[bobdsmith]

"But there is NO indication, absolutely NO hint of gradual changes from species to species. Just different life in different eras (that always appear in-toto suddenly in the fossil record and they continue on THE SAME, until extinction or they live on into the next era like sharks and cockroaches)."

There is clear indication. First life does not continue on the same. Any ancient fossil equivelants to modern mammals (horses, human, elephant, etc) are very different to the modern versions.
Secondly species appear throughout the fossil record, not in distinct creation events.
Thirdly there is a pattern of change of life over time - ie evolution.
Intermediate fossil forms found between ages of two other fossils are plenty indication of evolution. As demanded and predicted by evolution. Antievolutionists charge evolutionists with worshiping probability and chance but here they are doing the same thing. Think of the small odds that the fossils unearthed continually fill gaps between two already found fossils and further develop an evolutionary tree if evolution has not actually occured.

"as no transitory species have ever been found, other than labeling games by evolutionists who find a half bird, half lizard, and pronounce it a transition between birds and lizards. How do you know?"
Noone has witnessed the life cycle of a star directly, but from the sequences of all other stars we see in the universe there is a pattern and we can derive a theory of the life cycle. I imagine you deny our sun is a transitional star because you claim HOW DO WE KNOW?

"It could just as well be a lizard-like bird all in its own right!"
Sure, but finding several species of such lizard birds in the area of the fossil record that evolution demands such things to exist is just too coincidental. Juries have convicted people to death based on less evidence.

"Imagine we are to buy the driving force of evolution that says: "Survival of the fittest," species gain a new niche because they are driven by ruthless competition to exploit some mutation of genes. So a fish starts growing legs to walk on land, but it takes millions of years for the process (wink, wink)."
Actually fish didn't need to grow legs, they just ADAPTED (microevolved) their fins which already had the same bone structure anyway.
Also "survival of the fittest" is a popular phrase, it has no meaning in evolutionary theory. Perhaps you meant to say Natural Selection? Your argument is a joke because it isn't even a big change for fins to turn into legs, considering that muscular fins would do the job of a transitional.

"and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass?"
What other animals? There are none on the land. This transitional has free reign over the land and thives. Your own example even works against you.

I would love to hear your theory on how the earliest fossil land animals are ampibeans and not say mammals,birds or reptiles. Seems to me that life from the sea is a far better explaination for the observed facts.

[Jehu]

and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass?"
What other animals? There are none on the land. This transitional has free reign over the land and thives. Your own example even works against you.

No it does not. Even if it is the first amphibian to emerge from the sea, it had to have been a crippled fish for some time. Why was it, and all its progeny not eaten by the other REAL fish?

Your Natural Selection is just the Politically Correct name evolutionists (who love labels instead of real science) gave to the old adage "Nature red in tooth and claw). The driving force behind Natural Selection is still the competition for resources between species, no matter how you play the evolutionist's word games.

There are still no observed "transitional species." They are all just species in their own right. All else is just the evolutionist's viewpoint. A dedicated viewpoint that evolution MUST have happened, the alternative (Special Creation) is simply anathema to the evolutionist's mind. If you have a preconceived viewpoint then you will simply interpret any data you find to fit that viewpoint...an action of faith, not science!

The evolutionist fills in the very apparent gaps between species by his imagination, not by any physical evidence, nor by any formal mathematical treatment. If micro-evolution occurs, then we would see the slow change of a given protein such as hemoglobin from ape to man, i.e., The hemoglobin of apes should be closer in structure and amino acid chains to man, than say turtles. But it is not so! On a micro level there is no traceable evolutionary path. It is all made up by the mind of man, just because animals have a similar morphology does not mean they evolved from one to the other.

[Reuben Hick]

Any ancient fossil equivelants to modern mammals (horses, human, elephant, etc) are very different to the modern versions.

Just like a poodle is a "intermediate" to a Great Dane.

Secondly species appear throughout the fossil record, not in distinct creation events.

Creationists believe in a Global Flood which goes much further in explaining the instant appearance of fossils over the wacked out "theories" of evolution. When I go SCUBA diving, I don't see the bottom of the ocean littered with the fully intact bones of fish. Does this mean that fish never die? No, it means that evolutionists have never been outside and observed the fact that when fish die, they are consumed by other aquatic critters, not left to lie on the ocean floor undisturbed for thousands of years while waiting to get buried in sediment.

Thirdly there is a pattern of change of life over time - ie evolution

This is called "hurling elephants" when you take a complex issue and assume as fact that which needs to be proved.