>What concerns me is the apparent double standard that Christians apply to
knowledge. If one believes in a global flood and/or a young earth, we are
content when an answer: "The technical details are in my papers for all to
see". But if I tried to answer one of your objections to my views with
that self-same response, would you be so contented and purring with my
response? I don't have to answer that. I have seen you time and again hold
my feet to the fire for infinitesimal documentation of my claims (and you
should do that). But you should also hold your own side to that same
standard of truth and documentation. If you don't, it is called
gullibility. It just bothers me that you are so content with John's wave of
the hand dismissal of the heat problem with a simple "the technical details
are in my papers".<
The fire is a very good place for you feet, Glenn. Especially with this
overreaction. Sheesh, give me a chance to catch up with some of this,
instead of writing me off so quickly. I know it's Texas justice and all
that, but put the noose and whiskey down for a second and think about all
this. You've been reading the literature for centuries. I just got into
this with an issue or two, I posted something interesting, and within a day
you're calling me gullible. Doesn't it say somewhere, "Giveth slack to your
brother"?
<<You suggested that Baumgardner had answered my critique. If you were the
lawyer in one of the tobacco suits afflicting the country would you be
happy and think it was a specific enough response if a tobacco company
researcher said "The details are in my papers?" What illumination does
that present to the court? What help is that information to the jury?
None.>>
If this were a courtroom, instead of an e-mail group, we'd do a lot of
things differently, including holding you in contempt (but I would grant
you a reasonable bail). Baumgardner offered a summary statement which
contradicted your assessment. That's all. He says he has the numbers.
That's the next step in the inquiry. I'm going to try to take that step.
<<I bet I could get every physicist in the country to say that trying to
remove from the earth 10^28 joules of energy released during a single year
would fry everybody in sight. >>
This sounds to me like 10^28 joules of air.
<< There are 5 x 10^16 square centimeters on the earths surface. This
means that each square centimeter of the earths surface must radiate 10^28
joules/5.11 x 10^16 square cm = 1.95 x 10^11 joules per square centimeter.
Spread this out over a year and you have 6203 joules / square centimeter
per second. The earth recieves from the sun .13 joules/ cm squared / sec
at noon at the equator. Baumgardner's view generate a heat flux of nearly
45,000 times the heat we receive from the sun. Even if you spread this heat
removal over 1000 years, the earth would glow with 45 times the heat of the
sunlight striking the earth. Do you think you could survive this? If you
do, you are a better man than I. I have delicate skin.
They are not publicising this problem and not to do so is meaning that
people are accepting their view without proper knowledge of the
difficulties. If they can solve this problem, then they MIGHT have a
workable scenario. Until they do, put on the sunscreen because you are
going to need it.>>
Now this is the sort of charge that should be met. I wish Baumgardner were
here to do it, but he's not. I'm sufficiently interested to follow this up,
and I will. I do have my Coppertone with me, so don't worry.
Jim