[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

When I had the sciences 40 to 45 years ago. There was no discussion of catatrophism except to say it was refuted. That is why I brought up the "return to catatrophism" topic. Of course there has been few world wide disasters in the history of the earth. If many more we would not be discussing this topic. Personally the modern catatrophists have convinced me.

[js1138]

There was no discussion of catatrophism except to say it was refuted. That is why I brought up the "return to catatrophism" topic.

It has been refuted as a cause of major geological phenomena. It is returning as an explanation of a handful of biological extinctions. Satellite photos have given us evidence of large craters, but these are not the cause of features like the grand canyon.

[KC Burke]

Like you apparently, I see Velicovsky, while probably wrong in his theories in the vast majority, to have been a necessary curative to an over statement of gradualism.

Once the vast possibilities of catastophic change were openly discussed, the eye of the general science reader continued to look for instances where it might apply but dogma had kept it unconsidered.