There are no fossils that show the conversion of invertebrates into vertebrates, for instance, as evolution would demand were there to be any validity to the evolutionist’s argument.

The fossil record is one of the best arguments against evolution. In the modern world we see dogs and cats and bears and other kinds. In the fossil record, we also see dogs and cats and bears and other kinds, but not any in between forms. Evolution is not happening now and there are no indications that it ever has happened.  The meaning of the word, species, is nebulous and plainly does not have the same meaning as the word, kind. In fact, the meaning of the word, species, seems to change to suit the purpose. The word doesn’t have a consistent meaning, making speciation arguments silly. Evolutionists end up, for instance, with many different species of cat, but all of these species are variations of the animal kind, cat.

new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the ‘kind’, and involves no new genetic information. ~ creationontheweb.com

Polystrate tree fossils show evidence of the flood.  Evolutionist Derek Ager wrote this conflict-ridden statement:

"If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100 000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous.  Alternatively, if a 10 m tree were buried in 10 years, that would mean 1000 km in a million years or 10 000 km in 10 million years (i.e. the duration of the coal measures). This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous"

Notice that Derek goes against the very evidence that he observed.  This violates the rules of naturalistic science.  Actually, the rule of "evolutionism at all cost" superseded the rule of "follow the evidence."  He observed that the sedimentation was uniform and continuous, indicating rapid deposit over a short period of time.  Because of his evolutionistic dogma, he was forced to make a claim against the evidence or in spite of the evidence.  He claimed that there were long breaks in sedimentation, though the evidence showed the exact opposite.