The "Darwin's finches" of the Galapgos aren't even classified as a single genus, to use just one example. Please provide evidence that they are the same as a mainland species.
And I am afraid that you are wrong to claim that there is no evidence of past drift rates. In fact the evidence is that drift rates have been largely constant for a long time (see
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/CT.htm which has been discussed here before), and even though there have been times when rates were faster, there is no evidence that they have been anywehre near as fast as the "Flood" scenarios require. (You do realise that we are talking about rates at least 6 or more orders of magnitude - and that 6 orders of magnitudes is 1 MILLION tiems faster ? - so where is the evidence of THAT ?)
Moroever your claim about marsupials is simple invention. Why the shortage of placental mammals in Australia ? Surely SOME must have made it through in your scenario. Your idea is not even a plausible explanation.
And I am really amazed that you shoulsd have to ask what facts you denied when I explicitly told you. You deny the fact that unique sepcies are often found on islands (the more isolated the better).
And when I refute your claim that the predominance of marine fossils is evidence for the Flood by pointing to mainstream explanations you simply ask how they disprove the Flood. And no, the observation is NOT so "very compatible" with the Flood - the Flood maintains that there were unusually good conditions for the preservation of land life and so the Flood should produce a balance LESS weighted towards marine life.
In the previous discussion you DENIED claiming that fossil marine life was "dug up" from the bottom (i.e. unburied). But if you are committed to rapid burial at the most you can claim that the fossils were buried, dug up and rapidly reburied. If they were being churned around for an entire year - as is required unless you accept they were dug up - then they were certainly not rapidly buried. And I really don't see how you can fail to remember discussing the marine strata at the site, preceding and following the dinosaur remains.
Finally, creationists aren't looking for a "plausible explanation" for the Flood. They are looking for a plausible explanation for the geological record. Trying to explain such a huge amount fo geology in terms of the Flood is an impediment to producing a "plausible" Flood story - but to explain geology in terms of a Young Earth they have only two real choices. Either assume Omphalism - that God HAD to plant fake fossils and rocks with false radiometric ages - or try to explain it all in terms of a Flood, despite the fact that the vast majority of the geological column looks quite unlike a flood deposit.
™ Version 4.2
