[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> > > > > And mummies couldn't have formed during a Flood. What's your point?   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > What else would account for them? They are by far the best   
   representation   
   >> > > > of   
   >> > > > a particular breed of dinosaur including the skin texture that is   
   >> > > > currently   
   >> > > > known to man.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > Burial in desert conditions could explain the fossil mummies.   
   >> >   
   >> > Well, you just blew up any ideas that you somehow had any understandings   
   of   
   >> > geological events.   
   >>   
   >> How so?   
   >   
   >Because it is patently clear that you know nothing of the Mummy fields I was   
   >speaking of. Should you actually look it. Up you would actually learn quite a   
   >bit, as well as current history, and the best specimen of a dinosaur known to   
   >man at this time.   
      
   The claim is yours, so you should verify it.  In a word, "cite", if   
   you can.   
      
   >Let me advise you that should you go online and find it with the clue above   
   >that I gave you here several times, then do not read what you wrote about it.   
   >Delete it lest it be an embarrassment to you. ;)   
      
   Why couldn't these mummies have been formed in a desert setting, like   
   I said?  Or are you talking about bone beds that weren't formed from   
   literal mummies but from other forms of soft tissue preservation   
   (they're called lagerstatten, I believe) like anoxic deep-water   
   environments or burial in volcanic ash?   
      
   >> > > > > > > > > 6. Metamorphism is not necessary for rocks to fold -- just   
   a slow   
   >> > > > > > > > > strain rate is required.   
   >> > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > Nor is it necessary to heat iron to fold it. Just an anvil,   
   hammer,   
   >> > > > > > > > and   
   >> > > > > > > > a skilled metalsmith.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > Rocks are not metals.   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > The slip process is virtually the same. Look up the process.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > What do you mean by "slip process"?   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > The folding of Iron rocks, etc. a shear-slip is one form of it,   
   speaking   
   >> > > > in   
   >> > > > geological terminology.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > The folding of strata you may have seen in pictures are not iron.   
   >> > > They're made of sedimentary rocks like shale, sandstone, and   
   >> > > limestone.   
   >> >   
   >> > You just keep digging bigger holes for yourself.   
   >>   
   >> LOL! Why don't you provide a source for you ridiculous belief that   
   >> sedimentary rocks are made from iron?   
   >   
   >I don't wish to rub the truth in your face.   
      
   I don't mind rubbing the truth in your face.  So don't worry about   
   that. Just cite your sources, if you have any.   
      
   >> > > > > > > > > Now, did you read my article?   
   >> > > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > > Nope. I considered it, but I have seem so much one-sided   
   agenda   
   >> > > > > > > > oriented   
   >> > > > > > > > articles which are written unscientifically over the years   
   that it   
   >> > > > > > > > sickens   
   >> > > > > > > > me. It is rare to find a paper or someone or some group that   
   isn’t   
   >> > > > > > > > shaded   
   >> > > > > > > > anymore. They all give in to politics, social agendas, and   
   group think   
   >> > > > > > > > or   
   >> > > > > > > > mutual funds that it inhibits most true creative science.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > That's a lot of words to describe what you're doing here,   
   namely being   
   >> > > > > > > a coward.   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > Thank you for your insight. But there is no cowardice within me.   
   I have   
   >> > > > > > been   
   >> > > > > > there, done that, many times before, just like the link to your   
   article   
   >> > > > > > in   
   >> > > > > > regards to stalagmite’s. The subject of which I referred to in my   
   >> > > > > > posting   
   >> > > > > > about limestone above.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > I was never involved in that. So prove you did this before, and do   
   it   
   >> > > > > again here for my benefit, at least.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Maybe later, at present this is taking up too much of my time, and   
   this   
   >> > > > thread is morphing into many variants outside the subject of the   
   thread.   
   >> > > > As   
   >> > > > is normal on the Usenet. VBG.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > Evasion noted.   
   >> >   
   >> > Evasion of what?   
   >>   
   >> Proof that you've "been there, done that" regarding the link I posted   
   >> about 21 disproofs of the idea of Noah's flood.   
   >   
   >You showed no proof. Just disjointed info that you gave as reasons, and even   
   >your proofs stated that it was all subjective. As One scented disagreed with   
   >other, yet they all were of one idea, that being no flood, and being anti God   
   >is their motivation for doing so. That reveals the purposes and reasonings   
   >for their summations. Thus they are only providing "shade”.   
      
   How would you know if any proof was "shown" -- you wouldn't even look   
   into the link where I claim it was shown.  And there are plenty of   
   mainstream geologists who believe in God but of course don't subscribe   
   to the fiction of Flood geology.   
      
   >> > > > > > > > I am also not really into arguments of this type, as my focus   
   has been   
   >> > > > > > > > on   
   >> > > > > > > > God, spirituality, both in this world and the other world,   
   which BTW   
   >> > > > > > > > is   
   >> > > > > > > > more real than the limited one we dwell in.   
   >> > > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > > So science is not your forte.   
   >> > > > > >   
   >> > > > > > It is not my focus, I have been involved with various sciences,   
   some   
   >> > > > > > being   
   >> > > > > > part of my work history, and also because I read a lot about many   
   things   
   >> > > > > > in   
   >> > > > > > most all areas of life, I have at the least a modicum of   
   knowledge and   
   >> > > > > > understanding of many things.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > Remind us why you are "not into arguments of this [scientific?]   
   type"   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Because I am more focused on sharing the things and realities of   
   Christ.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > I would inhabit the wood working NG’s if I wanted to learn and share,   
   >> > > > Same   
   >> > > > with various sciences, same with the field of electricity, or   
   electronics,   
   >> > > > magnetism, engine design, communications, Chemistry, ha   
   king/programming.   
   >> > > > Etc. I still dabble in these things on occasion for short periods,   
   even   
   >> > > > photography, lenses, and all things related to that, but my primary   
   focus,   
   >> > > > interest, and devotion is the things of the Lord Jesus Christ, His   
   and My   
   >> > > > Heavenly Father, and the Heavenly Father is the Father of all   
   believers in   
   >> > > > Jesus who walk with the spirit of God. I am really looking forward to   
   >> > > > eternity with him as there is no time, no limitations, and all that   
   we can   
   >> > > > create it is possible to due there, for the benefit of all.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > God has stated that heaven is multiple times greater than one can   
   think or   
   >> > > > imagine, no limitations. I can think of no greater joy than to be   
   there,   
   >> > > > with   
   >> > > > Him. With full truth, love, and knowledge with wisdom, and be truly   
   set   
   >> > > > free   
   >> > > > from the bindings of these earth. That will truly be a world without   
   end.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > If you're looking forward to heaven, why doesn't God take you into   
   >> > > heaven now, to a place where you'll be presumably happier?   
   >> >   
   >> > Did you already forget that you brought up that question earlier and it   
   was   
   >> > discussed, in this thread?   
   >>   
   >> Do you consider yourself spiritually able to be happy in heaven? I   
   >> think you may be confusing this question as it applied to Gabe Poirot,   
   >> not you.   
   >   
   >If I am happy here because of God, and I have been forgiven of all my sins   
   >here, how much more so would I be in Heaven, that is a given. For now I know   
   >in part and see in part, but there I will be made complaint in the fulness of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)