>
>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"?
Alright, you are correct and I am wrong on this one. Let me see if I can
give you slack on this Texas hangman's noose.
>
><<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.
That is exactly what I said last night, he simply said that I was wrong
without documentation.
> He says he has the numbers.
ANd he didn't tell you which papers they were in.
>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.
Let me refresh your memory. They didn't say anything about a heat problem
in their 1990 talk until someone asked about the problems. It was Kurt Wise
who spilled the heat problem. Baumgardner actually never discussed it even
after Wise had mentioned it and after Baumgardner took over the microphone.
And in whatever note you read about Baumgardner's theory, was there a
mention of the heat problem? If not, then they are not advertising it.
Baumgardner will ultimately fall back to what he has said in his papers,
"Finally, it seem evident that the Flood catastrophe cannot be understood or
modeled in terms of time-invariant laws of nature. Intervention by God in
the natural order during and after the catastrophe appears to be a logical
necessity." John r. Baumgardner, "Numerical Simulation of the Large-Scale
Tectonic Changes Accompanying the Flood", Proc. First Int. Conf. on
Creationism, 1986, p. 24
If this is true then simply have the hand of God pick up the continents and
physically move them.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm