Oh come on dear Joseph, Glenn is merely turning up the heat a little bit in the hope to get some answers to his questions. He mentions that post depositional diagenesis caused by the water flow throught he loess can create nodules. He even referenced papers dealing with this. Petersen in his preface already hinted that the 'established scientists' would oppose his findings. Of course he appears to be implying that this is due to some inappropriateness on there parts rather than on the failings and shortcomings of Petersen's own hypothesis. As I said before, this should set off any BS alarms.
Joseph: << Unlike you, we adhere to propriety, protocol, gentlemanly deportment and the scientific method. I hold nothing in common with, and completely disassociate myself from, your unethical
habits and political ambitions as illustrated above.>>
Poor Joseph. Still not addressing Glenn's comments is now suggesting a 'political' motivation and unethical habits.
Since you claim to adhere to scientific methods, I would like to ask you to apply this to the 4th dimension ? And neither protocol not 'gentlemanly deportment' is of any relevance to the issues at hand here. After all it is the merrit of the evidence and the theory that matter not how it is delivered. You might consider Glenn's delivery to be 'un-gentlemanly', but let me say that science as well as the scientist should be able to withstand scrutiny and skepticism and be able to survive it on its merrits and on the arguments, not on the delivery of the arguments.
To quote from the website:
"Thus do geologists set aside any thought of the miraculous as an earth shaping mechanism, but of course in so doing they exclude from consideration any phenomenon whatever that fails to accord with
human understanding."
Of course miracles do not allow them to be scrutinized and as such fail to fall inside the boundaries of the scientific method.
Or this remarkable claim (which imho shows ignorance of science)
"In actual fact none of the atmospheric extremes, neither hurricanes, tornadoes, nor even the common thunderstorm can be understood in terms of normal physics."
On the Scientific method:
"That theme is stark catastrophe-catastrophe, moreover, that does not conform to the Uniformity Principle. We shall therefore be obliged to step outside of The Laboratory in order to understand it even superficially,"
But by stepping outside the laboratory, the scientific method has been abandoned ?
And of course the age-old cry:
"The central thrust of this work is to expose and correct certain serious errors about earth's past now current in the ivied halls of learning. "
The mystical ivied halls of learning...
"Grievous errors they are indeed, but like old shoes one becomes accustomed to them. Where they chafe
he grows callouses and becomes numb to the problems. This very fact, that modern Science at its sophisticated best is blind to long-standing error, will come as a shock and an embarrassment to many. I am keenly aware that no one likes to see his mistakes aired in public so I can hardly expect these findings to be gladly received by everyone. "
Of course this self fulfilling prediction could easily be related to the lacking of the theory ? Has that ever occured to Petersen ?
"Dignities and reputations are at stake-but so also is the general welfare, as noted above. Balancing one interest against the other I conclude that the common good is best served by allowing the truth to prevail; nevertheless, I do regret any embarrassment that may result from these revelations "
And suggestions that Peterson has the 'truth', another somewhat unscientific approach. The truth is not determined by the individual.
So instead of accusing Glenn of political motivations and other inproprieties, should you not do what you claim you are doing ? Applying the scientific method ?
Let's give it a try ?
1. What predictions exist wrt the 4th dimension ?
2. What observations exist wrt the 4th dimension ?
3. Why are the snails distributed according to the expected patterns ?
4. Why are the snails only distributed in Loess ?
5. Why can science not explain hurricanes and thunderstorms ?
6. Why can post deposital diagenesis not explain the finds ? The snails are not out of the ordinary ? The deposits are not out of the ordinary ? So all that remains is the mechanism ?