> >First, Morton's "so-called rebuttal" was so-called by YOU in the message
> >I quoted above, so it is far too late to claim now that you didn't
> >really consider it a rebuttal. Second, the reason I am making a big fuss
> >over it is because your web page totally distorted the reality of the
> >discussion on this list concerning Peterson's book. There were, in fact,
> >several substantive critiques offered of Peterson's claims and not a
> >single substantive response given by either you or Joseph. Yet you
> >present it as if you were nobly battling for truth against a group of
> >people who didn't have any way of responding to Peterson's claims. That
> >is, quite simply, a lie, and anyone who actually reads the threads
> >concerning Peterson's book in the Evolution listserv archive can easily
> >see that. I'm beginning to think Steve Shimmrich is right, that perhaps
> >you and Joseph are working for Peterson or the publisher or have some
> >other stake in seeing his work publicized and given credibility. Why
> >else would anyone so doggedly defend, without substance, an obscure bit
> >of pseudoscience that has absolutely no credibility whatsoever?
> >
> >Ed
> >
>
> If you were my little boy I'd make you sit in the
> corner and read the Beatitudes aloud, over and over
> again, until you learned to keep a civil tongue in
> your mouth.
The Beatitudes? You mean from the bible? The same bible that says that
you shall not bear false witness? Is that not exactly what you did when
you claimed that all you found on the evolution mailing list was
derision and that no one rebutted anything that Peterson claimed? If
that was not a lie, what was it?
> I have already agreed to post a link to Mr.
> Morton's rebuttal, but I would like to have it
> dated after my page was posted. You can probably
> see the reason why.
Yes, so that no one sees that you lied when you said that such a
rebuttal was never made on this list.
> After I have made that link I intend to point out that Petersen's central theorem
> can be reduced to four steps of reasoning, and to
> rebut it one has to show that at least one of those steps is faulty. Then I will ask the reader to try
> to find where Morton has done that. If Mr. Morton
> wants to continue to evade the issue by repeating
> that diarrhea of irrelevancies let him do so with
> his eyes open.
Amazing. You chide me for my lack of a "civil tongue", then you call a
review of Peterson's work that you never gave a substantive response to
a "diarrhea of irrelevancies". Is it irrelevant that loess formations
show become smaller in grainsize and thinner in depth the further the
loess gets from a river, precisely as is expected given the mainstream
geological explanation for loess? If it dropped out of a "4th spatial
dimension", why does it drop out in thicknesses and grain size variation
that precisely mirrors what would be expected if it were wind-blown
deposition near rivers after glacial retreat? Is it irrelevant that the
snails found in the loess formations all over the world are those
species of snails indigenous to the area in which the formation is
found? This again is consistent with a terrestrial source for the loess.
How does this "4th spatial dimension" manage to drop loess in place
filled with snails that just happen to come from the same area, and that
happen to vary from river snails to forest snails as you go further from
the rivers in the area? Why does this "4th spatial dimension" mirror so
closely exactly what would be expected if the loess had been deposited
the way that mainstream geology says it was? Is this a cosmis
coincidence? Is it irrelevant that loess is only found in those areas
that have been covered with glaciers? If it comes from a "4th spatial
dimension" rather than from the retreat of glaciers, why is loess not
found at the equator? Does the "4th spatial dimension" not work at the
equator? None of these arguments were ever answered actually answered
either by you or by Joseph. Is this not exactly the sort of substantive
response that you claimed did not exist?
Once again, Janet, I think the evidence clearly shows that you lied,
plain and simple.
Ed