<<I note that, so far, no arguments counter to the book's thesis have been suggested on this LISTSERV, except for arguments centered around the obvious fact that it conflicts with
"established science." >>
Not much about the book's thesis has been discussed other than the author's idea that the observations conflict with established science. He might be right, he might be wrong. It is hard to tell. And even is he is right, it might merely point to an incomplete understanding of science.
Burgeson: << According to the book, there are (chapters 6 and 7) a number of physical objects the author calls "calcarious nodules" which occur in the loess and are nowhere described in the geological literature (at least to his knowledge). In chapter 7, the author asserts that their unique structure offers unambiguous proof that they emerged out of another dimension of space. This claim is central to his thesis, of course. >>
Why ? Are the nodules consisting of a material unknown to earth ? And even if they are nowhere described, this might merely point to a lack in documentation of such features. The mere finding of something unexplained in the literature (to his knowledge) is far from proof of an 'emergence from another dimension of space'.
Burgeson: <<I think what Petersen is trying to do is get someone who is qualified to at least look at his evidence; so far that does not seem to have happened.>>
That by itself means little. People should look at the evidence but Petersen's leap to 'extra dimensional' space needs some work.