> Here is the thing. I have found some success in getting lots of YECs to
> admit that the term 'scientific creationist' is erroneous because they
> don't use science.
If YEC's don't use science, then neither do evolutionists.
> And frankly if a person wants to say that the Flood
> occurred totally miraculously with no scientific evidence for it, then
> there is nothing wrong with that.
But Glenn, how about Carboniferous coals, which cover portions of every
continent? You yourself publically admitted that it is easier for you
to envision the Pittsburg coal (which is typical) as having settled out
of water than having formed as a swamp deposit. If you want to maintian
that coal is not evidence of a global flood because coal deposits are
not found on the deep ocean bottom (where the organics would have
dispersed anyway before collecting in an organic mat on the bottom
hundreds or thousands of feet below the surface), then OK, but you
should at least say that evidence is present indicating that significant
portions of all of the continents were submerged during the same period
and collecting organics underwater.
> But when they do that, they can't then
> claim to have an alternative scientific theory.
But, when you do that, you can't claim to have the only sicentific