Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[CGM]

I'm not attempting to prove the existance of God, just saying that there is no actual evidence for macro evolution.

I will agree to disagree on this point.

I've not attempted to convinve you that God exists I'm merely pointing out that there is no evidence, or even body of evidence that proves that evolution has happened.

If you are now saying that evolution has not been proven, then I agree. I always have, obviously.

The dating methods I reject because I reject the geologic column.

Kind of begs the question, I would say. Agree to disagree.

You believe in the principle of uniformitarionism, i.e that all of the geologic features we see in the world today are a result of the same gradual processes that we see at work in the present day.

I don't accept that this claim of yours necessarily follows from anything I have argued in this thread. Nor do I accept that it is a prerequisite for anything I have stated that I believe

So gradually over many millions of years rock layers and strata have been built up to represent a nice neat timeline for us to explore.

The timeline is not nice and neat. But it does represent a timeline, for the most part. Obviously we are far apart on what that timeline is.

I however view the world through the prinicple of catastrophism, i.e that the geologic features we see today are borne out through catastrophic events over short periods of time.

I think it is likely that yes, some features are borne out through catastrophism, and some are gradual over long periods of time.

Look at the Grand Canyon. Science tells us that was created over hundreds of millions of years by the gradual erosion of the Colarado river.

I don't believe that. I believe it was likely carved out in a few weeks or months due to some catastrophic force of nature.

When Mount St Helens erupted 11 years ago it created a canyon, tiny compared to the Grand Canyon for sure, but it still displays similar features to the Grand Canyon and it created it in a single afternoon.

And Mount St Helens is just one tiny volcano of little significane geologically.

A whole series of eruptions or some kind of massive seismic upheaval could have led to the Grand Canyon being formed over a period of a few months rather than the hundreds of millions of years it is supposed to represent.

Based on what I know, definitely possible, I suppose. No big disagreement here.

That's why I reject the timelines and radiometric dating, because I simply believe an alternative explanation for how the geological rock strata's were laid down.

Hmm, previously you had quoted some poor results as a reason for rejecting scientific dating, but I'll accept that the above is your reason instead. I can accept the possibility alternatives in some cases, but not all. And I don't accept that scientific dating came about as a means to justify a theory. Therefore, agree to disagree on part of your post.

And then you have polystrate fossils, inconvenient things like for example a fossil tree that has somehow managed to grow through several layers of the geologic column.

Of course the scientists will attempt to explain them away but the problems still remain and are visible for all to see.

That's interesting. But I can think of a few ways this might happen. No issue with this point.

Anyway there is no need to get annoyed. You are perfectly entitled to your belief just as I'm entitled to mine.

Not annoyed, maybe a little frustrated. Because not only do we disagree on the "science" we also disagree on what is logic. And I find myself having to repeat my arguments because some of my points don't seem to be acknowledged.

I can prepared to leave it at this. It depends on how you respond.

p.s. don't quote this entire post if you can avoid it, it'll get too messy