I was speaking in the sense of the bacteria. Not to the point of a human cell. Babies develop already having tendencies to become humans. i won't get into a scientific debate with you because you will crush me lol.
As far as dinosaurs in Genesis, I've seen the presentation and all I can say is, eh. However, one experiment I have seen that I find interesting is if there was indeed a canopy of water over the earth before the Biblical flood and the differences that would make in life expectancy, size, etc. Not saying I subscribe to it, but it was interesting.
I'd heard the possibility of another atmospheric layer, but not that it was water. Not really sure how that could work.
This article is relevant: Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief: Scientific American Intuitive vs rational thinking. One is not necessarily "better" than the other, but they are distinct and one does not allow for the supernatural. As many gaps or flaws as can be found, evolution is based on rational thought from observation and evidence. Creationism is based on intuitive thinking. One just "knows" that things were created. One "feels" the presence of God. There are no "gaps" like in evolution because the whole thing is a rational gap. It's a different way of thinking.
It's been too long and I've forgotten the specifics of what the guy said but I think (stress think) it was a layer of water vapor of some sort. I just remember it was interesting, how he explained it made sense, and he had done the experiment in a modified greenhouse somehow or something like that.
The firmament, made up of water vapor. Supposedly it would help block harmful cosmic radiation, etc. Also, when it was "torn open" for the flood it supposedly is what caused seasonality (the tilt of the Earth.) None of this holds up as scientifically possible, but then that isn't a problem when one is trying to detail mythology. Note how various scientific principles (tilt of the Earth, absorbing/reflecting radiation) are borrowed to try and make the huge assumptions and leaps of faith more palatable for modern people living in a rational world. These ideas would have gotten you burned at the stake or worse 500 years ago in Christendom.
If rational thinking didn't leave room for the supernatural, you wouldn't have rationalist arguments for the supernatural (note here that all of the Rationalist philosophers were theists). There's nothing in logic or the form of logical argumentation that restricts the domain. Now if you said empirical thinking isn't compatible with the supernatural, it'd be more plausible (although I'm not 100% sure it'd follow). But "rational thinking" isn't just a synonym for naturalist thinking or even scientific thinking.
A more feasible (to my ten seconds of thought) idea would be that some form of ozone-ish layer dissipated. This allowed ice caps to melt and some more complex weather systems to occur, hence the rain. But the global flood would have been caused by glaciers melting.
Ehere did all that extra water go? How come there is no oxygen isotope record or geologic evidence for this?
Larger planet came by and took it away with its stronger gravity. Actually I was thinking it glacierized again somehow. I thought there actually is some geologic evidence for a much higher sea levels.
