's been explained to you that therapod dinosaurs had hollow bones. It's been explained that evolution can occur at different rates, depending on how the environment itself changes and how well the species can adapt. You've been given information about how some of those very "living fossils" are not, in fact, the same as those that existed millions of years ago; some have undergone significant changes, even though to the casual observer they look the same.

I've presented you with a chart showing where in the fossil record different hominid fossils have been found. I gave you evidence about how homo erectus was dated. I'll present you with the same question that I presented CTD with: would you like to explain how dating rocks by looking at fluctuations they record in the earth's magnetic field, or via electron spin resonance, is speculation, wishful thinking, and erroneous? Or is it just easier to ignore it all and claim it's a pack of lies?

So you're telling me that we can't be sure of anything if we "weren't there"? I wonder why creationists are OK with sentencing someone to the death penalty in Florida even when there are no eye witnesses in the case? After all, they "weren't there." LinearAQ asked you some other questions about what we presumably can't know because we "weren't there." Do you really believe that we can learn nothing about what happened in the past, through clues from the present? I suspect this belief is applied very selectively, especially where archaeology is concerned.

I find the requests in your post quite interesting. Let's SEE a fossil evolving, you say. You want me to provide you a picture of the entire fossil record complete with every layer of rock that's ever been discovered in the geologic column, along with every fossil, apparently. This information is all over the internet and in most scientific textbooks. You could go out fossil-hunting yourself in many areas of the world. Would any of it convince you? Not as long as you can sit there and brush it away as being a pack of lies. The link I gave you to hominid evolution does actually explain that the given dates match up with where those fossils were found in the geologic column, and it explained how exactly homo erectus was dated. Your comments amount to claiming that this is simply a lie, in which case as I said, please explain how the scientific dating methods used were wrong.

I'm desperately debating, am I? I'm just having an interesting time trying to teach some science and maybe trying to understand why people are so keen not to understand it. If a person feels desperate about their own position, that's where you can start looking for things like ad hominem insults or blanket denials of everything when they can't think of anything else to say and have no more evidence to provide for their position.