Atheism is a religion

[Cyberman]

A short list of transitional fossils.

That's a rather shallow list. The Archaeopteryx has recently been reclassified by paleontologists as a true bird because each of its features is either found in true birds or is absent in many reptiles. The Sinornis: long bony fingers and teeth ≠ dinosaur. The Yinlong and Anchisaurus having two to three bird-like features doesn't say they evolved. Even evolutionists don't widely agree birds evolved from these two types. Tiktaalik: one year after its pronouncement as a transitional fossil, footprints were discovered in an older strata. Creatures like the stickleback fish being of different sizes is mere small-scale adaptation. They are still stickleback fish! These examples are at the bottom of the barrel. Each organism is unique in its own right and follows to have been created that way. 80 million years and all they have are some dinosaurs with thick-domed skulls, others with delicate limbs, and a bird with long fingers and teeth? There should be some missing links with some identical features to a species, while actually being a genetically different species (unable to reproduce). One organism having a shell and short snout is a far cry from an organism with an entirely different type of shell and dissimilar short snout.

Wow, way to shift the goalposts there. First you say there are no transitional fossils at all; now you complain that the list of such fossils is too 'shallow'. At the very least pick which hat you want to talk through.

The problem essentially is that creationists, wifully or not, cannot recognise that every species is a transitional one between what came before and what may yet be. They insist on being led on a leash through a gallery of snapshots showing every single evolutionary step and when such a snapshot is missing for whatever reason, instantly declaring victory by jamming their particular pet god into the gap. Worse, they dismiss the snapshots that we do have whenever they happen to be inconvenient, just as you did. It's hardly an original point, but consider: if you were shown an album of photographs depicting your entire life, one taken every day, could you then point to the one that marks the transition between the baby you and the infant you? If the album was incomplete, if it had several pages missing, would you then dismiss the entire corpus as "too shallow"?

The remarkable point is not that the fossil record is incomplete, it is that that we have as many fossils as we do. Making a fossil is a lot harder than you think, so the fact that there are gaps ought not to be the surprise that creationists want to make us think it is. The popular YouTuber and lecture pundit AronRa has made a whole series of videos on this subject; I heartily recommend them to you even though I have a sneaking suspicion that you won't bother.

Also: footprints were found in an older strata than the Tiktaalik one - and this disqualifies the fossil as transitional how, exactly?