You cannot replace something with nothing. Scientific explanations are useful and predictive. Creationism is useless for explaining or predicting the natural world - it is a mindset that leads nowhere and to nothing rather than prompting further innovation and discovery.
How did the marsupials all end up in Australia? How did all modern species descend from those few that could fit on a boat of known dimensions without extremely rapid and powerful evolution and common descent of species (within a “kind” that they cannot ever seem to define).
Add to that the mystery of Antarctica and plate tectonics.
It must be nice to have adherents that demand an ever higher and higher burden of evidence from the other side, but are content to never ask or answer the hard questions on their own side.
I agree with pretty much everything in your post.
I don’t care if a someone wants to believe the creation story in the Genesis is 100% factually correct. That’s a perfectly acceptable belief. It’s just you have to believe that when the universe, the earth and all the creatures on it where created, it was done with the appearance that it’s really billions of years old and that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on earth.
Because that’s really what all the facts (scientific observations) point too.
And that’s what frustrates me with a lot of creationists. Claiming that religious belief is actually supported by science when it couldn’t be further from the truth.
Indeed. I’d particularly like them to give a reasoned explanation for the Wallace Line (actually I’d like a reasoned explanation for anything but just this one will do for now).