At 03:18 PM 2/13/02 -0700, Allen Roy wrote:
>OK, one last response.
>From: Glenn Morton <email@example.com>
> > >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, do you also go beyond simply judging them by their logic? Do you
actually check out the data itself to see if observationally they ar
correct? Great philosophers, like Liebnitz, Spinoza, Kant, Berkeley, Hume
etc are logically consistent, but each represents its own system that cant
be placed easily in his neighbor's system. Being logically correct is only
part of the checking process. If I say:
All Green cars are mine
Your car is green
therefore your car is mine
it is logically correct. But if your car is blue, it is also false.
> > 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.
You cite him a lot so give the appearance that he plays a big role.
> > >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.
Does this mean that you think God placed you in the 21st century so that
you could work with the data of the 22nd century which will only be known
when you are dead?
> > 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
> > opinion.
>my opinon of the Asteroid impact effects has nothing to do with Baumgardner.
If it has nothing to do with Baumgardner, then you shouldn't cite him and
his calculations when making claims about the effects of impacts
> >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
Neither of these options would make living easier!
> > >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.
I appreciate the honesty. That marks you as someone exceptional in the
young-earth front. Very few young-earthers ever make that admission on
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 00:57:04 EST