John Rylander often chides me privately for my bluntness. After this note
he will have another opportunity to chide me. I have finished the book,
and find it to be ... you really don't want my opinion and I don't want to
dignify a book which makes the claims this one does, but apparently some
may have some interest, so here is my opinion.
At 11:14 AM 8/29/98 -0700, Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
>Glenn,
>
> You wrote:
>>... please list the articles and books you have
>>read concerning the formation of loess...
>
> Perhaps, I misunderstood the purpose of this discussion group. I
>thought it was to examine evidence and the fidelity of conclusions
>compelled by the evidence. Your answer suggests that you intend
>neither; rather you wish to enthrone authority and subjugation to it.
>If that is your intention, I leave it in your hands.
>
> I repeat, I am anxious to hear from anyone who has read Petersen's
>evidence.
If you haven't read anything in opposition to Petersen then you are really
unprepared to say that Petersen's evidence is 'unasailable'. If you
haven't read the original explanations, you have no idea what data
Petersen's views would be 'assailed' with and you could not possibly make
the claim you do. You said you were an emeritus professor. Would you let
some student get away with a similar claim about something in your field IF
that student had not read the current theories? I doubt it. What was your
field and where did you teach?
There are several facts about loess that Petersen either ignores or treats
poorly. He claims (p. 132) that grains making up loess are uniform in size.
They aren't. He then quotes Berg (an old 1932 source) as saying that loess
particles ranges only from .01 - .05 mm in diameter (p. 139) While Petersen
has Flint's 1971 Glacial and Quaternary Geology in his bibliography,
Peterson fails to inform the reader of data in that book. Flint (p. 251)
shows a chart in which the particles ranging from .002-.3 mm in
diameter--this is 2 orders of magnitude in size, hardly supporting the
claim that the particles are 'uniform'. Why wouldn't Petersen acknowledge
Flint's data? Is it because it doesn't support his theory?
For your information, loess is believed to be the dust blown off of either
glacial outwash or from desert sands. Loess is thickest nearest major
rivers which carried outwash from the continental glaciers and it thins
rapidly down wind. There is more than 7 m of loess next to the Mississippi
River and it thins within 60 miles to less than half a meter. (see Flint,
Glacial and Quaternary Geology, 1971, p. 256) Flint writes:
"Near its source a sheet of loess may exceed 50 m in thickness;; indeed, a
thickness of 180 m has been reported from one locality in China. In the
downwind direction a loess sheet thins down past the limit of mappability
(say 40 cm). This limit may be reached within a few kilometers from the
source, but in some regions it is not reached within hundreds of
kilometers." Flint p. 252
Flint also notes that "Grain size as well as thickness diminishes with
increasing distance from the source." p. 252-253. This is entirely
consistent with a TERRESTRIAL source, not the 4th dimensional poppycock.
Petersen's 4th dimension for popping loess into this universe never
explains why it is most effective along river courses. Even in Europe
(Flint p. 262) loess deposits seem to originate along rivers, implying a
genetic connection.
When it comes to snails in the loess, up to 175,000 per cubic meter (Flint
p. 263), Petersen says that the skies opened up and allowed the snails to
fall with the loess (Petersen 167-168). Petersen also claims that Fortean
falls allow single species of animal(in this case snail) to fall at one
time. But even if one were to accept these 'Fortean' falls, Petersen fails
to tell his readers that Flint makes mention of the fact that the species
of snail change as one travels from near the river where forest snails are
found toward the tapering edge of the loess where grassland snails are
found (Flint p. 255). Petersen also fails to explain why the species of
snail found in the loess, which came from the 4th dimension and thus are
alien to this world, are precisely those snails that live in the areas
today. (See D. Q. Bowen, Quaternary Geology, Pergamon Press, 1978, p. 186),
and that different species of snails are found in Europe vs. Asia. (ibid.)
Petersen claims that loess must occur all at once, yet loess is found at
various levels in the geologic column. (See D.Q. Bown, p. 189). I am sure
that this will elicit a remark that several comets have struck the earth
and left this loess.
Petersen never explains why the loess always pops into existence only in
the high latitude or high altitude regions. Most of the world's northern
hemisphere loess occurs in regions just south of where there are striations
on bedrock where glaciers moved. And the southern hemisphere loess occurs
in far south South America where it also would be cold. If Fortean falls
are the answer for loess, why is there no loess at sealevel at the equator?
Surely this argues that loess is related to glaciers and cold climates,
not to 4 dimensional shenanygans.
Other claims this book makes are that fossils are transported here from
other worlds via a 4th spatial dimension (Fortean falls), that says that
comets appear from that 4th dimension, that says that the Chicago fire was
started by a piece of Beila's comet that slammed into Chicago, that says
that thunderstorms and hurricanes can't be explained by modern physics (p.
169) and must be caused by 4th dimensional physics or the reverberations of
cometary impacts(he says that they have 'no discernable sourd of power,
must be driven by extraterrestrial influences which somehow manifest in our
world.' p. 169) , that says that granite must ahve popped into this world
from the 4th spatial dimension(p. 261-262). He also says that the vertical
tubes in loess is due to electricity and he derides those who point to
roots, inspite of the fact that Petersen acknowledges that some of the
tubes have root material in situ. (p. 130)
Of comets,
"Reasoning backwards then, from the observed effect to deduce a cause,
we have to suppose that those ejecta occupy a special metastable state--one
that possesses no mechanism for the lost of thermal energy to the
surrounding space. The nature of this hypothetical state is by no means
obvious, and in the cosmos of three dimensions would be entirely
unthinkable. But we now understand that there exists at least one added
dimension of space so what would otherwise be an insurrmountable hurdle
reduces to a mere conceptual difficulty.
"Next, in order to agree with the normal appearance of comets one must
conclude that this special state has a kind of 'axial' structure and that
material descending from the metastable state into our world-plane passes
along this axis and becomes visible only in the restricted region where the
said axis intersects our plane of existence---regardless of the actual size
of the comet itself, which could be huge. This region is here called the
active eye. Since no energy is lost by radiation the stored material
issues from this active eye at an unpredictable rate but always at a
temperature close to 6000^o K, namely the surface temperature of the sun."
p. 181-182
In that case, after being ejected fro the sun a comet might mature
somewhat in this fashion: As hot gases (actually a plasma) emerge from the
active eye solid condensate accumulates in the vicinity and eventually
coalesces to form a ponderable nucleus surrounding the eye. As this
nucleus grows in size its periphery must cool--ultimately to the point
where even some of the more volatile components condense, binding the
assemblage together all the more firmly." p. 182
Then he says that volcanism and seimsic activity are from captured comets
whose 'eyes' are below the ground. P. 186
Sand dunes come from a "Fortean effect that resulted from the twisting of
space." p. 186
Glacial gravel deposits also came from this 'effect.'
And as to fossils, they are not of this world, but come from the Fortean
effects of cometary eyes.
"In this added light it is surely a small step to recognize that the
fossil-bearing rocks resulted as Fortean-like side effects of an especially
vilent cometary collision. These rocks are somewhat different in form from
the Fortean falls observed previously, but they are not so different in
kind, and in that case both the rocks and the organisms captured within
them could be entirely alien to our world. This would require that the
organisms were chemically modified--fossilized during the transition
itself, and the rocky matrix was evidently in a fluid state when it fell."
p. 248-249
It was a waste of my time to have read this piece about a make-believe
world--it certainly doesn't apply to this one. And indeed it reminds me of
the type of play-science I used to engage in as a 7 year old (pass the
kryptonite, I want to add it to the quintessence to make flubber). I can
understand and even respect those who wish to avoid the data of science
because of their religious beliefs but I fail to see any reason to discuss
things with people who merely decide that they can make up anything they
want for no apparent reason other than that they don't trust scientists.
When people like Petersen decide that they don't have to pay any attention
to science, there is no restraint at all on the theory they can generate,
including violations of physics and geological observation and then they
get to call those that disagree, 'blind' or 'biased' (I await the typical
charges that I have been blinded, brainwashed, or am merely not wanting to
see the truth). The only thing Petersen has in common with young-earth
creationists is the disdain for scientists. I am sure that such disdain
will be directed at me for this report, but I can't see why we shouldn't
merely say that leprauchauns did it rather than blaming the 4th spatial
dimension for which there is not the slightest evidence and indeed, if
there was a 4th spatial dimension, communication would be impossible. (See
Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University
Press, 1986, p. 266-269)
I noted that young-earth creationists like Petersen reject modern science
and scientific data. I would suggest that young-earth creationists buy a
copy of the book and then ask themselves why Petersen is wrong and they are
right, if one can't appeal to observational data. They would also be well
advised to look at how Petersen uses the 4th spatial dimension. It is
exactly as young-earth creationists use miracles. Everytime there is
trouble, Petersen appeals to the 4th spatial dimension. Why is Petersen's
appeal to the 4th dimension to be rejected by YECs and their ability to
know what miracles God actually performed is to be accepted (which also
occur everytime the YEC can't explain something).
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm