If you were married for fifty years and had never found any evidence to suspect your wife was cheating on you, you would have good grounds to have faith in the proposition "My wife has never cheated on me". If, on the other hand, you find several pictures of her having her brains screwed out by some fat dude, you would not have good grounds to have faith that proposition.
To make an accurate comparison to how Christians are with God, well, geez, I dunno. It'd be like if she had a brat 4 months after you first banged her. And for those 50 years, you had come home several nights a week to the sound of her moaning. And you had walked in on them more times than you could count. And several times, they decided to just keep going anyway. But you had so much faith in her, you just came into the room and sat on the bed next to them while they did it, utterly oblivious, as he drained his load into her right next to you, called you an idiot, and incredulously snapped his fingers in front of your face. But you had already snoozed off by that point, having dreams of how lucky you were to have such good reason to have faith in your wife, more reason than any other husband in the world, and how great and awesome it was that you had this faith, and how stupid the guy next door was to merely rely on evidence to back his faith in his wife while you simply had pure faith.
There are many transitional fossils. Obviously, we cannot have an infinite level of resolution, but if you can seriously look at the fossil record and still deny that there's any pattern, you're an idiot. How much resolution would be good for you? Do you need a fossil of the animal in ten second increments for the million or two years it's going to have to take? Really, it seems that when science discovers a missing link, creationists discover two more gaps. And really, Dixie. This is not a controversial proposition. Even most religious people believe this is how God did it. The only alternative is literal creationism, and only crazy people believe that. It has no support in science. Essentially no one who dedicates their life to finding out how life works on this Earth supports the proposition that all species were created in their present form some thousands of years ago, and that "cross-species" evolution is impossible.
What do you even mean by "cross-species"? Species is a taxanomic definition. Do you think that when things diverged far enough that there outside of the definition humans had put them in, they sort of hit a brick will and can't go any further in that direction? I mean, how the fuck are going to explain such a pattern, and the many patterns that are like it, otherwise? Oh, species just randomly appear for no reason, getting closer and closer in appearance to modern specimens, by total chance? For the past few millions of years, various species of hominids have popped up that just appear to be more and more closely related to modern humans, but there's no chance that they could've evolved like that.
Science doesn't have to specifically recreate everything in a fucking lab to make any truth claims about the subject. That's stupid, again, another invention on your part. Why aren't you drawing similar criticism to the field of astronomy? I mean, obviously, they're never going to be able to create a star, or observe one through it's entire lifespan. They're in a way worse boat than biology is, aren't they? Unfortunately for you, they have common fucking sense. Their job is to find shit out, not obey the limits on their ability to claim they've found something out that some dumbass redneck from Alabama places on them.
