Re: Petersen's New Insights, reply to Pim van Meurs

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Wed, 02 Sep 1998 19:16:48 -0500

At 04:38 PM 9/2/98 -0700, Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
>... but when snails are added to the picture one must recognize the
>frank materialization OF POWDER out of the fourth dimension in order to
>account for the details that are actually observed. In fact, the said
>powder actually materialized within the bodies of the snails, converting
>them into masses of mud not obviously different from the rest of the
>nodule. If you can account for these objects without recourse to an
>added dimension of space, pray do so.

The carbonate filling the snails is not a powder, and even the pictures
Petersen shows demonstrate that simple fact. See plate 40 (p. 162)where the
snail shell is broken but the carbonate, internal mold of the snail still
supports itself against gravity. Powder can't do that. Indeed plates 35-40
all show the same phenomenon, a hardened material inside the shells.

I mentioned to you the other day that water carrying dissolved carbonate
can enter the shells and then when the water evaporates, it leaves behind
carbonate. You have yet to do anything except ignore this point.

I would also note that we have observed loess formation today and if
Petersen had done his research he would have known this.

"Drapes of Holocene loess up to 5 m thick are known and loess continues to
be deposited from the air at rates of several mm/yr." Edward Derbyshire,
"Origin and characteristics of Some Chinese Loess at Two Locations in
China," in M. E. Brookfield and T. S. Ahlbrandt, Eolian Sediments and
Processes, New York: Elsevier, 1983, p. 71

So, since we are observing loess formation today, without all this 4th
dimensional mumbo-jumbo, how can you say that the older loess is due to 4th
dimensional intrusion?

And Joseph, I am going to use you as an example to try to stir this place
up. For the benefit of any young-earth creationists or even
anti-evolutionists who might not find the 4th dimensional Fortean falls a
good explanation for fossils, or granite or loess, consider the example
that Joseph is showing. Evidence against his theory makes no difference to
his belief system. Why? Is there some overriding belief system that
insulates him from evidence? And what is the difference between Joseph and
those who refuse to accept observational evidence against the global flood
or the old earth or even evolution? Why is one of the above to be held
against the evidence and Joseph's and Petersen's views to be rejected
(going along with the evidence)?
glenn

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm