I think you have misunderstood the creationist argument. Evolutionists are always challenging creationists to come up with new data but this isn't the problem that faces creationists.
Actually, I'd say the problem for creationists is coming up with ANY data that is meaningful. For instance, the oldest tree on earth tells you nothing about the age of the earth, and yet we hear this argument all the time.
It's interpretation of the existing data.
Nonsense. YECs ignore data all the time. Radiometric dating, for instance.
The claim is that the data doesn't actually SUPPORT evolutionism, it can merely be more or less plausibly fitted into the concept.
No. The concept is fit to the data. That is what a theory does. It explains a set of data. Whether the data are complete or not, a theory explains the evidence we DO know and not the evidence that we don't know.
The fossil record LOOKS like plausible evidence for evolution but it can't be tested or falsified, it simply remains a plausible inference.
Nonsense. It 'looks plausible' because it is based on the data. Additional data could, if you were correct, falsify the explanation. This has not yet happened.
To a YEC the fossil record looks like plausible evidence for a humungous flood.
Here is your problem. To you the evidence is plausible. Actually, it is the scenario that is plausible or not. You have clearly arrived at your conclusion before the 'plausible evidence' is even considered.
This too can't be tested or falsified. I'm not sure how the ID people deal with the fossils. In any case, all we can do is battle plausibilities back and forth -- and let me hasten to concede that the evolutionists are ahead in the plausibilities war.
So, you agree that the theory of evolution is more plausible than YEC?
™ Version 4.2
