Years ago I read a piece of fiction called “The World of Chance”; apparently what I read was just a part of a longer novel, and I don’t remember all the details of the part I did read, but the basic concept was that a man starts to wish there was no God after some tragedy that he blames God for, and he gets his wish. But the “world without god” described makes no sense…and I mean that literally. It is “the world of chance”, meaning it is a world where impossible things are just as likely to happen as anything else. (And the impossible things are, by chance, all bad in order to promote the author’s view that a world without God would be horrible. Though, also by chance, the world was not completely uninhabitable for humans despite the fact that the vast majority of potential worlds would be, so it actually, unintentionally demonstrated something completely different.) In other words, it is a world defined not by the lack of a deity, but by the lack of physical laws.
And that association is completely baseless. In fact, isn’t it exactly the opposite? If there was an omnipotent deity that interacts with our world, then we might expect to see things that are “impossible” happen once in a while. While if there is nothing “supernatural”, then natural laws should be completely consistent. People who believe in miracles understand this, which just makes it even stranger that anyone would consider a lack of miracles to be evidence of God.
That brings me to the common creationist claim that there are no transitional fossils. The people who make this claim can be divided into two categories: people who are just unaware of actual transitional fossils, and people who have ridiculous ideas of what a “real” transitional form should look like. They imagine truly chimeric things; Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron specifically named and drew pictures of the crocoduck and the birddog, and claimed this was “exactly what evolutionists believe”.
Of course, the exact opposite is true. Not only does evolution not require any such creatures, but in fact it says anything like a crocoduck would be incredibly unlikely, and a birddog would be something that evolution couldn’t explain at all. (And again, I think creationists realize this on some level since they also like to claim the platypus is an actual chimera and evidence against evolution. The difference between this and the other case is that here, it is sometimes the exact same people who are making the completely contradictory arguments.) By contrast, creationism can explain anything (which is exactly why it’s useless); God could have created anything he wanted to. Meanwhile, creationism does not have any explanation for why creatures that evolution couldn’t explain don’t exist.