Uh, yeah. And just what should a transitional species look like, if not the two species it's transitional between? This is one of the funniest objections yet.
I remember one person who used to participate in these threads had a chart of skulls along with their classification by various creationists. There was very little agreement on whether a particular skull was ape or human--some would say one, some the other. But they all agreed that no way could any of them be transitional between ape and human--oh no, that was impossible!
If you have ever watched an engineer work you will see them reuse solutions over and over again. You could line their work up and claim it auto-evolved with the same kinds of evidence.
And when the things engineers make start reproducing on their own, that argument might start to make sense.
It's clear that God could have designed every animal we have fossils of individually, reusing parts He liked for whatever reason. And He could have designed little horses and then changed His mind and replaced them all with big horses. Or He could have never made little horses at all, but rather just made little horse skeletons and buried them just to tease us. Pick your story. But the idea that that's "science," while the careful matching of rock ages with the fossils they contain and the alignment of morphological trees with phylogenetic analysis isn't, is "laughable on its face."
Your missing the point -- that it resembles two species proves nothing. It is just an observation. I have met several people who look like me, but are not related.
And when the things engineers make start reproducing on their own, that argument might start to make sense.
No, then evolution would make sense. The point is that similarity does not always boil down to heredity.
But the idea that that's "science," while the careful matching of rock ages with the fossils they contain and the alignment of morphological trees with phylogenetic analysis isn't, is "laughable on its face."
Attacking other people's religion is a poor argument for your "science."