Well, Barry, I’m sorry that you don’t want to tell us more about yourself, and neither do you want to address pp. 279-290 of the UM. Given your lenghthy previoius responses I would have thought that would be easy for you. So anyway, we are left to guess. You are evidently a professor of geology at BYU, charged with teaching your students academically produced, peer reviewed geology. You have the latest approved theories and formulae available to you, none of which presumably contain any of the dissentions which one might find in the scientific journals. And certainly none of the competing facts and assertions to be found in the UM. If you have a doctorate after your name, as we must presume that you do, then you wrote an approved dissertation on one very specific field of geology, did you not? Is it wrong for those of us who may choose to debate you to ask what your “claim to fame” is” and why you think you are much smarter than Dean Sesions, the author of the UM, who has devoted the past 27 years of his life researching and writing the UM OUTSIDE the walls of academia, with his financial support coming directly from individuals instead of the monetary “grants” which come to researchers within academia. Theirs has to be “peer reviewed”, the UM can and is being reviewed by people who just want to know what is truth and true and what is only theory.
Some of the UM is theory, granted. The idea that a celestial object, passng close to the earth, was the genesis of the Universal Flood cannot be proven unless/until the object can be identifiedd with the necessary orbit and time period. But you must surely recognise that new information reveals that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of objects beyond Pluto that might qualify. So why is it so far fetched? Say on, Barry, say on! Frank