This answer is slightly at a tangent, because I'm not a creationist.

But it's interesting (and ironic) to note that the mainstream evolutionary branch of the scientific community is equally unable to explain the fossil record, as current theory stands. It represents something of an embarrassment actually, which is the reason that scientists will tend not to use it as an argument against creationists (despite the fact that - as you point out - it seems to be a bit of a clincher).

The problem is that the fossil record does not provide good evidence for a process of gradual evolution from one species to another, and indeed provides increasingly strong evidence against it, as there is a distinct and un-get-roundable lack of transitional forms between the recognised species.

There is an interesting & thought-provoking article here:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18132/artic...

from someone who is in neither camp - although he definitely has an agenda of his own...