What was this "unnatural event" ?
Burgeson:
The author claims a doctoral diploma and mentions graduate research in physics, as well as attendance at the University of Berkeley. He spent most (all?) of his working life in Research/engineering activities in the semi-conductor industry. >>
Of little relevance.
Burgeson:
<<He mentions several at the outset -- data which admittedly is
difficult to explain, but data which has, none-the-less, admitted
of natural explanations. Frozen mammoths, ice ages, reversals of
the earth's magnetic field, atmospheric extremes, these are four
situations he asserts cannot be explained by
"normal science." But these are but minor players in his book.>>
Why not ? I would claim that most of these 'phenomena' can be explained by science. Even more importantly, assume that they could not yet be explained by science, does this mean that there is therefor only an unnatural explanation possible ? Or is it due to our incomplete understanding of science, the data etc ?
Burgeson:
<<(page 5). "...I had long been puzzled by a group of odd-looking hills within walking distance of my home (in Phoenix) which by no stretch of the imagination could have been formed by processes acting conformably with the laws of physics. I was, therefore, confident to a certainty that the Uniformity Principle was not strictly valid -- that otherwise unknown processes had at times been active in forming the earth.">>
Claim from personal incredulity. The fact that this person could not imagine, does not mean that he is correct.
Burgeson:
<<This chapter continues with the discoveries in the 19th and early 20th
century of a vast ancient canal system in the Phoenix areawhich was
capable of supporting a population of 200,000 people in the cities. What
had happened to these people?>>
Who knows ? Plagues. volcanic eruptions, a climatic shift, drying up of the source of water... ? There are plenty of good and natural explanations before one has to resort to 'unnatural ones'. What happened to the Mayans for instance ?
Burgeson:<< Ch 4. Dead Men. Petersen here describes the considerable problems
of dating the remains, and understanding the canal system. The problems are such, he concludes, that they cannot be resolved without postulating a major catastrophe. According to POU thinking, the canals had to have been useless since 1000 B.C. -- yet Marcos had encountered them thriving and Kino had discovered ruins which were, in some attributes, a few decades old!>>
Why should these canals have been useless ?
Burgeson:
<<(page 116) "Without a doubt these residues testify to a phenomenon beyond the reach of known physics and chemistry." >>
Does it ? Or does it testify to a phenomenon more commonly encountered in science as incomplete understanding of the author of these sciences ?
Burgeson:
<<(page 118) "...various residues from the ice ages also show a bimodal distribution in particle size, and this odd feature is no more plausible in glacial debris than in our present material.">>
Interesting but no more than that.
Burgeson:
<<Ch 7. Opening the Door. Petersen returns to an attack on the POU,
arguing (because of chapters 1-6) that (page 150) ""...mechanisms have
operated in the past which were not only unlike those operating today,
they even defied the laws of physics AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM (Caps mine).
This is not to say that the mechanisms acted contrary to nature; it is
only to recognize that our understanding of nature ... is somehow
incomplete.">>
Possibly but we can look back into the past in many ways and there is little evidence to suggest that our laws of physics have changed.
Burgeson:
<<By page 163, Petersen is finally ready to state his thesis. He writes:
"We conclude that there exists
an added dimension of space
which can come into play
abnormally at times. Under such
circumstances palpable material
can enter our world along that other
dimension, in violation of the
customary conservation laws.">>
Cool, somewhat similar to 'Deus ex machina" ?
Burgeson:
<<Having developed evidences for anomalies, and having developed arguments why such anomalies cannot be explained using our current understanding of nature and nature's laws, and having speculated on a possible (unusual to say the least) cause, Petersen spends the remainder of the book exploring how such an explanation might relate to other areas of interest. He spends
several pages on the writings of Charles Fort (if you have not heard of him, you may have a gap in your education), Easter Island, UFOs, and finally the ethics of mankind. All these are "advance speculations" of course; the essence of his thesis rests (or falls) on his arguments
which describe certain geophysical anomalies in such a way that they remain unexplained, or unexplainable, by known physical laws. >>
Yep.
Burgeson:
<<There are parallels in the book to Velikovsky's writings of a few decades ago, but, all in all, the author has done a much more credible job. Tell me his geological arguments are correct and -- Houston -- we have a problem!>>
Possibly. But then again the problem hardly needs to be 'unnatural'. Perhaps our understanding of geology needs updating.
I find it always fascinating that when something is found which appears to be or is claimed to be unexplainable by known science, that one jumps to the conclusion that it is 'supernatural' when in fact it could also point to 1) failure of the observer to understand the observation 2) failure of the observer to understand the science 3) failure of science to understand the observation....etc...etc.