For as long as I live, I hope I will not forget the time in high school when my science prea... teacher... stood at the front of the class, and confidently scoffed "some people will tell you that God created the Earth, but how does that explain the fossils?" It amused me even then, though I was not a Christian at that time. But just think of it. Let us first take a moment to ask, why would he need to bring up God? God had not been a common topic of discussion in public school science classes for quite some time. The Evolutionists won that aspect of the culture war long ago. So why give God any air time at all? In all my school years, I've never had a teacher take a stab at flat Earthers. So why God? Unless, of course, this man knew full well, God is a legitimate "theory" on origins.
Of course, it is illogical to call Him a "theory". We don't have "theories" on the origins of Buckingham Palace, or the White House, or even our own houses. We know who built them, and when, and frankly, anyone who comes up with alternative "theories", especially ones that require complex designs to lack complex designers, is bonkers, especially if they then dismiss the known history as "invalid theories" or "fairy tales for adults".
The same is true for origins. Origins is not even a matter of science, but of history. It is about that which happened in the unobservable past, not the way things work in the testable and repeatable present. Even the very language of Evolution shows this. "X thing happened Y million years ago." By contrast, science works in all tenses; past, present, and future.
All of this means we can afford to leave history alone. We don't need to adapt what we know in order to accommodate new theories. Of course, there are exceptions. Incomplete or unreliable records may compel us to re-write history. So, here's the question: Is the Bible such a record?
One may argue, due to its limited scope, that it is indeed incomplete. It doesn't tell us what happened to the animals when they got off the ark. It doesn't tell us how people got to Australia. It doesn't even give us much information outside of the Middle East. As for its reliability, well, if you're an atheist, you might be tempted to just drop it in the bin and do your own thing, because who would trust the word of "dem dum dum bronze age goat herders", right?
On the completeness of the Bible, it covers everything we might reasonably expect or need it to. It would be nice, though a little more tedious to study, if more details had been given, but especially when it comes to origins, we have everything we need. Even an accurate "puzzle piece" does not need to be thrown out because the rest are missing.
On its reliability, it's worth noting that it is often used as an archaeological guide. Academia often has to catch up with the Bible. I often like to joke about how we've found our missing links while Evolutionists haven't. My go to example is the Hittites, which were once thought to be an entirely fictitious invention of the Biblical writers. Yet, in 1906, they were rediscovered, and it is now possible to get a doctorate in Hittite culture.
Thus, the only real escape for Evolutionists here is to find a compelling fact that would point us to Evolution while simultaneously being opposed to Creation. A fact, and one that is incontrovertible, that would only fit Evolution. But such facts do not exist!
Going back to my science teacher's objection, of course fossils do not contradict the creation account. Sure, there were no fossils on that first Sabbath day, but nothing stops fossils from forming in a fallen world. But that's actually a strange way to phrase it. Something does stop fossils from forming. That is, decay. Fossils are rare, and quite incomplete, because of the simple fact dead bodies do not just sit around waiting to be turned into stone. A specific set of conditions are required for fossilisation.
And we now know what those conditions are. And conveniently, they were all present at the flood. Even more interestingly is that, just like with many other things, we now know they do not need millions of years to form, because we have formed them in very short time periods. We have seen diamonds, opals, stalactites and stalagmites, oil, fossils, even whole canyons, form within a few decades, if that. With fossils, researchers at the University of Bristol have been able to make them within 24 hours! It literally takes a day to pour Evolutionary dogmas down the drain like filthy toilet water.
When it comes to fossils, the flood is a far better explanation than Evolution. This explains why the "innumerable transitional forms" are still absent. It explains why Darwin was wrong about "wholly soft" organisms being absent from the fossil record. It explains why fossils are found in the "wrong" layers, and sticking through multiple ones. It explains why many fossils show evidence of rapid burial, being "frozen" like snapshots in swimming, eating, fighting, and birthing poses. It explains why aquatic creatures are fossilised atop mountains. It explains why some fossils even contain Carbon 14, or soft tissue. It even explains why the most compelling fossils are fake, and why the fossils do not lead to a consistent narrative upon which Evolutionists can all agree.
Of course, Evolutionists have their own silly stories to explain all of those. I find the Kamikaze ichthyosaur to be one of the funniest. But it cannot be denied, in spite of my science teacher's boastings, that fossils are quite easily explainable within the Christian worldview. It is harder to explain why a good God would allow these things to die in the first place than to explain why their bodies have been preserved for a mere 3-4,000 years. By contrast, Evolutionists have to constantly make up excuses for why new fossils continuously contradict their multiple narratives. The worst part for them? Fossils are probably the best they have. It's their most common talking point, it's their most compelling talking point, it's the absolute strongest fact they have. Yet, it is still not strong enough to overturn Creationism. It actually does more damage to Evolution now than back when Darwin called it "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory".
So what compels us to accept Evolution? Sin. The same sin that compelled the Jews to yell "crucify". The same sin that compelled the Romans to comply with this demand. The same sin that compelled Judas to betray Jesus with a kiss for a mere bribe of silver. The same sin that compelled the Apostles to flee on that dreadful night. My friends, and especially my compromising Christian brethren, the thing that compels mankind to accept such a fanciful tale as Evolution is the same thing for which Christ Himself hung upon a cross. Sin.
But He didn't hang because we were so sinful we wanted Him to, but because He loves us so much that He would prefer to hang than condemn us. Our deceitful hearts tell us to imagine we are mere monkey men, but we are far more! We are made in the image of God! This is both a blessing, and a curse. It is a curse because it brings accountability. Our disobedience means something. It means death. Nothing but blood can pay for our crimes against our God. But it is a blessing, because only those made in His image can be saved by faith in Him. We all have our sins, but we all have access to the Savior! Those who confess Jesus, by whom all things were created, as Lord, and believe God raised Him from the dead, will be saved. Everyone else will be condemned to a fate worse than Evolution. Therefore repent, and seek the Lord while He may be found. Your missing links never will be.