RE: Petersen's New Insights, free trip for Glenn Morton

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:50:45 -0700

Glenn wrote:

<< 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?>>

Joseph: >>Remarkable. Truly remarkable. The loess nodules the size of a sweet
potato with the snails and embedded mud were deposited and are being
deposited at the rate of several mm/yr by the wind. Truly remarkable.
I would like to observe. Let us both go and if we observe what is in
plates 35-40 while it is happening, I'll pay your expenses and if not
you pay for mine. Deal?>>

You are creating a strawman argument here. Glenn is not saying that new nodules are being deposited right now. He is talking about the loess. The answer to the nodules can be found according to Glenn in post depositional diagenesis. In fact, data seem to suggest that young soils are relatively free of nodules. Nodules are a sign of more mature soils.

But you have a point here, if we could see the snails drop in place, we surely would have an excellent opportunity to see the 4th dimension in action ? Now that would be truely remarkable and that is also what the author of the book wants us to believe ? Or did the miracles stop happening ?

Let me in the mean time paste a message by Glenn which you appear to have missed:

"In arid to semi-arid climates, however, the potential for carbonate
dissolution, evaporation, and subsequent calcite precipitation under
near-surface conditions results in the formation of distinctive surface
soil crusts variously called caliche, calcrete, or duricrust. Caliche
soils have been the subject of intensive research over the past 10 years
because of their potential usefulness in environmental reconstruction.
Fig. 7.1 is a sketch of a typical caliche profile showing its major
characteristics.
"The central features of the crust include, a laminated hardpan
usually developed on the top of the sequence, followed successively by a
zone of plates and crusts; a nodular or pisolitic chalky sequence; and
finally a chalky transition into untouched sediments or country rock. The
caliche profile is the result of intensive dissolution of original
sediments, or limestones, and the rapid reprecipitation of calcite, often
driven by organic activity. Original textures and fabrics are generally
destroyed and are replaced by a malange of distinctive fabrics, textures
and structures, such as: nodules, pisoids, rhizoids (concretions around
roots), teepees (pseudo-anticlines), crystal silt (microspar) and
microcodium (calcified cells of soil fungi and higher plants)." ~ C. H.
Moore, "Carbonate Diagenesis and Porosity," Developments in Sedimentology
46, (New York: Elsevier, 1989), p. 178-179

Or is your only objection that this could not explain the sizes of the nodules ? Or the location ? Or the internal structure ? Where lies the problems ? The snails are local, the deposits and the calcifications all point to an earthly source. But based upon the fact that you feel that science cannot satisfactorily explain these formations you believe that it must be explained by something that cannot be observed, cannot be predicted and behaves slightly irrationally or with foresight of knowledge of earth's loess locations, snail distributions etc ? All that to explain what could perhaps be explained by common physics.

I do understand the need of some to find 'miracles' or invoke miracles to explain the 'yet unexplainable'. In ancient times this was often done. But miracles are never too satisfactorily when they cannot be observed, predicted or described as the scientific method would require.