You responded to my comment, "Sorry to "butt in" but isn't it the onus on
you to show that these analyses support your theory? I thought that it was
the task of a challenger to argue his (or her) case using published
information or information obtained by the challenger."
with the following: "I have yet to hear of any reason why Creationary
Catastrophism is a challenge to the any of those scientific inquiries."
Note that I used the word "theory." Scientists base their theories on
information obtained in the process of investigating nature. These theories
may or may not be correct but they should be internally and externally
consistent. If I don't agree with their theory, I have the opportunity and
the responsibility to suggest an alternative explanation and theory. In
that way, I challenge their conclusions. IOW, it is not sufficient to say
that their interpretation is incorrect or that their theory is pure bunk. I
have to use their data as well as other published data, or my own, to come
up with an alternative explanation. It may be a lot of work, but that's
life. In your particular case, then, should you not publish your theory and
back it up with information obtained by you and others or show the flaws in
somebody else's theory?
Am I missing something here?