Fossil evidence

Let us consider the fossil record.  Evolutionists point at sedimentary rock with fossils in them and say "Hey!, look at that, clearly we have proved evolution!"

Likewise, creationists like to point to the same rocks and say something completely different.
What am I doing?  I am showing evidence that evolution is not possible.  I am not saying you should believe in creation or in God.  I am simply saying evolution is bad science.  I am not defending creationism, I am only attacking evolution.  I would much rather have no theory and say "I don't know" than to believe in a theory merely because everyone else says it is true..

What is a fossil?
A fossil is an imprint made by a dead animal.  The animal itself rotted away a long time ago, and was replaced over time with minerals that hardened there and became part of the rock.  A fossil is formed when a creature (dead or alive) is covered in lots of mud, and quickly.  For a fossil to form, you need a LOT of pressure, and the animal must be covered really quickly.  Why?  Well let us consider what happens when an animal dies normally.  There are no burial parties in the animal kingdom.  If an animal dies, it invariably gets eaten by scavengers of all types.  If it does not get eaten, it lies on the surface of the earth and rots away.  The only way it can become a fossil is if it is covered by mud before it decomposes.  This presents a problem that is difficult to explain, because such mudslides do not happen that often.  And the sheer number of fossils in our rocks are way too numerous for all of them to have been made by localised mudslides.  But let us forget this problem for now, and assume that all dying animals do turn into fossils as a matter of course..

What do we typically find in the fossil record?
Besides the famous dinosours, we find fossils of lots of other animals, insects and plants.  Most of these species are the same or similiar to animals we have today.  Giraffes, hippos, antelope and whatnot.  We find relatively few humans, but they are there. 

What does fossils prove or not prove?
The mere existence of fossils does not prove evolution.  The only thing we can say with any certainty is that the fossil proves that an animal with that likeness was once alive and is now dead. 
What about dinosours?
People often think that the very existence of fossilized dinosour bones are proof of evolution.  Honestly, that is like finding a model T Ford in a scrapyard, and claiming that you have found proof of alien visitations.  Dinosour bones prove that dinosours once lived on earth, and since we don't see many of them around, they are now extinct.  Extinction proves nothing.
 
What do we expect the fossil record to look like if evolution is true?
Evolution teaches that all life evolved.  One species changes to another over millenia.
To take a simple example of the dolphin and whale family.  They say that cattle or pigs slowly changed into these water creatures over some millions of years.  If this is true, we would expect the fossil record to show us some examples of cows that are half dolphin.  In the deeper layers we should find normal cattle.  A bit higher up we should find cattle that have sprouted little bits of fins.  Go another few feet higher and they should have lost their hair.  Go higher still and the nostrils are moving up the head.  Etcetera etcetera..
In fact, we should not find any clearly defined species in the fossil record at all.  We should find a jumble of frankenstein creatures.  Nor should we have clearly defined species today, for that matter.  What do we find in the fossil record?  We find clearly defined species.  cows and sheep and alligators etc.  And interestingly, you could go to South Africa, and find fossils of say a cow, and then go to the USA and find fossils that look exactly the same.  The problem with clearly defined species is what the evolutionists refer to as "the missing link".  This is actually misleading.  They are not missing just one or two links.  They are missing ALL the links.  They are missing whole pieces of chain.  The idea during darwin's time was that in time we will unearth many more fossils and these would show the intermediate species that the theory insists must be there.  Today there exists in museums over 100 MILLION fossils, all identified and documented.  Out of all of these, they can only point to 2 or 3 fossils and claim intermediate species.  And there is a LOT of speculation about the authenticity of those 2 or 3...  (specifically the "archeopteryx")

What about the so-called "living fossils"?
In the 1980's, they caught living coelecanth specimens off the coast of Madagascar.  This is a huge problem again.  They were thought to have died out like 60 million years ago.  Why does the ones we caught now look exactly the same as the fossilized version?  in 60 million years it should have improved?