You misrepresent the post.
I said, "The 'ice dam', however, is purely imaginary."
I did not say, "The ice dam, however, is purely "imaginary"."
In order to move the imaginary 'ice dams' of the size necessary to create the scablands into the realm of 'well established feature', someone must have observed them? Anyone? Anyone at all Doc?
"It’s interesting that when Harlan Bretz advocated formation of the scablands by a catastrophic flood, his arguments were not accepted. Largely, one might presume, because they smacked of diluvialism, but ostensibly because no one could “imagine” how such a flood might have occurred."
So one imagination is accepted while another is rejected because it smacks of a position that is unpopular 'a priori' among those who have declared themselves worthy to judge imaginations? How utterly 'scientific'.
"It was many years later that independent lines of investigation led to evidence for the draining of a large glacial lake, and this reveresed the tide for Bretz’s reputation, fortunately still in his lifetime, but unfortunately very late in his career."
Yeah, that's kinda how science 'works'. What is ridiculed today is accepted next week as long as an explanation can be concocted that smacks of currently accepted opinion. Great stuff.
so ... you don’t believe in the ice age