I see that you are still fulfilling my prophecies about your posting behavior. So let it be written, so let it be done. You worship whatever can do that, don't you? You keep referring to similar biblical prophecy about unbelievers and scoffers as if it were evidence that its words are of divine provenance. I think my track record is better.
And the theory is doing fine, but the churches are emptying. You might be misidentifying which isms are in crisis.
Science has shown that that is incorrect, and it has the only say in scientific matters. Creationists and their objections have no standing outside of their Sunday schools and web sites. But don't feel picked on. Neither do I. The experts don't care any more that I happen to agree with them than they do that the creationists don't.
It's amazing that a creationist would know that. How does that comport with your young earth creationism? How did they get higher?
The answer is contained in your previous comment - they were once sea floors uplifted by colliding tectonic plates.
This finding is likely why the flood story exists. Think about it. How do you account for those shells and other marine fossils if you are an ancient who doesn't understand where the rain comes from and who believes that his world is ruled by a good, loving, tri-omni god? Go ahead. Explain marine fossils on the highest mountaintops if you're not as sophisticated as you are and thus unaware that mountains rise. You're going to end up with a global flood, and it's going to be a just punishment for sin as usual.
And look at how defamatory to the deity's intellect and morals the story they had to come up with was. A global flood is an extremely cruel and inefficient way for a tri-omni god to correct the problem of a sinful race of humans - it's own engineering error. And pretty bone-headed to use the same breeding stock to replenish the earth. But what else can you come up with under the circumstances?
No, it's YOU who has no answers.
You don't know, do you? Yet you use the idea that there are incompletely answered questions as an implied ignorantium argument. Hello! It seems that only you have difficulty seeing that you are arguing against your own beliefs with that argument as well.
There are scientific methods that you can learn about if you'll make the effort. This is not how. You'd need to get yourself a foundation in the sciences at a university if you aren't an autodidact.
Of course not. You're a creationist. You go along with the ones you've never heard of and know nothing about but disagree with the ones that apologetics sources say contradict Christian doctrine without understanding them, either. If you think that's wrong or unfair, and you're correct, you should be able to falsify it. Of course, if I am correct, you cannot falsify the claim. Good luck.
Yes, I can, and if you'd like to understand, read some science. Read Weinberg's The First Three Minutes:
"After giving the reader a basis of understanding of astrophysics and particle physics, in chapter 5, Weinberg lays out the makeup of the Universe after its origin in a series of frozen frames. Weinberg shows how the Big Bang can account for the relative abundance of Hydrogen and Helium in the universe." The First Three Minutes - Wikipedia
Change your mind about learning? No problem. The known answers aren't there for those who don't seek them diligently. If you change your mind again, get yourself a copy of the aforementioned book.
Thanks. to you and subduction zone. 
