<< - Total lack of references to, and apparently knowledge of,
the primary scientific literature.>>
Yep that was already apparant and is indeed a good indicator.
<< - A clear hostility toward the mainstream scientific establishment.>>
Strahler mentions that as another indicator.
<< - An attempt to overthrow much of modern science based on
little more than armchair "theorizing".>>
Wow, Petersen must have read Strahler.
<< - Bizarre ideas dependant upon violations of the laws of
physics and physical objects materializing from other
dimensions based upon the author's observation of what
he believes to be anomalous phenomena.
- Reliance upon other classic works of pseudoscience by
people such as Immanuel Velikovsky, Ignatius Donnelly,
Charles Fort, and even Ted Holden (ask me if you don't
know who these people are).>>
Wow...
Steven <<
- Many factual errors and misrepresentations of mainstream
science.>>
Another red flag
<< These are typical characteristics of pseudoscience that
become depressingly familiar the more one reads these types of
books (and I've unfortunately wasted a lot of my time doing so).>>
Ditto
Steven: << Some examples of errors and misrepresentations:
- On page 252, Peterson claims overthrust faults (using a
45 year-old structural geology text to define them) are
determined solely on the basis of their fossil content
departing from what's expected and have nothing to do
with thrusting. They're instead a "Fortean-like"
deposit (from some other dimension presumably). Total
nonsense.>>
Yep.
<< - Peterson's "melted" rocks around Phoenix don't look any
different from typically-weathered alluvial fan
conglomerates I've seen all over the southwest (e.g. the
Echo Canyon conglomerate off I-80 east of Salt Lake City
I was climbing on not too long ago). His statement on
page 107 about there being "no evidence of erosion
whatsoever" in these rocks is belied by the photo just
below this statement which shows, upon close examination,
the sands and gravels which eroded from these rocks!>>
Oh well..
Steven: <<
- His claim on pages 124-125 that "till and associated
drift deposits were not formed by any kind of glacial
action" is ridiculous. One can travel to active glaciers
and OBSERVE this type of material being deposited.>>
"We need no stikin' evidence" M Python
Steven: <<
- On pages 247-248, his claim that "...the transition of
silt or mud to stone is not supported by either physics
or chemistry" in nonsense. Disregard common sense
observations and the tens of thousands of scientific
studies in sedimentary petrology and instead believe
that rocks with fossils in them popped into being from
the fourth dimension (based on only Peterson's armchair
theorizing).>>
Well he also believes that thunderstorms and hurricanes cannot be understood by science ?
Thanks Steve.