The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

I guess it would be a falsifiable Hypothesis that hasn't made it to theory status because it was already "fasified" so to speak.I hope to become a geologist and do my own research someday. I'll report back with evidence, until then i'll be over in the coffee house ))Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hi Percy, Well I read A LOT of you and TC's back and forth on the " what is good science" thread. WOW, what a discussion. Also read his "farewell" thread, interesting reading.So, im not sure how to take your statement...lol. You guys really seemed at odds with one another. I can see what you mean to a degree, although Chris seem's much more intelligent than I am.
I couldn't understand half his post's. Im not sure if he's a genuis and im an idiot or im a genuis and he's an idiot. Either way it was too deep for me. I did recognize that TC was about Philosophy as much as he was about Science. I also know the two do not generally mix to well together(as Crashfrog correctly pointed out).I hadn't realized how much CPT has been brought up here in the forums. I actually brought it up a few times myself in this thread. Im glad I stopped, after reading the links you provided nothing I had to say would have added to the discussion that already took place. In no way am I as familiar with CPT as TC was and see I was heading down the philosophy road myself. I suppose a lot of Creationists do this not knowing it. Most of us are not from Science backrounds and sometimes have a blurred view of the two. Im trying my best to fit Creationism into Science but keep running into problems. I've only been at it (the "debate") for a little over a year or so. Im fairly new to the whole thing. The points I bring up have been discussed thousands of times. Im amazed the debate has lasted so long. I say this with as much respect as I can, the only reason this debate has lasted so long is because of the long line of ignorant Creationists that come here that havn't or don't want to realise that Creationism in it's current form doesn't fit into the Scientific method. So when people like myself are new to the whole thing we don't realise this right off the bat. It's like boot camp and you guys are the drill sergants, another crop of creationists every couple months, but that's what keeps the debate alive. Im not conceding that Creationism is wrong, it's just not Scientific in it's current form. So now what? I think a lot of Creation Scientists are lazy because they "know" their right and therefore don't see a need to put forth the effort to try to mold it around the Scientific method. Something needs to change.Anyway, if it's a compliment thanks. After reading the dialogue between you two it's hard to speculate. Here's what I think your train of thought is. Chris had a "misdirected" albiet sincere passion for what he believed and didn't know exactly how to relate that to the Scientific method. He mixed Philosophy with Science to much (which is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole) looking for Scientific results. Yet, he was a bright kid with a lot of potential and at times saw the error of His ways. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Of course I don't mind Zen and thanks Taq. I have a "knack" for getting into subjects that sometimes im not too familiar with based on things i've read or heard. I not quiting, im just at a stale mate as to where this whole debate is. The more I read the more I understand I shouldn't be debating this. I think I threw myself into the discussions to fast. I was pretty much arguing my "ideas" as opposed to Science. Maybe Creationism should be seperate from Science all together. If someone wants to learn what Creationism is then they can any time they want, and based on what they read/learn can determine which way to go.I guess the whole thing boils down to Science VS Creationism. I suppose the two can just exist seperatly. If we didn't try to impose on Science so much we wouldn't get half the flack we do. On the other hand, if a Creationism can come up with a plausable theory of it's own that would be great. If not, then we just seperate the two and people can decide on there own. I know this doesn't make sense to either of you as you're saying "CHUCK, people will choose the evidence EVERY time, Creationism has none, what's that tell you! How hard is this to figure out!" Yeah, I hear ya, but as crazy as it sounds I do believe that Creation is the result of a Creator as the Bible says. (sorry for mentioning the Bible, im confused on where this thread is heading or what I should/can say). it's just to hard for me to imagine that TOE and the big bang occured(or is occuring). Im more of an ID'ist I suppose(I know what your gonna say) it seems logical to me that we were designed (as your saying it seems logical to follow the evidence). As for the flood, well, I can't say. Like I said, Im giving up arguing it but not totally abandoning it.This is probably really off topic but Im not sure of the topic anymore...lol.BTW, im not saying that ID is anymore "Scientific" than Creationsim but I do happen to think it is a little more "progressed" so to speak than Creationism. I know some/a lot think they are the same but that's a discussion for another thread.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hi TrueCreation, i've heard "a lot" about you. Nice to "meet" you.So, if you've read back a little ways, maybe you've seen me try to make a case for CPT some. althought not as detailed as you. It's come a long way since you've been here.Do you have anything new to add concerning CPT? Or have you totally abandon CPT?