Evolutionists are quite fond of the slogan "we have the fossils, we win". The obvious implication of this is that Evolutionists believe fossils are silver bullets against Creationists. Supposedly, they prove Evolution so conclusively, and refute Creationism so thoroughly, that to merely point out their existence is enough to settle the debate once and for all.
But you may notice that the Evolutionist bark is a lot worse than their bite. Sure, they can say the fossils are their victory, but they will never be able to say why this is the case. The reality is, fossils are no friend to Darwinian fiction, for reasons that were known even to Darwin himself.
During his ministry, Darwin made a number of predictions that would make or break Evolution. At least some of these predictions were about fossils. But unfortunately for Darwin, the more we studied, the more thoroughly his predictions failed, and with them, Evolution likewise perished in all but the imaginative minds of Evolution devotees, and the sleeping minds of their students.
You need not take my word for this. Richard Leaky, himself an Evolutionist, once described Evolutionary icon "Lucy" as having a skull so incomplete, most of it is "imagination made of plaster of paris". What little we do know about Lucy's kind, australopithecines, is that they are unique in their own right; they simply cannot link humans and apes.
But as far as imaginative fossils go, Lucy's skull is rather tame. Nebraska man is a far greater example. From a single tooth, Evolutionists imagined an entire family of ape men. Now, I shouldn't need to explain the problem with "reconstructing" entire creatures from just one tooth. Already, anyone should be able to tell you that's just speculation gone too far. But what makes it worse is that the tooth turned out to be not from a humanoid at all, but from a pig. The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are more paleontologically accurate than some of the things Evolutionists put out as "evidence"! They have a 3ft, venom-spitting dilophosaurus with a frill, and they're still based on more fossil evidence than any "theory" on the Evolutionary ancestry of man.
And that's just the stuff they make up based on what is real. Australopithecines, while based on fragmentary evidence, are at least based on real fragmentary fossils. Nebraska man, of course, was based on a real fossil tooth. But time would fail us to discuss the large number of flat out frauds put out by Evolutionists. The most notorious of these is Piltdown man, which for 40 years was displayed as "evidence" for Evolution. But when real studies were finally done, it was shown to not only be a 100% fake, but an embarrassingly bad one. It was a human skull attached to an orangutan jaw, with filed down teeth, and staining/painting designed to make it look more real.
But why is all this? Why go to so much trouble, especially given the embarrassing results, just to make the public think fossils so heavily support Evolution? Simply because, as Darwin predicted, Evolution, in order to be considered viable, must be backed by a wealth of what are colloquially known as "transitional forms". That is, if one kind gradually evolved into another, it should leave behind evidence like fossils "on their way" to becoming a completely different kind. If human beings really are descended from "ape like" ancestors, then we should not only find those ape-like ancestors, but also a large number of "mid way" fossils.
Darwin himself pointed out "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." To this day, in spite of the fact the geological record is about as complete as we could wish it to be, the fossils that would be required to even give Evolution the slightest credibility do not exist. That's not to say Evolutionists don't try, of course. There are, as Creation Ministries International would put it, "a handful of questionable examples".
There are not, however, a mere "handful" of questionable examples when it comes to fossils that challenge the Evolutionary narrative. Fossils are frequently found in the "wrong" place, position, and even decay stage. Aquatic creatures are often found up mountains. Some fossils stick through "millions of years" worth of layers. "Modern" animals, including birds, are found with "ancient" animals, like dinosaurs, even in each others' bellies. Animals are found "in motion", such as eating, fighting, giving birth, even swimming. Most notably, some organisms supposedly millions of years old are so "fresh", they contain carbon 14, and even soft tissue! Conveniently, we even now know how to make fossils in a mere 24 hours.
While Evolutionists talk a big game, fossils are a nightmare for Evolutionists. The only time the fossils even seem to support the Evolutionary narrative is when you use Evolutionary imagination. "We have the fossils, we win". Silly claim. That fossils exist at all is a tragic, yet beautiful result of God's first global judgement. The catastrophic watery wrath of the Lord swiftly buried millions of animals, wiping away the wicked men of the world, sparing only those who, by faith, were sealed on board the only seaworthy lifeboat in existence.
After the flood, God promised never again to let water overcome the Earth. But He does have more wrath stored up for when men once again rise against Him as they did in the days of Noah. The next judgement will be by fire. But just as God had mercy on Noah and His family, He will have mercy on mankind by way of His Son. 2,000 years ago, the Lord Jesus Christ entered the world through the womb of a virgin, living a perfect life as a human being. Yet, He died as a sinner, not for His own sins, but for ours. Therefore, we can "get on the ark", escaping His judgement against our sins, by confessing Jesus as Lord, and believing He rose from the dead. The choice is yours.