Since you don't put at the top of your post who it is to, it took me a while
to figure out that you were talking to me. I would appreciate it if you
would place the name of the individual you are speaking to at the top.
I was responding to what I viewed as his main point, That the press for
Baumgardner is evidence of the worth of his ideas. Dario wrote:
>Read it all ye old earthers/universers and Noah flood doubters. This
>brother gets national exposure and has the academia credentials (EE from
>Princeton and PhD in Geophisics from UCLA). To top it off he works at Los
>Alamos Nat'l Lab of the US Dept. of Energy. So he can't be label an
>ignorant, unlearned and unskilled Christian as some here in this forum seem
>to think of us who literally believe The Bible and see the world in black
>and white.
Now, if John's ideas are worth considering, then an examination of the facts
John has advanced to support his view is open to challenge. At least that
is the way it works with science. Since when is it rude to point out that a
theory that is being offered is full of scientific holes? I pointed the man
to scientific literature which he can go examine for himself. He can then
challenge me back if he wants.
You accuse me of not taking him seriously, this is ridiculous. The fact
that I took the time this morning before work to look up references to
counter what he was saying is ipso facto evidence that I felt his reply was
worthy of a reply. I think it was my content which you found objectionable.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm