quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
e: why do you not address this issue? Will you admit that some geological events are not catastrophic?
P: absolutely, not all geological events are castastrophic. And not all geological events take long periods of time.
I assume by this that you agree some geologic events DO take a long period of time, and that by "not catastrophic" that you mean that some MIGHT have taken a long period of time. Okay, let's see what you said earlier:
quote:
Previous post: Since that discipline of science depends fundamentally on long periods of time to form much of the rock formations we see to day(emphasis added)
P: "Mt. St. Helens has debunked (sp?) this school of thought."
Since long periods of time have been "debunked" (according to this earlier post) this means that they are not necessary. Correct? That means that all formations were formed rapidly, according to your previous post. However, if long periods
are sometimes necessary then the idea of long periods would not have been debunked.
Anyway, I'm glad to see that you are coming around and agree that long periods of time are necessary for some formations. I mean, even hundreds of years is not quite a biblical flood framework.
quote:
I wasn't careless; my post read 'both of your replies' indicating that I was replying to more that one response. I thought you would pick up on that; you didn't.
Well, I did have several replies on this thread.
quote:
Although exhausting, its been fun splitting hairs with you. I'm off for the weekend; ttyl.
Well, if it permits you to understand that sweeping statements such as "long periods of time for geological formations has been debunked, (paraphrasing here)" are erroneous, the hair splitting has been worth it.
Someone has posted this information before, perhaps they can repost it. In the meantime I will do some checking on my own.