Nice posts, Spunky! I might correct the last sentence of your last one, however, for having a conscience does not disprove evolution, except of man. It does indicate something supernatural about the making of man.
Evolution has enough other problems to contend with, which disprove it, without needing the moral argument. The moral argument is excellent where man himself is concerned, however. I think you will find that theistic evolutionists usually try to get around that argument one of two ways: 1) animals gradually developed a sense of morality (but the transitionals are evidently lost), or 2) God intervened at some point during the evolution of man and 'created' Adam -- the first man with a conscience.
You did a really good job of explaining C.S. Lewis' argument, however, in regards to conscience and morality in men.
Now, about your earlier post:
Carbon dating and other forms of radiometric dating are really not 'idiocy.' What they do, however, is measure the atomic clock, or the rate at which atomic processes have occurred, under the presumption that these processes have kept the same rate through time. That is the major mistake, because a number of series of measurements do show that atomic processes have changed. It is interesting that when God give us time-keepers in Genesis 1:14, He told us to keep our time by the sun, moon, and stars. In other words, we are to date by orbital, or gravitational clocks. Remarkably, these have stayed uniform through time and are much more accurate than atomic clocks. But don't disparage the radiometric dating methods -- for the most part they are good and accurate for what they are measuring, which is atomic time. Zircon crystals especially give accurate dates about 80% of the time. The trick is then to correlate these dates with orbital dates. Barry Setterfield has worked with mathematicians and other physicists to do this and I think if you poke around on his website you will find out what I am talking about. www.setterfield.org
I have read the argument about billions of missing bodies/artifacts before and it is an interesting one. I have never seen an adequate evolutionist response. If anyone knows of one, I would appreciate a link or information about the argument itself.
I don't think, however, the sedimentation or salt accumulation arguments are viable. They were good when uniformitarianism was the rage among evolutionists, but that has been abandon. Catastrophes have been admitted, and some of these catastrophes have to do with shifting ocean floors along plate boundaries. This would and does submerge sections of crust, and often near continental shelves. This would effectively swallow up large amounts of deposited sediments. This would also apply to salt accumulation as I understand the evolutionist argument.
Icons of Evolution is an excellent movie. Even better, however, is the book itself, by Jonathan Wells. It can be purchased here:
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/
Haeckel's forged drawings were known to be forgeries from the beginning. But they still appear in textbooks, over 100 years later! Evolutionists are desperate....
I think you are a little mistaken about the Cambrian explosion -- it covers a lot more than 1000 years by evolutionist standards.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html
However, it WAS quite short evolutionarily and as long as you are careful about the figures you use (do a little research on the web), you are on pretty solid ground here.
There is an addition about the 'tree of life' however. Recently peer-reviewed journals have been carrying articles showing that the 'tree of life' is not right and they are madly trying to sort out the genetic information which is upsetting their preconceptions. They will find some excuse or another.
In the meantime, an excellent book pointing out the impossibility of biological evolution is Walter ReMine's The Biotic Message. It also can be purchased on the web here: http://www1.minn.net/~science/
Lastly, I am not aware of embryos being found in precambrian strata. Could you find some verification of this for us?
Thanks.