This is nothing more than a fallacious Argument from Authority.
What matters is NOT the number of “PhD-ed scientists”, but whether these PhD-ed scientists can produce serious research either supporting “The Global Flood” (
at the pretentious capitalised definitive article, incidentally), or at least casting serious doubt on conventional geology.
Neller’s shtick of doing nothing more than producing vague “geobabble” videos for YEC apologetics ministries, does not count.
Nor does Nathaniel Jeanson’s absurd Traced.
Citation please!
Are there any “Creation-based laboratories and research centers”?
What we appear to have is mostly Creation-based apologetics ministries – ICR, CMI, AiG, etc. Lots of rhetoric – very little (if any) serious research or laboratory experiments.
This would first require a self-consistent model of “The Global Flood” ( again) that did not involve vaporising all life (“heat problem” again).
“More” would first require any evidence – which you have not provided to date.
Continued defense of Creationism requires either:
-
evidence of creation (which, per above, we’ve yet to see);
-
an audience that is sufficiently gullible and/or ignorant to be impressed by the usual Creationist dog and pony show (which this forum seems to be lacking in); or
-
a particular form of masochism (an example of which would be a couple of ID creationists on this forum – but no YECs exhibiting this pathology has presented as yet).
Given your track record of Sealioning on this thread, I don’t think that anybody would bother.
When we get further evidence that you’re wrong, you’ll simply conveniently forget that it was brought to your attention, gloss over it, and/or quibble over details, and then carry on as though nothing happened.