>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
>Behalf Of Allen Roy
>Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 9:54 PM
>> And you can't check Lalomov out. You have absolute faith in Lalomov when
>> are supposed to only have faith in Jesus!
>You are one of the most cynical people I've ever met. Did you
>know that I'm
>not really here? I'm just a computer drone from the 23rd century. ?
Allen, this is a serious question. Do you ever doubt anything told to you by
a young-earth writer? Do you ever check out to be sure that they are
telling the truth? You can't with Lalimov any more than I can. It is not
cynicism to check up on what one is told. Gullibility is what swindlers
depend upon and one usually doesn't want to be swindled.
> One that is being researched now by Baumgardner is water/steam
>> >geysers associated with the oceanic ridges that would carry large
>> >of heat from the exposed mantle directly into space. I have not yet
>> >how much of the generated heat this may account for. There are problems
>> >with CPT, but I believe that they are not fatal to the concept.
>> How do you know? Can you do the math?
>How do you know?
Allen, it is a simply question probing how you know what you know. One
usually answers a question with an answer, not a rhetorical question. Do you
have the ability to check out Baumgardner's math? Simple question! Are you
afraid to answer this? If you can't read the math, then you are trusting
that everything is OK with it even though it might as well be Russian.
>> When I got Baumgardner's
>> program I saw that at each level in the atmosphere, he subtracted energy
>> never again accounted for it. Since that day, I have not trusted
>> Baumgardner's programming or calculations.
>Are any of your computer programs used by geologist worldwide?
No. and frankly, none of Baumgardner's programs being used in my business.
But that is not the issue. I have checked out one of Baumgardner's programs
and it clearly had the problem of subtracting energy from the vertical
radiative column and never again accounting for it. One can clearly make
any program give the correct answer by adding and subtracting numbers at the
>> And like Lalimov, you have absolute faith in Baumgardner. You can't deny
>it unless you can claim to
>> know the math Baumgardner is feeding you.
>I have the same faith in Lalimov (and Baumgardner) as I do in any other
>person who has published in peer reviewed journals. If you believe that
>Lalimov had deliberatly mistranslated or even manufactured his quotes, the
I don't make any charge agains Lalimov. I simply can't check up on him and
neither can you. And to call CRSQ a peer reviewed journal is not quite the
same thing as other peer reviewed journals. I have published 20+ items in
CRSQ and every one of my papers was reviewed by other creationists. Never
once was one reviewed by a renown expert in the field.
>> So now we appeal to the future to overthrow the best work of today? THat
>> no different than Baumgardner believing in miracles to overcome his heat
>> problem. You believe the future. Both believe things without evidence.
>> is the difference? At least Baumgardner places his faith in God.
>Experience shows that what may be the best work of today will likely be
>improved upon and corrected tomorrow. No one must accept whatever happens
>to be promoted today as the last word on the subject.
Is this wishful thinking to avoid today's problems?
>One need only look at the tet-a-tet over the effect the Chixulub impact
>explosion. Some claim it killed off the dinos, other claim it did'nt do
>much of anything and that the supposed evidence has other better
>explanations. The first claims are usually the least accurate. As time
>goes by, and the facts become better known, more accurate data is
>I am of the opinion that Asteroid impact data has been generous on the side
>of the worse-case scenario
But you can't even check Baumgardner's math so you can't check the math of
an impact simulation. What you have is an opinion as opposed to an informed
>If you are talking about microfossils in the ocean floors, then
>I'd say that
>impact-tsunami had little to no effect of them. Impact-tsunami would only
>have effects on continents or shallow waters. Ocean sediments are most
>likely post flood deposits.
Sorry, Allen, we find the same order of microfossils in the deepwater ocean,
the shallow continental shelves, and even onshore far inland. These marine
deposits which now exist hundreds of miles inland still show the same
>> In the geologic column. And inspite of your claims that there is no
>> geologic column I know of 80 oil wells that drilled through
>rocks of every
>> single age in Montana and North Dakota.
>Do you mean every single Era, every single Period, or every single Epoch?
>irregardless, the geolgoic column is an invention based on evolutionism.
>The geologic record is real.
OK, I will give up the Lower Cambrian and the Lower devonian. That is all
it is missing. Fine, lets remove those two epochs from the Geologic column.
Now we KNOW what exists. What have you gained? nothing. THere is still a
huge pile of rocks with fossils down low being totally different from those
alive today. Not a single modern form is found among them. I don't think
you have gained very much by the removal of the L. Camb. and L. devonian.
By the way, the geologic column in the Tarim basin misses only the Lower
Triassic, but it has middle and upper triassic.
for lots of creation/evolution information
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 01:36:46 EST