One of the more hilarious elements of the origins debate is that both Creationists and Evolutionists brag about the support we receive from the fossil record. Evolutionists brag "we have the fossils, we win". But the truth is, Creationists are just as likely to refer to the fossil record because it is Evolution's weakest area. In fact, it is usually the first thing amateur Creation apologists use, because the fossil evidence really isn't in favor of Evolution.
The first problem for Evolution that comes from the fossil record is that the fossil record does not support the Evolutionist tree of life, but rather the Creationist orchard. Things "appear" suddenly, with no evidence of Evolution. For this reason, Creationists often ask Evolutionists for the "innumerable transitional forms" Darwin predicted. To this day, we don't have those innumerable transitional forms. All we have is a handful of highly questionable examples.
Aside from majorly incomplete "transitional forms", and the outright fakes, even many of the complete specimens are usually questioned even by Evolutionists. Tiktaalik, for example, is still commonly pushed at the popular level, however Evolutionists at the expert level no longer argue it as a transitional form. Obviously, they have different reasons. They found footprints supposedly 18 million years older than Tiktaalik, so they decided it can't be ancestral to tetrapods after all. Of course, sensible people say it's not transitional because it has all the features of a well designed fish, not because it's 18 million years younger than it should be, but as crazy as the reasoning is, the fact that even Evolutionists question it proves that it is a questionable example.
Then you have archaeopteryx, another famous example. Supposedly a transitional bird, archaeopteryx is just a bird. As Evolutionist Alan Fedducia said, "Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that." (1) Again, another Evolutionist proving that a popular transitional form is questionable as a transitional form by questioning it as a transitional form.
The extreme absence of transitional forms in the fossil record is something Darwin called the most obvious and gravest objection to Evolution. That objection held up in his day, and it still holds up in ours. But Darwin had a theory he thought might explain it. In his mind, the reason there are so few transitional forms lies in the "extreme imperfection of the geological record". After all, in his day, there were far fewer fossils, and he even predicted that no organism wholly soft could be fossilised. Of course, he was wrong about that, as even in his day there were jellyfish fossils all over the place, but the point is, he thought there were so few transitional fossils because there were so few fossils.
We don't have that excuse anymore. Our fossil record is so complete that we have representatives of more than 80% (more than 90% if you exclude birds) of extant animals, as well as a large number of extinct species. (2) At this point, the only reason to say the fossil record is so incomplete as to explain the absence of transitional forms is if you assume transitional forms ought to exist to complete it.
So Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould came up with another excu... uh... theory... to explain the absence of transitional forms. He postulated the concept of "punctuated equilibrium", effectively stating that Evolution happens in bursts, rather than being gradual all the time. In other words, transitional fossils are so rare because Evolution happens too quickly to preserve them. But of course, rather than solving the problem of the missing links, all it does is acknowledge that they are still missing, as well as proving that Evolution, rather than being a conclusion based on the evidence, is actually impervious to it. When the evidence doesn't fit Evolution, Evolution tries to make it fit like an ugly step sister's foot into Cinderella's glass slipper.
But of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so although the fossil record isn't enough to prove Evolution, the mere absence of transitional forms does not necessarily disprove it either. However, there are a number of fossils that strongly suggest Evolution is not true.
One falsification Evolutionists currently claim would disprove Evolution is the bunny in the Cambrian. That is to say if a fossil appears in the "wrong" rock layer, Evolution would be disproven. However, while we do not have a bunny in the Cambrian specifically, we do have plenty of out of place fossils. Which, of course, Evolutionists make a host of other excuses for. One example is the Kamikaze ichthyosaur. This young ichthyosaur stood nose down, spanning "millions of years" of rock layers. Obviously, that isn't going to happen slowly, so Evolutionists made up a story about how a dead ichthyosaur just nose dived into the soft sediment which then hardened over time, fossilising it.
There are also fossils of sea creatures found on top of mountains, which Evolutionists claim are there not because of the global flood, as logic dictates, but because the mountain was once a sea bed.
Then there are polystrat trees, which not only span "millions of years" of rock layers, but are sometimes even found upside down. This is where Evolutionists conveniently acknowledge that local floods can explain some fossils.
Aside from fossils that span "millions of years" of rock layers, we also have plenty of fossils in the wrong layers. This is actually quite hard to do, as Evolutionists tend to "date" the rocks by what fossils are found in them, basically meaning if we did find a bunny in the Cambrian, that would do one of two things. It could prove bunnies evolved much earlier than was previously believed, but it would more likely be used as evidence that the rock was not really Cambrian rock. Nevertheless, sometimes rocks which are already assumed to be a certain age often contain the "wrong" fossils.
For example, pollen is not something you would expect to find in the Precambrian, however we do find pollen in the Precambrian, about a billion years before pollen is supposed to have evolved. We have ducks and parrots in the "Cretaceous", even though birds are supposedly descended from dinosaurs. Where it was once considered as bad to draw dinosaurs with grass as with humans, fossilised dinosaur poo shows they actually ate it. And whereas Evolutionists used to claim that the only mammals that lived with dinosaurs were about the size of a shrew, we now know that at least one mammal the size of a dog actually ate dinosaurs, because we have a repenomamus that actually had a psittacosaurus in its stomach.
Aside from a plethora of out of place fossils, we also have what are called "living fossils". Living fossils are a thorn in the side for Evolutionists. They are creatures which are virtually identical to their fossil counterparts, and many were actually claimed to be extinct until they showed up again somewhere, often in silly places like a marketplace where people didn't think much of them. These include species like protanguilla, the Laotian rock rat , and the coelacanth. Perhaps most impressive is the Wollemi pine, which is described as being "like finding a live dinosaur".
Unfortunately, we don't have concrete proof of living dinosaurs today, but one thing we do have is something we shouldn't: soft dinosaur tissue. Even under optimal conditions, there is just no way soft tissue can be preserved for more than 2 million years. But dinosaurs, supposedly having spent 65 million years in decidedly not optimal conditions, sometimes look so modern that aside from Mary Schweitzer, an Evolutionist, claiming her t-rex specimen was "exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone" (3), there's another site in Alaska containing many dinosaur bones that took a full 20 years to report because those who discovered it thought they were just old bison bones.
Then there are what I like to call "frozen fossils" (this is my term, I am the only one I know who uses it). These are fossils that obviously got buried rapidly, because they are forever frozen in poses that would take mere seconds to change. These include, but are certainly not limited to, an ichthyosaur giving birth, a velociraptor fighting a protoceratops, a fish eating another fish, and more recently, a whole shoal of fish that look like they're still swimming.
And then you have modern fossils. Fossils that were actually created in living memory! Scientists at the University of Bristol developed a lab-based process in which fresh specimens such as bird feathers, lizard limbs, and leaves can be fossilised in just one day! (4)
We may not have a bunny in the Cambrian, we may not have a human in the belly of a t-rex, and we may not have live raptors running riot, but we do have large amounts of fossil evidence that just don't fit the Evolutionary narrative. Whereas Evolutionists scramble to find their missing links, Creationists have all the fossils we will ever need to convince a reasonable person that Evolution is nothing more than a silly religion designed to replace Christianity. Fossils do not support Evolution, but rather, they are a stone cold reminder, pun intended, of a terrifying global judgement by God.
The first global judgement was the curse God put on the world after Adam and Eve sinned: Death and futility. The second was the flood God sent upon the world, killing every nostril-breathing creature on the earth. The third is on its way, and nothing will be spared. The heavens themselves will roll up like a scroll as the elements melt in a fervent heat.
It's a good idea to get ready for that judgement, but the truth is, you might not even make it that far. One thing that is absolutely certain is that the God who judged the world with a flood will one day judge you. And unfortunately, you have a lot to answer for. But the good news is it doesn't have to be you that answers for it. There is a valid substitution for you. Jesus Christ, through His death on the cross, took the punishment for every sin you have ever committed, every sin you are committing, and every sin you will ever commit, and He rose again, ensuring you can inherit eternal life with Him after this life is over. All you have to do is believe in Him, and you will be saved. It would be very wise for you to evolve and become a transitional form from sinner to saint by confessing Him as Lord.
References
1. Feduccia, Alan, cited in V. Morell, Archaeoptryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms, Science
2. Denton, Michael - Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985)
3. Schweitzer, Mary - Montana State University Museum of the Rockies; cited on p. 160 of V. Morell, ‘Dino DNA: The hunt and the hype’, Science 261(5118):160–162, 9 July 1993
4. Coxworth, Ben - Lab-made Fossils Cram 1000s of Years into 24 Hours, July 25 2018 (link)