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

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Thu, 03 Sep 1998 06:02:21 -0500

At 11:40 PM 9/2/98 -0700, Joseph Mastropaolo wrote:
>Glenn Morton 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?>>
>
>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?

Great. I know Mandarin and would love to go back to China and get some
more practice. When do you want to go to China? I will buy you a meal of
one of their delicacies, either dog or scorpion (no kidding!)

Secondly, you didn't read what Derbyshire wrote. He said loess was forming
at several mm/yr, he didn't say anything about the nodules. And since
Petersen says that loess had to be formed instantaneously out of the 4th
dimension, Derbyshire's knowledge of loess should be sufficient to falsify
Petersen's views.

To the young-earthers who might be listening. Joseph rejects
uniformitarianism like you do, so does this make his view correct? If his
view is not correct, what possibly could make it incorrect except an appeal
to observational data? All of this is an example of the lack of restraint
when one decides that observational data isn't important.
>
>Joseph Mastropaolo
>
>
glenn

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