Ed: Yes, so that no one sees that you lied when you said that such a rebuttal was never made on this list.>>
<g> The reference to the rebuttal was given to Janet because her page suggested that no such rebuttal had been given.
> 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.
Janet: 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? >>
Very good point combine this with the distribution of the snails. Forrest snails closer to forrest, river snails closer to rivers and what do you have ?
Ed: 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? >>
Oops. That's what I just said above.
I am curious, I think Janet's interests with Petersen't theory lie not in the least with the flood theory. She claims that 1) it explains the fossil distribution 2) radiometric dating becomes irrelevant
I would love to hear how it explains the fossil distribution better than the present geological interpretation ? Surely the 4th dimension is not going to salvage a flood theory ?
That radiometric dating can be considered irrelevant is furtuitous as this means that no evidence has to be dealt with. But how come that radiometric dating compares so well with other methods ? How come that spreading of the continents, the magnetic reversals and radiometric dating all confirm eachother for instance ?
So perfectly good science is thrown out in favor of something that science cannot deal with, something that has not been observed.
Whether it be comets, thunderstorms, loess, magnetic reversals, conventional science can very well explain this without the need for something unseen.
The 4th dimension without some evidence, predictions and how it can be disproven is just another name for "Deus ex machina". When we don't understand something or when we don't want to understand something we resort to the supernatural, the unobservable.