quote: What am I saying? I am saying for one part of the materialistic explanation (life's diversity), we would have to invoke millions of transitionals but if an animal kind was created then as creationists we don't have to assume millions of ancestors, so there are far more assumptions to that one part of the story.
Let's apply similar reasoning to ordinary human descent over the last 6000 years or so to avoid any argument over how long humans have been around. If you trace back your ancestry then eventually you will run out of records. Is it really more parsimonious to assume that the oldest ancestors you can trace were miraculously created rather than having parents of their own who themselves have parents tracing back over the entire period we are considering ?
I can't think so, nor do I think that the number of ancestors that have to be assumed makes much difference. Any number of ordinary human ancestors would - in the absence of evidence to the contrary - be more parsimonious than a single miraculous creation.