Which view makes sense of the fossil record ?

Faith claims - for reasons yet unstated - that the explanations offered by mainstream science for the fossil record are "weird" and "ridiculous".The purpose of this thread is to investigate the question of which is "weirder" and more "ridiculous" - Faith's explanations or those offered by science.As an opening point I want to consider the order of the fossil record.Faith has to sweep this under the carpet because it is so damning. Yet it is a pervasive feature of the fossil record as a whole and any explanation which ignores it or cannot reasonably account for it must be considered seriously deficient. It is not just crabs and trilobites, it is sauropods and hippopotami, dolphins and icthyosaurs, confucisornis and ravens and doves. And so many more.Even without considering evolution (which further helps explain the order) the view that the order in the fossil record is explained by change over time in the species inhabiting the Earth (i.e. different species at different times). There is nothing obviously unreasonable about this and further evidence only supports it.What alternative can Young Earth Creationism offer that is anything like as sensible ?

Thread copied to the Which view makes sense of the fossil record ? thread in the Creation/Evolution Miscellany forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.