> The "transition" period of the 5th Dynasty, (2490-2330BC), is
> when you suggest that 160 years of rainy seasons were
> responsible for the water erosion. IMV they might have been
> responsible for just some of the erosion. But, there
> is no evidence to say that such seasons would have been
> responsible for all of the water erosion.
Not quite correct. The period of seasonal rainfall is not just a 160 year period Guy. The wet period from 7,000BC till 5,000BC was followed by a period of heavy seasonal rainfall, which continued till the end of the 5th Dynasty. It's not just during this 5th Dynasty, but also during the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Sorry if my explanation was a bit confusing but that's what I meant.
> I am unaware of Paul Heinrich having published any papers at
> The Geology Society Of America, either. Presumably, such a
> venerated and highly respected scientific institute are not
> best pleased to be described in the manner of the article
> which you attribute to Paul Heinrich.
Writing papers about them has nothing to do with the issue and is really not necessary. Paul Heinrich's post is merely an observation. And it's not a bad presentation of the Geology Society of America. It's just that their annual meetings are not a detailed study of the theories that are presented there. Please don't put any words in my mouth that I didn't say: the point here is that the audience listens to the presented theory, but does not immediately start with an in depth analysis. The presentation is finished and the audience applauds. Detailed studies come after the meeting.
You didn't take up the challenge to provide any geologists that agree with Mr. West. I can name one, David Coxhill. The man has quite a reputation to live up to, given the fact that Mr. West says that "most geologists agree with us, not the other way around".