Christian answering questions.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

A vacuum has to be created in a lab or some place it can be contained and protected, it doesn't naturally occur in nature. I've pulled hundreds of them.
The protection of the lab can and will skew the results of a test when the thing being tested occurred in nature and it's destructive ability. I didn't have to read the article I've seen an over view of it, the 100 million years was a rounded number also. 

Are you serious right now? Space is a vacuum. Almost everything in the universe is a vacuum. However, I'll assume you meant "on the earth", rather than "in nature". That shows you're missing the entire point of doing an experiment in a lab. Experiments are designed to eliminate as many variables as possible, so that we can ask a single question and demonstrate it as true or false. The vacuum is created to remove the additional variable of atmospheric pressure, which is why a feather would fall much more slowly than a BB shot of the same weight. In order to test whether gravity impacts everything equally, you must eliminate the variable. That's why the lab produces the artificial (for earth) environment. It would be just as possible to take a feather and a BB up into space and drop them from above the atmosphere, and measure that. Much easier to just pump the air out of a tube and do the experiment that way. Labs cannot make magic happen; they can only duplicate what is found in nature. It's not like the laws of physics and biochemistry are suspended because a lab experiment is going on.

With the bone gone and fossilization taken place how is it that those red blood cells could have been protected from what destroyed the hard bone. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm saying that there's another reason for what happened, do I have the answer no I do not. What I do know is the red blood cells could not have lasted 68 million years. Scientist wouldn't have to break open fossils they could drill holes in them and extract anything if there is anything to extract. 

Bones are replaced by minerals over a slow process, in which minerals react with the calcium in the bones, to form a new type of rock. Clearly, that process does not impact the iron-preserved cells, if they're encased in enough fossilized bone-rock, as was the marrow in question here. However, her team reported that it took very specific conditions to cause that to occur. Unless we have reason to suspect that another fossil was produced in the same exact sort of scenario, there's no reason to go around randomly drilling holes, to look for marrow. I would like to emphasize, again, how rare and precious each of those bones is considered to be by the scientific community.

By the way, even if the earth was 6000 years old, and fossilization occurred just as quickly as you're proposing must be the case, there would still be plenty of time for the destructive processes you describe to destroy the fossil and its contents, unless the fossil was in the same sort of protected environment... perhaps buried in a mudslide, or under volcanic ash (I don't recall what the scenario was for this particular fossil), but not lying about on the surface as you seem to be imagining. That's what makes fossils rare-- most of the time, they're consumed by nature, as you describe. But not always. And conditions on this globe vary widely.

Edit to Add: By the way, to show you're wrong about everything being consumed by nature, consider this fossilized proto-bird:

Whether the story is true or an analogy it doesn't represent a relationship with Christ, not if you truly knew Him. Christ want forsake those who are truly His. This is a simple fact that can't be put any simpler nor can it be put in a more any other way, it's the truth. Man/ woman are not trust worth, we've proven this time and again, to completely rely on them can be a foolish action, yes there are a few who might be completely trust worthy, but very few.

Well, the story happens to be true AND an analogy. I'm not drawing a perfect parallel with "a relationship with Christ", as you call it, I'm talking about believing something with your whole heart and then later learning something which tells you that your heart misled you into false beliefs. Can you seriously not even ponder the possibility that it's all in your head, and that your "relationship" is with an imaginary friend... in other words, with your own psyche?

 Like coal can be formed in a very short time, proven by Christian scientist, refusal of belief by the scientist who are against short term anything. These scientist know that a short creation time would end their careers and the money for their research. Protecting their lively hood is more important than the truth.
The denial of creation by any Christian is to say God has no sovereignty, that He is a liar and I can't believe anyone would want to be a Christian of such a God, how could one trust Him.

I know scientist also, my previous pastor was a nuclear scientist and his son also, his son is brilliant and both believe in creation as the Bible tells it. I know others that fell the same way, and I doubt that there are hundreds of thousands of Christians evolutionary biologist.

GC

Ahhhh, the old conspiracy theory comes out. Yes, it's possible for oil to form more rapidly than was once thought, but we can still date it based on the radioisotopes contained therein (yes, I know you doubt this method, but I don't care) and see the geological ages from which it comes. It was not a "Christian scientist" who pointed it out, originally, but a regular geologist working for an oil company. But if you read the version produced by your Creationist propaganda sites, they omit the parts of his reports that detailed how we know that some of it is old and some of it is new. Coal is even more shaky of a claim for you, since we can see the coal veins deposited in geological layers that predictably and uniformly fit with the ages in which geologists claim it was formed. Despite what AiG claims, there is no way a flood would leave the layers in the strata they are found, nor form the rocks in the way they claim. None of their claims stand up to examination, and their use of "quote-mining" from real scientific articles to try to prop up their agenda isn't worthy of even acknowledging.

As to scientists who are also Christians, there have been a couple of major surveys on the subject, with similar results, spread out over almost a century:
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scien...nd-belief/

You might want to carefully consider the words of a man like geneticist and priest Francis Ayala, as well:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...evolution/