The principles of Stratigraphy from Steno seem to me wrong and it was Geology that was the main support
Steno's work, to students of geology, is sorta like Leonardo's Leicester Codex. It represents a bit of historical "cientific" thinking of its age . Its not something that we even entertain for academic discussions of FACT. CMon, its about 400 years old. We have major eruptions of opinions on a weekly basis it seems.. .
Whether you "Believe" in catastrophism or not is of little consequence to the sciences.More importantly, We can accurately date occurences of glacieal stages from the PREcambrian to the present , and we can date basalt floods of the K, we can date bolide hits from the quartz, and most of all, we can date and measure the pathways of migration of landmasses due to plate tectonics. The concepts of Catastrophism or Uniformitarianism dont really have any meaning or weight in how we date the events of our home planet.
Basically, you are wasting your time trying to make a pat hand by "Tking up a side with catastrophism" with which to base aany debate.Its meaningless prattle
Im coming up on 40 years as a researcher, mining consultant in the geologicl and geochemical sciences. I get a kick our of folks who demand some air time to even distinguish between catastrophy and gradualism. SOmetimes its quick, and sometimes its slow. In all cases, we can measure the ages of certain events' occurence within about a 0.5% error bar.
If its isotope geochemistry you "dont believe" well, I cant do anything for you without spending a lot of time explaining how the whole thing works and is used and how e check its veracity.
Many folks still dont believe we landed on the moon, or they DO believe that George Bush was in on the 911 attack.
We just lost one of the best conspiracy and anti-science dudes a few months ago when gungasnake went to seek out other sites that were more "Putin Friendly"
MAYBE you are taking his place? or are you his new stage name?