OK, one last response.
From: Glenn Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >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
> 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.
I know enought to know not to believe anyone at face value. I judge what I
read by their logic. I treat all writers with the same attitude. I find
that I am not in complete agreement with Woodmorappe, or Oard, or
Baumgardner. There have been some papers published in the CRSQ which I
> 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
> 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.
I believe I could read Baumgardner's math, if I felt I needed to. But
Baumgardner has never played a large been part in the development of my
Flood models. Much of what I propose was developed long before I heard of
Baumgardner and CPT.
> >Experience shows that what may be the best work of today will likely be
> >improved upon and corrected tomorrow. No one must accept whatever
> >to be promoted today as the last word on the subject.
> Is this wishful thinking to avoid today's problems?
No, it is simply a wait and see position.
> >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
> >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
my opinon of the Asteroid impact effects has nothing to do with Baumgardner.
From what I have read in an assorment of articles on Asteroid impacts, there
is usually nothing wrong with math or equations. Rather it has to do with
the assumptions upon which the equations are built. For instance, Toon and
others, (1982) "Evoltuion of an impact-generated dust cloud and its effect
on the atmosphere" in Silver, L.T. and Schultz, P.H. eds., (1982)
"Geological Implications of Impacts of Large Asteroids and Comets on the
Earth." GSA Special Paper, models dust clouds injected into the high
atmosphere and predict high loss of light from the sun causing global
sub-freezing temperature for 6 months. They propose that injected water
would not have much mitigating effect on the dust. However, O'Keefe J.D.
and Ahrens T.J. (1982), "The interaction of the Cretaceous/Tertiary
Extinction Bolide with the atmosphere, ocean, and solid Earth" in the same
publication suggest that "in the case of a cometary impact on land or an
ocean impact, a significant fraction of the ejecta lofted into high
altitudes would be water. Undoubtedly much of this water would be rapidly
condensed [on dust particles] and rain out; however, the consequence could
be a dcrease in the concentration of ozone and possible triggering of an
enhanced terrestrial greenhouse."
So on one hand Toon is claiming sub-freezing temperatures because of the
dust an only considers water vapor a minor incovnience. On the other
O'Keefe claims that the water vapor would condense on the dust particles,
wash that atmosphere clear of O2 and end up with the green house effect.
This is why I believe that there is much more to learn about asteroid
impacts and there effects and that claims one way or the other are likely to
> >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
> >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
> the shallow continental shelves, and even onshore far inland. These marine
> deposits which now exist hundreds of miles inland still show the same
> microfossil order.
I'll have to say that at this point I do not have an answer for that.
See you all later.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 13 2002 - 17:16:43 EST