Ok lets get a few things straight so you'll understand what I'm arguing here. I believe that there is a god, but I could just barly be called a christian, I don't believe most of what is in the bible because it is nothing more than a book that was written by men, edited many times where large parts were cut from it, and it has been translated numerous times changing slightly every time no doubt. I don't believe the creation in the bible but I do believe that the universe was created by a god. The only reason I believe that there was a flood is because the bible and christianity are not the only places or religions it has been mentioned in.
Some of the most horrible things in history where committed in the name of christianity, most of them by the catholic church.
I also believe that most religions are all worshiping the same god just under different names. Now, on to the discussion.
Amphibian means you can survive in either environment for survival. You cannot argue that that is natural selection, as a frog can survive in a flood and survive in a drought, same with all amphibians, for that is their definition, the ability to live in either water, or land or both.
So if they can live in either I would say that is more evidence they did not evolve, because they would have no reason to, why would they need to make changes to survive if they could survive perfectly well no matter where they were.
Also you did not explain why so many OTHER animals died out suddenly, such as Trillobites.
I would say a flood would wipe them out as well as any other creature. And that would also easily explain why they died out suddenly.
And if all these thousands of marine animals, amphibians, marine reptiles and marine mammals died out, why not crocodiles, whales and fish? Why not turtles?
Because their food source is not grass and trees and plants, crocodiles eat other animals (from my understanding) whales eat various different sea creatures such as plankton and small fish (depinding on the type of whale) and as for turtles, once again Different species have different diets. The leatherback feeds only on jelly fish, the hawksbill only on sponges, the loggerhead feeds on a selection of bottom-dwelling invertebrates and kemps ridley turtles have a preference for crabs. The green turtle is thought to be omnivorous but largely herbivorous, feeding mainly on seagrasses and algae. But they all eat sea creatures, which would not have all died out in a flood.
My argument was that life before 200 million BC we find no creatures containing the ability to chew, after that we find many. Such as Iguanadon, the first Dinosaur to have the ability to chew. After that creature nearly all, even predators developed some sort of way to chew. This seems to relate perfectly to evolution, that nature itself is learning over time to survive. Its not random as you think evolutionists believe, no far from it, the single cell learns better ways to survive via evolution, everything being created in 7 days is just not possible.
But like Poorboy said, even if they where created in 7 days that does not mean they couldn't adapt and change slightly over thousands of years. And all of them suddenly changing at about the same time would be even more evidence for a flood. Not a slow evolution.
Evolution is causing us to grow. You want evidence? Look at the height of all doorways in ancient Egypt, Greece, China ect, doorways were much MUCH smaller. I'm sure not every single race on earth decided to lower their doorways simply because its a cool inconvieniance.
I can't deny or confirm this because I have never seen a doorway in ancient ruins. However, if you believe in the bible peoples ages shortend dramatically (from seven to nine hundred years to about sixty to eighty today) so I see no reason for peoples hight to not change as well, in fact one may have been the cause of the other.
and no believe it or not, your priest is NOT a historian).
read the beginning of my post.
And of course that calculate by darwinism was a disaster. That was over 100 years ago, they didnt have calculators, or even real numbers to work with. What the heck did they calculate anyways? What COULD they calculate? The reason why evolution remains a "theory" is because if we called it fact you guys would go Jihad on us (and yes i am aware that is a muslim term, but its the same concept).
Actualy that happend in 1967 and they did have calculators, what they calculated was the mathmatical probability of evolution and found that it was almost mathmaticaly impossible. The reason evolution remains a theory is because it can't be proved, and it can't be fact unless it can be.
You still have nothin to say to deny that dinosaurs slowly evolved into birds, as carbon dating, strata dating and common sense analysis of the comparison of bones over time indicate.
you said yourself they where all wiped out at around the same time, which indicates that they didn't "slowly evolve" into anything. They simply died out.
Btw, here have a look at this
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html
Again, read the beginning of my post.