I preface my comments by saying that I'm in agreement with Robert on this issue. IMHO, creationism is excremental pseudoscience. There is more than sufficient empirical evidence supporting the scientific principle of biological evolution through random selection that it's basic validity can no longer be in doubt (I deliberately avoid use of the word "theory").

Preamble aside, it is my understanding the process of preserving fossils is rather freakish, i.e. the dinosaur gets caught in a flood, it's corpse sinks to the bottom of a river where it is covered with mud. Most creatures that die in the open have their flesh and bones torn to pieces by scavangers so there is nothing left to fossilize. Consequently the fossil record is very patchy.

The camera eye and flight capacity of birds are essentially nonsense issues in terms of arguing against evolution. The use of these concepts along with the bogus misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics really show a poor understanding of science by Creationists. However IMHO there is one bit of fossil record that is tough for scientific advocates of evolution to argue around, namely trilobites. Trilobites are very complex animals but lived during the Cambrian era. In terms of the fossil record they seem to appear out of no where (as if they fell out of a flying saucer). I don't doubt there is a logical scientific explanation for them but I don't know what it is.

Gary