[snip]
> I have a B.S. in electrical engineering.
> However, I have studied the Great Flood problem (my main
> interest) for many years so I am not entirely ignorant of
> uniformitarian theory. In regard to the
> obvious lack of sympathy displayed by the geologists
> who have spoken so far, one has to understand that
> they have a vested interest in the status quo. Their clain to
> expertise is at stake so they are more interested in preserving
> that than letting truth prevail. I, too, would like to hear from
> others with more expertise than I--in physics especially, but I
> am particularly anxious to hear from someone who can discuss the
> problem soberly, addressing the evidence forthrightly and not gallery.
I would agree that Petersen's critics on the list have been dismissive,
though they have enough credibility with me for me to take their somewhat
detailed dismissals very seriously. (Not incorrigibly, just very
seriously.)
I think from their point of view, the analogy for your consumption would be
this:
Suppose some engineer somewhere wrote a book claiming in great detail to
depict a mechanical device capable of operating perpetually. Suppose you
look at the book and deem it absurd, and say as much. But suppose several
obviously intelligent but ignorant people read it (ignorant only of the
relevant science, in the innocent, non-abusive sense -- I'm in this category
myself) and are convinced by the seeming rigor and technical sophistication
of his case.
You'd probably be reluctant to "waste" time on an ongoing detailed
discussion of the book, and accusations (by those untrained in the relevant
sciences) that you're brainwashed by the self-serving and obviously
threatened run-of-the-mill engineering community wouldn't go too far in
changing your mind.
You might point out that if you saw merit in the book, you'd be the first
to jump on the bandwagon, making yourself famous and probably rich in the
process, were the book correct. There's a strong incentive, even for
"brainwashed" engineers such as yourself ;^> to come up with the next new
revolutionary theory, so long as it works or is true. But since it doesn't,
and it isn't, you're not going to waste many more hours of your time arguing
engineering with non-engineers whose minds seem to -you- already made up, or
nearly so, never mind what they say about you.
I think that's the position Glenn (a commercial geophysicist) and Steve
(professor of geology) perceive themselves to be in. I suspect, based on
their meager comments so far, that the list's physicists see things
similarly.
(Perhaps the only thing that can break through this is a set of clear
premises accepted by current science that -clearly logically entail- a
conclusion contrary to current science. But frankly, the level of
discussion that we've had on this book so far doesn't lead me to think this
level of precision will be forthcoming any time soon. Against the book,
there's been a lot of [to my mind understandable, as per the analogy above]
dismissive rhetoric, and in favor of the book, there's been a lot of
strong-willed confusion and wordplay. Joseph is very articulate, but see
his insistent abiogensis poll as an example of at -best- a lack of precision
in language.)
--John