If evolution does indeed operate over millions to billions of years, is their not supposed to be over at least a million (which there isn't) transitional fossils per species? Evolutionists claim that the process is in fact very slow and very minuet, but all atheistic archeologists can find are only an acclaimed few for a specific set for a particular species, humans. Is that not suspiciously convenient? Even Darwin doubted as to the origin of these small minuet changes that were acclaimed to be caused by the present environmental hazards he assumed to be affecting their biology, saying, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory" ([i]On the Origin of Species[/i], Chapter 6). The study of abiogenesis (the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.) doesn't even have a conclusion as to the manifestation of organic life from non-organic material, or even a conclusion as to the necessity and development of intelligence (for only one species) and complexity.

There are millions of fossils that have been found over the years spanning 2.4 billion years of evolution. That number is widely agreed upon in science. At the time of Darwin, this vast history of the earth was unknown. They did not have an idea because they did not have carbon dating yet. Today we do. Did you take a Molecular Genetics class, Not about mendel and darwin but dealing with replication and mutations?

[quote]There are millions of fossils that have been found over the years spanning 2.4 billion years of evolution.[/quote]Yet evolutionist can't find a set of over a million transitional forms for even one species.

A million forms for 1 species? Thats asking too much considering how many species there are and how rare it is for an organism to form a fossil

Even over millions of years, it should be more than abundant.

Why? Explain.

Millions to billions of years of life should have been more than enough time for the earth to possess at least one species (it doesn't have to be humans) with its fossilized transitional forms.

The chance of an animal making a fossil is too small to expect this

You know what's a smaller chance? The creation of life on a planet out of nothing without a cause, and all evolutionists love to preach that it has happened over millions to billions of years, but the number of fossils begs to disagree, even if producing a fossil is a small chance.

I dont think the number of fossils disagrees