"But there is NO indication, absolutely NO hint of gradual changes from species to species. Just different life in different eras (that always appear in-toto suddenly in the fossil record and they continue on THE SAME, until extinction or they live on into the next era like sharks and cockroaches)."
There is clear indication. First life does not continue on the same. Any ancient fossil equivelants to modern mammals (horses, human, elephant, etc) are very different to the modern versions.
Secondly species appear throughout the fossil record, not in distinct creation events.
Thirdly there is a pattern of change of life over time - ie evolution.
Intermediate fossil forms found between ages of two other fossils are plenty indication of evolution. As demanded and predicted by evolution. Antievolutionists charge evolutionists with worshiping probability and chance but here they are doing the same thing. Think of the small odds that the fossils unearthed continually fill gaps between two already found fossils and further develop an evolutionary tree if evolution has not actually occured.
"as no transitory species have ever been found, other than labeling games by evolutionists who find a half bird, half lizard, and pronounce it a transition between birds and lizards. How do you know?"
Noone has witnessed the life cycle of a star directly, but from the sequences of all other stars we see in the universe there is a pattern and we can derive a theory of the life cycle. I imagine you deny our sun is a transitional star because you claim HOW DO WE KNOW?
"It could just as well be a lizard-like bird all in its own right!"
Sure, but finding several species of such lizard birds in the area of the fossil record that evolution demands such things to exist is just too coincidental. Juries have convicted people to death based on less evidence.
"Imagine we are to buy the driving force of evolution that says: "Survival of the fittest," species gain a new niche because they are driven by ruthless competition to exploit some mutation of genes. So a fish starts growing legs to walk on land, but it takes millions of years for the process (wink, wink)."
Actually fish didn't need to grow legs, they just ADAPTED (microevolved) their fins which already had the same bone structure anyway.
Also "survival of the fittest" is a popular phrase, it has no meaning in evolutionary theory. Perhaps you meant to say Natural Selection? Your argument is a joke because it isn't even a big change for fins to turn into legs, considering that muscular fins would do the job of a transitional.
"and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass?"
What other animals? There are none on the land. This transitional has free reign over the land and thives. Your own example even works against you.
I would love to hear your theory on how the earliest fossil land animals are ampibeans and not say mammals,birds or reptiles. Seems to me that life from the sea is a far better explaination for the observed facts.
You wrote: "However, the real question is if the literal interpretation of the Bible is falsifiable. It is. It has been down many times. Just one: Dinosaur bones are in chronological order in the strata and dated to millions of years, showing species change over time."
This is the sort of blind and stupid thinking believers in evolution fall into. First it is man that observes the rock strata with certain fossils in them. Because we know rocks were laid down over time we can say bones in lower courses are older...so what? It just means life at that time died at that time and was fossilized. But there is NO indication, absolutely NO hint of gradual changes from species to species.
shubi: That is a very clever sentence, as it is true that species to species differences are difficult to tell from just bones. This is because species differences are very very slight, such that a layman looking at two different species of related beatles would not be able to tell the difference.
Just different life in different eras (that always appear in-toto suddenly in the fossil record and they continue on THE SAME, until extinction or they live on into the next era like sharks and cockroaches). It is only because you wear evolutionists glasses that you LABEL a previous era of life as more primitive than a later era.
shubi: No, it is because the progression of developments of anatomy from two layered jellyfish to worms to annelids to mammals that labels something more "primitive".
That something appeared earlier in the fossil record in no way means it is MORE PRIMITVE than later life of similar morphology, it is simply the labeling game of evolutionists. I can just as well say that different life was created in successive ages and the fossil record bears witness to my interpretation far better than yours, as no transitory species have ever been found, other than labeling games by evolutionists who find a half bird, half lizard, and pronounce it a transition between birds and lizards. How do you know? It could just as well be a lizard-like bird all in its own right! This theory falls in on itself by the weight of its own illogic and contradictory causes and effects. Imagine we are to buy the driving force of evolution that says: "Survival of the fittest," species gain a new niche because they are driven by ruthless competition to exploit some mutation of genes. So a fish starts growing legs to walk on land, but it takes millions of years for the process (wink, wink). All the while it is subject to the same ruthless competion that started the process, but it is no longer an efficient fish, and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass? And they do this for the required million years or so? Freaking ridiculous crap parading as science. Only those that want to find anything, believe anything, but in the immediate creative power of God would buy into this junk.
shubi: Your arguments are the same old fallacy of arguing from personal incredulity. What is the motivation behind you sticking to silly Bible interpretations and substituting that for science? What are you afraid of?