No, but they can be expected to follow the laws of nature as God established them just like everything else, and thus be capable of fitting together just the way they "came apart."
I am always amused at how evolutionists eschew intelligent design, yet with all their heads put together they could not establish and run a single law of nature, let alone all of them at once.
Please don't yak at me about "bait and switch" when after all the hub-bub about "facts" and "consistency" evolution has not the slightest notion how history will play itself out because it cannot test and predict the actual PROCESS of evolution. A better name for it would be "Hopeful History," for it is every bit as much lacking in solid facts as creationism. Even more so because it does not have a single human record from the past to back it up.
And face it. The number of fossils out of place could be 99% and you'd still champion the story telling that makes up 99% of evolution theories. Ad hoc rules and laws are a staple of your so-called science every bit as much as they are with creationism.
This is the same thing as laying like grids on a graph paper. Of course nothing is going to "fit together" the same way it "came apart". Except in the Rube Goldburg school of physics you got your hydrology degree at.
I am always amused at how evolutionists eschew intelligent design, yet with all their heads put together they could not establish and run a single law of nature, let alone all of them at once.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but it it is certainly up to your standards of superior disdane combined with incompetent physics and laughable scientific epistimology.
Please don't yak at me about "bait and switch".
Ok, I'll use blunter words: bluffing, preaning about it, and then dodging until your deponents get too annoyed to continue.
And face it. The number of fossils out of place could be 99% and you'd still champion the story telling that makes up 99% of evolution theories. Ad hoc rules and laws are a staple of your so-called science every bit as much as they are with creationism.
That would be incorrect. Now you tell me--what do you think the percentage of fossils out of place in the current record are--since you proported to present out-of-place fossils as evidence in this argument? How many topsy turvy layers in the Grand Canyon are there, as a percentage of the whole? How many human footprints in dinosaur fossil beds? How many inexplicable backslides in the morphological chain between eohippus and horse?