1) Concerning message formatting - I've "personal messaged" you, asking that you make it a practice to insert blank lines between your paragraphs. Doing such makes for nicer reading, regardless of the merit or lack of merit of your content - If nothing else, it looks much better!
2) I fail to see the relevance of whether or not an aspect of scientific study can be properly be called geologic study. Please drop that issue, or at least
propose a new topic specific to such. Minnemooseus would even be willing to "Great Debate" you on the matter.
Now a side side note from the non-admin mode:
Geology is about forces acting on material with results pertaining to the earth.
If you had stopped right there, you would have been in pretty good shape. Although substituting "processes" for "forces" would be an improvement.
Chemical breakdown of rocks is chemical processes.. Not geology.
Chemical breakdown of rocks is "A process acting on material with results pertaining to the earth." You contradict yourself.
While I make no claims to being even in the upper half of "geologist quality", I did manage to graduate college with a geology degree. And much to all of what you are saying isn't geology, was indeed covered in my geology classes. To be blunt, you don't know what you're talking about.
Adminnemooseus (and Minnemooseus)
™ Version 4.2
