And indeed, I'd be further interested in the non-plate-tectonics non-evolutionary explanation of why marsupial fossils are found in antarctica as well as australasia (but nowhere else). Hint to the creationists: ToE in combination with plate-tectonics predicted marsupial fossils would be found on Antarctica, and they were. "Creation Science" has a very poor (non-existent) record of that kind of startling succesful prediction.
Indeed, it's that very type of extremely counter-intuitive prediction that really lends credence to a theory. After all, before the theories of evolution and plate techtonics, who would have expected to find fossils of animals on an icy continent like Antarctica? Other examples of this abound. My personal favorite is a model of diffraction of light proposed by Fresnel. His model predicted that if coherent light were shined on a very small circular obstacle, that the diffraction pattern thus produced would result in a bright spot right in the middle of the shadow of the disk. Contemporaries laughed at his model. That is until the experiment was performed and the bright spot appeared right where it was predicted.
I predict that if a creationist con-man (but I repeat myself!) writes yet another creationist book, it will be purchased by a large number of idiots.