Most all of your assertions here are mere hand-waving.
Also, you try to define a straw-man "science" to suit your own purposes, then beat it down with hand-waving assertions.
Not much serious argument there, FRiend.
Boogieman: "Yes, but as the estimated ages are derived from a somewhat subjective standard, it makes it just another arbitrary property upon which to arrange your meaningless visual display."
More hand-waving at a photograph you keep insisting, over and over and over, is "meaningless".
Methinks you doth protest too much...
In fact, all such age estimates are as "objective" as scientists know how to be, considering geological strata, radiometric results and other known fossils.
So, if you claim such estimated ages are somehow wrong, what scientific evidence can you present of their actual ages?
Boogieman: "I could take a bunch of skulls of creatures that evolutionists don’t speculate have common descent, arrange them in the same way, and make it look like there is a progression, but that would not demonstrate any actual progression ever happened."
First of all, evolution theory tells us all large creatures are thought to have common ancestors, be it millions or hundreds of millions of years ago.
So, right out of the box, your premise is wrong.
Of course, science does not know which fossils actually descended from which ancestors, and so cannot say for sure if one skull was the actual ancestor of another.
But the progression over time is striking, and morphological similarities strongly suggest close relationships -- just as they do today with living creatures.
Indeed, if we look at morphological similarities of living creatures, and then compare their DNAs, we see that one strongly correlates to the other.
This is one basis for concluding how much ancient fossils were more, or less, closely related.
“Also, you try to define a straw-man “science” to suit your own purposes, then beat it down with hand-waving assertions.”
Yeah, sure. Demanding that science follow the scientific method is such a straw man.
“More hand-waving at a photograph you keep insisting, over and over and over, is “meaningless”.”
It’s not hand waving, it’s the truth. If you are not aware of the elements of the dating methodology that make it a very fallible standard to appeal to, then that is your problem, not mine.
“In fact, all such age estimates are as “objective” as scientists know how to be, considering geological strata, radiometric results and other known fossils.”
As “objective” as they know how to be? No, sorry, that is just plain false. The dating is speculative at best, always subject to the biases of the one doing the dating. The fact that the same samples submitted to different scientists for dating yield wildly different dates is ample demonstration of that.
The process of dating often ends up as mere cherry picking one date out of a range of possible dates, simply because that date fits better with the patchwork timeline that other scientists have assembled. It doesn’t get much more subjective than that.
“So, if you claim such estimated ages are somehow wrong, what scientific evidence can you present of their actual ages?”
I’m not presenting any evidence, because I have no need to. I am not claiming that I know when those fossils were buried in the ground.
“First of all, evolution theory tells us all large creatures are thought to have common ancestors, be it millions or hundreds of millions of years ago.
So, right out of the box, your premise is wrong.”
Obviously, from the context of my statement, it’s clear I meant recent common ancestors, since that is the claim made for the hominid fossils that I was making a comparison too. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that distinction clear enough for you.
“Of course, science does not know which fossils actually descended from which ancestors, and so cannot say for sure if one skull was the actual ancestor of another.
But the progression over time is striking, and morphological similarities strongly suggest close relationships — just as they do today with living creatures.”
Any presentation where you line up skulls to create an apparent progression would be striking. It demonstrates nothing.
“Indeed, if we look at morphological similarities of living creatures, and then compare their DNAs, we see that one strongly correlates to the other.”
That is only true in some cases, it is false in many others. That is why it is a precept of evolutionary science that morphological similarities do not, in and of themselves, demonstrate (recent) common descent. In case you are unfamiliar with that, perhaps check out the evolutionary concept of “parallel evolution” which is used to try to explain similar morphology where there is clearly no (recent) common descent.
“This is one basis for concluding how much ancient fossils were more, or less, closely related.”
Yes, but for the reason I cited above (contradicting evolutionary science’s own stated principles), it is a very poor basis for doing so.