How you get away with your empty stuff is beyond me but over and over all you do is make unsubstantiated accusations. Stop pretending you've told me this or that as if you'd proved something, because when I've challenged you it becomes clear you are inventing stuff ...
Can you please give us a link to an instance where I've claimed to have told you stuff but it turned out I had not? Thank you.
You owe the reader at least a link to the discussion you claim occurred but you NEVER give one unless pushed.
I will always supply one if asked politely. But I don't see why
by default I should have to behave as though you are suffering from amnesia. If you are
repeatedly presented with unequivocal evidence that you are wrong, at some point it becomes your responsibility to remember that.
ABE: He was very familiar with the geology of Scotland, remembered seeing Siccar Point before and THEN went looking for it again because it illustrated his theory. Of course he GOT the theory from seeing it before anyway.
Do you have any sort of evidence for this, or did you make it up?
If you look along the coast above Siccar Point, following drawings made by Lyell, you can see that this angular unconformity continues for some distance and was formed by the buckling of the lower strata beneath the upper horizontal strata. What would cause such even buckling but the resistance of the strata above? If the sections were in fact separated in time, when the upper were deposited why didn't they just fill in the spaces between the buckled segments? Why weren't the upper curves of those segments eroded away there as supposedly they were at Siccar Point?
If this is meant to convey some sort of mental picture, it is not doing so. Could you maybe present it as an actual picture?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2