All fossils show fully formed creatures that were deposited after the flood. No fossil shows a species changing into a completely new species of animal. They have found out of place artifacts such as a hammer in strata dated to be "millions of years" and they assume it shouldn't be there because hammers weren't around millions of years ago. yet, they assume the fossils are millions of years old, unlike the hammer.
I apologise for being late to this thread but I could not pass by the references to
(i) The “amazing hammer”
(ii) The lack of transitional fossils
1. The amazing hammer is not amazing. http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=315
The rock around it is sandstone. Sandstone can be produced commercially and the age of the granules does not indicate the age that a piece of rock was created. The age of a stratum of sandstone is judged by the composition, density, and weathering and by comparison with other layers around it.
It is quite easy to take an object, e.g. a Sony Walkman, and coat it with sandstone. The quick formation of sandstone in nature is well-known.
The finder has nothing to show that it was indeed found where he claims it was, particularly, there is nothing to show the stratum from which it allegedly came.
The hammer in question is, by its style, dated to c. 1880. It is a specialised item known as a swage hammer and used for cold-forming metal. The rock around it is therefore not more than ~130 years old. There is a photograph of a recent example at a further link on the site above.
The owner of the hammer refuses to have any part carbon dated or dated by any other radio isotope. He also refuses to have the tree rings in the wood dated. The hammer forms a star attraction at a profitable creationist museum.
The hammer is typical of the faked objects found at fairground/freak-show attractions of the late 19th/early 20th century when the gullibility of the people was greater than today (or, in some cases, not.)
2. Transitional fossils can be seen at most of the major national museums.