The biggest argument I come up against when attempting to discuss Evolution is this:

(Moronic typeface added for emphasis)

"HAy Der! UR An IDIOt! IF We EvOlVEd LyK DaRWin Sed DEN HOW CUMZ ther Aint NO FoSsils Dat aR Half FIsh And HAlf Human"

Well apart from the terrible way the question is phrased it seems there is an idea among hard-line Christians that there is NO fossil record to support evolution.

So without further ado. To peruse at your leisure:

Here is a 5 page article that details a great deal of fossil evidence regarding transitional species.

I think you'll agree that the number of species is far greater than even I thought we had discovered. Transitional species it seems are far more common than is purported. They are only widely publicised when they represent a CLEAR leap from two very distinct species.

Example being archaeopteryx.

The language is rather technical in places but I found it an excellent read and I now have plenty of answers ready if a christian happens to come up with the plainly false accusation "There are no transitional fossils"

Transitional fossils. An incomplete list:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

Niiiiiice, Ressotami.

Now brace yourself for the inevitable "God imprinted those fossils Himself!" arguments.

AND the inevitable "Your source is invalid, as it is Anti-Christian propaganda" arguments...

Great find, though!

We have two threads dealing with creation/evolutionary issues already on the first page. I won't close this (although LC might), but please in future...ok?

Sorry. I just felt that it was a good enough article to get a thread outright pertaining to any discussion.

Also it's quite a narrow part of the whole topic of "Evolution" and I haven't seen transitional fossils get a lot of discussion.

Here's the argument creationists use against transitional fossils:

-Hey there are no transitional fossils between fossils A and fossils B. You can't prove evolution you don't have transition fossils!
-Umm.. here you go, fossil C is a clear transition.
-A-HA! Now you are missing 2 transitional fossils, transition A-C and C-B!.
-Here you go, fossils D and E
-Umm... Now you are missing A-D, D-C, C-E, E-B transitions.

The loop goes on and on. In a more humorous scenario.

YOU SCIENTISTS! YOU CANT FIND ANY MISSING LINKS! ONCE YOU FIND A LINK IT IS NOT MISSING! HAH! BEAT THAT YOU FOOLS!

Here's the argument creationists use against transitional fossils:

-Hey there are no transitional fossils between fossils A and fossils B. You can't prove evolution you don't have transition fossils!
-Umm.. here you go, fossil C is a clear transition.
-A-HA! Now you are missing 2 transitional fossils, transition A-C and C-B!.
-Here you go, fossils D and E
-Umm... Now you are missing A-D, D-C, C-E, E-B transitions.

The loop goes on and on. In a more humorous scenario.

YOU SCIENTISTS! YOU CANT FIND ANY MISSING LINKS! ONCE YOU FIND A LINK IT IS NOT MISSING! HAH! BEAT THAT YOU FOOLS!

qft, they wouldnt be happy unless every single generation of every single animal left a fossil. So 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000 fossils are needed to complete the record.

idiots..

When transitional fosils are found the creationist just say they are deformities.