Are there any published scientific reviews of his book anywhere?
physicists and geologists to check in before I'd take it too seriously. So
far, the geologists we've heard from have been utterly unimpressed. No
physicist has spoken out on his behalf either, aside from Petersen himself,
of course.
Is your background in geology or physics? If not, what convinces you that
this book successfully largely overthrows the reigning theories in those
fields?
I mean, new books that, according to themselves, completely overthrow the
blindly held dogmas of the fields they assail appear every day in
bookstores. And they persuade millions of their readers. But virtually
none of these books survive scientific scrutiny, and are usually successful
only amongst those not familiar with the field being criticized. If the
relevant scientists find the theories ridiculous, why shouldn't I? Does my
being ignorant of the relevant data really make me a better authority on the
subject?
As I wrote to Joseph earlier, the only successful scientific revolutions
have been those that persuaded the world of science, not those that could
only persuade relatively ignorant laypeople (like me, e.g.). So far, based
only on what I've read on this list, Petersen's book seems ever more firmly
and deeply in the latter category.
--John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Janet Miller
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 1:48 PM
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Petersen's Book
>
>
> I have just finished reading Petersen's "New
> Insights to Antiquity" and am very favorably impressed
> with it. Some of this material is over my head, the
> Appendices notably, but most of it seems clear enough.
> In particular, there is no doubt in my mind that Prof.
> Mastropaolo was exactly correct; the author's evidence
> in favor of an added dimension of space is indeed
> unassailable.
> In Chapter 8 Petersen builds upon this finding to
> develop a remarkable new model for comets and their
> mode of interaction with planets. His picture has many
> interesting consequences. It explains the data from
> olden times that led Velikovsky to think that Venus had
> once been a comet; it accounts for the rings of Saturn;
> it explains how ancient navigators were able to
> determine longitude in the western hemishpere; it
> explains how torque was once applied to the earth
> causing its axis to tilt slightly and the length of the
> year to change, and it accounts for the terrestrial
> magnetic field as well.
> On top of all that his picture gives a realistic mechanism
> for the Great Flood; it accounts for the fossiliferous rocks, and
> it identifies a fatal flaw in the radiometric dating systems. I
> don't wonder that many of you are taken aback at this assault on
> your established belief system, however you do yourselves no
> credit by waxing hysterical, railing at irrelevancies, resorting
> to ridicule and calling people names. If you are able to rebut
> any of Petersen's points then please do so by all means, but I
> have seen nothing that could pass for rebuttal thus far.
>
>
>
> -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
>