Hebrews 11:1
11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
NAS
I will repeat I do not need to debunk evolutionary biology to defend or justify my faith. On the other hand atheists who feel threatened by faith in an intelligent designer ignore the fact that their belief in evolutionary biology is based in the "assurance of things hope for" and "the conviction of things not seen".
In fact your own words are an indication of your "faith". You appeal to parsimonious mechanisms that are evident in speciation but have not been observed in evolution as a criteria to disprove ID, which is method of interpreting science not a scientific discipline based on theories. Theories can be disproved with negative evidence, which is part of the scientific method.
You attempt to disprove Noah's ark is dismal to say the least. You see Pigblood you are adding to what was recorded. Noah took "kinds of animals" onto the ark, he did not take kinds of insects. Why is it atheists have to lie in their attempts to denigrate what they don't understand? Also your link does not prove anything since how animals are classified has expanded and changed over time and will most likely change in the future. The finch is a good example since speciation in the finch only takes a several generations not vast amounts of time.
The term Darwin's Finches was first applied in 1936, and popularized in 1947 by David Lack. Later, Peter and Rosemary Grant conducted extensive research in documenting evolutionary change among the finches. Beginning in 1973, the pair spent many years tracking thousands of individual finches across several generations,
showing how individual species changed in response to environmental changes. The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner is a book about the finches, highlighting the Grants' research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches
What you have chosen to ignore or are ignorant of is the fact that all dating methods involve use "c" as a defined constant.
Setterfield: Between 1880 and 1941 there were over 50 articles in the journal Nature alone addressing the topic of the decline in the actual measured values of lightspeed ( c). For example in 1931, after listing the four most recent determinations of c, De Bray commented in Nature "If the velocity of light is constant, how is it that, invariably, new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained ...? There are twenty-two coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light, while there is not a single one against it" (his emphasis). The interest was world-wide, and included the French, English, American, German and Russians. In addition, these discussions included some consideration of the fate of the newly developing concept of relativity if c were not a constant.
The whole discussion was brought to a close in August of 1941 by Professor R. T. Birge in an article dealing with the changing values of the atomic constants "With special reference to the speed of light" as the title stated. Birge's first paragraph raised many questions. In part it read:
"This article is being written upon request, and at this time upon request.... Any belief in a change in the physical constants of nature is contrary to the spirit of science" (his emphasis) [Reports on Progress in Physics (Vol. 8, pp.90-100, 1941)]. Although this article effectively closed the whole discussion, the data trend continued. This was documented in our 1987 Report.
http://www.setterfield.org/history.htm#before1941
BTW, I will save you the trouble of linking to sites that try to debunk Setterfield since I have read them. What is telling is that most attempts to refute Setterfield denigrate into character assassination while avoiding discussing the data.