Christian answering questions.

[Godscreated]

---

Of coarse I meant here on earth, I know space is a vacuum, I'm not stupid and don't attempt to make me seem I am. A person who has pulled as many vacuums as I have would necessarily have to know such things to be qualified to pull vacuums. I don't know what the fuses about, all I was pointing out was a lab is a sanitary not destructive place and can't reproduces the effects the natural processes of nature's produces, these processes can effect a process not able to be seen in the lab. Believe me I understand what you're saying, I just do not agree it represents what happens in nature. I think we've said enough on this, let's move on.

---

Okay. I actually didn't know if that's what you meant, but frankly your grasp on real science is so frail that I didn't want to assume, when you said vacuums don't occur in nature. I don't think we're ready to "move on", however. A lab is far from a sanitary place, unless recently sterilized. It's possible to do several things to sterilize surfaces/containers, but there's no reason to do so if the purpose of your experiment is to find out what happens "in nature", as you put it. The whole reason Peer Review exists is so any scientist who publishes results that include improper methodology will be called out for it by other scientists. Conducting an experiment designed to test natural conditions and then failing to duplicate those conditions in the experiment would be a giant red flag. No one would have allowed that crap to be published, let alone cited. You're creating a straw-man version of science so you can comfortably ignore its findings. Please try not to do that!

Sanitary compared to outdoor environment, nature is a cruel place at times. Tell me how was she able to produces 63 million years of nature doing it's thing in a lab.

Seems to me nature did a good job of destroying this animal, no muscle, no bone, no feathers and ect, just a picture of the past, natures destruction at it's best all of what this animal was was returned to the ground.

"A picture of the past"? Wha? Those *are* the bones of the creature, transformed into stone by a slow leeching process after it is encased in sediment. You can also see the feathers, clear as day, also transformed into stone. As you noted, the soft parts are destroyed by bacteria, but the bones and other hard bits remained long enough to be fossilized. That's why most fossils are just skeletons. However, under the particular (rare) conditions described by Schweitzer and her team, it appears that soft bits encased in the really thick femur bones can be preserved by the iron in the blood that's in the marrow. She then discovered a mechanism by which that could happen. But there's more! We can even see, with more modern scanning technology, what color some of the feathers of those pre-bird lizards (theropods) were, because some of the pigments that made up the feathers are also preserved.

Yes a picture, lets say with texture. The bone is gone and the stone is an image of the bones and feathers.

---

Were they really false or did you let you head override what you suspected as the truth. If you didn't have a personal relationship with Christ then just maybe you were not saved. You see this is my short story, I have a personal relationship with Christ I know without a doubt that He is real, He's proven this to me time and again leaving no doubts as He promised. I've seen God in action to many times for it to be a delusion or what ever you want to call it. I would think by now you would have seen that my knowledge of God is real and that I can't be swayed in another direction. By the way do you give your wife such a hard time, I wouldn't think so since you're still married.

---

My wife is an evolutionary biologist, who works in a genetics lab. She has sat here at my side on numerous occasions and laughed at some of the Creationist claims she reads, then lamented that Christians like you make the rest of them look bad. No, I don't mock her for her religion. I don't mock anyone for their religion. I mock people who make ridiculous and inaccurate claims in the defense of their religion.

I'm glad to hear that. I'm not going to get into what I believe about theistic evolutionist other than they takes away God's sovereignty.   

---

 I'm only going to address the flood here, you can't possibly know how the world wide flood effected the earth, this flood as the Bible describes it was from below and above, tearing the earth apart and then rearranging it. No amount of theory or speculation could possibly come close to discounting it. There's one thing for sure this flood can not be recreated in a lab or nature so it can't be observed again and the ones who lived through it are gone so we can't ask them. So I will believe what I will because God has proven himself to me and I know I can believe God, you trust in what man says and does and your story shows how trustworthy man is.

GC

---

I highly, highly recommend you read what Dr.Fuzzy posted about the "global flood" story. However, the global flood doesn't need to be "recreated in a lab". Not all science occurs in a lab, you know! Also, the claim that "so it can't be observed" is ridiculous. Just as forensic science can determine a huge number of details about a crime scene, even though nobody was there, by looking at the evidence left by the event, geologists can look for evidence of such a flood. (Think about it, man. If your "if you weren't there, you can't know" concept was true, we would have to release thousands of murderers currently kept in prison on the basis of tests conducted at the scene after the fact.) They've found several localized floods, but absolutely nothing that indicates a global-scale flood... and that's ignoring the fact that (as the article I'm asking you to read details) there are simple issues of basic physics that the writers of the story didn't know, but that we do, which would make the global flood impossible for Noah or any of the animals on board to survive.

I read some of it, it's the same things I've read before, I'm not coming into this blind. The fish surviving has been answered in my post to Dr. Fuzzy. The rest assumes that the world was the same then as it is now, like I said a flood of that magnitude would change the appearance of the world, such as the waters below the surface of the earth coming forth. They would have destroyed much of the surrounding land. When those empty caverns collapsed there would have been a place for the waters to recede. As for the writer of the article making fun of the waters that surrounded the earth from above, well it's one reason the ancients lived so long, don't think so. NASA has said the best protection for those traveling long distances through space would be to surround them with water, in other words make a water shield in the walls of the spaceship.  
 

Also, "tearing it apart and rearranging it"?!?! Did you observe what happened with a "mere" 9.2 earthquake, in the Indian Ocean, where the ocean plates moved only a few meters. Think of what would happen if the earth moved enough for your claims to be real. Seriously, think about it. You think a wooden boat could survive that? To move the earth as much as Creationists claim would produce tsunami waves, hundreds of them, that would be miles high! As the wave-pattern interference between the several point-sources of the shifting earth's earthquakes interacted, the result would be utterly devastating. And that's just ONE of the physics problems confronting someone who claims there was that much water, under which the earth was moving as much as claimed.

 My point exactly the destruction would have be enormous, beyond anything we could imagine, changing the whole face of the planet. Tsunamis waves in mid-ocean are relatively small so they would not necessarily effect the ark, but if some were enormous don't you think God would have protected the ark, within it was the new start. God created an entire universe surely He could protect on boat.

GC