[Secret Agent Man]

I didn’t say it and didn’t imply it. You inferred it, and then gave yourself permission to ignore everything else.

I made no comment about what you said my reply implied. My statements stand on their own and you ignore them because what I posted was factual and reasonable and observed and reporducible. It is not refutable so you make a squawk about me implying something so as to not have to deal with the statements you can’t reject by science or logic. Science is on my side in everything I stated.

This piddling kind of straw man attack may be enough to make you look like you gave a real smart retort but it doesn’t wash with me or anyone else.

[null and void]

Hmmm. You're right. We're arguing past each other. The article makes the assumption that Mercury, like the Earth, started out as a ball of magnetized water. You didn't.

As to your other point, I think you meant that any geologist seeing the erosion on Mount St Helens would assume that it happened over an extended period of time.

I pointed out the example a few hundred miles away where most geologists assumed the Scablands formed over millions of hours.

It was a geologist, J Harlen Bretz, who figured out that it was a rapid process occasioned by the ice dam melting and unleashing Missoula Lake on the area.

I think this reply was exactly to the point of your St Helens post.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, please?