I'll agree the trilobite was thrown in there to make a point. But you don't get backbones in the Cambrian. You don't even get internal skeletons per se. So how can you call it a "modern body plan?" About all you can say is that there are Cambrian organisms that are bilaterally symmetrical and have sense organs on one end. By that definition, I am identical in body plan to a flatworm.

The problem with Flood Geology, and the Creationism that it is but one part of, and the Scriptural teachings that Creationism is believed to fit into, is not that it isn't consistent within its own sphere.

Indeed, that sphere is extremely consistent. To summarize; "God did it." What ever the details, you can always look upwards to this Primium Mobile. And as for an evidentiary structure, the same is true "The Bible said it." Since the bible is inerrant, then the evidence is unquestionable. All that remains is details of interpretation.

No, the problem comes when you operate in an entirely different sphere; the scientific one, in which logic and evidence are the primary structure.

I have no problem with you saying "My belief is...." The problem lies when you attempt to distort science to make it agree with your belief.

It is a bit like looking through a secular work of fiction to find support for a particular biblical interpretation you want to make. Or finding support for your particular reading of a piece of Scripture by referencing a Hopi creation myth.

It is like using the rules of dramatic structure to critique the work of an auto mechanic. It is like using 1985 NEC electrical code to complain that the woodwind 1 book is wrong in an arrangement of Broadway show tunes.

If you want to play the science game, play the science game. No hand-waving allowed. No "....and then God steps in and fixes it and hides the evidence he was there."