Janet,
let me ask you something. If I was totally unwilling to give Petersen's
book the attention you speak of, why do you think I read it? I spent
several hours reading that book.
> Although I am persuaded that Petersen is fundamentally correct I
would >certainly like to see a careful and sober assessment of his thesis
by someone >more expert than I in these matters. The key words here are, of
course, >"careful" and "sober". Whether any such assessment will ever be
forthcoming >remains to be seen.
I don't know what you mean by careful and sober, but loess is thickest
nearest rivers which carried glacial outwash. Within a few miles the loess
thins to nearly nothing in many cases.
The species of snails found in the loess near the river are different from
the species found in the loess far from the river.
Modern observations show that loess is still forming in China. I
documented these things and don't know if you were on the list when I
posted, them. But they don't fit with Petersen's views. I will add some of
the quotations from sources I have looked at. If you don't consider them
expert, then tell me who you do consider expert. Surely your definition of
expert can't be restricted to those who agree with you? And surely the
experts can't be the ones who haven't even looked at or studied loess.
"The great thickness (30 m) of loess of Wisconsin age along the valley of
the Missouri River in Kansas, decreasing to 6 m or less through no more
than 10 km from the river is attributed to the presence close to the river
of a forested belt whose trees reduced wind velocities and so trapped
air-borne silt. This inference is confirmed by the fossil mollusks in the
loess; near the river they imply a forest ecology; beyond they imply
grassland. ~ Richard Foster Flint, Glacial and Quaternary Geology, (New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971), p. 255
"Near its source a sheet of loess may exceed 50 m in thickness;; indeed, a
thickness of 180 m has been reported from one locality in China. In the
downwind direction a loess sheet thins down past the limit of mappability
(say 40 cm). This limit may be reached within a few kilometers from the
source, but in some regions it is not reached within hundreds of
kilometers." ~ Richard Foster Flint, Glacial and Quaternary Geology, (New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971), p. 252
"In European Russia, as in Iowa and Nebraska, loess is continuous over
wide areas and is thick: sustained thicknesses of 10 to 15 m continuously
over many thousands of square kilometers are found. Thickest in the region
west of the Dnepr, it gradually thins eastward. Farther west it breaks up
into smaller discontinuous areas related principally to outwash masses and
to highlands against which it lodged. Westward, too, thickness diminishes,
commonly reaching only 2 to 3 m but rising to 5 to 10 m along major streams
and approaching 30 m along the east flank of the Rhine valley, in its
finest development in western Europe." ~ Richard Foster Flint, Glacial and
Quaternary Geology, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971), p. 261
Janet, how does the 4th dimension cause loess to be preferentially thicker
along river valleys?
"Secondary carbonate concretions, known as 'loess dolls' or 'losskinchen',
are common diagenetic features in partially leached loess. The pore spaces
between silt grains in such concretions are often completely filled by fine
granular calcite. Many of the nodules form around plant roots and contain
large internal voids partly filled by coarse rhombohedral calcite." ~
Kenneth Pye, Aeolian Dust and Dust Deposits, (New York: Academic Press,
1987), p. 235
One of the most frustrating things about being a geoscientist and a
Chrsitian is that Christians don't believe a thing we geoscientists say
about geology. Honest, Janet, we geoscientists don't take 'liar' pills like
antiuniformitarian people believe we do. What would you feel about me if I
decided to write a book saying that electricity really didn't exist and
computers and light bulbs were not powered by electricity? You probably
would think I was crazy. And you would be correct. Electrical engineering
is your area of expertise (as well as my son's). I will grant you
tremendous respect and believe you when you speak of electricity. But
please give that same consideration to those of us who have actually looked
and studied the geologic record. My company is willing to put millions of
dollars where I tell them to. They believe that I know what I am talking
about and can find oil and gas for them. (Last year out of 10 wells, 4 were
commercial and that is a very high ratio compared to the rest of the
industry). Last year, my group, the one I manage, was involved in a major
discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, the only one that anyone found there last
year. Why would they put that kind of money into what my group of
geophysicists tells them? Because they expect me and my group to know
geology/geophysics/paleontology/sedimentology/fourier
transforms/deconvolution/signal processing etc, etc. You will notice that
the last few items are related to EE. If I can know some of what your
expertise contains, why would I suddenly turn around and prevaricate on
what geology says? I have to meet my God someday and I want Him to be able
to say "Well done." I don't want him to tell me that I was dishonest.
And I would remind you again that my preconception was AGAINST
uniformitarianism, not in favor of it. Only after examining the evidence
did I change my view. Do you think I am lying to you about this?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm