Diane Roy wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: glenn morton
>
> At 12:56 AM 7/10/00 -0700, Diane Roy wrote:
>
> AR:
> >> Have you taken this into account in your computations? <<
>
> GLENN: Yes, Allan, all those researchers listed in Alvarez and Asaro's article
> took into account the fact that lots of the energy leaves the earth. What
> remains is still enough to destroy everything.
>
> AR: It is not their calculations which concern me. It is your calculations. You
> never consider heat loss, only heat gain.
> As for their calculations, they are based on the philosophy tenet of Acualism not
> under catastrophic conditions, therefore their heat loss calculations are not going to
> be comparable to catastrophic conditions.
This last sentence isn't very clear (is "Acualism" a typo for something?) but
this seems to be one of the standard YEC devices: Claim to explain things in terms of
known laws of physics but at a crucial point appeal to unknown physics or a miracle.
In this case, however, as I think Glenn's arguments ahve made clear, you'll need lots of
new physics &/or miracles.
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 16:01:19 EDT