(May 6, 2016 at 9:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: 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.
You know you're talking to a former field biologist for an environmental agency, right? Please, tell me all about nature!

Her job wasn't to produce millions of years. She was showing that there was a mechanism to prevent bacteria from dissolving tissue immediately, as is the normal case. All that had to happen was for the marrow to be preserved against bacterial action long enough, inside the bone, for fossilization to encase it in stone, where it was further preserved. After that, the only thing breaking it down would be radiation, and that's not very fast due to the distance between molecules.
I need not drop a ball 10,000 meters to prove it can happen, if I show that the same mechanism would work over a 1m scale.
(May 6, 2016 at 9:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: Yes a picture, lets say with texture. The bone is gone and the stone is an image of the bones and feathers.
Um, in that case it's just semantics. The stone is a replacement of, bit by bit, the bones and other hard bits with minerals. So yes, they form a "rock-picture", but it's still an exact replica of what was there.
(May 6, 2016 at 9:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: 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.
Funny, she says that you guys take away from the glory of God by making the creation story nothing better than what people 3-4000 years ago thought. In her view (we've talked about this pretty extensively), Creation is an ongoing process, and the Almighty set up the rules of the universe so that life would arise without need for divine intervention beyond the beginning, and would develop according to God's Plan via that method. Quoting Francis Collins, "Freeing God from the burden of special acts of creation does not remove Him as the source of the things that make humanity special, and of the universe itself. It merely shows us something of how He operates."
Or to use an analogy... Which is greater? A watchmaker who hand-makes the most perfect and complex watch that ever existed, or a watchmaker who builds a factory that self-assembles from basic materials and then goes on to produce an endless variety of watches, including the current model, identical to the handcrafted one?
You may prefer your magical explanations. I am in agreement with my Beloved that, if there is a God, then whatever we find in the structure of the universe is a "fingerprint" of the Creator. Making up fairytale versions that have been handily disproved not only fails to serve such a creator, it impugns the name of that Creator by making it seem inferior to what we actually find when we look for those fingerprints. When you deny science's many discoveries about nature in favor of a Book, any book, written by men who lived in the Bronze/Iron Age, you are worshiping the book, not the Creator.
(May 6, 2016 at 9:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: 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.
Ad-hoc explanations! It's not a question of where the water went... it's pointing out that both your (well, the ICR/DI's) "ice/water canopy" idea and the amount of condensation it would take to make that much rainfall, separately, would make enough heat to parboil the planet. The atmospheric pressure from that much of a change can be measured by straightforward equations, and it would have smashed and suffocated them. The energy releases from the volcanoes that would open up when all the plates and land shifted, as you allege, would have nearly boiled the oceans. And so on it goes.
(May 6, 2016 at 9:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: 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.
Um, I'm not talking about a single tsunami wave in mid-ocean. I'm talking about the interaction between the waves, called nodes, where the amplitude of the wave is magnified by the interaction. With the entire earth's plates sliding around as you say, the number of interacting tsunami waves would be in the thousands, from each individual epicenter/fault.
Finally, if you're going to claim "Goddidit magically", to protect the boat, then what's the point of the boat? Just transport Noah and his family forward in time by one year, along with all the animals God wanted to save.
Look, dude, you need to seriously face the fact that the Flood is a myth borrowed from the Sumerians, who preceded the Hebrew people (and from whose country Abraham supposedly originated), and modified to fit the Hebrew Patriarchs. It's really not that complicated. It goes against well-known physics, today, forcing you to either plug your ears and hum or else wave reason away with "it was magic!" ad-hoc explanations. Why is that? Because neither the Sumerians nor the Hebrews knew what we know now about the planet, let alone physics.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.