Janet,
this is the perfect argumentum ad hominem. And I would like to take
exception to it. As a geoscientist, I spoke against Petersen's bad
science. But you should know that I have no vested interest. From the time
I came out of college until about 1993, I was a young-earth creationist and
railed against uniformitarianism like you do. I wrote 20+ articles for the
Creation Research Society Quarterly, ghost wrote the evolution section of
Josh McDowell's Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, gave the
first paper at the 1st International Conference on Creationism.
I tell you all this because my vested interest at that time was NOT to
accept uniformitarian geology. Unfortunately, the day came when I had to
admit that I was not being honest with the data I worked with every day.
It would be the same for you as if you had argued against the fourier
transform as not showing cyclicities then suddenly having to face up to the
fact that it does.
I feel sorry for you because you have read the discussion and dismiss our
arguments against Petersen without even bothering to discuss our
objections. It is a childish way of arguing, kinda like the child that
always says 'why' to whatever is said. If you were serious about knowing or
discussing the data you would start by refuting our objections. The fact
that you haven't been forthright enough to even acknowledge them and simply
ask for more (like the child who says 'why') shows that you are not really
interested in truth.
But please don't give me that claptrap about me wanting to defend my
'authority'. If I saw a young-earth viewpoint which actually matched the
observational data I would jump to that view in a New York Minute!
And I would dare say that you haven't bothered reading much geology or even
going out to look at the rocks on a geological field trip.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm