The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

A good find.They had a way with words in those days...

Sorry folks. It's not a falsifiable theory so I can defend it. I tried and failed. Hopefully someday they'll find the ark or something or the bones of Noah who knows, for now I admit I have no proof but it was fun "debating" with you all. Im in over my head and obviously look like a fool arguing my points.Im going to try to stick with things I have a better grasp on, this NOT being one of them. Sorry for wasting everyones time, but thanks for amusing me anyway.

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.

If your desire to become a geologist stems from a burning desire to know how the Earth came to be the way it is today, then go for it. But if it stems from a burning desire to prove the literal truth of the Genesis account of creation in the Bible then don't waste your life. Evidence that the Earth is only 6000 years old would be copious and obvious and everywhere, not tiny and subtle and impossibly hidden yet so immensely powerful that it overcomes all other evidence to the contrary.You remind me a little of TrueCreation, now inactive. He designed our logo. I think he was 14 when he joined in 2002. Here's his farewell thread: I bid farewell (CPT is Catastrophic Plate Tectonics, a creationist idea that appealed to him).TrueCreation didn't wait to learn geology, he dove into the technical literature in his mid-teens. There's no need to wait.--Percy

If you don't mind me saying so, Chuck, this would be a terrible time for you to quit. Feeling like you're in over your head just means that you're ready to learn something, and the best learner is one who's willing to look like a fool when exploring something new. Sometimes painful, but true.

Actually, this is the least foolish thing you have posted on these forums. Discovering ignorance is a good thing. Wallowing in ignorance is a bad thing. Sadly, many creationists prefer the latter. I have high hopes that you will opt for the former.

Just for your information, there's a "gen(eral) reply" button at the top right of every thread. You can use it when you are responding to noone in particuliar.

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.

My impression is that he recognized the invalidity of his previous young Earth creationist (YEC) geologic positions, but was reluctant to completely abandon them. His later messages became quite murky and in general difficult to follow (and I have a geology degree).MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Change ID.

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.

IT’S A WEARYING BUSINESS, ARGUING WITH CREATIONISTS. BASICALLY, IT IS A GAME OF WHACK-A-MOLE. THEY MAKE AN ARGUMENT, YOU WHACK IT DOWN. THEY MAKE A SECOND, YOU WHACK IT DOWN. THEY MAKE A THIRD, YOU WHACK IT DOWN. SO THEY MAKE THE FIRST ARGUMENT AGAIN. -- John DerbyshireSorry, I forgot to add that this is the main reason for referring "new" creationists to old threads. It's not worth going through all those PRATTS, again.Edited by Pressie, : Added last paragraph

That's the whole point. You see, Chuck77, creationism is completely separate from science, altogether.Even if some people try to call it 'creation science'. They mislead people, because even that name is an oxymoron. Creationists pretend to do science by using sciency sounding words. That's it. Why do you think not even one scientific organization in the world has ever recognized 'creation science' as science?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Fixed spelling mistakeEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Actually ID is nothing but Creationism that was repackaged in an attempt to fool the courts.You're headed in the right direction IMHO, and speaking as one Christian to another, keep questioning, keep challenging.If it helps you during this maturing process, understand that Science is simply "How God did it."Creationism though, and Intelligent Design, are absolutely nothing but a Carny Con Job.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I would strongly suggest that you read this essay written by Glenn Morton. He went from being a young earth creationist to an old earth creationist due to his work in the field of geology.There is one aspect that may conflict with your "two camp" idea. There is a real world out there, and we have to use some type of theory to make sense of it. As Glenn Morton put it in the essay above:

quote:

---

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

​

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

​

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

---

Well, that depends on what you mean by creationism. If you mean it in the broad sense that (as you put it) "Creation is the result of a Creator", then science and creationism are reconcilable --- creationism would tell you that God made the universe, and science would tell you what sort of a universe he made.But when creationists go further than that and start insisting on a young earth and fiat creation of species to fit in with their interpretation of the Bible, that's when things get messy. Science and creationism can't just "exist separately" because they're trying to occupy the same space. The only way to be a happy creationist in this narrower sense is if your pastor tells you that science has proved creationists right, and if you never investigate further and find out that this isn't true.