RE: Petersen's Book

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Thu, 10 Sep 1998 09:45:09 -0700

Janet: << I think your analysis of the situation comes closer to the mark than mine. I've been convinced for many years that the uniformitarian reconstruction of antiquity is grievously in error so I was glad to read Petersen's argument carefully from the beginning.>>

What do you mean by uniformitarian ? That no catastrophes could have happened to explain geology ? I am sure that you are aware that such understanding is quite accepted in geology.

Janet: << 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.>>

Glenn has done a good job pointing out some of the errors and omissions in Petersen's book. But since you appear to have the answers, could you explain why the distribution of snails is exactly what would be expected from their geographical distribution ? What evidence for the 4th dimension exists ? Can hurricanes and thunderstorms not be understood by common science ? A few simple starting questions. After all as far as I can tell Petersen has promoted the '4th dimension' to the status of a God. No predictive powers, no physical laws to adhere to.