I appreciate this very much. thank you.
>>
>>I feel sorry for you because you have read the discussion and dismiss our
>>arguments against Petersen without even bothering to discuss our
>>objections. It is a childish way of arguing, kinda like the child that
>>always says 'why' to whatever is said. If you were serious about knowing or
>>discussing the data you would start by refuting our objections. The fact
>>that you haven't been forthright enough to even acknowledge them and simply
>>ask for more (like the child who says 'why') shows that you are not really
>>interested in truth.
>
> You are quite right. I did not read those
>discussions very carefully because I did not like the
>tone of writing.
And I will say that you are quite correct here. My tone is not always the
best and many of my friends here chide me for it. This is good evidence
that they are correct that I should be nicer. The only thing I will offer
in my defence is that when it comes to the arena of ideas tone shouldn't
matter. Tone is only good in politics and rhetoric. Unfortunately, I am a
lousy politician and this has hurt my career several times.
>Your background and experience are
>most impressive. I wish you have examined Petersen's
>thesis more carefully.
When I was a young-earth creationist I studies Velikovsky and other
cometary views so I am familiar with the general background from whence
Petersen comes. I did examine his thesis carefully however. I took the
time to check out what he said. I ordered articles and books on loess,
looked in my home library for what I had in loess and searched my computer
database. Then I decided whether or not Petersen's thesis matched the
facts and concluded that it didn't.
I don't know what more a person can do to show that he examined the thesis
carefully. Surely you don't mean that you wish I had accepted Petersen's
thesis when it contradicts so much of what geologists know about loess?
> Your charge that I am a young earth creationist is
>only partly right. I have wavered back and forth, but
>after reading Chapter 12 in Petersen's book I am no
>longer of that persuasion. Did you happen to read that
>far? No? Then let me review the case.
> I presume you are familiar with the polonium
>haloes that Robert Gentry has found in granitic mica.
>Their obvious implication is that granite formed
>suddenly, as a solid, essentially at the moment of
>creation, and not gradually from a melt as
>uniformitarians would insist (presumably).
You should look at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html
for an alternative view to the haloes themselves. One can't be sure
something is correct until the opposing view has been read, examined and
understood.
> But Petersen's findings suggest an alternative
>interpretation which, frankly, I prefer. Namely, as
>the readers of this LIST now understand, he shows from
>the loessian nodules that, under extraordinary
>conditions, ponderable matter can enter our "plane" of
>existence, effectively from out of nowhere, along a
>fourth dimension of space. This opens the possibility
>that, upon an occasion, a fine dust containing polonium
>(among other things perhaps) materialized within the
>granite, which on decaying gave rise to the haloes. It
>is interesting to note that one must conclude that any
>such polonium was in effect created by that unusual
>event. If it had previously existed somewhere then
>presumably it would have already decayed--even as all
>the rest of primordial polonium has long since decayed.
> I anticipate that you will scoff at this suggestion, but may I ask
how you account for the polonium haloes in granitic mica?
Scoff? No. Let me provide evidence against that idea. Why is loess
primarily in the northern Hemisphere above 30 degrees? If loess is from
the 4th dimension, why does the 4th dimension work so poorly at the equator
where there is no loess and only a little loess exists in the southern
hemisphere. What is it about the southern hemisphere that impedes the
operation of the 4th dimension?
It is simply easier to believe that glaciation caused the loess and the
ground up rock flowed down rivers where wind picked it up and spread it.
There was less glaciation in the southern hemisphere and none at the
equator which fits the geographical distribution of loess. Why is there
less glaciation in the southern hemisphere? Because there is a larger
percentage of ocean so the cold continental climates can't form easily
there. Sea water keeps the southern continents warmer (from a continental
glaciation point of view).
Loess fits this scenario but I simply can't see why the 4th dimension never
opens up and deposits loess from North Africa south. Why is this, Janet?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm