Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Mister Agenda]

drawings of foot bones and sketches are unconvincing to me

In other words, you aren't familiar enough yourself with the concepts involved to properly evaluate the evidence yourself, so you reject it for not fitting your untrained expectations.

I respectfully disagree, if you lived back in the Garden my money would be you would of been in complete awe and wonderment.

Speaking for myself, I'm in complete awe and wonderment right now. What does that have to do with the topic?

Actually evolution would expect creatures over time transitioning into a trilobyte, instead, we just find trilobytes...sounds like Creation to me.

Due to the haphazard nature of fossilization, we don't expect to find complete lineages of most species, so it's not unexpected that some would appear in the fossil record whose direct ancestors weren't preserved. If Creation were true, we wouldn't expect to find organisms that were extinct before humans showed up, and we wouldn't expect to find any transitional fossils at all, because Creation excludes the possibility of transitional organisms entirely.
Either that or it requires evolution at a pace that no organism can manage (all extant cat species having evolved from one proto-cat-kind in the last several thousand years, for instance).

Then everyone should of evolved into the strongest, most rugged, smartest, creature imaginable. The rabbit must not of got the memo.

Evolution doesn't have an arrow. It always has to make do with what it's got to work with, and the only criteria it has is reproductive success. Rabbits are VERY successful, evolutionarily speaking. That is how badly you misunderstand what the theory actually says.