In evolution theory it does. Your genetic code is derived from your ancestors. But if you were specially created, and not a product of common descent, your genetic code could be utterly unrelated to that of any other creature.
On 5 [The fossil record must show all kinds of species (such as dinosaurs and humans) living together at the same time.], one could argue that if fossils from two species, such as humans and dinosaurs, were found together, that would argue against the Theory of Evolution, but I don't see how one could argue that in order for creation to be true one would have to find any possible combination of species. There are millions or species, so having any possible combination would require quadrillions of fossils.
I don't mean that you would need to find them all in one limestone quarry. Just that those we regard as modern (such as mammals) should be sometimes found in the same rock stratum as those we belive existed millions of years earlier, before mammals evolved.
If a species were specially created, there's no reason they should be utterly unrelated to other creatures.
The modern species one is a chicken and egg thing. Supposedly ancient species have been found with modern species, and when that happens one of the species (most like the "ancient" one) is reclassified. This is not taken to be a refutation of the Theory of Evolution, but just a mistake in the previous classification.
I would think it would very difficult, if not impossible, to disprove ToE in this way.
In evolution theory it does. Your genetic code is derived from your ancestors. But if you were specially created, and not a product of common descent, your genetic code could be utterly unrelated to that of any other creature.
If all life on Earth is predicated upon genetic code (DNA) then all life on earth is related.
All life on Earth is predicated upon genetic code
THEREFORE
Contrast this premise to:
if you were specially created, and not a product of common descent,your genetic code could be utterly unrelated
This is precisely what cannot be proved by evidence. You cannnot "prove" it is "not a product of common descent" since you cannot prove a negative.
The only proof would be a life form that had no genetic descent (meaning no DNA) and propogated by some other means.
DNA itself implies commonality.
As for 5.
Either God placed fossils into existence solely to confuse Humankind or fossils are evidence of some form of evolution. This is a classic either/or in this discussion.
I often reflect on this point that it was barely more than 100 years ago that we discovered the first dinosaur fossil. After Darwin. When they discovered dinosaurs there were no automobiles. When my grandmother was born there were no cars, when she died we'd been to the moon. Do you really think we now know what reality is?
My point is that I'm tired of being tied to the beliefs of people who still live in a world view from centuries ago. This is the "War on Terrorism" that we are now fighting and that so many don't understand. You cannot win if you are just going to argue your myths against theirs. You're both wrong.
It then becomes a Duel Fallacy "Appeal of Authority" of their revealed documents versus yours. Against reality both will eventually lose.
The only question is: how many lives do you want to take with you along the way?
Science is the real world people. Wake up or die.