Recent letters attacking Greg Morgan's article about a global flood are exactly what they accuse him of: "uninformative, non-scientifically based and rather misguided." I expected a logical, scientific argument on how to tell a formation that is formed by wind versus one that is formed by water and waves. I did not expect either name-calling or trumping based on "most scientists know."

If "flood deposits have distinctive characteristics all their own and they are nothing like" wind deposits, could we hear one or two? Instead, there is name calling such as "ridiculous and scientifically unfounded creationist drivel." There is also the I-have-a-PH.D.-and-you-don't mentality of another, or the "recognized Earth science expert" argument. Another asserts "while I have no proof as to the actual truth of my claim," the author is very adamant about calling Morgan's article "a chance to bash nonbelievers through the holidays" and that "passing this research off as ... science is negligent at best and journalism at its worst." Odd that he is so confident in ridiculing the author while admitting he doesn't really know what he is talking about. Could someone give a few ways to distinguish wind-formed from water-formed formations?

Patricia Holten, Richland