That’s a fair enough question. I will give you a few points to at least consider.
1. Common Descent would require millions of transitional forms because each unique structure would have to be constructed by natural selection acting on numerous generations of organisms (there are over 50,000 biological indicators between whales and land mammals alone). All the fossil record contains is a handful of highly disputed “transitional forms”. So in this regard the fossil record actually supports the creation position.
2. The fossil record is interpreted assuming evolution (common descent) happened, so to use it to support evolution is circular. Many secularists even see this problem. "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." - Dr. Ronald West (Kansas State University).
3. The fossil record demonstrates not so much a simple to complex history of life, but rather a record of how different organisms were buried which in no way is inconsistent with the creation position. Many of the supposedly “simple” organisms have been shown to be just as complex as many of the supposed “complex” organisms at a genetic level.
4. Lastly, many illustrations that unfortunately appear in textbooks are a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Many are just artist interpretations of what the organism looked like or are conveniently arranged in an order that does not represent how they are found in the column (i.e. Horse evolution).
What about them?
Classical logic is a crucial tool for discerning truth, so I am a bit perplexed as to why you say I am “grasping at straws” when I appeal to it. If you can’t formulate your argument in a way that is logically valid, then perhaps it’s not the world’s greatest argument.
